Arctic Connections. Arctic and Mediterranean: New Assets for Energy Security and Strategic Balances. The Italian and Norwegian Perspectives

The Mediterranean region and the Arctic region are two areas located far away from each other. Nevertheless, they have many elements in common and both regions influence wider geopolitical, geo-economic and geo-strategic dynamics. Both predominantly maritime theaters surrounded by land, both regions share the uniqueness of connecting three different continents, being “bridges” among areas very different to each other but strongly interdependent. The interdependence between the Mediterranean and the Arctic is not always evident, nor even perceived by the majority of the public opinion, nor by the decision-makers in the respective regions. However, recent evolutions related to climate change in both regions and the geopolitical dynamics we have been experiencing, have brought to the need for a broader and deeper understanding of the links and interconnections between these two areas. From this point of view, it should not be surprising that three Mediterranean countries (France, Italy and Spain) are observers in the Arctic Council - the Arctic region’s most prominent intergovernmental forum - and that the European Union (EU) is reflecting on how to combine its Northern and Southern shores from a strategic point of view. Furthermore, for some Arctic actors, the Mediterranean is an area of both historic and more recently growing interest. This is the case of Norway, a country that despite not being part of the EU, shares strong political and economic ties with the Union and many EU Member States. Norway is also a founding NATO member and a key actor in the attempt to bring awareness of the North to face possible Russian aggression, while at the same time participating in political and military policies in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Last but not least, as a relevant natural gas producer and exporter, Norway has been increasing its share in the European countries’ energy supplies and looks at the Mediterranean basin energy evolutions in terms of both competition and cooperation. The Mediterranean Sea is highly strategic for both NATO and EU security. Despite covering only about 1% of the global maritime surface, the Mediterranean Sea hosts four of the nine chokepoints, through which 80% of the world maritime traffic flows1. The Mediterranean Sea serves as the gateway to the Atlantic Ocean via the Strait of Gibraltar. It acts as a bridge connecting Europe to North Africa and the Middle East and provides access to the Indian Ocean through the Suez Canal. Another strategically vital location for European countries’ security is the Dardanelles Strait, linking Europe and Asia and serving as the primary entrance to the Black Sea. This interconnection, on the one hand, has led to economic prosperity and facilitated cultural exchange between Europe and different regions. On the other hand, it has also exposed European countries to international crises. One of the intergovernmental organizations related to the Mediterranean is the “Union for the Mediterranean”. This organization consists of 43 members, including, among the 27 EU member states, non-Mediterranean states such as Germany and Poland and two Arctic countries: Sweden and Finland. The Mediterranean seabed hosts crucial communication routes to and from the backbone of the European Union. Another reason is that the Mediterranean acts as a barometer for crises in the Middle East and the MENA region. Additionally, it is a basin where significant partners, such as Turkey and Israel, have access. The defence and security of non-Mediterranean states depends also on the stability of the Mediterranean Sea. Compared to the Mediterranean, the Arctic covers a vaster area that in fact comprises several sub-regions, like the European Arctic / the High North, the Bering Strait region, the Siberian Arctic, and the Canadian Arctic. Still, interconnectedness across this vast – and to some extent frozen – land and seascape, is rapidly changing, driven by the apparent effects of climate change, economic opportunities, and the Arctic’s relative increase in importance for global politics. In the Arctic region, in fact, there is a growing presence and interaction of the so-called Great and Medium Powers, including the Arctic actors Russia and the United States, the EU, the Nordic countries and non- Arctic states such as China and India. Even non-EU Mediterraneancountries, as in the case of Turkey, are looking at the opportunities that emerge from the developments in this area. Although there is no resource or territorial race in the Arctic, the region – or parts of it – are increasingly important for security interac- tions with Russia and China. The increasing importance of Arctic research and scientific presence is juxtaposed with these tensions. Moreover, its economic potential leads not only to economic develop- ment and investments, but also fears of geo-economics, sabotage and hybrid activity. As with the Mediterranean, the Arctic is crucial not only for the activity that takes place there, but also for global satellite services and infrastructure related to energy and communications. Finally, some of the global interest to the Arctic is based on status seeking and the perceived need by actors to engage in a new ‘hot topic’ – sometimes with limited knowledge of Arctic specifics, local and indigenous conditions, and the nuances of a region that is as complex as any other maritime domain surrounded by states. From a European perspective, the linkages between what happens in the European Arctic (i.e. the Nordic states) to wider developments for the continent in terms of security, infrastructure, energy and raw materials have become apparent over the last two decades - as exemplified with Italy’s increased attention to Arctic issues. Especially in terms of security, perceiving the Russian challenge to European security and stability as a continuum has thus become central to policy-makers in Oslo, Brussels and Rome. This challenge starts in the Barents Sea and along the 197km Russian-Norwegian border in the North, continuing along the new 1346km Finnish- NATO-Russia border into the Baltic Sea and to the Baltic states, and then onto Poland, Ukraine and finally ending in the Black Sea and subsequently the Mediterranean. Moreover, the increasingly apparent Sino-Russian collaboration in the Arctic, but also writ large, links the Arctic two wider geopolitical considerations, prompting Western and European concern over these trends. Considering developments in both the Arctic and the Mediter- ranean, the EU seeks to promote a “comprehensive approach” to security, encompassing not only traditional defense and military responses to security threats, but also energy supply, climate change management, humanitarian security and aspects related to economic and commercial continuity. These challenges are multidimensional and complex, covering both known and completely new issues.In order to understand the existing relationships between the Arctic and the Mediterranean region, we decided to analyze three priority research areas: ● climate change and its impact on regional systems, including the related socio-economic implications; ● the energy issue, considering the dynamics of the hydrocarbon market, the prospects in terms of decarbonization and the broader issue of energy transition through renewable energy sources; ● key aspects related to security and defence, encompassing the specific challenges at regional level, and the current geopolitical context’s implications on the two quadrants being analyzed. Although through different approaches and tools, the EU system is directly involved in both regions and, at least according to the authors' perspective, European institutions need a strategic and global approach in the development of political, economic and social initiatives related to the Arctic and the Mediterranean. For this reason it was decided to dedicate a specific chapter to the ways in which the EU intervenes in the regions under analysis, trying to highlight through which perspective Brussels implements (or should implement) its action directly or through its members regarding the evolution of the northern and southern borders of the Union. Finally, we focused on two strategic regional players: Italy and Norway. Both share a significant interest in all three main areas of analysis defined above in the region to which they belong. At the same time, they are focusing on the Arctic (Italy) and on the Mediterranean (Norway) from different perspectives but with some common grounds. The structure of the research is based on five main chapters, plus two sections dedicated to the identification of forecast scenarios and the development of recommendations for the decision maker. The methodology applied in this work is analytical and based on an approach aimed at supporting decision-making processes, providing keys to understanding and food for thought. Despite this, there is ample reference to the literature available on the different topics covered, both from a geographical and thematic point of view. Furthermore, the authors have made available their knowledge and direct experience in the regions analysed, the result of years of research, analysis and reflection, supported by numerous publicationsand active participation in research programs, conferences, and workshops at an international level.