IMPLICATIONS OF ANWR DEVELOPMENT AND THE PORCUPINE

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 �0A;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