All posts by user

The Arctic Council – Permanent Participants weigh in

General, , ,

Winter in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada © Peter Ewins / WWF-Canada

Winter in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada
© Peter Ewins / WWF-Canada


Permanent Participants on the Arctic Council highlight what they’d like to see during the US chairmanship beginning in April 2015. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.

Aleut International Association

As the representative of an island region, the Aleut International Association would like to see a focus on protection of the marine environment during the next term of the Arctic Council. This would be a continuation of work by the Arctic Council, particularly in the recent past with the agreement on marine oil pollution preparedness and response, and the arrangement on marine oil pollution prevention worked on during the Canadian Chairmanship.
In particular we hope that there will be an emphasis on safe shipping, perhaps with measures that will take the provisions of the International Marine Organization’s (IMO) Polar Code a step further. In addition, we hope that the U.S. Chairmanship will continue to expand efforts to better include Traditional Knowledge in the work of the Arctic Council, as well as examine ways to better support the Permanent Participants to engage more fully.
We hope that the U.S. will encourage further steps to mitigate the effects of climate change, but also examine ways Arctic Communities can adapt to the changes that will likely happen regardless of mitigation efforts. We also hope to see a focus on living conditions for the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic which could build on ongoing work on issues such as mental wellness, suicide prevention, language retention, and food security.
We would also like to see an initiative that examines energy in the Arctic, and looks at innovative ways to bring down the cost and environmental effects of heating and power generation with a focus on both improving existing technologies, but also an examination of new technologies such as renewables. Finally, we hope to see a renewed focus on outreach, to get the word out about the work of the Arctic Council, and the changes that are affecting the Arctic, to the global audience.
James Gamble is the Executive Director of the Aleut International Association.

The Arctic Athabaskan Council

Cooperation, climate change, cutting through geopolitics key to upcoming term
The United States assumes the Chair of the Arctic Council at a time when relations between Russia and the other circumpolar states has deteriorated due to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support of rebels in eastern Ukraine. Some have accused President Putin of seeking to expand Russia to something like the old frontiers of the Soviet Union with the intent of increasing Russia’s influence globally. What might this mean for co-operation in the circumpolar world? Russia’s geography—eleven time zones—make it indispensable to circumpolar collaboration.
The United States has announced a thought-provoking and ambitious agenda for its term as Chair of the Arctic Council including initiatives on mitigation and adaptation to climate change, improving governance of the Arctic Ocean, and economic development within the region. It appears that coordinating national programmes and activities by the five Arctic Ocean littoral states is what is meant by improving governance in the Arctic Ocean. Whatever it proposes will take place in the context of proposals by all littoral states to extend their continental shelves into the Arctic Ocean according to processes detailed in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Claims by these states to extended continental shelves overlap. It may be that during the American term as Chair of the Council, negotiation particularly with Russia outside this forum will take place among and between Arctic states to resolve competing claims.
Regarding climate—an issue not prioritized by Canada during its term as chair—the US may stress reduction in emissions of black carbon, a short-lived climate pollutant, both within the region and more broadly. The Council established a task force to look into this issue some years ago and an agreement to reduce emissions may well be announced at the April 2015 ministerial meeting in Iqaluit. The Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC) has attended all meetings of this task force and repeatedly urged states to commit to reduce black carbon emissions. To date, Arctic states have addressed mitigation of climate change caused through emission of greenhouse gases—long-lived climate pollutants—globally through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. A regional climate change mitigation agreement would signal a significant evolution of the Council and perhaps prompt other states to consider similar regional agreements. The US may soon have an opportunity to turn a paper agreement into on-the-ground reality.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, co-operation between the circumpolar states was new and untested. It was also confined primarily to scientific and environmental issues defined in the 1991 Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in which Arctic Indigenous Peoples had only a limited role. Nearly 20 years later co-operation between the eight circumpolar states through the Arctic Council has become the natural order of things, and Arctic Indigenous Peoples intervene in debates and decision-making as Permanent Participants. AAC is committed to deepening and broadening circumpolar co-operation and informing global institutions about what the Arctic—the world’s barometer of climate change—is reading. Much depends on the political and diplomatic abilities of the United States during its term as chair of the Arctic Council to promote circumpolar co-operation at a time of changing and challenging geopolitics.

Gwich’in Council International

Put energy into energy
The Arctic is a magnificent but formidable place to call home. The winters are long, cold and dark and per capita energy use is almost twice the Canadian average. The Gwich’in people have survived and prospered in this climate due to a strong connection to the land and resourceful communities, however the cost of energy effects all Gwich’in people living in the remote north. These costs can be attributed to energy production, residential building science for the north and heating appliances. Gwich’in Council International would recommend the US Chairmanship explore each of these cost drivers and develop tools to assist communities in making decisions for addressing their unique energy needs during their tenure.
The majority of Gwich’in communities rely on diesel fuel for energy production. The diesel fuel for the most part is trucked in and in some cases flown in! The exploration of scalable renewable power generation technologies in the remote north would help to research sources of reliable, affordable and applicable alternative energy production in our communities to ensure continued prosperity of the people of the north.
Residential building science has improved to the point of Net-zero homes (homes that produce and consume equal amounts of energy). However, many homes built in the Gwich’in settlement area still use dated building practices and less efficient heating appliances. This combination yields poor insulation value, inadequate air tightness and inefficient use of resources for heat generation. GCI suggests a review of current housing inventories in the north and a comparative cost analysis of current residential building science vs. efficient building practices. The knowledge sharing of best building practices of States and Permanent Participants would be a tool to assist communities to make educated decisions for the future development and construction of homes in the north.
Gwich’in Council International looks forward to working on energy solutions with the United States Chairmanship in supporting the wellbeing and sustainability of the northern communities of the Gwich’in People.

The Saami Council

The Saami Council supports the concept of being one Arctic. We live in the Arctic together, even though the challenges might differ. The Saami Council, as one of the six Permanent Participants to the Arctic Council, is ready to share the responsibilities in the Arctic. As an Indigenous People in the Arctic, we do, however, face a reality that we are confronted with an uneven share of the challenges with the change in environment and not least with the change in land use. We have expectations that with the US lead, the Arctic Council and its member states will ensure and contribute so that the Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic also have equal access to the opportunities.
During the last decade there has been a lot of focus on climate changes and the Arctic Council is monitoring and addressing the impacts of these. With climate changes come also changes in the environment and changes in land use. To cope with these changes from a Saami perspective it is important to build robust and resilient communities in the high north. Socio-economic resilience is important for the communities to live through changes we still do not fully understand without lost identity and culture. This is the essence of sustainable development. The Saami Council therefore welcomes the conclusion of the Arctic Resilience Report during the US Chairmanship, as well as initiatives coming from the Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA) that will “produce information to assist local decision-makers and stakeholders…in developing adaptation tools and strategies to better deal with climate change and other pertinent environmental stressors”.
Saami Council looks forward to the US continuing the Canadian initiative to make better use of traditional knowledge and implementing actions to include TK in Arctic Council activities.

Canada, the Arctic Council, and rough seas

General, , ,

An Inuit man watches an icebreaker, Nunavut, Canada. © Paul Nicklen/National Geographic Stock / WWF-Canada

An Inuit man watches an icebreaker, Nunavut, Canada. © Paul Nicklen/National Geographic Stock / WWF-Canada


Andrea Charron is Assistant Professor and Deputy-Director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, Canada. She holds a PhD from the Royal Military College of Canada and has Masters degrees in International Relations from Webster University, Leiden, The Netherlands, and in Public Administration from Dalhousie University. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
In 1996, Canada was the first of eight Member States to chair a newly-founded Arctic Council. From May 2013 to April 2015, Canada again resumed the chair and set three priorities: to encourage development for the people of the North; to strengthen the Arctic Council, especially the capacity of its aboriginal members to participate; and to create an Arctic Economic Council. To evaluate Canada’s success as chair and, in particular, in achieving its three goals, Andrea Charron says the limitations of the Arctic Council must be understood.
The Arctic Council was created by a Declaration in 1996 (largely due to Canada’s leadership) to promote cooperation on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection of the Arctic. The Council, however, has “soft legal” status—meaning it cannot take any binding decisions or enforce any of its decisions. Secondly, while the Arctic Council has been instrumental in keeping the Arctic a zone of cooperation, outside geopolitical events (such as Russia’s action in the Ukraine) have proved a challenge to this cooperation. In addition, the ratio of Member States (those with a vote, although rarely exercised) and Permanent Participants (those afforded special decision-making status) to Observers (including states, organizations and nongovernmental agencies) is now terribly out of balance; there are now only 14 decision makers which means they are outnumbered by the 32 observers (and some very powerful ones at that when we consider China, Germany, Japan and others). Non-voters outnumber voters by more than two to one. Finally, the Council has always suffered from an inclusive/exclusive debate. Some think the issues of the Arctic region (such as climate change and northern development) would be better tackled at strictly a regional level while others believe that an international forum, like the UN, is more appropriate since such issues affect the entire world.

Canada’s two years as Chair are best described as place holding.

Canada’s two years as Chair are best described as place holding. While the Arctic Council cannot be expected to make grand pronouncements every year (it is voluntarily funded and has only recently benefited from a permanent secretariat), Canada’s attention to the Arctic has been lackluster. On the one hand, the focus it has directed on the people of the North is laudable. However, Canada’s priority was presented as development “for” the people not “with”, an unfortunate use of prepositions:
The official Canadian French version reads: “Le développement au service de la population du Nord “. De is translated as «of » and not « for » (which would be « pour »). The French version suggests input from Northerners will be sought whereas the English translation suggests their exclusion.
Perhaps “for” can be excused as simply a poor choice of words rather than an indication that Canada’s intent was to tell the people of the North what they need. While the development priority included safe Arctic shipping and sustainable, healthy communities, nevertheless that prepositional slip suggests that the underlying goal of Canada is to improve the economy of the North for state interests.
Canada achieved its third goal, the creation of an Arctic Economic Council. But this is a shift from the two goals of the Arctic Council: sustainable development and protection of the environment. Of course economics is related, even crucial to the goals of environmental protection and sustainable development, but the creation of an Arctic Economic Council has not been popular with all of the Arctic State members and exacerbates the exclusive/inclusive friction.
At the same time, action outside the Arctic Council is doing more, arguably, for the people of the Arctic. A little known agreement called the Minamata Convention – a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury– is especially important for the Arctic which has higher levels of mercury. And yet, while the US has ratified the Convention, (along with only eight other countries – from Africa, South America and Monaco), none of the other Arctic States – including Canada – have; nor have the Observer states. The Arctic Council, under Canada’s leadership, could have made ratification of this convention by all of its members – observers or others – a goal.
Meanwhile, the working groups of the Arctic Council are doing some very important work indeed. Projects include an Arctic biodiversity assessment and creation of offshore oil and gas guidelines. Volunteer funding from member and observer states, however, makes planning of these multi-year projects a challenge.
The Arctic Council has had other successes. The Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic and the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic are examples of the Arctic Council coming together to create useful, guiding documents.
Perhaps more importantly, Canada should be commended for its diplomatic efforts. That the Arctic Council is still meeting despite geopolitical tensions between Russia and the five NATO Arctic Council Member States is a testament to Canada’s adept chairmanship.
What does the future hold for the Arctic Council?
Likely all future chairs will run into the same problem as Canada – the “low hanging fruit” issues have been picked. In other words, the issues that were not of vital national interest, but were readily agreed to by the Arctic States, have been tackled. This leaves some truly difficult and contentious issues, like fishing rights and climate change. Furthermore, the Arctic Council may be reaching a tipping point in terms of the number of observers versus decision-making members and Permanent Participants. Exactly how much weight is given to the ideas of Permanent Participants also needs to be considered.
What is more, the eight Arctic States are chary of an overly ambitious, “UN-like” Arctic Council. When the United States takes over as the next chair, US Admiral (retired) Papp, former Commandant of the US Coast Guard, has a Herculean task ahead of him. Appointed as the Special Representative for the Arctic by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Papp faces: a recalcitrant Russia; ignored/cash strapped Permanent Participants; eager Observer states who want more decision-making influence; and diversely-interested Arctic Member States.   His years sailing rough seas may be his best training yet as the US assumes the Chair in April 2015.

Canada vs USA at the Arctic Council

General,

This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
The table below compares the US plans for its chairmanship, as laid out in a presentation at the Senior Arctic Officials Meeting in Yellowknife, October 2014, with Canada’s programme as laid out in a brochure from October 2013. This is not a direct comparison of national priorities. Canada’s agenda was laid out after it had been negotiated with the other Arctic states and Permanent Participants. The US programme has yet to go through that negotiating process.
Click to enlarge:
TheCircle0115_p14-15-2

Opportunities, Challenges, Responsibilities

General, , ,

Sawyer Glacier. Alaska, Tracy Arm. © Dr. Terry McTigue, NOAA, NOS, NCCOS, CCMA.

Sawyer Glacier. Alaska, Tracy Arm.
© Dr. Terry McTigue, NOAA, NOS, NCCOS, CCMA.


Larry Hinzman is the Director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.  He is also chief scientist for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Next Generation Ecosystem Experiments (NGEE-Arctic). Dr. John Walsh is the Chief Scientist of the International Research Center at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. His research has addressed Arctic climate weather variability, with an emphasis on sea ice variability and the role of sea ice and snow cover in weather and climate. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
The U.S. State Department, which represents the United States on the Arctic Council, has established priorities for the U.S. Chair including climate change impacts in the Arctic, stewardship of the Arctic Ocean, and improving Arctic economic and living conditions. Here, John Walsh and Larry Hinzman highlight several topics under these themes that can galvanize research communities within the United States and other nations during the coming U.S. Chair period.

Adaptation and resilience to Arctic climate change

Mitigation activities such as reduced emissions have the potential to alter the trajectory of Arctic climate change in the latter decades of the present century. However, some changes are already “locked” in the evolving climate system, making adaptation a crucial element for dealing with climate change over the next few decades. And despite increasing awareness of their importance, climate change adaptations, in the U.S. Arctic (Alaska) and other Arctic regions have to date been dominated by planning and monitoring, rather than implementation. The identification of adaptation options for northern regions is the objective of an existing, ongoing Arctic Council assessment (“Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic”). With this report scheduled for release in 2017, the facilitation of adaptation actions and resilience can be one of the signature activities of the U.S. Chair of the Arctic Council.

Climate change adaptations, in the U.S. Arctic (Alaska) and other Arctic regions have to date been dominated by planning and monitoring, rather than implementation.

High-latitude ocean acidification

The global ocean is 25 % more acidic today than it was 300 years ago, a change traceable to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The Arctic Ocean and Subarctic seas are especially vulnerable to increasing ocean acidity because of their large shallow shelf seas, cold water, and high rates of productivity. Acidification is a threat to Subarctic fisheries, including the Bering Sea, with major socioeconomic consequences. However, large uncertainties pervade our understanding and prediction of the rate of high-latitude ocean acidification, as well as its geographical distribution. Monitoring of ocean acidity in the Arctic has largely been done through occasional cruises (mostly during the warm season) and just a few buoys, while the modeling of variations in ocean acidification remains in its infancy. With a heightened global awareness of the threats posed by ocean acidification, the next few years present an opportunity for significant progress in understanding and predicting ocean acidification in the Arctic. Chairing the Arctic Council can serve as a catalyst for coordinated and systematic monitoring (by cruises, buoys, sub-ice sampling, and emerging technologies, such as underwater autonomous vehicles) of high-latitude water acidification. Analysis of the collected data can improve understanding of Arctic water sensitivity to CO2 uptake and acidification, and in turn inform the development of predictive models, enabling planning and adaptation by industry and coastal communities. The Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme can also play an important role in the assessment of high-latitude ocean acidification.

Arctic Indicators Network and Early Indicators Warning System for the Arctic

It is well known that recent global changes have been amplified in the Arctic. However, the Arctic is a complex system, and change will not manifest at similar rates within all components. Present monitoring of the Arctic is characterized by a reliance on remote sensing and sparse networks of in situ measurements, unevenly distributed among system components. A holistic picture of Arctic change requires that we define, implement, and maintain a more comprehensive and robust set of Arctic indicators. These indicators, highlighting the most imminent risks and thereby informing priorities for planning and adaptation activities, must span the physical, social, and economic components of the Arctic system. Physical indicators for the Arctic can build upon the monitoring activities of NOAA and NASA, and can augment the set of essential climate variables already identified to guide the Global Climate Observing System. Socioeconomic indicators, including land use, infrastructure, and measures of human well-being, have heretofore been generally uncoordinated internationally, inconsistently structured, and poorly (or not at all) integrated with physical indicators. Such integration represents an interdisciplinary challenge but also an outstanding opportunity for the period of the U.S. Chair.

Freshwater Security

Though the Arctic may appear a very wet area with ample water resources, the availability of freshwater is quite limited. Annual precipitation over the entire U.S. Arctic is less than that of any western U.S. state, including Wyoming and Arizona. Limited water availability is further constrained by the Arctic’s long winters, when surface water is bound up as ice or snow, and access to groundwater is limited by permafrost. Such restrictions place severe constraints on communities and industry. Villages in northern Alaska typically harvest water from small streams or lakes during the summer months and attempt to store adequate volumes to sustain the community for the nine or more winter months. Further, the extremely harsh climate greatly complicates the handling and processing of waste water, requiring large investments of capital, energy, and time. The strict limits and great costs associated with both obtaining clean water and eliminating waste water present serious challenges to family health and sanitation.

Public Outreach

The U. S. Chair of the Arctic Council comes at a unique time in the evolution of public awareness of Arctic change. The rapidity of recent changes at high latitudes creates an urgent need for greater public understanding of the Arctic, especially as the Arctic acts as a sentinel for broader global change. The potential change in global sea level as a result of a warming Arctic is an obvious example. The recent emergence of potential links between Arctic warming and extremes in mid-latitude weather and climate has also received recent media attention—often with conflicting interpretations about the Arctic’s role. Accurately conveying the evolving state of scientific knowledge about Arctic mid-latitude weather connections represents a challenge for the scientific community, as well as a tremendous opportunity to stimulate the broader public’s interest in the Arctic.

Closing Perspective

Policy leadership is essential. The Arctic is changing rapidly with regard to global access, resources, and exploitation. Improved scientific understanding of the Arctic environment will enable the international community to develop sound policies for the region’s use and sustainability, including the protection of its pristine environment, small populations of wildlife, fragile ecosystems, and sensitive communities of Indigenous peoples. This U.S. chair brings prestige and opportunities for U.S. interests, while also carrying a responsibility to balance development and environmental protection.

Finland on deck

General, ,

The Northern Lights above Saariselka, Northern Finland. © Global Warming Images / WWF-Canon

The Northern Lights above Saariselka, Northern Finland. © Global Warming Images / WWF-Canon


Aleksi Härkönen is Finland’s Ambassador for Arctic Affairs. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
In 2017, Finland will take its turn as the next Arctic state to chair the Arctic Council. Aleksi Härkönen says intensified cooperation between the Arctic states is crucial to meet this new era of challenges in the far north.
Finland´s long-standing priorities in Arctic activities are to preserve the Arctic environment, to encourage economic activity based on sustainable development, and to safeguard the stability of the Arctic region in cooperation with other countries and actors. We trust that these are goals that all Arctic states can share.
Finland as a whole is an Arctic country while Finns make up one third of the world’s population living above the 60th parallel. For Finland, cooperation through the Arctic Council and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council has been a welcome addition to our foreign policy for the past two decades. Finland was one of the initiators, starting in 1991, of Arctic cooperation through the Rovaniemi Process, which concentrated on the preservation of endangered Arctic nature. We joined the Barents Euro-Arctic Council as a founding member in 1992. And we became one of the founding members of the Arctic Council in 1996.
The scope of Arctic activities has become broader over the years, and in order to formulate a more coherent policy Finland prepared a Strategy for the Arctic Region with the latest version issued in 2013. Finland will have parliamentary elections in the spring of 2015. The next government will undoubtedly emphasize Finland´s continuing interest in Arctic and Northern issues, given that Finland will chair the Arctic Council after the U.S. in 2017-19. But will the future of Arctic cooperation be as smooth as we have become accustomed to?
The first two decades of Arctic cooperation have produced some important results, in no small part due to the participation of Indigenous Peoples. The Saami are the only Indigenous People in the European Union, and their organizations are actively involved in Finland and elsewhere in Northern Europe. But clearly there are still many issues to be resolved, including some that are just emerging. The last thing we would want is an international atmosphere where badly needed next steps in Arctic activities would be impeded.
The question is how the Arctic countries are looking at their involvement. Will it be business as usual? Will common interests prevail? Will the present structures and methods of cooperation be sufficient? And what about the role of other countries with a growing interest in in the Arctic region?
Climate change is the most compelling reason to continue to intensify cooperation. This is the fundamental factor that will change the Arctic region profoundly. Global warming may proceed faster than predicted, especially in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions.
Reaching a meaningful climate deal without delay is in the best interest of all Arctic countries, since the effects of non-action would leave our region vulnerable. It is encouraging that the U.S. sees climate issues as the number one priority in their chairmanship of the Arctic Council and we hope this pays off.
The international climate negotiations are, once more, approaching a decisive moment. A globally binding climate agreement will hopefully be concluded in 2015. The Arctic countries need to make a concerted, visible effort to positively contribute to the negotiations.
Another great challenge will be how increasing economic activity in the Arctic region will support the goal of sustainable development, while benefitting Indigenous and other local communities. Here the U.S. chairmanship agenda also offers several ways to move forward. Business organizations will have to be involved in economic development issues. We should look at ways to create a natural contact between the Arctic Council and the newly established Arctic Economic Council.
The U.S. has emphasized that it wants to prepare a program for the Arctic Council as a whole, not just for the country holding the chairmanship. Continuity is certainly a principle that Finland appreciates and we are keen to identify items on the U.S. chairmanship program that we could continue in ours.
In order to be successful, Arctic cooperation requires openness and trust among the stakeholders, especially the Arctic states. A spill-over from the rather turbulent state of international relations has, so far, been avoided for the most part. In Finland´s view, the decision to invite the European Union to participate as an observer to the Arctic Council should be implemented without delay. Without question, the EU is an important Arctic actor.
The U.S. chairmanship program for the Arctic Council was prepared with the understanding that the business of the Council will go on as usual while reflecting the aspirations that we all share as Arctic countries. When the time comes, Finland will prepare its chairmanship program based on the same values where possible. Considering the huge challenges ahead, Arctic cooperation will figure prominently.

A regional seas approach for the Arctic: what does it mean?

General, ,

Photo: naturepl.com / Andy Rouse / WWF


BROOKS YEAGER has considerable experience with issues in the U.S. and Circumpolar Arctic including: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Development at State; lead U.S. negotiator for the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the Interior Department. He also worked with the State Department on the establishment of the Arctic Council. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
As part of a wide-ranging and ambitious agenda for its upcoming chairmanship of the Arctic Council, the US has expressed its interest in moving towards a regional seas approach to improve stewardship and governance of the Arctic marine environment.   What this means has not yet been fully detailed by U.S. officials, although as Brooks Yeager writes, enough has been said that we may make some educated guesses.  
The regional seas approach has its roots in Regional Seas Agreements, which are cooperative intergovernmental frameworks for ocean management and conservation in various areas of the world’s oceans. A number of such agreements, or RSAs, have been formed under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), while others are essentially autonomous regional associations based in the sovereign authority of their member governments.
Although RSAs are by their nature frameworks, often crafted with enough flexibility to evolve over time, they frequently have specific aims with respect to which their member governments organize their efforts.
Notable among existing RSAs are: OSPAR, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic which seeks to conserve and prevent pollution in the NE Atlantic; HELCOM, the Baltic marine Environment Protection Commission which aims to restore and protect the environment of the Baltic Sea; and the Black Sea Convention, which seeks to maintain the health of the Black Sea ecosystem.   There are, of course, many more RSAs, including in the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Eastern Pacific, and even for the Caspian Sea.

Although the U.S. was historically a reluctant partner in the initial formation of the Council, the Council’s utility as a forum for discussing Arctic policy matters, and the success of its working groups has caught the attention of successive U.S. administrations.

What would be the primary purpose of an Arctic RSA, should one be established? Of course, this would be subject to negotiation among the Arctic governments. However, State Department officials have dropped some hints relating to US objectives. One of the three principal pillars of the US chairmanship is “strengthening stewardship and management of the Arctic marine environment.”
An RSA oriented to such a goal might be expected to emphasize cooperation in science and monitoring, as well as management techniques such as ecosystem-based management (EBM) and the conservation of valuable and vulnerable marine habitat.
At the same time, Admiral Robert Papp, the new US Special Envoy for the Arctic, has made it clear that there is also an interest in maintaining and advancing practical cooperation on maritime safety and navigational issues, including pursuing coordinated implementation of the existing agreements on search and rescue (SAR) and oil spill preparedness and response (OPPR). It seems likely, therefore, that an Arctic RSA would have such a practical orientation at its core.
The question of the appropriate membership of an Arctic RSA is an interesting one. Although one could imagine such an RSA including only the Arctic littoral states, i.e. Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, Russia and the U.S., U.S. officials have made it clear that they would seek to include all eight Arctic governments, as well as the so-called “Permanent Participants,” the representatives of the Arctic’s Indigenous peoples. In part, this preference reflects strong U.S. support for the existing Council, as the appropriate forum for the coordination of policy and management approaches in the region. Although the U.S. was historically a reluctant partner in the initial formation of the Council, the Council’s utility as a forum for discussing Arctic policy matters, and the success of its working groups over twenty years in framing significant problems for resolution has caught the attention of successive US administrations. The result is that strengthening the Council has now become a significant priority for the U.S. chairmanship agenda.
Whether the specific potential benefits of an RSA that the U.S. conceives can actually be brought to fruition depends on the reaction of the other seven Arctic Council nations, the Permanent Participants and the broader community of institutions and organizations who concern themselves with development and conservation issues in the Arctic region.  There have already been some encouraging signs, in terms of the responses of the Senior Arctic Officials in the recent Yellowknife meeting, and of various interested groups, including the informal Ecosystem-Based Management Expert Panel, which endorsed the regional seas approach at its recent meeting in Trondheim. The EBM panel, in particular, pointed out that an Arctic Regional Seas Agreement would be a useful framework in which to share experiences and methodologies and to improve coordination of implementation of the ecosystem approach to management of the Arctic marine environment.
 

Arctic mammals and the big picture

General, ,
Arctic mammals linked to sea ice
polar bear (Ursus maritimus)
narwhal (Monodon monoceros)
beluga (Delphinapterus leucas)
bowhead (Balaena mysticetus)
ringed seal (Pusa hispida),
bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus)
spotted seal (Phoca largha)
ribbon seal (Phoca fasciata)
harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus)
hooded seal (Cystophora cristata)
walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)

It’s looking more and more likely that sea ice in the Arctic has broken yet another ominous record – the lowest winter extent ever recorded. While low ice in the winter isn’t necessarily a harbinger of much less ice in the Arctic summer, it is a sign of increasingly thin, slow growing ice – and that’s bad news for Arctic animals.
But just how bad? A new paper published this week is the first to assess the state of the Arctic’s ice-dependent marine mammals – 11 in all. From whales to seals to polar bears, these species depend on the seasonal comings and goings of the ice edge to find food, breed and give birth. Arctic people, especially the Inuit, depend on these animals for subsistence. The well-being of these animals matters both locally and globally.
Despite their importance, there’s still a lot we don’t know about Arctic mammals. The paper, Arctic marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation recommendations for the 21st century, fills in some gaps by collating everything we know about the populations of 11 different Arctic mammals over the past 35 years – a time of rapid ice loss and thinning. Some of the paper’s findings:
 

Head of ringed seal above the water. Blomsterhalvøya, Spitsbergen (Svalbard) arctic archipelago, Norway. © WWF-Canon / Sindre Kinnerød

Head of ringed seal above the water. Blomsterhalvøya, Spitsbergen (Svalbard) arctic archipelago, Norway.
© WWF-Canon / Sindre Kinnerød

More open water in the summer

Changes in ice can disrupt life for both prey (seals give birth on ice during a short spring window) and predators (polar bears feast on the fat-rich new pups).  Since the 1980s, some parts of the Arctic have seen much longer periods of open water in the summer – from 5 weeks to as much as 5 months longer.

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

Population trends vary, but ice is key

Data in the Arctic can be spotty, but the researchers founds some clear trends. In areas where ice is declining quickly, mammals that depend on ice are too.  Seals and polar bears are particularly affected. Whales, meanwhile, could benefit from less ice in the short term, as open water expands their habitat and food supplies.
However, temperate species are also expanding their ranges. Killer whales, with a long dorsal fin that makes navigating in ice difficult, are moving north into previously icy waters where they prey on Arctic whales.
Ice dependent mammals, likewise, may move north when possible. Polar bears, for example, are already moving towards the Last Ice Area, a fringe along northern Canada and Greenland where ice is expected to remain the longest.

“Sleeping” polar bear waits for a walrus calf to come close. Photo: Alexey Ebel / WWF-Canon

“Sleeping” polar bear waits for a walrus calf to come close. Photo: Alexey Ebel / WWF-Canon

More info needed

For most of the populations reviewed, there simply isn’t much data available. “Accurate scientific data – currently lacking for many species – will be key to making informed and efficient decisions about the conservation challenges and tradeoffs in the 21st century,” says author Kristin Laidre.
Although monitoring every population fully is essentially impossible (due not least to financial constraints), the authors encourage goverments to commit to an improvment in long-term monitoring, and to look at other methods of data collection, such as working with subsistence hunters or exploring remote technologies.

_ Students on Ice _ walrus on ice (Medium)

Walrus, Nunavut, Canada. Photo: Students on Ice


 

What can we do?

In an environment that’s changing so quickly, conservation measures need to be fast, creative and well-balanced. The authors recommend that governments continue to work with local and indigenous peoples to co-manage Arctic mammal populations. They also suggest that management consider the responses of different species to changes in ice, and more study and mitigation of industrial impacts in Arctic water.
That means protecting the key habitats for these mammals, and avoiding risky industrial development projects in such crucial places.
WWF also recommends focusing attention on places where ice will persist the longest, like the Last Ice Area.
But ultimately, only global commitments to reduce carbon emissions can slow the loss of sea ice habitat in the Arctic. “We may introduce conservation measures or protected species legislation, but none of those things can really address the primary driver of Arctic climate change and habitat loss for these species,” says Laidre.
A global switch from fossil fuels to wind, solar and other renewable energies can help reverse ice loss in the Arctic. A WWF study found that it is not only feasible, but cost-effective, for 100% of the world’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2050.

United States leadership in the Arctic

General, , , ,

The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent ties up to the US Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the Arctic Ocean Sept. 5, 2009. The two ships are taking part in a multi-year, multi-agency Arctic survey that will help define the Arctic continental shelf. Photo: Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard

The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent ties up to the US Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the Arctic Ocean Sept. 5,
2009. The two ships are taking part in a multi-year, multi-agency Arctic survey that will help define the Arctic continental shelf. Photo: Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard


Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., USCG (Ret.) is the US State Department’s Special Representative for the Arctic. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
When I became the first United States Special Representative for the Arctic in July 2014, I had just retired from nearly 40 years in the United States Coast Guard, finishing my career as the 24th Commandant.  Ironically, I both started and ended my Coast Guard service focusing on the U.S. portion of the Arctic. My first assignment was aboard a Coast Guard cutter homeported in Adak, Alaska, in the Aleutian Island chain.  During this assignment, I saw first-hand what the Arctic was all about. At the end of my career, I oversaw the completion of the first-ever Coast Guard Arctic Strategy, an achievement I’m very proud of and that has served our country well.
Now I have the great fortune to lead U.S. Arctic diplomacy and prepare for the United States’ chairmanship of the Arctic Council.  I feel very privileged to do so at such an important time in the history of the Arctic region. Not since the Cold War has there been such a focus on the Arctic and the critical role it plays in the world.  The Arctic Council – the only forum focused solely on the circumpolar Arctic – has evolved in encouraging ways to help Arctic governments and residents meet new challenges.
As chair, Canada has done a fantastic job of raising public awareness about Arctic indigenous peoples and their economic needs. We will follow Canada’s leadership and many of its priorities as we take the chair on April 24, 2015. Our chairmanship theme, “One Arctic:  Shared Opportunities, Challenges, and Responsibilities,” reflects the fact that although there are many dimensions to the Arctic, in the end it is one region of peace, stability and cooperation.
We see three general sub-themes logically flowing from the overarching theme under which we will organize a number of new initiatives:  Arctic Ocean safety, security and stewardship; improving economic and living conditions; and addressing the impacts of climate change.
The Arctic Ocean is still relatively unstudied as compared to the other oceans. We want the Council to support scientific research cooperation through a binding agreement that would reduce barriers to access for ships, equipment, research teams, samples and other logistical issues, and at the same time explore whether a Regional Seas Program for the Arctic Ocean might further cooperation on research priorities and joint efforts. We want to shine a light on the emerging problem of ocean acidification – a direct consequence of climate change that is happening more intensively in the Arctic Ocean than anywhere else owing to its cold temperatures. With the ever-increasing human presence in the Arctic Ocean, we plan to hold tabletop and live exercises among the Coast Guards and rescue services to ensure we are all prepared for the natural and/or man-made disasters that are all but inevitable.
Improving economic and living conditions is a high priority for the United States because all of the Arctic States have citizens living there, albeit in different circumstances.  Much of the Nordic Arctic is well-developed; generally speaking, the Saami indigenous peoples enjoy better economic and living conditions than indigenous peoples in the United States, Canada, Denmark/Greenland and Russia. Our communities are largely remote, often poverty-stricken, and lacking in some of the most basic human needs such as access to clean water, indoor plumbing and sewage services, reliable, affordable electricity and fuel, and good jobs.  These conditions contribute to physical and mental health problems, and eventually to high suicide rates, especially in men and boys. We hope that all eight Arctic States will join us in exploring solutions to these problems, including testing and deploying new technologies through public/private partnerships, encouraging foreign direct investment to stimulate job growth, and sharing expertise and best practices across our borders.
We all know that climate change is happening faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world; in fact, the impacts of climate change underlie nearly all human activity in the region.  We hope to focus on climate change in our chairmanship in several ways, but most importantly by pressing the Arctic States and the Observer States to reduce their black carbon and methane emissions.
Our country does not contain the largest piece of the Arctic, but we do take the Arctic region very seriously and we look forward to our coming two years in the chair of the Arctic Council.

Improving the lives of Northerners

General, , , ,

Leona Aglukkaq is the Conservative Canadian Member of Parliament for the riding of Nunavut and Minister for the Arctic. This article originally appeared in The Circle 01.15.
As Canada approaches the conclusion of its two-year Arctic Council Chairmanship, I’m proud to say we have worked to directly improve the lives of Northerners and foster environmentally responsible development throughout the Arctic.
Following my appointment as Minister for the Arctic Council in August 2012, I consulted with Northerners from across the Arctic and their message was clear: the well-being and prosperity of the people living in the North must be the top priority for the Council.
For this reason, Canada’s Chairmanship has focused Arctic Council work on the theme, “Development for the People of the North.”
There have been more than a few examples of the projects that we have developed over the course of our two year chairmanship, reflecting this overarching agenda. A key priority has been the establishment of the Arctic Economic Council (AEC), which held its inaugural meeting in September 2014. Many economic and social challenges including high costs of living, skilled labour shortages, and extreme weather are common across the Arctic. From my travels, it became clear to me that we often do not share information well between Arctic peoples. Often times when we face a challenge, someone somewhere else in the Arctic has already faced that same challenge and has a solution. Rather than reinvent the wheel, we, as a Council, should foster collaboration across the Arctic. The AEC will serve as a fundamental mechanism to facilitate Arctic-to-Arctic collaboration between business leaders by providing a forum to discuss common challenges, share best practices and look for business opportunities to develop and benefit the North.
The AEC will also serve as a link between business and government by enabling businesses to inform the work of the Arctic Council. Additionally – and this will be key to its success – Arctic Indigenous peoples have representation on the AEC, which ensures that those living in the North are active participants in decisions affecting their communities.
The AEC’s work is forging ahead, and it has now established working groups on responsible resource development, maritime transportation and stewardship in the Arctic.
Development has many aspects, including economic, social and environmental. These elements should all be considered as we work to achieve sustainable Arctic communities.
With this is mind, Canada is also working with its Arctic Council partners to promote mental wellness across the North. The goal of this project is to identify and share best practices to enable communities to improve support for mental wellness and resiliency of their residents. I am especially looking forward to the Mental Wellness Symposium taking place in Iqaluit, Nunavut in March which will focus on working with communities to advance efforts in mental wellness intervention.
Another key priority of Canada’s Chairmanship has been to incorporate traditional and local knowledge more effectively into the Council’s ongoing work. This knowledge has helped Indigenous peoples survive for millennia, and helps us understand changes in the region. The value of traditional knowledge is immense. By better incorporating it into decision making processes we will ultimately see better results for the Arctic and the people who live there.
The importance of traditional knowledge was recently highlighted in the search for Sir John Franklin’s ships from his failed 1845 voyage. One of his ships, HMS Erebus, was found just off the coast of my hometown of Gjoa Haven, Nunavut (see p. 32). For generations of oral history, Inuit have said the location was near King William Island, which is exactly where Erebus was found. This discovery emphasizes the strength and importance traditional knowledge plays in shaping not only our past, but also our present and our future. Successes such as these should make Inuit and all Arctic Indigenous peoples proud.
Over the course of Canada’s two-year Chairmanship, we have also advanced the Council’s work on other key issues, including climate change, biodiversity conservation, and shipping safety. These actions range from developing a framework for action to reduce black carbon and methane emissions in the Arctic to a new action plan to enhance oil pollution prevention.
A fundamental objective of our Chairmanship has been to strengthen the Arctic Council. This included enhancing the capacity of the six Indigenous Permanent Participant organizations to contribute to the Council’s work. The Permanent Participants have a unique and fundamental role at the Council – they are at the table with the Arctic States to ensure that they are involved in decisions affecting their communities. As we move towards the end of our Chairmanship, we are working closely with our neighbour and the incoming Chair, the United States, to advance our shared priorities for the Arctic region.
I look forward to welcoming our Arctic Council partners to Iqaluit in April for the ninth Ministerial Meeting, where we will highlight our accomplishments, and chart a path for the next two years and beyond.

Red foxes put the heat on arctic foxes in Norway

General,

Arctic Fox. Dmitry-Deshevykh / WWF-Russia

Arctic Fox. Photo: Dmitry Deshevykh / WWF-Russia


The arctic fox is a tough animal that can withstand harsh winter conditions. But a warming climate has led to challenges that are far more difficult to tackle than 50 degrees below zero and weeks without food.
“The arctic fox is tough. It lives in an environment that many of us shiver just to think about”, says WWF Norway’s predator specialist, Sverre Lundemo. Year round, the arctic fox lives on Norway’s mountains and in the Arctic, even when the day consists of considerably more darkness than light, the wind howls and the temperature creeps far down the thermometer. But it’s not the harsh winter making the fox’s life miserable.
“The biggest challenge for the arctic fox today is probably climate change”, says Lundemo. “Being a specialist in extreme conditions, with the ability to stay warm at -50C and survive without food for several weeks, doesn’t help if its habitat is getting warmer. It loses its competitive advantage”.
As the north warms, several species are moving into the arctic fox’s habitat. The biggest competitor is the arctic fox’s close cousin, the red fox. “The red fox is coming ever further up the mountains and it is both bigger and stronger than the arctic fox. It’s not just a serious competitor for food, but it can also take over arctic fox dens”, says Lundemo.
Red fox. Dmitry-Deshevykh / WWF-Russia

Red fox. Photo: Dmitry Deshevykh / WWF-Russia


Strictly protected species
Norway’s Ministry of Climate and Environment announced this January that the arctic fox should be a priority species under the Nature Diversity Act in Norway. This means that it receives the Act’s strictest protection and that Norwegian authorities must actively ensure that wild arctic foxes can still be found in the country. Together with the wolf, the arctic fox is the most endangered terrestrial predator in Norway. Both are listed as critically endangered on the Norwegian Red List.
What can be done?
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, with wide-ranging effects on all Arctic life. The solutions, however, are global in nature. To slow the most extreme impacts of climate change, nations must first reduce their dependence on oil, coal and gas. We should instead focus on renewable energy sources such as wind, water, sun and geothermal. WWF’s Energy Report shows that it’s possible for the world’s energy to be 100 percent renewable by 2050.
Adapted from an article originally posted at wwf.no.