Brigg, Goole and Scunthorpe Liberal Democrats

'Copenhagen and the Environmental Challenges for the European Union: what future the Arctic?'

I am delighted to be given the opportunity to share with you some thoughts about issues of global or international governance in a new era.

As a Vice President of the European Parliament I am assigned particular roles. One of these is a responsibility for the Arctic and what might be called the High North. This is not something new for me. In fact I have been representing the Parliament on the so-called the Standing Committee of Arctic Parliamentarians, the parliamentary body which shadows the Arctic Council, since 1999.

On a less prosaic level my home city is Hull, a port on the east coast of England. For about 100 years, up until the mid nineteenth century its economy was built on the whaling industry until the whales and walruses were all but wiped out in the accessible Arctic. In fact Hull -and I don't say this with any pride - was the first municipality in Britain to have its street lamps lit by whale oil.

Therefore where I come from we are familiar with what human interference can do to natural resources and the Arctic environment - you only have to think of the so-called rape of Spitzbergen - that showed the damage we could inflict on the Arctic environment. The environmental vandalism there of course resulted in the first international protective treaty (against economic over exploitation and for 'peaceful utilisation') signed to protect that archipelago in 1920. A similarly protective international treaty was achieved in the Antarctic, and of course, just last year we marked the 50 years since the signing of the Antarctic Treaty.

However, and sadly in the more recent past, the failure of international law elsewhere in the globe has been increasingly more apparent not least regarding, the actions of my own country's government with regard to the war in Iraq. Along side this sense of growing lack of respect for international legal structures, there is an unease about the legitimacy of the decision making process of such bodies. Take for instance the crowds that assemble to protest at meetings of global bodies such as the WTO. There is underlying sense of feeling of a lack of political control - and even direction. Which brings me to Copenhagen where I think most people had been hopefully anticipating something more global and binding, but we were disappointed.

Of course, maybe the EU was at least partially at fault in this process, turning up 'mob-handed': the President of the Commission, the Swedish Presidency in Office, in the form of Prime Minister Reinfelt, various Commissioners, Member State Prime Ministers and Ministers - it was a bit crowded round the table and just who was speaking on behalf of the EU - who was Mr. or Mrs. Climate Change for the EU? So, in this sense it was perhaps a great shame that the meeting came before the final entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the appointment of the new Barroso II Commission. The timing was bad for Europe.

There is little doubt that the Arctic was present as a theme at Copenhagen. Bob Correll presented the report he wrote for the Arctic Council on Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and it remains as convincing each time he makes it. Such data needs no embellishment as some were tempted to do at Copenhagen.

I am sure if you say climate change to most people they immediately think of ice melt in the Arctic. It is a powerful image, indeed a global one, linked as it is to the plight of the polar bear. It is there in the global public consciousness.

A few months on from Copenhagen we are now in completely new territory in the EU institutions. We have a new European parliament where something like 50 percent of the MEPs are new. It is interesting to see the number of former Ministers, even former Prime Ministers and former Commissioners that are now parliamentarians; clearly the European Parliament is seen as the most interesting of the three European institutions to be a part of! All these new people are bedding in, as is the new Commission. Where, of course, we now have a Commissioner with direst responsibility for 'climate action' the Dane, Connie Hedgaard.

The Treaty of Lisbon has provided new powers for the European Parliament in amongst other things the fields of agriculture and fisheries which will naturally have an impact on the environment. We are currently, as Parliament working on a Framework Agreement with the Commission, setting out exactly how we will work together in the coming years, putting flesh on the bones of the Lisbon Treaty. The whole ethos in the legislative area is that parliament will be treated absolutely equally by the Commission, as the Council, as the Member States. So that means the same flow of information, the same access to expert meetings. It is interesting to note that the Council or its legal services to be precise are already unhappy with this proposed manner of working and its impact on the power play between the institutions, saying it goes beyond the Treaty, to the extent that they are threatening to take both institutions to court! Hoever as a parliamentarian I would say these developments can only be positive as we witness a continuing opening up of the decision making process to transparency and most importantly the public gaze.

For our purposes today, there is particular interest with regard to the potential powers of the European Parliament in the area of international agreements. This is a development that could have an increasing and very interesting impact. Indeed we are already seeing evidence of Parliament's increased role in international negotiations.

Let me give you two examples although neither are explicitly environmental. A few weeks ago the Parliament was asked to endorse the international agreement with the USA about SWIFT, the transfer of banking data information as part of the fight against terrorism and the money laundering upon which the latter relies for funding. However, we were not convinced there was enough protection of individual personal data. We were mucked about as documents were not shared with us. So the Parliament voted 'no' and the agreement could not be ratified. It was a huge moment in our plenary chamber.

Likewise we are currently dealing with the negotiating of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, the so-called ACTA. Again the US is involved and it seemed they were trying to sneak in provisions that allow ISPs to disconnect subscribers from the internet, without legal process, where they suspect there has been illegal downloading. Now the Parliament does not condone illegal behaviour, but it does insist on our citizens having access to the internet, and the internet being outside state control in this sense. So again our Parliament is able to insist on absolute transparency in these negotiations.

I think this extension of transnational parliamentary oversight into international negotiations where we have not be able always to get full transparency before, when too much was done behind closed doors, is something hugely exciting. This is an amazing development which our Parliament contributes to and will doubtless continue contributing to in the coming years as we struggle with so many global issues. If we can force such discussions out into the open - that I think can only be positive.

What will be the effect of this on Arctic policy? Perhaps we can best answer that by reviewing what exists just now.

Firstly there is the Northern Dimension Partnership. In effect with the Baltic Sea having its own Strategy that element now plays less of a role in the Northern Dimension. Nevertheless it remains an important means of developing a relationship with Russia through the myriad of collaborative projects.

We see in the Arctic a whole bundle of issues as identified in the European Commission's Communication on the Arctic published in November 2008: climate change, energy security, fisheries, ice free sea routes, tourism and research. These are all areas where the European Parliament now has full legislative competence with the Member States.

Currently the trend is to believe that the Arctic Council can be the vehicle for governance in the region; that it has performed well as a 'soft' organisation. However one has to ask is this enough? It only meets every two years at ministerial level (even then it is debateable how many actual ministers attend rather than sending replacements ) and beyond some achievements in research and well received reports it has no real political clout.

Added to which we have witnessed already one meeting, some eighteen months ago of the inner core of five Arctic coastal states, meeting separately. This excludes all EU and EEA Arctic States, except Denmark and excludes the indigenous peoples. This completely undermines the Arctic as the much vaunted 'peaceful area of cooperation' which it has always been trumpeted as, since the time of Gorbachev's original Murmansk speech laying the ground for such co-operation.

Let's be clear that the European Parliament in its last mandate came very near to voting in favour of a resolution which identified the Arctic as both a completely demilitarised zone and with a moratorium on any commercial exploitation of resources. Some may like to dismiss this as ill-informed and naive and a reason to keep the EU out of the Arctic. Yet it cannot be argued away because the views of those parliamentarians doubtless reflects the thinking of the peoples they represent across Europe where, without doubt, the Arctic has taken hold on the popular imagination as a fragile area of the globe that needs our attention and protection.

That mindset is also reflected in the actions of governments, perhaps not always for such altruistic reasons. Yet the reality is, that state after state is developing, in one way or another, an Arctic interest. States which are totally non-Arctic geographically. For example;

In France President Sarkozy appointed a former colleague of mine from the European Parliament, Michel Rocard, as his Polar Ambassador in March 2009. He now occupies splendid Baroque offices in the Quai d'Orsay overlooking the Seine.

Italy has a long history of interest in the Arctic but like they EU was frustrated in its bid to gain Permanent Observer status on the Arctic Council last year.

Germany is taking a huge interest in energy matters in the Arctic. I see this myself in the European Parliament where German Christian Democrats are forcing the pace.

Added to which, of course we have already seen the interest beyond Europe as China, Japan and South Korea were also likewise rebuffed in their efforts to join as permanent Observers of the Arctic Council.

It is clear that the Arctic has this very special international and individual pull in the global mind; maybe because it is bound up with the whole current climate change concern or is it just about scarce resources.

Last week in the plenary session in Strasbourg we held the first debate on the Arctic policy. Indeed it was the first policy statement by the new High Representative, Baroness Ashton. A large number of my colleagues from different countries representing different political groups across the house spoke, not just the normal suspects from the Nordic countries! Colleagues from Greece, Romania and elsewhere all expressing deep and varied concerns about the Arctic. This new Parliament will doubtless continue to push the Commission in its development of Arctic policy, to follow up on the earlier Communication and to develop the underlying theme of the need to fill the gaps in Arctic governance.

There can be little doubt that whilst respecting the nations and peoples of the Arctic the region is a perceived as some kind of international space - perhaps of a kind yet to be defined.

The EU as an international treaty institution, a construct of international law is founded is on and imbued with the principles of common interest and common concern at its heart. Of course at times its outward manifestation of these ideals, as with Copenhagen, can be messy and confusing. Yet the European institutions now armed with the new treaty and particularly the new parliament, promise us the possibility of a new era of action, openness and concern for global issues which introduces an new dynamic.

For the Arctic specifically although at present tensions are low in the region, the five Arctic coastal states risk raising temperature or at least undermining the one international structure, the Arctic Council, that has functioned on the basis of international and open co-operation.

My challenge as a Vice-President responsible for the Nordic and Arctic regions in the European Parliament, that is a Parliament that represents 27 countries, including three Arctic States and in close co-operation with two others through the EEA is this: -

Are you truly and explicitly acting together in your meeting in Ottawa on behalf of all humankind in your stewardship of the Arctic and if so why is there not room round the table for others?

I believe that the EU, and the European Parliament in particular, as unique and developing examples of trans-national democracy and decision making, (perhaps more than any set of institutions in the world) have the historical right and political legitimacy to put such a challenge and also to pursue answers in the global interest to promote the protection of 'international' spaces like the Arctic.