Ilker K. Basaran
In mid-July, I noticed a twitter feed coming from an Industry and Technology minister of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Varank. He was attending the launch event of a state-of-the-art fishing vessel, Calvert, built by Tersan Shipyard, one of the biggest in Turkey, for Ocean Choice International, a Canadian fishing company. In this event, Mr. Varank was proudly standing by the vessel and promoting its capacity along with the Turkey’s centuries old shipbuilding tradition and how it would meet today’s niche Arctic market demand.
Duncan Depledge, Mathieu Boulègue, Andrew Foxall & Dmitriy Tulupov
Introduction
Shortly before the 2019 Arctic Council Ministerial in Rovaniemi, the United States sharpened its rhetoric about the potential for strategic competition with China and Russia in the Arctic, prompting renewed concern for the possibility of armed conflict in the region.
The world has been here before. During the Cold War, Western and Soviet defence planners identified the strategic importance of transpolar routes for airborne nuclear warfare, and, later,intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. At sea, the development of nuclear submarines that could remain for long periods under Arctic ice provided a potent first- and second-strike capability. On land, NATO’s northernmost member, Norway, and the Soviet Unionshared an Arctic border. Both NATO and the Soviet Union undertook initiatives aimed at preventing the balance of power on the Northern Front/Flank from tipping in favour of the other.
Magnus de Witt, Hlynur Stefánsson & Ágúst Valfells
Remote Arctic communities depend 80% on diesel as the primary energy source. Besides the negative climate impact, the use of diesel has a negative impact on mid-term energy security. The mid-term energy security impact is due to the transportation of fuel to the communities. Harsh Arctic weather conditions restrict the transportation period and within a relatively short time window the annual consumed fuel needs to be shipped to the communities. Local energy sources can help to get independence from imported fuels. The use of local energy sources will increase the upstream energy security, which is affected by fuel price changes, oil exploration and oil production/delivery insecurity. Renewable energy technologies adopted to Arctic conditions exist but come with a significantly higher price than the same technologies in tempered areas. Policy can help to lower the barrier to entry and support a secure and sustainable energy supply in the Arctic.
This paper discusses the special implication of energy security for Arctic communities and how policy can help to strengthen energy security and concurrently reduce CO2 emissions. Energy policy incorporates three different dimensions: energy security, affordability of energy and environmental soundness. The analysis described in this paper reviews the strengths and weaknesses of different available energy technologies and policies with a focus on energy security in remote Arctic areas.
Justin Barnes
Introduction
Climate change is putting unique ecosystems and cultures at risk of severe consequences (IPCC, 2014: 12). Canada’s communities in the Far North are typically more vulnerable to environmental pollutants and the impacts of climate change than their counterparts living in southern Canada (Stoddart & Smith, 2016). Climate change in the Canadian Arctic thus poses a challenging problem for policy makers and their constituents. Significant environmental changes in the Arctic region create new social issues, economic opportunities and challenges for all Arctic nations and their peoples. The creation of an ‘Arctic Paradox’ – the combined fear of climate change and the anticipation of resource development – raises questions about how the various levels of Canadian society will respond to the need for socially responsible policies that help northern communities adapt to the consequences of environmental changes as well as manage their new economic interests in the Arctic. This briefing note identifies and examines interlinkages between climate change and sustainable development, environmental security, and adaptive capacity through a case study in two communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR): Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. The ISR is located in Canada’s western Arctic and includes significant portions of the Beaufort Sea coastline (Figure 1). It was established in 1984, following the Inuvialuit Final Agreement between the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada. Inuvik, the largest community in the ISR, is located on the East Channel of the Mackenzie Delta. It is considered an administrative center in the region that is home to Indigenous, local, regional, territorial, and federal government offices. Tuktoyaktuk is a second, smaller Inuvialuit community located on the coastline of the Beaufort Sea (see Figure 1).
Alina Voytenko, Dmitry Sergeev & Irina Chesnokova
In this work, the attentions focused on the securing geocryological safety of the economic activity in the Arctic region. The securityIn this work, the attentions focused on the securing geocryological safety of the economic activity in the Arctic region. The securityis a prerequisite for the development, prosperity and well-being of the arctic communities, to ensure sustainable economic activityin the region. This new article addresses the risks in the arctic, which may pose a threat to human life and health, theenvironment, economic objects, as well as ways to prevent these risks. We pay special attention to geocryological safety. Theauthors consider that the geocryological safety means protect ability from a complex of negative consequences, associated with thecondition of permafrost rocks. Geocryological security should be evaluated and ensured along various algorithms for stages ofconstruction and exploitation of engineering projects and aspects of nature management.
Peter Kikkert & P. Whitney Lackenbauer
Introduction
On 10 September 2019, Canada’s Liberal government quietly released its long-awaited Arctic and Northern Policy Framework (ANPF). After four years of development, the document appeared on the Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs website. It included no photos, maps, or even a downloadable pdf – just a wave of words, over 17,000 in the main chapter alone. The single infographic that accompanied the framework’s release captured its main “highlights”: that a “whole-of-government, co-development” process that created the framework involved the three territorial governments, over 25 Indigenous organizations, as well as three provincial governments.1 This collaborative process represents the “profound change of direction” that the Government of Canada highlights in the opening sentence of the ANPF.3 Iqaluit Mayor Madeleine Redfern noted how “the framework speaks to the fact that we need to be more collaborative, more strategic. It’s not a strategy per se, other than to say we need to actually be working together.”2
Designed & hosted by Arctic Portal