Yesterday’s evacua­ti­on of Longyearbyen’s upper area Nyby­en is lifted. Also the road bet­ween the school and Nyby­en is open again.

Sys­sel­man­nen and other aut­ho­ri­ties (NVE) have inves­ti­ga­ted the snow on the slo­pes abo­ve Nyby­en and other parts of Lon­gye­ar­by­en which are poten­ti­al­ly expo­sed to ava­lan­ches. It is curr­ent­ly offi­ci­al­ly con­side­red that the­re is no risk of major ava­lan­ches that might hit buil­dings.

The­re are no reports about major dama­ge from last night’s storm inclu­ding ava­lan­ches. A post box was blown away and a dog was cover­ed by snow in the dogyard, but it was found and dug out in good con­di­ti­on.

The Sys­sel­man­nen reminds ever­y­bo­dy that the ava­lan­che risk for Lon­gye­ar­by­ens sur­roun­dings is still con­side­red high and to be accor­din­gly careful with any out­side acti­vi­ties.

Source: Sys­sel­man­nen

The wea­ther fore­cast for Lon­gye­ar­by­en says strong wind incre­asing to full storm during the night to Thurs­day, com­bi­ned with strong snow­fall. This wea­ther situa­ti­on means an increased risk of snow ava­lan­ches. The cur­rent ava­lan­che war­ning is level 4 on a sca­le of 5 levels. As a con­se­quence, the Sys­sel­man­nen has deci­ded to evacua­te Nyby­en.

Smal­ler snow ava­lan­ches on the slo­pes sur­roun­ding Lon­gye­ar­by­en are exepc­ted, but so far no major events that may cau­se dama­ge dama­ge to buil­dings. Nyby­en, Longyearbyen’s upper part, is faced with the grea­test risk, hence the pre­cau­tio­na­ry evacua­ti­on. Nyby­en is main­ly used for stu­dent housing and guest hou­ses, but the­re are also a few flats whe­re locals live. Most stu­dents are curr­ent­ly at home else­whe­re and not in Lon­gye­ar­by­en. The road to Nyby­en is clo­sed from the school. It is stron­gly advi­sed to resign from any field trips.

Other parts of Lon­gyear­ben are curr­ent­ly not con­cer­ned by evacua­tions. This includes the resi­den­ti­al area near Suk­ker­top­pen, which was hit by an ava­lan­che in Decem­ber 2015 with lethal con­se­quen­ces. The deve­lo­p­ment will be con­stant­ly moni­to­red by the Sys­sel­man­nen and rele­vant insti­tu­ti­ons.

Source: Sys­sel­man­nen

If San­ta Claus does not bring gifts on Satur­day, that could also be due to his reinde­er. Whe­ther they can pull the sledge hea­vi­ly packed with gifts is ques­tionable. Becau­se the reinde­er on Spitz­ber­gen are get­ting thin­ner!

The sub­spe­ci­es – the Sval­bard reinde­er – is alre­a­dy some­what smal­ler than their rela­ti­ves on the main­land. 135 ani­mals were weig­hed by the rese­ar­cher Ste­ve “Mis­ter Reinde­er” Albon from the James Hut­ton Insti­tu­te in Scot­land sin­ce 1994 every year in April. Rudolph Nor­mal­ren­tier lost seven kilos during this peri­od. Reason is that the ani­mals find less to eat in win­ter.

And who is to bla­me? Most likely once again cli­ma­te chan­ge. Becau­se of hig­her avera­ge tem­pe­ra­tures it rains on Sval­bard more often than it snows. The rain free­zes and forms an ice lay­er on top of the snow. This makes it more dif­fi­cult for the reinde­er to come to the lichens, of which they main­ly live in the win­ter.

Nevert­hel­ess, this does not seem to affect the popu­la­ti­on: Sin­ce the 1990s, the num­ber of Sval­bard reinde­er has risen from 800 to 1400 in the Advent­da­len. What actual­ly sounds like good news could lead to a fami­ne among the reinde­er in the long term as the com­pe­ti­ti­on for food increa­ses.

We keep our fin­gers crossed for San­ta Claus and his reinde­er, and in any case wish ever­y­bo­dy a Mer­ry Christ­mas!

Sources: TV2, Dagens Nærings­liv

A french skip­per, who is accu­sed of having vio­la­ted seve­ral of the strict requi­re­ments for the pro­tec­tion of the envi­ron­ment on Sval­bard, is to pay a fine of 25,000 crowns (€ 2750). The two French adven­tu­r­ers Gil­les and Ale­xia Elka­im were actual­ly on the way to the North Pole in Sep­tem­ber and Octo­ber this year, but had to rever­se due to bad wea­ther con­di­ti­ons.

The fact that they sought pro­tec­tion from a storm in one of the most sever­ely pro­tec­ted are­as of Sval­bard with their sail­or “Ark­ti­ka” could now be their doom. The 56-year-old skip­per does not want to pay the penal­ty. The case will then be heard befo­re the Dis­trict Court (Tin­g­rett) Nord-Troms on Febru­ary 23rd and 24th.

The adven­tu­r­ers are accu­sed of having ancho­red in the area around Kong Karls Land in the east of Sval­bard within the pro­tec­tion zone for three days, and having ente­red the island of Svens­køya with their seven hus­kies. Svens­køya is sub­ject to rigo­rous rules of pro­tec­tion: it is for­bidden to approach the island more than 500 meters, and ente­ring is for­bidden all year round. The skip­per is also sup­po­sed to have ille­gal­ly impor­ted his dogs to Sval­bard and to not have appro­ved per­mis­si­on for his expe­di­ti­on. In lar­ge parts of Sval­bard, the­re is a requi­re­ment for indi­vi­du­al tou­rists.

Often such dis­pu­tes are a ques­ti­on of the point of view. Gil­les Elka­im descri­bes the case on 23rd Novem­ber from his per­spec­ti­ve on his Face­book page: he asked the Sys­sel­man­nen for aut­ho­riza­ti­on to over­win­ter on Octo­ber 8th, but did not recei­ve a respon­se for days. Elka­im claims also to have reques­ted for per­mis­si­on to import the dogs alre­a­dy in July – wit­hout reac­tion. The “Ark­ti­ka” had con­sidera­ble pro­blems with the engi­ne and a water pump at the begin­ning of Octo­ber and could the­r­e­fo­re not con­ti­nue. He wan­ted to get the ship safe from an emer­gen­cy. To get the boat out of the pro­tec­ted area, the Sys­sel­manns deci­ded to tow the “Ark­ti­ka” and the crew to Lon­gye­ar­by­en on Octo­ber 13th. An action with con­se­quen­ces. The expe­di­ti­on has been ter­mi­na­ted.

Home­page of the expe­di­ti­on
Source: Sval­bard­pos­ten, iFinnmark.no

Hau­ke Trinks was not only a sci­en­tist, but also a Spits­ber­gen adven­turer. He win­tered three times in remo­te places nor­t­hern Sval­bard. Born on Febru­ar 19, 1943 in Ber­lin, he beca­me pre­si­dent of the Tech­ni­cal Uni­ver­si­ty in Ham­burg-Har­burg. After finis­hing his sci­en­ti­fic care­er, he had more time for his pas­si­ons, sai­ling and adven­ture.

In 1999-2000, Hau­ke Trinks win­tered on his own on his yacht Mesuf in Mus­ham­na in Wood­fjord. As a sci­en­tist, he wan­ted to find evi­dence for his theo­ry of an ori­gin of life in the ice. Two more win­terings fol­lo­wed, in 2003-2004 in the old sta­ti­on in Kinn­vi­ka on Nord­aus­t­land and in 2010-2011 once again on his boat in Mus­ham­na. On the­se two later win­terings, he was accom­pa­nied by Marie Tié­che. Hau­ke Trinks told his arc­tic adven­ture sto­ries in seve­ral books and docu­men­ta­ti­ons to a wider public. The­re has hard­ly been a visit to Wood­fjord sin­ce wit­hout the ques­ti­on coming up: “isn’t it someh­we­re around here whe­re Hau­ke Trinks win­tered?”

It is up to dedi­ca­ted sci­en­tists to judge his efforts and results as a reser­a­cher. Opi­ni­ons regar­ding this may be varied, but that does not mat­ter now and here. As a per­son, Hau­ke Trinks easi­ly felt at home in Spits­ber­gen, some­thing that was very evi­dent during seve­ral mee­tings this aut­hor had with Trinks in Mus­ham­na, Kinn­vi­ka and Lon­gye­ar­by­en. To share just one of the­se unfor­gettable moments: when we approa­ched Kinn­vi­ka with MV Pro­fes­sor Mul­ta­novs­kiy in the late sum­mer of 2003, when Hau­ke and Marie were just sett­ling down the­re for the­re win­tering, they quick­ly jum­ped into their Zodiac and took off to dis­ap­pear deep in Murch­ison­fjord as they saw us coming. But as we were about to lea­ve, they retur­ned quick­ly and Hau­ke, being a good nar­ra­tor, was hap­py to share sto­ries and know­ledge with us.

Hau­ke Trinks kept a strong con­nec­tion to the north and sett­led down in his new second home on Utsi­ra in Nor­way. He died in Decem­ber 2016 at the age of 73 in Spits­ber­gen or on Utsi­ra, the sources are not yet quite clear about this. We will keep fond memo­ries of him as one of few adven­tu­r­ers who, in recent years, ven­tu­red on month-long expe­di­ti­ons on his own or with just one more per­son into the polar night and the ice, fol­lo­wing a sci­en­ti­fic quest, and as a uni­que, very likeable cha­rac­ter.

Sources: Press release Tech­ni­sche Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg-Har­burg, Ham­bur­ger Abend­blatt

The ava­lan­che risk report for Lon­gye­ar­by­en is now available. After the dead­ly ava­lan­che on Decem­ber 19, 2015 and the pre­cau­tio­na­ry evacua­tions in ear­ly Novem­ber 2016, the report has been awai­ted with eager­ness. It was com­pi­led by NVE (Nor­ges vass­d­rags- og ener­gi­di­rek­to­rat, Nor­we­gi­an direc­to­ra­te for waters and ener­gy within the minis­try for oil and ener­gy) and it is based on maps and aeri­al pho­to­gra­phy, ter­rain mode­ling, cli­ma­te ana­ly­sis, his­to­ri­cal expe­ri­ence, on-site inves­ti­ga­ti­ons and com­pu­ter mode­ling.

For the public, the results are more rele­vant than the metho­di­cal back­ground. The report includes a map that shows end­an­ge­red are­as in three colours. The are­as whe­re dama­ge cau­sed by ava­lan­ches hap­pens with a likeli­hood of 1:5000 per year is mark­ed in yel­low. In other words: dama­ge cau­sed by an ava­lan­che has to be expec­ted every 5000 years – sta­tis­ti­cal­ly, that is.

Are­as mark­ed oran­ge have an annu­al risk of 1:000 or ava­lan­che dama­ge every 1000 years. And then the­re are the red are­as, whe­re an ava­lan­che has to be expec­ted once per cen­tu­ry. The risk of a devas­ta­ting event is one per cent every year.

This risk assess­ment includes snow and slush ava­lan­ches, muds­li­des and rock­falls. Some parts of Lon­gye­ar­by­en are “only” expo­sed to par­ti­cu­lar hazards within this list. This can mean that dif­fe­rent are­as may be expo­sed to dan­ger at dif­fe­rent sea­sons or in dif­fe­rent wea­ther situa­tions.

A first look at the ava­lan­che risk map makes the view­er take a breath. No less than 154 flats as well as two guest hou­ses are insi­de the red zone. The­se addres­ses are faced with an annu­al risk of 1:100 of a poten­ti­al­ly cata­stro­phic event, caus­ing gre­at dama­ge and put­ting life at risk.

The obvious ques­ti­on is how Lon­gye­ar­by­en will deal with this situa­ti­on. it is clear that the opti­on to move all the hou­ses con­cer­ned quick­ly to safe are­as is not available. That will neither tech­ni­cal­ly nor poli­ti­cal­ly and finan­ci­al­ly be pos­si­ble, and the­re is the issue of space being available in suf­fi­ci­ent quan­ti­ties in Lon­gye­ar­by­en (remem­ber, it is a val­ley, and the­re are rivers, slo­pes and a fjord not far from whe­re­ver you are). As a result, the hou­ses will remain whe­re­ver they are at least for quite a while.

Lon­gye­ar­by­en will obvious­ly be deve­lo­ped in are­as that are not end­an­ge­red, making sure as much housing as pos­si­ble will be available in the­se are­as in the future. Secu­ring dan­ge­rous slo­pes with tech­ni­cal will also be dis­cus­sed.

For the time being, the­re is no other opti­on but kee­ping the ava­lan­che war­ning sys­tem upright and evacua­te end­an­ge­red addres­ses in risk situa­tions.

It was empha­si­zed that the­re is a num­ber of com­mu­ni­ties in Nor­way who are in simi­lar situa­tions. In the end, it is nor­ma­li­ty in a moun­tain and win­ter coun­try such as Nor­way, and com­mu­ni­ties will natu­ral­ly have to deal with that. This has recent­ly been igno­red in Lon­gye­ar­by­en. A high pri­ce was paid in Decem­ber 2015.

It can be taken for gran­ted that poli­ti­ci­ans from the local admi­nis­tra­ti­on (Lokals­ty­re) in Lon­gye­ar­by­en to rele­vant depart­ments in Oslo have got some home­work to do. Mean­while, inha­bi­tants of many hou­ses in Lon­gye­ar­by­en will have to live with tem­po­ra­ry evacua­tions on a short war­ning during ava­lan­che risk wea­ther.

Direct link to the ava­lan­che report and direct link to the ava­lan­che risk map.

Sources: Sys­sel­man­nen, Sval­bard­pos­ten

A polar bear was shot by a Rus­si­an sci­en­tist on August 09 on Prins Karls For­land (see Polar bear shot on Prins Karls For­land). The cir­cum­s­tances see­med doubtful: it appears that no serious attempt had been made to sca­re the polar bear away with non-lethal methods and the lethal shot was fired at a very ear­ly stage of the encoun­ter from the lar­ge distance of 130 (!) met­res. Addi­tio­nal­ly, the aut­ho­ri­ties were only infor­med about the inci­dent the fol­lo­wing day and not imme­dia­te­ly, as requi­red.

It was a two year old fema­le, weig­hing 155 kg. The ani­mal had been mark­ed befo­re.

The case was han­ded over by the Sys­sel­man­nen in Lon­gye­ar­by­en to the public pro­se­cu­tor in Trom­sø. The reason may have been the juri­di­cal and public cha­rac­ter of the case. When con­side­ring the spar­se infor­ma­ti­on that is available, one may quick­ly be tempt­ed to con­clude that the kil­ling may have been a cri­mi­nal offen­se.

Now the ver­dict from Trom­sø is the­re: the sci­en­tist who had fired the dead­ly shot is con­dem­ned to pay a fine of NOK 15000,- (ca. 1670 Euro). The man has accept­ed the fine, hence the ver­dict is effec­ti­ve.

Char­ges against the other three per­sons who were in the camp tog­e­ther with the shoo­ter have been dis­missed.

Source: Sys­sel­man­nen