APPROACHES TO WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT ISSUES IN THE ARCTIC

  Arctic Security Whole of Government Research Workshop

Rob Huebert

Rhuebert@ucalgary.ca

Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

Kingston: May 6 2014

Introduction

• What is meant by “Whole of Government”

• How doe is operate?

• Case 1 Development of Arctic Council

• Case 2 Development of Arctic Security (Intergovernmental) Working Group

• Costs/Benefits of Whole of Government

Whole of Government

• What is Whole of Government?

• Is it better Governance? Better understanding of public administration?

• Is it the unavoidable result of Government Reduction (eg Strategic Review)?

• Does it work best when mandated from the top?

• Does it work best when working down up?

Case 1: Arctic Council as a result of Whole of Government

• Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) 1980s– Brought together federal/territory/northern

indigenous organizations

• Green Plan/Arctic Environmental Strategy (AES)

• Government Reduction

• Identification of new Problem

• Key individuals and Commitment

AES to AEPS to Arctic Council

• Gorbachev 1987 Murmansk Speech

• End of Cold War 1988

• Finland Search for Role/Cooperation 1989

• Partnership between Cdn and Finnish officials

• Transference of core element of AES to Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy

• Canadian Creation of Arctic Council

Results

• Issue Driven

• Inclusive

• Built on limited budget

• Has created new set of norms in Arctic Cooperation

Case 2: Arctic Security (Interdepartmental)Working Group

• Development of the Protection of Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security–Martin Government’s effort to develop 2003-2005– Harper Government Arctic Policy 2006-2013

• Changing international interest in the Arctic– Growing interest of Arctic and non-Arctic States– Growing economic interest in the region

• Changing environment– Climate change

Participation

• Increase of Participation• Nov 1999 – 21attending 5regrets (26 total)• Nov 2008 - 102 attending 16 regrets (108

total)• Increase in number of department

Federal/Territorial• Core number of Department– DND, Coast Guard, Public Safety, DFAIT, RCMP

etc.

Participation – Observations/Questions

• Increase participation indicates buy-in. Why? What was value each participant saw?

• Ongoing support of CO Canadian Northern Area/JTFN. How did it shift from a optional “good idea” to established event?

• Was an effort to control/stabilize numbers after 2008. What is impact? Did it stop growth? Did it make the group even more desirable?

Participation

Issue Areas

• Sovereignty• NORDREG• Foreign Vessels• Surveillance & Intelligence• Ballistic Missile Defence• Crime/Drugs/Migration• Terrorism/Protestors• (Inter)National Events• Infrastructure & Transportation

• Oil, Gas & Mining

• Isolated Populations• Science and Climate Change• The Environment• Circumpolar Issues• Emergency Preparedness• Aircraft Traffic & Management

• Interdept. Cooperation• Dept. Representations & Capacity

What does this Mean?

• Tendency to treat all as “equals”

• Reluctance/inability to deal with hard issues

• Creates set of cooperative norms

• Creates a set of norms to do with limited funds

• Provide avenues to create cooperative activities – Search Rescue Treaty; Military Exercises