EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
EPPRs future work on Natural disasters
Discussion document from Norway
Introduction
In the meeting in Las Vegas, EPPR discussed the work on natural disasters, which has been a part of
EPPRs mandate since 2004. Based on that discussion, Norway was asked to consider the possibility to
prepare a discussion document on this issue to the next Annual meeting.
Based on this request, the EPPR vice Chair asked the Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency
Planning in Norway for assistance to outline a draft that takes into account current challenges in
preparing for and responding to natural disasters in the Arctic.
In that respect, this paper will try to confront the issue of possible natural disasters in the Arctic by
inquiring into some of the concerns related to the national as well as the international ability to tackle
emergencies caused by natural disasters that may lead to emergency situations. In order to constrain
the sphere of what can be defined as a natural disaster in the Arctic, we propose the following
framework:
1.
Disasters and emergencies caused by climatic and meteorological reasons, such as
arctic storms, global warming and ice melting/calving, spring tide or even other unprecedented
types of extreme weather leading to an emergency on land or at sea.
2.
Man-made disasters or emergencies caused by erroneous human behavior, or disasters
and emergencies with source from one or several technical malfunctions or breakdown of
critical infrastructure, such as accident on industrial or chemical plant, fallout or cut in the
supply of electricity or other type of vital supply.
To simplify this, we can say that a natural disaster is either an incident caused by arctic nature in itself
or a man-made disaster with widespread and critical consequences to nature in the Arctic. This duality
is of course of minor significance in itself - our goal with this paper is to identify areas and possible
threats caused by natural disasters liable to harm human life, infrastructure, biodiversity and nature in
the Arctic.
Background
Recently, the Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning in Norway published its annual
National Vulnerability and Preparedness Report (NSBR 2009)1 with a special emphasis on challenges
connected to risk and vulnerability in the areas north of the Arctic Circle in Norway. Norway gave a
short presentation on this report in the Las Vegas meeting. This report is somewhat wider in its
approach, but will still serve as a reference for some of the questions brought to the table in a narrower
context within the EPPR. With regard to disasters in the Arctic region, the report point out the
following: “Access to resources, both personnel and material, represents a challenge to the
preparedness in the Northern areas due to great distances and as a result, scattered resources.
Increased capacity and improved logistics are keywords. This is especially pertinent in case of major
and complex incidents. Climate change and increased activities raise new demands on preparedness.
There will be a need for improved cooperation locally, regionally and internationally.”2
1
National Vulnerability and Preparedness Report (NSBR) 2009: Risk, vulnerability and preparedness in the
Northern areas. Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (DSB), Norway
2
Ibid, page 26.
EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
The common denominator for these types of incidents is their important impact on both population
and on infrastructure, as well as on nature itself. In a recent feature article in the Norwegian newspaper
Aftenposten,3 the director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, Mr. Jan-Gunnar Winther, points out
several challenges for the international arctic community in the years to come. He highlights some
weaknesses in both preparedness and response in the Arctic region, which are all compatible with
some of the concerns related to the international ability to develop future response capacities.
1. There is a lack of harmonization in regulations and preparedness capacity in the region as a
whole. Which country will take lead in responding to an emergency in international waters or
in the imminent outskirts of a country’s national shelf? How well prepared are the Member
States when it comes to resolving incidents that surpass available resources in extremely
remote areas? Danish Navy Commander, Mr. Jan Bøgsted, recently warned during a climate
conference in Nuuk that “it’s only a matter of time before an accident involving a cruise ship
occurs in the Arctic”, reports the Greenlandic paper Sermitsiaq4.
2. First non-Russian commercial vessel to sail from South - Korea to Western Europe midSeptember through the North-East Passage must be considered a milestone and marks the
transition to a more diversified pattern in worldwide maritime transport. A new
intercontinental shipping lane demands close cooperation between the member states of the
Arctic Council in defining acceptable minimum standards for global preparedness and
response when it comes to dealing with natural disasters in the Arctic region. According to a
Hamburg-based expert on Arctic questions, Joachim Schwarz, the North-East passage will be
navigable all-year-round for merchant vessels in 6 to 7 years time, and thus of high interest for
the shipping industry5.
The EPPR Working Group has in its Strategic Plan set three objectives. The first objective is to
“improve prevention measures aimed at reducing accidents which could result in environmental
emergencies in the Arctic” and the second is to “improve emergency preparedness programmes at
local, national, regional and international levels to ensure they are commensurate with the level of risk
that exists, including arrangements for mutual assistance.” The third goal is to “improve response
capabilities so that they are commensurate with existing threats”. This paper will primarily focus on
preparedness and response.
In order to obtain a certain level of specificity in this task, we will propose some possible ways to plot
the course ahead. Bearing in mind the climatic changes in the Arctic the past decades, it seems now
more pertinent than ever to investigate further on how to prepare for and respond to disasters and
emergencies in the Arctic.
Firstly, we have suggested a simple typology for categorizing (see matrix attached) what can be
conceived to be a natural disaster in the Arctic. We hope this can contribute to lay some ground for
discussing types of preparedness and response on a more detailed level. Secondly, we will try to
elaborate some points on the challenges related to preparedness and response in the Arctic in general.
3
Aftenposten, September 18th, 2009
Sermitsiaq, August 25th, 2009
5
Welt am Sonntag, September 13th 2009
4
EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
Natural disasters
With climate change, the risk for disasters in the Arctic increases dramatically. In its strategy for
climate change adaptation, the EU points to the Arctic as one of the most vulnerable areas to climate
change in Europe. Global warming affects the Arctic region more than any other region in the world.
Through wind and sea currents heat is transported from the Equator and north- and southwards; and
while the Antarctic continent is protected by cold sea currents, the Arctic is not. Global warming by 2
degrees Celsius therefore means 6 to 8 degrees higher temperatures in the Arctic.
The effects of climate change can already be observed. In 2007, the extent of the Arctic ice sheet
reached a historic minimum. Although the decrease was slightly less in 2008 and 2009, the situation is
still alarming since the ice also becomes thinner. It is estimated that since the 1970s, the thickness of
the ice has been reduced by more than 60 per cent.
The melting of the Arctic ice sheet further accelerates climate change, since dark water absorbs the sun
radiation, instead of white snow reflecting it back. In addition, higher temperatures in the Arctic lead
to melting permafrost, which releases methane, a gas with higher greenhouse effect than CO2.
Offshore hazards and vulnerabilities
Recent satellite observations carried out by NASA indicate that there may be open waters across the
Arctic already in the year 20156. This opens up for new ship routes between the Atlantic and the
Pacific. It also opens up for the utilization of natural resources in new areas. But increased human
activity in Arctic waters also means increased risk for offshore disasters.
Arctic storms
One of the most dangerous weather phenomena in this part of the world is the Arctic storms. Low
pressures that occur very rapidly in areas where cold air from ice covered areas meet warm air over
open waters lead to severe storms which can reach hurricane level in a very short time. These storms
represent high risk for ships and offshore installations. With the melting of the ice sheet more water
will be left open, leaving a larger area in which such storms can occur. Combined with increased
human activity in Arctic waters, this represents a significant increase in the risk level for offshore
disasters.
Disasters at sea may also affect tourism industry, as cruise traffic can be expected to grow in the
decades to come. A cruise ship accident in the Arctic represents a challenge for the emergency
preparedness and response sector. Cruise ships can carry thousands of passengers and with vast
distances across open waters and ice, few ports, few and small hospitals and evacuation centres, rescue
operations in the Arctic become a difficult task. Especially in international waters, where rescue
operations will involve many countries, there is a strong need for coordination.
Sea level rise
The main reason for sea level rise is rising ocean temperatures. In addition, melting glaciers contribute
to the rising sea level, although it is uncertain how much and how rapid this contribution is. In Norway
6
www.klimatilpasning.no
EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
and the Arctic, sea level rise is partly compensated by land rise which still continues after the last ice
age.
Rising sea level does not constitute a critical hazard in itself, but the effects of spring tides and storms
will probably become more severe as infrastructure, buildings, installations etc. gradually becomes
closer to the sea. Piers, docks and breakwaters need to be upgraded to withstand the higher sea level.
Changes in marine biodiversity
Changes in offshore biodiversity may have social consequences. Some species will move northwards
as the water gets warmer, some will become extinct and be replaced by other species. Fishing
industries will have to change the way they operate and it may be necessary to move activities to be
able to continue operations as normal. Although this does not represent a disaster risk in itself, it will
lead to changes in – and possibly loss of – livelihoods for many local communities. The consequences
can be social unrest, criminality, weaker public institutions, and communities more vulnerable to all
kinds of disasters.
Land-based hazards and vulnerabilities
Land-based disaster risks will increase in the Arctic, both as a consequence of more frequent and more
extreme weather events, and because of melting permafrost leading to instabilities in the ground. Risks
include sudden onset disasters, slow onset disasters, and long-term changes in livelihoods due to
changes in biodiversity.
Melting permafrost
With higher temperatures, the southern edge of permafrost is expected to move hundreds of kilometres
northwards. Melting permafrost represents a higher disaster risk as the ground becomes more unstable.
In mountainous areas, the risk of landslides will increase. Thawing permafrost changes the soil
conditions for buildings and installations and constructions will thus need to be reinforced or removed
to avoid building collapse.
Landslides
Due to more extreme and frequent rain, the risk for landslides is expected to increase. In addition, new
areas will be exposed to landslides. Landslides are usually triggered by heavy rain, or by floods
following heavy precipitation. Flash floods represent a high risk to neighbouring communities, both in
the terms of the risk that the slide in itself represents, and as a consequence of rivers that find new
ways through human settlements. Roads and other infrastructure will be exposed to higher risk.
Landslide risks include the possibility of large rockslides. Such landslides occur independent of
weather conditions and previous events in Norway, such as Loen and Tafjord, have been the result of
geological processes. But melting permafrost will lead to instabilities in the ground, which may trigger
such events in the future.
Floods
Changes in precipitation patterns will lead to changes in flood patterns. With milder winters, the
annual spring flood may disappear and there will instead be more flooding during winter time and
after heavy rainfall in the summer and autumn. In springtime, the breaking-up of the ice may occur
higher up in the rivers than today.
EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
Avalanches
As for landslides, avalanches will also occur in areas that are currently not exposed to them. New
patterns of precipitation, changes in the freezing - thawing cycle as well as changing temperatures and
extreme weather all contribute to increased avalanche risk.
Winter storms
Winter storms are a usual phenomenon in the Arctic, and communities will probably be able to cope
with them even if they increase both in terms of frequency and intensity. But so-called ice storms,
which are still not very common, may become a problem in the future. They are caused by a
combination of rainfall and cold temperatures on the ground and can lead to severe damage on
buildings, electricity supply and other infrastructure, as well as vehicles. In 1998, 1.4 million citizens
in Canada lost their electricity supply for almost one month as a result of such a storm.
Drinking water
Higher temperatures could change the quality of drinking water. Changes in bacterial level and
composition, algae and other micro - organisms may give serious health problems. Changing rain
patterns and snowfalls will also affect the water level and thus the access to drinking water.
Health issues
With higher temperatures follows increased risk for vector borne diseases currently not present in the
Arctic. This probably represents a challenge first and foremost to the mainland areas, as vector born
diseases will not easily be transferred across the wide distances of open waters. Cruise tourists and
other passengers on large ships will probably be the most exposed, and mainly because the disease is
brought with other passengers on the ship. But in case a disease spreads widely between many
passengers, there are very few health institutions in the Arctic large enough to receive and treat a large
number of patients.
Changes in biodiversity
Warmer climate will bring changes in biodiversity. As a general rule, species – both plants and
animals – will move further north or to higher altitudes than today, taking over the areas of species
currently there. This will have both positive and negative effects. The agricultural sector will benefit
from a longer growing season, but will at the same time be exposed to risks for new parasites, vector
born diseases etc. For the reindeer - herding sector, clogging of grazing land will make it necessary to
move herds to new areas. Flooding during spring and autumn may also intercept migration from inland
areas to the coast and back.
As for the marine sector, these changes may affect and in the worst - case result in the loss of
livelihoods for local communities. Social unrest, criminality, weaker public institutions, and
communities more vulnerable to all kinds of disaster may represent a new dimension for local
preparedness planning.
Geological hazards
Volcanoes and earthquakes are quite uncommon in most of the Arctic, except on Iceland. Climate
change does not affect these hazards, but weather related events may affect the impact of disasters. For
example, extreme weather may affect complicate the recovery process after an earthquake.
Arctic Impacts and Adaptation Database
EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
The Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) in the Arctic Council is currently looking at
the possibility of establishing a database for climate impacts and adaptation in the Arctic. This will be
an important initiative for knowledge sharing in the field of climate change adaptation. It will also be
highly relevant for future work in the EPPR, since such a database will hopefully provide valuable
knowledge for future strategies on emergency prevention and preparedness in the Arctic.
Preparedness and emergency response
The vastness of the Arctic may eventually call upon measures beyond what each and every Member
State can accomplish on its own. This fact should instigate Member States to consider the future need
to construct international/intergovernmental modules with the purpose of facilitating supranational
efforts in areas with no immediate national response. There should be no obstacles for starting to
discuss how to develop such instruments on a non-binding basis. International institutions have
discovered that when a group of countries takes the lead in going deeper in multilateral cooperation in
one particular field when the common interest allows it, it’s also to the benefit of that institution as a
whole. Common policy for prevention, preparedness and emergency response in the Arctic region can
be such a field of cooperation.
There is a need to raise the knowledge and consciousness of future challenges and threats at all levels;
among the emergency agencies and public authorities, in business and industry, and in the general
population. One proposed measure has been to establish a resource centre for risk, vulnerability and
preparedness for monitoring the Arctic region. The centre would carry out risk and vulnerability
assessments and maintain an overview of the emergency preparedness capacity. This should be carried
out in cooperation with research and educational establishments.7 There would be no need for building
a new structure for this purpose, since there already are several organizations apt for taking this task
further. Such a centre should have close relations to the scientific environment, to research clusters and
to academic world to be considered interesting on an international level, should different national
authorities and stakeholders identify benefits in this type of combined action. Of course, the mandate
and location of such a resource centre would be subject to future negotiations.
Most predictions foresee a substantial increase in sea-based activity in the Arctic region the next
twenty years. New shipping lanes and general increase in activities connected to the oil industry will
most likely mean more resources to prevention, preparedness and emergency response. The area as a
geographical entity will be transformed, and should not just be thought of as a remote and cold place
with modest activity. In fact, in the future it should rather be compared to any other maritime zone
open for international traffic with the consequences that brings to the table. It can thus be
recommended that a systematic mapping of emergency resources is carried out – on terms set by the
Member States - to see if these resources are satisfactory in relation to the risk and vulnerability
challenges in the Arctic region in the years to come.
Future challenges in preparedness and current response
capacities/capabilities
No doubt will the future bring challenges to the Arctic region that today are not sufficiently planned
for. This fact is commonly recognized and will also remain a fact, since it is not humanly possible to
eliminate all threats. What is possible, though, is to try to identify a certain number of potential points
7
National Vulnerability and Preparedness Report (NSBR) 2009: Risk, vulnerability and preparedness in the
Northern areas. Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (DSB), Norway
EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
to improve different types of response capacity. This task is not for one single party to tackle, it
implies more of a coordinated international effort to succeed. In that respect, EPPR seems well-suited
to address these challenges to its member states based on what is considered necessary in both a short
and a mid-term perspective.
There are several ways to initiate such a scheme, but in order to start somewhere, let us propose to
establish a multilateral project on preparedness and response to natural disasters in the Arctic. What
should be the prerequisites for putting up such an ambitious plan? Immediately, three elements come
to mind;
1. Define which types of natural disasters should be encompassed by what is conceived an
international emergency in the Arctic (each country to furnish input).
2. What kind of prevention measures has already been taken/are already in place (each country to
furnish input). These measures must surpass what is considered a strictly national emergency
preparedness/response capacity in order to be defined as a possible international asset in the
Arctic region.
3. What are the range and status of existing best practices in the eventuality of a natural disaster
in the Arctic? A possible action could be to investigate further into the existing international
framework in order to avoid development of ideas that have already found their home under
the auspices of other multilateral agreements. What types of response capacities/capabilities
are ready to for use tomorrow, should such a full-scale emergency occur? What’s the best way
to respond to natural disasters in the Arctic region seen from an international point of view?
We are of the opinion that these questions could serve as a launch pad for discussions on the overall
preparedness and response capacity and capability to deal with natural disasters in the Arctic today and
tomorrow.
Lately, several international efforts and initiatives have been made to highlight the need for enhanced
international cooperation in this region. Work and projects on host nation support, capacity
strengthening by building modules, an increase in bilateral agreements on search and rescue operations
and also a larger climatic (and commercial) focus on the Arctic region worldwide summed up are all
elements that should instigate EPPR to welcome a coordinated effort through a project like this.
One way to kick off this initiative could be to invite member states, including native and indigenous
population, to a workshop to discuss how to plot the way ahead. Such a workshop should also have a
clearly defined goal. Perhaps could the building of joint/mutual guidelines for international
preparedness and response to natural disasters in the Arctic region just be that goal?
By this, we have only just set out a few thoughts on how to better cope with future natural disasters in
the Arctic. We hope that some of these thoughts could trigger an initiative amongst the member states
to address the issue in a collective manner. Because it is rather obvious that no country alone will have
the necessary capability to respond to major disasters in this region relying on national capacities
alone.
--------------------------------------------------
EPPR Working Group Meeting
Copenhagen, Denmark - November 10-11, 2009
Natural causes
Responsibility: Offshore
Arctic storms
Local level
Spring tide (sea
level rise)
Changes in
biodiversity
National level
Arctic storms
Cruise ship
accident
Sea level rise
Changes in
biodiversity
International
level
Technical/human causes
Landbased
Offshore
Landbased
Landslide
Ship collision
Failure in
(weather+permafrost)
electricity supply
Avalanches
Road/bridge/tunnel
collapse
Building collapse
Local oil spill
Mining accident
(built/building on
permafrost)
Water pollution
Water pollution
New diseases
Winter storms/ice
storms
Changes in
biodiversity
Loss of livelihoods
Major flooding
Vulcano/earthquake
Ship collision
Oil spill
Gas explosion
Nuclear incident
Winter storms
Oil rig accident
Plane crash
Mining accident
Plane crash
Changes in
biodiversity
Loss of livelihoods
Economic crisis
Arctic storms
Ship collision
Cruise ship
accident
Major oilspill
Nuclear incident
Plane crash
Changes in
biodiversity
Miscelleanous
Need for
international
coordination
Unmapped areas
Breakdown
technical
infrastructure
Changes in
biodiversity
Economic crisis