Arctic Oiled Wildlife Response: Exploring Potential and Limitations

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1569-1582
Author(s):  
Hugo Nijkamp ◽  
Saskia Sessions ◽  
Philippe Blanc ◽  
Yannick Autret
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Migratory Species ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The Arctic Region

ABSTRACT The Arctic is an extremely vulnerable area for oil pollution. Because of global warming and the resulting retreating ice, new economic shipping and Exploration & Production activities are likely to develop in the coming years and decades. Both governments (e.g. Arctic Council) and the oil industry (e.g. Arctic Response Technology Joint Industry Programme) are preparing for increased oil spill response capabilities in the Arctic region, and are looking to join forces for more efficiency and effectiveness. In connection to oil spill response planning in the Arctic both onshore and offshore, attention should be given to oiled wildlife response preparedness in this region. The Arctic is characterized by unique ecosystems and biodiversity, either marine or terrestrial, with a large proportion of migratory species. So although species diversity is assumed to be low compared to other regions, Arctic wildlife is very sensitive to the effects of oil pollution. Additionally the Arctic is a remote and extreme area for setting up a wildlife response in the framework of an oil spill response. This paper explores what the limitations of an Arctic oiled wildlife response would be (physical/logistical, health & safety, environmental monitoring, ecosystems understanding, biodiversity data, sensitivity mapping, etc.), and identifies how current gaps in response preparedness could be filled. Special emphasis is laid on investments into the capabilities of specialised responders and their equipment, including creation of a specialised Arctic Wildlife Response Strike Team.

To Cooperate or Not? Why Working Together is Essential in the Arctic

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1146-1165
Author(s):  
Johan Marius Ly ◽  
Rune Bergstrøm ◽  
Ole Kristian Bjerkemo ◽  
Synnøve Lunde
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Response ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Second Year

Abstract The Norwegian Arctic covers Svalbard, Bear Island, Jan Mayen and the Barents Sea. 80% of all shipping activities in the Arctic are within Norwegian territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone. To reduce the risk for accidents, the Norwegian authorities have established several preventive measures. Among these are ship reporting systems, traffic separation schemes in international waters and surveillance capabilities. If an accident has occurred and an oil spill response operation must be organized - resources, equipment, vessels and manpower from Norwegian and neighboring states will be mobilized. In 2015, the Norwegian Coastal Administration finalized an environmental risk-based emergency response analysis for shipping incidents in the Svalbard, Bear Island and Jan Mayen area. This scenario-based analysis has resulted in a number of recommendations that are currently being implemented to be better prepared for oil spill response operations in the Norwegian Arctic. Further, a large national oil spill response exercise in 2016 was based on one of these scenarios involving at sea and onshore oil spill response at Svalbard. The 2016 exercise, working within the framework of the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic between Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA (Arctic Council 2013), focused on a shipping incident in the Norwegian waters in the Barents Sea, close to the Russian border. Every year, as part of the Russian – Norwegian Oil Spill Response Agreement and the SAR Agreement in the Barents Sea, combined SAR and oil spill response exercises are organized. These are held every second year in Russia and every second year in Norway. There is an expected increased traffic and possible increased risk for accidents in the Arctic waters. In order to build and maintain an emergency response system to this, cooperation between states, communities, private companies and other stakeholders is essential. It is important that all actors that operate and have a role in the Arctic are prepared and able to help ensure the best possible emergency response plans. We depend on one another, this paper highlights some of the ongoing activities designed to strengthen the overall response capabilities in the Arctic.

Global Co-management and the Emergent Arctic: Opportunities for Engagement and Collaboration between Arctic States, Indigenous Permanent Participants, and Observers on the Arctic Council

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 251-267
Author(s):  
Barry S. Zellen
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Indigenous Participation ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
Successful Collaboration ◽  
The Arctic Region

Successful collaboration between the indigenous peoples and the sovereign states of Arctic North America has helped to stabilise the Arctic region, fostering meaningful indigenous participation in the governance of their homeland, the introduction of new institutions of self-governance at the municipal, tribal and territorial levels, and successful diplomatic collaborations at the international level through the Arctic Council. This stability and the reciprocal and increasingly balanced relationship between sovereign states and indigenous stakeholders has yielded a widely recognised spirit of international collaboration often referred to as Arctic exceptionalism. With competition in the Arctic between states on the rise, the multitude of co-management systems and the multi-level, inter-governmental and inter-organisational relationships they have nurtured across the region will help to neutralise new threats to ‘Arctic Exceptionalism’ posed by intensifying inter-state tensions.

scholarly journals The specificity of Russia’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2021–2023

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Sofia Khusainova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The North ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Arctic Region

The subject of this research is the policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic. The object is Russia’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2021–2023. The author meticulously analyzes the positions of the state, taking into account national interests and peculiarities of the current international situation in the region. The article examines the domestic legislative acts adopted for regulation of the Arctic Region, as well as international documents aimed at sustainable development of the North. The conditions of collective security dictate moderate and clearly defined policy in the Arctic, which is the central arena for political action with the leading role of the Russian Federation until 2023. The conclusion is drawn that the Arctic Region is currently the most relevant vector of the policy of northern states. Chairmanship of the Russian Federation imposes enormous responsibility on the country, as despite the overall state of security in the region, there remains a range of unresolved issues. The attempts of institutionalization of the Arctic Council may become an implicit threat for the Russian Federation; this is why the systematization of domestic legislation and foreign policy actions on maintaining the health of ecosystem, cultural heritage, and environmental policy have become the priority vectors in the first year of Russia’s chairmanship. The overall responsibility of the leading actor the Arctic does not exclude the existence of classic threats to the security of state’s sovereignty, which requires accurate planning in subsequent years of the chairmanship.

Comparison of the Nordic Chairmanship Programmes and the Outputs of the Arctic Council in 2000–2013

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-186
Author(s):  
Paula Kovari
Keyword(s):  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Effective Governance ◽  
Foreign Politics ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Take All ◽  
Impacts Of Climate Change ◽  
The Arctic Region

The impacts of climate change as well as the increase of economic activities call for effective governance of the Arctic Region. The Arctic Council is the predominant intergovernmental forum in the region. The rotating chairmanships of the Member States have a defining role in the work of the Council. This paper compares the Arctic Council chairmanship programmes of the five Nordic Countries with the organisation’s outputs following the two-year chairmanship periods as expressed in the ministerial Declarations and the SAOs’ reports. The paper finds that the discourse on the studied topics has developed greatly over time and despite the similarities between the countries’ foreign politics in general, there are some notable differences in the way the countries see the future of the Arctic – for example through the region’s vast natural resources or as a unique environment of the Arctic biodiversity. The conclusion of this research is that even though the chair cannot take all the credit for its accomplishments during the chairmanship period in question, nor can it be blamed for all possible failures, the chair’s work does leave its mark on the Arctic Council’s performance.

Vocabularies for human development: Arctic politics and the power of knowledge

Polar Record ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Sinevaara-Niskanen
Keyword(s):  
Human Development ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
Common Notion ◽  
The Common ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Is Value ◽  
The Arctic Region

ABSTRACTThe Arctic Council (AC) has been accorded the status of knowledge holder and knowledge provider for the Arctic region. This paper probes the broader definition-making power of Arctic knowledge, challenging the common notion that this knowledge is value neutral. It argues that attention should be paid to the ways in which power is exercised in, and though, the various reports and assessments published under the auspices of the AC. The specific focus of the paper is human development and gender as an aspect of that development. The research analyses the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR) in order to examine the ways in which knowledge defines human development and its agents in the Arctic. The paper draws on Foucault-inspired and feminist approaches to analyse three vocabularies of rule in particular: strength of the community, vulnerability and the need for adaptation. These vocabularies are coexistent and share an emphasis on communities. Yet, questions of gender seldom figure in them, a lack of salience that reveals the power of the partiality of knowledge. The politics of knowledge operate by placing in the foreground only certain accounts of Arctic development.

NEW IMO/EPPR GUIDES TO ARCTIC OIL SPILL RESPONSE – STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 1182-1193
Author(s):  
E. H. Owens ◽  
D. F. Dickins ◽  
L. B. Solsberg ◽  
O-K. Bjerkemo
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Field Guide ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Ice Conditions ◽  
Snow And Ice

ABSTRACT In 2015 and 2016, two complementary projects produced both a new strategic guide (in two versions) and an updated operationally oriented guide to assist managers, regulators and responders in responding effectively to oil spills in snow and ice conditions. The objective of the first initiative, which began as a Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) project, a “Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions”, was to identify and describe the strategic aspects of planning and operations. This program gained a separate phase through the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) working group of the Arctic Council to adapt the Guide specifically for Arctic waters. The second initiative by EPPR was to update the 1998 “Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters” while retaining the original operational focus. The 2016 version of the Field Guide incorporates major revisions and updates to sections on strategies and countermeasures, for example the use of herders and burning, dispersants in ice and specialized brush skimmers as well as advances in remote sensing and tracking. In addition, new sections address important topics such as Health and Human Safety, Logistics and Wildlife Response. The overall goal was to produce two complementary documents that provide a broad base of essential information to key decision-makers and responders at both the strategic planning level and at the field tactics and operations level. These two projects bring together a wide range of new knowledge generated over the past two decades that make many previous manuals and documents out of date. With such a vast amount of recent literature, the new strategic guide and the operational field guide update can only provide a brief summary of the new material but are valuable tools to indicate where the more detailed documents can be found.

SPILL IMPACT MITIGATION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANNING IN THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary Robinson ◽  
William Gardiner ◽  
Richard J. Wenning ◽  
Mary Ann Rempel-Hester
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Ecosystems ◽  
Oil And Gas Development ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
Different Response

ABSTRACT #2017-351 When there is risk for oil release into the marine environment, the priority for planners and responders is to protect human health and to minimize environmental impacts. The selection of appropriate response option(s) depends upon a wide range of information including data on the fate and behavior of oil and treated oil, the habitats and organisms that are potentially exposed, and the potential for effects and recovery following exposure. Spill Impact Management Assessment (SIMA; a refinement of Net Environmental Benefits Analysis, or NEBA, in the context of oil spill response) and similar comparative risk assessment (CRA) approaches provide responders a systematic method to compare and contrast the relative environmental benefits and consequences of different response alternatives. Government and industry stakeholders have used this approach increasingly in temperate and subtropical regions to establish environmental protection priorities and identify response strategies during planning that minimize impacts and maximize the potential for environmental recovery. Historically, the ability to conduct CRA-type assessments in the Arctic has been limited by insufficient information relevant to oil-spill response decision making. However, with an increased interest in shipping and oil and gas development in the Arctic, a sufficiently robust scientific and ecological information base is emerging in the Arctic that can support meaningful SIMA. Based on a summary of over 3,000 literature references on Arctic ecosystems and the fate and effects of oil and treated oil in the Arctic, we identify key input parameters supporting a SIMA evaluation of oil spill response in the Arctic and introduce a web portal developed to facilitate access to the literature and key considerations supporting SIMA.

The Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement: Text, Framing and Logics

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 299-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corine Wood-Donnelly
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
Search And Rescue ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Arctic Council ◽  
Policy Document ◽  
Cultural Contexts ◽  
Hard Law ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue ◽  
The Arctic Region

Abstract The 2011 ‘Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic’ (henceforth SAR Agreement) is the first instrument of hard law produced by the eight states of the Arctic Council. While the agreement ostensibly addresses search and rescue related issues for the Arctic region, it is capable of being understood in a variety of legal, political and cultural contexts. Three elements are teased out in particular – the SAR Agreement as a legal policy document, as indicative of evolving Arctic international relations, and as indicative of particular geopolitical logics. As the paper concludes, however, the SAR Agreement has not been entirely free of political intrigue.

Oil Pollution in the Arctic: Risks and Mitigating Measures With Reference to the Deepwater Horizon Accident

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Willemse ◽  
P. H. A. J. M. van Gelder
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Arctic Region ◽  
Deepwater Horizon ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Drilling Process ◽  
Emergency Plan ◽  
Offshore Drilling ◽  
Offshore Industry

The accident with the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico has caused great concern, both in the offshore industry and in society in general. The response to the accident indicated that no clear emergency plan was in place and that many attempts at mitigation of the oil spill were improvised whilst the oil was already leaking. As a result it took several months to kill the well and stop the oil spill, causing the Deepwater Horizon to be one of the most severe environmental disasters in the history of offshore drilling. This paper analyses the probability that a similar accident could happen in the arctic region, taking into account the various steps and elements of the offshore drilling process. The measures to kill the subsequent oil flow and to contain the oil spill are addressed in the context of the complex arctic drilling challenges. Finally the paper estimates how the mitigation measures could reduce the probability of a spill.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document