The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of May 10, 2021
Canada Commits to Construction of Two New Heavy Icebreakers
In a press release on May 6, the Canadian Coast Guard announced that the Canadian Government would fund the construction of two new heavy icebreakers to bolster Canadian shipbuilding, economy and presence in the Arctic. The two vessels will be built in separate yards – in British Columbia’s Seaspan shipyard and Quebec’s Davie – and will be larger and more capable than Canada’s current operational icebreaker, the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent. The development is funded under the Government of Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, which allocated $15.7 billion to the Coast Guard for the construction of new ships. The announcement is intended to stir up support in the strategic provinces ahead of upcoming elections. (CBC, Government of Canada, High North News, Maritime Executive, Reuters)
Take 1: Canada has the second-longest coastline in the Arctic and the second-largest icebreaker fleet in the world, behind Russia’s. It isn’t surprising that Canada would invest in expanding its icebreaker capacity, and the claims that the investment is primarily motivated by electoral politics seem to come from left-field. At the same time, it’s true that the 600 direct and 5,000 auxiliary jobs that the shipbuilding is projected to provide are likely to drum up support for the standing government in upcoming elections, and that major investments in infrastructure are bread-and-butter political means of soothing a population suffering from economic constriction. Ultimately – like the construction of roads, railways, ports and power plants under the Marshall Plan or the Belt and Road Initiative – shipbuilding and rallying around the idea of pioneering a new Arctic is a good way to provide jobs, build nationhood and put the excess labor of a restless and recently unemployed population to work. A similar pattern can be seen in Russia, where Arctic investments are both practical and deeply tied to political concepts of nationhood and power. While the need to provide new infrastructure for economy and defense is real, there is a danger of the global Arctic becoming a stage for excessive political, rather than practical, investment.
Nebari Financing Expansion of Greenlandic Ruby Mines
On May 11, High North News reported that Nebari Natural Resources Credit Fund and Greenland Ruby have come to an agreement about the financing of Project Aurora, a $18m processing facility which will accelerate the growth of Greenland Ruby. Greenland Ruby is an Australian company which owns and operates a ruby and pink sapphire mining operation in Appalauttop, southwest Greenland. The Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) party, which ran in recent elections on their opposition to the Kvanefjeld uranium mine, have come out in support of the expansion of the ruby mining project. (Arctic Today, Arctic Today, High North News, High North News)
Take 2: Mining is not a black or white topic, and when it comes to Arctic sustainable development it is easy to feel color blind – can Arctic mining projects be green, or are they always a red light? Mining produces acidic, heavy-metal enriched runoff that affects human and wildlife health, which impacts local quality of life, subsistence, and numerous sustainable jobs in fisheries and tourism. At the same time, income from mining and extractive industries overall is vital to Greenland’s bid for increasing independence from Denmark. Although it would be easy to look at this situation and judge IA for their support of the ruby mine given their political platform, it’s also true that the scope and specifics of the Kvanefjeld mine and the ruby mine are quite different. The Kvanefjeld mine involves radioactive material and is located near a town. Greenland is working hard to brand itself as a sustainable, ethical source of jewels, and the existing ruby mine has an excellent environmental track record. This demonstrates the fine line that IA and other regional Arctic governments must walk between competing interests of income, independence and environmental protection, and is a reminder that unique local politics and geographies define fluid, local boundaries of “sustainable” or “just” development in the Arctic.
U.S. Interior Department Drops Proposal to Weaken Arctic Offshore Drilling Restrictons
On May 7, Reuters reported that the U.S. Department of the Interior will drop revisions to oil and gas development regulations which were proposed in December 2020 during the final month of the Trump administration, and will loosen safety and environmental standards for offshore developments in the Alaskan Arctic. The revisions were never finalized, and would have eliminated Obama-era requirements that Arctic operators submit detailed operations plans and demonstrate their ability to quickly deploy containment equipment in case of an oil spill. The original regulations were intended to safeguard the environment and local communities. (ADN, Reuters)
Take 3: Although this announcement was met with predictable disappointment by the oil and gas industry – Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association claimed that the move was politically, rather than practically motivated – there has been little interest by oil companies in additional developments in the Alaskan Arctic due to the high cost of operation and uncertainty about long-term oil demand. While it’s easy for the state of Alaska and Alaskan politicians to blame oil revenue lost to the state on regulation, and the regulations certainly cost the state in the mid-term, the truth is that Alaska will have to face the sinking demand for oil and reality of renewables on the rise, regardless of the political climate and regulatory environment.
U.S. Submarine Makes First Docking in Tromsø Under New NATO Agreement
On May 11, High North News reported that the USS New Mexico, a nuclear fueled U.S. Navy submarine, docked at Tønsnes, a civilian harbour near Trømsø, Norway. The USS New Mexico is the first vessel at the port following the signature of a new agreement between Norway and the United States which allows for NATO allied vessels to resupply and exchange crew in Norwegian civilian ports. Moscow voiced its discontent with Norway’s decision to allow U.S. military vessels to dock and resupply. In March 2019, Trømsø had banned the docking of nuclear vessels. (Arctic Today, Barents Observer, High North News)
Take 4: The escalation of military armament in the North is undeniable, but is it really necessary? Norway’s alignment with the U.S. and its allowance of resupply and crew exchange in Tønsnes signals a significant shift in its policy in the North from “reassurance” of Russia through diplomacy to “deterrence” of Russia by allowing military escalation and increasing U.S. presence. Russia’s dramatic naval buildup and increasing military activity in the Barents Sea, as well as the U.S.’ escalatory dialogue around the Arctic and global power competition in general have left Norway with no easy path towards either reassurance of, or de-escalation with, Russia. While the U.S. Biden administration’s approach to the Arctic is quite different from its predecessor’s in regards to climate and environment, its dialogue in the Arctic seems to have remained rooted in the assumption of escalation of global competition and potential for conflict.
Sámi Herders Fight for International Grazing Rights in the Norwegian Supreme Court
On May 5, High North News reported that Sámi reindeer herders from Sweden will bring their case about grazing rights in Norway to the Norwegian Supreme Court. The leaders of the Swedish Sárevuopmi Sámi Village point to The Reindeer Grazing Convention of 1972 where they hold exclusive rights to their historical grazing areas on the Norwegian side of the border near Altevatn, in Troms, Norway. The Norwegian Government has denied this. Norway continued to adhere to the terms of the Convention under a new domestic law, the Border Reindeer Grazing Act, even though the Convention itself was not renewed due to disagreements between Swedish and Norwegian parties in 2005. (High North News)
Take 5: Looking back on the last year, it seems that climate and environmental instability may have contributed to this long-standing issue coming to a head now. 2020 was a difficult year for Scandinavian reindeer herders: not to mention a global pandemic, unusual weather caused ice lenses to form near the ground and on the snow, threatening starvation for vast scandinavian reindeer herds. The ice lenses prevented reindeer from accessing lichen beneath the snow, and without dramatic supply efforts which brought fodder for the en masse from the south, herds would have been decimated. Overall, this, together with changes in grazing rights that change historical patterns, can put increased competitive pressure on reindeer herds for access to vast and varied grazing lands.