The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of January 25, 2021
Earth’s Current Ice Melt is More Rapid than Mid-1990s Estimates
On Monday January 25, a new study was published in the journal The Cryosphere by a group of glaciologists from across the United Kingdom. They had studied the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, and mountain glaciers all over the world using satellite imagery, on-site observations and numerical models. What they found is that the Earth’s ice is melting at a rate that is 57 percent faster than recorded three decades prior. An estimated 28 trillion tons of ice has been lost from the ice sheets, glaciers, and sea ice since the 1990s. Current estimates suggest that the world is losing 1.2 trillion tons of ice every year, in comparison to the 0.8 trillion tons measured in the 1990s. The researchers note that “there can be little doubt that the vast majority of Earth’s ice loss is a direct consequence of climate warming.” (Arctic Today, European Geosciences Union, Scientific American)
Take 1: Climate change has been a contentious issue across the globe for a number of years. Considering the dissemination of misinformation that ran rampant during the United States’ previous administration, it is no wonder that many wish to dispute the impacts of climate change. When the results are difficult to see with the naked eye, climate change can seem remote, unimportant, and a tool of a political agenda. For many living in the high north, however, climate warming is not only immediate, but also visible. The findings in this report underscore the immediacy of climate change, pointing to the dramatic changes in melt rate that can only be a result of climate warming. While the Arctic may seem far away to many, it is warming twice as fast as any other location on the planet, and melting ice from ice sheets, glaciers, and sea ice will have lasting and far reaching impacts, not only on biodiversity, but also on human health and society.
Baffinland’s Regard for Traditional Knowledge Questioned in Nunavut Mine Expansion
On January 25, the Nunavut Impact Review Board in Canada started its hearing on the Nunavut Mary River mine expansion case. Critics of the expansion question Baffinland’s commitment to environmental sustainability and its integration of traditional knowledge. Five communities in the Canadian Arctic territory of Qikliqtaaluk, where the mine’s expansion is slated to take place, are refusing to approve the project as it stands. If approved, the Mary River mine expansion will see the mine double its annual iron ore production to 12 million tons, and a railway will be built to transport this ore, in addition to daily shipping activity out of Milne Inlet. The communities, especially Pond Inlet, nearest the mine, are expressing concern over the potential impact the new railway and increased shipping from Milne Inlet could have on local populations of caribou and narwhal in neighboring Tasiujaq. Tasiujaq is within a national marine conservation area, and is a primary habitat for narwhal in Nunavut. (Arctic Today, Eye on the Arctic)
Take 2: The incorporation of Inui Quajimajatugangit (traditional knowledge) is essential to any research or development project within the Arctic circle. In cases of economic development, in particular, it is necessary for companies to consult with and obtain the permission of Indigenous communities on whose land their activities may be impacting. This case introduces interesting questions about what different stakeholders’ opinions are concerning the degree of traditional knowledge incorporation. For example, both Baffinland’s vice president and senior director of sustainable development asserted in this meeting that the project had met the guidelines set by the Nunavut Impact Review Board for the required incorporation of Inuit Quajimajatugangit, while representatives from the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization argued that Baffinland refused to confirm whether they would support requests from communities to slow the hearings when they felt their concerns were not being addressed. What it clearly shows is that the incorporation of Inuit Quajimajatugangit is not simply a task to be completed before proceeding with development projects; rather it is an ongoing process requiring constant communication and input from Indigenous stakeholders.
UK Government’s Greenland-Specific Parliamentary Group Convenes for Inaugural Meeting
The first ever UK parliamentary group dedicated to Greenland, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Greenland, met this week, on Tuesday January 26, for its inaugural meeting. Both the Greenlandic Minister of Foreign Affairs and Energy, Steen Lynge, and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Kenneth Høegh, were in attendance, and addressed the meeting. Aimed at strengthening political, economic, cultural, and scientific ties between the UK and Greenland, the APPG wishes to emphasize closer cooperation with the Greenlandic Parliament (The Inatsisarsut). APPG’s founder and Managing Director, Dr. Dwayne Ryan Menezes, highlighted the importance of the meeting to both areas, stating “The meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group of Greenland on Tuesday was historic in every sense. It was the first time that a Foreign Minister and Deputy Foreign Minister of Greenland addressed UK Parliamentarians at this scale.” (High North News)
Take 3: The implementation of Brexit has left many of the United Kingdom’s trading partners in uncertain waters. The United Kingdom accounts for more than 10% of Greenland’s total exports, most of them fish products. Many communities in Greenland are singularly reliant on these exports. Thus, the formation of the APPG for Greenland comes at a time where increased communication is needed between trading partners. The UK is also placing increased emphasis on its relationship with the Polar regions, focusing specifically on defense and security, Arctic science, and climate change. The UK Parliament’s establishment of APPG is huge because it makes the United Kingdom the first outside of the Kingdom of Denmark to create a parliamentary group dedicated to Greenland, and cements the importance of its relationship.
Rein I and Joint Viking Cancelled in Response to Coronavirus Surge in Northern Norway
On January 26, The Norwegian government announced that it had cancelled the Allied winter exercises in Northern Norway in response to the country’s current coronavirus infection surge. Infections in Nordre Follo and other municipalities near Oslo are the highest they have been since the onset of the pandemic, and fears about the spread of the new UK variant have prompted the government to shut down any exercises that include allied participants. Over 3,000 NATO soldiers already in Norway are scheduled to make a controlled withdrawal without participating in Rein I and Joint Viking, and borders will be closed to incoming soldiers to prevent a spike in transmission rates. 45 soldiers from the United States had already tested positive for coronavirus a month ago, and were isolated before the virus could spread. (Arctic Today, High North News)
Take 4: The cancellation of the winter training exercises in Northern Norway are a continuation of those already seen in 2020, when operation Cold Response was cancelled after 10 days amid the first wave of infections. Such cancellations are problematic as Rein 1, Joint Viking, Cold Response and other Norwegian winter training exercises are considered to be major contributions to NATO, while also sending a clear signal of NATO’s will and capacity to assist Norway and the Arctic. Providing amphibious training and high-intensity combat scenarios, these winter exercises are designed to train soldiers of NATO nations to withstand combat in demanding weather conditions.
Navy Report Advocates for a Re-opening of Security Dialogue with Russia
On January 27, it was reported that Former Chief of the Royal Norwegian Navy, Lars Saunes, had penned a report in which he investigates measures to improve security dialogue amongst Arctic states. Saunes asserts that the Arctic has become a stage for “deterrence and military posturing,” wherein both Allied States and Russia are strengthening their military capacity and presence in the Arctic in a perceived bid for power. There is very little communication and cooperation occurring over questions of security. The report suggests that NATO is not an appropriate platform for security dialogue, as it may solidify Russian distrust and perceptions about NATO’s expansion. Rather, dialogue should be fostered through the reinstating of meetings facilitated by the Arctic Chiefs of Defense Forum, which would allow top Arctic military leaders to discuss security-related topics within the Arctic sphere on an annual basis. (High North News)
Take 5: Security and defense within the Arctic is becoming an increasingly contentious topic. With many nations stockpiling and asserting their military capacity on an Arctic stage, and a significant lack of communication between nations, there is increased potential for security escalation. Communication through NATO could be viewed as unfriendly and coercive, and poses a greater risk of security challenges resulting from misunderstandings. Allowing for the reinstatement of a neutral meeting point, suspended in 2014, could prevent tensions from rising. This forum can be used as a mechanism to not only re-open security dialogue, but also increase transparency, build trust, and largely eliminate potential for misunderstandings.