Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INFOSERIES
PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICE
PUBLICATION PRB 08-04E, 24 OCTOBER 2008
The Arctic: Environmental issues
ALTHOUGH THE ARCTIC IS REMOTE AND LACKS dense populations, it is under threat from environ‐mental stresses largely originating in distant regions. The physical constitution of the Arctic dictates how the region reacts to environmental changes. With water occupying about two fifths of the area north of the 60th parallel, the region is essentially an ocean surrounded by land. Three main issues regarding the Arctic environ‐ment are climate change, changes in biological diversity, and the use of toxic substances. The effects of these changes are becoming increasingly evident in the North: the Arctic appears to be a harbinger of environmental change as well as a key determinant of that change, particularly changes in climate. This paper briefly describes some of the envi‐ronmental issues – many of which are interrelated – that affect the Far North and lists some of the efforts that are being made internationally and in Canada to achieve environmental protection of the Arctic. Climate change
Anthropogenic climate change (brought about by human activity) is caused by greenhouse gases ac‐cumulating in the atmosphere, largely the result of fossil fuel use since the industrial revolution and land use changes associated with deforestation. These gases trap energy in the atmosphere that would oth‐erwise escape to space. While there is a good deal of uncertainty related to the effects, they are expected to be significant, including sea level rise and increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, and these changes are already affecting the life of the people of the North; permafrost is less reliable, animal ranges are changing, making hunting more difficult, and sea ice loss is bringing increased interest in the Arctic Ocean for its resources. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 concluded in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report2 that there is now un‐
equivocal evidence that the world’s climate system has warmed and that there is a 90% chance that an‐thropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have caused most of the warming since the mid‐20th cen‐tury. The impact of climate change on the Arctic. While the average global temperature has increased by about 0.7°C in the last 100 years, Arctic tempera‐tures, despite high variability, have increased overall at almost twice this rate. For example, in the western and central Canadian Arctic the temperature has in‐creased by 2 to 3°C in the last 50 years, while in the eastern Arctic, the temperature has cooled on average by 1 to 1.5°C over the same period, with a warming trend during the last 15 years.3 The impact of climate change in the Arctic was first assessed specifically by the Arctic Council (a high‐level intergovernmental “soft law” forum es‐tablished in 1996 to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States) in a seminal 2004 report.4 Its results were referenced and further elaborated upon in the IPCC’s 2007 report in the context of polar effects in general (including in Antarctica). The following are some of the conclusions contained in the IPCC re‐port:5 The environmental impacts of climate change
show profound regional differences both within and between the polar regions.
A less severe climate in northern regions will produce positive economic benefits for some communities.
The continuation of hydrological changes (those associated with the water cycle) and cryospheric changes (those associated with permafrost, sea ice, lake ice, and snow) will have significant im‐pact on Arctic freshwater, riparian (pertaining to the banks of a river or a stream), and near‐shore marine systems.
THE ARCTIC: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2
The retreat of Arctic sea ice over recent decades6 has led to improved marine access, changes in coastal ecology/biological production, adverse effects on many ice‐dependent marine mam‐mals, and increased coastal wave action.
The impacts of future climate change in the polar regions will produce feedbacks that will have globally significant consequences over the next hundred years.7
Following a process similar to that used by the IPCC, the Canadian government significantly up‐dated its 2004 assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation in Canada.8 Many of the conclusions in the final report on the assessment, published in March 2008, reflected the 2007 IPCC findings.9 The impact of a changing Arctic on global climate. As much as global warming will affect the Arctic, changes in the Arctic will almost certainly contribute to global warming, and perhaps dramati‐cally. Three mechanisms most often discussed for this are decreasing reflectivity of the Earth (albedo), changing ocean circulation, and releases of carbon from thawing permafrost. Changes to the Earth’s reflectivity may occur as global warming reduces ice cover, which reflects light, increasing areas of darker open water. These areas absorb light, and heat the water at the same time. As this process occurs, the rate at which ice is lost increases, creating a continuous loop of cause and effect, known as a positive feedback, where the results of climate change in the Arctic may amplify global climate change, which will in turn increase effects in the Arctic.10 Ocean currents and the global movement of wa‐ter (circulation) transfer massive amounts of energy around the globe. Water density, a key determinant of ocean circulation, is a function of both temperature and salinity – the colder and saltier the water, the denser it is. Density‐driven circulation occurs be‐cause colder but fresher northern waters sink, while warmer but saltier (the result of evaporation) tropical waters rise, creating a kind of conveyor belt of circu‐lation. Because dense Arctic waters are a significant driver of oceanic circulation, an appreciable influx of warmer, less dense fresh water – from melting gla‐ciers and increased precipitation likely caused by climate change – could alter oceanic circulation. The
potential large‐scale melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which holds 10% of the world’s fresh water and would raise sea levels by 7 m, is of particular concern. The soils of the Arctic contain a vast store of car‐bon. While little is understood about the dynamics of melting permafrost and releases of this stored carbon, some scientists believe that the amount of carbon re‐leased from melting permafrost could greatly exceed current human carbon emissions. A warming Arctic, therefore, could accelerate global warming and, in turn, increase carbon releases from Arctic soils.11 Changes in biological diversity
The people of the North are heavily reliant, both for food and for social and cultural reasons, on the vari‐ety and abundance of organisms (biodiversity). According to the United Nations Millennium Ecosys‐tem Assessment, completed in 2005,12 “biodiversity benefits people through more than just its contribu‐tion to material welfare and livelihoods. Biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, social relations, health, and freedom of choices and actions.” Biodi‐versity is changing dramatically in the North, the result of overharvesting, global habitat loss in winter‐ing and staging grounds used by migratory species, and, most significantly, climate change. Changes in biodiversity in the Arctic are ex‐pected to be widespread, mainly the result of climate change. Changes to vegetation.
The Arctic tree line, the furthest north that trees can grow, will likely move northward, convert‐ing tundra into forest under more permissible climate conditions.
The thawing of permafrost could convert large areas of well‐drained lands into wetlands.
There are suggestions that mosses and lichens, which constitute a key winter food for caribou and reindeer, could become less abundant as vascular plants (higher and more evolved plants, including flowering plants, conifers, and ferns) become more prominent.
Changes to insects. The range of insect species, which is usually de‐
termined by climatic factors, may move northward into previously inhospitable areas.
THE ARCTIC: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
3
Changes to fish. The timing of the melting of sea ice in the spring
and the summer affects algae growth at the ice edge and the population of krill, important food supplies for many animals, including the Arctic cod, which is prey for belugas, narwhals, and seals. Changes to sea ice would therefore have important effects that would be seen throughout the Arctic food web.
In the Arctic, regional warming may have con‐tributed to recent northward range extensions of salmon species.
As sea ice conditions change, commercial fishery opportunities will expand in the North. In the eastern Arctic, the northern shrimp and turbot fisheries have the most immediate development potential.
Changes to birds. The Arctic is a breeding ground for many migra‐
tory birds that overwinter elsewhere throughout the world. Climate change should favour the migration of bird species to more northerly loca‐tions. However, habitat loss and changes in food availability would also affect some of these spe‐cies.
Changes to terrestrial mammals. Several caribou herds are in decline, and some
populations of caribou are listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. Climate change may have a negative impact on these populations, as it may change extreme weather events and forage availability.
As species expand northward, resident species are displaced when the competition for habitat and resources increases. For example, the red fox has expanded northward into habitats of the smaller Arctic fox, threatening the survival of the latter.
Some species of herbivores with wide dietary flexibility could expand from the boreal forest to Arctic tundra.
Changes to marine mammals. It is predicted that reductions in the extent and
amount of sea ice will alter the seasonal distribu‐tions, geographic ranges, migration patterns, nutritional status, reproductive success, and
ultimately the abundance of Arctic marine mammals.13 For example, the reduced ice cover and access to seals would limit hunting success by polar bears, with resulting reductions in bear populations.14
Many species of seals, sea lions, and walruses, especially those inhabiting regions covered by seasonal sea ice, are directly reliant on suitable ice for resting, foraging, pupping, and moulting. Indirectly, the timing of the formation and melt‐ing of sea ice will affect the migration patterns and nutritional status of these animals. A greater volume of shipping through Arctic waters, be‐cause of less sea ice and more ice‐free navigation channels, may also negatively affect some popu‐lations.
Toxic chemicals
The use of toxic compounds threatens the health of the people and wildlife of the North. Pollutants that persist in the environment and accumulate in tissue (persistent organic pollutants or POPs) are of particu‐lar concern in the Arctic because they move in the atmosphere and oceans to finally accumulate in the food that people eat, such as whale fat. Wind and ocean currents carry persistent chemi‐cals, many of which are toxic, to the Arctic. Mining and oil development in northern Canada, the Barents Sea, and Alaska could increase the chemical load in the Arctic. Increased shipping as a result of climate change will expose the Arctic to a greater risk of pol‐lution. In addition, radioactive waste – much of it the result of Cold War activities in the former Soviet Union – is found in the Arctic. Many chemicals accumulate in fat, and animals with long lifespans tend to have high levels of chemi‐cal contaminants in fatty tissues. Because these contaminants become more concentrated as they move up the food chain, top predators, such as polar bears and wolves, acquire the highest concentrations. Arctic indigenous peoples, who depend on local wildlife for sustenance, have daily intakes of toxic substances that can be 10 times higher than is toler‐able, and such pollutants pass through blood and breast milk to the fetuses and children of affected adults.15 Chemicals of concern include POPs, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT, and some organophosphate pesticides, as well as heavy metals,
THE ARCTIC: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
4
such as mercury. More recently recognized problem substances include polybrominated flame retardants (such as polybrominated diphenyl ether, PBDE) and perfluorinated compounds such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which have been used in the manufacture of materi‐als such as stain repellents and non‐stick coatings respectively. International and domestic initiatives to address environmental issues in the Arctic
International initiatives. The sources of environ‐mental problems in the Arctic are mainly outside the Arctic. While the effects of climate change are felt most strongly in the Arctic, the GHG emissions that are causing global warming are generated around the globe. POPs are produced outside the Arctic but through atmospheric circulation arrive in the Arctic, where they accumulate in the food chain. If the eco‐nomic activities that threaten the Arctic’s environment are not implemented sustainably, environmental problems will only intensify. International initiatives are therefore absolutely essential to address environmental problems in the Arctic. There are many multilateral environmental agreements that are relevant to the Arctic, though none are explicitly aimed at Arctic issues. Particularly pertinent are the United Nations Framework Con‐vention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollut‐ants. Some of these initiatives appear to be having some effect in the Arctic. For example, analysis of pollutants in Canada’s North suggests that the levels of some of the pollutants that are targeted by interna‐tional action, such as DDT, chlordane, and toxaphene, and industrial chemicals like PCBs, have been declining over the last decade.16 However, the capacity of most current multilat‐eral environmental agreements to address the environmental problems of the Arctic has been called into question. Citing individual countries’ failures to protect the environment, continued rapid environ‐mental change, and the plethora of organizations involved in Arctic governance, the nongovernmental environmental organizations International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)17 and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have proposed that a new legal regime
or international treaty specific to the Arctic must be developed. The IUCN has suggested that in the meantime, existing legal instruments need to be strengthened.18 Others believe that it is not only next to impossi‐ble to craft a new treaty for the Arctic, given that sovereign nations are already present there (unlike in the Antarctic, for instance), but that it is unnecessary, since there are already a substantial number of agreements in place.19 These could be strengthened or amended as changes in the Arctic make their ap‐plication to the region more pertinent. The United Nations Fish Agreement (UNFA) is one such instrument.20 This agreement provides a framework for the conservation and management of fish stocks that straddle borders or are highly migra‐tory in high seas areas regulated by regional fisheries organizations. Changing ocean conditions in the Arc‐tic may create conditions that favour establishing and expanding commercial fisheries in the North. Recog‐nizing this, the US Congress recently agreed to initiate international discussions with other Arctic nations with the goal of establishing a new interna‐tional fisheries management organization under the UNFA, for managing fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean. Domestic initiatives. While international initia‐tives are important to the management of the Arctic environment, it is also imperative that Arctic coun‐tries play an active role. Canada has policies and legislation that affect the Arctic, but as with interna‐tional initiatives, the major domestic initiatives to address climate change, biodiversity, and toxic sub‐stances affect the Arctic only indirectly. Because some of these initiatives have been introduced rela‐tively recently, they are difficult to assess. Regarding initiatives to address climate change, Canada’s environment auditor, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, noted in 2006 that five plans had been implemented, and none had reduced GHG emissions.21 The Com‐missioner called for drastically accelerated action to reduce emissions and also noted that no strategy was in place to help communities adapt to climate change. The federal government agreed with the Com‐missioner’s recommendations and, in 2007, it released “Turning the Corner,” a plan aimed at re‐ducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2006 levels by 2020.22 The initial plan was
THE ARCTIC: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
criticized by the National Round Table on the Envi‐ronment and the Economy for either overestimating GHG reduction goals or for not properly substantiat‐ing those goals. Canada’s chief legislation for the protection of biodiversity is the 2002 Species at Risk Act (SARA). Several animals with habitat in the North could be af‐fected by this legislation. For example, Canada is currently considering listing the polar bear, as well as other important species such as the beluga whale, as species at risk under SARA. In the meantime, the government has been taken to court twice for not identifying “critical habitat” for endangered species, as it is required to do under the legislation. In addi‐tion, in his 2008 report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development noted that, in most cases, recovery strategies had not been completed or critical habitat identified for those spe‐cies designated as requiring that attention. In addition to SARA, Canada also protects habitat through its national parks and its network of pro‐tected areas, including Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas and Marine Wildlife Areas under the Canada Wildlife Act, as well as Marine Pro‐tected Areas under the Oceans Act. Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan,23 re‐leased in December 2006, has generally been well received by stakeholders, including environmental non‐governmental organizations. Under the Plan, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is being used to review a number of chemicals (“domestic substances”) which were initially screened for poten‐tial toxicity as a statutory requirement of the Act. The aim of the reviews is to establish whether any of the targeted substances pose any risks. Through the Plan, for example, Canada was the first country to com‐plete a risk assessment of a common chemical used in the manufacture of some plastics (bisphenol A) and conclude that it is a risk to young children and the environment and therefore in need of control. Newer persistent organic pollutants, such as most PBDEs and PFOAs, are also being addressed by the govern‐ment. Legislation relating specifically to the Arctic, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, also exists. It prohibits the deposit of waste in Arctic waters or any place where such waste might enter Arctic waters. In
August 2008, the federal government announced its intention to amend the Act to extend its application in Arctic waters from 100 nautical miles to 200 nauti‐cal miles. The federal government also has responsibility for abandoned mines and other contaminated sites north of the 60th parallel. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, in his March 2008 report, stated that the federal govern‐ment had made progress toward its ultimate goal of eliminating by 2020 the $3.1‐billion liability recorded so far in connection with its contaminated sites. The remoteness of some of the northern sites was making them difficult to address.24 Conclusion
Three main environmental issues are apparent in the Arctic: climate change, changes in biodiversity, and the use of toxic chemicals. Climate change is an over‐riding factor, affecting all aspects of life in the Arctic, yet the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for re‐cent warming emanate from industrial activity and land‐use changes far removed from the region. Bio‐diversity changes are largely the result of climate change, but are also caused by harvesting practices and habitat change elsewhere in wintering zones and along migratory pathways. Toxic substances, which travel thousands of kilometres from their origins in the south, are building up in the food chain. International action is therefore necessary to ad‐dress the environmental concerns of the Arctic. Some such action is occurring, but clearly more is required. This realization has led to a debate about whether the current set of multilateral agreements touching on Arctic matters needs to be fortified or, alternatively, if a new international agreement specifically on Arctic matters is needed. As our awareness of the significance of the envi‐ronmental changes in the Arctic grows, so does the incentive for our governments to take new actions or modify existing programs to respond to the chal‐lenges ahead. François Côté Tim Williams Industry, Infrastructure and Resources Division 24 October 2008
5
THE ARCTIC: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
6
SOURCES
1. For more information on the scientific body, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, see http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm (accessed 10 June 2008).
2. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Geneva, 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/ (accessed 23 May 2008).
3. Chris Furgal and Terry D. Prowse, “Northern Canada,” in From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007, ed. Donald S. Lemmen et al., Government of Canada, Ottawa, 2008, pp. 57–118, http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/assess/2007/nor/index_e.php (accessed 23 May 2008).
4. ACIA, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, 2005, http://www.acia.uaf.edu/ (accessed 23 May 2008). The Arctic Council is a high‐level intergovernmental forum involving all eight Arctic states – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States – as well as Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants. It provides a means for promoting environmental protection and sustainable development in the Arctic.
5. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, et al., eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007, pp. 23–78.
6. The retreat of sea ice has accelerated in recent years. The greatest observed loss of sea ice recorded since 1979 (the first year of the satellite record) occurred in 2007, the second‐greatest retreat took place in 2008, and the third most extensive loss was observed in 2005. In September 2007, the year’s sea ice reached a minimum area of 4.13 million km2, 43% below 1979 levels and a full 23% lower than 2005 levels, which had held the previous record. The sea‐ice minimum was unexpected and less than predicted by computer models. Much of the ice that is disappearing is long‐term ice, which melts far less readily than ice formed within a year.
7. The level of certainty of the material presented in the IPCC report was assessed using expert judgment of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses. The confidence in the chances of the findings being correct for the items presented in the list were expressed as either very high confidence (the first two items) or high confidence.
8. Donald S. Lemmen and Fiona J. Warren, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective, Government of Canada, Ottawa, 2004,
http://www.adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/perspective/index_e.php#toc (accessed 15 July 2008).
9. Furgal and Prowse (2008).
10. Richard Kerr, “Is Battered Arctic Sea Ice Down for the Count?” Science, Vol. 318, 5 October 2007, p. 33.
11. Gabrielle Walker, “A world melting from the top down,” Nature, Vol. 446, No. 7137, 12 April 2007, pp. 718‐21.
12. An overview of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which was called for by United Nations Secretary‐General Kofi Annan in 2000, is available at
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/About.aspx.
13. Cynthia T. Tynan and Douglas P. DeMaster, “Observations and predictions of Arctic climate change: potential effects on marine mammals,” Arctic, Vol. 50, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 308–322, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=391992381&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=3485&RQT=309&VName=PQD (accessed 3 July 2008).
14. The predicted disappearance of summer sea ice prompted the United States federal government to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the its Endangered Species Act in the spring of 2008. Initial studies suggest that climate change has already taken a toll on these animals, particularly in the southern portion of their range. The recent US decision was accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Canada for the conservation and management of polar bear populations shared by the two countries.
15. Arctic Council, “Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs),” Draft Fact Sheet, 2000, http://arctic‐council.npolar.no/Meetings/Ministeral/2000/Arctic%20Council%C2%A0_%C2%A0Draft%20Fact%20Sheet%20%20Persistent%20Organic%20Pollutants%20(POPs).htm (accessed 15 July 2008).
16. Bob Weber, “Toxic chemical levels finally dropping in Arctic food animals, new study shows,” The Canadian Press, 14 July 2008.
17. The IUCN was known as the World Conservation Union until March 2008.
18. Linda Nowlan, Arctic Legal Regime for Environmental Protection, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 44, IUCN (World Conservation Union), Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, and Bonn, Germany, 2001, http://data.iucn.org/dbtw‐wpd/edocs/EPLP‐044.pdf (accessed 27 June 2008).
19. Hans Corell, “Reflections on the possibilities and limitations of a binding legal regime for the Arctic,” Seventh Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Kiruna, Sweden, 3 August 2006, http://www.arcticparl.org/_res/site/File/static/ conf7_hans_corell.pdf (accessed 27 June 2008).
20. The full title of the agreement is the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
21. Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, Ottawa, 2006,
http://www.oag‐bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/aud_parl_cesd_ 200609_e_936.html (accessed 15 July 2008).
22. Information on “Turning the Corner” is available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=75038EBC‐1
(accessed 15 July 2008).
THE ARCTIC: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
7
23. Information on the Government of Canada Chemicals Management Plan is available at
http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/plan/index_ e.html (accessed 27 June 2008).
24. Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, “Chemicals Management – Chapter 3: Federal Contaminated Sites,” in Status Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Ottawa, March 2008, http://www.oag‐bvg.gc.ca/internet/ English/aud_ch_cesd_200803_03_e_30129.html (accessed 15 July 2008).
Ce document est également publié en français.
