93
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Bennett
erection of conservation areas. Deleuze (1994: 385) writes, ―[i]t is a vital concern of every State not
only to vanquish nomadism but to control migrations and, more generally, to establish a zone of
rights over an entire exterior, over all of the flows traversing the ecumenon.‖ Increasingly navigable
straits are bringing more and more ships to the Arctic, although the narrow, icy, and twisty NWP
still lags significantly behind the more developed NSR. While Canada still has no deep water port
along the NWP, Russia maintains an icebreaker fleet and numerous ports along the NSR and is
already building ten search and rescue stations (Pettersen, 2011). Although the increase in maritime
traffic may seemingly dilute a country‘s grip on its oceanic space, it also creates a perception within
the international community of a greater need for regulation. Canada and Russia instrumentalize this
belief to bolster support for their creation of national parks and environmental protection laws,
which in turn permit greater surveillance and monitoring. Local and regional communities and
governments, however, do not always support the protection and regulation of these spaces,
especially when existing communities are evicted or they lose former access rights like hunting.
Since the aims of conservation and development are often at odds in the Arctic, where commodities
are one of the few feasible avenues to economic growth, Canada sets aside specific areas for oil and
gas exploration, while others are given over to conservation. Economic interests have long colored
Ottawa's perception of the environment, reflecting the Western tendency to link ecological and
economic rationality (Yanitsky, 2001: 41). The actual decision to conserve a site is consequently
based on more than environmental factors. The Qikiqtani Inuit Association (2012), for instance,
states, ―[b]oundary selection requires consideration of several features such as; well-being and
interests of communities, traditional ecological knowledge, ecologically sustainable use of living
marine resources and mineral and energy potential.‖ Just as important as where a conservation area
is located, then, is where it is not. In Lancaster Sound, the proposed NMCA lies just to the east of
Shell‘s offshore oil and gas leases (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2012), a
convenient delineation of the sound‘s space. The areas for resource extraction and conservation are
therefore carefully mapped so as not to conflict, but only on paper; a static, two-dimensional map
cannot adequately portray the consequences of a potential oil spill next door to a conservation areas.
Similarly, the strictly zoned conservation areas fail to illustrate how transiting ships, which can
pollute the waters, may be allowed through the NMCA. Yet stricter regulation of increased shipping
is likely one of the chief reasons motivating the NMCA‘s establishment. Baffinland, a mining
company, has proposed to ship iron ore from Baffin Island, south of Lancaster Sound, to
Rotterdam and other ports in Europe. Original plans had the ships sailing north through Milne Inlet
and Eclipse Sound – areas home to thousands of marine mammals and included in the proposed
boundaries of the Lancaster Sound LNCMA. The plan was scrapped after consultation with
indigenous peoples and the ships‘ planned trajectories were rerouted to the south, through Pond
Inlet. In a change of plans, Baffinland is now again proposing to ship the iron ore north through
Milne Inlet and Eclipse Sound (Madsen, 2013), so it is unclear how the waters will ultimately be
delineated to fulfill competing environmental, strategic, and economic interests.
Aside from trying to render maritime spaces more ―permanent‖ through the affixation of
environmental boundaries, Canada tries to ―affix‖ indigenous peoples to conservation areas, too.
Ottawa views the presence of indigenous peoples as strengthening sovereignty claims, distinguishing