APPROACHES TO WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT ISSUES IN THE ARCTIC
Arctic Security Whole of Government Research Workshop
Rob Huebert
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
Top Related