Welcome to Over the Circle (OtC), a site dedicated to news, politics and foreign policy in the Arctic region. With the ongoing changes in the circumpolar north due to climate change and ice erosion, the region has become the focus of much greater attention on a global scale, and as a result the politics of the Arctic are also undergoing rapid changes. This site will look at the politics of the ‘Arctic Eight’ (Canada, Denmark [Faroe Islands / Greenland] Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States), but also of non-Arctic states, including in Western Europe and East Asia, which are also quickly developing their own Arctic diplomacy policies.
Among the major topics in Arctic politics are economic development, environmental concerns, energy (oil and gas), shipping and new Arctic sea routes, and new and existing regional organisations, (like the Arctic Council). While there is much discussion about the opening of the Arctic, this site will examine regional and international news with an eye to examining just what this ‘opening’ really entails.
欲了解更多关于本次北极狐旅程研究资料，敬请阅读由Eva Fuglei 以及 Arnaud Tarroux 撰写的《Arctic fox dispersal from Svalbard to Canada: one female’s long run across sea ice》 一文。 Polar Research 39(2019), https://doi.org/10.33265/polar.v38.3512.
小时候看过简写版的童话故事《动物远征队》(The Animals of Farthing Wood)，这部童话讲述因为森林遭受人类开发，一群动物为了生存不得不离开家园，团结协助排除万难，抵达动物保护区的故事。那时候以为陆地动物“远征”只是故事，后来发现这种事确实是存在的。
How long does it take to travel from Norway to Canada? 76 days, via an epic walk by a one-year old female Arctic fox.
The fox, outfitted with a satellite collar by the researchers Norwegian Polar Institute / Norsk Polarinstitutt, began her travels on 26 March 2018 in Spitsbergen, the main island of the Norwegian islands of Svalbard. She arrived in Northern Greenland after twenty-one days and continued her trek westward to Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada by June of that year.
The cumulative travelling distance of the vulpine wanderer was 3506 kilometers in seventy-six days, and 46.3 kilometres per day at an average rate, which made the researchers marvel at not just because the length of her walk, but also the speed of which she covered both difficult terrain and dividing waterways.
Further reading: ‘Arctic Fox Dispersal from Svalbard to Canada: One Female’s Long Run Across Sea Ice’ by Eva Fuglei and Arnaud Tarroux, Polar Research 39(2019), https://doi.org/10.33265/polar.v38.3512.
The danger posed by plastic waste has begun to gather a high level of international attention in the wake of alarming data about plastic products, many of which are ‘single use’ items, damaging the environment, including the world’s oceans, and presenting a health risk to both humans and wildlife. Currently, only about nine percent of plastics are recycled, with the remainder adding to the waste build-up in many parts of the world. It has been estimated that eight million tonnes of plastic enter the oceans each year, mostly from land-based sources and transported by rivers.
The Arctic Ocean, despite its remoteness, has proven not to be an exception to this growing crisis. Not only have regular castoff plastic items found their way into the region, but also ‘microplastics’ which are much more difficult to detect and remove are present. Moreover, much of the plastic found in the Arctic did not originate in the region, but rather was transported there via ocean currents from the south.
Scientific analyses released in 2018 suggested that in some parts of the Arctic Ocean, over twelve thousand particles of microplastics could be found in a single litre of sea ice. A similar study by UiT: The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, released earlier this year found evidence of microplastic contamination in remote waters off of north-eastern Greenland as well as within two local varieties of fish with widely different eating habits, namely the polar cod and a bottom-feeding species known as the bigeye sculpin. So not only is the Arctic not immune from the scourge of plastic waste being generated elsewhere, the region is becoming a way-stop for plastics dumped in the ocean and carried north.
The threat of plastic waste to delicate ecosystems, including the Arctic, has prompted numerous countries to implement campaigns to discourage and eventually eliminate single use plastics in the coming years. For example, the Justin Trudeau government in Canada announced that the country would attempt to ban all such plastics by 2021, and in Iceland, single use plastic bags are to be eliminated by January of that year. The Finnish Environment Ministry released a ‘roadmap’ for the reduction of plastics in October last year, which included calls for greater education about the danger of plastic waste, support for alternative products, and more effective recycling and reusing practices. Norway already has an aggressive plastic recycling program in place, and according to 2018 figures, 97% of the country’s plastic beverage bottles are now recycled.
The government of the United States, by contrast, has appeared to be significantly less interested in addressing the single use plastic issue in a rapid fashion, as illustrated during a UN conference in Nairobi on the issue, where the US delegation pushed for a final text from the meeting calling for the significant reduction of single use plastics, rather than an outright ban, by 2030. This followed an unwillingness by the US government to support an Ocean Plastics Charter put forward at last year’s Group of Seven (G7) conference in Charlevoix, Canada. Five of the G7 governments, (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom), agreed to sign on to the pact, but the US and Japan declined.
Washington also found itself playing the role of spoiler after it declined in May this year to join with over 180 other governments in supporting global-level restrictions on plastic waste transport over borders, in the form of an addendum to the 1992 Basel Convention [pdf], originally drafted to reduce [pdf] the international transfer of hazardous wastes, especially to developing regions. Adding plastic waste to the list of materials covered by the Basel Convention was originally proposed by the government of Norway in recognition of the threat from plastics to marine ecosystems and pressures placed on developing countries to accept such waste, especially in light of recent new laws regarding waste imports implemented by China.
As part of China’s ongoing environmental reforms, the country has been seeking to better control its plastic recycling policies by addressing its domestic stockpiles and beginning to interdict shipments of plastic waste from other countries, including the United States. Following its announcement in July 2017, a Chinese government policy, somewhat grandiosely named ‘National Sword’ [In Chinese] (guomen lijian 国门利剑), brought an end to decades of importing plastic and other recyclable waste for processing and repurposing within China.
Beijing’s unhappiness with being the destination point for so much of the word’s castoff waste for recycling had been building for several years before the current restrictions, as evidenced by the February 2013 ‘Green Fence’ (lüse weilan 绿色围栏) initiative which sought to restrict the influx of poor quality, unclean and unsorted recyclable waste from foreign sources. In addition to these rules being set up to improve China’s own domestic recycling needs and encourage better recycling habits in the country, environmental and sustainable development concerns also prompted the bans.
In September 2017, Beijing informed the World Trade Organisation of its intention intending to halt imports on environmental and health grounds of twenty-four types of recyclable products, including types of plastic waste. This announcement created shockwaves in North America and Europe, forcing them to find alternative options for handling their plastic recyclables. By the end of 2018, plastic exports to China had fallen 99.1% compared with the previous year, and many exporting countries in the West are now hurriedly weighing a variety of policy choices to handle their growing plastic waste backlogs. Unfortunately, in the case of the United States, one option for many municipalities has been simply to avoid recycling altogether in favour of dumping and burning.
China is hardly alone in rethinking its plastic waste import policies, as this month a container vessel filled with sixty-nine shipping containers of garbage arrived at Tsawwassen terminal in British Columbia from the Philippines, ending a six-year diplomatic incident between Ottawa and Manila after it was discovered that the garbage, which had been labelled as plastic waste, was contaminated with other waste products when it was shipped to the Philippines during 2013-4, prompting an angry reaction from Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, and a downgrading of diplomatic relations with Canada.
Other Asian states which had previously accepted foreign plastic waste, including India, Malaysia and Vietnam, are also implementing controls on future imports. This has meant that many Western countries which have long relied on developing states to quickly and cheaply take in plastic waste, are now having to look closer to home for solutions.
With the Arctic facing a variety of pressing climate change challenges, including recent reports of drastic changes to Arctic coastlines caused by melting permafrost, having the potential to affect the environment and human activity well beyond the confines of the circumpolar north, the issue of local plastic contamination has now moved away from being a fringe issue to one which is standing alongside other threats to the Arctic which are in need of swift resolution.
This week, a new article Marc Lanteigne, editor at OtC, was published in the online magazine NATO Review, on the subject of the changed security conditions in the Arctic, especially as a result of emerging greater power policies and strategies which appearing alongside human security challenges such as the effects of Arctic climate change.
During the 1990s, the Arctic had entered a period of (real or perceived) exceptionalism given that the region was seen as separated from many of the security challenges of the post-cold war era. With the creation of the Arctic Council in 1996 and the regional focus on the effects of climate change and other ‘non-traditional’ security issues such as socio-economic development, the Arctic was mostly left off the proverbial map during studies of emerging security issues.
However, with concerns over Russian military activity in the European Arctic, the arrival of non-Arctic states in Arctic affairs, especially China, and the recent attempts by the United States to inject military security concerns into Arctic discourse, the region may be going ‘back to the future’ in terms of how local security is perceived.
The National Day of Greenland, (Inuiattut Ullorsiorneq in Greenlandic), was introduced in 1983, four years after the Home Rule Act came into force. Greenland was integrated into the Kingdom of Denmark in 1953 after being a colony of the latter for over a century. Afterwards, Greenland obtained its own anthem, national flag and the national day. Interestingly, the national day of Greenland is set on 21 June, which is also the summer solstice, the day of the longest amount of sunshine in the Northern hemisphere.
There were celebration activities at home and abroad this year. On this day, one of the traditional events is seal hunting on the island. In Nuuk, locals gathered at the harbour, enjoying music, kayak demonstrations and other family friendly activities. There were also celebrations in Denmark and Iceland, where Greenland established its fourth representational office abroad (in Reykjavík) last year.
2019 marks the ten-year anniversary of the Self Rule Act [pdf]. Indeed, in the past decade, the literacy rate, economic performance of the nation, and other barometers have improved. Greenland still has to address many social and economic challenges, including poverty, suicide and domestic violence. Nevertheless, Greenland has made great strides since achieving Home and Self Rule.
Happy Greenlandic National Day! Ullorsiornitsinni pilluaritsi!
The author would like to thank Mikkel Møller Schøler for his assistance with the Greenlandic terms.