Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Perils of an open Arctic

2021; Elsevier BV; Volume: 4; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.oneear.2021.11.018

2590-3330

Daria Shapovalova, Sian Prior, Jamie Snook, Dorothée Cambou, Claudio Aporta, Magdalena A.K. Muir, Reetta Toivanen,

Global Energy and Sustainability Research

As the world warms, the ice retreats, and the permafrost thaws, the Arctic and its natural resources are becoming increasingly accessible. An open Arctic offers numerous opportunities but can have wide-scale socio-environmental consequences. This Voices asks: what natural resource challenges does an open Arctic face, and how can they be sustainably managed for planet and people? As the world warms, the ice retreats, and the permafrost thaws, the Arctic and its natural resources are becoming increasingly accessible. An open Arctic offers numerous opportunities but can have wide-scale socio-environmental consequences. This Voices asks: what natural resource challenges does an open Arctic face, and how can they be sustainably managed for planet and people? One of the more striking pavilions inside the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) venue was the Cryosphere Pavilion, the hub of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program. Over the course of two weeks, scientists, Indigenous activists, civil society representatives, and politicians discussed the fate of the fastest-warming region in the world. The new report on the state of cryosphere was launched at the COP26, calling for the strengthening of climate legislation and policies to ensure that temperature rise peaks at 1.5°C. Warming in the Arctic already leads to permafrost thaw and coastline erosion, causing infrastructure collapse. The Arctic Ocean absorbs CO2, leading to acidification, warming, and sea ice melt. These changes endanger not only the environment and ecosystems but also the local population’s well-being and food security. Some narratives today present the melting of the Arctic sea ice as an opportunity to engage in more offshore exploitation of petroleum resources. The warming Arctic is not a business opportunity for multinational companies and central governments, but a wake-up call (yet another) to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This argument is particularly important because many extractive projects in the Arctic historically have not benefitted the local population of the region, many of whom are Indigenous people. More investment and effort are required today to fund Arctic science, integration of traditional knowledge in our learning systems, and inevitable and significant emission reductions. Current pledges, even updated after COP26, are not enough to preserve the Arctic as we know it. Science indicates that the tipping point for Arctic sea ice has already passed. The current summer sea ice extent has halved in forty years, whereas that for multiyear ice has decreased by over 90%. By the 2030s, it might be likely to have the first summer days with no sea ice in the Arctic. As the ice dwindles, new opportunities are opening up for those with an eye on extracting natural resources, as are new shipping routes. Although the idea of exploiting Arctic resources is welcomed by some, it increases risks for Arctic ecosystems and communities. Increased shipping using the new routes adds to the risks of oil spills and other potential disasters, including discharges of pollutants that generate negative effects on the Earth’s climate through greenhouse gas and black-carbon emissions. Black carbon, emitted from the funnels of ships, is a major problem when it settles onto snow and ice, which speeds up the melting. For shipping to operate sustainably in the Arctic, the sector must quickly transition to lower-emission fuels and methods of propulsion. This is already possible, without any requirement for development of new technologies. By switching to distillate fuels, black-carbon emissions can be reduced by around 40%, and installing a particulate filter will reduce emissions by over 90%. On the path to zero emissions, shipping must operate sustainably in the Arctic by moving away from use of fossil fuels completely and starting to use renewable shore-based power while in port, make more use of wind power, and begin the transition to sustainable and novel non-fossil fuels such as green hydrogen. International agreements such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the International Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean have recognized Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ rights, homelands, and knowledge. It is imperative that the interests of the Arctic Peoples are placed at the forefront of public and government discourse to influence future decisions. Inuit in Canada, as an example, are the sentinels for this vital region that is key to our planetary health. Land claim agreements at the national level in countries like Canada further acknowledge Inuit rights in the Canadian Arctic and Subarctic specifically. Yet, as access to viable commercial fish stocks become available, the Inuit are struggling to be the primary beneficiaries of these marine resources because non-Arctic-based corporations regions are powerful, and final decisions are made outside the Arctic at national capitals. This ongoing colonization is problematic because coastal and Indigenous communities require access to marine resources for healthy and sustainable cultures and livelihoods to flourish in the Arctic. For Inuit to have the ability to benefit from marine resources like commercial fish stocks, policy-makers need to explicitly prioritize small-scale subsistence fisheries and Indigenous commercial enterprises that produce benefits in coastal communities. One pathway toward realizing this policy shift in Canada is through a renewed commitment to land-claim implementation and honoring the spirit of sustainable fisheries co-management. The Arctic is warming faster than other regions on Earth are, and the impacts of those changes are disproportionately impacting its inhabitants, in particular, Indigenous peoples such as the Sámi. Mitigation measures are therefore needed to tackle climate change. They can, however, generate negative side effects. For instance, although large-scale installation of wind energy can provide clean electricity for the Arctic residents, it can also have significant social-ecological impacts on Sámi reindeer husbandry. As research demonstrates, the construction and operationalization of wind energy turbines can disturb reindeer migration and their land pastures and affect the Sámi's human rights. As a result, the goal to promote climate mitigation conflicts in practice with the obligation to protect natural ecosystems and ensure the rights of Indigenous peoples. To address such challenges, it is therefore essential to consider the broader social-ecological impacts of renewable energy on local Indigenous communities and foster synergies between climate change mitigation and social-ecological justice. Empowering Indigenous communities and ensuring that their rights are adequately protected are among the measures that should be promoted to guide a sustainable and just transition in the Arctic. Although this is already widely recognized at the international level, there is still, nevertheless, a pressing need to design tailor-made policy and legislative systems to ensure that climate policy and sustainable development adequately reflects the rights of Indigenous peoples in the governance of the Arctic. As sea ice in the Arctic diminishes as a consequence of warming global temperatures, and as new activities such as shipping and resource extraction increase, the vulnerability of local environments and peoples intensifies as well. The geographic space that we know as the North American Arctic includes the Inuit communities that have relied on marine and coastal ecosystems since time immemorial, who have historically experienced the Arctic as a homeland, understanding the rhythms, seasonality, and changing dynamics of this unique environment. Sustainable management of natural resources and environments in the Arctic will require, first and foremost, a recognition of the historical links that Inuit have with those environments and a governance approach that engages Inuit communities and organizations and incorporates their knowledge, experiences, and ontologies. Fragmented approaches that focus on specific activities, problems, or resources are bound to fail in the Arctic, because the complexity of the social-ecological systems requires a more comprehensive approach. Area-based approaches (such as marine spatial planning) based on co-governance models, inspired by Inuit ontologies, and driven by both scientific and local knowledge are the best chance for achieving sustainability and social-ecological resilience. This approach would also empower Arctic peoples and provide the means for more efficient, adaptive, and equitable management models while mitigating some of the inevitable effects of climate change, such as loss of sea ice, changes in the ecosystem, increase of coastal erosion, permafrost melt, etc. The Arctic is complex, characterized by an evolving climatic regime, different states of development, and a variety of Arctic Indigenous, Asiatic, and European peoples. Although commercial fisheries have not been previously developed in Arctic waters, due to sea ice cover, a warmer, more acidic, and increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean is increasing fishery opportunities. Species and ecosystem composition are changing with a warming Arctic, with commercial cod stocks just one species that is migrating northwards. Given these concerns, in June 2021, after more than ten years of effort, the Central Arctic Oceans Fisheries Agreement was ratified and came into force, with the support of the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council member states of Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and the United States along with China, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea have agreed to ban commercial fishing over an area of 2.8 million square kilometers for at least the next 16 years, until scientific understanding of the area, its species, and ecosystems and the combined impacts of climate change and commercial fisheries has improved. A unique aspect of the agreement is the extent to which it incorporates Indigenous knowledge alongside scientific knowledge and engages Indigenous peoples and local communities in the sustainable management and use of Arctic resources. Ratified by Arctic states and non-Arctic fishing states, the agreement will help combat the increasing threats of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the Arctic by non-Arctic countries and fishing fleets. As the world experiences growing effects of climate change, there is a need for in-depth research examining the tensions involved when addressing climate change, human rights, and other important issues of sustainability. One such conflict is the growing demand for clean energy solutions and the environmental and societal consequences of mineral extraction. This issue is of particular concern in the highly fragile yet increasingly accessible environment of the Arctic. This precious part of the planet is identified as a strategic region for various resources, including clean energy materials and wind power. The growing political and economic interest in Arctic land- and seascapes leads to intensive industrial activities that exert significant challenges on the Indigenous communities. The Arctic is home to over 40 Indigenous communities whose livelihoods, environment, cultural, and linguistic heritage needs to be protected. Sustainable development, including economic, social, and environmental aspects, is crucial for Arctic communities and has been an official goal of the Arctic Council since its establishment by the Ottawa Declaration in 1996. Whereas the UN Sustainable Agenda 2030 has gained a strong footing in guiding government programs, it nevertheless constitutes a human-made political compromise. Some critical social scientists warn that the Agenda 2030 and the associated sustainable development goals (SDGs) have failed to successfully engage with alternative ways of perceiving development. Generalized notions of sustainability bear the risk of overshadowing those whose perspectives differ from mainstream discourses, including Indigenous communities. Also, the specific circumstances of Arctic livelihoods complicate the application of the SDGs, which do not fully acknowledge the Arctic’s unique characteristics and the speed of warming. Indigenous residents are often not involved in decision-making regarding SDG implementation in their region.