Skip to main content
Start of content;

CHAPTER 8 - SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL COOPERATIONIN THE ARCTIC

In my opinion, no northern or circumpolar foreign policy in Canada will have tangible success if it's not based on the continuity of Canadian research in the North. But that research must heretofore also offer opportunities and possibilities for development; development in training, education, economic development and business opportunities for our northern populations. This twofold perspective which advocates that we continue our research and create conditions favourable to northern populations means that we must continue to support research and training in the North if we want Canada to maintain its important place; we must at the same time renew ourselves and the way we do things in order to adapt to. . . new internal realities. [47:2]

Michel Allard, Director of the Centre d'études nordiques,
Laval University

Given the rapid changes in Arctic realities described in preceding chapters, important challenges arise in the gathering and use of knowledge for the benefit of Arctic peoples and the wider world community. Among key issues are future trends in publicly supported Arctic scientific research and education, which the changes underway and the region's increasing integration into the global picture make more necessary than ever. In addition, important foreign policy commitments such as the Arctic Council and the AEPS undertaken by Canada and the other Arctic states demand first-rate scientific expertise. This does not mean simply continuing the multi-million dollar "big science" of past decades, however, but focussing research on the changing needs of the region as defined by its residents, building their capacity to carry out such research and combining traditional indigenous and modern scientific knowledge. Most Arctic states have reduced their domestic funding for science in recent years, which places an even higher premium on international cooperation to increase efficiency and reduce cost. As Gérard Duhaime of Laval University argued at a NATO-sponsored seminar in 1995, given their common interests and challenges, states interested in Arctic research must address the problems at several levels: ensuring that their domestic arrangements are adequate as well as reviewing existing international cooperative arrangements, and creating new ones where necessary.210

Canada's capability to contribute effectively to international scientific cooperation in the Arctic begins with its domestic commitment to polar science but it has had difficulty in articulating its vision in this area. At the same time, the Committee has taken to heart Paul Painchaud's warning to focus on the international policy dimension of these issues:

Your role is not to look at the whole issue of polar research. Your only focus, as foreign policy experts, should be to define the specific instruments that are needed to implement foreign policy, rather than trying to solve the problems of the North. It is those instruments that you must set out to identify. If science - and this is certainly the case - is an instrument of foreign policy, you must include it in your recommendations. [47:21]

Basic education is a domestic responsibility, but successful models being developed in Canada and internationally can help improve it throughout the region. International cooperation will also be vital in training the next generation of Arctic researchers to carry out cutting-edge physical and social science research. An important factor is the proliferation of satellite communications and new information technologies, which will allow greater development in the circumpolar world of what Maurice Strong and his colleagues have called "knowledge-based networks." While these new technologies are not a panacea and cannot replace national funding for core activities, they have already made a real contribution in the Canadian Arctic, and can promote both education and the strengthening of northern indigenous cultures on a national and circumpolar basis.

The Changing Nature of Arctic Science: Towards a Holistic Knowledge Perspective

Northern science is science that is connected to a territory and a people living there.

Gilles Breton211
Circumpolar Affairs Liaison
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

As John Heap of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, told Committee members, improved access and understanding have in the past century changed the southern perspective view of the Arctic from a frontier to be explored to a site of scientific inquiry. During the Cold War, the science carried out in the region was often dictated by military-strategic considerations, and its value tied to military and commercial interests and the practical application of new knowledge. The presence of indigenous peoples in the North, however, must moderate the "science for science's sake" practised in the Antarctic in favour of what Milton Freeman referred to in a submission to the Committee as more "socially-aware science."212

As Fred Roots pointed out in 1995, the major developments discussed in this report - the fact that the North is coming into its own psychologically, physically and economically, and that it is increasingly integrated into global concerns - are already having a significant impact on Arctic science, and will continue to do so. This will mean changes in what is studied in the Arctic and why, who carries out the research and who pays for it. According to Dr. Roots, "All this means that scientific research in high latitudes will be even more important in the years to come than it has been in the past. But to be effective, its results have to be desired by, and understood and used by, a new crop of decision-makers in the North, in non-northern areas, and internationally."213

On the national level, the Arctic states have evolved different approaches to polar science, with the Nordic countries being most consistent in terms of policies and budgets. As Fred Roots put it in 1995:

All northern countries have severe economic problems. Most have reacted to their financial stress by cutting their total national budgets for scientific research and introducing strict new criteria for the justification of money spent on research. Some countries have maintained or increased their Arctic science budgets even while their national science budgets decline, because they have recognised the importance of knowledge of the Arctic to the national priorities of the country as a whole. Other northern countries have drastically reduced their Arctic research as an "expendable" or less important part of their national science effort. . . Some countries will henceforth become increasingly dependent on their neighbour countries for their northern scientific information and expertise. Canada, I am sorry to report, is one of those countries that has reduced its budget for Arctic and northern science and thus will be increasingly dependent on the new knowledge obtained by other countries.214

The scale of the financial challenge to Arctic science may be new, but shortage of funds for science is not. When he met Committee members at Cambridge University, David MacDonald, of the Cambridge Arctic Shelf Program, quoted Lord Rutherford's comparison of European and American approaches to physics: ``We have no money, so we have to think.'' Given its growing importance, the Arctic (and other interested) states must continue their commitment to basic research in the North, even as that research evolves to better reflect modern needs and realities.

While the basic nature of research in the Arctic remains the organized pursuit of knowledge, important changes in approach are taking place. A natural tension has long existed between science and politics; politics demands national benefits and a degree of certainty that science is rarely able to supply, while science often seems to be divorced from a broader policy setting. As Chaturvedi concluded, "A balance ought to be achieved between enlightened national interest and the imperative of promoting science in the best interests of humanity within innovative national, regional and global frameworks."215 In fact, the creation of the Arctic Council provides an opportunity to link science and politics in the Arctic for the benefit of all. As Oran Young told the Committee:

Let me also say that with respect to opportunities, I think we need to think carefully about fostering a dialogue between the world of research and the world of policy, the world of science and the world of practice. I think we need to think carefully, within the context of the Arctic Council, about how to make mutually beneficial links and relationships between the scientific or the research community, including those who are concerned with traditional ecological knowledge, and the world of policy. I think there are very interesting opportunities. The time, in many ways, is ripe to do this. [40:6]
Long-term research must continue, but Arctic science is already becoming more grassroots-oriented. This is partly the result of funding cuts since, as Fred Roots has pointed out, an immediate result of smaller budgets is that issues are studied more for their immediate than their long-term benefits. While driven by reductions in Government funding, partnerships between researchers and private industry are also becoming increasingly common. As Mark Nuttall of Aberdeen University told Committee members at Cambridge University, that a further important step is to link physical and social science research in the Arctic more closely.

A particularly welcome change is the increasing appreciation of traditional indigenous knowledge as a complement to mainstream Arctic science. As Gerald Lock put it to the Committee:

I don't want to get too philosophical, but how do we know whatever it is we know? How does mankind ever know anything? There are only three ways we know. We know by rational knowledge, we know through empirical knowledge, and we know through metaphorical knowledge. Science is almost exclusively confined to the rational knowledge - not entirely, but it focusses there - whereas traditional knowledge takes part of empirical knowledge and part of metaphorical knowledge to do its thing. So if we do both, we have the total picture of human knowledge, which is what we ought to have. If we allow science to dominate and relegate traditional knowledge to an inferior position, I think that's philosophically wrong and socially unacceptable. [20:4-5]
As noted in Chapter Five, Canada was one of the first Arctic states to recognize the value of indigenous knowledge, and is a world leader in co-management regimes. In addition to providing invaluable information on the North, the linking of southern and northern perspectives is also helping to close the gap between northern peoples and Arctic research. As the Committee heard during its encounters in the Canadian Arctic, many aboriginal people continue to view southern researchers with suspicion. While progress is being made in this area, as we saw in the Chapter Five, discussion of contaminants in the northern food chain, more attention must be paid both to the cooperative development of research with northern communities and to the communication of scientific results to northern populations. As David Malcolm of the Aurora Research Institute put it in a submission to the Committee, "Plain language reports must be produced as a necessary part of any northern research."216

Canada has led in incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into scientific studies such as the Mackenzie Basin Impact Study, and social or human perspectives in its contribution to international scientific programs such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Canadian Polar Commission Chairman Whit Fraser concluded several years ago that: "Much remains to be done in this regard; however, there are encouraging signs that traditional knowledge is at last gaining a measure of respect commensurate with its value as a learning tool. Canada's success at promoting traditional knowledge beyond its own borders will depend largely upon the responsiveness of international organizations."217 As Oran Young argues, the Arctic Council has the potential to further this trend:

It is worth noting as well that the permanent residents of the Arctic have made it clear that they are not only potential sources of TEK (traditional ecological knowledge) but that they also have developed a strong interest in the conduct of western scientific research. The creation of bodies like the Alaska Native Science Commission is a particularly striking occurrence in this connection. All this suggests that the Arctic Council should act as a matter of priority to endorse and where necessary to initiate focussed programs of research on issues relating to sustainable development in the Arctic. Such programs should integrate the efforts of western scientists and the permanent residents of the region as well as the efforts of natural scientists and social scientists interested in the coupled systems of the Arctic.218
Overall, the Committee agrees with Professor Duhaime that the demands for more and better research in the Arctic mean that each state must ensure that its own science apparatus functions well and is coordinated to the greatest extent possible. As the Arctic science experts at the 1994 conference "A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada" concluded:

The consensus of the workshop was that the lack of leadership and focus on the international level is a reflection of the domestic situation in this country. The Canadian commitment to science is vague at best. Canada must resolve its commitment to the North and promote concern for Arctic affairs internationally. Only after Canada has set its own, specific agenda, can it contribute effectively to the international community.219
The Committee does not presume to set the domestic agenda for Canadian Arctic science, but agrees that, in order to contribute effectively to this changing and increasingly important area of circumpolar cooperation, Canada must take action. Fortunately, the realization that science cannot be divorced from policy is increasingly accepted among the Arctic states, and can be emphasized through the Arctic Council. As the first chair of the Council, Canada must ensure that it advocates a research agenda in the Arctic that places a premium on sustainable development and the needs of northern residents. As Gerald Lock argued before the Committee,

Canada should insist that traditional knowledge complements scientific knowledge for any issue affecting Arctic residents. That seems an obvious statement in the Canadian context, but it's not a view that's shared by all Arctic countries, and it's certainly not a view that's shared by non-Arctic countries, which, as I say, may well control the agenda. [20:4] . . . I would suggest that Canada insist that Arctic science be directed primarily towards the benefit of Arctic residents. Again, that seems obvious in an Arctic context, but again I say it's not a view shared by all Arctic countries and certainly not by non-Arctic countries. [20:5]
Accordingly:

Canada, Arctic Science and the Role of the Canadian Polar Commission

What the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has referred to as "Canada's new scientific exploration policy in the Arctic" took shape in the late 1950s as the result of a combination of challenges: military - the Soviet launching of its Sputnik satellite in 1957; sovereignty - the first under-ice crossing of the Arctic Ocean by the U.S. nuclear submarine Nautilus; and global - the first UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. While the cost of Canada's research was never high in comparison with the amounts spent by other Arctic states, its benefits were significant. As Michel Allard of Laval University told the Committee, "Carried out by departments and academics, Canadian scientific research in the North produced, especially from 1950 to 1989, i.e. during the Cold War, spectacular results with investments that were in fact far inferior to those made by the major powers. . ." [47:2]. While southern Canadian priorities dominated northern research over the next 20 years, beginning in the late 1970s the Northern Scientific Training Program, financed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to facilitate northern research in Canadian universities, began to focus publicly more on social, human and environmental sciences and research involving northern indigenous peoples.

Canada still has a significant Arctic science capability, and, as we saw in Chapter Five, its Arctic Environmental Strategy has made it a world leader in such areas as contaminants research. Yet, as Fred Roots told a 1994 conference, as a result of reductions in funding, "The total volume of polar science activities in Canada is, however, undoubtedly less than it was a decade ago."220 It is difficult to quantify the reductions, since, as Whit Fraser has put it, " The fact remains today, as it has for many years, that as a country we still do not know what we are spending in northern research: as a result, we are still unable to assess the true value of what we are getting for our investment."221 In fact, according to informed estimates, the reductions have probably been in the order of 30% over the last decade.

There is no magic sum Canada must spend in funding its Arctic science, but obviously reductions of this magnitude weaken its ability to carry out research, and thereby contribute to international scientific cooperation in the region. Aside from core funding for Arctic science, the most important thing Canada can do domestically is to renew its base of scientists working in the North and encourage a new generation of such scientists. Since it is becoming more difficult to encourage new researchers, ongoing work is more and more left to the same individuals. As Nigel Bankes of the University of Calgary put it in a submission to the Committee:

A frighteningly large part of Canada's international profile and reputation in Arctic policy and science, and Antarctic matters, rests upon the shoulders of one individual: Dr. Fred Roots, the Emeritus Advisor to the Minister of Environment. Is this a true indication of Canada's commitment to these matters? If it is not, we need a strategy to assist Dr. Roots, and to ensure smooth transitions in the future.222
While the coordination of polar science in Canada remains a problem, this does not mean that public money is being wasted. As Fred Roots told the Committee:

I don't think there's any gross inconsistency in what actions are going on scientifically or from the point of view of collecting information in the North. What is very true is that there is no connection in what is happening. There is really very little money being wasted. You couldn't do what work is being done much more effectively than it is being done at present. But what is being done is not fitted into any overall scheme or plan. It's as if a bunch of people, instead of building a house, were putting in doors and windows and floors and wires, but were doing so without a plan for the house. [10:21]
The symbol of Canada's scientific research in the Arctic is the Polar Continental Shelf Project (PCSP), established in 1958 to provide research support (but not funding) to scientists working in the North and to help exercise Canadian sovereignty over the continental shelf, the Arctic Islands and the northern mainland. According to Professor Allard:

The . . . Polar Shelf project, which has been in existence since the 1950s, is at the very origin of Canada's excellent scientific reputation in northern and Arctic studies. It is a model which is truly the envy of research organisations in all of the countries of the Arctic rim. Whether you go to the former Soviet Union, to the United States, Alaska, China or the Scandinavian countries, nowhere will you find another program that functions as well, that provides such integrated logistics to its national research as does the Polar Continental Plateau Study. [47:4]
George Newton of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission agreed, telling members that:

The Polar Continental Shelf Project is very positively viewed because the research dollar you appropriate for research in Canada goes for research. It doesn't go for a dog team, a snowmobile or an aircraft to get the researcher out so many miles onto the ice. It makes every research dollar more effective to that researcher. . . I want you to know that this is certainly an admired aspect of Canadian Arctic research. [62:9-10]
Committee members were fortunate to be able to visit the Polar Shelf Project's High Arctic base camp in Resolute. The PCSP, we were told, is a very "flat" organization with little bureaucracy, and is increasingly involved in such important areas of research as contaminants and global climate change. Federal funding cuts have been substantial, amounting to some 48% over three years (from $7.5 million to $3.5 million) and in nearby Resolute Bay the Committee was also told that lack of funds was limiting the hiring of Inuit hunters to accompany scientific research teams, thereby reducing cooperation between southern researchers and northern residents. Some 600 scientists and researchers still use the facility every year, however. Members also came to appreciate the long-term nature of scientific research carried out both for "pure science" purposes and technological application; Olga Kukal explained that after 15 years her research was finally paying off, and was being applied in a successful biotechnology venture in Nova Scotia.

While a facility such as the Polar Continental Shelf Project requires core public funding, the changing nature of Arctic science means that it must also look to recover costs and identify alternative sources of revenue where possible. Some cost recovery does take place, with the PCSP having recovered over 30% of its expenditure on logistical support in 1995. The Japanese recognize the value of its basic research, and have invested $1 million. There is also the possibility of a large-scale investment from the Stanford Research Institute. Another example of ways to generate alternative revenue can be found at the Arctic Institute of North America at the University of Calgary; Executive Director Michael Robinson told the Committee that core funding cuts of 20% over the past five years have led the Institute to place much more emphasis on selling its professional services. In discussions at the Polar Shelf Project, members also suggested exploring the possibility of using funds from the Nunavut land claims settlement for future investment in the Polar Shelf project. This would be a type of equity participation by the Nunavut Inuit and over time could replace some of the diminishing federal funding. Another suggestion was the development of a mechanism to ensure that those whose research resulted in successful commercial applications would contribute to the continued operation of the Project.

Stressing the need for partnerships in all Arctic scientific endeavours, Professor Allard made two recommendations to the Committee. The first was for a new program with a modest budget that could be administered by federal departments and granting agencies and encourage partnerships between Canadian and foreign academics, private industry and northern communities. The second was for strengthening and expanding two existing programs that support logistics and training in the Canadian North - the Polar Continental Shelf Project and the Northern Scientific Training Program. According to Professor Allard, the latter provides about $2,500 per year to individual Canadian university students who go North to do research work, essentially for their Master's and doctoral degrees. While he argued that the budget of the PCSP should be restored, Professor Allard also argued that the project should broaden its mandate and cooperate more with partners in Quebec and elsewhere, rather than focussing on the Arctic islands and the area around the Beaufort Sea.

In his testimony before the Committee, Branko Ladanyi of the University of Montreal compared Canada's lack of coordination in its approach to Arctic science unfavourably with the much better situation in the United States. As George Newton of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission explained to the Committee, the U.S. had previously "generally an uncoordinated, fragmented and often duplicative approach to Arctic research" [62:11-12], but this had changed for the better with the passage of the Arctic Research and Policy Act in 1984. The underlying themes of this Act are communications, sharing and cooperation; in addition to coordination of government activities there is close cooperation between the various government agencies involved and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He added that, while the U.S. system is not perfect, "It is a model. I do think it works " [62:21]. His colleague Garrett Brass agreed, but added that since it was designed for the U.S. government, that U.S. model could probably not be simply copied in Canada without modifications.

Progress is finally being made on the coordination of Canada's approach to Arctic science, with a federal Interdepartmental Committee established in May 1996 now looking at the issue. The Canadian Polar Commission is participating in this exercise, which in its view "is a good beginning, but it needs to proceed as a major policy initiative with the direction, support and accountability of the government as a whole."223 The Committee agrees that, in order to contribute to international cooperation in the Arctic, Canada must ensure that its domestic approach to polar science, including the operation of the Canadian Polar Commission, improves.

The Canadian Polar Commission (CPC) was established by an Act of Parliament in 1991 (see Box 12 ``The Canadian Polar Commission'') to "monitor and assess the state of polar scientific knowledge in Canada and circumpolar regions and to foster development of knowledge about the polar regions in Canada." During meetings in the Canadian Arctic and elsewhere, the Committee heard a number of criticisms of the Polar Commission, mainly of the fact that it is an Ottawa-based institution which spends too much of its budget on travel and accommodation while grassroots organizations in the North are starved of funds. David Malcolm of the Aurora Research Institute argued that:

We observe that the Yellowknife office of CPC is working hard to improve stakeholder/CPC relations in the western Arctic, but is sometimes hampered when key CPC activities are coordinated from the Ottawa headquarters. We see the need for increasing the effectiveness of CPC partnerships with Arctic business, with research institutions, and with Aboriginal Joint Secretariats responsible for renewable resources sustainability. Here at ARI, we hope to capitalise on closer partnering with CPC, in order to carry out joint activities that promote Arctic science and Traditional knowledge to the best advantage.224
Nellie Cournoyea, Chairperson of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, was more direct, arguing that "existing organisations in the North could have made far more effective use of these funds," and recommending "that the funds allocated to the Canadian Polar Commission be redirected through the Arctic Council to research in the North."225 Testifying before the Committee in October 1996, Dr. Jacques Grondin of the ``Centre de la santé publique du Québec'' added that:

. . . up until now the Canadian Polar Commission seems to have been having trouble defining its mandate. . . There is an apparent lack of coordination, and one notes some unfortunate duplication in the activities undertaken in all good faith by the Canadian Polar Commission. Similar activities are already underway in other organizations. Ethics is one such example. . .
Health reports on contaminants are another. People who do not have the proper training are wasting their time preparing health reports, when such reports are already available. Those are just a couple of examples.
Their last conference on environmental contamination, held in Iqaluit at the beginning of the month, is a blatant example of that. People in the different areas were notified only as the last preparations for the conference were being finalised, and as a result they had no chance to provide their input with respect to the conference's content or even the usefulness of such a conference. Furthermore, this eminently political meeting harmed efforts currently underway in the regions to manage environmental risks. . . So the decision was made to organise a conference, supposedly for the benefit of the regions, but virtually ignoring everything that is currently being done there. [47:17]
The Polar Commission also seems to have lost a good deal of its credibility with the Canadian scientific community as a result of the 1995 cancellation of the long-discussed Canadian Polar Information System (CPIS) advocated by the Commission since 1991. The Polar Commission has criticized the lack of federal funding and support which led to its abandonment of the system in favour of its Web pages and on-line resources; it argues that "the lack of a central directory for polar information in Canada is embarrassing. The Commission's board believes that the objectives it set out remain important. In due course, it will become obvious that the long-term value of such a system to Canada's research community would far outweigh any short-term savings."226 In fact, many researchers seem to feel that the Polar Commission itself did not properly coordinate the development of the CPIS, the need for which still exists. In Calgary the Committee was briefed at the Arctic Institute of North America on a low-cost alternative to the CPIS, based on the Institute's existing Arctic Science and Technology Information System (ASTIS) for an expenditure of perhaps $100,000 per year, and which could be made available as a Canadian contribution to the circumpolar research community.

It also appeared during the Committee's international travel that the Polar Commission has yet to make significant inroads in establishing a profile in international Arctic science circles. Commission Chairman Whit Fraser appeared before the Committee on two occasions. On the latter he gave a spirited defence of the work of the Commission, pointing out that high travel costs are unavoidable since the Commission was established by mandate in Ottawa but must do much of its work in the North. Even if the Commission was located in the Canadian North, frequent travel to Ottawa would still be necessary, so costs would be unlikely to decrease.

The creation of the Arctic Council should help focus Canadian attention on the pursuit of knowledge in the North, and this can only help the work of the Canadian Polar Commission. At the same time, given that such issues as location and cost seem unlikely to change, the Polar Commission must make it a priority to build relationships with the groups it represents and convince them that it is performing a useful and necessary service without wasting money.

Box 12 - "The Canadian Polar Commission"

In 1985 a study group was appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to investigate the state of polar science in Canada. In its 1987 report Canada and Polar Science, the study group recommended the creation of "a national body. . . to provide ongoing contact, at a senior level, between the federal Government and those concerned with Canadian polar science and research." A feasibility study commissioned in 1988 set out a draft framework and terms of reference for a national polar commission, whose establishment was announced by Prime Minister Mulroney in Leningrad in November 1989 - the same visit during which he officially proposed the establishment of the Arctic Council. The Canadian Polar Commission was established by an Act of Parliament in 1991. According to the Canadian Polar Commission Act, the purpose of the Commission is to promote the development and dissemination of knowledge in respect of the polar regions by:

As Chairman Whit Fraser summarized the Commission's mandate for the Committee in February 1997, "We serve as Canada's national advisory agency on polar affairs. We were not established as a research institution or a funding organization. Our role is to monitor the state of research and knowledge in Canada, to promote the development of polar research and to help determine scientific and other priorities" [66:1].

In the years since its creation, the Canadian Polar Commission has worked to fulfil its mandate in a number of ways, ranging from "regular, face-to-face meetings with northerners and . . . dialogue with northern communities on polar science and related issues," to workshops and conferences (and publication of their proceedings) and representation of Canada on such international bodies as the International Arctic Science Committee. The Commission has held or co-sponsored major conferences on a number of issues, including: science ("Canada and Polar Science," May 1994), foreign policy ("A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada," April 1994), environment and health ("For Generations to Come," October 1996) and circumpolar trade ("Circumpolar Trade: The Canadian Agenda," March 1993). As noted, while an "early priority" of the Commission was the development of a Canadian Polar Information System, following the decision that this could not be accomplished without federal funding, the Commission has concentrated on further developing its Web pages (http://ww.polarcom.gc.ca) and on-line resources.

The Commission currently has employees in Ottawa and Yellowknife, having decided to close its office in Kuujjuaq, Quebec, in the fall of 1996 as a result of rising costs for office space and accommodation; ideally, the Commission hopes to establish offices in Nunavut and Yukon. The Commission's budget has remained relatively steady in the years since its creation at about $1-1.1 million per year, although it has been reduced to $900,000 per year as of 1997-98. In 1996 the amount the Commission spent on "travel and relocation" was some $202,381, about 19% of its total budget of $1.053 million.

Ultimately, the value of the Canadian Polar Commission rests on the extent to which its work is useful to and accepted by the Government of Canada. As Whit Fraser put it to the Committee in February 1997:

I come back to the fact that you spoke to the Norwegian Polar Institute and others who are telling their country - and their country is listening - that the resources and the potential of the Arctic are their future. They are also recognizing that the future has to be protected with long-term, clearly-defined scientific programs on the protection of the environment, the development of the resources and protection of the people. These are the arguments that the Polar Commission has been trying to address to the federal Government. I might as well say quite bluntly that if the Government of Canada and the departments of Canada are not going to listen to recommendations and take seriously what agencies like this say, well, then, by all means shut it down. I think that is the issue". [66:10-11]

The Committee agrees that if the Government sees a continuing role for the Canadian Polar Commission, it must make use of its work. A first step in this direction must be for the Polar Commission to be perceived as a legitimate voice of those interested in northern research. Accordingly:

International Cooperation in Arctic Research

The importance of international cooperation and coordination of scientific research in the Arctic can hardly be exaggerated.
Sanjay Chaturvedi227

International cooperation in Arctic scientific research began over a century ago with the International Polar Year of 1882-83. A second International Polar Year followed 50 years later (1932-33), and 25 years after that came an International Geophysical Year (1957-58), which placed special emphasis on the polar regions. International scientific cooperation in the Arctic was stalled throughout the Cold War, and states resorted where possible to bilateral arrangements. The UN established a UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme following the Biosphere Conference of 1968, but a related Northern Sciences Network was not formally established until the 1980s. With the end of the Cold War, international scientific cooperation in the Arctic began again, this time in the form of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), composed of the national science organizations of the eight Arctic and others states interested in Arctic research (see Box 13 ``The International Arctic Science Committee). Given the increasing understanding of the global nature of Arctic issues and the desire to reduce costs, future Arctic research must be increasingly international in order to be relevant and effective.

As the Cold War was ending, three eminent Arctic scientists prepared a paper on Arctic cooperation which in many respects "set the ball of pan-Arctic cooperation rolling," according to David Scrivener, not only in terms of science, but also environmentally (the AEPS) and politically (the Arctic Council).228 In fact, there is also evidence that this initiative influenced Gorbachev's Murmansk speech, in which he offered to host a conference of Arctic countries on the coordination of Arctic science research. Difficult negotiations ensued, with the United States raising many of the same objections it raised later in connection with the Arctic Council. As Fred Roots later put it, the key challenge was

to search for an international mechanism that would not displace or discredit the various bilateral and specialised arrangements for Arctic cooperation that exist, that would truly represent varied national and international interests and could be supportive of national policies, and that would still meet the need for effective coordination of important science and keep it at arm's length from political interference.229

Box - 13 "The International Arctic Science Committee"

In the early-to-mid 1980s, informal discussions began on reviving international scientific cooperation in the Arctic. Gorbachev's 1987 Murmansk speech signalled the willingness of the Soviet Union to enter into such cooperation; yet the negotiations that followed were difficult, as the United States hesitated to respond favourably to a Soviet initiative and the U.S.S.R. hesitated to open such cooperation to non-Arctic states. A compromise was eventually reached, and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) was founded by the national science organizations of the eight Arctic states in August 1990; other states undertaking substantial research in the Arctic joined shortly afterwards. As of 1996, IASC had 16 members: the Arctic eight and China, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

According to IASC, its mission is to: "Encourage, facilitate and promote basic and applied research in or concerned with the Arctic at a circumarctic or international level, and to provide scientific advice on Arctic issues."1 The main activity of IASC is to develop research projects - particularly those that are interdisciplinary - for which circumarctic or international cooperation is required. Once a majority of IASC members agree to proceed with a project idea or proposal, the planning process continues through a scoping report to science and implementation plans. The current priority projects for which IASC expects to achieve research output within an agreed period of time are referred to as the IASC Science Agenda. As of 1996, this included: Impacts of Global Changes in the Arctic; Arctic Processes of Relevance to Global Systems; Processes within the Arctic; and Sustainable Development in the Arctic.

Apart from its priority projects, IASC is engaged in other activities, including: the International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic (ISIRA); the establishment of a user-friendly International Arctic Environmental Data Directory; the Cooperative Arctic Seismological Project; the Working Group for Geophysical Compilation and Mapping; and conferences, such as the International Conference for Arctic Research Planning, attended by about 300 scientists and others to develop the IASC Science Agenda Projects.

The IASC is composed of: a Council, which has one representative from each member country and is the policy and decision-making body for all IASC activities (an Executive Committee of the Council is responsible for IASC matters between Council meetings); a Regional Board, which has one representative from each of the Arctic states and considers general regional problems and other questions that might affect the interests of the Arctic countries; working groups, established by the Council, which provide the main venue for developing IASC scientific projects and programmes; the Arctic Science Conference, an interdisciplinary scientific meeting convened periodically to identify key scientific questions and issues; and the IASC Secretariat, located in Oslo and funded by Norway. Other secretariats can be established to serve special needs, and an IASC Global Change Programme Office established in Rovaniemi in 1994 is funded by Finland. IASC activities are basically funded by national sources, although an IASC General Fund has been established by annual contributions to meet general expenses.

Since it focusses on interdisciplinary research, IASC favours cooperation with more disciplinary oriented science organizations. The International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA) and the International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH) are Standing Advisory Bodies to IASC. Other organizations with links to IASC are: the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR); the System for Analysis, Research and Training (START); the International Permafrost Association (IPA); and the United Nations Man and the Biosphere-Northern Sciences Network (MAB/NSN).

The major question was whether IASC should be a nongovernmental forum open to all states interested in Arctic research, or an intergovernmental body made up of the eight Arctic states. In the end it was decided to create a hybrid organization, allowing non-Arctic states to join IASC, but balancing this with a regional board composed of the Arctic eight. Even the location for IASC's founding conference resulted in disagreement between the United States and the U.S.S.R., and, as a compromise, IASC was officially established at Resolute, Northwest Territories, on 28 August 1990. While its mandate is to "encourage, facilitate and promote" planning and eventually assessment of scientific activity in the Arctic, IASC does not perform any scientific work itself, and its resources are limited to those committed by its member states.

Since its founding, IASC has made significant strides in advancing a common understanding of circumpolar scientific issues. Oran Young has pointed out that IASC has also "adopted sustainable development in the Arctic as a priority theme and has initiated regular contact with bodies like the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy to ensure that scientific research in this area yields results that are helpful to those responsible for administering an Arctic regime."230 As Garrett Brass of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission added, "In my opinion - and I think the Commission agrees generally - the great advantage to IASC is that it's a forum where we can get together to discuss our common intentions of effort and try to leverage each other's money" [62:9].

Yet while IASC's work has been valuable, its operation has at times been difficult. Testifying before the Committee, Gerald Lock, who chaired IASC's regional board before resigning to highlight its problems in late 1996, gave a sobering assessment of its operation: "First, in my opinion, circumarctic cooperation is fundamentally compromised by Eurocentrism, and I come to that conclusion through my work with IASC" [20:3]. He continued:

You might say "Well, this is science. What does this have to do with us?" But in fact you can't do science in a vacuum. Science applied presumably has to be for the benefit of the people who sponsor the science, and therefore it should be geared to the socio-economic objectives of that society. It's clear that European socio-economic objectives will not always be congruent with our own, but if they dominate the agenda, then we have an obvious problem. [20:4]
According to Gerald Lock, the fundamental issue with respect to IASC is the presence of a large number of European and other states who do not always share Canada's point of view on such issues as incorporating traditional knowledge and designing Arctic research for the benefit of northerners. As well, the five Nordic countries are closely linked to Europe and tend to vote as a bloc, with the result that, even on the regional board, Canada's concerns are often overruled. As he explained to members:

There is a regional board consisting only of the eight Arctic countries. I represent Canada and happen to chair this board. Its function is very different from the Council's. This is an important point. Its function is to ensure that IASC activities are consistent with the interests of the eight Arctic nations. That to me is a very important function. I'd like to say it discharges it well. I'm not able to do that, and I don't think that bodes particularly well for Canada. [20:4]
In the opinion of this witness, Canada must insist on the priorities discussed above, and, as noted earlier, the Arctic Council must treat the three sectors of the Arctic equally. Some progress has been recently made in addressing these issues. IASC established a Review Group in December 1995 to examine its activities and, in response to continued criticism from Canada and others, decided to reappoint its regional board to represent more fully the northern populations of the eight Arctic states.

The broader question focusses on the implications for IASC of the establishment of the Arctic Council since, as Olav Orheim of the Norwegian Polar Institute told Committee members in Oslo in November 1996, these are not yet clear. On the one hand, some have argued that the improvement of relations between the Arctic states that allowed the establishment of the Arctic Council means that "the exchange of knowledge and identification of opportunities envisioned in the organization's founding articles can often be achieved through other means."231 Iceland's Foreign Minister argued the opposite case at the inauguration of the Arctic Council, however, stressing the importance of science to the future of the Arctic, and advocating a formal link between the Arctic Council and IASC. In his words:

To bring about favourable development of the Arctic regions we need to advance scientific research not only by scientists of our own countries, but in a wider international framework. But science alone will not solve the problems we are faced with in the Arctic. There is a dire need for strong political cooperation in order to put scientific knowledge to the best possible use. To this effect Iceland would have chosen to see the International Arctic Science Committee incorporated into the Declaration.232
Given the substantive work carried out by IASC, it is in the best interest of all that this body continue to exist, although not necessarily in its present form. Some have argued that the creation of the Arctic Council as a high-level political forum for Arctic states has made IASC's regional board redundant so that it can simply be abolished, leaving the IASC as a purely scientific body. Others disagree, with Olav Orheim arguing in Oslo that in fact the IASC regional board can act as the scientific arm of the Arctic Council. This has an obvious attraction, given that a key element of the Arctic Council process has been to learn lessons from and build upon existing structures where possible, in order to reduce cost and duplication. As IASC is an existing mechanism for furthering scientific cooperation in the Arctic, it is in the interest of Canada and all states to attempt to improve its functioning and make it compatible with the policies pursued by the Arctic Council. As Canadian experts concluded at the 1994 conference referred to earlier:

Essentially, the international community lacks direction and leadership in the area of Arctic science and research. IASC has been compared to an orphan. It is an organisation with no connections to any government or. . . international agency. IASC does not report to any political body outside of itself and receives little international commitment. There is a need for an international conscience aware of northern issues and their importance. Canada should assume a leadership role and promote IASC in an attempt to create this international conscience.233
Apart from its general work, a key IASC program is the International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic (ISIRA). As an IASC publication put it:

Political reorganisation of the former Soviet Union, and the ensuing economic problems, has led to severe handicaps for Russian Arctic scientists and science institutions, a community that could contribute significantly to solving some of the vast environmental and other challenges in the Russian Arctic. There is a large Arctic science community in Russia (scientists, institutions), with an impressive amount of scientific knowledge and literature having been accumulated over the years. This community has many potential, sound cooperative partners for foreign scientists.234
Following its creation in 1993, ISIRA got off to a promising start by organizing conferences and making existing Russian research available in useable form to western scientists. The past two years have been less successful, however, with Russian scientists more eager to secure funding for their own rather than joint projects. IASC member states were hesitant to continue funding the Initiative and in the fall of 1996 decided to simply put it on hold. As we have seen in previous chapters, many of the most serious environmental and others problems in the Arctic are in the Russian North, and mobilizing Russian expertise to address them must be one of the most important goals of scientific cooperation in the region. Since the necessary structure to do this already exists in the ISIRA program, the Committee believes the rejuvenation of that program must be an IASC and international priority.

Accordingly:

Apart from IASC, there are other opportunities for furthering Arctic scientific cooperation at the bilateral and multilateral levels. In general, Lars Walloe, Chairman of the Norwegian Research Council, told Committee members in Oslo that, while Arctic scientific cooperation is good, it could be improved by having more cooperation among working scientists at the grassroots, rather than the bureaucratic, level. As noted in Chapter Four, George Newton explained that under its five-year submarine Arctic science program the U.S. Navy has for the past two years made available a nuclear submarine to support civilian scientific work in the Arctic. Canadians have been involved in each of the cruises so far, and John Smith of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia is currently participating in planning the third of five voyages that will take place between August and October 1997 and will use Canadian technology to trace radioactive contaminants.235

In Stockholm, Professor Anders Karlqvist, of the Swedish Polar Research Institute, explained that recent Swedish scientific work in the Arctic has concentrated on using icebreakers (particularly the Oden) as platforms on Arctic voyages, such as one in the Russian Eastern Arctic in 1994. Sweden is currently planning a Tundra Ecology Expedition in the North American Arctic in 1999 using the Oden; ideally Canadian and other scientists would participate and there would be stops at strategically important stations in Greenland, Canada and the United States. The scientific benefits of the voyage will no doubt be substantial and, since the funding for the expedition has already been secured, it would not constitute an undue drain on already tight budgets. In Copenhagen, representatives of the Danish Polar Centre told members that significant potential also exists for increased scientific cooperation between Greenland and Canada.

Once again, rather than simply participating in more initiatives, the key need is to coordinate them on a circumpolar level. At the Scott Polar Research Institute, Librarian William Mills explained the need for a Circumpolar Arctic database, since Arctic databases like ASTIS in Calgary are increasingly becoming more specialized and scientific journal literature is not being adequately covered. Once again, while research needs first to be catalogued, the problem seems to be largely one of coordination. When asked by Committee members if there was a shortage of Arctic databases, Garrett Brass of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission responded that, in fact:

There are more databases than there were tribbles on the starship Enterprise, if any of you remember that particular episode, and they pop up every day. The question of coordinating these databases is the important one we have to face. . . .As the Internet grows, we're seeing a greater ability to get hold of this data and to query the data. . . Whether or not we have a single international Arctic database is not the question. Whether we have the necessary links to get to all the useful databases is the real question, and I think that system is in fact growing. [62:17]

Promoting Education and Culture Exchange through Circumpolar Communication

While the problems are less acute in the smaller Nordic countries, because of their relative inaccessibility and small populations dispersed in isolated settlements, all the Arctic states share the problem of providing their northern populations with basic education that is relevant to their needs and will reduce their isolation from the rest of the country. Each Arctic state has approached these issues in its own way, and international cooperation in "distance education" and other areas is now beginning. Northern Canada provides useful lessons both for domestic education in the North and circumpolar initiatives. According to one expert familiar with the work carried out in northern education by McGill University: "The crucial element in the McGill experience is that it has been founded on partnerships between the university and northern institutions and communities, and that strong attention has been paid to the aboriginal component of the latter."236

The Committee was fortunate to be able to hear about these challenges at all levels: it saw basic education needs and visited research institutes in Canada's Eastern and Western Arctic; learned of the impressive programs in Saami and others studies underway at the University of Tromsø, the northernmost university in the world, which was established in the late 1960s to give local residents a first-class education and stop the braindrain from the region; and met the Acting Director of the Northern Forum Academy in Helsinki. In all cases the message was clear: while significant problems remain, the combination of new technologies and circumpolar cooperation make the prospects for northern education much better than they were a decade ago.

Traditional education in the circumpolar North was delivered by parents in a family setting. The establishment of schools by governments and groups from outside the region meant that parents lost control of their children's education, which had been previously based on different values and carried out in their own language; generation gaps resulted. Northern teacher trainees faced the same problems as they were removed from their communities and brought South for their training. As Professors Peter Burpee and Brenda Wilson of McGill University told the Committee in Montreal, it is important to realize that southern approaches to education are often not appropriate in the North; required are educational methods geared to Arctic indigenous realities and needs, such as experiential shared learning and traditional consensus approaches. The key is to empower northerners to be their own teachers and trainers.

In the 1970s, a few Canadian universities began to develop curricula jointly with northern residents. Partnerships between northern and southern institutions followed, which allowed the former to pinpoint the areas where they needed specialized expertise. Today many northerners have an important voice in the operation of schools that respect local culture and often operate in both their own and the state language. An example of the excellent circumpolar teaching materials becoming available is the textbook The Northern Circumpolar World, graphics from which were included in the material available at the inauguration ceremony of the Arctic Council; this book was developed in association with the government of the Northwest Territories and published by Reidmore Books in Edmonton in 1996.237 While these are positive developments, gaps remain in terms of funding, access to materials and lack of specialized staff.

Canada has also pioneered the use of such communications technologies as satellites, television, and now the Internet. While such technologies are not a magic solution to these complicated problems, they have played an important role in northern Canada, and this model is applicable elsewhere. As Oran Young told the Committee, "I see a lot of opportunities to use rather sophisticated technologies in the interest of some rather simple capacity-building objectives" [40:16]. Writing in 1994, one Canadian expert put it this way:

Recent technological innovations have created new opportunities for North-South partnerships. Distance education, using a variety of technologies which are more suited to northern conditions than old-fashioned print materials, provide opportunities for northern students to tap into the full range of southern educational resources. What is lacking at present are the structures which allow them to do so in a way that respects their own cultural styles of learning, especially in learning cooperatively. Computer technologies may provide this critical element by enabling northern students many kilometres away to communicate with each other and with a southern instructor, to access databases wherever they may be located and in whatever form they may be accessible, and in expressing themselves in forms which are more culturally appropriate than those acceptable in established southern programs.238

David Malcolm of the Aurora Research Institute agreed, arguing in a submission to the Committee that "More emphasis is necessary in the area of satellite-based distance education, so that students can learn in an interactive format without leaving their own communities. Distance education may be looked upon as expensive, but it is inexpensive compared to the travel costs over the vast Arctic distances."239

One example of the popularity of such new technology in the Canadian Arctic can be seen in Rankin Inlet in the Northwest Territories, where one in five of the 2,000 residents now has an e-mail account, and a free 17-terminal computer centre named Igalaaq ("window") allows students and other residents to surf the Internet. Students there have recently had on-line conferences with students in Australia and Hawaii, discussing and explaining to the students in other continents such culturally important issues as subsistence whaling. This type of education is not meant to replace more traditional elements - as the local school principal put it, "A computer isn't going to keep you warm on the land"240 - yet it is a promising way of reducing the distances between the Arctic and centres of information in the South, and reinforcing the increasing confidence of young Arctic residents. The success in this case resulted from the extraordinary efforts of computer teacher Bill Belsey, and the cooperation of Sakku Investments, the business development arm of the regional Inuit association and the federal Department of Industry. The situation in Rankin Inlet, though not yet typical, is likely to be replicated in other areas.

While Canada is a leader in the use of communications technologies in the North, Professors Burpee and Wilson reminded the Committee in testimony and a submission, that a number of other Arctic countries have also developed specialized expertise which can be shared to improve circumpolar education for the benefit of all. For example, Alaska has an open-access educational system based upon television and other technologies, Greenland has for many decades provided excellent teaching materials and an educational radio service, and the four Scandinavian countries, particularly Norway, have extensive distance education programs at all levels of education.241 As Oran Young told the Committee:

I don't think there are any complete models that we could simply identify and take over lock, stock and barrel. I think there are experiences that we should identify and draw on. . . .I think a very interesting initiative, in a sense, would be to do an inventory, a survey or an assessment of what is going on with respect to these educational issues around the Arctic to try to identify the most successful initiatives, which could then be used in other settings. [40:15-16]

There is also a major need to support university-level research in the North and foster the development there of an indigenous scholarly capability. In Canada, as Professor Allard and others pointed out to the Committee, the reductions in funding for such important programs as the Northern Scientific Training Program (NSTP) mean that it is very difficult to encourage a new generation of scholars to work in the North. In fact, according to Allard, the NSTP is as important to Canada's capability to do research in the North as the Polar Continental Shelf Project (PCSP). In his words, "The importance of these two programs in assuring a university presence in Canada's North can be summed up as follows: Without the PCSP and the NSTP, university research and training in the North would for all practical purposes cease to exist in Canada."242

Science funding cuts have reduced the number of scientists working in the Canadian North, so Canada must ensure that it makes the best use of such centres of Arctic excellence as Laval University, the Arctic Institute of North America and the Canadian Circumpolar Institute, all of which contributed to the Committee's work and are part of the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (ACUNS). This Association is composed of over 30 Canadian universities and northern colleges with northern programs and interests, which vary from full-fledged institutes to informal groups of scholars with common interests. It was established in 1977 "in order to link these scholars with each other, with northern communities, with governments, and with other agencies concerned with northern science and development through education, training, and research." In a submission to the Committee, ACUNS argued that Canada's foreign policy priorities in this area should be policies to support and promote international cooperation for research and education in the circumpolar region and for northerners, particularly indigenous northerners, to become leaders in these fields.243

The next generation of Arctic researchers must include residents of the region, and the Arctic Council can help bring this about by encouraging and facilitating the knowledge-based networks that are being established in the circumpolar world. As Maurice Strong told the Committee in February 1996, "the experience we have had in developing and protecting our Arctic regions is a very major part of the Canadian knowledge base, and linking it with other Arctic powers I think in a knowledge network would be an extremely important use of Canadian experience. . ." Professor Janice Stein of the University of Toronto agreed, adding:

I think it's important also to think about the way the new knowledge is produced, the way it's transmitted, and the way it's shared. Canada brings to this, and that's why I am so optimistic about Canada's leadership role, a commitment to share knowledge, to broaden the base, and to use knowledge for certain kinds of purposes. To the extent that we get in early, shape the norms that govern it, and are active players, we then have a disproportionate impact...[65:11]

In the Canadian Arctic, the Committee met with Aaron Senkpiel of Yukon College, who explained that the goal of the College was to train a stable workforce committed to northern development. As David Malcolm at the Aurora Research Institute in Inuvik had done, Bruce Rigby of the Nunavut Research Institute in Iqaluit explained the need to change the dynamics of research to include indigenous knowledge and develop applications with local benefits. The related Nunavut Arctic College is currently offering expanded professional training as a result of the requirement for at least 50% of employees of the new Nunavut government to be Inuit. In a submission to the Committee, Nunavut Arctic College stressed the importance of partnerships, and explained its links with colleges in Alaska and its participation in a consortium of four Canadian and four European institutions under the Canada-European Community Programme for Cooperation in Higher Education and Training.244 Nevertheless, as Gérard Duhaime of Laval University argued, an exchange mechanism such as the European Union's ERASMUS program is unfortunately lacking in the circumpolar world. He explained to the Committee that:

The social sciences field is also grappling with a serious problem which is inversely proportional to our research budgets. I am talking about the problems of student exchanges which I brought on at an earlier meeting of the Committee last spring. In francophone countries, programs have been developed to make university student exchanges possible. The European Union has created the Erasmus program which allows students from one country to pursue their studies in another. In circumpolar countries, no such institution exists and our research centres feel the impact of this on an almost daily basis. . . One concrete proposal that I would like to make. . . is that the Arctic Council, or at least Canadian foreign policy, promote the creation of a researcher, professor and student mobility program in circumpolar regions. [47:13-14]

The Committee agrees that this would be a valuable and cost-effective way of furthering the development of a circumpolar scholarly capability in the Arctic. Accordingly:

A further important way in which the building of circumpolar information networks and communications systems can assist northerners is by strengthening and promoting sharing of indigenous cultures. As we have seen, indigenous peoples in northern Canada have had great success in the culturally related field of art, which helps strengthen their culture and enable them to communicate it to others. Inuit carvings have become famous around the world. Members were able to discuss the promotion of arts and culture in Cape Dorset and with representatives of the Great Northern Arts Festival in Inuvik. In Toronto, in June 1997, Canada will host the Northern Encounter Festival, which will showcase art, films and dance and other performances from the eight Arctic countries. For almost two decades, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and the Saami Council have built formal links between indigenous cultures in the circumpolar North, and indigenous peoples have developed informal cultural links, such as the Arctic Winter Games, or performances in larger cities in the region by the Greenlandic National Theatre Company. With the establishment of the Indigenous People's Secretariat in Copenhagen, this process of cooperation has now become more formalized, and common cultural elements are being included in the work of the Arctic Council.

According to Professor Marianne Stenbaek of McGill University, "One of the best ways to protect cultural values is by using to its fullest extent the information super highway and television."245 In the early 1970s, Canada became the first country to employ satellites for domestic communications, giving the Anik series of satellites an Inuktitut name and promoting such investments largely as a means of improving communications with the North. In Iqaluit, the Committee visited the offices of the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation (IBC), which was established as a non-profit corporation in 1982. Staff at IBC explained the uniqueness and international success of their cultural programming, particularly thatfor children. In the past, Ottawa provided 65% of IBC's funding, but budget cutshad already reduced the federal subsidy from $2.5 million in 1990 to$1.6 million in 1995. IBC has already met with European broadcasters to discuss the possibility of exporting its programs, but it remains to be seen how much potential exists for such international sales. Another northern television success is Zacharias Kunuk's popular 13-part epic Nunavut, which employs local residents as actors and emphasizes scenery rather than dialogue; Nunavut has been shown in Japan, Taiwan and Turkey.

The success of communications technologies in the North means that indigenous residents can record and preserve their cultures more easily, and communicate directly with one another. As Zacharias Kunuk explained, "When you videotape elders and then, after five years, they're dead and you still hear them talking, that's when I got it. It's very important to record now, because what they're saying is going to become very important later."246 Once again, new technologies are not a panacea, but the familiar debate that accompanied the opening of the Greenland Cultural Centre in Nuuk in February 1997, over the choice of spending public money on culture or other activities, finds a happy solution in these technologies, whereby both educational and cultural benefits result from a single investment. As Marianne Stenbaek has pointed out, the first live television transmission from Alaska over Canada to Greenland took place only in the early 1980s, and "now with the new technologies, not just computers but the endless interconnection of satellites, video, audio, telephone lines and computers - many new and exciting combinations are possible."247 Once again, Russia will have the most difficulty in benefiting immediately from these technologies. As Professor Stenbaek pointed out:

Almost everywhere except in many aboriginal and northern villages in Russia and Siberia, the terrestrial infrastructure is in place (i.e. local TV and radio production facilities, computers, etc.). If this Russian "link" can be implemented, then we now have all the facilities for a circumpolar computer and television network.
If one uses the Canadian model of aboriginal broadcasting and the immense impact it has had on political and social change in the North. . . then one may come to the conclusion that a circumpolar television network and a circumpolar computer network would have an immense impact and importance. Such networks would give a voice to all circumpolar peoples and would focus on their many common concerns on issues such as the environment, contaminants, economic development, etc. That voice could become a common forum, would help shape foreign policy and would secure the world's awareness of circumpolar issues.248
210
Gérard Duhaime, "Don't Steer Without a Map: Ideas Toward International Scientific Cooperation in the Arctic," in L. Lyck and V.I. Boyko eds. Management, Technology and Human Resources Policy in the Arctic (the North), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, p. 61-71.

211
Gilles Breton, "The International Arctic Science Committee," in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 127.

212
Milton R. Freeman, Submission of 3 June 1996, p. 6.

213
Fred Roots, Northern Science: Where Is It Today, and Where Is It Headed?, Northern Science Award-Comments (1995).

214
Ibid., p. 7-8.

215
Sanjay Chaturvedi, The Polar Regions (1996), p. 176.

216
David Malcolm, Western Arctic Circumpolar Cooperation, Briefing Note, 28 May 1996, p. 4.

217
Whit Fraser, "Arctic Science, Technology and Traditional Knowledge: Enhancing Cooperation in the Circumpolar North," in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy For Canada (1994), p. 122.

218
Oran Young, The Arctic Council: Marking a New Era in International Relations (1996), p. 67. For details of the U.S. federal and Alaskan approaches see the "Prepared Statement" presented to the Committee by the Hon. George B. Newton, Jr., Chair of the United States Arctic Research Commission, 12 December 1996.

219
Douglas Heyland, "Report of the Workshop on Arctic Science and Technology," in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 129.

220
Fred Roots, "Looking Ahead," in John Stager, ed. Canada and Polar Science, the Canadian Polar Commission, Ottawa, December 1994, p. 88.

221
Whit Fraser "Chairman's Message," 1995-1996 Annual Report, the Canadian Polar Commission, Ottawa, 1996,p. 12.

222
Nigel Bankes, Submission of 31 May 1996, p. 2.

223
Whit Fraser "Chairman's Message," 1995-1996 Annual Report, p. 13.

224
David Malcolm, Submission of 28 May 1996, p. 3.

225
Nellie Cournoyea, Submission of 28 May 1996.

226
"New Directions for Polar Information," Meridian, the Canadian Polar Commission, Vol. 1, No. 2, Spring 1996, p. 10.

227
Sanjay Chaturvedi, The Polar Regions (1996), p. 174.

228
David Scrivener, Environmental Cooperation in the Arctic (1996), p. 26.

229
Quoted in Sanjay Chaturvedi, The Polar Regions (1996), p. 175.

230
Oran Young, The Arctic Council: Marking a New Era in International Relations (1996), p. 66.

231
Whit Fraser, "Arctic Science, Technology and Traditional Knowledge: Enhancing Cooperation in the Circumpolar North", in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 122.

232
His Excellency Mr. Halldór Ásgrímsson, Arctic Council Inauguration Statement, Ottawa, 19 September 1996.

233
Douglas Heyland, "Report of the Workshop on Arctic Science and Technology," in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 129.

234
International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic (ISIRA), IASC brochure, p. 1.

235
Stephen Thorne, "Canadians Help U.S. Track Environmental Contamination in the Arctic," The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 6 February 1997, A11B.

236
John Wolforth, "A Policy for Circumpolar Education," in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 143.

237
Bob MacQuarrie, The Northern Circumpolar World, Reidmore Books, Edmonton, 1996.

238
Wolforth in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 144.

239
David Malcolm, Submission of 28 May 1996, p. 4.

240
Ken MacQueen, "Surfing the World from the Frozen North," The Ottawa Citizen, 23 February 1997, p. A1.

241
Peter Burpee and Brenda Wilson, "Education in the Nordic Countries," Submission of 31 May 1996.

242
Michel Allard, "Scientific Research and Manpower Training: Canada's Main Strength in a Global Context," Submission of 24 October 1996.

243
Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, Submission of 10 May 1996.

244
Nunavut Arctic College, Cooperation among Northern Colleges and Universities, Submission of 28 May 1996.

245
Marianne Stenbaek "The Protection of Cultural Values," in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 146.

246
Jane George, "Inuit-Made TV Docudramas as Popular as Soaps in North," The Ottawa Citizen, 26 February 1997.

247
Marianne Stenbaek in Lamb ed., A Northern Foreign Policy for Canada (1994), p. 147.

248
Ibid., p. 147.

;