russia – Promoting Urban Sustainability in the Arctic

Debating the Future Development of Arctic Resources

February 6, 2017May 15, 2017UncategorizedLeave a Comment

Robert Orttung, Tromsø, Norway

Should Norway continue to develop its Arctic oil and natural gas resources or would Arctic communities be better off focusing on renewable energy? This was the hot topic of debate at the opening session of the 2017 Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway in January.

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs made the case for leaving resources in the ground. He praised Norway for its green domestic policies, which are a model of sustainability that he frequently holds up to countries around the world. However, he warned that continuing to extract oil and gas from the Arctic for export markets would ultimately tip the planet into irrevocable climate change.

Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg (Figure 1) defended the ongoing drilling for oil and gas. She noted that Norwegians have used ocean resources sustainably for 10,000 years and emphasized the on-going cooperation with neighboring Russia on managing fish stocks in the Barents Sea. Solberg highlighted a difference between CO2 emissions and fisheries in explaining why it was hard to solve the energy problem even as the country was able to address the fish issues. The emissions are a global problem while the fisheries are a regional problem. She stressed the need to place a global price on carbon that would make it possible for the best producers to survive and eliminate less efficient ones.

Russia is also committed to developing its Arctic resources since exploiting these hydrocarbons is necessary for Russia’s development. Ambassador Vladimir Barbin, Russia’s Senior Arctic Official, noted that the Arctic provides 10 percent of Russia’s GDP and 20 percent of its exports, and these figures are only likely to grow. Russia intends to use the Arctic as a resource base, developing its fossil fuel reserves and the Northern Sea Route. Russia’s environmental initiatives focus on preventing the pollution of Arctic shipping waters and introducing nuclear ice breakers, which have zero emissions.

Nevertheless, Sachs stressed that the science is clear – we need to dramatically reduce emissions of CO2. He stressed that it is not realistic to think that the US can continue fracking oil and gas while drilling continues in other countries without severe consequences. Even as Norway focuses on decarbonizing domestic policies, it is expanding fossil fuel exports to the rest of the world. Canada has the same problem. World leaders have adopted goals to reduce carbon and these countries are serious about their domestic situation. But they continue to sell to the world market. If all countries do this, climate change might be irreversible. Sachs stressed that “I am not a pessimist.” Science shows us that it is possible to replace fossil fuels and that we must do it.

Sachs stressed that the world’s low-cost supplier of hydrocarbons is Saudi Arabia and that the Middle East and Russia should run down their low-cost reserves before extraction begins in more remote areas. We should not invest billions in new developments, he said. Investing in hydrocarbons means that either you wreck the Earth or waste money since there is not a case for additional investment now. The problem is to figure out how to work with Middle Eastern producers like Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is geopolitically complicated. Sachs advocated turning Norway’s StatOil, which bills itself as the world’s largest off-shore operator, into StatWind.

Prime Minister Solberg responded that in terms of per barrel emissions, Norway outperforms oil production in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries. She also warned that the security problems associated with the Middle East were significant, which is why the US is now heading toward energy independence. Approximately 80 percent of energy consumed in the world is fossil fuels and Norway feels that it can make a contribution to addressing this demand.

Sachs noted that if climate change goes past certain thresholds it is irreversible and could leave to global disaster. At the same time, the Norwegian leader pointed out that we can’t make the Arctic a museum. Similarly, Alaskans often feel like sustainability policies are put in place to create a “snow globe,” a beautiful bauble, but one with little practical value. People live in the Arctic and they have to have jobs.

This debate is unlikely to be resolved any time soon given the various interests involved. However, at least one of the young people at the conference pointed the way forward. Ingrid Skjoldvaer, Head of Nature and Youth, Norway, which is the country’s largest youth environmental organization, noted that there was a test drilling rig in the Tromso harbor during the conference and it was destined for farther north. She stressed that it was necessary to ask those currently in a position to make decisions: What kind of development do you want for your children? Will you build Arctic communities that are based on renewable fuels or continue to invest in polluting fossil fuels which are depleting? In her opinion, it was necessary to say no to fossil fuels and yes to renewable resources in the Arctic. She noted that Norway’s politicians needed to think beyond the four years of the parliamentary term. She also stressed that usually when the Arctic is discussed, it is without young people. “Today I speak to you, two years ago I was outside the conference doors with a banner.”

Besides young people, pressure is likely to come from another source as well – China. The country has realized the advantages of alternative energy and is rapidly making strides in an effort to end its reliance on fossil fuels.

Polar Proxy: The Opportunities and Concerns of Increased Military Activity in the Arctic

November 14, 2016November 14, 2016UncategorizedLeave a Comment

There has been a lot in the news over the past few months about Russia’s military activity in the Arctic, with many media channels portraying these actions as part of an aggressive geopolitical strategy, with a revived Cold War narrative from both the Western and Russian side. These sensationalist stories should be interpreted with healthy skepticism, as military activity in the region by an Arctic state is not unusual or unprecedented, and because the Arctic is a region that has a history of beneficial and peaceful international cooperation. However, we should not ignore the recent uptick in military activity (Figure 1) in the region because military investment is a strong economic driver of growth for urban centers in the Arctic.

*Figure 1: The Arktichesky Trilistnik (Arctic Trefoil) complex of the Nagursky military base, on Franz Joseph Island. The most northern military base in the world. Photo Credit: RT.com*

The growing accessibility of the Arctic region due to climate change will likely increase activity in the region, both commercially and militarily. Therefore, it is important to analyze the best practices for sustainable growth affiliated with military investment and to prepare Arctic communities for the benefits and drawbacks of such growth.

Military activity in the Arctic is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has a long history, especially in Russia where Arctic exploration and settlement has been happening for centuries. Due to the expenses associated with exploring such a large and remote territory, as well as the significant danger, the government was always involved, beginning with the earliest monarchies. Most explorers, Arctic or otherwise, were affiliated with their governments through their militaries. English Arctic explorer John Davis fought for England against the Spanish Armada in the 16^th century, and Danish-born Vitus Bering, served under the flag of the Russian Imperial Navy during the 18^th century. The militaries were often the only institutions with enough resources and experience operating in harsh conditions to support such wild and dangerous expeditions.

This trend of military involvement in Arctic exploration continued, and was not limited to Russian and European actors. Immediately following the purchase of the Alaskan territory in 1867, the US military

Figure 2: The Alaska-Canada Highway was constructed during World War II. Its purpose was to connect the lower 48 states of the US to Alaska through Canada. It begins in Dawson Creek, British Columbia, and runs to Delta Junction, Alaska. Photo Credit: Wikipedia

began to develop bases and send out geographical exploration missions. The development of Alaska continued throughout the early 20^th century and was accelerated by World War II and concerns of a Japanese invasion into this northern territory. In 1942 US military needs resulted in the construction of the Alaska-Canadian highway (Figure 2), a 1,420-mile long road linking the continental United States with the Alaskan territory. This road was heavily used during World War II for the lend-lease program which saw the US deliver about 8,000 military aircraft to the Soviet Union using the Alaska-Canada highway and the Airbases around Fairbanks, Alaska (Figure 3). Following the war, the highway opened to civilian use and provides a vital overland route between urban centers such as Fairbanks and Anchorage and the rest of North America. The important highway remains in use today, and such infrastructure would never have been built without significant military investment. These are but a few examples of the effects of military activity in the Arctic, and how it can have a positive effect on the development of Arctic communities, given a climate of peace and cooperation.

Russia declared in its 2014 military doctrine that the Arctic is a “vital sphere of interest” for the first time. Russia has renovated and reopened several military bases on the New Siberian Islands and the Novaya Zemlya, Franz Josef Land and Severnaya Zemlya archipelagos, as well as making significant investments in upgrading the Northern Fleet, based in Severemorsk near Murmansk. Russia has also moved forward with the construction of continually operating airfields

in Tiksi, Anadyr, Vorkuta and Temp, and on the Kotelny Islands. As the North Pole represents the shortest air-route between Russia and North America, such investments have certainly not gone unnoticed by the US and their NATO allies, who have their own bases in the region (Figure 4). However, western media has greatly exaggerated the scope of these Russian military activities and has made considerable assumptions on Russia’s intentions when reporting on these issues. If the US military isn’t overly concerned, then the public should not be worried. The United States and its allies also maintain significant forces in Norway and other Arctic territories to balance out Russian military resources there. Moreover, the number and scale of Russian military operations in the Arctic remains well below Cold War levels. The fact is that as the Arctic warms and become more accessible, both in terms of resource extraction and the development of trade-routes, such as the Northern Sea Route, the region will take on a new significance in the global balance of power. Up until now, the permanent Arctic bases (Figure 4) that Russia has reopened have been support oriented, not being developed enough to support a full-combat presence.

Figure 4: A map of the various military bases either active or being reopened in the Arctic. Though Russia is increasing its presence, the new and renovated bases seem to be geared towards support and logistics for now. Map Credit: Business Insider

It is more likely that these bases will improve Moscow’s ability to keep tabs on activity in the Arctic, including the monitoring of conditions and ships on the Norther Sea Route, as well as serving as support bases to further develop the region. While these new military investments are strategic in nature and meant to assert control over Russia’s Arctic territory, they are not a viable platform for Russia to threaten the national security of the US.

Historically, military investment can result in the growth of large urban centers in the Arctic, and, more importantly, provide a significant economic boost to these cities. This was the case in Murmansk, Russia, a trading-post whose year-round ice-free harbor was strategically enticing to the Russian Empire in World War I. The construction of a railroad connecting the region to the rest of Russia resulted in the growth of the town and the construction of a port and naval base. The city continued to grow and was an important port during World War II and beyond, being nicknamed the “gateway to the Arctic.” The presence of the Northern Fleet of Russia’s navy in Severemorsk, just a few miles north of Murmansk, has continued to play an important role in the city’s economy, alongside the more traditional industries such as mineral extraction. Renewed investment in the Northern Fleet and the expansion of Russia’s nuclear ice-breaking fleet has resulted in the improved maintenance of infrastructure in the region, but has also supported the secondary economy with soldiers and officers representing a new and relatively well endowed customer base. Arctic cities in the United States also have benefited from military presence, with Fairbanks, Alaska playing host to several US Army and Airforce bases (Figure 5).

*Figure 5: Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska, is one of many US military installations in the Arctic region. Photo Credit: MilitaryBases.com*

The military built its first base near Fairbanks in 1939 and its presence has continued to support the growth and sustainability of the city, both in terms of infrastructure development and the growth of a secondary economy based on spending by military personnel. Though the US has pondered reducing the size of its military in Alaska, such a move no longer seems likely in the context of increased Russian activity in the region. The major cities of Murmansk and Fairbanks will continue to benefit from an existing military presence, while the urban areas such as Tiksi, Anadyr, Vorkuta and Temp could see significant growth from investments in transport infrastructure and the influx of military and research personnel.

However, it is important to realize that military investment can also have negative impacts on Arctic communities. Though there is no overt reason for concern, whenever you have an increase in military presence in a region, there is a heightened risk of an accident or conflict. This is especially true given the state of the broader globally oriented geopolitical situation currently. While military investment in the Arctic itself has been focused on scientific and support activities, which can be hugely beneficial to Arctic communities, an actual flare-up would be devastating. Luckily, there are still many voices of reason among the global community of think-tanks and policy advice institutions. The Brookings Institution published a report in 2016 calling for increased cooperation between the US and Russia in the spheres of research, natural resource exploration, and search-and-rescue (Figure 6).

Figure 6: A US Coast Guard vessel CG Svalbard W303 and the Russian vessel “Arctic Princess” outside Svalbard. Russia operates a sizable Arctic Sea fleet compared to the US, which only has one active Polar-class icebreaker. Both countries remain open to opportunities for cooperation in search-and-rescue and research. Photo Credit: Torbjørn Kjosvold/Forsvaret

This kind of press promotes a climate of healthy and honest dialogue between the two countries, while helping soothe fears over an arms-race in the region. Kenneth Yalowitz, Director of the Conflict Resolution Program at Georgetown University, Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and former U.S. Ambassador to Belarus and Georgia, sees Russia’s military presence in the Arctic as defensive in nature, welcoming constructive Russian activity in researching climate-change, and supporting economic development. The Arctic region has long been an example of beneficial international cooperation and successful diplomacy, even in the face of broader geopolitical tensions, such as the peaceful resolution of the Russia-Norway Barents Sea territorial dispute (Figure 7). Therefore, it is imperative that all actors in the Arctic do their very best to conserve and further develop the precedent of strong cooperation in the High North, and not pay too much attention to the fear-mongering tales of aggression or tension in the region which have been propagated by the mainstream media.

Figure 7: 40 years of border dispute between Russia and Norway ended with the signature of a delamination agreement between the two countries. Another example of successful diplomacy between two Arctic states. Map Author: Luis Suter

Shaky Foundations: Urban Areas built on Disappearing Permafrost

October 19, 2016October 19, 2016UncategorizedLeave a Comment

Last week, three of our distinguished researchers, Dmitry Streletskiy of The George Washington University, Valery Grebenets of Moscow State University, and Oleg Anisomov of Russia’s State Hydrological Institute, were featured in a Guardian article on the effects of thawing permafrost on Arctic cities. The Russian city of Norilsk, discussed a few weeks ago in this blog, stood at the center of attention. This time the focus was on the condition of buildings and the housing stock, which is suffering as a result of thawing permafrost. This issue is well known within Russia with Valery Tereshkov, the deputy head of the emergencies ministry in the Krasnoyarsk region, writing an article a few weeks ago stating that nearly 60% of all buildings in Norilsk have been deformed in some way. Problems caused by climate change and thawing permafrost have also been on the radar of global media, but mostly through the traditional Arctic lens of remote islands and coastal settlements being eroded, or indigenous communities having to move from their ancestral homes. The Guardian article was one of the first times that the global media examined the effects of climate change and thawing permafrost on the scale of a major Arctic city.

Figure 1: Location of Norilsk Photo Credit: BBC — Figure 1: Location of Norilsk
Photo Credit: BBC

Both in terms of population and economic output, Norilsk is one of the most important Arctic urban centers. With local engineers estimating that more than 100 residential buildings, about one-tenth of the housing stock, “have been vacated here due to damage from thawing permafrost,” this city is facing an existential crisis. Thawing permafrost under vital infrastructure is not a new problem for Arctic engineers, who have been building in the Arctic for many centuries with the largest development happening in Russia. Arctic PIRE member Valery Grebenets of Moscow State University regularly lectures his students on these issues, which include buckling roads, soil runoff killing flora and fauna, and the release of toxic substances trapped in the ice. These experts are also familiar with impact of urban areas on permafrost, such as the heat given off by buildings through their foundations. For many decades, engineers have been finding creative solutions to offset these “technogenic factors,” such as placing buildings on stilts to lessen their transfer of heat into the ground. However, none of these engineering plans took into account the effect of global warming, which has deepened the yearly permafrost thaw and significantly increased the speed of natural degradation. With the Arctic experiencing annual temperature increases that far exceed those recorded in the rest of the world, this ongoing crisis looks set to increase in scale and severity.

Figure 2: An example of the effects of thawing permafrost on a news-stand in Norilsk

Unfortunately, when infrastructure and buildings were planned, climate change was not taken seriously enough by city planners and government officials. As Arctic PIRE member Dmitry Streletskiy of The George Washington University told the Guardian, “In most cases the effect of climate change was not accounted for properly or at all, so the story is not about one building falling, even though there are examples of that, but about thousands of people living in buildings which have the potential to fall.” This is a clear example of the unfortunate lack of input that the scientific community often has in terms of planning for sustainable urban development. This issue compounded in the Arctic region due to the high cost of adapting cities to change. Our colleague Oleg Anisomov, Arctic expert and Nobel Prize holder, laments that the high north will suffer from lack of strong support in terms of government funding and strategic investment in adaptive engineering solutions. Our project aims to Promote Urban Sustainability in the Arctic hope to alter this trend and increase the voice of the scientific community in the Arctic through our upcoming Arctic Urban Sustainability Index and by increasing global attention on these important issues. Through continuous engagement and communication with policy makers, urban planners, and Arctic development planners, our scientific network will advise on the effects of climate and socio-economic changes to Arctic cities and help these important communities adapt to their rapidly changing surroundings.

Panel Discussion at Inaugural Arctic PIRE Meeting

September 27, 2016September 27, 2016Uncategorized2 Comments

From October 20th-22nd we will be hosting the inaugural annual meeting of the Arctic PIRE team, here in Washington DC. To culminate this multi-day conference, we are proud to invite you to a panel discussion led by some of our foremost experts in Arctic Sustainability from around the world. Speakers in this panel will address topics including: social sustainability in Arctic conditions, the economic role of cities, Arctic urban planning, and the political framing of sustainability in the Arctic. A reception will follow the panel discussion, providing the public and policy-makers an opportunity to network and forge relationships with our network of international research partners. We would love to see you there!

Please RSVP at: go.gwu.edu/arcticpire

PDF of Event Flyer: conference-flyer-oct-2016

The Red River of Norilsk: How the Remoteness of the Arctic Amplifies Environmental Disasters

September 15, 2016January 18, 2017Uncategorized1 Comment

57d034d9c36188bd428b4689 — Figure 1: Discoloration of the Daldykan River Source: https://www.rt.com/viral/358561-red-river-siberia-norils

Last week the world was shocked by images of a blood red Daldykan River in central Russia (Figure 1). The cause of the unnatural coloration was the spillage of slurry over a filtration dam near the Russian city of Norilsk. The economy of Norilsk is dominated by mineral extraction and processing, with the mines and factories around the city producing 13% and 44% of the world supply for Nickel and Palladium respectively.[1] This makes Norilsk an economic powerhouse, however also gives Norilsk Nickel, the operator of the various mines around the city, a very powerful influence on the political operation of the city as well as the media.

While the spill occurred around September 5, Norilsk Nickel did not admit responsibility for the spill for nearly a week, even publishing pictures on their website of the Dalydykan River in “regular condition and show[ing] the natural color,” on September 8^th. [2] It was only after significant exposure on social media, as well as in the world media, that the company finally took responsibility, issuing a statement that “”On the 5th of September after abnormal heavy rain, overflow of one of the dikes occurred, and [contaminated] water entered Daldykan River.”[3] However, the company insists that there is no danger to humans or river flora / fauna and that they were taking steps to improve safety precautions for future incidents.

Heavy industrial pollution is not a new issue for Norilsk, which has often been cited as one of the most polluted cities on the planet.[4] In fact pollution had reached such high levels that in 2010 Vladimir Putin threatened to heavily fine Norilsk Nickel if steps weren’t taken to modernize the plants and reduce pollution.[5] Norilsk Nickel has pledged to invest over $3.5 billion in plant upgrades by 2020, a welcome step for residents who suffer from the toxic pollutants in the air.

_91067874_5b051dc2-7e3c-4675-aea8-6293d9c9418b — Figure 2: The remote location of Norilsk and the Arctic Region Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37345105

These steps being taken to modernize and reduce pollution are a good sign, however this most recent spill shows that the Arctic region is still extremely vulnerable to environmental contamination. The denial of responsibility for the spill by Norilsk Nickel is a perfect example of the worrying lack of strict governance in the region. The isolated nature Norilsk (Figure 2), with restricted access to industrial sites is indicative of the lacking environmental of oversight in the Arctic. Moreover, the companies operating in the area are not motivated to report spills, admit liability, and pay expensive cleanup costs, leaving it up to the media or civil-society to investigate these occurrences. Without the intense Social Media reaction to the ‘red-river of Norilsk,’ and its dramatic pictures, there is little doubt that the spill would have been swept under the rug or denied further.

untitled — Figure 3: A map showing the vast, remote, area affected by the Exxon Valdez Spill. Over 1500 miles of coastline were affected. Source: https://feww.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/exxon-valdez-spill-map.jpg

Unfortunately, this reaction to environmental disasters in the Arctic is not limited to Russia. Following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, and up until present day, Exxon Mobil has tried to downplay the amount of oil spilled, and the amount of oil leftover in the area after cleanup.[6] The company was still involved in legal battles fighting against the responsibility for continuing environmental damage in 2006.[7] However, studies have shown that the vast area affected by the spill (Figure 3) has not fully recovered, both in terms of fauna population levels, and economic output.[8] Again, the remote nature of the Arctic and the fragility of the ecosystems in the region amplify the magnitude of spills, while the remote nature of the region with its relatively small populations and weak governance lessen the motivation for polluters to take responsibility. As oil exploration and general resource exploitation in the Arctic grows, we can expect more incidents like the Valdez and the Daldykan River. How regional actors respond to these inevitable disasters will help define the progress sustainable development in the Arctic.

References:

[1] http://www.nornik.ru/en/investor-relations/fact-sheet

[2] http://www.nornik.ru/en/newsroom/news-and-press-releases/news/the-daldykan-river-photo-the-river-and-its-mainstream-are-in-regular-condition-and-show-the-natural-color

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/russia-red-river-siberia/

[4] http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/the-2007-top-ten-of-worst-polluted-places.html

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/15/norilsk-red-river-russias-most-polluted-city-clean

[6] http://www.adn.com/economy/article/size-exxon-spill-remains-disputed/2010/06/06/

[7] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-05-17/exxon-valdez-oil-spill-still-a-threat-study/1755518

[8] http://publish.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=caaurj