The Arctic environment : European perspectives on a changing Arctic.
Date: 2017-08-18
Institutions: European Environment Agency
Subjects: Arctic, climate change, climate change policy, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, environmental research, exploitation of resources, international cooperation, pollution

EEA Report  No 7/2017

The Arctic environment

European perspectives on a changing Arctic

ISSN 1977-8449

EEA report  No 7/2017

The Arctic environment

European perspectives on a changing Arctic

Cover design: EEA
Cover photos: Nuuk, Greenland, © Nikolaj Bock, EEA. 
Cover photo, bottom left: Ilulissat Ice Fjord, Greenland, © Nikolaj Bock, EEA.
Cover photo, bottom right: Reindeer, © Peter Prokosch, GRID Arendal.
Layout: EEA/Pia Schmidt

Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other 
institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on 
behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. 

Copyright notice
© European Environment Agency, 2017
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

ISBN 978-92-9213-858-5
ISSN 1977-8449
doi:10.2800/29867

European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark

Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Contents

Contents

Authors and acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 4

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 6

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 8

1 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.1  Purpose and scope................................................................................................................11

1.2  Methodology and outline of the report ..............................................................................11

2  Framing the European Arctic  ............................................................................................ 13

2.1  Background  ...........................................................................................................................13

2.2  The circumpolar and European Arctic  ...............................................................................14

2.3  The policy context for enhanced European engagement ................................................19

2.4  Global megatrends — the drivers of Arctic change ..........................................................21

2.5  A snapshot of the EU's Arctic footprint...............................................................................24

2.6  Crosscutting marine issues of relevance ............................................................................25

3  Challenges and opportunities from Arctic change .......................................................... 31

3.1  Arctic ecosystem resilience, connectivity and importance ..............................................31

3.2  Key environmental and climatic trends, changes and effects of relevance to Europe.... 32

3.3  Socio-economic developments affecting the region ........................................................49

4  Responding to Arctic change ............................................................................................. 65

4.1  Europe's role in the Arctic and the Arctic's role in Europe  ..............................................65

4.2  The evidence base and assessment landscape .................................................................68

4.3 

Integration and policy coherence in Europe  .....................................................................74

5  Conclusions  ......................................................................................................................... 77

5.1  A need for an integrated response .....................................................................................77

5.2  Policy integration options ....................................................................................................78

References ................................................................................................................................. 83

Further reading ......................................................................................................................... 90

3

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticAuthors and acknowledgements

Authors and acknowledgements

Authors and editorial support

EEA lead author

Nikolaj Bock 

EEA contributing authors, content input and guidance

Ronan Uhel, David Stanners, Paul McAleavey, 
Stéphane Isoard, Lars Mortensen, André Jol, 
Hans-Martin Füssel, Eva Royo Gelabert, Francois 
Dejean, Jan-Erik Petersen and Ana Tejedor Arceredillo.  

EEA production and editorial team

Pia Schmidt, Brendan Killeen, Carsten Iversen, 
Andy Martin, Patrick McMullan, Anttiii Kaartinen, 
Iain Cameron Hanne Kock Andersen.

Acknowledgements

The European Environment Information and 
Observation Network (Eionet), through national 
focal points in 33 EEA member countries and six 
cooperating countries provided important feedback 
and comments: Marianne Kroglund and Ellen Oseth 
(Norway), Åsa Sjöström and Gunilla Ejdung (Sweden), 

Peter Lengyel (Hungary), Martin Fowell (United 
Kingdom), Manuela Krakau (Germany) and Malgorzata 
Bednarek (Poland).

EU services: Special thanks to the many colleagues in 
the European Commission services who commented 
and provided valuable inputs to developing the 
report; Directorate-General for Environment 
(DG ENV) Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs 
and Fisheries (MARE), Joint Research Centre (JRC), 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
(DG RTD), Directorate-General for Regional and Urban 
Policy (DG REGIO), Directorate-General for Climate 
Action (DG CLIMA), Directorate-General for Mobility 
and Transport (DG MOVE) and Directorate-General for 
Communications Networks, Content and Technology 
(DG CNECT) and the European External Action Service 
(EEAS).

Arctic partners: The EEA is grateful for the 
guidance and contribution to the report from our 
Arctic partners; Morten Skovgård Olsen (Danish 
Energy Agency/Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
Programme, AMAP), Volker Rachold (International 
Arctic Science Committee, IASC), Jon-Arve Røyset 
(Norwegian Coastal Administration), Mikala Klint 
(Danish Environmental Protection Agency), Tom Barry 
(Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Arctic Council, 
CAFF) and Martin Sommerkorn (World Wide Fund for 
Nature, WWF).

4

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticAuthors and acknowledgements

Country groupings

The report addresses European perspectives on a changing Arctic and is primarily directed at EU institutions and EEA 
member countries. However, some of the issues raised are also of relevance to a wider European and global audience, 
given that a number of these issues have wide-ranging effects or require an international response. In this context, the 
report makes references to geographic regions and country groupings and for these purposes the following definitions and 
abbreviations are used: 

Arctic States (8): Canada, Denmark (including the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden 
and the United States of America (Alaska). These countries also make up the member countries of the Arctic Council.

Arctic Council (8 + 6): Canada, Denmark (including the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, 
Sweden and the United States of America (Alaska), and six Permanent Participants representing the indigenous peoples' 
organisations Aleut International Association (AIA), Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), Gwich'in Council International (GCI), Inuit 
Circumpolar Council (ICC), Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) and the Saami Council (SC).     

EU (28): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, 
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

EEA member countries (33): EU-28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. 

EEA cooperating countries (39): EEA-33 and Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 
Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo (1).

Europe (47): EEA-39 and Andorra, Belarus, Holy See, Moldova, Monaco, Russia, San Marino and Ukraine. 

Arctic partners (2): Arctic States (8), China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, intergovernmental organisations 
(IGOs), Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and indigenous 
peoples' organisations. 

European Arctic is defined, for the purposes of this report, as the zone between Greenland in the west and the Ural 
Mountains in Russia to the east (see Map 2.1).

Circumpolar Arctic. The Arctic Ocean, sub-regional seas and land areas identified as Arctic by the eight Arctic States. The 
definitions of the Arctic Council working groups Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) and Conservation of 
Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) are used where appropriate. 

(1)   Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99.
(2)   China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Singapore are named specifically as they have Arctic Council observer status, along with EEA 

member countries France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The EU has applied to become an 
observer and has been invited to follow the work of the Arctic Council while the application is pending. 

5

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Abbreviations

Abbreviations

7th EAP 

 Seventh Environment Action 
Programme to 2020 (EU)

AC 

Arctic Council

IASC 

ICES 

 International Arctic Science Committee

 International Council for the Exploration 
of the Sea

AACA  

 Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic

IPCC 

 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change

AMAP 

AR5 

CAFF 

 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
Programme (Arctic Council working 
group)

Assessment Report 5 (IPCC)

 Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna 
(Arctic Council working group)

CBD 

 Convention on Biological Diversity (UN)

IPY 

JRC 

LRTAP 

MEAs 

International Polar Year

Joint Research Council

 Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution 
(convention)

 Multinational Environmental 
Agreements

CBMP 

CFP 

CLCS 

CO2 

EC 

EEA 

 Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring 
Programme (Arctic Council)

MPAs 

Marine Protected Areas 

Common fisheries policy (EU)

 Commission on the Limits of the 
Continental Shelf (UN)

PAME 

 Protecting the Arctic Marine 
Environment (Arctic Council working 
group)

POPs 

Persistent organic pollutants

Carbon dioxide

SAON  

 Sustained Arctic Observing Networks

European Commission

SDGs 

 Sustainable Development Goals 
(UN 2030 Agenda)

European Environment Agency

SLR 

Sea level rise

EEAS 

European External Action Service

EEZ 

Exclusive economic zone

SOER2015 

 The European environment — State and 
outlook 2015 (report)

Eionet 

 European Environment Information and 
Observation Network

UN 

United Nations

EMODnet 

 European Marine Observation and Data 
Network

ESA 

EU 

European Space Agency

European Union 

EU-PolarNet 

 European Polar Research Programme

UNCLOS 

 United Nations Convention on the Law 
of the Sea

UNEP 

 United Nations Environment 
Programme (now UN Environment)

UNFCCC 

 United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change

GEO 

 Global Environment Outlook (UNEP)

WWF 

World Wide Fund for Nature

6

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticForeword

Foreword

This European Environment Agency (EEA) report 
contributes to the growing international discourse on 
the Arctic region. It is both timely and important, since 
it examines the increasingly rapid changes that are 
taking place in the Arctic from a European perspective. 
It considers the national, regional and global challenges 
and opportunities that are emerging as a result. 

There is increasing awareness that changes in the Arctic 
have considerable impacts beyond its boundaries. For 
example, the Arctic's role in global climate regulation 
and sea level rise is now widely recognised. The region 
is seen as an important barometer of global climate 
change. 

Similarly, many of the mega-trends that affect the Arctic 
environment come from outside the region, such as 
climate change, long-range pollution or demand for 
resources. Such changes are having a massive impact 
on the Arctic environment, human health and the 
degradation of natural capital. These are challenges 
that the Arctic States cannot solve alone. 

Change also brings about opportunities. The strategic 
importance of the Arctic region is growing as ice and 
snow conditions are changing rapidly. Access to natural 
resources is becoming easier and new transport 
routes are opening up. Economic developments too 
are accelerating, benefiting the region's inhabitants 
through improved job potential, better living conditions 
and higher health standards. Beyond the boundaries 
of the Arctic, the significant potential of green and blue 
growth may also benefit the global economy. 

Yet, if not managed with care, such developments will 
have repercussions on the Arctic's fragile environment 
and the livelihood of its peoples. We must give 
sufficient attention to environmental protection and 
sustainable development. The Arctic is unique with 
its rich biodiversity and ecosystems. It is, therefore, 
important to continuously monitor and assess the 
changing environment in the Arctic region. 

Europe, and the European Union in particular, has a 
key role to play in shaping the future of the Arctic. For 
this reason, the EU has identified the Arctic as a priority 
region in the 7th Environment Action Programme. 
Moreover, in 2016 the European Commission and the 
EEAS launched an integrated EU Arctic policy. This 
is expressly designed to frame the main areas of EU 
engagement in the region and to foster cooperation 
with Arctic partners. The Council of the European Union 
responded with Arctic conclusions in 2016 and the 
European Parliament with an Arctic Resolution in 2017, 
reaffirming the EU's commitment to the region. 

Despite the economic, environmental, social and 
scientific importance of the Arctic, it remains one of the 
least understood regions on Earth. That is changing, 
with monitoring and assessments revealing some of 
the Arctic's secrets. This report aims to contribute to the 
enhanced understanding of the region. It distils the most 
relevant Arctic knowledge from a European perspective 
and indicates where the EU can play a positive role. 

The European Union recognises the urgent need for 
collective effort. We hope this report can play a part.

Karmenu Vella  
Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
European Commission

Dr Hans Bruyninckx 
Executive Director 
European Environment Agency

7

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticExecutive summary

Executive summary

The Arctic is currently warming at a rate of almost twice 
the global average. As a result, the circumpolar Arctic 
region is seeing profound and rapid changes that can 
dramatically alter living conditions locally, regionally 
and, because of the Arctic's role in climate regulation 
and sea level rise, globally. The box below provides an 
overview of the challenges and impacts we face as a 
result of a warming Arctic.

The above climatic stressors are coupled with 
pressures from economic development: exploration for 
minerals and fossil fuels; increased transportation and 
shipping; comprehensive fishing efforts; local pollution 
from industrial activities and historical waste disposals; 
land fragmentation; infrastructure developments; 
tourism; and decline in biodiversity and threat from 

invasive species. These multiple stressors do not act in 
isolation. They often exacerbate one another, leading to 
cumulative impacts greater than those from individual 
activities or stressors. Collectively, these changes 
challenge ecosystem resilience, and Arctic species 
and inhabitants, particularly indigenous peoples, all 
of whom and which will have to adapt to pressures 
and rapid transformation in both the environment and 
living conditions.

These impacts will affect Europe and in some 
cases already are doing so. The two regions' shared 
geography, ecosystems and weather systems, and 
ocean connectivity, as well as longstanding historical 
and cultural ties, and close economic links, make this 
inevitable. Equally, Europe bears some responsibility 

The European and global challenges and impacts as a result of a warming Arctic

•  Melting ice on Greenland, Svalbard and on glaciers in Continental Europe, contributes to global sea level rise.

•  Diminishing snow cover and sea ice extent accelerate global warming due to albedo loss (3).

•  Changes in the strength and position of the jet stream, which governs large-scale weather patterns at middle latitudes, in 

turn, may lead to increased precipitation and thereby flooding and more frequent storms in northern Europe. 

•  Altered ecosystems change breeding conditions for migrating species, including a large number of European bird 

populations. In addition, invasive species, which affect Arctic biodiversity and endemic species, are appearing in the Arctic.  

•  Rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have led oceans to absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) and become 

more acidic. Ocean acidification adversely affects the lower levels of the Arctic food chain (in particular plankton), which 
are key to sustaining Arctic fish stocks, their prey and migrating whales. 

•  Thawing permafrost (itself a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions) leads to the release of more greenhouse gases 

from CO2 captured in frozen soil and organic compounds, and methane emissions. 

• 

• 

 Long-range pollutants including herbicides, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), mercury, radioactivity and black carbon 
are transported to the Arctic or discharged from melting ice and snow, causing them to accumulate in the Arctic food 
chain. Pollutants are still at safe levels in fish and shellfish but higher levels of POPs and mercury are found in marine 
mammals. 

Influx of freshwater to the Arctic basin from the Greenland ice sheet, and from melting glaciers and permafrost in 
northern Europe, could affect thermohaline circulation (4), which drives the North Atlantic current and exerts a strong 
influence on European weather and climate.

(3)  Albedo is a measure of how much light that hits a surface is reflected without being absorbed. White surfaces on snow and ice reflect most light 

and have a high albedo, while darker surfaces such as oceans absorb most of the light, indicating a low albedo.

(4)  Discharges of freshwater can affect the salinity of the upper layers of waters in the Arctic Ocean. This can affect the water exchange whereby 
warm waters brought into the Arctic Ocean from the Gulf Stream sink to the bottom because of temperature and salinity where the dense 
water then flows back to the world oceans.

8

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Executive summary

for the rapidly changing situation in the Arctic through 
its imports of oil, gas, minerals, fish and other natural 
resources extracted from the region, the emission 
of greenhouse gases that contribute to rising Arctic 
temperatures, and long-range pollution including marine 
litter and plastics, and increased shipping and tourism.

Europe into an efficient low-carbon circular economy 
by 2050. Under this plan, Europe would reduce the 
pollutants transported into the Arctic through air 
and ocean currents, reduce its imports of minerals 
and hydrocarbons from the Arctic region and act as 
a frontrunner in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
Some of these reductions are already taking place. 

However, Europe and in particular the EU also 
plays a part in providing solutions to many of these 
challenges through integrated policy responses. The 
EU policy for the Arctic (EC, 2016a), which compliments 
other EU policy initiatives, highlights potential 
responses, including:

• 

protecting and safeguarding the environment; 

•  mitigating climate change by addressing climate 
change impacts and providing support for 
adaptation; 

• 

• 

• 

strengthening the knowledge base through satellite 
observation and continued research activities; 

supporting sustainable development through 
investment in innovation, infrastructure and 
regional cooperation; and 

engaging in international dialogue with Arctic 
and other partners on issues that require an 
international response.

To fulfil these roles, the EU has, among other policy 
initiatives, identified the Arctic as a priority region 
in its Seventh Environment Action Programme 
(EU, 2013a), the overall goal of which is to support 
sustainable development and safeguard natural 
capital. In this context, the EU has a role to play in 
continuing efforts to ensure the appropriate balance 
between challenges and opportunities arising in the 
Arctic region, and to strengthen the resilience of Arctic 
ecosystems and communities, and in supporting the 
wellbeing of Arctic inhabitants, particularly indigenous 
peoples.

As stated in The European environment — state and 
outlook: sythesis report (SOER2015) (EEA, 2015a), Europe 
and the Arctic face persistent and emerging systemic 
challenges linked to production and consumption 
systems, and a rapidly changing global context. 
Therefore, achieving the EU and UN 2030 and 2050 
visions (EU, 2013a/UN, 2015) requires systemic 
transition, driven by more ambitious actions on 
policy, knowledge, investments and innovation.

Policy options are seldom straightforward and careful 
integrated planning is thus required. As such, the 
EU has an ambitious post-2020 plan to transform 

Besides being a region with low population density 
and economic activity, the economic downturn and 
fluctuations in world commodity prices have led to a 
slowdown in Arctic investments, and this has provided 
Arctic governments, Europe and the international 
community with more time to better: (1) carry out 
assessments on ecosystem resilience and functioning, 
and assess the boundaries for human activities; 
(2) anticipate the pace of change in the Arctic; (3) build 
better models and forward-looking scenarios for Arctic 
development; and (4) develop cleaner technologies 
and put in place safety standards, at both national 
level and regional level. At the same time, the 
downturn has allowed other economic sectors such 
as tourism, the service sector, renewable energy 
production and better transport and communication 
links to begin to be developed. This window of 
opportunity should be taken advantage of and the 
EU has valuable contributions to make.   

To develop and implement integrated and coherent 
policies, better knowledge and understanding of the 
Arctic is essential. In that respect, the knowledge 
provided by Arctic States, the Arctic Council, the EU 
and other Arctic partners has played a valuable role 
in documenting Arctic changes, but it is insufficient 
merely to document the change and more has 
to be done to mitigate the harmful effects. 
Many drivers such as climate change or long-range 
pollution require an international response. National 
Arctic strategies among the Arctic States point to 
areas where further action is needed at national 
or sub-national level. Even at local level, changing 
conditions or economic activity warrant action in the 
form of planning, adaptation, regulation, enforcement 
or support.

Although we have yet to fully recognise and 
understand Arctic resilience, long-term effects and 
tipping points, scientific findings suggest that Arctic 
ecosystems, although undergoing change, are still 
coping with the pressures exerted on them and 
continue to provide vital functions and services for the 
region, and even humanity, given the Arctic's role in 
global climate regulation. However, given warming 
forecasts, Arctic ecosystems are projected to stop 
doing so some time this century, not least because 
the relevant stressors exacerbate one another and can 
have cascading effects.

9

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticExecutive summary

It is imperative that EU and Arctic partners work 
for continued ecosystem integrity by regularly 
updating and adjusting policies in line with the 
emerging pressures to ensure the sustainable use 
of the Arctic's fragile natural capital. Furthermore, 
efforts that ensure that growth in the Arctic does not 
jeopardise ecosystem resilience have to be supported, 
just as development has to be planned with and 
for the benefit of the Arctic's people. EU and Arctic 
partners need to continue to address the systemic 
and transboundary nature of the challenges and 
implement environmental policies while developing 
integrated approaches to the environmental and 
health challenges arising in the Arctic region, so that 
economic opportunities do not come at the expense 
of the Arctic environment and the services and 
functions it provides. 

Summary of policy options

In addition to the crosscutting issues and messages 
outlined above, there are seven areas in which Europe 
(the EU, EU Member States and to a certain extent 
non-EU member countries) can play a constructive role 
in the Arctic, in cooperation with Arctic partners. These, 
and the related actions proposed in Chapter 5, form 
the basis for the key messages readers should take 
away from this report.

Environment and health in the Arctic. 
Given that the Arctic and European 
environments are intrinsically linked, 
Europe has an interest in supporting 
efforts that contribute to strengthening 

ecosystem resilience, protection of biodiversity, 
improving health and living standards in the Arctic, 
reducing long-range pollution and marine litter, and 
regularly assessing the wider implications for Europe's 
environment.  

Energy. The EU is currently a large 
importer of oil and gas from the 
Arctic, and the increased extraction 
of fossil fuels from the region goes 
against the objective of keeping global 
temperatures below the 2 °C target agreed under the 
United Nations Framework Convension on Climate 
Change (UNFCCC, 2015). This, and the severe Arctic 
impacts of global warming, require the EU to continue 
to transform its energy mix to include more renewable 
energy sources and to become less dependent on 
Arctic imports.  

Fisheries. The EU is a major consumer 
of Arctic seafood products and needs to 
cooperate well with Arctic fishing states 
on the sustainable management of fish 
stocks and marine living resources, 
through establishing binding agreements on Arctic 
fisheries and for biodiversity in areas beyond national 
jurisdiction, as well as by promoting the establishment 
and connection of Marine Protected Areas. 

Shipping. A large number of European 
ships operate in the Arctic, including 
cargo ships, passenger ships, fishing 
vessels and offshore supply vessels. 
In this context, Europe, the EU and 

its Member States should work towards setting 
ambitious targets and mandatory requirements for 
Arctic shipping and should support environmental and 
security monitoring.

Mining. Europe is a large consumer of 
minerals, including those imported from 
northern Scandinavia and north-west 
Russia in the European Arctic, and the EU 
can play a constructive role by promoting 

environmental, economic and social assessments, 
and best practices with regards to operations, waste 
management and accident response, as well as by 
supporting area-based management and implementing 
circular economy initiatives. 

Strengthening the knowledge 
base. The EU has long contributed 
substantially towards Arctic research, 
but further efforts are required to 
identify and address gaps or weaknesses 

in the knowledge base, better integrate results and 
recommendations into the policy process, improve 
understanding of Arctic resilience and explore how EU 
policy objectives can best support the European Arctic 
region.

International cooperation and policy 
integration. The EU has identified 
the Arctic as a priority region and 
developed an integrated EU Arctic policy. 
In  support of policy measures and 

engagement in regional fora, the EU should continue 
to assess the effectiveness of EU Arctic policy, including 
climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Arctic 
region and pushing for transitions in energy, mobility 
and food systems, as well as strengthening dialogue 
with Arctic partners. 

10

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic1 

Introduction

Introduction

1.1  Purpose and scope

Five of the eight Arctic States (Denmark, Finland, 
Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) are European 
Environment Agency (EEA) member countries and 
the EEA therefore has an obligation to address the 
environmental state, outlook and risks posed to these 
states by changes in the Arctic. The EEA also has a 
cooperation agreement with Greenland with regards 
to sharing environmental information and seeking 
common solutions to safeguard the environment.

Moreover, given the EU's focus on the Arctic region 
through the Seventh Environment Action Programme 
(7th EAP) (EU, 2013a) and the integrated EU policy for the 
Arctic region (EC, 2016a), this EEA assessment is timely. It 
is intended to complement The European environment — 
state and outlook: sythesis report (SOER2015)  (EEA, 2015a, 
which included an Arctic regional briefing (see Box 1.1), 
and the abovementioned EU Arctic policy by informing 
policymakers whose work will affect the Arctic region.

This report aims to bring key European considerations 
to the forefront, such as how Europe affects the Arctic 
environment and how changes in the Arctic affect 
Europe's environment and the ecosystem services upon 
which Europe depends. It also highlights the challenges 
and opportunities Europe should be mindful of. 

The key messages and policy options arising from this 
report relate to EU polices, competences and legislative 

acts, and are primarily directed at EU institutions 
and EU Member States. There are also issues for 
consideration by non-EU EEA member countries, which 
require a common European or global response. 

1.2  Methodology and outline of the 

report

A full understanding of the state of, and drivers and 
dynamics in, the Arctic does not exist. However, 
there are good attempts to expand the knowledge 
base or co-create knowledge in order to better guide 
policymakers. The EU and Arctic partners are working 
towards closing these gaps and introducing measures 
to safeguard the Arctic environment.

This report forms part of that work and draws on 
a large number of Arctic assessments, studies and 
indicators available to the EEA through the European 
Environment Information and Observation Network 
(Eionet) and our Arctic member countries, partners 
and networks. While the assessments and reports 
upon which the report is built are relatively recent, 
a number of the indicators in the report are fully up 
to date and provide the most recent description of 
the changing Arctic. Similarly new policy initiatives 
are included and put into an Arctic context. To this 
knowledge base a European lens has been applied 
to identify European perspectives and dimensions of 
relevance.

Box 1.1 

 Key challenges regarding the Arctic region 
identified in the EEA's SOER2015 report 

The key challenges facing the Arctic region were 
summarised in the Arctic regional briefing:

• 

increasing economic development of the Arctic;

•  global climate change and its rapid effects on the Arctic;

•  policy developments and international cooperation 

related to the Arctic.

Source:   EEA, 2015a.

11

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
In line with the EU Arctic policy, this report takes a 
circumpolar approach to the Arctic but tries to focus 
on the European Arctic. Topics of particular relevance 
to the European Arctic have been identified where 
possible, although European figures from many of 
the processes, trends and observed changes cannot 
be distilled from the circumpolar reports available to 
the EEA. 

The report is structured similarly to the SOER2015. 
Framing the European Arctic, addressing the key trends 
and implications, the European footprint in the Arctic 
and megatrends affecting the region are presented 
first, including pointing to the main challenges and 
opportunities for Europe. Given that the ocean 
constitutes a large part of the Arctic, a marine section 
has been added to highlight crosscutting marine issues 
and environmental security aspects of European 
relevance.

There is an assessment of the policy context for 
European engagement and the socio-economic 
developments that drive Arctic change. Aspects of 
environmental integration and policy coherence and 
the priorities of the 7th EAP are considered, alongside 
the Arctic's role in the context of a transition and 
circular economy. Furthermore, the evidence base 

and assessment landscape, as well as relevant global 
reporting processes, are placed in a European and 
Arctic context. 

There are reflections from an EEA perspective on 
the priorities of the EU Arctic policy, which focuses 
on environment and climate issues, sustainable 
development and supporting international cooperation 
and good stewardship. Finally, options for Arctic policy 
responses available to EU and Arctic partners are 
outlined. 

Given that the report aims to capture the major 
trends of relevance to Europe — with regards to 
both challenges and opportunities — not all topics 
are covered; for example, forestry and land use have 
been excluded. Similarly, the references and linkages 
included here do not represent a comprehensive map 
of the evidence base and the assessment landscape, 
but rather point towards the latest or most relevant 
information available to the EEA at the time of writing.

In essence, this report is meant as a stocktaking 
exercise that Europe can build on when seeking 
to take a precautionary approach to Arctic 
development and a prudent and balanced move 
towards sustainable development. 

12

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Framing the European Arctic 

2  Framing the European Arctic 

2.1  Background 

There are large differences between the countries in the 
Arctic in terms of size, population, economy, climate, 
culture, legislation and governance system, and this 
should be kept in mind when discussing the Arctic as a 
region or when addressing strategies and approaches 
towards sustainable development. Thus the Arctic region 
is not homogeneous and even within the European 
Arctic significant variations exist. 

There is no major governance vacuum in the Arctic, 
as national legislation, bilateral agreements and 
international conventions and protocols apply (5). 
In the central Arctic Ocean, beyond any national 
jurisdiction, the UN Law of the Sea (UN, 2013) applies. 
So a comprehensive framework for governing relevant 
human activities has already been established. However, 
although policies are in place to address most harmful 
environmental impacts, both within the Arctic and 
globally, some impacts are not completely addressed 
and gaps exist. These include adding new harmful 
substances to multilateral environmental agreements 
(MEAs) like the Stockholm Convention on persistent 
organic pollutants or strengthening the protection of 
biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. 

The Arctic region is an area of growing strategic 
importance, and economic developments are 
accelerating that can be beneficial for the region's 
inhabitants and the global economy. Yet they will also 
have repercussions on the Arctic's fragile environment 
if not managed with care. It is therefore important to 
continuously monitor and assess the Arctic region, 
environment, its peoples and the linkages to global 
feedback systems. 

Strengthening the knowledge base for policymaking 
is core to the EU, and the importance of the Arctic to 
Europe's environment has long been recognised. The 
EEA has also recognised the region's importance and 
published reports dedicated to the Arctic in 1997 and 
2004 (EEA and NPI, 1997; EEA et al., 2004). The latest 

was produced in collaboration with the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Arctic Council, 
addressing the question Why should Europe care? 
(EEA et al., 2004). In 2010, the European Commission 
conducted an EU Arctic footprint and policy assessment 
(Ecologic Institute, 2010) as a response to geopolitical 
and environmental changes in the region. In 2014, the 
EU funded a Strategic assessment of development 
in the Arctic (AC, 2014a) with recommendations on 
how the EU could respond to challenges identified in 
the assessment. More recently, the 2016 integrated 
EU policy for the Arctic region recognised the need to 
strengthen the knowledge base with regards to the 
changes occurring in the region and their local effects 
and beyond (EC, 2016b). In 2017, the EEA also published 
a report on Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in 
Europe 2016 (EEA, 2017), which includes perspectives on 
the European Arctic.

At national level, a dozen EEA member countries are 
involved in ongoing research and environmental 
monitoring and assessment work in the region. In 
particular, the EEA's five Arctic States have undertaken 
considerable national monitoring and assessment 
activities, as well as engaging in coordinated efforts 
under the auspices of the Arctic Council. An example 
is the assessment currently being undertaken by the 
Arctic Council on Adaptation Actions for a Changing 
Arctic (AACA), which seeks to integrate various impacts, 
drivers and changes and various adaptation needs, and 
to go beyond climate adaptation, initially at a regional 
level, including the Barents Region in Europe. These 
efforts, together with those of other Arctic partners 
and knowledge gained through the recent International 
Polar Year (IPY) in 2007-2008, have raised the level of 
understanding of the processes, changes and drivers 
at play, as well as establishing certain baselines and 
providing data, including some used in EEA indicators. 
However, further insights into feedback loops, resilience 
and limits to ecosystems' adaptive capacity, as well as 
spatial and temporal changes that enable more robust 
outlooks and models, are yet to be established. The 
Arctic States, together with other nations and the EU, are 

(5)  Examples include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UNECE  

Convention on Long-Range Transport of Air Pollutants (LRTAP).  

13

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

continuing to address these needs and provide a better 
understanding of Arctic changes. This report will take 
stock of the current situation with particular emphasis 
on European perspectives.

2.2  The circumpolar and European Arctic 

The circumpolar Arctic region consists of the 
partly ice-covered Arctic Ocean and land areas of the 
surrounding eight Arctic States: Canada, Denmark 
(including the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Finland, 
Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States 
of America (Alaska), as well as their shallow sub-regional 
seas, including the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea in 
the European Arctic. 

The circumpolar Arctic region is varied in terms of 
geography, topography, biodiversity, demography and 
level of infrastructure and development, and with regard 
to both the high Arctic, with its extreme environment, 
cold climate and lack of sunlight for parts of the year, 
and the rest of the Arctic. So while many parts of 
the Arctic are characterised by remoteness and low 

population density, others are more populated and 
developed.

A number of different and innovative governance 
structures are in place across the circumpolar Arctic, 
extending from typical government structures and 
institutions at the local, regional and national levels, 
to an increasing engagement with non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs) and indigenous peoples' 
organisations as well as international institutions. The 
Arctic governance systems have evolved and grown, in 
large part as a response to devolution and demands for 
greater regional autonomy, not least for the indigenous 
peoples of the circumpolar North.

After decades of growth, the population of the 
circumpolar Arctic has now stabilised at just over 
4 million people and projections towards 2030 
indicate only a modest increase of 4 % compared 
with a projected global population increase of 29 % 
(see Figure 2.1). However, population change is not 
even across the circumpolar Arctic, and the North 
American Arctic as well as Iceland are projected to see 
a population increase. Fennoscandia (6) is projected 

Figure 2.1 Projected population trends in the Arctic from 2010 to 2030

Projected population of the Arctic
2 000 000

1 800 000

1 600 000

1 400 000

1 200 000

1 000 000

800 000

600 000

400 000

200 000

0

Alaska

Canadian
Arctic

Greenland

Iceland

Faroe Islands

Norwegian
Arctic

Norrbotten,
Sweden

Lappi,
Finland

Russian
Arctic

2010

2020

2030

Source:   NCM, 2014.

(6)  Fennoscandia covers the Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland and the extreme west of the Russian Arctic.

14

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

to see a marginal increase while current population 
decline and emigration in the Russian Arctic is expected 
to continue (NCM, 2014). Exceptions to these trends 
are the Arctic indigenous peoples (or regions with 
large indigenous populations), who continue to have 
significant population growth because of younger age 
structures and higher fertility rates. 

Demographic trends across the circumpolar Arctic 
described in the second Arctic human development 
report (NCM, 2014) are: (1) increased urbanisation 
and concentration of populations in many of the 
larger cities; (2) a diminishing number of people in 
the active workforce; (3) an ageing population with 
higher education levels; (4) decreasing household 
size; and (5) emigration of young people (in some 
areas particularly women), which adds to a skewed 
population distribution. It is furthermore a challenge 
that many of the younger inhabitants seeking 
education and employment in cities further south do 
not always return and provide possible advantages for 
local communities. In addition, the report has shown 
that the region continues to face significant challenges 
from emerging health issues, and persistent 
disparities in living standards and levels of education 
between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples (7). 

However, the Arctic also has success stories to be 
shared, including the increasing use of indigenous 
knowledge in decision-making, a growing sense of 
cultural identity becoming a 'commodity' recognised 
locally and by external partners, and increasing 
indigenous participation in resource control and 
ownership in some parts of the Arctic, with Greenland 
and Nunavut territory in Canada as examples. 

Economic development varies across the circumpolar 
Arctic, and the region as such does not act as an 
integrated region but rather as a region of different 
economies with similar characteristics. The impact 
of world market fluctuations on local economic 
development varies depending on the concentration of 
resources, the quality of deposits, the level of transport 
infrastructure, governance structure, royalty system, 
land rights and level of privatisation. 

Across the region there are similar variations in 
the economic structure, combining large-scale 
natural resource production with small family-based 
production, subsistence economy or consumption 
supported by transfers from higher levels of 
government. The capital intensive production tends to 

be locally confined while the family-based production 
and services are small and scattered across the region. 
In real terms, the Arctic gross regional product (GRP) 
increased by 42 % between 2000 and 2010, with Russia 
making up more than 70 % of the share of the Arctic 
GRP (NCM, 2014).  

There is no universally agreed definition of the Arctic, 
nor is there an agreed definition of the European 
part of the Arctic. For the purpose of this report, the 
European Arctic is defined as the zone between 
Greenland in the west and the Ural Mountains in 
Russia in the east (see Map 2.1). Within the European 
Arctic significant variations exist; the eastern part of 
the European Arctic (Northern Norway, Sweden and 
Finland) is characterised by higher population density, 
vibrant cities, economic activity and less sea ice cover 
due to the influx of warm Atlantic waters. This also 
applies to Iceland. The western European Arctic (around 
Greenland) is characterised by very low population 
density, permanent ice cover on land and partly at sea, 
and lower economic activity.

Similar to the circumpolar Arctic, the European Arctic is 
undergoing change that affects living conditions in the 
region, including thawing permafrost disrupting local 
infrastructure and affecting reindeer grazing lands; 
certain fish stocks migrating further north; invasive 
species outcompeting endemic species; altered breeding 
and living conditions for migrating species; increased 
ocean acidification affecting the lower levels of the Arctic 
food chain; and long-range transport of pollutants, black 
carbon, radioactivity and herbicides as well as discharge 
of historical deposition in melting ice/snow, all of which 
may enter the food chain. Some of these changes are 
addressed in Chapter 3 of the report. 

More than 1 million citizens reside in the European 
part of the Arctic, including the Arctic's indigenous 
peoples, the Saami of northern Norway, Sweden, 
Finland and Russia, the Inuit peoples Kalaallit in 
Greenland (8), and the Nenets in Nenets Autonomous 
Okrug and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug in 
north-west Russia (9). Although the European Arctic is 
sparsely populated compared with most of Europe, 
the region's population plays an important role in the 
stewardship of the land, creating jobs and growth 
— and thus affecting living and health standards. 
The region's economy plays a substantial role in an 
international context given the exports of natural 
resources and economic activity within the region 
(see Map 2.2). 

(7)   See more in-depth description of Arctic demographic changes in Megatrends (NordRegio, 2011) and the Arctic human development report II, 

(NCM, 2014).
(8) 
Inuit people also reside in Canada and the United States (Alaska).
(9)  A small percentage of the Komi peoples are also found in this region.

15

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

Map 2.1 

The European Arctic and European Environment Agency (EEA) member countries and their 
affiliation to the Arctic Council, the main forum for discussing Arctic issues

-140°

-170°

-180°

170°

50°50

50°550

40°

30°

50°50

50°

-30°0°

-200-200
-20°0°

20°0

40°040°040°0

30°

The Arctic Region in relation to European countries

Arctic Region *

EEA 33 member countries

EEA member countries and Arctic Council 
member countries

European Arctic region

EEA cooperating countries and entities

EEA observer countries to the Arctic Council

Note:  

* Definition of the Arctic by the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). 
For country groupings please see box page 5.

16

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

The European Arctic is a high-cost region because 
materials, goods and resources are far from markets 
and situated in a sparsely settled land or offshore, 
while the harsh environment influences economic 
development and affects living standards and access 
to social services. And although a predicted rise 
in commodity prices and possible reduced costs 
resulting from an opening Arctic caused by climate 
change may increase the profitability of resource 
development, the effects of environmental and 
climatic changes in the region may make it more costly 
to create economic development from the traditional 
resource base. This is because, while climate 

change may open the Arctic seas for transportation, 
fisheries and offshore development, changing and 
unpredictable sea ice conditions can be a hazard 
that limits development. Similarly, an increase in 
flooding, thawing permafrost or reduced snow and 
ice cover can shorten the lifespans of ice roads, 
destabilising roads, pipelines and infrastructures 
and thus increasing production costs even in areas 
with significant current activity. With regards to 
environmental, social and economic development, 
the European Arctic is thus facing challenges and 
opportunities similar to those in the rest of the 
circumpolar Arctic. 

Photo: 

Reindeer herding is an important occupation for the Saami people, © Konstantin Vanujto

Photo: 

Seal hunting form part of the subsistence economy and dietary intake for Inuit people, © John McConnico

17

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

Map 2.2 

Towns and industrial activities in the Artic

Anchorage

Juneau

Whitehorse

Anadyr

USA
(ALASKA) 

Fairbanks

Yellowknife

C A N A D A

Labytnangi

Murmansk

      R U S S I A N 
F E D E R A T I ON

Norilsk

Kayerkan

Novy Urengoy

Salekhard

Naryah Mar

Pechora

Apatity

Archangelsk

Severodvirsk

Onega

Vorkuta

Tromsø

Severomorsk

FINLAND

Kandalaksha

Monchegorsk

Kiruna

Rovaniemi

SWEDEN

GREENLAND

Nuuk

ICELAND

Reykjavik

Lenvik

Harstad
Narvik

Bodo

Rana

Hafnarfjörður

Kópavogur

FAROE 
ISLANDS

NORWAY

UNITED 
KINGDOM

Towns and industrial activities in the Arctic

Major towns in and around the Arctic

Oil and gas

Sea activities

350
100
20

Thousands people

Towns, villages 
and settlements 

Areas inhabitated by
Indigenous Peoples

Extraction ﬁelds

Existing pipelines

Main oﬀshore extraction
regions (actual and potential)

Future central Arctic shipping route

Northwest Passage and Northern
Sea Route

Other actual shipping routes

Major ﬁshing areas

Note:  

Many parts of the Arctic are characterised by remoteness and low population density, others are more populated and developed. Major 
human development already exists in the European Arctic, including high population density, infrastructure and economic engagement, 
both on- and offshore.

Source: 

Adapted from the map 'Towns and industrial activities in the Arctic', Nordregio, 2011. 

18

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

2.3  The policy context for enhanced 

European engagement

The importance of the Arctic to Europe's environment 
has long been recognised by the EU and the EEA's 
member countries. With regard to the policy and 
legislative aspects, the Arctic States for obvious reasons 
already have national legislation in place to regulate the 
economic development in the Arctic, and environmental 
monitoring has been taking place on their land and 
sea territories for decades. All five of the Arctic EEA 
member countries have national Arctic strategies in 
place, and even European countries outside the Arctic 
have launched national Arctic or polar strategies, policy 

papers, roadmaps or research programmes to address 
the challenges and opportunities in the region (see 
Box 2.1). Similarly, since 2008 the EU has developed an 
EU Arctic policy. Further demonstrating the European 
interest in and concern for the Arctic region, five EEA 
member countries are founding members of the Arctic 
Council and a further eight EEA member countries are 
observers in the Arctic Council (10) (see Map 2.1) and the 
EU has been invited to follow the work of the Council 
while its observer status application is reviewed. The 
EU furthermore maintains strategic partnerships with 
Canada, Russia and the United States, and has close 
partnerships with Norway, Iceland and Greenland (as 
part of the Kingdom of Denmark).

Box 2.1  National Arctic strategies, roadmaps, guidelines and policy frameworks 

Europe

•  Denmark: Strategy of the Kingdom of Denmark (including Faroe Islands and Greenland)

•  EU: An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic 

•  Finland: Finland's strategy for the Arctic region 2013

•  France: National roadmap for the Arctic and Arctic science strategy 2015-2020

•  Germany: Germany Arctic policy

• 

• 

Iceland: Iceland's Arctic policy 

Italy: Towards An Italian strategy for the Arctic, National guidelines 

•  Netherlands: Netherlands polar programme 

•  Norway:: Norwegian High North policy

•  Poland: Poland's policy towards the Arctic: Key areas and priority actions 

•  Russia: Strategy for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and national security efforts 2020 

and State programme 'Social and economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation 2020'

•  Spain:: The geopolitics of the Arctic region

•  Sweden: Sweden's strategy for the Arctic region and Swedish environmental policy for the Arctic

•  United Kingdom: UK policy towards the Arctic

Outside Europe

•  Canada (11):: Canada's northern strategy and Canada's Arctic foreign policy

• 

• 

India: India and the Arctic

Japan: Japan's Arctic Policy

•  South Korea: Arctic Policy of the Republic of Korea

•  United States: National Arctic Strategy 

(10)  In addition to Arctic Council and EEA members Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the following eight EEA member countries are 

observers to the Arctic Council: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. 

(11)  Canada's Arctic policy is currently under revision, and is expected to be published in 2017.

19

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Framing the European Arctic 

Communication and Blue Book on the EU integrated 
maritime policy (EC, 2007) and later in 2008 by the 
High Representative's report on Climate change 
and international security (EC, 2008a), both of which 
identified the Arctic region as an area of concern and 
relevance to the EU. The Arctic had until then been 
addressed in a more piecemeal fashion through 
various marine, environmental, climate, regional, 
transport and research legislative acts, strategies and 
programmes. In 2014, the EU's 7th EAP identified the 
Arctic region and its environment as a priority area and 
from 2014 the EU maritime security strategy (EU, 2014) 
similarly embedded the Arctic region in the EU's policy 
framework.

Since the launch of the first Commission 
Communication on the Arctic region (EC, 2008b), the 
EU has been strengthening its Arctic coordination 
and in 2016, the European Commission and High 
Representative published a Joint Communication 
on an integrated EU policy for the Arctic (EC, 2016a) 
and submitted it to the European Parliament and 
the Council of the European Union. EU Arctic policy 
focuses on three overarching objectives, namely: 
(1) strengthening the knowledge base to address the 
challenges from environmental and climate changes; 
(2) contributing responsibly towards sustainable 
development in and around the region; and 
(3) intensifying constructive engagement with Arctic 
States, local and indigenous peoples and partners 
regarding challenges that require an international 
response. More than 30 actions have been identified, 
focusing on research, innovation and strengthening the 
knowledge base in all three priority areas. In response 
to the Joint Communication, the Council adopted 
conclusions in 2016 (EU, 2016) broadly welcoming the 
EU Arctic policy, and the European Parliament adopted 
an own-initiative report and Arctic resolution in 2017 
(EP, 2017).

The EU has demonstrated responsibility by 
contributing actively in the European Arctic through 
regional development policies and programmes, 
including INTERREG cross-border and transnational 
cooperation (e.g. the Northern Periphery and Arctic 
programme), the European Neighbourhood Instrument 
(ENI) cross-border cooperation (e.g. the Kolarctic 
programme) and the Northern Dimension cooperation 
with Russia, Iceland and Norway. The EU has also 
made big investments in satellite observation in the 
Arctic region, including CryoSat-2 and the Copernicus 

Photo:   © Arctic Council Secretariat/Linnea Nordström

Regionally, the Arctic Council, established in 1996, 
and its predecessor the Arctic Environmental 
Protection Strategy (1991) have been instrumental 
in assessing changes in the Arctic environment and 
subsequent impact on its peoples, and in making 
recommendations for policy responses on the basis 
of scientific assessments. Since 2011, the Arctic 
Council has also started adopting legally binding 
agreements (12). The Barents Euro Arctic Council, 
the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Convention 
for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the 
North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) have similarly 
been active in regional cooperation, with various 
programmes supporting the Arctic region's peoples and 
environment. Internationally, a number of multinational 
environmental agreements (MEAs), many of which 
the EU is party to, have been put in place to regulate 
harmful substances (e.g. POPs or mercury), to 
regulate economic activities (e.g. the International 
Maritime Organisation (IMO) Polar Code for Arctic and 
Antarctic shipping), to provide guidelines for activities 
(e.g. offshore oil and gas) or to regulate greenhouse 
gases that significantly impact the Arctic region (e.g. the 
UNFCCC).

At the EU policy level, the Arctic was first acknowledged 
as a priority in 2007 (13) with the Commission 

(12)  The Arctic Council has adopted legally binding agreements on search and rescue (Arctic Council, 2011) and marine oil spill response (Arctic 

Council, 2013b), and an on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (Arctic Council, 2017a). 

(13)  The European Parliament has however been a member of the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (CPAR) since its foundation 

in 1993. CPAR addresses topics such as maritime transport, education and research, human development and climate change. The most recent 
conference was held in Ulan-Ude in Russia in June 2016.

20

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

programme, as well as through its Framework 
Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 
2020, which will significantly contribute to a better 
understanding of relevant developments and processes 
(in common with its predecessor, the FP7 research 
programme).

Furthermore, the EU has a number of policies that are 
not specifically aimed at the Arctic or its environment, 
but where the implications of the policies will be felt 
and have an impact in the region, including: (1) the 
Framework for climate and energy (EC, 2014d); (2) 
the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (EC, 2011a); (3) 
the EU engagement on sustainable development (EC, 
2016c) in the context of the UN's 2030 Agenda and 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); the ongoing 
work related to (4) green sustainable and inclusive 
growth (EC, 2010) and blue economy (EC, 2014a); and 
(5) the Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe (EC, 
2011b). Similarly, the EU's common fisheries policy 
(CFP), the international ocean governance initiative 
(EC, 2016d) and offshore oil and gas regulation (EU, 
2013b) are relevant for marine management in the EU 
and with its northern partners. 

2.4  Global megatrends — the drivers of 

Arctic change

A global-to-European perspective is relevant for EU 
environmental policymaking, as Europe's systemic 
environmental challenges and response options are 
increasingly shaped by global drivers. Similarly a 
European-to-Arctic perspective is of relevance, as the 
two overlapping regions are bound to each other and 
the rest of the world through multiple systems, be they 
environmental, social, financial or through the flows of 
materials and natural capital. As a result, Europe and 
the Arctic's ecological and societal resilience (14) will be 
affected by a variety of global megatrends affecting 
the regions in the coming decades (see Figure 2.2), 
as highlighted in the 2015 Assessment of global 
megatrends (EEA, 2015b). Europe's relative size and 
influence on the global economy is expected to decline 
(EEA, 2015c), and this changing global setting presents 
both challenges and opportunities for Europe as well as 
for the Arctic. 

also identified international cooperation as an overall 
objective in EU Arctic policy, and similar objectives 
for the region regarding environment, sustainable 
development and international engagement are set 
out by the eight Arctic States in their individual Arctic 
strategies, the mandate of the Arctic Council and in 
the Arctic Council's 2013 common Vision for the Arctic 
(Arctic Council, 2013a). 

Global megatrends cut across economic, social, 
political, technological and environmental dimensions 
as well as temporal interconnectedness and interplay 
between various drivers and responses. It is therefore 
of importance to understand how they will shape or 
affect national or regional measures in the Arctic or in 
Europe, including systemic and potentially detrimental 
effects on the environment, human health or natural 
capital. Many of the drivers and trends that affect 
the Arctic region, the environment and its people 
are challenges that the Arctic States are not solely 
responsible for or can solve in isolation. An example is 
climate change, which is a major driver for changes in 
the Arctic. Although the Arctic States are responsible 
for a proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions, 
solving the problem cannot be tackled by these states 
alone. The same holds true for global population 
growth and associated growing demand for natural 
resources, changing trade patterns, world prices for 
key commodities (oil, gas and minerals) and increasing 
environmental pollution loads. Climate change is not 
the only or always the most salient driver of change 
in the Barents area; it interacts with socio-economic, 
political and cultural changes — and, in many cases, it 
exacerbates current challenges (AMAP, 2017a).

If Arctic nations do not, individually, collectively and 
in partnership with neighbouring regions such as 
Europe, seek proper mechanisms for incorporating 
global drivers of change into regional and local settings, 
any further large-scale economic development in the 
Arctic may exacerbate environmental pollution, cause 
ecosystem degradation and lower resilience to the 
brink of its tipping points. Similarly Europe needs to 
act responsibly by recognising and addressing its Arctic 
footprint and contribution to environmental pressures 
in the region, as current lifestyles and consumption 
patterns in Europe and other developed regions put 
excessive pressures on the Arctic environment. 

The EU recognises that many environmental challenges 
are global and can only be fully addressed through a 
comprehensive global approach, and a 2050 vision that 
Europe should 'live well, within the planet's ecological 
limits' has been set out in the 7th EAP. The EU has 

However, the Arctic is also affected by a growing 
global middle class outside Europe, which increasingly 
adopts the resource-intensive consumption patterns 
of advanced economies. This will lead to long-range 

(14)  Resilience is here understood as the capacity of social–ecological systems to effectively respond to change and continue to develop 

without losing key structure, function, feedbacks and identity.

21

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

Figure 2.2 

Global megatrends (GMT) affect the Arctic region

Diverging global 
population trends

GMT
1

Towards a more 
urban world

GMT
2

GMT
3

Changing disease 
burdens and risks 
of pandemics

 Ecosystems

Food

Water

THE ARCTIC
Energy Materials

GMT
4
Accelerating
technological 
change

GMT
5

Continued 
economic growth?

GMT
6

An increasingly
multipolar world

GMT
7
Intensiﬁed 
global competition 
for resources

GMT
8

Growing pressures 
on ecosystems

GMT
11

Diversifying
approaches to
governance

GMT
10

Increasing
environmental
pollution

GMT
9
Increasingly
severe consequences
of climate change

Note: 

The EEA Assessment of global megatrends (EEA, 2015b) identified eleven global megatrends that affect Europe. These megatrends also, 
to a large degree, affect the Arctic region.

Source: 

Based on EEA, 2015b.

pollution affecting the Arctic and create local challenges 
from resource extraction and exports of food, energy 
and materials to world markets. Direct pressures on 
Arctic ecosystem resilience furthermore derive from 
point sources and land fragmentation due to expanding 
transport infrastructure, urbanisation and migration 
patterns. 

These global trends with local impacts underline the 
need for action to reconfigure systems of production 
and consumption so that they operate within planetary 
limits and thereby ensure the wellbeing of current and 
future generations. In Europe, as in most of the Arctic 
states, efforts to manage environmental pressures, 

economic development and human wellbeing need 
to overcome the short-termism currently dominating 
political and economic thinking, and instead increase 
focus on embracing long-term, integrated and global 
perspectives. 

Together, Europe and Arctic partners need to respond 
by seeking to shape global change in ways that mitigate 
and manage risks, and create opportunities as well as 
finding ways to adapt to changes by seeking to anticipate 
and avoid harm by strengthening the resilience of social, 
environmental and economic systems. Sustainable 
development is still an option in the vast and sparsely 
populated Arctic region, and responses should also 

22

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Framing the European Arctic 

include common initiatives that take advantage of the 
opportunities that arise as a result of the changes, 
such as the commercial opportunities associated with 
innovation, expanding global markets and prosperity 
to the benefit of both European and Arctic inhabitants. 
At global level, the 17 SDGs adopted in 2015 as part of 
the UN's 2030 Agenda, which the EU and Arctic States 
have subscribed to, acknowledge the global dimension 
and interconnectedness. The SDGs have the potential 
to supplement Arctic and EU efforts to address global 
megatrends, although they are not the full answer 
to ensuring sustainable development or integrated 
management in the Arctic. As a first step, the EU is 
now developing a set of indicators to measure regional 
progress towards the global targets. 

Some Arctic States are further ahead than others when 
addressing core problems and implementing integrated 

ecosystem-based management plans. Regardless of the 
national governance level, improved regular monitoring 
and assessment capabilities are needed to support 
prudent policymaking in the region, including efforts 
by Arctic governments to develop Arctic strategies that 
fully recognise global megatrends and support the 
SDGs, and thus make protection of biodiversity and 
ecosystem resilience a high priority across sectors in 
Arctic policymaking. In particular, there is an obvious 
need to regionally assess planned or potential energy, 
fisheries, regional development and transport routes 
in the Arctic, before further industrial developments 
take away the window of opportunity for a prudent 
and balanced economic growth in the region, which 
respects the changing ecosystems and the planetary 
boundaries — the core message in the EU's 7th EAP. 
These efforts have to be made in cooperation with 
other international partners, including the EU.

Figure 2.3 

Future development strategies need to embrace the concepts of sustainability and planetary 
boundaries

Ecological footprint (hectares per person per year)

'Very high human development'

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

EU-28 Member States

Other countries

Canada 

USA 

Finland (EU28, Arctic Council)

Sweden 
Denmark 

Norway 

Russia

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Human Development Index

'Good life'

Ecological deﬁcit

Sustainability

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e
n
h
t
i

i

W

s
t
i

m

i
l

Note:  

The world cannot afford developing countries adopting the same unsustainable growth and consumption patterns of developed 
countries. All nations need system transition in order to achieve a sustainable development within the limits of the planet.

The Human Development Index is calculated using three components: education, life expectancy at birth and wealth. It is expressed as 
a value between 0 and 1, from less to most developed countries. The Ecological Footprint measures how much land and water area a 
population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its waste. The world biocapacity is the global productive area 
available on Earth (it decreases as population grows). Iceland is not included in the 2017 edition of the National Footprint Accounts by 
the Global Footprint Network.

Source:   Adapted from © 2017 Global Footprint Network. National Footprint Accounts, 2017 Edition. Please contact Global Footprint Network at 

data@footprintnetwork.org for more information.

23

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Framing the European Arctic 

As outlined above and further substantiated in the 
SOER2015, Europe and the Arctic face persistent 
and emerging challenges linked to production and 
consumption systems and a rapidly changing global 
context. Achieving the EU and UN 2030 and 2050 
visions requires system transitions, driven by more 
ambitious actions on policy, knowledge, investments and 
innovation. Doing so will present major opportunities 
to boost Europe's economy and employment, putting 
Europe at the frontier of science and innovation, and 
thus provide a positive influence on the European Arctic 
and beyond. But achieving the visions will furthermore 
require substantial European efforts at global level in 
supporting geopolitical stability and to bring forward 
development and raise living standards in developing 
parts of the world, through new technologies and 
efficient solutions that lower the ecological footprint 
rather than through outdated technologies that delay 
the transition into sustainable pathways (see Figure 2.3). 
Global environmental interconnectedness requires this 
to be applied in an Arctic context. 

2.5  A snapshot of the EU's Arctic 

footprint

A number of concurrent changes are taking place in 
the Arctic. Much work has been undertaken in the past 
decades to monitor these changes in order to establish 
a better understanding of ecosystems, drivers and 
pressures, and to establish baselines for indicators 
and for predicting future trends and developments. 
Such efforts include monitoring and observation 
programmes and a number of International Polar 
Years (IPYs) (the most recent IPY was conducted in 
2007-2008). Although the interlinkages and interplay 
are not fully understood, it is evident that a number of 
dramatic and rapid changes are occurring in the region 
and that ecosystem functions and resilience are being 
challenged. 

Some of the pressures originate in Europe, including 
pressures associated with consumption in the 
EU. Depending on the type of pressure, between 
24 % and 56 % of the associated total EU footprint 
occurs outside Europe (EEA, 2015a). The share of 
the environmental footprint of EU demand that is 
exerted outside EU borders has increased during 
the past decade for land, water and material use, 
as well as for air emissions. To a varying degree 
this footprint also affects the Arctic region, and 
in order to quantify and assess its Arctic impact, 
the European Commission compiled an EU Arctic 
footprint and policy assessment (Ecologic Institute, 
2010) (see image on the right). The assessment, 
published in December 2010, indicated that the EU 
might be responsible for as much as 35 % of the 

24

global contribution to Arctic impacts. Some of the 
areas where the EU Arctic footprint is large include 
long-range chemical pollution, black carbon emissions 
and impact on fish stocks through imports from the 
Arctic States. However, the EU also has a positive 
footprint in the Arctic through efforts to: (1) reduce 
greenhouse gases that impact the region; (2) promote 
high-quality international standards applying to Arctic 
economic activities; and (3) foster employment in 
the Arctic through EU imports, regional cooperation 
programmes and research activities. Neither the 
Arctic States nor the Arctic Council has to date 
conducted such an assessment of their own impact 
on the region, although elements are addressed in 
some of the sector assessments of the Arctic Council. 

Global megatrends predict increased demand for 
natural resources, some of which are expected to come 
from the Arctic, in particular as the region has large 
mineral deposits, significant oil and gas reserves and 
large fish stocks. The region furthermore holds vast 
amounts of freshwater and other renewable energy 
resources which can be used for energy-intensive 
industries, and the Arctic can provide transportation 

Source: 

Ecologic Institute, 2010.

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

routes as well as cater to an increasing interest in cruise 
tourism. Many of the industries, shipping companies 
and tourists are expected to be European, which will 
affect the EU footprint in the Arctic. 

physio-chemical conditions can vary significantly 
in semi-enclosed seas, and thus affect important 
variables such as salinity, temperature, acidification, 
accumulation of pollutants and the ability to sustain a 
thriving food web. 

However, the 2016 EU Arctic policy aims to reduce 
negative Arctic impacts through an integrated and 
coherent policy approach that links up with EU policies 
on renewable energy, cold technologies, reducing 
waste through a circular economy approach and 
initiatives aimed at the transport, energy and fisheries 
sectors. Given the EU and wider global impacts on 
the Arctic environment, it is important that Arctic 
nations engage with the EU and international partners 
when seeking long-term policy options, including 
binding policy options or international agreements 
when defining integrated solutions to the pressures 
affecting the Arctic. An example is climate change 
engagement through the UNFCCC. There is similarly 
scope for EU and the Arctic States jointly working 
towards applying the principles of circular economy 
and facilitating the required transitions. 

2.6  Crosscutting marine issues of 

relevance

Given that a very large part of the Arctic region is 
covered by ocean (15) and that the EU acknowledged the 
Arctic Ocean as a priority in 2007 (EC, 2007), this section 
will address some general crosscutting marine issues 
in addition to the specific physiological aspects and 
socio-economic activities covered in Chapter 3. 

While the Arctic Ocean is the smallest (16) and 
shallowest of the world's five major oceans, it is still 
up to 5.4 km deep and covers a huge area with little or 
no human activities directly affecting it. Sea ice cover 
and darkness for part of the year limit fisheries, while 
depth and extreme conditions exclude oil and gas 
extraction or mining activities, which currently take 
place only in the shallower subarctic regional seas. The 
Arctic Ocean is furthermore a semi-enclosed sea with 
two outlets, namely the Bering Strait and the North 
Atlantic Ocean (to the east and west of Greenland). 
Being a semi-enclosed sea is significant because this 
limits the turnover of water volume and influences 
water quality and the transport in and out of nutrients 
and contaminants. Furthermore, environmental and 

Our current knowledge of the Arctic Ocean is 
limited but it is recognised that Arctic biodiversity 
and ecosystems are under increasing pressure. 
Preservation of biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem 
services is fundamental to human wellbeing, as is 
continued access to natural resources and economic 
growth. Thus, if Arctic environmental conditions such 
as quality of air and water, biodiversity and natural 
resources are not properly managed, it could lead to 
future security implications due to a reduced ability to 
sustain people or keep economies healthy. Possible 
implications include food security, water security, 
environmental security and energy security. These 
security issues may affect the Arctic region and beyond. 
Even military security over access to marine resources 
could become an issue, although the Arctic is currently 
marked by low tension and the settlement of disputes 
in a rule-based manner. An overview of marine 
ecosystem services and links to societal benefits is 
presented in Figure 2.4.

Marine activities in the Arctic are primarily regulated 
through national legislation, as most of the current or 
planned activities take place within the 200 nautical 
miles exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Arctic 
coastal states. But international legislation also applies 
through, for example, the UN Convention on the 
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (UN, 2013) which regulates 
international waters. Nations that have ratified UNCLOS 
have the option to submit claims up to an additional 
150 nautical miles of the sea floor (not the water 
column) beyond their EEZ (17), if scientific evidence 
supports such submissions. All Arctic States apart from 
the United States are party to UNCLOS and have sent 
either submissions or preliminary information for an 
extension of their continental shelves (18) (see Map 2.3).

The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental 
Shelf (CLCS) was set up to assess submissions and 
it will in due course give its recommendations on 
the delimitation of the ocean floor in the Arctic. 
However, such recommendations are for guidance 
only. It is up to neighbouring states to agree bilaterally 

(15)  According to the CAFF definition of the Arctic, 57 % of the Arctic is covered by marine areas.
(16)  The Arctic Ocean covers about 10 million km2.
(17)  UNCLOS allows for the possibility of drawing the outer limits of the continental shelf further than 350 nautical miles from the baselines.
(18)  The United States has not signed UNCLOS but recognises most of its provisions as an articulation of customary international law, e.g. as stated 

in the Ilulissat Declaration of 2008 (Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008). Canada has yet to make a formal submission but on 3 December 
2013 sent preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean.

25

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

Figure 2.4  Marine ecosystem services and links to societal benefits

MARINE
ECOSYSTEM

ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES

EXAMPLES OF
HUMAN BENEFITS

PROVISIONING
Wild ﬁsh and shellﬁsh 
Wild plants and algae
Fish and shellﬁsh from 
marine aquaculture
Plants and algae from 
marine aquaculture
Materials for agriculture and aquafeed
Raw materials
Genetic materials

REGULATION AND MAINTENANCE
Waste treatment/detoxiﬁcation
Natural hazard and erosion regulation
Oxygen production
Mediation of nuisances (smell, visual impacts)
Seed and reproductive cell dispersal
Maintenance of nursery populations and habitats
Gene pool protection
Pest and disease control
Sediment nutrient cycling
Water quality regulation
Climate regulation

CULTURAL *
Recreation and leisure
Knowledge development (science, education)
Cultural heritage
Aesthetic experience
Inspiration for culture, art, design 
Sacred and/or religious experience
Existence
Bequest

Nutrition (food)
Aquafeed (ﬁsh food)
Fertiliser
Cosmetics
Medicines
Ornaments
Fibres
Aquaculture seed

Clean water
Erosion prevention
Sea defence (ﬂoods)
Breathable air
Clean sediments
Habitable ambient climate

Enhanced physical or mental 
health
Relaxation
Knowledge gains
Art and design pieces
Cultural/spiritual/religious 
fulﬁlment 
Solace/comfort

Structures:
Species and habitats 
(living elements)
Nutrients, light 
(non-living elements)

Processes:
Nutrient uptake
Photosynthesis
Respiration
Excretion
Decomposition
Biological/ecological interactions
Food web dynamics

Functions (examples):
Primary production
Nutrient cycling 
Carbon sequestration
Resilience

Source: 

EEA, 2016a.

(or multilaterally depending on the number of 
overlapping continental shelf submissions) on the exact 
delimitation of the marine territories beyond their EEZs. 
This can take time and, as an example, the delineation 
of a disputed area in the Barents Sea between Norway 
and Russia, which was agreed in 2010, took 40 years 
to settle. The CLCS handles extension of continental 
shelf submissions in the order they are submitted, 
and given that the most recent submission from the 
Kingdom of Denmark regarding the shelf north of 
Greenland is currently number 76 on the list, it can be 
up to a decade before recommendations are finalised. 
Meanwhile, the CLCS might ask nations to submit 
further scientific evidence to support their submissions, 
and in 2015 Russia submitted additional evidence 

and adjusted the area submitted for its extended 
continental shelf. 

The maritime areas under national jurisdiction — 
whether in EEZs or possible future extensions on 
the sea floor — are of significance when discussing 
the Arctic environment, as it will be the Arctic coastal 
nations that decide on the level of economic activity 
that will take place in these large areas. In the short 
term, this is mostly relevant in the shallower parts 
of regional seas, while in longer terms it will become 
relevant in the deeper part of the Arctic Ocean, as 
technologies are developed and become available 
for operators venturing into maritime areas. It will 
be up to individual Arctic States to determine which 

26

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

Map 2.3 

2015 status of Arctic States' claims to an extended continental shelf under UNCLOS

180° E / W

Arctic Circle (66°33N)

USA

135°W

g e

d

i

R

v

o

s

o

n

o

m

o

L

North
North
Pole
Pole

C

A

N

A

D

A

90°W

135°E

A

I

S

S

U

R

90°E

(D
E

Greenland
Greenland

M

N

A
RK)

45°W

45°E

NORWAY

RUSSIA

ICELAND

0°E / W

FINLAND

Polar stereographic projection

SWEDEN

0

nautical miles (nm)

004

at 66°N

0 kilometres (km)

006

Maritime jurisdiction and boundaries in the Arctic region

Internal waters

Russia territorial sea and EEZ

Straight baselines

Canada territorial sea and
exclusive economic zone (EEZ)

Potential Canada continental shelf
beyond 200 nm 

Denmark territorial
sea and EEZ

Russia claimed continental shelf
beyond 200 nm

Agreed boundary

Norway-Russia Special Area

Median line

USA territorial sea and EEZ

350 nm from baselines

Denmark claimed continental shelf
beyond 200 nm

Potential USA continental shelf
beyond 200 nm

100 nm from 2 500 m isobath
(beyond 350 nm from baselines)

Iceland territorial sea and EEZ

Overlapping Canada/USA EEZ 

Svalbard treaty area

Iceland claimed continental shelf
beyond 200 nm

Norway territorial sea and EEZ/
Fishery zone (Jan Mayen)/Fishery
protection zone (Svalbard)

Norway claimed continental shelf
beyond 200 nm

Russia-USA Eastern Special Area

Iceland-Norway joint zone 

Unclaimed or unclaimable 
continental shelf

Main 'Northwest Passage' shipping
routes through Canada claimed
internal waters

Note:  

Explanatory notes and complementary information are available from the IBRU Centre for Borders Research: https://www.dur.ac.uk/
ibru/resources/arctic.

Source:   Adapted from © IBRU: Centre for Borders Research.

27

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Framing the European Arctic 

environmental protection standards, and which 
monitoring and enforcement levels, will apply to the 
maritime areas under national jurisdiction. It will also 
be up to Arctic nations to decide whether to designate 
shipping corridors with low environmental impact, or 
to close or limit shipping during the seasonal migration 
of whales. Currently, varying levels of environmental 
protection, monitoring and enforcement apply across 
the Arctic States through national legislation. When it 
comes to common approaches, the few precautionary 
measures established so far are non-binding guidelines 
on, for example, offshore oil and gas activities (Arctic 
Council, 2009a) or on preventing unregulated high seas 
fisheries. Common binding agreements have also been 
established through the Arctic Council as mentioned 
above. However, these agreements are remedial 
measures, and are not enforced or administered by the 
Arctic Council but are left up to the participating states 
to implement.

Increased attention to the opening seascapes in the 
Arctic Ocean over the past decades has led to a general 
perception that there is an ongoing race for the Arctic. 
This scenario does not, however, provide for a nuanced 
reflection of the situation, because most of the activity 
in the Arctic Ocean concerns research activities related 
to gaining scientific evidence on the ocean floor. After 
ratifying UNCLOS, Arctic coastal states had 10 years to 
send submissions on the extension of their continental 
shelves. Furthermore, it would be an exaggeration to 
describe the development as a race, because most 
economic activities take time to prepare, particularly 
in the Arctic, including time spent on exploration and 
taken for operators to obtain the necessary licences 
from the authorities in question (all Arctic states have 
regulatory processes in place for economic activities on 
their land and sea territories). 

Since 2008, the economic crisis has also slowed 
economic activities, resulting in a more cautious 
investment climate with longer time horizons for major 
projects and investments. This includes European 
companies; Royal Dutch Shell's decision to suspend 
its Arctic drilling on the North Slope of Alaska, despite 
a USD 6 billion investment in exploration, licences 
and equipment, is a good example of companies' 
more cautious approach to Arctic adventures. In 2016, 
the Italian oil company ENI wrote down the value of 
the world's northernmost offshore oil field, Goliat in 
Norway, by EUR 710 million, and in its 2016 strategic 
document the French oil company TOTAL stated 
that the company will 'not conduct oil exploration or 
production operations in the Arctic ice pack' (TOTAL, 
2016), to comply with the COP21 Paris Agreement. 
Russia's monopoly gas exporter Gazprom has decided 
to cancel plans to drill 12 exploration wells and conduct 
seismic mapping in the Barents Sea by 2025. Despite 

this slowdown, oil and gas production is still expected 
in decades to come as new licences are still being 
obtained by companies that plan to explore, e.g. in the 
Norwegian EEZ of the Barents Sea (see Section 3.3. on 
hydrocarbon exploration). 

So rather than a race for the Arctic, or an invasion of 
investment-eager companies, the more appropriate 
description would be a tedious exploratory phase led 
by scientists and researchers in the north. And while 
international companies are looking north, the Arctic 
region is still overall seeing stable population levels 
despite the possible prospects for the region. However, 
despite the modest level of economic activity compared 
with elsewhere in Europe, environmental and social 
challenges exist in the marine domain. 

Despite progress in some areas, the UN 2010 target 
of halting the loss of biodiversity was not met globally, 
including in the Arctic. The Arctic biodiversity assessment 
(CAFF, 2013a) highlighted the declining trends for the 
condition of both marine and terrestrial species. The 
importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services for 
economic development, human health and job creation 
has long been underestimated. In order to ensure that 
natural capital is preserved to support human wellbeing 
and sustain economic growth, Arctic states need to 
further implement ocean ecosystem-based management 
approaches, spatial planning, resource accounting and 
coherence among sector policies at all levels. 

In this context, the CBD process to identify Ecologically 
or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) is a step 
in the right direction, as these are special areas that 
serve to support the healthy functioning of oceans and 
the many services they provide. Thirteen EBSAs were 
identified, covering 4.2 million km2, or 22.7 %, of the 
Arctic marine area. Further work is similarly needed in 
the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) or 
Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) in international 
waters, to avoid impacts on vulnerable Arctic species 
and to limit impacts on migrating animals such as birds, 
fish and marine mammals. In recent years, steps have 
been taken in this direction, with Arctic marine and 
coastal areas increasingly being protected, but MPAs 
still cover less than 4.7 % of Arctic waters (CAFF/PAME, 
2017). This is well below the target of 10 % agreed 
to be implemented by 2020 under the Convention 
on Biological Diversity (CBD target 11). There are no 
designated PSSAs within the Arctic.

In April 2016, the international community, including 
the EU, agreed to develop a legally binding instrument 
for the conservation and sustainable use of marine 
biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, under 
UNCLOS. The agreement is a step forward in enhancing 
international ocean governance and once adopted the 

28

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFraming the European Arctic 

instrument will contribute to a more sustainable use of 
ocean resources, in line with the UN's 2030 Sustainable 
Development Agenda. The work aims at holding a 
formal intergovernmental treaty conference in 2018, 
and the elements to be covered by the instrument, 
which will apply to the Arctic Ocean, include marine 
genetic resources, area-based management tools such 
as MPAs, environmental impact assessments, capacity 
building and the transfer of marine technology. The 
same elements are addressed and supported in the EU's 
2016 international ocean governance communication 
(EC, 2016d). 

Our Arctic Ocean knowledge base is still generally 
poor and marine ecosystems are complex but our 
understanding of their state and functioning is 
constantly increasing. This increasing knowledge 
allows for better policy advice that integrates relevant 
elements of the ecosystem into management. In 
recent years increasing focus has been placed on 

an ecosystem approach to management of human 
activities in marine environments, whereby policies and 
ensuing management aim to encompass ecological, 
economic and social needs and outline trade-offs 
between different policy options to limit cumulative 
impacts. In the European Arctic, the Barents Sea 
ecosystem has been strongly influenced by fishing 
and aquaculture, maritime transportation of goods, 
offshore oil and gas activities and rising cruise tourism. 
Climate change and ocean acidification also affect the 
Barents Sea ecosystem. An overview of the Barents 
Sea ecoregion with the major regional pressures, 
human activities and state of ecosystem components 
was described by the International Council for the 
Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2016 (see Figure 2.5). 

The use of our seas, including the Arctic Ocean and 
regional seas, must respect ecological boundaries 
to protect and value their potential for present and 
future generations. Therefore, policy ambitions for the 

Figure 2.5 

Barents Sea ecoregion overview

Note:  

Overview of the Barents Sea ecoregion with the major regional pressures, human activities and state of ecosystem components. 
The width of the lines indicates the relative importance of the individual lines

From an EEA perspective it can be argued that underwater noise should also be connected to maritime transport and fisheries.

Source:  

ICES, 2016.

29

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Framing the European Arctic 

economic growth of maritime activities in the Arctic 
region have to be aligned with policy targets for securing 
healthy, clean and productive seas. Simultaneously, they 
also require fundamental shifts in the systems that fulfil 
our societal needs and in the way we use ecosystem 
services. True cooperation among all stakeholders and 
wider societal engagement will be crucial to support 
this transition. The EU has important roles to play in this 
context, namely as: 

•  a knowledge provider for sound decision-making 

through research and satellite activities; 

•  a regulator of many companies operating in the 

region; 

•  a source of pollutants or climate forcers; 

•  a major importer of natural resources from the 

region; and 

•  an organisation able to support the establishment of 
protected area networks to ensure better conditions 
for habitats and migrating species. 

The EU can furthermore foster a better dialogue 
between marine science and marine management 
to improve our understanding of the interactions 
between ecosystem resilience and human activities, 
which ultimately will lead to better maritime policy 
implementation and improve the state of the Arctic 
seas through improved management, including 
measures in relation to anticipated changes and 
uncertainty. In this context it should be mentioned that, 
under its process for regular reporting and assessment 
of the environment, the UN in 2015 completed the 
first World Ocean Assessment, a survey of global 
and regional marine environmental assessments, 
which included an assessment of the Arctic Ocean. In 
addition, the Arctic Council's Circumpolar Biodiversity 
Monitoring Programme (CBMP) launched a State of the 
Arctic Marine Biodiversity report in 2017 (CAFF, 2017), 
as part of implementing the Arctic Biodiversity 
Assessment recommendations and as included in the 
Arctic marine strategic plan 2015-2025 (Arctic Council, 
2015). The increasing concerns regarding marine litter 
in the world's oceans is similarly an area that requires 
international responses and joint actions, in which the 
EU can play a leading role. 

30

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3  Challenges and opportunities from Arctic 

change

This chapter highlights some of the key trends, changes 
and effects in the Arctic region with regard to climate 
change, biodiversity, pollution and human activity, and 
the challenges and opportunities associated with the 
observed and projected changes. It is beyond the scope 
of this report to capture all aspects of Arctic change that 
individually or collectively have an impact in the region, 
and as a result some aspects have been excluded from 
this report: land fragmentation, unsustainable forestry 
and logging practices, quality of surface and marine 
waters and analysis of pressures from diffuse and point 
sources.  

3.1  Arctic ecosystem resilience, 
connectivity and importance

The historical and cultural ties between Europe and 
the Arctic region are longstanding and Europe has for 
decades built its growth and development on natural 
resources extracted outside Europe, including from 
the Arctic. This dependency is set to continue in the 
short to medium term, both as Arctic resources such as 
minerals or fish are becoming increasingly accessible 
due to rapid climatic change, and because it will take 
time for the EU's efforts in transforming the economy 
on to a resource-efficient path, with less dependency on 
commodities and natural resources from other parts of 
the world, to take effect. 

Monitoring this dependency and changes in the Arctic 
region, as well as assessing the wider implications for 
Europe's environment, its peoples and their health is 
thus of relevance to European and Arctic inhabitants. 
The same can be said for continuous and regular 
assessment of economic opportunities and promoting 
growth, innovation and improved living standards for 
the benefit of both regions. 

Arctic ecosystems are facing multiple simultaneous 
stressors and rapid changes that can weaken 

ecosystem resilience and have severe consequences 
locally and regionally, as well as globally through 
cascading effects and feedback loops (19). Due to 
the abruptness and irreversibility of many of the 
changes, the sustainability of Arctic ecosystems and 
communities is increasingly challenged, particularly 
as new economic developments such as mining or oil 
and gas activities are locally adding to the ongoing 
environmental and climatic stressors on ecosystems. 

An interim Arctic resilience report (Arctic Council, 
2013c) provided an assessment of the potential for 
large shifts in ecosystem services that may affect 
human wellbeing, and illustrated some of the 
challenges and opportunities relating to resilience. In 
2016, the final Arctic resilience report (Arctic Council, 
2016) was published and it provides an assessment 
of environmental and social change and resilience, as 
well an overview of tools and strategies that can be 
used to assess and build resilience in the Arctic. The 
report identifies 19 tipping points or regime shifts 
in natural systems that may radically reshape the 
Arctic in the coming century. Furthermore, an Arctic 
Resilience Action Framework (Arctic Council, 2017b) 
for future Arctic work, along with practical options 
for actions to strengthen resilience and manage 
change, has been prepared under the auspices of the 
Arctic Council. In 2015, the Arctic Council (CAFF) in 
cooperation with UNEP and the World Wide Fund for 
Nature (WWF) conducted a scoping study exploring 
the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) 
in the Arctic, as a first step towards the mainstreaming 
of Arctic biodiversity and ecosystem services into 
policy and decision-making processes (CAFF, 2015).

Furthermore, three sub-regional reports, intended 
to describe and assess the effects of climate change 
and other major drivers of change and to inform 
decision-making with regard to adaptation measures, 
are being prepared by the Arctic Council's Arctic 
Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) 

(19)  An example of a cascading effect and self-enforcing feedback mechanism is the burning of fossil fuels. Through the release of greenhouse 
gases, this has led to a reduction of Arctic sea ice cover, which in turn is expected to lead to an increase in extraction of hydrocarbons once 
conditions are favourable, which again will result in further use of fossil fuels, which will accelerate a further opening of the Arctic though 
warming and further emissions of greenhouses gases (carbon dioxide and methane from thawing permafrost). 

31

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

working group. Two of the regions studied, namely the 
Barents Sea region (AMAP, 2017a) and the Davis Strait/
Baffin Bay region (AMAP, 2017b), are relevant to the 
European Arctic. The three regional assessments and the 
planned overview report are part of the Arctic Council 
efforts on Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic 
(AACA).

Despite monitoring and observation efforts, 
environmental and biological baselines and thresholds 
are not fully established and understood, which makes 
management and planning efforts more challenging. 
Environmental standards, cross-border planning and 
the granting of economic licences are not always 
coordinated between Arctic States, which means that 
the environmental load could exceed harmful limits if 
multiple large-scale economic activities are introduced 
in an environment that is already undergoing rapid 
change. These are strong arguments for a precautionary 
approach, as management without full knowledge of 
the ecosystem boundaries or carrying capacity increases 
risks and uncertainties.

Thus, more research and knowledge innovation are 
needed to develop not only an understanding of each 
of the Arctic's many individual ecosystems, but also 
of the differences between them, their connectivity, 
components, thresholds, feedbacks and risks, as well 
as their accumulated global impact. This will contribute 
to a deeper knowledge of factors behind the resilience 
of some ecosystems and the feedback and cascade 
mechanisms through the interaction of food webs 
and ecosystem boundaries. For the Arctic States and 
Europe, developing a better understanding and sound 
knowledge base on the multiple ecosystem exchanges 
in the Arctic are key to understanding the interactions 
on local, regional and global scales and responding 
appropriately. These responses need to embrace 
ecosystem-based management approaches and actions 
towards maintaining and improving ecosystem functions 
and integrity (see Chapter 4). 

3.2  Key environmental and climatic 

trends, changes and effects of 
relevance to Europe

It has been argued that we have entered the 
Anthropocene, the current geological age during which 
human activity is the dominant influence on climate and 
the environment. And, although human activities are 
increasing in the Arctic region, it is primarily through 
human-induced climate change that the Arctic region 
is currently most affected; it has been warming twice 
as fast compared with the global average in the past 
decades. This warming is having a profound effect on 
the Arctic cryosphere and the changes are predicted to 

have far-reaching impacts beyond the Arctic, affecting 
Europe and the rest of the world. 

The changes in the cryosphere present a series of 
challenges, opportunities and risks that are still being 
studied and have yet to be fully understood with 
regard to feedback loops and albedo changes that 
can further amplify the impacts of climate change. 
This section of the report takes a closer look at some 
of these changes and trends and, in short, presents 
the environmental challenges associated with the 
change as well as the potential economic and social 
opportunities attributed to it. This section also 
addresses some of the related wide-reaching effects 
of these changes, not only for the Arctic inhabitants 
and the environment but also for Europe and globally. 

It should be noted that the opportunities outlined 
in this chapter include local, regional and global 
perspectives, not all of which are encompassed by 
EU policy objectives but rather are in the nature of 
business or commercial interests. Thus, it is often 
preferable to focus on the environmental challenges 
and risks to ecosystem resilience and carrying capacity 
of the environment, rather than on the commercial 
opportunities associated with changes to the 
cryosphere. 

3.2.1  Sea ice

The extent of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly, 
especially in summer, since reliable global data became 
available in 1979 through satellite observations. Record 
low Arctic sea ice cover in September, which is the 
month the sea ice normally reaches its minimum, was 
observed in 2012 (see Map 3.1). The minimum sea 
ice cover in summer 2016 was the second lowest on 
record (jointly with 2007), while the winter sea ice cover 
in early 2017 was the lowest ever recorded (NSIDC, 
2017a). Over the 1979-2015 period, the Arctic lost on 
average 42 000 km2 of sea ice per year in winter and 
89 000 km2 per year in summer. The summer extent is 
now roughly half the size of the summer extent in the 
1980s (EEA, 2016b). 

In terms of thickness, the Arctic sea ice has also been 
losing thick multi-year ice and is increasingly being 
replaced by thinner 1-year ice from the previous 
winter (see Figure 3.1). In total it is estimated that up 
to 65 % of the total sea ice mass has been lost over 
the period 1975-2012 (AMAP, 2017c). Arctic sea ice 
is projected to continue to shrink and thin all year 
round. For high greenhouse gas emission scenarios, 
nearly ice-free summers can be expected before 
the mid-century and even as early as the late 2030's 
according to the latest assessment (AMAP, 2017c). 

32

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Map 3.1 

Arctic sea ice extent

NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN

Bering Sea

Gulf of Alaska

Sea of 
Okhotsk

Chukchi 
Sea

East 
Siberian 
Sea

Laptev 
Sea

Beaufort 
Sea

Baﬃn 
Bay

Hudson 
Bay

Baﬃn 
Bay

ARCTIC OCEAN

Kara 
Sea

Greenland 
Sea

Barents 
Sea

Norwegian
Sea

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Arctic sea ice extent

March median line sea ice extent 1981-2010

Area covered by sea ice in March 2013

September median line sea ice extent 1981-2010

Area covered by sea ice in September 2012

Note:  

The Arctic sea ice reached the lowest extent in the satellite record on 16 September 2012. For comparison the median sea ice cover for 
the 1981-2010 for March (the month with sea ice maximum) and September (the month with sea ice minimum) are illustrated, along 
with the winter extent for March 2013. 

Source:   Adapted from Arctic Portal, 2015.

33

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic50°N40°N60°NGreenwich meridian60°W20°W0°20°E60°E120°E180°E120°W160°E160°W90°W90°E140°E140°W40°E40°W70°N80°NChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Throughout the 21st century, there will still be 
substantial ice cover in winter due to dark cold winter 
months. For a high emission scenario, the Arctic could 
become ice-free year round before the 22nd century. 
The Barents region (the European high Arctic) is seeing 
the fastest rate of change in sea ice coverage — the 
Barents Sea has lost seasonal coverage at two to four 
times the rate of other areas (Laidre et al., 2015). 

Environmental challenges and physical effects of 
reduced sea ice extent include: 

•  Open water absorbs more heat from the sun than 
reflecting sea ice. This ice-albedo feedback further 
reduces the ice cover. 

•  Open water affects the overturning circulation of 

cold and warm water through increased mixing of 
freshwater in the upper layer of the Arctic Ocean. 
This freshwater stems from run-off from melting 
of snow and ice on land and, to a lesser extent, 
from melting sea ice. 

•  Open water absorbs more carbon dioxide (CO2) 
from the air than ice-covered oceans. Reduced 
sea ice cover thus increases ocean acidification in 
the region and thereby affects the composition of 
the lower trophic layers of the food chain in the 
Arctic Ocean and sub-regional seas, including the 
European seas (20). 

• 

• 

Changes in light conditions and acidification 
impact on plankton and zooplankton, which are 
the base of the Arctic marine food chain. Changes 
in these species can have cascading effects 
throughout the ecosystem.

Reduced sea ice cover affects animal species such 
as seal, polar bear and walrus, which depend on 
sea ice to rest, hunt and mate, and to give birth 
and feed their young (CAFF, 2013b). 

•  Decreasing sea ice extent and thickness makes 

the ice less robust and therefore prone to faster 
melting the following year. 

• 

Coastal erosion and damage to infrastructure in 
parts of the Arctic basin with sensitive coastlines 
will increase, because reduced sea ice results in 
bigger waves reaching the coasts. 

• 

Reduced sea ice cover facilitates increased 
shipping, fishing and offshore natural resource 
extraction. Such activities can cause accidents, 
disturb breeding grounds or migration routes 

Figure 3.1 

Arctic sea ice volume, 1979-2016

Ice volume (thousand km3 )

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

April trend

September trend

Linear (April trend)

Linear (September trend)

Note: 

Trend lines and observation points for April (sea ice volume maximum) and September (sea ice volume minimum) have been indicated. 
Green line: Trend = – 2.6 +/– 1 [1 000 km3/decade]; Blue line: Trend = – 3.2 +/– 1 [1 000 km3/Decade].

Source:   Schweiger et al., 2011; PIOMAS, 2017.

(20)  Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea and Greenland Sea.

34

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

of marine mammals (21), diffuse pollution loads 
(including black carbon) and stress sensitive 
ecosystems. 

ice-formation on structures or vessels, bigger 
waves, low temperatures and light conditions still 
make operations very challenging in the Arctic 
Ocean. 

•  Diminishing sea ice extent is being linked to 
changing weather patterns in the northern 
hemisphere due to changing high/low pressures 
over the Arctic Ocean and thereby amplifying 
oscillations in the jet stream causing more frequent 
and prolonged extreme weather events such 
as flooding or drought in northern Europe. The 
linkages are still being studied.

• 

Earlier break-up and reduced sea ice cover affect 
traditional livelihoods that are often dependent on 
sea ice for fishing and hunting. 

Economic opportunities of a reduced sea ice cover 
include: 

• 

Reduced sea ice cover increases access for 
shipping, fishing, offshore oil and gas (22), 
or mineral activities, as well as cruise ship 
tourism. However, the relationship between 
sea ice reduction and economic opportunities 
is not simple, as moving sea ice and icebergs, 

•  Many technologies to cope with the extremely cold 
conditions in the Arctic are yet to be developed and 
more importantly implemented, but this is an area 
for innovation potential. 

3.2.2.  Snow cover

The length of the snow season and amount of land 
covered by snow are important for plants and animals 
in the Arctic. A shorter duration of snow cover means 
a longer growing season for plants, which affects 
food availability for animals. Snow cover extent in 
the northern hemisphere has declined significantly 
over the past 90 years, with most of the reduction 
occurring since 1980. Snow cover extent in Europe 
decreased by 13 % on average for March and April 
and by 76 % for June over the period between 1980 
and 2015 (EEA, 2016c) (see Figure 3.2). On average, 
across the entire Arctic, the duration of winter snow 
cover became 4 days shorter per decade in the period 

Figure 3.2 

Trend in March snow mass in Europe (excluding mountain regions)

March snow mass anomaly (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0

– 10

– 20

– 30

– 40

– 50

– 60

1980

Note:  

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

This figure shows the satellite-derived anomaly in March snow mass in Europe for the period 1980–2015 relative to the 1980–2012 
average. 

Source:   GlobSnow, updated from Luojus et al., 2011.

(21)  Reduced sea ice might ease northwards movement for more mobile open-water species of marine mammals.
(22)  It should be noted that increased Arctic extraction of fossil fuels goes against the objective of keeping the global temperature change below the 

2 °C target (UNFCCC, 2015) and may have adverse effects on the environment.

35

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

between 1972/1973 and 2008/2009 (AMAP, 2012). 
Models project further widespread reductions in the 
extent and duration of snow cover in the northern 
hemisphere and in Europe into the 21st century. 
Higher air temperatures in the Arctic have also led 
to an increase in 'rain on snow' (ROS) events, which 
lead to the creation of ice layers within the snowpack. 
A 2 °C global average warming translates into a 4-6 °C 
warming in the Arctic, while a 3 °C global average 
temperature could translate into a 6-11 °C Arctic 
warming, depending on the climate scenarios used 
(Seneviratne et al., 2016). The implications for snow 
and ice cover are obvious, as both are reduced when 
conditions change from freezing to non-freezing 
temperatures. Related to snow cover is the issue of 
ice cover on Arctic rivers and lakes, which play an 
important role for winter transport and tourism in 
many locations as well as for the functioning of local 
ecosystems. 

Environmental challenges and economic, social and 
physical effects of reduced snow and ice cover include: 

•  Snow reflects solar radiation; Arctic areas with 

reduced snow cover absorb more solar radiation, 
raising local or regional temperature and resulting 
in further snow melt. 

•  Early or rapid melting of snow changes the amount 
and timing of freshwater flow during spring and 
summer months.

•  Flora and fauna and their ecology change when no 

longer covered by snow for extended parts of the 
year, including increased competition with species 
from lower latitudes. Earlier blossoming of flora 
can lead to trophic mismatch with migrating birds. 

• 

'Rain on snow' events make it harder for grazing 
animals to reach plants through ice layers in the 
snowpack.

•  Early seasonal snow melt can lead to increased 

incidence of droughts and wildfires.

• 

Increased number and duration of melt-off pools 
increase the likelihood of insect outbreaks in 
forests and tundra areas. 

•  The duration of ice roads on frozen rivers and 

lakes will be affected by earlier melt-off. 

•  Winter tourism and snow sports areas may be 

negatively affected.

•  Hydropower generation might be affected by the 

timing of the snowmelt and associated water flows.

Economic opportunities of reduced snow cover 
include:

•  Agricultural or forestry potential might increase with 
reduced snow cover, although this might impact 
traditional livelihoods and indigenous stewardship of 
the land. 

3.2.3.  The Greenland ice sheet and the European glaciers

The Greenland ice sheet is the largest body of ice in 
the northern hemisphere and plays an important role 
in the global climate system. The Greenland ice sheet 
has been losing ice at an increasing rate during the 
past two decades (see Figure 3.3). Thermal expansion 
of the world's oceans due to global warming was the 
most significant contributor to sea level rise (SLR), 
but the contributions from land-locked ice caps and 
glaciers have increased rapidly in recent decades. The 
Greenland ice sheet alone has contributed about one 
fifth of global SLR in the past decade. The average ice 
loss increased from 34 billion tonnes per year over the 
1992-2001 period to 215 billion tonnes from 2002 to 
2011 (EEA, 2016d). Model projections suggest the further 
decline of the Greenland ice sheet in the future but the 
uncertainties are significant. 

The world's glaciers are losing mass at a faster rate 
than at any time in recorded history. European glaciers 
are losing mass, in the high Arctic, in Scandinavia and 
in the Alps, with losses observed to be accelerating in 
recent decades at many locations. The loss occurs by a 
combination of surface melt and run-off, iceberg calving 
and subsurface melting of the termini of glaciers that 
end in the ocean. The centennial retreat of European 
glaciers (including in the Alps) is attributed primarily to 
increased summer temperatures. However, changes in 
winter precipitation, reduced glacier albedo due to the 
lack of summer snowfall and black carbon deposition 
can influence the behaviour of glaciers, in particular on 
a regional and decadal scale. As for the European Arctic 
glaciers, the area of mountain glaciers and ice caps 
exceeds more than 420 000 km2. Overall there has been 
a loss of ice mass in 21 of 24 glaciers, including loss and 
retreat from the Norwegian coastal glaciers. While some 
ice caps at higher elevations in north-eastern Svalbard 
seem to be increasing in thickness, the estimates for 
Svalbard as a whole show a declining mass balance. 
The only three European Arctic glaciers showing mass 
gain are all northern outlets of the Vatnajökull ice cap 
in Iceland (Jeffries et al., 2013). European glacier retreat 
is expected to continue in the future, with a decline in 
volume of between 22 and 84 %, compared with the 
current situation predicted by 2100 under a moderate 
greenhouse gas forcing scenario, and of between 38 and 
89 %, under a high forcing scenario (EEA, 2016e).

36

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Figure 3.3 

Cumulative ice mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica

Gigatonnes (Gt)

Greenland

Gigatonnes (Gt)

Antarctica

4 500

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

– 500

4 500

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

– 500

1992

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1992

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Note:  

The cumulative ice mass loss is derived as annual averages from more than 100 assessments. The uncertainty interval is estimated from 
the 90 % confidence intervals (5 to 95 %) of the individual studies. The ice mass loss from Antarctica is of relevance with regard to sea 
level rise (see  Section 3.2.4). 

Source:   Shepherd et al., 2015, updated from 2012.

Environmental challenges and physical impacts of 
increased ice mass loss include: 

• 

• 

Ice mass loss has the potential to make a significant 
contribution to global sea level rise, particularly 
affecting coastal areas and low-lying island states in 
the southern hemisphere (see Section 3.2.4 on SLR). 

Increased ice flow through Greenland ice sheet 
outlet glaciers leads to an increasing number of 
icebergs discharged into waters around Greenland, 
creating hazards for shipping and tourism. 

•  Glacial meltwater run-off has negative effects 

by affecting freshwater supply, run-off regimes, 
river navigation and water supply for hydropower 
generation. Furthermore, it may cause natural 
hazards and damage to infrastructure along rivers 
affected by larger discharges of meltwater. 

•  The discharge of melted freshwater may affect the 

biological structure of flushed habitats. 

upper layers of water in the Arctic Ocean. This can 
affect the 'pump' whereby warm waters brought 
into the Arctic Ocean by the Gulf Stream sink to 
the bottom where the dense water then flows back 
to the world's oceans (23). Thus, the freshwater 
discharge can disrupt the heat transfer in and out of 
the Arctic. Scientists are still studying the extent of 
this effect. 

Economic opportunities that melting ice presents 
include:

•  The run-off from both the Greenland ice sheet 

and European glaciers is a source of hydropower 
generation. This can be of particular advantage for 
remote villages far away from main power lines.

•  Hydropower is suitable for power-intensive 

industries such as smelting aluminium. However, 
hydropower generation is dependent on stable 
long-term water flows, which might be adversely 
affected by retreating glaciers. 

•  The discharge of freshwater can affect thermohaline 

circulation due to changes in the salinity of the 

•  Reduction in the Greenland ice sheet can open 
access to new deposits of mineral resources. 

(23)   Also known as the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) formation affecting the the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

37

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.2.4.  Sea level rise 

Global warming has for many decades led to 
increasing SLR due to thermal expansion (i.e. warm 
water takes up more volume than colder water). Also, 
melting of land-locked ice, whether from glaciers or 
ice caps, is increasingly contributing to global SLR, as 
the melting shifts masses of water from land to the 
world's oceans (see Figure 3.4). The rise in sea level is 
not, however, restricted to the area where the ice loss 
is discharged, but rather spreads out globally. 

Due to gravitational forces the ice loss from ice caps 
in the northern hemisphere results in larger SLR 
in the southern hemisphere and vice versa. This is 
of importance to Europe, as it will be ice loss from 

Antarctica that will affect European shorelines the 
most strongly. The Antarctic continent holds much 
more ice, and therefore water that could be released, 
than the Greenland ice sheet. If the Antarctic ice was 
lost completely it would result in a global SLR of up to 
60 metres, while a complete ice loss of the Greenland 
ice sheet would result in an SLR of approximately 
7 metres (NSIDC, 2017b; AMAP, 2011a). However, at 
the current rate of loss from the Greenland and the 
Antarctic ice sheets, this would take approximately 
10 000-25 000 years. The current loss of ice from 
the Antarctic ice sheet is less than half that of the 
Greenland ice sheet (see Figure 3.3). The processes 
that determine (the future) stability of and loss 
from the two ice sheets are the subjects of intensive 
scientific studies (24). 

Figure 3.4 

Observed change in global mean sea level

Sea level (mm)

80

40

0

– 40

– 80

– 120

– 160

– 200

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

Global mean sea level (reconstruction)

Global mean sea level (satellite altimeter)

Global mean sea level (uncertainty range)

Note: 

The figure depicts the rise in global mean sea level from 1880 to 2015, relative to the 1990 level, based on two sources. The green line 
shows a reconstruction for 1880 to 2013 from coastal and island tide gauge data. The uncertainty interval is shown in grey. The dark blue 
line shows a time series for 1993 to 2015 based on altimeter data from the TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. Corrections 
for the inverse barometer effect and glacial isostatic adjustment have been applied. 

Source:   Adapted from Church and White, 2011; Masters et al., 2012. Data supplied by Benoit Legresy (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial 

Research Organisation (CSIRO)).

(24)  It has to be taken into account that rising global temperatures may cause an increase in ocean water evaporation and therefore cloudiness, 

which could decrease incoming solar energy and cause temperatures to fall.

38

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

The global mean sea level (GMSL) rose by 19 cm from 
1901 to 2013, at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year. 
The rate of SLR over the past two decades, when 
satellite measurements have been available, is 
higher at 3.2 mm/year. In its most recent assessment 
report, AR5, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) projects that GMSL would rise a 
further 0.26-0.54 m by the late 21st century, for a low 
greenhouse gas emission scenario, and 0.45-0.81 m for 
a high emission scenario (25). In a recent assessment 
by AMAP it is even estimated that when all sources of 
SLR are considered (not just those from the Arctic), 
the rise in GMSL by 2100 would be at least 0.52 m for 
a greenhouse gas reduction scenario and 0.74 m for 
a business-as-usual scenario — these estimates are 
almost double the minimum estimates made by IPCC 
(AMAP, 2017c). 

Some densely populated areas of Asia and many 
low-lying island states will be hardest hit. But Europe 
is and will also be affected (see Map 3.2). In addition to 
the EEA countries Iceland and Norway, 15 EU Member 
States have coastline that will be affected by SLR. It is 
estimated that the economic assets (including nuclear 
facilities) within 500 metres of the sea in EU Member 
States have an estimated value of EUR 500-1 000 billion. 
Furthermore some 47 500 km2 of sites within 
500 metres of the coastline in the EU are identified as 
having high ecological value (Ice2sea, 2014) and some 
200 million European citizens live near the coastline 
(Eurostat, 2009). Most coastal regions in Europe have 
experienced an increase in absolute sea level as well 
as in sea level relative to land, but there is significant 
regional variation. Extreme high coastal water levels 
have also increased at many locations along the 
European coastline (EEA, 2016f). 

Environmental challenges. From an environmental 
and socio-economic perspective, SLR can cause:

•  major damage to coastal ecosystems and 

estuaries; 

• 

increased erosion in coastal areas and estuaries 
inside and outside the Arctic; 

• 

increased and/or persistent flooding;

•  changing light conditions, which affect coral reefs, 
including cold coral reefs found in the Arctic (26); 

•  damage to infrastructure and installations and 
associated dispersion of harmful substances;

•  displacement of people in low-lying areas, causing 
migration, local/regional tension over rights and 
access to land (mostly in regions outside Europe).

Economic opportunities. From an economic and 
social perspective, SLR can create opportunities for:

•  There are no known advantages of sea level rise. 
Although construction firms outside the Arctic 
might stand to profit from having to increase dikes, 
barriers and coastal protection measures, and 
building new areas where people from flooded 
areas can repatriate, these opportunities do not 
in any way outweigh the costs of lost property or 
ecosystem change.

(25)   Further reading can be found in the EEA core set of indicators, Global and European sea level.
(26)  In addition to changing light conditions, coral reefs found in the Arctic are also affected by ocean acidification and salinity.

39

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Map 3.2 

Projected change in relative sea level in Europe

-110°

-130°

-160°

170°

150°

140°

130°

50°

40°

30°

-30°

-20°

-10°

0°

10°

20°

30°

40°

Projected change in relative sea level, 2081–2100

Metres

50°

40°

30°

> 0.7
0.6 to 0.7

0.5 to 0.6

0.4 to 0.5

0.3 to 0.4

0.2 to 0.3

0.1 to 0.2

–0.2 to –0.1
0 to 0.1
–0.1 to 0
–0.3 to –0.2
–0.4 to –0.3
< –0.4

0

500

1000

1500 km

Note:  

The map shows the projected change in relative sea level in 2081-2100 compared with 1986-2005 for a medium-low emission scenario 
RCP4.5 based on an ensemble of CMIP5 climate models (IPPC, 2000). Projections consider land movement due to glacial isostatic 
adjustment (lands around the northern Baltic Sea have been rising since the last ice age) but not land subsidence due to human 
activities. No projections are available for the Black Sea. 

Source:   Adapted from IPCC, 2013 (Figure TS.23 (b)). Data were supplied by Mark Carson (ZMAW, Germany).

40

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.2.5.  Permafrost

Large parts of the Arctic are covered by permanently 
frozen ground both at land and at sub-sea level 
(see Map 3.3). This layer, also known as permafrost, is 
a major component of the cryosphere, underlying 24 % 
of the northern hemisphere's land surface. The frozen 
layer can reach several hundred metres underground 
and it is only a top layer that thaws during the annual 
melt cycle (the active layer). Permafrost stores large 
quantities of water as well as carbon and methane 
made up of plant and animal remnants stored in soil 
for hundreds to thousands of years. Increased warming 
in the Arctic or in mountainous areas can thaw a 
deeper portion of the active layer or completely free 
an area of permafrost, transforming the area from a 
carbon sink into a carbon-emitting system.

Temperatures in the Arctic permafrost have risen by 
up to 2 °C over the past decades, and permafrost limits 
have retreated northwards by up to 100 km in parts 
of the Arctic. Warming regional seas in the Arctic are 
also seeing thawing of sub-sea permafrost. None of 
the climate projections in the latest IPCC AR5 include 
carbon emissions from thawing permafrost, despite 
it being estimated that Arctic permafrost stores as 
much as twice the amount of carbon stored in the 
atmosphere. These emissions can become a factor with 
regard to keeping the global temperature change below 
the 2 °C target, particularly as releases of methane, 
a greenhouse gas 34 times more powerful than CO2 
(IPCC, 2013) are emitted over vast areas, especially in 
the Russian Arctic tundra (27). 

In areas with continuous permafrost, man-made 
structures have been designed and constructed 
to withstand the annual cycles of melt and may be 
founded on permanently frozen layers of soil. As 
the permafrost thaws or the active layer becomes 
deeper, man-made structures such as runways, 
roads, houses and pipelines may be damaged. This 
has major implications for the natural as well as the 
built environment. Thawing permafrost is thus costly 
for Arctic nations that would have to spend billions of 
euros to rebuild infrastructure. However the global 
cost can run into trillions of euros if large quantities 
of methane and CO2 are released from permafrost, 
because climatic feedbacks could potentially result in 
crop failure, sea level rise, health impacts, etc., far away 
from the Arctic. Changes in and thawing of permafrost 

may also cause soil instabilities and disruptions, 
increasing the risk of landslides, drowning of forest 
trees, coastal erosion and hydrology changes. The 
projected change in northern hemisphere near-surface 
permafrost areas is presented in Figure 3.5.

Environmental challenges and socio-economic 
impacts from thawing permafrost include:

•  Arctic infrastructure and transport systems, 

including oil and gas pipelines, roads, houses and 
airport runways, are faced with increased damage.

•  Thawing permafrost alters ecosystems, vegetation 

types and associated animal life, as well as 
migration patterns of certain Arctic species. 

•  Thawing permafrost is a significant source of 

greenhouse gases, as thawing frozen soil and the 
subsequent decomposition of organic matter by 
microbes release CO2 and methane greenhouse 
gases into the atmosphere. Tundra wildfires 
following thawing permafrost further add to 
greenhouse gas emissions. 

•  Thawing permafrost can release historical deposits 
of substances or harmful pathogens captured in 
older ice layers of the cryosphere, such as anthrax 
emerging from thawing permafrost in the Russian 
Arctic in 2016 (28).

Economic opportunities from permafrost thaw 
include:

•  Land areas with diminishing permafrost can be 

converted into arable land or forestry, if drainage 
or slope conditions are favourable. However, not 
many such opportunities exist in the European 
Arctic.

•  Thawing permafrost can lead to an increase in 
availability and resource of potable water. 

•  Construction work may be necessary, associated 
with current infrastructure that has to be rebuilt 
or strengthened. However, although new and 
more climate-resilient installations might replace 
old and damaged buildings or infrastructure, the 
'opportunity' seldom outweighs the costs of lost 
property or ecosystem change. 

(27)  The AMAP study on Methane as an Arctic climate forcer (AMAP, 2015a) and Schuur et al. (2015) indicate that the current emission scenarios 
for Arctic methane will not significantly affect overall atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions. Other scientific articles suggest otherwise with 
regard to methane emissions from terrestrial and sub-sea sources (e.g. Schaefer et al., 2014; Schuur et al., 2015; Shakhova et al., 2015). Further 
research is required to produce more conclusive evidence.

(28)  Scientist fear that smallpox might also emerge, as the deceased from an epidemic in Siberia 100 years ago were buried in areas now hit by 

permafrost thaw and erosion.

41

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Map 3.3 

Permafrost in the northern hemisphere

Permafrost in the Northern hemisphere

Durability

Continuous 
permafrost

Discontinuous 
  permafrost

  Sporadic 
permafrost

Isolated 
patches

   Subsea 
permafrost

Source:  © International Permafrost Association. 

42

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Figure 3.5 

Projected change in northern hemisphere near-surface permafrost areas

Million square km

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1980

Note: 

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Mean area RCP2.6

Mean area RCP4.5

Mean area RCP6.0

Mean area RCP8.5

Historical

 Projected change in sustainable near-surface permafrost for four representative concentration pathways (RCP) based on the CMIP5 
model ensemble (IPCC, 2000). Solid lines show the model mean. For the highest and lowest RCP, uncertainty intervals comprising one 
standard deviation are also shown. Note that the projected reduction is for sustainable near-surface permafrost; it does not imply that 
deeper permafrost will disappear at a similar rate. 

Source:   EEA, 2016g.

43

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.2.6.  Ocean acidification

Acidity is a fundamental property of seawater, as world 
oceans act as a carbon sink by producing carbonic acid 
when they absorb carbon released into the atmosphere 
or from sediments. As atmospheric CO2 concentrations 
increase, more CO2 dissolves into ocean water making 
the oceans more acidic. About 30 % of all CO2 released 
by humans is now stored in the oceans (IPCC, 2014a). 
Overall carbon sequestration by the oceans significantly 
slows the accumulation of atmospheric CO2, which 
affects climate change. This sink is primarily physical 
— the biological sink is considered insignificant — and 
without it the rate of anthropogenic global climate 
change would have been much higher than that already 
observed (Raven and Falkowski, 1999). 

In recent decades, ocean acidification has been 
occurring a hundred times faster than during previous 
natural events over the past 55 million years. Global 
surface ocean pH has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 over 
the industrial era due to the growth of atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations. Average surface water pH is 
projected to decline further to between 8.05 and 7.75 by 
2100, depending on future CO2 emissions (EEA, 2016f) 
(see Figure 3.6). 

As cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water, 
Arctic waters are experiencing a widespread and 
rapid ocean acidification. Furthermore, the decreasing 
extent and duration of Arctic sea ice cover increases 
CO2 absorption in the Arctic Ocean. Acidification is not 

uniform across the Arctic Ocean, as various factors 
such as sediments, sea ice cover, freshwater inputs and 
seaweed and plankton growth affect the process. In 
the European Arctic, the Nordic seas including Icelandic 
waters and the Barents Sea have experienced the 
most rapid acidification in surface waters, but deeper 
waters are also affected. The vulnerability of Arctic 
marine ecosystems and food webs is still uncertain 
due to lack of data, but good efforts by AMAP under 
the Arctic Council have provided new insights on Arctic 
Ocean acidification and its projections and impacts 
(AMAP, 2013). An update of this assessment is in 
preparation and will include case studies related to 
climate change.

Environmental challenges and socio-economic 
impacts arising from ocean acidification include:

•  Changes in acidification have far-reaching effects 
on marine animals as well as other organisms 
and plants — and thus on human societies — as 
acidification can affect entire marine ecosystems 
and cause loss of resilience.

•  Food webs are likely to be affected through: (1) the 
structure and composition of lower trophic layers 
changing to more acid-prone species that can 
endure living in more acidic environments; and 
(2) through changing availability of nutrients or 
essential trace elements (EPOCA, 2012; CBD, 2014). 
All will have cascading effects on fish, birds 
and mammals, through inability to respond by 

Photos:  Arctic ocean acidification can have effects on shell formation and organism growth which can have cascading effects on the delicate 

food web in Arctic waters. Two of the Arctic species that can be affected is the Brittlestar (Ophiactis abyssicola) right (and the Sea Butterfly 
(Limalina helicina) left.

Sources:  © Olga Zimina, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (left photo) and © Alexander Semenov (right photo)

44

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Figure 3.6 

Projected change in global ocean acidification

pH

8.1

8.0

7.9

7.8

7.7

7.6

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

RCP2.6

RCP4.5

RCP6.0

RCP8.5

Note: 

The figure shows the projected change in ocean acidity for various emissions scenarios (RCPs) until 2100. The thick lines show the model 
average and the shaded areas the minimum to maximum range for each RCP. 

Source:   Adapted from IPCC, 2013 (figureSPM7(c)).

relocating to other areas or through competition 
from species able to adapt more quickly. 

•  Local and indigenous peoples might also be 

affected as changes in marine resources limit or 
change food availability.

•  The current growth in whale-watching tourism 
could be affected, as impacts on krill in Arctic 
waters might affect migration patterns.

• 

In addition to atmospheric influence, thawing 
permafrost, and eroding coastlines and river 
banks are also releasing large quantities of organic 
carbon, which accelerates ocean acidification in the 
Arctic. 

with other environmental stressors such as 
temperature, salinity and oxygen concentration 
— on keystone species and processes in the 
Arctic makes projections and scientific advice on 
policymaking very difficult. 

•  Fish stocks would be more resilient to ocean 
acidification if the combined stresses from 
overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution run-off, 
land use transformation, competing aquatic resource 
uses and other anthropogenic factors are minimised 
(AMAP, 2013). These stresses are, however, not likely 
to decrease in the near future. 

Economic opportunities arising from ocean 
acidification are: 

•  Low levels of information on the effects of ocean 

•  There are currently no known opportunities 

acidification — either in isolation or in combination 

associated with ocean acidification.  

45

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.2.7.  Biodiversity

The Arctic has, compared with temperate and tropical 
zones, less rich and varied biodiversity but more 
specialised species adapted to the cold environment. 
These include a number of iconic endemic species such 
as reindeer, polar bear, seal, narwhale, musk ox and 
the Arctic fox (see p. 48). The region plays an important 
role in a global and European context, as more than 
50 % of the world's wetlands are in the Arctic and 
subarctic regions, which during the summer season 
contain more than half of the world's shorebirds, 
including 90 % of world geese populations. Arctic 
wetlands are furthermore important for carbon storage 
and water cycling. Arctic ecosystems and species are 
intrinsically linked to regions beyond, including Europe, 
and many Arctic seabirds and whales migrate great 
distances every year. 

Arctic plants grow slowly due to short summers and 
cold conditions, and climate change is thus a major 
driver affecting Arctic biodiversity and ecosystems, 
including a greening of the Arctic. Certain areas in the 
Arctic are experiencing rapid change that challenges 
Arctic biodiversity (see Map 3.4), and particularly 
species which are sea ice-dependent or species finding 
it difficult to compete with subarctic species that may 
increasingly invade the Arctic, e.g. the snow crab. 
The Arctic is a varied region and the changes are not 
uniform, which means that some species thrive while 
others decline. For example, the mainland population 
of the Arctic fox has been in decline in the European 
part of the Arctic while the population is stable in North 
America. Polar bear populations are declining in some 
parts of the Arctic while increasing in others, and data 
deficiency makes trend analysis difficult across all of 
the species' circumpolar range. 

The CAFF Arctic biodiversity assessment (CAFF, 2013a) 
has synthesised and assessed the status and trends 
of biological diversity in the Arctic and in some 
instances established baselines and presented 
examples of projections of future change. Some of the 
key messages from the assessment include: (1) that 
the global population of polar bears is predicted to 
decrease by 30 % in the next 45 years; (2) that the 
Arctic Ocean and regional seas produce (by weight) 
more than 10 % of global marine fisheries and 5.3 % of 
the world's crustacean catches; and (3) that northern 
plants are expected to lose up to 43 % of their current 
distribution under A2 and B2 climate change scenarios 
(IPCC, 2000). Many migratory birds that breed in the 
Arctic overwinter in Europe. This provides Europe 
with an opportunity to collect important monitoring 
data and thus support a better understanding of the 
changes to Arctic migratory bird populations.

Environmental challenges and socio-economic 
impacts for Arctic biodiversity change include:

•  Subarctic fish, algae and plankton are moving 

northwards, and new species are being observed 
in the Arctic. Invasive species are a threat to local 
ecosystems and endemic species. 

•  Highly mobile and migratory species are affected 
by the changes in the Arctic environment as well 
as pressures in areas outside the Arctic, including 
from long-range pollution. 

•  Arctic biodiversity is challenged by destruction 
of habitats, forestry, noise, accumulation of 
chemicals and, in some places, by overharvesting. 

•  Coastal areas and wetlands are affected by SLR, 

sedimentation, eutrophication and pollution that 
can affect species composition and food web 
structure. 

•  Pipelines and thawing permafrost are affecting 
grazing land of reindeer in the Sami area in 
Europe.

• 

Increasing risk of 'trophic mismatch', 
i.e. uncoupling the timing of different 
interdependent species. For example, the 
successful breeding of migratory birds depends 
critically on the phenology of snow melt and plant 
growth in the Arctic, which are changing.

• 

Infrastructure development such as roads 
or pipelines will result in direct and indirect 
disruption and disturbance to sensitive species.  

•  Arctic shipping and increasing development may 
allow invasive non-native marine organisms 
into the Arctic from unmanaged ballast water 
or on ship hulls and drilling rigs. Pathogens and 
disease vectors may also arrive with other invasive 
species.

Economic opportunities associated with biodiversity 
change include:

•  Some commercial fish stocks are now expanding 

into Arctic waters, and retreating sea ice is 
opening up greater areas for fishing. 

• 

Invasive species such as the king crab and snow 
crab have led to increased opportunities for 
the fishing industry in the northernmost part of 
Europe. 

46

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Map 3.4 

Arctic Marine Areas as defined by the CBMP, with examples of biodiversity change from each 
marine area

Large diﬀerences in species 
composition of microbial 
plankton detected before and 
after the 2007 sea ice 
minimum

First ever Arctic Unusual Mortality 
Event (i.e. signiﬁcant die-oﬀ) of 
seals and walruses in 2011, 
aﬀecting food sources for 
Indigenous communities in the US, 
Canada, and Russia

Ivory gull decline by 
80-90 % in past 
20 years

Possible change in ice algal 
community structure since 
the 1980s

Information least 
accessible to the CBMP

Seabird declines: black-legged 
kittiwake, common murre, 
thick-billed murre and ivory 
gull

Beluga decline, 
local extinction

Northward expansion of 
capelin led to changes in 
seabird diet in northern 
Hudson Bay. May also aﬀect 
marine mammals

Samples of change in Arctic marine biodiversity

Arctic 
basin

Arctic 
Archipelago

  Atlantic
  Arctic

Paciﬁc
Arctic

   Beaufort

  Davis–
 Baﬃn

Hudson
Complex

   Kara 
  Laptev

CAFF
  Border

Source:   Adapted from CAFF, 2017.

47

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

•  Certain mammals, insects and butterflies, as well 

•  Warmer temperatures and retreating permafrost 

as some birds, may flourish in a warming Arctic, 
although they are likely to be species expanding 
their range and invading the Arctic and thus 
threatening endemic species. 

are, from a long-term perspective, making 
agricultural production and forestry possible in new 
areas. Forests might also grow faster in a warming 
climate. 

Photo: 

Large walrus on the ice (Odobenus rosmarus divergens),  
© vladsilver/istock.com

Photo:  

Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) on Sea ice, Franz Josef Land, 
Russian Arctic National Park,  
© Peter Prokosch/GRID Arendal

Photo:  

Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus), 
© Rimante_Hegland/istock.com

Photo:  

Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus) at 
Plateau mountain near Longyearbyen, Svalbard, 
© Peter Prokosch/GRID Arendal

Photo:   Musk ox (Ovibos moschatus),  

© samsem67/istock.com

Photo:   Narwhales (Monodon monoceros) 

© Paul Nicklen (NGS Image Collection),  
www.ourbreathingplanet.com

48

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.3  Socio-economic developments 

affecting the region

the more relevant to consult residents and to seek 
an ecosystem-based management approach before 
approving activities at sub-regional scale. 

When discussing the Arctic environment — the state 
of the environment, pressures on the environment 
of ecosystems or the expected future impacts — 
social-economic activities need to be addressed in 
addition to the climatic and environmental changes in 
the region. These activities have the power to determine 
the fate of the Arctic environment as well as providing 
the base for jobs, economic growth and rising living 
standards and providing resources of the region to 
Europe and indeed the wider world. 

The Arctic region is rich in natural resources but is a 
sensitive environment requiring prudent stewardship. 
Population density and economic activity vary 
significantly across the eight Arctic States, ranging from 
large areas with no human settlements or industry, 
both on- and offshore, to areas with larger, vibrant cities 
such as Tromsø and Murmansk, with large economic 
activities. So major economic activity already takes place 
in the Arctic, but the overall level of economic activity for 
the region as a whole is still relatively low compared with 
most of Europe. It is therefore difficult to substantiate 
alarmist claims that there is a rush for Arctic resources, 
that shipping lanes are being extensively used yearlong, 
that fishing is unregulated, or that oil and gas activities 
are conducted across the entire Arctic region at great 
risk to the environment. 

Until now environmental impacts from Arctic economic 
activities have predominantly been local, although some 
activities have the potential to affect a wider region 
through accidental pollution or from harmful substances 
spread by wind and ocean currents. However, this also 
holds true for activities in the European environment, 
and the Arctic is not special in this sense, other than that 
safety and environmental standards must be higher 
because the cold climate makes pollution harder to 
break down. This can lead to accumulation of certain 
harmful chemicals in the ecosystem, and affect human 
health and wildlife. Unlike Europe, what is missing in the 
Arctic is an understanding of how ecosystem resilience 
and the carrying capacity of economic activities in the 
region are coupled with external pressures such as 
climate change and long-range pollution. Without such 
knowledge, more risks are associated with allowing 
multiple large-scale economic activities. Furthermore, 
large economic development activities often have 
conflicting interests between sectors or are at odds 
with local and indigenous lifestyles, hence it is all 

Although economic development is still ongoing, the 
expected Arctic boom in shipping, oil and gas extraction 
and mining has been less than that expected a decade 
ago (29). This is partly due to the financial crises in and 
after 2008 and the present low commodity prices 
of raw materials, but also because the region is still 
an expensive place to operate. When world prices 
do not meet development costs, investments are 
delayed or suspended. Cold and extreme conditions 
further diminish year-round operations, which affects 
the return on investment. Even if the potential for 
developing Arctic shipping routes or extracting natural 
resources is high, development still depends on high 
and stable world market prices, reliable and safe 
shipping routes, companies' willingness to invest and 
insurance companies' willingness to provide cover for 
such activities. These conditions have not been met 
and at present it does not look like the full economic 
expectations will be realised in the short term, at 
least when it comes to large-scale investments in the 
offshore oil and gas sector or regarding trans-Arctic 
shipping. Further limiting factors for a boom in economic 
development in the region include harsh conditions 
requiring special designs or additional site preparations, 
unpredictable ice pack or ice movement in Arctic seas, 
long supply lines, which require large inventories of 
parts, limited transport access, which can be dependent 
on ice roads, and higher wages and salaries required to 
induce personnel to work in the region. Of these factors, 
only the cost of shipping may be reduced due to climate 
change (NCM, 2014).

From a social point of view, the more modest economic 
growth in the region might delay local inhabitants' 
aspirations for growth, job creation and higher living 
standards, but the economic crisis and fluctuations 
in world commodity prices have also provided Arctic 
governments, Europe and the international community 
with more time to better assess ecosystem resilience 
and boundaries; anticipate the pace of change and 
transition; build better models and forward-looking 
scenarios for Arctic development; develop cleaner 
technologies; and put in place safety standards, at 
both national level and regional level. In addition, other 
less polluting economic sectors than hydrocarbon and 
mineral extraction might be developed and promoted 
such as tourism, the service sector, renewable energy 
production or communication links.  

(29)  For example, trans-Arctic shipping through the Northern Sea Route grew from 41 ships in 2011 to 71 ships in 2013 but has since declined to 31 ships 
in 2014, 18 in 2015 and 19 ships in 2016. Similarly, oil and gas exploration off the coast in Greenland, Alaska and Russia has been suspended or 
postponed just as some exploration licensees cancelled.

49

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Until planned circular economy and resource 
efficiency measures are fully implemented, the EU will, 
to a certain degree, still look to cater for its resource 
needs beyond its borders. Europe's consumption 
currently exceeds its own renewable natural resource 
production and 20-30 % of the resources used in 
Europe are imported (EEA, 2012). Continued economic 
growth and stability in Europe thus depends on 
imports from other parts of the world, including the 
Arctic region. In order to sustain future demands, 
a balanced approach to and management of Arctic 
resources is required, and the EU has a responsibility 
to support development that is sustainable and 
accommodates the resilience of Arctic ecosystems 
while promoting recycling and resource efficiency 
within Europe, in line with EU 2030 visions. The Arctic 
States have a natural interest in seeking the right 
balance between protecting the environment and 
ensuring economic and social development, both in 
meeting the growing global demand for resources and 
in finding sustainable national strategies for managing 
natural capital that will secure growth and job creation 
now and in the future, and for safeguarding the 
environment and human health.

However, the demand for Arctic resources creates 
a variety of challenges, and multiple issues and 
considerations that have to be incorporated into 
sustainable strategies and management plans. These 
issues include pressures on ecosystems from climate 
change, exploration of minerals and fossil fuels, 
increased transportation and shipping, overharvesting 
of key fish stocks, local and long-range pollution, 
pollution incidents from industrial activities and 
historical waste disposals, land fragmentation and 
impacts from infrastructure developments, decline 
in biodiversity and threat from invasive species, and 
pressure from tourism. This balance is hard to master. 

Below is a brief introduction to some of these 
challenges that will have to be addressed nationally 
and collectively by the Arctic governments and their 
industries in addition to the global megatrends that 
must also be taken into account. Not all topics will 
be addressed in this report, and only a number of 
selected key socio-economic sectors will be presented 
here, based on availability of recent assessments and 
studies (30). A more comprehensive description can be 
found in the Strategic assessment of development of 

the Arctic — an assessment conducted for the EU in 
2014 (Arctic Centre, 2014a). 

It should be noted that the opportunities outlined 
in this section include local, regional and global 
perspectives, not all of which are encompassed by 
EU policy objectives but rather are in the nature of 
business or commercial interests. Thus, it is often 
preferable to focus on the environmental challenges 
and risks to ecosystem resilience and carrying capacity 
of the environment, rather than on the commercial 
opportunities.

3.3.1.  Oil and gas

The global demand for energy is continuously rising 
despite efforts to reduce consumption, improve 
efficiency and shift to renewable energy resources. 
The Arctic has over the past decades seen an increase 
in the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons 
to meet those needs, not least from Europe 
(see Map 3.5). Currently, 10 % of global oil and 25 % of 
gas production takes place in the Arctic. Most of this 
production comes from onshore fields, primarily in 
Russia, and to a lesser extent offshore fields in Alaska 
and Norway (SSB, 2011). The US Geological Survey in 
2008 estimated that 30 % of the world's undiscovered 
and recoverable gas and 13 % of undiscovered and 
recoverable oil was to be found in the Arctic (31). 

The financial crisis has slowed demands and, with oil 
prices well below levels seen a decade ago, oil and 
gas activities are currently being scaled back in some 
parts of the Arctic. Furthermore, the green shift in 
the global and European energy mix towards more 
renewable energy sources, which has gained further 
momentum since the 2015 COP21 Paris Agreement 
and COP22 in 2016 in Marrakesh, has resulted in a 
move away from fossil fuels and in particular from the 
most expensive, risky and inefficient Arctic projects, 
which are being cancelled or postponed indefinitely. 
However, regardless of current energy prices, a 
transition towards a more renewable energy mix will 
take time, and it is still expected that hydrocarbon 
extraction will increase in the Arctic, particularly gas 
from Norwegian and Russian onshore and offshore 
fields in the shallow coastal waters of the Barents Sea 
(see Box 3.1). 

(30)  For example, tourism could have been included given the associated environmental risks of increasing tourism activities (CO2 emissions 

from air travel and cruise ships, impacts on the local terrestrial environment and disturbance of sensitive habitats, etc.). But given the lack of 
comprehensive insights into these aspects, Arctic tourism has been omitted from this report.

( 31)  The figures from US Geological Survey (Gautier et al., 2009) are based on statistical probabilities rather than proven available physical 

resources, and the estimates do not relate to the economic viability of the extraction of the estimated resources.

50

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Map 3.5 

Oil and gas activities in the Arctic

Valdez

USA 
(ALASKA)

CHUKOTKA

North Slope

Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge

Beaufort Sea

YUKON

Mackenzie
    Delta

CANADA

NORTHWEST 
TERRITORIES

NUNAVUT

Canadian
   Arctic 
Archipelago

Chukchi Sea

North pole

NUNAVIK 
(QUEBEC)

LABRADOR

GREENLAND

Nuuk

Kujalleq

Barents Sea

Snøhvit

ICELAND

SAKHA

RUSSIA

TAIMYR

KRASNOYARSK

YAMALO-
NENETS

Yamal

Urengoi

NENETS

Shtockman

Pechora

Prirazlomnoye

KOMI

0

800

1600  km

Arctic resources

Oil, gas and mining

FINLAND

SWEDEN

FAROE 
ISLANDS

NORWAY

Potential oil and/or gas ﬁeld *

Other features

Oil and gas exploration and production sites

Medium (30-50 %), sea

Arctic circle

Main mining sites

Main projected pipeline

Main existing gas and oil pipeline

Prospective areas and reserves

High (> 50 %), sea

Medium (30-50 %), land

High (> 50 %), land

National/regional boundaries

Arctic region deﬁned as in Arctic
Human Development report

Note: 

* Probability that at least one accumulation over 50 million barrels of oil or oil–equivalent gas exist after USGS.

Source:   Adapted from Linus Rispling and Johanna Roto, Nordregio, 2015.

51

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

With the opening of Arctic waters due to climate 
change, attention may now turn to fields further 
offshore and at increasing depths, despite the risks 
involved in the demanding Arctic conditions with 
drifting ice, remoteness and darkness for parts of the 
year. Oil prices and advances in technology will be 
the determining factors on if or when these offshore 
fields will be taken into production. In this context it 
is important that all relevant actors apply provisions 
of the Espoo Convention on environmental impact 
assessments in a transboundary context and the 
complementing protocol on strategic environmental 
assessments by contracting parties. With regards to 
Arctic energy production, it is worth noting that coal 
extraction still takes place in north-west Russia and 
Svalbard in the European Arctic, although production 
is declining. 

Environmental challenges and socio-economic impacts 
from hydrocarbon exploitation include: 

•  Utilising Arctic hydrocarbon resources will challenge 
the transition to a low-carbon society, as outlined in 
the 7th EAP, as it is recommended that two thirds of 
known global fossil fuel resources must remain in the 
ground if the UNFCCC's 2 °C target is to be achieved.

• 

Increased development of the natural gas sector, 
as well as renewable energy developments such 
as hydropower and wind power, are putting 
traditional livelihoods and practices such as reindeer 
herding, hunting/trapping and fishing under 
pressure, through pipeline development, dams 
and new production fields. Such challenges need 
to be considered and mitigated, especially in the 

Box 3.1  Oil and gas development in the Barents Sea

Following the 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on the demarcation of the border in the Barents 
Sea and the Arctic Ocean, Norway has offered new production areas as well as rebates on Norway's special 
hydrocarbons tax for firms exploring for oil in the area. The two countries signed an agreement on exchange 
of seismic data in 2016. Negotiations on a so-called Full Fold seismic deal for their joint border areas in the 
Barents Sea are ongoing, which will enable seismic vessels to cross the borderline with their streamers in 
order to map all adjacent waters. In 2016, the 23rd licensing round on the Norwegian continental shelf led 
to 10 new production licenses, all located in the Barents Sea (Norwegian Petroleum Directorate), and in 2017 
the Norwegian government announced that it proposes to include a total of 93 Barents Sea blocks in the 
24th licensing round.

Photo: 

The Goliat Platform in Hammerfest, a joint venture between ENI (Italy) and Statoil (Norway), before being put in place 
in the Barents Sea, © Eni Norge 

52

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Challenges and opportunities from Arctic change

context of vulnerabilities characteristic of the Arctic 
environment and Arctic communities.

•  Developing the renewable energy sector may be 
at odds with the need to protect landscapes and 
seascapes in the region. 

•  Existing pipelines can become more hazardous with 

thawing permafrost. 

•  Oil and gas operations in the Arctic increase air 

pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, including 
methane emissions and sulfur compounds from gas 
flaring as well as black carbon emissions.

•  Offshore, large-scale activities influence fishing 

grounds and migration of sensitive marine animals, 
including noise disturbance from seismic testing. 
Effects on the seasonal migration patterns is 
particularly worrisome, as Arctic ecosystems are 
sensitive, the breeding season is short and the 
intensity- and timing-related effects of oil and gas 
activities can therefore be severe.

•  Getting the extracted hydrocarbons — in the form 
of gas, oil or liquefied natural gas — safely out of 
the Arctic and delivered to consumers further south, 
e.g. in Europe, presents a set of environmental, 
social and legal challenges that industry and 
government have to manage. 

•  Although technological advances have been made 

and environmental safety standards are high, there 
is still little experience on how to handle Arctic oil 
spills in or under ice-covered waters. The IMO is 
drafting a guide to oil spill response in snow and ice 
conditions, however, it will be a challenge to convert 
knowledge into experience without jeopardising the 
fragile environment. 

•  There is no guarantee that companies are using 

the newest technology and best practices available, 
which can affect secure and environmentally sound 
operations. 

Economic opportunities and socio-economic aspects 
associated with hydrocarbon exploitation include: 

•  Growth in the Arctic oil and gas sector creates 
employment opportunities and economic 
development in the Arctic region, which are 
welcomed by many Arctic inhabitants and regional 
governments. 

•  Low oil prices are currently halting a number of 
developments despite companies having spent 
large sums of money on time-limited exploration 
licences. This halt can be a window of opportunity 
to better assess the resilience of Arctic ecosystems 
and to develop better technologies for operating in 
the extreme conditions in the region, particularly as 
it can be up to 10-20 years between the exploration 
phase and the start of actual production in the 
Arctic. 

•  While moving towards renewable energy sources, 

natural gas might gradually replace coal- or local 
diesel-powered heat production and in this way 
reduce CO2 emissions (although this might be offset 
by flaring at gas production sites which causes 
greenhouse gases emissions). 

•  The region has the potential to further develop 

renewable energy primarily for local consumption 
and to a lesser extent for exports, provided that 
energy grids are adequately connected: Iceland has 
geothermal heat and power production, Greenland 
and Fennoscandia have hydropower and the 
potential for wave power, and the circumpolar 
Arctic has solar power potential during the summer 
months. 

53

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.3.2.  Fisheries

Most of the fishing in the Arctic is carried out in the 
coastal seas, as key commercial fish stocks including 
cod, herring, capelin, haddock and shrimp are located 
in the shallow regional seas where light and nutrients 
create the best conditions (see Figure 3.7). The Arctic 
marine shipping assessment (Arctic Council, 2009b) 
estimated that some 1 600 fishing vessels operate in 
Arctic waters. A considerable part of the commercially 
harvested species mentioned above are concentrated 
in the European part of the Arctic, in the Barents and 
Norwegian Seas (see Map 3.6). Furthermore, extensive 
fish farming, primarily of salmon, takes place in coastal 
areas in the Arctic. 

The Arctic biodiversity assessment (CAFF, 2013a) 
identified 63 fish species as 'Arctic', but there is 
insufficient scientific data on all of these species. The 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 
estimates that some 95 % of them have yet to be 
evaluated for threat status and for fish quotas to be 
established. As regards regional fishery management 
organisations, the European Arctic is covered by the 
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), and a 
bilateral management plan for the Barents Sea has been 
established between Norway and Russia. 

In 2015, the five Arctic coastal states signed a voluntary 
declaration concerning the prevention of unregulated 
high seas fishing in the central Arctic Ocean. Although 
the declaration aims to stop their fishing fleets from 
exploiting the central Arctic Ocean, it does not apply 
to other states, some of which have industrial fishing 
fleets operating around the Arctic. Once the declaration 
was signed, the US chair of the Arctic Council took the 
initiative to bring in five other parties (China, the EU, 
Iceland, Japan and South Korea) to explore the interest 
of participants in extending the declaration to cover 
non-coastal states (32). 

Although the entire Arctic basin has been less intensively 
overfished compared with other regions of the world, 
primarily because of ice cover and extreme weather 
conditions, recent studies have indicated that, when 
small-scale and local catches are included, total catches 
from parts of the Arctic region are 75 times higher 
than those reported to the Fisheries and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations (Zeller et al., 2011). 

Environmental challenges with Arctic fisheries 
include: 

•  Overfishing or changes to fish stocks present a 

major challenge for local and indigenous coastal 
communities in the Arctic, as fish is often the 
primary source of income and food. 

•  Damage to seafloor habitats is likely to increase 

with growing maritime activities such as fishing or 
hydrocarbon extraction. 

• 

Increased fishing efforts combined with climate 
change, which has pushed the distribution of 
certain fish species further north and opened up 
room for invasive species, is placing pressure on 
fish stocks and the Arctic marine environment. 

•  Pressures and disturbance from increasing 

economic activities from shipping, oil and gas 
extraction, sand and gravel extraction and offshore 
wind farms affect spawning and feeding grounds 
for key commercial fish stocks.

•  Warmer waters caused by climate change can 
affect spawning and feeding grounds for fish 
stocks. 

•  Ocean acidification is changing the Arctic species 
composition, particularly through changes of 
phytoplankton (the main base for any marine food 
chain) from calcium to siliceous skeleton species, 
but also through changes to zooplankton. 

•  Although Arctic fish are still relatively clean and 
healthy, pollution from chemicals, marine litter 
and shipping are increasingly becoming a problem 
(AMAP, 2015b), from local discharges via river run-
off and from coastal industrial sites and shipping, 
as well as from long-range pollution through 
oceanic and atmospheric currents from distant 
sources, including Europe. Ironically many of the 
Arctic fish and shellfish caught are exported and 
end up on European dinner tables. 

•  Not all fishing vessels have ICT platforms to 

download and use the multilayered information, 
charts and services necessary for operating in Arctic 
waters.

(32)  At the time of writing, the discussions were still ongoing. The EU is working towards a binding agreement that would put in place: 

(1) a precautionary approach; (2) a collaborative scientific process to collect data on the marine ecosystem of the central Arctic Ocean; and  
(3)  a clear trigger mechanism to set up a regional fisheries management organisation if necessary. This would stand in contrast to the 
non-binding agreement currently included in their declaration by the five Arctic States).

54

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Economic opportunities and social aspects associated 
with Arctic fisheries include:

•  Diminishing sea ice and commercial fish 

stocks migrating further north create fishing 
opportunities in areas that are currently 
unexploited. 

stocks. Similarly, models of ecosystem-based 
management, integrated management plans and 
ecosystem resilience can be further developed 
to aid scientific recommendations with regard to 
sustainable fisheries in both the central ocean and 
the adjacent regional seas. 

• 

The fishing moratorium in the central Arctic 
Ocean, newly established by the five coastal states, 
presents a window of opportunity to conduct 
scientific research into fish stocks and sustainable 
catches before fishing fleets risk overexploiting 

• 

Current fish prices and demand for fish products 
are a driver for blue growth in the fisheries sector, 
particularly in the Barents Sea in the European 
Arctic, where the price of 5 kg of salmon in 2016, 
for example, was higher than that of a barrel of 
crude oil. 

Figure 3.7 

Total catches of the most important stocks in the Barents Sea

Catch 1 000 tonnes

4 500

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

2009

2013

Saithe

Herring

Shrimp

G. halibut

Polar cod

S. mentella

Haddock

Cod

Capelin

Note: 

The catches in the graph are including catches in all of ICES area IIa, i.e. along the Norwegian coast south to 62° N) from 1965–2014. 
Catches of Norwegian spring-spawning herring outside ICES area IIa are also included. In addition, minor catches of other stocks are 
taken in the Barents Sea

Source:   Based on ICES, 2015 (Figure 3.1).

55

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Challenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Map 3.6 

Commercial fish landings in European regional seas

2 850

 a
e

S

   a   r   e   n   t   s 

B

N  o  r  w  e  g  i  a 

898

n

S

e

a

I c e l a n d  S e a

N   o   r   t   h   -   e   a   s   t     A   t   l   a   n   t   i   c      O   c   e   a   n

1 783

orth Sea
at and
al)
er N
n
g
n
atte
a
h
h C
cl K
glis
in
(

t
a
e
r
G

n
E
e
h
t

1 597

C e l t i c  S e a

424

M  a  c  a  r  o  n 

e
s

i

a

e Iberian Coast

398

h
t
d
n
a
y
a
c
s
i
B
f
o
y 
a
B

719

a
e

B a l t i c  S 

197

258

estern Mediterranean Se

a

W

235

Adriatic Sea

145

Ionian sea an

395

d

the Central
Mediterranean sea

167

Aegean-Levantine sea

0

500

1 000

1 500 km

Commercial ﬁsh landings from regional seas around Europe

Total landings (ktonnes)

Widely distributed landings (ktonnes)
North–East Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea

3 000

1 430

140

Note:  

The poroportion of fish landings from Arctic waters is considerable compared to the rest of Europe. Landings data for all fish stocks are 
from 2010, given the availability of data for the Mediterranean and Black Seas. 

Source:   EEA. 

56

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticM  e  d  i  t  e  r  r  a  n  e  a  n   S  e  aB  l  a  c  k   S  e  a100°90°80°40°-20°-20°-70°-80°30°-10°20°0°10°60°50°50°40°40°30°30°20° 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Challenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.3.3.  Shipping 

The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (Arctic Council, 
2009b) estimated that some 6 000 vessels annually 
sailed in Arctic waters (33) and predicted numbers to 
increase in decades to come. The vast majority of the 
current traffic is composed of ships resupplying Arctic 
communities, moving natural resources out of the Arctic 
or providing cruise tourism. Most of this destinational 
traffic takes place in the coastal areas of the regional 
seas surrounding the Arctic Ocean. At present only a 
very small part is trans-Arctic shipping from the North 
Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean through the Northern 
Sea Route, along the Russian coast or through the 
North-west Passage in Canadian waters. For comparison, 
annual trans-Arctic shipping through the Northern Sea 
Route grew from 41 ships in 2011 to 71 ships in 2013 but 
declined to 31 ships in 2014, 18 in 2015 and 19 in 2016, 
while annually some 17 000 ships pass through the Suez 
Canal (which is undergoing expansion) and 15 000 ships 
through the Panama Canal (this is expected to rise to 
28 000 after an extra canal opened in 2016). 

The continuous sea ice melt may increase Arctic 
shipping, however, in particular for destinational 
shipping but also in time for trans-Arctic shipping as well 
as fishing and local usage, when the navigational season 
becomes extended and new areas become ice-free. With 
increased shipping activity comes increased maritime 
activity from inspection and naval vessels carrying out 
fishing inspections, environmental enforcement and 
search and rescue operations. Thus overall shipping 
numbers are expected to increase and Europe has a 
role to play, as traffic is high in the European Arctic 
(see Map 3.7). It is therefore often ships servicing or 
departing from Europe that affect the environment, and 
that are likely to cause spills or be in need of search and 
rescue (34). It is even likely to be a European ship coming 
to the rescue. Although only icebreakers for research 
and tourism purposes currently sail to the North Pole 
and central Arctic Ocean, traffic through the central Arctic 
Ocean may eventually be possible during the summer 
months if the current decline in sea ice continues. 
Shipping activities in winter, with darkness and extensive 
ice cover, are expected to remain low. However, shipping 
in the European part of the Arctic is expected to remain 
higher all year, as the North Atlantic current keeps this 
part of the Arctic ice-free even in winter. 

The IMO has, to a certain degree, addressed 
international concern about the protection of the polar 
environment and the safety of seafarers and passengers 

with the mandatory Polar Code, for ships operating in 
Arctic and Antarctic waters, which entered into force on 
1 January 2017. Its requirements, which were specifically 
tailored for the polar environments, go above and 
beyond those of existing IMO conventions such as those 
covering marine pollution (MARPOL) and safety (SOLAS) 
by including mandatory standards that cover the full 
range of design, construction, equipment, operations, 
training and environmental protection matters. The code 
prohibits or strictly limits discharges of oil, chemicals, 
sewage, garbage, food wastes and many other 
substances.

Environmental challenges and socio-economic 
aspects associated with increased shipping include:

•  Ballast water may bring non-native species into 

Arctic waters. 

•  Black carbon emissions transported by air may be 
deposited on snow and ice, accelerating melting. 
Black carbon is also dissolved in the water column. 

•  There may be effects on marine mammals, in 
particular migrating whales, or disturbance of 
sensitive breeding grounds. 

•  Noise pollution may affect marine mammals and 

fish.

•  Accidental and illegal intentional spills. These 
effects are likely to increase when ship traffic 
increases.

• 

Increased shipping brings challenges with regard to 
marine planning, as the needs of other economic 
sectors such as fishing, oil and gas activities, 
offshore wind farms and MPAs all have to be 
accommodated and new port facilities constructed. 

•  Arctic shipping is challenged by a lack of updated 
sea charts and only a small portion of the Arctic 
Ocean and regional seas has been properly 
mapped. Surveillance and communication can be 
a further challenge with regard to human safety as 
well as environmental impacts from accidents. 

•  Challenges even exist with icebreaker escort 

through northern sea routes, as insurance is hard 
to obtain, the cost of icebreaker escort is high 
(USD 200 000 per escort) and getting the necessary 
Russian permits can take weeks. 

(33)  Smaller fishing boats and naval vessels were excluded from the assessment.
(34)  'European' in this context means ships owned, registered or calling at European ports (even if some are flagged outside Europe, e.g. in 

Panama).

57

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

•  Although the coastal states have increased 

cooperation through agreements in the Arctic 
Council, search and rescue capabilities in the Arctic 
are a huge challenge nationally and collectively, as 
available rescue ships are few and far between. 

• 

Increased marine activities impact coastal Arctic 
communities, especially indigenous peoples whose 
traditional ways of life are closely linked to the 
marine environment. 

•  An increasing number of large cruise vessels are 
entering Arctic waters but not all are properly 
equipped and designed, or used to operating in 
ice-covered waters, which increases the likelihood 
of accidents. 

• 

Increased numbers of cruise ships can lead to 
increased pollution including black water (sewage), 

grey water (sinks, laundries, showers, etc.), oily 
bilge water and black carbon air emissions.

•  Trans-Arctic shipping is challenged by structural 
constraints, including international shipping 
logistics, limitations to the number of months the 
shipping lanes are navigable, annual variability 
and the demand for stable and predictable 
delivery. 

Economic opportunities associated with Arctic 
shipping include:

• 

Increased trans-Arctic shipping can bring 
substantial reductions in fuel costs due to the 
shorter travel distance from Europe to Asia. For 
example, a journey from Rotterdam in Europe to 
Yokohama in Japan can be reduced from 11 212 
to 7 825 nautical miles, a saving of 30 %. Given the 

Map 3.7 

Arctic shipping in 2016

January

September

Arctic shipping 2016

Land

Sea

Ice sheet

Sea ice extent

Ship traﬃc 

European Arctic

Note: 

A large proportion of Arctic shipping takes place in the European Arctic, with associated risks of accidents, pollution and disturbance to 
ecosystems and migrating marine mammals and birds. The maps show all ship traffic and the extent of sea ice in January 2016 (left) and 
September 2016 (right).

Source:   www.Havbase.no (extracted 18 December 2016).

58

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

importance of timing for container shipping, which 
often does not use ice-strengthened vessels, 
bulk carriers of mineral ore, oil, gas and grain are 
more likely to use the Arctic route in the summer 
months. 

• 

In 2023, the Trans-European Transport Networks 
(TEN-T) will be reviewed. This offers opportunities 
for extending rail and road connections to 
accommodate increased trans-Arctic shipping. In 
the meantime, the extension of the relevant core 
network corridor may be considered, to connect 
parts of the core network to the Arctic region.

•  A reduction in overall shipping distances can lead 

to lower ship emissions and thus reduce pressures 
on the marine environment and improve human 
health, although the improvements will be along 
existing routes, which may see less traffic, rather 
than along Arctic shipping routes (35).

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Increased shipping will create job opportunities in 
the Arctic, in both destinational and trans-Arctic 
shipping, in servicing ships in current ports and 
in building new infrastructure in the region as 
well as in increased need for mapping services, 
surveillance and communication. In the European 
Arctic, Iceland has placed increased focus on 
future shipping potential and is looking to invest 
in deep water harbours to service predicted 
trans-Arctic shipping. Russia has also approved a 
plan for development of the Northern Sea Route 
which aims to increase capacity by a factor of 
20 before 2030. 

Following the entry into force of the new IMO 
mandatory Polar Code on 1 January 2017 (36), 
the ship-building industry can expect to see new 
orders as ice-strengthened vessels have become 
a requirement for operating in Arctic waters (37). 

Crew members also need training for working in 
Arctic conditions, an expertise currently centred 
in Arctic nations and ship operators. 

Insurance companies stand to gain from activities 
in the Arctic. 

Although concentrated in specific regions such 
as Svalbard, Greenland and southern Alaska, 
cruise tourism is on the rise in the Arctic and an 
increasing number of tourists enter the Arctic on 
ever larger cruise ships, creating jobs in various 
service sectors as well as in preparedness and 
response capabilities. 

3.3.4.  Mining

Global and European demand for mineral resources 
is growing and the Arctic region has for decades been 
catering for part of this demand. Despite remoteness 
and varying degrees of infrastructure, the Arctic has a 
large number of operating mines, including 110 in the 
Barents region of the European Arctic. More can be 
expected, as the Barents region holds vast amounts 
of mineral resources, including some 500 identified 
mineral deposits (see Map 3.8). The raw materials 
found in the Arctic include nickel, gold, zinc, copper, 
lead, iron, platinum and rare earth minerals, which 
are key components in electronics. Coal mines are 
also in operation in the European Arctic including in 
Svalbard. Although in past decades rising commodity 
prices increased interest in further mining activities, 
more recent falls in commodity prices have resulted in 
a slowdown. Projections, however, expect demand and 
therefore prices to go up again. 

In 2011, Sweden and Finland supplied 28 % of the EU's 
gold production, 27 % of its zinc, 17.5 % of its silver and 
11 % of its copper. Norway also has a large number of 
mines and some 60 % of the Norwegian production 
of zinc, cobalt, copper, stone, etc., is exported. Iceland 
has few mineral resources, but, because of abundant 
geothermal and hydropower, it has three current and 
two planned aluminium smelters, to which raw materials 
are shipped. In the European Arctic, Greenland also has 
large deposits of minerals, including gold, rare earth 
elements and uranium, although Greenland's only gold 
mine has now ceased production. The biggest mining 
activity in the European Arctic takes place in north-west 
Russia where extensive extraction and production takes 
place, in particular on the Kola Peninsula and in Karelia, 
with the deep water port of Murmansk used to ship 
nickel, iron, aluminium and apatite ore abroad. 

(35)  Shipping contributes with greenhouse gases, including CO2, which has detrimental effects regardless of where it is emitted.
(36)   Some of the expected environmental benefits from the Polar Code can be found on the IMO website.
(37)   The expected new vessels built for Arctic operations will be bulk carriers and, to a lesser extent, passenger vessels. Container vessel traffic is 

not expected to grow in the Arctic due to strict requirements on time of arrival at the port of destination, which may not be met due to variable 
weather and ice conditions in Arctic waters. Often container ships are not ice strengthened and cannot operate in Arctic conditions. 

59

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Map 3.8 

Mining activities in the European Arctic

Norwegian Sea

Alta

Vadsø

Kirkenes

Barents Sea

Tromsø

NORWAY

Kautokeino

Narvik

Kiruna

Bodø

Gällivare

Mo i Rana

SWEDEN

FINLAND

Rovaniemi

Nikel

Murmansk

Monchegorsk

Apatity

Kandalaksha

Arctic Circle

Luleå

Piteå

Haparanda
Tornio

Ruka

Loukhi

White Sea

Skellefteå

Gulf of
Bothnia 

Umeå

Oulu

Kajaani

Kostamuksha

Belomorsk

Archangelsk

Severodvinsk

Segezha

Onega

Obozerskaya

RUSSIA

Greenland
Sea

Petrozavodsk

Baﬃn
Bay

Greenland

Scale 1:8 000 000

Mining activities in Northern Fennocandia

Deposit or potential mine

Metallogenic area

Large

Minor

Active mine

Large

Minor

Nickel

Energy metals

Precious metals

Base metals

Special metals

Ferrous metals

Barents region boundaries 

Scale 1:25 000 000

Mining activities in Greenland

Potential mine and deposit

Mineral exploration and exploitation license 

Source:   Adapted from Arctic Centre, 2014a.

60

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Environmental challenges and socio-economic 
aspects with mining activities include: 

Economic opportunities and social aspects associated 
with Arctic mining include:

•  Mining activities often conflict with other land uses, 
such as reindeer herding, tourism, fishing and 
hunting, and may interfere with sacred lands of 
indigenous peoples. 

•  Operations affect wildlife, habitats and migratory 

paths. 

•  There are possible associated health implications 

through contamination of drinking water 
resources, air pollution and the accidental release 
of hazardous chemicals used in production. 

•  Mining sites are not always restored after 

production has ended, which may have long-term 
detrimental effects on the local environment. 

• 

Impacts of mining sites, including open-pit mining, 
are not limited to the local area, and the transport 
of material and partial refining also has to be taken 
into account.

•  Climate change causes permafrost to thaw, and 

precipitation and run-off to increase. Deposits of 
mine tailings in areas of thawing permafrost are 
prone to wash-out of pollutants. A warmer Arctic 
is also limiting the number of days ice roads are 
available in the winter season. 

•  Mining activities can involve challenges when it 
comes to land use rights or revenue sharing. 

• 

In certain areas of the Arctic, access to skilled 
labour can be an issue and large numbers of 
foreigners will have to be brought into small 
communities. 

•  Attracting foreign investments requires stable 
prices and operating conditions. Inadequate 
infrastructure must often be factored in by 
investors too. 

•  Growing demand for raw materials may lead to 

more small- or large-scale mining activities in the 
Arctic, creating job opportunities and higher living 
standards, and diversifying economic revenue in 
the region. Local spending can increase, public 
infrastructure can be improved and revenues for 
public budgets increased, thereby allowing for 
investments in public facilities such as schools and 
medical services. 

• 

• 

Increased economic activity can facilitate 
capacity building and transfer of skills as well as 
counterbalance the demographic change by which 
many people currently leave the Arctic. 

In the European Arctic, year-round ice-free waters 
mean that mining ports in Narvik, Kirkenes and 
Murmansk provide marine transport possibilities 
throughout the year, and emerging trans-Arctic 
shipping routes to Asian markets. However, this 
could lead to a lower utilisation of the Swedish 
railways that are currently used to move raw 
materials.

•  By developing the mining sector in the European 
Arctic, EU countries may have the opportunity 
to secure access to critical raw materials in case 
of politically motivated embargos or shortage of 
delivery from Asian markets. 

•  Future resource production is likely be concentrated, 

as it is today, in regions of lower cost (existing 
production allows the use of existing infrastructure, 
which lowers investment costs), or in places with low 
taxes and efficient regulation. This is an opportunity 
for the mining sector but, from an environmental 
perspective, there are also certain limited benefits 
to restricting production to fewer sites rather than 
spreading it over larger areas. This is because of 
infrastructure requirements associated with the 
establishment of new production sites.

61

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

3.3.5.  Health and pollution in the Arctic 

Generally the Arctic environment is considered clean 
and pristine. However, contamination is also found in 
Arctic sediments, water columns, in the air and in the 
food web. Intensified economic activities in the Arctic 
have both positive and negative environmental, social 
and regulatory consequences. While possibilities 
for economic growth, job creation and higher living 
standards can be an opportunity for local inhabitants 
and European companies, finding the balance 
between environmental protection and economic 
development remains a challenge. Regardless of the 
aspirations for economic growth and improved living 
and health standards, it has to be recognised that the 
scope for economic activities in the Arctic is generally 
low and opportunities are often limited. 

According to the European Chemicals Agency, the 
number of chemicals in use in the EU alone is greater 
than 30 000 and is growing by around 300 each year. 
Some of these chemicals reach the Arctic through 
long-range atmospheric transport, in water currents 
and to a lesser extent in migratory species. In 
particular, POPs (38) accumulate in the food chain and 
may reach harmful levels in humans, as well as in top 
predators. 

While concentrations of certain contaminants have 
declined in some parts of the Arctic, others are 
influenced by multiple factors and do not show clear 
trends. In general, long-range transported pollutants 
such as the legacy POPs that have been regulated or 
banned, e.g. by strengthening the LRTAP convention 
on long-range transboundary air pollution and by the 
Stockholm Convention, have declined and are thus 
of less risk to human and ecosystem health (AMAP, 
2009, AMAP, 2017d). However, more newly regulated 
POPs such as brominated flame retardants and 
fluorinated compounds are still found in the Arctic 
environment. 

Newly emerging compounds are generally found at 
lower concentrations. A new assessment on chemicals 
of emerging Arctic concern shows that additional 
international and national regulation is needed to 
reduce the increasing amounts of emerging chemicals 
in the Arctic (AMAP, 2017d). Air pollutants such 
as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic 
compounds and particulate matter are also found 
in the Arctic environment, and increased economic 
activity can increase these forms of air pollution. 

Mercury is similarly posing a health problem in the 
Arctic and, despite efforts to reduce emissions in Europe 
and North America (see Figure 3.8), AMAP assessments 
have shown that levels of mercury in the Greenlandic 
population as well as in wildlife are still high (AMAP, 
2011b, 2011c, 2015b). The EU and the Arctic States 
played a role in setting up the global, legally binding 
instrument on regulating mercury, which hopefully will 
lead to less mercury being found in the Arctic (39). 

Arctic conditions vary and the extent to which local 
and indigenous peoples are affected by pollution 
levels similarly vary. Wildlife studies indicate that the 
European Arctic is among the most polluted areas 
within the circumpolar Arctic. In the European Arctic in 
particular, indigenous peoples' health can be affected, 
as their traditions, cultures and livelihoods are more 
interconnected with the land, environment and local 
food sources. The Sami peoples in northern Europe 
traditionally rely on reindeer herding and fisheries, 
while the Inuit in Greenland have a close relationship 
with coastal environments and seals, whales and fish 
make up a significant part of the traditional diet. 

Increasingly marine litter, including microplastics 
(fragments of plastic less than 5mm in diameter), is 
brought into the Arctic by ocean currents and rivers. 
There is evidence to suggest that microplastics share 
characteristics of traditional POPs, including their 
environmental persistence and potential to accumulate 
and cause adverse effects in fauna that ingest them 
(AMAP, 2017d). Because of their complex makeup, 
microplastics cannot be evaluated with the current 
approaches used by international conventions, although 
efforts under UN and OSPAR are targeting the issue of 
marine litter. 

Environmental challenges and health aspects in the 
Arctic include:

• 

Increasing economic activity and intensity is often 
accompanied by pollution loads, e.g. from flame 
retardants, pharmaceuticals, detergents, solvents 
and lubricants. 

•  Local unsustainable waste disposal practices, diffuse 
pollution loads through river run-off and discharges 
from contaminated sites all contribute to an 
increasing pollution load in the Arctic. 

•  Pollution is brought into the Arctic through ocean 
and wind currents from sources far away from 

(38)  Persistent organic pollutants include toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT and dioxins. The health risks to ecosystems and humans 

include disruptions to immune, hormone and reproductive systems (AMAP, 2016).

(39)  Ratification of the Minamata Convention is currently ongoing.

62

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

the Arctic, including Europe. These include POPs, 
pesticides, mercury and marine litter/plastics.

blood pressure and heart rate. In adult men, semen 
quality can also be affected. 

•  Cold temperatures slow biological processing 

and cause harmful substances to degrade more 
slowly. Some pollutants thus accumulate in the 
relatively simple Arctic food webs, resulting in 
high concentrations of harmful substances in top 
predators, including POPs such as DDT, PCBs and 
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).

•  While domestic mercury emissions have been 
declining in all Arctic States except Russia, 
long-range transport from sources far from the 
Arctic, including coal burning in Asia and artisanal 
and small-scale gold mining in developing parts 
of the world, mean that overall levels in the Arctic 
remain a concern.

•  Heavy metals accumulate and pose a dietary risk 
to humans in areas where marine food sources 
and in particular top predators (such as seal, 
tooth whale and polar bear) are eaten in larger 
quantities. Accumulation of mercury in whale 
meat and seal liver is of concern, for example, 
and advice is given to pregnant women in Arctic 
communities where diet is primarily derived from 
local marine food items (40), which might affect their 
children's intellectual capacity, motor functions, 

Photo: 

Point sources and historic deposition of harmful substances 
can cause local pollution problems in the Arctic, 
© Brendan Killeen

•  Contamination of food sources can cause cancer, 
affect the immune system and increase the risk of 
type 2 diabetes in Arctic inhabitants. 

•  Climate change may lead to increased levels of 
pollution in Arctic ecosystems, as the increasing 
annual melting of snow and ice in summer leads 
to large releases of substances captured in the 
cryosphere over the winter period or through 
historic deposition in older ice layers (AMAP, 2017d). 

•  Climate change has, more recently, even led to 
harmful pathogens emerging from historical 
depositions, including anthrax in the Russian Arctic 
in 2016 (see also Section 3.2.5). 

•  Under the REACH Regulation, industry is required 
to provide information on the risks that chemicals 
pose to human health and the environment. 
Nevertheless, the time it takes to produce evidence 
regarding the relationship between chemical 
exposure and associated health outcomes often 
delays policy measures to minimise exposure. 

•  There is a time lag between reduced emissions 
in the source regions and observed declines in 
the Arctic environment. It is thus a challenge 
to provide rapid screening and monitoring 
in the Arctic and accompanying policy action 
and measures adopted by the international 
community, including the EU.

•  The resilience and carrying capacity of Arctic 
ecosystems, which determine the flow of 
ecosystem services upon which local residents 
rely, are not fully understood. This is a challenge 
when determining the level of economic activity to 
be approved and factored into local and regional 
planning and management plans.

(40)  Formulating public health advice on contaminants in food is complicated in the Arctic, as traditional diets play a key role in people's social, 

spiritual and cultural identity, while also providing excellent nourishment, vitamins and minerals, and helping to protect against several diseases 
(AMAP, 1997).

63

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticChallenges and opportunities from Arctic change

Figure 3.8 

Regional mercury emissions under different mercury abatement scenarios

Mercury emissions, tonnes

2010
2035 current policies
2035 new policies
2035 maximum feasible reduction

1 400

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

East-, 
Southeast- 
and South Asia

North- and 
sub-Saharan 
Africa

South America,
Central America 
and the Caribien

Europe, 
EU-27 
and CIS

North 
America

Middle 
East

Australia, 
New Zeeland 
and  Oceania

Other 
sources

Note:  

Current and future levels of mercury atmospheric pollution on a global scale. 'Other sources' than anthropogenic indicated in 
the figure includes mercury emitted from volcanoes and geothermal sources and re-emission processes of historically deposited 
mercury over land and sea surfaces. Results obtained during the performance of the EU GMOS (Global Mercury Observation 
System) project. Further elaboration on the definitions of used emissions scenario (current policies, new policies and maximum 
feasible reduction) can be obtained through the Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

Source:   Pacyna et al., 2016. 

Economic opportunities and socio-economic health 
aspects include:

•  Through increased economic activity and a 

growing labour market, living standards can be 
raised leading to better housing, diets, connectivity 
(physical or through better access to the internet) 
and recreational activities. 

• 

Increased socio-economic activity can lead to 
increased buying power, which can create a 
demand for more varied and healthy food options 
among local residents, although high prices remain 
a challenge. 

•  Advances in telecommunications can lead to an 

increase in the share of the Arctic population with 
access to e-health, i.e. online face-to-face sessions 
with doctors or practitioners. Furthermore social 
media can be used as a tool for communication on 
health risk messages in the circumpolar north.

•  There has, in recent years, been extensive work 
done on characterising Arctic people's exposure 
to chemicals via biomonitoring. This wealth of 
data provides opportunities for researchers 
investigating exposures and potentially related 
health effects for Arctic communities. 

64

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticResponding to Arctic change

4  Responding to Arctic change

4.1  Europe's role in the Arctic and the 

Arctic's role in Europe 

Many EU policies and legislative acts affect the Arctic 
directly or indirectly. In an Arctic context specifically, 
the EU Framework for climate and energy  (EC, 2014b) 
and the 7th EAP (EU, 2013a) are relevant. Both share 
a 2030 horizon and, although both policy instruments 
are applicable only to EU Member States, they have 
implications for the Arctic region (41). 

The EU Framework for climate and energy targets and 
policy objectives aim to help the EU achieve a more 
competitive, secure and sustainable energy system and 
to meet its long-term 2050 greenhouse gas reductions 
target. The 'Clean energy for all' package, a set of policy 
initiatives and legislative proposals, outlines the overall 
EU 2030 targets, which are: (1) a 40 % cut in greenhouse 
gas emissions compared with 1990 levels; (2) at least 
a 27 % share of renewable energy consumption; 
and (3) at least 27 % energy savings compared with 
the business-as-usual scenario (EC, 2016e). The EU's 

efforts to shift from fuel sources towards low-carbon 
technologies, thus decarbonising the energy sector, will 
be of importance for the Arctic, which is significantly 
affected by climate change. The EU transition will 
furthermore reduce the impacts of black carbon that 
is transported by air from Europe to the Arctic. Job 
creation in the renewable energy sector is also of 
relevance to the Arctic region.

The priorities of the 7th EAP are to: (1) protect, conserve 
and enhance natural capital; (2) promote a resource-
efficient, green and low-carbon economy; and (3) 
safeguard citizens from environment-related pressures 
and risks to health and wellbeing. Furthermore, the 
aim of the 7th EAP is to enhance understanding of 
the systemic challenges facing Europe and to respond 
to them in a way that will see a transition of energy 
systems, mobility systems, food systems, etc. The 
7th EAP identifies the Arctic as a priority region for 
the EU (see Box 4.1) with good reason, because this 
overlapping region plays a significant role in Europe's 
environment and with regard to natural capital and 

Box 4.1 

 The EU's Seventh Environment Action 
Programme: global and neighbourhood 
cooperation required for common challenges 

Article 98: Many of the priority objectives set out in the 
7th EAP can only be fully achieved as part of a global 
approach and in cooperation with partner countries, 
and overseas countries and territories. That is why the 
Union and its Member States should engage in relevant 
international, regional and bilateral processes in a strong, 
focused, united and coherent manner. Particular emphasis 
should be given to the Black Sea and the Arctic regions, where there is a need for intensified cooperation and increased 
Union involvement, including through membership of the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution 
and by gaining permanent observer status in the Arctic Council, in order to address new and shared environmental 
challenges. The Union and its Member States should continue to promote an effective, rules-based framework for global 
environment policy, complemented by a more effective, strategic approach in which bilateral and regional political 
dialogues and cooperation are tailored towards the Union's strategic partners, candidate and neighbourhood countries, and 
developing countries, respectively, supported by adequate finance (EU, 2013a).

(41)  Norway has adopted some EU environmental and marine legislation, and thus takes part in coordinated responses.

65

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Responding to Arctic change

the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Arctic's 
role in Europe and Europe's role in the Arctic are 
furthermore recognised and addressed by the EU and 
many European countries that have developed national 
Arctic or polar strategies, policy papers, roadmaps or 
research programmes to address the European–Arctic 
nexus (see Section 2.3). 

The title of the 7th EAP, 'Living well, within the limits 
of our planet', refers to the planetary boundaries 
concept, whereby there are limits to growth and 
consumption because ecosystems are linked and 
may eventually break down and stop delivering vital 
ecosystem services if one or more of the key nine 
planetary boundaries is crossed (see Figure 4.1). In this 
context, the Arctic is significant in regulating the global 
climate, with regard to maintaining biosphere integrity, 
in the vast natural resources it contains, in providing 
livelihoods and homes to millions of people as well as 
in the intrinsic value of its endemic species, landscapes 
and seascapes. The Arctic is in many ways becoming 
the symbol of the age of the Anthropocene (in which 
humans are determining the future of other species for 
generations to come) because the observed changes 

in the Arctic are so rapid and widespread and the 
repercussions profound and global in nature.

In order to operate within the limits of the planet, it 
is becoming increasingly important to recognise the 
significance of ecosystem services and natural capital 
in the context of governance and management, but 
also in the context of economic decision making. 
Because some economic sectors (e.g. fisheries) 
are often dependant on these ecosystem services, 
while other sectors can negatively impact on the 
ecosytems that deliver them (e.g. oil, gas and mineral 
exploitation). Although it makes business sense to 
prevent degradation of the foundations the business 
is built on, this is not always reflected in reality and 
companies often overlook the risks, opportunities or 
responsibilities with regard to maintaining biodiversity 
and ecosystem services. These aspects therefore need 
to be better accounted for along the value chain by 
putting the costs of biodiversity loss or ecosystem 
degradation next to the income from economic activity. 
Without this, the estimated wealth of natural capital 
might be lower than when fully accounting for the value 
of often unique biodiversity, culture, tourism and the 

Figure 4.1 

The nine planetary boundaries identified for safe operating space for humanity

Source:   Steffen et al., 2015.

66

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticResponding to Arctic change

role of certain ecosystems in the climate system, all of 
which are of high relevance to the Arctic. 

A difficult challenge for European and indeed Arctic 
environmental governance arises from the fact 
that environmental drivers, trends and impacts are 
increasingly globalised (see Section 2.2). International 
cooperation is required to reduce greenhouse gases 
and pollution (POPs, mercury, etc.) as well as to 
regulate safety and environmental standards for 
shipping, manage migratory species and address 
marine litter, transboundary air pollution, short-
lived climate forcers such as black carbon, ocean 
acidification, etc. In each of these challenges facing 
the Arctic, the EU and its Member States can play an 
important role. 

In order to achieve real decline in pressures 
on the environment, including on fragile Arctic 
ecosystems, global society must undergo a number 
of transformations with regard to energy systems, 
mobility systems, food systems, consumption and 
production cycles, etc. Recalibrating existing policy 
approaches can make an essential contribution to such 
transitions, although it will be challenging because 
the relevant transitions are long-term, unpredictable, 
multi-level and multi-sectoral, and involve multiple 
scales and multiple actors. In Europe, including the 
European Arctic, the 2030 vision of the 7th EAP is 
no longer simply an environmental one, if indeed it 
ever was. The environmental vision it incorporates is 
inseparable from its broader economic and societal 
context. Unsustainable use of natural capital not only 
undermines the resilience of ecosystems, but also has 
both direct and indirect implications for health and 
living standards. Current consumption and production 
patterns enhance our quality of life but paradoxically 
put it at risk at the same time. Growth and job creation 
have raised living standards but depletion of natural 
capital continues to jeopardise good ecological status 
and ecosystem resilience. Biodiversity loss, climate 
change and chemical burdens create additional risks 
and uncertainty. 

It is in everyone's interest — Arctic inhabitants, 
Europeans and global populations — that the widest 
possible scope of international cooperation and 
consent are sought when it comes to environmental 
and climate-related matters, and that such cooperation 
is rules-based and built on binding agreements. 
A number of fora exist to facilitate progress on different 
aspects of activities and environmental protection in 
the Arctic region. In some of these, the EU Member 
States and EEA member countries are represented 
and negotiating while, in others, the EU is merely an 
observer. Key to them all is that Arctic governments 
should continuously strive to lead the way by 

introducing prudent, timely and appropriate measures 
built on guiding principles, such as the precautionary 
principle or the polluter pays principle, while still 
allowing for economic development, job creation and 
improving local livelihoods. 

Levels of environmental protection and regulations on 
industry are not at the same level for the eight Arctic 
States. And while it is recognised that ecosystems do 
not respect political borders, integrated management 
plans in line with the ecosystem-based management 
approach are not yet the norm across the circumpolar 
Arctic. The Arctic Council is focusing on further 
developing ecosystem-based management approaches, 
including national use in implementation. Thus, 
there is a need for more integrated approaches that 
acknowledge the concepts of ecosystem management, 
natural capital, ecosystem services, life-cycle thinking 
and ecological footprints, because these concepts 
embrace many of the key components needed for 
development that is sustainable and balanced when it 
comes to both the challenges and opportunities facing 
the Arctic region. These concepts are critical when it 
comes to constructing viable and long-term solutions 
that will sustain economic growth (traditional growth, 
green growth or blue growth concepts) at the same 
time as ensuring ecosystem resilience and human 
development in the Arctic. The EU has experience to 
offer in this context through the approach taken in 
the 7th EAP, EU Arctic policy, ocean governance and 
SDG communications. 

Key to discussing economic growth and integrated 
management is not only recognition but also raising 
the current level of understanding of the resilience of 
Arctic ecosystems. Without an understanding of the 
carrying capacity or potential tipping points, increasing 
large-scale human activities may potentially start 
processes that have deep and profound impacts on 
other parts of the globe and weaken the social resilience 
of Arctic communities. And as ecosystem responses can 
have decadal time lags, this makes Arctic management 
and risk abatement even more challenging. Some of 
the impacts and vulnerabilities resulting from climate 
change in the Arctic region and wider Europe are 
addressed in further detail in the 2017 EEA publication 
Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 
2016 (EEA, 2017).

When considering sustainable development approaches 
in the region, it is important to acknowledge the 
growing demand among the Arctic populations — 
indigenous or otherwise — for economic development, 
improved living conditions and higher health standards. 
Creating job opportunities and allowing for industrial 
activities are not necessarily incompatible with 
safeguarding the environment, as long as appropriate 

67

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticResponding to Arctic change

measures are in place to protect the environment and 
to avoid accidental effects from increased use of living 
and non-living resources. Growth can also be sought in 
sectors outside the extraction industry, including the 
blue economy supported by the EU, although marine 
activities also present environmental challenges to 
sustainability, e.g. through increased emissions or 
impacts on ecosystems. 

When seeking such opportunities, it is similarly 
important to respect and take into account the 
culture, languages and local and traditional practices 
of indigenous peoples before starting new major 
economic activities. Indigenous peoples are often open 
to economic development in the Arctic as long as they 
are consulted and stand to benefit financially, and 
provided that new social and cultural living conditions 
or environmental implications do not jeopardise their 
traditional livelihoods and access to, for example, 
fishing, hunting or reindeer herding. Indigenous peoples 
have a long tradition of adapting to changing living 
conditions; retaining their role as stewards of the land, 
and adapting to economic development, is a challenge 
they can meet if their views and concerns are properly 
respected and addressed. The EU has initiated an 
annual dialogue with representatives of the indigenous 
peoples of the circumpolar north (and not only from 
the European Arctic) in order to foster better discussion 
on issues of concern and increased cooperation. The 
EU has furthermore established an Arctic Stakeholder 
Forum, reaching out to both governments and the 
private sector, which aims at streamlining the use 
of EU funding in the Arctic and identifying common 
investment priorities. 

4.2  The evidence base and assessment 

landscape

Information and knowledge are the building blocks 
used for regular assessments of the Arctic environment, 
including detecting trends, supporting model 
predictions and developing outlooks for policymaking. 
The Arctic is the region of the globe where climate is 
changing the most rapidly. Although our knowledge of 
the region is expanding, many gaps still exist regarding 
baselines, feedback systems, resilience and ecosystem 
response to multiple drivers. In order for the Arctic 
stakeholders to put themselves in a better position to 
anticipate changes rather than respond to them, further 
sustained observations and improved understanding of 
local, regional and global processes are required. 

For decision-makers to have access to the best 
available information, further efforts are required to 
sustain and develop data collection, information and 
knowledge flows, including near real-time data, and to 

make regularly updated Arctic indicators available. This 
will provide stronger evidence for early interventions 
and preventative actions, supporting enforcement 
efforts and enhancing the overall management of the 
Arctic's natural capital. The awareness of unknown or 
unpredictable effects of current actions (or inactions) 
— due among other things to large time lags, some 
of which extend into decades — further increases the 
calls for more knowledge in order to devise appropriate 
strategies, manage risks and reduce uncertainty. This 
applies to global decision makers as well as to Arctic 
decision-makers; global and European decision-makers 
need to be provided more regularly with comprehensive 
integrated assessments of the state and outlook of 
the Arctic environment, and the consequences of 
actions and inactions. Similarly, Arctic decision-makers, 
including at regional and local level, should be made 
aware of global trends that will affect their region, 
because they are often responsible for approving and 
managing economic activities taking place on land or in 
territorial waters. 

Expanding the knowledge base on sustainable 
development and resilient Arctic communities and 
ecosystems can also help in meeting many of the 
challenges facing the region, and provide much-needed 
support for ecosystem-based management approaches 
and ecosystem services (see Figure 4.2), all while 
securing economic growth and societal wellbeing for 
Arctic inhabitants, including indigenous peoples. This 
is the vision outlined in the UN's 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development. 

Over the past two decades much effort has been made 
into Arctic observation and monitoring. This includes 
the activities of the Arctic Council working group CAFF, 
undertakings by the CBMP covering marine, freshwater, 
terrestrial and coastal ecosystems, and the first Arctic 
biodiversity assessment (CAFF, 2013a). Since being 
established in 1991, AMAP — another working group 
under the Arctic Council — has dealt with monitoring 
and assessing global pollution (POPs, mercury 
and radioactivity) in the Arctic as well as observing 
changes in the Arctic cryosphere (AMAP, 2011a) and 
climate change impacts on Arctic Ocean acidification 
(AMAP, 2013). In the marine domain, work on better 
understanding the ecosystem-based management 
approach, designating and creating a network of MPAs 
and efforts to protect the marine environment from 
shipping and other sectors have been carried out by 
the Arctic Council working group Protection of the 
Arctic Marine Environment (PAME). These Arctic Council 
peer-reviewed scientific circumpolar assessments 
are based on national monitoring programmes, and 
policy recommendations are brought forward to Arctic 
ministers and other relevant decision-makers, including 
the EU. 

68

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticResponding to Arctic change

Figure 4.2 

Towards ecosystem-based management

Supply of ecosystem services

MARINE ECOSYSTEM

    Biotic interactions                     Functional traits               

Marine
mammals

Fish

Turtles

Marine
biodiversity

Seabirds
and
waterbirds

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

 ric
h
n
ess

Seabed
habitats

Invertebrates

Water
column
habitats

y
t
i
s
r
e
v
i
d

etic 
n
Ge

Biophysical structures

Ecosystem-based
management

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS
Regulation and maintenance services 

Social

s
t
ﬁ
e
n
e
B

Nutrition

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
g
n
ni

Provisio

Health

Human
well-being

Enjoyment

Economic

l

V
a
u
e

CO2 reductions

Abiotic natural capital

C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l s
e

rvices

I

m
p
a
c

ts o

n ecosystem condition

Climate change  

Tourism
and
recreation

Extraction
and production
of living resources

Energy
production

Physical an
d biolo

Transport
and
shipbuilding

Land-based
activities and
industries

y
g
r
e
n
E

Man-made
structures

Activities
and
pressures

Extraction of
non-living
resources and
disposal

Military

Research
and
survey

g
i
c
a

l

d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n

ces 

l
a
t
i
p
a

al c
atu

r

Demand for n

Source:   EEA, 2015d. 

Pollution

DRIVERS OF CHANGE

Since 1979, European satellite observations — in 
particular through the CryoSat and Copernicus 
programmes — have also given a boost to 
observational efforts. The IPY in 2007-2008 provided 
much information on both the Arctic and the Antarctic, 
and the global linkages. Together with the work of 
the IPCC (IPCC, 2014b) and the science community, 
including important work led by the EU's research 
programmes (Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), 
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and Horizon 
2020), the International Arctic Science Commission 
(IASC) and other Arctic partners, these efforts have 

raised the level of understanding of the processes, 
changes and drivers at play. Data collection and 
providing valuable information and establishing 
baselines for future trend analysis by both Arctic States 
and non-Arctic states have similarly been improved. 
And through Arctic Council assessments on the Arctic 
environment and climate, guidance has been provided 
to national and joint policy developments on specific 
ecosystem components. 

Despite these efforts, there are still many unknowns 
when it comes to the state of the environment and 

69

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Responding to Arctic change

Box 4.2 

European satellite observation in the Arctic

The European Space Agency (ESA), the European Commission and European states, have provided a large contribution to 
observation and monitoring efforts in the Arctic, and recently the EU launched its Space Strategy for Europe (EC, 2016f), 
which is of relevance to future work. Below is a brief overview of the European input to better understanding Arctic change 
and providing services for operators in the region. 

The ESA's CryoSat-2 satellite carries a sophisticated radar 
altimeter that acquires accurate measurements of the 
thickness of floating sea ice so that annual variations can be 
detected. It also surveys the surface of ice sheets accurately 
enough to detect small changes. CryoSat-2 is orbiting Earth 
at an unusually high inclination, reaching latitudes of 88 °N 
or 88 °S, thereby covering most of the polar regions. 

One of the findings from the satellite's precision 
measurement capabilities is that, between 2011 and 
2014, Greenland lost around one trillion tonnes of ice, 
corresponding to a 3 mm rise in global sea level. 

Photo: 

CryoSat-2 satellite (ESA), © ESA–Pierre Carril

The Copernicus space programme (formerly known as 
Global Monitoring for Environment and Security, GMES) 
is an EU-wide programme that supports policymakers, businesses and citizens with improved information. Copernicus 
integrates satellite observations, in situ data from ground stations and airborne and seaborne sensors, and modelling, to 
provide reliable and up-to-date information on land cover, the marine environment, the atmosphere and climate change, as 
well as support to emergency management and security. Added value service providers can build on these public services to 
provide targeted information for specific public or commercial needs, resulting in new business opportunities, job creation, 
innovation and growth as well as better information about the state of the planet. The range of applications is wide and 
includes environmental protection, management of urban 
areas, regional and local planning, agriculture, forestry, 
fisheries, health, transport, climate change, sustainable 
development, civil protection and tourism. The EEA 
plays a key role in the technical coordination of the Land 
Monitoring Service and in coordinating in situ observations. 
In the global context, Copernicus is an integral part of the 
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).

The CryoLand space project (using data from Copernicus) addresses challenges from changing water flows and availability 
(EC, 2015a). On a daily basis, snow and ice updates are needed by stakeholders such as hydropower companies, hydrological 
and meteorological service providers, climate-monitoring bodies, environmental agencies, road, rail and river authorities, 
geotechnical construction companies, avalanche-warning centres and ecologists. To provide these potential users with 
the information they need, the CryoLand project has developed a process to first receive data from a network of satellites, 
combine it with ground-based measurements, and then make these data accessible in customised online applications.

biodiversity, growth in economic activities, social 
indicators, predicting the rate of change and assessing 
or forecasting ecosystem responses. This is due to 
a lack of comprehensive long-term monitoring with 
widespread coverage in the Arctic. But, given the 
significant cost involved — due to the huge area to 
be monitored, remoteness and extreme operating 
conditions — this is not surprising. The result is a 
relatively fragmented and non-regular reporting, 
particularly at regional level, on both the state of the 
environment and the drivers affecting it, which makes 

environmental management and planning in the Arctic 
more complicated. In particular, this is because reliable 
models that mirror observed changes and accurately 
predict future trends are still missing, e.g. those 
predicting sea ice extent. 

Apart from the abovementioned CBMP, which has a 
fixed frame of reporting on Arctic biodiversity, and 
AMAP, which for many years has reported on pollution 
effects on wildlife and human health as well as Arctic 
climate change, there is currently no legally mandated 

70

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
 
Responding to Arctic change

requirement or framework to regularly report on Arctic 
change and produce assessments at the circumpolar or 
European Arctic scale. Nor is there any such requirement 
applying to specific sectors or topics, such as regular 
shipping assessments, oil and gas assessments, fisheries 
assessments or broader assessments of the state and 
outlook of the circumpolar Arctic and its sub-regions. 
Assessments are conducted under the auspices of the 
Arctic Council only if consensus can be reached between 
the eight Arctic States. 

It may be considered useful to establish a regular 
reporting mechanism that is linked to global reporting 
streams, such as the Global Environment Outlook process 
and UN World Ocean Assessment, whereby the EU 
and non-Arctic states can also support the process and 
share data and observations. Also at the global level, 
the 17 SDGs adopted by the UN in 2015 as part of the 
2030 Agenda can be of use in developing agreed targets, 
indicators and associated reporting cycles (see Figure 4.3), 
because both the Arctic States and the EU (EC, 2012a) 
have committed to support the SDGs process.

The Arctic Council and IASC have jointly established 
an observation network, Sustaining Arctic Observing 
Networks (SAON), which aims to promote long-term 
monitoring of key parameters and facilitate data and 
information sharing between Arctic nations and other 
international actors, including community-based 
monitoring efforts. The vision is that such a network 
can improve the level of knowledge when it comes 
to key trends, drivers and describing the effects of 
human activities. To be successful, the work has to be 
integrated into ongoing environmental cooperation 
and monitoring efforts in neighbouring regions, such as 
Eionet in Europe, the Arctic Observing Network (AON) 
in North America and the UNEP-led Global Environment 
Outlook (GEO), to build on existing building blocks and 
avoid duplication of monitoring efforts. Given the global 
importance of Arctic issues and the international nature 
of Arctic research, it is beneficial that SAON includes 
non-Arctic states and organisations in the pursuit of 
improving Arctic monitoring and research capabilities 
to support regulatory stability and more effective 
governance. In this context, the EU and its Member 

Figure 4.3 

United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Note:  

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was adopted in 2015 as part of the global 2030 Agenda. The SDG's also apply to the 
Arctic region. The EEA supports the Sustainable Development Goals.

Source:   United Nations, 2015.

71

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticResponding to Arctic change

States can play a role by supporting the initiative by GEO 
to make SAON its Arctic branch and part of the GEO 
Cold Regions Initiative (Yubao et al., 2015) in the work 
programme leading up to 2025. 

The majority of Arctic observational efforts are carried 
out via operational monitoring by the Arctic states, 
although data and information also come from 
international research programmes as well as from 
local and indigenous knowledge. All sources play their 
part in the puzzle and indigenous knowledge and citizen 
science are currently underused sources of information. 
The data generated by monitoring programmes 
become more valuable the longer the programmes 
run, because trends and projections become more 
solid. With more than two decades of monitoring data, 
some of the Arctic Council working groups such as 
CAFF and AMAP are now in a better position to assess 
the relative success of the various policies aimed at, 
for example, reducing Arctic pollution. Policies whose 
effects may now be assessed include past decisions to 
ban certain pollutants that were being detected in the 
Arctic, such as DDT, or to regulate them (POPs, PCBs) 
through international conventions and agreements. 
By measuring what governments must manage, these 
long-term monitoring efforts now provide stronger 
evidence of policy effectiveness when it comes to 
improving the health of people and wildlife in the Arctic.

European countries have long experience and traditions 
of environmental regulation and monitoring, just 
as those countries and the EU have large funding 
programmes for research and innovation efforts. 
The recent EU Arctic policy, which seeks to improve 
the knowledge base and to support sustainable 
development in the region, recognises these efforts 
specifically. The EU has also conducted a Strategic 
assessment of the development of the Arctic and an 
Arctic gap analysis report (AC, 2014a, 2014b) to help 
guide EU engagement in the region, with regard both to 
filling gaps in knowledge and to facilitating development 
in the region. Improving the EU's responses to global 
megatrends and Arctic change depends on credible 
information on possible future developments and 
choices in the face of global risks and uncertainties. In 
other words, Arctic information and perspectives need 
to be mainstreamed into long-term regional and global 
policies. 

The EU has for the last decade been one of the largest 
funders of polar research through a large number of 
projects. Under the FP7 (2007-2013) around EUR 200 
million was invested in Arctic research, which provided 
useful results for climate mitigation and adaptation 
policies, environmental protection and health-related 
issues, as well as development of economic activities 
(EC, 2012). The EU is also supporting the development 

of and international access to Arctic research 
infrastructures (terrestrial research stations, remote 
and in situ observing systems, vessels, etc.) throughout 
the whole region, with relevant cooperation activities 
with all non-EU Arctic countries. This complements 
efforts under the Shared Environmental Information 
System whereby sharing of environmental data and 
information is promoted. The EU structural funds have 
also supported innovation and research activities in the 
Arctic during the 2007-2013 programming period and 
the current programme from 2014-2020 is continuing 
these efforts.

The EU research programme running from 2014-2020, 
Horizon 2020, has continued the Arctic engagement, 
including though the development of a comprehensive 
European Polar Research Programme (EU-PolarNet) to 
improve coordination and streamlining of international 
research priorities and programmes, and use of 
European resources for Arctic research. Within Horizon 
2020 and the European Partnership Instrument, there 
are possibilities to further develop the Arctic theme. 
Arctic science and research could to a greater degree 
be coordinated across all three pillars of Horizon 2020 
(excellent science, industrial leadership and societal 
change) in order to increase synergies. Establishing an 
Arctic focus area in the Horizon 2020 work programme 
for the remaining period may also be an option to 
increase Arctic research engagement. 

In addition to research programmes, the EU has also 
engaged in a Transatlantic Ocean Research Alliance 
with Canada and the United States, which in time will 
create synergies and efficiency gains. The alliance 
has decided to invest in a broad package of Arctic 
research activities in the Work Programme 2016-2017 
of Horizon 2020. The package comprises three Arctic 
topics and is worth EUR 40 million, and three large 
research projects were started in 2016. All projects 
are based on large transnational consortia, extending 
beyond the Transatlantic Ocean Research Alliance. 
The INTAROS project, with a budget of approximately 
EUR 15.5 million, will extend, improve and unify 
Arctic observation systems, including community-
based ones, contributing to filling critical gaps and 
creating an integrated data access platform. The 
projects APPLICATE, with a budget of approximately 
EUR 8 million, and BLUE-ACTION, with a budget of 
approximately EUR 7.5 million, will explore through 
complementary approaches the predictability of Arctic 
climate and its impact on climate and weather at lower 
latitudes, improving models, contributing to the design 
of appropriate observing systems and leading to the 
co-design of better climate services with stakeholders. 
A new call in 2017 will address the challenges from 
thawing permafrost. In 2016, the EU furthermore 
engaged in strengthening marine data and information 

72

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticResponding to Arctic change

in the Arctic through the European Marine Observation 
and Data Network (EMODnet) (see Box 4.3). 

•  more monitoring data from the winter season (most 

scientists operate in the summer);

Challenges still remain and some of the gaps that Arctic 
partners and the EU should address are captured by 
the Third International Conference on Arctic Research 
Planning (ICARP) Roadmap for the future (ICARP, 2016) 
as well as in the Joint Statement from the Arctic Science 
Ministerial meeting held in September 2016 in the 
United States. They include: 

•  more information on fish stocks in the central Arctic 

Ocean. 

To facilitate such efforts the international community 
and relevant stakeholders should consider: 

• 

increasing scientific cooperation and research 
funding; 

improved polar predictions on sea ice extent, for 
example, and the effects of Arctic warming; 

•  making better use of remote sensing and drones;

• 

• 

improved models on climate change and sea level 
rise, and further data to support such models; 

• 

•  more regular assessments on biodiversity and 

ecosystem resilience; 

•  human health aspects related to a changing Arctic, 
including knowledge about the cumulative effects 
on humans and Arctic wildlife of multiple stressors 
from climate change and pollution, including black 
carbon; 

Box 4.3 

 European Marine Observation and Data 
Network (EMODnet) 

improving exchange of data and information 
(including translation of Russian data), for example 
through the Arctic Biodiversity Data Service (ABDS) 
and in future through the SAON initiative; 

•  making better use of data from industry and 

operators in the region; 

•  making better use of citizen science and indigenous 

knowledge to support operational monitoring 
efforts. 

Long-term sustainable economic growth is a high priority 
in the EU, and in particular developing an economy based 
on knowledge and innovation. The marine and maritime 
sector or 'blue economy' has been identified as having great 
potential for making a major contribution towards meeting Europe 2020 objectives. In order to achieve the goals of the 
blue economy the EU has taken initiatives to improve the collection and accessibility of marine data. Public bodies in the EU 
together spend more than EUR 1 billion a year collecting data on the marine environment. Instead of each agency collecting 
data separately for its own purposes, the EU is moving towards a new paradigm, in which data are collected once and are 
used for many purposes, whereby costs can be reduced, innovation encouraged and marine knowledge improved.

As part of EU Marine Knowledge 2020 and EMODnet, the European Commission has initiated a process to determine gaps in 
data and observation systems and priorities for an observation system that supports the delivery of sustainable growth and 
innovation. A number of sea basins surrounding Europe are being studied with regard to whether or not the right data are 
being collected. One of the sea basins identified is the Arctic Ocean, where the data overview is designed to: 

•  assess various parameters (e.g. water temperature, currents, nutrients);

• 

• 

identify the purposes for which data are used (e.g. marine spatial planning, assessment of (potential) MPAs, assessment 
of navigational risks);

identify how the data meet the needs of users (e.g. fisheries managers, coastal protection authorities and national 
authorities responsible for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), ports, shipping, offshore energy exploration 
and pipeline laying).

The preliminary results of a data adequacy report (IMARES, 2016) point to a number of Arctic data gaps that need to be filled 
or strengthened, including fisheries data, river flows, alien species and phytoplankton distribution. A final report to the EU is 
expected by 2018.

Source:   EC, 2016g.

73

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Responding to Arctic change

In order to develop a comprehensive view of Arctic 
change, it is essential to take into consideration 
environmental, social and economic dimensions while 
seeking integrated approaches. So in addition to the 
climate and environmental aspects outlined above, 
extended and regular monitoring and research are also 
required when it comes to fisheries, shipping, oil and 
gas extraction, tourism and demographic changes. To 
meet such needs, the EU-PolarNet initiative is reaching 
out in 2017 to the global polar and ocean business 
community to identify opportunities to collaborate 
on data collection in support of improved science and 
sustainable development. More effective engagement 
with non-Arctic partners is also beneficial, particularly 
with the EU and observer countries and organisations 
in the Arctic Council. It is furthermore meaningful to 
continuously engage and involve Arctic inhabitants 
and indigenous communities in priority setting and 
in the co-design and co-production of research and 
development of wider initiatives. Sharing results and 
disseminating new knowledge to local communities 
should be taken for granted, but this is not always the 
case. 

4.3 

Integration and policy coherence in 
Europe 

Many national, bilateral and international measures 
and instruments are currently in place for regulating 
activities and safeguarding the environment in the Arctic. 
However, like most regulations, these policy measures 
and frameworks can be strengthened, streamlined, 
implemented and managed in a more integrated 
manner in order to limit human impacts on the 
environment, strengthen sustainable development and 
raise living standards, as well as to avoid undermining 
future economic growth by eroding natural capital. In 
order to support such efforts, strengthened governance 
structures represent a way forward, including closer 
cooperation between the Arctic nations and the 
international community. 

Seeing that international cooperation efforts are 
essential to tackle Arctic environmental issues, it is 
important that this be more explicitly acknowledged 
by the Arctic States and that non-Arctic states and 
partners are further included in this endeavour. Steps 
in this direction have recently been taken under the 
auspices of the Arctic Council, the main forum for 
Arctic discussions, although observer countries and 
organisations' involvement and influence are kept at 
working group level and not in the selection of initiatives. 
That said, the Arctic Council does not have the status of 
an international organisation and it is more a decision-
shaping forum than a decision-making organisation, 
although some binding agreements have been adopted 

(see Section 2.1). The approach of seeking regional 
solutions with international partners can bring added 
value in addition to efforts to reach agreement through 
international bodies and conventions with lower or 
limited Arctic State influence. However, a more optimal 
approach would be to improve in parallel: a meaningful 
engagement through the Arctic Council and subsidiary 
bodies as well as addressing Arctic issues and concerns 
in international fora such as the UNFCCC, the CBD, 
the IMO, the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the 
World Trade Organization (WTO), UN Environment, the 
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) 
and the OSPAR Commission. 

It also has to be recognised that although most of the 
Arctic basin is covered by the Arctic coastal states' 
EEZs, there is a central part of the Arctic Ocean that 
will continue to be an area beyond national jurisdiction 
and in which the international community will have 
a legitimate interest regarding its conservation and 
sustainable use. International cooperation is therefore 
unavoidable and international solutions are required. 
Efforts are now under way in the UN to establish a 
legal instrument to protect marine biodiversity in areas 
beyond national jurisdiction, which would include the 
central Arctic Ocean. Furthermore, as outlined in Section 
3.3, the EU and Arctic partners (in a five + five format) are 
discussing a binding international agreement preventing 
unregulated commercial fishing in the high seas area 
of the central Arctic Ocean. These initiatives contribute 
towards a more integrated management of natural 
capital and help avoid passing on to future generations 
the risks from today's inadequate governance of natural 
resources.

The EU and its Member States have an important 
role to play in facilitating sustainable development 
in the region and minimising negative impacts on 
the Arctic environment. Faced with the impacts and 
challenging outlook of a changing Arctic, and the 
knowledge that Europe is contributing to a number of 
negative changes, robust scientific understanding for 
better policymaking is needed alongside strengthened 
existing regulations. It should also be recognised that 
Europe contributes to positive developments including 
job creation, education, infrastructure and regional 
development. Achieving sustainable development 
in the Arctic while maintaining or strengthening 
ecosystem resilience will rely heavily on continuous 
monitoring of how increasing human activity is 
affecting the region's fragile environment, as well as 
devising coherent and integrated policy responses, 
some of which require international engagement and 
commitment. This narrative is the backbone of the EU 
Arctic policy adopted by the European Commission and 
European External Action Service in 2016. 

74

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticResponding to Arctic change

The EU Arctic policy has been in development since 
the first EU Arctic Communication (EC, 2008b). While 
the three overall objectives on safeguarding the 
environment, supporting sustainable development 
and engaging in international cooperation have 
remained the same, the actions, integration 
and coherence with relevant policies have been 
strengthened since 2008. The policy framework 
captures the key EU policies of relevance to the 
Arctic region and its development, including 
environment, climate, energy, transport, fisheries, 
research and innovation, marine and maritime, 
cross-border cooperation and social policies. An 
Arctic in transformation and the EU's responsibility 
in support of positive responses are in the forefront, 
and the framework gives an overview of the positive 

contributions the EU can make. Thus, the EU has 
long recognised and acted on its Arctic responsibility, 
including in the 7th EAP, and some of its Arctic 
engagements to date are highlighted in Box 4.4.

Specific environmental challenges, which often 
present themselves with local effects and impacts, 
have in the past been dealt with through targeted 
policies and specific instruments. The new challenge 
for Arctic governments, in collaboration with the EU 
and other international partners, is to balance the 
need for resources, economic growth and raising 
living conditions with the less visible (and perhaps less 
obviously immediate) need for supporting, regulating 
and ensuring that the services that ecosystems provide 
are maintained and the human-made systemic risks 

Box 4.4 

Elements of the EU's ongoing Arctic contribution

•  Fighting climate change: The EU is on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction target of 20 % by 2020 compared with 
1990. It is committed to achieving a 40 % reduction by 2030 and has endorsed a long-term objective of reducing its 
emissions by 80-95 % by 2050 compared with 1990. This commitment and the COP21 Paris Agreement on intensifying 
actions and investments through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) will significantly contribute towards 
reducing climate change and related impacts in the Arctic. Adaptation to climate change is also part of the Paris 
Agreement and relates to enhancing resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change in the Arctic; adaptation also 
includes tapping into the opportunities brought about by climate change.

• 

Investing in sustainable development in the north: The EU provided more than EUR 1.14 billion to develop the economic, 
social and environmental potential of the Arctic regions of the EU and neighbouring areas for 2007-2013. The regional 
development and regional cooperation programmes funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) are 
worth mentioning here, and include ongoing investments during the 2014-2020 programming period as well as the 
Arctic Stakeholder Forum, aimed at streamlining the use of EU funding in the Arctic and identifying common investment 
priorities. 

•  Shipping and maritime safety: As almost 90 % of EU external trade is carried out at sea, the EU has significant experience 

in shipping, shipbuilding, satellite navigation, search and rescue and port infrastructure development.

•  Reducing future uncertainties and monitoring changes in the Arctic region: The EU, through the FP7, has contributed 

around EUR 200 million of EU funds to international research activities in the Arctic since 2002, excluding the individual 
contributions from EU Member States. The structural funds have similarly supported innovation and research activities in 
the Arctic.

•  Reducing pollution: The EU has also continued to play a prominent role in international efforts to reduce pollution from 

POPs, through both the Stockholm Convention and the UN LRTAP convention. An initiative on addressing black carbon in 
the Arctic was launched in late 2016 (EC, 2016h).

•  Research on the Arctic environment: The Commission has carried out a pioneering assessment of the EU's current and 

future Arctic footprint, the EU Arctic footprint and policy assessment (Ecologic Institute, 2010). This shows that the EU has 
a significant impact on socio-economic and environmental aspects of the Arctic region, including biodiversity, transport, 
energy, fisheries and climate change. A number of EU research projects concern the impact of climate change on the 
Arctic region's ecosystem and on key economic sectors. Other projects are studying the evolution of the Arctic sea ice 
cover, glaciers and ice sheets, including the impact that their loss is having on sea level. A project involving all Arctic 
countries produced a first-ever harmonised assessment of soil conditions in the region, the Atlas of northern circumpolar 
soils  (JRC, 2008). Several projects have been involved with boosting research infrastructure in the region, including by 
building on the INTERACT network of 70 terrestrial field bases scattered around the region. Other research projects 
benefiting from EU funds (e.g. CLEAR and ArcRisk) are filling critical knowledge gaps on the impact of transboundary 
pollution on the health of Arctic populations. An overview of Arctic research funded by the EU was produced in 2014 
(EC, 2014c). The most recent initiatives from 2016 include the Horizon 2020-funded projects to extend, improve and unify 
Arctic observation systems, including community-based ones (INTAROS), and the APPLICATE and BLUE-ACTION projects.

75

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Responding to Arctic change

and vulnerabilities that threaten ecosystem resilience 
are reduced. The continued global over-exploitation 
of natural capital cannot continue and strategies on 
how to counteract and phase out damaging practices 
and activities are crucial components in the pursuit of 
development that is sustainable and that will provide 
continued economic growth for the Arctic region and its 
people. As this cannot be tackled through integrating 
environmental concerns in individual sector policies 
alone, increasing emphasis needs to be placed on 
holistic approaches to strengthening ecosystem 
resilience and building adaptive capacity. 

In response to socio-economic and ecological 
interactions, the EU is increasingly formulating its 
environmental policies in a three-step timeframe 
to cover a mixture of short-term targets, mid-term 
ambitions (2020-2030 objectives for environment 
and climate, for example) and long-term visions 
(a 2050 vision of societal transition, informed by the 
concepts of planetary boundaries, green economy and 
resilience of society and ecosystems). The concrete 
policy measures that make up these three steps 
include a range of policy initiatives introduced by the 
EU. These aim at improving sustainability through the 
implementation of an integrated ecosystem-based 
approach to management. An example of the EU 
three-step approach is in the marine and maritime 
domain, where initiatives include the integrated 
maritime policy and its 'environmental pillar', the 
MSFD, the CFP, the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and 

the 7th EAP. With its experience in the marine area, 
the EU can provide a good example among the Arctic 
States of how such integrated policy development 
could be deployed in the Arctic, not least because 
current efforts coordinated through the Arctic Council 
tend to be more focused on assessing, studying and 
describing challenges and less on how to collectively 
address and tackle them. Similarly, the EU efforts on 
strengthening resource efficiency and moving towards 
a circular economy that reduces waste and emissions 
(EC, 2015b), as well as recent steps on developing a 
strategy on plastic that addresses issues related to 
production, use and end of life (including plastics in 
the marine environment), are of relevance to the Arctic 
environment, and thus areas for further cooperation. 

In addition to seeking better integration and policy 
coherence within the EU, the EU is furthermore 
acting as a bridge in linking the Arctic to Europe, the 
pan-European area and the global reporting processes 
under UNEP. This regional cooperation on assessing 
environmental impacts is needed to strengthen 
forward-looking planning and to devise international 
responses to systemic change, which becomes more 
visible through global assessments. A coordinated 
approach towards the principles for collecting and 
sharing environmental information across regions is 
also needed to provide a sound knowledge base for 
policy development and decisionmaking, including 
initiatives to support the UN 2030 Agenda and 17 SDGs 
from 2015 (see Section 4.1). 

Photo:  

Ilulissat, Greenland, © Nikolaj Bock

76

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic5  Conclusions 

Conclusions

5.1  A need for an integrated response

Arctic change takes many different forms: 
environmental, demographic, economic, cultural, 
political and changes in living standards and wellbeing. 
Thus a variety of responses are required, some of 
an integrated and coherent nature, to meet multiple 
needs. Conflicting agendas often arise if policy 
response addresses only individual dimensions of 
change, and self-enforcing feedback mechanisms may 
be created. 

Most of the changes observed in the Arctic, as well 
as current and future economic activities, have 
a European dimension to them, although Canada, 
Russia and the United States also play their part. These 
changes and economic activities include: (1) ships 
sailing to/from or though Arctic waters, providing 
Europe with goods and services and calling at European 
ports; (2) European companies extracting minerals or 
hydrocarbons in the Arctic; (3) European fishing vessels 
catching and landing Arctic fish; (4) European tourists 
going to the Arctic and/or travelling with European 
tour operators; (5) accidents and oil spills involving 
European ships and oil rigs, and European ships coming 
to the rescue or taking part in the clean-up operation; 
(6) long-range pollution and marine plastic in the Arctic 
that originated in Europe; and (7) European emissions 
of greenhouse gases, and imports of energy and goods 
which cause emissions elsewhere. European emissions 
in particular are impacting the Arctic region severely. 

Given that it overlaps with and has direct impacts 
on the Arctic, the EU has a role to play in efforts to 
ensure an appropriate balance between challenges 
and opportunities arising in the Arctic, as well as 
in supporting development that is not at odds 
with traditional livelihoods and cultural practices, 
e.g. facilitation of innovative financial instruments 
for eco-innovation. The EU has an ambitious 2030 
plan for transforming Europe into an efficient 
low-carbon circular economy and by doing so 
Europe will reduce its Arctic footprint, through 
reducing pollutants brought into the Arctic through air 
and ocean currents but also through reduced imports 
of minerals and hydrocarbons from the Arctic region. 
The EU is also working to strengthen the resilience 

of Arctic communities and supports the wellbeing of 
Arctic residents, in particular respecting the rights and 
involvement of indigenous peoples.

When it comes to some of the economic drivers of 
change in the Arctic, the EU has a responsibility to 
act in a prudent manner by, for example, ensuring 
policy integration and by strengthening the knowledge 
base to guide policymaking and EU engagement 
in activities affecting the region such as fisheries, 
extraction of hydrocarbons, shipping and mining. 
The Arctic sub-regions differ substantially, and policy 
options and recommendations for the European 
Arctic may not be relevant to other parts due to 
different living conditions, environmental standards, 
government structures and local traditions. 

Some of the overall conclusions and take-home 
messages from this report are summarised below: 

•  The Arctic region is undergoing rapid change and 
is affected by a number of drivers and pressures, 
including: climate change; decline in biodiversity; 
threat from invasive species; long-range 
pollution (coupled with pressures from economic 
development such as exploration for minerals and 
fossil fuels); increased transportation and shipping; 
comprehensive fishing efforts; local pollution from 
industrial activities and historical waste disposals; 
land fragmentation; infrastructure developments; 
and tourism. These multiple stressors do not act 
in isolation but often exacerbate one another, 
leading to cumulative impacts greater than 
those from individual activities or stressors. 
Collectively, these changes challenge ecosystem 
resilience, and Arctic species and inhabitants, 
particularly indigenous peoples, all of whom and 
which will have to adapt to pressures and rapid 
transformation in both the environment and living 
conditions.

• 

It is in European and global interests to limit the 
changes occurring in the region as well as to 
support Arctic residents in adapting to the ongoing 
transformations. The EU can play a constructive 
role in the years to come by supporting activities 
that: (1) support sustainable development; (2) are 

77

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticConclusions

adjusted to local and regional conditions; and 
(3) are aligned with the precautionary principle 
and do not add further pressure for a fragile 
region already seeing rapid change and impacts 
of human activities. The EU and its Member States 
need to continue their approach of addressing 
the systemic and transboundary nature of the 
challenges, take account of emerging pressures 
and effectively implement environmental policies 
while developing integrated approaches to the 
environmental and health challenges arising in the 
Arctic region so that economic opportunities do 
not come at the expense of ecosystem resilience, 
natural capital and ecosystem services. 

• 

In recent years, economic crises and fluctuations in 
world commodity prices have caused a slowdown 
in Arctic investments and this has provided Arctic 
governments, Europe and the international 
community with a window of opportunity, and 
more time to better: (1) assess Arctic ecosystem 
resilience, natural capital and boundaries for 
human activities; (2) anticipate the pace of change; 
(3) build better models and forward-looking 
scenarios for Arctic development; and (4) develop 
cleaner technologies and put in place safety 
standards, at both national and regional levels. The 
slowdown has furthermore allowed a diversion of 
focus on resource extraction towards emerging 
sectors such as tourism, the service sector and 
renewable energy production, as well as improving 
transport and communication links. 

•  We have yet to fully recognise the state of the 

Arctic environment and long-term effects on it, 
and continued efforts to monitor and assess 
changes are needed to ensure a sustainable 
use of the Arctic's fragile natural capital. The 
EU, together with the Arctic States and their 
international partners, has to work tirelessly 
to ensure that growth in the Arctic does not 
jeopardise already stressed ecosystems, just as 
efforts have to be directed towards promoting 
development that is planned with the people 
of the Arctic, and benefits them. In this context, 
the EEA can play a constructive role by regularly 
reporting, through assessments and indicators, on 
trends in the Arctic environment of relevance to 
Europe.

5.2  Policy integration options

In addition to the overall messages, a number of 
policy options related to the environment and climate 
change, and where the EU and European states 
can play a role in addressing Arctic challenges and 
opportunities in the years to come, arise from this 
report. The policy options summarised below are 
primarily directed at EU institutions and EU Member 
States because they often relate to EU policies, 
competencies or legislative acts. However, a number 
of issues raised are also of relevance to non-EU 
countries because they require a common European 
or global response.

Environment and health

Changes in the Arctic will affect Europe, just as Europe is affecting the Arctic. Europe therefore has an interest 
in looking to the Arctic and assessing the wider implications for Europe's environment. In this context, the EU 
and its Member States along with Arctic partners can play a constructive role in the following ways:

•  Take further action in Europe and internationally to reduce impacts from long-range pollutants, such as marine litter, 

mercury emissions and black carbon emissions.

•  Undertake regular integrated assessments in supporting efforts to raise understanding of the interplay between local 
effects and global megatrends; reduce uncertainties and better project future trends; and identify suitable policy 
responses. 

•  Promote further research on ecosystem services and natural capital in the context of international ecosystem accounting 
approaches and valuation of ecosystem services. Facilitate environmental accounting for the Arctic in line with the UN 
System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) and related sub-systems. 

•  Work towards mainstreaming Arctic biodiversity by incorporating biodiversity objectives and provisions into sectoral and 
cross-sectoral policies, plans and programmes at all levels, including international standards, agreements, action plans, 
operations and tools related to the development of the Arctic. 

• 

Improve weather forecasts and climate predictions to provide better services for those who live and work in the Arctic as 
well as those living in the lower-latitude regions, e.g. by supporting an international action plan to improve predictions of 
weather, climate and ice conditions in the polar regions by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), better known 
as the Year of Polar Prediction, which will take place from mid-2017 to mid-2019. 

78

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
Conclusions

Environment and health (cont.)

•  Support states in designating further protected areas onshore and offshore in the Arctic. Connecting European and Arctic 
MPAs and the Natura 2000 network could be explored (42), as well as supporting an ambitious legal framework for the 
conservation of and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. 

•  Facilitate initiatives aimed at improving Arctic health and living standards, including better housing, diets, connectivity, 

e-health and understanding people's exposure to harmful substances accumulating in the Arctic food chain.

Arctic energy

Europe is a large importer of hydrocarbons from the Arctic. Increased extraction of Arctic fossil fuels 
goes against keeping the global temperature change below the 2 °C target. While the EU and its 
Member States transforms its energy mix towards renewable energy sources, it can play a constructive 
role with Arctic partners in the following ways:

•  Facilitate the development of renewable energy in the Arctic, e.g. hydropower, solar power, wind power and wave power.

•  Study and mitigate negative impacts on the environment and traditional livelihoods such as fishing or reindeer herding 

from renewable energy developments such as hydropower and wind power.

•  Support replacement of the many local diesel generators across the Arctic with renewable energy sources and/or ensure 

the connectivity of regional energy grids. 

•  Promote high standards across the Arctic region and ensure that best available techniques are implemented for 

European companies' operations in the Arctic, if extraction cannot be avoided.

Arctic fisheries

Europe is a major consumer of Arctic sea products and thus has an interest in ensuring good cooperation 
with Arctic fishing states in sustainable management of fish stocks and marine living resources. 
Furthermore, the EU supports a blue growth agenda and a significant part of this relates to the fishing 
and aquaculture industry. In this context, the EU and its Member States can play a constructive role in the 
following ways:

•  Participate and engage in international and regional regulatory frameworks and safety standards, and combat incentives for 

unsustainable fisheries and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fisheries in the Arctic. 

•  Facilitate fisheries research and sharing of information, including local and indigenous knowledge from the large fishing 

communities in the Arctic. 

• 

Improve management of fisheries through reform of the CFP, further develop fisheries governance at international level 
and contribute to the EU's ocean governance objectives and the UN's SDGs through agreements with non-EU countries 
(an external dimension of the CFP).

•  Support expanding the 2015 Arctic non-binding agreement on a fishing moratorium in the central Arctic Ocean towards a 
binding agreement that puts in place a precautionary approach and a collaborative scientific process to collect data on the 
marine ecosystem of the central Arctic Ocean, and that also contains a clear trigger mechanism to set up a regional fisheries 
management organisation (RFMO) and a regional sea convention if necessary.

•  Continue to improve existing legislation with regard to authorisation of fishing vessels that operate in Arctic waters and 

ensure that they meet the same, or even higher if deemed necessary, environmental standards for operating in EU waters.

•  Further develop monitoring systems for changing fish distribution in the Arctic to support multinational fishery agreements 

in managing fish stock distributions and thus support the blue economy.

(42)  Both to halt the loss of regional biodiversity and also to support migrating species, many of which come from Europe or use Europe as a 

corridor.

79

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
 
 
Conclusions

Arctic shipping

The EU and its Member States and its Arctic partners  can play a constructive role in the following ways:

•  Shape international standards and set ambitious targets and mandatory requirements through 

international conventions and regulations, e.g. through the IMO, including measures related to heavy 
fuel oils in Arctic waters (both for on board combustion and as cargo) and reducing black carbon emissions from shipping. 
The promotion of an ambitious second phase of the IMO Polar Code should be ensured. 

•  Strong enforcement of port and flag state obligations including ensuring compliance with the Polar Code applicable to ships 

operating in ice-covered waters.

•  Support designation of shipping corridors with low environmental impact, or consider limiting or banning shipping in 

sensitive areas during the seasonal migration of whales.  

•  Continue supporting Arctic satellite systems for better satellite-based Earth observation systems, e.g. through CryoSat and the 
Copernicus sentinels. These should cater to both environmental and security monitoring needs by facilitating hydrographic 
mapping, oceanographic observations, weather forecasts, ice charts and ice models, ship surveillance and vessel tracking, 
and search and rescue capabilities, as well as helping to improve Arctic communication. 

•  Support efforts to reduce black carbon emissions from shipping, including research and monitoring activities, updating and 

maintaining inventories, and putting in place appropriate measures and management plans.

•  Cooperate with the Arctic Council working group PAME on assessing impacts from cruise tourism.

Arctic minerals

Europe is a large importer of natural resources and minerals, including from the European Arctic which 
has a number of actives mines in Fennoscandia. In this context the EU and its Member States can play a 
constructive role in the following ways:

•  Support the collection of data through Horizon 2020 and the sharing of mining data and knowledge through the European 

Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials. A record of mineral raw materials of the Arctic region could be established.

•  Ensure that environmental, economic and social assessments are taken into account in future developments and that 

special attention is given to local issues and indigenous rights. 

•  Promote the adoption of a full value chain perspective, in which every stage from exploration through to mining, transport, 
processing, production and recycling is included to address the social and environmental externalities. This would cover 
both the demand side from, for example, European consumers and the supply side from, for example, EU companies and 
local communities in the European Arctic.  

•  Support the use of best available practices with regard to operation as well as management of waste materials, as well as 

plans regarding prevention, preparedness and response to accidents involving dangerous substances.

•  Support area-based management, which limits or prevents mining activities in particularly sensitive or ecologically important 

areas, e.g. deep-sea mining.

Strengthening the knowledge base

Europe has long been a major contributor to Arctic research and innovation, and in this context the EU 
and its Member States can play a constructive role in the following ways:

•  Address uncertainties and the dynamic nature of interplay between social systems, economic 

development and ecosystems in the Arctic to improve understanding of systemic change and identify policy options. 
Similarly various baselines need to be established and integrated assessments carried out, preferably aligned with 
internationally agreed reporting cycles. Supporting commonly agreed Arctic indicators and targets would be helpful in 
this regard.

80

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
 
 
Conclusions

Strengthening the knowledge base (cont.)

•  Continue to be a leading force in conducting and coordinating Arctic research activities with regard to better assessing 

environmental and climatic changes, but also support research, science and innovation regarding development of cleaner 
technologies for Arctic conditions. The EU-PolarNet initiative on shaping research priorities and bringing together 
European research infrastructures plays an important role in this context. 

•  Form still more accurate predictions about the consequences of global climate change and those of local Arctic climate 

change on climates at lower latitude.

•  Promote openness, access and coherence across research programmes and databases, and foster a dialogue on the 

establishment of a common open monitoring database.

•  Facilitate better use of community-based monitoring and indigenous knowledge in environmental and climate 
assessments in the Arctic, in particular through development of methodologies and validation processes, and 
harmonisation of data and information from such sources — both in the context of supporting operational monitoring 
efforts and in scientific activities. 

•  Support efforts to produce regular assessments to guide EU policymaking, reduce uncertainties and better project future 

trends.

•  Collect results and recommendations from EU research programmes and incorporate them in a consolidated and 

comprehensive manner into the policy process. 

•  Establish an Arctic focus area for the remaining period of the Horizon 2020 work programme to increase Arctic research 

engagement.

•  Support a thorough assessment with Arctic partners that identifies gaps or weaknesses in the current knowledge base 
that need to be addressed to ensure good stewardship in the region. In this regard better alignment between EU and 
national research programmes and objectives could be sought in order to create synergies, avoid duplication and reduce 
costs. 

•  Facilitate research activities to improve understanding of interactions between species, habitats and cumulative impacts, 

and of how Europe's various environmental policy objectives can best support the European Arctic region. 

•  Help explore the opportunities for using natural capital accounting approaches in analysing the links between economy 

and environment in the Arctic region.

•  Foster data collection and sharing by industry operating in the region to strengthen the knowledge base and support 
safe, responsible and effective industry operation in the Arctic, and develop and coordinate cooperation between 
industry and the research and observation community. 

•  Continue working towards easing administrative burdens for researchers' cross-border cooperation, to enhance 

cooperation with the EU's Arctic neighbours. In this context, the EU might co-sign the Arctic Council agreement on 
Arctic scientific cooperation from 2017, and further related initiatives.

International cooperation and policy integration

The EU has adopted an integrated EU Arctic policy and a number of EU Member States — as well 
as close partners Norway and Iceland — have now developed national Arctic strategies and policy 
frameworks (see Box 2.1). In this context, the EU and its Member States can play a constructive role in 
the following ways:

•  Continue to develop the EU Arctic policy in light of rapid changes and, together with EU Member States, devise 

appropriate long-term monitoring efforts and coherent policy responses. 

•  Continue efforts to mitigate climate change, push for transitions in energy, mobility and food systems and in 
implementing adaptation efforts in response to climate change, thereby limiting impact in the Arctic region. 

•  Work towards ensuring that not only EU environmental and safety standards are upheld for EU companies operating in 
the Arctic, but that any Arctic-specific environmental and technical standards, best practices and guidelines are applied, 
as these might differ from EU standards. 

81

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
 
Conclusions

International cooperation and policy integration (cont.)

•  Continue driving regional development forward, supporting infrastructure development through roads, rail, 

telecommunications and linking the European and Arctic energy grids; support the service, food and tourism sector 
and provide alternative growth and job opportunities to the extractive industries, in particular through the European 
structural and investment funds.

•  Develop an Arctic business dialogue and engage with the Arctic Economic Council, in order to address the concerns of 

Arctic residents and operators in areas of European relevance or EU competency.

•  Develop further information platforms with regards to Arctic-related activities, and better channel Arctic knowledge to the 
appropriate European Commission services, developing EU policies that will affect the region, thereby strengthening the 
integration of Arctic concerns into all policy domains. This includes conducting regulatory impact assessments and public 
consultations. 

•  Continue and strengthen the regular dialogue with Arctic environmental NGOs and indigenous peoples' organisations 

(circumpolar), e.g. through the annual Arctic indigenous peoples' dialogue. The Saami people and the Kalaallit (Greenland 
Inuit) are the only Arctic indigenous peoples living partly on the territory of the EU Member states Denmark, Finland and 
Sweden, and although the EU does not give preferential treatment to any groups, it has certain obligations regarding the 
rights of indigenous peoples that can be explored and developed.

•  Strengthen cooperation between researchers, businesses and government, building public–private partnerships for 

multi-purpose infrastructure, to address the high costs of Arctic infrastructure. 

•  Develop a dialogue for better coordination of efforts with the relevant activities and assessments initiated by the Arctic 

Council in order to facilitate synergies and avoid duplication of efforts.

82

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing Arctic 
References

References

AMAP, 1997, Arctic pollution issues: A state of the Arctic 
environment report, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://www.amap.no/
documents/download/78) accessed 24 March 2017.

AMAP, 2009, Arctic pollution 2009, Arctic Monitoring and 
Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://www.
amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-pollution-2009/88) 
accessed 17 March 2017.

AMAP, 2011a, Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the 
Arctic (SWIPA): Climate change and the cryosphere, Arctic 
Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway, 
(http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/snow-water-ice-
and-permafrost-in-the-arctic-swipa-climate-change-
and-the-cryosphere/743) accessed 23 March 2017.

AMAP, 2011b, Arctic pollution 2011, Arctic Monitoring 
and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway, (http://
www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-pollution-2011-
mercury/89) accessed 17 March 2017.

AMAP, 2011c, AMAP assessment 2011: Mercury in the 
Arctic, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 
Oslo, Norway (http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/
amap-assessment-2011-mercury-in-the-arctic/90) 
accessed 24 March 2017.

AMAP, 2012, Arctic climate Issues 2011: Changes in Arctic 
snow, water, ice and permafrost, Arctic Monitoring and 
Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://www.
amap.no/documents/doc/change-in-snow-cover-
duration-for-autumn-snow-cover-onset-period-and-
spring-snow-cover-melt-period-between-197273-
and-200809/977) accessed 16 March 2017.

AMAP, 2013, AMAP assessment 2013: Arctic Ocean 
acidification, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://www.amap.no/
documents/doc/amap-assessment-2013-arctic-ocean-
acidification/881) accessed 17 March 2017.

AMAP, 2015b, AMAP assessment 2015: Human health 
in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://www.amap.no/
documents/doc/amap-assessment-2015-human-
health-in-the-arctic/1346) accessed 17 March 2017.

AMAP, 2016, AMAP Assessment 2015: Temporal 
trends in persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic, 
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, 
Norway (https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/AMAP-
Assessment-2015-Temporal-Trends-in-Persistent-
Organic-Pollutants-in-the-Arctic/1521) accessed 4 May 
2017. 

AMAP, 2017a, Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic 
(AACA); Barents area overview report, Arctic Monitoring 
and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://
www.amap.no/documents/doc/Adaptation-Actions-
for-a-Changing-Arctic-AACA-Barents-Area-Overview-
report/1529) accessed 4 May 2017.

AMAP, 2017b, Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic 
(AACA); Baffin Bay/Davis Strait Region overview report, 
Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway 
(http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/adaptation-
actions-for-a-changing-arctic-aaca-baffin-bay-davis-
strait-region-overview-report/1530) accessed 16 May 
2017. 

AMAP, 2017c, Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the 
Arctic, Summary for policy-makers, Oslo, Norway, 
(http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Snow-Water-
Ice-and-Permafrost.-Summary-for-Policy-makers/1532) 
accessed 4 May 2017. 

AMAP, 2017d, Assessment of chemicals of emerging 
Arctic concern, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://www.amap.no/
documents/doc/chemicals-of-emerging-arctic-
concern.-summary-for-policy-makers/1533) accessed 
4 May 2017.

AMAP, 2015a, AMAP assessment 2015: Methane as an 
Arctic climate forcer, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 
Programme, Oslo, Norway (http://www.amap.no/
documents/doc/AMAP-Assessment-2015-Methane-as-
an-Arctic-climate-forcer/1285) accessed 23 March 2017.

Arctic Centre, 2014a, Strategic assessment of 
development of the Arctic. Assessment conducted for the 
European Union, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, 
Rovaniemi, Finland (http://www.arcticinfo.eu/images/
pdf/SADA_report.pdf) accessed 24 March 2017. 

83

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticReferences

Arctic Centre, 2014b, Gap analysis report — Preparatory 
action, Strategic environmental impact assessment of 
development of the Arctic, Arctic Centre, University of 
Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland (http://www.arcticinfo.eu/
images/pdf/GAP_report.pdf) accessed 4 April 2017.

Arctic Council, 2009a, Arctic offshore oil and gas 
guidelines 2009 (https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/
handle/11374/63) accessed 24 March 2017. 

Arctic Council, 2009b, Arctic marine shipping assessment 
2009 report (http://www.pame.is/index.php/projects/
arctic-marine-shipping/amsa) accessed 23 March 
2017.

Arctic Council, 2011, Agreement on cooperation 
on aeronautical and maritime search and rescue 
in the Arctic (https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/
handle/11374/531) accessed 24 March 2017.

Arctic Council, 2013a, Vision for the Arctic 
(https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/bitstream/
handle/11374/287/MM08_Kiruna_Vision_
for_the_Arctic_Final_formatted %281%29.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) accessed 23 March 
2017.

Arctic Council, 2013b, Agreement on cooperation 
on marine oil pollution preparedness and response 
in the Arctic (https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/
handle/11374/529) accessed 24 March 2017.

Arctic Council, 2013c, Arctic resilience interim report 
2013, Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm 
Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden (https://www.
sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/
Publications/ArcticResilienceInterimReport2013-
LowRes.pdf) accessed 23 March 2017.

Arctic Council, 2015, Arctic marine strategic plan 
2015-2025 (https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/
bitstream/handle/11374/413/AMSP 2015-2025.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) accessed 25 March 
2017.

Arctic Council, 2016, Arctic resilience report, Stockholm 
Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience 
Centre, Stockholm, Sweden (http://www.arctic-council.
org/arr) accessed 23 March 2017.

Arctic Council, 2017a, Agreement on Enhancing 
International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (https://www.
state.gov/e/oes/rls/other/2017/270809.htm) accessed 
15 May 2017.

Arctic Council, 2017b, Arctic Resilience Action 
Framework, Cooperating for a More Resilient and 

Prosperous Arctic Region (https://oaarchive.arctic-
council.org/handle/11374/1790) accessed 16 May 
2017. 

CAFF, 2013b, Life linked to ice: A guide to sea ice-
associated biodiversity in this time of rapid change, 
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (http://
www.caff.is/sea-ice-associated-biodiversity/sea-ice-
publications/254-life-linked-to-ice-a-guide-to-sea-ice-
associated-biodiversity-in-this-time-of-ra) accessed 
16 March 2017.

CAFF, 2013a, Arctic biodiversity assessment: Status and 
trends in Arctic biodiversity, Conservation of Arctic Flora 
and Fauna (http://www.caff.is/assessment-series/233-
arctic-biodiversity-assessment-2013) accessed 17 March 
2017.

CAFF, 2015, The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity 
(TEEB) for the Arctic: A scoping study, Conservation 
of Arctic Flora and Fauna (https://www.caff.is/
assessment-series/323-the-economics-of-ecosystems-
and-biodiversity-teeb-for-the-arctic-a-scoping-study) 
accessed 30 March 2017.

CAFF, 2017, State of the Arctic marine biodiversity 
summary report: Key findings and advice on monitoring: 
2017, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, (https://
www.arcticbiodiversity.is/marine?utm_source=Copy+o
f+State+of+the+Arctic+Marine+Biodiversity+Report&u
tm_campaign=Arctic+Biodiversity+Congress+reminder&
utm_medium=email) accessed 15 May 2017.

CAFF/PAME, 2017, Arctic protected areas: Indicator report 
2017, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (https://
caff.is/assessment-series/414-arctic-protected-areas-
indicator-report-2017) accessed 15 May 2017.

CBD, 2014, An updated synthesis of the impacts of ocean 
acidification on marine biodiversity, Secretariat of the 
Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.cbd.int/
doc/publications/cbd-ts-75-en.pdf) accessed 17 March 
2017.

Church, J. A., White, N. J., Konikow, L. F., Domingues, 
C. M., Cogley, J. G., Rignot, E., Gregory, J. M., van 
den Broeke, M. R., Monaghan, A. J. and Velicogna, 
I., 2011, 'Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy 
budgets from 1961 to 2008: Sea-level and energy 
budgets', Geophysical Research Letters 38, L18601 (doi: 
10.1029/2011GL048794).

Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008, Ilulissat 
Declaration, Arctic Ocean Conference, Ilulissat, 
Greenland, 27-29 May 2008 (http://www.oceanlaw.org/
downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf) accessed 
23 March 2017.

84

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticReferences

EC, 2007, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions 'An Integrated Maritime Policy for the 
European Union' (COM(2007) 575 final of 10 October 
2007) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0575&from=EN) accessed 
23 March 2017.

EC, 2008a, Climate Change and International Security. 
Paper from the High Representative and the European 
Commission to the European Council (http://www.
consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/
en/reports/99387.pdf) accessed 23 March 2017.

EC, 2008b, Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council 'The European 
Union and the Arctic Region' (COM(2008) 763 final of 
20 November 2008) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0763&from=
EN) accessed 23 March 2017.

EC, 2010, Communication from the Commission 
'EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth' (COM(2010) 2020 final of 3 March 
2010) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF) accessed 23 March 
2017. 

EC, 2011a, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions 'Our life insurance, our natural capital: An 
EU biodiversity strategy to 2020' (COM(2011) 244 final) 
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?u
ri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN) accessed 23 March 
2017.

EC, 2011b, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions 'Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe' 
(COM(2011) 571 final, 20.9.2011) (http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_
com(2011)0571_/com_com(2011)0571_en.pdf) accessed 
3 May 2017.

EC, 2012, Joint Communication to the European 
Parliament and the Council 'Developing a European 
Union Policy towards the Arctic Region: Progress since 
2008 and next steps' (JOIN(2012) 19 final of 26 June 
2016) (http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/arctic_
region/docs/join_2012_19.pdf) accessed 17 March 
2017).

EC, 2014a, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions 'Innovation in the Blue Economy: Realising 
the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and 
growth' (COM(2014) 254 final/2 of 13 May 2014) (http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:
2014:254:REV1&from=EN) accessed 4 April 2017. 

EC, 2014b, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions 'A policy framework for climate and energy 
in the period from 2020 to 2030' (COM(2014) 015 final 
of 22 January 2014) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015&from=
en) accessed 24 March 2017.

EC, 2014c, Arctic research funded by the European Union 
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/arctic_
research_funded_by_the_research_and_innovation_eu_
en.pdf) assessed 24 March 2017. 

EC, 2014d, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, The European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions 'A policy framework for climate and energy 
in the period from 2020 to 2030' (COM/2014/015 final) 
(https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-
and-energy-union/2030-energy-strategy) accessed 4 
April 2017.

EC, 2015a, 'Scrutinising snow and ice from space', 
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_
en.cfm?id=/research/headlines/news/article_15_04_22_
en.html?infocentre&item=Infocentre&artid=34537) 
accessed 24 March 217.

EC, 2015b, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions 'Closing the loop — An EU action plan 
for the Circular Economy' (COM(2015) 614 final of 2 
December 2015) (https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/
regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-614-EN-F1-1.PDF) 
accessed 24 March 2017.

EC, 2016a, Joint Communication to the European 
Parliament and the Council 'An integrated European 
Union policy for the Arctic' (JOIN(2016) 21 final of 
27 April 2016) (http://eeas.europa.eu/arctic_region/
docs/160427_joint-communication-an-integrated-
european-union-policy-for-the-arctic_en.pdf) accessed 
23 March 2017.

EC, 2016b, 'A new integrated EU policy for the Arctic 
adopted', Press release of 27 April 2016, (http://europa.
eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1539_en.htm) accessed 
23 March 2017.

85

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticReferences

EC, 2016c, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions 'Next steps for a sustainable European future 
— European action for sustainability' (COM(2016) 739 final 
of 22 November 2016) (https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/
sites/devco/files/communication-next-steps-sustainable-
europe-20161122_en.pdf) accessed 23 March 2017.

EC, 2016d, Joint Communication to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee Of The Regions 
'International ocean governance: An agenda for the 
future of our oceans (JOIN(2016) 49 final of 10 November 
2016) (https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/
maritimeaffairs/files/join-2016-49_en.pdf) accessed 
23 March 2017.

EEA, 2015a, The European environment — state and 
outlook 2015: synthesis report, European Environment 
Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/
synthesis) accessed 16 March 2017.

EEA, 2015b, The European environment — State and 
outlook 2015 — Assessment of global megatrends, 
European Environment Agency (http://www.eea.
europa.eu/soer-2015/global/action-download-pdf) 
accessed 23 March 2017.

EEA, 2015c, Global megatrends assessment — Extended 
background analysis, EEA Technical Report No 
11/2015, European Environment Agency (http://www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/global-megatrends-
assessment-extended-background-analysis) accessed 
16 March 2017.

EC, 2016e, 'Commission proposes new rules for consumer 
centred clean energy transition', (https://ec.europa.
eu/energy/en/news/commission-proposes-new-rules-
consumer-centred-clean-energy-transition) accessed 4 
April 2017.

EEA, 2015d, State of Europe's seas, EEA Report 
No 2/2015, European Environment Agency (http://www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-europes-seas) 
accessed 4 April 2017.

EC, 2016f, Communication from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of the Regions, 'Space Strategy for Europe' (COM(2016) 
705 final of 26 October 2016) (https://ec.europa.eu/
transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/COM-2016-705-F1-
EN-MAIN.PDF) accessed 17 March 2017.

EC, 2016g, 'Are the marine data collected in the Arctic 
fit for purpose?' (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/
maritimeforum/en/node/3954) accessed 24 March 2017.

EC, 2016h, Commission Implementing Decision of 
15 November 2016 modifying the 2016 Partnership 
Instrument Annual Action Programme for cooperation 
with third countries to be financed from the general 
budget of the European Union (C_2016_7198_F1_Decision 
final and Annexes 15-22) (http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/
documents/annexes_decision.zip) accessed 24 March 
2017.

Ecologic Institute, 2010, EU Arctic footprint and policy 
assessment (http://arctic-footprint.eu/sites/default/files/
AFPA_Final_Report.pdf) accessed 23 March 2017.

EEA et al., 2004, Arctic Environment: European perspectives. 
Why should Europe care?, European Environment Agency.

EEA, 2012, 'Europe's demand for resources reaching 
far beyond its borders', European Environment Agency 
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/europe2019s-
demand-for-resources-reaching) accessed 17 March 2017.

EEA, 2016a, Seafood in Europe — A food system 
approach for sustainability, (http://www.eea.europa.
eu/publications/seafood-in-europe-a-food), European 
Environment Agency, accessed 2 April 2017. 

EEA, 2016b, Arctic and Baltic Sea ice, European 
Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/
data-and-maps/indicators/arctic-sea-ice-2/assessment) 
accessed 16 March 2017.

EEA, 2016c, Snow cover, European Environment Agency 
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/
snow-cover-3/assessment) accessed 16 March 2017.

EEA, 2016d, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, European 
Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/
data-and-maps/indicators/greenland-ice-sheet-3/
assessment) accessed 16 March 2017.

EEA, 2016e, Glaciers, European Environment Agency 
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/
glaciers-2/assessment) accessed 16 March 2017.

EEA, 2016f, Global and European sea level, European 
Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-
and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-4/assessment-2) 
accessed 16 March 2017.

EEA, 2016g, Projected change in Northern hemisphere 
near-surface permafrost area, European Environment 
Agency (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/daviz/northern-hemisphere-near-surface-
permafrost#tab-chart_1) accessed 19 May 2017. 

86

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticReferences

EEA, 2016h, Ocean acidification, European Environment 
Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/
indicators/ocean-acidification-1/assessment) accessed 
16 March 2017.

EU, 2016, Council conclusions on the Arctic, Foreign 
Affairs Council, 10400/16, COEST 166, 20 June 2016, 
Council of the European Union (http://data.consilium.
europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10400-2016-INIT/en/pdf) 
accessed 29 May 2017.

EEA, 2017, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability 
in Europe 2016, EEA Report No 1/2017, European 
Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.
eu/publications/climate-change-impacts-and-
vulnerability-2016) accessed 2 April 2017.

EEA and NPI, 1997, The State of the European Arctic 
Environment, European Environment Agency and 
Norwegian Polar Institute (http://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/MON3) accessed 16 March 2017.

EEA, UNEP and Arctic Council, 2004, Arctic environment: 
European perspectives. Why should Europe care?, 
Environmental Issue Report No 38/2004, European 
Environment Agency, United Nations Environment 
Programme Regional Office for Europe and the Arctic 
Council (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
environmental_issue_report_2004_38) accessed 
16 March 2017.

EP, 2017, European Parliament resolution of 16 March 
2017 on an integrated European Union policy for the 
Arctic (2016/2228(INI)), (http://www.europarl.europa.
eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-
TA-2017-0093+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN) 
accessed 29 May 2017. 

EPOCA, 2012, 'What is ocean acidification?' (http://www.
epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-is-ocean-acidification.
html) accessed 17 March 2017. 

EU, 2013a, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 
on a General Union Environment Action programme to 
2020 'Living well, within the limits of our planet' (OJ L 
354, 28.12.2013, p. 171) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=
EN) accessed 24 March 2017. 

Eurostat, 2009, Statistics in focus, 47/2009, Eurostat, 
Luxembourg (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/3433488/5281405/KS-SF-09-047-EN.
PDF/121dae7c-a53c-464a-baca-a314e652f4e7) 
accessed 2 April 2017. 

Gautier, D. L., Bird, K. J, Charpentier, R. R., Grantz, A., 
Houseknecht, D. W., Klett, T. R., Moore, T. E., Pitman, 
J. K., Schenk, C. J., Scheuenemeyer, J. H., Soresnsen, 
K., Tennyson, M. E., Vallin, Z. C. and Wandrey, C. 
J.. 2009, 'Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas 
in the arctic', Science 324 (5931), pp. 1175-1179, 
DOI: 10.1126/science.1169467 (https://pubs.er.usgs.
gov/publication/70035000) accessed 4 April 2017.

GlobSnow , Luojus, K., Pulliainen, J., Takala, M., 
Lemmetyinen, J., Kangwa, M., Sohlberg, R., Nagler, T., 
Rott, H., Derksen, C., Wiesmann, A., Metsämäki, S. and 
Bojkov, B., 2011, GlobSnow Final Report. Deliverable 3.5, 
European Space Agency Study Contract Report ESRIN 
Contract 21703/08/I-EC,

IBRU, 2015, Maritime jurisdiction and boundaries in the 
Arctic region, Centre for Borders Research, Durham 
University (http://www.durham.ac.uk/ibru/resources/
arctic) accessed 24 March 2017.

ICARP, 2016, Integrating Arctic research — A roadmap 
for the future, 3rd International Conference on Arctic 
Research Planning (http://icarp.iasc.info/images/
articles/downloads/ICARPIII_Final_Report.pdf) 
accessed 24 March 2017. 

Ice2sea, 2014, Report summary, Ice2sea, EU-funded 
project on estimating the future contribution of 
continental ice to sea-level rise (http://cordis.europa.
eu/result/rcn/149868_en.html) accessed 2 April 2017.

EU, 2013b, Directive 2013/30/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on 
safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending 
Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ L 178, 28.06.2013, p. 66) 
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32013L0030&from=EN) accessed 24 March 
2017.

ICES, 2015, Working Group on the Integrated 
Assessments of the Barents Sea Report 2015 (http://
www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/
Expert%20Group%20Report/SSGIEA/2015/2015%20
WGIBAR%20Annex%205%20Barents%20Sea%20
Ecosystem%20State%202014.pdf) accessed 19 May 
2017.

EU, 2014, 'Note from the Secretariat of the 
Council on the European Union Maritime Security 
Strategy' (https://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/
srv?l=EN&f=ST 11205 2014 INIT) accessed 4 April 2017.

ICES, 2016, Barents Sea ecoregion — Ecosystem overview 
(http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication Reports/
Advice/2016/2016/Barents_Sea_Ecoregion-Ecosystem_
overview.pdf) accessed 23 March 2017.

87

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticReferences

IMARES, 2016, Adequacy of data available for the 
Arctic Sea basin, IMARES, Wageningen University, Den 
Helder, Netherlands (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/
maritimeforum/sites/maritimeforum/files/FINAL DRAFT 
rapport SBC Arctic DAR.pdf) accessed 3 April 2017. 

IPPC, 2000, IPCC special report — Emissions scenarios, 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 
Switzerland (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/
spm/sres-en.pdf) accessed 17 March 2017. 

IPCC, 2013, Climate change 2013: The physical science 
basis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 
Geneva, Switzerland (http://www.climatechange2013.
org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf) 
accessed 2 April 2017. 

IPCC, 2014a, Climate change 2014: Synthesis report, 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 
Switzerland (http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/
pdf/IPCC_SynthesisReport.pdf) accessed 2 April 2017.

IPCC, 2014b, 'Polar regions', in: Climate change 
2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 
Switzerland (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap28_FINAL.pdf) accessed 
17 March 2017.

Jeffries, M. O., Richter-Menge, J. A. and Overland, J. E. 
(eds.), 2013: Arctic report card 2013, http://www.arctic.
noaa.gov/reportcard (ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/
documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2013.pdf) 
accessed 23 March 2017.

JRC, 2008, Soil atlas of the northern circumpolar region, 
Joint Research Centre, European Commission Office 
for Official Publications of the European Communities 
, Luxembourg (http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Library/
Maps/Circumpolar/Documents/Circumpolar_atlas.pdf) 
accessed 24 March 2017. 

Laidre, K. L., Stern, H., Kovacs, K. M., Lowry, L., Moore, 
S. E., Regehr, E. R., Ferguson, S. H., Wiig, Ø., Boveng, P., 
Angliss, R. P., Born, E. W., Litovka, D., Quakenbush, L., 
Lydersen, C., Vongraven, D. and Ugarte, F., 2015, 'Arctic 
marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat 
loss, and conservation recommendations for the 
21st century', Conservation Biology 29 (8), pp. 724-737 
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12474/
abstract) accessed 17 March 2017.

NordRegio, 2011, Megatrends (http://www.nordregio.
se/en/Publications/Publications-2011/Megatrends) 
accessed 23 March 2017.

NordRegio, 2015, 'Resources in the Arctic' (http://www.
nordregio.se/en/Maps/05-Environment-and-energy/
Resources-in-the-Arctic1) accessed 24 March 2017.

NSIDC, 2017a, Warm Arctic, cool continents, 
National Snow & Ice Data Centre (http://nsidc.org/
arcticseaicenews) accessed 23 May 2017.

NSIDC, 2017b, 'Quick Facts on Ice Sheets', National 
Snow & Ice Data Centre (https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/
quickfacts/icesheets.html) accessed 23 March 2017.

Pacyna, J.M et al, 2016, Current and future levels of 
mercury atmospheric pollution on a global scale, Atmos. 
Chem. Phys., 16, 12495-12511, 2016 (http://www.
atmos-chem-phys.net/16/12495/2016/acp-16-12495-
2016.pdf), accessed 16 May. 

Raven, J. A. and Falkowski, P. G., 1999, 'Oceanic sinks 
for atmospheric CO2', Plant, Cell and Environment 
22, pp. 741-755 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00419.x/pdf) accessed 
16 March 2017.

Schaefer, K, Lantuit, H., Romanovsky, V. E., Schuur, E. 
A. G. and Witt, R., 2014, 'The impact of the permafrost 
carbon feedback on global climate', Environmental 
Research Letters 9, pp. 1-9 (http://iopscience.iop.org/
article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/085003/pdf) accessed 
24 March 2017.

Shakhova, N., Semiletov, I., Sergienko, V., Lobkovsky, 
L., Yusupov, V., Salyuk, A., Salomatin, A., Cherykh, D., 
Kosmach, D., Panteleev, G., Nicolsky, D., Samarkin, 
V., Joye, S., Charkin, A., Dudarev, O., Meluzov, A. and 
Gustafsson, O., 2015, 'The East Siberian Arctic shelf: 
Towards further assessment of permafrost-related 
methane fluxes and role of sea ice', Transactions 
of the The Royal Society A, Mathematical, Physical 
and Engineering Sciences 373 (2052), DOI: 10.1098/
rsta.2014.0451 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/
content/373/2052/20140451.article-info) accessed 
24 March 2017.

Shepherd, A., Ivins, E. R. and Markus, T., 2015, Tracking 
ice: The latest efforts to measure the polar ice sheets, 
Presentation at the AGU Fall Meeting, 14–18 December 
2015, San Francisco.

NCM, 2014, Arctic human development report: Regional 
processes and global linkages, Nordic Council of 
Ministers, Denmark (http://norden.diva-portal.org/
smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A788965&dswid=-2455) 
accessed 16 March 2017.

Schuur, E. A. G., McGuire, A. D., Schadel, C., Grosse, 
G., Harden, J. W., Hayes, D. J., Hugelius, G., Koven, C. 
D., Kuhry, P., Lawrence, D. M., Natali, S. M., Olefeldt, 
D., Romanovsky, V. E., Schaefer, K., Turetsky, M. R., 

88

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticReferences

Treat, C. C. and Vonk, J. E., 2015, 'Climate change and 
the permafrost carbon feedback', Nature 520, 171-179, 
DOI: 10.1038/nature14338 (http://www.nature.com/
nature/journal/v520/n7546/abs/nature14338.html) 
accessed 17 March 2017. 

Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Pitman, M. G, Knutti, R. 
and Wilby R. L., 2016, 'Allowable CO2 emissions based 
on regional and impact-related climate targets', Nature 
529, pp. 477-483, DOI: 10.1038/nature16542 (http://
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/full/
nature16542.html) accessed 16 March 2017. 

SSB, 2011, The role of the Arctic in future global 
petroleum supply, Discussion Papers No 645, Statistics 
Norway, Research Department (http://www.ssb.no/a/
publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp645.pdf) accessed 17 March 
2017.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. 
E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. 
R., Vries, W. d., Cynthia A. de Wit, C. A. de, Folke, C., 
Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., 
Ramanathan, V., Belinda Reyers, B., Sörlin, S., 2015, 
'Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development 
on a changing planet', Science, Vol. 347, Issue 6223, 
1259855, doi: 10.1126/science.1259855 (http://science.
sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855) accessed 3 
May 2017.

Schweiger, A., R. Lindsay, J. Zhang, M. Steele, H. Stern, 
'Uncertainty in modeled arctic sea ice volume', J. 
Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2011JC007084, 2011, Pan-
Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System 
(PIOMAS), (http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/
arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/) accessed 5 May 2017.

TOTAL, 2016, Integrating climate into our strategy, 
Courbevoie, France (http://www.total.com/sites/default/
files/atoms/files/integrating_climate_into_our_strategy_
eng.pdf) accessed 3 May 2017. 

UN, 2013, United Nations Convention on the Law of 
the Sea of 10 December 1982 — Overview and full 

text, United Nations, New York (http://www.un.org/
Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_
overview_convention.htm) accessed 23 March 2017.

UN, 2015, General Assembly Resolution 70/1 — 
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development, United Nations, New 
York (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.
asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E) accessed 2 May 
2017. 

UNFCCC, 2015, 'Historic Paris Agreement on Climate 
Change', United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change, Bonn, Germany (http://newsroom.
unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21) accessed 
16 March 2017.

van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M. et al., 
2011, 'The representative concentration pathways: an 
overview', Climatic Change (2011) 109: 5. doi:10.1007/
s10584-011-0148-z, (http://link.springer.com/
article/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z) accessed 17 March 
2017.

Yubao, Q., Savela, H., Key, J. R, Menenti, M., Vitale, 
V., Cheng, X., Friddell, J. E., Larsen, J. R., Enomoto, 
H., Guo, X., Sandven, S., She, J., Lappalainen, H., 
Shrestha, B. R., Su, B., Gabarro, C., Li, X., Callaghan, T. 
V., Lawford, R., Berod, D. D. and the GEOCRI Group, 
2015, 'Statement on the GEO Cold Region Initiative 
(GEOCRI)', Statement for the 2016 Arctic Observing 
Summit (http://www.arcticobservingsummit.org/sites/
arcticobservingsummit.org/files/Qiu-REVISEDRC--
GEOCRI-Statement-20160201-revised.pdf) accessed 
24 March 2017. 

Zeller, D., Booth, S., Pakhomov, E., Swartz, W. 
and Pauly, D., 2011, 'Arctic fisheries catches in 
Russia, USA and Canada: Baselines for neglected 
ecosystems', Polar Biology Journal, 34 (7), pp. 955-973. 
DOI: 10.1007/s00300-010-0952-3 (http://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007/s00300-010-0952-3) accessed 
17 March 2017.

89

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFurther reading

Further reading

To further frame the European perspectives of a 
changing Arctic, the following reports, scientific 
assessments, EU policy documents and agreements 
form part of the knowledge base. Some are directly 
referenced in this report while others are not but 
provide context, insights and further information to 
Arctic discussions.  

EEA products and sources

•  Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 

2016, EEA, 2017

•  The European Environment — state and outlook report, 

Global megatrends, EEA, 2015

• 

'The European environment — state and outlook 
report', Arctic Briefing, EEA, 2015

•  An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic, 

Joint Communication, 2016 

•  EU Arctic policy – in regional context, European 

Parliament, 2016

•  Adequacy of data available for the Arctic Sea basin, 

First report, European Commission, 2016 

•  Results of Public consultation on streamlining EU 

funding in the European Arctic, EU, 2015

•  EU's 7th Environment Action Programme to 2020. 

Living well, within the limits of our planet, EU, 2014

•  Strategic Assessment of Development of the Arctic, an 
Assessment conducted for the European Union, Arctic 
Centre, 2014

•  European Climate Adaptation Platform, EEA, 2015

•  Arctic information and communication — 
Gap Analysis Report, Arctic Centre, 2014 

•  State of Europe's seas, EEA, 2015

•  Assessments in Policy-Making: Case Studies from the 

•  Marine Messages, EEA, 2014

Arctic Council, Arctic Centre, 2014

•  European Arctic Initiatives Compendium, Arctic 

•  Cooperation agreement between EEA and the 
Government of Greenland (25 November 2010)

Centre, 2014

•  Arctic Environment: European perspectives. Why should 

Analysis, Arctic Centre, 2014 

Europe care?, EEA et al., 2004

•  The State of the European Arctic Environment, EEA, 1997

•  Council Conclusions on developing a European 
Union Policy towards the Arctic Region, EU, 2014

•  EU Arctic Information Centre, Network Feasibility 

•  EEA Arctic Indicators: (1) Snow cover; (2) Greenland 

•  The EU Framework Programme for Research and 

ice sheet; (3) Arctic and Baltic sea ice; (4) Permafrost; 
(5) Sea level rise; and (6) Lake and river ice cover. 

Innovation, Horizon 2020, EU, 2014

EU reports and documents

•  EU Arctic Policy webpage, EEAS, 2017

•  Resolution on the EU strategy for the Arctic, 

European Parliament, 2014

•  Council Conclusions on developing a European 
Union Policy towards the Arctic Region, 2014

•  Own initiative report and Arctic resolution, European 

•  Arctic Lay and Traditional Knowledge, European 

Parliament, 2017 

Commission, 2014

•  Council Conclusions on the Arctic, 2016

90

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFurther reading

•  Communication on developing an EU Policy towards 

•  Temporal Trends In Persistent Organic Pollutants in the 

the Arctic Region: progress since 2008 and next steps, 
European Commission and EEAS, 2012

Arctic, AMAP, 2016

• 

Joint Staff Working Document on Space and the Arctic, 
EU, 2012.

•  The Arctic Resilience Report (final report), Stockholm 

Environment Institute, 2016

•  Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme, 

•  EU Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe, European 

CAFF, 2015 

Commission, 2011

•  EU Arctic Footprint and Policy Assessment, Ecological 

Institute/European Commission, 2010

•  Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA), Draft 

•  Human Health in the Arctic, AMAP, 2015

•  Commission Communication on the EU and the Arctic 

region, European Commission, 2008 

•  Framework for a Pan-Arctic Network of Marine 

Protected Areas (MPAs), PAME, 2015

report, Arctic Council, 2015 

•  High Representative Report on Climate Change and 

International Security, EU, 2008

•  Framework for Action on Enhanced Black Carbon and 
Methane Emissions Reductions, Arctic Council, 2015

EU-funded research

•  Black carbon and tropospheric ozone and methane, 

•  EU PolarNet, EU funded research infrastructure 

coordination, H2020

AMAP, 2015

•  Assessments of human health, trends in POPs and 

radioactivity in the Arctic, AMAP 2015

•  Arctic Climate Change, Economy and Society (ACCESS), 

FP7-funded project, 2015

•  Arctic Marine Strategic Plan for 2015-2025, PAME, 

•  Arctic research funded by the EU, 2014

2015

Ice2sea, EU FP7 funded project on sea level rise from 
Polar Regions and mountains, BAS, 2014

•  Life Linked to Ice: A guide to sea-ice-associated 

biodiversity, CAFF, 2015

•  Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, 

International Network for Terrestrial Research and 
Monitoring in the Arctic (INTERACT), FP7 

CAFF, 2015

Impacts on health in the Arctic and Europe owing 
to climate-induced changes in contaminant cycling 
(ArcRisk), FP7

Arctic Council assessments and products

•  Actions on Arctic Biodiversity for 2013-2021: 

Implementing the recommendations of the Arctic 
Biodiversity Assessment, CAFF, 2015

•  Arctic Migratory Bird Initiative (AMBI) Work Plan 2015-

2019, CAFF, 2015

•  Progress report on the Arctic Biodiversity Data Service 

• 

• 

• 

•  Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific 

(ABDS), CAFF, 2015

Cooperation, Arctic Council, 2017

•  Chemicals of Arctic Emerging Concern 2016, AMAP, 2017

•  Snow Water Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA), 

AMAP, 2017 

•  Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA) — 

Barents Area overview, AMAP, 2017 

•  Trends in Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic 

Pollutants (POPs) in Arctic Air, Human media and Biota, 
AMAP 2015

•  Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines: Systems 
Safety Management and Safety Culture, Arctic 
Council, 2014

•  Strategy of the Sustaining Arctic Observing 

•  State of the Arctic marine biodiversity, CAFF, 2017

Networks, SAON, 2014

91

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticFurther reading

•  Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity: Synthesis, 

•  Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic Ecosystem 

CAFF, 2013

Resilience, WWF, 2012

•  Arctic Ocean Acidification, AMAP, 2013

•  The role of the Arctic in future global petroleum supply, 

•  Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, CAFF, 2013

Statistics Norway 2011

•  Arctic megatrends, NCM, 2011

•  Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution 
Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, Arctic 
Council, 2013

•  The Economy of the North (ECONOR), Statistics 

Norway, 2006 and 2009

•  The Arctic Resilience Report (Interim report), Stockholm 

•  Arctic Climate Feedbacks; Global Implications, WWF, 

Environment Institute, 2013

2009

•  Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): 
Climate Change and the Cryosphere, AMAP, 2011

•  Global Outlook for Ice and Snow, UNEP, 2007

•  Arctic Climate Issues 2011: Changes in Arctic Snow, 

International agreements

Water, Ice and Permafrost, AMAP, 2011 

•  Mercury in the Arctic, AMAP, 2011

• 

'Polar code' for ships operating in ice-covered 
waters, International Maritime Organization, 2014 

•  Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and 
Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic, Arctic 
Council, 2011

•  UNFCCC, COP16, Cancun, 2010

•  Ballast Water Management Convention, IMO

•  Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the Arctic, 

•  Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short 

AMAP, 2010

Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC)

•  Arctic Oil and Gas Assessment, Overview Report, AMAP, 

•  Transatlantic Ocean Research Alliance  

2007

(EU + North America) 

•  Environmental Protection Strategy for the Arctic, 

Rovaniemi, 1991

Other 

•  The AMAP Trends and Effects Monitoring 

Programme (ATEMP)

• 

Joint Statement, Arctic Science Ministerial, 
28 September 2016, Washington, DC, USA

•  Arctic Council, www.arctic-council.org

•  Arctic Observing Summit 2016 — Conference 

Statement

Other assessments and studies

•  Ship Data, Northern Sea Route Information Office, 

2015

•  Future Regional Development Policy for the Nordic 

Arctic: Foresight Analysis 2013–2016, NordRegio, 2017

•  The International Polar Year (March 2007 to 

March 2009)

•  5th Assessment Report, Synthesis report, IPCC, 2014

•  5th Assessment Report, Chapter 28 Polar regions, 

IPCC, 2014

• 

Integrating Arctic Research — a Roadmap for the 
Future, Third International Conference on Arctic 
Research Planning (ICARP), 2015

•  Arctic Human Development Report: Regional Processes 

•  Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean, 

and Global Linkages, NCM, 2014

NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: 
Environmental Security, Springer, 2013

•  World Energy Outlook 2012, International Energy 

Agency (IEA), 2012

•  Arctic shipping, www.havbase.no

92

The Arctic environment — European perspectives on a changing ArcticEuropean Environment Agency

The Arctic environment
European perspectives on a changing Arctic

2017 — 92 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9213-858-5
doi:10.2800/29867

Getting in touch with the EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres. You can find the address 
of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact

On the phone or by e-mail
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service 

–   by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
–   at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or 
–   by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact

Finding information about the EU

Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
http://europa.eu  

EU Publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: http://bookshop.europa.eu. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre 
(see http://europa.eu/contact)

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, 
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data 
can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

d
o

i
:

.

1
0
2
8
0
0
/
2
9
8
6
7

T
H
-
A
L
-
1
7
-
0
0
6
-
E
N
N

-

European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark

Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries