evaluating the Arctic security (intergovernmental) Working

Report
Centre for Military and Strategic Studies
APPROACHES TO WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT
ISSUES IN THE ARCTIC
Arctic Security Whole of Government Research
Workshop
Rob Huebert
Kingston: May 6 2014
[email protected]
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

similar documents