Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's a big privilege and a big honour for me to be called in as a witness before your committee. I have prepared a little lead-in of five to seven minutes, as asked for. And thereafter, I would be delighted to answer any questions you may have.
I suspect that you can hear me clearly and that there is a good connection between us.
As you are frightfully aware, the Arctic ice cap is melting fast these years. There are many opinions of how fast, but seen from my chair, which is predominantly an operational chair, I would like to add that at this early stage the consequences are already beginning to emerge.
In August last year, the first Danish merchant ship transited through the Northwest Passage on a commercial journey from Japan to St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, using the mythical waterway and saved 15 days at sea, compared with the traditional southerly route through the Suez Canal.
One of the major Danish shipping lines announced publicly last year that it had started the construction of a series of ships with icebreaking capacity. In other words, the shipping line seriously believes that sea transport through the Arctic will be a lucrative option within the 10- to 15-year lifespan of a merchant ship.
I am sure that a 40% reduction in the distance between Europe and Asia and a 25% reduction of the distance between the United States and the Far East will be an extremely tempting cost saver for the shipping industry in general. When the investment required to do it is in balance with the economical outcome, I think it will just happen.
And as in every other aspect of life, changes will create new challenges. I am not able to overlook--and I don't think anyone is--the security implications of a complete rerouting of sea transportation, but I am convinced that it will have great and far-reaching implications.
If you look at all the commercial activities related to the big sea lines of communication, such as maritime infrastructure and man-made shortcuts like the Suez and the Panama canals, a significant change in the sea routes will also have significant global economical and security implications, if you ask me.
But changes normally also create new opportunities. Ironically, a 40% distance reduction would also mean a 40% fuel reduction and a 40% carbon emissions reduction from ships between Europe and Asia. Think about it--one of the more helpful factors in our common striving to reduce carbon emissions could be the meltdown of the polar ice cap.
Receding ice will also make way for serious exploitation of oil and gas resources. Some estimates indicate that the Arctic could hold the last great undiscovered hydrocarbon resources on earth, maybe as much as 25%. This will also create increased maritime activities in the Arctic, but it could also lead to a race for resources, with serious implications for security policy and, not least, for the environment. We might see territorial claims or conflicting interests, some of which have already surfaced.
Seen from my operational perspective, the only way to meet the challenges of this increased maritime activity in the Arctic is through cooperation. Consequently, it must be of common interest that territorial claims, disputes over access to resources, or other conflicts of interests are managed and settled in an orderly fashion within the international legal framework. We must avoid conflicts or disputes about resources or land or sea territory. We do not want conflicting interests to obstruct the close local cooperation needed to address the many challenges that none of us can face or handle alone.
In May 2008, the five nations bordering the Arctic Ocean--Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States of America--met in a small Greenlandic city called Ilulissat. I believe this meeting will turn out to be an important event in the new Arctic history. The five nations agreed on what is now known as the Ilulissat Declaration. In essence, the five countries agreed to take the good with the bad--to work together on both the challenges and the possibilities. The countries agreed to settle the territorial claims in accordance with the international legal framework. They agreed to live up to their common responsibilities for the protection of the Arctic and to cooperate in areas such as search and rescue and protection of the environment.
I believe the future might arrive a little earlier than expected. Quite apart from the more worldwide security implications of the melting ice cap, within a decade or so we are likely to see a massive increase in traffic volume in the Arctic. Human and economic activity in the area will increase, and if we do not get it right, we are likely to see a race for resources. Together with the rerouting of shipping lanes, that will present some serious safety, environmental, and security challenges for all of us.
The polar area in this new perspective holds the potential to change the geostrategic dynamics, and that will affect military planning, not only in the five states bordering the polar sea. Seen from my operational chair, we will need naval and coast guard presence in the area. We will need to survey the area to create reliable sea charts, just to mention one important aspect of maritime traffic. We will need to establish maritime traffic management to ensure safe navigation, create effective search and rescue capabilities, and control fishing and hydrocarbon resources. We will need to establish environmental response capability to ensure protection and preservation of the fragile marine environment in the Arctic Ocean. Most importantly, we will need to do all this in cooperation with each other.
On that note, I'll conclude my short address. Thank you.
