You Are In: USINFO > Products > Webchats > arctic_20_apr_2007

Montreal Conference Experts Discuss U.S. Policy in the Arctic

USINFO Webchat transcript, April 17-20

Montreal Conference experts from the United States, Canada and elsewhere responded to questions during a multi-part USINFO webchat about the United States, climate change and the Arctic that took place from April 17-20.

Following is the transcript:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
USINFO Webchat Transcript

The United States, Climate Change, and the Arctic: Renewed American Interest in a Changing North?

Guest:     Evan Bloom and Montreal Conference Experts
Date:       April 17 through 20, 2007
Time:      0230 EDT (1430 Taipei)

Conference Webchat Moderator: Welcome to the Online Discussion: The United States, Climate Change, and the Arctic: Renewed American Interest in a Changing North?

We hope this Webchat connects conference participants with North of 60 communities and leaders and with those interested in Arctic Geopolitics who could not attend the conference in person.

This Webchat is a chance for you to contribute to the discussion and engage the conference experts.

Welcome!

To ask a question, please click on the tab marked "Submit Question or Comment" from your home or office computer.

Experts from the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere will respond to your questions throughout the conference proceedings. Check back for updates to this discussion.

Conference Webchat Moderator: Bonjour from Montreal ... here is today's program of speakers/panels.

Opening the conference today will be U.S. Consul General Abigail Friedman, who will speak about "The United States North of 60" and her observations and experiences in Nunavut.

On the first panel "From the North Pacific to Greenland: U.S. Strategic, Economic and Scientific Interests in the Arctic":
• Douglas Nord, Ph.D., Wright State University Diddy Hitchens, Ph.D., Director of International and Canadian Studies at the University of Alaska, Anchorage,
• Mead Treadwell from the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), Anchorage, Alaska.

"A Changing Arctic: Ice Melt and U.S. Concerns" panel experts are:

• Martin Fortier, Ph.D., Executive Director, ArcticNet, Université Laval

• Gordon McBean, Ph.D., Chair for Policy, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, University of Western Ontario,

• David Barber, Ph.D., Chaire de recherche du Canada en science des systémes de l'Arctique, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,

• Scot Nickels, Ph.D., Director of Environmental Department, Inuit Tapirlit Kanatami, Ottawa.

Then today's final session: "The Internationalization of the Arctic: Where Does the U.S. Stand?"

• Michel Legault, Director, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, Montreal,

• Mahlon Kennicutt II, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, George B. Newton, Past Chairman, U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC),

• Evan T. Bloom, Deputy Director for Polar and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

We look forward to your questions!

Question [Kuba]: Hello, if ice melt is already a threat to polar bears and other species, how does U.S. propose to reverse this? In my view if we are at this point then it is too late. Better to focus on preserving examples of endangered species and moving them to inland santuary. Also, does U.S. see benefit in reduced ice lock? More shipping lanes? How do you respond?

Answer [Montreal Conference Experts – Evan Bloom]: This is Evan Bloom from the Department of State. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found that there is sufficient evidence of a global threat to the polar bear to warrant proposing it for listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. FWS is seeking scientific and public input, and should come out with its conclusions at the end of the year. So for U.S. government purposes, we need to follow the steps under our law, and we have not yet determined whether the polar bear is "threatened." After the determination, we will be in a position to consider next steps on polar bear conservation.

As for shipping, many scientists have concluded that sea ice is receding in the Arctic. At some point this may affect sea lanes, but that could be a long time from now. Of course, if the sea ice diminishes significantly, that would open up further opportunities for shipping.

Q [K Malone]: Hello, I would like to know if the American authorities have any cooperation with the Canadian government to address the First Nations and Inuit health needs?

A [Montreal Conference Experts – Jim Steele]: This is from Jim Steele, Environment, Science and Technology Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Ottawa. The U.S. and Canada have long and broad cooperation on Arctic health issues. To cite just a few areas of this cooperation, our National Institutes of Health has formal cooperation with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and many of its constituent institutes for cooperation on research into the health needs of Arctic peoples. Through the Arctic Council, the U.S. is leading, and Canada is strongly supporting, the Arctic Human Health Initiative as part of our International Polar Year activities.

This project will study a range of human health issues, ranging from infectious disease to food supply safety to drug abuse. A key part of the AHHI project is the ongoing (since 1999) International Circumpolar Surveillance Project, led by our Centers for Disease Control, that addresses prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases in the Arctic.

Q [K Malone]: Did the United States contribute to the climate change report issued by the Arctic Council a few years ago? Is the U.S. doing any research on global warming in the Arctic?

A [Montreal Conference Experts – Mead Treadwell]: This is Mead Treadwell, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC), Anchorage, Alaska. The U.S. led the science program of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Dr. Robert Correll of the U.S. chaired the Assessment. He and a large number of the ACIA scientists were funded by the U.S. Likewise the U.S. contributed significantly to the recent Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change report on climate science. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Climate Change Technology Program, led by the U.S. Department of Energy, are two leading programs on climate change, with plans for spending over $3 billion yearly. The $400 million per year Arctic Research Program, dedicates much of its effort to understanding climate change. One of our goals for an International Polar Year legacy is a Sustainable Arctic Observing Network to ensure that long-term data is collected.

[Montreal Conference Experts – Abigail Friedman]: This is Abigail Friedman. Good morning. I am the U.S. Consul General in Quebec City and I was invited to this conference as keynote speaker. First, I should explain why I am involved with the Arctic at all. My consular district covers not only much of Quebec, but Nunavut Territory as well. So I have had the good fortune to visit Nunavut a lot and especially to hear what the residents of Nunavut have to say on the whole range of Arctic issues. In my talk this morning, I emphasized that the U.S isn't "renewing" or "rediscovering" the Arctic as we've long had interests in the region, even before the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia in 1867.

I outlined U.S. priorities for International Polar Year, as Under Secretary Dobriansky announced earlier this year. These include scientific collaboration; the human dimension, especially in terms of health and welfare challenges for Arctic communities; energy; and the important role played by indigenous groups and individuals in the International Polar Year. (You can read more about this at http://www.state.gov/g/rls/rm/81124.htm.)

Above all, I talked this morning about the importance of creating links between the people who live "North of 60" and the rest of us. If we are to succeed in developing sound Arctic strategies in the coming years, then we need to listen to what the people in the Arctic are experiencing and we need to better understand the priorities of these communities. When I go to Pond Inlet, when I visit Pangnirtung, when I go to Iqaluit, I hear about the importance of developing economic links with the North. This is something the U.S. works on with communities in the Canadian "south" and it is something we need to work on with communities in the North.

Finally, I underscored U.S.-Canada bilateral cooperation when it comes to the Arctic. Our two countries share the same concerns when it comes to the Arctic, whether we are talking about climate change, "search and rescue," maritime transportation security, environmental stewardship, economic well-being, or our common North American security objectives.

Q [Joël Plouffe]: Do Americans outside Alaska know that the United States is an Arctic state? Do they care about these issues?  Joël Plouffe la Chaire Raoul-Dandurand of the University of Quebec at Montreal.

A [Montreal Conference Experts – Douglas Nord]: This is Douglas Nord, Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of the University Center for International Education, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. There is an absence of the Arctic in the general education and curriculum in American schools. It is entering more and more into popular discussions. What is needed also is to broaden the scope of conferences like this beyond science and technology, to be more about the environment and people living in the North.

[Diddy Hitchins]: This is Diddy Hitchins, Emeritus Professor of Political Science/International Relations, Director of International and Canadian Studies, President of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS), University of Alaska Anchorage. I find the American public ignorant about Alaska. There is a small percentage of Americans, like members of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, who are dedicated and committed to promoting the awareness of Alaska as America's wilderness. There are also the energy sector groups who promote the idea of energy security, pay a lot of attention to Alaska, and understand its profit potential, but also the difficulties of development. I believe the environmental conservation groups have been gaining more ground though, particularly in the U.S. Congress -- both the House and the Senate. Last year's elections showed that Americans aren't just voting with their pocket books.

Q [Letia Obed]: Hello from the Canadian Arctic. It is not always clear who is responsible for climate change at the national and sub-national levels of government. What do you think that can be done to improve this?

A [Montreal Conference Experts – Jim Steele]: This is Jim Steele, Environment, Science and Technology Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Ottawa. You're right, this can be confusing. Many agencies are working to address climate change at the federal level because agencies have different areas of technical and policy expertise and different interests; and because climate change itself has so many dimensions.

However, we can say that most programs are developed and implemented with participation by the range of agencies that have interests in those projects, even when there clearly is one lead agency. For example, the Department of Energy is the lead agency for the U.S. in the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, and the Environmental Protection Agency leads in the Methane-to-Markets Partnership. Canada participates in both. White House offices, such as the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy help to play coordinating roles. At the state level, many states are also actively pursuing initiatives on climate change and are contributing valuable resources. You can find lots more information on the climate change programs of U.S. government agencies on their websites.

Letia, Consul General Friedman sends her best.

[Scot Nickels]: This is Scot Nickels, Director of the Environmental Department, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Ottawa. For a start, having some clear responsibility on climate change would be first; to have a climate change champion at a national level. And below that, to have some venue where government departments and other stakeholders can have some involvement in discussing and coming up with climate change solutions so that we can work cooperatively rather than in isolation. There seems to be more competition rather than cooperation between the various levels of government.

[Gordon McBean]: This is Gordon McBean, Professor and Chair for Policy, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction University of Western Ontario, Lead Author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), London, Ontario. There is a clear need for a national strategy. Having the involvement of all the ministries of federal government and at all levels of government is important. I understand the northern premiers are discussing this and will come up with strategies. Perhaps this could take place at a First Ministers Meeting. It needs to be seen as a broad national government issue.

Q [Conference Participant]: Russia is marketing its Northern sea route, and in fact many ships travel that route in the summer. Is that Russian sea route competitive with the Northwest Passage? Maybe all the sea traffic in a warming arctic would travel that route?

A [Martin Fortier]: This is Martin Fortier, Executive Director, ArcticNet (Network of Centers of Excellence of Canada), Laval University, Quebec City. The northern sea route is best but you have to pay the price. In the scenario of open waters, the cheapest, easiest way is just to go through Arctic waters. In Canada, I don’t think this issue has been decided. Is the control national? If we have to escort and clean up, it is normal for us to ask for others to pay for it if they use the Northwest Passage. I think this issue will be brought up tomorrow. For now, Russia is expensive but it is currently the best equipped, easiest way.

Conference Webchat Moderator: Welcome back for day two of this special webchat, coinciding with the University of Quebec Montreal's conference "The United States, Climate Change, and the Arctic: Renewed American Interest in a Changing North?" Conference experts and participants are interested in hearing more from communities of the North and others interested in joining this discussion.

Today's panels and experts:

"Arctic Geopolitics and the U.S." with:
•  Yann Roche, Ph.D., professeur, Département de géographie, directeur de l'Observatoire international de géopolitique, UQAM
•  Frédéric Laserre, Ph.D., professeur au département de géographie, Université Laval (Québec) et chercheur associé à Chaire Raoul-Dandurand
•   Franklyn Griffiths, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto, Toronto
•  Thierry Garcin, Ph.D., Maitre de conférences, IEP Paris, HEC et Radio-France, Paris

Concluding panel of the conference, "The U.S. and Canada in the Great North: A Fragile Relationship?" with:
•  Terry Fenge, Ph.D., Terry Fenge Consulting, Past Counsel to the President of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Ottawa
•  Michael Byers, Ph.D., Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia
•  Suzanne Lalonde, Ph.D., professeure de droit international, Université de Montréal
•  Joël Plouffe, Chercheur Boursier Marc Bourgie, Observatoire sur les États-Unis, Chaire Raoul-Dandurand, UQAM

Q [Betty Rice, Calgary]: Good morning: A question for Diddy Hitchins, please -- if she's still at the conference. (Diddy, it was nice to see you in Calgary last week at the WSSA conference). Diddy, could you talk a little bit about relations between Alaskans and people of Canada's north? I know that distance and challenging geography make it difficult for mobility, but do people in your state work with people in the Territories (one or all three) on a regular basis? What sort of issues do they work on? I guess I'm thinking about government-to-government, academic-to-academic, people-to-people--all levels.

A [Montreal Conference Experts – Diddy Hitchins]: This is Diddy Hitchins Hello Betty! Alaska has quite strong links with the Canadian North: with Yukon, these are extensive through many channels because of proximity -- especially between Alaskans in SE Alaska with Whitehorse since they are nearby one another. With NWTs and Nunavut, Alaska works with and through both ICC (Inuit Circumpolar Conference), where native/indigenous peoples work together; the Northern Forum, where the governments of states/territories work together and through the Arctic Council for more formal links. We also all participate in the Arctic Winter Games together.

Q [Betty Rice, Calgary]: A question to any/all at the conference: can you tell those of us not in Montreal a little more about marking International Polar Year? I know Consul General Friedman outlined the U.S. initiatives planned for IPY, but I'm wondering more about events in which the public can participate. Does Canada have specific plans to mark IPY? Does the United States? Are there any joint programs planned to raise the profile and the issues of the North American north with the rest of both Canada and the United States?

A [Montreal Conference Experts – Evan Bloom]: This is Evan Bloom again ... and thank you for this question. For a full list of U.S. programs and activities, I would refer you to www.ipy.gov. We hope this conference and coinciding webchat have helped to raise the profile of these issues, and we will continue our outreach on these important issues. One specific joint activity is the Arctic Human Health Initiative, an IPY project that will study a range of human health issues. These include infectious and chronic disease surveillance, contaminants in the indigenous traditional food supply, alcoholism and drug abuse by Arctic youth and many other health concerns, many of which may be influenced by climate change.

[Patrick Borbey]: This is Patrick Borbey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs Program, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Canada is also very proud to be taking a leading role in International Polar Year 2007-2008, which was officially launched on March 1st. You probably know that this is the largest-ever international program of coordinated research and observations focused on polar regions, and that it involves more than 60 countries and thousands of scientists. Canada played a leading part in ensuring that IPY would be the first to focus on the human dimension of polar science activity and put the people of the Arctic at the center of the initiative. The Government of Canada has committed $150 million towards a strong and innovative program in support of Canadian involvement and participation in this major international event. We see IPY as an important opportunity for Canada to collaborate with other nations, and generate valuable information that we can use to protect our environment and to ensure the health and well-being of Canadians living in the North. For more information on all the Canadian programs related to IPY, please visit www.ipy-api.ca.

Conference Webchat Moderator: While the conference has concluded, the webchat will remain available through Monday, April 23, for conference experts and participants to summarize their comments and share their reflections on the conference discussions on the U.S., climate change and the Arctic, during the past 2 days here in Montreal. The conference organizers have also agreed to share summaries and links related to these discussions for our webchat audience. Thank you for your interest and participation.

[Joël Plouffe]: The Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Montreal wishes to thank all its partners that helped make this conference possible. A special thanks to the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa and the State Department in Washington for making this webchat possible. This webchat was important in helping us reach out to northern communities in Canada and elsewhere. Hope to repeat the experience in the near future. Joël Plouffe Coordinator, Center for U.S. Studies Raoul Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies University of Quebec at Montreal, Quebec.

[Joël Plouffe]: This is Joël Plouffe from the Raoul Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies in Montreal. The conference is now over and many key issues were discussed during the two day event. Experts concluded that ice melt in the Arctic is a reality affecting northern communities and their traditional way of life. This seems to be the most important issue needing rapid policy actions from the eight Arctic States. On Canada-U.S. relations in the Arctic, discussions around the Northwest Passage was one of the main topics. While some experts agreed that Washington and Ottawa will find a peaceful way in resolving this disagreement and that this really isn't the main issue, others seemed less optimistic arguing that time is running out, ice is melting, and both governments still agree to disagree on the sovereignty of these Arctic waters. Some said the issue was not a sovereignty question at all, but rather a jurisdictional one.

The conference also provided a great forum to examine the United States as an Arctic State. Experts explained and evaluated U.S. Arctic economic, strategic, scientific and environmental interests and policies. Some questioned whether the lower 49 population actually recognizes the U.S. Arctic identity. As a general conclusion, experts agreed that no Arctic State wishes to fall back to Cold War tensions in the Arctic. Cooperation (multilateral or bilateral) is the only way to assure a long term Arctic geopolitical stability. For more information on the conference conclusions, panelists papers will be available on-line during the weeks to come at www.dandurand.uqam.ca.

[Montreal Conference Experts – Evan Bloom]: This is Evan Bloom from the Department of State’s Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science. Congratulations again to Joel Plouffe and the Chaire Raoul Dandurand for an excellent conference. I applaud my co-speakers also for their participation and thoughtful analyses.

Since we were asked to summarize our remarks for the benefit of those who could not attend, I thought I would share this summary: I reiterated the point that the U.S. interests are not “renewed” they have always been there. Nevertheless, a changing North is causing the U.S., as well as many other countries, to focus particular attention on the Arctic, its environment and the people who live there. Alaska is naturally the main focus for our Arctic policies, and a large number of U.S. agencies have interconnected roles there on a wide range of Arctic issues -- environmental, fish and wildlife, scientific research, search and rescue, health, commercial, and security, etc. We work closely with the Alaska state agencies and the people of Alaska as well. In a foreign policy sense, the U.S. cooperates with the eight states that have territory in the Arctic, and there is no more important bilateral relationship in that context for us than with Canada.

I mentioned several of a long list of examples of Canada-U.S. close cooperation in the fields of maritime safety, protection of the environment, commercial shipping, scientific collaboration, International Polar Year projects. I also referred to other long-standing, bilateral cooperation on defense matters in the Arctic region and on the Arctic Council. I also described some of our close work with Norway and Russia in the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation forum. As our Consul General emphasized on day one of the conference, it is an important element of U.S. Arctic policy to work with indigenous groups. We supported Canada’s proposal to include indigenous organizations as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council, and we make concerted efforts to ensure that traditional knowledge is taken into account and we include indigenous groups in the design and implementation of our projects. Science and the environment remain in the forefront of our Arctic focus, monitoring, assessing and controlling pollutants, conservation of flora and fauna, protecting marine ecosystems, and developing capacity to prevent and respond to environmental emergencies. I explained the concern the U.S. has with climate change, and how our climate policy is based on sound science for sound decision-making, and our participation and investment in climate research reflects this.

Multilaterally, much of U.S. policy in the Arctic focuses on the Arctic Council, because no single country can solve the region’s challenges. We work within the Council to forge the best regional solutions, including addressing the effects of climate change. Human health is an extremely important facet of Arctic policy, and the U.S. is leading, and Canada is supporting, the Arctic Human Health Initiative, an IPY project that will study a range of human health issues. These include infectious and chronic disease surveillance, contaminants in the indigenous traditional food supply, alcoholism and drug abuse by Arctic youth and many other health concerns, many of which may be influenced by climate change. Finally, I recognized the great working relationship we have with our northern neighbor, and how we look forward to even closer collaboration and partnerships in the Arctic. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss U.S. policy for the Arctic both as a speaker in the conference, and in this webchat.

Conference Webchat Moderator:  We wish to thank all of our participants.  The webchat is now closed.