ArcticBulletin

No 3.04 • 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

Arctic winsHeritage status

p. 4–5

Toxic polarbears

p. 6

Barents threatsp. 8–9

On thin ice p.4

2 WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

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: www.panda.org/arctic

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.

ProgrammeDirector:Samantha Smithssmith@wwf.no

Editor:Julian Woolfordjwoolford@wwf.no

Assistant editor:Nigel Allannallan@wwf.no

Contents

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

Date of publication:October 14, 2004ISSN 1023-9081

Cover: Inuit hunter, KavavowKiguktak, jumps from one ice floeto another. Ellesmere Is., Nunavut,Canada.Photo: Bryan and CherryAlexander, www.arcticphoto.co.uk

Printed at Merkur-Trykk ASon 100% recycled paper.

● US drags its feet on climate p. 4–5● Toxic polar bears p. 6● Connected to the Arctic p. 15● Traditional knowledge p. 16–17● Interview: Haru Pitkonen p. 18–19● Publications p. 21–23● Forthcoming arctic meetings & events p. 23

●

SVALBARD: US Senators on visit ● Impact of cruise tourism p. 17–18

BARENTS SEA: Overfishing p. 8 ● UNEP report warns of threats p. 8–9

Water temperatures on the rise p. 9 ●

Plan to drill in the western Arctic p. 8–9 ● North Slope at risk p. 9

● Decreasing sea ice p. 24

Ilulissat Icefjordwins World Heritagestatus p. 4–5

Wrangel IslandReserve wins WorldHeritage status p. 4–5

●Battle for Mackenzie p. 12–14 ● Court action on

Mackenzie p. 14

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 3

More climate politics

Editorial

As we go to press, there has been a flurry of political and

media activity concerning the Arctic Climate

Impact Assessment (ACIA). ACIA, to be released in

November, is the first large-scale assessment of climate

change impacts in the Arctic. It is the product of the Arctic

Council, a high-level forum consisting of the eight arctic

governments (Canada, Denmark-Greenland-Faeroe Islands,

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United

States) as well as arctic indigenous peoples’ organisations and

observers. ACIA shows major, sweeping changes occurring

now, with much worse in store unless the world sharply cuts

emissions of carbon dioxide.

ACIA was initially supposed to include a scientific assess-

ment, a popular summary and a set of policy recommenda-

tions for the eight arctic governments. Negotiation of the

policy recommendations has been difficult, to say the least.

The current text is extremely weak. There is also an ongoing

dispute over whether the recommendations will come as a

stand-alone document, or in some other, less high-profile

form.

The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) represents Inuit

around the Arctic and has participated in the negotiation of

the ACIA policy document. ICC chair Sheila Watt-Cloutier

recently testified before the US Senate concerning the diffi-

culties in negotiating the policy document (p. 4–5).

Following Ms. Watt-Cloutier’s testimony and press coverage

of the issue, US senators John McCain, Frank Lautenberg and

Olympia Snowe wrote to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

They urged him to ensure that the negotiations result in a

stand-alone policy document.

Some arctic governments have now criticised ICC, arguing

that the organisation should not have gone public with

information about the negotiations. They say that when

indigenous organisations have a seat at the table with govern-

ments, they are bound by the unwritten rules of diplomacy.

These would include both confidentiality regarding ongoing

negotiations, and accepting the result of negotiations,

however inadequate that result might be.

There are three responses to these criticisms. First, going

to the press is a familiar government tactic in international

negotiations. Usually it is done anonymously – to gain

support for a particular result, to spotlight obstructive behav-

iour, or to prepare the public for a likely bad result.

Second, arctic indigenous organisations do not have the

same rights, resources or standing as

governments. Indeed, in the Arctic Council

they are only consulted – decisions are

made by consensus of the governments. All

of the arctic indigenous organisations are

underfunded; some of them are financially

dependent on the very governments with

whom they must negotiate. Their leverage

within this negotiation process, and their

ability to influence the result by traditional

means, pales to insignificance when

compared to the power of Arctic Council

member states. If they then use unconventional means to

achieve results, this should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Third, the Arctic Council likes to portray itself as a unique

arena, one with indigenous partners at the table and a wide

range of interests represented. This is fair enough. But then

it must also be fair enough that governments accept that the

price of having non-governmental partners at the table is that

they do not behave like governments.

Governments and indigenous peoples’ organisations met

again at the end of October in Iceland, for another round of

negotiations on the policy document. WWF was not there.

As an environmental organisation, we are locked out of the

formal process. Nonetheless, we'd like to send a message to

the governments as they continue negotiations.

Don’t be distracted by procedural arguments. You now

have incontrovertible evidence that climate change is

happening rapidly, and that we have limited time to act. If

you fail to meet this challenge, first the Arctic, and then the

rest of the world, will pay the price. This was ICC’s message

to the US Senate, and it's one that WWF fully supports.

SAMANTHASMITHDirector,WWF InternationalArctic Programme ssmith@wwf.no

4 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

MUSSEL POWER■ Mussels have been found growingon the seabed just 800 miles fromthe North Pole in a likely sign ofglobal warming, scientists announcedin September according to Reuters.

The blue mussels, which normallyfavour warmer waters, were discov-ered last month off Norway’sSvalbard archipelago in waters thatare covered with ice most of theyear.

“The climate is changing fast,” saidGeir Johnsen, a professor at theNorwegian University for Scienceand Technology who was amongexperts who found the bivalves.Molluscs were a “very good indi-cator that the climate is warming,”he said.

GUILLEMOT DECLINE■ Scientists studying the commonguillemot off Finnmark in NorthernNorway have concluded it isparticularly sensitive to temperaturerise because its staple food, capelin,does not thrive in warmer waters.An increase of one degreeCentigrade in ocean temperaturegave a four percent reduction inguillemot survival rates.This reduceslife expectancy from 50 to 16 years,dramatically cutting the reproductivepotential for a bird that onlyproduces one chick per year. Majorpopulation declines are expected forthis keystone arctic species givenrecent climate change scenarios forthe arctic.

TROPICAL ARCTIC■ An international scientific team,which has been drilling beneath thebed of the Arctic Ocean, says theArctic experienced a sub-tropicalclimate 55 million years ago.TheArctic Coring Expedition (Acex) hasrecovered sediment cores fromnearly 400m (1,300ft) below the seafloor. It says fossilised algae in thecores show the sea temperaturewas once about 20C, instead of theaverage now, -1.5C.

SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM■ Jennifer Morgan, the global leaderof WWF’s climate work, will betaking part in a panel discussion atthe Arctic Council ScienceSymposium in Iceland on November9th and 10th.The findings of theArctic Climate Impact Assessment(ACIA) will be discussed byscientists at the Symposium which ispart-funded by WWF.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chair

of the Inuit CircumpolarConference (ICC), which

represents 155,000 Inuit inAlaska, Canada, Greenlandand Russia, has criticised theUS administration for under-mining the effectiveness of theforthcoming Arctic ClimateImpact Assessment (ACIA).

She said:“The assessment ispath-breaking and it is crucialthat the world know andunderstand what it says.Yet the(US) Department of State isminimising and underminingthe effectiveness of this assess-ment process by refusing toallow policy recommendationsto be published in a stand

alone form just like the assess-ment itself.

“Yet, this is what ministersof foreign affairs directedwhen, in Barrow Alaska inOctober 2000, they approvedthe assessment.”

She was testifying in frontof the US Senate Committeeon Commerce, Science andTransportation in September.

Watt-Cloutier also drewattention to the speed withwhich climate change is occur-ring in the Arctic. “Whileglobal warming is affecting theentire planet, there is a scien-tific consensus that it isimpacting the Arctic muchfaster. Our elders have experi-

US drags its feet on climate

The Ilulissat Icefjord in

Greenland and theWrangel Island Reserve in

northern Russia are the firstarctic sites to be included onthe United NationsEducational, Scientific andCultural Organisation’s(UNESCO) World HeritageList.

Greenland’s IlulissatIcefjord, on the west coast ofGreenland, is the sea mouth ofSermeq Kujalleq, one of the fewglaciers by which the Greenlandice cap reaches the sea.

Sermeq Kujalleq is one ofthe fastest glaciers in the world,travelling at around 19 metresper day. It annually calves over

35 cubic kilometres of ice,which is ten percent of theproduction of Greenland calfice and more than any otherglacier outside Antarctica.

The Wrangel Island Reserveincludes the mountainousWrangel Island (7,608-km),Herald Island (11-km) andsurrounding waters.

The island boasts theworld’s largest population ofPacific walrus and the highestdensity of ancestral polar beardens. Often referred to as thepolar bear ‘maternity ward’,around 500 female polar bearsgive birth there every year.

It is also a major feedingground for the grey whale andthe northern-most nestingground for 100 migratory birdspecies, many of which areendangered.

Currently, around 417species and sub-species ofvascular plants have been iden-tified on the island, double thatof any other arctic tundra

■ The United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation (UNESCO) seeks to encourage theidentification, protection and preservation of cultural andnatural heritage around the world considered to be ofoutstanding value to humanity.This is embodied in aninternational treaty called the Convention concerning theProtection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted byUNESCO in 1972.

Natural heritage refers to outstanding physical, biolog-ical and geological formations, habitats of threatened speciesof animals and plants and areas with scientific, conservationor aesthetic value.

Cultural heritage refers to monuments, groups ofbuildings and properties with historical, aesthetic, archaeolog-ical, scientific, ethnological or anthropological value.

First arctic sites win World Heritage status

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chair of ICC, recently addressedthe US Senate Committeeon Commerce, Science andTransportation on the issueof climate change.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 News 5

BROWN IS THE NEW WHITE■ Ideal for an ice age, white fur usedas camouflage by animals from polarbears to arctic foxes may be goingout of fashion because of globalwarming according to Reuters.Rising temperatures are not onlydisrupting habitats but they may alsomake white animals too obvious ifmelting ice and snow expose tractsof dark, bare ground. If whiteness nolonger gives an evolutionary edge,polar bears will find it harder tosneak up on prey in Alaska, forinstance, while white hares in Russiamay be snatched more often byeagles and other predators.

MINE SPREADS DUST IN ALASKA■ The US Park Service in Alaskarecently released a study thatrevealed high levels of lead andother potentially harmful chemicalsin the tundra of north-westernAlaska.The lead dust is thought tohave come from the Red Dog zincmine, which is the largest producerof zinc concentrate in the world.The Canadian company that ownsthe mine,Teck Cominco, have beentesting air and water since themine opened in 1989, but notmoss. Residents of the nearbycommunities of Noatak andKivalina, often gather moss, berriesand other foods in the area.TeckCominco have funded a US $4-million study, that looks at the risksposed by the mining operations.The study is due out next spring.

PEEL PLATEAU■ The Yukon government has invitedbids to explore for oil and gas in thePeel Plateau, next to the Yukon-Northwest Territories border justinside the Arctic Circle.The areacovers almost 100,000 acres and gasreserves are estimated at 2.8 trillioncubic feet. A major discovery couldeventually open the way to a spurline connecting with the proposedMackenzie Valley pipeline. Energy,Mines and Resources MinisterArchie Lang said the Yukongovernment hopes to expand thepotential for finds by opening uprelatively unexplored prospects.Prior to the call, the governmentreduced the disposition area by two-thirds and designated 25 percent ofthe parcel as an “area of specialconsideration” to meetenvironmental concerns.

enced these changes since themid-1970s,” she said.

She said these changesinclude:

• melting permafrost causingbeach collapse andincreased erosion anddamage to infrastructure;

• longer sea-ice free seasons;• new species of birds and

salmon invading the region;• invasion of mosquitoes and

blackflies;• unpredictable sea-ice

conditions;• glaciers melting, creating

torrents in place of streams.

These findings, she said, areconfirmed by “western sciencein the Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment (ACIA)”, which isto be presented to Ministers of

Foreign Affairs of the eightArctic states in November. Shesaid the summary of ACIAconcludes:

• Marine species dependenton sea-ice including polarbears, ice living seals,walrus, and some marinebirds are very likely todecline, with some facingextinction; and

• For Inuit, warming is likelyto disrupt or even destroytheir hunting and foodsharing culture as reducedsea-ice causes the animalson which they depend todecline, become less acces-sible or possibly go extinct.

The ACIA is the mostcomprehensive regionalclimate change assessment

ever undertaken. More than300 Scientists and manyindigenous peoples of theArctic actively participated inthis assessment.

She said: “If we can reversethe emission of climate changeinducing greenhouse gases intime to save the Arctic fromthe most devastating impact ofglobal warming, then we canspare untold suffering forhundreds of millions of peoplearound the globe. Protect theArctic and we save the planet.Use us in the Arctic as yourearly warning system.”

Julian Woolford, jwoolford@wwf.no

Full text of Sheila Watt-Cloutierspeech available at www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=261&Lang=En

territory of comparable sizeand more than any other arcticisland.

Wrangel is one of the lastknown habitats of themammoth: it died out herearound 3,500 years ago.

The inclusion of WrangelIsland on the list stronglyincreases the status of thepreserve and will make itpossible to draw new invest-ment in the development offuture nature conservationmeasures in northern Russia.

WWF-Russia played a keyrole in preparation for thisnomination. In recent yearsWWF has actively collaboratedwith the RussianAdministration of Preservationto protect Russian polar bearpopulations.

Þingvellir (pronouncedThingvellir) National Park inIceland was also recognised asa site of cultural significance.Þingvellir is where the Althing– an open-air assembly, whichrepresented the whole ofIceland – was established in930 and continued to meetuntil 1798. The Althing hasdeep historical and symbolicassociations for the people ofIceland and is located on anactive volcanic site.

Nigel Allan, nallan@wwf.noCR

EDIT

:Bry

an a

nd C

herr

y A

lexa

nder

,ww

w.a

rctic

phot

o.co

.uk

Ilulissat Icefjord, Greenland was one of two arctic locations added tothe UNESCO World Heritage List for their outstanding natural heritage.

6 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

Three new scientific studiespublished recently providestrong indications that polar

bears are contaminated by PCBs(polychlorinated biphenyls) andpesticides, and are already beingaffected by these chemicals.

This confirms the findings ofother scientific studies released overthe last four years.

WWF is calling for the imme-diate phase out of the most

hazardous chemicals.The three new scientific studies

show that biological changes in thehormone and immune systems ofpolar bears are linked to the levels oftoxic contaminants in their bodies.

For example, the higher the levelof PCBs and several pesticides inpolar bears in Canada and on theNorwegian island of Svalbard, thelower the level of antibodies in theirblood.

Toxic chemicals were also corre-lated with steroid hormone cortisoland thyroid hormone levels inSvalbard polar bears.

Reduced levels of antibodiesleave bears more susceptible toinfection. Altered hormone levelscould result in a wide range ofnegative health impacts, such asdevelopment, behavior, and repro-ductive problems.

“The studies conducted on polarbears over the last few years allconclude that these animals arenegatively affected by chemicalpollution,” said Dr AndrewDerocher from the University ofAlberta, who has contributed to allof the recent studies on polar bearcontamination in the Arctic.

“Most polar bears probably haveseveral hundred man-made chem-icals in their bodies and they havenever evolved mechanisms to dealwith them. The unintentionaltinkering with the hormone andimmune system of a polar bear isunlikely to be good for them.”

WWF stresses that although thetoxic contaminants that showed upin these studies are no longer widelyused in manufacturing processes orin farming, they are slow to breakdown in the environment and canremain in water, ice, and soil formany years.

“Other contaminants, withsimilar properties, continue to beused on a day-to-day basis inmanufacturing processes and prod-ucts throughout the world,” saidBrettania Walker, toxics officer inWWF’s Arctic Programme. “It iscrucial to prevent these newer-generation chemicals from accu-mulating in, and polluting, theenvironment.”

Most chemicals on the markettoday have not been adequatelytested to determine their impactson human and wildlife health.

WWF believes there is thereforean urgent need for safer chemicallegislation, including a strong andprotective version of the currentlydebated EU REACH legislation,which would help protect humansand animals such as the polar bearfrom potentially harmful chemicals.

The estimated 22,000 polar bearsliving in the Arctic are not onlyunder threat from toxic chemicals,but also from the combined effectsof climate change and habitat loss.

Brettania Walker, bwalker@wwf.no

Three new scientific studiesindicate that some polar bearsare affected by PCBs andpesticides.

Phot

o:W

WF-

Can

on/S

vein

B.O

ppeg

aard

Toxic polar bears

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 News 7

Ahigh level delegation of USsenators, including JohnMcCain and Hillary

Clinton, visited Svalbard in Augustto learn about the Arctic’s changingclimate and be briefed on the forth-coming Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment.

Senators Lindsay Graham, JohnSununu, and Susan Collins werealso part of the delegation.

Hillary Clinton said: “TheUnited States can no longer deny orignore that climate change is actu-ally happening. The issue is forcingitself into the limelight, and thereare a lot of us that are searching forways to push climate issues higherup the agenda. Now that we agreeon the facts, which many in theSenate actually ignore, we can alsoreach agreement on what we aregoing to do about this.”

John McCain has proposedlegislation that would commit theUS to reduce their emissions ofgreenhouse gases. The proposed billis less ambitious that the KyotoProtocol’s targets for the US, but it

commits them to reducing theiremissions to 2000 levels by 2010,and to 1990 levels by 2016. Themeasure failed by a vote of 43 to 55in the Senate but McCain is readyfor a second attempt. “Sooner orlater we will win this battle,” he said.

The Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment is likely to be launchedin November in Iceland at theArctic Ministerial Meeting.

Katherine Silverthorne, directorof WWF-US Climate Changeprogram said: “WWF’s work in theArctic has documented the growingthreat climate change poses to polarbears and other wildlife. To givepolar bears and other arctic speciesa chance to survive, we must actnow to limit emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide before it’stoo late. The upcoming release ofthe Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment will confirm theurgency of the situation.

“We admire the kind of leader-ship that takes these senators all theway to the Arctic to learn climatechange impacts first hand. One

cannot visit global warming’s“ground zero” and not come awaywith a vivid picture of just how direthis problem will be if we don’t takeimmediate steps to implementsolutions.”

Julian Woolford,jwoolford@wwf.no

US senators visit Svalbard

Apology

■ The article ‘Global climate change may affectwolves in the high Arctic’ in Arctic Bulletin issue 2.04was attributed to L. David Mech. However it was anadaptation by our editorial team of an article by L.David Mech,‘Is climate change affecting wolfpopulation in the high arctic?’ due for publication inthe journal Climatic Change later this year but alreadypre-published on the Internet.While the article wepublished was written with L. David Mech’spermission, we wish to apologise to him – and to ourreaders – for giving the impression that he was theauthor of the piece in the Arctic Bulletin, and for failingto explain the article’s origin.

Phot

o:W

WF-

Can

on/T

anya

Pet

erse

n

US senators,Hillary Clintonand JohnMcCain were inSvalbard todiscuss globalwarming and itseffects on theArctic.

8 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

Overfishing of cod andhaddock, nuclear wastestorage, the invasion of the

red king crab and a projected six-foldincrease in oil and gas transportationare some of the issues threatening theunique Barents Sea arctic ecosystem,scientists are warning.

An absence of long-term plan-ning and legislation are the maincauses of these threats according toa new report prepared by the UnitedNations Environment Programme(UNEP) Global InternationalWaters Assessment (GIWA).

The overexploitation of fishstocks is “the most alarmingproblem for the region at present,”according to the report. It says, fishin the Barents Sea continue to beover-fished despite measures ofregulation and control.

Pollution was identified as thenext most important concern.While the report notes that theBarents Sea is much cleaner thanother European seas, and thatpollution does not constitute athreat to human health or ecosys-tems, it points out risks associatedwith the expansion of oil and gasindustries in the region.

Speaking at the launch of thereport at the end of August, KlausToepfer, UNEP’s Executive Director,said, “The increased explorationactivities for petroleum resources inthe Barents Sea, the offshore devel-opments and the shipping of oil andgas along the coasts represent signif-icant potential threats to thisvulnerable arctic ecosystem.”

There are vast oil and gasreserves on Russia’s arctic shelf.According to the report, the devel-opment of these oil and gasdeposits will increase oil transportto 40 million tonnes by the year2020. This will correspondinglyincrease the pressure on theNorthern Sea Route (which crossesthe Barents Sea) by a factor of six.

As a consequence, the risk of acci-dental oil spills is expected to increasein the near future says the report. Itgoes on to suggest a set of measuresto reduce the risk of potential emer-gencies, including the developmentof safety plans to prevent accidentaloil spills, and contingency plans torespond to accidents.

UNEP report

A fishingtrawleremptying itscatch.

Phot

o:(c

)WW

F-C

anon

/Que

ntin

BAT

ES

Russian ships in the Barents Seahave over-fished their quotasby between 130 and 215

thousand tonnes in 2002 and 2003,according to new reports from theNorwegian Fisheries Directorateand the Norwegian Coastguard.

This is the first time such esti-mates have been made public.

For 2002, Russia had a quota of190,000 tonnes, but fished between260,000 and 300,000 tonnes. For2003 the quota was 191,000 tonnes,but the estimated catch was prob-ably between 250,000 and 305,000tonnes.

The report builds on informa-tion from various sources, andalthough there are uncertainties,the estimations are believed to beaccurate, said Dag Nagoda, WWF’s

Barents Sea Ecoregion co-ordi-nator.

The most important sourcesinclude documentation of catchesdelivered to ports in Norway andRussia, documentation of re-loading of catches in the openocean, and deliveries to other coun-tries through systematic controls atsea and in ports, and through theuse of electronic ‘traceability’logging of Russian vessels whichhelps document deliveries madedirectly to other countries.

Around 200,000 tonnes of codhas a value of about 300 million USdollars.

So far Russian authorities havenot commented on the figures.

Dag Nagoda, dnagoda@wwf.no

Overfishing in Barents Sea

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 News 9

A third major issue of priorityconcern identified by the report isthe storage facilities for radioactivewastes and possible contaminationof the environment.

The Murmansk region housesmore radioactive waste than anyother region of the world. Althoughcurrent levels of radioactivity arelow and do not pose any threat tohuman health or the environment,there is need, according to thereport, for long-term strategies forthe handling of stored nuclearmaterial in the region.

The fourth most important issueidentified is the modification ofecosystems by invasive species.

The composition of the BarentsSea fauna has been changed by theintentional introduction of the redking crab, as well as other alienspecies. There are concerns thatcompetition between the red kingcrab and commercial and non-

commercial species could result inthe decrease of some commerciallyimportant fish stocks. Anotheraspect of the problem is the unin-tentional introduction of alienspecies through ballast water of oiltankers. Alien species introducedunintentionally form a serious threatto the economy of northern Norwayas well as to coastal communities inRussia, says the UNEP report.

In response to the problemsidentified, the report recommendsthat new regulations for differentsectors should be adopted andenforced, along with rigorousadherence to existing internationalenvironmental agreements.

The report can be downloadedat: www.giwa.net/barentssea/

The Barents Sea report (Regionalassessment 11) was produced by anexpert team established by theUNEP GIWA. The team was chairedby the Russian Academy of Science

and Murmansk Marine BiologicalInstitute in Murmansk andsupported by Akvaplan-Niva andthe Norwegian College of FisheriesScience in Tromsö. The report wasfunded by the Global EnvironmentFacility and the Norwegian govern-ment.

The GIWA assessment of theBarents Sea is part of a globalcomprehensive and systematicassessment of the environmentalconditions and problems in trans-boundary waters, led by UNEP. Itcomprises marine, coastal and landareas, including ground waters. Theassessment is done in 66 trans-boundary water regions whereteams of local experts focus on fivemajor concerns including 22specific water related problems. Formore information about GIWA seehttp://www.giwa.net/

Julian Woolford, jwoolford@wwf.no

Scientists have detected anexceptionally high tempera-ture increase in the Arctic

Ocean. The rise is leading to reduc-tions in sea ice.

The findings are consistent withthe preliminary conclusions of theArctic Climate Impact Assessment(ACIA) due for release inNovember.

Scientists from the AlfredWegener Institute for Polar andMarine Research (AWI) were inves-tigating changes in ocean tempera-ture and sea ice cover in the FramStrait between Spitsbergen andGreenland aboard the researchvessel Polarstern.

Temperatures in the WestSpitsbergen Current in the FramStrait, which carries warm Atlanticwater into the Arctic Ocean, haverisen by 1.2°C in the upper 500metres of ocean current since 1990.And this year temperaturesrecorded were up to 0.6 °C higherthan last year.

The rise in temperature was

detectable to a depth of 2,000metres.

The influx of warmer water hascaused changes in sea ice cover.Satellite images have documented aclear recession of sea ice edges inthe Fram Strait region and in theBarents Sea over the last three years.

Climate processes are not onlyaffected by the horizontal extent ofsea ice, but also by its thickness. Inorder to determine ice thickness,the sea ice research group of AWIhas developed an airborne icethickness sensor. It is towed by heli-copter some 30 metres aboveground and can cover up to 100kilometres distance within onehour.

This method allows construc-tion of a representative picture ofsea ice thickness.

The thickness sensor is validatedby flying a helicopter over a seriesof drilled ice holes of a knowndepth arrayed along a transect line.

The measurements will helpwith the calibration of the CryoSat

satellite which, from March 2005,will measure sea ice thickness from700 kilometres above the Arctic andAntarctic. It will be used to investi-gate whether regional changesoccur in all polar regions because ofglobal warming.

Nigel Allan, nallan@wwf.no

Water temperatures on the rise

warns of threats to Barents

Ice drilling

Phot

o:A

WI

10 Oil WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

Like the Arctic Refuge, the 23.5-million-acre Western Arctic Reserve– formally called the NationalPetroleum Reserve-Alaska –provides a haven for tens of thou-sands of caribou and tens of millionsof shorebirds and waterfowl.

The Western Arctic Reservecontains America’s largest singleblock of unprotected wilderness.From the mountains and rivervalleys of the Brooks Range to theArctic Ocean, the Western ArcticReserve includes coastal plainwetlands, rolling foothills and wildrivers. The expanse of wetlandsrepresents globally importantsummer habitat for birds, such asyellow-billed loon, white frontedgeese, threatened Steller’s and spec-tacled eiders. Off its coast are thelargest aggregations of belugawhales and spotted seals innorthern Alaska. Likewise, itprovides critical habitat for twocaribou herds, the 450,000 WesternArctic herd and the 45,000Teshekpuk Lake herd, as well asmoose, grizzly bears, wolves andpolar bears. The Inupiat Eskimo,who live in a number of villages inthe Western Arctic Reserve, dependon the region’s wildlife for subsis-tence, including food, clothing andshelter, and have a spiritual andcultural connection to the land.

The vast area was set aside in 1923as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a potential oil source for theUS Navy in the event of an emer-gency. It remained largelyuntouched through World War IIand the 1970s oil crisis. In recentyears the oil and gas industry hasbeen able to muscle its way into thearea, due to its increasing politicalpower with the Bush Administrationand the State of Alaska. Onehundred thousands acres of pristinewilderness has been opened toleasing in the past six years. If theadministration gets its way, theregion could soon be covered with a

network of gravel mines, roads, drillpads, pipelines and processing facil-ities that would destroy wildlifehabitat for generations.

The US Geological Survey esti-mates that the entire reservecontains 3.7 billion barrels ofeconomically recoverable oil at $25per barrel and 6.8 billion barrels ofeconomically recoverable oil at $40per barrel. Americans currently use7.2 billion barrels of oil a year, andeven with the current spike in oilprices, US crude oil prices haveaveraged $24 a barrel over the pastfive years. To produce 6.8 billionbarrels of oil from the reserve,world oil prices would have toaverage $40 a barrel for a numberof years. In any case, the technologyexists today to increase averagevehicle fuel economy standards to40 miles per gallon. If automakerscould meet that standard over thenext decade, the United Stateswould save at least seven timesmore oil than the Western ArcticReserve is likely to produce.

Divvying up the Western Arctic ReserveManaged by the InteriorDepartment’s Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) the WesternArctic Reserve is divided into threeplanning areas: northwest, north-east and south.

The Northwest Planning Area: InJanuary, the Interior Departmentproposed oil and gas leasing in the8.8-million-acre NorthwestPlanning Area. Natural ResourcesDefense Council (NRDC) and otherconservation groups criticised theplan for failing to protect key areasfrom development and sued toblock the lease sale. “Opening theWestern Arctic Reserve is yetanother flagrant example of thisadministration liquidating ournatural heritage to benefit its friendsin the oil and gas industry,” said

Chuck Clusen, director of NRDC’sAlaska Project.“It refuses to perma-nently protect even a single acre ofthe Western Arctic Reserve’s mostcritical wildlife habitat.”

In June, the BLM leased approx-imately 1.5 million acres, mostlyaround Dease Inlet, a critical areafor waterfowl, caribou and polarbears. The conservationists’ lawsuithalts surface exploration until thereis a court ruling. Another fragilewildlife area threatened by oil andgas leasing in the area is KasegalukLagoon, but it is not slated forleasing until 2014. It provideshabitat for the broadest range ofbirds of any coastal lagoon systemin the Alaska arctic as well as criticalhabitat for beluga whales, spottedseals and polar bears. Musk oxenand arctic peregrine falcons also arethreatened by oil development inthe Northwest Planning Area.

The Northeast Planning Area: In1998, the BLM made 87 percent ofthe 4.6-million-acre NortheastPlanning Area available for oil andgas leasing, and about 1.3 millionacres have been leased so far. Toprotect wildlife, nearly 590,000acres around Teshekpuk Lake wasplaced off limits, and surface accesswas restricted on another 270,000acres. Much of the 13 percent thatremained off limits is critical goosemolting habitat and caribou calvingand insect relief habitat aroundTeshekpuk Lake.

A new BLM proposal wouldremove many of these protectionsaround the lake, opening an addi-tional 389,000 acres to oil and gasleasing. If the proposal is approved,only four percent of the planningarea would be protected fromdevelopment.

Scientists and conservationists areparticularly concerned about theimpact oil development would haveon the area around Teshekpuk Lake,a critical area for molting geese andnesting birds, including yellow-billedloon and the threatened spectacledeider. Some 45,000 caribou use thearea as a birthing ground. And thosecaribou are essential for subsistencehunters such as the Inupiat Eskimo.Subsistence hunters from Nuiqsutsay that nearby oil development hasmade it necessary for them to travel

The Bush Administration’s unbalancWhile there has been much attention paid to theongoing battle in the US Congress over drilling inthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Bushadministration has been quietly leasing tracts inanother wilderness area west of Prudhoe Bay onthe north coast of Alaska.

30 miles or more to find caribou thatused to pass right by their village.

The Southern Planning Area: Theplanning process for leasing theWestern Arctic Reserve’s SouthernPlanning Area is slated to beginlater this year. This area is mostlymountainous highlands andprovides the calving area in theUtukok uplands for the 450,000Western Arctic caribou herd.

Other threats to the Western Arctic ReserveAlpine Oil Field Expansion: Just eastof the Western Arctic Reserve, theAlpine oil field in the Colville Riverdelta was discovered in 1994;production began in 2000. The Bushadministration cites Alpine fieldexploration and development as anexample of environmentally respon-sible development that uses direc-tional drilling and ice roads insteadof permanent roads and bridges.However, the administration ispoised to approve a ConocoPhillips

proposal to build as many as 25miles of permanent roads, airstrips,drilling pads, and a bridge across theNigliq Channel. This plan woulddisrupt caribou calving and goosemolting near Teshekpuk Lake andpotentially threaten the endangeredbowhead whale, which migratesevery spring past the proposedproject area. In addition, the Inupiatuse this area for hunting and fishing,activities that would be disturbed bynew oil development.

Colville River road to the villageof Nuiqsut: The State of Alaskaplans to build an 18-mile road thatwould connect North Slope oilindustry facilities with the village ofNuiqsut along the Colville River onthe edge of the Western ArcticReserve, providing more directaccess to the Western Arctic oilfields. The road would lower freightand fuel costs and provide year-round access to the Deadhorseairport. It also would lower oilindustry operating costs.

These benefits for industry areoffset by a number of significantproblems the road would cause.The road, for example, wouldinclude the first bridge over theColville River, which local residentsfear would harm fish harvests andthe overall flow of the river. Theroad also likely would disturb tradi-tional caribou migration patternsand fragment moose habitat.

“It makes no sense to industri-alize this incomparable wildernessarea when there’s less than a year’sworth of economically recoverableoil in the entire Western ArcticReserve,” said Clusen. “The UnitedStates has only three percent of theworld’s proven oil reserves and weuse 25 percent of the world’sproduced oil. We can’t drill our wayto oil independence. We have towean ourselves off oil.”

Chuck Clusen,Director,Alaska Project

Natural Resources Defense Councilcclusen@nrdc.org

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 Oil 11

ed plan to drill in the western Arctic

The ecological integrity of the NorthSlope in Alaska is at serious riskfrom poorly planned, piecemeal and

damaging development, a coalition of USNGOs claimed in an open letter to the USDepartment of the Interior Bureau ofLand Management, Alaska in August.

The NGOs are demanding permanentprotection of the most valuable andvulnerable parts of the NationalPetroleum Reserve-Alaska, known as theWestern Arctic Reserve, and argue thatany development must adhere to strictenvironmental standards.

The open letter is a response to theDraft Amended Integrated Activity Plan

and Environmental Impacts Statement forthe Northeast Planning Area of theNational Petroleum Reserve.

Environmental NGOs that reviewed theDraft Plan, found:“failings in the planningprocess, analysis and propose agencyaction. The preferred alternatives is anextraordinary reversal devoid of scientificrationale that places the wildlife, fish andsubsistence resources of Teshekpuk LakeSurface Protection Area at significant risk.As written, the draft…needlessly violatesthe law and the agency’s trust responsi-bility.”

The National Petroleum Reserve is thelargest tract of public land in the US and

harbours rich and important wildlife andwild areas.

“Healthy productive ecosystems arefundamental for ensuring a sustainableeconomy for Alaska and maintaining thequality of life style shared and valued byall Alaskans,” the NGOs state in the letter.

The NGO coalition includes WWF-US,the Alaska Centre for the Environment,the Alaska Coalition, Alaska WildernessLeague, Campaign for America’sWilderness, Centre for BiologicalDiversity, Defenders of Wildlife, NaturalResources Defense Council, NorthernAlaska Environmental Centre, Sierra Cluband The Wilderness Society.

North Slopeat risk

Brooks Range,Alaska.Alaska'sNorth Slopeslopes graduallydownward fromthe base of theBrooksMountainRange to theArctic Ocean.

Photo:WWF-Canon/Anthony B. Rath

12 Oil pipeline WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

Oil giants stand ready tobuild a $5 billion pipelinethrough the MackenzieValley in Canada. Localpeople and conservationgroups want special areasprotected first. WendyDouglas reports.

More than 30 years ago, oil and gascompanies stepped up their interest inCanada’s vast northern deposits ofnatural gas and oil. They also realisedthat one of the most ideal locations forflowing the gas from the region toeager markets in the south was theMackenzie Valley in the NorthwestTerritories (NWT). At that time, theCanadian federal government decidedthat before it surrendered rights toexploration and development in the

region it should find out more aboutwhat people living in the norththought about major economic devel-opment where they lived.

The results of the ensuing RoyalCommission looking into the mattercould not have been clearer. Based onhundreds of hours of testimony andpresentations from northerners andaboriginal leadership in the NorthwestTerritories, the Commission (Canada’slargest ever, led by Justice ThomasBerger) recommended that a ten-yearmoratorium on development be put inplace until outstanding land claimswere settled, key natural areas wereprotected, and well-balanced regionalland use plans were put into place.

Today, Imperial Oil, Shell, ConocoPhillips and others stand ready to builda $5 billion pipeline through theMackenzie Valley, to be completedperhaps by 2009. This major new

energy corridor will undoubtedlytrigger more gas and oil explorationand development in the region. Butonly five of the 16 ecoregions in theNorthwest Territories’ Mackenzie Valleythat are directly intersected by theproposed pipeline or adjacent hydro-carbon development areas are reason-ably represented by protected areas.

Battle for Mackenzie

Deh Cho FirstNations elderMary Cazon,preparing duckon the shore ofthe MackenzieRiver.

Phot

o:Le

slie

Leo

ng

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 Oil pipeline 13

Beaufor tSea

Yukon

Macke

ze

ni

R.

Fort Good Hope

UN

IT

ED

ST

AT

ES

CA

NA

DA

Km0 125 250

* Candidate protected areas: A candidate protectedarea is an area that has been selected from an area ofinterest, has undergone proposal development and has beenaccepted for further evaluation. Candidate protected areashave the support of the appropriate communities, regionalorganizations and government institutions. Preliminaryboundaries have been drawn for candidate protected areas.Candidate protected areas are at Step 3 or 4 of the 8 StepNWT-PAS planning process.

Proposed pipeline route

Prospecting permits

Partially protected areas

Permanently protected areas

Tsodehniline and Tuyat’ahCandidate protected area *

Oil and gas rights

Areas of high conservation value

Enhanced resource development

Special

Special – wildland

Muskwa-KechikaResource management zones

60°

65°

85°

130°

140°

A r c t i cC i r c l e

Unlike the situation 30 years ago, manyNWT residents now support aMackenzie Valley pipeline – but not atany cost! They also insist that economicdevelopment occur in the right way,ensuring that the land, water, renewableresources and key cultural areas areprotected for future generations.

The federal and NWT governmentshave had decades to prepare fornorthern development, including theresponsibility to all Canadians foradhering to the core principles ofsustainable development in Canada’snorth, in today’s context of theproposed development of a majorenergy corridor through theMackenzie Valley. WWF-Canada hasconsistently argued that based on theviews of northerners expressed inBerger’s Royal Commission, and basedon good environmental science, abetter balance of sequencing of habitat

conservation and economic develop-ment needed to be achieved.

When the current Prime Ministerwas Minister of Finance in 1996,WWF-Canada received a letter statingthe federal government’s commitmentto protecting a network of environ-mentally and culturally representativeareas in the Arctic. In 1999, WWF-Canada was part of a steering groupthat included representatives fromgovernments, industry, the Aboriginalcommunity and other environmentalorganizations that launched the NWTProtected Areas Strategy (PAS). Thepurpose of the PAS was simply toreserve an adequate network of repre-sentative and key areas while theopportunity to do so was still intact,ahead of major new industrial projects.

At the behest of the same govern-ments, the PAS partners developed theNWT Protected Areas Strategy’s

Mackenzie Valley Five-Year Action Plan:Conservation Planning for PipelineDevelopment (the PAS Action Plan).This five-year Action Plan began inApril 2004. WWF-Canada believes thatthe PAS Action Plan, whichis already supported by theAboriginal, industry,government and environ-mental NGO partners in thePAS, must now be imple-mented fully to establish anadequate network of cultur-ally significant and ecologi-cally representativeprotected areas by 2009.

Along with the otherNGO partners in the PAS(the Canadian Parks and WildernessSociety, and Ducks Unlimited Canada),WWF has committed to raising 33percent of the funds needed to imple-ment the PAS Action Plan (roughly

The ConservationFirst principle

WWF’s Conservation First principlestates that:There should be no newor expanded large-scale industrialdevelopment until a network ofprotected areas is reserved whichadequately represents the naturalregion(s) affected by that development

Protected areas, oil and gasactivity, draft areas of highconservation value in theMackenzie Valley, NWT

Ada

pted

from

map

pre

pare

d by

Wor

ld W

ildlif

e Fu

nd C

anad

a,Se

ptem

ber

2004

.

Mackenzie River,NorthwestTerritories, Canada

Phot

o:A

IVA

-Pau

l Nop

pe

➤

14 Oil pipeline WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

CDN $18 million), subject to a50 percent federal lead, with theremaining 17 percent to be providedby the Government of the NWT,Aboriginal organisations andindustry. Despite widespread,community-based support for theplan and funding commitmentsfrom partner organisations such asWWF-Canada,well into the first yearof the PAS Action Plan, the federalgovernment has yet to commit itsshare of financial support to fullyimplement the Action Plan.

On August 18, 2004, a seven-member joint review panel was

announced to review the environ-mental impact of the MackenzieValley Gas Project. The Minister ofthe Environment, Chairperson ofthe Mackenzie Valley EnvironmentalImpact Review Board and the Chairof the Inuvialuit Game Councilsigned an agreement and finalisedthe Terms of Reference for the envi-ronmental review of the proposedproject. The project proponents areexpected to file their applications inSeptember of this year. All of thisdespite the fact that, after more than30 years of consideration of theissues, little to no conservation plan-

ning has been done for the region.WWF-Canada held a major

press conference in Ottawa inSeptember, pressing the federalgovernment to commit to fullimplementation of the PAS ActionPlan (see details on www.wwf.ca).

“Anything less would fly in theface of the new Government’sclearly expressed resolve to show-case, via this major project, Canada’s‘new industrial revolution in whichlong-term economic success is nolonger possible without environ-mental sustainability’,” said PeteEwins, director of WWF-Canada’sArctic programme, quoting from aspeech by federal EnvironmentMinister Stephane Dion in Calgaryin September. “There could hardlybe a more concrete, major projecton which to gauge the sincerity ofthis commitment,” he added.

With the support and directinvolvement of John Turner, aformer-Prime Minister andStephen Kakfwi, former-Premier ofthe Northwest Territories (who isalso a respected leader in thenorthern Aboriginal community),WWF-Canada expects propersequencing of conservation plan-ning ahead of major industrialdevelopment in Canada’s north.

wdouglas@wwfcanada.org

The Deh Cho First Nations(DCFN) filed a statement ofclaim in the Supreme Court

of the Northwest Territories inCanada in September on thereview process for the proposedMackenzie Valley pipeline.

“We have been forced to thisaction by the federal govern-ment,” said Herb Norwegian, theDCFN Grand Chief.

“We have tried all other routesto pursue our legitimate desire tohave representation on the panelto review this project. We have aresponsibility to our people torepresent their interests. Fortypercent of this proposed pipelinewill cross Deh Cho lands. Wecould not just sit and watch asother people made the decisionson what is best for us.”

The DCFN had asked thefederal government to be allowed

to participate in the appointmentof two people to the seven-member panel that was set up toreview the proposed pipeline.That is the same allowance as wasgiven to the Inuvialuit GameCouncil, representing the inter-ests of Inuvialuit people, furthernorth along the pipeline route.

“We are being discriminatedagainst because we do not have asettlement of our land and gover-nance rights,” said Grand ChiefNorwegian. “This is clearlyagainst section 15 of the Charterof Rights and Freedoms, that says‘Every individual is equal beforeand under the law’. It also isagainst section 35 of theConstitution Act which recog-nizes and affirms our aboriginaland treaty rights”.

The statement of claim asksthe court to consider granting an

injunction, stopping the pipelinereview until the Deh Cho FirstNations are included in thereview process. Alternatively, itasks the court to consider givingan order that invalidates any deci-sion reached by the review panel.

“We are simply asking thecourt to recognise our right tohave a say in this project,” saidKeyna Norwegian, chief of LiidliKoe First Nation in Fort Simpson.“This is the biggest developmentproject to ever hit the Deh Cho. Ithas the potential to totally changeour lives. We need a voice in thisprocess.”

Herb Norwegian,Grand Chief, Deh Cho First Nations

Keyna Norwegian,Chief, Liidli Koe First Nation

www.dehchofirstnations.com

Court action on Mackenzie

➤A couple ofcurious blackbear cubs.

Phot

o:Le

slie

Leo

ng

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 Connected to the Arctic 15

The sea ice covering much ofthe Arctic Ocean is melting, atrend that may have dramatic

consequences for the westernUnited States. University ofCalifornia researchers recentlylooked at the long-term effects ofreduced arctic sea ice on the globalclimate, and their most strikingfinding was a significant reductionin rain and snowfall in theAmerican West.

The study highlights the vulner-ability of western states, whichdepend on winter precipitation fortheir water supplies, to changes inthe regional climate.

The results also show thesurprising ways in which a smallchange in one component of theglobal climate system can affectparticular regions, said Lisa Sloan,professor of earth sciences.

“We were surprised at the resultourselves, but it shows how inter-connected the climate system is.Here we are reducing arctic sea ice,and the biggest climatic response isfelt in an entirely different part ofthe world,” she said.

Sloan and graduate studentJacob Sewall used powerfulcomputers running a global climatemodel developed by the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research tosimulate the effects of reducedarctic sea ice. Their findings werepublished online by the journalGeophysical Research Letters onMarch 24 and will appear in asubsequent print issue of thejournal.

Sewall and Sloan based theirstudy on projections of recenttrends in arctic sea ice coverpublished by a NASA researcher in2002. Taking the projected ice cover

in the year 2050 as a starting point,the researchers ran the model to seehow the global climate wouldbehave.

What they found was a change inatmospheric circulation patternsthat caused a small northward shiftin the paths of winter storms overwestern North America. This shiftin winter storm tracks resulted insignificantly reduced winter precip-itation from southern BritishColumbia to the Gulf of California.In some areas, average annualprecipitation dropped by as muchas 30 percent. The reductions weregreatest along the West Coast, withlesser changes further inland. Buteven as far inland as the RockyMountains, winter precipitation fellby 17 percent.

The sea ice acts like a lid over theocean surface during the winter,blocking the transfer of heat fromthe ocean to the atmosphere, Sewallexplained. Where the sea ice isreduced, heat transfer from theocean warms the atmosphere,resulting in a rising column of rela-tively warm air. The shift in stormtracks over North America waslinked to the formation of thesecolumns of warmer air over areas ofreduced sea ice in the GreenlandSea and a few other locations,Sewall said.

“The projected reduction in seaice cover during the winter is smallcompared to the reduction in seaice during the summer, but it endsup having a big effect on NorthAmerica,” he said.

Sewall noted that the study onlylooked at the direct climateresponse to a reduction in arctic seaice and did not take into accountadditional climate effects that mayresult from increasing levels ofgreenhouse gases. Increased green-house gases, such as carbondioxide, are a major factor drivingglobal warming, a trend that isexpected to continue well into thefuture.

“In a scenario with increasedgreenhouse gases, we would expectto see other effects on the climate

that would interact with the effectsof reduced sea ice,” Sewall said.

Higher temperatures due toglobal warming, for example,would increase the rate of evapora-tion and exacerbate the effects ofdecreased precipitation on thewater supply. But there could alsobe effects on the climate system thatmight counteract the influence ofreduced arctic sea ice on winterprecipitation in the West, Sewallsaid.

Arctic sea ice has been declininggradually over the past century, butthe pace of the decline has pickedup during the past two decades.The cause of the decline remainsunclear, and it is not certain that thetrend will continue.

Nevertheless, the new studyserves as a warning that climatechange can have small effects in onelocation that propagate through thesystem to become big effects some-where else, Sloan said.

“As the climate changes, theeffects will vary a lot from oneregion to another, and it may behard to predict where the effectswill be felt most. What we saw inthis study is not something onewould have predicted in advance,”she said.

Tim StephensUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

stephens@ucsc.edu

Disappearing sea ice could reducewater availability in western US

Connected to the Arctic

■ This articleoriginally appearedin UCSC CurrentsOnline

Death Valley,California. Scientistspredict that adecrease in arctic seaice will result in lessrain and more heatfor the western US.

Phot

o:Fl

oria

n G

radw

ohl

Once considered pristine, the arcticenvironment is now noticeablyimpacted by toxic chemicals andchanging temperature, according tothe Inuit elders and hunters livingin the eastern Canadian Arctic.Both climate change and persistentorganic pollutants (POPs)produced in the south and broughtto the Arctic by air and oceancurrents, are threatening the well-being of arctic wildlife and thelivelihood of people who dependon them for subsistence.

Wildlife such as arctic char,beluga, caribou, and ringed seal arecentral to Inuit culture and way oflife. Recently, Inuit have expressedconcern that contaminants andclimate change may be threateningwildlife health. In a surveyconducted by WWF-Canada andTrent University, 30 participatingInuit elders and hunters from thecommunities of Pangnirtung, CoralHarbour and Arviat discussed theirtraditional knowledge (also knownas Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit – IQ )of wildlife health based on theirmany years of hunting experiences.

In Nunavut, marine life is rich,and communities are dependent onmarine species such as seals, beluga,polar bear, and fish for subsistence.These species are also rich in fat,which has become saturated withPOPs and other harmful industrialchemicals and pesticides. Thecommunity elders and huntersbelieve that contaminants comingfrom afar as well as those producedlocally have detrimental effects onwildlife species.

“Oil spills from far away wouldthreaten lots of our wildlife,” saysLivee Kullak from Pangnirtung.Joanasie Maniapik, also an elderfrom Pangnirtung, thinks thatcontaminants from both past prac-tices and local sources are contam-inating the waters in his commu-nity;“Anything that is spilled on theland will run through the soil andeventually end up in the ocean. Thecontents of old barrels are graduallyseeping into the soil and sea, and asa result contaminating them. Allthese originated from the south. Wecontribute to the contaminationprocess with our snowmobiles and

boats emitting fumes. All these haveto be put into consideration,” saidJoanasie.

The community elders alsobelieve that climate change isputting further stress on arcticwildlife. They are concerned thatthis changing climate may forcethem to change their traditionalway of harvesting animals. “Globalwarming is getting stronger everyyear,” says Pauloosie Nakoolak fromCoral Harbour. “In the past, whenlakes freeze over with ice somepeople would be jigging for fish.Now it takes longer for lakes tofreeze. There used to be ice thatnever melted. Now there are moreof them melting due to earthwarming up. It is not like it used tobe.”

The community elders areconcerned about the effects thatclimate change may have on marinelife, particularly polar bear andwalrus, who use ice as a platformfor hunting and seals that dependon pack-ice for pupping, foraging,moulting, and resting.

“It’s usually in springtime before

16 Toxics and traditional knowledge WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

■ NWHP is a partnership between the Hunters’ and Trappers’Organisations/ Associations of Arviat, Coral Harbour, andPangnirtung,Trent University, and WWF-Canada. The traditionalknowledge survey is the first step in an programme which includesscientific research (contaminant analysis and histology), a passivesurvey (hunters’ documentation of current wildlife healthcondition), and communicating results.

Arviat projectcoordinatorFrankNutarasungnik(left) interviewsArviat elderTony Otuk.Thecommunity ofArviat is locatednorth ofChurchill,Manitoba, onthe western sideof Hudson Bay.

Phot

o:Su

san

Sang

,WW

F C

anad

a

Inuit elders and hunters are taking part in a studylooking at the impacts of climate change andtoxics. Susan Sang reports.

Traditional knowledge

Cruise tourism is big businessaround Svalbard. Norwegianauthorities, environmental

organisations and parts of the cruiseindustry itself are concerned thatthe existing cruise tourism manage-ment regime is unable to cope within cruise traffic and its current andpotential impacts on Svalbard’svulnerable arctic environment.

A new report by WWF’s ArcticProgramme addresses cruisetourism on Svalbard and its actualand potential environmental

impacts on the environment. Thereport, Cruise tourism on Svalbard –A risky business? is not an environ-mental risk assessment or strategicenvironmental assessment of theindustry but an attempt to shedlight on the major impacts of cruisetourism. The report is designed toraise questions, stimulate discus-sion, and action, which will reducethe risks and uncertainties associ-ated with cruise tourism.

Cruise tourism is not the singlebiggest threat to Svalbard’s

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 Toxics 17

➤

the ice breaks up that a seal spendstime basking on the ice,” says InusiqNasalik an elder from Pangnirtung.

“At that time they are goingthrough the moulting stage. But ifthe ice breaks up early, then themoulting is incomplete; thereforethe hair will be old and brownish incolour. I will know right away thatthe moulting phase was disruptedby early ice break-up.”

Land animals like caribou arenot spared from these environ-mental stressors. All tenPangnirtung hunters who partici-pated in the survey described seeingmore sick caribou than in the past.“Even just to look at them you cantell there is something wrong.They’re skinny and sick looking.You can tell their health is ailing. Wedon’t bother with caribou like that.Some have worm-like parasites andmany of them swollen joints,usually medium-size males; it’s rareto see females with problems likethat,” said Joanasie Maniapik.

On 17 May 2004, the StockholmConvention on POPs became legallybinding, committing participatingcountries to stop the productionand use of the 12 highly toxic,persistent and bioaccumulativechemicals. However, the StockholmConvention is the first step inphasing out chemical threats toarctic wildlife. There are manyemerging chemicals of concern thatare now being found in arcticwildlife including brominated flameretardants and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), used widely in avariety of industrial and consumerproducts. These potentiallyhazardous chemicals are buildingup in the arctic food chain includingtop predators such as polar bear andbeluga whales as well as human.

Similarly, implementation of theKyoto protocol will set the scene tobegin to address climate change.The Arctic is particularly vulnerableto climate change, and indeed insome areas the impacts are alreadyevident.

Both the Stockholm Treaty andthe Kyoto protocol are primarytools for addressing the impact oftoxic pollutants and climate changeon arctic wildlife. However, muchmore work is needed to safeguardarctic wildlife and to ensure theseimportant cultural and ecologicalresources remains healthy forgenerations to come.

ssang@wwfcanada.org

Impact of cruisetourism on Svalbard

B a r e n t s ø y a

E d g e ø y a

K v i t ø y a

Ny Ålesund

Longyearbyen

Grumantbyen

Pyramiden

Sveagruva

0 50 100 km

Barentsburg

Pr

i ns

Ka

rl s

Fo

r l an

d

Ko n g K a r l s L a n d

S p i t s b e r g e n

N o r d a u s t l a n d e t

Ho

pen

Magdalene-fjorden

Kongsfjorden

Forlandsundet

I s f j o r d e n

Van Mijenfjorden

Hornsund

St

or

fj

or

de

n

Tjuvfjorden

Ol g

as

t re

te

t

Hi n

l op

en

s t r et e

t

Vestfonna

Austfonna

Nordenskiöld-bukta

TheRenaissancecruise shipin NyÅlesund,Svalbard.

environment. Climate change,toxic pollution, and destructive andexcessive fishery activities willcontinue to have greater impacts onthe archipelago and its biodiversity.Nonetheless, cruise tourism is amajor activity, and one in whichships and passenger groups of allsizes are brought to remote andpristine areas of the archipelagoduring a short and vulnerablesummer season.

Cruise tourism has a longhistory on Svalbard, but it was notuntil 2000 that reporting statisticsfor the two main cruise activities –overseas cruises and coastal cruises

– were combinedand gave a pictureof overall cruisetraffic. In thefollowing threeyears (2000– 2003),the number ofpeople going ashoreoutside the mainsettlement ofL o n g y e a r b y e nincreased fromaround 44,000 toover 65,000passenger landingsper year. In 2003,those 65,000 land-ings were made at

180 sites across the archipelago.What does this mean for the

environment? While impact onparticular landing sites, dependingon its vegetation, might be small,the increase in the number of sitesvisited is an indication of thegrowing ‘footprint’ of cruisetourism. The biggest single threat

posed by ship-based activity onSvalbard is from an oil spill. Cruiseships carry substantial volumes offuel for their own use. Those fuelsare most commonly heavy oil, themost toxic and potentially environ-mentally-damaging oil if releasedinto the environment. Svalbard’scharacteristics, its climate andremoteness, make it extremely diffi-cult to counter an oil spill before itdoes significant damage. Oilresponse capacity, provided by theauthorities in Svalbard, is alsolimited. Cruise ships mainly operateclose to the shore so increasing thelikelihood of severe environmentaldamage if an accident occurs.

Norwegian authorities shouldaddress the risks presented by cruisetourism through a precautionaryapproach, which involves closinghigh-risk and high-biodiversityareas, demanding the use of bestavailable fuels and matching oil spillresponse capacity to the increasingcruise traffic around Svalbard.

Other environmental threatsfrom cruise tourism are based oncumulative impacts. Sites visited bycruise ships over a number of yearsshow signs of degradation, both ofcultural and historical remains, aswell as vegetation. Wildlife distur-bances are harder to quantify, but inthe harsh arctic climate, whereother factors increasingly challengea species’ survival, strict andprecautionary measures must betaken to avoid negative impacts.

In addition, cruise ships alsorepresent a source of pollution inpristine areas that are not otherwisedirectly affected by air emissions or

waste discharges. The energyrequirements of cruise ships,together with their function asfloating hotels, means the vesselsemit considerable amounts ofemissions and large quantities ofsewage, garbage and waste water.The extent to which such dischargescause pollution depends on anumber of things, among themtechnical equipment and a shipoperator’s policy and practices.

Many of the measures whichcould be introduced to improvecruise management are realistic.The single most important one inthe short-term is to reduce the riskof oil spills from cruise ships andother vessels. Norwegian authori-ties must reduce the risk of oil spillswhile at the same time closing valu-able and vulnerable areascompletely.

Reducing the negative impacts ofcruise tourism on Svalbard mustalso be seen in a wider context. Thenumber of ships and passengersvisiting Svalbard is likely to increasebecause cruise tourism is a boomingbusiness globally. A cruise tourismmanagement regime must be estab-lished on Svalbard to cope withfurther increases and diversificationin cruise tourism activities. Svalbardauthorities and industry are in aunique position: the time is ripe forthe establishment of a “best prac-tice” cruise management regime inSvalbard, which can set the standardnot only for the rest of the Arctic,but also the rest of the world.

Miriam Geitz, mgeitz@wwf.no

18 Tourism on Svalbard WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

Touristscharmed byarctic fox cubs.

Phot

o:M

iria

m G

eitz

➤

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 • Interview 19

Samantha Smith: What does NEFCOdo?

Harro Pitkänen: NEFCO is a fundmanagement institution that managespublic funds from the Nordic governmentsand others. It provides competence andcapacity for professional fund manage-ment and experience in project lending.This is helpful for multi-country projectsand gives efficiency and economies of scale.What makes NEFCO special is that 100percent of its portfolio is environment-focused.

NEFCO makes investments in environmental proj-ects where 1) there is a reasonable opportunity forrepatriation of the funds, and 2) the project candemonstrate a positive environmental impact. Thepossibility of limiting environmental damage is notenough – the project must demon-strate concrete benefits.

NEFCO isn’t a profit-maximizinginstitution, so its criteria and activitiesare different from normal commercialinvestment funds. It doesn’t just lookfor projects where it can get the fastesteconomic returns. At the same time,however, NEFCO’s goal is for invest-ments to repay the capital invested, sothat this money can then be rede-ployed in another project

SS: Where does NEFCO invest?

HP: NEFCO invests in Russia primarily, to a lesserextent in three of the Baltic states, and it will also investin the Ukraine starting this year. At the momentNEFCO has committed about 50,000,000 EUR forenvironmental cleanup projects in Russia, and it isforeseen that towards the end of this decade NEFCOwill finance some 160,000,000 EUR in environmentalprojects in Russia and the Ukraine.

SS: Some critics argue that Russia’s expanding economylessens the need for the international community to fundenvironmental projects there. What’s your view?

HP: Economic growth in Russia so far isnot resulting in transfers of revenues intoenvironmental measures, particularlythose that deal with the legacy of environ-mental negligence and wasteful resourceexploitation. One hopes this will comewith time.

To stimulate this development, there’sstill a need to set up demonstration proj-ects, show good examples, show that onecan reverse trends and make a difference.And in order to do this there’s a need forexternal cooperation and participation.

There’s a difference as well betweencapital investments and repayable loans on the onehand, and grants and subsidies on the other. With thelatter you have to be even more selective.

There are projects which by nature requirefinancing, because cash flow is not sufficient to cover

larger capital improvements. Theproblem is that Russian enterprisesdon’t have a tradition for usingborrowed funds. The only Russianbusinesses that do this are the onesthat operate internationally. In mostenterprises it’s the older pattern ofthinking that reigns: the threshold forloaning money is high, as is thethreshold for financing capital invest-ments and clean ups from revenuestreams.

Moreover, financial markets inRussia are still fairly undeveloped, andinterest rates are very high. This will

change and that’s good, but in the interim there is stilla big gap where someone can come in and make adifference.

SS: Shouldn’t Russian federal, regional and local author-ities provide grants and subsidies themselves?

HP: In some cases one should not provide externalassistance where authorities can and should provide itthemselves. There are very many situations where thisis not the reality, however, and where this funding isnot forthcoming. And it might not be more envi-

INTERVIEW:

Financing environmental projects in RussiaHarro Pitkänen has been director of the Nordic Environmental FinanceCorporation (NEFCO) since 1990. He is a lawyer by training and previouslyworked for the Nordic Investment Bank. He has worked on financing issuesfor the last 21 years. Samantha Smith, director of WWF’s Arctic Programme,asked him for his views on international financing of environmental projectsin Russia.

Harro Pitkänen

➤

❝Economicgrowth in Russiaso far is notresulting intransfers ofrevenues intoenvironmentalmeasures

20 Interview WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

ronmentally efficient to just lean back and say thatthe Russians should do this themselves. In any case,thorough and professional assessments are key in thisdecision

In many cases, it’s more efficient to spend fundselsewhere rather than locally. NEFCO reviewed itsportfolio and found that to achieve the same environ-mental results in the Nordic countries, it was seventimes more expensive to invest in measures in theNordic countries compared to investing in the neigh-boring Baltic states or in Russia.

For example, to reduce inputs of phosphorus andnitrogen to the Baltic Sea, one can get much greaterresults by investing in wastewater treatment improve-ments in St. Petersburg rather than investing in similarmeasures inFinland or Sweden.

SS: What do you seeas the biggest envi-ronmental chal-lenges and prioritiesin northern Russiafor next decade?

HP: First, there area number ofparallel priorities and concerns relating to the Russianindustrial complex. There are substantial concentra-tions of industrial producers in the Russian north, notjust in the Kola Peninsula but also farther east. Norilskon the Kola Peninsula is one of the largest emittersglobally. Looking at this from the point of view of arcticenvironmental protection, one must have a widergeographic scope than just plants that are physicallylocated in the Arctic. Other facilities outside the regionare also significant sources.

Improving the environmental performance of theseenterprises is a complex matter because it involves thewhole chain of production, from raw materialsexploitation to energy efficiency, the productionprocess and end of pipe measures. We see some signsof the effects of green consumerism, but it must cutthrough wider and deeper layers of the Russian indus-trial sector. Enterprises that work internationally arebecoming more concerned with this, and are using ISOcertification, environmental management and productcertification, particularly in the pulp and paper sector.

In the industrial sector, there’s nonetheless a verylarge potential for win-win projects. Improving envi-ronmental performance can bring huge profitabilityand productivity gains. These are very strong argu-ments for production managers. In fact, one doesn’teven need to mention the ‘side effects’ of improvedenvironmental performance. Market economy meansprofitability is a bigger and bigger issue for Russiansmall and medium sized enterprises too.

Another reason to invest in the industrial sector isthat it by definition generates cash flow, which in turnmeans that there is money to be spent on investments.Enterprises have the capacity to generate internalrevenue that then can be used for responsible practices.

To address the challenges in the Russian industrialsector, some structural changes are needed. We needadequately equipped monitoring and enforcement

bodies; we need good societal governance; in short, weneed institutional and regional framework for compli-ance. There is also a need for capacity building andinstitutional development in the environmental sector,to develop good regulatory counterparts for the entre-preneurial sector

Second, there are severe deficiencies in public infra-structure in Russia, particularly in three areas: watermanagement; waste management and energy genera-tion and distribution.

With water, the main issue is well-recognised: oneneeds to improve the supply and quality of drinkingwater. This issue goes hand-in-hand with ensuringadequate wastewater treatment. For example, drinkingwater intake in Archangelsk is downstream from a pulpand paper plant; in Murmansk, it is downstream froma poultry farm. Improving wastewater treatment willboth reduce the load on the environment andcontribute to public health.

Waste management capacity is another critical area.Russia’s northern areas have inadequate treatment facil-ities for hazardous waste. Municipal landfills in manyareas are nearly full, while at the same time the wastestream is increasing as the standard of living rises.

Energy generation and heat distribution are a finalset of public infrastruture problems. Heat distributionin the Russian north is a major source of airbornepollution because of the use of coal and oil as energysources, because of outdated equipment and becauseof plants where combustion is sub optimal. Perhapsmore importantly, some communities in northernRussia still lack reliable access to energy sources andheat distribution networks. There have been catastro-phes where communities have literally frozen.

The problem with all three of these public infra-structure sectors – water, waste management, and heatand energy – is that they are clearly not sustainablyfinanced. It is arguable that the users cannot pay thefull cost of these essential services. These sectorsdepend on subsidies and have too little resources. Theresult is no money for maintenance, a gradual degra-dation of systems and a worsening of problems.

In these sectors there is clearly a larger need forbudgetary resources because of the absolute lack of

means. The onlyrealistic course is toincrease tariffrevenues for utili-ties, and decree thatwithin a certaintime period theremust be user feesthat pay for theutilities. At thesame time, grantsand subsidies can

be used to put utilities on the right path, towards (ulti-mately) cost recovery.

The third and last major environmental challengefor northern Russia over the next decade is nuclearissues. The threat from nuclear installations, waste, fueland so on is less an immediate environmental problemthan a risk factor. At the same time, there is the likeli-hood of some of this material being lost or taken, andof a deliberate or accidental release.

❝To address thechallenges in theRussian industrialsector, somestructural changesare needed.

❝With water, the mainissue is well-recog-nised: one needs toimprove the supplyand quality ofdrinking water.

➤

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 Publications 21

WWF: What is the unifying themethroughout the new edition of yourbook?

Josh Newell: My worldview isclearly that of the ecologist concernedabout the unsustainable use ofnatural resources on our planet andthe effects of that development on theplanet’s species. Of course, humansare also included in this species equa-tion, and in the Russian Far East it isclear that the increasing control ofnatural resources in the hands of aselect minority of powerful individ-uals, both in the private sector and inthe government, is having a negativeimpact on social and economic well-being of the majority of the region’sresidents. I would say that, by andlarge, the Russian regional co-ordi-nators of this book share the sameworldview.

WWF: What do you see as thebiggest social or environmental crisisin the Russian Far East?

JN: There are so many I don’t reallyknow where tostart. I guesswhat worries memost is that theregion willcontinue to be ar e s o u r c eappendage forNortheast Asia,exporting rawmaterials ratherthan buildingmanufacturingcapacity andp r o d u c i n gfinished prod-ucts in-country.The latter would

have obvious benefits for the region’seconomy: providing jobs, increasingrevenues, and probably reducingillegal resource harvest. It still needsto be researched further, but there isgrowing evidence that a manufac-turing-based economy would slowthe rate of resource extraction in theregion. For me, many of the socialand environmental problems theregion faces stem from this resourceexport. Creating this manufacturingcapacity is possible will take massiveinvestment, both foreign andRussian. The Russian Far East washistorically a raw material based forthe Soviet Union. So, we are lookingat almost an entire reconstruction ofthe region’s industrial infrastructure.And none of this can take place untilthe region addresses its corruption.

WWF: What is the most commonmisconception that non-Russianshave about the Russian Far East?

JN: Most people equate the regionwith Siberia, which evokes imagesof frozen tundra and gulags. Butthere is so much more, both inSiberia and in the Russian Far East.Did you know that you can scubadive in 70-degree water? That thereare subtropical birds? Tigers?Leopards? And many areas thatreach 90 degrees in the summer?That there are cities with concerthalls, basketball teams, and sushirestaurants? The Russian Far East ishuge—more than two-thirds thesize of the continental UnitedStates—with a lot more varietythan most people realise.

WWF: There are more than 90contributors to the book. Why somany?

JN: We placed a premium on beingas authoritative as possible. Wewanted the book to be a useful forthe businessman travelling to theregion, as it was for the ecologist.To reach such varied audiences, weneeded experts from all sorts ofdisciplines: economists, biologists,environmentalists, journalists andgovernment officials.

WWF: Now that you are done withthe book, what would you revise?

JN: I always envisioned this book assimilar to the State of the Worldseries, which the WorldwatchInstitute produces each year. I can’timagine updating The Russian FarEast every year, but perhaps everythree or four. The thought ofproducing this book again is over-whelming, but ask me the samequestion next year and I might feeldifferently. Russia, in general,remains very much in flux socontinual updates would be useful.More than ten years after pere-stroika, the Putin administration isstill dissolving government agen-cies, folding their responsibilitiesinto other agencies and ministries.The country’s underdeveloped legalframework means that laws anddecrees are regularly issued andreformed. Privatisation of land isjust beginning. These realities haveobvious impacts on sustainabledevelopment of the region.

Focus on Russia’s Far East

■ The Russian FarEast:A ReferenceGuide forConservation andDevelopmentJosh Newell and 90contributors,Daniel & Daniel,ISBN 1 880284 75 8,486 pages.

Josh Newell

Ranging from arctic tundra to dense forests, theRussian Far East supports a unique mixture ofsubtropical and northern plant and animal species.But the region is under threat as developers lookto exploit its rich timber and mineral resources.An extensively updated second edition of TheRussian Far East, a reference guide for conservationand development, provides a valuable startingpoint for conservation work in the region.WWF’sArctic Programme talked to its author, Josh Newell.

22 Publications • Staff WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04

Welcome Tonje■ Tonje Folkestad joined WWF’sArctic Programme in June as our newclimate change officer.Tonje has aMaster’s degree in NatureManagement from the AgriculturalUniversity of Norway, specialising inwater and development. Her degreeincluded a one-year undergraduatecourse at the Regional College ofAlta, Finnmark, with a particular focuson management of natural resources

in the arctic region.Since 2000, she

has been executivedirector of FIVAS(Association forInternational Waterand Forest Studies),a Norwegian NGOworking to

promote fair and sustainable watermanagement in developing countries.This included work on globalwarming.

CD-ROM■ When the Weather is UggianaqtuqInuit Observations of environmentalchangeFox, S.Boulder, CO: National Snow and IceData Center.2003

BOOK■ Watching Ice and Weather Our WaySikumengllu Eslamengllu EsghapalleghputConrad Oozeva, Chester Noongwook,George Noongwook, Christina Alowa,and Igor KrupnikThe Arctic Studies Center, NationalMuseum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution and Savoonga WhalingCaptains Association, Savoonga,AK 2004pp. 208 ISBN: 0-96734-295-3

Many of the clearest indicators ofthe changing climate in the Arcticare coming from the people whohave lived there for generations. Itis through the recollections of arcticpeoples that we are seeing a pictureof a changing landscape as icemelts, seasons become warmer andspecies change their ancient habits.

On the CD-ROM When theWeather is Uggianaqtuq, Inuit fromClyde River and Baker Lake, twosmall communities in Nunavut,Canada present anecdotes of howthe changing climate is affecting thearctic environment. Uggianaqtuq(pronounced OOG-gi-a-nak-took)is a North Baffin Inuktitut wordthat means to behave unexpectedly,or in an unfamiliar way.

The CD-ROM allows the user tolisten to those at the front line ofclimate change explain in their ownwords and language (Inuktitut) howtheir traditional lifestyles arechanging. Participants talk of

changes in sea ice and the wind, thehealth of species such as seals andnarwhal, weather variability, changesin seasons, changes in activities, andmore. These different elements arenicely combined through a collectionof video, text, maps and other imagesin an effective use of new media.

Watching Ice and Weather OurWay, is a collaboration betweenYupik whalers and climate changeresearchers. In part it is an attemptfor each group to make sense ofwhat the other has to offer. Readingit gives a sense how keenly awarethe Yupik are of the climate. Theywatch the ocean, note the behav-iour of the wind and the patterns ofthe ice as it forms and flows. Theydiscuss the weather with their peersand elders and read satellitepictures and listen to the radio.

Where modern science takesmeasurements and records data tobuild a picture of how our climateis changing, the Yupik observe theshift by noting the changes in theirfamiliar landscapes and the appear-

ance and disappearance of differentanimals.

What is most impressive aboutWhen the Weather is Uggianaqtuqand Watching Ice and Weather OurWay is how they build a picture ofthe complex relationship betweensea-ice, the wind, species migrationand northern indigenous culture.The knowledge that the participantshave for their local environment isgarnered from a close relationshipthat is spiritual, cultural and ulti-mately based on survival. It is analtogether different paradigm fromthat of western science and equallyimportant in developing our under-standing of the effect of climatechange on the environment. It is niceto see this collaboration betweenwestern scientific knowledge andtraditional knowledge taking place.

Nigel Allan, nallan@wwf.no

Thanks to all of you whoresponded to our readershipsurvey in issue 1/2004 and on

our website . Your feedback isimportant and will help us toimprove the Arctic Bulletin.

Most of our readers expressed

ArcticBulletinreadershipsurvey

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 3.04 Calendar • Publications 23

Forthcoming arctic meetings & events

Arctic Council eventsArctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) International Scientific Symposium on Climate Change in the Arctic

WHERE: Reykjavik, Iceland • WHEN: November 9–12CONTACT: bhameister@iarc.uaf.edu

Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials (SAO) MeetingWHERE: Reykjavik, Iceland • WHEN: November 22–23CONTACT: birna@congress.is (for bookings) bk@mfa.is (program information)

Fourth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, ReykjavikWHERE: Reykjavik, Iceland • WHEN: November 24CONTACT: birna@congress.is (for bookings) bk@mfa.is (program information)

Conferences and workshopsPeople, Wildlife and Hunting: Emerging Conservation Paradigms

WHERE: Edmonton,Alberta, Canada • WHEN: October 22–24CONTACT: mf2@ualberta.ca www.conservationhunting.ca or

5th Arctic Coastal Dynamics WorkshopWHERE: Montreal, Canada • WHEN: October 13–16CONTACT: acd2004@geog.mcgill.ca

10th Annual Alaska Tribal Conference on Environmental Management WHERE:Anchorage,Alaska • WHEN: October 18–22CONTACT: http://www.anhb.org/sub/rasc/ATCEM.html

Beringia Days 2004 WHERE:Anchorage,Alaska • WHEN: October 21–23CONTACT: http://www.nps.gov/akso/beringia

Arctic Pinniped WorkshopWHERE: Smithsonian Institution – Washington, D.C. • WHEN: November 4CONTACT: scrock@tnet.net

12th Annual Arctic Conference: Archaeology, Anthropology and Environmental StudiesWHERE: Smithsonian Institution – Washington, D.C. • WHEN: November 5–6CONTACT: rusk.katherine@nmnh.si.edu

7th International Workshop – Land-Ocean Interactions In The Russian Arctic (LOIRA)WHERE: P P Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, RAS, Moscow, Russia • WHEN: November 15–18CONTACT: gordeev@geo.sio.rssi.ru

Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee MeetingWHERE: Seattle,WA • WHEN: November 18–19CONTACT: office@unols.org

3rd Annual Arctic Film Festival WHERE: Minnesota, USA • WHEN: November 18–21CONTACT: http://www.northhousefolkschool.com/events/ArcticFilmFest.html

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

satisfaction with the content, layoutand design of the Arctic Bulletin.There were many different andinteresting suggestions about theissues and topics that we couldcover in our future issues and,wherever possible, we will try toinclude them.

Some of the topics readersexpressed interest in were fisheries,ecotoxicology, ecotourism, urbanregional development and impactson the environment, sustainablehousing, renewable energies,Nunavut government, traditionalknowledge and sustainable huntingamongst other things.

While we always try to ensurethat the Arctic Bulletin gives equalweight to every region of the Arctic,many respondents said they wantedto see more coverage of the RussianArctic. We will be working with ourcolleagues in WWF-Russia to tryand ensure we meet this request.

The five issues respondentsexpressed the most interest inreading about were climate change,biodiversity (including species-specific updates), protected areas,WWF’s views and work in theArctic, and northern indigenouspeople.

One point readers made clear is

that they do not want to see theprint version of the Arctic Bulletindisappear in favour of an onlineversion. So, for the time-being atleast, we will certainly be continuingwith a hard copy as well as makinga pdf version available on line athttp://www.panda.org/arctic.

Naturally we continue towelcome feedback about the ArcticBulletin. You can email JulianWoolford at jwoolford@wwf.no orNigel Allan at nallan@wwf.no orfax +47 22 20 06 66.

Thanks again to all of you whotook the time to send us yourthoughts and ideas.

B-BLAD Retur WWF-NorgePO Box 6784 St Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway

WWFARCTICOFFICESANDCONTACTS

WWF INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC PROGRAMMEKristian Augusts gate 7a,P.O. Box 6784 St. Olavsplass, N-0130 Oslo,NorwayPh.: +47 22 03 65 00,Fax: +47 22 20 06 66www.panda.org/arcticContact: 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: +1 202 861-8378www.worldwildlife.orgContact: Randall Snodgrass& Margaret Williams

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 Programme OfficeAccount No.WWF 232P.O. Box 289 WeybridgeSurrey KT 13 8WJ, UK

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

Decreasing sea ice

WWF is the world’s largest andmost experienced independentconservation organisation,with almost five millionsupporters and a globalnetwork active in 90 countries.WWF’s mission is to stop thedegradation of the planet’snatural environment and tobuild a future in which humanslive in harmonywith nature.WWF continuesto be known asWorld WildlifeFund in Canadaand the UnitedStates of America.

CR

EDIT

:Sci

entifi

c Vis

ualiz

atio

ns S

tudi

o,N

ASA

GSF

C

According to a new NASA study, arctic perennial sea ice has beendecreasing at a rate of 9 percent per decade since the 1970s.

1979

2003