NPAC 2014 Proceedings_final

have emerged since the last IPCC assessment in 2007 address impacts affect Indigenous peoples–either directly or indirectly–and mirror many of the same concerns raised by Watt-Cloutier.

For example, the executive summary states that “the physical, biological and socio-economic impacts of climate change in the Arctic have to be seen in the context of often interconnected factors … For example, food security for many indigenous and rural residents in the Arctic is being impacted by climate change, and in combination with globalization and resource development is projected to increase significantly in the future.”

In another example, the executive summary notes that “the rapid rate at which climate is changing in the Polar Regions will impact natural and social systems and may exceed the rate at which some of their components can successfully adapt…. Already, accelerated rates of change in permafrost thaw, loss of coastal sea ice, sea level rise and increased weather intensity are forcing relocation of some indigenous communities in Alaska” (Larsen et al., 2014).

One of the strongest statements in the executive summary pertaining to Indigenous issues was that the “impacts on the health and well-being of Arctic residents from climate change are significant and projected to increase–especially for many indigenous people” (Larsen et al., 2014).

It also states that “these are expected to vary among the diverse settlements that range from small, remote, predominantly indigenous communities to large cities and industrial settlements, especially those located in highly vulnerable locations along ocean and river shorelines.”

These statements all directly support a number of the major concerns raised in the presentation by Watt-Cloutier.

IPCC SUPPORT: “POLAR REGIONS” CHAPTER AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES4

One of the key sections of the IPCC “Polar Regions” chapter, “Health and Well-being of Arctic Residents,” was written with a strong emphasis on Indigenous communities, and many of the issues discussed in that section correlate closely with the individual impacts summarized by Watt-Clothier.

The health and well-being section, (and the reason for the emphasis on the Indigenous communities), in the words of the authors, “…focuses more on health impacts of climate change on indigenous, isolated, and rural

populations because they are especially vulnerable to climate change due to a strong dependence on the environment for food, culture and way of life; their political and economic marginalization; existing social, health, poverty disparities; as well as their frequent close proximity to exposed locations along ocean, lake, or river shorelines” (Larsen et al., 2014).

Some examples of health issues that the “Polar Regions” chapter discusses in detail that parallel those addressed by Watt-Cloutier are as follows:

•Injuries and risks from extreme weather events and temperatures, rapid onset of storms, accidents, unsafe conditions for hunting, travel and subsistence gathering, and loss of services to isolated villages

•Changes in ice and snow state, with resulting changes in animal and plant populations, loss of forage, food, sites for habitats for subsistence species, migration routes, and grazing

•Damage to the built environment impacting already limited housing, breakage of sanitation infrastructure, water supply systems for clean water, sickness from contaminants (local and long-range), and infectious disease

•Food insecurity brought on by changes in climate and development in the region, decreased opportunities for successful hunting, fishing, some subsistence species displaced, and forced reliance on (less healthy) store-bought foods

•Impacts to cultures, families, and community residents due to necessity for relocation of villages damaged by permafrost thaw and erosion, which (along with other changes) are causing stress within Indigenous and isolated communities leading to increased numbers of suicides especially among young people.

U.S. NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT (NCA)5

Of particular interest for this commentary is one of the 12 key findings of the entire NCA: “Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life” (http://ncadac.globalchange. gov/). The evidence and literature supporting this statement are presented in one of the chapters in particular, “Indigenous Peoples, Lands and Resources” (see Bennett et al., 2014). This is the first time a chapter in a U.S.

NCA has been devoted specifically to indigenous peoples, and is a strong signal that this country is seriously addressing the issues related to climate and environmental change relative to Indigenous peoples.

As in the IPCC assessment, many of the points laid out by WattCloutier are similar in nature to those outlined in this Indigenous chapter, and the literature sources underpinning this assessment fully support her statements. Of course, this assessment addresses American Indian and Alaska Native concerns across the board, so not every part of this chapter is necessarily applicable to the Arctic. But three of the five key messages apply directly to the Alaskan Arctic, and many of the impacts within the other two messages also apply to Alaska.

The five key messages from the “Indigenous Peoples, Lands and Resources” chapter of the NCA are:

1.“Observed and future impacts from climate change threaten Native Peoples’ access to traditional foods such as fish, game, and wild and cultivated crops, which have provided sustenance as well as cultural, economic, medicinal, and community health for generations.”

2.“A significant decrease in water quality and quantity due to a variety of factors, including climate change, is affecting drinking water, food and cultures. Native communities’ vulnerabilities and limited capacity to adapt to water-related challenges are exacerbated by historical and contemporary government policies and poor socioeconomic conditions.”

3.“Declining sea ice in Alaska is causing significant impacts to Native communities, including increasingly risky travel and hunting conditions, damage and loss to settlements, food insecurity, and socioeconomic and health impacts from loss of cultures, traditional knowledge, and homelands.”

4.“Alaska Native communities are increasingly exposed to health and livelihood hazards from increasing temperatures and thawing permafrost, which are damaging critical infrastructure, adding to other stressors on traditional lifestyles.”

5.“Climate change-related impacts are forcing relocation of tribal and indigenous communities, especially in coastal locations. These relocations, and the lack of governance mechanisms or funding to support them, are causing loss of community and culture, health impacts, and economic decline, further exacerbating tribal

impoverishment” (from Bennett et al., 2014).

In summary, more than at any other time in history, the concerns of Indigenous peoples of the Arctic regarding climate, environment and development, as described by Watt-Cloutier in her keynote presentation are shown to be supported and validated by a significant amount of scientific evidence. In fact, the evidence was presented in the extensive literature evaluated in the two highly regarded national and international climate assessments published in 2014 (IPCC and the U.S. NCA), and underscores the importance of ensuring that Indigenous peoples must be a part of and have a strong voice in the future of the Arctic.

Notes

1.The sources of information in this section can be found at: www.ipcc-wg2.gov/ and www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/

2.Information in this section is based on Larsen et al. 2014.

3.Sources of information in this section are in Larsen et al. 2014.

4.Sources of information for this section are in Larsen et al. 2014.

5.Source for information in this section: http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/

References

Bennett, T. M., N. G. Maynard, P. Cochran, R. Gough, K. Lynn, J. Maldonado, G. Voggesser, S. Wotkyns. 2014. “Chapter 12. Indigenous Peoples, Lands, and Resources.” In: U.S. National Climate Assessment. pp. 441-468.

Conference Note, 2011. Conference on “The Arctic in World Affairs, a North Pacific Dialogue on Arctic Transformation.” August 2011. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Larsen, J. N., O. Anisimov, A. Constable, A. Hallowed, N. Maynard, P. Prestrud, T. Prowse, J. Stone. 2014. “Chapter 28. Polar Regions. In: Climate Change 2014.”

Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. p. 71.

Maynard, N. G. 2013. “Implications of Arctic Transformation for the North Pacific: Implications for the Indigenous Peoples of the Region.” In: 2011 North Pacific Arctic Proceedings. The Arctic in World Affairs – A North Pacific Dialogue on Arctic Transformation. (Corell, R., Kang, J. and Kim,Y. Eds.) The Korea Transport Institute. East-West Center. Honolulu, HI. pp. 70-82.

Watt-Cloutier, S. 2014. “A Rights-Based Approach to Arctic Development.” Keynote Presentation for Session V: Arctic Peoples: Indigenous Responses to Arctic Development. 2014 North Pacific Arctic Conference on International Cooperation in a Changing Arctic.

382 Opportunities for International Cooperation in a Changing Arctic

Perspective

Valeriy A. Kryukov

Mineral development in the Arctic has several distinctive features: increased costs, high technological and environmental risks, and a seasonal nature due to the fact that most production is carried out during short summers.

Implementation requires the use of modern technology and methods of project organization. Not all companies in the countries around the Arctic Basin have the requisite experience and technological capacity. Moreover, they do not always have adequate financial capacity to run complex and expensive projects. Equally important is the fact that mineral resources development projects are generally characterized by a “predisposition” to increase in cost from the very beginning of their implementation. Thus, in the course of two years, expenditures on LNG plant construction in the port of Sabetta on the Yamal Peninsula increased by almost 80% (from 18 to 27 billion USD). The same thing happened to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and the new LNG plant. Estimates of the project costs vary from 25 to 65 billion USD.

It is worth mentioning that projects in the Arctic, due to their high cost, are sensitive to market price fluctuations. This factor is relevant both to the Mackenzie Valley Gas Project and the Trans-Alaska Gas Pipeline construction project at a preliminary stage.

Taken together, these factors–geological, technical, environmental, and economic–are responsible for the substantial risks these projects carry. As a result, one of the most important tasks when implementing projects in the Arctic becomes risk management. In addition to specific forms of risk management (such as the development of special procedures for timely warning of emerging deviations in a particular geological, technological or environmental area), a critical challenge is the development of approaches to joint participation in implementing projects in order to distribute the risks among several participants.

The countries in the Arctic region and the companies involved in specific projects, tend to form inter-enterprise project teams or alliances. At the same time, the country that owns a field or a source of natural resources (at the intergovernmental level or at the level of individual national companies) is typically committed to the creation of such alliances,