Environmental Clean-up and Sustainable Development in the Circumpolar Arctic

Top, the way the Arctic should remain: Caribou at Contwoyto Lake. Left, drums on the tundra.

The circumpolar Arctic is at a political, economic, and environmental crossroads. Old certainties have given way to new problems and new opportunities. For many years, this was the venue of military confrontation between the two superpowers and their allies, but the glare of suspicion between the USA and the USSR no longer taints relations among the nations of the circumpolar North. And, although the outcome of continuing political change in the Federation of

Russia is still uncertam, it seems clear that the ideological conflict of the past is gone for ever. In its stead, co-operation between the arctic states in environmental, economic, cultural, and other matters is expanding rapidly.

This circumpolar co-operation is very welcome, for only in the wake of the cold war are arctic nations realizing the full measure of the environmental and human problems resulting from that hostility. The legacy is profound and bitter. The impacts of ill-planned and poorly executed industrial and military development will impair the arctic environment and the health of its peoples for many years. Contaminants produced in northern Russia are turning-up in Scandinavia and North America, carried there by winds and currents. The Arctic also is the resting place for contaminants from southern industrial heartlands of Europe, North America, and Eurasia.

In 1992, the Earth Summit was convened in Rio de Janeiro. Various global agreements, all of which will benefit the circumpolar Arctic, were signed at this summit. But the most remarkable achievement at Rio was the non-binding, lengthy Agenda 21, an agreement designed to guide the transition to sustainable development throughout the globe. Notwithstanding its global intentions, Agenda 21 concentrates on tropical, desert, and forest lands, and says little about the Arctic. Clearly, the responsibility for charting a sustainable future for the North still rests largely in the hands of the arctic nations. And much work remains to be done within each arctic nation and throughout the circumpolar world to develop policies, plans, and programmes to translate principles of sustainable development into reality.

Today, each arctic nation—and particularly the Federation of Russia—faces two very large problems:

• the clean-up of the environmental mess resulting from years of unsustainable development; and

• the definition and implementation of collective rules to ensure that future development is sustainable and that past errors are not repeated.

Of course, these problems are sides of the same coin, which need to be addressed together and can not be dealt with by individual arctic nations. Both require a circumpolar or an even broader approach. Canada is well positioned geographically, politically, financially, and scientifically to take the lead in addressing these challenges. As a well respected member of the community of arctic nations it could do so in the best interventionist tradition of Canadian diplomacy. After all, the Arctic is our back yard, and the arctic nations are our close neighbours.

During the recent federal election campaign, the Liberal Party did not stress arctic issues. Its election manifesto, or red book, "Creating Opportunity," does not single out the Arctic; however, it does stress sustainable development as a national policy objective and suggest that Canada's foreign policy address environmental security and sustainable development. These priorities resonate in Yukon and the Northwest Territories and throughout the circumpolar Arctic. In May 1993, the Liberals released a foreign policy handbook, which recognizes the need for a "policy which will bring together all Arctic states and peoples into a cooperative arrangement designed to scale back militarization of the Arctic region, preserve the fragile ecosystem and protect the interests of indigenous peoples." This policy statement is encouraging.

Unfortunately, there are no panaceas or quick technical or legal fixes to our current arctic problems. Progress will have to be measured over the long-term, beyond the arbitrary confines of four-to-five-year government mandates. Cleaning-up past mistakes is not going to be cheap—it rarely is. Nevertheless, if Canada commits itself to deal with these problems and to pursue action co-operatively and vigorously with its circumpolar neighbours, we can make progress. It is in this vein that

CARC makes the following recommendations to the federal government:

1. Devote far greater time, energy, money, personnel, and political will to implement the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) signed by all eight arctic nations in 1991. The AEPS should become the premier technical instrument at the circumpolar level through which scientists can plan and undertake co-operative work on environmental contamination in the Arctic.

2. Persuade the arctic nations to expand the AEPS into a legally binding Arctic Sustainable Development Treaty (ASDT).

3. Ratify the Convention on Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment concluded at Espoo, Finland, in 1991.

4. Persuade the arctic nations to establish a senior political forum in which they discuss issues related to sustainable development. To its credit, the previous federal govern ment suggested that an Arctic Council be established to serve as such a forum. This idea should be revived.

5. Appoint a Circumpolar Ambassador. Instruct the ambassador to work closely with the recently appointed environmental ambassador, and instruct both ambassadors to seek circumpolar support for an expanded AEPS, the proposed ASDT, and an Arctic Council.

6. Ensure that the AEPS and the proposed ASDT and Arctic Council are central features of the current review of Canada's foreign policy.

7. Ensure that financial, technical, and political aid to the Federation of Russia is tied to environmental clean-up in its Arctic and elsewhere. Suggest that other countries and international institutions similarly link aid to the Federation of Russia to environmental clean-up.

8. Promote exchanges between Canadian and Russian aboriginal and non-governmental organizations.

9. Ask the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment to hold public hearings on environmental contamination and sustainable development in the circumpolar Arctic.

10. Require the departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Environment, and Foreign Affairs to prepare a paperjointly and co-operatively for Cabinet on Canada's circumpolar policy objectives.

Terry Fenge is the Executive Director of the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.

Regional study: Broughton Island, Northwest Territories To assess the possible risk to the health of arctic residents of consuming country foods containing PCBs, Health and Welfare Canada initiated a series of studies in 1985, 1986, and 1987 at Broughton Island. This community was chosen as the study site because harvest data indicated that it had the highest potential per capita intake of country foods among communities of the Baffin Island region (Kinloch et al. 1988). The studies included a comprehensive diet survey, measurement of PCB concentrations in various foods consumed, measurement of PCBs in human blood and breast milk, and an evaluation of the nutritional value of country foods. Seal, caribou, narwhal, fish, and walrus accounted for 90% or more of the country foods consumed. Of residents surveyed, 15.4% of males and 8.8% of females ingested more than the Canadian conditional tolerable daily intake (TDI) of PCBs, set by Health and Welfare Canada at 1 ug per kilogram of body weight. The TDI is the quantity of a chemical that is considered by toxicologists to be safe for human consumption every day for an entire lifetime; exceeding the TDI does not mean that an individual is in danger of suffering adverse effects related to intake of a contaminant, only that the safety margin is reduced. The study found that PCB concentrations in blood samples exceeded the Health and Welfare Canada "tolerable" guidelines in 63% of children under 15 years of age, 39% of females aged 15-44 years, 6% of males 15 years and older, and 29% of women 45 years and older. One-quarter of the breast milk samples analyzed also exceeded the established "tolerable" PCB level whereas the remaining samples contained PCB concentrations lower than the national average. A survey of the Inuit women in northern Quebec showed that PCB concentrations in breast milk were five times those of southern Canadian Caucasian women in the study (Dewailly et al. 1989). For the Inuit women, the mean monthly consumption of freshwater fish, marine mammals, and marine fish was 18, 10, and 9 meals, respectively. Country foods are nutritionally superior to marketed (southern) foods, and substitution may lead to nutritional deficiencies and associated risks to health. There are known risks of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer associated with the transition from a country food diet to a "southern Canadian" diet. Therefore, although there may be risks to health associated with the presence of PCBs in the traditional Inuit diet, there are major benefits associated with the nutrients present. Based on current information, the benefits to Broughton Island residents of native country foods and breast feeding are greater than the risk from the PCBs in country foods or in breast milk at the observed levels (Kinloch et al. 1988). Kinloch, D., H. Kuhnlein, and D. Muir (19X8). "Assessment of PCBs in arctic foods and diet: a pilot study in Broughton Island, NWT, Canada." Arctic Medical Research 47 (Supplement 1). Dewailly, E., A. Nantel, J.P. Webber, and F. Meyer (1989). "High levels of PCBs in breast milk of Inuit women from Arctic Quebec." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 43(5). From The State of Canada' s Environment (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada (1991), pages 15-20.