Project Arctic is an educational tool: a real-life simulation of the geopolitics of the Arctic Region, in the context of climate change. For most stakeholders, the ‘Arctic’ region sparks a lot of interest.
Russia is deploying an increasingly dangerous number of military technologies and personnel, becoming the first actor to move strategically following climate change-triggered implications. The People‘s Republic of China has secured its strategic position by calling itself a “near-Arctic state,” in anticipation of the upcoming “Polar Silk Road” project — a network of Arctic shipping routes. The United States has multiple interests in the Arctic, varying from the breadth of the territorial sea, navigation through international straits, upholding the freedom of the seas to fishery conservation, pollution control, and resource development. The European Union has become more attentive to the region, since it is ‘’one of the world’s strongest proponents of greater international efforts to fight climate change, through the development of alternative energy sources, resource efficiency, and climate change research’’.
Project Arctic employs the methodology of simulations to reveal why the Arctic region is inextricably linked to climate change and conflict and what are the potential outcomes of future policies in the region. By combining critical and creative thinking, decision-making processes, negotiations, and analytical skills by presenting the complex climate-change and conflict nexus, participants will face a never-before-seen scenario. Environmental policy will meet security policy, with the crisis-solving skills needed to be adapted to an unprecedented situation. What this simulation will bring new to the field is the use of immersive platforms that anchor the simulation in the real world.
The Arctic region is experiencing the effects of rising global temperatures: the dramatic recessions of Arctic sea ice may trigger a competition over the extraction of the vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas that lie under the vanishing ice – up to a quarter of the world’s undiscovered fossil fuel reserves, by some estimates. More radical predictions envision a new Cold War-like scenario with Russia, China, the US, the European Union, and potentially other stakeholders competing over resources and influence to establish themselves as regional hegemons.
The simulation explores the geopolitical dynamics of the Arctic Region over approximately one decade (2021-2030), over 4 rounds. As early as 2030, researchers say, the Arctic Ocean could lose essentially all of its ice during the warmest months of the year — a radical transformation that would upend Arctic ecosystems and disrupt many northern communities.
Each round will explore the evolution of the Arctic Region over two, respectively three years- covering different Arctic Council Chairmanships. During each round, there will be limited events triggered by climate change-induced challenges. If not dealt with properly, these crises spill over in the region.
In this simulation, there will be a minimalistic representation of the Arctic. Based on the decision-making and effects of the purchases, the map will be updated at the end of each round. Participants will be able to visualize how their choices affected the Arctic, as well as to see the impact of their actions.
Each main actor will have an affinity toward a certain trait. The main characteristics that stakeholders can hold in this simulation are:
At the beginning of the simulation, each country has a dominant affinity. The dominant affinity is situated at Level 1, while the rest of the traits are situated at Level 0. Through purchases, actors can further enhance their affinity or can develop a second affinity. However, actors are provided with a limited budget, so they will have to be strategic about their purchases.
E.g: Canada starts with a Level 1 affinity for cooperation. It can purchase an additional cooperation point, reaching Level 2 for cooperation or it can purchase an affinity for harmony, having a Level 1 for cooperation, a Level 1 for harmony, a Level 0 for Assertiveness, and a Level 0 for Prosperity.
There are certain advantages to enhancing an affinity level. Acquiring an affinity level will have a certain price. The higher the level, the smaller the price. For each additional level, the next purchase is cheaper, as illustrated below:
Duration: approx. 90 minutes/round
3 Phases: (1) Updates; (2) Meeting of the Arctic Council (3); Active Decision-making
Notable time-frames for actions:
Phase I- Updates
At the beginning of each round, there will be a set of announcements. On one hand, participants will see the status of their affinities. Followed by that, there will be an announcement of a time-limited crisis event. The respective event will last for the duration of the round, a time in which the participants will either succeed in collectively solving the crisis or will risk a spill-over effect.
After the announcement of the limited-time event, participants will have a maximum of 10 minutes to discuss a strategy within each team and to come up with a Commitment from the perspective of their own country. The Commitment can serve the individual or the collective interest.
E.g.: Canada proposes as a Commitment for the period 2021-2023 to create the appropriate international conditions for sustainable development in the Arctic, to support economic development. This involves understanding the opportunities and challenges of Arctic energy and resource development and developing regulations, guidelines, and standards that are informed by Arctic science and research, including traditional knowledge. In no area is this more critical than in oil and gas development.
Phase II- Arctic Council Meeting
Participants will meet in the Auditorium, where the Arctic Council (AC) meeting will be held. The duration of each meeting should not exceed 30 minutes. Each meeting will be moderated by the Chairperson, according to the Chairmanship. During the meeting, each country will reveal the Arctic Strategy of their country for the round (2-3 years period). After each proposal, the Chair will open the voting system, where countries will express their vote on the proposed Commitment.
Players can rate each commitment in the following manner: • Agree (giving the Commitments value of +1) • Abstain (not giving the Commitments any points, translated as a 0) • VETO (a value that can only be used for a single commitment presented in that round, which automatically excludes it from becoming collectively agreed upon).
Players cannot vote for their own proposed Commitment.
Calculating the rankings:
E.g.: For the Commitment proposed by Canada, the other countries voted as follows: the European Union Taskforce on the Arctic Region- Agrees, Indigenous Peoples-Agrees, the Nordic States-Agrees, the People‘s Republic of China-Abstain, the Russian Federation-Abstain, and the United States of America-Agrees. The total score obtained by the Commitment was: 4 points.
The highest scoring three commitments will become mandatory.
Phase III-ACTIVE DECISION-MAKING
In this phase, participants will have 40 minutes to discuss with their team and negotiate with other teams or actors. At the* end of the discussions, they will have the opportunity to make some purchases. Based on each country‘s budget, decision-makers can opt for enhancing different affinities in the Arctic- prosperity, harmony, cooperation, and assertiveness. Shortly after, participants will see how the map was affected by their decisions.
! In this phase, participants have to think strategically, since it is a great opportunity to forward their agenda.
The results of their action will be shown shortly.
There are no fixed conditions for winning the game. However, this exercise being a simulation of real-life, there are conditions in which some players will be better off than others at the end of the decade.
Set of in-game conditions for establishing hegemony:
Individual goals and hidden objectives are not enough to singularly determine the fate of the Arctic region. Participants will have to keep an eye on the climate change-induced deterioration of the Arctic, on the situation of Indigenous groups, and on how they can overall decide the outcome of the decade in which they ruled.
At the end of the game, participants will watch the end outcome of their policies and will witness how the Arctic looks like after their gameplay.
In this simulation, the following stakeholders will be represented: Canada, the European Union Taskforce on the Arctic Region, Indigenous Peoples, the Nordic States, the People‘s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America.
The Arctic is central to Canada’s national identity, prosperity, security, values, and interests. The Canadian Arctic covers 40% of Canada’s territory and is home to more than 200,000 inhabitants, more than half of whom are Indigenous. Canada is one of the states most affected by what is happening in the Arctic Region. The Canadian government is emphasizing the cooperative motif of their contemporary Arctic policy. As evidence, one can look at their cooperative relationship with the Arctic-abutting states. In addition, it supports related international and Arctic Circle institutions through generous investments, since it doesn‘t have its research station.
Canada is committed to addressing: - The causes and impacts of climate change; - Renewing the nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples; - Supporting sustainable Northern economic development; - Promoting Canada as a leader in Arctic science and research; and - Working with domestic and international partners to reach Canada’s goals in the region.
Canada released the Arctic and Northern Policy framework in it sets out priority areas for Canada’s international Arctic engagement including strengthening the rules-based international order; to increase engagement with the Arctic and non-Arctic states, and more clearly define Canada’s Arctic boundaries.
• Minister of Foreign Affairs;
• Inuit Development Corporation Association (IDCA): an association of corporations that fight for the involvement of indigenous groups in businesses in changing times;
European Union’s Arctic policy endeavors are still under development. EU policy in the Arctic focuses on advancing international cooperation in responding to the impacts of climate change on the Arctic’s fragile environment, and on promoting and contributing to sustainable development, particularly in the European part of the Arctic policy. The EU already contributes substantially to Arctic research, satellite observation, and regional development as well to the work of the Arctic Council.
Consultations by the Commission and the European External Action Service suggest that the European Arctic is suffering from underinvestment. Recognizing the need to work closely with national, regional, and local authorities in the European Arctic, the Commission will set up a European Arctic stakeholder forum with the aim of enhancing collaboration and coordination between different EU funding programmes.
• President of the EU Taskforce
• Greenpeace
The Arctic region hosts a high number of indigenous peoples with diverse backgrounds: the Inuit of Russia, Alaska, Canada, and Greenland; Aleut; North-American Natives (Athabascans, Gwitch’n, Métis); numerous groups in Russia (e.g., Chukchi, Eveny, Evenki, and Nenets). Out of a total of 4 million inhabitants of the Arctic, approximately 500,000 belong to Indigenous Peoples. Six Indigenous Peoples’ organizations have been granted Permanent Participants status in the Arctic Council.
The indigenous communities rely heavily on traditional ways of food gathering, such as mammal hunting and fishing, which can easily be disturbed and even eliminated by hydrocarbon exploitation in sensitive Arctic ecosystems. Paradoxically, while the government sites environmental concerns, indigenous peoples are calling for economic development without (unnecessary) impediments. Most of the local communities demand a balance between Arctic resource exploitation and people’s needs, i.e., to pursue sustainable Arctic development.
• Director and Vice-Director of the Indigenous People‘s Association
The five Nordic countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—share deep historical, linguistic, and cultural ties and many political and economic similarities. In this simulation, the Nordic States have allied dealing with the Arctic Region. Instead of acting individually, the Nordic States have formed their bloc. Even if their interests slightly diverge, the overall direction and need to engage in the Arctic surpasses any differences.
The Nordic states generally share an international outlook that prioritizes cooperation, both among themselves and with the international community. The Arctic region is a key focus of Nordic foreign policies. All of the Nordics are members of the eight-country Arctic Council (along with Russia, Canada, and the United States) and have long supported peaceful cooperation in the Arctic. The Nordic countries are troubled by the environmental and geostrategic implications of climate change in the Arctic.
As a priority, the Nordic countries want to deepen trans-Atlantic defense collaboration with the United States in the High North, to co-operate to improve the quality of life for the indigenous people, and to push for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the region.
• Foreign Representative of the ‘Alliance’ of the Nordic States
• Coalition for Oil and Gas in the Arctic
The People‘s Republic of China (PRC) has an extensive interest in the Arctic, as it could serve as the newest addition to its influences. It introduced the Polar Silk Road, a component of its global Belt and Road Initiative, as a framework to collaborate with other parties to jointly develop Arctic shipping routes. PRC calls itself a ‘nearly Arctic state’, as a strategy to create a broader justification for its efforts in the region.
Unlike other stakeholders that focus on building a raw force in the region, PRC is using the ‘money diplomacy’, making massive investments in places such as Svalbard, Norway, Greenland, and Iceland.
PRC’s influence is not limited to throwing money at the region. It currently operates six nuclear-powered attack submarines, four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and fifty diesel attack submarines, with more under construction. PRC maintains research stations in Iceland and Norway and operates two icebreaking research vessels. In 2017, the Ukrainian-built Xue Long became China’s first official vessel to traverse the Northwest Passage.
• Foreign Minister of the People‘s Republic of China
• COSCO- Specialized Carriers Company: Specialized Carriers Company, a subsidiary of COSCO Shipping Group, the world’s third-largest shipping company, began sending ships along Russia’s Northern Sea Route in 2013. The Yong Sheng became the first Chinese vessel to transit along the route. In the following years, the company increased its activity, conducting two transits in 2015, six in 2016, five in 2017, and eight in 2018.
The USA has developed the “Regaining Arctic Dominance” strategy, outlining how it will pursue the Defence Department’s goal of defending US interests in that increasingly accessible region. The US feels left behind, with its competitors already making strong moves in the region: ‘The Army plans to use its forces in the region “to project power from, within, and into the Arctic to conduct and sustain extended operations in competition, crisis, and conflict from a position of advantage,” according to the strategy’. The US wants to establish a Multidomain Task Force (MDTF) unit in Alaska, including a division headquarters with “specially trained and equipped combat brigades to recapture our cold-weather dominance,” the document stated.
Within the U.S. military, the Department of the Air Force has the largest presence in the Arctic region, with assets in both Alaska and Greenland. As the environment changes in the Arctic, new routes for transportation have opened up and new resources are being discovered.
As long-time Arctic occupants increase their activity there, and newcomers begin staking claims as well, the Department of the Air Force has developed, as part of its Arctic strategy, four strategic priorities to guide its involvement in ensuring the United States is equally and fairly represented in the region.
• the department is increasing vigilance for both deterrence and defence in all domains. • a focus on projecting power through a combat-credible force. • the Department of the Air Force will continue to focus on cooperation with existing allies and partners and on building new partnerships — a goal aligned with the National Defense Strategy.
• U.S. Secretary of State.
• The Arctic Slope Regional Corp. (ASRC): The little-known ASRC has had an outsized role in opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling throughout the history of this fight. The ASRC’s ownership of subsurface rights in the coastal plain has made the corporation one of the most vocal proponents and consistent lobbyists for opening the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas drilling over the last 30 years. Its lobbying investments spiked after Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017; with a Republican Congress and president, drilling proponents once again saw an opportunity to open the refuge to drilling.
The Russian Federation (RF) is one of the main stakeholders in the Arctic. RF’s involvement in the Arctic and interest in the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is tied to its interests: due to its geographic position, it is interested in developing alternative shipping routes, as well as exploiting the region’s oil and natural gas. Up to 70 percent of its reserves are on the continental shelf off its coast (primarily in the Arctic) and its status as the world’s largest supplier of oil and natural gas makes it a leading player in exploiting further reserves in international waters. Lately, the RF has been amassing military presence in the Arctic and has been testing its weapons.
Its military presence in the Arctic seeks to achieve three objectives:
• Enhance homeland defence, specifically a forward line of defence against foreign incursion as the Arctic attracts increased international investment; • Secure Russia’s economic future; and • Create a staging ground to project power, primarily in the North Atlantic.
RF’s military capabilities in the Arctic embodies aerial and maritime early warning and defence, highlighted by the reopening of 50 previously closed Soviet-era military posts. This includes the refurbishment of 13 air bases, 10 radar stations, 20 border outposts, and 10 integrated emergency rescue stations. Russian special forces units are also part of an Arctic Brigade and have deployed to the region for exercises and training. Complementing the Northern Fleet is the world’s largest nuclear and non-nuclear icebreaker fleet, numbering more than 40 ships.
• Minister of Foreign Affairs;
• Rosoboronexport : Russia’s only state-controlled intermediary in the area of exports and imports of the entire range of military and double-purpose products, technologies, and services. The Company is actively involved in pursuing the national policy of the Russian Federation in the area of military-technical cooperation with foreign countries. The Company offers to foreign customers weaponry and military vehicles, machinery and equipment for the army, air force and navy, air defence facilities, special purpose supplies, as well as spare parts, materiel, tools, auxiliary and training equipment.
The active choices are represented in Tokens (T).
Each participant will be provided with a fixed budget for the entire simulation.
E.g. Canada starts with 33 Tokens
Participants can use the tokens to invest in affinity levels, to enhance their capabilities in the region. However, only state representatives are allowed to directly purchase affinity points. Secondary roles can use their tokens as bargaining chips in exchange for favors.
• 1 Affinity for Cooperation ……………… 6 Tokens
• 1 Affinity for Harmony ………………. 6 Tokens
• 1 Affinity for Assertiveness……………… 6 Tokens
• 1 Affinity for Prosperity …………………..6 Tokens