In July 2016, a group of secondary-school pupils convened in Norwich, UK, for the inaugural Norwich Model Arctic Council (NORMAC). An educational initiative of Polar Aspect, in…
Following an appearance at The Wilson Center in DC this past summer, where I joined a panel discussing human security and development in the Arctic,…
Public outrage over the death of Cecil the lion at the hands of a sport hunter is calling into question the Canadian polar bear sport hunt—and threatening the valuable cultural and economic benefits that Canadian Inuit gain from it.
When the Northwest Territories achieved devolution of lands and resources from Ottawa in April, it was a historic moment in Canada’s political evolution. But a key test of devolution’s nation-building potential will be how well it supports real aboriginal-government partnership. On that score, there is cause for concern.
‘What happens in the Arctic affects us all’ may well be true. But today’s popular slogan for the fight against climate change must not be used to justify putting our own needs and interests above those of Arctic peoples.
A star-studded constellation of Aboriginal leaders and former politicians has called for a “new partnership” to heal a breakdown in relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. But what can this mean in practice?
Despite Greenpeace’s recent attempts to align their Arctic campaign with indigenous peoples such as the Inuit, their new ‘global survey’ on Arctic industrial development continues their pattern of discounting the Arctic voice.
The defeat of proposed bans on commercial sealing and the international polar bear trade gives some welcome breathing space to Inuit and other Arctic hunting peoples—at least for now.
A proposal to prohibit international commercial trade in polar bears would do little to protect an already well-protected animal further, but much to damage Inuit economic rights and interests.
The fiscal relationship between Ottawa and the three Northern territories will reach a crossroads in little more than a year, when the current federal-territorial fiscal arrangement—known as Territorial Formula Financing (TFF)—comes up for renewal. The territories depend profoundly upon TFF to fund their development, and Ottawa points to it as the principal financial contribution toward its vision of a North of self-reliant individuals, healthy communities and responsible governments. Yet it is unclear whether TFF even covers the extraordinary costs of providing public services in the territories, let alone the costs of realizing Ottawa’s vision. Nowhere is this less clear than in Nunavut, where experts have called into question the adequacy of federal support. Will Ottawa take the upcoming TFF renewal as an opportunity to dispel doubts that its aspirations for the North exceed its willingness to pay for them?