Emily Doan

Introduction and Decision Makers

In an era of increasing global oil scarcity and incredible advances in technology, the north has become a subject of interest to oil developers looking to drill in Arctic waters. Canada’s Arctic in particular has become a hot spot for ocean activity following the rapid recession of Arctic ice (“Beaufort Sea”, 2011). Tentative exploration has been met with mixed reactions among local communities as stakeholders struggle to find a balance between jobs, the environment and Arctic culture.

In Canada, there are few actual decision-makers in the Arctic offshore drilling dispute. The federal government is the main decision-maker, with a division called the National Energy Board created to license and regulate the natural resource industry. There are many stakeholders that hold influence over the decisions that are made, but do not have true authority as the federal government does.

Governance Framework

The politics surrounding oil are complex and often involve international conflict. There have been several pushes in the 20th century to restrict oil production through international agreements, but the most significant change is the creation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960. It is a conglomeration of several oil exporting nations that was created in order to establish greater government sovereignty over the oil market. OPEC has been hugely influential on the price of oil (Gately, 1984) and on places where oil is more expensive to produce, such as Canada.

Within Canada, the federal government regulates oil and natural gas production. There are several pieces of legislation put in place by parliament that legalize regulations put forth by the government. These are broad in scope and outline the safety measures required for resource extraction projects. The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act is first and foremost a document outlining the duties of both the government and developers in a project. It covers all possible aspects of development projects, from government tariffs to waste management (Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, 1985). The Canada Petroleum Resources Act has a focus on the resources themselves. This Act furthers government leverage by enabling them the ability to grant licenses to interested developers. Additionally, this act enables the collection of royalties from the resources (Canada Petroleum Resources Act, 1985).

The last broad piece of legislation is the National Energy Board Act. This act gives legal authority to the National Energy Board and outlines its mandate (National Energy Board Act, 1985). The NEB conducts reviews and consultations with stakeholders in order to weigh the needs of all stakeholders against the needs of the Canadian population (National Energy Board [NEB], 2011). The agency’s objective is to ensure that all energy extraction ventures are neutral or beneficial to the surrounding communities and environment. The federal government operates separately from the NEB and pursues the interests of the political party in power.

Remarkably there are very few to no provincial agreements in place in the Canada’s Arctic. This has largely to do with the fact that the northern area of Canada is composed of territories rather than provinces. There is an established government in each territory to deal with matters specific to the area, but this power is an extension of the federal government (Territorial Lands Act, 1985). The lack of provincial jurisdiction is a huge gap in provincial governance and has resulted in poor representation of smaller communities.

There is one exception to this gap. The entirety of Nunavut is part an Inuit land claim agreement, the largest in Canadian history. Inuit have equal representation with the federal government and have a range of rights and title across the territory. Again, despite the co-governance, the federal government has jurisdiction over crown land and can push resource extraction initiatives, the caveat being that some of the royalties must be passed to the Inuit of Nunavut (Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, 1993).

Similar to the Nunavut case, other Inuit groups have decision-making power on the lands they have claims to and their agreements often include the rights to oil resources. Within territories there are smaller regional land claim agreements in place (Fenge, 2007). The federal government has made several agreements with Inuit groups in the Arctic: The Northern portion of the Yukon manages land collaboratively with the the Vuntut Gwitch’in, and The Inuvialuit Final Agreement in the Western Arctic sets aside several areas for protection as national parks.

These agreements represent a shift in power towards Aboriginal groups. In modern Canadian society, respect towards Aboriginal communities has become paramount. With a now progressive focus on an inclusive Canadian image, Aboriginal groups have more influence than ever, though it is informal. Many Inuit communities have expressed hesitance in allowing oil companies to commence drilling in the north. Although they might not have final decision-making authority, their ability to command respect and prior land-claim agreements might be enough to sway Arctic resource management decisions.

Governance Practices

In practice, the Canadian government does not make a full effort at transparency. While most of the legislation is now available for review online, it can be difficult to find and the sheer length and complexity of the legal documents can be challenging for the public. There have been no further attempts by the government at making the acts accessible to the greater Canadian population. On the other hand, government legislature has been available for over 10 years, with records for each amendment. The documents themselves are confusing but interested parties have ample to time to examine them.

The Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 resulted in a shift in the way the federal government handled consultation (NEB, 2010). The NEB proceedings were inclusive, involving numerous stakeholders and were remarkably more transparent than the original government legislature. The technology used at Deepwater Horizon was the same technology proposed by BP for use in the Arctic. The proportion of the disaster resulted in the NEB scheduling additional consultation with the affected stakeholders in the Arctic. Full documentation of the consultations was published online in using well-written, simple language.

The NEB serves as the venue for stakeholders to voice their concerns. Outside of lands they hold title to, Inuit groups have no decision-making power, even though resource extraction activities can have an effect on their traditional hunting grounds. Concerns about the impact of drilling on the locals’ way of life have caused many to participate in consultations (NEB, 2011). Ultimately, the federal government and the NEB hold the final authority over resource decisions on Crown land; the impact of community participation can be difficult to quantify.

The variety of land claims around the Arctic shifts accountability depending on the area. For example, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement gives oil developers absolute liability for any incidents during the resource extraction. There has been a general consensus that “there is a need for accountability by all, including industry and regulators” (NEB, 2011). The overwhelming authority of the federal government and the NEB holds them accountable for their decisions by default. Proposed drilling projects would take place outside any claimed areas, in the Beaufort Sea. While the federal government has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Inuvialuit concerning fish management in the Beaufort Sea (“Beaufort Sea”, 2011), the agreement does not concern other natural resources.

Conclusions

Governance concerning drilling in the Arctic is a complex issue that grows even more difficult in the context of world politics and markets. One of the main issues behind the offshore drilling debate is the overwhelming power of the federal government. The lack of authority given to territorial government translates to a general disorganization of agreements at lower levels.

The gap in governance has resulted in an unequal representation of Canadians whose communities are at the core of this debate; they have had to rely on influence, not authority, to protect their lands. Consultations with the National Energy Board are broad and inclusive, but the true value of stakeholders’ input into the final decision are unknown and it is entirely possible for the government to proceed according to its own will.

Finally, because offshore drilling is currently in the consultation stage, there are no true examples of federal accountability. There have been some historical agreements made in the Arctic, many of which have yet to be replicated in other parts of Canada. The government has made substantial strides over the years to collaborate on a government-to-government basis with the Inuit (Broadhead, 2010). However, the fact remains that the federal government holds nearly all of the authority over this matter and their accountability in future endeavors will be an expectation, not a question.

References

Beaufort Sea commercial fishing banned. (2011, April 15). Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/

Broadhead, L. (2010). Canadian sovereignty versus northern security: The case for updating our mental map of the Arctic. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 65(4), 913-930. Retrieved from http://ijx.sagepub.com/

Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, R. S. C., c.O-7 (1985). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-7/index.html

Canada Petroleum Resources Act, R.S.C., c. 36 (2nd Supp.) (1985). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8.5/index.html

Fenge, T. (2007). Inuit and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement: Supporting Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty. OPTIONS POLITIQUES. Retrieved from http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/assets/po/the-mood-of-canada/fenge.pdf

Gately, D. (1984). A Ten-Year Retrospective: OPEC and the World Oil Market. Journal of Economic Literature, 22(3), 1100–1114. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2725308

National Energy Board. (2011, December 1). Review of offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic. Retrieved from https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/2011fnlrprt/index-eng.html

National Energy Board Act, R.S.C., c. N-7 (1985). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-7/index.html

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, S.C., c. 29 (1993). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28.7/

Territorial Lands Act, R.S.C., c. T-7 (1985). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-7/index.html

Peer Reviewed References

Broadhead, L. (2010). Canadian sovereignty versus northern security: The case for updating our mental map of the Arctic. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 65(4), 913-930. Retrieved from http://ijx.sagepub.com/

This is a peer-reviewed article published in the International Journal, a Canadian academic journal. The article discusses the mindset of the Western population towards the Arctic. It also covers in great detail the growing demands of the Canadian Inuit population to be recognized as individuals with prior claim to the land. Broadhead argues that the Arctic must be reconsidered as a land undergoing extreme ecological and social change. The argument is that government policy must change to reflect the severity of climate change and the harsh effects it will have on communities in the north.

This article provides a perspective on how both stakeholders as well as the general population view the Arctic. It is key because it one of the few articles that fully summarizes the growing paradigm shift concerning Arctic sovereignty. There will be many communities affected by offshore drilling in Arctic waters, and Broadhead gives insight into their struggle to have their voices’ heard.

This is a synthesis article, combining the viewpoints of many other research papers. It very effectively fleshes out current and projected viewpoints of Arctic inhabitants. Its main weakness is that there are few references in the article to opposing arguments; though the author’s focus on her perspective might be considered a strength as well.

Durkalec, A., Furgal, C., Skinner, M., & Sheldon, T. (2015). Climate change influences on environment as a determinant of Indigenous health: Relationships to place, sea ice, and health in an Inuit community. Social Science & Medicine, 136-137, 17-26. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.026

This article is an in-depth exploration of the environment that Arctic communities exist in; authors study both the biophysical environment and the social environment of Inuit. It is a peer-reviewed article that was published in Social Science & Medicine. The article gives a brief overview of post-colonial Inuit history as context. Research centers around Inuit sea ice use and the effects of climate change on their way of life. The authors argue that the increasingly deteriorating Arctic environment is having negative effects on Inuit communities, especially in terms of health and cultural significance.

Included in the article are valuable tables indicating the (self-reported and observed) physical and emotional health of Inuit who have participated in interviews with the researchers. The Inuit participating in the study give it a unique perspective and allows researchers to report on their specific needs. This also allows us to better consider Inuit perspectives on offshore drilling, which will have a large impact on their environment.

The research is based off of interviews with two focus groups in Nunatsiavut. While the research is extremely informative and provides a (seemingly) accurate depiction of Inuit needs, further focus groups might be required to cement Inuit perspectives on the changing environment.

Ford, J., Pearce, T., Duerden, F., Furgal, C., & Smit, B. (2010). Climate change policy responses for Canada’s Inuit population: The importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 177-191. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/global-environmental-change/

This is a very significant article with respect to offshore drilling. Researchers have conducted a large scale study of Arctic communities by way of hundreds of interviews and dozens of community workshops. Their findings are peer-reviewed and were published as an article in the journal Global Environmental Change. The study focused on the communities’ ability to adapt to changes in their environment, rather than the changing environment itself. It concludes that communities have a considerable ability to adapt to environmental shifts. The article does note, however, several changes that need to made in policy and economy to support the resilience of northern communities.

In addition to interviews and study groups the article synthesizes several other case studies to examine Inuits’ needs and interests. It is a useful reference for offshore drilling research as it offers a detailed perspective on local communities’ capacity for change. This article could serve as a guide to meet the needs of communities impacted by arrival of offshore drilling. Authors worked extensively with communities to ensure accurate depictions of their perspectives; the article has been viewed and cited many times.

Pratt, K., Stevenson, J., & Everson, P. (2013). Demographic adversities and Indigenous resilience in Western Alaska. Études/Inuit/Studies, 37(1), 35-56. Retrieved from https://www.etudes-inuit-studies.ulaval.ca/en

Often in studies of Indigenous peoples there is a focus on the negative aspects of their communities. Pratt, Stevenson and Everson focus on just the opposite in this article and analyze the resilience of Arctic communities. The study was published in Études/Inuit/Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. Researchers focus on the demographics of the Arctic relative to events; they cover shifts in resource availability, epidemics and culturally impactful events. Authors argue that, based on past events, Arctic communities are resourceful, resilient, and capable of handling future challenges.

This is a useful resource when thinking about offshore drilling because it has a stronger emphasis on past events rather than future issues. Instead of focus groups with communities, researchers draw from previous case studies and synthesize them to draw their own conclusions. It is valuable to consider events that have already occurred as this might allow stakeholders to predict their needs in the forthcoming offshore drilling projects. This article does however lack some of the personal aspects of the others, and serves to give context to the issue of offshore drilling rather than outline communities’ capacity to adapt.

Stevenson, L. (2012). The psychic life of biopolitics: Survival, cooperation, and Inuit community. American Ethnologist, 39(3), 592-613. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01383.x

Stevenson discusses a relationship that is often considered in the offshore drilling debate: the historical relationship between Inuit and the government. She discusses the perspective of the government and its profound shift in approach over time. The article covers many injustices committed by the government towards Inuit, including the residential schools of the 1900s. What is unique about this peer-reviewed article is the chronicling of the aftermath; though the government supposedly created  residential schools and housing to “educate” and prevent disease, the result was a spike in the Inuit suicide rate. Stevenson eventually concludes that Inuit perspective on life is tied intimately to a culture that emphasizes bonds and relationships above all else; the government’s past isolation of these individuals is a mistake to learn from.

The points posed in this article have been cited numerous times and presented at several universities including Harvard and Cornell University. Field work in the Arctic and interviews were conducted to solidify the arguments. Although this article is not directly related to the current offshore drilling disputes and is overly abstract at times, it is useful to understand the past actions of the Canadian government in order to analyze its future choices.

Grey Literature References

Reiss, B. (2012, May 30). Why Environmentalists Should Support Oil Exploration In Alaska’s Arctic Waters. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/

Reiss wrote this article as a guest columnist for Forbes magazine, after writing a researched book on the topic. In the article Reiss argues that offshore tests won’t harm Arctic communities, and details the many measures oil companies (Shell in particular) have taken to meet the requirements of communities, government agencies and scientists. He also argues that exploratory tests are just that – exploratory – and unimposing to the environment. He draws on the opinions of several other notable figures in environmental science to reinforce his points.

Reiss’s viewpoint is unique and argues for oil exploration in the Arctic, bringing in a new perspective to the debate. He believes that testing will not impact the Inuit way of life if done correctly. The article, being based on a lengthier book, is meticulously researched; the author spent large amounts of time with both opponents and proponents of offshore drilling. In terms of the offshore drilling debate though, it is worth noting that Reiss only supports testing at the moment, not full-blown extraction.

National Energy Board. (2011, December 1). Review of offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic.  Retrieved from https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/2011fnlrprt/index-eng.html

The National Energy Board (NEB) organized a review of offshore drilling policies following the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico. The review included many stakeholders including leaders of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, community representatives and even local high school students. Representatives for oil and gas companies involved were also present. The result was the written review that concludes that there are several safety issues that must be resolved before offshore drilling can commence. The review was published under the NEB by the Government of Canada.

This review directly addresses the issues present in offshore drilling, and is very useful as research because it effectively summarizes many perspectives on the issue. Direct consultation with the stakeholders aids in accurately representing their interests. From this document we can also reference past oil extraction disasters; the NEB seeks to learn from them. It is extremely detailed, being a pivotal document in the offshore oil debate. Representatives of local communities had direct input in the creation of the document and we can hear their thoughts on this new addition to their environment.

The Guardian. (2015, June 16).The new cold war: Drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/international

This web report has several interactive components and videos, but is ultimately made to convey the conflict surrounding oil in the Arctic. The Guardian interviews representatives from many stakeholders, including local representatives. It states that offshore drilling will damage a fragile ecosystem and impact the livelihoods of those that depend on it.

Although this article is rather generalized and brief, it touches on some of the cultural aspects that will be impacted by offshore drilling. This piece was written specifically on the issue of offshore drilling, and as such is relevant to our research. It also provides a very personal perspective from the local residents who were interviewed by the Guardian, something that is lacking in academic journals. Despite its brevity it is a well-researched and current article that adds another dimension to this wicked problem.

Raw Data References

Galloway, T., Johnson-Down, L., & Egeland, G. (2015). Socioeconomic and Cultural Correlates of Diet Quality in the Canadian Arctic: Results from the 2007–2008 Inuit Health Survey. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 76(3), 117-125. Retrieved from http://www.dcjournal.ca/journal/cjdpr

Researchers from several fields combine statistics with social and cultural factors in a peer-reviewed article. They examined several health factors in Inuit populations, drawn from several other studies. In addition to referencing other studies, researchers interviewed thousands of Inuit adults and did conducted a recall of what they ate 24 hours before. Researchers were able to find a positive correlation between use of Inuit language at home and the consumption of traditional food. They concluded that quality of food and consequently health are related to socioeconomic status.

These statistics could shed a light on the quality of life communities would lead depending on the effects of oil drilling on communities’ income. The article gives statistical insight on the conditions of locals that is missing from other journals. From this we can infer the benefits and consequences to local communities should oil drilling bring them jobs and increased income.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2008). Inuit Statistical Profile. Retrieved from https://www.itk.ca/publication/inuit-statistical-profile

This reference is a document surveying the demographics of Inuit in Canada. The goal of the document is to provide a view of the population at the time. The document makes note of the fact that Inuit are a young population, with about half of them speaking the Inuit language at home. The document also included statistics that are often discussed in journals concerning Inuit, including number of crowded homes, suicide rates and overall health.

The information for this document was drawn from several reliable sources such as the Canadian government’s 2006 census and several academic studies. The findings give concrete numbers to the abstract ideas presented in journal articles, and are useful in articulating arguments about offshore drilling. Drilling will impact communities in many tangible ways and they are represented statistically in this publication.

The Arctic oftentimes seems desolate, savage and unfamiliar. Many however, look past that. There is economic interest in the Arctic; tens of millions of barrels of oil are located deep underground, mostly offshore in the ocean. Arctic oil has drawn the attention of the government, several corporations, and the world, and therein lies the wicked problem.

This mind map illustrates the factors surrounding offshore Arctic drilling. Corresponding numbers indicate similar or related topics.

To understand why offshore drilling is a wicked problem, there are many factors that must be examined. Offshore drilling is fairly uncharted territory; opponents argue that even experimental drilling would be a dangerous undertaking. Currently, the National Energy Board does not have full confidence that the technology used in oil drilling would be sufficient in the harsh Arctic terrain. Noted on the mind map under “When?” is the fact that there are no definitive plans to drill oil within the next few years (Jones).

There are many stakeholders in the proposed projects: Aboriginal peoples, their local communities, the oil companies and the government (in the form of the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Department), all consulting with the National Energy Board (National Energy Board). These are all listed in the “Who?” section of the mind map. Many of these groups hold mixed opinions and conflicting values on oil drilling in the Arctic. Stakeholders must decide if the “risk inherent in everything we do” (National Energy Board) is worth the reward.

Each stakeholder has a different role in consultation. Some are linked to other aspects of the mind map. For example, the Inuvialuit have settled with the government in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which gives corporations absolute liability for any damage that occurs during and after development. This links them to the “What are the consequences? (Why?)” portion of the mind map. There are several links to the “Why?” portion of the map. After all, all stakeholders must consider the reasons behind their support or opposition. The map links them to the consequences, but also to the question “What do we have to gain?”

Also very closely connected to the “Why?” section is the Arctic as a location, which is a separate section on the mind map. The Arctic has numerous biophysical components that must be taken into consideration (Samuels, Amstutz, and Crowley). It is home to “24-hour darkness, high winds and extreme cold” (National Energy Board) This is where the map links once again to local communities and Aboriginal peoples. Communities have expressed interest in jobs with oil companies; they would bring their experience in a largely unexplored environment to the project.

The last area of the mind map explores oil as a resource. Upon research society’s dependency on oil becomes clear. With an estimated one quarter of the world’s oil resources in addition to natural gas liquids (Robertson and Pierce), the Arctic might eventually fuel this petroleum-powered world. However, past incidents related to oil drilling must be considered. The most prominent of the ones listed in the mind map is the Deepwater Horizon blowout. This blowout involved 5 million liters of oil being spilled into the ocean only a five years ago in 2010; the incident is still fresh in the minds of the National Energy Board.

Despite this, local communities and corporations alike acknowledge the global need for energy. Though conflicting values and lack of information make this situation a wicked problem, it is one stakeholders are determined to solve. Unless society commits to phasing out fossil fuels, the wicked oil and gas problem in the Arctic will become increasingly relevant in the future.

References

Jones, Jeffrey. “Imperial Oil Leads Push to Drill Deep in Canadian Arctic.”The Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail, 29 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2015. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/major-oil-companies-apply-to-drill-deep-in-canadian-arctic/article14596797/>

Kaplan, Jed O., and Mark New. “Arctic Climate Change with a 2 ∘C Global Warming: Timing, Climate Patterns and Vegetation Change.” Climatic Change 79.3-4 (2006): 213-41. Web. 23 Sept. 2015. <http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9113-7>

Review of Offshore Drilling in the Canadian Arctic: Preparing for the Future. Calgary: National Energy Board, 2011. National Energy Board. Government of Canada, Dec. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2015. <https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrth/rctcffshrdrllngrvw/2011fnlrprt/index-eng.html>

Robertson, Jessica, and Brenda Pierce. “USGS Newsroom.” USGS Release: 90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic. U.S. Geological Survey, 23 July 2008. Web. 22 Sept. 2015. <http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980#.VgOEHvlVikp>

Samuels, William B., David E. Amstutz, and Heather A. Crowley. “Arctic Climate Change and Oil Spill Risk Analysis.” Frontiers of Earth Science 5.4 (2011): 350-62. Springer Link. SP Higher Education Press, 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 23 Sept. 2015. <http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/article/10.1007%2Fs11707-011-0198-6#>