ArcticBulletin

No 2.03 • 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

Greenland U-turn p. 4–5

Arctic Refuge safe for now p. 6

What future for Wrangel Island? p. 12–16

Oil threatens Barents p. 19

Breaking a trail for ecotourism on Svalbard p.9

2 WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

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.

Cover:Berit Våtvik, winner of WWF Arctic Award forLinking Tourism and Conservation 2002.See story p. 9.Photo:Tone Mikalsen.

Printed at Merkur-Trykk ASon 100% recycled paper.

This publication was made possible through the support of WWF-Netherlands.

Editor in Chief:Samantha Smithssmith@wwf.no

Editor:Julian Woolfordjwoolford@wwf.no

Design andproduction:dEDBsign/Ketill Bergerketill.berger@eunet.no

Date of publication:June 23, 2003ISSN 1023-9081

U-turn on hunting p. 4–5 �

Cod stock not recovering p. 16–17 �

� Mining conference p. 11

�

Norway’s Gift to the Earth p. 7

�Arctic TourismAward 2002 p. 9

Oil threat to Barents p. 17Barents report shows oil risk p. 17

� Polar bear agreement p. 12–13Polar bears in Chukotka p. 13–14Wolves settle on Wrangel Island p. 15–16Wrangel World Heritage site? p. 14–15

Hope for Iceland’s future p. 7 �

� Whale watching p. 16

The Interview p. 21 �

�

� Arctic Refuge p. 6

� River expeditions p. 10

� Canada’s Gift to the Earth p. 10–11

Lakes show climate impact p. 4–5AMAP p. 8Climate change and energy technologies p. 8–9Connected to the Arctic p. 18Publications p. 22Forthcoming meetings & events p. 23

Contents

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 3

The Arctic Council 12 Years On:Successful or Out of Touch?

Editorial

In March 2003, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office andThe Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs held aconference at Wilton Park in the United Kingdom to eval-

uate the success of arctic co-operation. I’ve summarisedbelow my remarks at the conference, and reprintedcomments from Jan Huber of The Netherlands, a long-timeobserver country to the Arctic Council.

The Arctic Council has done an excellent job on contam-inants. Its work contributed to the Stockholm Convention,the first global agreement on persistent organic pollutants,as well as small but important pollution cleanup projects inRussia. It remains to be seen whether the Council’s ArcticClimate Impact Assessment will stimulate meaningful cutsin carbon emissions, which are the single biggest long-termthreat to the arctic environment.

On resource management and nature conservation issues,however, the Council’s record is poor:

• In 1997, arctic countries agreed to create a circumpolarnetwork of protected areas. Six years later, the countriesare still discussing what areas should be included.

• Arctic governments agree that oil and gas development

will be a key challenge for the region. The Council’s deliv-erables so far include an outdated map of areas at risk, andguidelines for offshore oil and gas devel-opment that are weaker than most arcticnational regimes.

• Fisheries are the single biggest impact onarctic oceans. The Council does notaddress fisheries issues other thanthrough a small and underfunded projecton Sami coastal fisheries.

• Marine transport, particularly of oil, isprobably the second biggest immediatethreat to the arctic marine environment.The Council’s many infrastructure proj-ects do not include active work to developcommon policy on marine transport.

The Arctic has a potential to show the rest of the worldthat environment and sustainable development really can becombined. As a long-time Council observer, WWF encour-ages the Council to take a far more active, inclusive and deliv-erables-focused approach.

SAMANTHASMITHDirector,WWF InternationalArctic Programme ssmith@wwf.no

� � We agreed that cooperation in theArctic Council has been a success. Iheard this especially strongly in theinterventions we heard from the repre-sentatives of the indigenous peoples,whether from North America or fromSiberia. It is clear that the recognitionthey and their plight have obtainedthrough being admitted to the table onan equal footing with the representa-tives of the Arctic countries has beenand continues to be tremendouslyimportant. We heard many complaintsof the relative weakness of the ArcticCouncil, an entity without a fixedaddress, a secretariat or a commonlyfinanced programme, but the recogni-tion of the Arctic and the solidarity ofthe Arctic peoples have been establishedfirmly and cannot be ignored anymore.

Of course, the most tangible prod-ucts of the Arctic Council process havebeen the studies and projects that haveresulted from AMAP, CAFF and theother programmes that started alreadyunder the Arctic EnvironmentalPartnership Strategy from 1991onwards. About the deliberations in the

Arctic Council itself a lot of frustrationwas expressed, not only from the UKand the Netherlands, the two observercountries that had sponsored theseminar, but also from participantsfrom the Arctic Council themselves.Many times we heard that there is atendency for the Arctic Council to avoidreal discussion and debate and insteadgo through endless “tours de table”repeating standpoints that stick close toa safe consensus. Difficult issues like theeconomic and social foundations forsustainable development, the relationbetween sustainable development andnature conservation, and the commu-nication of the results of environmentalmonitoring to the indigenous peoplesare sometimes avoided, and the voice ofsome stakeholders, like industrial enter-prises, is hardly heard.

The Arctic Council has had anambiguous attitude towards “outsiders”,be they non-Arctic states or non-governmental organisations. The ArcticStates and the indigenous peoples knowthat their region is deeply affected bydevelopments in the surrounding

regions, and they are also aware of thebenefits that the participation fromnon-Arctic states brings to theprogrammes of the Arctic Council. Atthe same time the non-Arctic states’participation in the deliberations of theCouncil has been very much restricted.The United Kingdom and theNetherlands, as most active of the non-Arctic states, urged the Arctic states toconsider a) allowing the observer statesto participate more fully in the deliber-ations of the Council and b) activelyencouraging the countries of East Asiabordering the Arctic, namely China,Korea and Japan, to join the Council asobservers. This last point was picked upby the one Korean participant in theconference, who said his country wasconsidering the question of becomingmore actively involved in the activitiesof the Arctic Council.

JAN HUBERChairman, Polar Affairs Committee

The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs

4 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

Scientists have found dramaticclues to North Americanclimate change at the bottom

of 50 arctic lakes.Using innovative techniques that

enable them to collect historicevidence from fossilised algae inlake bottom sediment, the scientistsfrom Queens University, Kingston,Ontario, found signs of markedenvironmental changes in a varietyof lakes of different depths andcomposition, within a 750-kmregion bordering the northern tree-line.

The changes are a signal ofthings to come in the rest of NorthAmerica, say the scientists.

“We’re seeing a significant,

regional change in the ecology ofthese lakes over the past twocenturies that is consistent withwarmer conditions,” says Dr. JohnSmol, Canada Research Chair inEnvironmental Change and co-head of the university’sPaleoecological EnvironmentalAssessment and ResearchLaboratory (PEARL).

Dr. Smol conducted the studywith Dr. Kathleen Rühland andstudent Alisha Priesnitz of Queen’sBiology Department.

“Because the Arctic is a veryvulnerable environment andusually the first area of the conti-nent to show signs of environ-mental change – often to the

greatest degree – it’s considered abellwether of what will happenelsewhere,” says Dr. Rühland.

“These are important signalsthat all of us should be heeding: thelakes’ sedimentary records havetracked marked and directionalecosystem changes.”

The Queen’s study waspublished recently in the interna-tional journal Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research.

To reconstruct past environ-mental trends, the team used fossilmarkers (tiny algal cells) preservedin lake sediment. Sediment coreswere collected by helicopter fromthe 50 lakes, in an area fromYellowknife, NWT, in the Boreal

The new Greenland HomeRule Government has renegedon promises by the former

Government to adopt sustainablehunting practices of threatenedspecies.

Hunting of the decliningcommon eider and guillemot willnow go ahead again during thebreeding season despite the adviceof Greenland’s own biologists.

The new decision replaces the

2001 Bird Protection Act, whichwas Greenland’s first seriousattempt to ensure the sustainableuse of wildlife species. It means thatcommon eider and guillemot canbe shot on their nests.

According to the Institute forNatural Resources in the capital ofNuuk, the eiders in West Greenlandhave declined by about 80 per centover the last 40 years.

The common eider is the largestbreeding duck in the northernhemisphere. It frequents coastalheadlands, offshore islands, skerriesand shoals.

Eider ducks are gregarious, trav-elling and feeding in flocks ofbetween ten and several thousand,and are one of the many migratorybird species which Greenland andCanada share.

Canadian and Greenlandicresearch both show that most of theeider ducks that breeds in easternCanada spend the winter inGreenland.

Biologists from EnvironmentCanada, the Greenland NatureInstitute and the AmericanMuseum of Natural History havedeveloped a model that showscurrent levels of eider hunting inGreenland could be too high tosustain the health of the population.

The guillemot used to be found

in millions along the western coastof Greenland. A colony inUummannaq in NorthwestGreenland has declined from500,000 breeding guillemot to ameager 10,000 over the past 60years.

The Brünnich’s guillemot alsoexperienced a massive decline inIceland, where it is now listed asthreatened. According to an officialIcelandic government document,the only plausible explanation forthis is hunting pressure inGreenland where guillemots fromIceland winter.

In 2002 the former governmentof Greenland, under heavy pressurefrom environmental groups fromall over the western world as well aswithin Greenland, decided to limitthe hunting of amongst otherspecies, the common eider and theguillemot.

This decision was followed withthe decision to part-fund acampaign, Tulugaq, to promote thesustainable use of living naturalresources in Greenland. Co-fundersof this campaign are theGovernment of Denmark and anumber of private donors.

The goal of the campaign, seearticle on page seven in AB 1.03, isto create a better dialogue betweendifferent groups in Greenland

Greenland Government’s U-turn

Phot

o:Br

yan

& C

herr

y A

lexa

nder

Pho

togr

aphy

Eider andguillemot: backon Greenland´smenu duringbreedingseason.

Lakes show climate impact

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 News 5

forest area towards the Bering Seain the arctic tundra. For each lake,they compared fossilised algaepreserved in the top, most recentsediment layer with those from thebottom, pre-industrial layer datingback about 200 years.

They found that the aquatichabitat of today is different frompre-industrial times. More fossils ofthe type that live in open water werefound in the top (most recent) layerof sediment – an indication thatthese lakes have less ice cover and alonger growing season that wouldalter important lakewater propertiessuch as light availability and the waylakes stratify, as a result of warming.This marked a major ecological shiftin the lakes that coincides with aperiod of increased human indus-trial activities and emissions inmore southern regions.

Earlier PEARL studies in theHigh Arctic tundra indicatedmajor changes in the differentlayers of fossils associated withclimate warming. The new findingsbring the effects of climate changecloser to populated areas. “Thelogical extension was to see if tree-line lakes also show these dramaticchanges, and this study confirmsthat the impact is even greater thanpreviously documented,” says Dr.Rühland. “We believe that theconsequences of greenhouse gasemissions, in the form of climatechange, are already having anotable impact on the Arctic envi-ronment.”

As well as affecting plant andanimal life, melting permafrost andless ice cover are already beginningto have repercussions on humanconcerns such as transportation,

housing, and even sovereigntyissues.

Last year an entire Nunavikcommunity was relocated by theQuebec government after meltingpermafrost caused houses to slidefrom their foundations. Otherresearchers have found evidence thatocean ice is thinning, which couldhave future implications for inter-continental transportation routes.

“Until recently, no one was recon-structing Arctic climates in this way,because the technology didn’t exist,”says Dr. Smol. “Now that we canreconstruct the past through thisindirect technique, we’re filling ingaps in our knowledge and findinganswers to many ecological andenvironmental questions.”

LYNN ROSENTRATER,lrosentrater@wwf.no

society, to share information and tocreate a common understanding ofwhat sustainable use of livingnatural resources really means.

Apparently, the campaign hasn’treached either the new governmentor the fishers’ and hunters’ organi-zation, KNAPK, as the new govern-ment decision to allow hunting ofdeclining bird species during thebreeding season was passedthrough parliament allegedly as aresult of pressure from KNAPK.

Such policy is undermining theinitiatives of the campaign andcould scare off donors andsupporters.

The decision ignores the adviceof the biologists from the Instituteof Natural Resources in Nuuk, theTulugaq campaign and local NGOs,such as Timmiaq (ornithologists),and also Greenland Tourism, whichis very concerned aboutGreenland’s image amongsttourists.

International NGOs like WWFand Bird Life International havevoiced their concern in letters to theGovernment and to the parlia-ment’s standing committee onconservation issues.

ANNE-MARIE BJERG, a.bjerg@wwf.dk and THOR HJARSEN, thor@ecoadvise.dk

on huntingBirds are not the only wildlife inGreenland suffering from a lack ofsensible management to ensure asustainable harvest. Other speciesinclude beluga whales and walrus.

Since the mid-1990s internationalmarine mammals management coun-cils have urged Greenlanders toreduce beluga whaling. From the 1950sthe West Greenland beluga populationhas decreased by around 75 percent.

In 2000 biologists from theGreenlandic Institute of NaturalResources calculated the outcome ofthe current whaling at 600 to 700belugas annually: in just 15–20 yearsthe beluga stock in westernGreenland will disappear if today’scatch levels continue.

The biologists advised the HomeRule Government to reduce thecatch to 100 whales a year to avoidfurther decline.

In spite of this, the GreenlandicVice-minister of Hunting, Settlementsand Agriculture Amalie Jessen recentlytold the Greenlandic press that aquota on beluga whaling will be set inlate 2003 at 400 belugas a year.

Walrus are also hunted intensivelyin Greenland.There are now only twohaul-out sites left.These are innorthwestern Greenland in theNational Park.All other haul-out siteshave been abandoned.

In the early part of the 20thcentury walrus basked on the cliffs atmany sites along Greenland’s westcoast – one just opposite the capitalof Nuuk.

The current hunt of about 410animals (not including losses) a year ismainly taken from the Canadianpopulation passing on drift-ice closeto the Greenlandic shores.

During hunts many animals arekilled and in some cases 60–75 percent of all shot walrus sink due toimproper hunting gear.

According to the biologists thewalrus catch in Greenland shouldimmediately be reduced to no morethan 50 animals per year to besustainable.

Regardless of this serious declineno quotas are in place and largeamounts of carved walrus tusks andskulls are still on sale in Greenlandicsouvenir shops.

To certify this trade an unre-stricted amount of pre-issued CITES-export permits are handed out bysouvenir shops in Greenland.This iswithout doubt a violation of theinternational CITES regulations.

WWF Denmark is currentlypreparing a report on what is wrongwith Greenlandic nature conservationand wildlife management.

Other wildlife issues ignored by the Greenlandic government

6 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

After losing a vote in the USSenate in March, proponentsof oil drilling in the Arctic

Refuge have shifted their focusfrom the budget process (see AB1.03 page 20) to authorising legis-lation designed to establish a newnational energy policy.

Conservationists celebrating thevictory for the wildlife refuge weredeflated in April when the House ofRepresentatives voted on a provi-sion in the energy bill that wouldallow development in the sensitivearea.

But managers of the energy billthat is now being debated in the100-member Senate have refused toconsider the drilling measure.

Based on the outcome of thevote in March and a similar vote lastyear, Refuge drilling proponents are12 votes shy of the minimum neces-sary in the Senate.

When bills passed by the twobodies are different, a conferencecommittee is established to resolvethe differences. House and Senatemembers must vote again to acceptthe final bill. Thus, conferees arealmost certain to object toincluding a drilling provision dueto Senate opposition that couldbring down the entire bill.

The reality of the legislativehurdles to be surmounted or publicopinion polls that consistentlyshow a majority of Americans areopposed to development in theArctic Refuge has not dissuadeddrilling advocates from pressuringSenate opponents to change theirposition.

The State of Alaska continues topour money into Washington DC-based lobbying and public relationsfirms to target senators theyconsider persuadable.

The Bush administration also isweighing in with a formal policystatement on the Senate energy billthat makes a plea to senators to adda drilling provision during consid-eration on the floor.

The timing for concluding debateon the energy bill is uncertain, but itwill take several months or even dragon until next year. Wildlife such asthe Porcupine caribou herd andmillions of nesting birds that arefound in refuge each summer aresafe this year.

WWF, other conservationgroups, and labour, religious andNative American organisations willcontinue efforts to protect thewildlife refuge in the NationalWilderness Preservation System,placing the area permanently off-limits to oil development.

RANDALL D. SNODGRASSrandy.snodgrass@wwfus.org

Arctic Refuge safe for nowPh

oto:

Ken

Mad

sen/

WW

F U

S

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 News 7

Norway has become a pioneernation for the protection ofcoldwater coral reefs.

Although an estimated 30 to 50percent of Norwegian coral reefsare already damaged – mainly as aresult of bottom-trawling – fish-ermen, fishing authorities and theNorwegian Government have nowrecognised the importance of coralreefs for fisheries and the future useof marine resources.

In contrast to other North EastAtlantic countries, Norway hastaken measures to protect theremaining reefs.

Several known reefs, includingthe world’s largest known coldwaterreef (the Røst reef ), have beenprotected against harmful fisheriesactivities. A marine conservationplan is under development toprovide additional protection to thereefs and other vulnerable marinehabitats.

Norway also promotes improved

coral conservation in importantregional and international environ-mental negotiations.

WWF has recognised Norway’scoral reef protection as a Gift to theEarth, the organisation’s highestaccolade for applauding a signifi-cant contribution to the protectionof the living world.

Few people know about the largeand beautiful coral reefs whichgrow on the seafloor off theNorwegian coast. Some of thesereefs are more than 8000 years old,and their growth is extremely slow.As a result, damage to the reefs isdisastrous.

The reefs play an importantecological role as nursing groundsfor several fish species. More than750 different organisms have beenfound on the coral reefs throughoutthe North East Atlantic. The coralreefs are among Europe’s richestnatural habitats.

WWF has, to date, recognized 85

Gifts to the Earth since this initia-tive was launched in 1996. This willbe the first time Norwegian author-ities receive this recognition fromWWF.

DAG NAGODA, dnagoda@wwf.no

Map

:Nor

weg

ian

Inst

itute

of M

arin

e R

esea

rch.

Conservation issues did notfeature prominently in therecent Icelandic general

election. However, the newIcelandic Government has said thatplans for a national park north ofthe Vatnajökull Glacier will bepursued.

And conservation issues andenvironmental issues, such asclimate change, are likely to occupyIcelandic parliamentarians over thenext four years just as much as theydid between 1999 and 2003.

Prior to the elections the IcelandNature Conservation Association(INCA) sent all political parties a

list of questions, asking for theirpolicies on some 11 key conserva-tion issues. All parties agreed thatpristine unspoiled nature is one ofIceland’s great resources.

It was also encouraging to seethat all parties do support new andlarger protected areas: in particulara new national park north of theVatnajökull Glacier, including theJökulsá River with Europe’e largestwaterfall, Dettifoss, along withEyjabakkar. In particular, theProgressive Party put this policyinto its election proposal.

The new Government declara-tion states that plans for a national

park north of the VatnajökullGlacier will be pursued. In line withthe Nature Conservation Act, theEnvironment and Food Agencyrecently published a draft NatureConservation Plan for the next fiveyears.

This plan recommends thatEyjabakkar is protected along withother areas north of the VatnajökullGlacier. The draft will be discussedand adopted by the Parliament nextautumn.

ARNI FINNSSONarnif@mmedia.is

Hope for Iceland’s future

Norway reef conservation recognised

The Røst reef is theworld’s largest cold-water reef.

Phot

o:Er

ling

Sven

sen

8 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

Huge reductions in fossil-fuelcarbon emissions will berequired by the middle of

this century, according to a studypublished in the March 28 issue ofthe journal Science.

“To reduce carbon dioxide emis-sions and avoid dangerous interfer-ence with the climate system, wemust switch to alternative, carbon-free energy sources,” said Atul Jain,a professor of atmospheric sciencesat the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign and a co-author of the Science study.

The study found that even ifclimate sensitivity is in the low end

of the accepted range, climate stabi-lization will require a massive tran-sition to carbon-emission-freeenergy technologies during thiscentury.

Climate sensitivity is the globalmean temperature change thatwould result from doubling theamount of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere. Based on currentmodels, climate sensitivity isthought to lie between 1.5 degreesCelsius and 4.5 degrees Celsius.

In their study, the researchersconstructed stabilization pathwaysthat led to a two degrees Celsiuswarming after the year 2150. For

each of the pathways, they calcu-lated the allowable carbon dioxidelevels using a globally aggregatedEarth system model called theIntegrated Science AssessmentModel.

If climate sensitivity is at thehigh end of the range, then by theend of this century nearly all of ourpower will have to come from non-carbon-dioxide-emitting sources,the researchers found.

“We must begin replacing fossilfuels with alternative energy tech-nologies that support economicgrowth and equity,” Jain said. “Toachieve stabilization at a 2 degree

To control climate change, alternative e

The Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Programme(AMAP) is developing a new

five-year strategic plan.AMAP will not produce

comprehensive contaminantsassessments during this period.Instead, it will focus on monitoringkey substances and producingreports on important topics, suchas mercury contamination.

AMAP is responsible for moni-toring the levels of, and assessingthe effects of, anthropogenic pollu-tants in the arctic environment.

Delegates to the AMAP workinggroup meeting in Boulder,Colorado in the US from May12–14, suggested the followingfuture directions for AMAP:• Monitoring of and a report on

levels, trends and pathways ofnew/current use chemicals.

• Continued monitoring of levels,trends and pathways ofsubstances covered by interna-tional agreements, so as to trackimplementation of Stockholmand the Long RangeTransboundary Air Pollutionprotocols (LRTAP) has beenasked by United NationsEnvironment Programme

(UNEP) Chemicals to providearctic monitoring informationrelevant to Stockholm.

• A report on human health andcontaminants, focusing on whatis known about dietary consid-erations (benefits of countryfood contra risks from contami-nants, as well as alternatives) andmitigation.

• Monitoring of and a report onmercury (due 2006), includinglevels, trends and effects.

• Effects of POPs and heavy metalson arctic wildlife.

• Monitoring of trends and effectsof climate change on arctic biodi-versity (a follow-up to the ArcticClimate Impact Assessment), forexample UV/climate changeeffects on wildlife.

AMAP working group memberswill review the AMAP 2002 reportto identify key strategic issues, suchas those mentioned above, andgenerate a set of strategic goals.

The deadline for providing inputto this process is the end of August.There may be a new AMAPmeeting in November or Decemberof 2003 to discuss and approve thestrategic plan.

Arctic oil and gas assessmentAt the last Arctic Council meeting,Ministers asked AMAP to producean assessment of oil and gas activi-ties in the Arctic, for delivery in2006. The US has since successfullyargued for including social andeconomic impacts, particularlybeneficial ones, in the assessment.

At this stage, it looks as if theassessment will have three mainthemes: pollution levels, trends,sources, pathways and effects(including PAHs, productionchemicals and produced water);direct impacts on biodiversity, suchas fragmentation and habitatdisruption; and social andeconomic consequences.

An international conference,with likely industry participation,will be a part of the assessmentprocess. The conference willprovide some input to the assess-ment, but will also be a forum fordialogue.

A draft outline of the assessmentwill now go back to the ArcticCouncil, for discussion andapproval in October 2003.

SAMANTHA SMITH, ssmith@wwf.no

Five-year plan for AMAP will focuson monitoring and reporting

WWF’s International ArcticProgramme has awardedits prestigious WWF

Arctic Award for Linking Tourismand Conservation 2002 and prizemoney worth 8,000 USD toSvalbard Villmarkssenter.

Svalbard Villmarkssenter, basedin Longyearbyen, Svalbard is asmall, family-run business basedaround dogsledding and hikingtrips.

The company, run by husbandand wife team Karl and Berit HoleVåtvik, are active campaigners forconservation: for the last ten yearsthey have campaigned for non-motorised tourism in Svalbard inresponse to the increased use ofsnow-mobiles by other tour opera-tors.

They have also opposed plans tobuild a road to link two miningcommunities on Svalbard. Theroad, which would have ruinedReindalen, a beautiful and biologi-cally-rich valley, is now set tobecome a protected area within thenext year.

Samantha Smith, director ofWWF’s Arctic Programme, said:“We are delighted to award our 2002Arctic Award to SvalbardVillmarkssenter. They are an excel-lent example of how tourism canwork in harmony with conservation.

“They serve locallyproduced food, use handmade sleds, tents andclothes, are committed torecycling and work hard toshare the local culture asmuch as local nature withtheir guests. They showthat with commitmentand hard work small busi-nesses can survive in alarger commercial settingand stake out the path forfuture sustainabletourism.”

The runner-up prizefor the 2002 WWF ArcticAward goes to CanoeArctic Inc, from FortSmith, NorthwestTerritories, Canada. CanoeArctic Inc. is a one-persontourism business foundedin 1974 by biologist andcampaigning conservationist AlexHall who offers guided canoe tripsacross the uninhabited regions ofthe Barren Lands of Canada’sNorthwest Territories (NWT) andNunavut Territory.

Previous winners of the ArcticAward were Alaska WildlandAdventures from Alaska in 2001,Lappland Safari from Finland in2000, and Arctic Treks from Alaskain 1999.

The Award was established in1999 by WWF’s InternationalArctic Programme to reward arctictourism with an outstandingcommitment to conservation. TheAward has been made possiblethrough the sponsorship of HeidiAndersson, a former vice presidentof the board of trustees of WWFFinland.

JULIAN WOOLFORD, jwoolford@wwf.no

Husband and wife win tourism prizeWWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 News 9

energy technologies must be developedCelsius warming, we would need tobring the equivalent of a largecarbon-emission-free power plantinto production somewhere in theworld every day for the next 50years.”

WWF released a report in May,offering a blueprint for a climate-safe power sector. The report, LowCarbon Electricity Systems, identi-fies feasible ways to substantiallyreduce CO emissions byincreasing the share of new renew-ables to up to 50 per cent of thetotal energy supply.

The WWF report shows thatwith effective programmes for both

reducing energy demand and stim-ulating investment in renewableenergy, carbon neutrality for theentire power sector in the EU canbe achieved by 2040.

Large power companies are in aprime place to move the worldalong that track. In Germany, forexample, 50 per cent of old powerstations are due to be replaced inthe near future – the question iswhether the new stations will usedirty coal or clean and efficientrenewable energy.

The major challenge for energypolicymakers will be to design andstimulate an effective market and

implement programmes for energyefficiency and “new renewable”energy technologies – wind, sustain-able biomass, and solar energy.

Substantial changes to energypolicies, energy taxes, and marketincentives are required to meet thechallenging targets set by WWF. Suchchanges will also ensure achievementof the Kyoto Protocol targets and setEurope on track for the deeper cutsrequired in the future.

For more information seewww.panda.org/powerswitch

LYNN ROSENTRATER,lrosentrater@wwf.no

Karl and Berit Hole Våtvik

10 News WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

Artists, writers and photogra-phers from across Canadaand North America will join

members of Yukon and NorthwestTerritories First Nations’ commu-nities on voyages down three riversin the Peel Watershed in July

Launched by the Canadian Parksand Wilderness Society (CPAWS)in cooperation with First Nationcommunity participants in Mayoand Ft McPherson, the Three RiversJourney will take 36 paddlers downthe Snake, Wind and Bonnet PlumeRivers to drive home the power ofthe wild river landscape and itscultural significance.

“We are delighted to be workingwith members of the community ofMayo and the Tetl’it Gwich’in FirstNation to bring together northernpeople and notable Canadians to

celebrate and conserve one of themost extraordinary places inCanada’s north – the Three Riversand the greater Peel watershed,”said Juri Peepre, Executive Directorof CPAWS-Yukon.

But the journeys are only thefirst part of the celebratory effort.The voices and images of the Peelwatershed, will tour through theNorth and major Canadian citiessending a vital message on conser-vation.

The artists will be producingwork inspired by their river experi-ence and those works will becollected into an exhibit whichCPAWS, in partnership with theYukon Conservation Society andYukon Arts Centre, plans to tourthroughout Canada and the Northin 2004. The Wilderness Tourism

Association is a co-sponsor of theevent.

“This is the most interesting andunusual project CPAWS-Yukon hashad the privilege to participate in –the Three Rivers Journey isunprecedented in the Yukon, sinceit brings together First Nations,community people and conserva-tionists with artists, photographersand writers from across Canada,”added Peepre.

The Three Rivers Journey beginson July 22nd and ends with anElder’s Gathering on August 7. Thetrips will start with a send-off inMayo, while Elders from Ft.McPherson will travel up the PeelRiver by river boat to join thepaddlers for the Gathering.

JULIAN WOOLFORD, jwoolford@wwf.no

River expeditions highlight heritage

The Deh Cho First Nationsand the Government ofCanada have received an

international conservation honourfor withdrawing a vast tract of landfrom industrial development in theNorthwest Territories’ MackenzieValley.

This pristine sub-arctic region ishome to the Deh Cho peoples aswell as to huge populations ofwildlife including caribou, grizzlybears, and migratory birds.

These intact wildlife habitats areimportant watersheds and hunting,trapping and fishing areas for theDeh Cho – resources that havesustained them for thousands ofyears.

WWF is officially recognizing

this as an internationally significantGift to the Earth. Representatives ofthe government of Canada and theDeh Cho First Nations met in FortProvidence, NWT, to sign the LandWithdrawal and an InterimResource Management Agreement.

This major habitat and culturalconservation step is especiallyimportant because it comes inadvance of finalising plans for anatural gas pipeline along theMackenzie Valley.

“This is a tremendous achieve-ment in an area coming undersignificant pressure for industrialdevelopment,” said Bill Carpenter,WWF-Canada’s NorthwestTerritories Conservation Director.“I’d like to congratulate GrandChief Michael Nadli, the Deh ChoElders, the Deh Cho negotiatingteam and the Government ofCanada on outstanding work.”

Unlike the situation 30 years ago,most aboriginal groups nowsupport the development of a gaspipeline in the Mackenzie Valley –but not at any cost. Under today’sinterim land withdrawal, aboutseven million hectares will beprotected from any industrialactivity for five years, while more

detailed assessments of resourcesare completed for these areas.

In total, taking into account twoprevious land withdrawals, 10.1million hectares (nearly half theDeh Cho lands) will be protected.The land withdrawal does allow forthe possibility of a futureMackenzie Valley gas pipeline.

“This is a fundamental and verywelcome shift in policy for thefederal government, which WWFstrongly supports,” said Dr. PeterEwins, WWF-Canada’s ArcticDirector.“It’s a major expression ofthe government’s support fortaking a conservation-firstapproach, which is rooted innorthern Aboriginal land claimsand traditional values. The govern-ment is recognising that protectionof key cultural and wildlife areasmust come first, before frontierareas are developed. This is clearlya minimum requirement to meetthe principles and commitments ofsustainable development.”

A Gift to the Earth is a distinc-tion reserved by WWF for environ-mental efforts of global signifi-cance.

PETE EWINSpewins@wwfcanada.org

Honours for NWT’s Deh Cho First NPh

oto:

M.H

obso

n

Caribou

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 News 11

The two northern-most metalmines in the world are closing;Cominco’s Polaris mine on

Little Cornwallis Island andCanZinco’s Nanisivik mine on thenorthwest tip of Baffin Island, bothin the Canadian Arctic archipelago.Yet at the same time the pace ofdevelopment in Canada’s north isincreasing.

Against this background, WWF-Canada co-sponsored the 7thInternational Symposium onMining in the Arctic in Iqaluit,Nunavut recently, to collaboratewith industry and government toensure that the pace of develop-ment does not prevent options forconservation, in particular habitatprotection in some the world’sremaining pristine ecosystems.

Other sponsors at the sympo-

sium, which looks at mineraleconomics, exploration and miningoperations were Falconbridge, BHPBilliton Diamonds, NaturalResources Canada and theGovernment of Nunavut.

WWF set out the case for proac-tive regional planning as part of theoverall development process. TheWWF presentation sessionincluded two speakers from WWFand two presentations describingcollaborations with environmentalnon-government organisations andthe mining industry (MiningAssociation of Canada and IncoLtd.).

At the suggestion of WWF, theSymposium organisers alsoincluded an open panel discussionon a “balanced approach to miningdevelopment in Nunavut”. This

session opened with remarks by theCommissioner for Nunavut, PeterIrniq, who talked about the impor-tance of balancing the traditionaland new economies.

Monte Hummel, President ofWWF-Canada, participated in thepresentations and discussion withindustry and government represen-tatives. The almost singular focuson the mining sector to generateeconomic rent in Nunavut was aclear message from managers andleaders in Nunavut.

This series of symposia began inFairbanks, Alaska in 1989 and hasbeen held every two years in otherlocations including Russia,Svalbard, and Greenland.

TONY IACOBELLItiacobelli@wwfcanada.org

Conservationists engage miners

ations and Government of Canada

Phot

o:P.

Jalk

otzy

MackenzieValley

In October 2000, after severalyears’ negotiation, Russia andthe United States signed anagreement On the Conservationand Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population.But despite international,national and regional support –particularly within Alaska – thetreaty has yet to be ratified.Implementing legislation for thetreaty is long overdue.There are an estimated 2,000 to 5,000polar bears in the Alaska-Chukotkapolar bear population. Their range iswide: along north-eastern Siberia’sChukotka Peninsula, on the ice andislands and near shore areas of theChukchi and northern Bering seas, andin north-west Alaska.

Conservation efforts have beenhampered by a lack of adequate coor-dinated management and fundingacross the US-Russia boundary. Thepolar bear agreement of 2000 was a

critical step forward in overcomingthese obstacles, restricting hunting ofthis population for the first time andinstituting a system to sustainablymanage the Alaska-Chukotka polarbear population.

Currently a wide range of threats tothe bears and their habitat continues topose concern to conservationists.Climate change, toxic contamination,poaching, habitat loss, oil spills, and thedisruption of their food chain causedby fisheries mismanagement areamong those factors that may adverselyaffect the polar bear’s future.

More urgent, however, is the illegalhunting occurring on the Russian sideof the Bering Sea. In Russia currently,any hunting of the polar bear – even forsubsistence, is illegal. However,according to local Russian experts (seefeature p. 13) monitoring the situationon the ground, around 250 bears havebeen harvested annually in recent years.Although the main motivation for

taking polar bears in Russia is for food,many of the hides from these animalsare entering commercial markets ille-gally and acting to fuel harvest demand.

In the 1950s in the United States,sport hunting of polar bears at thesame or lower levels severely depletedthe polar bear population, whichfinally gained protection under theMarine Mammal Protection Act.

In Russia, the polar bear is listed inthe Russian Red Book of Rare andEndangered Species. (Because thispopulation is listed as Category V,“recovered” it is eligible to be hunted).

The new bi-lateral agreement is crit-ical to establishing a sanctionedprogram of management and enforce-ment of subsistence-use onlyharvesting. It specifically bans thehunting of bears in dens or femaleswith cubs and prohibits the use ofpoison, traps and snares, as well as theuse of aircraft or large motorizedvessels or vehicles to hunt polar bears.

The agreement also authoriseslimited hunting by native peoples forsubsistence purposes, and creates abilateral commission to determine andallocate annual harvest quotas andrequires monitoring and enforcementto protect against the kind of polarbear population decline that might

What does the future hold for

12 a WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

What happened to thepolar bear agreement?

A deadpolar bear:symbol of a bleakfuture?

Phot

o:N

ikita

Ovs

yani

kov

Wrangel Island?

Nikita Ovsyanikov, deputy directorand senior research scientist ofthe Wrangel Island State NatureReserve, gives a personal viewon the status of the polar bearon Wrangel

Polar bears on the Chukotka side of theChukchi Sea are under threat. Thesummer and autumn of 2002 monthsin Chukchi Sea region were particu-larly bad for the bear population. Thesea ice started to break up in the watersaround Wrangel Island by mid August.By the end of August, only small fieldsof broken ice floes could be seen in thewestern part of Chukchi Sea, easternpart of the East-Siberian Sea and in theLong Strait.

This meant many polar bears thatwere hunting near Wrangel Island wereforced to land on the island. Many ofthe bears stranded on Wrangel islandduring the autumn of 2002 werestarving.

I observed a higher proportion of‘skinny’ bears than ever before, and ahigher mortality rate than usual. Outof a total of 85 bears we recorded

during this autumn season, three diedon the coast of Wrangel Island.

In open sea situations, such as thoseof autumn 2002, the polar bears’ mainfood – seals – become unavailable. Theonly prey stranded bears can find arewalruses. This autumn, however,walruses did not haul out on WrangelIsland.

Walrus numbers near the coast ofWrangel island were unusually low –the highest number I observed nearCape Blossom and Doubtful Spit(traditional walrus haul out sites atWrangel island) did not exceed 300animals at any one time, and even thesewalruses remained near the coast foronly a few days at a time.

For most of the time, there wereonly a few walruses swimming backand forth along the beach; few of themhauled out. As result, stranded polarbears had nothing to hunt and lookedhungry.

By the end of November, after myobservations on Wrangel Island werefinished and I could leave the island forthe mainland, I collected more infor-mation on the ice conditions and polar

Polar bears in Chukotkaoccur at the hands of poachers orcommercial hunters.

A central part is the direct roleRussian and Alaskan native subsistencehunters will have in the implementationof the agreement, thereby providingincentives to become more involved inthe conservation of their own wildlife.

The area covered by the new agree-ment includes Wrangel and HeraldIslands in the Chukchi Sea. The twoislands are the most important onshoredenning habitat for polar bears in thecircumpolar Arctic, and together theyharbour around 80 percent of thebreeding female polar bears in theAlaska-Chukotka population.

Margaret Williams, director ofWWF’s Bering Sea EcoregionProgramme, says: “WWF and theAudubon Society’s Alaska Office areconcerned about any further delays inthe treaty’s ratification. In hopes ofmoving the implementing legislationinto the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee – the next step required inthe treaty process – we are sending lettersand conducting visits on Capitol Hill tokey members of the Senate ForeignRelations Committee.” (See also inter-view on page 21.)

MARGARET WILLIAMSmargaret.williams@wwfus.org ➤

Phot

o:N

ikita

Ovs

yani

kov

14 Wrangel Island WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

Later this month, the World HeritageCommittee votes on whether or notto add Wrangel Island in the Russian

High Arctic to its list of World Heritagesites. The signs are good.

Yet Wrangel Island State Nature Reservecontinues to suffer from inadequatefunding. One of the major problems is thatthere is no money to pay for adequate airtravel between the island and the mainlandwhere the reserve´s office is based. It´s alsodifficult to patrol the island as transporta-tion is limited and fuel scarce.

Nevertheless research on the islandcontinues with three major projects onthe population dynamics of snow geese,

polar bears and predators such as snowyowls and arctic foxes. Research on muskoxen has also increased.

And scientists running the reserve arealso making every effort to expand theterritory of protected areas in thesurrounding region. They are planning toestablish two new zakazniks on the northcoast of western Chukotka. The newzakazniks will be administered by theWrangel Island team.

One of these sites lies at the mouth ofPegtimel River. It covers an area of around2,200 sq.km on the western part of theValkarnai lowlands and includes lowmountains in the watershed of the

Pegtimel and Kuul’-Innukai rivers, thelower reaches of the Regtimel and Kuul’-Innukai rivers and parts of the coast of theAachim peninsula with its characteristicsand deposits.

The site is rich in archeological remainsand biodiversity. Pegtimel petroglyphsand two to three thousand-year-old Inuitdrawings can be found on the sea coast atShalaurova Izba, Aachim peninsula andcape Veuman. It is also home to 22 birdspecies (eight of which are on the IUCNRed List of Threatened Species), and 12mammal species (two of which – the polarbear and snow sheep – are on the IUCNlist).

bear activity in the region. Autumn2002 turned to be the worst of thelast decade for polar bears.

Due to the ice patterns in the seaand the prevailing directions ofwinds during late summer andautumn, the majority of walrusesand relatively large proportion ofpolar bears, had missed WrangelIsland and landed on the northcoast of Chukotka. It was fatal forboth walruses and polar bears.

Walruses hauled out at anunusual place on the north coast ofChukotka, between Cape Schmidtand the native village of Vankarem.Previously, walruses have neverbeen reported hauling out there.Yetthis time they formed a big coastalrookery.

During September, when thenumber of walruses at the rookerywas high, many walruses died instampedes. Some of these stam-pedes may have been caused bynative hunters, as natural death atwalrus coastal rookeries withoutanthropogenically-caused stam-pedes is not normally high.

The number of stranded polarbears along the north coast ofChukotka was high. It was the firstautumn that a few polar bears evenentered Pevek town. As a result, theillegal harvest of polar bears on theChukotka north coast during theautumn of 2002 was higher thanduring any previous years, withprobably twice the usual illegaltake. Experts’ estimate of the illegalpolar bear take in 2002 in Chukotkawas between 250 to 300 animals.

At least five polar bear skins wereready for the black market in Pevek

by December and January. Manymore remained stored and waitingfor sale in small villages along thenorth coast. At least three polarbears are known to have been shoton Aion Island.

The illegal take has little to dowith traditional subsistence, as itappears to be purely for illegalcommercial use. Preliminary exam-ination of polar bear pelts for saleon Russian websites indicates thatthe number of polar bear skins putup for sale during last winter ishigher than ever before.

Threats to polar bears areserious. Global warming andrelated changes in ice patterns inarctic seas are increasing theimpacts on polar bear populationsall over the Arctic. The Alaska-Chukchi population is no excep-tion.

The fact that more bears arevisiting the northern coast ofChukotka does not reflect theincrease in the number of polar

bears, but rather the growingimpact on bears from the reducedice cover during the summer toautumn seasons.

Full and exact implementationof US-Russian agreement “On theConservation and Management ofthe Alaska-Chukotka Polar BearPopulation” is urgently needed.This treaty is critical for creatingefficient mechanisms to monitorand enforce subsistence-use onlyharvesting.

The issue is too serious to beignored or dealt with superficially.Measures for the realisation ofAgreement terms must beadequate.

Conservation organisationsshould be also be involved in moni-toring the poaching of polar bearsin Chukotka, and other areas.

NIKITA OVSYANIKOV, deputy director and senior research scientist,

Wrangel Island State Nature Reserve

Wrangel a World Heritage site?

➤

� Editor’s note: in the 1990s, when state funding of the Wrangel Reserve wasdramatically cut, polar bear studies could only continue thanks to the supportof Polar Bears International (previously called Polar Bears Alive). In 2002,additional grants for field research were provided by the International Fund forAnimal Welfare. Now WWF-Russia is working with the Wrangel Island NatureReserve on polar bear conservation and helping to create additional protectedterritories on the north coast of Chukotka. In 2002,WWF funded productionof public information materials about the protected status of the polar bear inthe Russian Arctic and advice on avoiding polar bear-human conflicts. Posterand flyers are now being distributed in Chukotka and across the RussianArctic.WWF is also working with Wrangel scientists to monitor websiteswhich are advertising polar bear skins for sale.The monitoring is nearingcompletion and results are being processed as the Arctic Bulletin goes to press.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 Wrangel Island 15

In autumn 2002, scientists onWrangel Island finallyconfirmed that wolves had

successfully settled on the island.In the history of Wrangel Island,

wolves have attempted to colonisethe island but were always extermi-nated by humans. The last attempttook place in late 1970s and early1980s when a couple of wolves

reached the island, started breedingand went as far as forming a pack ofeight animals.

Then, under pressure from theSoviet Hunting State Committeebureaucracy, the former adminis-tration of the reserve was forced toshoot most of the pack members –four in 1982, and three in 1983.

The last survivor from that pack

disappeared. After that, one wolfwas recorded on the island in thesummer of 1994, but was probablya loner that did not settle there.Without wolves, the ecosystem ofWrangel island, with two species oflarge ungulates – reindeer andmusk oxen – was incomplete. Thekey component, a large predatorlike the wolf, was missing.

The second area is the Chaun lowland.The suggested territory of 4,500 sq.km liesin the central part of Rauchua-ChaunDepression, on the border between Chaunand Rauchua lowlands. The area includesall the main types of landscapes that arecharacteristic of the eastern periphery ofthe maritime lowland of Chaun Bay.

If the reserve is recognised, largenumbers of resident and migratory birdswill be protected: out of 30 of the residentbreeding bird species, ten are included inthe IUCN list. The area is also home to 12large and medium-sized mammal species(two of which are on the IUCN list).

Plans to extend the Wrangel Reserve toinclude these satellite reserves have beenapproved by the Chukotka administrativeauthorities. The plans are being consid-ered. If these two satellite reserves areincluded, the Wrangel Island State Nature

Reserve will have the status of a BiosphereNature Reserve.

NIKITA OVSYANIKOV, deputy director and senior research scientist,

Wrangel Island State Nature Reserve

1 This international agreement, signed to date bymore than175 states, was adopted by the GeneralConference of UNESCO in 1972. Its primarymission is to define and conserve the world’sheritage, by drawing up a list of sites whoseoutstanding values should be preserved for allhumanity and to ensure their protection through acloser co-operation among nations.2 A zakaznik is a non-permanent protected areaestablished at a regional level with a lowerprotected area status than a zapovednik.Azapovednik, like Wrangel island, is a permanentfederally-protected area with the highest level ofprotection. Research is allowed but no otherhuman presence or use is permitted.

170° 175° 180° 185°

70°

72°

Wrangel Island

Pegtimel Refuge

Chaun Refuge

0 50 100

km

➤

Call of the wild on Wrangel

Phot

o:N

ikita

Ovs

yani

kov

16 Wrangel Island/Cod WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

Then, in early spring 2000, freshwolf tracks were found on theisland. It looked like a couple ofwolves had reached the island bycrossing the frozen straits from themainland in late winter.

During the summer of 2000 werecorded the tracks of this pair(large and medium-sized footprints) practically everywhere – atany place visited by fieldresearchers. Evidently, that yearwolves were non-breeders but theyappeared to be actively exploringthe entire island. Signs of theirsuccessful hunts on reindeer wererecorded too.

Then in 2001 signs of their pres-ence on the island abruptly disap-peared. During the whole of 2001,no one from the reserve found anyevidence of wolves’ presence on theisland. Three scenarios werepossible to explain their absence:(1) Wolves had left the island (theleast believable given the abun-dance of food and protection frompersecution); (2) One or both ofthe wolves died (possibly as a resultof arctic rabies caught from arcticfoxes); (3) They started breedingand settled quietly in one of themore remote areas away from ourfield research sites.

This third scenario wassupported in the summer of 2001when it appeared that all the majorherds of reindeer moved to remotecoastal areas after the snows hadmelted, and were not recorded nearfield research stations again untilautumn.

In Summer 2002, the picture wassimilar – no signs of wolf presencewere found in areas covered by fieldobservations. So, I suggested that ifthey had settled and were breeding

on the island, autumn 2002 wouldreveal them.

The first record was made in lateSeptember. Conducting my usualobservations on polar bears at CapeBlossom, I detected a wolf-likeanimal running along by the frontof a reindeer herd and approachinganother dark colored animal of thesame appearance. Unfortunatelythey were too far away and it wastoo dark to be sure of what I wasseeing.

Two days later I found wolf liketracks on fresh snow at the samespot, but again the tracks had partlymelted and were still not the 100percent proof I needed.

One day later, while travellingfrom Cape Blossom to GusinayaRiver, I finally found the clear tracksof a wolf pack.

Wolves had walked along thevalley of Neozhidannaya Riveracross fresh, well frozen snow. Theirtracks were very clear and left nodoubt in my mind. Three of thoseseven tracks were left by adultwolves, three others clearlybelonged to pups of about a yearold. One could have been that ofsmall yearling, or well grown pup.It was proof that wolves had settledon the island, and bred for thesecond year.

The re-colonisation of wolveshere is tremendously exciting: onWrangel Island we now have aunique opportunity to study howthe wolves behave in their newhabitat, free from human interfer-ence. It’s a new chapter in thehistory of the reserve.

NIKITA OVSYANIKOV, Deputy director and senior research scientist,

Wrangel Island State Nature Reserve

➤

Canada’s coNew endangered designations

and fisheries closuresmarked yet more dismal

news in the history of Atlantic Codin Canada. On May 2, 2003 theCommittee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada(COSEWIC) listed cod stocks innortheast Newfoundland andLabrador as Endangered, those inthe northern Gulf of St. Lawrenceand south coast of Newfoundlandas Threatened and the remainingMaritime and Arctic stocks asSpecial Concern.

Newfoundland and Labradorcod populations (NAFO Divisions2GH, 2J3KL, 3NO) are endangeredbecause they are at historic lowlevels in both inshore and offshorewaters. The Endangered designa-tion means the species is facingimminent extirpation or extinc-tion. Cod have declined in theseareas by more than 99 percent sincethe early 1960s when record catchesof up to 800,000 tonnes wereharvested. Cod in the offshorewaters have not shown any recoveryin either abundance or in age struc-ture since the fishing moratoriumin the early 1990s.

Cod in the Laurentian Northpopulation (NAFO Divisions 3Ps,3Pn4RS) received a Threateneddesignation, which means they arelikely to become endangered iflimiting factors are not reversed.This population has declined by 80percent over the past 30 years.There still remains a commercialfishery in southern Newfoundland(NAFO Division 3Ps) with a totalallowable catch of 15,000 tonnes ineach of the last three years.

The Arctic (NAFO Subarea 0)and Maritimes populations of cod(NAFO Divisions 4TVn, 4VsW, 4X,5Zc) received the Special Concerndesignation indicating they areparticularly sensitive to humanactivities or natural events. In theentire Maritimes region cod havedeclined by 14 percent in the past30 years and are at historic lowlevels on the eastern Scotian Shelf,despite a moratorium since themid-1990s. Active fisheries exist onthe western Scotian Shelf, Gulf ofMaine and Bay of Fundy. The Arctic

Musk ox:part ofWrangelecosystem.Ph

oto:

Nik

ita O

vsya

niko

v

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 Cod 17

population consists of occurrencesin a few coastal salt lakes and mayonly number in the thousands ofindividuals. Fishing is poorly regu-lated and there is considerableuncertainty as to their distributionand abundance.

Threats to persistence for codinclude directed fishing (whereallowed), bycatch in other fisheriesand natural and fishing-inducedchanges to the ecosystem.Predation, especially by harp andgrey seals, is considered by many tobe a major factor preventingrecovery but proposed solutionsremain controversial. The harp sealpopulation has grown to recordhighs from two to over five millionin the last thirty years and theamount of cod they eat is estimatedat two to 20 percent of their diet.

While Harp seals do eat large quan-tities of cod in Newfoundland,Labrador and northern Gulf of St.Lawrence waters, the impact on codrecovery is unknown.

The bad news on the status ofCanadian cod populations rein-forced the recent announcement bythe Canadian government to indef-initely close nearly all the remainingfisheries east of Halifax, NovaScotia. This decision, combinedwith the 1990s NAFO closures ofthe nose and tail of the GrandBanks, brought dwindling quotasto an end, but not without socialand political upheaval. Fishermenburned the Canadian flag in protestand Newfoundland politiciansdemanded that the governmentrenegotiate the terms of union withthe rest of Canada.

The state of this once mightyfishery and the emotional responseto fishing moratoria should now befamiliar to most people. Cod wasnot like any other fishery. Itsprofound cultural significancemade the prolonged collapse evenmore tragic. And now, on the tenthanniversary of the 1992 morato-rium, the frequently asked question“Why haven’t the cod come back?”has been answered with the grimstatistics of these most recentclosures and designations.

Commercial recovery, if it occursat all, may take many more decades.No one can predict what cod popu-lations will look like in the comingyears. The marine ecosystem hasbeen devastated by declines of toppredators around the world and theconsequences are unknown. Onething is clear, however, new andbold solutions are needed if we areto successfully manage our fish-eries.

The Grand Banks ofNewfoundland are perhaps themost famous and storied geograph-ical location in all the world’soceans. The area holds a powerfulgrip on our imagination andmaritime culture. The Grand Bankshave been identified by WWF asone of the top 200 globallyoutstanding ecoregions. However,in the last decade, the area hasbecome a global example ofmismanagement and failure. Theremay be no place on the planetwhere it is more important to riseto the emerging challenge to solveoceans management issues. Wemust succeed here and prove thatwe can succeed anywhere.

ROBERT RANGELEY,Marine Program Director,Atlantic

WWF-Canada

The distribution of Atlantic Cod status in Canada based on designationsby the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada(COSEWIC). Canadian cod fisheries are open west of Halifax, Nova Scotia(NAFO Divisions 4X, 5Zc) and in southern Newfoundland (NAFO Division3Ps).

d stock are not recovering

Phot

o:W

WF-

Can

on/M

ike

R.J

ack

Last summer more than 18,000 visi-tors walked through the doorsof Asbjorn Bjorgvinnson’s

Whale Centre in Husavik in thenorth-east of Iceland. Not badconsidering that when Asbjorn firsttalked of a whale-watching businessin Husavik, everyone laughed athim.

That was in 1997. Now whalewatching is Iceland’s faster-growingtourism sector. In 2001, 60,500tourists went whale watching fromten locations around Iceland. In2002, that number had grown toaround 65,000 tourists. By 2010,numbers are predicted to exceed100,000.

It means a lot to Husavik, a smalltown of 2,500 people. It was a townwhere tourists never used to stoprecalls Asbjorn, except maybe to‘take photos of our church.’ Now hisbusiness, which WWF supportedat its outset, gives jobs to around 70people at the height of the summerwhale watching season.

The boom in whale watching –the fastest growing industry inIceland – generates around $8million in the Icelandic economylast year and Abbi, as he likes to beknown, believes politicians are nowbeginning to take the business seri-ously. From a conservationists’point of view, it’s good news. Foralthough whaling has been banned

in Iceland since 1985, the whalinglobby is as powerful as ever andpressure to resume whaling growsstrong each year.

In March this year the IcelandicGovernment announced plans tokill 100 minkes, 100 fin whales, and50 sei whale over the next two years.They claim they want to catch themfor research which is allowed by theInternational Whaling Commission.

Abbi believes that a resumptionin whaling would be bad news forthe burgeoning whale-watchingindustry. “If they start huntingMinke whales, it could have a verynegative effect on the whalewatching business in Iceland as theyare one of the most importantwhales for us,” he says.

He believes the friendly minkewould be one of the first whales tobe killed as they often approach thewhale watching boats and are likelyto approach the whaling boats.“Whaling could therefore directlydamage many years of friendlyencounters with the minke whalesaround Iceland,“ he says. “There issimply no evidence that whalingand whale watching can co-exist asmany politicians have beenclaiming.”

The Icelandic Tourist IndustryAssociation, whose members repre-sent about 80 per cent of Iceland’sturnover from tourism, agree that

whaling is bad for business. Theyhave issued a statement saying that:“Whale watching has become oneof the most popular tourist activi-ties in Iceland, providing consider-able income for the economy, aswell as creating a very positiveimage for Iceland.” It added that toresume whaling, while govern-ments in countries from whichmany tourists come do not recog-nise Iceland’s right to hunt whales,would cause great damage to theIcelandic tourism industry.

The potential for whale watchingin Iceland currently is excellent.Blue, fin, humpbacks, minke and seiwhales can all been seen close toshore. It’s an appetising prospectfor tourists visiting the HusavikWhale Centre, who can now alsoenjoy the new museum there.

Abbi is delighted. “The positiveeffects of the increased tourismthrough the whale center haveresulted in greater economic bene-fits for everyone, “ he says. “TheHotel, guesthouses, shops andrestaurants have reported that theincreased number of tourists hasresulted in greater turnover andmore profits than ever. I keepasking myself will whaling bring thesame benefits?”

JULIAN WOOLFORDjwoolford@wwf.no

Iceland’s whale watching future?Asbjorn Bjorgvinsson,director of the HusavikWhale Centre in Iceland,was recently voted one ofTime Magazine’s heroes of2003.The Arctic Bulletindiscovers more about aman who gave up asuccessful career as anengineer to set up a whalewatching business inIceland.

Murmansk: nextstop the USA.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 Barents Sea 19

Some of the most environmen-tally vulnerable areas of theBarents Sea are in the exact

same areas where new oil and gasdevelopment is set to take place,according to a new report fromWWF.

The report, The Barents Sea: asea of opportunities and threats,maps biologically-rich areas in theBarents Sea which are most at riskfrom planned petroleum-relatedactivities.

The Barents Sea, which liesbetween Spitsbergen (Svalbard),Norway and Russia, is Europe’s lastunspoiled marine environment.

It is home to unique sea birdcolonies, including one of theworld’s largest puffin colonies, hugereefs, including the biggest coldwater reef in the word, large popu-lations of seals, whales and polarbears. It is one of the few ecosys-

tems in Europe still relatively intact.The oil industry, including

companies such as Statoil and Agip,is lobbying the NorwegianGovernment to open the BarentsSea to oil and gas development. Theindustry opposes proposed plansfor petroleum-free zones, claimingoil companies can operate withoutharming the environment.

In a recent development, WWFdiscovered that while theNorwegian Government hascommissioned environmentalimpact assessments (EIAs) for oiland gas developments in theBarents Sea, some assessments –such as the environmental impactassessment of oil and gas on fish-eries – were carried out in just fourweeks. At the same time theNorwegian Government alsosecretly asked oil companies tocomment on the drafts before they

were sent out for public hearing, soundermining both their scientificand independent credibility.

“WWF would prefer oil and gascompanies to stay away from sensi-tive ecosystems, but where this isnot possible, then oil and gas freezones must be put in place first,”said Samantha Smith, director ofWWF’s Arctic Programme. “Thealternative is to risk an oil spill inthe Barents that could havedramatic consequences for boththe people and the environment.”

Norway prides itself on its greencredentials, she said, but at a timewhen the US Senate has voted forthe second time not to open theArctic Refuge in Alaska to oil andgas development, Norway appearsto be consulting with the oilcompanies about how it can fast-track oil development in Europe’slast unspoiled marine environment.

Following the news that Russiahas dropped its opposition toplans for a privately funded oil

pipeline to Murmansk fromRussia’s oil fields, WWF is callingon the Russian government to joinNorway’s plans to give the BarentsSea status as a particularly sensitivesea area (PSSA). This would allowmore stringent regulations on ship-ping activities in the area.

If the pipeline is built, the porton the Russian coast could becomea major oil distribution terminal by2007, much sooner than previouslyexpected.

As much as 2.5 million barrels ofoil a day (approx. 325,000 tons)could be transported by tankerfrom Murmansk to the UnitedStates through the Barents Sea’smost biologically sensitive areas.

WWF wants the Barents Searecognized as a ParticularlySensitive Sea Area (PSSA) under theUN International MaritimeOrganization (IMO). This would,for example, enable the Russian andNorwegian governments to requireoil tankers to sail safe distancesaway from the sensitive coastalareas of north-west Russia andnorthern Norway, as well as enforce

the mandatory reporting of shipmovements in the area.

Following appeals by WWF, theNorwegian government has nowdecided to move forward with plansto recognize the Barents Sea aPSSA, a decision that the conserva-tion organization applauds.

“Without proper protection, theBarents Sea, particularly in thebiologically-rich coastal areas, willbe at risk from oil spills whichcould do untold damage to thisunique area,” said Samantha Smith,Director of WWF’s InternationalArctic Programme.

“Norway and Russia have thechance to break new ground inconservation planning throughrecognizing the Barents as a PSSA.At present, there are no adequate oilspill contingency plans in place atall for this area.”

The new pipeline andMurmansk port development planadds to the threats already facingthe Barents Sea. The oil industry islobbying the NorwegianGovernment to open the BarentsSea to oil and gas development. InRussia large off shore oil and gasfields are likely to be developedwithin a few years.

Besides this, the pipelineconstruction itself poses a threat tofragile coastal communities. Ofparticular concern is the so-calledeastern option, in which thepipeline would cross the Gorlo ofthe White Sea, an important transi-tional and highly hydrodynamicallyactive area. Any accident therecould affect unique marineecosystem of the entire White Sea.The pipeline will cross importantwintering areas of common eider,salmon rivers and reindeer habitats.

WWF is calling for strategicenvironmental assessment of alloptions.

DAG NAGODA, dnagoda@wwf.mo

1000 50

km

68°

70°

74°

25° 30° 35°20°15°

10°

A R C T I C C I R C L E

Murmansk

Tromsø

Bodø

Barents report shows oil risk

Oil threat to Barents

The migratory nature of mostbirds breeding in the Arcticmeans they are a significant

international resource, if nottreasure. As such, these birdsrequire a ‘range-wide’ approach totheir conservation and manage-ment, and the collaboration ofmany countries beyond the Arcticto ensure their protection.Although migratory birds do notrecognise political boundaries,nations within the ranges of these

birds need torecognise a jointownership andresponsibil ityfor their conser-vation.

S h a r e dmigratory birdpopulations anda concomitant

joint responsibility for their conser-vation was a primary message inthe Conservation of Arctic Floraand Fauna (CAFF) 1998 TechnicalReport, Global Overview of theConservation of Migratory ArcticBreeding Birds Outside the Arctic,by Derek Scott and a subsequentCAFF workshop in 2000concerning the same subject.

With this background, CAFF’sCircumpolar Seabird Group hasundertaken a project to document,for each of the eight arctic countries,their arctic breeding birds thatmigrate beyond the jurisdiction oftheir country, migration corri-dors/flyways and wintering areas,and the level of protection affordedmigratory birds in the wintering

areas. Each country will also developa list of priority species called Birdsof Arctic Conservation Concern.

For example, in Alaska, we haveabout 250 species of regularbreeding birds of which over 160species, or about 65 percent,migrate beyond Alaska and thelegal jurisdiction of the UnitedStates. The migratory nature ofAlaska’s breeding birds is best char-acterised by its breeding seabirdsand shorebirds in which over 90percent of the species in each birdgroup migrate beyond US jurisdic-tion. In contrast, about 50 percentof Alaska’s landbirds migratebeyond Alaska. There are similarstories in the other arctic countries.

The predominant wintering areasof Alaska’s breeding migratory birdsare pelagic areas of the North andSouth Pacific, and regions in Mexico,Caribbean/Central America, andSouth America.Alaska also providesseveral species of birds to the East-Asia Australasian region.

Another important focus of thisCAFF project is a review of interna-tional instruments, and gaps therein,that provide mechanisms for thearctic countries to coordinate andcollaborate on conservation,management,and research programsfor common issues and species andshared populations. Several arcticcountries have witnessed recentexpansions of international collabo-rations for migratory birds. Suchexpansions have been a reflection ofan increased understanding of thewintering locations of their breedingbirds and new geographic areas of

concern and population threats onthese newly recognized winteringgrounds. As such, there will be anassociated need to develop new orimproved international agreementsto capture the needs for enhancedcoordination on a range wide basis.The recent Bonn ConventionAgreement and Agreement onAlbatrosses and Petrels were a reflec-tion of the need for improved coor-dination within a flyway or for aspecific highly mobile species group.The Asia-Pacific Migratory BirdWaterbird Conservation Committee,the Central Pacific Flyway BirdWorking Group, CircumpolarSeabird Working Group, and NorthPacific Albatross Working Grouphave also been recent responses to aneed to improve international coor-dination for shared migratory birdpopulations.

Alaska is unique in that it is theUS’s ‘Arctic’ and it provides birds tonot only the four flyways in theAmericas, but also to two additionalinternational flyways – East Asiaand Central Pacific flyways. Theinternational travels of the bulk ofAlaska’s breeding migratory birdshighlights the importance of arange-wide or total flyway approachto managing Alaska’s migratory birdresources. The same can be said ofthe migratory bird resources of theother arctic countries. Obviously, itis insufficient and ineffective toapproach migratory bird conserva-tion and management in the Arcticon the breeding grounds, migrationstaging areas, or wintering groundsin isolation of each other. The mosteffective migratory bird conserva-tion is achieved by an integrated,multinational approach throughouta bird’s entire range or flyway.

As well known as it is that theArctic hosts its breeding birds foronly a few months of the year,migratory bird programs in theArctic countries are very ‘breeding-ground-centric.’ Even today, it isstill the pioneering mind that looksbeyond the breeding grounds. TheCAFF project will be a mechanismto focus attention on the needs forinternational collaboration anddefine pathways for each Arcticcountry to improve their interna-tional migratory bird programs.

KENT WOHL, Kent_Wohl@fws.govChair, Conservation of Arctic Flora and

Fauna/Regional Nongame Migratory BirdCoordinator, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

20 Connected to the Arctic WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

Connected to the Arctic

Arctic birds need globalconservation approach

Phot

o:Br

yan

& C

herr

y A

lexa

nder

Pho

togr

aphy

The arctic ternmigrates fromPole to Pole.

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 The interview 21

� Why does the Alaska NanuuqCommission think the US-Russiaagreement is important?Our organisation’s mission is theconservation of polar bears. Part ofour mission statement is “toconserve polar bears for presentand future use for subsis-tence….[Another part is] thepreservation of habitat. The treatygoes a long way towardthat….[and] we need to see it putin place.

We are supportive of the abilityof native people of Chukotka tohunt polar bearslegally for subsistencebut need the agree-ment to put intoplace managementmeasures – particu-larly those limitingthe harvest – toensure conservationof this population ofbears.� How will yourorganisation assist with implemen-tation of the polar bear treaty once ithas been ratified?On the Alaskan side we will sendout notices to communitiesinvolved in polar bear subsistenceuse (there are 15 communitiesparticipating in this hunt), and wewill go to villages to explain how thetreaty will be implemented. Thisspring, I have made three such visitsto communities in connection withthis subject.� How else is the native communitypreparing for the treaty’s implemen-tation?Currently a native to native agree-ment is being drafted betweenRussian and Alaskan native leaders.Together we must determine howquotas will be set and how regula-tions will be enforced. I will bedrafting language for our Russianpartners to consider, and in late

May I will be visiting Chukotka todiscuss this agreement.� How would you characterize yourtrans-boundary cooperation acrossthe Bering Strait?Our cooperation is very good. Ourorganisation has been providingtechnical assistance in a variety offorms: we send our old computersover to Russia, and are getting ourRussian partners involved intraining programs. For example, wehelp to show how the US Fish andWildlife Service does marking andtagging of polar bears. Standardised

methods ofcollecting andrecording dataacross the entirepopulation willhelp us to betterunderstand thestatus of the popu-lation and willhelp us to bettermanage andconserve it.

� How do your partner organisa-tions participate in these activities?The Association of TraditionalMarine Mammal Hunters ofChukotka (the director of which isEduard Zador) has written a gooddraft management plan, which wasdone in cooperation with theChukotka government and theRussian Ministry of NaturalResources. The plan includedproposed seasons for the subsis-tence hunt, and also called for theidentification and protection ofcritical habitat areas – places wherebears concentrate, feed, and den.But our Russian colleaguescurrently do not have the funds toput the plan into action.� Are there any similar agreementsin which Alaska natives participate?There is a successful example of aninternational agreement betweenAlaska and Canada called the

Inuvialuit- Inupiat ManagementAgreement on the SouthernBeaufort Polar Bear Population,which was signed in 1988. On eachside, Native communities can takeup to 40 bears for subsistence.When “problem” bears are removedor destroyed, these are also takenagainst the quota. Over the last tenyears, this entire quota has not beenmet; a total of 680 bears have beentaken.

On each side, the quota isadministered differently. InCanada, the Inuvialuit GameCouncil (a native entity createdthrough a land settlement act andrecognised in legislation that part-ners with the provincial gamemanagement agency) assigns aquota to villages, and then localhunters decide how they’ll take thebears amongst themselves. InAlaska, hunters usually take thebears more opportunistically andthen report each taken bear to theUS Fish and Wildlife Service. Onboth sides, this agreement has beenhelpful in protecting polar bears,particularly by regulating the takeof females. In this population, ofthe documented take in Alaska, 25percent of the subsistence take isfemales.

Joint polar bear conservation

❝Together wemust determinehow quotas willbe set

Margaret Williams, director of WWF’s Bering Seaecoregion program, talked to Charlie Johnson, exec-utive director of the Alaska Nanuuq (Polar Bear)Commission during his visit to Washington, DC.They discussed the US-Russia Agreement on theConservation and Management of the AlaskaChukotka Polar Bear Population.

Charlie Johnson

22 Publications WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03

Shedding a lighton the darkbusiness of toxicsin the Arctic

� Northern Lights Against POPsCombatting Toxic Threats in the ArcticEdited by David Leonard Downie andTerry FengePublished for the Inuit CircumpolarConference Canadapp 324Colour photographs

David L Downie and Terry Fenge,the editors of Northern Lightsagainst POPs, have collected a seriesof essays by specialists, whichprovide an excellent overview of thecurrent status of pollution impactsin the Arctic.

The book is separated into twosections: the first looks at the pres-ence and impacts of toxics in theArctic, while the second examinesthe legal instruments that arecurrently available to combat

Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPs). The Inuit perspective iswell represented.

Highlights are the chapters in thebook on dietary advice, on policyrecommendations on dioxin emis-sions, and on the principles of envi-ronmental law.

The book gives a good update oncontamination in the Arctic. Itemphasises that epidemiologicalstudies, especially on mixedcontaminates, should become ahigh priority issue in all arcticcountries before further nutritionaladvice can be given. Likewise adirect appeal from local communi-ties to major polluters to reducedioxin emissions will reap thegreatest benefits.

Finally, based on the assessmentspresented on the book, one is left inno doubt that it is a high time theconvention on long range trans-boundary air pollution (LRTAP)and Stockholm convention enteredinto force.

INGUNN RISA, irisa@wwf.no

The sacred seal in the life of the Inuit

� Sacred Hunt:A Portrait of theRelationship between Seals and InuitDavid F. Pelly, 2001 Greystone Books,University of Washington Press, Seattle pp 127 with 61 photographs and twomaps.

“The seals were a lifeline, the verymeans of survival for the people.From the beginning, Inuit had a deeprespect for the seals, which for them

were the key to a successful hunt, theessence of survival, and the basis oftheir relationship with the seals.”

This is an excellent and veryimportant book. It contains lots ofthoroughly-researched materialand, for many readers, provocativeand fascinating perspectives on thebackbone of Inuit culture – theringed seal (nattiq in Inuktitut).Harp and bearded seals are alsocovered.

Author David Pelly is a long-time resident of the CanadianArctic, and a very keen traveller andlistener. He presents a vitalreminder about the traditional seal-Inuit relationship at a time whenmany urban-dwelling people areagain campaigning against theharvesting of marine mammals.

By reading this book, animalwelfare campaigners may betterunderstand the importance of sealsto Inuit as a food source, as well asculturally and spiritually iIn a harshenvironment, where alternatives areextremely limited, and where long-term conservation prospects clearlyhinge upon the respect Inuit showfor wildlife, the land and the ocean.

Following a moving foreword byNunavut Commissioner Peter Irniq(who says of Pelly “he writes aboutthe real stuff”!), the book is dividedlogically into three sections:Respect for the Seal; Hunting theSeal; and Pact for Survival.

Each section comprises acolourful, easy-to-read series ofshort illustrated essays and trans-lated seal and hunting tales, trans-lated from extensive interviewswith Inuit elders, especially inCanada and Greenland.

A special section for me was thedetailed mid-20th Century profile

Apology

� The editors of the Arctic Bulletin would liketo apologise to Vladimir Sertun who took thefantastic photographs in Chutkotka, which wepublished in our 4.02 issue, including thephotograph on the front cover. Due to aneditorial mistake, we included the captions forthe photographs but forgot to credit thephotographs properly – sorry Vladimir.Vladimir works with the WWF-RussiaProgramme Office.

of the very traditional communityof Kitsissuarsuit, in Disko Bay,Greenland, beautifully illustratedby archived photographs.

Of great importance to under-standing the nature of this vitalrelationship is the Sacred Linksection (page 106). For example,“Whereas the European world-viewis that only humans have a soul, thetraditional Inuit belief is that allbeings have a soul”.

But it is the final section thatignites the reader most fiercely.With relatively few ways to makemoney in the modern world, Inuitare still unable to make moneyfrom seal products – a consequenceof the bans on sealskin importsimposed over the past 30 years byEuropean and American authori-ties. Seal meat is still a basic nutri-tious staple of the Inuit diet in mostcommunities, and it still powers the

dog-sled teams. But products likesealskin clothes, and seal oilcapsules are very difficult tomarket.

Beyond this, Pelly rightly stressesthat it is the role of seals at thefoundation of the material, social,cultural, spiritual and culturalvalues that define for many Inuitwho they are. It’s a great book.

PETER EWINS, pewins@wwfcanada.org

WWF ARCTIC BULLETIN • No. 2.03 Calendar 23

Forthcoming arctic meetings & events

Arctic Council EventsStrategic Plan for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (SPPAME)

• WHERE: Svartsengi, Iceland • WHEN: October 19–22• CONTACT:Arctic Council Secretariat, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, Raudararstigur 25, IS-150 Reykjavik, Iceland.Tel. + 354 545 9900. Fax. + 354 562 2373.

Sustainable Development Working Group Meeting• WHERE: Svartsengi, Iceland • WHEN: October 22, 2003• CONTACT: Mr Hugi Olafsson, Chair of SDWG, Ministry for the Environment,Vonarstraeti 4, IS-150 Reykjavik, Iceland.Email: hugi.olafsson@umh.stjr.is .

Senior Arctic Officials Meeting• WHERE: Svartsengi, Iceland • WHEN: October 23–24• CONTACT:Arctic Council Secretariat, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, Raudararstigur 25, IS-150 Reykjavik, Iceland.Tel. + 354 545 9900. Fax. + 354 562 2373.

Other Events2nd Healthy Lifestyle Summit

• WHERE: Republic of Sakha, Russia Federation • WHEN: June 26–29• CONTACT: For more information, contact the Northern Forum Main Secretariat: abozhedo@northernforum.org

Cryosphere-Climate Interaction Symposium at the IUGG 2003• WHERE: Sapporo, Japan • WHEN: July 7–8 2003• CONTACT: More details and a preliminary programme can be found at the IUGG site:http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/iugg/index.html

8th International Conference on Permafrost• WHERE: Zurich • WHEN: July 21–25• CONTACT: Prof.Wilfried Haeberli, Department of Geography, University of Zurich,Winterhurerstrasse 190,CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: haeberli@geo.unizh.ch

Sustainable Arctic – Sustainable North – Sustainable World – International Conference• WHERE: Republic of Sakha, Russian Federation • WHEN: August 8–22• CONTACT: Ministry of Sakha Republic for Nature Protection, ul. Dzerzhinskogo 3/1,Yakutsk 677000,Sakha Republic, Russian Federation Tlf: +7 4112 24 12 90. Email: sterh@sakha.ru

IASCP Northern Polar Regional Conference: The International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP) Northern Polar Regional Conference Joining the Northern Commons: Lessons for the world, Lessons from the world

• WHERE: University Anchorage, Alaska • WHEN: August 17–21• CONTACT: For more information see: http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/alaska.html All questions related to this meeting should be directed to: Michelle Curtain (iascp@indiana.edu)

11th Arctic Ungulate Conference• WHERE: Saariselkä, Finland • WHEN: August 24–28• CONTACT: 11th AUC Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Reindeer Research Station,Toivoniementie 246, FIN-99910 Kaamanen, Finland.Phone: +358 205 751 820 Fax: + 358 205 751 829 Email: auc@rktl.fi http://www.rktl.fi/auc/index.html

12th International Congress on Circumpolar Health• WHERE: Nuuk, Greenland • WHEN: September 8–14• CONTACT: ICCH12, Postbox 1001, 3900 Nuuk, Greenland, + 299 344445. Email nunamed@gh.gl, www.icch12.org

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 conservationorganization, with almost five millionsupporters and a global network activein 90 countries. WWF’s mission is tostop the degradation of the planet’snatural environment and to build afuture in which humans live inharmony with nature. WWF con-tinues to be known as World WildlifeFund in Canada and the United Statesof America.

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

WWFARCTICOFFICESANDCONTACTS

WWF INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC PROGRAMMEKristian Augustsgate 7a,P.O. Box 6784 St. Olavs plass,n-0130 Oslo, NorwayPh.: +47 22 03 65 00, Fax: +4722 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 Augustsgate 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

PCB concentrations in blood of mothers andwomen 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

Sour

ce:A

MA

P A

sses

smen

t 20

02:H

uman

Hea

lth in

the

Arc

tic.