wp.arcticportal.org

Author: it@arcticportal.org

CAFF XIII Biennial
The Thirteenth meeting of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group (CAFF XIII), is to be held in Akureyri, Iceland on February 1 – 3^rd 2011. Every two years, the Arctic Council Working Group on Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna schedules a large meeting in advance of the AC Ministerial meeting.

CAFF is a Working Group of the Arctic Council and a forum of Arctic professionals, indigenous peoples representatives, and observer countries and organisations. The aim of CAFF is to discussing circumpolar Arctic conservation issues. The major task is to advise the Arctic governments (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States) on conservation matters.

The CAFF Program is guided by the CAFF Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity and biennial CAFF Work Plans. CAFF has four Guiding Principles:
- The involvement of indigenous and local people and use of traditional ecological knowledge;
- The use of broad, ecosystem-based approach to conservation and management;
- Cooperation with other conservation initiatives to minimise duplication and increase effectiveness;
- Communication of CAFF program activities.
The CAFF 2006-2008 Work Plan emphasizes cooperation and collaboration with other Arctic Council Working Groups, and organizations outside of the Arctic Council, and makes efforts to actively contribute to the global conservation agenda. This Work Plan responds to the findings and recommendations of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan and CAFFs Arctic Flora: Status and Trends.
February 1, 2011
Polar bear swims 687 km in search of ice

A female polar bear swam for nine days straight to find hunting grounds in the Beaufort Sea.

Her cub died during the 687-kilometre search for pack ice.

Researchers, who tracked the bear with a radio collar in the summer of 2008, published their findings in the scientific journal Polar Biology.

The article raises concerns that climate change is decreasing the amount of pack ice in the Arctic and is affecting polar bears’ hunting patterns.

“The extraordinary long distance swimming ability of polar bears, which we confirm here, may help them cope with reduced Arctic sea ice,” researchers concluded.

Source: The Star

January 31, 2011
Trapped in Ice since New Year’s Eve

The Sodruzhestvo mother fishery ship has been stuck in thick ice in Russia’s Far East Sea of Okhotsk since 31^st of December. The Bereg Nadezhdy ship and the Professor Kizevetter research vessel, got also stuck in two-meter-thick ice in the Sea of Okhotsk on the same day, but have been rescued.

Two other ships, the Mys Yelizavety and the Anton Gurin, became trapped later. The Icebreaker, Admiral Makarov released the Professor Kizevetter and the Mys Yelizavety vessels from the ice trap, while the ship Anton Gurin managed to cope on its own. The Bereg Nadezhdy has also been successfully towed to clear water.

Russian icebreakers the Krasin and the Admiral Makarov resumed their operation to rescue the ice-trapped mother fishery ship Sodruzhestvo, which was the hardest to tow due to its wide body. The icebreakers have to coordinate their efforts to clear a wide enough canal in the thick ice for the vessel to finally reach open waters. The two icebreakers had encountered problems on the way due to harsh conditions. At one point, the ships only moved 1,8 nautical miles in 24 hours. The icebreakers have reached the Sodruzhestvo and started towing the vessel into safe waters. The Krasin icebreaker is towing the mother ship, while the Admiral Makarov is leading the convoy forcing its way through the ice.

January 27, 2011
New research report on global perceptions of Arctic security

The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs in cooperation with the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation released on Tuesday public opinion research report on global perceptions of Arctic security titled: Rethinking the Top of the World: Arctic Security Public Opinion Survey.

The research concentrated on finding out how publics from the eight member states of the Arctic Council understand and frame Arctic issues and how they comprehend the issue of Arctic security. The research found out that the concept of Arctic security is no longer understood in terms of traditional definition of security, namely guarding against international threats, but is rather comprehended in terms of environmental protection and healthy, educated population.

To download the report, please click HERE

January 26, 2011
European Parliament´s Report on a Sustainable EU policy for the High North

The European Parliament newly adopted a Report on Sustainable EU Policy for the High North – The Gahler report.

The report is the Parliaments response to the accelerating activities in the Arctic and demonstrates the European Unions increased interest in the region.

The Report emphasizes the European Unions role in the Arctic through its Arctic member states; Denmark, Sweden and Finland, but also recognizes the ongoing work in several other partnerships through the EU Northern Dimension, a common policy of the EU with Russia, Norway and Iceland, all of which are Arctic Council member states. It is especially interesting that the Report notices the Iceland’s status as a candidate country for accession to the EU and underlines the need for a coordinated Arctic policy at EU level for that reason. The report represents Iceland as a strategic opportunity for the EU to assume a more active role and contribute to multilateral governance in the Arctic region; considering that Iceland’ s accession to the EU would further consolidate the EU’s presence in the Arctic Council.

The Report further recognizes the importance of new world transport routes through the Arctic Ocean, underlining the development of safety and security framework for the Arctic shipping and freedom of the seas and the right to free passage through international waterways for the EU and its Member States. Natural resources, Climate change and pollution, Sustainable socioeconomic development and institutional developments are also among the subjects of the Report, it acknowledging the importance of the establishment of an EU Arctic Information Centre as a forum of organizing permanent EU outreach to the major actors relevant to the Arctic and of channeling Arctic information and services towards the EU’s Institutions and stakeholders.

To read the original Report, please go to the relevant section at the homepage of the European Parliament.

For further information on Arctic matters in the European Union, please see the The EU-ARCTIC-Forum January 2011 Newsletter. The EU-ARCTIC-Forum is the European Parliament’s platform on issues concerning the Arctic providing exchange and input of information for the often fragmented discourse on the Arctic matters within the European context.

January 24, 2011
Mercury Assessment report by AMAP

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Working Group (AMAP) have released a handout showing key scientific findings from their 2011 Mercury Assessment report. The hand-out describes why mercury is a concern in the region, how and why mercury continues to present risks to the health of Arctic peoples and wildlife; where mercury in the Arctic environment comes from, how it gets there, and what controls mercury levels in the Arctic. A particular concern is the fact that—despite reductions in emissions from human activities—in large areas of the Arctic, mercury levels continue to rise in some Arctic wildlife.

Mercury in the Arctic

Owing to their traditional local diet some Arctic peoples receive high dietary exposure to mercury, raising concern for human health. Arctic wildlife also exhibit mercury levels that are above thresholds for biological effects raising concern for the environment. The Arctic is a remote region, far from major human sources of mercury releases. Despite this, a substantial amount of the mercury is carried into the Arctic region via long-range transport by air and water currents from human sources at lower latitudes. This situation calls for urgent global action to reduce mercury emissions.

Mercury in the Arctic environment transfers into food chains where, as a result of biomagnifications, it can reach levels of concern, particularly in the animals at the top of the Arctic’s aquatic food webs. This is a serious problem for Arctic indigenous peoples who rely on hunting and fishing for their nutritional, social and cultural well-being. Their traditional diet, which includes marine mammals, some species of seabirds and their eggs, and marine and freshwater fish, can expose these Arctic residents to high levels of mercury. Although risks communications which may include dietary advice are helping to reduce mercury exposure for some high-risk Arctic residents, this is only a short-term solution. The only true long-term solution is to reduce mercury concentrations in the environment, particularly in species of importance to the traditional/local diet by reducing global emissions.

Reducing human and environmental exposure to mercury in the Arctic will ultimately depend on global action to reduce the quantities of mercury entering the ‘environmental reservoirs’, in which mercury has already been accumulating as a result of human activities during the last 150 years. It is therefore vital that the momentum for global action is maintained.

Where does mercury in the Arctic environment come from, and how does it get there?

Globally, about 2000 tons of mercury are emitted to the atmosphere each year as a result of human activities. A similar amount is emitted each year from natural sources. In addition, mercury that has accumulated in soils and ocean waters can be re-emitted to the air. This means that mercury contamination, a large part of which is derived from human activities, is recycled in the environment. Studies indicate that if no action is taken, mercury emissions from human sources are likely to increase in the next decades, but if implemented, existing technologies could significantly reduce emissions. Mercury is transported to the Arctic by air currents (within a matter of days) and ocean currents (that may take decades) and by rivers from human activities in lower latitudes. Coal burning outside the Arctic Region is the most significant source of mercury that can reach the Arctic via long-range transport. The chemical form in which mercury is released, and the processes that transform mercury between its various chemical forms are a key in determining how mercury is transported to the Arctic and what happens to it when it gets there.
The AMAP 2011 assessment estimates that considerable amounts of mercury are delivered to the Arctic Ocean from the air each year, with similar amounts arriving in inflow from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, rivers and coastal erosion. Recent budget calculations suggest that the Arctic Ocean accumulates large quantities of mercury each year.

What controls mercury levels in the Arctic and what are the effects on Arctic biota?

Previous AMAP assessments raised fundamental questions regarding what controls mercury levels in the Arctic, and how (and when) these levels are likely to fall in response to controls on emissions. The cycling of methyl mercury (one of the most toxic forms of mercury) is paramount in this respect. The report indicates that future climate change is likely to alter mercury delivery and fate in the Arctic in important ways. The effects of mercury on biota may be particularly detrimental for species at the limits of their tolerance to other environmental stressors.

Arctic Council Calls for Global Action

The Assessment on Mercury in the Arctic documents how mercury continues to present risks to the health of Arctic human populations and wildlife. A particular concern is the fact that in large areas of the Arctic mercury levels are continuing to rise in some Arctic wildlife despite reductions in emissions from human activities over the past 30 years in some parts of the world. Based on the results of the assessment the Arctic Council confirms the need for concerted international action if mercury levels in the Arctic and in the rest of the world are to be reduced. The AMAP 2011 assessment will be presented at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting to be held on 12 May 2011 in Nuuk, Greenland.

AMAP 2011 Mercury Assessment handout

AMAP

Arctic Council

January 21, 2011
Mercury Assessment report handout

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Working Group (AMAP) have released a handout showing key scientific findings from their 2011 Mercury Assessment report. The hand-out describes why mercury is a concern in the region and key scientific findings from the 2011 Mercury Assessment report are listed, showcasing the Arctic region as a major area of impact.

The hand-out describes why mercury is a concern in the region, how and why mercury continues to present risks to the health of Arctic peoples and wildlife; where mercury in the Arctic environment comes from, how it gets there, and what controls mercury levels in the Arctic. A particular concern is the fact that—despite reductions in emissions from human activities—in large areas of the Arctic, mercury levels continue to rise in some Arctic wildlife.

Based on the results of the AMAP Mercury Assessment, the Arctic Council confirms the need for urgent global action to reduce mercury levels in the Arctic and in the rest of the world.

Further information in the Feature of the week

AMAP

Arctic Council Webpage

January 21, 2011
Air Greenland stays on the ground

Air Greenland has announces a lockout of its pilots and cabin crew due to a collapse in the negotiations of the wage dispute. This means that all Air Greenland’s flights are cancelled for the rest of the week.

This is a huge set off in the country’s transportation system, where little or none on land transportation infrastructure exists, leaving many villages isolated. Greenland has population of roughly 56.000 people in a land area that is over 2 million square kilometers (about 840.000 square miles), giving it the status of one of the most sparsely populated country in the world.

Air Greenland website

January 10, 2011
Air Greenland pilots threaten strike due to wage dispute.

According to an announcement from Air Greenland a strike is in the air on Sunday, 9^th of January due to wage dispute of pilots of the company.

Negotiations of the two parties have stranded which may affect over 1000 passengers that have scheduled flight with Air Greenland. The director of Air Greenland has announced that wage increase is not an option since the company cannot endure any wage increase due to increasing competition in the market. Last year, revenue of the company reduced which is one of the reasons that the company cannot meet the demands of the Air Greenland pilots. Air Greenland is owned by the Greenlandic Home Rule, Scandinavian Airlines and the Danish state. The company owns 37 aircrafts, thereof 26 helicopters. Michael Binzer, director of Air Greenland states that the air company has made plans to take care of all emergency flights that might be affected due to the strike. A mediator has been brought into the negotiations, which have been paused and will be brought up again. It is hoped by the Air Greenland officials that the strike will not be enforced

January 7, 2011
Anti whaling campaign against Iceland

A website has been launched where tourists are encouraged to boycott Iceland as their vacation destination due to the country’s whaling policy. Iceland is among other nations, such as Canada, Norway, Japan and the United States that carry out whaling. The website “rescuethewhales.org” maintains that Iceland is whaling endangered species. The misunderstanding might arrive from the hunt of fin whales in Icelandic and adjacent waters. According to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) fin whales are endangered in the Southern Hemisphere but not in the North Atlantic Ocean. Assessments of the population status in the central North Atlantic and off West Greenland have shown populations to be in a healthy state.

The aim of the group behind the website, rescuethewhales.org is to damage Icelandic economy by appealing to the public not to visit the country and therefore try to undermine its tourism. It is stated in the website that Iceland is a small country where the economy is small and dependent on few large industries, such as tourism. Icelandic economy is similar to other small economies within the Arctic region, being dependent on natural resources and increasingly on tourism. Actions based in many occasions on emotions, as mentioned at the website, rescuethewhales.org could therefore have severe consequences to economies such as Iceland.

According to the Icelandic fisheries portal, at least 12 species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises occur regularly in Icelandic waters and 11 other have been recorded more sporadically. Out of those 23 species that are recorded around Iceland, two are scientifically assessed and annual catch recommendations based on that, fin whale and minke whale. The Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture considers whaling as sustainable and the Icelandic whaling policy is based on precautionary approach. This means that the whale stocks benefit of the doubt. In context with whaling, a quota is issued where number of whales captured does not exceed future sustainable development of the stock.

The Icelandic Marine Research Institute, in collaboration with the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) and the IWC estimates that the stock of fin whale around Jan Mayen, Greenland and Iceland is from 21.000 – 24.000 animals. On the basis of the assessment conducted within the Scientific Committees of the IWC and NAMMCO, the Icelandic Marine Research Institute recommended annual catches of up to 150 fin whales as sustainable and precautionary. The catch can go up to 200 animals if adjacent waters in East of Greenland and Jan Mayen are taken into consideration.

As reported by the Icelandic Marine Research Institution, the minke whale stock around Iceland is considered to be close to pre-exploitation abundance, and historic catches were not thought to have affected the stock appreciably. An aerial survey conducted in coastal Icelandic waters in 2007 showed lower abundance estimates than previous surveys, or 10 700 and 15 100, depending on the method of analysis. A survey conducted in 2008 showed much higher densities, indicating that the unusually low densities in 2007 were due to a temporary shift in distribution within the population area. Based on a stock assessments conducted by the Scientific Committees of NAMMCO and the IWC, it was recommend by the Icelandic Marine Research Institute that annual catches of common minke whales from the Central North Atlantic stock do not exceed 216 animals in the Icelandic continental shelf area.

The Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture followed the scientific recommendations of the Marine Research Institute and issued annual quota for 2009 – 2014 of 200 fin whales and 200 minke whales. However, in the last two years Icelandic whalers whaled less than 400 animals, meaning that the maximum quota was not reach. As published on the web of the Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, the country has conducted responsible harvest of marine creatures for years and aims to continue to do, for it is known that the country needs to rely on its renewable marine resources.

The issue of whaling is highly sensitive matter. The discourse, however, should be about responsible and sustainable harvesting of living resources, where current utilization does not threat future development and growth of those resources. Sustainable use of North-Atlantic renewable marine resources and harvest of whales and other species is an important issue and should be applied whenever possible.

The aim of the anti whaling campaign against Iceland is to damage its economy by appealing to people to boycott Iceland as a travel destination. Whaling is a sensitive issue where advocates portray their views. However some mistakes are sometimes made, as with the rescuethewhales.org campaign. Their logos state that Iceland whales endangered species, which is incorrect. Another mistake is to use humpback whales in the logo to the right. Humpback whales are preserved in Iceland, as in Alaska where the photo is taken.

Sources and further information:

International Whaling Commission

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission

Icelandic Marine Research Institute

Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture

Fisheries.is

January 7, 2011