governing environmental problems in the arctic
DESCRIPTION
Governing Environmental Problems in the Arctic. Learning Outcomes. Be exposed to a form of regional government. Recognize the role of First Nations as part of decision making. Appreciate the complexity of governing global environmental problems. Evaluate tradeoffs in environmental policies. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Governing Environmental Problems in the Arctic
Learning Outcomes
• Be exposed to a form of regional government.• Recognize the role of First Nations as part of
decision making. • Appreciate the complexity of governing global
environmental problems. • Evaluate tradeoffs in environmental policies.• Be familiar with the Persistent Organic Pollutants
Treaty (POPs).
From Last-Time: pathways
UNEP GRID-Arendal Author : Philippe Rekacewicz Organization : UNEP-GRID, Arendal, Norway. Sources : Macdonald and Bewers 1996, Sugden 1982. Date of creation : 1997
What are PCBs and DDT?
• PCBs: – Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) chemically
stable, fire resistant, insoluble in water, but are soluble in fatty substances.
– PCBs were used extensively as insulators in electrical equipment.
• DDT:– dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.– Cheap insecticide. – Used extensively after WWII until 1960s in agriculture,
forestry and combating mosquito born diseases.
Bio-Accumulation
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 106, Number 2, February 1998, on line edition. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/qa/106-2focus/focus.html [Accessed November 15th, 2003]
DDT and PCBs: the evidence
• Reproductive failure in birds of prey (thin egg shells).
• In some areas 40-65% of women have levels of PCBs in their blood that are up to 5 times higher than the guidelines.
• Some studies link these with attention span and memory problems in children.
TimePix. http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/nattrans/ntwilderness/essays/carsonb.htm.
The response
• International Treaty Banning use and manufacture of:– “dirty dozen” highly toxic chemicals, (DDT
and PCBs),
Canada’s Interest
• Lots of Arctic• Inuit Vulnerable• Domestic sources
of POPs already limited
The Process
• Science, science, science.– Physical evidence of problem (1980s).
• POPs on UN’s Regional European agenda.– Regional POPs protocol.
• POPs on UN Environment Programme’s Agenda.• Multi-lateral Negotiations (1998).• Final Treaty 2001 signed in Stockholm.• Needs 50 countries to ratify it.
Stakeholder Input
Before each of the five sets of negotiations Cdn government held stakeholder consultations.Inuit communities and NGOs played a crucial role.
International Opposition
Malaria versus DDT
“Malaria kills over one million people, mainly children, in the tropics each year, and DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit the disease. … the scientific literature on the need to withdraw DDT is unpersuasive, and the benefits of DDT in saving lives from malaria are well worth the risks.”
Commentary in Nature Medicine.
6(7) July 2000, pp. 729-732
Malaria: the evidence
• 250-400 million cases/a worldwide.
• 1 million deaths world wide.• Used to be wider spread but
has now been eradicated from the North (Italy WWII had Malaria, Ontario in 19thC had it too).
National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disordershttp://www.nidcd.nih.gov/news/releases/02/10_21_02.htm
2/5 of the world’s population is at risk.
Image courtesy of the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, PATH. See: http://www.malaria-vaccines.org.uk/1.shtml [November 20th, 2003]
Malaria and DDT: the evidence
• After spraying (early 1960s) Malaria had dropped from 2.8 million cases and 7300 deaths to 17 cases and no deaths.
• After banning DDT Sri Lanka had 500,000 cases of malaria (1969).
Sri Lanka
DDT use and Malaria
Attaran, et al. (2000). Balancing risks on the backs of the poor. Nature Medicine 6(7). 729-732. Online http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v6/n7/full/nm0700_729.html&filetype=PDF. [Accessed November 20th, 2003].
History of DDT Use
www.alternatives2toxics.org/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/902915.stm
How much DDT?
• Agricultural Use in the 1960s.– Dusting a single 100-hectare cotton field can require
more than 1,100 kg of DDT over 4 weeks.
• Malaria Control in the 2000s.– Spot spraying on interior surfaces.
– Half a kilogram /year can treat a large house.
• Guyana could be treated using the same amount of DDT as would be have been used on 0.4km2 of cotton.
Stakeholder Participation in POPs Treaty
“When measures to control the use of DDT became controversial and pitted North against South, we stated clearly that Inuit would refuse to be party to an agreement that threatened the health of others. Having been decimated by smallpox and other introduced diseases in the early years of the 20th century, we sympathized acutely with those in tropical lands losing thousands of people per year to malaria.”
Sheila Watt-CloutierPresident of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.
http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/124/watt.html [November 20th 2003].
Breaking the logjam
“The Inuit insisted on a convention that would address the public health concerns of mothers in all parts of the globe.”
Ken Mcartney.DFAIT, Canada.
http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/_conferences/110402env-sec/media/Conference%20Summary.pdf [November 20th, 2003].
Post-Soviet Era: new opportunities for cooperation
New opportunities for Arctic circumpolar cooperation emerged in the late 1980s… Environmental cooperation was identified as a first step in promoting comprehensive security in the region…in 1996, Foreign Ministers of the Arctic states agreed in the Ottawa Declaration, to form the Arctic Council with a mandate to undertake a broad programme to include all dimensions of sustainable development.
1996, the Arctic Council
• 1996 Circumpolar Nations met to address security.
• Eight Arctic States
• Indigenous northern peoples as Permanent Participants
Why the Arctic Council?
“Transboundary pollutants, loss of biodiversity and climate change are of deep concern in the Arctic and gaining acceptance as an indicator of the world’s environmental health.”
Mary Simon
Canada’s Ambassador for the Arctic
2001
This logic holds true for other regions
• New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).– Mandate to develop new socio-economic development
strategy for Africa www.nepad.org
• Nile Basin Initiative– Originally electric and water interests now broader
mandate: http://www.nilebasin.org/
• Mekong River Council– To promote co-management in Mekong river:
www.mekongriver.org
Why Regional Governance?• UN System
ineffective since it can’t/doesn’t impose sanctions for environmental problems
• Gorbichav proposed green helmets has gone nowhere.
• WEO discussion have gone nowhere
• UNEP has tiny funding base.
Why Regional Governance?
• Environmental problems fall outside of nation states
Why Regional Governance?
• Need to move beyond specific problems…natural pathways provide good jurisdictions for environmental governance.
http://www.dallas-swcd.org/watersheds.html
The POPs Today
• http://www.pops.int/documents/signature/world-signatories.pdf
• 40 countries have ratified it as of 2003•Still needs 10 more
Learning Outcomes
• Appreciate the complexity of governing global environmental problems.
• Evaluate tradeoffs in environmental policies.• Recognize the role of First Nations as part of
decision making. • Be familiar with the Persistent Organic Pollutants
Treaty (POPs). • Be exposed to forms of regional government.