Indigenous Rights and Climate Change: An Analysis of Global Environmental Governance Briana Zhuang

Change: An Analysis of Global Environmental Governance in the Arctic Region

AUTHOR: Briana Zhuang

ABSTRACT: The following essay will outline the various environmental threats in the Arctic region as well as the consequences they impose upon indigenous communities. This essay provides a brief history of the global environmental governance undertaken by nation states with regard to climate change in the Arctic and concludes by analyzing the successes and failures of Arctic governance with respect to the incorporation of indigenous voices. Ultimately, this analysis finds that inadequate progress has been made to prevent or mitigate the disasters and environmental degradation caused by climate change, disproportionately impacting the indigenous populations of the Arctic region without remedy. world through wind, water, and other weather patterns.

INTRODUCTION

The Arctic Region and Its Inhabitants Sitting at the top of the world, the Arctic region is home to millions of people, over 21,000 species of organisms, 10% of the world’s oil, 22% of the world’s fossil fuel reserves, and about 100,000 indigenous people (O’Neill, “The Arctic”). Indigenous populations inhabit territories in six sovereign states, including but not limited to powerful countries such as the United States, Russia, and Canada. Indigenous peoples hold a unique connection to the land they live on, thriving on traditional and cultural practices (such as hunting, herding, and fishing) that are heavily dependent on the landscape and the food chain hold higher levels of toxins. At the top

ecosystems (“Arctic Indigenous Peoples”). Therefore, climate change poses an important and unique threat to the environmental, social, and cultural well-being of the Arctic region and its indigenous inhabitants.

In this essay, I will outline the various environmental threats in the Arctic region and the detrimental consequences they impose upon indigenous communities. I will then provide a brief history of global environmental governance undertaken by nation-states concerning successes and failures of Arctic governance with respect to the incorporation of indigenous voices. Through this essay, I argue that inadequate progress has been made to prevent and mitigate the disasters and environmental degradation caused by climate change, disproportionately affecting the indigenous populations in the Arctic region.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE ARCTIC

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are harmful chemicals prone to long-range transport through the atmosphere. They can be transported from all over the They also resist biodegradation (hence ‘persistent’) and remain in the environment for long periods of time (Selin 106). Due to their expansive range of transport and resistance to degradation, these chemicals travel from all around the globe and accumulate in the Arctic region. Once there, these chemicals accumulate in the Arctic carbon sink, an area in which harmful substances are stored in the land. This has disastrous effects on the wildlife, as these toxins begin to bioaccumulate in individual specimens and consequently biomagnify in individuals up the food chain (106).

As animals higher up in the food chain (such as seals and whales) consume other animals, they ingest the biotoxins in their prey. In turn, these biotoxins remain in the systems of predator animals; thus, animals higher up on climate change in the Arctic. I conclude by analyzing the

of the food chain is humans, specifically the indigenous peoples that reside in the Arctic and live off the land by hunting and fishing (O’Neill, “The Arctic”). In this way, POPs present a severe threat to the health of indigenous peoples in the Arctic.

In the 1980s, indigenous peoples learned that they were being “poisoned from afar” as the consequences of POPs became more apparent (“Climate Change”). A study showed that levels of PCBs, a persistent organic pollutant, in pregnant Inuit women were much higher than the national average as a result of POP bioaccumulation and biomagnification. (Koivurova 135). Sheila Watt-Coultier, an indigenous rights activist, politician, and leader explains that nursing mothers were hesitant to nurse their own babies as a result of the fear that they would poison their children (“Climate Change”). POPs present a hazardous threat to both the ecosystems and wildlife of the Arctic as well as the indigenous

Stratospheric Ozone Layer Depletion The stratospheric ozone layer acts as a protective barrier between the Earth’s inhabitants and harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. In recent decades, however, a growing ozone hole in the layer threatens the planet’s well-being. This ozone hole is caused by the emission of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other chemicals widely used in production and manufacturing. Without the ozone layer, ecosystems would be degraded, climate change would progress more rapidly, and there would be a multitude of human health impacts, including skin cancer and cataracts (O’Neill, “The Environment” 34).

Through the Montreal Protocol of 1987 and its associated treaties, the international community has made multilateral efforts to address ozone layer depletion. Though a global commons problem, ozone layer depletion is particularly harmful in the Arctic region. Polar stratospheric clouds exacerbate the speed of ozone depletion, creating an incredibly dangerous setting that allows for UV radiation to reach the Earth’s surface as well as the people and animals that live there (O’Neil, 90).

Though the ozone layer remains an ongoing important issue, it has generally been regarded as one of the international community’s greatest collaborative feats with regard to global environmental problems. As an effective multilateral effort, the Montreal Protocol has led to a successful reduction of CFCs as well as the slow but steady mending of the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer.

Global Warming Temperature increase is especially rapid in the Arctic region, rising at a faster rate than the global average and contributing to permafrost thaw and melting sea ice. Melting polar caps is perhaps one of the most publicized environmental problems of the Arctic region— images of a lone polar bear on a minuscule slab of ice have been widely circulated in recent years. Yet, there are a multitude of social and cultural impacts of melting sea ice with regard to the indigenous populations of the Arctic. Polar bears are not the only species threatened with loss of habitat—many others, including seals and fish that indigenous peoples consume, are also affected. Several other aspects of animals’ lives are threatened as well, including migration and breeding patterns. This has the potential to change the ecosystem of the Arctic region and threaten the food source of native peoples.

Additionally, the changes to the physical landscape of the Arctic have damaging consequences to the cultural practices of indigenous peoples. For example, whales and whaling play a crucial role in both the physical and spiritual well-being of many indigenous populations, acting both as a food source and cultural symbolisms. In order to hunt whales, however, specific environmental conditions are needed, such as emerging cracks (known as “leads”) in the ice, as well as a thick enough ice layer to allow hunters to pull the whale out from the water and onto the surface (Milman). Many of these conditions are disappearing along with the melting ice caps, having detrimental effects on indigenous populations. Nagruk Harcharek, who has spent decades whaling in the Arctic, stated: “Some families rely upon whales for their food. It’s so central to our culture. The spring hunt is spiritual – sitting out there on the ice edge is pretty quiet” (Milman). Melting polar ice caps do not only affect the species whose habitats are being destroyed but the cultural practices of indigenous populations as well.

Climate Change Climate change is a complex, global issue that the Arctic countries have struggled to address multilaterally. Many of the aforementioned environmental issues are either exacerbated by or contribute to climate change. For example, soil warming of 1ºC in the Arctic (caused by global warming) releases carbon stored in peat, potentially releasing up to 100 megatons of carbon annually, which then only cycles back and continues contributing to the worsening of global warming (Bennett et al. 317). The fragile and unique ecosystem of the Arctic region makes it particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, inducing positive feedback loops that continually exacerbate climate change.

The eight Arctic states, however, have faced difficulties in finding a policy approach that aligns with their individual interests, global political agendas, and the environmental issues at hand. The major international treaties governing this issue are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris Agreement, both of which have been (and continue to be) highly contested. Additionally, the Arctic states have failed to effectively incorporate the knowledge and opinions of indigenous communities into the decision-making process. Arctic policy with regard to climate change has been weak and lacks inclusivity of indigenous rights. In the following section, I will outline the progress of the Arctic states in addressing Arctic environmental issues.

OVERVIEW OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE IN THE ARCTIC REGION

Scientific developments and research in the Arctic region have increased dramatically in the past few decades. As important environmental issues have arisen, including those with concerns surrounding human health, climate change, and natural resources, global political activity in the area has increased as well. Both state and non-state stakeholders have voiced their positions. Arctic countries have scrambled to profit or gain

International environmental cooperation in the Arctic region began with a speech made by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, in which he called for more multilateral collaboration with regard to environmental issues in the Arctic (Selin 103). The eight Arctic countries—the U.S., Russia, Canada, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden—met in 1991 and adopted the first international effort to conserve the Arctic environment. They drafted the Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment and created the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). The AEPS worked to monitor, report on, and oversee environmental efforts in the Arctic (103).

The Arctic Council was created in 1996, replacing AEPS as the main overseeing body of Arctic environmental issues and policy (104). Most importantly, the Arctic Council expanded to include six indigenous populations groups—the Aleut International Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, the Gwich’in Council International, and the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) – and granted them the title of Permanent Participant (PP). Though these PPs had consulting rights on all decisions and activities of the Arctic Council, they did not have the formal decision-making powers granted to the eight state members (104).

The principal international convention addressing environmental issues in the Arctic was the 2001 Stockholm Convention on POPs, which confronted the serious human health concerns that POPs had on indigenous populations. During treaty negotiations, indigenous groups on the Arctic Council took an especially strong stance following a 1980s scientific discovery that found abnormally high levels of POPs in body samples of indigenous peoples (“Climate Change”). The treaty entered into force in 2004 and operates under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), aiming to monitor, reduce, and eventually phase out POP production and usage (Selin 105).

INTEGRATING INDIGENOUS VOICES: THE SUCCESSES

Arctic Council The most significant effort taken by the eight Arctic countries to include the native populations in global governance discussions was the expansion of the Arctic Council to include six indigenous populations. These populations “received an unprecedented status in intergovernmental cooperation, changing from observer to permanent participant” (Koivurova 133). Arctic states were now required to consult indigenous groups before making decisions, leading to the strengthening of cooperation and networking both between Arctic states and Sheila Watt-Cloutier and the ICC The leadership of Sheila Watt Cloutier, an Inuit activist and political representative, in the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) has also led to important advances in the visibility of native voices in Arctic politics. She pushed the ICC to create a high profile on environmental issues. By representing indigenous peoples in global politics, Watt-Cloutier and the ICC have portrayed indigenous populations in a way that is beneficial to their political standing in the Arctic Council. Through their leadership, they show that “[the Inuit] live closely with the environment; hold valuable environmentally rooted knowledge and traditions important for diet, spirituality, culture, and economics; and serve as embodiments, harbingers, and humanists for global change” (Martello 366).

The ICC has been very vocal in its demands from the international community, recognizing the urgency of climate change and the severity of its effects on the lives and health of indigenous populations (Cameron 466). Utilizing media and other publicizing tactics, the ICC has pressured the Arctic states into taking meaningful action to protect its peoples from climate change.

DISMISSING INDIGENOUS VOICES: THE SHORTCOMINGS

Legal Instruments Despite their important positions on the Arctic Council and high visibility in politics and media, indigenous peoples are still denied hard power in Arctic environmental politics and governance. Their permanent participant (PP) status limits them to a consultation position, with no power to vote on any decisions and no access to any financial resources that may improve their position. Their influence on the Arctic Council’s decisions are diluted by the weak structure of the Council itself—“its decisions are soft law at best” (Forgeron 65). Legally, none of the structures in place create binding obligations on the eight Arctic states with respect to indigenous rights (65). The Arctic Council does not have the power to create legally binding treaties or decisions that all eight Arctic states must comply with.

The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN in September 2007, lays out the proclaimed rights of indigenous peoples. However, as a declaration and not a formal treaty or convention, it holds no legally binding obligations or power. Under its dictates, indigenous peoples are guaranteed “freedom from discrimination; self-determination; autonomy; use of traditional lands and resources; health and life; practice of cultural traditions; and many more” (66). Despite this comprehensive list of

“guaranteed” rights, Arctic communities have reported that in reality, these rights have not been upheld. Indigenous groups are typically autonomous but neither politically nor legally sovereign. They are granted general freedom to govern themselves but are still considered part of the Arctic country in which they reside and must adhere to the laws and regulations of that country. Therefore, they have limited legal power in combating the environmental degradation occurring rapidly in the Arctic as well as the social, cultural, and psychological consequences of the destruction.

Inuit Knowledge and Research Climate change research in the Arctic has been lacking with regard to the impacts of climate change on indigenous communities. Although scientific research has been conducted, a study by Maribeth Murray and her team revealed that research for social science projects concerning the practices and livelihoods of indigenous populations has been underfunded and deprioritized. America’s National Science Foundation (NSF) grants for Arctic research typically fell between $100,000 and $500,000, but social science projects (including societal needs projects) were only given average budgets of under $50,000 (Rosen). In general, research was directed towards studying climate developments of the past decades rather on expanding upon future changes or policy approaches.

Additionally, research has disregarded the knowledge and experience of indigenous populations. Inuit traditional knowledge or Inuit Quajimajatuqangit, which is highly respected in indigenous communities, has not been fully incorporated in both Arctic research and Arctic policy. Instead, it has been used to provide context for researchers at the local level, as opposed to being used as empirical evidence in studies (Sheremata). Although Inuit leaders like Sheila Watt-Cloutier have been very vocal with their concerns about climate change and its effect on indigenous communities, many of the institutions in place are inadequate and ill-equipped to tackle climate issues or incorporate indigenous voices in the policymaking process.

CONCLUSION: WHAT NOW?

Global environmental governance in the Arctic region has not done enough to remedy the consequences that climate change imposes upon indigenous communities. These indigenous populations, despite contributing nearly nothing to global warming, disproportionately suffer from the increasingly severe effects of climate change. Policymaking and research by Arctic states have largely disregarded the value of indigenous knowledge and deprioritized climate change’s effects on the social and cultural well-being of indigenous communities. of local knowledge and the importance its role should have in the policymaking process. Arctic states have been making decisions on behalf of indigenous populations without experience or knowledge of the ground-level effects of climate change. Indigenous communities must be given more say and decision-making power when it comes to addressing the issues that affect them.

Additionally, the Arctic Council and other governing bodies that preside over Arctic environmental issues must be given more concrete legal power in order to effect real change and progress. Without legal institutions such as conventions or treaties with enforcement power, declarations and promises are meaningless.

Climate change in the Arctic region poses imminent and severe threats to indigenous peoples. Arctic nation states must act to protect and preserve both the Arctic’s fragile ecosystems and its inhabitants.

WORKS CITED

1.“Arctic Indigenous Peoples.” Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, www.arcticcentre.org/EN/communications/arcticregion/Arc tic-Indigenous-Peoples. Accessed 26 November 2018. 2. Bennett, Joseph R et al. “Polar Lessons Learned: Long-term Management Based on Shared Threats in Arctic and Antarctic Environments.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 13, no. 6,

August 2015 , pp. 316-24. 3. Bocking, Stephen, and Brad Martin. Ice Blink: Navigating Northern

Environmental History, University of Calgary Press, 2017, pp. 465- 95. 4. “Climate Change Speaker: Sheila Watt-Cloutier.”. Youtube, uploaded by The Lavin Agency Speakers Bureau, 17 June 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hve4izl91Yo. Accessed 26 November 2018. 5. Forgeron, Daryn. “Indigenous Rights: The Hidden Cost of Arctic Development.” Harvard International Review, vol. 36, no. 3, 2015, pp. 64-67. 6. Koivurova, Timo. “The Arctic Council: A Testing Ground for New

International Environmental Governance.” The Brown Journal of

World Affairs, vol. 19, no. 1, 2012, pp. 131-44. 7. Martello, Marybeth Long. “Arctic Indigenous Peoples as Representations and Representatives of Climate Change.” Social Studies of

Science, vol. 38, no. 3, June 2008, pp. 351-76. 8. Milman, Oliver. “What Happened to Winter? Vanishing Ice Convulses Alaskans’ Way of Life.” The Guardian, 21 April 2018, www. theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/21/alaska-climate-changewinter-way-of-life. Accessed 26 November 2018. 9. O’Neill, Kate. “The Arctic in a Changing World.” 9 October 2018,

University of California, Berkeley, CA, Speech. The Environment and International Relations. 2nd ed. N.p. Cambridge University

Press, 2017. 10.Rosen, Julia. “Arctic Research Slow to Focus on Societal Needs.”

NewsDeeply, 28 January 2016, www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/articles/2016/01/28/arctic-research-slow-to-focus-on-societal-needs.

Accessed 26 November 2018. 11.Selin, Henrik. “Global Environmental Governance and Treaty-Making: The Arctic’s Fragmented Voice.” Governing Arctic Change, 2017, pp. 101-20. 12.Sheremata, Megan. “Can We Hear Them Now?: Listening to Inuit Voices in Arctic Policy and Research.” EnviroSociety, 27 April 2016, www.envirosociety.org/2016/04/can-we-hear-them-nowlistening-to-inuit-voices-in-arctic-policy-and-research/. Accessed 26 November 2018.