ArcticBulletin

No 3.03 • P U B L I S H E D B Y T H E W W F I N T E R N AT I O N A L A R C T I C P RO G R A M M E

New park for Canada p. 5–6

Iceland dam update p. 8

Gender issues in arctic fisheries p. 16–18

Eliminating pollution with ACAP p. 18–19

Protected area boost for Svalbard p.4, 11–13

2 WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

Publisher:WWF International Arctic ProgrammePO Box 6784 St Olavs plass N-0130 Oslo, Norway Ph: +47 22 03 65 00Fax: +47 22 20 06 66 E-mail: arctic@wwf.noInternet: ngo.grida.no/wwfap

WWF Arctic Bulletinis published quarterly by the WWFInternational Arctic Programme.Reproduction and quotation withappropriate credit are encouraged.Articles by non-affiliated sources do notnecessarily reflect the views or policiesof WWF. Send change of address andsubscription queries to the address onthe right. We reserve the right to editletters for publication, and assume noresponsibility for unsolicited material.Please include name, title and addresswith all correspondence.

Editor in Chief:Samantha Smithssmith@wwf.no

Editor:Julian Woolfordjwoolford@wwf.no

New protected areas for Svalbard p. 4Environmental ministers on Svalbard p. 10Best managed wilderness? p. 11–13Cruise tourism and shipping p. 13–14

● Beringia – bridge of friendship p. 9

Iceland dam update p. 8 ●● Iceland resumes whaling p. 14–16

●New park for Canada p. 5–6

Life on the ledge p. 18 ●

Greenland birds endangered p. 9–10 ●

Focus on polar bears p. 7 ●

Contents

● Cool response to Shell and miners p. 6–7● Gender in fisheries p. 16–17● Towards a cleaner Arctic p. 18-19● The interview: Murkowski madness? p. 21–22● Publications p. 22–23● Meetings and events p. 23

●

This publication was made possible through the support of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Design and production:dEDBsign/Ketill Bergerketill.berger@eunet.no

Date of publication:October 28, 2003ISSN 1023-9081

Cover:Festningen – “the Fortress” is anewly protected geologicalformation on Svalbard.Photo: Stefan Norris.

Printed at Merkur-Trykk ASon 100% recycled paper.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 3

Conservation First: achieving sustainable development in the Arctic

Editorial

In October, representatives of arctic countries, indigenouspeoples’ organisations and observers met in Iceland todiscuss an action plan for sustainable development.

WWF was there, and asked them to consider this importantquestion:

What is sustainable development in a region where economicdevelopment depends almost entirely on natural resource use?

Right now, political and community leaders still canchoose how to answer this question.

The Arctic is in large part a frontier region, with vast tractsof land and sea that are mostly untouched by large-scaleindustrial development. Seven of the ten largest unfrag-mented areas on Earth are found here. Arctic fisheries areamong the world’s largest and most valuable, with the BeringSea alone accounting for two to five percent of the world’stotal fishery production. Northern Canada is home to theworld’s largest unfragmented boreal forests. Arctic wildlife isstill found in close to its natural ranges and numbers.

Harvest and sustainable use of these intact ecosystems bringwealth and sustenance to local communities and contributesignificantly to national economies. For example, the largestsingle source of export income in Greenland is deep-watershrimp. Tourism is a significant source of income in severalparts of the Arctic, including Alaska, Iceland, and Norway.

But the Arctic also holds some of the world’s largestknown reserves of oil and gas, precious metals, and otherminerals. Large-scale exploitation of these resources, withthe accompanying growth of infrastructure and industry,provides local and national economic benefits. Industrialdevelopment, however, also poses serious threats to thecultural heritage and environment of the Arctic, and to therenewable resources that will help sustain future generations.

With the current pace of and approach to industrial devel-opment, the Arctic will lose its intact ecosystems – and theability to choose to maintain them – within a generation.Non-renewable resources are being exploited at an increasingrate. As a result, industry, infrastructure, and significanthabitat destruction and disturbance are already a fact in partsof the region.

WWF doesn’t pretend to have all the answers. But wethink we know what the answer isn’t. It isn’t following theexample of the industrialised regions to the south, whereunplanned and unlimited development has decimatedrenewable resources such as fisheries, forests, freshwater andwild species.

So what is sustainable development in the Arctic? WWF’sstarting point is the Brundtland Commission’s famous state-ment that “[F]or development to be sustainable it must meetthe needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their needs.” In the Arctic, agood deal of the ability of future generations to meet theirneeds depends on a healthy environmentand ample access to renewable naturalresources – fish, animals, plants, clean air andwater, and not least space.

Based on these ideas, we’d like to proposea simple and uniquely arctic solution:Conservation First. Conservation Firstmeans protecting the unique qualities of theArctic, such as space, wildlife, wildlifehabitat, and freshwater, before industrialdevelopment begins. It means there shouldbe no new or expanded large-scale industrialdevelopment across the region where devel-opment is planned until a network of areasof high conservation value and culturalsignificance are identified and protected.

Using Conservation First will safeguard importantcultural and wildlife areas from industrial development forthe long term. It will also provide planning certainty andpredictability for communities, investors, developers, govern-ment, and other stakeholders. Once protection has takenplace, development can proceed in a conscious fashion, withcontrols on pollution and unnecessary habitat disturbance.

The principle of protecting land and sea in the Arctic isnot new. Arctic countries have committed individually,multi-laterally, and internationally to protecting areas,resources, and ecosystem functions. In particular, the arcticnations have agreed to create a circumpolar protected areas,network – CPAN. CPAN’s goals are to maintain the biodi-versity of the Arctic region, represent the widest variety ofarctic ecosystems possible, contribute to maintaining viablepopulations of all arctic species, and maintain ecological andevolutionary processes. Through committing to CPAN, thearctic nations emphasised the necessity of networks ofprotected areas for long term safeguarding of the Arctic’scultural, socio-economic and ecological integrity.

Despite these commitments, governments have yet tomove from promises to implementation. In the majority ofthe arctic countries, the sizes and types of existing protectedareas are inadequate to safeguard biodiversity and traditionallifestyles.

Implementing Conservation First now would be a directdeliverable to major national, regional and internationalcommitments. By adopting proactive conservation princi-ples, combined with careful planning of development, theArctic can still be a leading example of sustainable develop-ment in practice.

SAMANTHASMITHDirector,WWF InternationalArctic Programme ssmith@wwf.no

4 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

Svalbard is on course to becomeone of the best managedwilderness areas in the world.

This autumn the NorwegianGovernment announced thecreation of five new protected areason the arctic archipelago and nowalso looks set to extend the islands’protected areas up to 12 nauticalmiles out to sea.

Under current regulations, theseas around reserves are onlyprotected up to four nautical milesfrom the coast.

The new protected land areascover a total area of 4,449 squarekilometres, or eight percent ofSvalbard’s land area.

It is the most extensive establish-ment of protected areas in Norwaysince 1973 when the original fivelarge protected areas of Svalbardwere established. The originalprotected areas cover 57 percent ofSvalbard, but do not include themost biologically important tundraareas of the archipelago.

The new protected areas includethe valley of Reindalen, midwaybetween the Norwegian settlementsLongyearbyen and Svea, and HopenIsland in the south-east corner ofthe archipelago.

Reindalen is the largest singlearea of continuous rich tundravegetation on Svalbard, whileHopen Island is an important areafor the populations of polar bearsand walrus, and has some of thelargest seabird colonies onSvalbard.

“The level of protection has nowbeen brought in line with ourambitious aim to preserve thisunique Arctic wilderness areas forthe benefit of present and future

generations,” said the NorwegianMinister for the Environment,Borge Brende.

“The new protected areas willensure that the full diversity ofnatural habitats and landscapes onSvalbard are represented withinprotected areas.

“Norway has a moral as well as alegal commitment to save thenatural heritage of Svalbard,” saidMr. Brende.

More on the protected areas onpage 11 and page 24.

Stefan Norris, snorris@wwf.no

New protected areas for Svalbard

Newprotectedarea

0 10 20 30 40 50 km

HopenNatureReserve

Nordre IsfjordenNational Park

Nordenskiöld LandNational Park

Sassen-BünsowLand National Park

Festningen Area ofSpecial GeologicalInterest

I sf j o

r de n

Va n M i l j en - f j o r d e n

Barentsburg

Longyearbyen

Sveabyen

78º

79º

12º 15º 18º

76º30

25º

79º30

Kittiwake Phot

o:St

efan

Nor

ris

Base

d on

info

rmat

ion

from

the

Nor

wgi

an P

olar

Inst

itute

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 News 5

The Canadian Governmentannounced the creation of its41st national park in August.

The 20,500 square-kilometerUkkusiksalik National Park in theKivallik region, just south ofRepulse Bay and the Arctic Circle,is home to polar bears, caribou,arctic foxes and wolves, and 125species of bird.

The heart of the park is WagerBay, a 100-kilometre long inlandsea that extends west from HudsonBay.

“Protecting this spectacular areais of huge importance for wildlife,natural ecosystems and for localpeople – both now and into thefuture,” said Dr. Peter Ewins, WWF-Canada’s Director of ArcticConservation. “It is vital tocomplete a network of suchprotected areas while we still havethe opportunity, ahead of majorindustrial development.

“We welcome the Canadian

Prime Minister’s personal appreci-ation of the north,” added Ewins.“Ithas helped set aside some magnifi-cent natural areas for their wildlife,

scenic and cultural values.”This extensive area of tundra,

freshwater and marine habitats isrich in Inuit history, traditional

Canada’s latest national park

0 10 20 30 40 50 km

92º 90º 88º86º

65º

66º

67º

66º30

65º30

91º 89º 87º

Wager bay

Ros

esW

elco

me

Soun

d

0 10 20 30 40 50 km

UkkusiksalikNational Park

Inuit owned land– not included inthe national park

A resting bear enjoys the evening light.

Phot

o:R

ebec

ca L

.Gra

mbo

➤

Source: Parks Canada Agency

6 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

Shell’s recent announcementthat it will avoid drilling for oilin natural World Heritage sites

has met with a lukewarm receptionfrom WWF.

Only 149 properties on theWorld Heritage List are natural,with the bulk cultural sites. Majorsites of oil interest, like the contro-versial Arctic National WildlifeRefuge, are not on the list.

“Certainly it’s positive that Shellis putting some areas – any areas –off limits. Until now the oilindustry has taken the approachthat all areas should be open forexploration and development,”said Samantha Smith, director ofWWF’s Arctic Programme.

“At the same time, the impact ofthis decision on the environment isminimal. We urge Shell to show

greater leadership and agree to stayout of protected areas in IUCNcategories I–IV, and I–VI in marineenvironments, particularly nationalparks.”

The news followed a similarannouncement by 15 of theworld’s largest metal miners andproducers who have also said theywill not operate in World Heritagesites.

Cool response to Shell and miners’World

hunting areas and healthywildlife populations. Protecting thisarea for subsistence hunting andecotourism opportunities is afundamental step in helping toachieve a well-balanced future forNunavut, he said.

WWF-Canada strongly supportsthe ‘Conservation First’ approachtraditionally taken by Canada’saboriginal peoples, so that prior toindustrial development, anadequate network of key culturaland ecological areas is withdrawnfrom industrial development,thereby protecting these criticalvalues for future generations.

“Ukkusiksalik National Park willplay a very significant part in thisfuture network of protected areas,”said Ewins. “It will help to balance

the regional impacts of mining andother development on the cultural,landscape and ecological values ofthese intact northern ecosystems.”

Reflecting general agreement onthe importance of protecting asample of Canada’s natural ecosys-tems and natural regions, in 1992the federal, provincial and territo-rial governments committed toestablish a representative networkof protected areas in all of Canada’s486 natural regions by 2000. Atpresent, this network is less thanhalf completed.

In October 2002, the federalgovernment – along with mostother nations – committed toestablish, by 2012, a representativenetwork of marine protected areasin Canada’s oceans.

“Although the job of completingthis network of terrestrial, fresh-water and marine protected areas isfar from complete,” said Ewins,“theestablishment of Ukkusiksalik is amajor step forward. WWF looksforward to quick completion ofCanada’s terrestrial national parksnetwork, and to working with allpartners to help meet the 2012marine protected areas goal forCanada’s 76 marine naturalregions. Canada has the longestcoastline of any nation, andNunavut has nearly two-thirds ofCanada’s coastlines, but there are, asyet, no marine protected areas inthe territory.”

Pete Ewins, pewins@wwfcanada.org

The remains of an Inuit tent ring.

Phot

o:R

ebec

ca L

.Gra

mbo

➤

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 News 7

Anew research project to esti-mate the population size ofpolar bears in western

Hudson Bay, Canada is being part-funded by WWF. The project willalso study bears’ condition.

The research, led by internation-ally-known polar bear scientists IanStirling and Nick Lunn, will set outto determine whether observedchanges in condition and repro-duction of polar bears have resultedin changes in population size.

Knowledge of both populationsize and trends are necessary for theconservation of polar bears. Thelast estimate for the westernHudson Bay population was madein 1997 when 1,200 bears werecounted. This figure may now beout of date.

The study will also look atwhether changes in body conditionand reproduction are related toclimatic warming.

The first fieldwork for theproject took place in Septemberand will help provide long-termmonitoring data on the effects ofwarming temperatures and earlierice break-up on the condition andreproduction of polar bears inwestern Hudson Bay.

Declines in body condition ofpolar bears over the past twodecades have already been docu-mented for this population andattributed to progressively earlierbreak-up of sea ice as a result ofclimatic warming.

When the ice breaks up, polarbears can no longer catch seals

because they need the ice as a plat-form to hunt from. The trendtowards earlier break-up of sea ice inwestern Hudson Bay is continuing.

Recent analysis by other scien-tists has shown that the perennialsea ice cover in the Arctic has beendeclining at a rate of nine per centper decade from 1978 to 2000, achange that strongly correlatedwith increasing air temperatures.

Because the presence of sea ice iscritical to polar bears, diminishedice cover and progressively longer

ice-free periods in summer andautumn will have profound nega-tive effects on the ability of polarbear populations to sustain them-selves. This is particularly true forpopulations at the southern limitsof their range, such as those inHudson Bay which is already ice-free for at least four months of theyear, during which time the polarbears much live on their stored fatreserves.

Julian Woolford, jwoolford@wwf.no

Heritage pledge

Polar bears focus of population study

The International Council onMining and Metals (ICMM) said itsmembers recognised the role ofproperly designated and managedprotected areas in conservationstrategies and the importance ofnational and global protected areas.

“The mining industry’s commit-ment not to operate in WorldHeritage sites is a small but positivefirst step forward for an industry

with a bad reputation on environ-mental matters,” said Smith.

“Unlike Shell this agreementactually has some teeth, as theindustry is currently operating inseveral World Heritage sites.”

A bigger issue for the Arctic ishow the mining and oil and gasindustries will approach develop-ment in this environmentally sensi-tive region.

Many of the most sensitive andvaluable arctic areas have noprotected status, particularly in themarine environment. At the sametime there is growing interest inexploiting arctic mineral resources,as witnessed by the recent wave ofinvestments in the region by oil andgas companies.

Julian Woolford, jwoolford@wwf.no

Scientists at work in Hudson Bay.

Phot

o:Ly

nn R

osen

trat

er

8 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

Environmentalists remainconcerned about Iceland’sbiggest dam project ever,

involving three large dams – thelargest 190 metres high – and a 57 -square kilometre reservoir.

The controversial project, whichwill supply electricity to analuminium smelter built by Alcoa,is being built in a previously undis-turbed area in the East Icelandichighlands and will fundamentallyeffect the fragile environment of thearea.

Five hundred nesting sites of thepink-footed goose will be floodedand Iceland’s only reindeer herd islikely to diminish. Wetlands down-stream are also likely to be impacted,but according to independentstudies, the economic benefits of theproject are not clear cut.

Despite protests from WWF andother NGOs, and a ruling from theIcelandic planning agency against

the dam, the project received thego-ahead from the Icelandicgovernment earlier this year andconstruction has begun.

When a WWF team visited thedam site in late August, the distur-bance was already apparent. Lorriesroar up and down a new road inwhat was previously a tranquil andundisturbed arctic landscape.Gravel pits and camps for construc-tion workers near the site to beflooded look like ugly scars andseveral years of construction worklie ahead before the flooding of thearea in 2006.

While the battle to preserve thisarea from destruction has been lost,WWF is now focusing on achievingprotection for the still undisturbedparts of the highlands, includingone of the remaining unregulatedglacial rivers, Jökulsa à Fjöllum.

This river also has hydropowerpotential but development would

endanger the Jökulsárgljúfurnational park.

On their visit to Iceland, Dr UteCollier, WWF’s Dams InitiativeLeader and Samantha Smith,Director of WWF’s ArcticProgramme, met with the Icelandicenvironment minister, officials of theIcelandic environment agency andrepresentatives from the electricitycompany Landsvirkjun and Alcoa todiscuss the potential impacts of theKárahnjúkar dam project.

WWF is urging the Icelandicgovernment to designate a newnational park and two Ramsar sites,to protect the area of the EasternIcelandic highlands unaffected bythe dam.

The Goverment has establisheda committee to examine this ques-tion.

Ute Collier, ucollier@wwf.org.uk

Iceland’s headache

Erosion at damsite.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 News 9

Beringia –bridge offriendship

Once united by amassive land bridge,the people of

Chukotka and Alaska todayhave to cross the Bering Strait– and the dateline – to meetand discuss their commonnatural and cultural heritage.

And that’s what they didthis year at the eighth annualBeringia Days conferenceorganised by the US NationalPark Service’s Alaskan divi-sion. It was the first time theevent was hosted inChukotka.

Around 100 delegatessigned up for the three-dayconference, which was heldfrom September 18th to 20thin Anadyr, Chukotka’s capital.

Experts from both sides ofthe Bering Strait and fromother parts of the Arctic gavepresentations on Beringiaregion’s natural and culturalheritage.

Special focus was given tothe topics of tourism develop-ment, traditional lifestylesand the future joint BeringiaInternational Park.

WWF’s Arctic Programmegave presentations on tourismin the Arctic and WWF’sBering Sea Ecoregion team onprotected areas. Plans areafoot for a new airport inAnadyr, which could seeinternational flights –and arise in the number of touristsvisiting Chutkotka – fromAlaska and Japan.

Inspired by vivid tradi-tional dances and songs byone of Chukotka’s mostprominent traditionalperformance groups, andthrough presentations andengaging discussions, dele-gates were clear that there is adesire for a united vision ofthe future in this region.

Miriam Geitz, mgeitz@wwf.no

Greenland’s Brünnich’s guillemot and eider arethreatened by new

Government proposals which allowhunting during the breeding season.

In the last issue of the ArcticBulletin we published a report onGreenland’s wildlife management:Greenland government’s u-turn onhunting.

Since then new and disturbinginformation has come to the atten-tion of WWF Denmark.

In the piece in the last issue, theauthors said that “A colony inUummannaq in NorthwestGreenland declined from 500,000breeding guillemot to a meagre10,000 over the past 60 years”. Thiswasn’t accurate. In fact, guillemotsin Uummannaq are extinct. In1949, the colony at the small islandof Salleq near Uummannaq townhad 150,000 breeding birds but thathas now vanished.

The numbers given in the

previous article referred to an areasouth of Uummannaq, fromUpernavik to the Disco Bay. Herethe guillemot population hasdeclined from 500,000 to 10,000 inthe last 60 years.

Since the 1930s, 16 breedingcolonies of guillemot have becomeextinct. Today 21 colonies remainin west Greenland and two in eastGreenland. The total breedingpopulation has fallen by nearly 50percent.

In spite of this, Greenland’sHome Rule Government has putforward a proposal which will allowhunting well into the breedingseason in the most sensitive areasfrom Disco Bay northwards.

In 2000, the Home Rule’s ownbiological advisors recommendedthat all guillemot hunting shouldend on February 15 throughoutGreenland. They even said thatguillemots should be protectedcompletely from Disco Bay

Greenland Governmentignores own scientists

Eider nesting.

Phot

o:St

efan

Nor

ris

➤

10 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

This summer polar bearswandering the bleak coasts ofSvalbard in the Norwegian

Arctic were treated to a uniquesight; nine environmental ministersfrom around the world, as well asthe head of United NationsEnvironment Programme, in brightorange survival suits, trudgingknee-deep through icy waters.

They were there by invitation ofthe Norwegian Minister ofEnvironment Børge Brende, whohad challenged them to join this icyfield-trip.

There was no formal agenda.Instead the venue chosen for meet-ings was the great outdoors and thethemes discussed covered the fullrange of global environmentaltopics from climate change andpoverty, to over-harvesting andresource exploitation.

The visitors were guided byspecialists in various fields, andservices and logistics were provided

by the Norwegian Polar Institute.Brende took over the prestigious

position of head of the UNCommission on SustainableDevelopment in May 2003. Heknows that in order to be able tomake any headway on global envi-ronmental issues given the chal-lenges of developing countries andlack of support from the USA andother developed countries, friendsin high places are essential.

Sharing small, simple quarterson a research ship, climbing glaciersand rocky peaks, and enjoying hotsoup and refreshing drinks underthe arctic midnight sun tends tobring people closer together.

His guests included environ-mental ministers, or there equiva-lents, from USA, China, Russia, UK,Canada, South Africa, Sweden,Denmark and Iceland, as well asClaus Töpfer, the executive Directorof UNEP.

“Svalbard was like a spectacular

classroom for us, and was the perfectsetting for discussing the world’senvironmental challenges,” Brendesaid. A clear highlight for visitorsfrom further south was experiencingbeing out on the sea ice itself. This,coupled with discussions on theconsequences to this ecosystem ofcurrent global warming trends, wasa real eye-opener for the ministers,several of whom are now returningto domestic discussions on ratifica-tion and follow-up of the Kyotoclimate treaty.

Having now seen the scope ofcruise tourism first hand, Brendecommended WWF for work theorganisation has done on devel-oping guidelines and codes ofconduct for arctic tourism, andspecifically for work WWF does onstrengthening the environmentalstandards of cruise ships visitingSvalbard.

Stefan Norris, snorris@wwf.no

Environmental ministers on Svalbard

northwards. The biologistsalso recommended that guillemotkills should be reduced by 60percent to protect the currentpopulation from further decline.

The current bird legislationproposal will permit huntingbetween Disco Bay and Thule untilMay 31.

As these recommendations havebeen ignored by Greenland’s politi-cians, the future for guillemots doesnot seem bright.

Another bird under pressure inGreenland is the common eider. Arecent study published in 2002 bythe Greenlandic Institute forNatural Resources showed thatmajor parts of the west Greenlandiceider population have undergone arapid decline with an annual loss offour percent. This is an overalldecline of 80 percent in the last 40years. In southern Greenland, thereare no significant eider colonies.

This information also seems tohave been ignored by theGreenlandic government. Thecurrent Bird proposal will, ifenforced, allow hunting in southernGreenland until April 30, until May31 in Disco Bay and north to Thule

and in East Greenland, and untilJune 15 in the Thule area.

In 2000, the Home Rule’s biolo-gists said that the breeding season –at a minimum – should be consid-ered as starting from May 1.However, eiders begin theircourtship and breeding prepara-tions well before that date.

WWF-Denmark has collecteddetailed hunting statistics from theGreenland Home Rule Government.They show disturbingly high levelsof hunting on pre–breeding andbreeding eiders.

On average some 77,000 eidersare hunted annually in Greenland.However several studies indicateserious under-reporting.

Of all hunted eiders around tento 12 per cent are hunted in March,11 percent are hunted in April and11 per cent in May. From earlyOctober until early March, up to 90percent of eiders in southernGreenland are Canadian migrants.Outside these months the birds arefrom Greenland’s breeding popula-tion. Hunting is therefore extremelyharmful.

Around four percent of eiders –around 3,200 birds – are killed

during the breeding season fromJune to August even though theyare protected then. The number ofpolice cases investigating this typeof wildlife crime in Greenland isminimal.

A very high loss of eggs is aserious problem in some areas. Inone study around 25 percent ofeider eggs were lost due to eitherillegal egging or natural egg preda-tion.

At the beginning of September,the political situation in Greenlandtook a new turn as the Governmentcoalition of the two parties, Siumutand Atassut, broke down.Negotiations to form a new coali-tion – the fifth in 20 months – haveresulted in a new governmentconsisting of two political parties,Siumut and Inuit Ataqatigiit. It isdifficult to predict how the newcoalition will deal with the birdproposal.

Anne-Marie Bjerg,WWF-Denmark(a.bjerg@wwf.dk)

Thor Hjarsen, EcoAdvise(thor@ecoadvise.dk)

➤

The creation of five newprotected areas on Svalbardmarks the end of a long polit-ical and bureaucratic process

dating back to the early 1990s.In 1996 the Norwegian govern-

ment published a White Paper onSvalbard which assessed the repre-sentativeness of the existingprotected areas on the islands. Thiswas the same White Paper in whichthe government stated that Svalbardwas to be one of the best-managedwilderness areas in the world.

The 1973 protections securedmainly remote, unproductive land,consisting mainly of ice, snow andbare rocks. These were relatively easyto establish, in a political sense, asthere was little conflicting interest.There were no active mining opera-tions in the area in question, andthey were far from settlements.

The new protected areas, on theother hand, were identified andselected based on a scientificanalysis of nature types representa-tive for Svalbard’s land areas.

Nature types underrepresented bythe existing protected areas werethen selected as candidate areas.

These were primarily biologi-cally rich lowland areas, valleys,mires, coastal areas, and somegeological formations. In addition,areas that are particularly impor-tant breeding, feeding, moulting orresting habitats for arctic animalswere identified.

A prioritised selection of theareas in need of protection, withbroad presentations of the

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 Svalbard 11

Stefan Norris,WWF Arctic Programme’s head of conservation, looks back down thelong road towards the creation of Svalbards’ newest protected areas.

Dogsleddingin Reindalen– now anationalpark.

➤

Svalbard – one of the world’sbest managed wildernesses?

Phot

o:St

efan

Nor

ris

case for protecting each one, wassent out for consultation with all stake-holders in 2000.

The resulting consultation processengaged local groups, businesses, inter-national commercial interests, scien-tists, government agencies and envi-ronmental NGOs such as WWF.

The main opposition to theproposals came from the localNorwegian and Russian coal mininginterests, although both the touristindustry and science communityvoiced concern over potential restric-tions, as did oil and gas interests andlocal hunters and trappers.

The protection of the large, lushReindalen valley – the largest, unfrag-mented ice-free lowland area onSvalbard, which contains the biologi-cally rich Stormyra marsh ecosystem –was the most heavily discussed on theNorwegian side. For environmentalistsit was the prime candidate area. For themining industry it was a potential sitefor expansion of the large Svea minecomplex.

Underlying the coal mining interestin blocking protection of Reindalenwas the fact that such a protectionwould effectively stop any possibility ofbuilding a road between the two mainNorwegian mining settlements, Sveaand Longyearbyen, a project for whichthe mining interests have beenlobbying for years.

WWF has been campaigning

against this development for as long,since this would – literally – pave theway for fragmentation of Svalbard’scontinuous wilderness areas.

On the Russian side there wasconflict over the proposed Coles Valley(Colesdalen) plant protection area. TheRussians are planning to expandmining to this area. After the Russianpresident Putin himself took this caseup with the Norwegian prime ministerearlier this year, this candidate area wasremoved from the overall plan.

Discussions are now taking placewith the Russians with the goal ofsecuring protection of the unique floraof the valley by introducing localroutines and safeguards. Coles Valley isthus the only area presented in theoriginal plan that has not beenprotected in the process.

Hopen Island at the south-eastcorner of the archipelago, has nowbeen secured as a nature reserve – thestrictest form of protection in Norway.Hopen is one of the most importantdenning sites for the Barents Sea polarbear population, as well as an impor-tant breeding area for sea birds.

In the final phases of the stakeholderconsultations regarding the protectedareas plan, it became clear that theNorwegian Oil Directorate, as well asat least one oil exploration company,had interests in blocking the protectionof Hopen and were lobbying to under-mine the plans.

They saw the island as an interestingand useful site for oil and gas infra-structure if and when the northernBarents Sea was opened for develop-ment.

WWF exposed these tactics in themedia, and held them up against theNorwegian Ministry of Oil and Energy’sstated policy that oil and gas explorationin the northern Barents Sea is out of thequestion and not at all on their agenda.

The pressure created by this expo-sure, as well as WWF’s repeated pleasto the Ministry of Environment not topostpone the Svalbard nature protec-tion process, as this would allowcommercial stakeholders time to estab-lish claims in the areas, is said to havebeen key in getting the royal decreedeclaring protection now inSeptember.

WWF Norway and WWF’s ArcticProgramme have worked on this issuesince 1996, when the mandate wasgiven to analyse gaps in the protectedareas network of Svalbard.

WWF supported a successful NGOcampaign to stop the road that wouldhave connected the two mining settle-ments of Longyearbyen and Svea in themid-1990s. This road would havetraversed Reindalen, which has nowbeen protected as a national park, andeffectively split it in two.

WWF also ran a campaign in thelate 1990s to protect all of Svalbard asone national park. This campaign wasnot successful, but with the creation ofthe five new areas, the goal is not so far

12 Svalbard WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

The new protected areas are:• Nordenskiöld Land nasjonalpark• Nordre Isfjorden nasjonalpark• Sassen-Bünsow Land nasjonalpark• Hopen naturreservat• Festningen geotopvernområde• An existing plant protected area, Ossian Sars, has been

changed to a nature reserve.

Bearded seal inIsfjorden – thenorthern part isnow a nationalpark.

➤

Phot

os:S

tefa

n N

orri

s

rom being achieved.The next major step for WWF is to

ollow closely the impacts on theprotected areas following Norway’sdecision to expand the boundaries ofts territorial waters from four to 12

nautical miles from the coast ofvalbard.

WWF and the environmentaluthorities insist that the boundaries ofhe protected areas, which now go tohe current four nautical mile

boundary, should extend to the new 12

nautical mile boundary. If not, theyargue, the Svalbard mining code wouldapply from four miles to 12 nauticalmiles meaning in principle that onecould have oil rigs, mining or otherdamaging activities just outside theareas identified as having the greatestconservation value.

The proposals for expanding theprotected areas out to 12 nautical mileswas sent out in early October.

As the coastline of Svalbard is highlyirregular and made up of many islands,

defining how to expand the boundariesfrom four to 12 nautical miles is acomplex task. There are severalproposals currently on the table. Thosewhich include the largest marine areasend up with close to 39,000 squarekilometres of coastal waters proposedfor protection. This is roughly 4,000square kilometres larger thanDenmark’s total area.

If passed, as WWF hopes, this wouldbe a major development in Norway’smarine protected areas plan.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 Svalbard 13

If you’ve ever been to Svalbard, the chancesare you’ve experienced some of itsmagnificent nature from on board a ship.

As more and more visitors to the archipelagooin coastal cruises or arrive by ship from

overseas, many stakeholders – government,ruise operators, tourists and environmental-sts to name a few – feel the time has come toeview current shipping practices.

From this autumn WWF, together with the

Governor of Svalbard and the cruise industry,has joined forces to reduce the impacts and risksof ship-based travel in order to help protectSvalbard as a wilderness area. This followsNorway’s pledge to make Svalbard one of thebest-managed wilderness areas in the world.

Over the past few years, cruise tourism hasseen a considerable increase both in size andnumber of ships, and this trend is likely tocontinue in the Arctic. While the large cruise

ships traditionally keep to warmer waters, theArctic has long been a destination for small –and more recently – medium-sized vessels.

This increase in shipping around Svalbardposes high risks to the environment. A reporton maritime safety by the Norwegian govern-ment has already confirmed this. And, as if todrive the point home, this summer a researchvessel of the Norwegian Polar Institute ranaground. Later a ship belonging to the

Cruise tourism and shipping around Svalbard

Kittiwakes onHopen.

➤

14 Svalbard/Whaling WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

The announcement thatIceland would take minkewhales this August was made

despite a wave of internationalprotest in the spring againstIceland’s initial scientific whalingproposal, under which Icelandwould have taken 100 minkewhales, 50 sei whales and 100 finwhales. Iceland has not huntedwhales since 1989.

There is general agreement thatthe take of 38 minke whales, fromthe estimated 43,000 minkes in thecentral Atlantic stock, will not affectpopulation levels.

In 2002, Iceland rejoined theInternational Whaling Commission(IWC), the only global manage-ment body for whales, in a contro-versial decision.

The IWC has had a moratoriumagainst commercial whaling since1986, while at the same time it hastried unsuccessfully to reach agree-ment on a management scheme that

In August 2003, Icelandannounced plans to take 38minke whales from theCentral Atlantic minkewhale stock as part of ascientific whaling program.Samantha Smith, director ofWWF’s Arctic Programme,takes a look at what thismeans for whales andwhaling.

Norwegian Military met thesame fate. And finally, at the end ofJuly, the German cruise ship MonaLisa hit a rock in Magdalenefjorden.

Luckily, no one was hurt andthere was no damage to the envi-ronment. Yet the incidents showedthe potential for accidents, injury topeople and damage to the environ-ment. An oil spill can have devas-tating impacts on marine andcoastal ecosystems, especially inSvalbard’s high latitudes. Moreover,response capabilities – either topollution or to carry out rescues –are often inadequate due to the

remoteness of the region and theharsh climatic conditions.

Cruise operators have workedwith WWF and others on arctictourism issues since 1996. Yet it wasonly following last year’s ArcticEcotourism Conference that thedifferent stakeholders involvedagreed the time for action hadcome. From the outset, it was clearthat they wanted to improve theway cruise tourism is conductedaround Svalbard. They recognisethat the viability of cruise tourismin the area depends on the long-term environmental protection ofthe archipelago.

Measures that have already beenraised include the establishment ofshipping routes as well as limitingor prohibiting access to certainareas, perhaps on a seasonal basis.Ideally, efforts to ensure safe andsustainable ship-based tourismaround Svalbard, which meets thechallenges of operating in such aunique environment throughvoluntary and proactive manage-ment, can serve as a model for otherdestinations in the Arctic.

As the Arctic Bulletin goes to press,representatives from the majority ofcoastal cruise operators are workingtowards establishing an industryassociation to focus on commonobjectives, particularly environ-mental issues and safety routines.

This effort will benefit from theexperiences of the InternationalAssociation of Antarctica TourOperators (IAATO), as some of theSvalbard operators are alsomembers of this organisation.

Miriam Geitz, mgeitz@wwf.no

IAATO operatorsadopt TenPrinciplesDuring this year’s annual meeting ofthe International Association ofAntarctic Tour Operators (IAATO),the members of the organisationwith operations in the Arcticdiscussed the possibilities ofestablishing an arctic chapter ofIAATO.As a result, the groupadopted the following statement:

“Although not a formal mandate fromIAATO, representatives present supportthose members wishing to form aninformal sub-group to commence adialogue with the Arctic Council, inrecognition of the fact that IAATOrepresents best practice in the tourismindustry.Arctic operators presentadhere to and fully endorse the WWFTen Principles for Arctic Tourism, andintend to continue coordination withWWF.”

➤

Cruiseships around Svalbard.

Phot

o:M

iria

m G

eitz

would allow for limited whaling.The International Convention

for the Regulation of Whaling(ICRW) nonetheless allows limitedwhaling by member states for scien-tific purposes. The Conventionallowed member states to excludethemselves from the moratoriumon commercial whaling by filing anofficial objection to the morato-rium decision within 90 days afterthe decision was taken.

Iceland did not file such anobjection at the time of the decision(when it was a member), then laterleft the IWC, and has now rejoinedwith an objection. The legality ofthat objection continues to be ques-tioned by many IWC members, andthe issue remains unresolved.

When Iceland joined the IWC, itstated that it would not startcommercial whaling until after 2006,and perhaps later so long as the IWCmakes progress towards a manage-ment regime that allows for whaling.

Iceland has said that research isthe purpose of its current hunt;issues to be covered include feedingpatterns, species, and volumes offish consumed by minke whales,ecosystem dynamics, and contami-nants.

Conservation organisations,including WWF, believe that non-lethal methods could provide thesame information and oppose anymisuse of scientific whaling. Somemembers of the IWC’s ScientificCommittee have raised concernsabout the legitimacy of the sciencebehind the proposal; others havesupported it.

Iceland’s research programcomes on the heels of a largerdebate about whether whales andseals, particularly minkes, consumelarge amounts of commerciallyvaluable fish and thereby contributeto drops in the populations of thesefish. Scientists generally agree thatoverfishing is the overwhelming

cause of declines in commercial fishstocks. Iceland has been a strongopponent of government subsidiesof fishing, which most fisheriesexperts believe is a root cause ofoverfishing on a global scale.

At the same time, minke whalesare opportunistic feeders and doindeed eat fish among other things– though they do not always eatcommercially valuable species, andsometimes eat fish that prey oncommercial species. Fisheries andwhale experts generally do notagree that reducing whale popula-tions would increase fisheries takeswithout adverse effects on marineecosystems. Even working from thisassumption, however, no country –including Iceland – would bewilling to kill the huge numbers ofwhales it would take to achieve this.

It is unclear whether Icelandintends to begin a larger-scalecommercial hunt over the longterm. National demand for

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 Whaling 15

Iceland resumes whaling

➤

Phot

o:W

WF-

Can

on/M

orte

n LI

ND

HA

R

Many arctic communities aredependent upon fisheriesfor food, employment,

and cultural and spiritual suste-nance. Yet on a global basis, marineresources are being depleted or over-exploited. Major fish stocks havedeclined to a level close to collapse,for example the Norwegian SpringSpawning Herring in the 1960s andthe North Sea Cod and the BarentsSea Cod in the late 1980s. Somestocks have already collapsed like the

Newfoundland codstock in 1992. Thecollapse or theserious decline inmajor fish stocksadversely affectscoastal communitiesand familiesdependent on fish-eries. In Norway andAtlantic Canada inparticular, coastalwomen have becomefront line soldiers inthe battle against theconsequences of thefisheries crisis. Theyoften suffer the most

but have little influence on the deci-sions that shape their lives.

Sustainable development in theArctic depends on democracy indecision-making processes thataffect the management of naturalresources. This is a view supportedby several international agree-ments. Agenda 21 states that theinvolvement of women, indigenouspeoples, small-scale fishers andlocal communities is critical toattaining sustainable fisheriesmanagement. The JohannesburgDeclaration on SustainableDevelopment emphasises gender

equality and the role of indigenouspeoples in achieving sustainabledevelopment and specifies thatsustainable development: “requiresbroad-based participation in policyformulation, decision-making andimplementation at all levels”.

But the fisheries sector has tradi-tionally been male-dominated. Thisin spite of the fact that women arealso involved in and concerned witharctic fisheries even though theirroles are less visible and have so farreceived little recognition. Mostfishers are men and the commercialfishing industry itself is dominatedby men. Yet many women work inprocessing industries and play apivotal role in the life of the family– as administrators of the familyfishing business and as caregivers.Indirectly, women influence rele-vant socio-cultural institutions andnetworks that support fishing fami-lies. Despite some contemporarydocumentation of women’s roles infisheries, women’s access to posi-tions of power and decision-makingprocesses in fisheries is still limited.

Fisheries management modelsdeveloped in the Nordic countriescomprise political and corporaterepresentatives, weighing heavilytowards the latter. This corporatemodel provides membershiporganisations power and access toparticipate in decision-makingprocesses and bodies. Membershipin these powerful organisations arelinked to ownership of boats andquotas. Currently, this managementsystem limits access for women andindigenous peoples’ groups whomight help promote more sustain-able resource management throughbroadening the arena of debate onfisheries issues.

16 Whaling/Fisheries WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

whale products is not high, andNorwegian efforts to initiate inter-national trade in whale productswith Japan have stalled, apparentlydue to Japanese concerns aboutcontaminants in Norwegian whalemeat and especially blubber. TheIcelandic Minister of Fisheries hassaid that Japanese demand will be afactor in determining whetherIceland resumes a commercialhunt. (Iceland, Japan, and Norwayall have reservations to the listing inCITES Appendix I of all species ofgreat whales covered by the IWCmoratorium; Appendix I prohibitsall international commercial trade).

There is speculation overwhether minkes from the Icelandichunt will have lower contaminantlevels than Norwegian minkes.Iceland hunts minkes from theCentral Atlantic stock, whileNorway takes a few whales fromthis stock and most from theNortheast Atlantic stock. This latterstock feeds during parts of year inand around Svalbard, in waters thatare known to be sinks for bothlong-range pollution and pollutionfrom northwest Russia.

While polls indicate that 70percent of Icelanders support theresumption of whaling, theIcelandic Tourism IndustryAssociation opposes it so long as ittakes place without internationalagreement. Tourism is Iceland’ssecond-largest industry, and whalewatching in particular has boomedrecently. Last year, 62,000 touristswent whale watching in Iceland.WWF and Greenpeace have calledon tourists to support Icelandicwhale watching as an alternative towhale hunting.

The Icelandic government’s goalover time seems to be the establish-ment of a small-scale, commercialhunt on whales – ideally with inter-national agreement via the IWC.Iceland is heavily dependent onmarine resources and for manyIcelanders whales are anotherresource to be managed and usedappropriately. This begs the ques-tion of whether whale stocks, whichmigrate in and out of nationalwaters, can be adequately managedon a national basis. But with orwithout international agreement,for the time being Iceland seemsdetermined to go its own way.

Samantha Smith, ssmith@wwf.no

She is involvedin anddependent onfisheries but isshe a part ofdecision-makingprocesses?

Gender and decision-making in arctic fisheriesCollapsing fish stocks dramatically impact coastal communitiesand families dependent on fishing. Ingunn Limstrand and JoannaKafarowski describe a new project that sets out to promotegender equality in the arctic fishing industry.

➤

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 Fisheries 17

A study conducted by theNorwegian Government demon-strates that despite the existence oflegislation designed to enforcegender equality, permanent excep-tions are permitted. It is impossiblefor the relevant organisations tofind competent women to partici-pate in fisheries councils and theboards with the mandate to definethe direction of the future of fish-eries. In Norway and other coun-tries in the circumpolar North,women are poorly represented indecision-making processes thatdetermine or distribute quotas.

But now a new project Women’sparticipation in decision-makingprocesses in arctic fisheries manage-ment is setting out to establish aknowledge base that can be used forpromoting gender equality in thedecision-making processes of themarine arctic sector; for developingtools and strategies that promoteparticipatory values and practicesand for encouraging andpromoting international co-opera-tion on questions concerningwomen’s participation in fisheries.

The project was presented at the

April 2003 meeting of theSustainable Development WorkingGroup of the Arctic Council inReykjavik, Iceland and endorsed bythe Senior Arctic Officials of theCouncil. The project is a first stepin documenting women’s partici-pation in arctic fisheries manage-ment. Spearheaded by Norway, theproject has been supported by thenational governments of partici-pating partners including Norway,Iceland, Canada, Greenland,Sweden and the Samediggi (theNorwegian Sami Parliament).

In order to study the right to,access to and control of naturalresources, three main categories havebeen identified as part of the project:

• Fisheries resource management • Ownership and leadership of

fisheries• The discursive power of fisheries

(gendered norms and valuescreating barriers for women’sparticipation)

The project will examine genderdistribution within fisheries atvarious levels: as workers on boats

and in fish processing and aquacul-ture, as managers and owners, andas leaders in decision and policy-making bodies. Qualitative analyseswill be conducted to investigate thereasons for women’s participation,or lack of participation in arcticfisheries and to explore howwomen view fisheries managementand its effects on their own livesand on that of their communities.

Gender distribution is a matterof sharing power, responsibility andresources. It is also a matter ofpromoting social welfare andsustainable development. Datacollection and analysis of women’sand indigenous peoples’ participa-tion in decision-making processeswithin fisheries will support andfoster sustainable economic, socialand cultural development in theArctic.

Ingunn Limstrand, Northern FeministUniversity, Norway

ingunn.limstrand@kun.nl.no

Joanna Kafarowski, Canadian CircumpolarInstitute, Canada

gypsy_four@hotmail.com

A fisherwomanfrom a coastalNorwegiancommunity, oneof very fewwomen in theseagoing fishingsub-sector.

18 Pollution WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

The Arctic Council ActionPlan to Eliminate Pollution ofthe Arctic (ACAP) followed

the 1997 Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Programme’s (AMAP)first report on toxic pollution in theArctic. In the report, AMAP docu-mented alarmingly high levels ofPersistent Organic Pollutants(POPs) and mercury in animals atthe top of the arctic food chain.Most of these pollutants are trans-ported to the Arctic from areas farbeyond its boundaries. Indeed thelevels of pollutants in many animalswere so high that serious effectswere observed in some species.

However the most seriousconcern was that pollutants werealso being found in the people wholive in the Arctic. High levels of POPsand mercury were found in humanblood and in mother’s milk in a fewareas. Again, in certain areas, thepollutants have had a direct affect onhumans: some arctic residents are atrisk because of their traditional diet.

To try and reduce these riskssome governments have issuednutritional advice. Norway, forexample, has issued a warning tofertile and pregnant women not toeat fish liver of any kind due to highconcentrations of PCBs. The FaroeIslands has warned fertile and preg-nant women not to eat whale meatdue to its high concentrations ofmercury.

The stark message from theAMAP report was that food fromone of the cleanest environmentson earth might be hazardous ifdiets are based too much onanimals at the top of the food chain.

To cope with the problems, theArctic Council established TheArctic Council Plan to EliminatePollution of the Arctic (ACAP) in2000. It aimed to reduce and even-tually eliminate pollution in thearctic environment.

PCBs – an environmental threat to the ArcticThe first ACAP project is a cooper-ation between all the arctic coun-tries, the Netherlands, the ArcticMonitoring and AssessmentProgramme (AMAP) secretariat,the United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme-Chemicals and TheNordic Environmental Fund(NEFCO).

The project aims to show how to

identify and destroy waste thatcontains PCBs, such as trans-formers and capacitors in Russia.This project is now advancing to itspilot phase and consists of thefollowing elements:

• NEFCO has invested two millioneuros in an incineration plant atSt Petersburg. The plant – basedon Russian technology – candestroy liquid PCBs (trans-former liquid) and meets theinternational emission standardsfor the destruction of PCBs;

• NEFCO is also financing a pilotproject to extract PCBs fromtransformers for incineration sothat the transformers can beshredded and the metal recycled.

• The US has offered Russia aPlasma Arc Incineration Plantworth around ten million USdollars that can destruct solidcapacitors. The final plan forplacing and operating this

Towards a cleaner ArcticIn 2000, the Arctic Council set out to confront the problems of pollution in theArctic.The Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic(ACAP) aims to reduce and eventually eliminate pollution in the arctic environ-ment. Per Døvle, Deputy Director, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT),describes two of the six projects running under the ACAP umbrella: a project toclean up PCBs and the Cleaner Production Programme in Norilsk, Russia.

Contaminant levels

T I M E

Contaminant levels

Bioaccumulation

Biomagnification

PCB concentrations inblood of mothers and women of child-bearing age across the Arctic

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.51.00.5

PCB µg/L

na = not available

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 Pollution 19

Plasma Arc Plant is under way.• Finally Denmark is financing a

pilot project to collect and storePCB waste in Russia.

The pilot PCB-project is verypromising. However, several chal-lenges lie ahead.

First, all the technical and prac-tical work in the pilot phase has tobe successfully completed and1,000 tons of PCB waste has to bedestroyed.

The main challenge, however, isfor Russia to use the experiencegained from this demonstrationproject to collect and destruct all30,000 tons of PCB waste that havebeen identified so far.

In this context Russian authori-ties have to urge their industry, theirarmed forces and their regionalauthorities to take part in a nationalclean-up operation, and bring theirPCB waste for safe disposal. Stronginvolvement and commitment fromthe Russian authorities will beneeded to make this happen.

Tidying up as you go alongIn 2001 ACAP started a CleanerProduction project in the NorilskNickel Mining Company in Norilsk– NN. The project is lead by theRussian/Norwegian CleanerProduction Centre in Moscow. NN

is the major point source of emis-sions in the Arctic, emitting threemillion tons of sulphur dioxide andparticulate matter each year to theair and consuming vast amount offreshwater and energy.

With some modest assistancefrom the US and Norway, thecompany has so far certified 48managers and engineers in the skillsof how to go through every part ofthe different industrial processes inthe NN to both save money and theenvironment. They have also beeneducated in the financial aspects ofengineering projects.

Around 130 project proposalshave been developed. Fifty of theseprojects are low-cost projects thatare under implementation and 81medium to high cost projects.Forty-six of the projects havealready been completed.

Some expected reductions are:fresh water – 65 million cubicmetres; waste water discharge –18.3 million cubic metres; naturalgas – 175 million cubic metres; andsulphur dioxide, 1.2 million tons.The economic savings are 189million USD a year and the invest-ments needed are around 460million USD.

The large projects may lead tolarge reductions of particles such assulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide

if they are implemented. Such largeprojects need additional financingfrom international developmentbanks, so they will need two tothree years before they are eventu-ally implemented.

Norilsk Nickel is aiming for abetter environmental performance.The introduction of qualitymanagement and environmentalprotection management systemsaccording to ISO 9000 and 14000has been agreed.

ACAP projects:■ Phase out PCB use andintroduce management of PCB-contaminated waste in Russia: thePCB-project aims to develop andimplement pilot remedial actionsthat may serve as a model for aRussian Federal programme onphasing out the use of more than30,000 tons of PCBs andmanaging PCB-contaminatedwaste. Presently the building ofdestruction facilities using US andRussian technology is beingplanned and as a pilot projectthese facilities will destroy eightto nine thousand tons of PCBsfrom various types of waste.■ Environmentally soundmanagement of stocks ofobsolete pesticides in Russia:about 25,000 tons of obsolete,banned or severely restrictedpesticides are stored in numerouslocations and are waiting for safe

storage and disposal, includingdestruction.The project aims toprovide a model on how tomanage these stocks.A fullinventory of the stocks in 11arctic and sub-arctic provinceswill be carried out, and methodsto take care of these stocks willbe selected, and sources forimplementation of remedialactions prioritised.■ Cleaner production at NorilskMining and MetallurgicalCompany: the objective of theNorilsk-project is to carry out afull Cleaner ProductionAssessment of all productionunits and utilities, and tointroduce instruments of eco-efficiency to these units, and totrain engineers of the companyabout how to achieveeconomically soundenvironmental improvements.Currently about 65 engineers andmanagers are “certified” and

about 85 environment-savingprojects are developed. Severalprojects have already beenimplemented resulting in, forexample, reduced use of energy,natural gas, water and rawmaterials and thereby reducedemissions to air.■ Reduction of dioxin and furansreleases in Russia: thedioxin/furan-project aims to makean inventory of sources in theRussian Federation that canimpact the Arctic, quantify thereleases to the environment andprioritise sources forimplementation of remedialactions.■ Reduction of mercuryemissions from arctic countries:the mercury project is acircumpolar project, where theoverall objective is to contributeto reducing atmospheric mercuryreleases from arctic states byidentifying important

anthropogenic source categoriesfor mercury emission and toinitiate cost effective reductionmeasures as pilot projects.■ Releases of brominated flame-retardants: the Arctic Council hasendorsed a project to reduce theemissions of brominated flame-retardants.This family ofsubstances are used in manyplastic products such as TV setsand PCs in order to reduce firerisks. However, the levels of thesesubstances are increasing rapidlyin arctic species and AMAP hasdescribed them as the nextenvironmental problem and asdangerous as PCBs.

The ACAP projects areaddressing problems identified bythe Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Programme – AMAP.See the AMAP Fact Sheets onHeavy Metals and POPs atwww.amap.no

Tagish

Cape Dorset Alert

Heimaey Island

Svanvik

Ny-Ålesund

Dunai

‘Clean’ air ; low chlordaneand PCBs across the

Arctic Ocean

‘Clean’ air ;low toxapheneover NW Pacific

Elevatedtoxaphene

from US/Canadawest coast

Elevated chlordaneoriginating fromUS/Canada

east coast

Elevated PCBs and HCHoriginating fromEurope andwestern Russia

Elevated PCBsand HCH fromRussia/Siberia

Elevated PCBsand HCH fromRussia/Siberia

Transportationroutes of POPsof concern inthe Arctic

20 Seabirds WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

James Burns from theUniversity of Torontodescribes a project tostudy seabirds inCanada’s high Arctic.

Perhaps the best view of seabirds inthe Arctic is through a long-termlens. The unpredictable and oftenharsh conditions of the high arctic

summer have selected forbird species that can livethrough bad years so thatthey might breed the nextseason. Understandingwhat’s happening to popu-lations of species with theselong-term breeding strate-gies requires long-termmonitoring projects.

On Prince LeopoldIsland, north-east ofSomerset Island inCanada’s high Arctic, long-lived seabirds are currently

being monitored by Tony Gastonand colleagues at the CanadianWildlife Service.

This year is the final year of athree-year study to repeat a priorthree-year monitoring study at thissite in the 1970s. The projectfocuses on three species: thick-billed murres, black-legged kitti-wakes, and northern fulmars. Allthree species nest on the narrowledges of the Prince LeopoldIsland’s perilous 1000-foot highcliffs where they can be monitoredthrough the breeding season fromobservational blinds. In addition,where safety allows, biologists canrappel down the cliff edge to take aclose-up look at the breedingcolony and to measure and bandchicks or brooding adults.

This study was chiefly motivatedby the increasing possibility of ship-ping traffic in the waters ofLancaster Sound, just off PrinceLeopold Island. The appeal of thefamed North West Passage has notdiminished since the time of theFranklin expedition, some of whommet their fate only a short distancefrom Prince Leopold Island. Buttoday, climate change is making thepossibility of using LancasterSound as a viable shipping route

through the Arctic very real. Arecent climate model predictsLancaster Sound may become ice-free all summer long within a fewdecades if current climate trendscontinue. The obvious concern forwildlife is the effect of possible oilspills or dumping by tankers in thebird’s feeding grounds, a threat thathas never before been a concern inthese icy waters.

Interestingly, another sign ofclimate change may already beturning up in the diet of thick-billedmurres. One duty of the researchersis to identify the fish species thatadult murres bring to the colony tofeed to their chicks. Capelin, a fishspecies that historically does not liveas far north as Lancaster Sound, hasbeen tentatively identified in thediet of thick-billed murres the lastthree years. This may be an indica-tion the food sources of murres arechanging, and should be a subject offurther study.

For thick-billed murres, life isalready hard enough on the ledgeswhere they breed. If a murre learnsto survive its first year of life, annualsurvivorship is quite high at 90percent. However, survival throughthat first year is difficult, and veryfew young ever reach their firstbirthday. It will require manyattempts by each pair of breedingmurres to produce enoughoffspring to replace themselves inthe population.

In 2003, the thick-billed murresbreeding season was going very

well. Chicks were growing well untilan early summer blizzard hit onAugust 11. With winds topping 100kilometers per hour, the snowstormlasted for three days and coveredmany of the nest sites. Some murreswere out of the wind, but unluckyto be in an area where the snowsettled and buried their nest sites. Ifthe snow became too deep for theparent’s body heat to melt a snowcave to continue brooding in, theyhad no option but to abandon theirchicks to die alone in the snow andtry again next year. Choosing abreeding site was critical for themurres, as within individual plotsunder observation on PrinceLeopold Island this summer,anywhere from five percent to 90percent of breeding attempts werewiped out by the storm. Manyreally were just at the wrong placeat the wrong time.

It’s a tough life for seabirds on thearctic ledges. Their attempts to breedare often affected by factors out oftheir control, including food avail-ability and storms. But because theycan live for several years, a one-yearstudy showing a good or poorbreeding season can be misleading.It’s only by following these birdsthrough several years that we canhope to tell how well they’re doingand how well they adjust as theglobal climate changes around them.

James G. Burns, Department of Zoology,University of Toronto,

jgburns@zoo.utoronto.ca

Life on the ledgeBlack-leggedmurres.

Phot

o:Ja

mes

Bur

ns

Phot

o:Ja

mes

Bur

ns

All change in AlaskaWWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 The interview 21

■ WWF: The Governor andadministration officials portrayedtheir move as a simple re-organisa-tion. The biologists involved inpermit reviews are now in theDepartment of Natural Resourcesinstead of the Department of Fishand Game. Won’t they still be able tocarry out their professional responsi-bilities? Is this a radical policy changethat will compromise and degradehabitat protection andstewardship ofAlaska’s fish habitats?Chip Dennerlein: Ihave great respect forthe professional landand resourcemanagers in theDepartment ofNatural Resources. Itgoes without sayingthat I think theformer Department of Fish andGame habitat biologists who trans-ferred are outstanding. They willcertainly do the best job they can.But the current system is not onlyawkward, it is also inherentlyflawed.

First, the current managementregime reverses the long-held sepa-ration of powers between resourcedevelopment and protection withinstate government. The first AlaskaLegislature established two agencies– The Department of NaturalResources and Fish and Game – withspecific separate authorities, toensure that both resource develop-ment and fish habitat conservationhad an effective voice in futureresource decisions. The NaturalResources mandate, until theGovernor’s executive order, was topromote development of the state’sagricultural, timber, mineral, and oil

and gas resources. Put simply, it wasalways responsible for getting out thecut and Fish and Game departmentfor getting out the catch. Not onlyhas the separation of powers beenlost, but under the Governor’s order,the final authority for fish habitatnow rests with the DeputyCommissioner of Natural Resources,while the authorities of all otherNatural Resource divisions (eg.

Mining, Land andWater, Forestryand Agriculture)rest with theCommissioner.So, it is literallytrue, as formerFish and GameCommissionerFrank Rue hassaid, that a potatonow has more

representation in a cabinet meetingthan fish habitat!

The second flaw in the currentsystem involves the parameter of“good science”. In the past permitstaff in the Habitat division inter-acted daily with fish and wildlifebiologists in other Department ofFish and Game divisions, and wereregularly involved in team effortsand research aimed at improvingthe ability to protect fish habitat aspart of resource development orroad projects. This is how, andwhere, science and decision-making came together. They arenow separated – by agency andphysical proximity – from fish andwildlife biologist colleagues andfrom on going science and research.Separating permit biologists fromresearch and their professionalcolleagues cannot possibly improvethe link between “good science” and

good decisions. The most likelylong-term effect will be a decreasein the level of professional experi-ence and quality among permitstaff responsible for determiningnecessary and appropriate habitatstipulations and conditions formany projects.

Lastly, there is a net loss ofhabitat staff in both the regionaland field offices. Fewer people aredoing more work. In some areas ofthe state habitat biologist positionshave been eliminated leaving biggeographic gaps. Beyond that, thereis less opportunity for permit biol-ogists to get out on the ground, tocatch potential problems, and workwith project managers and engi-neers on site to resolve them.

■ WWF: How was it possible forthe Governor to change the system offish habitat protection so dramati-cally and so easily? Why didn’tAlaskans speak out and prevent thisfrom happening?Chip Dennerlein: That’s a verygood question and there are severalanswers. First, the Governorprovided no opportunity whatso-ever for public input, let alonepublic hearings. Most Alaskans,including the Legislature, wereinitially caught by surprise. In addi-tion, most people initially acceptedthe Governor’s assurances that thiswas simply an internal manage-ment restructure involving permit-ting staff, and that habitat protec-tion would not be diminished.Lastly, the Governor justified

❝So, it is literally true,as former Fish andGame CommissionerFrank Rue has said,that a potato now hasmore representationin a cabinet meetingthan fish habitat!

Earlier this year Alaskan Governor Frank Murkowskisigned new legislation that transferred responsibility forreview and permitting of activities affecting fish habitatfrom the Alaska Department of Fish and Game HabitatDivision to the Department of Natural Resources.Thelegislation – Executive Order 107 – also effectively elim-inated the Habitat Division in the Department of Fishand Game. Evie Witten of WWF’s Bering Sea Ecoregionproject talked to Chip Dennerlein, a former director ofHabitat and Restoration for the Alaska Department ofFish and Game, to find out more.

➤

22 The interview/Publications WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03

■ Running with Reindeer: Encounters inRussian LaplandRoger Took,ohn Murray (Publishers) Ltd., 2003365 pp, 4 maps, 31 pictures (b/w)

What happens if an Englishmansets out to discover for himself theessence of Russian Lapland, itspeople and nature? After the fall ofthe iron curtain Roger Took, aBritish art historian and museumcurator, decided that he wanted toexperience one of the lastremaining wildernesses in Europe.

After describing his efforts toprepare himself for his trip, thebook follows Took on his quest tomeet the Russian Sami culture, viaMurmansk, into the heart of theKola peninsula.

He vividly describes his humanas well as natural encounters –some more pleasant than others.

Took manages to describe hisobservations and experiences in alively way that – mostly in regardsto his own role as an enthusiasticwesterner in a indigenous culture –does not lack humour.

The fact that his observations inthis book are not based on one tripbut are the result of several trips hemade in the 1990s make it evenmore interesting to read as itdepicts a society in transition.

Roger Took takes the reader asclose as you’ll ever get to meetingthe Russian Sami without actuallygoing yourself.

Miriam Geitz, mgeitz@wwf.no

the proposed action by citing anumber of important state andcommunity projects that heclaimed had been unreasonablyheld up by Department of Fish andGame Habitat division. As peoplebegan to examine the actual order,many did stand in opposition.

All five previous commissionersof Fish and Game – commissionerswho served under Democratic,Republican and IndependenceParty Governors – wrote toGovernor Murkowski asking himnot to make this radical change andinstead deal with real or perceivedmanagement or policy issuesthrough appropriate managementor policy changes. Fishermen havetraditionally been stalwarts in thepolitical battles to protect streamhabitat, buffers, and water quality.Commercial fishermen in partic-ular led efforts to achieve passage ofthe statutes that established Fishand Game as the lead agency forsteam habitat protection, throughthe Forest Practices Act and theCoastal Management Act. They,and sport and subsistence fish-ermen, understood that the long-term health of their use of theresource depended on a healthyenvironment. Some groups, like theAlaska Trollers Association, wereoutstanding in their opposition.But overall, few fishermenprotested, while others supportedthe Governor’s order eitheroutright or tacitly by not sayinganything. I believe the new, moreimmediate and dire threat fromfarmed salmon has most commer-cial salmon fishermen worriedabout their short-term economicsurvival. In their desperation theyfelt they could not risk alienating anew governor – who they need tohelp them deal with these imme-diate economic threats – by fightinghim over the long-term protectionof habitat.

Other citizens, conservation andenvironmental groups, communi-ties, and even some of the state’sofficial Fish and Game AdvisoryCommittees strongly protested.The state’s major newspaper foundthat none of the Governor’s exam-ples of problem projects stood upto scrutiny. The claims ranged fromcompletely false to wildlymisleading. The Legislature, whichoriginally planned no oversight,held several hearings, all of which

were packed. It was obvious thatpublic opinion was not in favor ofthe EO. But it was also obvious thatthe Governor had his mind madeup, and that the current Legislaturewas not going to buck a brand newgovernor. Those were the politics.

■ WWF: So now this major changeregarding fish habitat protection is inplace. Neither you, any of the state’spast Fish and Game commissioners,nor apparently many othersconcerned with conservation, thinkthe new system will be able to protectstream habitats adequately. Are wecondemned to accept an inevitablediminishment of stewardship andsustainability?Chip Dennerlein: The immediateoutlook is not good. GovernorMurkowski has removed otherhabitat protections, including somewithin the State’s coastal zone andforest management programs.Budget cuts, staff reductions andpolicy shifts occurring within thepresent federal administration willalso add to a cumulative impact onhabitat stewardship. The emergingsituation may not produce immedi-ately obvious or dramatic effects, butit lays the foundation for long termimpact at the very time that addi-tional science, better inter-agencycoordination, and more on sitereview and decision-making areneeded. Everywhere in the world,including Alaska, the habitat pie issmaller, the margins for errornarrower, and the stakes higher.Everywhere, including Alaska,habitat sustainability and especiallyconnectivity, are major challenges.Governor Murkowski’s action went180 degrees from the direction inwhich every biologist and habitatconservationist knows we need togo. But there is always hope. I believethat while some losses will be expe-rienced, the Governor’s order will berevisited and the course of habitatstewardship corrected – so long aspeople shine the light and look at itfor what it really is.

● Chip Dennerlein has 25 years ofpolicy and management experience inparks and protected areas, public lands,habitat conservation and transportation.He has served as director of Alaska StateParks, director of Habitat andRestoration for the Department of Fishand Game, and Executive Manager forthe Municipality of Anchorage.

➤

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.03 Publications/Calendar 23

■ Alaska to Nunavut – the great riversNeil Hartling,Terry Parker(photographs);Key Porter Books, 2003152 pp, glossary,references/suggested readings,color photographs

There are many great photo-graphic books about the North,but some stand out from thecrowd. This is one of them.

The rivers in question arethe Stikine, Tatshenshini,Alsak,Firth, Wind, Snake, SouthNahanni, Horton, Coppermine andBurnside which spread out over thecentral north-west of the northAmerican continent.

Though undoubtedly Terry

Parker has managed to capture thebeauty of the rivers through hisphotographs, it is Neil Hartlingwho lovingly draws portraits of“the great rivers” in words.

Hartling followsthe path of thestreams from theirorigin to end fromthe perspective of thecanoe paddler. Hisdescriptions reveal agreat deal of knowl-edge about the rivers,not only theirgeology, history, andecosystems but alsothe technicalities ofpaddling them.

It is however hisopen enthusiasm,

respect and compassion for whatthose rivers represent to him andother canoeists which makes thisbook so enjoyable to read.

Miriam Geitz, mgeitz@wwf.no

Forthcoming arctic meetings & events

Arctic Council EventsSenior Arctic Officials Meeting

• WHERE: Selfoss, Iceland • WHEN: 4–5 May 2004 • CONTACT: www.arctic-council.org

Other EventsThe 8th Circumpolar Co-Operation Conference

• WHERE: Whitehorse, Canada • WHEN: November 7–10• CONTACT: www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/conference/CUA/index.htm

Lecture: New Ice Cores from the Yukon• WHERE: Whitehorse, Canada/Haines Junction, Canada • WHEN: November 9/10• CONTACT: www.taiga.net/ysi

Arctic Coastal Dynamics Workshop• WHERE: St Petersburg, Russia • WHEN: November 10–14• CONTACT:Volker Rachold, vrachold@awi-potsdam.de Potsdam Research Unit,Telegrafenberg A43,14473 Postsdam, Germany,Tlf + 49 331 2882174

Arctic Climate System Study Final Conference• WHERE: St Petersburg, Russia • WHEN: November 11–14• CONTACT: Chad Dick or Tordis Villinger at acsys@npolar.no http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/conf.htm

Socio-Economics Workshop: Management Systems related to fishing and hunting in West Greenland• WHERE: Nuuk, Greenland • WHEN: November 18–20• CONTACT: Michael Kingsley, Email: info@natur.gl/mcsk@natur.gl

Northern Margins: Changing Transition Zones in Time: 5th Circumpolar Ecosystems International Workshop and Symposium

• WHERE: Churchill, Manitoba, Canada • WHEN: February 25 – 29 2004• CONTACT: Dr LeeAnn Fishback, Email: fishback@churchillmb.net

The 34th Annual Arctic Workshop• WHERE: Boulder, Colorado, US • WHEN: March 11–12, 2004• CONTACT: http://instaar.colorado.edu/meetings/AW2004 or Email: ArcticWS@colorado.edu

12th International Boreal Forest Research Association Conference• WHERE: Fairbanks, Alaska • WHEN: May 3–7• CONTACT: www.lter.uaf.edu/ibraf/default.cfm

5th International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences• WHERE: Fairbanks, Alaska • WHEN: May 19–23• CONTACT: www.uaf.edu/anthro/iassa/icass5sessab.htm

14th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference and Exhibition• WHERE: Toulon, France • WHEN: May 23–28CONTACT: www.isope.org/conferences/conferences.htm

For more on these events and other meetings, please visit:http://www.arcus.org/Calendar/upcomingEvents.shtml • http://www.iasc.no/SAM/samtext.htm

WWF is the world’s largest and mostexperienced independent conserva-tion organization, with almost fivemillion supporters and a globalnetwork active in 90 countries.WWF’s mission is to stop the degra-dation of the planet’s natural envi-ronment and to build a future inwhich humans live in harmony withnature. WWF continues to be knownas World Wildlife Fund in Canadaand the United States of America.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETINPO Box 6784 St Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway

WWFARCTICOFFICESANDCONTACTS

WWF INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC PROGRAMMEKristian Augusts gate 7a,P.O. Box 6784 St. Olavs plass,N-0130 Oslo, NorwayPh.: +47 22 03 65 00,Fax: +47 22 20 06 66www.grida.no/wwfapContact: Samantha Smith

WWF-CANADA245 Eglinton Ave.,East Suite 410Toronto, Ontario M4P 3J1Canada.Ph.: +1416 489 8800Fax: +1416 489 3611www.wwf.caContact: Peter J Ewins

WWF-DENMARKRyesgade 3FDK 2200 Copenhagen N,DenmarkPh.: +45 35 36 36 35Fax: +45 35 39 20 62www.wwf.dkContact:Anne-Marie Bjerg

WWF-FINLANDLintulahdenkatu 10SF-00500 Helsinki, FinlandPh.: +358 9 7740 100Fax: +358 9 7740 2139www.wwf.fiContact: Jari Luukkonen

WWF-NORWAYKristian Augusts gate 7aP.O. Box 6784 St. OlavsplassN-0130 Oslo, NorwayPh.: +47 22 03 65 00Fax: +47 22 20 06 66www.wwf.noContact: Rasmus Hansson

WWF-SWEDENUlriksdals SlottS-171 71 Solna, SwedenPh.: +46 862 47 400Fax: +46 885 13 29www.wwf.seContact: Lars Kristofersen

WWF-USA1250 24th St. NWWashington, DC 20037 USAPh.: +1 202 293 4800Fax: +1 202 293 9345www.worldwildlife.orgContact: Randall Snodgrass

WWF-UKPanda HouseWeyside ParkGodalming, UKSurrey GU7 1XRPh.: +44 1483 426 444Fax: +44 1483 426 409www.wwf-uk.orgContact: Dave Burgess

WWF INTERNATIONALEUROPEAN PROGRAMMEAvenue du Mont Blanc,CH-1196 Gland, SwitzerlandPh.: +41 22 364 92 25, Fax:+41 22 364 32 39www.panda.orgContact: Magnus Sylvén

WWF RUSSIAN PROGRAMME OFFICEContact:Victor Nikiforov

■ mail within Russia:P.O. Box 55 125319 Moscow, RussiaPh: +7 095 7270939Fax: +7 095 7270938www.wwf.ru

■ mail from Europe:WWF, Russian ProgrammeOfficeAccount No.WWF 232P.O. Box 289 WeybridgeSurrey KT 13 8WJ, UK

■ mail from the US:WWF Russian ProgrammeOfficeAcount No.WWF 232208 East 51st StreetSuite 295New York, NY 10022, USA

Protecting Svalbard’s wilderness

Proposedextensions ofmarineprotected areas

Protectedareas

Nordvest-SpitsbergenNational Park

Nordaust-Svalbard Nature Reserve

Sørd

aust

-Sva

lbar

dNa

ture

Res

erve

Hope

n Na

ture

Rese

rve

Norda

ust-S

valba

rd

Natu

re Re

serve

Moffen Nature Reserve

Ossian Sars Nature Reserve

Nordre Isfjorden National Park

Sassen-Bünsow LandNational Park

Festningen Area of SpecialGeological Interest

Nordenskiöld LandNational Park

Sør-

Spitsb

erge

n Nat

iona

l Par

k

Forlandet National Park