• No results found

A M A P A s s e s s m e n t 2 0 0 2 :

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "A M A P A s s e s s m e n t 2 0 0 2 :"

Copied!
293
0
0

Laster.... (Se fulltekst nå)

Fulltekst

(1)

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)

AMAP Assessment 2002:

Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic

Assessment 2002: The Influence of Global Change on Contaminant Pathways to, within, and from the Arctic AMAP

ISBN 82-7971-020-5

(2)

Barrow Kasegaluk Lagoon

Dunai Inuvik

Kittigazuit LORAN

Holman

Iqaluit

Resolution Island

Pangnirtung

Saglek Bay Sanikiluaq

St. George

Bogoslof Island

Pribilof Islands

Wrangel Island CHUKOTKA

Reykjavik

Jan Mayen

Bjørnøya Spitsbergen

Svalbard Novaya Zemlya Severnaya

Zemlya New Siberian

Islands

Franz Josef Baffin Land

Island

Amderma Salekhard Norilsk Khatanga Lavrentiya

Kanchalan

Dudinka Yenisey

Pechora Lena

Ob Great

Slave Lake

Murmansk Hammerfest

Vestertana Fjord Honningsvåg

Harstad Tromsø

Guba Pechenga

Pallas

Guba Zapadnaya Litsa Ny-Ålesund

Barentsberg

Lapland Arkhangelsk

Stockholm Helsinki

Oslo Tórshavn

St. Petersburg Moscow

Chernobyl Kola

Peninsula Taymir Peninsula

Nuuk Victoria Island

Admiralty Bay

Longyearbyen/

Adventfjorden Grønfjorden

Billefjorden Lomonosovfonna Kongsfjorden

Lomfjorden Erik Eriksen Strait Ellesmere Island

Davis Strait Foxe Basin

Norwegian Sea Greenland

Sea Labrador

Sea

Fram Strait

Denmark Strait

Chukchi Sea Bering

Strait

East Siberian

Sea Gulf of

Alaska Prince William Sound

Kara Sea

Pechora Sea Laptev

Sea Amundsen Gulf

Hudson Strait

North Sea

Skagerrak

White Sea

Baffin Bay Hudson Bay

Barents Sea Beaufort Sea

Bering Sea Okhotsk Sea

A r c t i c O c e a n

A t l a n t i c O c e a n C A N A D A

N U N A V U T N O R T H W E S T T E R R I T O R I E S

( N W T ) Y U K O N

L A B R A D O R Q U E B E C

U S A A l a s k a

G R E E N L A N D

D E N M A R K I C E L A N D

F A R O E I S L A N D S

F I N L A N D

S W E D E N N O R W A Y

R U S S I A

A

leut

Mackenzie River

Yukon River

Churchill

Fairbanks Anchorage

CanadianArcticArchipelago

Canada Basin

Makarov Basin

Amundsen Basin

Nansen Basin Lomonosov Ridge

Nansen-Gakkel Ridge Ca

na di a

n Ba

si n

Severnaya Dvina S

I B

E R

I A

U R

A L S W

EST

E R

N A

R C

T I

C E

A S

T

E

R

N

A

R

CTI

C

Alert Ikaluktutiak

Ikpiarjuk Ausuittuq

Agassiz Ice Cap Tagish

Alpha- MendeleevRidge

E urasian

Bas in Ath

ab asca

River

nd ou etsacnaLSr Pea

ceR ive

r

Slave R.

Cumberland Sound

Prince Leopold Island

Thule Air Base

Stórhöfdi

0 – 500

– 2000 50 100 200 300 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 m

(3)

AMAP Assessment 2002:

Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, 2004

(4)

ISBN 82-7971-019-1

© Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 2004 Published by

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), P.O. Box 8100 Dep, N-0032 Oslo, Norway (www.amap.no) Citation

AMAP, 2004. AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xvi +310 pp.

Ordering

AMAP Secretariat, P.O. Box 8100 Dep, N-0032 Oslo, Norway

This report is also published as an electronic document, available from the AMAP website at www.amap.no

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Production

Overall volume editors / scientific, technical, and linguistic editing Simon J. Wilson, Glen Packman

Lay-out and technical production management

Olsen & Olsen, Helstedsvej 10, DK-3480 Fredensborg, Denmark Design and production of computer graphics

Kai Olsen, Olsen & Olsen Cover photo

BBC Worldwide Ltd.

Printing and binding

Nørhaven Book, Agerlandsvej 5, DK-8800 Viborg, Denmark

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

AMAP Working Group:

Helgi Jensson (Chair, Iceland), Yuri Tsaturov (Vice-chair, Russia), David Stone (Canada), Ole Jensen (Denmark), Outi Mähönen (Finland), Gun- nar Futsæter (Norway), Cynthia de Wit (Sweden), John Calder (USA), Jan-Idar Solbakken (Permanent Participants of the indigenous peoples organisations).

AMAP Secretariat:

Lars-Otto Reiersen, Vitaly Kimstach, Simon Wilson, Inger Utne.

Indigenous peoples organizations, AMAP observing countries, and international organizations:

Aleut International Association (AIA), Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), Gwitch’in Council International (GCI), Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), Saami Council.

France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom.

Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS), Association of World Reindeer Herders (AWRH), Circumpolar Conservation Union (CCU), European Environment Agency (EEA), International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFFCRCS), International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH), International Union for the Conserva- tion of Nature (IUCN), International Union of Radioecology (IUR), Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM), Nordic Council of Parliamentarians (NCP), North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), Northern Forum (NF), OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), Oslo and Paris Commissions (OSPARCOM), Standing Committee of Arctic Parliamentarians (SCAP), United Nations Economic Commission for Eu- rope (UN ECE), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organization (WHO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

AMAP data centers:

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Norwegian Radiation Protection Au- thority (NRPA), University of Alaska – Fairbanks (UAF).

AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

(5)

Preface . . . vii

Acknowledgements. . . viii

Executive Summary to the AMAPArctic Pollution 2002 Ministerial Report. . . . xi

Chapter 1 ·Introduction . . . 1

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1.1.Physical and chemical characteristics of POPs . . . 2

1.1.1. Industrial products and by-products . . . 2

PCBs . . . . 2

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and other chlorinated benzenes . . . . 2

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs). . . 2

Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) . . . . 2

PAHs. . . . 3

Octachlorostyrene (OCS). . . . 3

1.1.2. Chlorinated pesticides . . . . 3

1.1.2.1. Persistent pesticides . . . . 3

DDT, chlordane, heptachlor, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, mirex . . . 3

Toxaphene. . . . 3

1.1.2.2. Less persistent chlorinated pesticides . . . . . 3

Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCH). . . . 3

Endosulfan. . . . 3

1.1.3. Other pesticides. . . . 3

1.1.3.1. Organotins including tributyltin (TBT) . . . 3

1.1.4. ‘New’ chemicals with POPs characteristics . . . . 4

Short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)/ C10- C13polychlorinated alkanes. . . 4

Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs). . . 4

Tetra- and pentabrominated diphenyl ethers (TeBDE, PeBDE) . . . 4

Decabrominated diphenyl ether (DeBDE). . . 4

Other brominated flame retardants. . . 4

Perfluoroalkylsulfonates and perfluoroalkanoic acids (PFAs). . . 4

Chapter 2 ·Sources and Pathways of Persistent Organic Pollutants. . . . 5

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2.1.Pathways. . . . 5

2.1.1. Atmospheric transport and deposition of POPs. . . . 6

2.1.1.1. Meteorological conditions . . . . 6

2.1.1.2. Light conditions . . . . 6

2.1.1.3. Precipitation inputs of POPs . . . . 6

2.1.1.4. Sea–air gas exchange . . . . 7

2.1.2. Ocean transport . . . . 7

2.1.3. Riverine inputs and sea-ice transport. . . . 7

2.1.4. Biotic transport . . . . 7

2.2. Modeling transport and distribution of POPs in the Arctic . . . 8

2.2.1. Global fractionation . . . . 8

2.2.2. Global transport modeling . . . . 9

2.2.2.1. Global scale box models . . . . 9

2.2.2.2. Three-dimensional global atmospheric transport models . . . . 9

2.3. Global and circumpolar sources of POPs including emission inventories. . . . 9

2.3.1. Historical and current uses . . . . 9

PCBs . . . 11

Technical HCH and lindane. . . 12

DDT . . . 13

Polychlorobornanes and polychlorinated camphenes (toxaphene). . . 14

Diene-organochlorine insecticides . . . 14

Chlordane. . . 14

Aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor. . . 14

Endosulfan. . . 14

Butyltins. . . 14

HCB and pentachlorobenzene (PnCBz). . . 15

OCS. . . 15

PCDD/Fs. . . 15

PAHs. . . 15

PCNs. . . 16

SCCPs . . . 16

MCCPs. . . 16

TeBDE and PeBDE. . . 16

OcBDE and DeBDE. . . 16

Other brominated flame retardants. . . 16

Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates. . . 17

Perfluoroalkanoic acids. . . 17

2.3.2. Local/regional sources within the Arctic . . . 17

Svalbard. . . 17

Coastal Norway and western Russia. . . 17

Jan Mayen. . . 18

Greenland. . . 18

Canada. . . 18

Alaska . . . 20

Chapter 3 ·Toxicology. . . . 21

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.1.Toxicokinetics . . . 21

3.1.1. Distribution . . . 21

3.1.2. Metabolism and elimination . . . 21

3.2.Types of effects. . . 23

3.2.1. Reproduction and development . . . 23

3.2.2. Cytochrome P450 system and other xenobiotic metabolizing enzyme systems 24 3.2.3. Immunological effects . . . 25

3.2.4. Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 25

3.2.5. Mutagenic and carcinogenic effects . . . 26

3.2.6. Effects of mixtures . . . 26

3.3.Effects of specific POPs. . . 26

3.3.1. Halogenated industrial chemicals and by-products . 28 3.3.1.1. Update on PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs, including PCB metabolites . . . 28

Reproductive and developmental effects. 28 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases. . . 29

Immunosuppression. . . 29

Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 30

Cancer . . . 31

3.3.1.2. SCCPs/C10-C13polychlorinated n-alkanes . . 31

Reproductive and developmental effects. 31 Neurological effects. . . 32

Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 32

Immunosuppression. . . 32

Thyroid effects . . . 32

Cancer. . . 32

3.3.1.3. PCNs . . . 32

Reproductive and developmental effects. 32 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 33

3.3.1.4. OCS . . . 33

Reproductive and developmental effects. 33 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 33

Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 33

3.3.1.5. Update on PBDEs . . . 33

Contents

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

(6)

3.3.1.5. Update on PBDEs . . . 33

Reproductive and developmental effects. 33 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 34

Immunosuppression . . . 34

Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 34

Cancer. . . 35

3.3.1.6. PFOS and PFOA . . . 35

Reproductive and developmental effects. 35 Cancer. . . 35

3.3.2. Persistent organic pesticides . . . 35

3.3.2.1. Update on toxaphene . . . 35

Reproductive and developmental effects. 35 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 36

Immunosuppression . . . 36

Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 36

Cancer. . . 36

3.3.3. Other pesticides. . . 36

3.3.3.1. TBT and its metabolites (DBT, MBT). . . 36

Reproductive and developmental effects. 37 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 37

Immunosuppression . . . 38

Cancer. . . 38

Chapter 4 ·Regional and Circumpolar Levels and Trends in Abiotic and Biotic Media 39 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 4.1.Atmospheric environment. . . 39

4.1.1. Air. . . 39

4.1.1.1. Introduction. . . 39

4.1.2. Air concentrations – spatial trends . . . 40

4.1.2.1. OC pesticides . . . 40

4.1.2.2. PCBs . . . 41

4.1.2.3. PCDD/Fs . . . 41

4.1.2.4. PAHs . . . 42

4.1.2.5. ‘New chemicals in the Arctic atmosphere . 43 4.1.2.5.1. Current-use pesticides and chlorinated by-products . . . 43

4.1.2.5.2. PCNs and coplanar PCBs . . . 43

4.1.2.5.3. PBDEs . . . 44

4.1.2.5.4. SCCPs . . . 45

4.1.3. Air and fog water measurements at Bjørnøya . . . 45

4.1.4. Passive sampler measurements . . . 46

4.1.5. Precipitation . . . 46

4.1.5.1. Background . . . 46

4.1.5.2. Wet deposition. . . 47

4.1.5.3. Fluxes of POPs in surface snow . . . 48

PAHs. . . 49

4.1.5.4. ‘New’ chemicals in snow and ice . . . 49

4.1.5.5. Snow and rain deposition at Bjørnøya . 49 4.1.6. Summary and conclusions – air and precipitation . . 50

4.2.Terrestrial environment. . . 52

4.2.1. Soils and plants . . . 52

4.2.1.1. PCBs and OC pesticides in vegetation . . . . 52

4.2.1.2. PCDD/Fs in tree bark . . . 54

4.2.1.3. OC pesticides and PCBs in soils . . . 54

Arctic soils in a global survey. . . 54

Russian and Alaskan soils. . . 54

4.2.1.4. PCDD/Fs in Arctic soils . . . 55

4.2.1.5. Simulation of the global fate of PCBs in soils 55 4.2.2. Terrestrial herbivores . . . 56

Russian terrestrial herbivores. . . 56

Greenland terrestrial herbivores. . . 57

Faroe Islands herbivores. . . 57

Finland reindeer. . . 58

4.2.3. Birds of prey . . . 58

4.2.3.1. North American peregrine falcon. . . 58

4.2.3.2. European Arctic birds of prey . . . 58

4.2.3.3. ‘New’ chemicals in European Arctic birds of prey . . . 58

4.2.4. Other carnivores . . . 59

Wolves. . . 59

Wolverines. . . 59

Common shrew. . . 59

4.2.5. Summary and conclusions – terrestrial environment 59 4.3.Freshwater environment. . . 60

4.3.1. Concentrations and loadings in surface waters . . . . 60

4.3.1.1. Verification of older Russian river water data . . . 60

Background. . . 60

Sampling program . . . 61

OC pesticide levels and spatial trends. . . 61

Other chlorinated pesticides in Russian Arctic rivers . . . 62

Loadings of OC pesticides in the northern Russian seas. . . 62

4.3.1.2. Recent studies of OCs in Russian lake and river water. . . 63

4.3.1.3. OCs in Canadian Arctic lake waters . . . 63

4.3.2. Levels and fluxes of OCs in lake and river sediments . . . 64

4.3.2.1. Russian river and lake sediments . . . 64

4.3.2.2. Lake sediments in northern Norway and Sweden . . . 65

4.3.2.3. Sediments from lakes on Bjørnøya . . . 65

4.3.2.4. North American Arctic lake sediments. . . . 65

Alaska. . . 66

Canadian Arctic lakes. . . 66

Geographic trends in deposition of PCBs and DDT in lake sediments. . 67

4.3.2.5. PCDD/F fluxes to lake sediments . . . 68

4.3.2.6. ‘New’ chemicals in Arctic sediments . . . 68

4.3.2.7. PAHs in Arctic lake sediments . . . 68

4.3.3. Freshwater fish and invertebrates . . . 69

4.3.3.1. Invertebrates . . . 70

4.3.3.2. Freshwater fish . . . 70

Russian Arctic fish. . . 70

Great Slave Lake study. . . 71

Lake trout. . . 71

Burbot. . . 72

Landlocked Arctic char. . . 73

Faroe Islands brown trout . . . 74

Yukon River study. . . 74

Finnish Arctic fish. . . 74

Alaskan slimy scuplin. . . 74

4.3.4. ‘New’ chemicals in freshwater fish . . . 74

4.3.5. Bjørnøya lake study. . . 74

4.3.6. Summary and conclusions – freshwater environment 77 4.4. Marine environment . . . 78

4.4.1. Seawater . . . 78

4.4.1.1. Overview . . . 78

4.4.1.2. HCHs . . . 79

4.4.1.3. PCBs . . . 80

4.4.1.4. Toxaphene . . . 82

4.4.1.5. Other ‘legacy’ OC pesticides . . . 82

4.4.1.6. Current-use chemicals . . . 83

4.4.1.7. Modeling latitudinal trends of -HCH in ocean waters . . . 83

4.4.2. Marine sediments . . . 84

Svalbard. . . 85

Northern Norway/Kola Peninsula and the White Sea. . . 85

Kara and Laptev Seas. . . 87

Canadian Arctic. . . 87

4.4.3. Marine phytoplankton and invertebrates . . . 87

Phytoplankton. . . 88

Zooplankton . . . 88

Spatial trends in calanoid copepods. . . 88

Levels in other zooplankton species. . . 89

Factors influencing OC levels in zooplankton . . . 89

Benthic marine invertebrates . . . 90

4.4.3.1. TBT . . . 91

4.4.4. Marine and anadromous fish . . . 91

Sea-run Arctic char. . . 92

Arctic (polar) cod. . . 92

Atlantic cod. . . 92

Faroe Islands fish. . . 92

Greenland marine fish . . . 93

Greenland shark and Greenland halibut . . . 93

(7)

Jan Mayen fish. . . 94

Toxaphene in fish from European waters. . . 94

4.4.4.1. ‘New’ chemicals in marine and anadromous fish . . . 94

PBDEs in marine fish. . . 94

4.4.5. Seabirds. . . 94

Species comparison . . . 94

Influence of sex and tissue. . . 96

Spatial trends. . . 96

Canadian seabird eggs . . . 97

Faroe Islands black guillemots. . . 97

Grey heron and shag from Norway. . . 97

Alaskan bald eagle eggs. . . 97

PCDD/Fs, mono- and non-ortho PCBs, and toxaphene in seabirds. . . 98

4.4.5.1. ‘New’ chemicals in seabirds . . . 98

Canadian seabirds. . . 98

Bjørnøya seabirds. . . 99

Greenland seabirds. . . 99

Northern Norway. . . 99

Chiral pesticides . . . 99

4.4.6. Marine mammals . . . 100

4.4.6.1. Pinnipeds . . . 100

Ringed seals. . . 100

Harp seals. . . 102

Harbour and grey seals . . . 103

Bearded seals. . . 104

Steller sea lions. . . 104

Northern fur seals . . . 105

Walrus. . . 105

Butyltins in pinnipeds . . . 106

4.4.6.2. Cetaceans . . . 106

4.4.6.2.1. Mysticetes . . . 106

Minke whales . . . 106

Grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus). . . . 107

Bowhead whales. . . 107

4.4.6.2.2. Odontocetes . . . 108

Belugas. . . 108

Long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas). . . 109

Killer whales (Orcinus orca). . . 109

Harbour porpoises . . . 110

Narwhal (Monodon monoceros). . . 110

Organotins in cetaceans . . . 110

4.4.6.3. ‘New’ chemicals in pinnipeds and cetaceans 111 PBDEs . . . 111

Other ‘new’ chemicals. . . 112

Chiral contaminants. . . 112

4.4.6.4. Persistent OCs in other pinniped and cetacean tissues. . . 113

4.4.6.5. Effects of age and sex on OC levels in pinnipeds and cetaceans . . . 114

Faroe Islands study. . . 115

4.4.7. Polar bear . . . 115

Alaska polar bears. . . 115

Greenland polar bears . . . 116

Iceland polar bears. . . 116

OCs in Norwegian and Russian polar bear plasma116 OCs in Canadian polar bear plasma . . . 117

Influence of age and sex on OC levels in polar bears . . . 117

Influence of reproduction on OC levels in polar bears . . . 117

Tissue distributions of OCs in female polar bears 119 Effect of seasonal fasting on whole-body toxicokinetics in Hudson Bay polar bears. . . 119

4.4.7.1.‘New’ chemicals in polar bears . . . 119

Perfluorinated compounds . . . 120

PBDEs . . . 120

Chiral compounds . . . 120

Metabolites of OCs in polar bears . . . 120

4.4.8. Arctic fox and sea otter . . . 121

Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus). . . 121

Sea otter (Enhydra lutris). . . 123

4.4.9. Food web studies. . . 123

Barents Sea food web study. . . 123

Northern Norway food web study. . . 123

Northwater Polynya food web study. . . 123

Biomagnification. . . 124

4.4.9.1. Trophic transfer of ‘new’ and chiral chemicals in marine food webs . . . 126

4.4.9.2. Trophic transfer of metabolites in polar bear food web . . . 126

4.4.10. Summary and conclusions – marine environment . 127 Chapter 5 ·Temporal variation in POP levels. . . 130

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.1.Air and precipitation. . . 130

5.1.1. Temporal trends in air . . . 130

5.1.1.1. OC pesticides . . . 130

DDT. . . 130

HCB. . . 132

HCH. . . 132

Cyclodiene pesticides including chlordanes134 Other OC compounds . . . 135

Other time series for HCH, toxaphene, and chlordane . . . 135

5.1.1.2. PCBs . . . 137

5.1.1.3. PAHs . . . 137

5.1.2. Temporal trends in wet deposition . . . 138

5.1.3. Temporal trends in snow cores . . . 138

5.1.3.1. OC pesticides . . . 138

5.1.3.2. PAHs . . . 139

5.1.4. Conclusions on temporal trends in air and precipitation . . . 140

5.2.Terrestrial environment. . . 141

5.3.Freshwater environment. . . 141

5.3.1. Water and sediments . . . 141

Russian river water and sediment. . . 141

Dated sediment cores from Canadian Arctic lakes142 Sediment cores from lakes on Bjørnøya. . . 145

5.3.2. Temporal trends in fish in northern Scandinavia . . . 146

5.3.3. Temporal trends in freshwater fish in the North American Arctic . . . 147

Fort Good Hope burbot. . . 147

Lake Laberge lake trout and burbot. . . 148

Great Slave Lake burbot and lake trout. . . 148

5.3.4. Temporal trends in fish in the Russian Arctic . . . 148

5.4.Marine environment . . . 148

5.4.1. Temporal trends of TBT effects in invertebrates . . . 148

5.4.2. Temporal trends in marine fish . . . 149

5.4.3. Temporal trends in seabirds. . . 150

5.4.4. Temporal trends in pinnipeds and cetaceans . . . 152

5.4.4.1. Pinnipeds . . . 152

Ringed seals . . . 152

5.4.4.2. Cetaceans. . . 154

Beluga. . . 154

Pilot whales. . . 156

Narwhal. . . 156

5.4.5. Temporal trends in polar bear . . . 156

5.4.5.1. Canadian Arctic polar bears . . . 156

5.4.5.2. East Greenland polar bears . . . 158

5.4.5.3. Svalbard polar bears . . . 158

5.4.6. Temporal trends of ‘new’ POPs in marine mammals 159 5.4.6.1. PBDEs . . . 159

5.4.6.2. PCDEs . . . 159

5.4.7. Modeling temporal trends of PCBs and DDT in pinnipeds . . . 160

5.5.Summary and conclusions – temporal trends. . . 160

Chapter 6 ·Biological effects. . . 163

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Thresholds for effects in birds, mammals, and fish. . . 165

Birds. . . 165

Mammals . . . 167

Fish. . . 169

Dietary intake thresholds for birds and mammals . . . 170

Birds. . . 170

Mammals . . . 170

6.1.Terrestrial environment. . . 172

(8)

6.1.1. Terrestrial herbivores . . . 172

6.1.1.1. Arctic hare/mountain hare . . . 172

6.1.1.2. Caribou and reindeer . . . 172

Levels and intake assessment . . . 172

6.1.1.3. Muskox . . . 172

6.1.1.4. Lamb . . . 172

6.1.2. Terrestrial birds . . . 172

6.1.2.1. Ptarmigan/willow grouse . . . 172

6.1.3. Waterfowl . . . 172

Levels and intake assessment. . . 172

6.1.4. Birds of prey . . . 173

6.1.4.1. Peregrine falcon . . . 173

Reproductive effects . . . 173

Levels and intake assessment. . . 173

6.1.4.2. Merlin . . . 173

Levels and intake assessment. . . 173

6.1.4.3. White-tailed sea eagle . . . 173

Levels and intake assessment. . . 174

6.1.4.4. Bald eagle . . . 174

Reproductive effects . . . 174

Levels and intake assessment. . . 174

6.1.4.5. Golden eagle . . . 174

Levels and intake assessment. . . 174

6.1.4.6. Gyrfalcon . . . 174

Levels and intake assessment. . . 174

6.1.5. Carnivores. . . 174

6.1.5.1. Mink . . . 174

6.1.5.2. Otter . . . 174

6.1.5.3. Wolverine . . . 174

6.1.5.4. Wolf . . . 174

Levels and intake assessment. . . 174

6.2.Freshwater environment. . . 175

6.2.1. Fish . . . 175

Cytochrome P450 activities . . . 175

Levels and intake assessment . . . 175

6.3.Marine environment . . . 175

6.3.1. Invertebrates . . . 175

Reproduction. . . 175

6.3.2. Fish . . . 176

Levels and intake assessment. . . 176

6.3.3. Seabirds. . . 176

6.3.3.1. Eiders . . . 176

Levels and intake assessment. . . 176

6.3.3.2. Grey heron, shag . . . 177

Reproductive effects . . . 177

Retinol effects . . . 177

Levels and intake assessment. . . 177

6.3.3.3. Alcids. . . 177

Cytochrome P450 activities/retinol effects 177 Levels and intake assessment. . . 177

6.3.3.4. Gulls . . . 178

Reproductive effects . . . 178

Cytochrome P450 activities. . . 178

Immunosuppression . . . 178

Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 178

Levels and intake assessment. . . 179

6.3.3.5. Black-legged kittiwakes . . . 179

Levels and intake assessment. . . 179

6.3.3.6. Fulmar . . . 179

Levels and intake assessment. . . 179

6.3.3.7. Great skua . . . 180

Levels and intake assessment. . . 180

6.3.4. Pinnipeds . . . 180

6.3.4.1. Seals and sea lions . . . 180

Reproductive effects . . . 180

Cytochrome P450 effects . . . 180

Thyroid and retinol effects. . . 180

Immune system effects. . . 180

Levels and intake assessment. . . 181

6.3.4.2. Walrus . . . 183

Levels and intake assessment. . . 183

6.3.5. Cetaceans . . . 183

6.3.5.1. Mysticetes . . . 183

6.3.5.1.1. Minke whales . . . 183

Levels and intake assessment. . 183

6.3.5.1.2. Gray whales. . . 184

Levels and intake assessment. . 184

6.3.5.1.3. Bowhead whales . . . 184

Levels and intake assessment. . 184

6.3.5.2. Odontocetes. . . 184

6.3.5.2.1. Beluga . . . 184

Levels and intake assessment. . 184

6.3.5.2.2. Killer whales . . . 184

Levels and intake assessment. . 184

6.3.5.2.3. Long-finned pilot whales . . . 184

Levels and intake assessment. . 184

6.3.5.2.4. Narwhal. . . 185

Levels and intake assessment. . 185

6.3.5.2.5. Harbour porpoise . . . 185

Levels and intake assessment. . 185

6.3.6. Polar bear . . . 185

Reproductive and developmental effects. . . 186

Cytochrome P450 activities. . . 187

Thyroid and retinol effects. . . 187

Immune effects. . . 188

Levels and intake assessment. . . 189

6.3.7. Arctic fox . . . 190

Levels and intake assessment. . . 190

6.3.8. Sea otter . . . 190

Levels and intake assessment. . . 190

6.4.Summary and conclusions – biological effects . . . 190

6.4.1. Observed effects . . . 190

6.4.1.1. Field studies . . . 190

Reproduction . . . 190

Cytochrome P450 activity. . . 191

Thyroid and retinol effects. . . 191

Immune effects. . . 191

6.4.1.2. Laboratory studies using Arctic species. . . . 191

Cytochrome P450 activity. . . 191

Immune effects. . . 192

Mutagenic effects. . . 192

6.4.2. Assessment of current levels in biota . . . 192

6.4.3. Conclusions. . . 193

Chapter 7 ·Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . 194

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7.1.Levels and effects. . . 194

7.1.1. Air and precipitation . . . 194

7.1.2. Sea- and freshwater . . . 194

7.1.3. Sediments . . . 195

7.1.4. Soils and vegetation. . . 195

7.1.5. Biota . . . 196

7.1.6. ‘New’ chemicals. . . 197

7.1.7. Biological effects . . . 197

7.2.Spatial trends . . . 199

7.3.Temporal trends. . . 200

7.4.Sources . . . 201

7.5. General monitoring and assessment. . . 201

Annex· Tables. . . 203

References. . . 273

Abbreviations and definitions of some terms. . . 306

(9)

This assessment report details the results of the 2002 AMAP assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the Arctic. It builds upon the previous AMAP POPs assessment that was presented in ‘AMAP Assessment Re- port: Arctic Pollution Issues’ that was published in 1998.

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) is a group working under the Arctic Council.

The Arctic Council Ministers have requested AMAP to:

produce integrated assessment reports on the status and trends of the conditions of the Arctic ecosystems;

identify possible causes for the changing conditions;

detect emerging problems, their possible causes, and the potential risk to Arctic ecosystems including in- digenous peoples and other Arctic residents; and to

recommend actions required to reduce risks to Arctic ecosystems.

The Ministers have placed special priority on the poten- tial impacts of contaminants on the health of Arctic resi- dents, including the combined effects of mixtures of con- taminants acting together with other potential stressors.

This report is one of five detailed assessment reports that provide the accessible scientific basis and validation for the statements and recommendations made in the second AMAP State of the Arctic Environment report,

‘Arctic Pollution 2002’ that was delivered to Arctic Coun- cil Ministers at their meeting in Inari, Finland in Octo- ber 2002. It includes extensive background data and ref- erences to the scientific literature, and details the sources for figures reproduced in the ‘Arctic Pollution 2002’ re- port. Whereas the ‘Arctic Pollution 2002’ report con- tains recommendations that specifically focus on actions aimed at improving the Arctic environment, the conclu- sions and recommendations presented in this report also cover issues of a more scientific nature, such as propos- als for filling gaps in knowledge, and recommendations relevant to future monitoring and research work, etc.

To allow readers of this report to see how AMAP in- terprets and develops its scientifically-based assessment product in terms of more action-orientated conclusions and recommendations, the ‘Executive Summary of the Arctic Pollution 2002 Ministerial Report’, which also covers other priority issues (Heavy Metals, Radioactiv- ity, Human Health, and Climate Change Effects on Con- taminant Pathways), is reproduced in this report on pages xi to xv.

The AMAP assessment is not a formal environmental risk assessment. Rather, it constitutes a compilation of current knowledge about the Arctic region, an evalua- tion of this information in relation to agreed criteria of environmental quality, and a statement of the prevailing conditions in the area. The assessment presented in this report was prepared in a systematic and uniform man- ner to provide a comparable knowledge base that builds on earlier work and can be extended through continuing work in the future.

The AMAP scientific assessments are prepared under the direction of the AMAP Assessment Steering Group.

The product is the responsibility of the scientific experts involved in the preparation of the assessment. Lead countries for the AMAP Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment under AMAP phase II were Canada and Sweden. The assessment is based on work conducted by a large number of scientists and experts from the Arctic countries (Canada, Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States), together with contributions from indige- nous peoples organizations, from other organizations, and from experts in other countries.

AMAP would like to express its appreciation to all of these experts, who have contributed their time, effort, and data; and especially to the lead experts who coordinated the production of this report, and to referees who pro- vided valuable comments and helped ensure the quality of the report. A list of the main contributors is included in the acknowledgements on page viii of this report. The list is not comprehensive. Specifically, it does not include the many national institutes, laboratories and organizations, and their staff, which have been involved in the various countries. Apologies, and no lesser thanks are given to any individuals unintentionally omitted from the list.

Special thanks are due to the lead authors responsible for the preparation of the various chapters of this report.

The support of the Arctic countries is vital to the suc- cess of AMAP. AMAP work is essentially based on ongo- ing activities within the Arctic countries, and the coun- tries also provide the necessary support for most of the experts involved in the preparation of the assessments. In particular, AMAP would like to express its appreciation to Canada and Sweden for undertaking a lead role in supporting the Persistent Organic Pollutants assessment.

Special thanks are also offered to the Nordic Council of Ministers for their financial support to the work of AMAP, and to sponsors of the project on ‘Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS) and Food Security of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North’ and other bilateral and multilateral projects that have delivered data for use in this assessment.

The AMAP Working Group that was established to oversee this work and the AMAP persistent organic pol- lutants assessment group are pleased to present its as- sessment.

Helgi Jensson

AMAP Working Group Chair Derek C.G. Muir

AMAP Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment co-lead (Canada)

Cynthia A. de Wit

AMAP Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment co-lead (Sweden)

Lars-Otto Reiersen AMAP Executive Secretary

Oslo, January 2004

** AMAP, 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway.

xii + 859 pp.

** AMAP, 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants, Heavy Metals, Radioactivity, Human Health, Changing Pathways. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xii +112 pp.

Preface

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

(10)

The AMAP Working Group would like to thank the following persons for their work in preparing the AMAP 2002 Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment.

Assessment Leads:

Derek C.G. Muir, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada

Cynthia A. de Wit, Institute of Applied Environmental Research (ITM), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Editors/Lead Authors:

Cynthia A. de Wit

Aaron T. Fisk, Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Karen E. Hobbs, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada Derek C.G. Muir

Contributing Authors:

Geir W. Gabrielsen, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway

Roland Kallenborn, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway

Margaret M. Krahn, Northwest Fisheries Science Centre, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, USA

Ross J. Norstrom, Canadian Wildlife Service, Hull, Canada

Janneche U. Skaare, National Veterinary Institute/Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway Contributors:

Paul Becker, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Institute of Standards and Technology, Charleston, SC, USA Kimberlee Beckmen, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, AK, USA

John Berge, Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway

Terry Bidleman, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada Anders Bignert, Swedish Natural History Museum, Stockholm, Sweden

Pierrette Blanchard, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada

Jennie Bolton, Northwest Fisheries Science Centre, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, USA

Katrine Borgå, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway

Birgit Braune, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada Knut Breivik, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway

Eva Bromström-Lundén, Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL), Gothenburg, Sweden Guttorm Christensen, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway

David Cleverly, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA Salve Dahle, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway

Maria Dam, Food and Environmental Agency, Torshavn, Faroe Islands

Marlene Evans, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Saskatoon, Canada Thomas Evans, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK, USA

Anita Evenset, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway Jesse Ford, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

Örjan Gustafsson, Institute of Applied Environmental Research (ITM), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Mark Hermanson, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Dorte Herzke, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Tromsø, Norway

Paul Helm, Freshwater Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Canada Brendan Hickie, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada

Paul Hoekstra, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph,, Canada Hayley Hung, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada

Michael Ikonomu, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, BC, Canada Björn Munro Jenssen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Poul Johansen, National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark

Acknowledgements

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

(11)

Kevin Jones, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Even Jørgensen, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø, Norway Lars Kleivane, National Veterinary Institute, Oslo, Norway

Markku Korhonen, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

John Kucklick, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Charleston, NC, USA

Henrik Kylin, Department of Environmental Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden Sirkka Leppänen, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland

Robert Letcher, Great Lakes Institute of Environmental Research, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada Yi Fan Li, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada

Elisabeth Lie, National Veterinary Institute/Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway Rob Macdonald, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, BC, Canada Jaakko Mannio, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Katie Matthews, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Sandra Meijer, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Sergei Melnikov, Regional Centre ‘Monitoring of the Arctic’, St. Petersburg, Russia Keith Mueller, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USA

Madeleine Nyman, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland Todd O’Hara, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA

Kristina Olsson, Department of Analytical and Marine Chemistry, Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Susan Polischuk Blum, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Frank Riget, National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark Pat Roach, Indian and Northern Affairs, Whitehorse, Canada

Neil Rose, Environmental Change Research Centre, University College, London, UK Courtney Sandau, National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, GA, USA Vladimir Savinov, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway

Tatiana Savinova, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway

Jeff Short, Alaska Fisheries Science Centre, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK, USA Detleff Schultz-Bull, Institute of Marine Research, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany

Anna Sobek, Institute of Applied Environmental Research (ITM), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Trond Skotvold, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway

Eric Steig, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Gary Stern, Freshwater Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Canada William Strachan, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada Jorundur Svavarsson, Institute of Biology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

Sheryl Tittlemier, Food Research Division, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada Bert van Bavel, Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden Sergei Vlasov, Regional Centre ‘Monitoring of the Arctic’, St. Petersburg, Russia Frank Wania, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Carla Willetto, Ilasgavik College, Barrow, AK, USA Hans Wolkers, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway

Xiaowa Wong, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada Reviewers:

Peter Ross, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, BC, Canada Jeff Vos, National Institute of Public Health and Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Barry Hargrave, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, NS, Canada Crispin Halsall, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Special acknowledgements:

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the community councils and hunters and trappers organizations in many circumpolar re- gions (Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia). Their cooperation and active participation in the collection of biological samples made much of this work possible.

(12)
(13)

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) was established in 1991 to monitor identified pollution risks and their impacts on Arctic ecosystems. In 1997 the first AMAP report, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report* was published.

The assessment showed that the Arctic is closely con- nected to the rest of the world, receiving contaminants from sources far outside the Arctic region. The report was welcomed by the Arctic Council Ministers, who agreed to increase their efforts to limit and reduce emis- sions of contaminants into the environment and to pro- mote international cooperation in order to address the serious pollution risks reported by AMAP.

The AMAP information greatly assisted the negota- tion of the protocols on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals to the United Nations Eco- nomic Commission for Europe’s Convention on Long- range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP Conven- tion). They also played an important role in establishing the need for a global agreement on POPs, which was concluded in 2001 as the Stockholm Convention. Persis- tence, long-range transport, and bioaccumulation are screening criteria under both the POPs protocol and the Stockholm Convention, to be applied to proposals to add substances to the agreements. Information from AMAP will be useful in this context in showing whether persistent substances are accumulating in the Arctic and are therefore candidates for control, and also in assess- ing the effectiveness of the agreements.

The Arctic Council also decided to take cooperative actions to reduce pollution of the Arctic. As a direct fol- low up of the AMAP reports, the Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic (ACAP) was created to address sources identified through AMAP.

ACAP was approved in 2000 and several projects have begun. The AMAP information was also used in estab- lishing priorities for the Arctic Regional Programme of Action to Prevent Pollution from Landbased Sources (RPA), developed by the working group on Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), and adopted by the Arctic Council in 1998.

After the first assessment, AMAP was asked to con- tinue its activities and provide an updated assessment on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), heavy metals, ra- dioactivity, human health, and pathways in 2002. Five scientific reports and a plain-language report have been prepared. This Executive Summary provides the main conclusions and recommendations of the 2002 AMAP assessments.

International Agreements and Actions

As described above, the LRTAP Convention protocols and the Stockholm Convention are essential instruments for reducing contamination in the Arctic. However, they can- not have any effect until they are ratified and implemented.

It is therefore recommended that:

• The UN ECE LRTAP Protocols on Heavy Metals and POPs be ratified and implemented.

• The Stockholm Convention on POPs be ratified and implemented.

Specific recommendations for monitoring activities in support of these agreements are included in subsequent sections.

Persistent Organic Pollutants

The POPs assessment addresses several chemicals of concern, including both substances that have been stud- ied for some time and chemicals that have only recently been found in the environment.

The 1997 AMAP assessment concluded that levels of POPs in the Arctic environment are generally lower than in more temperate regions. However, several biological and physical processes concentrate POPs in some species and at some locations, producing some high levels in the Arctic.

The present AMAP assessment has found that the conclusions and recommendations of the first assess- ment remain valid. In addition:

It has clearly been established that:

Certain Arctic species, particularly those at the upper end of the marine food chain as well as birds of prey, carry high levels of POPs. Marine mammals, such as polar bear, Arctic fox, long-finned pilot whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, minke whale, narwhal, beluga, harp seal and northern fur seal, some marine birds in- cluding great skua, great black-backed gull and glau- cous gull, and birds of prey such as peregrine falcon, tend to carry the highest body burdens.

Most of the total quantity of POPs found in the Arc- tic environment is derived from distant sources. The POPs are transported to the Arctic by regional and global physical processes, and are then subjected to bio- logical mechanisms that lead to the high levels found in certain species. Several potential source regions have now been identified within and outside of the Arctic.

A better understanding of local re-distribution mecha- nisms has also emphasized the important potential role of local processes and sources in determining observed geographical variability.

There is evidence that:

Adverse effects have been observed in some of the most highly exposed or sensitive species in some areas of the Arctic. Several studies have now been completed on a number of Arctic species, reporting the types of effects that have been associated in non-Arctic species with chronic exposure to POPs, of which there are several ex- amples. Reduced immunological response in polar bears and northern fur seals has led to increased susceptibility

Executive Summary to the Arctic Pollution 2002 Ministerial Report

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

*AMAP, 1997. Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, xii +188 pp. and

AMAP, 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, xii+859 pp.

Referanser

RELATERTE DOKUMENTER

Hovedfokus i Statens eierberetning er på selskapene hvor ett av hoved- målene er forretningsmessig drift, det vil si selskaper i kategori 1–3, men staten som eier legger vekt på at

Dette gjelder: Argen- tum Fondsinvesteringer AS, Avinor AS, Baneservice AS, Bjørnøen AS, ECC AS, EFF AS, Enova SF, Entra Eiendom AS, Flytoget AS, Gassco AS, Gass- nova SF,

The information sent by member countries has shown in previous years that organized crime groups are the main actors involved in the traffic of counterfeit objects of art both at

Personell som ikke jobber i Forsvaret til daglig, men som skal forsterke Forsvarets avdelinger i en krise eller krig, må være identifisert, gitt en rolle og til- høre en

SRF er i tillegg sekretariat for Erstatningsnemnda for voldsofre (nemnda) og behandler klagesaker etter delegasjon fra nemnda. Det følger av delegasjonsfullmakten at SRF kan

Samspel skaper resultat og dette er resultatet av eit aktivt og godt samarbeid med både Hareid kommune og dei andre aktørane gjennom heile 20186. Vi vil voneleg sjå det

og har dei siste åra hatt særleg ansvar for soknet sitt arbeid med innføring av ny lokal gudstenesteordning, samt ny dåpsliturgi og vigselsliturgi som blei innført i Hareid kyrkje

Etter fleire år med vurderingar, samtalar og forhandlingar har soknet fått sitt eige kyrkjelydshus. Det har i fleire år vore arbeidd i KFUK-M og Indremisjonen på Hareid for at