No result found
2017-04-12
World Wildlife Fund (WWF);
Marine mammals, including whales, walrus, and seals, rely heavily on sounds for survival. The Arctic soundscape has long been shaped by their clicks and calls. The rapid loss of summer sea ice that's been observed in recent years is opening this once largely inaccessible region to ship traffic. The low-frequency sounds that ships generate propagate efficiently and travel vast distances in deep water marine environments. This means that the Arctic is becoming noisier, which could have a profound impact on marine mammals.
2017-04-12
World Wildlife Fund (WWF);
As the result of Arctic climate change and an increase in shipping season length, there is a growing interest in Arctic shipping operations. Sea ice serves as an important habitat for marine mammals, therefore, shipping through sea ice could lead to increased negative interactions with ice-bound marine mammals. The following literature review discusses the impacts of icebreaking on marine mammals and habitats. These impacts include: avoidance of areas where icebreaking is occurring, behavioral and physiological impacts of increased anthropogenic noise, entrapment, habitat destruction and fragmentation, and oil spills.
2017-04-05
World Wildlife Fund (WWF);
WWF-Canada commissioned a series of reports to identify barriers that will prevent northern communities from effectively responding to a shipbased oil spill. Parallel reports for the western Beaufort region and Nunavut outline these barriers. A third report provides a framework for developing realistic oil spill response plans for Nunavut communities. To effectively address the issues of oil spill response capacity in the North, engagement with communities is crucial to developing a framework that works within the Arctic context.
2019-08-01
Harvard Law School, Environmental & Energy Law Program;
While changes in political leadership affect U.S. ocean and coastal management strategies, the trajectory of U.S. policy over time has been to advance comprehensive consideration of the interconnected ecological ocean system in international and domestic ocean management. Domestically, regional planning and protective approaches have helped regulators balance multiple, often conflicting uses that can affect ecosystem resilience.However, U.S. wariness of multi-lateral international agreements challenges environmentally conscious ocean management goals. Recent domestic ocean policies emphasize fossil energy development over conservation and sustainability concerns. Proposals regarding offshore resource development as well as deregulatory efforts could impact ocean resources and have repercussions in international fora.At the domestic level, limits on the current administration's ability to abruptly finalize major changes to ocean and coastal management exist: jurisdictional authorities are split among federal and state powers and among multiple agencies, and science-based and procedural requirements are built into the ocean and coastal statutes. The current administration has shown a willingness to continue implementation of certain fisheries management reforms initiated in the prior administration, perhaps indicating certain policy areas may not experience extensive priority shifts.This paper reviews the legal and regulatory framework supporting U.S. coastal and ocean management, and describes changes under the current administration.a Comprehensive reviews of the legal framework and regulations of topics covered in this report already exist, but there is value in considering the overarching legal framework and understanding how these separate technical areas interrelate. This paper focuses on policy topics prioritized under the current and most recent administrations and assesses the state of play of the ongoing deregulation process.Overall, ocean management has seen less dramatic change than other areas of environmental regulation during this administration, such as air, water, climate, and energy. Most action on ocean issues has, thus far, concentrated on domestic policy. However, the themes exhibited at the domestic level are beginning to reflect on the international stage and to shift the dialogue with the EU and other partners.The administration's unwillingness to continue previous domestic policies on climate change and opposition to international agreements involving commitments to do so (for example, in announcing the U.S. intends to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement) have a direct impact on Arctic policies and may also impact ocean and coastal issues closely tied to climate, such as acidification, sea level rise, and adaptation. Yet, at the national level, this administration has supported narrow efforts to address marine debris and plastics in the oceans.Policies and actions in areas crucial to the management of ocean and coastal areas reveal a pattern of prioritizing economic interests and energy development over conservation and protection. On issues not directly tied to climate and not thought to hinder U.S. energy industry development, this administration has exhibited a degree of continuity in position with the prior administration—such as on illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and signing of an agreement preemptively barring fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean. Continued development of offshore wind energy could also be an avenue for increased cooperation with the EU as much of the existing expertise in this area lies with EU-based companies. Recent estimates suggest there are 22,000 MW of offshore wind potential off the east coast of the U.S.—representing a possible $70 billion of economic opportunity.
2009-12-01
World Wildlife Fund (WWF);
WWF commissioned these three reports to examine the current governance regime, identify governance and regulatory gaps and analyze options for improvements. The reports, which are authored by international legal experts Timo Koivurova and Erik J. Molenaar, conclude that one of the best options is to adopt a new multilateral agreement. WWF's goal is to work with arctic states and arctic Indigenous peoples to promote the closure of the 'governance gaps', protection and preservation of the Arctic Ocean and sustainable ecosystem-based management of its resources.
2014-01-01
Oak Foundation;
The thawing conditions and the shorter sea ice seasons are opening up opportunities for trade and commerce in the Arctic. The melting ice means that previously unreachable areas, potentially rich in resources – including oil, gas and valuable minerals – are now increasingly accessible. Shipping traffic in the region is also increasing. In the coming years, the Arctic has the potential to become a key passageway for global marine transportation. In addition, fish are migrating northward, a fact that will no doubt become all the more attractive for neighbouring countries' fisheries, as the rest of the world's fish stocks become increasingly scarce. However, the indigenous communities of the north depend upon the marine resources of the Arctic for their sustenance and livelihoods. The importance of protecting those resources and the ecosystems on which they depend is critical for securing a sustainable future.
2012-10-01
The Pew Charitable Trusts;
Between 2000 and 2008, the area available to offshore oil and gas activities in Alaska waters increased eight-fold – from 9.4 million acres to 77 million acres. During those years, the Bush administration initiated oil development at an unprecedented pace and scale in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas of the U.S. Arctic Ocean, as well as Bristol Bay in the southeast Bering Sea. Oil and gas activities pose significant environmental risks that include: potential oil spills, noise pollution, toxicological impacts, physical impacts and socioeconomic impacts.
2010-11-10
The Pew Charitable Trusts;
One of the greatest concerns associated with oil and gas development is the potential impact of noise on marine mammals. The sources of noise include seismic surveying, drilling, construction and the use of ice-breaker ships. These impacts have been documented by many government agencies and research institutions including the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, the U.S. Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Marine Mammal Commission and the National Research Council.
2010-11-10
The Pew Charitable Trusts;
One of the most significant threats to life in the Arctic from industrial activities is the risk of an oil spill. Alaska's Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea experience some of the most extreme weather conditions on earth, from high winds and seas to long periods of darkness amidst subzero temperatures. Harsh weather alone can significantly delay clean-up efforts. In addition, adequate technology to clean up oil spills in broken ice has not been proven to work in ice conditions typical of the U.S. Arctic Ocean.
2013-09-01
The Pew Charitable Trusts;
Oil spilled in Arctic waters would be particularly difficult to remove. Current technology has not been proved to effectively clean up oil when mixed with ice or when trapped under ice. An oil spill would have a profoundly adverse impact on the rich and complex ecosystem found nowhere else in the United States. The Arctic Ocean is home to bowhead, beluga, and gray whales; walruses; polar bears; and other magnificent marine mammals, as well as millions of migratory birds. A healthy ocean is important for these species and integral to the continuation of hunting and fishing traditions practiced by Alaska Native communities for thousands of years.To aid the United States in its efforts to modernize Arctic technology and equipment standards, this report examines the fierce Arctic conditions in which offshore oil and gas operations could take place and then offers a summary of key recommendations for the Interior Department to consider as it develops world-class, Arctic-specific regulatory standards for these activities. Pew's recommendations call for improved technology,equipment, and procedural requirements that match the challenging conditions in the Arctic and for full public participation and transparency throughout the decision-making process. Pew is not opposed to offshore drilling, but a balance must be achieved between responsible energy development and protection of the environment.It is essential that appropriate standards be in place for safety and for oil spill prevention and response in this extreme, remote, and vulnerable ecosystem. This report recommends updating regulations to include Arctic specific requirements and codifying temporary guidance into regulation. The appendixes to this report provide substantially more detail on the report's recommendations, including technical background documentation and additional referenced materials. Please refer to the full set of appendixes for a complete set of recommendations. This report and its appendixes offer guidelines for responsible hydrocarbon development in the U.S. Arctic Ocean.
2013-09-01
The Pew Charitable Trusts;
Eighty percent of spills and accidents in all industries, including oil and gas, are estimated to be caused by human error. Additionally, the Arctic Ocean presents an array of hazardous operating conditions. In the Arctic, dangerous conditions could include gale force winds, extreme fog, prolonged periods of darkness, shifting sea ice and sub-zero temperatures. When multiple risk factors combine, accidents are even more likely to occur. An increase in oil exploration and production will create oil spill risks from offshore platforms, associated pipelines, storage tanks and shipping activities. At the same time, changing sea ice conditions are opening new shipping routes and extending the season for existing routes. Increasing vessel traffic will only add to the potential risk of oil spills beyond the oil and gas industry.
2013-04-05
The Pew Charitable Trusts;
The Arctic Ocean is one of the planet's pristine marine regions. But permanent ice is diminishing due to climate change, opening the international waters of the Central Arctic Ocean to commercial fishing for the first time in human history. These waters, encompassing an area as big as the Mediterranean Sea, are not governed by a fisheries agreement. Such an accord is needed to close this region to commercial fishing until scientific knowledge and management measures can ensure a sustainable fishery.
