Cablegate: Implications of Anwr Development and the Porcupine

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

202134Z Dec 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 003717

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPARTMENT FOR WHA/CAN, EB/ESC/IEC/EPC, AND OES/OA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV PGOV CA
SUBJECT: IMPLICATIONS OF ANWR DEVELOPMENT AND THE PORCUPINE
CARIBOU AGREEMENT

1. (U) Sensitive but unclassified. See action request in
paragraph seven.

2. (SBU) Summary: As Congress moves towards possibly
opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and
gas development, reaction in Canada is likely to become
increasingly shrill. We can expect Canadian interlocutors at
all levels to raise objections to energy development in ANWR
based on Canadian perceptions that doing so may violate U.S.
obligations under the U.S.-Canada Agreement on the Porcupine
Caribou Herd, as well as other agreements on polar bears and
migratory birds. These perceptions are likely to hamper our
efforts to make the case that ANWR can be developed in an
environmentally safe manner. We recommend that Washington
consider quick action to breathe life into the International
Porcupine Caribou Board provided for in the bilateral
agreement, as a means of diffusing some of the official and
public outcry about possible energy exploration and
development in ANWR. End Summary.

3. (SBU) It is clear that the Canadian Government and media
are strongly opposed to U.S. efforts to open ANWR to oil and
gas exploration and development, not least because few or no
direct economic benefits would accrue in Canada, whereas
these groups believe some environmental costs will "spill
across" the border. Getting an accurate perception of
broader public views on the issue is difficult, since
relevant public opinion studies in Canada seem to have been
conducted by NGOs whose objectivity may be questioned. Prime
Minister Martin and Environment Minister Dion have led the
charge by the GOC, repeatedly raising the issue at senior
levels and in public appearances, both in Canada and in the
United States. With Canada in a general election campaign in
which U.S. policies are already hotly debated among the
candidates, ANWR clearly has the potential to become a "hot
button" campaign issue as well as a serious bilateral
irritant.

4. (SBU) Under the terms of the 1987 International
Porcupine Caribou Agreement, the United States and Canada
agreed to establish an International Porcupine Caribou Board
with four members each. The Board's mandate is to make
recommendations and provide advice on the conservation of the
Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) and its habitat. We have been
unable to determine whether the United States has appointed
members to the Board, or whether the Board has ever met. Any
information Washington agencies may be able to provide on
this question would be useful. Regardless, we can expect
efforts by the GOC to step up its pressure for action under
the Agreement, especially if Congress approves legislation to
open up ANWR to energy development. Our understanding is
that the Agreement obliges us to consult with Canada prior to
taking any action that will impact the PCH, and that the
agreement further calls for the parties to cooperate and
coordinate so that the risk to the PCH is minimized.

5. (SBU) Canadian opponents (primarily NGOs) of opening
ANWR have also cited potential U.S. violations of the 1973
International Agreement on Polar Bears, as well as the 1916
(amended 1994) Convention on Migratory Birds. Our reading of
the polar bear agreement is that the countries placed loose
limits on hunting of polar bears and agreed to consult with
each other on the management of polar bear populations and
share scientific data. (Note: One could question whether
Canada is living up to the letter and spirit of the agreement
by permitting native groups to sell hunting rights to trophy
hunters). The migratory bird convention pledges the parties
to mitigate the impact of development on migratory birds,
which some previous versions of proposed ANWR legislation
appeared to do.

6. (SBU) In our contacts with the GOC and NGOs regarding
ANWR, and in outreach efforts on our website and with the
media, we have referred repeatedly to the potential of
improved technology to greatly mitigate the environmental
impact of proposed drilling in ANWR. We have also
highlighted U.S. assessments indicating that oil and gas
development would probably not have a significant adverse
impact on the PCH. We expect that our interlocutors will,
nevertheless, insist that consultations be conducted under
the terms of the 1987 Agreement.

7. (SBU) Comment and Action Requested: While the Agreement
should not prohibit energy exploration and development in
ANWR, Canadians will equate our failure to nominate members
to the Board as further evidence of U.S. "unilateralism" and
failure to consult. Whatever the merits of opening ANWR to
limited and tightly controlled energy exploration, our
message may well be drowned out if we are perceived as not
fully complying with the Agreement. We strongly recommend
that Washington consider quick action to breathe life into
the International Porcupine Caribou Herd by appointing U.S.
board members (assuming that we have not already done so) and
signaling a willingness to hold appropriate meetings of the
Board, as well as bilateral consultations as needed. In the
interim, we would appreciate information on the current
status of the Board and any activities it may have conducted.
End action requested.

Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa

WILKINS

© Scoop Media