Monthly Archives: March 2015

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.
 
 

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.