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
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 – Harper Government Arctic Policy 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 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 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