The view from the director’s chair: Three decades of the WWF Arctic Programme

Over the past 30 years, WWF’s Arctic Programme has worked to raise awareness about the issues that matter most to the Arctic and the people and species who call it home. The programme’s director always helps to determine these priorities. In autumn 1992, PETER PROKOSCH became the Arctic Programme’s first director. He was succeeded in 2002 by SAMANTHA SMITH, who had begun as his deputy director and stayed on until 2006. JAN DUSIK is the current acting director.

The challenges and issues faced by the directors have changed over time, just as the Arctic itself has changed. But all directors have shared a common goal: to protect Arctic ecosystems, biodiversity and communities. We spoke to all three about their role, experience and vision for the future.

How would you describe the state of the Arctic during your time as director of WWF’s Arctic Programme?

Peter: My first challenge was that back then, hardly anybody had a clue what the Arctic was. We produced several Arctic maps that showed the Arctic from all angles to demonstrate that it is a circumpolar region made up mainly of ocean and surrounded by continents. In 1993, we launched the Arctic Bulletin, a newsletter that reflected what was going on in Arctic governmental cooperation. We always tried to highlight the achievements and activities of the countries we thought were most progressive.

Samantha: When I joined the Arctic Programme, the Arctic Council had been had just been launched, and we were still in this politically confusing period after the end of the Cold War. There was also a mutual desire for a rapprochement between western governments and Russia in the North, because the Arctic had been, and still is, a zone of military action and even confrontation. There was a desire to try to build a more peaceful post-war cooperation when it came to Arctic environment and culture. But we had no sense, then, that climate change was going to be a big thing. We were just talking about issues such as fisheries, marine protected areas and what resources and other rights Indigenous Peoples have in the Arctic.

Jan: When I joined the Arctic Programme in March 2020, the tangible impact of climate change was already clearly visible in the Arctic. Initially, there was enthusiasm about how the economy would flourish and opportunities would increase as the Arctic became more habitable. People were also starting to realize the disruption that climate change would bring to Arctic infrastructure and livelihoods. But Indigenous Peoples would probably see it the other way around—that the disruption to their livelihoods would matter more than any economic opportunities delivered by a warmer climate. The other thing is that I began just when the COVID-19 pandemic started. All meetings had to be postponed, and the Arctic’s well-functioning cooperation and mutual understanding were all disordered by the fact that people couldn’t meet.

In your opinion, what was the most critical issue facing the Arctic during your tenure as director?

Peter: For the Arctic countries, the most important issue was certainly pollution. Their main focus was on the POPs—persistent organic pollutants. The work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme on POPs had a crucial influence on the Stockholm Convention, which ended the production of such POPs worldwide. I would say that is one of the most concrete outcomes of the circumpolar cooperation that started in the 1990s.

The greatest success story of our time was the establishment of the Great Arctic Reserve in northern Taymyr in 1993, which was a result of several WWF expeditions to that area between 1989 and 1992. In my time, there was also a major change: from working entirely on environmental issues with the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy [a non-binding agreement among the Arctic states on environmental protection in the Arctic] adopted in 1991 towards the Canadian initiative in 1996, when the Arctic Council’s work on “sustainable development” became the larger framework for intergovernmental cooperation.

Samantha: In the early 2000s, it became clear that what was happening south of the Arctic wasn’t staying there. We were seeing really high accumulations of toxic chemicals in marine mammals and also in Arctic people, who were harvesting and eating those marine mammals. There was also a huge shift in our understanding of the environmental issues facing the Arctic, with the recognition that climate change was now the biggest threat. It was becoming more and more clear just how big a threat climate change was going to be and how quickly the changes were coming. I would not want to go back and read the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment now, because I’m pretty sure the things we thought would happen 50 years in the future have already happened.

Jan: I started at WWF when the COVID-19 pandemic was just beginning, so that was a major issue, not only for the Arctic but for the world. By the second year of the pandemic, when people had learned how to continue cooperating, the impacts of climate change, such as wildfires, were the big issue—the displacements they caused and the risks they posed to economic activities. Today, I think the big disruption is the war in Ukraine and the international isolation of Russia. Not only is it a humanitarian crisis that shocks and saddens us—it impacts everything. It is basically stopping all Arctic cooperation.

As director, what concrete changes did you see in the overall health of the Arctic?

Peter: One issue at the time was the Chernobyl atomic catastrophe, which brought radioactive material into the Arctic. It was a big issue for the Sámi people, particularly in northern Norway. For example, they could not eat or sell the reindeer meat. That was a major concern, but it improved over my tenure. In terms of pollutants, a lot came from the Russian side, from the nickel smelters on the Kola Peninsula close to the Norwegian border. But Norway did a lot to influence the clean-up of those polluting industries.

Samantha: I think the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants that was agreed upon just before I became director was a huge victory. Some of the other big successes were the creation of very large new protected areas, especially in the Russian Arctic. There was also a much bigger focus on sustainable management of the Arctic fisheries. And of course, there was the issue of climate change, where we suddenly started to understand that it was important, but had almost no tools to do anything about it.

One big initiative was our call for an Arctic Treaty for the Arctic Ocean. We were concerned that as the temperatures warmed up and ice disappeared, we would see much more shipping in the northern seas as well as oil and gas development. I don’t think we really foresaw seabed mining that far north, but it was certainly on some people’s minds. We were actually hoping for something like the Antarctic Treaty, and we landed on a Regional Seas Convention as a compromise. We saw a multilateral solution as the best way to manage the potential impacts of increased activity. There’s now a new agreement on unregulated fishing for the Central Arctic Ocean, which is a great development.

Jan: On the positive side, there has been a realization of the opportunities the green economy the Arctic offers as we need to move away from fossil fuels. People see that the green economy could bring additional jobs and economic development in a way that is more compatible with the Arctic environment. On the negative side, there is now the prospect of extending oil and gas drilling operations in the Arctic and shipping along the Northern Sea Route. Most recently, the prospect of the militarization of the Arctic has become a dark cloud over the area.

What do you think the future of the Arctic is?

Peter: Gorbachev, the final leader of the Soviet Union, once said that the Arctic should be a region of peace and environmental cooperation—and I also believe that the Arctic plays a role in terms of peace. Arctic countries have used the Arctic Council as a place where they could talk to each other. But with this terrible war in Ukraine, it is difficult to see what could happen in the future. Before the war started, themes that were raised in the Arctic had a positive effect on both the Arctic and other parts of the world.

Samantha: I don’t think we’re going to see a ton of oil and gas development in the far North now—we are just too far down the road on climate change. I’m less concerned about that. I’m also less worried about the shipping issue right now, though I do think shipping in the Arctic is going to increase as we search for shorter and easier routes. But in terms of the future of the Arctic overall, warming is happening really quickly. Everything I understand from the science is that we’re certainly well past the point where we can expect to ever return to the Arctic I knew—even when I worked there just 15 or 20 years ago. It is really a sad and also kind of weird feeling to know that the places we’ve been and things we’ve seen could be gone or changed so dramatically after such a short period of time.

Jan: I’m still optimistic that the Arctic spirit of cooperation and stewardship will prevail. What I can’t foresee is when exactly the contact between the seven Arctic Council members and Russia will resume. But I think the spirit of cooperation is robust among the seven, and that there will soon be new channels to reactivate it. While the biggest concern is obviously everyone who is affected by the war in Ukraine, especially the people who are suffering, I am also a little worried that the war—and the international sanctions and isolation that have followed—will be used to justify environmental deregulation in Russia and its part of the Arctic. There could be more readiness to exploit the Russian Arctic, and due to Russia’s international isolation, there will be less counterpressure to ensure that adequate environmental standards, sustainable finance and related safeguards are in place.

What do you think the most critical issue is for the Arctic going forward?

Peter: I think it’s climate change—and that is a global issue. The Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global warming under 1.5°C, is critical. Equally important for the whole world, including the Arctic, is ensuring that 30 per cent of the entire globe becomes protected—the so-called “30×30 goal.” The Arctic could be seen as a forerunner in this. It has huge areas that have been protected, but marine protected areas, in particular, still need to be created. All of the Arctic countries except Russia have already agreed that they would implement the 30×30 goal. If Russia were to join, then in theory, the Arctic could play a major role in this.

Samantha: The most critical action is peace and an end to the war in Ukraine. This war touches several Arctic states as well as the Arctic’s Indigenous Peoples, whose cooperation stretches across national borders. Beyond that, the work of the Arctic Council is currently suspended. We need to find ways to allow Arctic cooperation, or parts of it, to resume, though that seems really far away right now. But certainly, peace is the first step. The second most important issue is obviously climate change, and I think the most important thing anyone can do for the Arctic on climate is to significantly reduce CO2 and methane emissions.

Jan: From WWF’s perspective, I think we need to keep working towards our mission: highlighting the importance of Arctic biodiversity, how that connects with the livelihoods of Arctic people, and how it’s all endangered by climate change. Obviously, global action on climate change is ultimately decisive for how the Arctic is going to change. But the Arctic also needs to be more prepared and resilient to sustain that change.

We need to look for a low-carbon future, support development that will be compatible with a carbon-free future, and champion the sectors and projects that can support this direction. We also need to ensure it isn’t just the like-minded countries that are part of this, because the Arctic is so interconnected. We also need to complete global discussions about biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, and define their implications for governance in the Central Arctic Ocean. This is where we should continue to push for a framework that will ensure a good governance arrangement, be it within or beyond the Arctic Council, to ensure that biodiversity in the Central Arctic Ocean is well protected against multiple pressures.