Just three decades ago the phrase “native communications” described a handful of tiny community radio stations on re- serves and in arctic settlements. Today, a national Aboriginal television network reaches nearly every household in Can- ada, and a national Aboriginal radio network is poised to begin broadcasting in most large Canadian cities. The success of Aboriginal media in Canada is an extraordinary example of what can be accomplished when need, opportunity and political will coincide. While a much larger essay would be required to do justice to the full story of Aboriginal communications, this over- view provides a summary view of one of the least known success stories in Canadi- an broadcasting. Television was first introduced to the north through CBC’s Frontier Coverage Package, which from 1967 to the early 1970s provided videotapes of southern network program- ming to residents of 21 northern communi- ties. There was no northern content: CBC’s priority at that time was to extend its south- ern coverage area into the north, not to devel- op a northern-based service for northerners. The north-south television gap was bridged by technology in 1972 with the launch of the ANIK A-1 satellite. In 1973, the CBC began delivering its complete southern television service to all regions of Canada, including the north, with the goal of extend- ing full CBC radio and television services to all rural and remote communities with pop- ulations of over 500. It is nearly impossible to gauge the im- pact that the sudden introduction of south- ern broadcast services had on language, culture and day-to-day life in the traditional settlements of the arctic. Some communities, such as Igloolik, initially voted to refuse tele- vision through a series of hamlet plebiscites, fearing irreversible damage to their lifestyle. Many national and regional Aboriginal organizations voiced the same fear, and insisted that native people had the right to define and contribute to any broadcast ser- vice distributed in their homelands. The newly formed Inuit Tapirisat of Can- ada (ITC, now Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami) was determined that Inuit would not become just a new market for existing southern services in English and French: they insisted that communities should be permitted to define their own communications environment, and that Inuit should be able to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system in a sig- nificant way. One of ITC’s first major policy statements called on the federal government to ensure Inuit control over the expansion of radio-telephone, community radio, video- tape, and newspaper services into the arctic. The Northern Roots of a National Network 1 Remote Sensing: A Potent Information Source for Canada’s Arctic 6 Delimiting the Juridical Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean: A Confluence of Law, Science, and Politics 9 Climate Change, CASES, and a New Generation of Arctic Scientists 13 Serendipity and Where It Might Lead: Opportunities for Studying the Arctic and Antarctic 17 Book Review: Arctic Justice 19 Horizon 20 F A L L / W I N T E R 2 0 0 3 I N T H I S I S S U E THE NORTHERN ROOTS OF A NATIONAL NETWORK Terry Rudden
Transcript
Just three decades ago the phrase “nativecommunications” described a handful oftiny community radio stations on re-serves and in arctic settlements. Today, anational Aboriginal television networkreaches nearly every household in Can-ada, and a national Aboriginal radionetwork is poised to begin broadcastingin most large Canadian cities.
The success of Aboriginal media inCanada is an extraordinary example ofwhat can be accomplished when need,opportunity and political will coincide.While a much larger essay would berequired to do justice to the full story ofAboriginal communications, this over-view provides a summary view of one ofthe least known success stories in Canadi-an broadcasting.
Television was first introduced to the norththrough CBC’s Frontier Coverage Package,which from 1967 to the early 1970s providedvideotapes of southern network program-ming to residents of 21 northern communi-ties. There was no northern content: CBC’spriority at that time was to extend its south-ern coverage area into the north, not to devel-op a northern-based service for northerners.
The north-south television gap wasbridged by technology in 1972 with thelaunch of the ANIK A-1 satellite. In 1973, theCBC began delivering its complete southerntelevision service to all regions of Canada,
including the north, with the goal of extend-ing full CBC radio and television services toall rural and remote communities with pop-ulations of over 500.
It is nearly impossible to gauge the im-pact that the sudden introduction of south-ern broadcast services had on language,culture and day-to-day life in the traditionalsettlements of the arctic. Some communities,such as Igloolik, initially voted to refuse tele-vision through a series of hamlet plebiscites,fearing irreversible damage to their lifestyle.Many national and regional Aboriginalorganizations voiced the same fear, andinsisted that native people had the right todefine and contribute to any broadcast ser-vice distributed in their homelands.
The newly formed Inuit Tapirisat of Can-ada (ITC, now Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami) wasdetermined that Inuit would not become justa new market for existing southern servicesin English and French: they insisted thatcommunities should be permitted to definetheir own communications environment,and that Inuit should be able to contribute tothe Canadian broadcasting system in a sig-nificant way. One of ITC’s first major policystatements called on the federal governmentto ensure Inuit control over the expansion ofradio-telephone, community radio, video-tape, and newspaper services into the arctic.
The Northern Roots of
a National Network 1
Remote Sensing:
A Potent Information Source
for Canada’s Arctic 6
Delimiting the Juridical
Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean:
A Confluence of Law, Science, and
Politics 9
Climate Change, CASES, and a
New Generation of Arctic Scientists 13
Serendipity and Where It Might Lead:
Opportunities for Studying
the Arctic and Antarctic 17
Book Review: Arctic Justice 19
Horizon 20
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
R
20
03
I N T H I S I S S U E T H E N O R T H E R N R O O T S O F A N A T I O N A L N E T W O R K
First Nations and Métis communitiesvoiced similar concerns. In response, the De-partment of the Secretary of State launchedthe Native Communications Program (NCP)in 1973, with the goal of fostering the ex-pression of Native points of view and inter-ests through the development of communi-cations societies. The program funded com-munity newspapers, trail and communityradio services and, in Iqaluit, a successfulfilm society. But these measures, thoughwelcome, did little to build significant mediaproduction capacity in northern communities.
The first real milestone on the path tonorthern broadcasting arrived in 1978,when the federal Department of Communi-cations (DOC) launched a program to testsatellite applications, using Anik B. One areaof particular interest to the government wasthe potential application of satellite technol-ogy to enable production and distribution ofprogramming in the arctic. The Inuit Tapi-risat of Canada recognized an opportunity,and launched the Inukshuk Project.
Inukshuk linked six communities: Iqa-luit, Pond Inlet, Igloolik, Baker Lake, Arviat,and Cambridge Bay. By today’s standardsthis proto-network was primitive: video andaudio signals were broadcast by satellitefrom Iqaluit, and received locally in theremaining five communities. Sound was fedback from the communities to the studio inIqaluit by phone line. Viewers were thusable to see what was happening in the Iqa-luit studio, and hear audio from the otherparticipating communities.
Working with engineers, NFB resourcepeople, freelance trainers and producers andInuit trainees, Inukshuk explored a numberof community-based ways to use video. Likeother NFB experiments in video-based com-munity development (such as the FogoIsland project in Newfoundland), the em-phasis was on interactivity between realpeople. The satellite time available to theproject was virtually unlimited. Volunteerfire departments across the NWT used the
system to hold a territorial meeting and totalk about new firefighting techniques andequipment; there were animated communi-ty discussions about the evolving land claim,the division of Nunavut, and the prospect ofresource development. At Christmas, highschool students at the Ukkivik residence inIqaluit talked to their families back home inan emotional session that left parents in thecommunities tearful but relieved they couldactually see that their children were doingfine in the big city.
It didn’t look much like conventionaltelevision, nor did it try to. Inukshuk pro-ducers shunned smooth, packaged pro-gramming and sought innovative ways tohelp people in isolated communities talk toeach other through the new technology.
As the Inukshuk Project took shape, theCanadian Radio-Television and Telecommu-nications Commission (CRTC) responded to
2
northern and Aboriginal concerns by ap-pointing Rheal Therrien to head up a com-mittee mandated to investigate the extensionof broadcasting services to northern andremote communities. After hundreds ofinterviews and community consultations,the Therrien Committee recommended in1980 that satellites be used to relay Canadiantelevision programming to the north, andthat “urgent measures be taken to enablenorthern native people to use broadcastingto support their languages and cultures”.
The release of the Therrien report coin-cided with the scheduled conclusion of theInukshuk project. It had been a success byany conceivable yardstick. Communityinterest and viewership had been high,many Inuit had been trained in basic televi-sion production, and the project had provedthat a northern television network was tech-nically and administratively feasible. Basedon the project’s success, and armed with therecommendations of the Therrien report,ITC won a three-year project extension forInukshuk, and began to plan a longer-termbroadcast solution for the north.
The stakes were raised in 1981, whenCanadian Satellite Communications Inc.(Cancom) was licensed to provide radio andtelevision services to remote and under-served communities. Cancom proposed tointroduce a much wider range of TV chan-nels into the community: it was clear thatsome permanent source of Inuktitut pro-gramming would have to be established inorder to balance the new wave of southernprogramming. It was also clear that ITC, asa political body, would not be able to contin-ue as sponsor of an independent televisionservice.
The solution was to create an indepen-dent Inuit production organization; so in1981 the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation(IBC) was incorporated, and licensed by theCRTC to produce and distribute Inuktitut-language television programming.
One of the new broadcaster’s first actionswas to release a discussion paper setting outits long-term vision and goals. Both theDepartment of Communications and theCRTC were seeking responses to the TherrienReport. IBC provided them with a number ofrecommendations, including:� A funding program for all Inuit broad-
casters (IBC, Taqramiut Nipingat in north-ern Quebec, and the newly formed Okala-Katiget Society in Labrador);
� Recognition of Aboriginal broadcastersin the Broadcast Act;
� A special CRTC policy acknowledgingand supporting Aboriginal broadcasters;
� The creation of a dedicated northern trans-ponder (a satellite channel committedexclusively to northern programming). These goals were viewed as wildly ambi-
tious when IBC first released its discussionpaper. It’s worth noting that every one ofthem has been achieved, and exceeded.
IBC realized the first of its goals with theannouncement on March 10, 1983 of theNorthern Native Broadcast Access Program(NNBAP), which provided $33.1M over fouryears to thirteen northern Aboriginal orga-nizations for the production of radio or television programming, or both. Unlikeother contribution programs for Aboriginalmedia, which tended to fund specific pro-jects, the NNBAP allowed broadcasters tobuild permanent organizations, establishgovernance and management infrastruc-tures, prepare production facilities, anddesign program schedules.
The program was not without its limita-tions. Funding was based on the assumptionthat an hour of television costs $5,000 toproduce. However, the actual cost of anhour of programming at CBC in 1983 was$36,000, more than five times as much asthe NNBAP formula. Funding was also tiedto levels of production: IBC was required to
produce five hours of Inuktitut languageprogramming per week. Still, for the firsttime, IBC and the other indigenous broad-casters had a relatively solid funding base tobuild on, and a guarantee of at least fouryears of support.
In order to produce five hours of broad-cast-quality television each week, IBC set outto establish five Inuit-staffed production cen-tres through an ambitious, two-year train-ing program. Inukshuk broadcasts had beenless structured than traditional television,with an emphasis on community involve-ment and participation rather than produc-tion values. But a conventional televisionoperation requires trained technical staff(camera people, editors, switchers, soundrecordists, lighting technicians), contentproducers (researchers, writers, directors,producers, journalists, on-air personnel),managers, administrators, and an effectivegoverning board. In the absence of a com-munity college providing broadcast andjournalism training, and without a pool oftrained broadcasters to hire from, IBC’straining program sought to address all thoseneeds. Eighteen trainees from five commu-nities began the intensive program in 1983,and sixteen completed the course two yearslater. Many are still working in broadcastingtoday.
Their training was unlike most northerntraining programs in a number of ways.Participants were actually creating a TV net-work, producing real programming for realaudiences, and working to strict deadlines.Their learning was under very public scru-tiny. Friends and families would cheerfullyprovide detailed critiques of their work, andafter each broadcast from Baker Lake pro-ducer trainees would turn on their CB radiosand listen as the community discussed theirprogramming. In the north, unlike thesouth, there was no gap between broadcast-ers and their audiences.
The trainees received their baptism of fireat the 1983 Inuit Circumpolar Conference in
3
-F
AL
L/
WI
NT
ER
R
20
03
-C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
Iqaluit, when the new network providedboth live gavel-to-gavel coverage of the pro-ceedings and pool video to journalists fromaround the world. It was broadcasting on ascale never attempted in the Eastern Arctic,but the new producers did an excellent job:the fledgling Inuit network attracted nearlyas much attention from the internationalpress as the conference itself.
Over the next three years IBC refinedmany elements of the look and style thatdefines the network to this day. Its programswere being carried on CBC, which requiredthirty-minute formats and a higher level oftechnical quality than had been the normduring Inukshuk. For the first time recurringweekly series were designed and produced.Two of IBC’s longest running programswere first broadcast in those early years:Qaggiq, a regional current affairs programnow in its nineteenth year, and Kippingu-jautiit, entertainment and storytelling, nowin its fifteenth season.
One of IBC’s best-known programs waslaunched in 1986. From its creation, IBC hadtargeted children as an essential audience intheir overall goal of language promotionand preservation. After two years of re-search, focus group testing and specializedtraining for an Iqaluit-based crew, the net-work launched Takuginai, its award win-ning series for Inuit children. Although theprogram uses puppets, graphic stories, liveaction, animation and special effects, it ismuch more than a northern clone of Ses-ame Street: very funny, occasionally irrever-ent, and always reflective of Inuit values andtraditions. For example, some animals onthe program can talk – but only animalsthat are never hunted or eaten. Now in itsthirteenth year, Takuginai has spun offbooks, posters, sunglasses, public service
announcements, and even a celebrity tourfor the puppets. In 2000 Leetia Ineak, theprogram’s producer, received a NationalAboriginal Achievement award for her yearsof puppet design on the series.
With its personnel trained, its studiosestablished and its programming scheduledesigned, IBC addressed its next challenge:the issue of program distribution.
The 1983 Northern Broadcasting Poli-cy stated as one of its principles that north-ern native people should have “fair access”to northern broadcasting distribution sys-tems to maintain and develop their culturesand languages. The Policy didn’t define fair access – it left that up to the people who owned the distribution systems. In thenorth, that meant the Canadian Broadcast-ing Corporation.
CBC generally supported IBC and itsgoals. But the CBC’s own northern serviceprogramming took precedence, and IBCprogramming, as a priority, came last onthe list – and in the schedule. Viewers had towait until eleven or twelve at night to watchIBC programming, which was subject topre-emption whenever a hockey game ranlate. Rosemarie Kuptana, then president ofIBC, commented to the CRTC that “Godmade our land the land of the midnight sun– it took the CBC to make it the land of mid-night television”.
Despite the late night timeslots, severalindependent audience surveys confirmedthat IBC was attracting up to 95% of Inuitviewers. But it was clear that this couldn’t besustained. CBC Northern service planned toexpand its own northern programming, andIBC programs were being pre-empted withincreasing frequency.
All the northern native broadcastersacross Canada were dealing with similarproblems. The answer lay in the solutionIBC had proposed in 1982: a dedicatednorthern transponder, a purely northernsatellite channel to provide access for IBCand other northern broadcasters.
Six years of focused lobbying finally paidoff in 1988, when Minister of Communica-tions Flora MacDonald committed $10M tothe creation of Television Northern Canada(TVNC), a pan-northern network estab-lished by northerners, for northerners. Afterthree years of research, design and installa-tion, the new network launched in 1992,and Aboriginal broadcasters finally had along-awaited and much needed distributionsystem of their own.
TVNC provided IBC and other broadcast-ers with both a channel for their broadcastseries and an opportunity to return to ex-perimental programming in the spirit of theInukshuk project. One unique example was“Connecting the North”, a three-day sympo-sium on new communications and the norththat incorporated cutting edge technologies– videoconferencing, telemedicine, andweb-based data transfer – into the broad-cast. The program featured presentationsfrom government spokespersons, educatorsand trainers, health care practitioners, Abo-riginal political organizations, economicdevelopment and business people, andbroadcasters from around the world. Localdiscussion groups in 27 communities watch-ed the symposium on TVNC. Working with afacilitator, they’d discuss the issues raised onair and provide feedback and recommenda-tions by phone and fax to the Symposium.In the final session the Symposium linkedInuit leaders John Amagoalik and JoseKusugak in Iqaluit with panellists from theTanami Network in Australia to talk abouttheir respective land claims and territorialissues.
“Connecting the North” exemplified thereal potential of northern broadcasting –community-driven, interactive, and signifi-cant. It created an innovative template forusing a television network as a tool for real,
4
two-way, community consultation – just as Inukshuk had done a decade earlier.Through this kind of imaginative program-ming, the new network began to attractattention from some surprising quarters.
TVNC’s audience was always intended tobe northern. But networks distributed bysatellite can be viewed by anyone with theappropriate dish. To everyone’s surprise,TVNC began receiving fan mail and requestsfor videotapes and information from acrosssouthern Canada, from the United States,and even from South and Central America.It seemed TVNC had appeal beyond thenorth.
Members of TVNC began to wonderwhether a significant market for Aboriginalprogramming might actually exist in thesouth. There were clear advantages to widerdistribution: since advertisers’ rates arebased on the audience size, a southern audi-ence would mean higher advertising rev-enues. Cable companies charge their sub-scribers for the services they provide; ifTVNC could provide a service that enoughsouthern viewers wanted, the revenues fromthe cable companies would help support thebroadcast organizations. Additional pro-gramming would be required; but a nationalAboriginal channel built on the foundationof the TVNC network could provide a venuefor the hundreds of Aboriginal writers, di-rectors and producers working in SouthernCanada without access to distribution.
In June 1997 the TVNC Board of Directorsvoted to seek the establishment of a nationalAboriginal television network. For the nexttwo years, the broadcasters renewed thepersistent, focused lobbying that had wonthem their TVNC licence eight years earlier.They gathered support for the concept of anational network from the national Aborigi-nal organizations, cultural leaders, politi-cians, sponsors, educators and other broad-casters. Most important, they commissioned
an Angus Reid survey that confirmed that 66% of Canadians supported the idea of anational Aboriginal TV network, even if itmeant displacing an existing service. Evenmore surprisingly, 68% of Canadians saidthey would be willing to pay a 15-cent in-crease in their monthly cable bill to receivean Aboriginal network.
Their lobbying and research bore fruit inFebruary 1999, when the CRTC granted alicense to the Aboriginal Peoples TelevisionNetwork (APTN), mandating the carriage ofthe network as part of the basic service ofBroadcast Distribution Undertakings. Thelicense mandated APTN to “provide amuch-needed, positive window on Aborig-inal life for all Canadians, whether liv-ing in the North or in the South”.
APTN now carries the programmingproduced by IBC and other NNBAP-fundedbroadcasters to a potential viewership ofmore than eight million. It’s a mandatoryservice; all cable operators over a certainsize have to carry it as part of their basicpackage. Every subscriber pays 15 cents permonth, something less than the cost of a canof coke and a package of chips per year.
Even wider distribution is in the works.APTN is planning to webcast its signal,which means their programming will beonline, on the world wide web, both in realtime – as it’s broadcast – and in a search-able retrieval mode. The network is alsoexploring markets in United States, Australiaand New Zealand, and reviewing the feasi-bility of an International Aboriginal Net-work. Thanks to digital and satellite tech-nology, it seems the sky really is the limit.
Significant change of any kind creates itsown challenges. Some northern audienceshave complained that the new APTN doesn’tfeel “northern” in the way that TVNC usedto: slick and well packaged, its focus seemsvery southern compared to TVNC. ManyInuit viewers wonder why there’s so much“Indian” programming. Conversely, Abo-riginal viewers in the south wonder why
there’s so much Inuit programming, inInuktitut, on a national network. Satisfyingthe expectations of its several different audi-ences will be challenge for both APTN, andfor its member-contributors, including IBC.
Since the advent of APTN, IBC program-ming is on the national stage, reaching its largest-ever audiences, generating itslargest-ever revenues, and positioned to ex-pand into new markets and programmingareas. So far IBC has retained a strong focuson community content. Since broadcastersboth shape, and are shaped by, their audi-ences, it will be interesting to watch the evo-lution of an IBC that balances the needs of itsoriginal audiences for local programming,community coverage and Inuktitut languagetelevision with the needs of the large, pre-dominantly non Inuit, urban southern audi-ence for the national television network IBChelped to create.
But their success in the past bodes wellfor the future. From their roots as a satel-lite experiment under the wing of ITC totheir prominent role in the creation of theworld’s first Aboriginal television network,Inuit broadcasters have been leaders in thegrowth of Aboriginal communications inCanada, a movement that has provided in-spiration and models to Aboriginal peoplesworldwide. With Inuktitut programmingnow available every day in eight millionCanadian homes and international distribu-tion on the horizon, IBC is, perhaps, the best example of one of the Inuit’s greateststrengths – the capacity to adapt the best ofnew technologies from other cultures totheir own needs and purposes.
Terry Rudden is a specialist in aborigi-nal broadcasting and organizationaldevelopment.
5
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
RR
2
00
3C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
RADARSAT-1. Multi-year blocks of rough ice are in brighttones, whereas narrow zones and small patches in darktones are the current year’s fractures and open waterleads that have refrozen.
Almost a third of a century ago, the era of commercially and publicly accessibleimages from the Earth, taken from space,began with NASA’s Landsat-1 satellite (thencalled ERTS-1). The image resolution was ofreasonable quality for the time (80m) and anew perspective of the planet we live on wasborn. Thereafter, a wealth of new informa-tion was brought forth, from all parts of theworld, that enabled exciting applications tobe developed. This was never truer for theArctic, when in the 1970s an unprecedentedlevel of exploration and development was
taking place. Information from the Arcticregion was so sparse that researchers andexploration companies used pictures fromweather satellites with km-scale resolutionto provide land detail, even before the avail-ability of Landsat-1.
The newly formed Canada Centre forRemote Sensing (CCRS) was the first agencyoutside the United States that was permittedto directly receive these new US-ownedLandsat-1 images. This marked a history ofmany technological firsts in Canada. Thedevelopment of ground receiving stations by
MacDonald Detwiler and Associates of Van-couver was one of them. Two receiving sta-tions, one in Prince Albert, Saskatchewanand later one in Shoe Cove, Newfoundland,silently received satellite data for much of North America. The Shoe Cove Stationwas eventually discontinued and replaced in 1985 by the Gatineau Satellite Stationlocated in Cantley, Quebec.
In the 1970s, sovereignty and surveil-lance in the Arctic became important issuesfor the government. This eventually led to
6
R E M O T E S E N S I N G : A P O T E N T I N F O R M A T I O N S O U R C E
F O R C A N A D A ’ S A R C T I CPaul Budkewitsch
Eighteen images across the pole have been collected byRADARSAT-1 for various purposes since 1997. The latestis a RADARSAT-1 Extended High (beam 4) image,acquired 00:30 UT on January 1, 2003. This single image
covers the northernmost 30° of latitude of Arctic Oceansea-ice where parts are still in December 31, 2002because of the International Date Line. Cloud cover andtotal darkness do not impede radar data collection by
the development of the RADARSAT-1 mis-sion, the most advanced civilian syntheticaperture radar (SAR) satellite at the time oflaunch in November of 1995.1 RADARSAT-1has been in operation ever since and, at thetime of writing, has completed over 40,000orbits of the Earth. In a near-polar orbit (asmost Earth observing satellites are), a con-vergence of satellite orbits occurs at high lat-itudes, where repeat visits for any particularspot on the ground are more frequent thanat lower latitudes. In the Arctic, therefore,opportunities for acquiring cloud-free opti-cal images are much greater than at lowerlatitudes. Cloud cover, however, does notobscure the ground from imaging radar,and so RADARSAT-1 is often described as an“all-weather” satellite, capable of operatingday or night and throughout the dark win-ter months of the Arctic. Dry snow cover isalso transparent to radar, thus the Canadi-an-built satellite is truly well suited for ournorthern environment.
The CCRS ground receiving stations havecollected, processed and archived data fromover a dozen missions for Canada, the Euro-pean Space Agency, France, Japan and theUnited States. Current missions includeNOAA AVHRR (US National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration’s AdvancedVery High Resolution Radiometer), Landsat-5 and -7, RADARSAT-1, European ERS-2(Earth Resources Satellite) and ENVISATplatforms. These international partnershipshave been important for Canadians by pro-viding data for not only the Arctic, but alsofor all of Canada. A 30-year archive holdsan impressive, irreplaceable collection ofsatellite data that provides base line infor-mation to government and commercialclients. Archival data for Canada can besearched through the Canadian EarthObservation Catalogue (CEOCat2), an on-
line image catalogue that allows browsingaccess to historical data. It was only recentlyrecognized that the preservation of thesepast images is critical for climate changerelated studies that require time-series datasets. The future will tell what other applica-tions will require these invaluable glimpsesof the past. Many Landsat images older than12 months are available to the public fromGeoGratis3 whereas NOAA AVHRR data areavailable soon after acquisition. About 6 ter-abytes of Landsat data are received andarchived annually by direct down-link overCanada, amounting to some 20–30,000images. A more impressive volume of ap-proximately 22 terabytes per year of directand recorded data collected by RADARSAT-1worldwide is also received and archived.
In support of government issues and de-partment programs, CCRS continues to pro-vide reception, application development andaccess services on behalf of the federal gov-ernment. Satellite data by itself, however, isnot information and thus applications devel-opment with other government depart-ments, universities and commercial industryhas been a strong part of the CCRS mandate.These activities have been an important partof developing a strong remote sensing sectorin Canada and a solid knowledge base forthe public good. Another technological firstin Canada was the development of rapid“Quicklook” imagery from Landsat-1 in1972. In later experiments, Quicklook im-ages were sent by fax directly to ships in theArctic as navigational aids.
Today, Canadian Ice Services, part ofEnvironment Canada, is the largest user ofRADARSAT-1, ERS and ENVISAT data inCanada. They provide expert near real-timeinformation on sea-ice conditions to ships inarctic waters, allowing better and saferrouting choices. Indeed, the economic via-bility of the Polaris and Nanisivik zinc-lead
mines was made possible in part by result-ing cost savings in shipping of ore concen-trate for export.
Other federal government users of satel-lite imagery include the Canadian SpaceAgency, the Department of Fisheries andOceans, Natural Resources Canada andParks Canada. The latter has recently com-pleted a study on the ecological health ofnorthern parklands using NOAA AVHRRdata composites. From a 10-year data set theauthors recognized a predictable relation-ship between the occurrence of ice-out con-ditions on lakes and the rapid onset of vege-tation growth in early summer.4 Impacts ofannual changes and long term trends to arc-tic habitats affect nesting birds and grazinganimals.
Resource-based industry (e.g., preciousand base metals, diamonds and petroleum),relies increasingly on remotely sensed datato assist with providing information at vari-ous stages of the resource development,from exploration to environmental impactreviews, mine site planning and reclama-tion. Other applications in the Arctic includedetermining sea-ice conditions, creating dig-ital elevation models, monitoring snow coverand vegetation change, and studying the dy-namics of cold-climate processes and theflow of glaciers. The rapid growth of aborigi-nal communities in the north can be easilyand cost-effectively monitored for municipalplanning and development purposes withhigh-resolution satellites whose images areoften as good as aerial photography.
The Arctic remains a region where infor-mation is difficult and costly to obtain on theground or from other sources. These chal-lenges can be effectively addressed by re-mote sensing technology because:� Earth observing satellites have the capa-
bility to collect data in a systematic, syn-optic and repetitive manner;
7
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
RR
2
00
3C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
1 Further reading on the history of remote sens-ing in Canada can be found at ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/org/history/history_e.html (July23,2003).
4 Satellite Monitoring of Northern Ecosystems,2002 (B. Sparling, J. Wilmshurst, J. Tuckwell etT. Naughten).
Looking southeast on July 9th, 1999, across the most ofthe polar region with SeaWiFS (Sea-viewing Wide FieldScanner) from an orbiting altitude of 705km (curvatureof the Earth is exaggerated in this perspective). Most of
the western Arctic archipelago is cloud-free and thisimage includes the area from Cape Morris Jesup(Greenland) near the lower left, to the Mackenzie Delta,NWT, on the right.
� The data are acquired in spatial refer-ence frame and contain geophysical andthematic terrain information not avail-able from topographic maps;
� The information is up-to-date, quantita-tive and impartial.Canada was among the first nations in
space, with a small satellite launched in1962. Alouette-1 studied the ionosphere tofurther understanding of radio communica-tions in the far north. Only the Soviet Unionand the United States, driven by cold warpolicies, had developed space technologiesat that time. Today the list of countries withEarth-observing satellites also includesBrazil, China, the European Union, India,Israel, and Japan. Canada’s past investmentsand leadership have paid dividends for ouraerospace industry and the resulting techno-logical advancements and information havebrought benefits for all Canadians. Resourceexploration and development are experienc-ing resurgence in the North and new con-cerns are being raised because of the obvi-ous impact of human activities and environ-mental change on the polar region. As neverbefore, satellite sensors are poised to providemuch needed strategic information for thedevelopment and monitoring of the North.
Receiving stations located at high lati-tudes are in an advantageous position be-cause direct communication with a satelliteis possible during each orbit. Norway, recog-nizing this, has taken advantage of its highlatitude and proximity to the pole in Sval-bard. SvalSat currently operates a farm ofreceiving antennae at Longyearbyen (N78)for clients worldwide, including the UnitedStates. In Canada, a receiving station at Res-olute Bay, Nunavut (N75), for example,would be 22 degrees further north than ournorthernmost one in Prince Albert, andhave all the same relative geographic ad-vantages that exist at Svalbard. Foreigninterests have already made related in-quiries, but waning support for our existingground receiving infrastructure currentlymakes it next to impossible to respond witha Canadian commitment. An investment ofthis kind could provide sustainable, long-term economic benefits to the north throughthe high technology sector.
When changes in government programsoccur, there is a risk of losing sight of the
advantages of maintaining strong compe-tency in core disciplines. In many areas, itcan be shown that routine or operationalsystems of today developed out of earliersupport given to high-risk experiments andinvestigations that did not promise immedi-ate benefits. After coming so far since thebeginning of this technological era, let usnot lose the solid foundation gained in thefield of remote sensing now that more tech-nically advanced sensors are being deployedalmost annually and providing new andunique data. With our large polar landmass,Canada can continue to play an influentialrole in global Earth observation policies andpractices. We should not let this capabilitydiminish, since it is critical for addressingcurrent and future circumpolar issues.
Paul Budkewitsch is a remote sensing spe-cialist at the Canada Centre for RemoteSensing, Natural Resources Canada.
8
Within the next decade or so, the jurisdic-tional map of the Arctic Ocean will likelyundergo significant revision as the five sur-rounding states develop the outer limits oftheir juridical continental shelves beyond200 nautical miles. The Russian Federationwas the first to attempt this process, and theoutcome of that attempt did not meet expec-tations. This note begins by providing a briefdescription of the procedures for developingouter limits. It then outlines the Russianapproach and the responses of its Arcticneighbours. Finally, it concludes with ashort discussion of the lessons learned fromthe Russian submission, and of its implica-tions for other Arctic states.
I N T R O D U C T I O N :T H E J U R I D I C A L
C O N T I N E N T A LS H E L F
The Arctic Ocean is a semi-enclosed sea sur-rounded by the land masses of Canada,Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the USA(Figure 1). In regions adjacent to the conti-nental margins of all five coastal states, theseabed has characteristics that may, inaccordance with the provisions of Article 76of the United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (UNCLOS), provide validation forthe exercise of certain sovereign rights be-yond the usual 200 nautical mile (nm) limit.The area in which these sovereign rightsapply is known as the juridical continentalshelf, which is not to be confused with thephysiographic continental shelf.
Article 76 defines the bathymetric andgeological criteria that a coastal state mustsatisfy in order to project elements of itsnational jurisdiction beyond 200 nm, and to
define the outer limit of that projected juris-diction. In general, this entails the collectionand analysis of observations that describethe depth and shape of the seabed, as well asthe thickness of underlying sediment. Theouter limit that is so determined, along withsupporting information, must then be docu-mented in a submission that is presented tothe Commission on the Limits of the Conti-nental Shelf (CLCS), an elected body of 21experts in the field of geology, geophysics, orhydrography; this must occur within tenyears of the entry into force of UNCLOS forthat particular state. The primary functionof the CLCS is to review the contents of thesubmission, and to issue recommendations
concerning the admissibility of the proposedouter limit.
Upon approval of the outer limit of itsjuridical continental shelf beyond 200 nm, acoastal state may begin to exercise signifi-cant sovereign rights within the extendedregion: jurisdiction over living and non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil;control over the emplacement and use ofsubmarine cables and pipelines, artificialislands, installations, and structures; regula-tion of drilling; control and prevention ofmarine pollution; and regulation of marinescientific research. Article 76 is therefore apiece of international maritime law that hassignificant relevance for coastal states thatqualify.
9
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
RR
2
00
3C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
D E L I M I T I N G T H E J U R I D I C A L C O N T I N E N T A LS H E L F I N T H E A R C T I C O C E A N :
A C O N F L U E N C E O F L A W , S C I E N C E , A N D P O L I T I C SRon Macnab
Figure 1The Arctic Ocean, showing surrounding coastal states,their combined 200 nautical mile limits, and submarineelevations that could figure in the determination of theouter limit of the juridical continental shelf, according tothe provisions of UNCLOS Article 76: Chukchi Cap, AlphaMendeleev Complex, Lomonosov Ridge, Morris JesupPlateau, and Yermak Plateau.
500 metres2500 metres200 mile limits
East SiberianSea
Laptev Sea
Chukchi Sea
Kara Sea
ChukchiCap
Canada Basin
Beaufort Sea
MENDELEYEV RIDGE
ALPHA RIDGELOMONOSOV R IDGEARCT IC MID-OCEAN R IDGE
GreenlandSea
BarentsSea
Nan s e n B a s i n
Am
und s e n B a s i n
Podvodnikov Basin
Mak a r o v
B a s i n
M o r r i s J e s u p
P l a t e a u
Ye r m a kP l a t e a u
GREENLAND(DENMARK)
RUSS IA
USA
CANADA
NORWAY
I M P L E M E N T I N GA R T I C L E 7 6 I N
T H E A R C T I C O C E A N
As in other parts of the world where multi-ple coastal states front onto a commonocean area, outer limit determinations in theArctic Ocean are complicated by several fac-tors: prospects for converging and overlap-ping continental shelf claims; unsynchro-nised national timetables for the ratificationof UNCLOS and the implementation of Arti-cle 76; inadequate or incompatible data sets;
variations between states in their interpre-tive styles and criteria; and limited knowl-edge of the seabed’s resource potential.
While Article 76 may rest on a scientificand technical foundation, the decision toproceed with its implementation is largelypolitical, and different states will be motivat-ed by different factors – some internal, oth-ers external (for instance, the departinghead of at least one small coastal state has
reportedly seized upon Article 76 as an op-portunity to enhance his legacy by increas-ing substantially the size of his country’smaritime territory). This may introduce dif-ficulties in coordinating delimitation activi-
10
Figure 2The International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean(IBCAO), first constructed in 2000 from all bathymetricobservations that were available in the public domain,and since updated with new information. For moredetail, see www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/arctic/arctic.html.
Figure 3Results of an academic study published in 2001, showinghow the combined continental shelves of the fivesurrounding states could occupy most of the ArcticOcean, except for two “donut holes”. The smalleropening is a composite of the outer limits of Canada,Russia, and the USA. The larger opening is a composite ofthe outer limits of Denmark, Norway and Russia.
ties among neighbouring states: while tim-ing and conditions may be right for some,they may be wrong for others.
In the case of the Arctic Ocean, only twoout of five states – Norway and Russia –have actually ratified UNCLOS, and thedeadline for their submissions will be in2009. Denmark is reported to have enabledlegislation that will permit ratification by theend of this year, which will place its dead-line in 2013. Canada and the USA have yet to ratify, although in the latter country, itwould appear that support is growing forearly ratification. Thus the Arctic nationsare likely to occupy different positions in theimplementation cycle.
Data issues are especially problematic in the Arctic, on account of the difficultiesencountered in mapping an ocean that ispermanently ice-covered. In recent years,this has prompted polar investigators toembark on informal initiatives to consoli-date available data sets that describe theseafloor and the underlying sediment. Theintent has been to develop a common per-ception of seabed conditions that wouldaffect the determination of outer limits, andin so doing to reduce contention betweenstates that might otherwise seek to projecttheir respective jurisdictions over the samepiece of ocean floor. These initiatives havemet with mixed success: a new and muchimproved international map of Arctic bathy-metry has been developed from public datasources (Figure 2), but classified data setsare known to exist that would no doubtenhance the quality of this product. Similar-ly, an international data base of seismicobservations is under construction, howevera comprehensive map of sediment thicknessremains a distant prospect: a large body ofobservations is known to exist, howevermost of it is classified because it was createdfor defence purposes, and it is unlikely to bemade available in the near future.
About three years ago, a team of Canadi-an investigators used existing public infor-
mation to construct a series of hypotheticalouter limits in the Arctic Ocean. This analy-sis concluded that the combined continentalshelves of the five coastal states would occu-py most of the Arctic Ocean with the ex-ception of two “donut holes” (Figure 3). Thishas led to some interesting and admittedlyacademic conjectures on how the combinedarea could be partitioned between the fivestates. For the time being, the partitioningissue remains moot, however it will need tobe addressed at some future date.
R U S S I A ’ SS U B M I S S I O N
In December 2001 – well in advance of its2009 deadline – the Russian Federationbecame the first and so far the only coastalstate to present a continental shelf submis-sion for consideration by the CLCS. This sub-mission had a wide geographic scope, seek-ing extended jurisdiction over four distinctareas in the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans,however the only area that will be discussedhere is the central Arctic Ocean (Figure 4).By and large, this claim encompassed aroughly triangular zone with its apex at theNorth Pole; the eastern border consisted of astraight line that was defined approximatelyby the 169th meridian, while the irregularwestern border, which was constructed inaccordance with the provisions of Article 76,skirted the northern flank of the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge (also known as the GakkelRidge).
11
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
RR
2
00
3C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
Figure 4Lighter coloured areas indicate the locations and sizes ofthe two continental shelf extensions sought by Russia inthe high seas region circumscribed by the combined 200mile limits of the Arctic coastal states (heavy line).
2500 metres200 nautical milesOuter limits
Figure 5An enlarged view of Eurasia Basin, comparing portions ofthe outer limits portrayed in Figures 3 and 4. The limitsdon’t match in all places because they were determinedindependently by two groups using separate databasesand applying different criteria in their interpretations.The line constructed in 2001 represents a combinedouter limit for Denmark, Norway, and Russia. The outerlimit submitted by Russia, on the other hand, wasdeveloped uniquely for that country, and it incorporatesprovisional bilateral boundaries (indicated withasterisks) whose final positions are subject to negotiationwith neighbouring states.
A comparison of the Russian outer limitwith that obtained in 2001 by the Canadianteam reveals noticeable divergences in someplaces (Figure 5). There are two possibleexplanations for these discrepancies: (1) dif-ferent data sets – one public, the other clas-sified – were used for describing depth andsediment thickness; (2) different techniquesand criteria were used to analyze and inter-pret this information – which is hardly sur-prising, given the many ambiguities thatcharacterize Article 76.
The Russian submission triggered formalobjections from five neighbouring states,although only three – Canada, Denmark,and the USA – made specific mention of thecentral Arctic component. Canada and Den-mark both indicated a need for additionalsupporting data in order to assess properlythe submission, and advised that the recom-mendations of the CLCS would be withoutprejudice to the prospective delimitation ofthe continental shelf between themselvesand the Russian Federation. The USA took amuch harder line, declaring notably in itsnote verbale to the UN Under-Secretary-General that the submission had “majorflaws” and questioning whether its geologi-cal criteria and interpretations were “ac-cepted as valid by the weight of informedscientific opinion”. It then went on with acritical review of the technical and scientificunderpinnings of the Russian submission.
Informal concerns were also raised insome quarters of the international scientificcommunity, expressing apprehension overthe prospect of Russia extending its jurisdic-tion to encompass a substantial segment ofthe Arctic high seas where it would gain theauthority to regulate marine scientific re-search, particularly ocean drilling.
In considering the Russian submission,the CLCS took note of Canadian and Danishconcerns and confirmed that its recommen-dations would not prejudice the determina-tion of prospective boundaries between these
two states and the Russian Federation. As forUS concerns, it has been reported that theCLCS did not consider the scientific pointsraised by that country, disregarding them asthird-party interventions that are not al-lowed by UNCLOS. Nevertheless, it appearsthat the CLCS adopted a somewhat rigour-ous scientific approach in its assessment ofthe Russian submission: while the full text ofits ensuing recommendations have not beenmade public, it has been reported that the
CLCS had concerns with the adequacy of thedata sets that were presented to support theinclusion of segments of the Lomonosov andMendeleyev Ridges within the proposedouter limit. In rendering its decision in thesecond part of 2002, the CLCS accordinglyrecommended a revision of the central Arc-tic component of the submission, with addi-tional supporting data.
In the absence of any provision for ap-pealing or for questioning the decisions ofthe CLCS, the Russian Federation called aninternational scientific meeting in June ofthis year, in order to review contentious is-sues relating to the implementation of Arti-cle 76 in the Arctic Ocean. At this meeting, aseries of Russian speakers described the scientific rationale that figured in the prepa-ration of their national submission, andspeakers from other countries were invitedto present complementary or opposingviewpoints. Not surprisingly, US participantstended to stand by their country’s position,as previously articulated to the UN Under-Secretary-General. By the end of the meet-ing and with views firmly entrenched onboth sides, a senior ministry official fromMoscow expressed a clear intention to con-tinue building the case for the Russian Feder-ation’s submission.
L E S S O N S A N DI M P L I C A T I O N S
F O R O T H E R S T A T E S
In the Arctic context where an extendedcontinental shelf stands to be partitionedbetween several neighbour states, it is per-haps inevitable that conflicting scenarioswill be developed by different states as theyseek to realize their most advantageousouter limits. This will be especially true ifeach state realizes its own implementationof Article 76 by applying unique analyticalprocedures to data bases that differ fromthose held by its neighbours. If this leads to asituation where one state’s implementationis perceived to jeopardize another state’s
12
2500 metre isobathOuter shelf, Macnab et al., 2001Outer shelf, Russian submission
Barents Sea
Shelf
LomonosovRidge
interests, the CLCS will not intervene to dealwith the problem, but will leave it to the dis-puting parties to seek a mutually satisfactoryresolution.
Probably the best way to avoid this sortof contention is for neighbour states to agreeto work together by combining and ratio-nalizing all available data sets for theirregion of interest, and by harmonizing theiranalytical procedures. Through the use ofcommon data bases and shared interpreta-tions, such a cooperation should make iteasier for states to develop a common per-spective of their continental shelf prospects,and to achieve an understanding that willfacilitate the resolution of potential disagree-ments. Ideally, this would also enable thedevelopment of coordinated – perhaps evenjoint – submissions to the CLCS.
Even if countries agree to work togetherin a coordinated or joint implementation ofArticle 76, they must still face the challengesof reconciling the legal and scientific re-quirements of the Article, and of draftingsubmissions that will withstand the scrutinyof the CLCS. It is generally agreed that Arti-cle 76, with its simplifying assumptions andits ambiguous terminology, constitutes anuncomfortable mix of law and science that
makes it difficult under some circumstancesto achieve clear and unequivocal conclu-sions. The CLCS has attempted to improvethe situation by developing a set of Guide-lines that purport to clarify the provisions ofthe Article; it is telling that in their Englishversion, these Guidelines require 120 pagesto explain the meaning of the Article’s 639words. In situations where the Article lacksclarity, it therefore remains to be seen towhat extent the Guidelines will be bindingon submitting states that have legitimate dif-ficulties in accepting the recommendationsof the CLCS.
Non-submitting states may have soundand justifiable reasons for seeking detailsabout other states’ submissions and aboutthe treatment of those submissions by theCLCS. In the Arctic context, for instance, thecontent of one coastal state’s submission andthe issues that it raises with the CLCS couldimpact the strategies of other states in devel-oping their own submissions. However,under the current rules that dictate CLCSprocedure, there is no provision for the rou-tine disclosure of such information. There-fore when tailoring its approach to Article76, it may be difficult for one state to takeinto account the experience of another state.
C O N C L U S I O N S
Legally, scientifically, and politically, thedelimitation of the juridical continental shelfin the Arctic Ocean is a potentially complexundertaking that has already exposed signif-icant disagreements between two majorstakeholders on how to proceed with thetask. If all five coastal states could agree thatit was in their best interest to refrain fromexacerbating the situation, they might bewell advised to promote greater collabora-tion among themselves in order (a) to dev-elop a common position concerning the ap-plication of Article 76, and (b) to present aunited front to the Commission on the Limitsof the Continental Shelf.
AcknowledgementsThe information in this note has been ex-tracted from various papers and oral presen-tations prepared by the author and variouscolleagues, from the website of the Divisionof Ocean Affairs (DOALOS) of the UnitedNations, and from reports received frominformed sources.
Ron Macnab is a geophysicist (Geologi-cal Survey of Canada, retired) based inDartmouth, NS.
13
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
RR
2
00
3C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
It was a dark and stormy night as ChickenLittle made his way out onto the porch. Helooked skyward and exclaimed, “The cli-mate is changing! The climate is changing!”This analogy may well be appropriate, for arandom selection of recent quotes pertainingto global warming would look somethinglike this:
“Climate change will destroy the plan-et! … Global warming is nothing toworry about – remember that the di-
nosaurs were cold blooded and livedin a time when the Earth was muchwarmer!“Pah – global warming, bring it on – Ilive in Winnipeg and we could do withsome of that warming!“Global warming may be real but it isjust a natural part of the climate sys-tem – nothing to worry about for ustechnologically literate humans. We’lljust adapt!”
Although at first glance these quotes mayseem to have more to do with Chicken Littlethan climate science, they probably capturethe wide range of perceptions from the read-ership of this periodical – and for that mat-ter, of the general public. Why is it that anissue as potentially significant as globalwarming and climate change engenderssuch diverse public opinion? One reason isthat opinions differ depending whether they
C L I M A T E C H A N G E , C A S E S , A N D A N E W G E N E R A T I O N O F A R C T I C S C I E N T I S T S
Lucette Barber, David Barber and Martin Fortier
Mackenzie Shelf–Cape Bathurst Polynya
come from the carbon-based resource sec-tor, agriculture, mining, subsistence har-vesting, scientists, or the public.
Each is impacted differently, and eachhas a different interpretation of the complexpicture that is presented through the media,the science community, and public informa-tion outlets.
It’s not surprising then that, given theuncertainty in the scientific understandingof climate change, we can expect this largerange of opinion to persist.
Since policy makers take public opinioninto account, creating sound policies aroundsuch complex issues as climate change,issues fraught with uncertainty and diversepublic opinion, becomes very challenging.In these circumstances, governments andpolicy makers often adopt a precautionaryapproach: rather than waiting for completeunderstanding, they decide to act in order toavoid possible irreversible environmentaldamage. This approach requires continuedexamination of climate change science inconcert with aspects of mitigation and adap-tation. For example, many policy makersbelieve evidence from the Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suffi-ciently compelling to warrant action; andthat taking no action is not an option giventhe time required to mitigate the impacts of
increased green house gases, adopt alternateenergy strategies, etc.
Around the globe, governments are in-vesting significant resources into all aspectsof climate science. This has improved ourunderstanding of large-scale phenomenasuch as the El Nino Southern Oscillation(ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)and the Arctic Oscillation (AO). These hemi-spheric-scale atmospheric patterns provide aframework to understand portions of thevariability observed in physical and biologi-cal systems operating on the planet. Thiswork also provides direct evidence for andagainst predictions of climate variability andchange. As this work evolves we becomebetter at modeling the climate system usinglocal, regional, hemispheric and global cli-mate models (GCMs).
One of the interesting aspects of globalclimate model analyses is the consistentagreement across many different GCMs thatwe can expect the earliest and strongestsigns of global climate change at high lati-tudes – the Arctic and Antarctic. The rea-sons include a variety of feedback mecha-nisms operating across the ocean/sea ice/atmosphere system in high latitudes. TheCanadian Centre for Climate Modeling andAnalysis (CCCMA) in Victoria currently pre-
dicts a seasonally ice free summer as earlyas 2050. Although debates continue regard-ing the precision and accuracy of such pro-jections, these model results are currently inline with observed reductions in the arealextent of sea ice and observations by theInuvialuit living in regions most affected byhigher average annual temperatures.
As science continues to refine and priori-tize which aspects of the climate systemshould receive the most immediate and sus-tained scientific examination, policy makersand managers continue to develop ap-proaches as to how to prepare for and howto adapt to climate variability and change.Throughout this process the matter of publicopinion remains something that is moreinfluenced by the “Chicken Little” scenariothan informed decision making. This is dueto complexities in the communication of sci-entific evidence of climate change and all theother vagaries of human decision-making.
W H Y I S A R C T I CC L I M A T E C H A N G E
S O I M P O R T A N TT O U S ?
The feedbacks we referred to above makethe polar regions very sensitive to smallchanges in average annual air temperature.Although several have been identified, thesea ice-albedo feedback mechanism appearsespecially significant. As sea ice extentdiminishes (particularly in spring and fall)more energy is transferred from the atmos-phere to the ocean (and vice versa). Thispositive feedback enhances the regionalatmospheric temperature, further reducingice concentration (percent cover per unitarea).
Recent evidence suggests that this res-ponse has in fact already begun. Between1978 and 1998 the aerial extent of sea iceover the entire northern hemisphere wasreduced by an annual average of 34,600km2 (Parkinson et al., 1999). This reductionis spatially heterogeneous, and includeslarger decreases in some locations (e.g.,
14
Areaenlarged
A Offshore PackB LandfastC Polynya
YUKONTERRITORY NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
NUNAVUT
BanksIsland
VictoriaIsland
SpringPolynya
Winter flaw lead
StamukiAmundsen
Gulf
M’Clure Strait
Beaufort Sea
Aklavik Inuvik
Tuktoyaktuk
Cape Bathurst
Cape Parry
Holman
Paulatuk
Kugluktuk
Sachs Harbour
Chukchi and Laptav Seas) and slight in-creases in others (e.g., Baffin Bay).
In the Canadian Arctic the observationsof sea ice areal concentrations are regionallycomplex, with significant reductions in thewestern Arctic (e.g., Barber et al., 2003, Ser-reze et al., 2003), an increase in sea ice inBaffin Bay, especially associated with theNorthwater Polynya (Barber et al., 2001),no systematic change in the Canadian Arch-ipelago, and systematic reductions in Hud-son Bay (Alt et al., 2002 and Stirling et al.,1999). The overall picture shows increasingconcentrations in the Eastern Arctic, possi-bly from an increase in through-flow of icefrom the central arctic into the arctic islandsand Baffin Bay, with significant reductionsin the Southern Beaufort Sea and HudsonBay. This observed reduction in sea ice islinked directly to climate variability andchange and provides compelling argumentsthat in fact the GCM community is correct inindicating that the first and strongest indica-tors of global warming will be felt in thepolar regions.
Assessing the effects of present variabilityin sea ice cover on Arctic marine ecosystemsand regional climate requires a substantialimprovement in our understanding of thelinks between freshwater and sea ice, sea iceand climate, and sea ice and biogeochemi-cal fluxes. Data is especially needed for the
shallow coastal shelf regions (30% of theArctic basin) where the extent, thicknessand duration of sea ice is most variable andwhere Arctic marine food webs are mostvulnerable to change.
The environmental, socio-economic andgeopolitical consequences of an eventualsustained reduction of Arctic sea ice arebound to be tremendous: marine arcticecosystems will be displaced, a new oceanwill open to exploitation, climate warmingmay accelerate, global ocean circulationmay be modified, and traditional use willchange. Given our arctic responsibilities,and as one of the first countries to be af-fected, Canada should lead the growinginternational effort to study the Arctic Ocean.Toward that goal, the CASES Research Network was funded in March 2001 by theNatural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada (NSERC) to conduct theCanadian Arctic Shelf Exchange Study(CASES), an international effort underCanadian leadership to understand the bio-geochemical and ecological consequences ofsea ice variability and change on the Mac-kenzie Shelf (cases.quebec-ocean.ulaval.ca).
A central aim of the CASES field programis to study the fall and winter pre-condition-ing of the Mackenzie Shelf-Cape BathurstPolynya ecosystem by the minimum fall andwinter discharge of the Mackenzie River,
and its spring and summer development inresponse to the intense freshet and the vari-able ice break-up. Because the area cannotbe reached from southern ports until Augustwhen the ice retreats, the only practical wayto achieve this is by overwintering the newCanadian research icebreaker (see Meridi-an, Fall/Winter 2002). A one-year over-wintering will start in September 2003. Apreparatory expedition to the study area inSeptember–October 2002 moored currentmeters, CT profiles and sediment traps,deployed drifting buoys, and carried outship-based biogeochemical sampling.
The ship and landfast ice camps will sup-port the year-round sampling of the ocean-sea ice-atmosphere interface and associatedshelf ecosystem. Ship-based sampling willbe conducted along a series of across-shelfsampling transects adjusted seasonally withthe expansion-reduction of the open water(navigable) area. Satellite remote sensing ofthe area will be extensive with real-time datareceived on the ship to assist field operations.
This field experiment is one in a series ofCanadian and international initiatives tohelp scientists understand the complex inter-relationships between climate change, seaice and marine ecosystems using polynyas(areas of open water surrounded by sea icewhere sea ice should exist). Although thegoals of these projects are scientifically dri-ven we have evolved an academic outreachprogram aimed at inspiring the next genera-tion of arctic scientists and informing theCanadian public of the evidence for arcticclimate change. The “Schools on Board”program will bring together northerners,public school students and scientists in aninteractive examination of the evidence for,and adaptation to, arctic climate change.
S C H O O L S O N B O A R D
Schools on Board is a national initiativedesigned to engage schools and communi-ties in arctic marine science. This pilot pro-gram encourages high schools to include
15
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
RR
2
00
3C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
arctic science in their curricula, and offersthem the opportunity to apply to send a stu-dent, a teacher, or both, to participate in anarctic field study. The program includesthree components.
Schools on Board Network
Interested schools who implement an arcticscience component to their curriculum willjoin the Schools on Board Network. Thisnetwork is a communication tool that pro-vides them with access to resources, con-tacts with scientists in the field, assistance infacilitating school presentations by Canadi-an Arctic researchers, and informationabout upcoming opportunities to participatein Arctic field programs led by recognizedacademic and government researchers.
Field Program
A team of secondary school and CEGEP stu-dents will be selected from across Canada toparticipate in one of the ongoing researchprograms on board the Canadian researchicebreaker. Onboard programming will in-clude fieldwork with graduate students, lec-tures from nationally and internationallyrecognized university and government sci-entists, group projects, and presentations. Anorthern community visit will introduce stu-dents to northern culture and knowledge –what has become known as Inuit Qauji-majatuqangit (see Meridian, Spring/Summer 2003). The educational programwill introduce students to “two ways ofknowing”: the aboriginal and the scientificapproaches to understanding the complexi-ties of the Arctic marine environment. Thecultural exchange between students fromall parts of Canada will provide multipleperspectives to the program.
Schools on Board Student Forum
This forum will be either an actual or anonline meeting, depending on budgets. Ide-ally, students will attend the science forum(a followup meeting of the research pro-gram), where they will share their experi-
potential to develop into long-lasting part-nerships between public schools and Cana-dian university and government researchgroups. To paraphrase one member ofSchool Division 59 in northern British Co-lumbia: “The success of this program will bemeasured long after students return fromthe field. It will be measured in the increasedawareness of the environmental issues im-pacting the Arctic, and the lasting relation-ships that evolve with research agencies,universities, sponsors and the media.”
Collaboration between research teams,government agencies, and the public schoolnetwork creates a winning situation foreveryone involved by highlighting thiscountry’s premier research activities andoffering unique experiences to the next gen-eration of scientists and policymakers.
“The Arctic Ocean and the Arctic arechanging rapidly because of climatewarming. And yet, scientifically theseregions still represent the least studiedbiotas on Earth. The demand for Arc-tic specialists will increase tremen-dously in the coming decades, and acentral objective of research networkssuch as the Canadian Arctic Shelf Ex-change Study (CASES) is to train thenext generation of Canadian Arcticscientists. The Schools on Board pro-gram is an excellent way to make highschool students aware of the possibilityto develop an enriching career in afascinating research field.”
– Louis Fortier, CASES chief scientist
For more information contact Lucette Barberat [email protected] or visit our web site(cases.quebec-ocean.ulaval.ca/school.asp).
Lucette Barber is Project Manager forSchools on Board; David Barber is Can-ada Research Chair in Arctic System Sci-ence at the University of Manitoba. Mar-tin Fortier is the scientific coordinator ofCASES at Université Laval.
16
ences and thoughts on arctic environmentalissues with scientists, stakeholders, and poli-cy makers.
The objectives of Schools on Board are: � to expand arctic sciences in high school
curriculums across the country;� to increase awareness of arctic climate
change issues;� to increase awareness of Canadian-led
research projects;� to introduce students to research design
and implementation;� to integrate students from coast-to-coast-
to-coast in a unique educational lifeexperience;
� to foster an appreciation for both scien-tific and aboriginal understanding ofcomplex environmental issues;
� to foster the development of partnershipsbetween high schools and research in-stitutions (both academic and govern-ment); and
� to inspire the next generation of scientists.
2003–2004 Field Program
In 2003–2004, Schools on Board will launchits first field program as part of the CASESicebreaker over-wintering. CASES has pro-vided 12 berths on the vessel, for two one-week sessions at the end of February andmid March, 2004. Students will be exposedto the science objectives and methods of sci-entific studies ranging from microbiology toclimatology. Schools on Board is targetingschools that wish to expand their scienceprogram, and high school students interest-ed in research who would like to experiencearctic marine science in the field.
By linking science teachers to universityand government researchers and their pro-grams, Schools on Board hopes to generatean interest in the internationally recognizedresearch activities of the Canadian scientistsin the North, and offer students the oppor-tunity to experience science at work in the field. The contacts and liaisons madethrough Schools on Board also have the
Kathy Conlan. Photo: Gregg Leibert.
While going through our careers, I think weall become aware of how important con-tacts are in formulating the next step. Some-times it is serendipity. Other times, one actson advice. My life was changed this way.
H O W I T A L LB E G A N
When I graduated with a Masters degree inMarine Biology, I could get no more thanlow paying, short-term contracts. I gave upand went travelling with my husband, Glennfor a year. Then I was lucky to pick up workwith Dr. Ed Bousfield at the Canadian Mu-seum of Nature, a Crown Corporation in theGovernment of Canada. After five years ofcontracting, I secured a less tenuous “term”status. I had a foot in the door. Soon after,the director of the museum suggested that Iupgrade my qualifications with a Ph.D atCarleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Iwas loath to do this as I had two small chil-dren. However, I figured that I had no choicebut to agree, and it turned out to be easierthan I expected. My husband’s help wasessential and by then, I had research experi-ence under my belt. That training led to per-manent job status and a fortuitous meetingwith Dr. John Oliver.
During my doctoral studies, my adviser,Dr. Henry Howden, suggested that I spendtime on the coasts of North America gettingto know the behaviour of my study animals.While visiting Moss Landing Marine Labora-tories in Monterey Bay, California, I met mycolleague Peter Slattery, who invited me toparticipate in an Alaskan research trip thefollowing year. On the cruise, I had the goodfortune to meet the head of Moss Landing’sbenthic lab, John Oliver, who transformedmy life. Having only known me for a week,John invited me to Antarctica, suggested an
Arctic research program, and told me to“think big”. As I soon discovered, Oliver in-spires those around him with his vivacity,talent, and enthusiasm for science, and haslikely changed the direction of more stu-dents than myself.
Oliver was not one to simply toss outsuggestions. The following year, the Canadi-an Museum of Nature provided Oliver withfunding for research in the Canadian HighArctic. With help from his students RikkKvitek and Hunter Lenihan, we established acollaborative research program that has runfor nine years. The talents of Rikk Kvitek,Hunter Lenihan, and Stacy Kim of MossLanding, and Steve Blasco of the GeologicalSurvey of Canada were key to making ourresearch a success. The following year, Oliv-er made good on his invitation to bring medown to Antarctica, and that resulted ineight more returns, with a new, three-yeargrant now in the offing.
T H E R I G H TD E C I S I O N
Research in the Arctic and Antarctic hasbeen tremendously stimulating. It is physi-cally demanding, because we do our workby scuba diving in ice-filled, sub-zero water.Yet, it has an exotic nature that the publicfinds captivating. The Office of Polar Pro-grams in the National Science Foundation(NSF) supports US research in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and has generouslysupported my collaborations with my MossLanding colleagues. Our Antarctic researchhas contributed to convincing the NationalScience Foundation to apply sewage treat-ment at McMurdo Station, Antarctica’slargest base. Our Arctic research has shownthat ice scour disturbance can have a posi-tive influence on benthic diversity, and it has
17
FA
LL
/W
IN
TE
RR
2
00
3C
AN
AD
IA
N
PO
LA
R
CO
MM
IS
SI
ON
S E R E N D I P I T Y A N D W H E R E I T M I G H T L E A D : O P P O R T U N I T I E S F O R S T U D Y I N G T H E A R C T I C A N D
A N T A R C T I CKathy Conlan
lead to an invitation from German col-leagues to study the recolonization of icescours in Antarctica.
Unlike other countries, Canada does nothave a central polar research program. TheNatural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada, which funds Canadianuniversity based science, reviews polar re-search proposals on equal basis with thoseaimed at warmer climates. However, costsfor working in the Arctic have escalatedconsiderably, with little added federal sup-port. Canada also has no research base inAntarctica, but it encourages bipolar col-laboration through the Canadian Arctic-Antarctic Exchange Program. Countriessuch as the United States, Germany, NewZealand, Australia, Britain, and Japan havededicated huge resources to studying theAntarctic environment, and have interests inthe Arctic as well. They invite foreign partic-ipation in their research programs, and this enables Canadians to conduct Antarcticor bipolar research. The study of climatewarming is one of the draws, and there isnow strong evidence that both the AntarcticPeninsula and the western Canadian Arcticare warming.
The Canadian Museum of Nature hasbeen very supportive of my research andpromotional activities, enabling me to studybenthic communities in many systems,teach marine biology on the Atlantic andPacific Coasts, and popularize my findingsthrough the media and museum exhibits.The latter function, popularizing science, isessential for all scientists. More than once Ihave heard that if you cannot explain yourresearch to the lay-person, you do not haveit straight in your own mind.
P O L A RA M B A S S A D O R
A consequence of my Antarctic work is that Ihave become an ambassador for the polarworld. I am a member of the CanadianCommittee for Antarctic Research, and Ihave become Canada’s representative to theBiology Working Group on SCAR, the Scien-tific Committee on Antarctic Research. Thesecommittees offer a means to network, influ-ence policy, and develop new science initia-tives for the Antarctic. As a result of this in-volvement, Geoff Green and Angela Holmes,founders of Students on Ice, an organizationthat runs polar learning expeditions forteenagers, invited me to become a memberof the education team. Students on Ice hasintroduced me to a new way of interpretingthe polar world through the eyes of theyoung, and I have participated in someamazing trips both north and south.
C A R P E D I E M
There is a certain draw to the Arctic andAntarctic that causes people to return againand again. It may be the immense feeling ofwilderness and wide-open space. It may bethe chance to be part of a different culture. Itmay be the unique research opportunitiesthat the polar regions provide. It is a life-changing experience that you should seize ifthe opportunity arises. You have to workhard and take the initiative yourself, butsometimes you need a helping hand. I hopeI’ve shown some ways to make that a realityfor you. Look for, and listen to the John Oliv-ers of the world, set a goal, and “think big”.
Kathy Conlan is a marine biologist withthe Canadian Museum of Nature.
This article is reprinted with the permission ofScience’s Next Wave, nextwave.sciencemag.org/ca. Copyright 2002, American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science.
18
P O L A R R E S O U R C E S
With renewed interest in Arctic oil and gasdevelopment and recognition that the polarregions are early warning systems for cli-mate warming, both foreign and Canadianresearchers once again are focusing on theArctic. Canadian universities that supportresearch in the North have a network calledthe Association of Canadian Universities forNorthern Studies (ACUNS) (uottawa.ca/associations/aucen-acuns). The CanadianPolar Commission is a useful source of polarinformation (polarcom.gc.ca). A new virtualcircumpolar training facility, the Universityof the Arctic, is also being established (urova.fi/home/uarctic). Northern research grantsare awarded by the Northern Research In-stitute (yukoncollege.yk.ca/programs/nri), the Churchill Northern Studies Centre(churchillmb.net/~cnsc), the Arctic Insti-tute of North America (ucalgary.ca/aina), theAurora Research Institute (aurresint.nt.ca),and the Nunavut Research Institute (pooka.nunanet.com/research). The federal logisti-cal support facility for Arctic research is thePolar Continental Shelf Project (polar.nrcan.gc.ca), which is the best way for students tofind out who’s doing what in the easternCanadian High Arctic.
Arctic Justice: On Trial for Murder, PondInlet, 1923, by Sheilagh D. Grant. McGill-Queens University Press. xx 342 pages. ISBN0-7735-2337-5.
Arctic Justice is a fascinating book for any-one interested in the Canadian North andespecially in the problems that may arise inthe relationship of Aboriginal people in Can-ada to the dominant society that has estab-lished the rules and customs under whichthey, as part of the total society, must live.
Professor Grant has told from the Inuitperspective the story of the death of a whitetrader, Robert Janes, in circumstances thatappeared to be “murder” under Canadianlaw and values. In that perspective the “exe-cution” of Janes by a group of Inuit could beseen as a reasonable action to protect thetiny social group at Pond Inlet that made life
possible in the harsh environ-ment in which they lived. Muchof the Common Law, underly-ing the law of Canada, has its origins in English custom butour law had no place for aborig-inal custom, however reason-able it might seem to the Inuitinvolved.
Canadian law and the admin-istration of Canadian justice didnot have room for the “execu-tion” to be treated as somethingless than “murder”, with thenormal penalty of death. Coun-sel were provided at the trial forboth the prosecution and thedefence and both counsel weresympathetic to the three ac-cused, Nuqallaq, Aatitaaq andUlulyarnaat. The defence coun-sel urged that Nuqallaq be ac-quitted. The prosecution recom-
mended a conviction for manslaughter, thepenalty for which was less than murder,and also informed the jury “that they couldrecommend the accuseds to the clemency ofthe court”. The jury found Nuqallaq “guiltyof manslaughter” but made no recommen-dation for clemency. Nuqallaq was then sen-tenced to ten years in Stony Mountain Peni-tentiary. Uluyarnaat was sentenced to twoyears of hard labour in “close confinement”at Pond Inlet. The charges against Aatitaaqwere dropped.
Professor Grant attaches great impor-tance, in the “unprecedented decision” to putthe three Inuit on trial for murder, to “Can-ada’s international political concerns forestablishing sovereignty over the Arctic” –what she calls “the politics of Arctic sover-eignty.” This is not convincingly demon-strated. Her book is a sharp attack on theabsence of any “effective occupation” of the
Arctic Islands – or of much of the rest of theCanadian Arctic – by the Canada of thatday. However, there was no direct challengeby any country to our claim to sovereigntyover the Arctic Islands. Only Norway had apotential claim – to the Sverdrup Islands –on the basis of discovery once the UnitedKingdom passed to Canada in 1870 its title.Norway made no claim of sovereignty atany time and its potential claim was settledfor a cash payment by Canada in 1930.Obviously, Norway was not actively seekingto establish sovereignty over any islands inthe Canadian North.
Professor Grant’s criticism of the inade-quacy of Canadian administration in theNorthwest Territories at the time of the PondInlet episode – and for many years after – isharsh but not unfair. She refers to it as the“triumvirate rule” by the Hudson’s Bay Com-pany, the RCMP and the churches, the “firstphase in colonial occupation of Baffin Is-land”. Canada had really no Arctic policyuntil the Second World War and the post-war period made our “state of absence ofmind” clear to the St-Laurent government in1948. Then, but only then, did Canadadevelop a policy that treated the North aspart of Canada.
Self-government in the Northwest Terri-tories and Nunavut has now put control oflaw and administration in the hands of thepeople – Aboriginal and other – but manyof the aspects of adjustment to the newrange of problems remain to be tackledeffectively. Professor Grant’s book, and itsfocus on differing social perspectives and theproblems they can create, is importanttoday and will be for many years to come,and not only in the North.
Gordon Robertson served as deputy min-ister of Northern Affairs and NationalResources (1953–63) and as clerk of thePrivy Council and Cabinet secretary(1963–75).
B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R SJocelyn BarrettRichard Binder (Vice-Chairperson)Peter Johnson (Chairperson)Piers McDonaldGordon Miles Leah Otak Mike Robinson
The Carbon Balance of NorthernAquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystemsand their Interactions 27–28 October 2003 University of Helsinki, Finland
2nd Annual Airships to the ArcticSymposium 21–23 October 2003 Hotel Fort Garry in Winnipeg, Manitoba,Canada umanitoba.ca/transport_institute/ Phone: (204) 474-9842
Northern Margins: Changing Transition Zones in Time Churchill Northern Studies Centre inChurchill, Manitoba, Canada25 February – 1 March 2004
International Polar Year 2007–2008A number of Arctic and Antarctic sciencecoordinating agencies and nations are plan-ning an International Polar Year (IPY) for2007–08, the 50th anniversary of the Inter-national Geophysical Year and the 125thanniversary of the first IPY. Through theCanadian Polar Commission, Canada hasstarted discussion on national involvementin the IPY, although all questions of imple-mentation and funding strategies remain tobe addressed, The Commission is committedto consulting a wide range of stakeholdersfrom all levels of government, universityscholarship, aboriginal organizations, andnon-governmental organizations. We en-courage you to participate in the on-lineforum at polarcom.gc.ca, or contact:
Canadian Polar Commission1710, 360 Albert StreetOttawa, OntarioK1R 7X7 Canada
![Matter of Castro-Tum, Respondent - …immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/... · recalendar [an administratively closed case] before the Immigration Court . . . or to](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b905af109d3f28a7e8bc23e/matter-of-castro-tum-respondent-recalendar-an-administratively-closed-case.jpg)
