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