All posts by user

Tourism and ecosystem services

General,

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
There is always a delicate dance between industries providing wealth for jurisdictions, and the potential harm they bring in the form of environmental impacts. This balance is particularly important in industries such as tourism. Ilja Leo Lang says sustainability measures are in place to protect the very ecosystem services the expedition cruise industry depends upon.
Ecosystem Services can be defined as the benefits society as a whole derives from nature. This is especially relevant when it comes to non-disturbance of animals and birds and non-material benefits such as the aesthetic value of a pristine, undisturbed Arctic environment.
The Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO) has a comprehensive set of guidelines for operators in the Arctic who strive to employ practices and procedures that are substantially more protective of the environment, local cultures and cultural remains than the current requirements by local, national and international regulations. AECO’s members coordinate and implement innovative technologies and measures to reduce the environmental impact of cruising.
AECO’s environmental industry standards are essentially the expedition cruise industry’s contribution to sustain Arctic ecosystem services and biodiversity.
For example, AECO is in the forefront of educating tourists about how to behave in the Arctic. This happens through AECO’s guidelines about responsible, environmentally friendly and safe tourism, and by communicating the importance of protecting the Arctic to visitors in order to create ‘Arctic Ambassadors’. AECO members work with visitors in order to influence the local communities in a constructive way. This involves making expedition cruise guests adhere to AECO’s sound environmental and cultural standards for operations in the Arctic. AECO visitors are for example asked to contribute to local communities by purchasing certified craft and souvenirs, not to pick flowers, take stones or build cairns and to ask permission of residents before taking photos.
AECO’s Executive Director, Frigg Jørgensen says, “Basic measures in regard to providing passengers and guests with a correct code of conduct are vital for the success in small communities. AECO’s new Animated Guidelines which allow visitors to the Arctic to educate themselves about safe, environmentally-friendly and considerate behavior has proven to be particularly successful.”
For the expedition cruise industry, protection of Arctic ecosystem services and biodiversity relies upon communication and research. One example of this is AECO’s decade-long involvement with the Clean-Up Svalbard Campaign which involves cruise tourists in Svalbard in cleaning up tons of sea-transported garbage from beaches around the Svalbard archipelago. Another example is the ongoing collaboration between AECO and researchers from a number of universities. Among AECO’s many self-imposed mandatory industry guidelines is a biosecurity guideline, which describes measures such as cleaning of clothes and washing of boots in order to prevent seeds and alien species from spreading throughout the Arctic.

There are many individuals, governments, private companies and organizations that share the common goal of making sure the Arctic is used in a sustainable way. All want to protect this pristine area from negative impact and preserve it for the future.
Arctic cruise tourism can be a driver for a better Arctic environment – if the individual operators get together and cooperate with other sectors to raise the bar in regard to sustainability, voluntary guidelines and the implementation of ambitious best practices.
If the tourism industry as a stakeholder is involved in closer dialogue and cooperation with other sectors, the potential for reducing the environmental impact of human activities in the Arctic is huge.
Read more about AECO’s guidelines for Arctic operations.
Ilja Leo Lang is with the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators, an international organization for the expedition cruise industry, dedicated to responsible, environmentally friendly and safe tourism in the Arctic.

Norway on track to capture benefits and values of ecosystem services

General,

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
As the project to scope out the use of TEEB in the Arctic reaches completion, some Arctic states are undertaking a TEEB exercise on a national basis. Finn Katerås says in Norway important steps have been taken, but insufficient knowledge of Arctic ecosystems is a limitation.

A house with a view - Svalbard, Norway. Photo: Mariusz Kluzniak, Creative Commons

A house with a view – Svalbard, Norway. Photo: Mariusz Kluzniak, Creative Commons


In 2011 the Norwegian Government appointed an expert commission on values of ecosystem services to see how the economics of ecosystem services and biodiversity (TEEB) and the ecosystem services approach could be applied in Norway. The Commission was asked to describe the consequences for society of the degradation of ecosystem services, to identify how relevant knowledge can best be communicated to decision-makers, and to make recommendations about how greater consideration can be given to ecosystem services in private and public decision making.
It concluded that the ecosystem services approach can be a useful supplement to Norway’s environmental and resource management, to show more clearly why protecting nature is important to our well-being. The Commission argued that the values of ecosystem services must be better demonstrated and reflected in decision making, and that values in nature must be communicated through policy instruments, regulations and incentives.
The Commission concluded that the state of ecosystems in Norway is relatively good, but the country’s biological diversity and ecosystems are also under pressure from many directions. Important ecosystem services from Norwegian Arctic ecosystems include fish and seafood, biochemicals, genetic resources and nature-based tourism. The greatest threats to biological diversity and related ecosystem services in Arctic marine areas are climate change and ocean acidification.
The Commission pointed to the need for improved knowledge about biological diversity and ecosystem services in Norway, and made recommendations related to increased research and enhanced monitoring. It underlined that there is a need for more knowledge about Arctic ecosystems, where the effects of climate change, ocean acidification and environmental toxins will be particularly important.
In September 2013 the report was distributed for a broad public consultation among affected stakeholders, including authorities, business and industry, academic communities and non-governmental organizations. This consultation provides an important basis as the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment is considering follow up on the commission’s report. Around 50 stakeholders submitted their views, but few of these explicitly discussed Arctic perspectives and challenges.
Several efforts are going on to recognize, demonstrate and capture values of biodiversity and ecosystem services in national policy and management. The Norwegian Environment Agency is for example involved in considering values of ecosystem services, including in socio-economic analysis, environmental impact assessments and planning efforts. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems may provide a better foundation and understanding for work with ecosystem services, and work has started on a larger assessment of Norwegian ecosystems and their services.
Statistics Norway is working on how national statistics and environmental accounts can better reflect ecosystems and ecosystem services, both at the national and the international level. The research community is increasing its focus on ecosystem services and on links between natural capital and human well-being, including through funding and development of research programs under the Norwegian Research Council.
Overall assessments and consideration of ecosystem services are reflected in several recent policy documents, including in the Government’s Reports to the Parliament and in national strategies related to climate change, public protection against floods and avalanches, seafood, adaptation to climate change, public health and outdoor recreation.
Further follow-up of the report on values of ecosystem services will be presented in the National Action Plan on Biodiversity. This action plan is part of Norwegian obligations under the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and is to be presented by the Government as a Report to the Norwegian Parliament in 2015.
Questions related to economic instruments on ecosystem services may also be considered by the Green Tax Commission, which looks at how use of climate and environmental taxes can be used to secure lower greenhouse gas emissions, improved environmental conditions and sound economic growth. This commission will present its report to the Ministry of Finance in December 2015.
Norwegian authorities are also engaged in a number of international activities on TEEB-related issues, including in global, European, Arctic and Nordic settings. The TEEB Arctic Scoping Study is one example of this, giving national governments a valuable opportunity to share experiences and to understand more about opportunities and limitations in the ecosystem services approach.
Finn Katerås, is senior adviser, Norwegian Environment Agency, Trondheim, Norway

Business and ecosystem services

General,

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
The current trends in the status of biodiversity, ecosystems and related ecosystem services present both challenges and opportunities for the business sector. Therefore understanding the importance of ecosystem services and natural capital in the context of business decision-making is becoming increasingly important, according to Marianne Kettunen.

The links between business, biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural capital are manifold. On one hand, land and resource use by business sectors is known to contribute to the degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity loss. On the other hand, business sectors also depend on well-functioning ecosystems and the availability of ecosystem services, even to the extent that biodiversity and ecosystem services can create the basis for new innovative business opportunities. Consequently, while several business sectors are known to contribute to the degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity loss, these sectors can also play a proactive role in addressing the problem.

Taking responsibility to prevent negative impacts

In the Arctic region, many current and emerging business opportunities, such as commercial fishing, tourism, and mineral and gas extraction, are known to have possible negative impacts on biodiversity and the ability of ecosystems to maintain different services. These impacts include, for example, pollution and spills, habitat loss and fragmentation, introduction of invasive species, and increases in disturbance to wildlife and people dependent on Arctic nature.
With the growing interest in mining, oil and gas development and shipping, the risks posed by business sectors to Arctic biodiversity and ecosystem services are likely to increase. Consequently, the sectors need to recognise and appropriately manage their ecosystem service impacts, including taking into consideration the benefits to and values identified by local and Indigenous communities (e.g. provision of livelihood and spiritual importance of ecosystem services). If the importance of nature to various stakeholders is better understood, this supports more informed decision-making that builds on the understanding of alternative outcomes and implications and adequately takes into account trade-offs and synergies between various services and related benefits. For example, consideration of ecosystem services can help to assess possible negative impacts occurring offsite, such as impacts of oil, gas and mining operations on fisheries and water purification.

Identifying interdependencies and opportunities

On the other hand, a range of Arctic businesses and companies are directly dependent on the supply of natural resources (fish, timber, genetic material etc.). Similarly, businesses related to recreation and tourism rely on their access to nature. Furthermore several industry sectors, such as mining, oil and gas, depend on ecosystems’ ability to maintain water supply and mitigate flooding, erosion, and natural hazards at the locations of their operations. Understanding of ecosystem services helps to highlight the often overlooked dependencies that business sectors have on the environment, therefore helping to prevent the degradation of natural foundations that businesses depend upon.
Increased understanding of ecosystem services can also create opportunities for the development of sustainable businesses. For example, nature’s role in water retention and purification can be ‘harnessed’ by businesses that adopt nature-based solutions for their water management. For example, conservation and restoration of wetlands have been shown to be a potentially cost-effective option for managing water resources around the world. Furthermore, Arctic nature provides a range of opportunities for the development of novel value-added products. Organisms in the Arctic regions have evolved under extreme conditions, developing a variety of unique physiological and biochemical characteristics. These characteristics already provide a basis for a range of biotechnological innovations and related businesses with several companies estimated to be involved in research, development and/or sale of products derived from or based on the genetic resources of the Arctic.

Towards business ecosystem assessments

Responsibilities, risks and opportunities associated with biodiversity and ecosystem services are still often overlooked and underestimated by businesses, and are not fully accounted for along the entire value chain. To address this, the World Business Council of Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has developed guidelines for Corporate Ecosystem Review (CER) and Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV) that help to improve corporate decision-making through assessing and valuing ecosystem services. The aim of these guides is to help managers proactively develop strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising from their company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems.
Ecosystem service assessments can strengthen business performance in several ways. For example, they can help sustain revenues and reduce costs, determine levels of liability and compensation, and provide social benefits. In general, systematic integration of ecosystem service considerations into business decision-making supports the objectives for the long-term environmental and socio-economic sustainability of the Arctic region, bringing benefits to both biodiversity conservation and people.
Marianne Kettunen is Principal Policy Analyst in the Biodiversity and nature Conservation programme with the Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Five years after Gulf spill, drilling in far more dangerous waters

General

On the fifth anniversary of one of the worst offshore oil spills in history, the wildlife and people of the Gulf coast are still recovering. Today, companies are exploring far more dangerous waters in the Arctic, with no proven technology to respond to a spill.

A Coast Guard MH-65C dolphin rescue helicopter and crew document the fire aboard the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, while searching for survivors. Multiple Coast Guard helicopters, planes and cutters responded to rescue the Deepwater Horizon's 126 person crew and battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico on 21 April 2010. © US Coast Guard

A Coast Guard MH-65C dolphin rescue helicopter and crew document the fire aboard the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, while searching for survivors. Multiple Coast Guard helicopters, planes and cutters responded to rescue the Deepwater Horizon’s 126 person crew and battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico on 21 April 2010. © US Coast Guard


Five years ago, in clear weather and temperate seas, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded. Despite the region’s excellent search and rescue infrastructure, eleven people were killed, and dozens more injured. As more than two hundred million gallons of oil (757 million litres) spilled over 89 days, 40,000 people took part in the response effort. Fisheries in the region lost billions of dollars. The oil – and dispersants used in response – made many Gulf residents sick, and played a role the death of cold-water corals, ongoing illness in dolphins, and genetic defects in fish. Even today, the full extent of the damage on the Gulf’s wildlife, economy and people is unknown.
What if it happened in the Arctic?
As sea ice melts, petroleum companies are actively exploring offshore drilling possibilities in far more dangerous waters than the Gulf Sea. Arctic oil projects face frequent storms, thick and drifting ice, a rushed drilling season, and limited infrastructure. No company has demonstrated the ability to adequately control or clean up a spill in ice-covered waters.
Despite the enormous risk, Arctic nations are moving ahead with offshore oil. Norway has recently approved new oil leases at the very edge of the sea ice. In the United States, Shell plans to explore off Alaska’s northwest coast. Russia is actively developing the continental shelf in the Barents Sea.  Given the risky nature of drilling there and Russia’s plans to expand Arctic offshore exploration, WWF Russia is calling on its government to institute a 10­ year moratorium on new offshore oil projects.
These national projects have international implications. Oil spill projections show that Arctic spills can quickly cross national boundaries, threatening fisheries, subsistence hunting, and the well-being of Arctic communities.
Kemi arctic 2015 arctic oil recovery exercise

Oil spill response exercise in Finland, 2015. © Jyrki Nikkilä / WWF


 
Few full scale oil spill exercises
To date, there have been few full-scale Arctic oil response exercises. WWF Marine Conservation Officer Sanna Kuningas participated in one such exercise this month near Kemi, Finland. The goal was to test alert systems and mechanical oil recovery equipment in ice conditions.
Weather conditions during the exercise were excellent: minus 5 degrees Celsius, light wind and clear skies, on 30-50 cm of ice. “The exercise ran smoothly, but many questions remained unanswered,” said Kuningas. “Using the skimmers did not seem efficient. The skimmers only managed to sweep the upper layer of the broken ice. Many observers wondered how things would go if the weather and ice conditions were more severe.”
Weather and sea conditions in the high Arctic can be much more challenging compared to the light winds and comfortable temperature during the exercise. Also the thicker, often unpredictably present ice and especially Arctic multi-year ice would introduce much greater challenges and limitations, not to even mention the remoteness of the high Arctic area with unsolved logistical and infrastructure questions of oil spill response.
Even during this carefully planned exercise, the mechanical skimmer specifically designed for Arctic conditions was unavailable – icebreaker crews were on strike.
The available options to clean a spill on ice are not ideal. “Mechanical oil recovery is the least environmentally damaging clean-up technique, but the efficiency of the technique is questionable.” said Kuningas.  “On-site burning is another option, but it releases particulate matter and black carbon that further amplifies melting of Arctic ice and snow. Dispersants that break apart the oil have toxic effects that are still being felt in the Gulf – we don’t want to repeat that experiment in the Arctic.”
Alternatives to Arctic oil
“The Deepwater spill decimated local wildlife, communities and economies”, said Margaret Williams, head of the WWF-United States Arctic Program. “We cannot allow that to happen in the Arctic or anywhere else.”
At minimum, governments should permanently protect ecologically valuable areas from oil and gas, taking into account the immense international range of a spill’s effects. WWF would like to see protection for two key fisheries in particular, the Lofoten and Vesteraalen islands of coastal Norway, and the West Kamchatka Shelf in Russia.
In the longer term, WWF is calling on governments to transition away from fossil fuels entirely. A WWF report shows that the world’s energy needs could be met entirely by renewable energy by 2050.

April 2015: Bowheads in spring

General,

We’ve followed a group of satellite-tagged Bowhead whales in northern Canada for 2 years. Our Arctic whale expert, Pete Ewins, explains what the whales are up to.

File photograph of a bowhead whale. Photo: WWF/Paul Nicklen, National Geographic Stock

File photograph of a bowhead whale. Photo: WWF/Paul Nicklen, National Geographic Stock


From the batch of Bowhead whales fitted with satellite radio tags in northern Foxe Basin in July 2013, amazingly a few of them still have working radios – coming up for nearly 2 full years of hugely valuable information on both daily positions/movements, but also details of dive times and depths!  These data are crucial for informing accelerating decisions about industrial activities in these same sensitive and rapidly changing marine systems.
Let’s look at two individuals in particular – 128152 (Orange), and 128150 (Red).
Location of bowhead whales in April 2015

Location of bowhead whales in April 2015



Go to interactive map
Red and Orange spent winter of 2013-14 in Hudson Strait, and like other bowheads, generally moved from east to west over the course of  the winter – associating with the predictable areas of broken ice and the relatively strong currents present there.
By late winter (March-April), it looks like the area off Digges and Mansel Islands near Ivujivik may be a very important regularly used habitat, towards the edge of the deepwater channel in central western Hudson Strait. Both of these whales headed back after May-June 2014 to Foxe Basin / the Gulf of Boothia.  But Orange has wintered in 2014-15 in an entirely different area – Cumberland Sound, SE Baffin Island, moving steadily in towards the upper reaches of this huge sound by early April.
Examination of the daily sea-ice charts shows that this whale is sticking to areas of broken ice, with plenty of opportunities for breathing.  It’s not thought that these whales are doing much feeding at this time of year. But the spring flush of light, energy and nutrient rich water will start soon, and these whales will capitalize for sure when they encounter large concentrations of copepods, their preferred krill-like food.
Why are these data really important for bowhead whale conservation? Well, as bowhead whale populations are still recovering slowly, but steadily, from the huge declines resulting from heavy commercial over-harvesting since the 18th century, it is important to manage all human activities that present further risks.  Obviously for an ice-dependent whale like this, that means first and foremost rapid climate change and the ongoing retreat and thinning of sea-ice. March 2015 saw the record lowest cover of Arctic sea-ice since records began back in the 1970s.
All part of the projected trends, given the trends in global greenhouse gas emissions.
But on top of this major pressure, increased shipping and explorations from the oil & gas industry, presents greater and new risks of oil spills, noise disruption and displacement of marine mammals from key habitats, and of course actual ship strikes of resting whales.
This is where these data gathered from high-tech satellite tags comes in – they can be hugely important in confirming the main areas used by these sensitive marine mammals at different times of year.  And then industrial projects can plan to avoid and minimize their impact on such important wildlife resources.
WWF is working hard with as many parties as possible to help plan for a healthy low-risk future, that can balance the needs of key wildlife species with the needs of local communities and a healthy economy.  But in these circumstances, this means taking new approaches.  That is what we continue to help develop.

WordPress Blog

Tools, ,

You can get a WordPress blog like:

with our wpengine.com account.

You would just have to fill in and submit this survey so we can review your project: https://docs.google.com/a/wwf.panda.org/forms/d/1fmkNNSN6igPNIHg7fGHxb6bZy6hYkiRB8oHj_5KJMJI/viewform

The PSD files for the header graphics can be downloaded from HERE and the instructions for it are HERE.

Any questions? Just ask us at [email protected].

U.S. action needed on ocean acidification

General, , , ,

Harbour crab, Lofoten, Norway. © Wild Wonders of Europe /Magnus Lundgren / WWF

Harbour crab, Lofoten, Norway. © Wild Wonders of Europe /Magnus Lundgren / WWF


Dr. Thomas Armstrong is the Deputy Secretary of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and leads the Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic. He previously served in the Obama Whitehouse as the Executive Director of the U.S.Global Change Reaserch Program. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
The ocean regulates our climate and our weather and plays a fundamental role in maintaining Earth’s water, carbon and nutrient cycles. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, human activities have upset the natural balance of nutrients in the ocean. Tom Armstrong warns changes in the oceanic carbon cycle are causing dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean and need a strong response from the incoming chair of the Arctic Council.
The ocean has absorbed nearly one-third of the carbon dioxide (CO2) added to the atmosphere by humans from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. Because the ocean has absorbed so much CO2, greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is less severe. But, there is a critical downside: the dissolved CO2 increases the acidity of ocean water, threatening aquatic life and the livelihoods that depend on it. Without global action to limit CO2 emissions, this trend will continue.
Ocean acidification is a big issue for the Arctic, where relatively shallow water depths and significantly large CO2 influx from both human and natural sources can result in acidic waters, leading to substantial impacts on a very vulnerable food web. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the relatively cold waters of the Arctic allow CO2 to be absorbed more easily than in warmer tropical waters, amplifying the acidifying effect of atmospheric CO2 at polar latitudes. In addition, as ice melts in the Arctic, the seawater becomes less salty, and less salty water absorbs CO2 more efficiently. Yet with all of these potentially significant impacts and related consequences, acidification of the Arctic Ocean is poorly understood, under-observed and under-researched. Continued anthropogenic climate change and increasing amounts of carbon uptake by the Arctic Ocean are likely to have significant detrimental impacts on the physical, biological, social and economic state of today’s, and especially tomorrow’s, Arctic communities.

Acidification of the Arctic Ocean is poorly understood, under-observed and under-researched.

What we Already Know
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report included several important findings with relevance to both global ocean health and acidification of the Arctic Ocean, including:

  • Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (60% above 700m, 30% below 700m)
  • Ocean acidity has increased approximately 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution
  • More acidic oceans will have broad and significant impacts on marine ecosystems, the services they provide, and the coastal economies, which depend on them
  • Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 will continue under all future emission scenarios, however, uptake is greater for higher concentration pathways – causing even more acidification, with carbon cycle feedbacks that will exacerbate climate change

The U.S. Perspective
U.S. federal agencies are currently conducting research, implementing policies and developing measures to better understand and address the effects of ocean acidification. But more is needed. We believe the U.S. must continue to lead the charge for the international community to increase international collaboration on ocean acidification research in the Arctic, particularly with regard to the effects of acidification on shell-forming organisms, marine biodiversity and food security.
Ocean acidification was one of the three topics that Secretary John Kerry chose to highlight in the Our Ocean conference. The Our Ocean Action Plan, released by Secretary Kerry during the conference, identified the importance of reducing CO2 emissions to stem the increase in ocean acidification and the need to create worldwide capability to monitor ocean acidification.
The U.S. continues to promote the development and establishment of the Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network (GOA-ON), which will measure ocean acidification through the deployment of instruments in key ocean areas. This is a new network with broad international cooperation and a commitment to build capacity in developing countries. Since 2012, the United States hasprovided financial support, totaling approximately $1 million, and related in-kind support for the establishment of a new Ocean Acidification International Coordination Center (OAICC) based in Monaco, which will help facilitate global cooperation to advance our understanding of ocean acidification.

Recommendations for Action by the Arctic Council
During its 2015 to 2017 Chairmanship of the Arctic Council, the U.S. should take a leadership role in:

  • Promoting the development of a full-scale, rigorous assessment of Arctic Ocean acidification by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme’s (AMAP) Arctic Ocean Acidification Expert Group.
  • Continuing to support efforts like Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network through monetary and expertise contributions.
  • Developing a communications and outreach strategy aimed at raising awareness of Arctic Ocean acidification (OA) as an issue that impacts the globe- not just the Arctic
  • Developing a focused mechanism for directly connecting the U.S. OA Interagency Working Group (IWG) with states, NGOs, foundations, academia, local communities and private industry – within the U.S. and across the Arctic Council countries to share best practices and lessons learned in addressing the causes of and impacts from OA.
  • Developing strategies for raising the profile of OA—and Arctic Council-led solutions—in upcoming UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COPs
  • Developing strategies/efforts for raising the profile and scientific expertise capacity of OA within the more mainstream Arctic Council climate change efforts, such as AMAP’s assessments and monitoring activities.
  • Utilizing the circum-Arctic countries’ leadership elements within AMAP and Sustaining Arctic Ocean Observing Networks (SAON) to find creative ways to help fund standardized OA monitoring instruments across international borders and leverage existing and planned activities across borders
  • Organizing a roundtable discussion with leading industry players, NGO and/or philanthropic leaders with a focus on determining the requisite science and monitoring assets needed to better understand past, present and future trends of OA as well as the resultant impacts and effects
  • Proposing oil and gas companies with offshore oil platforms in the Arctic add monitoring devices to their installations

Renewable energy in the far north – is it feasible?

General, , , ,

This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
Using solar energy in Northern communities is a tough sell. Just ask Klaus Dohring, president of Green Sun Rising, a Canadian company based in Windsor, Ontario that develops and supplies solar systems to generate clean electricity and heat.  He says reaction to using these forms of renewable energy in the Arctic is still a mix of preconceptions, misconceptions and skepticism even though it is already meeting with success.

Solar energy technology being installed in Hay River, Northwest Territories, Canada. Photo: Green Sun Rising.

Solar energy technology being installed in Hay River, Northwest Territories, Canada. Photo: Green Sun Rising.


“Whenever I suggest using solar energy in Northern communities, the typical response is that there is too little, or no sunshine in the winter months. This is irrefutable. But so is the flip side of that argument: in the summer there is an abundance of sunshine in the far north. The city of Yellowknife in Canada’s Northwest Territories gets about 8 per cent more sun energy per year than Berlin, Germany. In its peak summer months of May and June, Inuvik—also in the Northwest Territories and located 2 degrees above the Arctic Circle—gets more sun energy per month than Rio de Janeiro in any of its best months. For a good half of the year the sun is a great energy resource for the north.
The harsh northern climate is usually cited next in the argument against solar energy in northern climes. Space is an even harsher environment than the Arctic, yet satellites and the International Space Station are great examples of solar powered systems operating well in space. The Mars rover is an electric vehicle purely solar powered, also operating under extremely harsh conditions. Solar cells actually get more efficient with lower ambient temperatures because they like being cold. With no moving parts, a solar photovoltaic system in which light (photons) are converted into electricity (volts) can hibernate through the harsh arctic winter and generate electricity as soon as the sunshine is available for the solar cells.
We have introduced both solar photovoltaic as well as solar thermal systems into Northwest Territories applications, and the systems operate well.
Solar thermal systems can be used to generate heat energy. While the system itself is different from solar photovoltaic, the sun availability is the same. A solar thermal system allows for simple and easy generation and storage of heat energy, in the form of hot water.
One litre of diesel fuel typically provides 3 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity via the generator. At current economics of C$1.20 per liter plus an assumed 25 per cent transportation cost added, this results in variable cost of at least C$0.50 per kWh just for fuel cost reduction, higher for more remote communities. The full cost of diesel generated electricity is typically in the several dollars per kWh range, two-thirds of which is government-subsidized in Canada.
In the province of Ontario, the current solar incentive program puts a value of less than C$0.40 per kWh on solar generated power, and the incentive program is still considered attractive.
Against the variable cost of diesel fuel reduction, a solar system is already financially viable. When considering the true cost of diesel generation, a solar system will be a substantial cost savings. In terms of quality of life and pollution, a solar system is quiet, has no emissions, and is the most environmentally friendly way to provide energy. Once installed, the ongoing operating cost is zero.
Northern communities are accustomed to large diesel tanks with fuel delivery once per year, and using fuel from the tanks all year around. A large scale solar thermal system with big and very well insulated storage tanks allows the harvest of abundant summer solar energy which can also be stored for year round usage. Now the sun is the fuel delivery vehicle coming very reliably every summer, providing clean energy free of charge. Drake Landing Solar Community in Alberta, Canada has an operating example of such a long term storage system for solar thermal energy. There are over 100 others in operation across Europe. Conceptually, a solar thermal system with seasonal heat storage of sufficient size can meet all of the heat energy needs of a northern community.
Wind power has yet to build a track record of being able to withstand Arctic conditions, but it is starting to. For electricity, after the summer solar photovoltaic potential has been exhausted, a combination of solar system with battery storage plus wind power can provide most of the communities’ needs, with a diesel back-up system. In Antarctica, a harsher environment than the Arctic, the Princess Elisabeth Station has been operating since 2004 purely on solar and wind power.
With the onset of electric vehicles (EV) there is now significant development in battery storage systems. Utility scale battery systems are being introduced, and northern communities will be able to benefit from clean and quiet electricity storage in battery systems, which can at least bridge the daily variations of solar power, and start to reduce the seasonal impacts. The community of Colville Lake, Northwest Territories is set to receive such a utility battery system in 2015. It is expected that the combination of solar system with battery storage will greatly reduce diesel usage in summer.
Ultimately, electric vehicles will also become a preferred choice for Northern communities, once clean and renewable energy is available. We operated two electric cars through last winter, when the Arctic vortex brought Arctic winters to Ontario. Both EVs did well, with reduced range. The Arctic Energy Alliance is now starting to operate one EV in Yellowknife, and will generate real life experience with an EV under Northern conditions.”

Towards a sustainable future

General, , ,

Roderick Phillip, is the Environmental Director of the Tribal government of Kongiganak, Alaska. Santina Gay is the Alaska Tribal Coordinator with the US Environmental Protection Agency. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
The remote northern village of Kongiganak, Alaska found itself in a potentially life-threatening predicament when the winter barge carrying the village’s winter fuel supply got stuck in the ice due to an early freeze up in October 2014. Santina Gay and Roderick Phillips say the incident underscores how important it is for the village to continue to be proactive in using alternative energy to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels.

Windturbines, Kongiganak, Alaska Photo: Qayaq, Flickr.com, Creative Commons

Windturbines, Kongiganak, Alaska Photo: Qayaq, Flickr.com, Creative Commons


Kongiganak is a small village of just over 400 people hundreds of kilometres east of Anchorage at the mouth of the Kuskokwim River. When the winter fuel shipment from Northstar Gas became icebound, community members rallied and headed out in their small aluminum fishing boats to create a path for the fuel barge. After several days of chipping away ice that was often three inches thick, the barge finally made it to the pumping station to deliver and secure the village’s supply of heating fuel and gasoline.
The village sits on coastal tundra, connected to a beautiful labyrinth of lakes, rivers, and streams. A boardwalk runs along the Kongiganak River and through the community, making it easy to get around quickly by foot or ATV. Like many Alaska Native Villages, Kongiganak is a fly- or boat-in only community. Access is primarily through small aircraft which greatly inhibits frequency, duration, and ability to get in and out. Weather and increased risk factors also have a major effect on travel within Alaska.
The cost of living for items like groceries, fuel and energy can be five times higher than those in urban areas. This extreme cost paired with poverty and high unemployment makes maintaining a life in rural Alaska much more difficult than in a city. This is why it is very important for the villages to harvest from the land and waters throughout the year to secure their winter food supply.
Kongiganak has built a robust environmental program that protects the living lands, waters, and air. The importance of subsistence foods is vital to the Native Village of Kongiganak. For Alaskan Natives, harvesting and eating subsistence foods is essential to personal, social, and cultural identity. For this reason, we need to do all we can to preserve our land and keep our land, water, and air contaminant free so our ecosystem will keep producing subsistence foods for future generations.
Kongiganak has five, 95 kilowatt Windmatic wind turbines that have been in place since 2013.  The turbines now heat 20 homes and a laundromat in the village.  Diesel fuel savings already stand at 33,000 gallons annually.  The priorities for the wind turbine energy are to lower diesel engine use; heat the boiler in the power plant and heat 20 homes through electronic thermal stoves (ETS). The Tribal Government has also partnered with three other villages—Kwigillingok, Tuntutuliak, and Kipnuk—to create Chaninik Wind Group (CWG) in 2005. Their goal was to install wind turbines to lower the cost of energy (heat and electricity). The wind turbine project was completed in December 2012 with oil stoves off and thermal stoves on in 20 residential homes. The average price is $0.65/kilowatt.
When the winds are blowing, the power plant is only burning five gallons per hour (gph) compared to 13-15/gph when the wind is not blowing. The boiler acts like a shock absorber for the wind gust which creates a boost of energy to the power plant and keeps the generator engines at stable revolutions per minute (rpm). The coolant from the boiler also keeps the engines warm enough to run at a minimum rpm. Once this is achieved at the power plant, extra energy goes to the electronic thermal stoves (ETS) which provide enough heat to keep entire houses warm and allows the homeowners to turn off their oil stoves. The cost of electricity for the ETS units is $0.10/kw which is equivalent to $2.90/gallon of diesel heating fuel. The cost of diesel heating fuel in Kongiganak is $6.91/gallon at the gas station.
The Tribal government of Kongiganak’s strides in alternative energy are putting the small fishing community on the cutting edge of community-led climate resiliency efforts in Alaska.

For people and the environment

General, ,

Eirik Sivertsen is a Labour Party member of Norway’s parliament and chair of the Standing Committee of Arctic Parliamentarians. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
Climate change means life change in the Arctic. Eric Sivertsen says the coming COP 21 (Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) meeting in Paris in 2015 will be an opportunity for the incoming US Chairmanship of the Arctic Council to send a strong message about the changes we are witnessing and the consequences of climate change in the Arctic.
Humankind faces unprecedented challenges and opportunities from climate and environmental change, shifting economic conditions, food and water security, energy and socioeconomic development, national security, and changes in population and demographics. While these trends are global in character, they disproportionally affect the Arctic region, which provides major challenges as well as new socioeconomic development opportunities. Climate change makes the Arctic more accessible and integrated within the global economy, with extensive socioeconomic implications.
As Arctic parliamentarians, we are committed to stay focused on the situation of people living in the Arctic, who are experiencing the changes first hand. In building on the knowledge and experiences of the people in the Arctic, we can shape a sustainable future both for them and the environment. We must develop diversified economies in the Arctic to build sustainable societies, and work together to develop better knowledge about the effects of climate change in the Arctic. We have to remember that the Arctic is not just one place. In the Arctic, each place differs a lot from the next.

Many communities in the Arctic struggle with increased costs of living and the high price of energy. The US Chairmanship should address how we can share and utilize existing technologies and affordable energy generation.

Governing the Arctic is not only an international or national concern – it is first and foremost a concern for the inhabitants of the north. We cannot, and do not wish to, dictate how the different countries in the Arctic govern their land. They are all sovereign nations. But we can promote the exchange of good practices. There are a lot of good examples. We will keep on encouraging governments, companies and others who operate in the Arctic to continue to explore new ways of involving local and regional stakeholders in all decision making processes.

Innovation and Education

Developing natural resources involves additional risks to the local environment and to the societies concerned. For the local people to accept this risk as worthwhile, they need to be able to see the benefits from the activity. Thus, strong partnerships between Arctic communities, business and governments are crucial.
We call for broader cooperation between the Arctic states to enable local residents to make use of new opportunities in the Arctic. As many of the challenges and opportunities facing the peoples of the Arctic are similar, we should address innovative capacity building and economic development together.
This is why the US should put innovation on the agenda for Arctic cooperation. The Arctic parliamentarians propose establishing an Arctic innovation system linking the scientific community, the business sector, political society and local populations, for instance through an Arctic mentorship and mobility program.
We strongly recommend strengthening and expanding student exchange programs as a way to increase knowledge sharing and build capacity. Student exchanges strengthen the Northern identity and shared community of the students, who share and learn new skills which are directly relevant for their further studies and work in their home community.
The innovation taking place in Arctic Indigenous societies to strengthen their adaptive capacity to change, are important contributions to added value. Initiatives such as the Arctic Indigenous Peoples´ Culinary Institute and the Arctic Council Indigenous Youth Engagement Leadership Program need to be supported and further developed. It is vital that capacity development is rooted in and relevant for the people living in the region itself.

Infrastructure and Energy

Increase in polar shipping, greater access to natural resources, shifting of fish stocks further north, and enhanced tourism opportunities all result in a need for considerable infrastructure investments in the Arctic. Increased maritime activities lead to increased demand for search and rescue services, ports, navigational aids, adequate charts, etc., which may come into place faster, better and less costly if all Arctic nations pull their resources together. Enhanced Arctic cooperation when developing infrastructure will also improve the possibilities for travelling east-west in the North, and not only north-south.
A connected topic is the cost of living in the Arctic. Many communities in the Arctic struggle with increased costs of living and the high price of energy. The US Chairmanship should address how we can share and utilize existing technologies and affordable energy generation. We should look at how deployment practices, particularly in remote communities, can reduce the cost of energy, reduce carbon emissions, support infrastructure development, and contribute to the well-being of residents of the Arctic. New innovative solutions in this area would be valuable contributions in the global effort to reduce black carbon emissions.
The 11th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region took place in Whitehorse 9-11 September 2014. The proposals presented in this article and more can be found in the Conference Statement.