The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of May 28, 2018

International Arctic research agreement takes effect

An agreement between several nations to increase collaboration in Arctic research and to remove as many barriers to collaboration as possible came into effect recently. These countries include the United States, Russia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (EOS). The increased cooperation in the region comes amid continued efforts to establish a Danish-Greenlandic research hub after years of planning as advocates hope to create a centre for researchers, community members, and visitors alike (HNN).

Take 1: The agreement, called the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation, has a strong focus on administrative barriers that inhibit research. It was created because of concerns that the Russian government would occasionally deny access to researchers from other countries to its land and waters (EOS). Despite this, Russia does still cooperate from time to time and recently drafted a plan with India to cooperate for the first time in Arctic regions, after years of cooperation in the Antarctic (TASS).

Royal Bank of Scotland to stop funding Arctic oil

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) announced this week that it will no longer fund coal or oil projects. The funding cuts will impact coal power plants, oil sands, Arctic oil projects, and projects that involve unsustainable clearing of peatlands or vegetation. Additionally, companies that generate over 40% of their revenue or 40% of their power from coal sources will face stricter lending regulations from the RBS (Financial Times).

Take 2: The decision comes as banks have been criticized for financing harmful projects and as fund managers are increasingly concerned about the impact of climate change on their investments. These changes make the RBS’ energy sector policies the strictest of the top five banks in the United Kingdom as they follow the trend of other banks like HSBC and ING that have already committed to stop funding oil and coal related projects (The Guardian).

Arctic Indigenous women ignored in research, highlighted at G7 summit

Deborah McGregor, a professor at York University in Toronto, and others raised concerns over the dangers of gender bias in Arctic research at the G7 summit. Professor McGregor pointed out that Arctic research currently focuses on male dominated activities, such as hunting and trapping, while overlooking female roles. Similar concerns over the role of LGBT voices were also raised at the summit (EOTA).

Take 3: Speakers noted that Arctic women can contribute to different knowledge areas that are currently ‘invisible’ in research and the media as many researchers only spend time with men when they visit remote Arctic communities. These areas include changes to local berry-producing species and other plants as well as to animals skins used to make clothing. Empowering indigenous women in the Arctic and giving them a space for their concerns to be heard will help their communities and the researchers who visit (EOTA).

‘One Health’ for better Arctic health

This week, public health representatives from Arctic nations met at the University of Alaska to discuss the importance of collaboration in tackling public health problems in the Arctic. The meeting focussed on the importance of the CDC’s One Health initiative and the health dangers of warming climates, such as an increase in infectious disease especially in Arctic regions. Also this week, a workshop for the International Network for Government Science Advice discussed the importance of community engagement in Arctic regions, stressing the importance of both scientific and personal interaction with Indigenous communities (EOTA).

Take 4: The One Health approach is an interdisciplinary effort to improve health outcomes and communication between public health groups. It is a holistic strategy that encompasses human, animal, and environmental health to accomplish these goals (WHO). This approach is useful in the Arctic and regions experiencing drastic environmental changes because it allows decision makers to tackle health problem from all sides, including the impact that environmental change has on locals populations.

Trump seeks to undo Alaskan wildlife conservation policy

Continuing to undo the environmental legacy of President Obama, the Trump administration is seeking to ease hunting regulations in Alaska. The proposed removal of an Obama-era regulation would allow hunting methods that many consider cruel. These methods include hunting swimming cervids from boats, shooting predators from planes, luring animals to traps with bait, poisoning, and killing animals while they are in their dens (EOTA, Washington Post).

Take 5: These methods for predator control already legal at the state level, but the U.S. National Park Service strongly opposes the killing of predators to improve recreational hunting. However, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game does support the use of these controversial methods to reduce some predator populations by up to 70% in order to increase prey population sizes for hunters (Alaska Board of Game).