46 



-2- 



The review, which has recently been published (4) , 

 considered four families of pollutants: heavy metals, 

 organochlorines, acid precipitation, and radionuclides. The 

 primary focus with regard to radionuclides was on long-lived 

 fission products that have entered the Arctic terrestrial 

 ecosystem, primarily through atmospheric fall-out from nuclear 

 weapons testing between 1952 and 1980 and as a result of the 

 Chernobyl incident in 1986. Monitoring programs to assess the 

 impact of radionuclides on Arctic biota and humans were carried 

 out. Although the slow biological turnover rates in the Arctic 

 have prolonged the natural dissipative processes, a steady decline 

 in cesium-137 levels was observed. The results suggest that the 

 consumption of caribou meat from Arctic Canada does not pose a 

 significant cancer risk. This trend can be seen as evidence of 

 the environment's ability to recover in response to corrective 

 actions such as the atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban treaties. 



The review also concluded that while acidic 

 precipitation is not responsible for significant ecosystem stress 

 in Arctic Canada, certain heavy metals (particularly cadmium, 

 mercury and lead) and a variety of organochlorine compounds are 

 found in surprisingly elevated concentrations in Arctic biota at 

 the top of the food chain. In the case of organochlorines (e.g. 

 PCBs, chlorinated dioxins, and DDT) and other persistent organics, 

 the concentrations are the result of a combination of atmospheric 

 pathway and chemical characteristics and the high affinity of 

 these substances for fats. This has resulted in the significant 

 biomagnif ication of the chemicals in many of the favoured dietary 

 items of indigenous peoples (e.g. fish and marine mammals) . The 

 fact that some of the most ubiquitous substances in the Canadian 

 Arctic (e.g. the pesticide toxaphene) have never been used in 

 Canada on a regular basis indicates that the Arctic pollution 

 issue is global in nature and cannot be addressed by ourselves 

 alone. 



The Finnish Initiative 



Recognition that environmental degradation of the Arctic 

 rec[uires a joint response underlies the Finnish Initiative. 

 Delegates to the initial meeting in September, 1989, agreed that a 

 series of reports on the state of the Arctic environment be 

 prepared with respect to the following contaminants: Acids 

 (drafted by Finland), Heavy Metals (U.S.S.R.), Noise (Denmark), 

 Oil (Norway) , Organic Contaminants (Canada) and Radioactivity 

 (Finland). It was determined as well that Norway and the U.S.S.R. 

 would lead a review of national and international monitoring 



. . ./3 



