Incoming Anchorage freshmen are exploring careers through a summer CTE program offering hands-on learning, planning tools, and credit before high school begins.
Category: Alaska News
Alaska State Troopers arrested 18-year-old Gary Reddig in the fatal shooting of 19-year-old Jaxon Williams, whose body was found in Hatcher Pass in June.
Iditarod CEO Rob Urbach will step down after seven years, remaining through a leadership transition as the board searches for the organization’s next chief executive.
A young polar bear climbs atop some ice Sept. 13, 2016 in the Chukchi Sea. The bear was spotted by crew members and scientists aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy during a scientific cruise in the Arctic. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Christopher M. Yaw/U.S. Coast Guard)
Lately, much of the news about the Arctic has been bleak. The far north is warming three to four times faster than the rest of the planet. Arctic climate change – manifesting in sea ice loss, permafrost thaw and coastal erosion, among other phenomena – is already causing serious problems for Arctic residents, ecosystems and the rest of the planet.
At the diplomatic level, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has had spillover effects in the Arctic, raising tensions and causing a breakdown in cooperation among the Arctic countries. The Trump administration’s interest in Greenland, along with its combative approach to NATO, has roiled relations among Arctic allies. The Arctic Council, established in 1996 to promote cooperation among the Arctic states, significantly scaled back its operations after the Russian invasion.
But there is a bright spot. Five years ago, the United States, Russia and China joined six other nations and the European Union to bring into force a new treaty – the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement – to keep commercial fishing out of the region, at least for now.
The agreement’s moratorium on fishing remains in place today, and the parties to the treaty, including Russia, continue to work together to advance scientific understanding of the Arctic Ocean under the treaty, despite other tensions in the region.
While serving in the U.S. State Department, I chaired the negotiations that produced this treaty. It’s useful to look at why this unusual pact came together, why it still works, and whether it could serve as a model for future diplomacy in the Arctic.
The need for precaution
At the heart of this treaty, and part of what can make it a good role model, is a tenet of modern international law known as the precautionary principle, or precautionary approach. In fact, it may be the best example of it that I’ve ever seen in international law.
In the context of managing international fisheries, this tenet calls upon governments to “be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate.” Unlike many treaties, including past fishing treaty failures, the countries agreed to take action in advance, before commercial fishing could become a problem.
Commercial fishing has never taken place in the Central Arctic Ocean. That’s because the area was completely covered by ice as far back as records exist, until recently. Today, as temperatures quickly rise in the Arctic and sea ice declines, a significant portion of the Central Arctic Ocean – the ocean’s international waters – is open water for part of each year.
Nobody can say what effect commercial fishing might have on the ecosystem in this region, given the dearth of scientific knowledge about the Arctic Ocean.
In the face of such uncertainty, this treaty – applying the precautionary approach – delays the start of commercial fishing until governments have adequate information to manage fishing sustainably. The treaty also sets up a research program to study and monitor the Central Arctic Ocean.
US leadership fostered international cooperation
The origins of the agreement trace back to a bipartisan effort in the United States that may be difficult to imagine now. In 2008 Congress passed a joint resolution, signed by President George W. Bush, calling for a Central Arctic Ocean fisheries treaty.
Under President Barack Obama the United States convened two sets of international negotiations. The first round aligned the views of the United States and the four other countries that have coastlines on the Central Arctic Ocean: Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway and Russia. Next, the negotiations expanded to include Iceland and others with large, distant-water fishing fleets: China, Japan, South Korea and the European Union.
The treaty is also one of the best examples of a binding international agreement that requires incorporating Indigenous knowledge and the involvement of Arctic Indigenous peoples in its implementation. I believe the negotiations would not have succeeded without the involvement of Indigenous and other nongovernmental experts and groups, including scientists, industry leaders and environmental organizations.
The resulting treaty entered into force in 2021. The United States signed and ratified the agreement during President Donald Trump’s first term.
Each country has something to gain from cooperation. For the United States, the agreement extends the successful model of fisheries management off Alaska to the high seas and helps limit foreign vessel activity in the region. For countries that don’t border the Arctic Ocean, such as China, Japan and South Korea, the treaty gives them international recognition as Arctic players. At the same time, the treaty doesn’t preclude future commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, but instead allows time to ensure any fishing there can be sustainable.
A rare venue with Russia
The 10 parties to the treaty have met each year since 2022 to implement the agreement. They have advanced scientific research in this little-known part of our planet and are developing rules for very limited “exploratory fisheries” to study the migration of fish into the Central Arctic Ocean.
The fact that these meetings are taking place at all is an anomaly. In contrast to the Arctic Council, the conferences of the parties to this treaty have involved Russian experts each time, including during a meeting taking place June 16-17, 2026, in Brussels.
Despite the geopolitical turmoil in the world, those working to implement the treaty have put aside their differences to pursue their common interests concerning the Central Arctic Ocean.
Looking ahead
That willingness to set aside differences in pursuit of common interests can have many benefits.
Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union worked together on a wide range of issues, including a joint effort to spearhead the Antarctic Treaty, which has kept Antarctica demilitarized and facilitated scientific advancements at the Earth’s other pole.
After the Cold War ended, the Arctic also became a region of exceptional East-West collaboration. Nations cooperated to protect the Arctic environment, to promote economic development, to bolster search-and-rescue capacity and to improve scientific understanding.
The current breakdown in cooperation with Russia is, on one level, entirely understandable, given the desire to maintain pressure on Russia to end the war in Ukraine. However, the Arctic Ocean is facing new challenges, with commercial shipping increasing as the ice melts and the rising potential for seabed mining, each of which poses unknown risks to its environment.
I believe the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement could serve as an inspiration, maybe even as a road map, for the path back to a cooperative, well-managed Arctic region, if countries follow its example.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.
Post Content
The Sealaska Corporation is speaking out after incidents in Alaska involving tourists interacting with sacred totem poles, calling for greater respect and education about their cultural significance.
(The Center Square) – Two Democrats and three Republicans have pulled ahead in Colorado’s crowded race for the soon-to-be vacant Governor’s Office.
Alaska crews battle 13 wildfires, Anchorage warns of dangerous mud flats, Juneau shares updates on its ORV park, and a rehabilitated bald eagle returns to the wild.
Alaska crews battle 13 wildfires, Anchorage warns of dangerous mud flats, and a rehabilitated bald eagle returns to the wild.
Ashley Novella, an ecologist with the Anchorage Soil and Water Conservation District, removes mewly sprouting chokecherry seedings during a volunteer weed pull on June 17, 2026, along Anchorage’s Lanie Fleisher Chester Creek Trail. Chokecherry trees, brought to Alaska as ornamentals, are aggressive invaders and have crowded out natural plants in parts of Anchorage and other communities. The ANchoraeg Soil and Water Conservation District is part of the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership, which advocated for a bill that would have established an invasive species council in the state Department of Fish and Game. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Gov. Mike Dunleavy on Thursday vetoed two environmental-protection bills that had passed with broad bipartisan support from legislators.
Dunleavy vetoed a bill to establish an invasive species council, Senate Bill 174, that was intended to be similar to coordinating organizations managing invasive species in other states, and a bill to ban restaurants’ use of polystyrene containers, House Bill 25.
Dunleavy, in veto messages, characterized both bills as overly burdensome and unnecessary expansions of government.
The invasive species bill would have established a council within the Department of Fish and Game to coordinate efforts that participants say are currently too disjointed to be as effective as they could be.
It was supported by numerous science and resource organizations, including the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership, a coalition of agencies and organizations that try to combat invasive species.
In a letter to lawmakers, the partnership’s chair said the board strongly backed the bill. “This legislation represents a vital step toward strengthening the coordination, education, and actions needed to protect Alaska’s environment, economy, and public health from the growing threat of invasive species,” the letter said.
It passed the Senate unanimously on May 8 and it passed the House by a 35-5 vote on May 19. In addition to the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, 14 other senators from both parties and 11 Democratic, Republican and independent House members signed on as cosponsors.
But Dunleavy, in his veto message, said there is no need to add new invasive species duties to the Department of Fish and Game.
“Rather than strengthening direct operational capacity, the bill adds a formal advisory layer that is not necessary for the department to continue its efforts,” Dunleavy said in his veto message.
“The State should also be cautious about creating advisory structures that may become a vehicle for broader restrictions on land use, permitting, and responsible development.”
Dunbar called the governor’s reasoning “misguided” and “unfortunate.”
“In the battle over invasive species, Mike Dunleavy has joined the battle on the side of the invasive species,” he said.
As to why Dunleavy is contradicting state officials who are Alaska Invasive Species Partnership board members, “I think it boils down to animosity and ideology,” Dunbar said.
The animosity is because members of the Senate “have not been rolling over on certain issues,” he said. The ideology is the resistance to anything that appears to be an expansion of government, Dunbar said, even though experts advised that the more coordinated approach through the council the bill would have established would make invasive species effort more cost-effective.
Invasive species that threaten Alaska’s ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them, particularly seafood harvesting, include imported plants like elodea and fish species like northern pike, which prey on native salmon in Southcentral Alaska, and European green crabs, which eat native crabs and damage fishery habitat. European green crabs were first discovered in Alaska in 2022; since then, tens of thousands have been trapped in Southeast Alaska, but the species is expanding northward.
Ban on plastic foam containers nixed
The bill banning restaurant use of polystyrene containers was aimed at reducing plastic pollution in Alaska, particularly pollution from microplastics, the long-lasting remnants of crumbled-up plastic trash that have become ubiquitous in waterways and the food web, even in remote parts of Alaska.
Dunleavy, in his veto message, said the bill would have created an “unrealistic implementation timeline for businesses,” especially affecting rural Alaska.
“A rapid transition away from customary packing could increase costs for businesses and consumers without giving affected businesses enough time to adapt,” he said.
The bill’s effective date was to be Jan. 1, but the measure included a provision allowing restaurants to continue to use stockpiled supplies of polystyrene containers until they were depleted.
The bill had bipartisan support, though the support was not as wide as that for the invasive species council measure.
It passed the House originally on April 21 by a 25-15 vote. It passed the Senate on May 18 by a 13-7 vote, and the House on May 19 concurred with Senate changes by a 26-14 vote.
Organizations that have been tracking plastics pollution in Alaska and advocated for the bill delivered angry reactions to the governor’s action.
“This veto is shameful,” Pamela Miller, executive director and senior scientist with Alaska Community Action on Toxics, said in a statement. “Governor Dunleavy had a chance to protect children, families, fish, wildlife, and future generations from unnecessary toxic exposure. Instead, he sided with plastics manufacturers and pollution. His time as governor is winding down and this veto will be part of his legacy, a legacy associated with divisiveness, negativity, and a refusal to act when human health is on the line.”
Dyani Lezama, state director of Alaska Environment, said she was “incredibly disappointed” by the veto.
“Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter and is incredibly hard to clean up. Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years,” she said in a statement.
“This is a bipartisan issue that most Alaskans agree on, despite significant lobbying from the plastics industry. It’s time to leave foam foodware in the past and I look forward to building greater public support to deliver a victory in 2027,” she said.