The Arctic as an “Under-represented” Region
As mentioned in section 2 of this report, the Arctic region has been defined in the Global Strategy and in IUCN’s thematic studies as one area on the globe where no natural sites have been inscribed. Depending on the definition of “Arctic”, however, this statement could be contested. Under the rather liberal definition of the Arctic as used by the Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) (18), three natural WHS exist: Wood Buffalo, Nahanni and Lapponia (Sweden). Under the Udvardy classification used by IUCN for purposes of classifying WHS, however, these areas are predominantly taiga habitats. The definition to be used here includes four biogeographical provinces found in northern Canada: the Alaskan Tundra, the Canadian Tundra, the Arctic Archipelago, and the Arctic Desert and Icecap including the surrounding marine zones. Nine sites which have been evaluated for consideration in the revised Tentative List are located in the Arctic, which reflects the priority that this region is given in future nominations.
Other State Parties are actively moving ahead with nominations in train in the Arctic. Russia, for instance, although it does not have any arctic sites on its Tentative List, has submitted a nomination for Wrangel Island, which will be presented at the meeting of the WHC in 2003 [was in fact postponed to a later date]. This appears to be a particularly strong nomination in terms of criterion N (iv) [now (x)] with the high concentration of polar bears, marine mammals, seabird rookeries, and migratory birds. It has archaeological and palaeontological values and is also nominated under criterion N (ii) [now ix].
Denmark: A nomination of the Ilulissat Icefjord in Greenland is expected to be submitted to the World Heritage Centre within the next year. This area consists of a rapidly surging glacier from the Greenland icecap which calves into a marine fjord system (criteria N (i) and N (iii) [now (viii) and (vii)].
Norway has been urged by conservation groups to consider the Svaalbard National Parks for nomination, but has yet to prepare a Tentative List or to indicate any intentions on natural nominations. The three Svaalbard parks however, would be strong candidates on both natural and cultural grounds. Both Sweden and Finland have yet to indicate if any of their areas in the Arctic region are to be nominated.
Iceland has yet to nominate a site but has recently submitted a detailed Tentative List containing three natural sites and four natural/cultural sites. Several of these are oriented to the active volcanic processes on the island and two are focussed on the biological values of inland lakes.
The USA Tentative List contains five sites in Alaska, including the Aleutian Islands Wildlife Refuge as well as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
In addition to being aware of other nominations being considered in the Arctic, it is necessary to have a broader perspective of how sites in Canada’s north might measure up with those in the same region. Fortunately, CAFF (2001) (19) has recently published a regional review of “Arctic Flora and Fauna,” which provides much of the data needed for comparative assessment on biological values. Previous CAFF reports on protected areas in the Circumpolar Arctic are also a useful source in assessing priorities in the regional context.
Finally, it is noted that most prospective sites in the Arctic will have cultural and historical values as well as natural ones. The priority given by the World Heritage Committee to areas where there are outstanding interactions between humans and their environments will thus apply.