Where’s the leadership?

No community in the world has lost over a dozen un-evacuated apartment buildings to avalanches and only suffered two fatalities. There must be more political leadership if we wish these accidents to stop.

Over the last 15 months since the Norwegian Water and Energy Directorate (NVE) started forecasting avalanche danger for Longyeardalen and the Nordenskiold Land region, the avalanche forecast has developed. There is a steady input of observational data into Regobs (from payed and unpaid observers) and a valid avalanche warning system is provided for Longyearbyen and the region. This is not a light job, but the system is improving as experience is gained.

When the avalanche warning system is “tested” as it was Monday and Tuesday last week (February 20th – 21st), it can be challenging to acknowledge the forecast’s continued validity. The avalanche warming system has improved during its relatively short time on Svalbard. What has not advanced in Longyearbyen is political leadership.

It is clear to many that NVE made an error Tuesday morning by not pushing for evacuations below Sukkertoppen. But, should the fault lie entirely with them? What goes overlooked is the submissive leadership this town has experienced since the 1989, when Longyearbyen transformed from a company town to an open society governed by the Lokalstyre and Sysselmannen. The role of the Longyearbyen leadership among other things is to protect and keep the community safe, in town and outside the valley.

Our community has been continuously exposed to danger by slope processes since the town’s establishment in 1906, due to the community’s proximity to valley walls with active slope processes including avalanches, slush flows, debris flows, and rock fall. These slope processes and their associated hazards have been documented in dozens of reports (75) from the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) since 1985. An explicit hazard zonation map encompassing the first two rows of houses below Sukkertoppen was presented 17 years ago to the local government. NGI advised mitigation measures based on their predicted critical avalanches every 20-30 years and the potential for evacuations once in every 5 years. Lack of financial provisions and political will over the last 15 years has resulted in zero action regarding this known hazard. Nothing, until December 2015.

Justifications about climate change, freak accidents and senior community members «never seeing avalanches so large» hold no value when an un-evacuated house in the red zone in one of NGI’s maps is struck by an avalanche. Decision making needs to be data-driven and grounded on concrete observations of snowpack, weather conditions and terrain. Period. And we must err on the side of caution, as accepting «residual risk» means gambling with the lives of our community members.

It is critical the community understands the avalanche forecast is a valuable tool and was not flawed on Tuesday the 21st of February. The decisions made in response to the forecast were, however, flawed. The continued lack of formal, robust hazard management protocols is to blame for the effects of the slide that struck the two un-evacuated barracks in Longyearbyen last week. The forecast holds information that can be used as an effective tool to help make conscious and informed decisions.

The responsibility for making informed decisions for threats to human life and infrastructure in Longyearbyen should rest on a group of individuals. That group of individuals should consist of slope process experts and local leaders. This group should follow simple protocols with regards to such decisions. For example, if the avalanche hazard is raised to HIGH, meaning natural avalanches are expected to be large and widespread, houses inside KNOWN avalanche-prone terrain need to be evacuated.

We wish to see an avalanche or geohazard commission that makes conscious decisions which err on the side of caution and are grounded in observational data; a commission that takes responsibility for their actions and abstains from directing blame to others. We wish to see the local leadership not only participate in, but to be the driving force behind such a commission since it is their job to protect our community. Local leaders need to step up and address this issue before we are searching through the debris of another destroyed apartment building.

We are confident in the local leadership and eager to see them address this challenge. We believe they will make sensible steps to protect the families and property of Longyearbyen from further danger.

This piece has improved from discussions and comments from other concerned community members.

Concerned community members
Wesley Farnsworth
and (former) Markus Eckerstorfer