The SarsCov-2 virus keeps bothering the world, and this includes the Arctic. Omikron seems to have arrived in Longyearbyen. There were three positive Corona tests in Longyearbyen during the Christmas holidays, all of them concerning persons who had recently arrived from mainland Norway where Omikron is well established, so Knut Selmer, medical doctor and responsible for handling infectious diseases at the hospital in Longyearbyen, assumes that Omikron has come to Spitsbergen. In addition, there are several persons in quarantine and test results keep coming in, as Svalbardposten reports.
Corona has come to Spitsbergen, and this seems to include the Omikron variant.
Selmer expects this to be the beginning of a major wave of infections, just as elsewhere in the world. He does not think it is possible to keep Spitsbergen corona-free in the future, but considers it highly important to delay and flatten the curve. Everybody who arrives in Longyearbyen needs to get tested and Norway has recently tightened regulations concerning, amongst others, face masks. The aim in Longyearbyen is to keep school, kindergartens and other services especially for children and youth open as long as possible.
Longyearbyen has, at least, a very high vaccination rate. Near 700 persons got vaccinations in December, mostly booster injections, but also a couple of primary vaccinations. The next mass vaccination in Longyearbyen is scheduled for 11 January.
Immerhin hat Longyearbyen eine sehr hohe Impfquote. Im Dezember wurden rund 700 Personen geimpft, wobei es überwiegend um Auffrischungsimpfungen ging. Es gab aber auch einige Erstimpfungen. Die nächste, große Impfaktion in Spitzbergen ist am 11. Januar geplant.
In spite of Corona, even in spite of Omikron,
the sun will rise and shine again over Spitsbergen in 2022.
But it will take some time.
This is probably the last one of more than 100 blog and news entries on this website in 2021. I will, of course, continue in 2022. Thank you for reading, welcome back and happy new year!
Many had been thinking in Longyearbyen that Spitsbergen would remain a covid-free bubble, but it didn’t really surprise that this is not the case. A number of people have tested positive in Longyearbyen, including those that show symptoms – not dramatic ones, luckily, as far as known at least.
So now everybody who arrives in Longyearbyen needs to make a test upon arrival. The administration fears the consequences of a major outbreak in such a remote location.
Corona has come to Spitsbergen. And if you do the same, then you have to get tested upon arrival there.
Nobody knows what this might mean for the future, what 2022 may bring. Many in Longyearbyen (and elsewhere) feel unwell as soon as someone says “Omikron”.
Digital Spitsbergen museum: new and improved pages
So at the time being, a virtual journey may be the better option, and certainly the cheaper and easier one, available at any time. I have made a number of new pages within spitsbergen-svalbard.com and improved older ones, making it worthwhile to visit both well known and remote corners of the Svalbard archipelago. It is fair to say that what I am building up here over years is kind of a digital Spitsbergen museum, especially in the panorama section which makes many locations in Svalbard easily accessible to anyone with internet access worldwide. The new and improved pages are my Christmas present for all Spitsbergen enthusiasts who like a digital trip to some beautiful, but – in real life – hard-to-get-to places. Enjoy!
Some of the new/improved pages:
Some of the locations represented on spitsbergen-svalbard.com with new or improved pages:
Enjoy! Access via the links in the list below.
Currently Norwegian lawmakers appear to be producing one fantastic idea after the other. One of the potentially upcoming laws is aimed against saving water depth data. The Norwegian ministry of defence considers depth-recording echo sounders a potential threat to national security and wants to prohibit their use in Norwegian waters, as reported by NRK. Next to the 12 mile zone of mainland Norway, this is explicitely intended to include the corresponding territorial waters of Svalbard and Jan Mayen.
All modern ships have echo sounders installed to monitor the depth of the water under the ship, and fishing vessels routinely use echo sounders to locate fish. Simpler devices just show the current value, while more sophisticated ones – which are standard on many modern vessels – record and save the data. If a ship navigates repeatedly in a certain area, over time the data thus gathered will produce a rough chart of the sea bottom topography – a great advantage in poorly charted waters such as large parts of Svalbard, especially in the remoter areas. GPS tracks with depth information, automatically or manually recorded, are an important and frequently used navigational tool in these waters.
Navigation in uncharted waters, in this case near a glacier that has recently retreated. According to the charted, the ship is sailing inside the glacier (brown area). Careful use of echo sounders and recording depth for future use is common practice in such situations.
The Norwegian ministry of defence wants to have a law re-activated that prohibits saving high-resolution depth values in waters deeper than 30 metres. This author can only speculate that the reason is to make access to security-relevant areas more difficult and to keep military installations on the sea floor from being discovered.
According to the Spitsbergen Treaty, no country including Norway is allowed to have permanent military installations in Svalbard, hence introducing measures to protect such installations does not make sense. The Norwegian military, however, seems to consider the territorial waters of Svalbard generally so sensitive that they wish to include Svalbard, where large areas are poorly charted or not charted at all.
Fishers are raging because they see a risk of their daily routines being criminalised, with consequences potentially including high fines or up to a year in prison. According to the ministry of defence, the law is “in principle” not aimed against fishery and at least in theory their routines should not be affected – that is, at least, the intention. What the law actually says remains to be seen. The idea is rather to keep foreign, potentially unfriendly powers from systematically charting Norwegian waters.
The ongoing discussion of the highly controversial legal proposals by the Norwegian government concerning Svalbard (the Spitsbergen archipelago) is fuelled by a legal opinion that, in essence, concludes that the proposals should be withdrawn. The legal opinion was drafted by a law office based in Longyearbyen on behalf of Aeco (Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators, an inter-trade organisation), Visit Svalbard (tourism office and industry organisation in Longyearbyen) and Svalbard Næringsforening (trade and industry association in Longyearbyen) erstellt. Svalbardposten got a copy of the legal opinion and made the key points public.
This is what it is all about:
Controversial legal proposals (1): closing large parts of Svalbard
In essence, it is about a series of law proposals made by the previous Norwegian government. There is a new government in Oslo after parlamentiary elections in September.
The proposal which attracts most public attention and controversy also outside Svalbard and Norway is one that aims at practically closing large parts of the Svalbard archipelago for the public. The “public” that has at least sporadic access to these rather remote areas is mainly ship-based tourism during the summer season. This kind of traffic has for a long time already been strongly regulated (including, but not limited to, a ban on heavy oils on ships, limits on passenger numbers on board and ashore in most areas etc.). In addition to tourism, there is science and – on a much lower quantitative level – the local population and individual tourists, mainly those who come with their own yachts.
The law proposal is visibly aimed against ship-based tourism, but would hit all of these sectors. In principle, most of Svalbard’s land areas and coastlines are so far legally accessible for tourists, with the exception of a number of smaller areas, islands and locations, that are closed – seasonally or permanently – to the public because they are considered especially vulnerable. During the summer season, several hundred locations over most of the archipelago are visited by tourists; the main part of the traffic, however, takes place at a relatively limited number of well-known and realatively easily accessible locations. Many of the large number of remaining locations are more “exotic”, much less well known and much less regularly or actually only rarely visited. They are, nevertheless, important especially in the context of longer voyages which aim at experiencing the variety of Svalbard’s landscapes.
The relevant law proposal would drastically reduce the liberty of action in most parts of Svalbard. According to the proposal, landings shall only be permitted at altogether 42 locations in the protected areas, which include most of the archipelago. Due to wind, weather, ice and the presence of polar bears, it is very common that a given location is actually not available at a given point of time: in such cases, it has so far been common to move “around the corner” to another location which can be visited without problems or even risk. Flexibility is thus an integral part of the safety and quality concept of these voyages. The loss of flexibility would accordingly directly reduce the quality (and, potentially, safety) of the whole operation. Consider on top that, during peak season, several dozen ships would compete for a small number of sites that remains legally accessible, and you are left with almost next to nothing at all.
The following two maps may illustrate the loss of flexibility which the law proposal as it currently is would involve, looking at the example of Nordaustland. Similar maps could be drawn for almost any other part of Svalbard.
Landing sites on Nordaustland and neighbouring islands that have been visited by tourists in recent years (not complete).
Landing sites in the same area that would be legally accessible according to the current law proposal (complete).
If a legal measure as drastic as this one would actually be in accordance with the Spitsbergen Treaty, which in principal guarantees citizens and companies of signatory countries free access to the archipelago, is yet another question. But in order to get a proper answer, this question would probably have to be asked by the government of a treaty member other than Norway.
Controversial legal proposals (2): extended registration schemes for traffic
Another part of this law proposal aims at extened registration schemes and administration efforts for traffic outside the settlements.
Controversial legal proposals (3): distances to polar bears and walruses
Also a part of the law proposal that includes the above-mentioned points, this part is so central and important that it needs to be highlighted on its own, rather than getting lost at the end of a long text somewhere else: the law includes a legal minimum distance of 500 metres to polar bears in any situation and 300 metres to walruses at sea.
Especially a general minimum distance of 500 metres to polar bears would destroy the basis of a large part of the ship-based tourism industry in Svalbard: seeing polar bears is amongst the main reasons for many tourists who visit Svalbard, especially in the context of several-day-long trips on smaller ships (expedition ships). Polar bear observations within much shorter distances from ships or smaller boats (“tender boats”, often Zodiacs or similar boats) are more or less common routine on many of these trips and do not involve danger for humans or animals. Carried out properly and respectfully, such operations do usually not cause disturbance of wildlife; changes of behaviour that may occasionally occur are usually not relevant – unless one considers it principally unacceptable that a polar bear walks a few metres away – and lead to an immediate discontinuation of the operation or at least to a greater distance.
Approaching polar bears in a way that may involve danger for humans or animals or disturbance is already forbidden (but NOT approaching in general) according to the Svalbard environmental act that has been in force for a long time now. Hence, there is no legal deficit but possibly an enforcement deficit, something that would actually be hard to deny but at the same time a problem that will not be solved by stricter laws.
There is no data that suggest that disturbance caused by tourists really is a problem for polar bears in Svalbard. There is no doubt that annoying individual cases do happen where tourists with or without guide (or locals) behave in an inacceptable way in the presence of polar bears (or other wildlife, for that sake). But these cases are already covered by existing law; the problem is enforcing the law that is in force and not a need for new and stricter laws. And, again, there is no data suggesting that there is a systematic problem beyond individual cases.
Regarding walruses: a couple of years ago, the Norwegian Polar Institute carried out a project with automatic cameras placed at a number of walrus haulout sites to investigate the problems that traffic, especially tourist visits, might potentially cause. The conclusion was that there is no indication that tourist traffic poses a relevant problem.
These are the most important parts of the legal proposals that concern the interested public also outside Svalbard. But there is more:
Controversial legal proposals (4): qualification and certification of guides
Another proposal aims at the qualification and certification of guides. This has already been a matter of debate for a long time and hardly anyone will deny that there is need for action. A reasonable, practicable certification scheme would be welcomed by companies, relevant organisations (such as AECO or the Svalbard Guide Association) and many guides who consider themselves professionals. The current proposal, however, sets the threshold from zero up to a level that would be very hard to reach for most. The proposal demands a number of courses and certificates that would cost an individual, non-local guide (who would also have to pay travel and accommodatio costs) an estimated 10,000-20,000 Euro. The result might be a collapse of the industry as almost no guides have these certificates ready or would be able to produce them at more or less short notice. This includes experienced guides with many years or even decades of experience who would “only” have to formalise their knowledge and experience which they have been using as part of their daily routine for many years, but without having formalised these skills. Also many of these experienced professionals would – especially considering the whole legal situation and potential development – think twice if they actually want to go through the effort of formalising their existing skills and knowledge. A lot of precious knowledge might thus get lost.
Controversial legal proposals (5): deprival of communal voting rights from non-Norwegian citizens in Longyearbyen
And yet another fantastic idea that you have to bear in mind to have kind of a complete picture of the current political development is the stunning proposal to deny “foreigners” the vote to right locally in Longyearbyen (this is NOT about the national parlamentary elections, that is not an issue anyway for those who do not have Norwegian citizenship).
Legal criticism
The above-mentioned legal opinion considers mainly the part of the law proposals that is aimed at practically closing large parts of Svalbard, but also the part that concerns guide certification. The legal opinion leads to annihilating conclusions regarding both parts.
General criticism that concerns the whole package includes the fact the the local population and their political representatives, and others concerned such as industry associations and companies, have not been involved (comment for the sake of completeness: there is an ongoing public hearing where all associations, companies and individuals who want to can give their input, but many doubt that critical opinions will actually be considered and reflected by the ongoing process. The above-mentioned parties were not included at any earlier stage).
Key points of the legal opinions regarding the closure of large parts of Svalbard include:
There is doubt if the legal foundation is sufficient for such drastic measures.
Poor data and scientific basis for such strong restrictions.
Consequences for areas and locations, including those who are to remain accessible, are not sufficiently considered.
Important scientific input given by instutions such as NINA (Norwegian Institute for nature research. It is amongst NINA’s key tasks to support legal processes with scientific knowledge) and the Norwegian Polar Institute (dito) was not sufficienty considered. This concerns amongst others the required minimum distances to polar bears and walruses.
Wrong application of the precautionary principle.
Milder restrictions other than the strongest ones were appearently not considered.
One-sided, negative presentation of tourism in Svalbard, especially cruise tourism, without good basis by data or scientific input.
Also the legal proposal that concerns amongst others certification schemes for guides does get some substantial criticism:
Consequences for the industry were not sufficiently considered, for example costs estimated between 10,000 and 20,000 Euro for non-local guides.
Limited capacities and existing competence were not sufficiently considered.
Administrative consequences were not sufficiently considered: how much additional effort would an enlargened registration and admininistration scheme for traffic involve? How many additional administrative positions, time and costs have to be expected?
Consequences for the local population and community were not sufficienty considered, for example the consequences for the attractivity of Longyearbyen as a place to live. Many people in Longyearbyen are professionally directly or indirectly connected to tourism.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the legal opinion is clear: the law proposals should be withdrawn and drafted again from scratch, with a new definition of the aims that are actually to be achieved and a new consideration of the legal basis and scientific input.
On the other hand, optimism amongst those who are concerned that relevant authorities are willing to listen to opinions other than their own ones is rather limited, to put it mildly. Withdrawing a proposal that is public at least indirectly implies a confession that something was not right from the start, something that authorities are usually not really good at.
On the other hand, as it is said in the Norwegian mountain rules: it is never too late to turn around.
click here to access a page of the Norwegian environmental authority (“Miljødirektorat”) with further documents, including (a bit further down on the page) English translations of the English originals. There is also a link to the page with the hearing procedure, which is open until 01 May 2022.
In early 2020, two polar bears died under the hands of Norwegian authorities within just a few weeks: one was shot in the early morning hours of 01 January by the police (Sysselmester; then Sysselmannen) several kilometres away from town, although it was not an emergency situation. According to an official press release, anaesthetization and transportation to a remoter area were not available because relevant personell was not available because of the Christmas holidays (click here to read more about this case).
Only a few weeks later, on 30 January, another polar bear died during helicopter transport after anaesthetization (click here and here to read more about this case).
It does not surprise that both cases were met with a lot of public criticism. Norwegian authorities looked into the case, especially the second one, and came to the conclusion that there was not enough competence present to handle the procedure of anaesthetizing a polar bear in this given case and that the procedures were generally not good enough. There was, for example, no vet present when the polar bear was anaesthetized although vets were present in Longyearbyen and could have been called to assist on short notice (click here to read more about official investigations and criticism of this case).
Preparation of an anaesthetized polar bear near Longyearbyen (2016).
In addition, the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs (“Spesialenheten for politisaker”) started official investigations later in 2020. Both Sysselmannen (governor and police; today known as Sysselmester) and the Norwegian Polar Institute, an authority directly involved in such cases to provide advice and actually carry out relevant parts of the handling, were suspect of negligence.
In the end, a report was published recently, concluding that the criminal investigation was closed because there was no evidence for criminally liable behaviour. But the report mentions relevant mistakes and inadequate routines and commits the Sysselmester to improve the routines.
It is remarkable that the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs actually took up the case, and the result is, at best, a second-class verdict of not guilty. Definitely anything but a compliment for Sysselmester and Norwegian Polar Institute, the authorities who are officially deciding on and handling polar bears in relevant cases. It can be assumed that both polar bears might still be alive given proper handling of those cases.
So far, Norwegian policy and practical handling from official side don’t seem to know more options in such cases than scaring polar bears away with cars, snow mobiles or helicopters – a practice about which critics say that it actually teaches polar bears who don’t run away immediately that it is not dangerous to be in the vicinity of people and loud vehicles – and then, anaesthetization and transport or a deadly bullet. Non-lethal deterrents such as pepper spray or pepper projectiles or rubber bullets, which may make it very clear to a bear that being in the vicinity of people isn’t a good thing without actually injuring or even killing the animal, are not (yet?) part of the toolbox that those who handle these cases on official behalf seem to have considered a lot. It appears that there is still a lesson to be learnt and room for improvement.
The “arctic Wednesday” is about to continue soon! Birgit Lutz and I have scheduled 6 dates and themes for our the continuation of our popular series of online presentations in December 2021 and January 2022. No lesser than the famous adventurer Arved Fuchs will open the new series with his presentation “Shackleton 2000”, his narration of his adventures in Ernest Shackleton’s footsteps!
These proposals have both been made by the government in Oslo. As of now, final decisions have not been made yet.
And both proposals were made by the Norwegian government without involving local politicians or the people living in Spitsbergen or industries working there. There is the public hearing, but that is quite late in the day to involve the local council. And based on experience from recent hearings, trust that the input given into such processes will actually be heard is rather limited, to put it mildly.
Longyearbyen: many people living here are currently shocked about political proposals coming from Oslo. If the sun is politically going up or down over this beautiful place is a question that remains to be answered by national politicians soon.
Many people who live in Longyearbyen or who otherwise have a strong connection to Svalbard are now fed up with this way to rule the place. The is “NOK er NOK” (“enough is enough”). Local groups and organisations have now called on the local public to join a torchlight procession today (Tuesday, 16 november) in Longyearbyen. Politicians, locals, organisations and companies in and connected with Longyearbyen and Svalbard want to be heard and involved when it comes to decisions that may well decide over their future. The demand is that both political proposals, regarding both the closing of large parts of the archipelago and the idea to deprive non-Norwegian locals of their voting rights, disappear from the political agenda in Oslo.
Organisations that called on the public to join their protest include Svalbard næringsforening (an organisation of local industries and companies), AECO (an organisation representing the expedition cruise operators), Longyearbyen jeger- og fiskerforening (club of local hunters and fishers), To-takteren (club for snow mobile and boat enthusiasts), Svalbard Turn (local sports club with a large number of outdoor enthusiasts amongst the members) and the Svalbard Guide Association. Altogether, these organisations represent an impressive number of people in Longyearbyen, but also elsewhere.
Due to the weather, today’s protest may turn out to be a headlamp procession rather than a torchlight processions.
Observing Norwegian governmental activities to tighten rules concerning traffic and tourism in Spitsbergen has been a constant and mostly rather unpleasant part of running this website since I started it in 2006. Legal proposals have, without any doubt, included improvements, some of them long due – one may well ask why it was possible until recently that pretty much anyone could just rent a firearm legally in Longyearbyen, almost like a bicycle elsewhere. Other legal improvements have, so far, remained a dream for environmentalists, for example a ban on heavy oil in all waterways of the whole archipelago, or a limit on the number of persons on ships allowed into the 12 mile zone – an accident of a large cruise ship, with passenger and crew numbers orders of magnitude beyond anything emergency services could handle, remain a nightmare.
On the other hand, it is hard to believe what authorities sometimes come up with.
Currently, it seems to be a bit of both, with a distinct emphasise on the bizarre aspect. Again, a tightening of the existing framework of regulations that control traffic and tourism in Svalbard is under discussion. The Norwegian environmenta authority (miljødirektoratet) has brought a proposal into a public hearing phase. The hearing will be open until February 03, 2022. Until then, everybody can give his or her opinion into the process. Based on experience with recent regulatory processes, however, observers doubt that opinions issued by others than the authorities involved will seriously be taken into consideration.
So, what’s going on? Some of the most important changes that are included in the current proposal may be summarised (and commented) as follows (not comprehensive). When “large protected areas” are mentioned, then this includes the national parks Northwest Spitsbergen, South Spitsbergen, Forlandet (Prins Karls Forland), Van Mijenfjord and Indre Wijdefjord as well as the nature reserves Northeast Svalbard and Southeast Svalbard. In other words, most of the archipelago except Isfjord, parts of Forlandsund and Kongsfjord.
So, the following changes are included in the current proposal:
Ships are not allowed to have more than 200 passengers on board in the national parks (this is already the case in the nature reserves. The proposal does not include waters outside the large protected areas. In other words: large cruise ships may still come into Isfjord with any number of passengers and crew on bord).
Now, the following point is, for most, probably the most important and drastic one: the legal principle of where it is allowed to move around in the large protected areas is turned around: so far, the situation is essentially that you can move around, also on land, anywhere unless it is forbidden. Now it is proposed that this should be turned around: it is generally forbidden to go on land in the large protected areas unless it is specifically allowed, which is only planned for 42 locations – in an area comprising several ten thousand square kilometres. Most parts of the archipelago would thus effectively be closed to the public.
An example: according to the proposal made by the miljødiretorat, there would only one landing site be available on Prins Karls Forland (Poolepynten). Other than this one location, the whole island, which is more than 80 km long, would be closed to the public. More than 10 sites around the island – mostly on the east side – have, however, been visited by tourists more or less regularly in recent years.
This is just an example; things would be similar in the other large protected areas, which comprise effectively most of the archipelago. The consequences for ship-based tourism as it is happening today (set corona aside for a moment) would be dramatic. The desire to experience the huge diversity of the landscape and the need to have a choice because of other ships operating in the same area is one reason, but another, even more important one is simply safety: it is daily routine that a landing site has to be changed on short notice because wind weather do not permit a a safe operation. In such a situation, it is common routine to move the landing to another site with better conditions to operate safely, something that happens frequently. The presence of a polar bear in the vicinity is another factor that often requires the same kind of reaction. If it is not possible anymore to react in a flexible way, pressure will increase to make landings under conditions less than ideal or potentially even in dangerous conditions.
Out of the 42 landing sites that are included in the proposal, a number is to be restriction to a maximum number of 39 people ashore at any time.
The ban on motorised traffic (snow mobiles) on fjord ice in a number of fjords that has so far been issued every season for some years now is to receive legal status. This has already happened earlier this year regarding Van Mijenfjord and Van Keulenfjord and the current proposal includes Tempelfjord, Billefjord and Dicksonfjord.
Regulations regarding traffic in the vicinity of polar bears are to be tightened considerable. So far, it is forbidden to approach polar bears in a way that may lead to danger to humans or bears. There is, as of now, no legally required minimum distance, and it is, in reverse conclusion, legally possible to approach polar bears in a safe manner – usually done by boat – as long as this does not lead to any disturbance. Disturbing wildlife is generally prohibited, including polar bears as well as any other wildlife. According to the current proposal, there will be a general minimum distance of 500 metres from polar bears.
A maximum speed of 5 knots in the vicinity of certain bird colonies for boats (who would want to argue against that?).
Ships and boats have to keep a minimum distance of 300 metres to walrus haulout sites.
The use of drones will largely be forbidden.
Remarkably enough, the proposal does also include some legal facilitations, although of a rather punctual nature:
No specific permit is required anymore for visits to Virgohamna.
The “no traffic zone” around the remains of the pomor site and whaling station in Habenichtbukta on Edgeøya is to be abolished.
The legal requirement for site-specific guidelines is to be abolished (according to the proposal, most sites in question would be off limits anyway).
Of the above-mentioned points, the second one is the one that bears the most radical change compared to the status quo, limiting the traffic to a small number of locations in huge areas that can, until now, be visited relatively freely. This would have a dramatic impact on the practice of ship-based tourism as it is today. A similar proposal was already under discussion around 2008/09. Back then, the proposal was finally considered unreasonable and unsubstantiated and it was hence largely rejected.
A comparison between the following to sketch maps will illustrate the difference between today’s legal regime and practice (first map) and the current proposal (second map).
Landing sites on Nordaustland and nearby islands that have been visited by tourists in recent years (not complete).
Landing sites in the same area that would be available according to the current proposal (complete).
This example includes just Nordaustland and the surrounding islands. Similarly drastic illustrations could be made for most other parts of Svalbard.
It is, so far, “only” a legal proposal in a public hearing stage that is open until early February 2022. After that, the proposal will go through the usual process and we will see what comes out of it. According to the environmental authority (miljødirektoratet), the changes will come into force in 2023.
Also the new Norwegian government has announced to continue with the exploration of new oil and gas fields in the Barents Sea. Also bottom trawling, an ecologically devastating form of fishery, will remain possible even in the nature reserves.
There are, by default, no rodends in Spitsbergen. But things changed when the settlements were established in the early 20th century. A vole originally from eastern Europe (microtus levis) came up most likely with animal feed. The vole is well established in the vicinity of Grumantbyen although the places was abandoned in 1962.
Von Natur aus gibt es in Spitzbergen keine Nagetiere. Die Osteuropäische Feldmaus (Microtus levis) ist im 20. Jahrhundert mit dem Menschen eingereist, wahrscheinlich mit Tierfutter. Gehalten hat sich sich in einem Gebiet mit vergleichsweise üppiger Vegetation, nämlich unter den Vogelfelsen östlich der 1962 aufgegebenen russischen Siedlung Grumantbyen, zwischen Longyearbyen und Barentsburg. Traces of various sorts are frequently found in large area stretching from Barentsburg in the west to Sassenfjord in the east. Norwegian Polar Institute biologists monitor the population with camera traps and real traps which are laid out by people in Longyearbyen.
The result: the voles seem to have established a stable population not only in Barentsburg and Grumantbyen, but also in the area of Diabasodden and Hatten, two adjacent cliffs with seabirds colonies in Sassenfjord. This indicates that the rodents can survive on their own in the wilderness in Spitsbergen. This may have to do with a warming climate, especially in the winter.
Experts do not consider this development a threat for the regional ecosystem and biodiversity, and the Norwegian authorities have so far decided against an attempt to erradicate the introduced voles in Spitsbergen. Other countries, namely New Zealand and Australia, are taking a much different approach on their subantarctic islands, where mice, rats and other introduced species have been erradicated with great effort, as has been on quite recently in South Georgia.
On Wednesday (06 October), Spitsbergen got the first confirmed case of a Covid-19 infection. The patient was not a local or a tourist, but a crew member of a Russian fishing ship who got evacuated for medical reasons near Bjørnøya, as NRK wrote. He was flown to Longyearbyen and later to the university hospital in Tromsø. There is only one intensive care bed with artificial respiratory equipment in Longyearbyen.
There is no suspicion of further infections, for example amongst the personell of the helicopter or in the hospital in Longyearbyen. The vaccination rate in Longyearbyen’s adult population is beyond 90 %, and locally, the public opinion about possible infections is generally relaxed.
Corona viruses on high seas: a crew member of a Russian fishing vessel was tested positive – the first positive corona test in Longyearbyen.
Until now, there had not been any officially confirmed corona infections in Spitsbergen beyond those on board the Hurtigruten ship Roald Amundsen in 2020, but the Roald Amundsen had not been to any of the settlements. The remarkably long period without any corona infections may, however, also have to do with the rather interesting local testing strategy, which is described as follows by some who wanted to get themselves or their children tested because they had symptoms which they considered relevant: “You have symptoms? Stay at home!” And later: “You don’t have symptoms? Then you don’t need a test.” This is also a way to keep a place corona-free 🙂 at least on paper.
In late September, Norway has lifted most corona restrictions, including travel restrictions for European countries and certain travellers from other countries, according to the Norwegian government.
August and September have finally brought some soul food to the travel blog, which I hope you have enjoyed. Now it is time to catch up with some news. Not all of them are good ones, unfortunately.
Foreign residents of Longyearbyen may lose voting rights
Earlier this year, the Norwegian government in Oslo has made a proposal that would lead to the withdrawal of voting rights on a community level from non-Norwegian locals in Longyearbyen. The matter is complex; it is based on the Spitsbergen Treaty which puts the Spitsbergen islands under Norwegian sovereignty. Based on that, a Norwegian law from 1925 determined that “Svalbard is part of the Kingdom of Norway”. But depending on the occasion, Spitsbergen is sometimes treated as part of Norway and sometimes as a foreign territory by Norwegian authorities.
Non-Norwegian citizens who live in Norway usually get the right to vote and to be elected on a community level after 3 years of residence. This is also valid for Longyearbyen since there is an elected community council there (Lokalstyre), which was established in 2002.
Now, earlier this year the Norwegian government made a proposal that ties the right to vote (and to be elected) to a residence period of at least 3 years in a community on the Norwegian mainland. Residence in Longyearbyen would not count anymore, according to this proposal.
It will not surprise that this proposal was mostly not met with sympathy in Longyearbyen, especially amongst those directly concerned. Withdrawing voting rights from a significant part of the local population does not fit well into a European democratic context.
The change of government that followed to the parliamentary elections in Norway in September does, so far, not seem to have any consequences for the proposal, which was discussed in September in Longyearbyen by local politicians during a council meeting.
Longyearbyen has an international population with Norwegians being the largest group. The local council is dominated by Norwegian delegates.
Delegate of centre and right-wing parties stoke fears
It is remarkable how a delegate of the right-wing “Fremskrittsparti” (“Progress party”) commented the matter, as quoted by Svalbardposten (this author’s translation): “… people who have not been to Norway, who do not have relatives in Norway, who do not have any connection to Norway, who do not have any particular interest in Norway, may come to Svalbard, vote and get elected themselves. For many it is logical that this should not be so. This is a shame for the good citizens that we have here, most of whom are reasonable people, but it is a question of security: we can just not take the risk.”
It is one of many remarkable aspects of this comment that the speaker implies that Svalbard is not part of Norway. Otherwise, residence in Longyearbyen would naturally imply a connection to Norway and an interest in the country.
A delegate of the party “Høyre” (“Right”) made a similar statement: “We risk that so many foreigners come that there may not be a single Norwegian in the council.”
This fear is by no means reflected by reality, neither in the local population nor in the composition of the council – even less by the latter, actually, which is strongly dominated by Norwegian delegates.
Social democrats and left delegates speak out in a differentiated way or critically
Mayor Arild Olsen from the social democratic Arbeiderparti spoke out very critically about the poposal, using both practical arguments and considerations of democratic theory. Delegates of the party “Venstre” (“Left”) made differentiated comments.
As a result, the council was not able to come up with a cohesive statement and the issue will be taken up again later. The deadline for the hearing is 25 October.
On Saturday, 28 August, Svalbard Church celebrated 100 years. The first church was built in a very short time in 1921 and it was sanctified on 28 August 1921, but it was destroyed during a German attack in 1943. Work to build a new church was started in 1956, but it was not before 1958 that the new building could be sanctified. Construction work is currently done to ensure a long and strong future life for today’s church.
The service to celebrate 100 years of Svalbard Church was held on the place where the original church was built in 1921.
Yesterday’s service that celebrated 100 years of Svalbard Church was held in the location of the first, original church from 1921 by priest Siv Limstrand together with the protestantic and the catholic bishops from Tromsø. The parish includes the whole municipality of Svalbard. There is no other church. Barentsburg has a chapel.
Most days have been a bit grey and windy recently, but full of joy and good experience outdoors, so time keeps flying. After a long period of abstinence, forced upon me by the pandemic, I enjoy being outside and that’s definitely the focus these days, rather than spending time on the computer. There would be more than enough to write about, stories and pictures from Spitsbergen’s stunning nature, so many beautiful impressions …
But that has to wait right now, we’ll get there later.
Things keep happening also up here in Spitsbergen, and it would be quite out of place to write about being in the outdoors, with stunning scenery, wildlife encounters and interesting “discoveries” of phenomena such as fossils and others, without having written about certain other events first.
Mark Sabbatini left Spitsbergen involuntarily
Especially when it is about someone who had to leave the island after more than 10 years (13, to be more precise). Someone who didn’t have plans to leave.
The power of the Sysselmester, the Norwegian government’s highest representative in Svalbard, includes to expel someone from the islands. This is something that happens rather rarely, for example in cases of persons repeteadly found to have used or even sold illegal drugs, something considered even more dangerous to a relatively young community in the far north, with several months of polar night, than elsewhere in the world.
Also tourists who arrived without any means to support their stay in Spitsbergen have already been sent back on the next flight. The authorities don’t want people to sleep in the streets or to camp wild in or near Longyearbyen, something that is a) forbidden and b) dangerous (polar bears).
So far, so understandable. But someone who has lived here fo 13 years?
Mark Sabbatini: 13 years of Spitsbergen, 13 years of “Icepeople”
The American Mark Sabbatini, per default a newspaper- and media person, had already spent considerable time in places including Antarctica when he came to Longyearbyen 13 years ago and started publishing his free, English newspaper and website “Icepeople”, an alternative media platform next to the local newspaper Svalbardposten and language-wise certainly more accessible to an international public. Since then, Mark has been part of Longyearbyen’s inventory, sitting at a table in a corner of Café Fruene and focussing on his computer while live is busy around him, keeping his newspaper and website updated.
But economically, “Icepeople” never became a source of wealth (something that its editor and author had never primarily intended): paper edition (the “fishwrapper”, as Mark himself calls it) and the website are fully accessible for free, and advertising has never brought much business. The hardest of several economical blows that Mark had to suffer, however, was the Gamle Sykehjem (“Old hospital”) story. This is a long story in itself (click here read more about it). In short words: Mark was one of several who bought a flat in this house which then showed structural damage due to melting permafrost, so it had to be evacuated on short notice and those who had bought a property there suffered more or less a full loss (some more than others, depending on circumstances). Other blows that Mark had to suffer affected his health, including falling and getting hurt badly in times of clear ice on the street in Longyearbyen. This all is well-known local gossip and Mark has never made a secret of it.
Economical and health-wise downhill development
Finally all reserves were used up, and Marks economical situation in the northernmost settlement (if we exclude Ny-Ålesund, which does not have a normal population) of the rich country Norway reached a point where he had increasing difficulties to fund his daily spendings. So it went on for a while. Many did this and that to help, and it went on, with better and more difficult times.
It is one of the consequences of the Spitsbergen Treaty that there is no network for social security beyond what is provided by everybody’s home countries. And as the Norwegian authorities do not accept people living in unsettled situation in Spitsbergen, they reserve the right to expel people from Svalbard who are not economically able to take care of themselves on a level accepted by the authorities.
New Sysselmester Lars Fause has a different viewpoint on this whole question than his precursor, and he decided to “take responsibility” as soon as he came into power recently.
Mark himself has told his view of this story in public a number of times, including Svalbardposten, his own website Icepeople and social media and in personal communication, also to this author. He emphasizes that he does not only understand and accept the Sysselmester’s decision, but he also considers it to be the right decision, in the light of the development in recent years.
Back to Alaska
Mark left Spitsbergen last Wednesday, headed for Juneau in Alaska, where he wants to recover health-wise and economically. Then, he wants to find himself a place in Alaska’s media landscape, preferably with a focus on remote communities.
Mark Sabbatini during his goodbye in Longyearbyen last Wednesday. Photo: Icepeople.
Mark wants to continue with Icepeople, so the page will be active and updated also in the future, supplying an international public with interest in local matters with all sorts of detailed information, presented in Mark’s own way, often with a touch of humour and written in a style that may occasionally be slightly challenging for non-native English speakers.
By the way, Mark has contributed with proofreading to a number of texts used in various publications, print and online, by this author, including shorter texts such as quite recently in Svalbardhytter or longer ones including updates of the English version of the guidebook Spitsbergen-Svalbard. According to Mark, he will be happy to make similar contributions also in the future, something I’ll be happy to make use of (as a paid service, as before)
If you want to read more about the circumstances of Mark’s departure, then you will find plenty of stuff on his own site, Icepeople.
To start with, the answer to the question in the last blog. It was about this photo:
A corner in Svalbardbutikken, Longyearbyen’s refurbished supermarket.
$64-question for Spitsbergen-nerds: what’s wrong here? 🙂
So, what is wrong? Obviously, it wasn’t really obvious 🙂 the photo on the wall is mirror-inverted. They say they will get a corrected version at some stage.
Adventure Oslo airport
Spending a couple of hours in an airport is pretty much the most boring thing that I can think of. why write about it? Because it can go wrong if you expect it to work as normal.
Test or no test, that is the question
The question keeps coming up wether or not corona testing is required on a trip to Spitsbergen. The current situation is that immunised travellers (fully vaccinated or recently recovered, documented with an acknowledged document such as a digital European vaccination certificate) do not have to show a certificate for a negative test upon entering Norway or checking in on a flight to Spitsbergen. That may change at any time, as everything these days; authorities including the Sysselmester have already demanded to re-introduce the test obligation.
In my experience, it is an increasing risk that you can’t necessarily rely on governemt decisions especially when things are changing more or less every week. Then it’s whatever the airport official you are dealing with thinks. What use is in being right if you don’t get any further with is? An non-Corona-example: legally, as a EU citizen you don’t need a passport to travel from Norway to Spitsbergen, an ID card will do. But at the airport they demand a passport from non-Norwegians. Additionally, machines like automatic check-in machines or automated passport control machines can only read passports and not ID cards, so you are well advised to bring your passport anyway.
Digital EU-vaccination certificate: makes the process more efficient in Oslo Gardermoen.
But not necessarily efficient.
So, back to the initial question: currently, testing is not required under the above-mentioned conditions. But it may still be a good idea to have enought time to get one, just in case. There are testing facilities at Oslo Gardermoen airport, but you may need a couple of hours until you get the certificate, depending on traffic. And, according to Svalbardposten, the corona test station at Tromsø airport accepts only travellers coming in from international flights, but not outgoing ones destined for Svalbard. Those have to use equivalent services in Tromsø centre. Next to the extra time, expect costs of 1500 kroner (plus transportation) unless you are a registered resident in Spitsbergen, then it is free.
Adventure Oslo airport: travel information
The usual two hours from arrival at Oslo Gardermoen airport until departure may be enough when it’s early in the morning. Or maybe not. It is bizarre how rapidly the queues are getting longer and longer until they reach amazing dimensions. Last weekend, one could get the impression that they are discussing testing requirements in detail with every single passenger before you could continue to the actual check-in area. For us, with destination Longyearbyen and fully vaccinated, it was a very short conversation – “have a good trip” was the only comment as soon as we had provided our information. But getting that far is the point, and it takes much, much longer for many other flight passengers, and you may have hundreds in the queue ahead of you. From then on, the process was actually reasonably efficient (security check, passport control). Luckily.
An empty airport Oslo Gardermoen: that’s history!
According to Norwegian media, travellers have recently spent up to 8 hours queuing up in the airport of Oslo Gardermoen, missing their flights and everything that comes with that (forget about social distancing!). In the interest of all travellers, we can only hope that they improve the logistics significantly soonest. Anyway, if you plan to travel through Oslo at any time soon, make sure to have extra time.
And make sure to have even more time if you are not fully vaccinated or don’t have an accepted document for this.
It has been a long process, hence it did not come as a surprise when the new Van Mijenfjord national park was established by law on 18 June. The new national park includes the northern part of Van Keulenfjord and adjoins the South Spitsbergen Nationalpark. As a result, the whole southern part of the main island of Spitsbergen from southern Nordenskiöld Land (the land area between Isfjord and Van Mijenfjord) is now protected on national park level.
Inner Van Mijenfjord in late May: now a national park.
Successor of the Nordenskiöld Land national park
The Van Mijenfjord national park is the amplified successor of Nordenskiöld Land national park which was established in 2003, but restricted to a land area on the north side of Van Mijenfjord. There have been changes since 2003 that have made the adjustment necessary, including the large clean-up of the former mining settlement of Sveagruva. Another aspect that needed proper regulation were the regular requests by the Sysselmannen (now Sysselmester) who asked the public to stay clear of certain sensitive areas during the late spring and eary summer, but without a precise definition of the area and time interval in question and the legal bindingness, leaving room for doubt for those who were operating in the area. This is now regulated beyond any grey zone potential. Yet another aspect is motorised traffic (snow mobiles) on fjord ice. Also here, the Sysselmannen has spoken out bans on such traffic on a regular basis. Including these bans which were spoken out on an annual basis in a permanent law makes it easier to know what one has to deal with. The details of some of these regulations are of course at least in part controversial; the government has chosen a very extensive and strict approach to the ban on motorised traffic, something that not all local tour enthusiasts in Longyearbyen are happy with as the opportunities to visit the south part of the main island are now strongly restricted. It is definitely important to some people, but their number is actually limited as even in Longyearbyen there are not too many people adventurous (and interested) enough to venture on long trips into these areas, far from the common routes. There were no snow mobile routes of relevance for tourists in the area in question.
Three new bird sanctuaries, snow mobile traffic strongly restricted
Generally, the new Van Mijenfjord national park law includes the same regulations that apply to all national parks. Beyond these, following rules of practical importance for locals and tourists include the following:
Midterhuken, Eholmen and Mariaholmen are now bird sanctuaries and it is forbidden to approach these areas or to move within them from 15 May to 15 August. Click here to access a map that shows the exact locations of these new bird sanctuaries.
Snow mobiles and other motorised traffic on the fjord ice of Van Mijenfjord and Van Keulenfjord are now largely restricted every season from 01 March. Only registered locals are allowed to cross the fjord ice of parts of Van Mijenfjord on the shortest safe route, while other areas are now completely off limits for this kind of traffic from 01 March. Click here to access a map that shows the areas in detail. Non-motorised traffic (ski, dog sledge) remains legally possible within the usual legal framework.
The core area o the former mining settlement of Sveagruva is excluded from the national park. Here, extensive clean-up works will continue for another while until most of the settlement is removed.