Nor­way wants to open bor­ders for tou­rists from Euro­pe (Schen­gen area/European Eco­no­mic Area) out­side Scan­di­na­via from 15 July. In a press release, the Nor­we­gi­an govern­ment explains that the­re will still be rest­ric­tions: The Nor­we­gi­an Fol­ke­hels­e­insti­tutt (aut­ho­ri­tiy for public health) will moni­tor the Coro­na deve­lo­p­ment in rele­vant count­ries and regi­ons. Tou­rists from are­as with SARS-Coro­na­vi­rus-2 (“Coro­na”) infec­tions abo­ve a cer­tain thres­hold will have to stay in qua­ran­ti­ne for 10 days in Nor­way. Tou­rists who need to stay in qua­ran­ti­ne and who want to tra­vel to Spits­ber­gen have to to their qua­ran­ti­ne on the Nor­we­wi­an main­land and can only tra­vel fur­ther on to Spits­ber­gen when they have done their time.

Also tou­rists from count­ries who do not moni­tor the deve­lo­p­ment appro­pria­te­ly or who do not publish rele­vant data will have to expect such rest­ric­tions.

The Fol­ke­hels­e­insti­tutt publishes a map that shows count­ries in green or red. Tou­rists from count­ries shown in green will be able to enter Nor­way wit­hout qua­ran­ti­ne from 15 July (ear­lier for Scan­di­na­vi­an tou­rists). Curr­ent­ly, the map shows only Scan­di­na­via. An updated ver­si­on inclu­ding all Euro­pean count­ries that are part of the Schen­gen area or Euro­pean Eco­no­mic Area is expec­ted for 10 July. It will be updated at least every 14 days.

Map of the Fol­ke­hels­e­insti­tutt: tou­rists from green count­ries may enter Nor­way wit­hout qua­ran­ti­ne. Curr­ent­ly only Scan­di­na­via is shown, Euro­pe will fol­low on 10 July.

Curr­ent­ly, only peo­p­le with spe­cial reasons such as clo­se fami­ly rela­ti­onships, work or pro­per­ty may enter Nor­way under cer­tain regu­la­ti­ons (unless you are Scan­di­na­vi­an but not Swe­dish).

A polar bear was anaes­the­ti­sed and flown out from the Lon­gye­ar­by­en area by the Sys­sel­man­nen ear­lier this year, on 30 Janu­ar. The bear, a young fema­le of only 62 kg, died during the flight. Shock cau­sed by phy­si­cal stress in com­bi­na­ti­on with the anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­on was later iden­ti­fied as the cau­se of death. The bear had been cha­sed away from Lon­gye­ar­by­en by heli­c­op­ter for more than two hours befo­re it was put into deep sleep.

Now the case was cri­ti­cis­ed by Mat­til­syn­et, the Nor­we­gi­an aut­ho­ri­ty for food safe­ty, which is also respon­si­ble for ani­mal wel­fa­re inclu­ding anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­on (immo­bi­li­sa­ti­on by means of medi­ca­ti­on) of wild ani­mals, as Sval­bard­pos­ten descri­bes with a long artic­le. This is some­thing that hap­pens often in Spits­ber­gen, most­ly in con­nec­tion with rese­arch, some­ti­mes also when the poli­ce (Sys­sel­man­nen) hand­les polar bear near Lon­gye­ar­by­en. The Nor­we­gi­an ani­mal wel­fa­re law is also in force in Spits­ber­gen, but not so the ani­mal health per­so­nell law (Dyrehel­se­per­so­nell­oven). The appli­ca­ti­on of its main prin­ci­ples is, howe­ver, deman­ded by the ani­mal wel­fa­re law.

Mat­til­syn­et has found seve­ral points of cri­ti­cism, also men­tio­ning a lack of com­pe­tence. One point of gene­ral cri­ti­cism is the lack of know­ledge-based rou­ti­nes for cat­ching (anaes­the­ti­sing) polar bears; some­thing that repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te, which is mana­ging the anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­on, do not agree with. Both the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te, repre­sen­ted by polar bear rese­ar­cher Jon Aars (who was not invol­ved in the ope­ra­ti­on on 30 Janu­ary) and the Sys­sel­man­nen, repre­sen­ted by envi­ron­men­tal offi­cer Mor­ten Wede­ge, have repli­ed to the cri­ti­cism in Sval­bard­pos­ten.

Ano­ther point of cri­ti­cism is the lack of con­side­ra­ti­on of the phy­si­cal para­me­ters of this par­ti­cu­lar bear befo­re the anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­on. Is is in the natu­re of the pro­cess that a polar bear can not be weig­hed befo­re anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­on. The one that died in the given case weig­hed only 62 kg and it appears likely that this may have con­tri­bu­ted to the lethal out­co­me. Addi­tio­nal­ly, the­re was no vete­ri­na­ry-medi­cal emer­gen­cy equip­ment available and no asso­cia­ted com­pe­tence to hand­le any emer­gen­cy that might occur under anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­on. Accor­ding to the rep­ly to the cri­ti­cism by the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te, this should, based on expe­ri­ence from thou­sands of anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­ons of polar bears, not have neces­sa­ry. But sci­en­ti­fic anaes­the­ti­sa­ti­ons under much more con­trol­led cir­cum­s­tances, in day­light, with smal­ler heli­c­op­ters and as a mat­ter of choice in each indi­vi­du­al case, so one may ask if this kind of expe­ri­ence is a good basis for decis­ion­ma­king in a case like the one given here.

But this is, as far as known, not fur­ther con­side­red by Mat­til­syn­et. Respon­si­ble regi­on lea­der in north Nor­way Hil­de Haug empha­si­zes that it is their main con­cern to make sure that such cases do not hap­pen again by impro­ving rele­vant rou­ti­nes. In case of future recur­rence, Haug does not want to exclude use of legal­ly bin­ding steps.

Young polar bear tog­e­ther with its mother. The litt­le bear was about 20 months old at the time the pic­tu­re was taken and its weight was likely well abo­ve 60 kg.

In the Sval­bard­pos­ten artic­le, two vete­ri­na­ri­ans give some inte­res­t­ing insight. It is the­se two who come into ques­ti­on as vets who have pre­scri­bed the medi­ca­ti­on that was used to anaes­the­ti­se („immo­bi­li­ze“) the bear on 30 Janu­ary. But this did not hap­pen in con­nec­tion with the given case: becau­se of the regu­lar use of the drug, most­ly in con­nec­tion with rese­arch and occa­sio­nal­ly in the con­text of poli­ce ope­ra­ti­ons, the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te has a stock in Lon­gye­ar­by­en. In prin­ci­ple, the pre­scrib­ing vete­ri­na­ri­an remains respon­si­ble for the use of the drug in each case, but he/she is usual­ly in prac­ti­ce not invol­ved. Legal­ly, a vet can let a hel­per hand­le the actu­al use of the drug if respon­si­ble. But none of the two vets was cont­ac­ted in con­nec­tion with the ope­ra­ti­on on 30 Janu­ary, and one of them sta­tes that he would have denied use of a drug pre­scri­bed by him in this case.

It is, howe­ver, uncer­tain who of the two actual­ly pre­scri­bed the batch that was used then. Both assu­me that it was not from their respec­ti­ve pre­scrip­ti­on.

It should also be noti­ced that shoo­ting the bear direct­ly would have been a likely alter­na­ti­ve, from the per­spec­ti­ve of the Sys­sel­man­nen.

It is ano­ther aspect that the actu­al medi­ca­ti­on may have been out of date, but this is unli­kely, accor­ding to the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te, and unli­kely to have made a dif­fe­rence, had it inde­ed been the case.

In the press releases during and after the inci­dent, the Sys­sel­man­nen empha­si­zed repea­ted­ly the pre­sence and direct invol­vement of „polar-bear pro­fes­sio­nal spe­cia­list com­pe­tence“ pro­vi­ded by the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te in the ope­ra­ti­on. No names or pro­fes­si­ons are given, but vete­ri­na­ri­ans are usual­ly not direct­ly invol­ved. Both vete­ri­na­ri­ans who pre­scri­bed the drug expres­sed that they would have app­re­cia­ted to be cont­ac­ted, but this did not hap­pen. Even if it may be impos­si­ble to fly a vet up to Lon­gye­ar­by­en from Trom­sø or else­whe­re in main­land Nor­way in time for such an ope­ra­ti­on, advi­se by tele­pho­ne could have made a dif­fe­rence.

Ever­y­bo­dy invol­ved knows the legal and prac­ti­cal com­ple­xi­ty of such a situa­ti­on and the dif­fi­cul­ty of making decis­i­ons under time pres­su­re and in a situa­ti­on of stress. But it appears fair to con­clude: anaes­the­ti­sing a lar­ge ani­mal such as a polar bear just after having expo­sed it to gre­at phy­si­cal stress over more than 2 hours, wit­hout kno­wing its weight and phy­si­cal con­di­ti­on and wit­hout having vete­ri­na­ry-medi­cal emer­gen­cy equip­ment and a vete­ri­na­ri­an available – that is not exact­ly what many will con­sider respon­si­ble hand­ling of a strict­ly pro­tec­ted ani­mal.

Re-ope­ning Spits­ber­gen for land-based tou­rism is a pro­cess that has alre­a­dy begun. Sin­ce 01 June, visi­tors from main­land Nor­way can tra­vel to Spits­ber­gen again, other Scan­di­na­vi­an count­ries (except Swe­den) will fol­low soon, on 15 June.

At the same time it has, so far, been men­tio­ned that “coas­tal crui­ses” over seve­ral days would take some more time becau­se of their spe­ci­fic chal­lenges. First steps have now been taken to re-open for this kind of tra­vel­ling: accor­ding to a press release by the Nor­we­gi­an minis­try of jus­ti­ce, which is respon­si­ble for Spits­ber­gen, ships may start crui­sing Spits­ber­gen again now under seve­ral con­di­ti­ons. Only ships with a maxi­mum capa­ci­ty of 500 pas­sen­gers are per­mit­ted and they may only use 50 % of their capa­ci­ty. The theo­re­ti­cal maxi­mum num­ber of pas­sen­gers on board is thus limi­t­ed to 250. Only pas­sen­gers from count­ries who­se inha­bi­tants can tra­vel free­ly to Nor­way inclu­ding Spits­ber­gen are allo­wed: this is curr­ent­ly main­land Nor­way and soon also Den­mark, Fin­land and Ice­land.

“Coas­tal crui­ses” in Spits­ber­gen: now pos­si­ble again – under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons.

As all tour ope­ra­tors who are run­ning land-based tou­rism, a hygie­ne and health safe­ty plan needs to be pre­pared and appro­ved by the aut­ho­ri­ties for every ship, based on gene­ral Coro­na safe­ty gui­de­lines which have been pre­pared by Sval­bard Rei­se­liv, a local tou­rism orga­ni­sa­ti­on, tog­e­ther with rele­vant aut­ho­ri­ties. It remains to be seen which ships will be able to meet the requi­re­ments in terms of mini­mum distances etc.

Ships have to be pre­pared to sail direct­ly to Trom­sø in case of a suspec­ted Covid-19 infec­tion on board, rather than to Lon­gye­ar­by­en.

Pas­sen­gers from count­ries other than the abo­ve-men­tio­ned Scan­di­na­vi­an ones will need some more pati­ence. The Nor­we­gi­an govern­ment has announ­ced to come with infor­ma­ti­on regar­ding a pos­si­ble re-ope­ning of Spits­ber­gen for citi­zens and resi­dents from “neigh­bou­ring” Euro­pean count­ries until 20 July.

Ship-owners and tour ope­ra­tors will have to see if they can actual­ly ope­ra­te with a maxi­mum capa­ci­ty of 50 %.

The case of the polar bear that was shot in late July 2018 on the island of Phippsøya by a crew mem­ber of the Ger­man crui­se­ship Bre­men attrac­ted media and public atten­ti­on around the world.

A team from the ship had gone ashore on Phip­pøya, which belongs to Sjuøya­ne in nor­t­hern­most Sval­bard, to check the site befo­re pas­sen­gers were sche­du­led to come ashore. The dra­ma­tic inci­dent ended with one per­son recei­ving minor head inju­ries and the bear being shot. Pas­sen­gers were not ashore during the inci­dent.

Polar bear on Phippsøya, a com­mon landing site, in mid July 2018. It was very likely this bear that was shot in the same place in late July.

Almost two years have gone past now and one may won­der what came out of the who­le thing. The dis­ap­poin­ting inter­me­dia­te result is that the­re is no result yet, as Sval­bard­pos­ten was told on request by the Sys­sel­man­nen. The case was ori­gi­nal­ly hand­led by the Sys­sel­man­nen and then it went to rele­vant aut­ho­ri­ties in main­land Nor­way for fur­ther legal tre­at­ment and from the­re in late 2019 back to the Sys­sel­man­nen. And the­re it still is today. The lar­ge capa­ci­ties absor­bed by the Coro­na cri­sis are said to have play­ed a role in recent months.

So while we still have to wait for con­firm­ed infor­ma­ti­on, we can spe­cu­la­te a bit about some fac­tors that may have con­tri­bu­ted to the tra­gic out­co­me: It is cer­tain­ly pos­si­ble to not see a polar bear that is in the vici­ni­ty in the uneven ter­rain of that par­ti­cu­lar place on Phippsøya even if one is alert. The­re was a car­cass on the beach at that time, and the bear had been retur­ning to that car­cass repea­ted­ly over a lon­ger peri­od to feed on it. The car­cass was lying in the area whe­re landings are com­mon­ly made, but it was hard to see from the distance.

If one hap­pens to go ashore clo­se to the car­cass, then it is cer­tain­ly pos­si­ble that a bear that is in the area, res­t­ing and wai­ting for the appe­ti­te to return, shows a rapid and aggres­si­ve reac­tion.

Again: this is spe­cu­la­ti­on, based on local know­ledge and expe­ri­ence, inclu­ding a sight­ing of a polar bear in this given place in mid-July 2018, which was most likely that par­ti­cu­lar bear that was shot soon the­re­af­ter. Mean­while, we can curious­ly await the report from the Nor­we­gi­an aut­ho­ri­ties to learn more about what actual­ly hap­pen­ed during the inci­dent.

A first report has been published that sheds some light on the tra­gic ava­lan­che acci­dent that hap­pen­ed on 20 Febru­ary on Fri­dt­jov­breen. The report is writ­ten by a group of peo­p­le from the Arc­tic Safe­ty Cent­re at UNIS, the ava­lan­che group of the local Red Cross and local ava­lan­che obser­vers of the Nor­we­gi­an ava­lan­che war­ning sys­tem, varsom.no; it was published on varsom.no. It is not a report by the Sys­sel­man­nen or other legal or govern­men­tal aut­ho­ri­ty and it does not include a legal assess­ment. The point of the report is to under­stand the acci­dent and to draw con­clu­si­ons to impro­ve safe­ty out in the field.

On 20 Febru­ary, a group of 7, inclu­ding two gui­des from the Rus­si­an Arc­tic Tra­vel Com­pa­ny Gru­mant, left Barents­burg, hea­ding for the gla­cier front of Fri­dt­jov­breen, south of Barents­burg in Van Mijenfjord. The group made a stop at the sou­the­as­tern slo­pe of Mar­cus­senf­jel­let on the hig­her part of Fri­d­tov­breen to visit a melt­wa­ter cave. The cave is very clo­se to the steep slo­pe of Mar­cus­senf­jel­let and a ter­rain depres­si­on bet­ween the cave and the moun­tain was used to park the snow mobi­les. The first three snow mobi­les had alre­a­dy stop­ped when the ava­lan­che went down. Two per­sons were com­ple­te­ly cover­ed by the snow mas­ses and two others part­ly. The three remai­ning per­sons were not caught by the ava­lan­che.

The volu­me of the ava­lan­che is esti­ma­ted to have been near 10,000 cubic met­res, the col­lap­sed snow area on the slo­pe was 13,000 squa­re met­res.

The appro­xi­ma­te acci­dent site is mark­ed with the red dot.
Map base © Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te.
Modi­fied by landkarten-erstellung.de and this aut­hor.

The two per­sons who were com­ple­te­ly under snow died. Accor­ding to an offi­ci­al press release (Sys­sel­man­nen), the two vic­tims were Sascha Brandt (39) and Mag­da­le­na Kata­ri­na Zakrzew­ski (40), both from Ger­ma­ny.

One of the two vic­tims was cover­ed by half a met­re of snow. This per­son was dug out after 20 minu­tes. The other one was under two met­res of snow. In this case, it took one hour. The gui­des and other group mem­bers used ava­lan­che pro­bes and snow sho­vels to reco­ver the vic­tims.

The group did not have any ava­lan­che transceivers/avalanche bea­cons.

Alar­ming the res­cue forces took time becau­se the satel­li­te pho­ne that the group was equip­ped with was on one of the snow mobi­les that were cover­ed with snow (the­re is no mobi­le pho­ne covera­ge in this area). Final­ly, the second gui­de could use an InReach to send a mes­sa­ge to Barents­burg, from whe­re the Sys­sel­man­nen in Lon­gye­ar­by­en was infor­med. The res­cue heli­c­op­ter could not land on loca­ti­on due to poor wea­ther. It took two hours from the emer­gen­cy call and until the res­cue forces arri­ved. The doc­tor who came as part of the res­cue team could only decla­re the two vic­tims dead.

Beau­tiful, but also dan­ge­rous: moun­tain slo­pe at Fri­dt­jov­breen

Snow­fall, wind and fluc­tua­ting tem­pe­ra­tures during the weeks befo­re the acci­dent had con­tri­bu­ted to the gene­ral ava­lan­che risk: seve­ral lay­ers of firn with poor bon­ding capa­bi­li­ties were under a lay­er of fresh, wind-blown snow. The Nor­we­gi­an ava­lan­che war­ning ser­vice (varsom.no, link abo­ve) had issued a level 2 war­ning (mode­ra­te risk; the hig­hest level is 4).

One of the con­clu­si­ons of the reports is that the pre­sence of the group, with the impact of the snow mobi­les on the snow, had trig­ge­red the ava­lan­che.

As gene­ral recom­men­da­ti­ons, the report points out that all mem­bers of a snow mobi­le group should have ava­lan­che equip­ment (spe­ci­fi­cal­ly ava­lan­che transceivers/beacons, snow sho­vel, ava­lan­che pro­be) and ever­y­bo­dy should be trai­ned in the use of the equip­ment. Ide­al­ly, this should also be the case for tours in easy, open ter­rain, whe­re ava­lan­che-pro­ne slo­pes can be kept at a safe distance, accor­ding to the report. But it is espe­ci­al­ly important for tours in com­plex ter­rain, clo­ser to ava­lan­che-pro­ne slo­pes. The ter­rain of the tour from Barents­burg to the front of Fri­dt­jov­breen is gene­ral­ly easy and in open ter­rain, but things are dif­fe­rent for the devia­ti­on from the com­mon rou­te to the ice cave clo­se to Mar­cus­senf­jel­let.

As men­tio­ned: the report in ques­ti­on is an eva­lua­ti­on of the inci­dent by ava­lan­che experts with local know­ledge and not a legal assess­ment. This will be made by Nor­we­gi­an aut­ho­ri­ties and it is curr­ent­ly still in pro­cess and not yet published.

Unem­ploy­ment has rea­ched levels unhe­ard of in Lon­gye­ar­by­en befo­re during the Coro­na cri­sis and it remains high: curr­ent­ly, 344 per­sons have regis­tered as unem­ploy­ed (com­ple­te­ly or part­ly) with NAV (Arbei­ds- og velferds­for­valt­nin­gen, the Nor­we­gi­an aut­ho­ri­ty for unem­ploy­ment and social secu­ri­ty office), accor­ding to Sval­bard­pos­ten.

Much more dan­ge­rous than polar bears: the Coro­na-virus.
kills peo­p­le and jobs all over the world (pho­to com­po­si­ti­on).

That is only 6 less than during the pre­vious week, in spi­te of pre­pra­ra­ti­ons and boo­kings having star­ted for the first tou­rists from main­land Nor­way who are expec­ted to return to Spits­ber­gen from 01 June.

The high unem­ploy­ment level cau­ses gre­at pro­blems for many. Social wel­fa­re from Nor­way for citi­zens of count­ries out­side EEA (Euro­pean Eco­no­mic Area) is limi­t­ed until 20 June. After that, the only help that citi­zens of such count­ries may get is a sub­s­idy to their tra­vel expen­ses on the jour­ney to their coun­try of ori­gin.

Becau­se of the Spits­ber­gen Trea­ty, the­re is almost com­ple­te libe­ra­li­ty of access, stay and work, but in exch­an­ge, the­re is no social secu­ri­ty by Nor­way for non-Nor­we­gi­an citi­zens.

Unem­ploy­ment has gone through the roof in Lon­gye­ar­by­en during the Coro­na pan­de­mic and many have come into finan­cial trou­bles. Only Nor­we­gi­an citi­zens are eli­gi­ble for sup­port from the Nor­we­gi­an public wel­fa­re sys­tem becau­se of the con­di­ti­ons of the Spits­ber­gen Trea­ty. Others have to take care of them­sel­ves or they have to ask for sup­port in their home count­ries.

Nevert­hel­ess, the Nor­we­gi­an govern­ment had step­ped in and offe­red public help for citi­zens of third count­ries in Lon­gye­ar­by­en to pre­vent a social cri­sis. This pro­gram­me will, howe­ver, cea­se on 20 June and the govern­ment in Oslo does not con­sider to extend it, despi­te such demands being rai­sed in the dis­cus­sion in Lon­gye­ar­by­en. Ins­tead, the govern­ment wants to offer finan­cial help with tra­vel expen­ses to tho­se who want to lea­ve and return to their home count­ries, accor­ding to a press release by minis­ter of jus­ti­ce Moni­ca Mæland..

Tou­rists and locals enjoy­ing the suns­hi­ne in Lon­gye­ar­by­en:
this is what ever­y­bo­dy is hoping for from 01 June.

Poli­ti­ci­ans, com­pa­nies and many indi­vi­du­als in Lon­gye­ar­by­en hope that not many will have to make use of this offer from the govern­ment. Tou­rists from main­land Nor­way can come to Spits­ber­gen again from 01 June and boo­kings have star­ted to come in. Some tour ope­ra­tors have told Sval­bard­pos­ten that they are curr­ent­ly hap­py with the deve­lo­p­ment of boo­kings. Still, the majo­ri­ty of employees are at home wit­hout work, and some have alre­a­dy left Lon­gye­ar­by­en. But for many who come from count­ries fur­ther away such as Thai­land, get­ting to their home count­ries would be very dif­fi­cult becau­se of cur­rent tra­vel rest­ric­tions.

In the end, it will of cour­se be the deve­lo­p­ment of the Coro­na pan­de­mic that will con­trol the deve­lo­p­ment: so far, the­re is no case of Coro­na con­firm­ed in Lon­gye­ar­by­en. Nobo­dy can tell how long this will last and what will hap­pen then.

Updated 16 May and 17 May

The qua­ran­ti­ne regu­la­ti­ons for Spits­ber­gen are about to be pha­sed out for locals and tou­rists. To start with, the qua­ran­ti­ne will be disestab­lished for locals from today (Fri­day, 15 May) 1800. This will include pri­va­te guests and visi­tors who are coming for pro­fes­sio­nal reasons, inclu­ding sci­en­tists, accor­ding to a press release from the Sys­sel­man­nen. The regu­la­ti­ons in detail as issued by the Sys­sel­man­nen can be found here. Pri­va­te guests are defi­ned as clo­se­ly rela­ted fami­ly mem­bers by Minis­ter of Jus­ti­ce Moni­ca Mæland.

About to be eased: Coro­na qua­ran­ti­ne on Spits­ber­gen: (pho­to com­po­si­ti­on).

Tra­vel­lers coming for work pur­po­ses shall be allo­wed to come to Sval­bard wit­hout qua­ran­ti­ne from 01 June.

“Lei­su­re visi­tors” – tou­rists, in other words – from Scan­di­na­vi­an count­ries (“Nor­den”) can come from 15 June wit­hout having to stay in qua­ran­ti­ne.

It will be con­side­red to open for tou­rists from other neigh­bou­ring Euro­pean count­ries from 20 July, as Minis­ter of Jus­ti­ce* Moni­ca Mæland said during a press con­fe­rence on Fri­day.

(*in an ear­lier ver­si­on of this text, it said “Minis­ter for Eco­no­mic Affairs”. This was not cor­rect. Moni­ca Mæland is, of cour­se, Minis­ter of Jus­ti­ce and emer­gen­cy ser­vices).

Hygie­ne and health safe­ty plans which are accept­ed by aut­ho­ri­ties will be requi­red for any orga­ni­zed tra­vel­ling.

The Sys­sel­man­nen empha­si­zes that it will not be a quick and full return back to what it used to be, but a step-wise approach to a new kind of nor­ma­li­ty. Limi­ting the total num­ber of tou­rists in Spits­ber­gen is in con­side­ra­ti­on, and it is said that it will still take “some time” befo­re crui­ses over seve­ral days can take place again.

Gene­ral­ly, the Nor­we­gi­an govern­ment does not recom­mend inter­na­tio­nal holi­days until at least midd­le of August.

Mari­ne bio­lo­gists have for the first time made a com­ple­te cen­sus of Belu­ga wha­les in Spits­ber­gen to get a pre­cise esti­ma­te of the popu­la­ti­on. The result was made available on Rese­arch­ga­te in Febru­ary.

The sci­en­tists around the Nor­we­gi­an mari­ne bio­lo­gist Chris­ti­an Lyder­sen have made aeri­al sur­veys of the coast­li­nes of almost all islands in Sval­bard. Addi­tio­nal­ly, they have cover­ed the open water are­as of the lar­ge fjords on the west coast and indi­vi­du­al tran­sects out towards the open sea to get an over­view as com­ple­te as pos­si­ble.

Belu­ga wha­le in Dick­son­fjord. Lar­ge groups are very dif­fi­cult to count. The­re is only one in the pic­tu­re, but how many did we see within 5 km or so around it? Dozens? Hundreds?

The result is inde­ed sur­pri­sing: 22 groups with a total of 265 ani­mals were sigh­ted. Sta­tis­ti­cal cal­cu­la­ti­ons result in a popu­la­ti­on esti­ma­te of 549 White wha­les for the who­le Spits­ber­gen archi­pe­la­go (95 % con­fi­dence inter­val: 436-723).

The­re are, of cour­se, remai­ning uncer­tain­ties. More ani­mals than esti­ma­ted may have remain­ed invi­si­ble during the sur­vey. But even if you increase the result based on a hig­her esti­ma­te of unseen indi­vi­du­als, it remains sur­pri­sin­gly low. Until now, all the­re was was rough esti­ma­tes based on obser­va­tions which were more punc­tu­al in space and time. The­se may have been cor­rupt­ed by the migra­tio­nal beha­viour of White wha­les, which often seem to cir­cle around in cer­tain are­as for a while, giving an obser­ver who remains in one place on the coast the impres­si­on that one group is moving through after the other.

It is also so far unknown if the­re is a con­nec­tion to Belu­ga wha­les in Frans Josefs Land (Rus­si­an Arc­tic). If Spits­ber­gen and Frans Josefs Land share a popu­la­ti­on, as is the case with polar bears and wal­ru­ses, then it would again be a com­ple­te­ly dif­fe­rent pic­tu­re. But the few data that are available from track­ing Belu­ga wha­les do not sup­port this, but it can cer­tain­ly too ear­ly to exclude this hypo­the­sis.

Ope­ning Spits­ber­gen for tou­rists again in the Coro­na cri­sis is still work in pro­cess. Nego­tia­ti­ons sup­po­sed to result in a careful are going in bet­ween the indus­try and various aut­ho­ri­ties. Tou­rism repre­sen­ta­ti­ves had expres­sed their hope to get a date alre­a­dy on Fri­day or at least on Mon­day (11 May), but this has obvious­ly not yet hap­pen­ed. Some tour ope­ra­tors hope to re-start their busi­ness from 01 of June.

Appli­es to all of Spits­ber­gen and will stay for a while:
Coro­na-qua­ran­ti­ne (pho­to com­po­si­ti­on).

Espe­ci­al­ly tra­vel­lers from out­side Nor­way should take their time, obser­ve the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment and read the small print. It appears likely – offi­ci­al con­fir­ma­ti­on is pen­ding – that Nor­way will keep a qua­ran­ti­ne for ever­y­bo­dy who enters the coun­try, accor­ding to the news­pa­per Dag­bla­det. The qua­ran­ti­ne will be redu­ced from 14 to 10 days, pro­ba­b­ly also in Spits­ber­gen, and it will app­ly to ever­y­bo­dy who is ente­ring the coun­try regard­less of natio­na­li­ty, some­thing that would make such a pro­ce­du­re com­ply with the Spits­ber­gen Trea­ty. This means that Spits­ber­gen as a desti­na­ti­on might not be rea­li­stic for peo­p­le who are not alre­a­dy in Nor­way.

All orga­nis­ed tra­vel­ling will requi­re a health safe­ty plan accept­ed by the aut­ho­ri­ties.

This appears to be the cur­rent situa­ti­on. Final con­fir­ma­ti­on and the futher deve­lo­p­ment remains to be seen.

Seve­ral mee­tings have taken place in Lon­gye­ar­by­en this week with repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of the tou­rism indus­try, the Sys­sel­man­nen and other aut­ho­ri­ties to dis­cuss opti­ons for a careful ope­ning of tou­rism, upon which many jobs depend.

A cen­tral task is crea­ting a plan with hygie­ne- and other prac­ti­cal mea­su­res that ensu­re a safe and healt­hy prac­ti­ce for tra­vel­ling. Such a plan is now work in pro­cess.

Sys­sel­man­nen Kjers­tin Askholt empha­si­zes that a quick and com­ple­te restart will not hap­pen. The idea is a careful and step-wise approach of a nor­mal situa­ti­on. Public health and safe­ty, with the limi­t­ed emer­gen­cy and health ser­vices in mind, will have prio­ri­ty.

All invol­ved seek a date to start first acti­vi­ties to give the com­pa­nies a basis for plan­ning. Such a date is not known at this time.

Hos­pi­tal in Lon­gye­ar­by­en: Capa­ci­ties are limi­t­ed and the next big hos­pi­tal far away.

It is unclear which ways of tra­vel­ling will be pos­si­ble again to start with. The assump­ti­on that tou­rism will, for a while, be limi­t­ed to forms of tra­vel­ling that invol­ve limi­t­ed num­bers of per­sons and that take place not far from exis­ting infra­struc­tu­re seems to make sen­se. It is also unclear for how long and how far prac­ti­cal or, pos­si­bly, other limi­ta­ti­ons for inter­na­tio­nal traf­fic will be in place.

Curr­ent­ly and at least until 18th May, ever­y­bo­dy who arri­ves in Spits­ber­gen needs to stay in qua­ran­ti­ne for 14 days.

UNIS has announ­ced to not admit new stu­dents to cour­ses for the sum­mer and fall 2020 becau­se of the Coro­na cri­sis. As the­re is so far no case of Covid-19 in Spits­ber­gen, the stra­tegy is to make sure that tho­se sci­en­tists and stu­dents who are alre­a­dy in Lon­gye­ar­by­en can con­ti­nue with their work and edu­ca­ti­on as nor­mal­ly as pos­si­ble, and being (and stay­ing) Covid-19-free does allow for a ran­ge of oppor­tu­ni­ties that UNIS wants to make use of.

Guest lec­tu­re by Maar­ten Loo­nen, the Ny-Åle­sund-goo­se­man from the Net­her­lands,
at UNIS.

With this back­ground, no new stu­dents will be admit­ted to regu­lar cour­ses for the rest of the year. A few excep­ti­ons will only be made under strict con­di­ti­ons for mas­ter and PhD-stu­dents who need to to fieldwork for their the­sis.

The Sys­sel­man­nen has announ­ced that the com­pul­so­ry qua­ran­ti­ne will be exten­ded until May 18 (18.00 hrs). It may be exten­ded bey­ond this date if neces­sa­ry.

This means that ever­y­bo­dy who tra­vels to Spits­ber­gen needs to stay in qua­ran­ti­ne for 14 days, regard­less of how one gets the­re and whe­re exact­ly one arri­ves.

Health and emer­gen­cy ser­vices might soon be in a dif­fi­cult situa­ti­on in case of a Covid-19 out­break in Spits­ber­gen, so aut­ho­ri­ties are taking any fur­ther steps with gre­at care. Con­side­ra­ti­ons are curr­ent­ly being made for start­ing to open the school again and for the cele­bra­ti­ons of the Nor­we­gi­an natio­nal day on 17th May. This date was one of the reasons to cho­se the 18th of May as the mini­mum dura­ti­on of the cur­rent qua­ran­ti­ne regu­la­ti­ons.

Appli­es to all of Spits­ber­gen: Coro­na-qua­ran­ti­ne (pho­to com­po­si­ti­on).

At the same time plans are being made to return back to a – in a very wide sen­se – “nor­mal” life again in socie­ty and eco­no­my. Aut­ho­ri­ties empha­sise that this will be a long pro­cess that will requi­re gre­at care and may include set­backs. The importance of hygie­ne- and social distancing rules are high­ligh­ted and the public is reques­ted to abs­tain from tra­vel­ling to Spits­ber­gen unless neces­sa­ry.

The­re are, as of now, no con­firm­ed cases of Covid-19 in Spits­ber­gen.

Spits­ber­gen is curr­ent­ly almost com­ple­te­ly clo­sed to tou­rism. Only local inha­bi­tants and Nor­we­gi­ans may come at all, theo­re­ti­cal­ly also Nor­we­gi­an tou­rists, but ever­y­bo­dy has to stay in qua­ran­ti­ne for 14 days unless an excep­tio­nal per­mis­si­on is given in spe­cial cases. The air­line SAS is, howe­ver kee­ping the air traf­fic up, but the­re is men­ti­on of 10 flight pas­sen­gers per day in avera­ge, and the­se will hard­ly be tou­rists. The air­line Nor­we­gi­an is curr­ent­ly plan­ning to start fly­ing again in June.

The shut­down does obvious­ly have serious con­se­quen­ces for the local eco­no­my, inclu­ding rising unem­ploy­ment and calls for dona­ti­ons for exam­p­le from small com­pa­nies that have polar dogs, some­thing that has, by the way, at least part­ly been suc­cessful to some degree.

Nobo­dy knows when Spits­ber­gen will be open again for tou­rists. The fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of the pan­de­mic will be decisi­ve, as you may have gues­sed, and decis­i­ons have to be made on various levels.

Tou­rists in Lon­gye­ar­by­en: Nobo­dy knows when they will return.

Now Longyearbyen’s mayor (lokals­ty­re­le­der) Arild Olsen has told Sval­bard­pos­ten that he wants to con­sider ope­ning up for tou­rism again in July, “pos­si­bly limi­t­ed and we have to accept that it will be only Nor­we­gi­an tou­rists, to begin with”, as Olsen says. Limi­ta­ti­ons in an area that is still remo­te and does not have lar­ge-sca­le sophisti­ca­ted medi­cal infra­s­trac­tu­re will hard­ly sur­pri­se anyo­ne, but limi­ta­ti­ons per natio­na­li­ty may rise an eye­brow, con­side­ring the Spits­ber­gen trea­ty.

But the­re is obvious­ly still a way to go any­way befo­re any tou­rists will return to Spits­ber­gen or other remo­te desti­na­ti­ons.