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
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
[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
[11] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
(AMAP), Human Health in the Arctic, Oslo
[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
[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
[19] It is noticeable that in 1989 from
the Axxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska Alaska
[20] Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
(AMAP), Arctic Oil and Gas 2007, Oslo
[21] Arctic Portal, Arctic Council, Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report,
Oslo
[23] There are currently 3000 containers
of spent nuclear in Andreeva
Bay Oslo
[24] It is noticeable that in 1982 a failure in the containment
in one building in Andreeva
Bay Oslo
[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
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου