Who Should Decide the Arctic's Future

Millions have a stake in what happens to the Arctic, so why is the government only talking to a select few?

On Monday, foreign ministers from five nations will hole up in the Gatineau Hills to discuss the Arctic, an area vital to the future of our planet and its people.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon says the “meeting will provide an opportunity for Arctic Ocean coastal states to prepare for and encourage development that has positive benefits, including economical and environmental.” However, Cannon has restricted the meeting to the “Arctic club” – Russia, Norway, Denmark, the United States, and Canada – countries directly bordering the Arctic Ocean. Unfortunately, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, Iceland, and other organizations and countries with a strong interest in the region will be excluded from the discussions.

Canada and the other four members of the exclusive Arctic club are most interested in divvying up the natural resources in and under the Arctic Ocean. Indeed, Canada's stated strategy in the region is “use it or lose it,” and in the absence of a long-term vision for sustainability, we are simply stepping up our military presence to lay claim to our sovereign right to petroleum and fisheries resources. While this nationalistic military approach practised around the world has secured riches for the few in the past, it is a folly in the emerging new political reality of climate change. The issues of the Arctic region go far beyond simply slicing up the spoils of the petroleum pie.

The area is an extraordinarily fragile and important part of our planet. What happens there is not just of consequence to the people living in the region, but to hundreds of millions more as well. The Arctic plays a critical role in maintaining balanced water and weather cycles at all latitudes. As the world is experiencing the results of human-induced climate change, it is unacceptable for five self-selected nations to plan a future for the Arctic behind closed doors.

Instead of restricting discussion of Arctic governance to an exclusive club, Canada should be working to involve all nations in ensuring the Arctic region – its people and ecosystems – have a decent chance at survival. This approach must include a moratorium on oil and gas exploration, drilling, and transport, as well as an end to military activities and industrial fishing, while a comprehensive and sustainable governance system is developed and put in place. While some impacts on the region may already be irreversible, these measures are necessary to halt further degradation of the Arctic Ocean.

The future of the Arctic is vital to us all, from the Inuit and other peoples who inhabit it, to the Pacific island nations that will suffer from rising sea levels because of climate change. There is a unique opportunity for governments to establish how an enormous and important part of the world can be governed sustainably, in a process that is open, transparent, and inclusive. It is particularly concerning that Canada and the U.S., two of the worst performers on climate change mitigation, have a leadership role in developing the future of such a climate-sensitive region.

The five ministers attending the Gatineau conference would do well to open the debate and their minds to new ideas for the Arctic.

It is too important to be discussed by a limited number of self-appointed stakeholders behind closed doors.