The new envi­ron­men­tal sta­tus report of a Nor­we­gi­an working group that includes a num­ber of rese­arch insti­tu­ti­ons has been published in Febru­ary. It sum­ma­ri­zes sci­en­tic data con­cer­ning various envi­ron­men­tal deve­lo­p­ments. The report (Nor­we­gi­an) is detail­ed and has yiel­ded expec­ted deve­lo­p­ment as well as sur­pri­ses.

Some important results:

• As was to be expec­ted, the ice cover of the Barents Sea has decreased noti­ce­ab­ly from 1979 to 2009. 2005, 2007 and 2008 were years with extre­me­ly litt­le ice. The pro­por­ti­on of mul­ti-year ice has decreased, espe­ci­al­ly in 2007.
• During the same peri­od, water tem­pe­ra­tures have expe­ri­en­ced an increase of around 1°C, most­ly due to an increased influx of Atlan­tic water. This has pro­no­un­ced, but com­plex effects on nut­ri­ent avai­la­bi­li­ty as well as popu­la­ti­on dyna­mics of dif­fe­rent fish (and other) spe­ci­es.
• Sea­bird colo­nies in Spits­ber­gen and Nor­way have deve­lo­ped in dif­fe­rent ways, but the short mes­sa­ge is an over­all decli­ne over dif­fe­rent spe­ci­es and geo­gra­phi­cal are­as. In Spits­ber­gen, Brünich’s Guil­l­emots have gone down signi­fi­cant­ly in num­bers, the hig­hest docu­men­ted loss being 36 % within the last 5 years at Fug­le­hu­ken on the island of Prins Karls For­land. Kit­ty­wa­kes have suf­fe­r­ed los­ses of up to 43 % (Bear Island) during the same time span, whe­re­as the Com­mon Guil­l­emot, a bird that is more adapt­ed to sub-arc­tic con­di­ti­ons, has increased by 38 % on Bear Island. The situa­ti­on is even more dra­ma­tic in north Nor­way, whe­re almost all sea­bird spe­ci­es have suf­fe­r­ed seve­re los­ses at most loca­ti­ons, in some cases of more than 99 %.
• The volu­mes of pla­s­tic rub­bish seem to have gone back slight­ly in recent years. Sin­ce 1998, it is not allo­wed any­mo­re to dis­po­se any pla­s­tics into the sea.
• Con­cen­tra­ti­ons of long-lived envi­ron­men­tal toxins such as BCPs and PAKs have decreased until about 2004, but have increased slight­ly again and are sta­ble sin­ce then.
• Radio­ac­ti­vi­ty is still low. Main sources are nuclear wea­pon test­ing during the 1950s and 1960s, Cher­no­byl and the nuclear repro­ces­sing plants of Sel­la­field (Eng­land) and La Hague (France). The Sov­jet nuclear sub­ma­ri­ne K-278 Kom­so­mo­lets, that sank 180 kilo­me­t­res sou­the­ast of Bear Island in 1989 and is still lying at 1858 met­res depth, has not emit­ted signi­fi­cant amounts of radio­iso­to­pes – so far.
• Die Kon­zen­tra­tio­nen lang­le­bi­ger Schad­stof­fe wie PCBs (Poly­chlo­rier­te Bifenyle) und PAKs (Poly­zy­kli­sche aro­ma­ti­sche Koh­len­was­ser­stof­fe) gin­gen bis etwa 2004 zurück, stie­gen seit­dem aber wie­der leicht an und sind seit­dem nähe­rungs­wei­se sta­bil.

Source: For­valt­nings­plan Barents­ha­vet 2010

A pos­si­ble clo­sure of most parts of eas­tern Sval­bard has been dis­cus­sed on the­se pages on seve­ral occa­si­ons (see for exam­p­le June 2009). The Nor­we­gi­an Direc­to­ra­te for Natu­re admi­nis­tra­ti­on (Direk­to­ra­tet for natur­for­valt­ning, (DN)) had made a pro­po­sal to clo­se most of eas­tern Sval­bard for tou­rists. The Sys­sel­man­nen dis­agreed with the pro­po­sal, which would nor­mal­ly lead to major chan­ges or dis­car­ding. The pro­po­sal has, howe­ver, been for­ward­ed to fur­ther bodies of the law-giving pro­cess wit­hout making any signi­fi­cant chan­ges, a very unu­su­al step.

The main reason for the pro­po­sal was that the are­as should be kept as »untouch­ed sci­en­ti­fic refe­rence are­as«. This rather vague reaso­ning could not be explai­ned any fur­ther, other than clai­ming a »pre­cau­tio­na­ry prin­ci­ple«. After this has met strong cri­ti­cism, natu­re pro­tec­tion was added.

The pro­po­sal is stron­gly cri­ti­cis­ed, inclu­ding:

• Aims not well defi­ned and reasons not well explai­ned. For exam­p­le, during a mee­ting in Lon­gye­ar­by­en in Octo­ber 2008, lea­ding sci­en­tists of the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te said they did not see any prin­ci­pal pro­blems with (con­trol­led) tou­rism in the are­as in ques­ti­on, con­side­ring both sci­en­ti­fic and envi­ron­men­tal aspects.
• It is doub­ted that by exclu­ding tou­rists from the­se are­as, they can be kept as (or tur­ned into) »untouch­ed« (refe­rence) are­as, as sci­en­ti­fic acti­vi­ties take place on a com­pa­ra­ble, pos­si­ble major, sca­le any­way: signi­fi­cant num­bers of sci­en­ti­fic and sup­port staff visit the are­as – inclu­ding its remo­test parts, which are hard­ly ever visi­ted by tou­rists regu­lar­ly, spen­ding much more time in the field, using lar­ge, sta­tio­na­ry camps (tou­rists sleep on ships) and using heli­c­op­ters for trans­port on a lar­ge sca­le (com­ple­te­ly ban­ned within tou­rism).
• More pres­su­re on loca­ti­ons that remain acces­si­ble can be expec­ted to lead to seve­ral pro­blems, such as ero­si­on. Ano­ther pro­blem is that fle­xi­bi­li­ty has, so far, been an inte­gral part of the safe­ty of pas­sen­ger landings: if weather/sea con­di­ti­ons at a given site is not favorable or a polar bear is seen near­by, it is – so far – com­mon to turn to ano­ther area within reach. Should such alter­na­ti­ve sites not be available any­mo­re, it can be expec­ted that the pres­su­re to land at a given site will increase, even under unfa­vorable con­di­ti­ons.
• Part of the reaso­ning is con­ti­nuous increase of tou­ristic traf­fic. The fact that crui­se ship tou­rism in the last 2 years actual­ly decreased is not con­side­red. The reason for the decrease is not only the eco­no­mic­al cri­sis, but also the (las­ting) effects of new regu­la­ti­ons, such as a ban on hea­vy oil as ship fuel which effec­tively keeps some ships com­ple­te­ly away, and new safe­ty demands, which will lead to ano­ther cou­ple of ships not retur­ning, inclu­ding some that have been ope­ra­ting in Sval­bard still in 2009.
• Intrans­pa­rent dis­cus­sion pro­cess behind clo­sed doors, exclu­ding the public and tho­se invol­ved, igno­ring the Sys­sel­man­nen who is obvious­ly a major offi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­ty with con­sidera­ble know­ledge of the actu­al regio­nal situa­ti­on.

Despi­te being rejec­ted by the Sys­sel­man­nen, the pro­po­sal has been for­ward­ed by DN to the hig­her Minis­try of the envi­ron­ment, whe­re decis­i­ons on fur­ther steps have to be taken.

A result of the pro­cess could be a loss of public con­fi­dence into sci­ence and admi­nis­tra­ti­on, if »sci­ence« is (ab)used as an argu­ment by poli­ti­cal decis­i­on makers wit­hout solid sci­en­ti­fic argu­men­ta­ti­ve basis, simi­lar to Japa­ne­se »sci­en­ti­fic« wha­ling.

Source: Sval­bard­pos­ten and other (inclu­ding ver­bal dis­cus­sions)

The mining com­pa­ny Store Nor­ske could, in 2009, for the second time con­clude with a pro­fit of about 400 mil­li­on Nor­we­gi­an crowns (ca 48.7 mil­li­on Euro), main­ly due to good coal pri­ces befo­re the break-out of the cri­sis and advan­ta­ge­ous finan­cial busi­ness (»kull-hedging«). The loo­kout seems less bright: Store Nor­ske has to deal with fal­ling world mar­ket pri­ces, can­cel­la­ti­on of orders, and dete­rio­ra­ting coal qua­li­ty in the lar­gest mine, »Svea Nord«, near Sveagru­va, whe­re 2 mil­li­on tons were mined last year. The mine is expec­ted to be clo­sed in 2014; Store Nor­ske has plans to open ano­ther mine in the area.

The future of mine 7, the only mine near Lon­gye­ar­by­en still in ope­ra­ti­on, is uncer­tain as it has been pro­du­cing defi­ci­ts for a num­ber of years.

Source: Sval­bard­pos­ten

The Sys­sel­man­nen (poli­ce) con­trol­led a group of snow mobi­le tou­rists who whe­re just about to start their tour. The result was impres­si­ve: 10 out of 35 had alco­hol in their blood and were not allo­wed to par­ti­ci­pa­te. The Sys­sel­man­nen calls atten­ti­on to valid gene­ral traf­fic and spe­cial snow scoo­ter regu­la­ti­ons, which includes a very strict “don’t drink and dri­ve” poli­cy and poten­ti­al­ly seve­re fines.

Source: Sys­sel­man­nen

Recent ana­ly­sis of snow and ice of gla­ciers in the Spits­ber­gen archi­pe­la­go has shown signi­fi­cant levels of pesti­ci­des, which are not used local­ly and thus come from long-distance sources in Euro­pe and over­se­as. The rele­vant pesti­ci­des are long-lived and take very long time to break down, espe­ci­al­ly in cold cli­ma­te con­di­ti­ons. Today, they are most­ly ban­ned. The amounts thought to be pre­sent in Spits­ber­gen are up to about one ton of some pesti­ci­des, but vary local­ly.

Fur­ther rese­arch is nee­ded to inves­ti­ga­te poten­ti­al thre­ats to the envi­ron­ment.

Source: Sval­bard Sci­ence Forum

In 2009, the Nor­we­gi­an mining com­pa­ny Store Nor­ske car­ri­ed out first inves­ti­ga­ti­ons to find poten­ti­al gold occur­ren­ces in St. Jons­fjord, north of Isfjord. Results show that the poten­ti­al is signi­fi­cant. Store Nor­ske intends to do dril­lings to fur­ther deter­mi­ne the poten­ti­al of valuable metals. The aut­ho­ri­ties (Sys­sel­man­nen) have now given per­mis­si­on for the dril­lings under strict envi­ron­men­tal con­di­ti­ons.

St. Jons­fjord is out­side the pro­tec­ted are­as, which means that the future may see a new mine in Spits­ber­gen.

Quel­le: Sval­bard­pos­ten