politics in the late 20th century – a period of global ‘environmental awakening’ that eventually peaked in the 1980s with the discovery of ozone depletion and the general problem of global warming. The post-World War II generation was ultimately confronted with increased energy and resource consumption, rising levels of pollution and waste production and the rapid erosion of the world’s biodiversity (Vogler & Imber 1996; Eckersley 2007; O’Neill 2009). And related developments did not spare the Arctic, leading to an emerging (inter-state) discourse on questions of environmental security in the late 1980s, especially with respect to long-range air and water pollution, radioactivity, the phenomenon of Arctic haze but also environmental threats caused by military infrastructure and activities (Palosaari & Möller 2004: 256; Heininen 2013b: 40–43). By the turn of the millennium, the Arctic has become a matter of global environmental concern, decisively amplified by the effects of climate change with major physical, ecological, sociological and economic impacts to be then expected (Everett & Fitzharris 1998). Subchapter 4.4 explicitly highlighted the alleged positive effects of climate change and related economic opportunities that eventually arise thereof. However, it goes without saying that the ‘Arctic meltdown’ and a potential rise of economic activities already has and will continue to have serious impacts on the region’s ecosystems, its marine and terrestrial biodiversity and the human population permanently living in the broader Arctic region. Even the most one-sided and sensational comments over the past years explicitly stressed that worrisome development. Borgerson, for instance, concluded “[i]f the Arctic is the barometer by which to measure the earth’s health, these symptoms point to a very sick planet indeed” (2008: 67).
Regardless if focusing on particular questions concerning the region’s climate, its biodiversity or ecosystems, the Arctic is generally characterised as dynamic, complex and variable system intrinsically connected with the global (climate) system via its atmosphere, its ocean and surrounding seas and rivers (ACIA 2005: 22; Kriwoken 2014: 44). Global climate change affects the Arctic, but changes in the Arctic equally matter globally. In many respects the Arctic serves as a canary in the
coal mine of global climate change as transformations within the Arctic occur earlier and the rate of warming is faster than the global mean (ACIA 2004, 2005; IPCC 2014b: SPM–8). The ‘Arctic amplification’ effect explains changes of the region that, due to feedback linkages, accelerate at a faster pace than in other regions (Strahlendorff et al. 2014: 21). Alterations in the Arctic cryosphere have strong impacts on the global climate and sea level and undoubtedly affect global societies. According to Kriwoken, “Arctic regions can produce feedbacks with globally significant implications” (2014: 51). The mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet and freshwater from river discharge, snow and melting glaciers in Canada and Russia are significantly contributing to the current global sea level rise and will remain dominant contributors to sea level rise, in addition to the melting Antarctica ice sheet, in the forthcoming decades (AMAP 2011: 11; Rignot et al. 2011: 5).
Arctic-internally, vulnerability symbolises the region’s present and its immediate and long-term future. The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice has already been extensively summarised in Section 4.4.1, also briefly describing the albedo feedback effect. Additional climate change-related threats to the Arctic’s (marine) environment entail the shifting of Arctic vegetation zones, the change of animal species’ diversity, ranges and distribution, the thawing of permafrost and related greenhouse gas releases, the increased acidification of the Arctic Ocean, regional pollution due to the accumulation of external contaminants, e.g. persistent organic pollutants (POPs) or heavy metals or the economic and cultural impacts on indigenous communities (ACIA 2004: 10–11, 2005: 61–98; AMAP 2009; CAFF 2013a; Riedel 2014: 30–34).137 The vulnerability of the Arctic region can be further enhanced by the afore-mentioned potentials of increased economic activity, especially concerning resource development and maritime transportation and the possible environmental problems arising therefrom, e.g. (transboundary) pollution from drilling platforms or vessels.
137 The greenhouse gas feedback describes the vast amounts of methane and carbon dioxide that are
currently trapped in the Arctic’s permafrost. Their release due to melting permafrost will further exacerbate global and regional warming (ACIA 2005: 459). Higher carbon dioxide concentrations, again, will also result in continuous ocean acidification as the Arctic Ocean, due to its lower
The Arctic is undoubtedly in a state of change and terms such as sustainable development,138 ecosystem-based management,139 resilience and adaptation (or adaptive capacity) have become catchphrases in the analysis of the coping mechanism of both human and environmental systems (= socio-ecological systems) concerning the region’s on-going transformation (Hoel 2009a; Arctic Council 2013a; Andrew 2014). Especially questions on climate and environmental governance in the Arctic extensively deal with matters of adaptation and the development of adaptation processes for and in the region (de Roo et al. 2008; Koivurova, Keskitalo & Bankes 2009; Stokke 2011). Over the last decades, first the AEPS and then the AC have strengthened circumpolar environmental governance by continuously improving the scientific knowledge base, see for instance the various AC-endorsed reports cited in this analysis, preparing practical guidance or supporting the capacities of Arctic states to implement commitments (Stokke 2007: 407; PAME 2013). Additionally, the human factor often seems to be neglected when discussing Arctic matters from the region’s outside. Issues of future adjustment to regional alterations concern in particular questions on population and migration, issues of human health and well- being, education or community viability (Larsen & Fondahl 2015).
A ‘Responsible’ Summary
Over the last decade(s) the Arctic region has experienced substantial climate change that essentially impinges upon the physical and biological conditions of the circumpolar North. Eventually, the continuing loss of Arctic sea ice (see Section 4.4.1) and climate feedback loops will only act as a catalyst for regional transformation in the years and decades to come with threats to human and species’ habitats. Moreover, the global/Arctic nexus characterises climatic and environmental alterations in the Arctic that are linked to global changes such as sea level rise or oceanic circulations while simultaneously also describing the regional ‘arrival’ of
138 The term ‘sustainable development’ generally refers to a definition coined by the UN World
Commission on Environment and Development, the so-called Brundtland Report in 1987, stating “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (1987: 43).
139 The term ‘ecosystem-based management” refers to an integrated, transdisciplinary management
approach of a certain activity within an ecosystem, such as fisheries that is designed to holistically address the full array of biophysical and socio-economic interactions within that particular ecosystem (Slocombe 1998: 31–32; Murawski 2007: 681).
pollutants from outside the Arctic that (currently) enter the region via air, ocean or river pathways (Riedel 2014: 40). Also in environmental terms, the sparsely populated Arctic region is increasingly forced to cope with the forces of globalisation and to basically deal with regional processes and global linkages (Heininen & Southcott 2010: 1–2; Larsen & Fondahl 2015).