ARCTlC ENVIRONMENTROVANIEMI, FINLAND
JUNE 1991

ARCTICENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONSTRATEGY

ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTDECLARATIONON THE PROTECTION
OF ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STRATEGY
June 14, 1991

1

PREFACEIn September 1989, on the initiative of the government of Finland, officials from the eight
Arctic countries met in Rovaniemi, Finland to discuss cooperative measures to protect
the Arctic environment. They agreed to work towards a meeting of circumpolar Ministers
responsible for Arctic environmental issues. The September 1989 meeting was followedby preparatory meetings in Yellowknife, Canada in April 1990; Kiruna, Sweden in January
1991; and, Rovaniemi, Finland in June 1991.
In addition to the numerous technical and scientific reports prepared under this initiative,
the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy was developed. This Strategy represents theculmination of the cooperative efforts of the eight Arctic countries:
CanadaDenmark
Finland
Iceland
NorwaySwedenUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics
United States of America.
The eight Arctic countries were assisted in the preparation of the Strategy by the folloving
observers:
Inuit Circumpolar Conference
Nordic Saami Council
USSR Association of Small Peoples of the North
Federal Republic of Germany
PolandUnited Kingdom
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
United Nations Environment Program
International Arctic Science Committee.

2

We commit ourselves to a joint Action Plan of the Arctic Environmental Protection
Strategy which includes:- Cooperation in scientific research to specify sources, pathways, sinks and effects ofpollution, in particular, oil, acidification, persistent organic contaminants, radioactivity,
noise and heavy metals as well as sharing of these data;- Assessment of potential environmental impacts of development activities;- Full implementation and consideration of further measures to control pollutants andreduce their adverse effects to the Arctic environment.
We intend to assess on a continuing basis the threats to the Arctic environment throughthe preparation and updating of reports on the state of the Arctic environment, in order topropose further cooperative action.
We also commit ourselves to implement the following measures of the Strategy:– Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) to monitor the levels of, andassess the effects of, anthropogenic pollutants in all components of the Arctic
environment. To this end, an Arctic Monitoring and Assesment Task Force will beestablished. Norway will provide for an AMAP secretariat.
- Protection of the Marine Environment in the Arctic, to take preventive and othermeasures directly or through competent international organizations regarding marine
pollution in the Arctic irrespective of origin;

3

DECLARATION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

We, the Representatives of the Governments of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, Sweden, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States ofAmerica;
Meeting at Rovaniemi, Finland for the First Ministerial Conference on the Protection of
the Arctic Environment;
Deeply concerned with threats to the Arctic environment and the impact of pollution on
fragile Arctic ecosystems;
Acknowledging the growing national and international appreciation of the importance ofArctic ecosystems and an increasing knowledge of global pollution and resulting
environmental threats;
Resolving to pursue together in other international environmental fora those issues
affecting the Arctic environment which require broad international cooperation;
Emphasizing our responsibility to protect and preserve the Arctic environment andrecognizing the special relationship of the indigenous peoples and local populations to
the Arctic and their unique contribution to the protection of the Arctic Environment;
Hereby adopt the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and commit ourselves to takesteps towards its implementation and consider its further elaboration.

- Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, to provide aframework for future cooperation in responding to the threat of environmental
emergencies.
- Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, to facilitate the exchange of information andcoordination of research on species and habitats of flora and fauna;
We agree to hold regular meetings to assess the progress made and to coordinate actions
which will implement and further develop the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy.
We agree to continue to promote cooperation with the Arctic indigenous peoples and to
invite their organizations to future meetings as observers.

We agree to meet in 1993 and accept the kind invitation of . the Government of Denmark

4

and the Home Rule Government of Greenland to hold the next meeting in Greenland.
Wherefore, we, the undersigned Representatives of our respective Governments,
recognizing its political significance and environmental importance, and intending topromote its results, have signed this Declaration.

For the Government of Canada
Thomas Siddon
Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development

For the Government of Denmark
Bertel Haarder
Minister for Education and Research

For the Government of Finland

For the Government of IcelandSirpa Pietikainen
Minister of the Environment

Eidur Gudnason
Minister for the Environment

For the Government of Norway

For the Government of Sweden

Jens Stoltenberg
Deputy Minister of the Environment

Birgitta Dahl
Minister of the Environment

For the Government of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics

For the Government of
the United States of America

J. D. Masljukov
Deputy Prime Minister
Chairman of the Arctic andAntarctic Commission

Joh Giffen Weinmann
Ambassador

Done at Rovaniemi on the 14th of June, 1991

5

CONTENTSPREFACETABLE OF CONTENTS

1

1. INTRODUCTION

2. OBJECTIVES.AND PRINCIPLES
2.1 Objectives
2.2 Principles

6
9
9
9

3. PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIES
3.1 Persistant Organic Contaminants
3.2 Oil Pollution
3.3 Heavy Metals
3.4 Noise
3.5 Radioactivity
3.6 Acidification

12
12
14
15
16
17
18

4. INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Persistent Organic Contaminants
4.2 Oil Pollution
4.3 Heavy Metals
4.4 Noise
4.5 Radioactivity
4.6 Acidification

20
20
20
22
22
23
23

5

5. ACTIONS
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6

Persistant Organic Contaminants
Oil Pollution
Heavy Metals
NoiseRadioactivity
Acidification

25
25
26
27
28
28
29

6. ARCTIC MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
6.1 Actions

30
31

7. PROTECTION OF THE ARCTIC MARINE ENVIRONMENT

33

8. EMERGENCY PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
8.1 Actions

35
35

9. CONSERVATION OF ARCTIC FLORA AND FAUNA
9.1 Actions

38
39

10. FURTHER COOPERATION

42

6

1.

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing national and international appreciation of the importance of Arctic ecosystems and anincreasing knowledge of global pollution and resulting environmental threats. The Arctic is highly sensitive topollution and much of its human population and culture is directly dependent on the health of the region’s
ecosystems. Limited sunlight, ice cover that inhibits energy penetration, low mean and extreme temperatures,
low species diversity and biological productivity and long-lived organisms with high lipid levels all contribute to
the sensitivity of the Arctic ecosystem and cause it to be easily damaged. This vulnerability of the Arctic topollution requires that action be taken now, or degradation may become irreversible.
The governments of the Arctic countries have become increasingly aware of the need for, and their
responsibility to combat these threats to the Arctic ecosystem. On the initiative of Finland, the eight Arctic_

countries of USSR, USA, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Denmark and Canada have met to prepare a
strategy to protect the Arctic environment. The Arctic countries realize that the pollution problems of today do
not respect national boundaries and that no state alone will be able to act effectively against environmental
threats to the Arctic. They have also been moved by the international call for action expressed by the World
Commission on Environment and Development as well as the concerns of the indigenous peoples living in the
Arctic region. The Arctic countries with the participation of Arctic indigenous peoples have prepared thisenvironmental protection Strategy. The strategy builds on the initiatives already taken nationally and by indigenous peoples to protect the Arctic environment.

It is recognized that this Strategy, and its implementation, must incorporate the knowledge and culture ofindigenous peoples. It is understood that the cultures and the continued existence of the indigenous peoples
have been built on the sound stewardship of nature and its resources.

The use of natural resources is an important activity of Arctic nations. Therefore, this Strategy should allow for7sustainable economic development in the north so that such development does not have unacceptableecological or cultural impacts. The Strategy must also rely on the best scientific and technological advice thatcountries are able to produce and share.

Arctic ecosystems are influenced and in some cases threatened by factors occurring also outside the Arctic. Inturn, the Arctic also exerts an important influence on the global environment. The implementation of an Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy will therefore benefit both the Arctic countries and the world at large. The
Strategy is also designed to guide development in a way that will safeguard the Arctic environment for future
generations and in a manner that is compatible with nature.

The Arctic countries are committed to international cooperation to ensure the protection of the Arctic
environment and its sustainable and equitable development, while protecting the cultures of indigenous peoples.
Only through careful stewardship by Arctic countries and Arctic peoples can environmental damage anddegradation be prevented. These are the challenges which must be taken up in order to secure our common
future.

The Strategy is comprised of a number of component parts, beginning with a statement of objectives. These
objectives establish the broad direction in which the eight Arctic countries are intending to move. The objectives
are accompanied by statements of principle which are designed to guide the actions of Arctic countries
individually and collectively, as they move toward achievement of the objectives. The Strategy also describes
the problems and priorities which the eight Arctic countries agree need to be addressed at this time.

Tools, whether legal, scientific or administrative, are also reviewed in order to define appropriate mechanisms
for implementation of the Strategy. This is particularly relevant to that section of the Strategy which defines the
specific actions that the eight countries will undertake jointly or individually to deal with priority issues andpollution problems. The implementation of the Strategy will be carried out through national legislation and in8accordance with international law, including customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Finally, the Strategy outlines plans for future cooperation towards the implementation of the Strategy.

9

2.

OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES

2.1

Objectives

The objectives of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy are:i)

To protect the Arctic ecosystem including humans;ii)

To provide for the protection, enhancement and restoration of environmental quality and thesustainable utilization of natural resources, including their use by local populations and indigenous
peoples in the Arctic;iii)

To recognize and, to the extent possible, seek to accommodate the traditional and cultural needs,
values and practices of the indigenous peoples as determined bythemselves, related to the protectionof the Arctic environment;iv)

To review regularly the state of the Arctic environmentv)

To identify, reduce, and, as a final goal, eliminate pollution.
2.2

Principles:

The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and its implementation by the eight Arctic countries will be guided
by the following principles:i)Management, planning and development activities shall provide for the conservation,
sustainable utilization and protection of Arctic ecosystems and natural resources forthe benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, including indigenous

10

peoples;ii)

Use and management of natural resources shall be based on an approach which
considers the value and interdependent nature of ecosystem components;

iii)

Management, planning and development activities which may significantly affect the
Arctic ecosystems shall:a)be based on informed assessments of their possible impacts on the Arctic
environment, including cumulative impacts;b)provide for the maintenance of the regions’s ecological, systems andbiodiversity;c)respect the Arctic’s significance for and influence on the global climate;d)be compatible with the sustainable utilization of Arctic ecosystems;e)take into account the results of scientific investigations and the traditional
knowledge of indigenous peoples;vi)

Information and knowledge concerning Arctic ecosystems and resource use will be
developed and shared to support planning and should precede, accompany and follow
development activities;

vii)

Consideration of the health, social, economic and cultural needs and values ofindigenous peoples shall be incorporated into management, planning anddevelopment activities;

11

viii)

Development of a network of protected areas shall be encouraged and promoted with
due regard for the needs of indigenous peoples;ix)

International cooperation to protect the Arctic environment shall be supported andpromoted.

x)

Mutual cooperation in fulfilling national and international responsibilities in the
Arctic consistent with this Strategy, including the use, transfer and/or trade, of themost effective and appropriate technology to protect the environment, shall bepromoted and developed.

12

3.

PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIESAt the first meeting in 1989 of the eight Arctic countries there was early recognition that many of theenvironmental problems that individual nations had been addressing, were in fact shared amongst the eight. To
begin with, six specific pollution issues were identified as requiring attention. These issues were associated withpersistent organic contaminants, oil, heavy metals, noise, radioactivity, and acidification.

State of the Environment Reports were prepared on each of these topics and have been published separately. It
was also agreed that these will be updated as necessary

It was recognized that the ability to completely understand these issues was restricted by the lack of acomprehensive scientific data base and coordinated monitoring program on the state of Arctic ecosystems.
Furthermore, the potential impact of these specific pollutants on Arctic flora and fauna underlined the need toconsider establishing a mechanism to facilitate a cooperative approach to their conservation. Other
environmental problems including the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming were not addressed
because they were already being considered in other fora. It was also determined that since the Arctic
environment is particularly vulnerable to accidental discharges and uncontrolled releases of pollutants, enhanced
mechanisms to address environmental emergencies in the Arctic were needed.

3.1

Persistent Organic Contaminants

The use and production of persistent organic contaminants (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT,
hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), chlordane and toxaphene has been stopped or restricted in some countries,
however, many are still widely manufactured and used on a global basis. They are hazardous environmental
contaminants due to their high stability and persistence in the environment, potential for bioaccumulation andhigh chronic toxicity, and the large quantities which have been released into the environment.

13

Although there are no major sources of these contaminants in the Arctic, they, nevertheless, reach the Arctic
environment via long-range transport by rivers, the atmosphere and ocean currents from more industrialized
centres, particularly Asia, Europe and North America. Due to the highly lipophilic nature of most chlorinatedorganic contaminants, they become concentrated in the fatty tissues of species in the Arctic food chain. The
highest levels of contaminants are therefore detected in the blubber and fat tissue of animals at the top of thefood chain (e.g. polar bears, whales and seals). This is of particular concern in the Arctic because of the highlevel of consumption of lipid-rich wildlife foods by residents, resulting in a pathway of these contaminants tohumans.

The presence of chlorinated organic contaminants has been reported in human populations throughout theworld. The level of PCBs in breast milk samples collected from Inuit women in northern Quebec, wasapproximately five times higher than that of Caucasian women living in southern Quebec, Canada.
The variable and generally sparse database on chlorinated organic contaminants in the Arctic prohibits for themost part, the determination of any spatial or temporal trends. In Canadian studies, chlordane compound
residue levels in polar bear fat have been reported to be four times higher in 1984 than in 1969, while levels of
DDT did not change and other chlorinated contaminants measures were twice as high.

Concentrations of chlorinated organic contaminants in the Arctic ecosystem are generally lower than in heavily
polluted areas such as the Great Lakes, or the Baltic Sea. There are, however,some exceptions the more volatile compounds (e.g. HCB, toxaphene) are often detected in the Arctic at-concentrations similar to those In source regions.
Little is known about the potential effects of chlorinated organic contaminants on the ecosystem. However,there is evidence that a broad spectrum of contaminants is reaching the Arctic and there is sufficient
toxicological data as well as field data to make reasonable extrapolations with regard to ecosystemconsequences in the Arctic. Chronic effects of chlorinated organic contamination observed in other regions (e.g.
reproductive failure, bill and foot abnormalities, cancer) are of the most significance. The lower concentrations
detected in the Arctic do not diminish the potential significance of their effects on ecosystem health.

14

3.2

0il Pollution

The Arctic is one of the areas most vulnerable to adverse impacts from chronic and acute oil pollution. This isdue to physical environmental conditions such as low temperature, periods with little or no light, ice cover etc.
Low temperatures lead to reduced evaporation of the more volatile, toxic oil components. Dark, cold winters in
the Arctic lead to reduced ultraviolet radiation and biological decomposition of oil. In areas of drift ice, oildispersal caused by wave action is also reduced. Oil in iced areas will be trapped between ice floes or under
the ice, and only partly transported to the ice surface. These factors result in a generally slower decompositionof oil in the Arctic than in temperate regions. The period in which a particular oil spill can be harmful to wildlife
is thus comparatively longer in the Arctic.

The marginal ice zone is particularly vulnerable to oil pollution. A large part of the primary production in the
Arctic, is found in this zone, which makes it extremely important for the whole Arctic ecosystem. Although there
is no evidence that an oil spill reduces primary productivity to a significant degree, direct effects on marine life
can be devastating, especially in the marginal ice zones.

Feathers and fur contaminated by oil quickly lose their insulating properties, and the oil will often cause skininflammation. Both will lead to a negative energy balance of the affected animal. Ingested oil, in particular
unweathered oil with a high content of volatile substances, can cause serious intoxication of birds and mammals.
No studies indicate that any of these species tend to avoid oil spills.

The amount of information available on oil spills in the Arctic, and probably the accuracy of the estimatedquantities, varies considerably. Information on continuous discharges is scarce, and estimates of indirect oiltransport (atmosphere, ocean currents, and rivers) have not been available. Order of magnitude calculations
show that river transport is the main contribution of oil pollution to the Arctic (estimated at 200,000 metric tons
per annum).

15

The highest risk of oil spills is connected with transportation activities and production of oil as well as to a lesser
degree, exploration activities. Their occurrence will depend on the level of activity in the Arctic, the technicalstandards of the activity and the preventative measures taken.

The physical constraints caused by Arctic conditions imply particular technological challenges regarding oil spillclean up. Effective methods and techniques for containing and cleaning up oil spills from water and ice are
currently limited.

The available information on ambient oil pollution in the Arctic is scarce. More information is needed, obtainedwith standardized methodologies in order to have comparable data for the whole region, with special emphasison fluvial inputs and concentrations in surface marine waters.

3.3

Heavy Metals

Levels of heavy metals have been found in the air, precipitation, ocean waters, soils, rivers, lakes and bottom
sediments of the Arctic as well as in marine, freshwater and terrestrial biota.

These levels occur as a result of natural phenomena as well as from regional sources and global transport.

Heavy metal concentrations in air and precipitation are mainly due to long-range atmospheric transport fromindustrial centers resulting in a deposition of heavy metals on vegetation, snow, and the sea which generally
decreases from south to north. To a lesser extent discharges from local mining operations and the methylation of
inorganic mercury often associated with large scale impoundments of water in previously vegetated areas (i.e.
hydroelectric developments), also account for elevated heavy metal concentrations. Canadian and Finnish
studies indicate methyl mercury levels in fish rise measurably after the flooding of new reservoirs, depending
upon the amount of organic material present.

The temporal trends of long-range heavy metal pollution of the Arctic particularly mercury, cadmium, lead,16

arsenic and nickel have been determined by analyzing ice cores from glaciers. There has been an increasing
trend since the middle of the 19th century and a sharp increase in the 20th century. Recent analyses ofvegetation seem to indicate that a decrease may now be occurring.

The concentrations of heavy metals in lakes and rivers are generally higher than in Arctic sea water. A decreasein pH caused by acid precipitation increases the dissolution rates of heavy metals which may increase the rate ofaccumulation in the biota.

In the Arctic marine environment the concentrations of heavy metals in water are low compared to more
southerly latitudes. However, the concentrations in biota increase in the food chain, and in the top level
predators such as seals and whales the concentrations, especially of cadmium, increase to levels much higher
than observed in other areas. For example, in some Canadian studies, cadmium levels in narwhal kidney wereamong the highest ever reported in marine mammals. This build-up is probably due to naturally occurring
phenomena, but such occurrences make increases in the concentrations of heavy metals in the Arctic marine
environment as a result of industrial sources more problematic than elsewhere.

The high concentrations of heavy metals in marine mammals and some bird species constitute a problem in
districts where tissues from such animals constitute a significant part of the diet. Thus increased concentrationsof mercury have been found in Greenlanders from hunting districts. Elevated levels of mercury have also beenfound in the Native populations of Northern Quebec, Canada.

3.4

Noise

The waters of the Arctic region are a unique noise environment mainly due to the presence of ice. The ambient
noise is strongly influenced by the dynamic processes of ice formation, melt, deformation and movement. Thissituation is different from ice free waters. In periods where ice cracking and wind noise are absent, areas
covered by shore-fast ice are among the quietest underwater environments.

17

Human activities create noise types and levels, which may disturb marine mammals, or mask the “natural”
sounds of importance to those mammals. Some types of noise may affect fish as well as marine mammals.
There are a number of serious gaps in our knowledge of the effects of underwater noise on marine mammals,
including the inability to assess the effect of repeated noise exposure on stocks.

There is considerable evidence that most types of disturbance do not cause mortality. However, some noisy
activities, including low level overflights by aircraft, near seals and walrus at haul out sites can cause mortality
through stampedes or abandonment.

Many marine mammals seem able to adapt to or at least tolerate many types of disturbances or increased noiselevels. However the scarcity of direct evidence of serious consequences from disturbances does not necessarilymean that marine mammals are not stressed or affected in some other way. Noise from human activities may
cause short-term or long-term behavioral reactions and temporary displacement of various marine mammals.
The biological significance of most of these reactions is unknown.

Moving sound sources, notably boats and aircraft, seem to be more disturbing than stationary sources, e.g.
dredges and drillships. The effects on fish and wildlife of cumulative exposure to noise are largely unknown.

3.5

Radioactivity

There have been two major causes of radioactive contamination affecting the Arctic region: atmosphericnuclear-weapons testing during the 1950s and 1960s and the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in1986. Of greatest concern are the long-lived radionuclides, including Strontium-90 (29 year half-life) andCesium-137 (30 year half-life). Studies have shown that these fallout derived radionuclides are efficiently
retained by surface vegetation, especially lichen, in this nutrient-poor environment and are biologically recycled
in Arctic ecosystems. As a result, those indigenous peoples and local populations consuming as their main food18

caribou or reindeer meat with elevated levels of radio-cesium, may have accumulated higher levels.

Other radioactive threats to the environment exist, e.g. accidental discharges which are of a biologicalsignificance associated with nuclear power sources and transport, storage and disposal of radioactive waste.

When considering the total radiation dose, attention should be given to the radiation from man-made sources
and to natural radiation.

A number of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including those with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), address issues related to exchange of information, early notification of radiation release,
emergency preparedness and response to nuclear accidents and transboundary movement of radioactive
materials.

3.6

Acidification

The most important acidifying substances are sulphur and nitrogen compounds emitted mainly by vehicles,industrial activities and coal and oil based power plants. Long-range transport is the most important factor
influencing the air quality in the Arctic, especially in winter. The sulphur and nitrogen emission from industrial
activities in the Arctic is also a considerable factor. Until now, little emphasis has been placed on the effects ofacid deposition on Arctic ecosystems. Furthermore, knowledge derived from studies in temperate zones is notdirectly relevant to the Arctic.

One of the most well known examples of a problem associated with acidity in the Arctic is the Arctic haze_phenomenon produced from acid pollutant aerosols. Arctic haze has been under intense study and much is
known about its nature, distribution and composition. Acidification is evolving into a prominent environmental
problem around certain northern industrial centers. In northern FennoScandia, in the northwestern parts of the19

Soviet Union and in the eastern parts of Canada, natural factors increase the sensitivity to acidification andanthropogenic impacts have extended through the whole area.

The interaction between acidic deposition and the soils of different ecosystems is an important component of
the acidification process. A continuous excessive acid load leads to the mobilization of aluminum and heavy
metals.

The combined effects of acid deposition and the stresses already induced by the harsh climate increase thepossibility of vegetation damage in the Arctic.

Critical loads, rates of acidification, and conditions influencing cold climate environments need more detailed
regional monitoring and research. In general, northern ecosystems are under greater stress than temperate
ecosystems.

20

4. INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ARCTICENVIRONMENT

Before determining the specific actions required to protect the Arctic environment, a review of existing andproposed international and bilateral agreements and policy declarations pertaining to the Arctic environmenthas been completed. This review has revealed the existence of a number of mechanisms that may be
employed to protect the Arctic environment, and provides a useful tool for the implementation of theStrategy. The List of Major International Instruments and Policy Declarations Pertaining to the Arctic
Environment has been distributed and will be periodically updated. Through the more specific studies of thesix priority areas, some important gaps have been identified.

4.1

Persistent Organic Contaminants

International legal instruments which currently control air pollution are not specifically directed at limiting theemission of persistent organic contaminants and related contaminants. Work is underway within the UN ECE
Convention on Long-Range Transboufldary Air Pollution (LRTAP) to review the problem and identify specificcontrol actions. Any new international legal instrument would need to target contaminant reductions in theindustrialized areas of Asia, Europe and North America. Consequently, proper management and protection of
the Arctic ecosystem from the effects of these contaminants will require cooperation through effective bilateraland multilateral agreements among both circumpolar and non-circumpolar nations.

4.2

Oil Pollution

The main international instruments relevant inter alia to oil pollution in the Arctic are:i)the 1969 international Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (Convention);

21

ii)

the 1969 InternatiOnal Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Casesof Oil Pollution Casualties (Convention on Intervention);iii)

the 1971 international Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund forCompensation for Oil Pollution Damage (Fund Convention);iv)

the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention);v)

the 1974 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based—

Sources (Paris Convention);vi)

the International Convention for the Prevention Of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL
1973/78); andvii)

the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)(not yet inforce);

viii)

the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response andCooperation, 1990 (not yet in force).

Certain issues with respect to oil pollution in the Arctic are insufficiently covered by the existing international
agreements and conventions. For example, some instruments are limited in their application and only partiallyapply to the Arctic region. There is a need to consider the possibility of extending the geographic scope of these
instruments. The provisions of the various instruments also need to be further assessed to determine theiradequacy under Arctic conditions taking into account the particularly vulnerable nature of the region.

Strict standards in the transportation of oil in the Arctic are needed. Such standards should be developed under
the framework of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Arctic countries should consider becoming
parties to or applying the relevant principles of the various existing conventions and agreements on oil pollution
management.

22

4.3

Heavy Metals

There are few multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements which deal with heavy metal inputs in theenvironment.

The UN ECE LRTAP Convention is one of the major international conventions which limits harmful
atmospheric emissions. Work is currently underway within this forum to identify and decide upon specificcontrol actions to deal with heavy metals.

Control of discharges of heavy metals to the marine environment are governed by both the 1972 Convention
for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (Oslo Convention) and the 1974
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources (Paris Convention). The
UNCLOS provides opportunities for controlling the discharge of harmful substances e.g. heavy metals. There
are only a few bilateral arrangements between the Arctic countries controlling these substances.

4.4

Noise

Existing legal instruments do not address the effects of noise on the Arctic ecosystem. There may be a need for
Arctic countries to agree on the adoption of procedures to ensure that in the planning and conduct of activities
in the Arctic, measures are taken to facilitate the adequate monitoring of the potential disturbance from noise
including the verification of predicted effects

and the identification of any unforseen effects. Such evaluations should ensure that environmental protection
measures are given due consideration.

23

4.5

Radioactivity

The 1986 international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear
Accident, provides an adequate mechanism for cooperation and exchange of information applicable in the
Arctic region. In addition, there are a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements in existence which provide
for such events as the early notification of accidental radioactive discharges (e.g. between Finland and other
Nordic countries, Finland and the USSR, 1987).

With respect to emergency preparedness and assistance, the IAEA Convention on Assistance in the Case of a
Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency was established to facilitate prompt international assistance whenrequested in the event of a nuclear accident. Additionally, a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements havebeen concluded between the Arctic countries that both supplement and provide greater precision to the IAEA
arrangements. These should be examined to ensure that the specific environmental conditions of the Arctic are
addressed.

Furthermore, consideration should be given to practical mechanisms between national authorities to implement
the coordination of emergency measures within the existing international legal framework of the IAEA.

4.6

Acidification

The Arctic is exposed to the long range transport of acidifying substances from various sources. A number of—control measures have been introduced at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) andbilaterally. Although, in general, these measures do not contain provisions relating specifically to the Arctic
region, they do refer to emission sources that affect the Arctic.

24Arctic acidification is a complex phenomenon resulting from a wide range of different types of activities also
conducted outside the Arctic itself. The extent of acidification in the Arctic is still uncertain, although there isrecognition of problems such as Arctic haze and forest devastation and other large-scale acidification effects
and regional damage in certain Arctic areas. There is however, insufficient knowledge of the critical loads, toallow for agreement on common standards. The lack of comparable data also presents problems.
Consequently, improved monitoring and research directed at the rate and nature of acidification processes
under Arctic conditions are needed.

Under both the 1985 and 1988 protocols to the UN ECE LRTAP Convention for the Reduction of Sulphur
and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions or their Transboundary Fluxes, the Cooperative Program for Monitoring and
Evaluation of the Long-Range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP) is to report annually to the
LRTAP Executive Body its calculations of budgets, transboundary fluxes and deposition of sulphur and nitrogenoxides. EMEPs geographical scope is currently limited to Europe but it is suggested that EMEP might beutilized for collecting data on Arctic acidification in cooperation with the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Program (AMAP). Arctic countries should consider becoming parties to all the relevant agreements in this_field. This is particularly relevant for those countries in the northern hemisphere where there are major sourcesof sulphur and nitrogen emissions.

25
5.

ACTIONSThe eight Arctic countries agree to proceed cooperatively with the following action plan. These commitments
will begin the process of addressing the serious environmental issues identified and assessed through the
preparation of specific state of environment reports. These issues will require regular updates for evaluation by
the eight Arctic countries on the progress being made, and to advise on possible new courses of action.

5.1

Persistent Organic Contaminantsi)

In order to further define the likely sources, pathways, sinks and effects of thesepollutants, and to expand the data base to cover all the component parts of the Arctic
environment, the eight Arctic countries will undertake cooperative monitoring(AMAP) and research related to the problem of persistent organic contaminants in
the Arctic ecosystem.

ii)

The Arctic countries will consider the feasibility of developing national inventories
on the production, use, and emissions of persistent organic contaminants (e.g.
pesticides) to be collected, and made available and summarized in the state of the
Arctic environment reports.

iii)

The Arctic countries will also address the problem of persistent organic contaminants
under existing or proposed international agreements and will review othermechanisms to advance this issue in other international fora.

iv)

In order to achieve an early reduction in the movement of persistent organic
contaminants into the Arctic environment, the eight Arctic countries will support theprocess now under way within the UN ECE LRTAP Convention to further define the

26

problem and to develope proposals for international action on the control of thesesubstances under the Convention. Those Arctic countries which are partners to theParis and Helsinki Conventions will actively support ongoing inventory andassessment work under those conventions.

v)

The Arctic countries agree to implement measures to reduce and/or control the use of
the following polluting substances: chlordane, DDT, toxaphene and PCBs. Those
Arctic countries which have not already done so, also recognize that the eliminationof the problem of persistent organic contaminants in the Arctic may also require
controls on the production of these substances.

vi)

The Arctic countries will review the situation with regard to other persistent organic
contaminants with a view to establishing priorities and timetables for a program ofemission elimination or control in cooperation with other international fora.

5.2

Oil Pollutioni)

In order to achieve better documentation of the level of oil pollution in the Arctic
environment, the initiation of monitoring of hydrocarbons as a part of the AMAP,
will play an important role.

ii)

There is also a need to consider establishment of a reporting system on discharges
and spills, with regard to provide adequate documentation on the pollution threat, in
the Arctic.

iii)

The elements agreed upon in Section 8, Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment

27

and Section 9, Emergency Prevention. Preparedness and Response will comprise thebasis for further cooperation in preventing and combatting oil pollution.

iv)

The Arctic countries agree to take measures as soon as possible to adhere to thestrictest relevant international standards within the conventions, to which thecountries are parties, regarding discharges irrespective of origin.

v)

The Arctic countries agree to undertake joint actions in relevant international fora tofurther strengthen recognition of the particularly sensitive character of icecovered
parts of the Arctic Ocean.

5.3

Heavy Metalsi)

An improved understanding of the dynamics of heavy metals in the Arctic ecosystem
is required. The countries will undertake a program of coordinated monitoring(AMAP) and research to identify sources, pathways and sinks of heavy metals;
spatial and temporal trends; and, ecological effects with special emphasis on humanhealth effects.

ii)

The eight Arctic countries agree to implement measures to control conditions thatlead to the release of heavy metals by industrial activities including as appropriate theimplementation of best available technology and other concerted actions inaccordance with appropriate international agreements (e.g. UN ECE LRTAPConvention).

28

5.4

Noise

i)

The effects of noise associated with Arctic marine and terrestrial projects should be
evaluated as part of the project planning and approval processes, and if significant
adverse noise effects on the specific components of Arctic ecosystems are predicted,
then measures should be implemented to avoid or mitigate the impact.

ii)

Efforts should be made to improve the knowledge on marine mammal auditory
function, communication and behavior and the current noise exposure assessment
techniques. For specific project evaluations, site-specific data should be addressed
before and during the evaluation. This includes determining how much exposure
migrating stocks are encountering throughout the year.

5.5

Radioactivity

i)

AMAP should address radioactivity. Common standards and techniques formonitoring and analysis, consistent with IAEA standards and technology should be
developed.

ii)

Future monitoring and health assessments should consider the effects fromexposure to radiation from man-made sources together with natural or backgroundradiation.

iii)

Further consideration should be given to the development of more specificmeasures, consistent within the international legal framework of IAE procedures,for cooperation amongst Arctic countries to deal with emergencies caused

29

by the accidental release of radioactive substances and to provide mutual
assistance in the harsh Arctic environment.

iv)

All relevant data concerning previous studies and measurements should be collated in
the existing relevant data bases of which information should be exchanged between
the governments and institutions concerned.

5.6

Acidificationi)

Regional Arctic research programs should be developed to assess the current
loadings and potential effects of acid deposition on representative sensitive Arctic
ecosystems. Special attention should be given to those regions or ecosystems forwhich existing data or assessments suggest that there is or is likely to be an
acidification problem.

ii)

Consideration should be given to expanding deposition monitoring programs, within
the framework of AMAP and existing networks such as the ECE/EMEP deposition
monitoring network, to encompass measurement of acid deposition in the Arctic.
Emphasis should also be placed on measuring dry deposition.

iii)

Emphasis should be placed on defining critical loads and setting target loads forsensitive Arctic ecosystems. In the event that these target loads are being exceeded,
steps should be taken to reduce those emissions contributing to the problem, in
accordance with international agreements such as the ECE LRTAP Convention.
Reduction of emissions of sulphur and nitrogen should be sought by, inter alia.
implementing the use of the best available technology.

30
6.

ARCTIC MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

The eight Arctic countries recognize that the Arctic region represents one of the relatively pristine areas onearth. It is therefore of great importance to preserve and to protect the Arctic.

Measurements in the Arctic indicate that pollutants originating from anthropogenic activities in the mid-latitudes
are transported to the Arctic by atmospheric processes, ocean currents and rivers, and that pollutants aredeposited and accumulated in the Arctic environment and its ecosystems.

Exploitation of natural resources, and concomitant urban and industrial expansion within the Arctic region, also
contribute to the degradation of the Arctic environment and affect the living conditions for the people of theregion.

Distinguishing human-induced changes from changes caused by natural phenomena in the Arctic will requiremonitoring of selected key indicators of the Arctic Environment. Therefore, the eight Arctic countries haveagreed to promote development of an Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) in order tounderstand and document these changes and so that the monitoring results may be used to anticipate adverse
biological, chemical and physical changes to the ecosystem and to prevent, minimize and mitigate these adverse
effects.

The primary objective of the AMAP is the measurement of the levels of anthropogenic pollutants and theassessment of their effects in relevant component parts of the Arctic environment. The assessments should bepresented in status reports to relevant fora as a basis for necessary steps to be taken to reduce the pollution.

Two of the most significant threats to the present Arctic environment may come from climate change, induced
by global warming, and the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion. Programs to detect and determine thecauses and effects of climate change and ozone depletion are to a large extent being developed by other31

international groupings and in other fora.

It is important for AMAP to be aware of these programs and to develope links with them from an Arctic
perspective in order to encourage and facilitate an Arctic component in climate programs. Data obtained forassessing climate change will provide important inputs to the AMAP dataset. In turn, AMAP data will be
relevant to climate change programs in the Arctic.
-

The pollution data available from the Arctic region are with a few exceptions based on research programs
performed within limited subject areas by national programs and not supported by bilateral or international
cooperation. There is an urgent need for cooperation among local and regional efforts and global programs inorder to obtain better documentation on the environmental situation in the Arctic especially with regard to longrange air and marine pollution.

From the outset, the AMAP should as far as possible be based on existing programs. The program should beinitiated in a step by step fashion as indicated in the proposal for the AMAP.

6.1

Actionsi)

Distinguishing human-induced changes from changes caused by natural phenomenain the Arctic will require estimates and regular reporting by the Arctic countries ofcontaminant emissions and discharges, including accidental discharges, as well astransport and deposition. In addition monitoring of deposition and selected key
indicators of the Arctic biological environment, are required. The eight Arctic
countries should therefore agree to establish an Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Program (AMAP) to fulfill these monitoring objectives.

ii)

The AMAP should be implemented through the establishment of an Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Task Force and a small secretariat, established by the32

Government of Norway.

iii)

AMAP should as far as possible build upon existing programs. Thus, one of theimportant tasks of the AMAP will be to review and coordinate existing national
programs, establish a data directory, and to develope these programs whenappropriate in an international framework.

iv)

As an initial priority, the AMAP should focus on persistent organic contaminants andon selected heavy metals and radionuclides, and ultimately to monitor ecologicalindicators to provide a basis for assessments of the status of Arctic ecosystems.

v)

The eight Arctic countries will receive regular State of the Arctic Environment
Reports summarizing the results of the AMAP.

As a result of these actions, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program will provide information for:i)

integrated assessment reports on status and trends in the condition of Arctic
ecosystem;ii)

identifying possible causes for changing conditions;

iii)

detecting emerging problems, their possible causes, and the potential risk to Arctic_

ecosystems including indigenous peoples and other Arctic residents; andiv)

recommending actions required to reduce risks to Arctic ecosystem

33

7.

PROTECTION OF THE ARCTIC MARINE ENVIRONMENTThe eight Arctic Countries recognize their particular interests and responsibilities as neighbouring countries in
the Arctic, and emphasize the need to take preventive measures directly or through competent internationalorganizations, consistent in particular with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
regarding marine pollution in the Arctic, irrespective of origin.

To this end the Arctic countries agree to:i)Apply the principles concerning the protection and preservation of the Marine
Environment as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, and, in accordance with the continuing development of international
environmental law, to further strengthen rules in order to protect the Arctic;ii)

Take measures as soon as possible to adhere to the strictest relevant international
standards within the conventions, to which the countries are parties, regarding
discharges irrespective of origin;

iii)

Undertake joint actions in relevant international fora to further strengthen recognitionof the particularly sensitive character of ice-covered parts of the Arctic Ocean;iv)

Review, in accordance with the general aims of this environmental Strategy, therelevance to the Arctic of international instruments connected with the protection of
the marine environment, with the aim that all Arctic countries accede, whereappropriate, to the instruments, or apply the principles and regulations embodied
therein;34

v)

Jointly support the appropriate initiatives of international organizations indeveloping mandatory standards in order to improve the protection against
accidental pollution affecting the marine environment, and actively ensure
application of such standards;vi)

Carry out studies of pollution in the monitoring activities within AMAP.

35

8.

EMERGENCY PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

At the same time as the Arctic is exhibiting signs of serious contamination from pollutants carried via long range
transport from mid latitudes, there has been an increase in development activities and shipping within the Arctic.
These activities can have serious environmental consequences in the Arctic as a result of accidents leading, interalia, to spills and discharges of oil and other harmful substances. The vulnerability of the Arctic ecosystem tothese sudden intrusions will be variable. Some limited mapping of areas sensitive to oil spills has been
conducted but more remains to be done. The relative hazard/risk associated with different activities is also notwell documented, nor is the geographic distribution of high risk activities.

There are a number of bilateral, regional and global arrangements which presently exist to deal with accidental
pollution, such as the 1983 Canada-Denmark Agreement for Cooperating relating to the Marine Environment,
the 1971 Agreement between Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden on Cooperation on Oil Pollution andthe 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation. There are othermultilateral conventions related to nuclear accidents or radiological emergencies supplemented by bilateralagreements on the exchange of information and reporting relative to nuclear plants and events.

The UN ECE has started work on an international convention, on the prevention and control of thetransboundary effects of industrial accidents. A part of the work is the establishment or reinforcement ofregional and subregional mechanisms for response, assistance and exchange of information on environmental
emergencies.

8.1

Actions

The Arctic countries agree to the following framework for taking early cooperative action on emergency
prevention, preparedness and response in the Arctic. They will take steps to review existing bilateral andmultilateral arrangements in order to evaluate the adequacy of the geographical coverage of the Arctic regions

36

by cooperative agreements. They will also take steps to convene a meeting of experts to consider andrecommend the necessary system of cooperation, which could include, inter alia, the following elements:i)

Actions to respond to significant accidental pollution from any source;ii)

Coordination and harmonization of preventive policies, strategies and measures;iii)

Establishment of a system for early notification in the event of significant accidental
pollution or an imminent threat of such pollution;iv)

Assessment of the risks for significant accidental pollution and of the adverse
effects in such cases so as to enable the parties to take the necessary preventive,
preparedness and response measures;v)

Inclusion of studies on effects of accidental pollution in conjunction with themonitoring activities of AMAP;

vi)

Cooperation in the conduct of research into and development of methods andtechnologies for prevention of, preparedness for and response to significant
accidental pollution in the Arctic;vii)

Cooperation in developing a system for exchange of information on research andnew developments regarding methods and technologies on response in the Arctic;

viii)

Exchange of information on legislative and administrative measures as well as
policies;

37

ix)

Measures for providing information to the public and public participation; andx)

Further enhance regional bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the Arctic
regarding prevention, preparedness and response by developing, as appropriate,contingency plans, training programs, as well as other measures to facilitate
assistance to the parties, in particular mutual assistance for efficient emergency
response in the event of significant accidental pollution, or the imminent threat ofsuch pollution.

38

9. CONSERVATION OF ARCTIC FLORA AND FAUNA

The health of Arctic flora and fauna is a key concern of the Arctic countries. These flora and fauna assume
special significance in this region since they are an essential factor helping to define the culture and survival of
the people living there. Although isolated geographically from the industrialized temperate regions of the globe, it
has now been amply demonstrated that this has not excluded Arctic flora and fauna from the negative
consequences of human activities in mid latitudes. The impacts on the Arctic have escalated over the past
several decades and both scientific and traditional knowledge have been pointing to the danger signals. Many ofthese concerns are enumerated in the six Arctic State of the Environment reports. They confirm that Arctic
flora, fauna and their habitats are being threatened by large scale economic development projects; long range
transport of pollutants; and degradation of habitats.

The problems facing Arctic flora, fauna and habitats are not confined to any one country but are circumpolar innature. Furthermore, because of the uniqueness of Arctic ecosystems, strategies to deal with these problems
will differ from those of other regions.

Several multilateral and bilateral agreements which pertain to the conservation of Arctic flora and fauna andtheir habitats are currently in existence. Most however, have been designed to be universally applicable to, or toapply to, a wider geographical area than the Arctic. Only the Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears andsome individual provisions in other agreements provide a specific Arctic focus.

The eight Arctic countries should therefore seek to create a distinct forum for scientists, indigenous peoples andconservation managers engaged in Arctic flora, fauna and habitat related activities to exchange data andinformation on issues such as shared species and habitats and to collaborate, as appropriate, for more effective
research, sustainable utilization and conservation.

39

9.1

Actions

The eight Arctic countries are mindful of the need to conserve Arctic flora and fauna and their habitats in theirnatural diversity, and protect these resources from the pollution threats I described in this Arctic Environmental
Protection Strategy. They recognize the special relationship and importance of Arctic flora and fauna and theirhabitats to indigenous peoples. The countries also recognize the benefits to be gained from sharing scientific andmanagement information, traditional knowledge, and other data with respect to Arctic flora and fauna and theirhabitats. With due regard to existing international cooperation, and in an effort to improve research andinformation aimed at protecting these resources and their habitats from pollution and environmental degradation,
they have reached the following understanding:i)

The eight Arctic countries will cooperate for the conservation of Arctic flora and fauna, their diversity,and their habitats. Such cooperation shall include, inter alia, exchanges of
information and data, and coordination of research, on the

research and management

following:a) Arctic species, their health and habitats;b) the laws, regulations and practices of the parties with respect to the conservation andmanagement of such species; andc) the importance and relationship to, and use of, such species by indigenous peoples
and the unique contribution of indigenous peoples to the stewardship of nature and its
resources;ii)

Each country will provide to the other countries, as appropriate, such information,
publications, and/or documents as may be agreed under the terms of the Strategy;iii)

The eight Arctic countries will seek to develope other forms of cooperation,
including exchanges of experts, of traditional knowledge, and of other data, as well

40

as engaging in joint projects, bilateral or multilateral meetings, symposia and joint
publications, to meet the intent of this Strategy;iv)

The eight Arctic countries will each seek to develope more effective laws,
regulations and practices for the conservation of Arctic flora and fauna, theirdiversity, and their habitats in close cooperation with Arctic indigenous peoples;v)

The eight Arctic countries agree to establish a mechanism for furthering thefollowing aims in close cooperation with Arctic indigenous peoples:a)Promoting and facilitating exchanges of information and personnel asprovided for in this Strategy;b)

Making recommendations with respect to the priorities, the orientation andthe nature of research and monitoring programs of the Arctic Countries;c)

Proposing strategies for enhanced conservation of Arctic species and theirhabitats; andd)Regularly compiling and disseminating information on activities regarding
the conservation of Arctic flora and fauna.

vi)

The eight Arctic countries will consult, as deemed appropriate with the International
Arctic Science Committee and other bodies on any matter that falls within the scopeof this Strategy;vii)

By October 1991 each Country will identify to the others its national agency
designated to Coordinate the cooperation envisaged by this section;

41

viii)

The Countries agree that the terms and conditions of the cooperation and exchanges
provided for in this section will be subject to the laws and regulations of theCountries;ix)

Each country will make its best efforts to provide resources adequate to carry out its
responsibilities under this section. It is understood that the ability of each country to
carry out activities is subject to the availability of funds, and that countries will seek
to ensure long-term funding for necessary projects.

42

10.

FURTHER COOPERATION

Continuity and further cooperation are essential for increasing the protection of the Arctic environment. In orderto ensure, this continuity and cooperation, the eight Arctic countries agree to hold regular Meetings on the
Arctic Environment.

The date and venue of the next meeting will be agreed upon at the preceding meeting. Decisions on the agenda
and participation of observers will be made and communicated to interested parties in advance of the meeting.

The decision to invite observers should be based on a pragmatic and functional evaluation of their involvement
in and contribution to Arctic environmental questions.

In order to facilitate the participation of Arctic indigenous peoples the following organizations will be invited as
observers: the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Nordic Saami Council and the U.S.S.R. Association of Small
Peoples of the North.

The Meetings on the Arctic Environment shall serve to:i)identify and coordinate actions to implement and further develop the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy;ii)

initiate cooperation in new fields relevant to the environmental protection of the
Arctic;iii)

make necessary recommendations in order to protect the Arctic environment;iv)

improve existing environmental regimes relevant to the Arctic; andv) assess and report on progress on actions agreed upon.