Arctic SMARTIC - Strategic MAnagement of Resources in TImes of Change SMARTIC is a simulation activity meant to get participants thinking about how multiple stakeholders with competing interests might work together to find mutually beneficial and sustainable way to both protect and develop the Arctic’s natural resources. In September of 2012, sea ice extent in the Arctic reached its lowest level on record – 49% less than the 1979-2000 median (see image). Rapid summer Arctic sea ice loss is leading to new interests in both preserving and developing Arctic resources.

Arctic Matters

Sea Ice Projections End of Winter End of Summer ~2010 Thickness Thickness As Arctic summer sea ice continues to retreat, there is a growing interest, both locally and internationally, in accessing and developing Arctic assets that have previously been unavailable such as hydrocarbons, fish and other natural resources. Others are concerned about changes in the quantity and quality of sea ice habitat and what impact that will have on the Arctic ecosystem as well as those who rely on ice as a platform for transportation, hunting, and fishing, and other livelihood purposes. SMARTIC is a simulation activity that gives players a first hand understanding of what it means to be a stakeholder competing with other interests in the rapidly changing Arctic. ~2040 http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/sea_ice.html

Actual Resolution of Decades-Long Territorial Dispute Between Norway and Russia (Area 4) using “Getting to Yes” Negotiation Strategy and Marine Spatial Planning This map shows the regions claimed by countries bordering the Arctic. The 200 mile limit from shore demarks the Exclusive Economic Zone; form the law of the sea: countries have the right to develop marine resources in these regions without international oversight. In the 1970’s, a dispute arose between Norway and Russia began over Area 4 (indicated on the map). At the time, the conflict was focused mainly on fishing, but in recent years included competition over oil and gas reserves. This 40 year conflict was recently resolved through negotiations between Norway and Russia using the same strategies that will be used in this game. [Note to facilitator - Areas numbered on map represent the following: 1=North Pole 2=Lomonosov Ridge 3=200-mile line 4=Area of dispute] 1 = North Pole 2 = Lomonosov Ridge 3 = 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone 4 = Russian-claimed territory (w/disputed area)

Marine Spatial Planning Marine spatial planning is a science based tool used to help solve resource management challenges with a focus on both conservation and economic development. The process is designed to engage local communities, improve planning and regulation, decrease cost, conflict, and delays, and protect critical ecosystems. The steps listed below are background for facilitators on connections between marine spatial planning and SMARTIC 1. In this case, the area to be managed is the Arctic marine region. 2. The goals and objectives are to prepare a multiuse management plan. 3. Spatially organized data is provided in the stakeholder role sheets and maps. 4. Stakeholders mark on the map their top three areas of interest for use and/or protection. 5. Stakeholders then negotiate areas of overlapping interest in order to prepare the multiuse management plan. [Note to facilitators: After 2 or 3 areas are negotiated and resolved, the players will have to deal with a crises, forcing them to monitor and evaluate the plans that they implemented] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Spatial_Planning

MSP Example

“Getting to Yes”: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Separate people from the problem Focus on interests, not positions Invent options for mutual gain Insist on using objective criteria Invent a list of action if not agreement is reached The “Getting to Yes” negotiation strategy, developed at Harvard, is a way of resolving conflicts using objective criteria. In negotiations, we often focus on our own positions - as in I want X – rather than the underlying interests that drives those positions – as in I want X because I want to do Y. It’s all about identifying what’s really important to each party, addressing differences, and finding common ground This is achieved by brainstorming and trying to view issues from each other’s perspectives – searching for mutual gains and creating true win-win solutions. Separate the people from the problem Think of the negotiation as a means to solving a problem and the people on the other side as partners helping to find a solution. Focus on interests, not positions It's important to communicate your interests to the other party. Don't assume they have the same interests as you or that they know what your interests are. Don't assume you know what interests the other party has. Invent options for mutual gain Don't judge the ideas people bring forward, just get them on the board. Invent ways of making the other party's decisions easy. Insist on using objective criteria Objective criteria need to be independent of each side's will. Invent a list of actions you might take if no agreement is reached A good way to explain this approach, is: 2 people are arguing loudly in a library. The librarian comes up and asks what’s going on. The one says they want the window open. The other says they want the window closed. So the librarian knows what each person wants, but not why they want it. So, she asks them to state their underlying interests. The one who wants it open says that they need fresh air. The one who wants it closed says that they don’t like drafts. So they brainstorm solutions: Moving one across the room, away from the open window. Moving one to another window area, where they can open the window. The situation is resolved. The connection with SMARTIC is not to take a position: i.e. no oil development in the Arctic, but rather to say – Stakeholders need access and/or want no harm to their high priority areas. The goal is to find those areas where interests conflict or overlap and negotiate and collaborate with one another. http://www.williamury.com/books/getting-to-yes/

SMARTIC Game Play: Phase I The area to be managed is the Arctic marine region. Based on the stakeholder information provided (readings and maps) and keeping in mind future changes in sea ice cover, players mark on the large map their top 3 areas of high priority interest and/or concern. Once all players mark their areas of interest on the map, stakeholders resolve conflicts where interests overlap using the “Getting to Yes” strategy. The goal is to develop a future-oriented (~2040) multiuse management plan for this region. Note that your SMARTIC stakeholders represent user groups, not nations.

SMARTIC Game Play: Phase I Stakeholder Negotiation Points Technologies Double hulled ships Relief drilling wells Energy efficiency Limits on ballast water discharge Limits on black carbon output Noise reduction Ecosystem-based management Resources Money Including investments in communities, i.e., jobs, infrastructure, development Political power Lawsuits Media Logistics Limited operation times/locations: Avoid animal migration pathways Suspend operations before seasonal sea ice regrowth Ice/storm preparedness training Emergency response plans Including assistance from other stakeholders Moratorium on activities Negotiation points provided may be leveraged by any of the stakeholders. Double hulled ships: after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, tankers were required to upgrade to double hulled ships to prevent spills. Moratorium example: in 2014, five Arctic nations agreed to a moratorium on fishing in the high Arctic until more scientific research on fish stocks can be completed.

SMARTIC Game Play: Phase II Crisis Scenario! Enormous Oil Leak Threatens Arctic Ocean New York Times November 14 2041   Not since the Deep Water Horizon spill more than 30 years ago has there been such a massive release of oil into the ocean. Arctic rim nations are scrambling to meet the technologic and economic challenges posed by the leak which occurred just as winter is setting in, hindering abilities to respond. Respond to crisis in the role of your stakeholder Negotiate new management strategies as needed Ca. 10 minutes can be allocated for players to respond to the crisis. 4 crisis options are provided (oil spill event, oil reservoir discovery, Greenland isolationist movement, sea ice regrowth). Players can use a random draw to see which one they have to deal with. They can also be assigned to research and create their own crisis.

SMARTIC Debrief How did players resolve strategies within the different groups? Did the strategies change from one region to another as the environmental conditions changed, or due to involvement of different stakeholders? How did the crisis influence the strategies? Which stakeholders are typically in alignment? Which stakeholders are typically in conflict? Which stakeholders stand to gain most? Which stakeholders stand to gain least? If others played this game, what would they learn? Your affective response is important in learning – how did you feel during and after playing this game? How effective was this activity in helping you to: Identify key issues related to Arctic climate change? Understand multiple stakeholder perspectives? Engage in decision-making and problem-solving? A written reflection to involve metacognition and increase learning may include the following questions: What would others who played this game learn? Your affective response is important in learning – how did you feel during and after playing this game? A follow up game can be played with people switching stakeholder roles and dealing with different crisis/es, followed by a discussion of how the game was different the 2nd time around, and why. Another follow up game can be played, this time with players researching and developing their own stakeholder roles and interest maps. The following are links to spatial maps that may be used to develop additional stakeholder roles: http://maps.grida.no/region/geoarctic http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf http://portal.inter-map.com/ http://www.arcticdata.is/ Another version of the game can be played, this time with each of the 5 stakeholders now playing the role of one of the 5 Arctic marine countries: United States Canada Russia Norway Greenland/Denmark