Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North: Arctic Countries' Policies and the Role of China

Abstract

With the progressing exploration of the Arctic as a resource base and trade corridor between the continents, the region is experiencing changes that fundamentally affect the environment, biodiversity, and people. The once established patterns are transforming and bringing new potential risks to the sustainable development of the region. Due to the industrialization in many northern territories, air, water, and soil pollution have been emerging as threats to ecosystems and public health. For those countries that now launch industrial projects in the Arctic, there is a challenge of how to converge the economic benefits with the urgent need for environmental protection. In this chapter, the authors review current policies and potential responses to environmental challenges contained in the national development strategies of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the USA. Among non-Arctic countries, China has emerged as one of the prominent actors in the region, including in the spheres of industrial development and shipping. Other countries also show ever-deeper environmental concerns, but progressing climate change in the High North is not an issue to be solved by any country acting alone. It is of emerging global concern with the broader community of Arctic and non-Arctic countries having a mutual interest in cooperation to ensure the protection of fragile ecosystems and sustainable development of the region. Using China as an example, the authors discuss how non-Arctic states may contribute to the solution of environmental problems in the High North. The study analyses existing international and national approaches to environmental protection and climate change issues in the Arctic. It discusses how varying interests of Arctic states, from one side, and China, from the other, could be translated into effective international policies for the benefit of sustainable development of the region.

Full text

Gao Tianming is a Professor at the School of Economics and Management, and the Director and Chief
Expert at the Arctic Blue Economy Research Center, and Vasilii Erokhin is an Associate Professor, School
of Economics and Management, and a Researcher at the Arctic Blue Economy Research Center, both at
Harbin Engineering University, China.
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental
Concerns in the High North:
Arctic Countries’ Policies and the Role of China
Gao Tianming & Vasilii Erokhin
With the progressing exploration of the Arctic as a resource base and trade corridor between the continents, the region is
experiencing changes that fundamentally affect the environment, biodiversity, and people. The once established patterns are
transforming and bringing new potential risks to the sustainable development of the region. Due to the industrialization in
many northern territories, air, water, and soil pollution have been emerging as threats to ecosystems and public health. For
those countries that now launch industrial projects in the Arctic, there is a challenge of how to converge the economic benefits
with the urgent need for environmental protection. In this chapter, the authors review current policies and potential responses to
environmental challenges contained in the national development strategies of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway,
Russia, Sweden, and the USA. Among non-Arctic countries, China has emerged as one of the prominent actors in the region,
including in the spheres of industrial development and shipping. Other countries also show ever-deeper environmental concerns,
but progressing climate change in the High North is not an issue to be solved by any country acting alone. It is of emerging
global concern with the broader community of Arctic and non-Arctic countries having a mutual interest in cooperation to ensure
the protection of fragile ecosystems and sustainable development of the region. Using China as an example, the authors discuss
how non-Arctic states may contribute to the solution of environmental problems in the High North. The study analyses existing
international and national approaches to environmental protection and climate change issues in the Arctic. It discusses how
varying interests of Arctic states, from one side, and China, from the other, could be translated into effective international
policies for the benefit of sustainable development of the region.
Introduction
The Arctic is changing in many ways with the climate being one of the most dramatic
transformations in the past years. According to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
[AMAP] (2019), the annual average Arctic surface air temperature has increased by 2.7°C since
1971 (AMAP, 2019: 3), while the September average volume of sea ice has declined by 75% since

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
2
1979 (AMAP, 2019: 4). Climate change in the Arctic is largely related to global warming, the latter
being triggered by air pollution (Norkina & Van Canegem, 2020). In terms of various
anthropogenic emissions, the world’s biggest contributor to climate change is China with 27% of
global emissions of greenhouse gas (Olivier & Peters, 2018) and about 20-24% of global emissions
of black carbon (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2015).
Although it is difficult to assess the amount of pollution coming to the Arctic specifically from
China (Kopra et al., 2020), it is clear that progressing warming may result in a reduction in the area
and thickness of sea ice, melting of permafrost, shifting boundaries of the forest zone,
transformation of ecosystems, and degradation of landscapes. Due to excessive air pollution,
chemicals accumulate intensively in the trophic chains of terrestrial and aquatic Arctic ecosystems
and are concentrated in the bodies of long-lived carnivorous mammals, birds, and fish. This creates
prerequisites for the long-term effects of chemical pollution in Arctic ecosystems, including the
death of offspring, the reduction or extinction of populations, and the depletion of fauna.
Currently, the critical pollutants in the trophic chains of the Arctic ecosystems are organochlorine
hydrocarbons. They are herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and industrial chemicals (carbon,
chlorine, and other products of transformations occurring in technological processes and side
reactions in the environment) that disrupt the hormone balance of animals, birds, and aquatic
organisms (Rosińska, 2019; Macías-Zamora, 2011). Bioaccumulation of such contaminants is
associated with ocean pollution, long-range transboundary air pollution, aerosol deposition, as well
as bird migrations. Arctic ecosystems are highly susceptible to global and regional transport of
substances. Global pollution is primarily associated with the Gulf Stream, river flow, and
atmospheric transport. Regional ones have their specifics in each country, but in general, they are
the consequences of toxicant emissions by industrial enterprises, shipping, military and industrial
waste, oil and gas production in coastal areas, as well as the exploration and development of oil
and gas fields.
For over a decade by now, China has been actively implementing various domestic policies to
reduce the growth of emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction Plan (China Briefing, 2012) aimed to reduce the amount of carbon emitted
per unit of GDP by 17% by 2015 compared with 2010. China has taken part in a variety of
international negotiations and partnerships on climate change, including the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement
(Koivurova et al., 2019). In 2016, China ratified the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
aiming to reduce the climate impact of hydrofluorocarbon gases (Science Daily, 2020). In 2018,
China introduced an action plan to meet “ultra-low emission” standards in steel production (China
Power, 2020). The power grid system has been actively transitioning to the use of natural gas
instead of coal. Furthermore, China has made serious efforts to develop its renewable energy
sector. As a result of these actions, by 2018, China had managed to reduce carbon intensity by
45% and raise the share of non-fossil fuel energy sources to 15% compared to 2005 levels (China
Power, 2020).
Despite the efforts on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, persistent organic pollutants, and
other climate change forcers, Chinese companies have been blamed for negatively affecting Arctic
habitats, including in Greenland, Russia, northern Europe, and Canada (Sidorov, 2018; Lajeunesse,
2018; Erokhin et al., 2019; Kopra et al., 2020). The increasing shipping activities of Chinese

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
3
operators in the Arctic Ocean are also viewed as a threat to marine ecosystems and air quality in
the Arctic (Kopra et al., 2020). Among the risks are oil spills, emissions of pollutants into the air
and water, oil spills during loading, unloading, bunkering, or as a result of emergencies. In its Arctic
policy, China advocates stronger international cooperation in environmental protection, energy
conservation, emissions reduction, low-carbon development, and tackling climate change in the
Arctic (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: article IV.4). However, the
development and implementation of such cooperation should take into account both the global
challenges of controlling climate change in the Arctic and individual priorities of Arctic countries
(as well as China itself) in concentrating their efforts and resources in certain areas of the
environmental agenda. This chapter aims to address major environmental problems in the Arctic
across the spheres of climate change, industrial pollution, shipping, living resources, and habitats
and populations of various species of flora and fauna. The authors explore how the international
community in general and Arctic countries in particular approach to responding to the above-
mentioned environmental problems in their strategies, policies, and regulations. The article
concludes with an analysis of intersections between China’s and Arctic countries’ priorities in
environmental protection and climate change responses in the Arctic.
Major environmental challenges in the Arctic
According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (n.d.), the environmental
problems of the Arctic are grouped into several main areas: oil pollution of the Arctic seas; climate
change leading to ice melting; extensive fishing and seafood production; changes in the habitat of
flora and fauna and reduction of animals’ populations; and intensive shipping. These five points
are detailed in the following sections.
Oil spills and industrial pollution
Arctic territories and offshore waters of the Arctic Ocean seas are increasingly being developed by
oil-and-gas and other resource companies (Blaauw, 2013; Batin et al., 2015). In many regions,
especially in the Russian sector of the Arctic as the most developed in industrial terms, negative
environmental processes lead to the transformation of the natural geochemical background,
atmospheric pollution, degradation of vegetation, soil pollution, and introduction of harmful
substances in food chains. Industrial pollution in the Arctic affects the safety of the river and
marine ecosystems, as well as the health of Indigenous populations. Only with river runoff, several
hundred thousand tons of oil products are taken out to the Arctic Ocean annually. This problem
is particularly critical in Russia, where intensive resource development projects are being carried
out. Air masses from the continent are transported to the High North, bringing nitrogen and sulfur
oxides. Acid rains negatively affect the health of people and animals.
In a cold climate, the risk of accidents increases significantly whereas the possibilities for the
elimination of consequences decrease (Fadeev, 2012). On the Arctic Ocean shelf, even a small leak
of hydrocarbons into ice-covered water areas can lead to significant environmental damage. On
May 29, 2020, in Norilsk, Russia, there occurred a spill of over 20,000 tons of diesel fuel, with part
of it flowing into the Ambarnaya and Daldykan rivers. According to Greenpeace (2020), this is
one of the most massive environmental disasters in the Arctic in the past few decades. It is
comparable in scale and consequences with the accident that occurred in 1989 off the coast of
Alaska when the wreck of the Exxon Valdez tanker spilled 37,000 tons of fuel into the ocean. In

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
4
Norilsk, the pollution covered the total area of 180,000 square meters. The damage is estimated at
$86 million, while it is still difficult to assess the long-term impact caused to the soil and air. Diesel
fuel is more toxic than oil and contains chemical compounds that are not captured by treatment
facilities. According to Knizhnikov (RBC, 2020), Blokov (Greenpeace, 2020), and some Russian
environmental experts working at the site of the accident, the diesel will dissolve in the water,
remaining there for a long time. In a cold climate, where nature is slower to respond to oil spills,
the effects of the latter on the environment may be observed for years, causing permanent losses
of fish and other aquatic organisms and thus degrading traditional sources of the food supply in
Indigenous communities in the long run.
There is growing evidence of contamination from industrial pollution in the Arctic (Davis, 1996;
Macdonald et al., 2000; Kurgankina et al., 2020). The ecosystems are affected by the emissions and
effluents from industrial enterprises and public utilities (Arnold et al., 2016; Law et al., 2017; Recio-
Garrido et al., 2018), products of hydrocarbon processing (Fang et al., 2018), heavy metals and
other wastes from metallurgical production (Caputo et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2019), microplastics
and marine litter (Abate et al., 2020; Martinez et al., 2020), certain toxic substances (phenol,
ammonia, and others) (Lee et al., 2019; Skaar et al., 2019), numerous pollutants from military sites
(Koch et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2014; Hird, 2016), and waste from nuclear-powered vessels
(Sarkisov, 2019; Karcher et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2020). In conditions of ultra-low temperatures
and the shielding effect of permafrost, pollutants can have a long-term negative impact on peoples,
fauna, and flora.
Ice Melting
Climate changes observed in the Arctic in recent decades may lead to the reduction of the ice cover
and the expansion of the navigation window. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) (2013), the global average temperature increased by 0.85°C during 1880-
2012. In the polar regions, however, the increase has been much more noticeable, especially in
recent decades, reflecting new prospects for commercial cargo shipping and research due to
climate change (Cavalieri & Parkinson, 2012; Stroeve & Notz, 2015; Ng et al., 2018). Observations
show significant fluctuations in the ice cover across the Arctic Ocean (Landy et al., 2016; Tschudi
et al., 2016). In 1979-2019, the September minimum ice spread decreased significantly – by 87.2
km2 or 13.3% every decade (National Snow and Ice Data Center [NSIDC], 2016). The record low
in September 2012 was 3.41 million km2, or just 54% of the average low in 1981-2010 (Liu et al.,
2016). In addition to the reduction of the spread of ice, Lindsay and Schweiger (2015) report an
increase in the proportion of thinner and younger ice in the overall structure of the Arctic Ocean
ice cover (Figure 1).
The average annual temperature in the Arctic is increasing, which affects the processes of ice
formation, growth, constancy, and movement throughout the year. Side processes are also
triggered, which have an equally noticeable and non-linear growing influence on the ice cover. For
example, melting ice increases the area of open water, which has a lower coefficient of reflection
of sunlight compared to ice. As a result, the absorption of solar heat in open water zones increases,
the surface water temperature increases, which causes a cyclical process of ice melting (Parkinson,
2014). This effect of global warming works both in seasonal and long-term perspectives: warming
of surface water layers postpones autumn freezing, thereby reducing the period of ice growth. As
a result, the next year, the ice layer is thinner and more prone to early splitting (Serreze & Barry,

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
5
2011). However, despite the apparent relief of the ice situation occurring in the Arctic, it should
not be unambiguously identified with the improvement of conditions for shipping.
Figure 1. Ice distribution in the central part of the Arctic Ocean during peak periods (March) in 2009-2019
Note: light blue – open water, blue – nilas ice (0-10 cm), purple – newly-formed ice (10-30 cm), green – first-year ice
(30-200 cm), brown – multi-year ice, gray – fast ice.
Source: Authors’ development based on the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute [AARI] (n.d.)
Dynamic forces affecting the ice or icebergs breaking off from glaciers pose serious risks to the
establishment of stable and secure shipping routes. In some zones of the Arctic Ocean,
dynamically deformed annual ice can reach 5-7 meters in thickness (Landy et al., 2016). This

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
6
complicates or completely blocks the passage of vessels, especially in narrow straits. To the north
of Greenland and in the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, currents press ice, and the
thickness of the ice cover reaches the world’s maximums (Melling, 2002). Drifting ice is also a
danger. Due to the decrease in the thickness of the ice cover and its area, the ice becomes more
mobile, the speed of drift increases, and the behavior of the ice becomes more dynamic and less
predictable (Rampal et al., 2009).
Increase in marine fisheries
Ice melting frees up a significant part of the Arctic Ocean for fishing. During warmer seasons, fish
and other marine populations increase in the Barents, Norwegian, and Greenland seas. This applies
primarily to cod, haddock, perch, halibut, herring, whiting, and other species. At the same time,
their range is expanding in eastern and northern directions (Zilanov, 2015). Rayfuse (2019) warns
that an expansion of unregulated fishing may wipe out particular fish species or entire fish stock.
The extensive removal of fish from food chains may harm many species, including marine
mammals and birds. Improper monitoring and lack of international research may result in
overfishing of harvested species and may undermine the economic integrity of the ecosystem.
Diminishing fish stock in the Arctic seas may have a negative consequence for Indigenous peoples,
for whom fish and marine mammals are subjects of subsistence harvesting (Muir, 2010).
Regularly, fishing is carried out by Norway, Russia, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and
some of the EU countries. The central part of the Arctic Ocean is located outside the exclusive
economic zones of the five Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the USA) and is
thus considered as an open sea where any country can fish. In 2015, Canada, Denmark, Norway,
Russia, and the USA signed the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the
Central Arctic Ocean (CAOFA). In 2018, the agreement was extended to include China, Japan,
South Korea, Iceland, and EU countries (EUR-Lex, 2018). According to the CAOFA, each signing
party allows vessels under its flag to conduct commercial fishing in the Central Arctic only in
accordance with measures for sustainable management of fish stocks taken by regional or sub-
regional fisheries management organizations. Taking into account the current lack of commercial
fishing in the central part of the Arctic Ocean (Schatz et al., 2019), there is no clear indication yet
as to the immediate success of the agreement. Moreover, the likelihood of the rapid growth of
commercial fisheries in the Central Arctic is low even in 2034 until when the CAOFA is valid.
Vylegzhanin et al. (2020) underline the reliance of the CAOFA on a precautionary approach, while
Rayfuse (2019) considers the agreement as “an initial framework for environmentally sound
decision making regarding the potential for future fisheries”. In a few years, it remains to be seen
whether the CAOFA is applied correctly by all signing parties and allowed to ensure the
conservation and sustainable use of fish stocks.
Habitat change and population decline
Rising sea level as a result of climate warming and ice melting leads to the desalination of surface
water and an increase in primary productivity of the Arctic seas. Besides, global warming triggers
the invasion of alien species into the northern ecosystems. As a result, the characteristics of the
habitats of both marine and land animals change. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2016), there are seven critical environmental threats to
marine ecosystems in the Arctic (Table 1).

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
7
Table 1. Main environmental threats to Arctic marine ecosystems until 2050
Environmental threat
Impacts on ecosystems and potential economic losses
Sea level rise as a result of
climate change and ice
melting
Flooding of low-lying coastal areas and wetlands, erosion of coastal areas,
increased flooding in other areas, increased salinity of rivers, bays, and aquifers.
The threat of damage to harbors and ports due to rising sea levels. According to
the OECD (2016), total economic losses could reach $111.6 billion by 2050 and
$367.2 billion by 2100.
Increase in temperature and
freshening of surface waters
due to glaciers melting
Significant changes in the lower/middle trophic chains and fluctuations of the
quantity and quality of food resources at higher trophic levels.
Increase in primary
productivity of the Arctic
Ocean and the North Atlantic
seas
Reduced proportion of stocks of valuable commercial species in the structure of
biodiversity, significant modification of technologies for extraction of biological
resources.
Invasion of alien species
Loss of marine biodiversity
Currently, 550 species of fish are endangered. The rate of biodiversity loss will
continue to increase.
Marine pollution
Marine ecosystems are under pressure from more than 300 chemicals classified
as the most dangerous, as well as plastics and microplastics. They cause changes
in the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of marine and coastal
zones that affect the quality, productivity, and sustainability of marine
ecosystems. Pollutants can undermine the immune system and reproduction
capacity of marine species, their resistance to other anthropogenic stressors, and
contribute to the shifts in the ecosystems.
Acidification of the world’s
ocean waters
The increase in carbon dioxide emissions and climate warming causes an increase
in the acidity of ocean waters, a gradual increase in the concentration of
inorganic carbon, a decrease in the pH of waters, and their saturation with
calcium carbonate.
Source: Authors’ development based on OECD (2016)
With the current rates of pollution and climate change remaining constant, the OECD (2016)
predicts the increased pressure on Arctic ecosystems from chemical pollution, affecting their
health, productivity, and sustainability. Pollution undermines the immune system and reproduction
of all Arctic animal species. There are changes in the functioning of ecosystems, the consequences
of which are global and long-term (Titova, 2016). One of the major threats is the expected increase
in acidification of marine waters, a factor of physical and biological changes in ecosystems. The
extinction of entire populations of animals, birds, and fish is also a significant environmental
problem. To a certain extent, this is due to a sharp change in climate and habitat conditions.
According to the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) (n.d.), mammals, birds, and fish
living in the High Arctic experienced an average 26% drop in their populations between 1970 and
2004 due to the loss of sea ice. Arctic grazing species have declined by 20% between 1985 and
2004 (CAFF, n.d.). For many bird species, widespread and accelerating declines in population have
been observed by Smith et al. (2020), Fuglei et al. (2020), Goyert et al. (2018), and Amundson et
al. (2019). According to Taylor et al. (2020), 57% of bird species in the Arctic had at least one
population in decline, while for 21% of species, all populations were declining. In the case of
mammals, Cuyler et al. (2020) found that six muskoxen populations had been declining since the

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
8
2000s. The two of six with steepest declines used to be the largest endemic populations in the
world as recently as two decades ago (Taylor et al., 2020). Lemming populations declined in Russia
and outside Fennoscandia at the southern edge of their distribution (Loarie et al., 2009; Ehrich et
al., 2020) due to more frequent melt and freeze events in winter caused by climate change (Kausrud
et al., 2008; Berteaux et al., 2017). The occurrence of irregular winter conditions is recognized as
one of the major reasons for the Peary caribou population decline (Langlois et al., 2017; Kaluskar
et al., 2019), as well as habitat shifts in polar bears populations (Watson et al., 2019). Other
important factors of habitat change and biodiversity loss in the Arctic are poaching, industrial
development, urbanization, and increased shipping (Peck et al., 2018; Yurkowski et al., 2019).
Intensification of shipping
Currently, most ships operating in the Arctic use heavy fuel (up to 75% of all fuel), which is
dangerous for the environment (Cariou & Faury, 2015). As a result of its combustion, soot gets
into the air and then condensates on ice and snow thus contributing to greater absorption of solar
energy and ice melting. As the reflectivity of water and ice surfaces decreases, they absorb more
and more energy, which contributes to the strengthening of the greenhouse effect and progressing
warming. In the case of Norilsk and other catastrophes, we see that fuel spills cause serious damage
to the entire ecosystem, including people. Because of its viscous consistency, fuel oil is practically
insoluble in water and has a detrimental effect on birds and marine mammals.
Since the 2010s, there has been a search for ways to restrict and ban the use of heavy fuel in Arctic
shipping. The Arctic Council’s Working Group on the Protection of Arctic Marine Environment
(PAME) conducted a comprehensive assessment of the impact of shipping on Arctic ecosystems
and the threat of accidental oil spills in 2009 (Arctic Council, 2009). Further, the comprehensive
three-staged PAME study on the use and carriage of heavy fuel in Arctic shipping in 2011-2016
(PAME, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2016a, 2016b), has resulted in the IMO’s proposal to ban the use of
heavy fuel in the Arctic. According to the IMO’s Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and
Response, the ban is expected to be adopted in 2020 and will come into force on July 1, 2024.
However, some vessels, especially those with a double hull, will be able to continue using heavy
fuel until 2029. Also, for the Arctic littoral states, it will be possible to issue special permits for
individual vessels using heavy fuel also until 2029.
Responses to environmental problems in the Arctic
To unify approaches to solving the above-mentioned environmental problems, the issues of
conservation and protection of the Arctic ecosystems are addressed at the international, bilateral,
and national levels (Khludeneva, 2016).
International legislation in the sphere of environmental protection
At the international level, environmental challenges in the Arctic have been addressed since the
1960s. Since then, a comprehensive framework of multilateral agreements has been established,
including:
• International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969
(International Maritime Organization [IMO], 1969).

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
9
• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
1971 (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN], 1971).
• Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter 1972 (IMO, 1972).
• Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972
(United Nations [UN], 1972).
• Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 1979 (United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe, 1979).
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UN, 1982).
• Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (UN, 1992a).
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 (UN, 1992c).
• The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 (UN, 1992b).
• Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
1992 (UN, 1997).
• Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2001 (UN, 2001).
International conventions set out the general requirements applicable to the protection of Arctic
ecosystems. These are, in particular, the measures for the protection of wetlands established by
the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (IUCN,
1971), the measures to combat pollution of the marine environment from waste discharges, as set
out in the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (IMO, 1972), and the measures for the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity envisaged by the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN 1992a).
The international framework for the protection of the Arctic environment is supplemented by the
measures stipulated in legal acts and agreements concluded between the Arctic states, for example:
• The 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears between Canada, Denmark,
Norway, the USSR, and the USA (Polar Bear Range States, 1973).
• Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy 1991 (Arctic Council, 1991).
• Declaration on Environment and Development in the Arctic between Arctic Council
member countries (Arctic Portal, 1993).
• Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in
the Arctic between Arctic Council member countries (Government of Canada, 2013).
These agreements develop and specify the provisions of universal international treaties to ensure
that the natural and other features of the Arctic region are taken into account. As a rule, they are
concluded within the framework of the Arctic Council between all member countries, and then
implemented under the supervision of the relevant working groups. During its existence, working
groups of the Arctic Council have prepared many guidelines and reports on such areas as

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
10
biodiversity, development of offshore oil and gas fields, safe transportation of oil in Arctic waters,
and spills of oil and other dangerous and toxic substances.
Environment-related policies and strategies of Arctic states
The recommendations made by the Arctic Council are not binding. Therefore, the key role in
shaping responses to environmental concerns in the Arctic is played by national environmental
policies. They address various aspects of both international and country-specific activities,
including prevention of pollution of the Arctic marine environment from various sources, creation
of Arctic marine and coastal specially protected natural territories, prevention of negative impact
on Arctic natural resources, and promotion of effective participation of indigenous people in the
rational use and protection of the Arctic environment. Given the above outlined five major
environmental concerns, the following sections discuss policies and responses to current
environmental challenges contained in the Arctic-related development strategies and documents
of eight Arctic Council states.
Canada
Canada’s Arctic legislation has changed significantly over the past decades. In 1985, the approval
of the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act (Government of Canada, 1985) meant to create a
legal framework for regulating shipping, economic activities, and marine pollution and for
protecting the Arctic marine environment. The Act provides for administrative and civil liability,
and economic sanctions against entities that pollute the marine environment. The Act also contains
a clause that regulates and controls activities in all Arctic territories of the country. Canada’s Arctic
strategy has been updated since the early 2000s. In 2019, Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy
Framework (ANPF) (Government of Canada, 2019) was approved. Similar to previous Arctic-
related documents, it emphasizes the importance of climate change responses, environmental
protection, environmental management, and biodiversity conservation in the vast northern
territories of the country. In the Canadian Arctic, the annual temperature is rising 2-3 times faster
compared to the global average (Bush & Lemmen, 2019), which poses a significant threat to the
population, infrastructure, and ecosystems (Government of Canada, 2019). Najafi et al. (2015) and
Zhang et al. (2019b) attribute at least half of the observed warming to the anthropogenic activity,
particularly, to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change is projected to affect
northern parts of Canada more than southern ones, thus increasing the likelihood of extreme
events in the Canadian Arctic such as wildfires, droughts, and floods (Zhang et al., 2019b). Future
warming may have adverse effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as well as on the economy.
These include risks to freshwater supply (Sturm et al., 2017), unpredictable seasonal and spatial
variations in ice situation for marine shipping (Laliberté et al., 2016; Pizzolato et al., 2016),
interruption of overland transportation due to the unstable lake and river ice conditions (Furgal &
Prowse, 2008), and the impacts of thawing permafrost on greenhouse gases release (Olefeldt et al.,
2016) and degradation of northern infrastructure (Prowse et al., 2009).
Increasing the resilience and ensuring a healthy state of the northern ecosystems are among the
strategic goals of Canada. To achieve this goal, the following tasks are provided (Government of
Canada, 2019):
• “accelerate and intensify national and international reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions and short-lived climate pollutants;

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
11
• ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of ecosystems and species;
• support sustainable use of species by Indigenous peoples;
• approach the planning, management, and development of Arctic and northern
environments in a holistic and integrated manner;
• partner with territories, provinces, and Indigenous peoples to recognize, manage and
conserve culturally and environmentally significant areas;
• facilitate greater understanding of climate change impacts and adaptation options
through monitoring and research, including Indigenous-led and community-based
approaches;
• enhance support for climate adaptation and resilience efforts;
• enhance understanding of the vulnerabilities of ecosystems and biodiversity and the
effects of environmental change;
• ensure safe and environmentally-responsible shipping;
• decommission or remediate all contaminated sites;
• strengthen pollution prevention and mitigation regionally, nationally and
internationally”.
The ANPF specifies no tools adjusted individually to the achievement of the environmental tasks,
but it outlines government mechanisms that will be developed to accomplish Canada’s overall
goals in the Arctic. These include renewed federal-provincial-territorial-Indigenous relationships,
involvement of the Inuit Crown Partnership Committee, the Yukon Forum, and the
Intergovernmental Council of the Northwest Territories, investment plan to define and attract
new investments to the region, and economic and regulatory levers to align funding initiatives with
the objectives of the Framework (Government of Canada, 2019). The ANPF declares Canada’s
commitment to international efforts to reduce the negative impact of environmental issues on the
population and Arctic ecosystems. Again, no specific environment-related agreements are
mentioned, but among the institutions and international formats, the ANPF underscores the
Arctic Council, the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, the Arctic Economic Council, the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) (Government of Canada, 2019).
Denmark (Greenland and the Faroe Islands)
Denmark has a common strategy for the development of its circumpolar territories taking into
account the interests of Greenland and the Faroe Islands (Government of Denmark, Government
of the Faroes, & Government of Greenland [Kingdom of Denmark Strategy], 2011). The 2011
Arctic strategy is expected to be revised before it expires at the end of 2020 (McGwin, 2020). Since
the new text was unavailable at the time of writing, we analyze the 2011 version.
Both Greenland and the Faroe Islands are important migration routes for birds, whales, polar
bears, and other polar animals, as well as the conventional habitats of various species of flora and
fauna (Lyngs, 2003; Boertmann et al., 2006; Merkel et al., 2019). Over the past years, the evidence

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
12
that migratory species have declined in the North Atlantic has accumulated (Ganter & Gaston,
2013; CAFF, 2017). Adverse effects of climate change on the terrestrial and marine ecosystems
across Arctic territories of Denmark were found by many scholars, including Irons et al. (2008),
Canini et al. (2019), Fortune et al. (2020), and Burgos et al. (2020). The 2011 Strategy recognizes
that a negative impact on the environment is caused by economic activities in Denmark,
Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, including the extractive and energy industries (Kingdom of
Denmark Strategy, 2011: 26). Intensive shipping is attributed to becoming a threat to marine
ecosystems as a source of pollution and a potential transfer route for invasive alien species
(Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011: 45). In light of the increased maritime activities, oil
exploration, marine studies, fishing, and passenger transport, both Greenland and the Faroe
Islands “have entirely or in part been responsible for the monitoring of the marine environment
and pollution control in territorial waters” (Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011: 18). Denmark
supports the surveying of territorial waters and promotes maritime safety and marine protection.
The Strategy claims that although a certain amount of pollutants is generated domestically, the
majority of greenhouse gases, heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, petroleum products, and
mercury still comes from outside (Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011: 45). Such influx of
transboundary pollutants negatively affects the health of the population and food chains
(Snodgrass, 2020; Foguth et al., 2020), as well as triggers Greenland Ice Sheet melt (Lamarche-
Gagnon et al., 2018; Williamson et al., 2020).
Due to the impacts of rapid global warming and greater pressure of anthropogenic activities on
fragile biodiversity, Danish Arctic policy expresses particular concern for protecting the
environment through improved understanding of climate change in the Arctic (Kingdom of
Denmark Strategy, 2011: 43), monitoring of the Greenland ice sheet (Kingdom of Denmark
Strategy, 2011: 45), monitoring and study of migratory species and migration routes, and tracking
of transboundary pollutants and understanding of their effects on the health of the people and the
biodiversity loss (Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011: 46). The country plans to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 in accordance with the EU guideline, increase the share
of renewable energy sources to 30% by 2020, and achieve full independence from hydrocarbon
fuels by 2050 (Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011: 46).
Environmental protection efforts are focused on the national implementation of international
agreements (Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011: 46) and are made in accordance with
international obligations based on the best international experience and scientific knowledge to
ensure the health, productivity, and sustainability of northern communities (Kingdom of Denmark
Strategy, 2011: 10). The two treaties that Denmark focuses on in its environmental policy in the
Arctic are the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (IUCN, 1971) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992a). In the sphere of
pollutants control, Denmark calls for a proactive application of the UNEP’s global mercury
convention (today, it is the Minamata Convention on Mercury signed in 2013 (UNEP, 2013)) and
the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (UN, 2001) (Kingdom of Denmark
Strategy, 2011: 46). In the sphere of marine environment protection, Denmark participates in the
International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the
Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (IMO, 2010) and the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO, 2004)
(Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011: 46). Under a bilateral agreement with Canada, Denmark

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
13
and Greenland share information on oil spills and other marine pollution. Denmark also
collaborates with the IMO in the field of environmental regulation of shipping and oil spills.
Finland
Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region 2013 (Government of Finland, 2013) is largely focused on
environmental protection and climate issues. It states that the efforts are focused on the following
areas (Government of Finland, 2013: 38):
• developing an understanding of the impact of climate change and transboundary
transport of pollutants;
• sustainable use of natural resources in the Arctic;
• identification of environmental limitations of Arctic development;
• implementation of environmental protection measures in all spheres of activity in the
Arctic.
To some extent, this vision conflicts with the economic interests in the northern territories of the
country. Finnish legislation, particularly, the Environmental Protection Act (Ministry of the
Environment of Finland, 2014), the Waste Act (Finlex, 2011a), and the Water Act (Finlex, 2011b)
require the use of best available sustainable economic practices to reduce harmful impacts of
exploration of natural and mineral resources. The 2013 Strategy emphasizes that an
environmentally-oriented approach allows taking into account the impact of the use of natural
resources in a broad perspective. Environmental objectives are “the key considerations in the
efforts to promote economic activity and cooperation, while at the same time ensuring sustainable
use of natural resources” (Government of Finland, 2013: 7).
The fundamental parts of Finland’s environmental program in the Arctic are the creation of
conservation zones and the conservation of biodiversity (Heininen et al., 2020). One of the
Strategy’s objectives related to the Arctic environment is “the development of the network of
nature conservation areas … in order to improve the standard of environmental protection and
clarify the framework for economic activity” (Government of Finland, 2013: 57). The expansion
of a network of nature reserves and protected areas in the north of Finland is seen as a pragmatic
way to improve environmental protection and to facilitate economic activity. In terms of
biodiversity, the main focus is on the conservation of various species of flora and fauna, especially
migrating birds. Since the development of economic development can negatively affect the
conservation of biodiversity, there is a need for careful planning of those activities that involve the
use of resources or land.
Finland recognizes pollution from various types of domestic and outer sources as one of the main
environmental threats (Government of Finland, 2013: 39). The main pollutants are greenhouse
gases, black carbon, methane, carbon dioxide, oil, waste from military production and military
bases, radioactive waste, waste from the mining industry, household garbage from settlements, as
well as pollution from the shipbuilding industry and shipping. To address the existing pollution
problems, Finland relies on the Arctic Council countries' compliance with the regulations of the
Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic
(Government of Finland, 2013: 58). Finland also calls on all Arctic states to responsibly reduce

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
14
emissions of greenhouse gases and non-persistent pollutants (Government of Finland, 2013: 13,
39).
Iceland
Iceland has long been known to be one of the critical regions in the Arctic for preserving
biodiversity (primarily, in marine ecosystems) and global circulation of air and water masses
(Meissner et al., 2018). An increasing number of studies have been reporting a human-driven
climate change in Iceland in recent decades due to deep-sea resource extraction, mining operations,
fishing, shipping, and other anthropogenic activities (Halfar & Fujita 2007; Mengerink et al., 2014;
Van Jochumsen et al., 2016). Many of these concerns are addressed in the Parliamentary Resolution
on Iceland’s Arctic Policy (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, 2011), which, as noted by
Heininen et al. (2020), has the most pronounced focus on climate change and environment among
the policies of other Arctic countries. The Resolution states that “Iceland will concentrate its
efforts fully on ensuring that increased economic activity in the Arctic region will contribute to
sustainable utilisation of resources and observe responsible handling of the fragile ecosystem and
the conservation of biota” (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, 2011: 2).
An intensification of shipping activities in the waters around Iceland is considered to be one of
the major sources of increased greenhouse gases emission. Heininen et al. (2020) note that
although the Resolution hardly identifies other sources and types of pollution, it nevertheless
suggests measures to reduce the negative impact of pollutants on the environment. First, it calls
for the compliance with the provisions of such international agreements as the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN, 1982) and the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UN, 1992c), as well as with the regulations established by the IMO. Second,
environmental pollution is considered a national security issue in terms of the establishment of
adequate capacity for response to “environmental accidents, accidents at sea and maritime activity
in connection with oil extraction and other resource utilization” (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of
Iceland, 2011: 10).
Various approaches are being implemented concerning climate change adaptation, including
research activities. Many states and their associations, including China, Japan, and the EU, are
invited to participate in the activities related to inter-state aspects of climate change. Iceland also
proclaims its collaboration with the UN in implementing the provisions of the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UN, 1992c) and its commitment to the principles of sustainable
development, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing renewable energy
opportunities.
Norway
The updated version of Norway’s Arctic Strategy has been in effect since 2017 (Norwegian
Ministries, 2017). It names environmental protection and preparedness for natural and man-made
emergencies among priority areas of the country in the Arctic, along with international
cooperation, business development, knowledge, and infrastructure development (Norwegian
Ministries, 2017: 15). In the sphere of environmental protection, Norway aims to “safeguard
threatened and valuable species and habitats and achieve good ecological status in ecosystems;
ensure sustainable use and the conservation of a representative selection of Norwegian nature
covering the whole range of habitats and ecosystems; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
15
pollution in line with national targets and international commitments; and strengthen emergency
preparedness and response related to increased activity in the north” (Norwegian Ministries, 2017:
35).
As pointed by Heininen et al. (2020), the Norwegian Arctic Strategy is particularly focused on
establishing a balance between environmental and economic activities. The Strategy underscores
that “all business activity in the Arctic is to be economically, environmentally and socially
sustainable” (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 23), while main industries (fishing, mining, marine
biotechnology, energy, shipping, and tourism) have to be based on “even better utilisation of the
region’s natural and human resources” (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 23-24).
Among the main pollutants in the Norwegian Arctic, the Strategy recognizes greenhouse gases
emissions, primarily, from the transport sector (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 10, 32) and articulates
a goal to reduce the emissions by at least 40% by 2030 and to becoming a low-carbon society by
2050 (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 12). Apart from road transport, other sources of pollution
include shipping and infrastructure development. The Government aims “to reduce the
environmental and climate impacts of ferry traffic and domestic shipping”, as well as “to ensure
that adequate attention continues to be given to climate change and environmental considerations
in connection with land-use decisions concerning infrastructure development” (Norwegian
Ministries, 2017: 33).
In the sphere of environmental protection, Norway announced several ambitious projects. The
Strategy mentions the creation of a center for oil spill preparedness and response, as well as the
collection of plastic debris (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 37). Norway has high hopes for the
contribution of the Arctic Council states to the development of the seed storage facility in Svalbard
to preserve genetic diversity and promote global food security. The Agreement on Cooperation
on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic is seen as one of the principal
tools for combating pollution (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 36).
Climate change impacts on the environment are one of the greatest challenges for the Norwegian
Arctic recognized by the 2017 Strategy (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 3), ministerial reports
(Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2015; The Research Council of Norway, 2012),
and individual scholars (Benestad & Haugen, 2007; Pall et al., 2019; Poschlod et al., 2020; Ward,
2020). The climate in Norway has become warmer and precipitation has increased by about 20%
since 1900. The Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment (2015) forecasts the annual
mean temperature in Norway to rise by between 2.3°C and 4.6°C by 2100. According to Heininen
et al. (2020), the Norwegian Arctic Strategy views global warming from two sides. Norway expects
that ice melting may soon have a positive impact on the development of economic activity in the
Arctic in terms of the emergence of new opportunities for shipping and resource extraction
(Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 3). On the other side, climate change is considered as a threat to
Arctic species and ecosystems (Norwegian Ministries, 2017: 35). For instance, rising temperatures
can lead to a northward shift in the distribution of habitats of terrestrial animals and plants, while
changing ocean currents along with the retreat of the sea ice can allow more southerly fish species
to move into Arctic sea areas. When such shifts happen, purely Arctic species of flora and fauna
will meet growing competition, greater predation pressure, and a higher risk of an influx of diseases
and parasites into the region (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2015).
Establishing a balance between economic opportunities and environmental considerations could

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
16
be a challenging task for the Norwegian Government. Among the prospective tools to achieve a
balance, the Strategy outlines integrated management that pulls local, regional, and international
policies in the same direction.
Russia
In Russian legislation, the issues of environmental protection and rational use of natural resources
are covered at various levels. In the Foundations of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in
the Arctic till 2035 (President of the Russian Federation, 2020), environmental protection and
environmental security are mentioned among the main directions of the national policy in the
region. The lack of preparedness of the environmental monitoring system to contemporary
ecological challenges is recognized among the threats to national security in the Arctic. Following
this vision, the 2020 Policy identifies the tasks in the field of environmental protection and
environmental safety (President of the Russian Federation, 2020: article 15):
• development of a network of specially protected natural territories and water areas to
preserve ecosystems and to adapt them to climate change;
• ensurance of conservation of Arctic fauna and flora, protection of rare and
endangered plants, animals, and other organisms;
• permanent work on the elimination of accumulated environmental damage;
• improvement of the environmental monitoring system, usage of modern information
and communication technologies and communication systems for satellite
monitoring, development of sea and ice platforms, research vessels, and observatories;
• introduction of the best available technologies, ensuring minimization of air
emissions, discharges of pollutants into water bodies, and reduction of other types of
negative impact on the environment in the course of economic and other activities;
• ensurance of the rational use of natural resources, including in locations of traditional
residence and economic activities of indigenous peoples;
• development of a comprehensive waste management system of all hazard classes,
construction of modern environmentally friendly waste processing complexes;
• implementation of a set of measures to prevent toxic substances, infectious agents,
and radioactive substances from entering Russia’s Arctic zone.
The 2020 Policy’s vision of environmental protection tasks in the Russian Arctic is detailed in the
Strategy of Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and Ensurance of National
Security till 2020 (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013). The update of the 2013 Strategy
is expected by the end of 2020 until when it is currently valid. The 2013 Strategy points out the
increase of technological and man-made burdens on the environment in some of Russia’s northern
coastal territories (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013: 3). It also emphasizes risks of
radioactive contamination along with a high level of accumulated environmental damage in many
inland areas of the Arctic zone (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013: 3). Therefore, the
2013 Strategy prioritizes the improvement of environmental security as a means of development
of the Arctic and the ensurance of national security (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013:

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
17
3). Rational use of natural resources is recognized as a key to improving the quality of life of the
population in the Arctic, as well as ensuring positive demographic processes and socioeconomic
conditions in the region (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013: 7, 11, 13, 19).
To protect the environment and ensure environmental safety in the Arctic zone of Russia, the
2013 Strategy provides for (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013: 12-13).
• ensuring the conservation of the biological diversity of Arctic flora and fauna in the
context of expanding economic activity and global climate change;
• development and expansion of the network of specially protected natural territories
and water areas at both federal and regional levels;
• elimination of environmental damage caused as a result of past economic, military,
and other activities, including assessment of the environmental damage and
implementation of measures to clean up land and water areas from pollution;
• development, justification, and implementation of measures to reduce environmental
threats caused by the expansion of economic activity in the Arctic, including on the
continental shelf;
• increasing the responsibility of enterprises for environmental pollution, encouraging
the development and implementation of new technologies that reduce a negative
impact on the environment, reduce the risks of occurrence and minimize the
consequences of man-made emergencies;
• improving the system of state environmental monitoring to assess environmental
parameters, the establishment of a system to monitor environmental pollution, air,
and space-based observations of ecosystems and climate;
• development and implementation of economic mechanisms that stimulate the
reproduction and rational use of mineral and biological resources, energy and resource
conservation, and utilization of fossil gas in oil production areas.
Along with the fundamental principles set out in the strategic documents, environmental
protection activities are regulated by industry-specific legislation. Within the Arctic zone of Russia,
continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone, it covers environmental requirements for any
activity that has or may harm the environment. The 2013 Strategy also defines the tools of
environmental regulation, environmental expertise, environmental impact assessment, payment
for negative impact on the environment, environmental insurance, state environmental
monitoring, state environmental supervision, industrial and public control in the field of
environmental protection (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013: 12-13).
Sweden
Among Arctic Council countries, Sweden was the first to elaborate comprehensive environmental
legislation by adopting the Environmental Protection Act in 1969 (Lidskog & Elander, 2000). Since
that time, environmental issues have always stood high in the national political agenda (Granberg
& Elander, 2007). Sweden’s Strategy for the Arctic Region addresses climate change and the
environment among major concerns of the country in the Arctic (Government Offices of Sweden,
2011: 23). There is also the Environmental Policy for the Arctic (Government Offices of Sweden,

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
18
2016) which particularly emphasizes the focus on environmental and ecological activities in the
High North. As the 2016 Policy directly addresses Sweden’s priorities in the sphere of the Arctic
environment, we consider this document in our study.
The 2016 Policy declares three priorities for protecting the environment in its northern territories:
strengthening measures to prevent the negative effects of climate change, improving the protection
of biodiversity and ecosystems, and sustainable use of resources (Government Offices of Sweden,
2016: 2).
According to the first priority, international cooperation to prevent global warming above 2°C is
considered a fundamental element of curbing climate change in the Arctic (Government Offices
of Sweden, 2016: 2). Sweden's approach to this task is expressed in the climate strategy developed
in the run-up to the Paris agreement in 2015. Sweden aims “to strengthen the Arctic Council’s
climate and renewable energy measures” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 2). One of the
main goals is to reduce “emissions of emissions of short-lived climate forcers such as soot and
methane” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 2). In this area, Sweden operates within the
framework of the agreement on reducing harmful emissions concluded in 2015 between Arctic
countries, which involves improving national measures and joint actions to reduce soot and
methane emissions (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 2).
The second priority also highlights the need for international efforts to protect valuable natural
habitats of animals and plants. In its 2016 Policy, Sweden “supports the process under way in the
Arctic Council to implement the recommendations of the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment,
including efforts to establish networks of protected areas” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016:
3). Protection of habitats in the Arctic meets the guidelines of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (UN, 1992a) on the conservation of at least 10% of inland territories and water areas and
up to 17% of inland water reservoirs by 2020 (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 3). The
UNCLOS (UN, 1982) is considered as an instrument for the protection and conservation of
marine biodiversity in the areas beyond national jurisdiction (Government Offices of Sweden,
2016: 3). However, Sweden recognizes that it takes “many years before such an implementing
agreement can enter into force” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 3). In the meantime,
operational environmental measures can be implemented based on the Convention for the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Commission, 1992).
Concerning the sustainable use of resources, the 2016 Policy recognizes the role of the UNCLOS
(United Nations, 1982) as the main international instrument for regulating the rights of littoral
states to explore mineral and other resources on the continental shelf (Government Offices of
Sweden, 2016: 4). At the same time, the extraction of oil and gas from the subsurface for
combustion and energy production must be limited to achieve the internationally approved target
of containing global warming within 2°C (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 4). Sweden is
committed to strict regulatory measures, particularly, in the areas with permanent or seasonal ice
cover, where the risks of oil spills and other pollutions to fragile Arctic ecosystems are higher
(Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 4). Among the major sources of environmental risk, the
2016 Policy recognizes increased shipping activities (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 4). To
mitigate potential risks, Sweden follows the provisions of the Polar Code, which includes both
environmental regulations and technical requirements for marine and river vessels used in the
Arctic (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016: 4).

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
19
USA
Similar to those in other Arctic territories, adverse impacts of climate change and environmental
disruptions on terrestrial and marine ecosystems in Alaska have been increasing in the previous
decades. The average temperature in Alaska has risen at twice the rate of the global average (Allen,
2020), while the Gulf of Alaska experienced extreme temperatures during 2014-2019, including
the four warmest years ever observed (Litzow et al., 2020). In response to warming and sea ice
reduction, Alaskan ecosystems are reacting by a decline and lower productivity in fish populations
(Jones et al., 2020), change of habitats of Arctic animals and birds (CAFF, 2017; Larson et al.,
2020), and decomposition of previously frozen carbon from tundra soils (Tao et al., 2020).
Many studies suggest that increasing and more fluctuant variabilities in the Alaskan climate, as well
as environmental pollution in the region, could be associated with more intensive anthropogenic
activities, including exploration of natural resources and development of industrial infrastructure
(Skjærseth & Skodvin, 2003; Jezierski et al., 2010a, 2010b; Litzow et al., 2020). An emerging
environmental problem in Alaska is the metal contamination of food and water resources due to
the emergence of mining and drilling activities (Perryman et al., 2020). The United States has
significantly developed its legislation related to the exploration of the continental shelf and
territorial waters. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (Cornell Law School, n.d.) is one of the
principal documents to regulate the activities of oil and gas companies on the Alaska shelf. The
Act states that the operations on the outer continental shelf should be concluded in a safe manner
to prevent or minimize the occurrence of damage to the environment (Cornell Law School, n.d.:
§1332). It also establishes liability for all types of environmental and economic damage is
established. There is a multi-stage system for planning of subsurface use, issuing licenses for
exploration, development of deposits, and production of minerals (Gladun, 2015).
The National Strategy for the Arctic Region states that the USA “will continue to protect the Arctic
environment and conserve its resources” (President of the United States, 2013: 2). Specific
objectives of the U.S. environmental efforts in the Arctic include conservation of natural resources,
assessment and monitoring of ecosystems and the risks of climate change, implementation of
integrated management practices to balance economic development and environmental
protection, studies on environment changes, and charting and mapping the ocean and waterways
(President of the United States, 2013: 9-10). Among critical concerns, the 2013 Strategy
underscores “land ice and its role in changing sea level; sea-ice and its role in global climate,
fostering biodiversity, and supporting Arctic peoples; and, the warming permafrost and its effects
on infrastructure and climate” (President of the United States, 2013: 9-10).
While the 2013 Strategy calls for a strengthening of international cooperation for “collaborative
efforts by nations seeking to explore emerging opportunities while emphasizing ecological
awareness and preservation” (President of the United States, 2013: 8), in recent years, the Arctic
has been turning into “an arena of global power and competition” (Pompeo, 2019). Two
documents released in 2019 articulate this new vision of the Arctic by the U.S. Coast Guard and
the U.S. Department of Defence. While the latter one, the DoD’s Arctic Strategy views
environmental changes in the High North as “specific operational challenges that limit
communications, including the harsh climate, vast distances, and atmospheric phenomena”
(United States Department of Defence, 2019: 10), the Coast Guard Arctic Strategic Outlook calls
for a deeper understanding of environmental processes through the development of pollution

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
20
detection and tracking capabilities, weather and environmental observations, and assessment of
living marine resources activity (United States Coast Guard, 2019: 27).
Environmental focus of China’s Arctic policy
Since the contemporary environmental challenges faced by the Arctic countries are rapidly
becoming global, a broader international community has been attempting to contribute to their
solution. Among the non-Arctic states, China has become one of the most prominent and
important actors in the Arctic in recent years.
China’s active involvement in environmental studies in the Arctic dates back to 1996 when the
country entered the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). In 1999, China organized its
first scientific expedition to the Arctic to study climate change and its impact on the country. Since
then, Chinese researchers have carried out eleven expeditions to various parts of the Arctic Ocean
to study the biological diversity of Arctic ecosystems and atmospheric, marine, and oceanic
processes associated with ice melt (Chistyakova, 2018; Filippova, 2019; Staalesen, 2020). Having
analyzed the results of China’s expeditions to the Arctic, Wang (2015) and Wei et al. (2020)
identified priority spheres in Arctic studies for China, i.e. environment, climate change, water and
ice, maritime routes, and sustainable development. Pan and Zhou (2010), Wu et al. (2013), and
Zhang et al. (2019a) emphasized environmental security and the need for scientific knowledge on
climate change as the premier interests explaining China’s research activities in the High North.
In 2017, China’s President Xi Jinping underscored the commitment of the country to “the
principles of prioritizing resource conservation and environmental protection” (Xi, 2017: 45) by
promoting low-carbon development, preventing and controlling pollution of air, water, and soils,
restoring ecosystems, and developing biodiversity protection networks (Xi, 2017: 45-46). Such a
vision of China’s role in building an “ecological civilization” (Xi, 2017: 47) is very much enshrined
in China’s Arctic Policy 2018 which states that “the Arctic situation now goes beyond its …
regional nature, having a vital bearing on … the survival, the development, and the shared future
for mankind” (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: Foreword).
The 2018 Policy emphasizes that ice melting is associated with significant climate changes
throughout the planet and alerts the fact that progressing climate change in the Arctic can cause a
rise in the level of the Arctic Ocean and trigger natural disasters (State Council of the People’s
Republic of China, 2018: article I). Despite such threats to polar ecosystems, China acknowledges
the opportunities climate change could bring for the research and development of the Arctic, for
commercial use of maritime routes, and the exploration of natural and other resources in the region
(State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: article I). A balance between economic
opportunities and environmental concerns may be established by integrating environmental
protection efforts and rational utilization of all kinds of natural resources – the key areas of China’s
activities in the Arctic both prioritized in the 2018 Policy (State Council of the People’s Republic
of China, 2018: article IV). China recognizes the direct impact of the natural conditions of the
Arctic on China’s climate system (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: article
II) and calls for the enhancement of the environmental background investigation of Arctic
activities, evaluation of the interaction between the Arctic and global climate change, and
forecasting of potential risks posed by future climate change to the Arctic’s natural resources and
ecological environment (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: article IV.2). The

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
21
2018 Policy states that “to protect the Arctic, China will actively respond to climate change in the
Arctic, protect its unique natural environment and ecological system, promote its own climatic,
environmental and ecological resilience” (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018:
article III).
China’s role in shaping the common response to future environmental
challenges in the Arctic
Being a non-regional actor, China is particularly concerned with global implications and
international impacts of environmental management in the Arctic. To contribute to the protection
of the natural environment and Arctic ecosystems, China follows international law (the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, the
Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, and
the IMO’s regulations) and participates in Arctic governance and international cooperation in the
sphere of environmental protection (Arctic Council, Arctic Science Ministerial Meeting, China-US
and China-Russia dialogues on polar issues, China-Iceland Framework Agreement on Arctic
Cooperation) (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: article IV.4). The country
takes an active part in addressing the challenges of environmental and climate change in several
ways, including environment protection, sustainable development and biodiversity protection,
emission reduction, utilization of Arctic resources in a rational manner, conservation and
utilization of living resources (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: article IV.3).
Such involvement of China in the Arctic environmental agenda provides a number of
opportunities for reshaping the existing approaches to addressing climate change and other global
ecological challenges in the region. To find potential areas for China and Arctic countries to
collaborate in the sphere of environmental protection in the High North, we viewed previously
discussed five environmental challenges through the lens of China’s priorities outlined in the 2018
Policy (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: articles IV.2, IV.3). These priorities
(namely, more efficient environmental protection, more resilient ecosystems, addressing climate
change, and conservation and utilization of fisheries and other living resources) were detailed in
24 activities derived from the text of articles IV.2 and IV.3 of the 2018 Policy. The activities were
then attributed to specific environmental challenges thus establishing five groups. For each activity,
we scanned the Arctic-related documents previously discussed in the Environment-Related
Policies section of the paper to identify intersections between China’s priorities and those of Arctic
countries.
As regards industrial pollution, oil spills, and intensification of shipping in the Arctic, China’s
interests correspond with those of Arctic countries in many areas, particularly, an assessment of
the environmental impact of Arctic activities, reduction of pollutants in the Arctic waters from
land-based sources, and control of the sources of marine pollution, including ship discharge,
offshore dumping, and air pollution (Table 2). China requires its enterprises to conduct
comprehensive risk assessments for resource exploration and encourages them to participate in
the exploitation of resources in the Arctic on the condition of properly protecting the environment
(State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018). To establish the foundations of stronger
cooperation, Chinese research institutions could also be engaged in enhancing the environmental
background investigation of economic, transport, resource extraction, and other activities.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
22
Table 2. Intersections between China’s and Arctic countries’ priorities in environmental protection and
climate change responses in the Arctic (challenges 1-3)
Activity
CAN
DEN
FIN
ICE
NOR
RUS1
RUS2
SWE1
SWE2
US1
US2
Challenge 1: Industrial pollution and oil spills
Environmental
background
investigation of Arctic
activities
–
+
–
–
–
+
–
–
–
–
+
Assessment of the
environmental impact
of Arctic activities
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Reduction of
pollutants in the
Arctic waters from
land-based sources
–
+
+
–
+
+
+
+
–
–
–
Environmental
responsibility
awareness of citizens
and enterprises
+
–
+
+
+
–
–
–
–
+
+
Challenge 2: Intensification of shipping
Control of ship
discharge, offshore
dumping, air pollution
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Challenge 3: Ice melting
Energy exchange
processes in the Arctic
–
+
+
–
–
+
–
+
+
+
–
Evaluation of the
impact on ecosystems
caused by climate and
human activities
+
+
+
+
+
+
–
+
–
+
–
Interaction between
the Arctic and global
climate change
+
+
+
–
+
+
–
+
+
+
–
Risks posed by climate
change to natural
resources and
ecosystems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Arctic cryospheric
sciences
–
+
+
–
–
–
–
+
–
+
–
Public awareness of
climate change
+
+
+
+
–
–
–
+
–
–
–
International projects
to address climate
change
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Note: CAN = Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework (Government of Canada, 2019); DEN = Denmark,
Greenland, and the Faroe Islands: Kingdom of Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011-2020 (Kingdom of Denmark
Strategy, 2011); FIN = Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region 2013 (Government of Finland, 2013); ICE = A
Parliamentary Resolution on Iceland’s Arctic Policy (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, 2011); NOR = Norway’s
Arctic Strategy – between Geopolitics and Social Development (Norwegian Ministries, 2017); RUS1 = Strategy of
Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and Ensurance of National Security till 2020 (Government
of the Russian Federation, 2013); RUS2 = Foundations of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic till
2035 (President of the Russian Federation, 2020); SWE1 = Sweden’s Strategy for the Arctic Region (Government
Offices of Sweden, 2011); SWE2 = New Swedish Environmental Policy for the Arctic (Government Offices of
Sweden, 2016); US1 = National Strategy for the Arctic Region (President of the United States, 2013); US2 = Arctic
Strategic Outlook (United States Coast Guard, 2019); “+” = intersection with China’s Arctic Policy; “-” = no
intersection with China’s Arctic Policy.
Source: Authors’ development

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
23
Water areas out of the national jurisdiction, where Chinese expeditions may carry out their research
activities without permission of the Arctic states, are considered as key areas for Arctic
environmental protection (Pilyasov, 2018). China proclaims the principle of unrestricted
navigation in the Arctic Ocean for all countries and recognizes the Polar Code to a greater extent
than national regulations of the Arctic countries (Erokhin et al., 2018). Nevertheless, China is
committed to collaborating with other countries in the Arctic to enhance control of the sources
of marine pollution such as ship discharge. Many Arctic states recognize shipping as one of the
sources of pollution. Because of the increasing activity of Chinese research and cargo vessels in
the Arctic Ocean, the reduction of ship discharge is one of the critical areas to collaborate. Due to
the ban on the use of heavy fuel in the Arctic, it will be necessary to ensure the transition to the
use of other types of fuel for cargo ships and tankers after 2024 and in some cases after 2029 (due
to the IMO’s ban of heavy fuel which will come into force in 2024 with specific extensions until
2029). It may have a major impact not only on Chinese vessels but also on resource-extraction
projects. China is one of the major consumers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Yamal LNG
and other facilities located in Russia’s Arctic sector. Knizhnikov and Klimentyev (2019) expect
that the use of LNG as an alternative to heavy fuel could become a solution for Chinese and other
vessels used in the Arctic. For Finnish and Norwegian companies, there is an opportunity to work
with China on the development of LNG technologies (Gao & Erokhin, 2019). In cooperation
with Russian oil-and-gas companies, Chinese research institutes and enterprises could be engaged
in the hydrographic surveys in the Northern Sea Route to improve the security of navigation and
reduce ship accidents (Erokhin & Gao, 2018; Gao & Erokhin, 2020b). The transition to the use
of LNG instead of heavy fuel can reduce air pollution, including carbon dioxide emissions.
The 2018 Policy underscores China’s commitment to “studying the substance and energy exchange
process and mechanisms of the Arctic” in relation to climate change (State Council of the People’s
Republic of China, 2018: article IV.2). Although none of the eleven documents contains this exact
term “energy exchange”, a need to study the impacts of melting ice sheet mass and permafrost on
elevated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is prioritized by Denmark, Finland, Russia,
Sweden, and the USA. Denmark calls for the development of a model system “to study the inland
ice and its interaction with the surrounding seas, … the knowledge of permafrost conditions, and
the interplay between weather, sea and ice more generally” (Kingdom of Denmark Strategy, 2011:
45). Finland stands for deeper cooperation between countries which “must shoulder their
responsibility for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants”
(Government of Finland, 2013: 41) in view that “the melting of the polar ice cover and permafrost
will further accelerate global warming” (Government of Finland, 2013: 15). Russia directly links
energy and climate and advocates the development of an international dialogue “for the exchange
of experience in the development of climate and energy policies” (Government of the Russian
Federation, 2013: article 15).
There are several areas for collaboration in the sphere of protection of Arctic ecosystems, including
habitat changes, declines of populations of mammals, fish, and birds, and rational use of fishery
resources (challenges 4 and 5). Such activities as biodiversity protection, ensurance of adaptability
and resilience of ecosystems, international cooperation in the sphere of protection of Arctic flora
and fauna, and environmental and ecosystem-based management are prioritized by most Arctic
countries (Table 3).

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
24
Table 3. Intersections between China’s and Arctic countries’ priorities in environmental protection and
climate change responses in the Arctic (challenges 4 and 5)
Activity
CAN
DEN
FIN
ICE
NOR
RUS1
RUS2
SWE1
SWE2
US1
US2
Challenge 4: Increase in fisheries
Conservation and
rational use of fishery
resources
–
+
+
+
+
+
–
+
+
–
–
Survey on the fishery
resources and
exploratory fishing
+
+
–
–
+
–
–
–
+
–
+
International
management of
fisheries
–
+
–
+
+
–
–
+
+
–
+
Cooperation on
conservation and
utilization of fishery
resources
–
+
–
+
+
–
–
+
+
–
–
Challenge 5: Habitat change and population decline
Biodiversity
protection
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
–
Protection of
migratory birds and
their habitats
–
–
+
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
+
Study of migration
patterns of Arctic
migratory birds
–
+
+
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Adaptability and
resilience of
ecosystems
+
+
+
–
–
+
–
+
+
+
–
International projects
to protect flora and
fauna
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
–
Transparent
exploration and
utilization of Arctic
genetic resources
–
+
–
–
+
–
–
–
–
–
–
Equitable sharing and
use of the benefits
generated by the
exploitation of living
resources
–
+
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Environmental and
ecosystem-based
management
+
+
+
–
+
–
–
+
+
+
–
Note: CAN = Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework (Government of Canada, 2019); DEN = Denmark,
Greenland, and the Faroe Islands: Kingdom of Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011-2020 (Kingdom of Denmark
Strategy, 2011); FIN = Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region 2013 (Government of Finland, 2013); ICE = A
Parliamentary Resolution on Iceland’s Arctic Policy (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, 2011); NOR =
Norway’s Arctic Strategy – between Geopolitics and Social Development (Norwegian Ministries, 2017); RUS1 =
Strategy of Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and Ensurance of National Security till 2020
(Government of the Russian Federation, 2013); RUS2 = Foundations of the State Policy of the Russian Federation
in the Arctic till 2035 (President of the Russian Federation, 2020); SWE1 = Sweden’s Strategy for the Arctic Region
(Government Offices of Sweden, 2011); SWE2 = New Swedish Environmental Policy for the Arctic (Government
Offices of Sweden, 2016); US1 = National Strategy for the Arctic Region (President of the United States, 2013);
US2 = Arctic Strategic Outlook (United States Coast Guard, 2019); “+” = intersection with China’s Arctic Policy; “-
” = no intersection with China’s Arctic Policy.
Source: Authors’ development

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
25
In its Arctic Policy, China underlines the importance of sustainable development and protection
of biodiversity in the Arctic (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2018: article IV.2).
In the coming years, the international collaboration agenda in the Arctic will be dominated by the
establishment of a special regime for the use of natural resources, monitoring the state of
ecosystem pollution, landscape restoration, creation of natural reserves, waste management,
conservation measures, increasing animal and bird populations, control of industrial fishing, and
fighting against poaching (Pilyasov, 2018; Heininen et al., 2020; Gao & Erokhin, 2020a; Titova,
2016). In contrast to China, few Arctic countries specify the protection of migratory birds and the
study of their flyways. In these areas, Chinese scholars could contribute to the Arctic research
agenda with their studies on the migration patterns of birds (for instance, in Finland and Greenland
which both prioritize studies of migratory birds), evaluation of the impact on the ecosystem caused
by the resource-extraction and other projects where Chinese companies participate (Russia, Nordic
countries), as well as with research on the adaptability and resilience of the ecosystems across the
Arctic. Most relevant topics: how to avoid a situation where ecosystem approaches and ecosystem
management do not create ecological borders in the Arctic in addition to the existing borders of
national jurisdiction; how to gradually transform the convention regime and adapt it to the new
international political and economic conditions; how to integrate the responses to these problems
in the national policies of the Arctic Council, China, and other observer states.
Conclusion
Taking into account progressing climatic and environmental changes in the Arctic along with the
growing influence of anthropogenic factors, risks to Arctic ecosystems are emerging due to
industrial pollution from land-based and offshore facilities, intensive shipping, and exploratory use
of living resources. In Arctic countries, the environmental component has long been an extremely
important part of development strategies. With the entry of non-Arctic actors into economic,
transport, and research activities in the High North, certain adjustments in the environmental
protection agenda are needed to efficiently integrate global responses to climate change with
individual priorities of the Arctic and non-Arctic countries in the region. The responses to the
existing environmental challenges with stronger involvement of China in international formats like
Arctic Council, Arctic Science Ministerial Meeting, and bilateral dialogue frameworks with Arctic
countries will depend on the integration of the environmental agenda in the international legal
framework. China is exactly committed to the existing framework of international law including
the UN Charter, UNCLOS, rules of the IMO, the Spitsbergen Treaty, and other treaties on climate
change and the environment that govern Arctic affairs (State Council of the People’s Republic of
China, 2018). Arguably, a comprehensive international treaty is needed to stress the importance of
environmental protection in the Arctic in the international legal context. The elaboration of an
umbrella environmentally-oriented agreement between the Arctic Council members, China, and
other non-Arctic countries is hardly likely shortly, especially when it comes to the exploration of
resources, exploitation of shipping routes, and benefiting from other economic opportunities in
the region. Nevertheless, the intersections of China’s and Arctic countries’ priorities demonstrate
the potential for establishing workable multilateral and bilateral cooperation frameworks in the
spheres of climate change, conservation and utilization of living resources, clean energy solutions,
and environmentally-friendly operation of the Arctic routes.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
26
Acknowledgment
The study is supported by the National Social Sciences Fund of China (grant no. 18BGJ004).
References
Abate, T.G., Borger, T., Aanese, M., Falk-Andersson, J., Wyles, K.J., & Beaumont, N. (2020).
Valuation of Marine Plastic Pollution in the European Arctic: Applying an Integrated Choice
and Latent Variable Model to Contingent Valuation. Ecological Economics, 169, 106521.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106521.
Allen, M.D. (2020). Climate Change in Alaska: Social Workers’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Experiences.
International Journal of Social Welfare. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12443.
Amundson, C., Flint, P., Stehn, R., Platte, R., Wilson, H., Larned, W., & Fischer, J. (2019). Spatio-
Temporal Population Change of Arctic-Breeding Waterbirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of
Alaska. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 14(1), 18. doi:10.5751/ACE-01383-140118.
Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute. (n.d.). Ice Maps of the Arctic Ocean. Retrieved from:
http://www.aari.ru/main.php?lg=0&id=94.
Arctic Council. (1991). Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. Retrieved from:
http://library.arcticportal.org/1542/1/artic_environment.pdf.
Arctic Council. (2009). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009. Retrieved from:
http://library.arcticportal.org/1400/.
Arctic Portal. (1993). Declaration on Environment and Development in the Arctic. Retrieved from
http://library.arcticportal.org/1272/1/The_Inuvik_Declaration.pdf.
Arnold, S.R., Law, K.S., Brock, C.A., Thomas, J.L., Starkweather, S.M., Salzen, K. von., Stohl, A.,
Sharma, S., Lund, M.T., Flanner, M.G., Petäjä, T., Tanimoto, H., Gamble, J., Dibb, J.E.,
Melamed, M., Johnson, N., Fidel, M., Tynkkynen, V.-P., Baklanov, A., Eckhardt, S., Monks,
S.A., Browse, J., & Bozem, H. (2016). Arctic Air Pollution: Challenges and Opportunities
for the Next Decade. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene, 4, 000104.
doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000104.
Batin, E., Dedov, K., & Kochegarova, N. (2015). Arctic: The Main Directions of Exploration and
Development, Role in the Oil and Gas Industry, Transport System. Science Time, 24(12), 47-
51.
Benestad, R.E., & Haugen, J.E. (2007). On Complex Extremes: Flood Hazards and Combined
High Spring-Time Precipitation and Temperature in Norway. Climatic Change, 85, 381-406.
Berteaux, D., Gauthier, G., Domine, F., Ims, R.A., Lamoureux, S.F., Lévesque, E., & Yoccoz, N.
(2017). Effects of Changing Permafrost and Snow Conditions on Tundra Wildlife: Critical
Places and Times. Arctic Science, 3(2), 65-90.
Blaauw, R.J. (2013). Oil and Gas Development and Opportunities in the Arctic Ocean. In P.
Berkman & A. Vylegzhanin (Eds.), Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean (pp. 175-184).
Dordrecht: Springer.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
27
Boertmann, D., Mosbech, A., & Merkel, F.R. (2006). The Importance of Southwest Greenland for
Wintering Seabirds. British Birds, 99, 282-298.
Brown, T.M., Fisk, A.T., Helbing, C.C., & Reimer, K.J. (2014). Polychlorinated Biphenyl Profiles
in Ringed Seals (Pusa Hispida) Reveal Historical Contamination by a Military Radar Station
in Labrador, Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(3), 592-601.
Burgos, J., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Buhl-Mortensen, P., Olafsdottir, S., Steingrund, P., Ragnarsson,
S., & Skagseth, O. (2020). Predicting the Distribution of Indicator Taxa of Vulnerable
Marine Ecosystems in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic Waters of the Nordic Seas. Frontiers in
Marine Science, 7, 131. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00131.
Bush, E., & Lemmen, D.S. (Eds.). (2019). Canada’s Changing Climate Report. Ottawa: Government
of Canada.
Canini, F., Zucconi, L., Pacelli, C., Selbmann, L., Onofri, S., & Geml, J. (2019). Vegetation, pH
and Water Content as Main Factors for Shaping Fungal Richness, Community Composition
and Functional Guilds Distribution in Soils of Western Greenland. Frontiers in Microbiology,
10, 2348. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.02348.
Caputo, S., Papale, M., Rizzo, C., Giannarelli, S., Conte, A., Moscheo, F., Graziano, M., Aspholm,
P.E., Onor, M., De Domenico, E., Miserocchi, S., Michaud, L., Azzaro, M., & Lo Giudice,
A. (2019). Metal Resistance in Bacteria from Contaminated Arctic Sediment Is Driven by
Metal Local Inputs. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 77(2), 291-307.
Cariou, P., & Faury, O. (2015). Relevance of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) for Bulk Shipping.
Transportation Research, 78, 337-346.
Cavalieri, D.J., & Parkinson, P. (2012). Arctic Sea Ice Variability and Trends, 1979-2010. The
Cryosphere, 6(4), 881-889.
China Briefing. (2012). China Sets New Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Goals. Retrieved from:
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-sets-new-greenhouse-gas-emission-
reduction-goals/.
China Power. (2020). How Is China Managing Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Retrieved from:
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-greenhouse-gas-emissions/.
Chistyakova, A. (2018). PRC Expeditions to Arctic. Historical Background: Goals, Tasks, and
Results. In N. Fedorova (Ed.), Archeology of the Arctic (pp. 126-34). Omsk: Research Center
for Arctic Studies.
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. (n.d.). ASTI Key Findings. Retrieved from:
https://www.caff.is/asti/facts-and-findings.
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. (2017). State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Report. Akureyri:
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna International Secretariat.
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/outer_continental_shelf_lands_act.
Cuyler, C., Rowell, J., Adamczewski, J., Anderson, M., Blake, J., Bretten, T., Brodeur, V., Campbell,
M., Checkley, S., Cluff, H.D., Cote, S., Davison, T., Dumond, M., Ford, B., Gruzdev, A.,

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
28
Gunn, A., Jones, P., Kutz, S., Leclerc, L.-M., Mallory, C., Mavrot, F., Mosbacher, J.B.,
Okhlopkov, I., Reynolds, P., Schmidt, N.M., Sipko, T., Suitor, M., Tomaselli, M., & Ytrehus,
B. (2020). Muskox Status, Recent Variation, and Uncertain Future. Ambio, 49(3), 805-819.
Davis, N. (1996). The Arctic Wasteland: A Perspective on Arctic Pollution. Polar Record, 32(182),
237-248.
Ehrich, D., Schmidt, N., Gauthier, G., Alisauskas, R., Angerbjörn, A., Clark, K., Ecke, F., Eide,
N., Framstad, E., Frandsen, J., Franke, A., Gilg, O., Giroux, M.-A., Henttonen, H.,
Hörnfeldt, B., Ims, R., Kataev, G., Kharitonov, S., Killengreen, S., Krebs, C., Lanctot, R.,
Lecomte, N., Menyushina, I., Morris, D., Morrisson, G., Oksanen, L., Oksanen, T.,
Olofsson, J., Pokrovsky, I., Popov, I., Reid, D., Roth, J., Saalfeld, S., Samelius, G., Sittler, B.,
Sleptsov, S., Smith, P., Sokolov, A., Sokolova, N., Soloviev, M., & Solovyeva, D. (2020).
Documenting Lemming Population Change in the Arctic: Can We Detect Trends? Ambio,
49(3), 786-800.
Erokhin, V., & Gao, T. (2018). Northern Sea Route: An Alternative Transport Corridor within
China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In J. Chaisse & J. Gorski (Eds.), The Belt and Road Initiative:
Law, Economics, and Politics (pp. 146-167). Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Erokhin, V., Gao, T., & Zhang, X. (2018). Arctic Blue Economic Corridor: China’s Role in the
Development of a New Connectivity Paradigm in the North. In L. Heininen & H. Exner-
Pirot (Eds.), Arctic Yearbook 2018 (pp. 456-474). Akureyri: Northern Research Forum.
Erokhin, V., Gao, T., & Zhang, X. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of Research on International Collaboration,
Economic Development, and Sustainability in the Arctic. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
EUR-Lex. (2018). The 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic
Ocean. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0453&from=EN.
Fadeev, V. (2012). International Environmental Collaboration in the Arctic. Retrieved from:
https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/mezhdunarodnoe-
ekologicheskoe-sotrudnichestvo-v-arktike/.
Fang, J.K.H., Rooks, C.A., Krogness, C.M., Kutti, T., Hoffmann, F., & Bannister, R.J. (2018).
Impact of Particulate Sediment, Bentonite and Barite (Oil-Drilling Waste) on Net Fluxes of
Oxygen and Nitrogen in Arctic-Boreal Sponges. Environmental Pollution, 238, 948-958.
Filippova, L. (2019). China’s Arctic Research Potential. China in World and Regional Politics. History
and Modernity, 24, 279-295.
Finlex. (2011a). The Waste Act. Retrieved from:
https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2011/20110646.
Finlex. (2011b). The Water Act. Retrieved from:
https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2011/20110587.
Foguth, R., Sepulveda, M., & Cannon, J. (2020). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Neurotoxicity in Sentinel and Non-Traditional Laboratory Model Systems: Potential Utility
in Predicting Adverse Outcomes in Human Health. Toxics, 8(2), 42.
doi:10.3390/toxics8020042.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
29
Fortune, S., Ferguson, S., Trites, A., LeBlanc, B., LeMay, V., Hudson, J., & Baumgartner, M.
(2020). Seasonal Diving and Foraging Behaviour of Eastern Canada-West Greenland
Bowhead Whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 643, 197-217.
Fuglei, E., Henden, J.A., Callahan, C.T., Gilg, O., Hansen, J., Ims, R.A., Isaev, A.P., Lang, J.H.,
McIntyre, C.L., Merizon, R.A., Mineev, O.Y., Mineev, Y.N., Mossop, D., Nielsen, O.K.,
Nilsen, E.B., Pedersen, A.O., Schmidt, N.M., Sittler, B., Willebrand, M.H., & Martin, K.
(2020). Circumpolar Status of Arctic Ptarmigan: Population Dynamics and Trends. Ambio,
49(3), 749-761.
Furgal, C., & Prowse, T. (2008). Northern Canada. In D.S. Lemmen, F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, & E.
Bush (Eds.), From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate (pp. 57-118). Ottawa:
Government of Canada.
Ganter, B., & Gaston, A.J. (2013). Birds. In H. Meltofte (Ed.), Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Status
and Trends in Arctic Biodiversity (pp. 142-180). Akureyri: Conservation of Arctic Flora and
Fauna International Secretariat.
Gao, T., & Erokhin, V. (2019). China-Russia Collaboration in Shipping and Marine Engineering
as One of the Key Factors of Secure Navigation along the NSR. In L. Heininen, H. Exner-
Pirot, & J. Barnes (Eds.), Redefining Arctic Security: Arctic Yearbook 2019 (pp. 421-441).
Akureyri: Arctic Portal.
Gao, T., & Erokhin, V. (2020a). Capturing a Complexity of Nutritional, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts on Selected Health Parameters in the Russian High North. Sustainability,
12(5), 2151. doi:10.3390/su12052151.
Gao, T., & Erokhin, V. (2020b). China-Russia Collaboration in Arctic Shipping and Maritime
Engineering. The Polar Journal, 10. doi:10.1080/2154896X.2020.1799612.
Gladun, E. (2015). Environmental Regulations of the Arctic in the Period of Its Industrial
Development: Analysis of the Legislation of the Arctic States. Tyumen State University Herald.
Social, Economic, and Law Research, 3(3), 132-142.
Government of Canada. (1985). Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act. Retrieved from: https://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-12/.
Government of Canada. (2013). Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and
Response in the Arctic. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-
change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-organizations/arctic-marine-oil-
pollution.html.
Government of Canada. (2019). Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. Retrieved from:
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587.
Government of Denmark, Government of the Faroes, & Government of Greenland. (2011).
Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands: Kingdom of Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011-2020.
Copenhagen: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark; Nuuk: Department of Foreign
Affairs of Greenland; Tinganes: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Faroes.
Government of Finland. (2013). Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region 2013. Helsinki: Prime
Minister’s Office.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
30
Government Offices of Sweden. (2011). Sweden’s Strategy for the Arctic Region. Stockholm:
Regeringskansliet.
Government Offices of Sweden. (2016). New Swedish Environmental Policy for the Arctic. Retrieved
from: https://www.government.se/reports/2016/01/new-swedish-environmental-policy-
for-the-arctic/.
Government of the Russian Federation. (2013). Strategy of Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian
Federation and Ensurance of National Security till 2020. Retrieved from:
http://government.ru/info/18360/.
Goyert, H., Garton, E., & Poe, A. (2018). Effects of Climate Change and Environmental
Variability on the Carrying Capacity of Alaskan Seabird Populations. The Auk, 135(4), 975-
991.
Granberg, M., & Elander, I. (2007). Local Governance and Climate Change: Reflections on the
Swedish Experience. Local Environment, 12(5), 537-548.
Greenpeace. (2020). Before and After. Taimyr’s Accident on Satellite Images. Retrieved from:
https://greenpeace.ru/news/2020/06/02/do-i-posle-avarija-na-tajmyre-v-
kosmosnimkah/.
Halfar, J., & Fujita, R. (2007). Danger of Deep-Sea Mining. Science, 316(5827), 987.
Heininen, L., Everett, K., Padrtova, B., & Reissell, A. (2020). Arctic Policies and Strategies – Analysis,
Synthesis, and Trends. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Hird, M.J. (2016). The DEW Line and Canada’s Arctic Waste: Legacy and Futurity. Northern Review,
42, 23-45.
Huang, D., Lin, J., Du, J., & Yu, T. (2020). The Detection of Fukushima-Derived Radiocesium in
the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean Six Years After the Nuclear Accident. Environmental
Pollution, 256, 113386. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113386.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In T.F. Stocker,
D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, & J. Boschung (Eds.), Climate Change 2013:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Maritime Organization. (1969). International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution
Damage (CLC). Retrieved from:
http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-
Convention-on-Civil-Liability-for-Oil-Pollution-Damage-(CLC).aspx.
International Maritime Organization. (1972). Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. Retrieved from:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Pages/default.aspx.
International Maritime Organization. (2004). International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. Retrieved from:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/BallastWaterManagement/Pages/BW
MConventionandGuidelines.aspx.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
31
International Maritime Organization. (2010). International Convention on Liability and Compensation for
Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. Retrieved from:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Legal/HNS/Documents/HNS%20Consolidated%20
text.pdf.
International Union for Conservation of Nature. (1971). Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Retrieved from:
https://www.ecolex.org/details/treaty/convention-on-wetlands-of-international-
importance-especially-as-waterfowl-habitat-tre-000531/.
Irons, D.B., Anker-Nilssen, T., Gaston, A.J., Byrd, G.V., Falk, K., Gilchrist, H.G., Hario, M.,
Hjernquist, M., Krasnov, Y.V., Mosbech, A., Olsen, B., Petersen, A., Reid, J.B., Robertson,
G.J., Strom, H., & Wohl, K.D. (2008). Fluctuations in Circumpolar Seabird Populations
Linked to Climate Oscillations. Global Change Biology, 14, 1455-1463.
Jezierski, C., Loehman, R., & Schramm, A. (2010a). Understanding the Science of Climate Change: Talking
Points – Impacts to Alaska Boreal and Arctic. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—
2010/224. Fort Collins: National Park Service.
Jezierski, C., Loehman, R., & Schramm, A. (2010b). Understanding the Science of Climate Change:
Talking Points – Impacts to Alaska Maritime and Transitional. Natural Resource Report
NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/223. Fort Collins: National Park Service.
Jochumsen, K., Schnurr, S., & Quadfasel, D. (2016). Bottom Temperature and Salinity
Distribution and Its Variability Around Iceland. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research
Papers, 111, 79-90.
Jones, L., Schoen, E., Shaftel, R., Cunningham, C., Mauger, S., Rinella, D., & Saviour, A. (2020).
Watershed-Scale Climate Influences Productivity of Chinook Salmon Populations Across
Southcentral Alaska. Global Change Biology, 26(9), 4919-4936.
Kaluskar, S., Blukacz-Richards, E.A., Johnson, C.A., He, Y., Langlois, A., Kim, D.-K., &
Arhonditsis, G. (2019). Development of a Model Ensemble to Predict Peary Caribou
Populations in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Ecosphere, 12(10), e02976.
doi:10.1002/ecs2.2976.
Karcher, M., Hosseini, A., Schnur, R., Kauker, F., Brown, J.E., Dowdall, M., & Strand, P. (2017).
Modelling Dispersal of Radioactive Contaminants in Arctic Waters as a Result of Potential
Recovery Operations on the Dumped Submarine K-27. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 116(1-2),
385-394.
Kausrud, K., Mysterud, A., Steen, H., Vik, J.O., Østbye, E., Cazelles, B., Framstad, E., Eikeset,
A.M., Mysterud, I., Solhøy, T., & Stenseth, N.C. (2008). Linking Climate Change to
Lemming Cycles. Nature, 456, 93-97.
Khan, U.A., Kujala, K., Nieminen, S.P., Raisanen, M.L., & Ronkanen, A.K. (2019). Arsenic,
Antimony, and Nickel Leaching from Northern Peatlands Treating Mining Influenced
Water in Cold Climate. Science of the Total Environment, 657, 1161-1172.
Khludeneva, N. (2016). Development Perspectives of Legal Protection of Arctic Ecosystems. Retrieved from:
http://xn----7sbbaj7auwnffhk.xn--p1ai/article/17248.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
32
Knizhnikov, A., & Klimentyev, A. (2019). Switching of the Arctic Fleet from Heavy Fuel to LNG.
Neftegaz.RU Offshore, 8, 93-103.
Koch, I., Duso, A., Haug, C., Miskelly, C., Sommerville, M., Smith, P., & Reimer, K.J. (2005).
Distinguishing between Naturally and Anthropogenically Elevated Arsenic at an Abandoned
Arctic Military Site. Environmental Forensics, 6(4), 335-344.
Koivurova, T., Kauppila, L., Korpa, S., Langeigne, M., Shi, M., Smieszek, M., & Stepien, A. (2019).
China in the Arctic and the Opportunities and Challenges for Chinese-Finnish Arctic Co-operation.
Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office.
Kopra, S., Hurri, K., Kauppila, L., Stepien, A., & Yamineva, Y. (2020). China, Climate Change and
the Arctic Environment. In T. Koivurova, & S. Kopra (Eds.), Chinese Policy and Presence in the
Arctic (pp. 62-89). Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Kurgankina, M., Nyashina, G., & Strizhak, P. (2020). Ecological Assessment of Industrial Waste
as a High-Potential Component of Slurry Fuels. Waste and Biomass Valorization.
doi:10.1007/s12649-020-01114-1.
Lajeunesse, A. (2018). Finding “Win-Win”: China’s Arctic Policy and What It Means for Canada.
Retrieved from:
https://www.cgai.ca/finding_win_win_chinas_arctic_policy_and_what_it_means_for_can
ada.
Laliberté, F., Howell, S.E.L., & Kushner, P.J. (2016). Regional Variability of a Projected Sea Ice-
Free Arctic During the Summer Months. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 256-263.
Lamarche-Gagnon, G., Wadham, J.L., Lollar, B.S., Arndt, S., Fietzek, P., Beaton, A.D., Tedstone,
A.J., Telling, J., Bagshaw, E.A., Hawkings, J.R., Kohler, T.J., Zarsky, J.D., Mowlem, M.C.,
Anesio, A., & Stibal, M. (2018). Greenland Melt Drives Continuous Export of Methane
from Its Bed. Nature, 565, 73-77.
Landy, J., Babb, D., Ehn, J., Theriault, N., & Barber, D.G. (2016). Sea Ice Thickness in the Eastern
Canadian Arctic: Hudson Bay Complex & Baffin Bay. Remote Sensing of Environment, 200, 281-
294.
Langlois, A., Johnson, C.-A., Montpetit, B., Royer, A., Blukacz-Richards, E.A., Neave, E., Dolant,
C., Roy, A., Arhonditsis, G., Kim, D.-K., Kaluskar, S., & Brucker, L. (2017). Detection of
Rain-on-Snow (ROS) Events and Ice Layer Formation Using Passive Microwave
Radiometry: A Context for Peary Caribou Habitat in the Canadian Arctic. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 189, 84-95.
Larson, W., Smith, T., & York, G. (2020). Human Interaction and Disturbance of Denning Polar
Bears on Alaska’s North Slope. Arctic, 73(2), 195-205.
Law, K.S., Roiger, A., Thomas, J., Marelle, L., Raut, J.-C., Dalsøren, S., Fuglestvedt, J., Tuccella,
P., Weinzierl, B., & Schlager, H. (2017). Local Arctic Air Pollution: Sources and Impacts.
Ambio, 46, 453-456.
Lee, S., Kim, K., Jeon, J., & Moon, H.B. (2019). Optimization of Suspect and Non-Target
Analytical Methods Using GC/TOF for Prioritization of Emerging Contaminants in the
Arctic Environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 181, 11-17.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
33
Lidskog, R., & Elander, I. (2000). After Rio: Environmental Policies and Urban Planning in
Sweden. In N. Low, B. Gleeson, I. Elander, & R. Lidskog (Eds.), Consuming Cities: The Urban
Environment in the Global Economy after the Rio Declaration (pp. 201-222). London/New York:
Routledge.
Lindsay, R., & Schweiger, A. (2015). Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Loss Determined Using Subsurface,
Aircraft, and Satellite Observations. The Cryosphere, 9(1), 269-283.
Litzow, M., Hunsicker, M., Ward, E., Anderson, S., Gao, J., Zador, S., Batten, S., Dressel, S.,
Duffy-Anderson, J., Fergusson, E., Hopcroft, R., Laurel, B., & O'Malley, R. (2020).
Evaluating Ecosystem Change as Gulf of Alaska Temperature Exceeds the Limits of
Preindustrial Variability. Progress in Oceanography, 186, 102393.
doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2020.102393.
Liu, Q., Babanin, A.V., Zieger, S., Young, I.R., & Guan, C. (2016). Wind and Wave Climate in the
Arctic Ocean as Observed by Altimeters. Journal of Climate, 29(22), 7957-7975.
Loarie, S.R., Duffy, P.B., Hamilton, H., Asner, G.P., Field, C.B., & Ackerly, D.D. (2009). The
Velocity of Climate Change. Nature, 462, 1052-1055.
Lyngs, P. (2003). Migration and Winter Ranges of Birds in Greenland – An Analysis of Ringing
Recoveries. Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift, 97, 1-167.
Macdonald, R.W., Barrie, L.A., Bidleman, T.F., Diamond, M.L., Gregor, D.J., Semkin, R.G.,
Strachan, W.M.J., Li, Y.F., Wania, F., Alaee, M., Alexeeva, L.B., Backus, S.M., Bailey, R.,
Bewers, J.M., Gobeil, C., Halsall, C.J., Harner, T., Hoff, J.T., Jantunen, L.M.M., Lockhart,
W.L., Mackay, D., Muir, D.C.G., Pudykiewicz, J., Reimer, K.J., Smith, J.N., Stern, G.A.,
Schroeder, W.H., Wagemann, R., & Yunker, M.B. (2000). Contaminants in the Canadian
Arctic: 5 Years of Progress in Understanding Sources, Occurrence and Pathways. Science of
the Total Environment, 254(2-3), 93-234.
Macías-Zamora, V. (2011). Ocean Pollution. In T. Letcher, & D. Vallero (Eds.), Waste: A Handbook
for Management (pp. 265-279). New York: Academic Press.
Martinez, K.B.P., Tekman, M.B., & Bergmann, M. (2020). Temporal Trends in Marine Litter at
Three Stations of the HAUSGARTEN Observatory in the Arctic Deep Sea. Frontiers in
Marine Science, 7, 321. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00321.
McGwin, K. (2020). A New Danish Arctic Strategy Is Expected by End of Year, Despite Coronavirus
Disruptions. Retrieved from: https://www.arctictoday.com/a-new-danish-arctic-strategy-is-
expected-by-end-of-year-despite-coronavirus-disruptions/.
Meissner, K., Brix, S., Halanych, K., & Jazdzewska, A. (2018). Preface – Biodiversity of Icelandic
Waters. Marine Biodiversity, 48(2), 715-718.
Melling, H. (2002). Sea Ice of the Northern Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 107(C11), 3181.
Mengerink, K., Van Dover, C., Ardron, J., Baker, M., Escobar-Briones, E., Gjerde, K., Koslow,
A., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Lara-Lopez, A., Squires, D., Sutton, T., Sweetman, A., & Levin, L.
(2014). A Call for Deep-Ocean Stewardship. Science, 344(1685), 696-698.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
34
Merkel, F.R., Johansen, K.L., Nielsen, R.D., Petersen, I.K., Sterup, J., & Mosbech, A. (2019).
Wintering Seabirds in South-West Greenland, 2017. Polar Research, 38, 3462.
doi:10.33265/polar.v38.3462.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland. (2011). A Parliamentary Resolution on Iceland’s Arctic Policy.
Reykjavik: Government of Iceland.
Ministry of the Environment of Finland. (2014). Environmental Protection Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.ym.fi/en-US/The_environment/Legislation_and_instructions.
Muir, M. (2010). Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the Circumpolar Arctic. Arctic,
63(3), 373-378.
Najafi, M.R., Zwiers, F.W., & Gillett, N.P. (2015). Attribution of Arctic Temperature Change to
Greenhouse-Gas and Aerosol Influences. Nature Climate Change, 5, 246-249.
National Snow and Ice Data Center. (2016). Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis. Retrieved from:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/10/.
Ng, A.K.Y., Andrews, J., Babb, D., Lin, Y., & Becker, A. (2018). Implications of Climate Change
for Shipping: Opening the Arctic Seas. WIREs Climate Change. doi:10.1002/wcc.507.
Norkina, E., & Van Canegem, S. (2020). Insidious Air Pollution. Legal Regimes for Arctic Climate Change.
Retrieved from: https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-
comments/analytics/insidious-air-pollution-legal-regimes-for-arctic-climate-change/.
Norwegian Ministries. (2017). Norway’s Arctic Strategy – between Geopolitics and Social Development. Oslo:
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and
Modernisation.
Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. (2015). Climate Change Adaptation in Norway.
Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment.
Olefeldt, D., Goswami, S., Grosse, G., Hayes, D., Hugelius, G., Kuhry, P., McGuire, A.,
Romanovsky, V., Sannel, A., Schuur, E., & Turetsky, M. (2016). Circumpolar Distribution
and Carbon Storage of Thermokarst Landscapes. Nature Communications, 7, 1-11.
Olivier, J.G.J., & Peters, J.A.H.W. (2018). Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
2018 Report. Retrieved from: https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-
and-total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2018-report.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). The Ocean Economy in 2030.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
OSPAR Commission. (1992). Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.ospar.org/convention.
Pall, P., Tallaksen, L., & Stordal, F. (2019). A Climatology of Rain-on-Snow Events for Norway.
Journal of Climate, 32(20), 6995-7016.
Pan, M., & Zhou, Y. (2010). Arctic Environmental Change on China’s Non-Traditional Security.
Chinese Journal of Polar Research, 4, 415-422.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
35
Parkinson, C.L. (2014). Spatially Mapped Reductions in the Length of the Arctic Sea Ice Season.
Geophysical Research Letters, 41(12), 4316-4322.
Peck, K., Franke, A., Lecomte, N., & Bety, J. (2018). Nesting Habitat Selection and Distribution
of an Avian Top Predator in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic Science, 4(4), 499-512.
Perryman, C., Wirsing, J., Bennett, K., Brennick, O., Perry, A., Williamson, N., & Ernakovich, J.
(2020). Heavy Metals in the Arctic: Distribution and Enrichment of Five Metals in Alaskan
Soils. PLOS One, 15(6), e0233297. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233297.
Pilyasov, A. (2018). The Magnet of Globalization – China’s Arctic Policy. Arctic: Ecology and
Economy, 31(3), 112-122.
Pizzolato, L., Howell, S.E.L., Dawson, J., Laliberté, F., & Copland, L. (2016). The Influence of
Declining Sea Ice on Shipping Activity in the Canadian Arctic. Geophysical Research Letters, 43,
146-154.
Polar Bear Range States. (1973). The 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. Retrieved from:
https://polarbearagreement.org/resources/agreement/the-1973-agreement-on-the-
conservation-of-polar-bears
Pompeo, M. (2019). Looking North: Sharpening America’s Arctic Focus. Retrieved from:
https://www.state.gov/looking-north-sharpening-americas-arctic-focus/.
Poschlod, B., Zscheischler, J., Sillmann, J., Wood, R., & Ludwig, R. (2020). Climate Change Effects
on Hydrometeorological Compound Events Over Southern Norway. Weather and Climate
Extremes, 28, 100253. doi:10.1016/j.wace.2020.100253.
President of the Russian Federation. (2020). Decree #164 from March 5, 2020, “On the Foundations of
the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic till 2035”. Retrieved from:
http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/news/62947.
President of the United States. (2013). National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Washington, DC: The
White House.
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment. (2011). Report. Heavy Fuel in the Arctic (Phase 1).
Retrieved from:
https://pame.is/images/03_Projects/HFO/HFO_in_the_Artic_Phase_I.pdf.
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment. (2013a). HFO in the Arctic – Phase 2. Retrieved from:
https://pame.is/images/03_Projects/AMSA/Heavy_Fuel_in_the_Arctic/HFO%20in%2
0the%20Arctic%20Phase%20II%20final%20report%20by%20DNV_signed.pdf.
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment. (2013b). HFO in the Arctic – Phase 2B. Retrieved
from:
https://pame.is/images/03_Projects/AMSA/Heavy_Fuel_in_the_Arctic/HFO%20in%2
0the%20Arctic%20Phase%20IIb%20final%20report%20by%20DNV_signed.pdf.
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment. (2016a). HFO Project Phase III(a) Heavy Fuel Oil &
Other Fuel Releases from Shipping in the Arctic and Near-Arctic. Retrieved from:
https://pame.is/document-library/shipping-documents/heavy-fuel-oil-documents/362-
hfo-in-the-arctic-phase-iiia/file.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
36
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment. (2016b). Possible Hazards for Engines and Fuel Systems
Using Heavy Fuel Oil in Cold Climate. Retrieved from:
https://pame.is/images/03_Projects/AMSA/Heavy_Fuel_in_the_Arctic/Final_report_H
FO_hazards_engines_and_fuels.pdf.
Prowse, T., Furgal, C., Chouinard, R., Melling, H., Milburn, D., & Smith, S. (2009). Implications
of Climate Change for Economic Development in Northern Canada: Energy, Resource, and
Transportation Sectors. Ambio, 38, 272-281.
Rampal, P., Weiss, J., & Marsan, D. (2009). Positive Trend in the Mean Speed and Deformation
Rate of Arctic Sea Ice. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, C05013.
Rayfuse, R. (2019). The Role of Law in the Regulation of Fishing Activities in the Central Arctic
Ocean. Marine Policy, 110, 103562. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103562.
RBC. (2020). Emergency with a Diesel Spill in Norilsk. What Is Important to Know. Retrieved from:
https://www.rbc.ru/business/04/06/2020/5ed7b3a19a79470f8a58995b.
Recio-Garrido, D., Kleiner, Y., Colombo, A., & Tartakovsky, B. (2018). Dynamic Model of a
Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Pond in the Arctic. Water Research, 144, 444-453.
Rosińska, A. (2019). Traditional Contaminants in Sludge. In M.N.V. Prasad, P.J. de Campos Favas,
M. Vithanage, & V. Mohan (Eds.), Industrial and Municipal Sludge: Emerging Concerns and Scope
for Resource Recovery (pp. 425-453). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sarkisov, A. (2019). The Question of Clean-Up of Radioactive Contamination in the Arctic Region.
Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 89(1), 7-22.
Schatz, V., Proelss, A., & Liu, N. (2019). The 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas
Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean: A Critical Analysis. International Journal of Marine and
Coastal Law, 34(2), 195-244.
Science Daily. (2020). Emissions of Potent Greenhouse Gas Have Grown, Contradicting Reports of Huge
Reductions. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200121113039.htm.
Serreze, M.C., & Barry, R.G. (2011). Processes and Impacts of Arctic Amplification: A Research
Synthesis. Global and Planetary Change, 77(1), 85-96.
Sidorov, I. (2018). China’s Arctic Policy and Its Impact on the Region. Retrieved from: https://nic-
pnb.ru/analytics/politika-kitaya-v-arktike-i-ee-vliyanie-na-region/.
Skaar, J.S., Raeder, E.M., Lyche, J.L., Ahrens, L., & Kallenborn, R. (2019). Elucidation of
Contamination Sources for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) on Svalbard
(Norwegian Arctic). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(8), 7356-7363.
Skjærseth, J.B., & Skodvin, T. (2003). Climate change and the Oil Industry: Common Problem, Varying
Strategies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Smith, P.A., McKinnon, L., Meltofte, H., Lanctot, R.B., Fox, A.D., Leafloor, J.O., Soloviev, M.,
Franke, A., Falk, K., Golovatin, M., Sokolov, V., Sokolov, A., & Smith, A.C. (2020). Status
and Trends of Tundra Birds Across the Circumpolar Arctic. Ambio, 49(3), 732-748.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
37
Snodgrass, J. (2020). The Effects of Climate Change on the Ecology and Health of Indigenous
Arctic Populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 171, 268.
Staalesen, A. (2020). China’s New Icebreaker Sets Course for Its First Arctic Voyage. Retrieved from:
https://www.arctictoday.com/chinas-new-icebreaker-sets-course-for-its-first-arctic-
voyage/.
State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2018). China’s Arctic Policy. The State Council
Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. Beijing: The State Council of the People’s
Republic of China.
Stroeve, J., & Notz, D. (2015). Insights on Past and Future Sea-Ice Evolution from Combining
Observations and Models. Global and Planetary Change, 135, 119-132.
Sturm, M., Goldstein, M., & Parr, C. (2017). Water and Life from Snow: A Trillion-Dollar Science
Question. Water Resources Research, 53, 3534-3544.
Tao, X., Feng, J., Yang, Y., Wang, G., Tian, R., Fan, F., Ning, D., Bates, C., Hale, L., Yuan, M.,
Wu, L., Gao, Q., Lei, J., Schuur, E., Yu, J., Bracho, R., Luo, Y., Konstantinidis, K., Johnston,
E., Cole, J., Penton, C.R., Tiedje, J., & Zhou, J. (2020). Winter Warming in Alaska
Accelerates Lignin Decomposition Contributed by Proteobacteria. Microbiome, 8(1), 84.
doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00838-5.
Taylor, J.J., Lawler, J.P., Aronsson, M., Barry, T., Bjorkman, A.D., Christensen, T., Coulson, S.J.,
Cuyler, C., Ehrich, D., Falk, K., Franke, A., Fuglei, E., Gillespie, M.A., Heidmarsson, S.,
Hoye, T., Jenkins, L.K., Ravolainen, V., Smith, P.A., Wasowicz, P., & Schmidt, N.M. (2020).
Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity Status and Trends: A Synopsis of Science Supporting the
CBMP State of Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity Report. Ambio, 49(3), 833-847.
The Research Council of Norway. (2012). Norwegian Climate Research: An Evaluation. Oslo: The
Research Council of Norway.
Titova, G. (2016). The Precautionary Principle in the Protection of Ecosystems of the Arctic Seas
against Rising Environmental Threats. Regional Ecology, 45(3), 17-30.
Tschudi, M.A., Stroeve, J.C., & Stewart, J.S. (2016). Relating the Age of Arctic Sea Ice to Its
Thickness, as Measured during NASA’s ICESat and IceBridge Campaigns. Remote Sensing,
8(6), 457. doi:10.3390/rs8060457.
United Nations. (1972). Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.
Retrieved from: http://www.un-documents.net/unchedec.htm.
United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved from:
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.
United Nations. (1992a). Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.
United Nations. (1992b). The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Retrieved from:
https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/environmental.development.rio.declaration.1992/portrait.a4.p
df.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Gao & Erokhin
38
United Nations. (1992c). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved from:
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
United Nations. (1995). 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement. Retrieved from:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=2350.
United Nations. (1997). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Retrieved from: https://unfccc.int/documents/2409.
United Nations. (2001). Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Retrieved from:
http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/2232/Def
ault.aspx.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (1979). Convention on Long-Range Transboundary
Air Pollution. Retrieved from:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/full%20text/1979.CLRTAP.e.pdf.
United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.). Arctic Region. Retrieved from:
https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/working-
regional-seas/regional-seas-programmes/arctic-region.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2013). The Minamata Convention on Mercury. Retrieved
from: http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Convention/Text/tabid/3426/language/en-
US/Default.aspx.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2015). The Climate and Environmental Benefits of Controlling
SLCPs in P.R. China. Nairobi: UN Environment Programme.
United States Coast Guard. (2019). Arctic Strategic Outlook. Retrieved from:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5973939/Arctic-Strategic-Outlook-APR-
2019.pdf.
United States Department of Defence. (2019). Department of Defence Arctic Strategy. Retrieved from:
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jun/06/2002141657/-1/-1/1/2019-DOD-ARCTIC-
STRATEGY.PDF.
Vylegzhanin, A., Young, O., & Berkman, P.A. (2020). The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries
Agreement as an Element in the Evolving Arctic Ocean Governance Complex. Marine Policy,
118, 104001. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104001.
Wang, J. (2015). Modern China’s Foreign Policy Strategy in the Arctic. Saint Petersburg State
Polytechnical University Journal. Humanities and Social Sciences, 227(3), 52-56.
Ward, R. (2020). Carbon Sequestration and Storage in Norwegian Arctic Coastal Wetlands:
Impacts of Climate Change. The Science of the Total Environment, 748, 141343.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141343.
Watson, S., Hauffe, H., Bull, M., Atwood, T., McKinney, M., Pindo, M., & Perkins, S. (2019).
Global Change-Driven Use of Onshore Habitat Impacts Polar Bear Faecal Microbiota. The
ISME Journal, 13(12), 2916-2926.

Arctic Yearbook 2020
Widening the Scope of Responses to Environmental Concerns in the High North
39
Wei, Z., Chen, H., Lei, R., Yu, X., Zhang, T., Lin, L., Tian, Z., Zhuang, Y., Li, T., & Yuan, Z.
(2020). Overview of the 9th Chinese National Arctic Research Expedition. Atmospheric and
Oceanic Science Letters, 13(1), 1-7.
Williamson, C., Cook, J., Tedstone, A., Yallop, M., McCutcheon, J., Poniecka, E., Campbell, D.,
Irvine-Fynn, T., McQuaid, J., Tranter, M., Perkins, R., & Anesio, A. (2020). Algal
Photophysiology Drives Darkening and Melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(11), 5694-5705.
Wu, B., Zhang, R., D’Arrigo, R., & Su, J. (2013). On the Relationship between Winter Sea Ice and
Summer Atmospheric Circulation over Eurasia. Journal of Climate, 26, 5523-5536.
Xi, J. (2017). Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive
for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Retrieved from:
http://xinhuanet.com/english/download/Xi_Jinping%27s_report_at_19th_CPC_Nationa
l_Congress.pdf.
Yurkowski, D., Auger-Methe, M., Mallory, M., Wong, S., Gilchrist, G., Derocher, A., Richardson,
E., Lunn, N., Hussey, N., Marcoux, M., Togunov, R., Fisk, A., Harwood, L., Dietz, R.,
Rosing-Asvid, A., Born, E., Mosbech, A., Fort, J., Gremillet, D., Loseto, L., Richard, P.,
Iacozza, J., Jean-Gagnon, F., Brown, T., Westdal, K., Orr, J., LeBlanc, B., Hedges, K., Treble,
M., Kessel, S., Blanchfield, P., Davis, S., Maftei, M., Spencer, N., McFarlane-Tranquilla, L.,
Montevecchi, W., Bartzen, B., Dickson, L., Anderson, C., & Ferguson, S. (2019). Abundance
and Species Diversity Hotspots of Tracked Marine Predators Across the North American
Arctic. Diversity and Distributions, 25(3), 328-345.
Zhang, L., Yang, J., Zang, J., Wang, Y., & Sun, L. (2019a). Reforming China’s Polar Science and
Technology System. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 44(3-4), 387-401.
Zhang, X., Flato, G., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Vincent, L., Wan, H., Wang, X., Rong, R., Fyfe, J.,
Li, G., & Kharin, V. (2019b). Changes in Temperature and Precipitation Across Canada. In
E. Bush & D.S. Lemmen (Eds.), Canada’s Changing Climate Report (pp. 112-193). Ottawa:
Government of Canada.
Zilanov, V. (2015). Fishing Tension Arcs in the Russian Arctic. Arctic and North, 19, 56-70.