The Arctic environmental protection strategy, Arctic council and multilateral environmental initiatives: tinkering while the Arctic marine environment totters.

• Author: VanderZwaag, David

INTRODUCTION

The Arctic marine environment is not pristine, as commonly imagined, but is facing numerous pressures, (1) the most serious arguably coming from outside the region. Melting of sea ice, linked to global warming, threatens the long-term survival of various species including polar bears (2) and has potential to seriously disrupt ocean currents. (3) Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including pesticides, industrial compounds and combustion by-products, are transported via air and water currents from regions outside the Arctic and become concentrated in the fatty tissues of animals. (4) The pollutants threaten not only the well being of wildlife but the health of northern residents heavily dependent on country foods. (5) Heavy metals, such as mercury, lead and cadmium, coming from various transboundary sources, including fossil fuel combustion and waste incineration, are also contaminating the Arctic marine environment. (6) Most Arctic bird species are migratory and during the winter months may accumulate various contaminants from industrialized locations further south and pass along pollutants to other Arctic animals when the birds become prey. (7) Ozone holes over the Arctic, while smaller in size and of shorter duration than in the Antarctic, raise concerns with negative effects on marine phytoplankton production (8) and human health effects such as skin cancer. (9)

Given the potentially serious consequences of transboundary environmental issues in the Arctic, international responses to date appear sluggish and weak. (10) At the regional level, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), adopted by the eight Arcticrim States in 1991, (11) and the subsequent amalgamation of the AEPS into the work of the Arctic Council, established in 1996, (12) have largely involved studying and talking about environmental problems with little concrete action. (13) Limited responses have been made to hazardous substance pollution through: the recently concluded global convention on POPs; (14) the 1998 Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade; (15) the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) Protocols on POPs and Heavy Metals; (16) The North American Sound Management of Chemicals Initiative; and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic. (17)

A comprehensive inventory of heavy metal pollution sources around the world has yet to be undertaken and global controls on heavy metals are non-existent with no global heavy metals negotiations yet proposed and no global land-based marine pollution convention on the immediate horizon. (18) Addressing global climate change has been glacial and complicated with the Kyoto Protocol (19) laden with practical implementation questions and minimal greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

This article, in a four-part format, highlights how the present regional and multilateral legal and institutional responses might be described as tinkering in light of severe environmental threats facing the Arctic. The discussion begins with a summary describing how the Arctic environment might be pictured as "tottering" given the special sensitivities and the emerging combined stresses of persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, climate change and ozone depletion. This is followed by an evaluation of the roles of the AEPS and Arctic Council in responding to environmental threats. The article continues by critiquing the adequacy of multilateral responses to date including global efforts to control hazardous substances and climate change, UN ECE Protocols on POPs and Heavy Metals, and North American and Northeast Atlantic initiatives. Concluding remarks then suggest future directions for further action to address transboundary environmental issues such as the need for a more comprehensive approach to managing toxic chemicals in light of developing rights, such as the rights of children and indigenous peoples to a healthy environment, and the precautionary approach.

THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT: TOTTERING

The Arctic environment is especially sensitive. The low levels of solar energy received in the North encourage natural processes yet the region's cold temperatures slow rates of photosynthesis and decomposition. (20) Biodiversity in the region involves short and simple food chains that have little or no possibility of species substitution. (21)

Since Arctic species are naturally under constant stress to survive within the harsh environment of the North, they are especially vulnerable to any additional sources of stress, both natural and human induced. (22) The combining forces of POPs, heavy metals, ozone depletion and climate change raise major concerns.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Persistent organic pollutants exhibit a combination of particularly dangerous properties. In particular, "they are toxic; they are persistent in the environment, resisting normal processes that break down contaminants; they accumulate in the body fat of people, marine mammals and other animals and are passed from mother to fetus; and they can travel great distances." (23) POPs fall into three categories. Pesticides, among others, include dieldrin, DDT, toxaphene, chlordane and lindane. (24) Industrial compounds include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexacblorobenzene (HCB) and short-chained chlorinated paraffins. (25) Combustion by-products include dioxins and furans. (26)

Since most POPs are not used in the Arctic, it is clear that these chemicals are transported to the North by long-range pathways. Research studies have explored the potential of contaminant transport in drifting ice (27) and species migration, (28) including birds. But, the most prevalent sources of the toxic chemicals found in the North are through atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns. (29) Air pollution in Russia and Eastern Europe may be carried across the Arctic Ocean to Alaska and Canada in only two weeks. (30)

A recent modeling study of the sources of airborne dioxin in North America and rates of deposition in the Canadian polar territory of Nunavut demonstrates how numerous pollution sources may be and how specific point sources may be identified. (31) This study, carried out by the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, City University of New York on behalf of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, estimated the amount of dioxin emitted from each of 44,091 North American sources that is deposited at each of 16 Nunavut receptor sites. (32) The study, noting that the sources include 5,343 individual facilities such as waste incinerators and 38,748 area sources such as backyard trash burning, found three activities--municipal waste incinerators, backyard trash burning and cement kilns burning hazardous wastes--account for two-thirds of the total dioxin emissions. U.S. sources were estimated to contribute the most dioxin deposition in Nunavut (70-82 percent depending on receptor) with Canadian sources contributing 11-25 percent and Mexican sources five to ten percent. (33) The amount of dioxin originating from sources outside North America was estimated to be between two percent and twenty percent of the total deposition in Nunavut. (34)

The study was also able to identify individual sources and estimate their deposition contribution. For example, the largest individual contributors of dioxin deposition at the Coral Harbour receptor were identified as the following ten facilities: three municipal waste incinerators in Minnesota, Iowa and Pennsylvania; three cement kilns burning hazardous wastes in Michigan, Missouri and Nebraska; two iron sintering plants in Indiana; a secondary copper smelter in Illinois; and a Canadian municipal waste incinerator in Quebec. (35)

The effects of POPs in the Arctic are not yet fully understood. Many species at the bottom of Arctic food webs are contaminated and pollutants are therefore passed on to their predators through consumption. (36) Chemicals proceed through the food web as they bioaccumulate in the fatty tissues of animals (37) and increase in concentration "as much as 10-fold from one `link' to the next". (38) Polar bears, at the top of their food chain, (39) are therefore especially susceptible to the contaminants found in the many species below. Fatty ringed seals, the polar bear's food of choice, can pass along a significant amount of concentrated POPs. (40) These chemicals will remain in the polar bear's fat reserves until they are used during off-season periods of fasting when the chemicals relocate from the polar bear's fat tissue to their target organs. (41) The same pollutants have been known to effect animal immune systems, reproduction success and rates of development. (42)

Many research projects are currently working to understand and assess the effects of pollutants on the Arctic. (43) International efforts have been directed towards identifying the sources of Arctic contaminants, their methods of transport to the Arctic, measuring the levels and charting the spatial and temporal distribution of pollutants and understanding the effects of toxic chemicals on Arctic wildlife and human health. (44)

Heavy Metals

While some heavy metals are required by organisms in very small amounts such as arsenic, copper and zinc, (45) three non-essential and potentially toxic heavy metals are of special concern in the Arctic. Mercury, cadmium and lead are present in some regions of the Arctic at levels that may pose risks to the environment and human health. (46) Globally, approximately 3,600 tons of mercury are emitted from human sources per year, primarily from coal-burning, waste incineration and nonferrous smelting and refining operations. (47) Total worldwide atmospheric emissions of cadmium are estimated to be 9,000 tons per year with only 1,400 tons coming from natural sources and the...