No abstract

The first Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) report was published in 1998 and followed by three assessment reports of human health (AMAP 2003, 2009 and 2015). The focus area of the AMAP reports was to monitor levels of environmental contaminants in the Arctic and to assess the health effects connected with detected levels in Arctic countries. This review gives an overview of temporal trends of contaminants and their health effects in humans of the Arctic based on data published by AMAP, as well as Russian scientific literature. Several time series of 31 contaminants in humans of the Arctic from different cohorts are reported. The lengths of time series and periods covered differ from each other. International restrictions have decreased the levels of most persistent organic pollutants in humans and food webs. Percentage changes for contaminants in human biological matrices (blood samples from children, mothers and males and breast milk samples) for the period of sampling showed declining trends in most of the monitored Arctic locations, with the exception of oxychlordane, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenyl ether (PBDE153) and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs).

In the field of Arctic health, “resilience” is a term and concept used to describe capacity to recover from difficulties. While the term is widely used in Arctic policy contexts, there is debate at the community level on whether “resilience” is an appropriate term to describe the human dimensions of health and wellness in the Arctic. Further, research methods used to investigate resilience have largely been limited to Western science research methodologies, which emphasize empirical quantitative studies and may not mirror the perspective of the Arctic communities under study. To explore conceptions of resilience in Arctic communities, a Sharing Circle was facilitated at the International Congress on Circumpolar Health in 2018. With participants engaging from seven of the eight Arctic countries, participants shared critiques of the term “resilience,” and their perspectives on key components of thriving communities. Upon reflection, this use of a Sharing Circle suggests that it may be a useful tool for deeper investigations into health-related issues affecting Arctic Peoples. The Sharing Circle may serve as a meaningful methodology for engaging communities using resonant research strategies to decolonize concepts of resilience and highlight new dimensions for promoting thriving communities in Arctic populations.

No abstract