Τρίτη 23 Οκτωβρίου 2012

The Arctic Environmental Security


Global warming and the increased human activity in High North are changing the Arctic environment causing melting of the ice cap and higher air temperatures.[1] The changes in the Arctic environment put under threat the whole Arctic ecosystem and rise serious environmental security concerns regarding the maintenance of the local and the planetary biosphere.


PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

In recent decades the Arctic temperature has raised as much as 3.5ºC during winter months. Various persistent organic pollutants (POPs)[2] and other contaminants[3] are transported by air to Arctic were they are deposited in the ice through precipitation or deposition.[4] Contaminants are also carried to Arctic by ocean and river discharges. According to the 1997/98 AMAP assessment of pollution in Arctic, POPs were present in parts of the region where there was no human activity to explain the contamination. This piece of evidence confirmed that the northern polar region served as a sink for pollutants that had been transported over long distances.[5]

The increased presence of POPs in Arctic resulted in the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants being issued.[6] The Convention is an international legally binding tool for managing POPs on a global scale. Initially, twelve Pops were governed by the Convention while at its fourth meeting in 2009 the Conference of the Parties (COP) added to the list nine new chemicals as POPs.[7] It should also be noted in 1998 under the Aarhus Convention on the Long – Range Transport of Air Pollution, two protocols developed on POPs[8] and Heavy Metals[9]. Both have entered into force in 2003 and they aim to identify bans and restrictions, some emission limits, and codes of best practice related to POPs and metals.[10]

Contaminant levels in the Arctic ecosystem are in most cases lower than in more densely populated and industrialized regions. However, the effect on the indigenous population is higher, due to its exposure to POPs and metals through the consumption of contaminated animals. In fact, studies of total dietary intakes of contaminants show that dietary exposure to contaminants in Arctic indigenous communities is higher than in neighboring non – indigenous communities.[11]

Research findings of the 2009 AMAP assessment of Human Health in the Arctic indicate that indigenous communities within Arctic have different dietary habits and therefore they are subject to varying exposure. Inland dwelling communities that eat reindeer/caribou and freshwater fish have lower levels of contaminants in their bloodstream than those living in coastal areas whose diet is mostly based on marine mammals and some bird species. In particular, food from marine mammals carries the highest levels of contamination, but other marine foods such as Greenland shark, burbot, liver from Greenland halibut and marine gulls, also have relatively high levels of contaminants.[12]

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN ARCTIC

According to the 2007 AMAP assessment of Oil and Gas Activities in Arctic physical disturbance is the greatest effect of oil and gas activities in the Arctic land.[13]Debris and other material left on the land can affect migrating reindeer and attract foxes, bears and wolverines.” Large quantities of gravel extracted from riverbeds or deposits leave scars on the tundra and disturb freshwater habitats. Dust from roads can affect vegetation even from a few hundred meters down-wind. In places where industry activity is intensive the proximity of production facilities can affect reindeer herders and hunters by forcing the animals away from their preferred calving and feeding areas and usual migration paths.[14]

Another concern is the catastrophic consequences to the Arctic ecosystem from oil spills which may occur either by pipelines leak or by other accidents. A number of oil spill experiments carried out in Alaska, Canada and Greenland showed devastating and long lasting effects to the flora. Studies also showed that the most toxic components of the spilled oil can remain in the soil for decades and do not degrade unless they come into direct contact with the atmosphere.[15]

Oil spills can also cause irreparable damage to the Arctic sea since even a small diffuse release of oil can have a substantial impact. Contrary to land spills the marine ones are difficult to contain and may spread over vast areas, hundreds if not thousands of kilometers.[16] The current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico shows the magnitude of the damage in the aquatic environment from such an incident.[17]

To date, there have been no serious oil spills in the Arctic sea; however the impact on birds, fish and sea mammals if such an incident take place will be devastating.[18] Physical coating by spilled oil can have a significant impact on seabirds and fur – bearing animals as it reduces the insulating qualities of feathers and furs, making them vulnerable to the cold environment and causing their death.[19] Animals can also ingest oil while licking their fur or preening their feathers which can lead to death or other short and long term biological sideffects. Regarding some northern fish species such as navaga, saffron cod, arctic cod and polar cod, an oil spill in their spawning areas can significantly reduce their population.[20]

CONTAMINANTS FROM CONVENTIONAL SHIPPING

Another environmental threat derives from passenger ships which can cause harm to the fragile Arctic environment. Threats such as emissions of substances to the local air and sea, sinking and groundings, ship operations unsuitable for polar conditions and the in appropriate behavior of passengers ashore all have the potential to cause serious environmental damage. According to the US Commission on Ocean Policy, an average passenger ship releases a total of 532,000 to 789,000 liters of sewage, 3.8 million liters of wastewaters from sinks, showers and laundries each week as well as considerable amount of solid waste.[21]

The Arctic ecosystem is also in danger by the introduction and spread of alien invasive species in it. The potential of increased shipping in the Arctic sea will aggravate such a phenomenon, since alien species can access the Arctic waters through ballast water discharges, hull fouling (contamination by organisms clinging to ships hull), cargo operations and casualties or shipwrecks.[22]

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LEAKAGE

A disastrous scenario for the Arctic environment is that of a radioactive material leakage. Such a scenario is not too far from reality since the Russian nuclear storage sites at Andreeva Bay[23] and Gremikha on the Kola Peninsula are notorious for lack of maintenance.[24] Moreover, climate change affects permafrost and is likely to cause ground movements which threaten the structural integrity of nuclear bases, bringing closer a radioactive material leakage incident.[25] A potential risk for the Arctic environment derives also from Russian plans to develop floating nuclear power plants which will be used to supply energy for oil and gas extraction in the Barents Sea.[26]

Both the climate change and the increasing military and commercial activity of the Arctic states in High North raise severe concerns regarding the Arctic environmental security. The pollution of the Arctic environment is not a potential future scenario but something that already takes place, although in a low scale. The various threats and risks analyzed mandate that the Arctic nations should be aware of the dangers from the exploitation of the Arctic resources and their increasing military presence in the region, as well as to take all the necessary countermeasures in order to ensure the Arctic ecosystem.

The resent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico shows that the Arctic nations should rethink of their assertive national Arctic strategies. They need to make sure they possess the technology to exploit the Arctic oil and gas. The consequences from an oil spill in the Arctic sea would not only be devastating for the Indigenous communities and the Arctic flora and fauna but also for the rest of the world.  

The opening of the North East and North West Passages will significantly increase the shipping activity in the Arctic sea, as well as will bring alien species in the Arctic waters and destroy its aquatic ecosystem. Radioactive materials and other contaminants also threat the Arctic local environment and economy. Overall, if the Polar nations are willing to preserve the environmental security in Arctic, it is necessary to deepen their cooperation, as well as to postpone their plans for exploitation of the Arctic resources.  

BY PANAGIOTIS I. PSYLLOS  and ELPINIKI KARAKOSTA



[1] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Annual Arctic Report Card Shows Stronger Effects of Warming, (16th October 2008), Available at: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081016_arcticreport.html Accessed on: 2012-09-19.
[2] The “Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are chemical substances that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate through the food web, and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. With the evidence of long-range transport of these substances to regions where they have never been used or produced and the consequent threats they pose to the environment of the whole globe, the international community has now, at several occasions called for urgent global actions to reduce and eliminate releases of these chemicals”. See United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Chemicals, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Available at: http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/ Accessed on: 2010-09-19.  
[3] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic pollution 2009, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme 2009, P.34-5, Available at: http://www.amap.no/
Accessed on: 2012-09-19.
[4] Ibid. P.2.
[5] Ibid. P.5.
[6] The Convention was signed in 22nd May 2001 and came into force in 17th May 2004. To date the Convention has 172 parties, while the US and Russia have yet to ratify the convention. See Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Status of Ratification, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants website, (20th September 2010), Available at: http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx Accessed on: 2012-09-20. 
[7] Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), What are POPs? Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants website, (20th September 2010), Available at: http://chm.pops.int/Convention/ThePOPs/tabid/673/language/en-US/Default.aspx                     Accessed on: 2012-09-20. 
[8] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Protocol to The 1979 Convention on  Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants, The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), (24th June 1998), Available at: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/full%20text/1998.POPs.e.pdf Accessed on: 2012-09-20.
[9] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Protocol to The 1979 Convention on  Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals, The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals, (24th June 1998), Available at: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/full%20text/1998.Heavy.Metals.e.pdf       Accessed on: 2012-09-20.
[10] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic pollution 2009, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2009), P. 37, Available at: http://www.amap.no/        Accessed on: 2012-09-20.
[11] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Human Health in the Arctic, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2009), P.21-2, Available at: http://www.amap.no/ Accessed on: 2012-09-20. 
[12] Ibid. P.22.
[13] Roads, pipe networks, gravel pads and airstrips have been constructed to facilitate the oil and gas extraction.
[14] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Oil and Gas 2007, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2007), OGA Overview Report, (1st May 2008), P. 22, Available at: http://www.amap.no/oga/ Accessed on: 2012-09-21.
[15] Ibid. P.23.
[16] Ibid. P.24.
[17] Christine Dell’Amore, Gulf Oil Spill a “Dead Zone in the Making”? National Geographic Daily News, (4th May 2010), Available at:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100504-science-environment-gulf-oil-spill-dead-zone/ Accessed on: 2012-09-21.
[18] Adult birds can pick up oil on their breast feathers which is then transported to the nest and affects the eggs, the most sensitive stage to oil toxicity, and fledgling birds in the nest. See Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Oil and Gas 2007, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2007), OGA Overview Report, (1st May 2008), P. 24, Available at: http://www.amap.no/oga/ Accessed on: 2012-09-21.
[19] It is noticeable that in 1989 from the Axxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, nearly 1000 sea otters and more than 100000 seabirds died from hypothermia. See International Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC), Crude Awakening: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Left its Mark on Alaska, History of Spill Response, (19th March 2009), Available at: http://www.ibrrc.org/Exxon_Valdez_spill_1989.html Accessed on: 2012-09-21.
[20] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic Oil and Gas 2007, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2007), OGA Overview Report, (1st May 2008), P. 24, 25, 34, Available at: http://www.amap.no/oga/ Accessed on: 2012-09-21.
[21] Arctic Portal, Arctic Council, Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report, Oslo: Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) Report 2009, P.137, Available at: http://pame.arcticportal.org/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf Accessed on: 2012-09-21.
[22] Ibid. P.150.
[23] There are currently 3000 containers of spent nuclear in Andreeva Bay holding 1.3x10¹ Becquerel. See Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic pollution 2009, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2009), P. 71, Available at: http://www.amap.no/ Accessed on: 2012-09-22.
[24] It is noticeable that in 1982 a failure in the containment in one building in Andreeva Bay resulted in leakage of radioactive water. See Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic pollution 2009, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2009), P. 71, Available at: http://www.amap.no/ Accessed on: 2012-09-22.
[25] For instance, the nuclear power plant of Bilibano in the Russian Far East is of specific concern as it is situated in a permafrost area and any ground movements could lead to the release of radioactive material into the environment. See Hardy, T. John, (2003), Climate Change: Causes, Effects, and Solutions, West Sussex: Wiley, P.163.
[26] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Arctic pollution 2009, Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2009), P. 81, Available at: http://www.amap.no/ Accessed on: 2012-09-22. 

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου