September 7, 2022 • 41 mins
Water brings us together, but when there isn't enough to go around things get serious quickly. As the climate changes and water becomes less predictable on the landscape, conflicts over water will likely increase. Also as the arctic sea ice melts what does this mean for our security in the North and how will this affect us? What can we do?
In today's episode we take it to the experts to find out what we should know about water, security and peace. We talk with Dr. Susanne Schmeier from IHE DELFT about how countries negotiate water agreements over shared water access and we also speak with Dr. Rob Huebert over why Canadians should be concerned about the arctic and the threats we now face with the disappearance of sea ice.
For more information about Dr. Susanne Schmeier's work click here to go to the IHE Delft website to learn more about their programs and research projects. And for more information on the Water, Peace, and Security Partnership that Dr. Susanne runs click here.
For more information about Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and everything that Dr. Rob Huebert mentioned check out ArcticNet and the North America and Arctic Defence Network (NAADSN).
ArcticNet contributes to the development and distribution of the knowledge to inform policy development and adaptation strategies to help Canadians meet the challenges and opportunities created by modernization and climate change in the Arctic.
NAADSN - The North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network is a collaborative network providing timely, relevant, and reliable expert advice on North American and Arctic defence and security topics.
The ABP is establishing a conservation Aquarium in the Prairies to help tell the Story of Water.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
David Evans (00:06):
Battle Stations everyone. What's the one thing
that humans are taught inkindergarten but have never
truly mastered sharing? You knowwhat's really difficult to
share? Water. Water plays such apivotal role in our daily lives,
everything from our economies,our culture's our everyday daily
(00:27):
hygiene regimens. We all rely onwater. So when you don't have
access to it, you get prettyfrustrated. Also, it can be
deadly. So what happens ifanother group takes away your
water? How are you going tofeel? And what do we do in these
situations when others aredenied access to the water that
they feel is rightfully theirs?
Or if we're having differentdisputes between different
(00:51):
countries militarily over thewater that we're allowed to
travel in? Well, you're in theright place, because today we're
talking about water, diplomacy,conflict and sovereignty, what
we can do, what we're currentlydoing, and what we can expect in
the future. Today, we get itstraight from the experts. We
speak with a professor in waterLaw and Diplomacy who works all
(01:11):
around the globe, and aprofessor who studies Canadian
Arctic security and defense allthis and more on today's episode
of the watery doing podcast.
Barney nippy, Oh, me, too low inzero to marry a cheap, Chinese
(01:54):
way. Why net? Water we doing?
And how can we do better? Yourone stop shop for everything
water related from discussingwater, its use and the organisms
that depend on it for all theglobal issues that you really
(02:15):
never knew all had to do withwater. I'm your host, David
Evans from the aquatic biosphereproject. And I just want to ask
you something. What are wedoing? How can we do better?
(02:47):
Water has played a key role inmany conflicts throughout human
history. When you look at a map,many countries borders actually
follow along water bodies,either it's the ocean as one
side, or it's a river or abaseness. The other side, they
really helped to delineatedifferences between countries
and people, but also they bringus together. And it's these
(03:08):
shared resources that oftencause tensions to form or
cooperation the form as well.
There's examples of theseconflicts dating way back in
human history as far back as2500 BC in ancient Mesopotamia,
there was two cities uma andAllagash. And they both shared
access to the Euphrates TigrisRiver basin. This is the area
where currently we have Iraq,Syria and Turkey. Now this area
(03:32):
is very, very dry. So these twocity states, uma and Allagash,
were actually competing for thisaccess to water. So watering
their agricultural plants, theirrigation, basically, their
entire livelihood is dependenton their access to this water.
And guess what, 2500 BC tillnow, there's still conflict in
(03:55):
this area, when there's an areathat has a large population, but
a limited amount of water,tensions will rise because we
all need access to it. So whatdo you do when you have this
limited amount of water thatneeds to be shared between lots
of different groups of people?
Or different countries ordifferent cities? Who do you
(04:17):
call? How does that song go?
When there's water stress inyour neighborhood, Susanna
smile.
Unknown (04:29):
My name is Susanna I work for Ihe Delft, which is a
UNESCO affiliated Institute forwater education in the
Netherlands.
David Evans (04:38):
All right, clearly, that is not the music from a
very famous movie franchise. Butcome on copyrights aside, it's
still pretty infectious. So Dr.
Susannah Smyers. She's anassociate professor of water Law
and Diplomacy at Ihe. Delft.
Susannah leads the water peaceand security partnership and
works around the globe. Lookingat potential water conflicts
(04:59):
between Different groups,countries, organizations, you
name it. So if you don't believeme yet that this is still an
issue. Currently, let's hearfrom Suzanna.
Unknown (05:11):
When we think about water, we think about like
rivers streams or the water thatcomes from the tap. But if we go
a little bit beyond that, we cansee that it's very much related
to security issues to conflict,but also to cooperation and
peace. We are seeing this, forexample, in Mali, in the inner
Niger Delta, where for someyears, there have been violent
conflict with quite a few peopledying between farmers herders
(05:34):
and fishermen that compete overthe same an increasingly
variable amount of water fromthe Niger River. We're also
seeing this, for example,between Ethiopia and Egypt on
the Nile, where the dam buildingof Ethiopia has caused severe
concerns in Egypt that fearspoor its own water security, and
is therefore opposing the dam.
So we're seeing that around theworld that it can lead to
(05:55):
tensions to conflict. But at thesame time, these conflicts are
prominent, and that's what themedia speaks about. And we've
all seen in the media, thesereports on water wars that might
be around the corner, or waterbeing the source of wars in the
21st century. But if we take abit of a closer look, we see
that yes, there are saltwaterconflicts, but they're by far
outweighed by water cooperation.
David Evans (06:22):
Yeah, I know, back to the old music, maybe if
you're lucky, you'll hear itagain later in the episode. So
water cooperation is actuallyreally quite high, which is
great news. Hopefully, we don'thave any water wars on the
horizon anytime soon. Butthere's still going to be those
instances where we need someoneto come in and help us figure
(06:44):
out how to get to a resolutionand how to reach an agreement
that we're both going to behappy with. And that's where Dr.
Susannah comes in. So Dr.
Susanna, can you tell us a bitabout what you do, what this
water diplomacy concept is?
Unknown (06:59):
What diplomacy is actually quite a new term, but
not necessarily a newphenomenon. It basically refers
to the use of diplomatic soforeign policy means in order to
address conflict or potentialconflict over water mainly
between different countries. Andthe idea behind that on the
reason why suddenly diplomatsand foreign policy makers become
(07:21):
involved in something that'sotherwise perceived as very
technical and something that'sdealt with by by engineers, by
data people by people fromMinistry of Water Environment,
is because of the risk thatwater tensions, disagreements
over water spill over into morebroad relations between
countries, right, we've seen adeterioration of relations, for
(07:42):
example, between Tajikistan andUzbekistan when in the 2000 10s,
they were in a disagreement overRakuen dam, a large dam. In
fact, the world's highest dam,that particular son is building
on the river that the country'sshare that had repercussions on
trade relations, politicalrelations, remittances sent in
order to prevent such conflictsfrom escalating and ensure that
(08:02):
broader bilateral relations oreven regional stability are not
affected. Diplomats get involvedin these processes that are
otherwise very technical, butthat has, in spite of the
newness of the word waterdiplomacy actually happened
since a long time already. Imean, we have examples from the
1950s 1960s already wherediplomats negotiated over water
(08:23):
that they shared withneighboring countries.
David Evans (08:27):
Okay, I just looked up the lagoon dam in Tajikistan,
so they're currently buildingit, they started pouring
concrete this summer. Now, it'ssupposed to be the world's
highest tallest dam, 335 meterstall. To put that in
perspective, the Hoover Dam is220 meters tall, two thirds the
size of this dam. This is ahuge, huge project. So when
(08:51):
you're negotiating that withanother country, that's also
affected by the water that comesout from underneath that dam.
Yeah, it's a it's a big deal. Sowater diplomacy, it's nothing
new. But it definitely doesrequire a steady hand, someone
who knows how to open thesedoors, bring them to the table,
so you can actually have thesetypes of discussions. So I guess
(09:14):
there's gonna, what does thislook like from your perspective,
from where you sit in thesenegotiations? How do these
negotiations typically work? Andhow do you bring people in
together so they can actuallyhave these discussions?
Unknown (09:27):
I unfortunately can't give you a lot of details as
this is something that by thenature of the process tends to
happen behind closed doors. Butyeah, I'll try to share a few
thoughts. So basically, whatdiplomacy is about bringing the
different parties togetheraround the table first step
usually being to create a jointunderstanding what the problem
(09:47):
actually is. So is it that onecountry wants to build a dam and
has very good intentions doingso because it actually needs the
electricity? Like if you look atthe Nile Ethiopia, there's a
reason why topia wants To buildthe grantors, European
Renaissance dam, because itneeds electricity to power the
country's economic developmentto lift people out of poverty,
like kids who go to school andwho need to study in the evening
(10:09):
to provide them with electricityto do so. So very good reasons
to build the dam, but to atleast create a mutual
understanding between thisthinking and the thinking of a
downstream country, in thatcase, Egypt, where there are
huge fears about the impacts interms of less water being
available that potentiallyaffecting water supply to the
people or affecting agriculturalproduction. And as a
(10:31):
consequence, food security ofpeople. So first of all,
creating a joint understandingwhat a specific issue of
contention means for thedifferent parties, then it's a
lot about trying to share dataand information, make countries
open up their data books, andshare information on river flow
on river quality, or whateverthe issue might be. But then
(10:53):
moving from an understanding ofthings being a zero sum game,
what one party uses from theriver, the water, or the fish
resources in the lake orwhatever it might be, that not
being available to the otherparty. And therefore it being
kind of a cake that if I eat thebigger piece, you will get the
smaller piece moving away fromthat and moving towards a
positive sum game where the ideais to actually not so much look
(11:17):
into, for example, the volume ofwater that's being shared, you
get 50%, I get 50%. But morelook at what are we actually
doing with our 50%?
David Evans (11:27):
So what Suzanne is talking about here is can we
look at these projects through adifferent lens? Are there ways
that we can get multiplebenefits for all of the
different parties? And we justaren't looking at it that way
yet. So maybe there's a way todesign the dam so that we have
less flood risk, lower down? Isthere a way that we can have
aquaculture? Or is there a waythat we could sell the
(11:50):
electricity that's generated bythis dam to the other country at
a discounted rate? What are theways that we can increase
everyone's slice of the pie andmake sure that we're maximizing
everyone's benefits? Now, is itjust me? Or does it seem like
everyone knows this and shouldbe working towards this? Why do
we need to get diplomatsinvolved?
Unknown (12:12):
One country might often not trust the other country,
when, for example, we have thisin the case of Afghanistan and
Iran. Iran has been claiming formany years, that the water that
Afghanistan provides as theupstream country to downstream
Iran is not up to what they'resupposed to provide, according
to a really old and not veryfunctional treaty that they
(12:32):
have. Afghanistan at the sametime is saying, Well, we are
actually providing that water.
But climate change makes it moreand more difficult because the
river doesn't actually hold asmuch water as was supposed to
provide. And by the way, wedon't have measurement stations
anyway, because of thedestruction of the war. So we
don't actually know how much isflowing across the border. And
then you can imagine what isdifficult enough for technical
people to talk about, but thenbring political tensions
(12:55):
relations, the overall regionalsetting in and things get very
tricky and ultimately need theinvolvement of diplomats and
other people experienced indispute resolution and
negotiation and mediation.
David Evans (13:10):
Yep, point taken.
All right. Dr. Susannah, you'llbe my first call if I ever need
a water resolution specialist tocome in and help me out.
Alright, Susanna, are we missinganything right now? What else do
we need to be considering?
Unknown (13:24):
also discussing the mitigation of impacts because no
water project can be builtwithout any environmental
impacts. And these environmentalimpacts obviously, also have
socio economic consequences forpeople depending on the water.
But looking into how theseimpacts can be mitigated, and we
are seeing examples around theworld where countries have at
(13:44):
least tried that. So I'mthinking about the Mekong, for
example, where Laos
David Evans (13:50):
Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry for the rude
interruption. I just feel like Ineeded to say this. I needed
basically to have an overworldmap open in front of me to be
able to understand where we weretalking about because Dr.
Susannah is working in so manyplaces, and there's so many
conflicts, and so manyresolutions to work out that
we're jumping from country tocountry, continent to continent.
(14:12):
So just for a quick recap, hereare the countries that we've
already discussed the conflictbetween herders and fishermen in
Mali in the inner Niger Delta,the creation of the grand
Renaissance dam by Ethiopia thatdams the Nile and affects
Egypt's access to water, thelagoon dam built by Tajikistan
that is affecting Uzbekistan'sflow of water, the water flow
(14:34):
out of Afghanistan into Iran, asit's affected by climate change,
and lack of monitoring. And nowthis dam created by Laos, on the
Mekong river that's affectingdownstream Vietnam and Cambodia.
Now, if you actually listen tothe full interview with Dr.
Suzanne, we talk about even morecountries around the world. So
definitely recommend a worldmap. All right, sorry. Back to
(14:58):
you, Susanna.
Unknown (14:59):
Oh, Laos is undergoing a huge and very ambitious dam
development program on thetributaries to the Mekong, but
also on the mainstream. Andthere was in the early 2000s, a
disagreement over the firstmainstream dam that Laos
intended to develop, it's calledthe Cybrary dam, where no
environmental impact mitigationmeasures were foreseen. But
(15:21):
through negotiations between thecountries, especially Vietnam
and Cambodia being particularlyconcerned, and through the
involvement of a river basinorganization, so a platform, a
platform that brings all thecountries together, the design
of the dam was changed. In theend to account for sediment
flushing needs to make sure thatthe sediments that the river
carries that are crucial for theMekong Delta, are actually
(15:44):
making their way downstream. Butalso building in fish migration
aid, and most of the Mekong fisha long distance migratory fish,
that fish are able to migrate upand downstream passing the dam,
we'll see to what extent thesemeasures are effective. But I
think it's at least a really asign a symbol of how countries
tried to come together, and atleast mitigate the impacts that
(16:05):
the developments in one mighthave on the other.
David Evans (16:10):
Wow, turns out environmental impact assessments
are actually useful, and they'regood. Well, when they're
actually respected. So that'sreally good to know. And it's
important not to miss out thatthis isn't only a human issue,
but also an environmental issuethat we need to take into
consideration. So I'm sure thatmany of you listening must be
(16:31):
asking yourself, What about theRussia, Ukraine conflict? what's
currently being done aboutwater? Well, you came to the
right person to ask, and this iswhat Dr. Susannah could share
when we recorded this interviewin March 2022.
Unknown (16:46):
It's a bit difficult because we are involved in some
work on that were until therecent escalation. So it's a bit
difficult to talk about that.
But yeah, I mean, water has notplayed a role there as in
triggering the conflict. But ofcourse, water is affected by
conflict. I mean, any violentconflict, affects water affects
water infrastructure, waterquality water supply to people.
And already with the occupationof Crimea, there were some
(17:10):
issues coming up with watersupply, from one part to the
other part, which was still istheoretically one one country
being affected by the divide.
And there have been mutualaccusations by the Russian
occupied parts, saying thatUkraine didn't supply water as
they should have and Ukraine,claiming that the Russian
(17:31):
occupied parts had cut off theflow of a river that would go to
the then Ukrainian part, whichwould be needed to actually
produce the drinking water thatwould then be supplied to the
other side again. Yeah, but it'sa bit difficult to comment on
that. But yeah, maybe just toadd that the effects of armed
conflict on water and waterinfrastructure is also something
(17:54):
that we're increasingly seeingaround the world, and also
Yemen, Iraq, and so on Syria,that that's often overlooked?
David Evans (18:03):
Well, this kind of escalation is not being
overlooked by our next guest.
But his focus on water is alittle bit more northern, in
general,
Dr. Rob Huebert (18:14):
we should be absolutely concerned about the
Arctic, the Arctic for Canada,is going to be the geographical
center of two existentialthreats to Canadian Security.
And by existential I mean, thepossibility of extreme violence
be falling upon Canadiancitizens. My name is Rob Hubert,
I'm with the Department ofPolitical Science at the
(18:35):
University of Calgary, I studyArctic security, Arctic
sovereignty. And when I saysecurity, let me be clear, I'm
talking about security. In itsmost extended of definitions,
that means I do look at hardmilitary issues as pertain as
we're seeing right now. What'shappening between Canada, Russia
and the other Arctic nations, Ialso look at environmental
(18:58):
security, human security, allthese other issues that clearly
affect the Arctic.
David Evans (19:05):
Now, you might be asking yourself, why should I
care about the Arctic? It'sfrozen, it's very far away,
doesn't impact me at all? Well,the simple thing is, the Arctic
is changing drastically, as itchanges, it's gonna allow access
to so many new resources,shipping routes, for more and
more vessels that frankly, justweren't able to smash through
(19:28):
the ice before. And as thisfrozen ocean changes, it's going
to affect our relations with ourArctic neighbors, but also
international partners. And it'sgoing to change the landscape
quite literally change theglobal landscape of where ships
can go, and who is allowedwhere. So Dr. Rob, do you mind
(19:49):
just elaborating a bit moreabout these two existential
threats so we should be reallyfocused on in the Arctic.
Dr. Rob Huebert (19:56):
The first one of course, is the one that your
listeners are probably moreaware of FNS the impacts of
climate change. We know thatclimate change is occurring at a
rate roughly three to four timesas severe in the Arctic as it is
elsewhere. So, the Arctic isfirst and foremost a canary in
the mineshaft. But the otherfactor is, of course, is that
(20:17):
the Arctic is ultimatelyinterconnected with almost every
other type of biologicalclimatic system within the
international system. Whathappens in the Arctic does not
stay in the Arctic, and will bespilling literally into the
entire international system. Andso therefore, there is a driving
(20:38):
need to understand the processesof which that is occurring, the
second existential threat and ithas been made very clear with
the actions of old Amir Putin,with his resumption of the 2014
war against Ukraine. And thatis, of course, as he's reminded
us that the Russians are aexistential threat to Canada.
(21:02):
Make no mistake about it when heis threatening to utilize
nuclear weapons against theWest. And he has made several
statements to that extent, weneed to take him very serious on
that. Now, what does that haveto do with the Arctic? Well, the
Russians are truly an Arcticnation. I mean, Canada pretends
about being an Arctic nation,but in terms of effort and
(21:22):
political focus, it's in ournational anthem, we'd like to
think of ourselves but we dothat little the Russians, the
entire protection of the Russiangeopolitical and geo economic
capabilities is Arctic based.
And as the relationship with theRussians have deteriorated since
2008, when they first beganfighting against possible NATO
(21:42):
expansions. And that's aGeorgian war, not the Ukrainian
war. Ever since that point intime, it has been clear that
Russia in fact, is a danger toall Western countries, but in
particular, because of ourgeography, are a threat to
Canada. Now, once again, thatthreat comes into format. It
does not come in landais. Let'sbe very clear on that. We're not
(22:03):
talking about a Russianinvasion, the CRL space
capabilities capability that theRussians are the poses a threat.
But the second component of thatthat poses a threat is the
maritime dimension, throughassistance provided by us by the
Americans, the Norwegians andthe British. They've been very
successful in rebuilding a lotof their undersea capability in
particular, and new types ofthreats such as autonomous
(22:27):
underwater vehicles. And sotaken in its whole, if you want
to talk about where to the mostdangerous threats facing
Canadian Security are comingfrom, you have to understand the
Arctic, and you have tounderstand the Maritime and
Ocean component of it.
David Evans (22:46):
Well, Rob, that was truly terrifying. Alright, so we
need to understand the Maritimeand Ocean components of it. Do
you say? Well, everyone, you'rein luck. Since my interview with
Rob, I put together a littleocean sovereignty 101 class,
you're ready, let's get into it.
Welcome to ocean sovereignty.
(23:13):
101. With your host, DavidEvans, between the 1960s and
80s, we realized that we reallyneeded to have a way to govern
what happens in the high seas,what happens in international
waters, who has sovereignty overwhat, who has what, as part of
their international space. Sowhat this led to is the UN
(23:34):
Convention of the Law of theSea. Basically, it's a way for
countries to be able to sharespace. So what does this mean?
Imagine you have three zonesthat go out from the low
watermark off your country'scoast? All right, so let's go
visit the first zone. The first12 nautical miles off of your
(23:55):
coastline is what's consideredyour territorial sea. This zone
is where the country hascomplete sovereignty over the
airspace, the entire watercolumn, and anything within the
soil or sub soil. So that's allof the industries fishing oil
and gas, aviation, everything iscomplete sovereignty of that
nation. All right off to zonetwo. Welcome to the exclusive
(24:18):
economic zone EEZ read thisextends 200 nautical miles out
from the coastline. Nowremember, in Zone One, we had
complete sovereignty over theairspace, the water column,
everything in the soil andsubsoil. Now, what we lose when
he go out to the EAS, Zed level,is that we lose sovereignty over
the airspace so we don't havecontrol over the airspace. And
(24:41):
we also don't have control overshipping. So international
shipping can still come through,but the country still has
complete sovereignty over theeconomic activities. So oil and
gas, fishing, you name it,everything in the subsoil is
still sovereignty of the nation.
So you can see a trend here aswe get further and further away.
As we lose more and moresovereignty. All right, time for
our last stop before we get tothe open high seas, let's check
(25:04):
out zone three. Welcome to zonethree, our most contentious of
zones. This is the extendedcontinental shelf in the zone,
you've already lost sovereigntyover the airspace and
international shipping. Now youlose sovereignty over the water
column as well. So this is onlysovereignty over the soil and
(25:24):
subsoil, nothing else really nowwhy did I say this was
contentious? So basically, whatwe're looking at is you can have
sovereign rights over thesubsoil as far as you can prove
that your continental shelf forreaches out into the ocean. Now,
what's a continental shelf? Soreally great question.
Basically, the continental shelfis a portion of the continent
(25:45):
that is submerged under a fairlyshallow sea. When you look at a
map of the bottom of the ocean,there's these really deep, deep
sections. And then right alongthe margins and coastlines,
there's these relatively flatlooking shallow areas. If you
look at a map of the AtlanticOcean along eastern Canada,
there's this really flat areathat goes out quite far into the
(26:07):
ocean. So that would be whatwe'd be trying to consider as
our continental shelf. Now,where this becomes an issue is
that the Arctic is basically onegiant continental shelf that
connects us with Russia,Denmark, Norway, all of the
Arctic nations. And this iswhere we run into trouble in
delineating where ourcontinental shelf ends, and
(26:29):
their continental shelf begins.
So Rob, where are we now? Whereare we at with the extended
continental shelf?
Dr. Rob Huebert (26:38):
Right now, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Russia,
are all trying to determine whattheir continental shelf in the
Arctic is, the Americans have acontinental shelf, but the
problem with the Americans isthat they never ratified the
Convention, you have to join theconvention, before you can
acquire that benefit. So the bigissue with the Arctic is who
(27:00):
gets watch within thecontinental shelf, and that is
what we are scientifically andinternationally trying to
determine.
David Evans (27:10):
Alright, so we're in these negotiations to
determine where we havesovereignty. Now, what happens
when you have a lot of islands?
Do you measure your sovereigntyfrom the low tide point on your
furthest Island or from the mainpart of the continent? See,
there's a little bit of a grayarea here. And this gets really
important when you start talkingabout the Northwest Passage.
(27:33):
Now, the Northwest Passage isthe potential shipping route
that many countries are lookingat, to go above North America,
from the Pacific to theAtlantic, and vice versa. Now,
as sea ice begins to recede,it's potentially becoming
navigable by many ships. Andthis is a bit of a problem for
(27:55):
the Canadian government. Becausewhat do we consider the
Northwest Passage, right? No,Rob, we say that
Dr. Rob Huebert (28:02):
the Northwest Passage is internal waters, its
internal waters, because from ahistorical perspective, we've
always treated it as basicallylike we would treat Lake
Winnebago or any other internalwaters. We also sustain that
argumentation that theindigenous people, the Inuit in
particular, have lived therefrom time immemorial. The
(28:25):
problem that we face is until wehad the negotiations and the
completion of the United Nationson the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples UNDRIP international lawdid not recognize digitality. In
other words, we can say thatthat was important for us as
Canadians, and it is important,but from an international
perspective, most countries willshrug their shoulders and say,
(28:47):
Well, so what, you know, soyou've had indigenous people
living there, you know, itdoesn't make an international
legal difference. UNDRIP may, infact, change that. So with
UNDRIP, that may see a muchgreater international
recognition of the fact thatindigenous reality does have a
standing within internationallaw and changes. Now we'll have
(29:10):
to see, the problem that we havewith the Northwest Passage is
that for it to be a internalwaters, you have to have the
acceptance of the internationalcommunity that in fact that is
always been treated as internalwaters. The problem is, is our
neighbors to the south don'tagree with that. The United
(29:30):
States has sent two vesselsthrough the Northwest Passage,
one by accident, one by intent,without asking permission. In
1969 1970. When they sent theManhattan which was an ice
tanker, through they verydeliberately did it to challenge
Canadian sovereignty. thesending of the polar sea an
icebreaker that went through in1985 was not a challenge. They
(29:52):
needed to get the ship fromSeattle to to Lee and back, and
they couldn't do it by goingthrough the Panama Canal. They
And we did all sorts of sort ofsomersaults to try to figure out
a way in which we could saysteal our waters, but the
Americans did not go, you know,ultimately because it sets a
precedent elsewhere. Now, upuntil very recently, it was a
(30:15):
Canada US relations, theRussians weren't going to come
over. They didn't, because theCold War and whole bunch of
other reasons, but very fewcountries have the capability of
actually coming into theNorthwest Passage outside of the
Americans. As the ice melts, theshipping nations have been
recognizing that, you know, theNorthwest Passage is an
international waterway just likeany other water, and the only
(30:38):
thing that made it different wasthe ice. And if the ice is
disappearing, it's not internalwaters anymore. Now Canada, of
course, will argue no, it'salways been internal waters. So
therefore, it remains internalwaters. countries like
Singapore, Germany, they've saidin the International Maritime
market organization, sorry,Canada, you can't claim special
(31:01):
status over then you don't havesovereignty over that you has to
follow international law. Now,have we seen an issue ultimately
push it? No. Is it coming?
Absolutely.
David Evans (31:13):
So far, we've had a couple of vessels that have
actually gone through, we had acruise ship called the Crystal
Serenity that went through in2016. And in 2017, they did this
with consulting and gettingapproval from the Canadian
government. They consulted theindigenous communities that were
along the path of the NorthwestPassage that they were following
as well. Basically, theyfollowed all the rules, and they
(31:34):
did a great job of it. Now, ifyou want the flip side of how
this can go, look no furtherthan in the summer of 2020. When
COVID was ravaging the world,the Canadian government had
said, Hey, let's not have anytravel within the Northwest
Passage, let's make sureeveryone stays safe. Now, there
was a New Zealander with asailboat who said, Hey, I went
across the Northwest Passage, Idon't care, you can't stop me.
(31:56):
These are international waters.
And he successfully crossed butnever asked for permission. And
now he's in litigation with theCanadian federal government. But
the problem comes because wenever physically stopped them
from crossing. So that sets theprecedent that they are allowed
to cross even though we're inlitigation. It's really messy.
So again, why is this a bigdeal? Well, I'll turn to rob
(32:19):
once more.
Dr. Rob Huebert (32:24):
Where this is going to be a real issue. There
is growing concern amongst theindigenous populations in terms
of what increased shipping withmeat. And so we say within
Canada through reconciliationand other means of trying to
understand and to extend thepower that the Indigenous
peoples have over theirterritories. How do we reconcile
the fact that if we have someonesaying no, we have the
(32:46):
international right to gothrough because it's an
international straight? We haveindigenous communities saying,
you know, what, we've got somemajor hunting or fishing going
on, we don't want any shipsgoing through at this point in
time. Then mighty interesting tosee how the Canadian government
response to that, you know,we'll just basically say, yeah,
that's internal waters, we'renot going to let you come
through and physically stop,when in fact, we weren't willing
(33:08):
to stop, you know, spend theeffort to stop a sailboat for
some communities they welcomedwhen the Crystal Serenity came
in. They saw that as an economicopportunities that Cambridge
Bade, they said, This is great.
Come on, in, you know, respectto our territory, and make sure
that you're not overwhelming usgive us notice. But yeah, we
want to showcase our culture, wewant to also see if people want
(33:29):
to buy some of the variouscrafts that we're capable, some
community said, No, you know, wejust can't handle you. So in
that context, one has to be alittle careful in terms of over
characterizing that there is onevoice on this, there's not. And
so, you know, that's a bit of acolonial legacy. When we turn
around and say, Okay, weunderstand that there is one
(33:51):
voice that is saying this,that's not the case.
David Evans (33:57):
Absolutely, very well put Rob. Okay, so the
Northwest Passage is going toremain contentious. But we've
kind of strayed a little bitfrom the two existential crisis
is that we're facing climatechange and Russian aggression.
As the ice melts, there's moreopportunity for vessels to
operate within the north. Andthis only sheds more light on
(34:20):
how we've invested in thedefense of our north. So Rob, do
you have any good news on thatfront?
Dr. Rob Huebert (34:27):
We're being honest with ourselves. We
haven't really done anything. Wehave a surveillance system that
was last modernized in 1985. Letme ask you this. Would you be
wanting to use a computer thatwas built in 1985, let alone
defend against Russianhypersonic missiles with that?
We are flying an aircraft thatwe bought in 1982. Are you
(34:51):
driving a car that was built in1982? Do you know anyone who
drives a 1982 car? Yeah, so doyou want to defend against hyper
Sonics with it in the shop allthe time. So our fighter is
1982, vintage, full stop, let'snot mince words about it. We
have got a constabIe tutorinaval vessel, the Arctic
(35:13):
offshore patrol vessels, theNavy's gonna get six ultimately
the Coast Guard we'll get tothat is something that has
occurred. Our submarines are notat arised capability. They two
were built in the end of the1980s. seeing a theme here,
there's even questions in termsof, you know, whether or not our
runways and hangar system in thenorth can actually sustain our
(35:36):
air capabilities. I thinkCanadians should be outraged.
You know, I'm an academic, I'msupposed to be neutral on this.
But I mean, just the fact thatwe are so vulnerable, is going
to be problematic.
David Evans (35:50):
Yeah, that's not good. I don't know about you,
but I do not want to bedefending against hypersonic
missiles with computers from1985. So just for context, this
interview with Dr. Rob happenedback in March. So things have
changed since then, the federalgovernment has pledged to spend
$30 billion dollars over thenext 20 years to modernize our
(36:15):
defense systems in the Arctic.
Now, the proof is in thepudding. And we'll see when that
actually gets put into place.
But currently, it's not entirelysure how fast that will actually
happen. In June, they announcedan additional $4.9 billion that
was going to be spent on Arcticdefense this year. And now it's
(36:35):
kind of murky, whether or notthat was in the original budget
for this year. But at leastwe're doing something. Actually,
while I'm recording this rightnow, the NATO Secretary General
Jens Stoltenberg is actuallyvisiting Canada and visiting our
Arctic stations to see what ourpreparedness is like and is
showing that we're on the NATOfront, we're all part of one
(36:57):
team, that Canada is stilllagging behind the rest of the
NATO Arctic nations with notproviding 2% of GDP towards our
defense. Whether that's a goodthing or not, I will leave up to
the listener, but that's wherewe're at currently. So has that
been enough? Talk abouthypersonic missiles nuclear
(37:18):
problems, maybe let's end on apositive note. How can water
bring us together for peace?
Unknown (37:28):
And one example I'm thinking of is the Balkans
during the wars in the 1990s.
These countries that share theSava river basins of former
Yugoslavia had been at war witheach other. So when the war
ended, and the first peace talksstarted, the question came up,
what would be an issue that wecan bring the countries together
on that is not are not too muchcontested, and that they would
(37:49):
all have an interest to at leastcome together sit around the
table and talk and what wasidentified as that issue and the
stability pact, that the EUdesigned for the Balkans
actually very much promoted thenegotiation of a treaty over
water. And the setting up of ajoint commission and water was
then the first issue thatcountries actually signed a
(38:10):
treaty on beyond the peacetreaty itself, and started to
cooperate and with that not onlypromoted peace, but also managed
to address challenges in theriver, like there were remnants
of war in the river, that nocountry could have cleared
themselves, they could addressflood risks that were a huge
threat to downstream countries.
But by doing these technicalmeasures, they actually build
(38:32):
trust, and they startedcooperating again, meeting each
other visiting each other intheir respective countries. So
that really was an entry pointof bridge into cooperation more
broadly. And that was withinless than 10 years between the
war and then cooperating at thisreally legally binding level.
David Evans (38:54):
Did you really think I was forgetting about
this tune. Thank you so much,Dr. Susannah Schneier, and Dr.
Rob Hubert, for being on thepodcast this week. Make sure
you're subscribed because youwon't want to miss both of our
deep dive episodes, each of ourfull interviews with Dr.
Susannah Schneier, and ourinterview with Dr. Rob Hubert,
if you're interested in learninga bit more about Dr. Susan Myers
(39:16):
work. Take a look at the IheDelft Institute for water
Education website at U N dash ih e dot o RG and for the water
Peace and Security Partnershipwebsite, you can find them at
water peace security dot o RG,definitely check them out.
There's a really, really coolunderstand portion where you can
(39:39):
actually take an online coursewhere Suzanna will actually take
you through water peace andsecurity, how it works, and just
a much more deeper dive thanthis podcast episode. So highly,
highly recommend. For moreinformation on Dr. Rob, I'll
post some of the links to someof his research down in the show
notes. Also there'll be links toArctic net as well, there'll be
(40:00):
links to the North America andArctic Defense and Security
Network website as well. Verygood resources to be able to
learn more about these issues.
I'm the host and producer DavidEvans. And I just like to thank
the rest of the team,specifically Paul Polman, Lee
Burton, and the rest of theaquatic biosphere board. Thanks
for all of your help. And tolearn more about the aquatic
(40:21):
biosphere project and what we'redoing right here in Alberta
telling the story of water, youcan check us out at aquatic
biosphere.ca. And we also havelaunched our new media company,
ABN aquatic biosphere network,which you can find that the
public place dot online andsearch for the aquatic biosphere
network channel, where we willactually be posting all of the
(40:44):
video episodes that we're goingto be creating this year. So
tune in, they will be out forthe next little while, but very
excited to start sharing videocontent as well as our
interviews. Next week, we'll bereleasing our deep dive
interview with Dr. Rob So youwon't want to miss it. Make sure
you're subscribed. You get tohear even more about Russia. The
fishing that's going to behappening at the North Pole,
(41:05):
China going to the Arctic, allof these crazy situations is a
wild one. Get ready. It's superfun. If you have any questions
or comments about the show, we'dlove to hear them. Email us at
conservation at aquaticbiosphere.org. Please don't
forget to like, share, andsubscribe. Leave us a review. It
really helps us out. Thanks andit's been a splash
Battle Stations everyone. What's the one thing
that humans are taught inkindergarten but have never
truly mastered sharing? You knowwhat's really difficult to
share? Water. Water plays such apivotal role in our daily lives,
everything from our economies,our culture's our everyday daily
(00:27):
hygiene regimens. We all rely onwater. So when you don't have
access to it, you get prettyfrustrated. Also, it can be
deadly. So what happens ifanother group takes away your
water? How are you going tofeel? And what do we do in these
situations when others aredenied access to the water that
they feel is rightfully theirs?
Or if we're having differentdisputes between different
(00:51):
countries militarily over thewater that we're allowed to
travel in? Well, you're in theright place, because today we're
talking about water, diplomacy,conflict and sovereignty, what
we can do, what we're currentlydoing, and what we can expect in
the future. Today, we get itstraight from the experts. We
speak with a professor in waterLaw and Diplomacy who works all
(01:11):
around the globe, and aprofessor who studies Canadian
Arctic security and defense allthis and more on today's episode
of the watery doing podcast.
Barney nippy, Oh, me, too low inzero to marry a cheap, Chinese
(01:54):
way. Why net? Water we doing?
And how can we do better? Yourone stop shop for everything
water related from discussingwater, its use and the organisms
that depend on it for all theglobal issues that you really
(02:15):
never knew all had to do withwater. I'm your host, David
Evans from the aquatic biosphereproject. And I just want to ask
you something. What are wedoing? How can we do better?
(02:47):
Water has played a key role inmany conflicts throughout human
history. When you look at a map,many countries borders actually
follow along water bodies,either it's the ocean as one
side, or it's a river or abaseness. The other side, they
really helped to delineatedifferences between countries
and people, but also they bringus together. And it's these
(03:08):
shared resources that oftencause tensions to form or
cooperation the form as well.
There's examples of theseconflicts dating way back in
human history as far back as2500 BC in ancient Mesopotamia,
there was two cities uma andAllagash. And they both shared
access to the Euphrates TigrisRiver basin. This is the area
where currently we have Iraq,Syria and Turkey. Now this area
(03:32):
is very, very dry. So these twocity states, uma and Allagash,
were actually competing for thisaccess to water. So watering
their agricultural plants, theirrigation, basically, their
entire livelihood is dependenton their access to this water.
And guess what, 2500 BC tillnow, there's still conflict in
(03:55):
this area, when there's an areathat has a large population, but
a limited amount of water,tensions will rise because we
all need access to it. So whatdo you do when you have this
limited amount of water thatneeds to be shared between lots
of different groups of people?
Or different countries ordifferent cities? Who do you
(04:17):
call? How does that song go?
When there's water stress inyour neighborhood, Susanna
smile.
Unknown (04:29):
My name is Susanna I work for Ihe Delft, which is a
UNESCO affiliated Institute forwater education in the
Netherlands.
David Evans (04:38):
All right, clearly, that is not the music from a
very famous movie franchise. Butcome on copyrights aside, it's
still pretty infectious. So Dr.
Susannah Smyers. She's anassociate professor of water Law
and Diplomacy at Ihe. Delft.
Susannah leads the water peaceand security partnership and
works around the globe. Lookingat potential water conflicts
(04:59):
between Different groups,countries, organizations, you
name it. So if you don't believeme yet that this is still an
issue. Currently, let's hearfrom Suzanna.
Unknown (05:11):
When we think about water, we think about like
rivers streams or the water thatcomes from the tap. But if we go
a little bit beyond that, we cansee that it's very much related
to security issues to conflict,but also to cooperation and
peace. We are seeing this, forexample, in Mali, in the inner
Niger Delta, where for someyears, there have been violent
conflict with quite a few peopledying between farmers herders
(05:34):
and fishermen that compete overthe same an increasingly
variable amount of water fromthe Niger River. We're also
seeing this, for example,between Ethiopia and Egypt on
the Nile, where the dam buildingof Ethiopia has caused severe
concerns in Egypt that fearspoor its own water security, and
is therefore opposing the dam.
So we're seeing that around theworld that it can lead to
(05:55):
tensions to conflict. But at thesame time, these conflicts are
prominent, and that's what themedia speaks about. And we've
all seen in the media, thesereports on water wars that might
be around the corner, or waterbeing the source of wars in the
21st century. But if we take abit of a closer look, we see
that yes, there are saltwaterconflicts, but they're by far
outweighed by water cooperation.
David Evans (06:22):
Yeah, I know, back to the old music, maybe if
you're lucky, you'll hear itagain later in the episode. So
water cooperation is actuallyreally quite high, which is
great news. Hopefully, we don'thave any water wars on the
horizon anytime soon. Butthere's still going to be those
instances where we need someoneto come in and help us figure
(06:44):
out how to get to a resolutionand how to reach an agreement
that we're both going to behappy with. And that's where Dr.
Susannah comes in. So Dr.
Susanna, can you tell us a bitabout what you do, what this
water diplomacy concept is?
Unknown (06:59):
What diplomacy is actually quite a new term, but
not necessarily a newphenomenon. It basically refers
to the use of diplomatic soforeign policy means in order to
address conflict or potentialconflict over water mainly
between different countries. Andthe idea behind that on the
reason why suddenly diplomatsand foreign policy makers become
(07:21):
involved in something that'sotherwise perceived as very
technical and something that'sdealt with by by engineers, by
data people by people fromMinistry of Water Environment,
is because of the risk thatwater tensions, disagreements
over water spill over into morebroad relations between
countries, right, we've seen adeterioration of relations, for
(07:42):
example, between Tajikistan andUzbekistan when in the 2000 10s,
they were in a disagreement overRakuen dam, a large dam. In
fact, the world's highest dam,that particular son is building
on the river that the country'sshare that had repercussions on
trade relations, politicalrelations, remittances sent in
order to prevent such conflictsfrom escalating and ensure that
(08:02):
broader bilateral relations oreven regional stability are not
affected. Diplomats get involvedin these processes that are
otherwise very technical, butthat has, in spite of the
newness of the word waterdiplomacy actually happened
since a long time already. Imean, we have examples from the
1950s 1960s already wherediplomats negotiated over water
(08:23):
that they shared withneighboring countries.
David Evans (08:27):
Okay, I just looked up the lagoon dam in Tajikistan,
so they're currently buildingit, they started pouring
concrete this summer. Now, it'ssupposed to be the world's
highest tallest dam, 335 meterstall. To put that in
perspective, the Hoover Dam is220 meters tall, two thirds the
size of this dam. This is ahuge, huge project. So when
(08:51):
you're negotiating that withanother country, that's also
affected by the water that comesout from underneath that dam.
Yeah, it's a it's a big deal. Sowater diplomacy, it's nothing
new. But it definitely doesrequire a steady hand, someone
who knows how to open thesedoors, bring them to the table,
so you can actually have thesetypes of discussions. So I guess
(09:14):
there's gonna, what does thislook like from your perspective,
from where you sit in thesenegotiations? How do these
negotiations typically work? Andhow do you bring people in
together so they can actuallyhave these discussions?
Unknown (09:27):
I unfortunately can't give you a lot of details as
this is something that by thenature of the process tends to
happen behind closed doors. Butyeah, I'll try to share a few
thoughts. So basically, whatdiplomacy is about bringing the
different parties togetheraround the table first step
usually being to create a jointunderstanding what the problem
(09:47):
actually is. So is it that onecountry wants to build a dam and
has very good intentions doingso because it actually needs the
electricity? Like if you look atthe Nile Ethiopia, there's a
reason why topia wants To buildthe grantors, European
Renaissance dam, because itneeds electricity to power the
country's economic developmentto lift people out of poverty,
like kids who go to school andwho need to study in the evening
(10:09):
to provide them with electricityto do so. So very good reasons
to build the dam, but to atleast create a mutual
understanding between thisthinking and the thinking of a
downstream country, in thatcase, Egypt, where there are
huge fears about the impacts interms of less water being
available that potentiallyaffecting water supply to the
people or affecting agriculturalproduction. And as a
(10:31):
consequence, food security ofpeople. So first of all,
creating a joint understandingwhat a specific issue of
contention means for thedifferent parties, then it's a
lot about trying to share dataand information, make countries
open up their data books, andshare information on river flow
on river quality, or whateverthe issue might be. But then
(10:53):
moving from an understanding ofthings being a zero sum game,
what one party uses from theriver, the water, or the fish
resources in the lake orwhatever it might be, that not
being available to the otherparty. And therefore it being
kind of a cake that if I eat thebigger piece, you will get the
smaller piece moving away fromthat and moving towards a
positive sum game where the ideais to actually not so much look
(11:17):
into, for example, the volume ofwater that's being shared, you
get 50%, I get 50%. But morelook at what are we actually
doing with our 50%?
David Evans (11:27):
So what Suzanne is talking about here is can we
look at these projects through adifferent lens? Are there ways
that we can get multiplebenefits for all of the
different parties? And we justaren't looking at it that way
yet. So maybe there's a way todesign the dam so that we have
less flood risk, lower down? Isthere a way that we can have
aquaculture? Or is there a waythat we could sell the
(11:50):
electricity that's generated bythis dam to the other country at
a discounted rate? What are theways that we can increase
everyone's slice of the pie andmake sure that we're maximizing
everyone's benefits? Now, is itjust me? Or does it seem like
everyone knows this and shouldbe working towards this? Why do
we need to get diplomatsinvolved?
Unknown (12:12):
One country might often not trust the other country,
when, for example, we have thisin the case of Afghanistan and
Iran. Iran has been claiming formany years, that the water that
Afghanistan provides as theupstream country to downstream
Iran is not up to what they'resupposed to provide, according
to a really old and not veryfunctional treaty that they
(12:32):
have. Afghanistan at the sametime is saying, Well, we are
actually providing that water.
But climate change makes it moreand more difficult because the
river doesn't actually hold asmuch water as was supposed to
provide. And by the way, wedon't have measurement stations
anyway, because of thedestruction of the war. So we
don't actually know how much isflowing across the border. And
then you can imagine what isdifficult enough for technical
people to talk about, but thenbring political tensions
(12:55):
relations, the overall regionalsetting in and things get very
tricky and ultimately need theinvolvement of diplomats and
other people experienced indispute resolution and
negotiation and mediation.
David Evans (13:10):
Yep, point taken.
All right. Dr. Susannah, you'llbe my first call if I ever need
a water resolution specialist tocome in and help me out.
Alright, Susanna, are we missinganything right now? What else do
we need to be considering?
Unknown (13:24):
also discussing the mitigation of impacts because no
water project can be builtwithout any environmental
impacts. And these environmentalimpacts obviously, also have
socio economic consequences forpeople depending on the water.
But looking into how theseimpacts can be mitigated, and we
are seeing examples around theworld where countries have at
(13:44):
least tried that. So I'mthinking about the Mekong, for
example, where Laos
David Evans (13:50):
Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry for the rude
interruption. I just feel like Ineeded to say this. I needed
basically to have an overworldmap open in front of me to be
able to understand where we weretalking about because Dr.
Susannah is working in so manyplaces, and there's so many
conflicts, and so manyresolutions to work out that
we're jumping from country tocountry, continent to continent.
(14:12):
So just for a quick recap, hereare the countries that we've
already discussed the conflictbetween herders and fishermen in
Mali in the inner Niger Delta,the creation of the grand
Renaissance dam by Ethiopia thatdams the Nile and affects
Egypt's access to water, thelagoon dam built by Tajikistan
that is affecting Uzbekistan'sflow of water, the water flow
(14:34):
out of Afghanistan into Iran, asit's affected by climate change,
and lack of monitoring. And nowthis dam created by Laos, on the
Mekong river that's affectingdownstream Vietnam and Cambodia.
Now, if you actually listen tothe full interview with Dr.
Suzanne, we talk about even morecountries around the world. So
definitely recommend a worldmap. All right, sorry. Back to
(14:58):
you, Susanna.
Unknown (14:59):
Oh, Laos is undergoing a huge and very ambitious dam
development program on thetributaries to the Mekong, but
also on the mainstream. Andthere was in the early 2000s, a
disagreement over the firstmainstream dam that Laos
intended to develop, it's calledthe Cybrary dam, where no
environmental impact mitigationmeasures were foreseen. But
(15:21):
through negotiations between thecountries, especially Vietnam
and Cambodia being particularlyconcerned, and through the
involvement of a river basinorganization, so a platform, a
platform that brings all thecountries together, the design
of the dam was changed. In theend to account for sediment
flushing needs to make sure thatthe sediments that the river
carries that are crucial for theMekong Delta, are actually
(15:44):
making their way downstream. Butalso building in fish migration
aid, and most of the Mekong fisha long distance migratory fish,
that fish are able to migrate upand downstream passing the dam,
we'll see to what extent thesemeasures are effective. But I
think it's at least a really asign a symbol of how countries
tried to come together, and atleast mitigate the impacts that
(16:05):
the developments in one mighthave on the other.
David Evans (16:10):
Wow, turns out environmental impact assessments
are actually useful, and they'regood. Well, when they're
actually respected. So that'sreally good to know. And it's
important not to miss out thatthis isn't only a human issue,
but also an environmental issuethat we need to take into
consideration. So I'm sure thatmany of you listening must be
(16:31):
asking yourself, What about theRussia, Ukraine conflict? what's
currently being done aboutwater? Well, you came to the
right person to ask, and this iswhat Dr. Susannah could share
when we recorded this interviewin March 2022.
Unknown (16:46):
It's a bit difficult because we are involved in some
work on that were until therecent escalation. So it's a bit
difficult to talk about that.
But yeah, I mean, water has notplayed a role there as in
triggering the conflict. But ofcourse, water is affected by
conflict. I mean, any violentconflict, affects water affects
water infrastructure, waterquality water supply to people.
And already with the occupationof Crimea, there were some
(17:10):
issues coming up with watersupply, from one part to the
other part, which was still istheoretically one one country
being affected by the divide.
And there have been mutualaccusations by the Russian
occupied parts, saying thatUkraine didn't supply water as
they should have and Ukraine,claiming that the Russian
(17:31):
occupied parts had cut off theflow of a river that would go to
the then Ukrainian part, whichwould be needed to actually
produce the drinking water thatwould then be supplied to the
other side again. Yeah, but it'sa bit difficult to comment on
that. But yeah, maybe just toadd that the effects of armed
conflict on water and waterinfrastructure is also something
(17:54):
that we're increasingly seeingaround the world, and also
Yemen, Iraq, and so on Syria,that that's often overlooked?
David Evans (18:03):
Well, this kind of escalation is not being
overlooked by our next guest.
But his focus on water is alittle bit more northern, in
general,
Dr. Rob Huebert (18:14):
we should be absolutely concerned about the
Arctic, the Arctic for Canada,is going to be the geographical
center of two existentialthreats to Canadian Security.
And by existential I mean, thepossibility of extreme violence
be falling upon Canadiancitizens. My name is Rob Hubert,
I'm with the Department ofPolitical Science at the
(18:35):
University of Calgary, I studyArctic security, Arctic
sovereignty. And when I saysecurity, let me be clear, I'm
talking about security. In itsmost extended of definitions,
that means I do look at hardmilitary issues as pertain as
we're seeing right now. What'shappening between Canada, Russia
and the other Arctic nations, Ialso look at environmental
(18:58):
security, human security, allthese other issues that clearly
affect the Arctic.
David Evans (19:05):
Now, you might be asking yourself, why should I
care about the Arctic? It'sfrozen, it's very far away,
doesn't impact me at all? Well,the simple thing is, the Arctic
is changing drastically, as itchanges, it's gonna allow access
to so many new resources,shipping routes, for more and
more vessels that frankly, justweren't able to smash through
(19:28):
the ice before. And as thisfrozen ocean changes, it's going
to affect our relations with ourArctic neighbors, but also
international partners. And it'sgoing to change the landscape
quite literally change theglobal landscape of where ships
can go, and who is allowedwhere. So Dr. Rob, do you mind
(19:49):
just elaborating a bit moreabout these two existential
threats so we should be reallyfocused on in the Arctic.
Dr. Rob Huebert (19:56):
The first one of course, is the one that your
listeners are probably moreaware of FNS the impacts of
climate change. We know thatclimate change is occurring at a
rate roughly three to four timesas severe in the Arctic as it is
elsewhere. So, the Arctic isfirst and foremost a canary in
the mineshaft. But the otherfactor is, of course, is that
(20:17):
the Arctic is ultimatelyinterconnected with almost every
other type of biologicalclimatic system within the
international system. Whathappens in the Arctic does not
stay in the Arctic, and will bespilling literally into the
entire international system. Andso therefore, there is a driving
(20:38):
need to understand the processesof which that is occurring, the
second existential threat and ithas been made very clear with
the actions of old Amir Putin,with his resumption of the 2014
war against Ukraine. And thatis, of course, as he's reminded
us that the Russians are aexistential threat to Canada.
(21:02):
Make no mistake about it when heis threatening to utilize
nuclear weapons against theWest. And he has made several
statements to that extent, weneed to take him very serious on
that. Now, what does that haveto do with the Arctic? Well, the
Russians are truly an Arcticnation. I mean, Canada pretends
about being an Arctic nation,but in terms of effort and
(21:22):
political focus, it's in ournational anthem, we'd like to
think of ourselves but we dothat little the Russians, the
entire protection of the Russiangeopolitical and geo economic
capabilities is Arctic based.
And as the relationship with theRussians have deteriorated since
2008, when they first beganfighting against possible NATO
(21:42):
expansions. And that's aGeorgian war, not the Ukrainian
war. Ever since that point intime, it has been clear that
Russia in fact, is a danger toall Western countries, but in
particular, because of ourgeography, are a threat to
Canada. Now, once again, thatthreat comes into format. It
does not come in landais. Let'sbe very clear on that. We're not
(22:03):
talking about a Russianinvasion, the CRL space
capabilities capability that theRussians are the poses a threat.
But the second component of thatthat poses a threat is the
maritime dimension, throughassistance provided by us by the
Americans, the Norwegians andthe British. They've been very
successful in rebuilding a lotof their undersea capability in
particular, and new types ofthreats such as autonomous
(22:27):
underwater vehicles. And sotaken in its whole, if you want
to talk about where to the mostdangerous threats facing
Canadian Security are comingfrom, you have to understand the
Arctic, and you have tounderstand the Maritime and
Ocean component of it.
David Evans (22:46):
Well, Rob, that was truly terrifying. Alright, so we
need to understand the Maritimeand Ocean components of it. Do
you say? Well, everyone, you'rein luck. Since my interview with
Rob, I put together a littleocean sovereignty 101 class,
you're ready, let's get into it.
Welcome to ocean sovereignty.
(23:13):
101. With your host, DavidEvans, between the 1960s and
80s, we realized that we reallyneeded to have a way to govern
what happens in the high seas,what happens in international
waters, who has sovereignty overwhat, who has what, as part of
their international space. Sowhat this led to is the UN
(23:34):
Convention of the Law of theSea. Basically, it's a way for
countries to be able to sharespace. So what does this mean?
Imagine you have three zonesthat go out from the low
watermark off your country'scoast? All right, so let's go
visit the first zone. The first12 nautical miles off of your
(23:55):
coastline is what's consideredyour territorial sea. This zone
is where the country hascomplete sovereignty over the
airspace, the entire watercolumn, and anything within the
soil or sub soil. So that's allof the industries fishing oil
and gas, aviation, everything iscomplete sovereignty of that
nation. All right off to zonetwo. Welcome to the exclusive
(24:18):
economic zone EEZ read thisextends 200 nautical miles out
from the coastline. Nowremember, in Zone One, we had
complete sovereignty over theairspace, the water column,
everything in the soil andsubsoil. Now, what we lose when
he go out to the EAS, Zed level,is that we lose sovereignty over
the airspace so we don't havecontrol over the airspace. And
(24:41):
we also don't have control overshipping. So international
shipping can still come through,but the country still has
complete sovereignty over theeconomic activities. So oil and
gas, fishing, you name it,everything in the subsoil is
still sovereignty of the nation.
So you can see a trend here aswe get further and further away.
As we lose more and moresovereignty. All right, time for
our last stop before we get tothe open high seas, let's check
(25:04):
out zone three. Welcome to zonethree, our most contentious of
zones. This is the extendedcontinental shelf in the zone,
you've already lost sovereigntyover the airspace and
international shipping. Now youlose sovereignty over the water
column as well. So this is onlysovereignty over the soil and
(25:24):
subsoil, nothing else really nowwhy did I say this was
contentious? So basically, whatwe're looking at is you can have
sovereign rights over thesubsoil as far as you can prove
that your continental shelf forreaches out into the ocean. Now,
what's a continental shelf? Soreally great question.
Basically, the continental shelfis a portion of the continent
(25:45):
that is submerged under a fairlyshallow sea. When you look at a
map of the bottom of the ocean,there's these really deep, deep
sections. And then right alongthe margins and coastlines,
there's these relatively flatlooking shallow areas. If you
look at a map of the AtlanticOcean along eastern Canada,
there's this really flat areathat goes out quite far into the
(26:07):
ocean. So that would be whatwe'd be trying to consider as
our continental shelf. Now,where this becomes an issue is
that the Arctic is basically onegiant continental shelf that
connects us with Russia,Denmark, Norway, all of the
Arctic nations. And this iswhere we run into trouble in
delineating where ourcontinental shelf ends, and
(26:29):
their continental shelf begins.
So Rob, where are we now? Whereare we at with the extended
continental shelf?
Dr. Rob Huebert (26:38):
Right now, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Russia,
are all trying to determine whattheir continental shelf in the
Arctic is, the Americans have acontinental shelf, but the
problem with the Americans isthat they never ratified the
Convention, you have to join theconvention, before you can
acquire that benefit. So the bigissue with the Arctic is who
(27:00):
gets watch within thecontinental shelf, and that is
what we are scientifically andinternationally trying to
determine.
David Evans (27:10):
Alright, so we're in these negotiations to
determine where we havesovereignty. Now, what happens
when you have a lot of islands?
Do you measure your sovereigntyfrom the low tide point on your
furthest Island or from the mainpart of the continent? See,
there's a little bit of a grayarea here. And this gets really
important when you start talkingabout the Northwest Passage.
(27:33):
Now, the Northwest Passage isthe potential shipping route
that many countries are lookingat, to go above North America,
from the Pacific to theAtlantic, and vice versa. Now,
as sea ice begins to recede,it's potentially becoming
navigable by many ships. Andthis is a bit of a problem for
(27:55):
the Canadian government. Becausewhat do we consider the
Northwest Passage, right? No,Rob, we say that
Dr. Rob Huebert (28:02):
the Northwest Passage is internal waters, its
internal waters, because from ahistorical perspective, we've
always treated it as basicallylike we would treat Lake
Winnebago or any other internalwaters. We also sustain that
argumentation that theindigenous people, the Inuit in
particular, have lived therefrom time immemorial. The
(28:25):
problem that we face is until wehad the negotiations and the
completion of the United Nationson the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples UNDRIP international lawdid not recognize digitality. In
other words, we can say thatthat was important for us as
Canadians, and it is important,but from an international
perspective, most countries willshrug their shoulders and say,
(28:47):
Well, so what, you know, soyou've had indigenous people
living there, you know, itdoesn't make an international
legal difference. UNDRIP may, infact, change that. So with
UNDRIP, that may see a muchgreater international
recognition of the fact thatindigenous reality does have a
standing within internationallaw and changes. Now we'll have
(29:10):
to see, the problem that we havewith the Northwest Passage is
that for it to be a internalwaters, you have to have the
acceptance of the internationalcommunity that in fact that is
always been treated as internalwaters. The problem is, is our
neighbors to the south don'tagree with that. The United
(29:30):
States has sent two vesselsthrough the Northwest Passage,
one by accident, one by intent,without asking permission. In
1969 1970. When they sent theManhattan which was an ice
tanker, through they verydeliberately did it to challenge
Canadian sovereignty. thesending of the polar sea an
icebreaker that went through in1985 was not a challenge. They
(29:52):
needed to get the ship fromSeattle to to Lee and back, and
they couldn't do it by goingthrough the Panama Canal. They
And we did all sorts of sort ofsomersaults to try to figure out
a way in which we could saysteal our waters, but the
Americans did not go, you know,ultimately because it sets a
precedent elsewhere. Now, upuntil very recently, it was a
(30:15):
Canada US relations, theRussians weren't going to come
over. They didn't, because theCold War and whole bunch of
other reasons, but very fewcountries have the capability of
actually coming into theNorthwest Passage outside of the
Americans. As the ice melts, theshipping nations have been
recognizing that, you know, theNorthwest Passage is an
international waterway just likeany other water, and the only
(30:38):
thing that made it different wasthe ice. And if the ice is
disappearing, it's not internalwaters anymore. Now Canada, of
course, will argue no, it'salways been internal waters. So
therefore, it remains internalwaters. countries like
Singapore, Germany, they've saidin the International Maritime
market organization, sorry,Canada, you can't claim special
(31:01):
status over then you don't havesovereignty over that you has to
follow international law. Now,have we seen an issue ultimately
push it? No. Is it coming?
Absolutely.
David Evans (31:13):
So far, we've had a couple of vessels that have
actually gone through, we had acruise ship called the Crystal
Serenity that went through in2016. And in 2017, they did this
with consulting and gettingapproval from the Canadian
government. They consulted theindigenous communities that were
along the path of the NorthwestPassage that they were following
as well. Basically, theyfollowed all the rules, and they
(31:34):
did a great job of it. Now, ifyou want the flip side of how
this can go, look no furtherthan in the summer of 2020. When
COVID was ravaging the world,the Canadian government had
said, Hey, let's not have anytravel within the Northwest
Passage, let's make sureeveryone stays safe. Now, there
was a New Zealander with asailboat who said, Hey, I went
across the Northwest Passage, Idon't care, you can't stop me.
(31:56):
These are international waters.
And he successfully crossed butnever asked for permission. And
now he's in litigation with theCanadian federal government. But
the problem comes because wenever physically stopped them
from crossing. So that sets theprecedent that they are allowed
to cross even though we're inlitigation. It's really messy.
So again, why is this a bigdeal? Well, I'll turn to rob
(32:19):
once more.
Dr. Rob Huebert (32:24):
Where this is going to be a real issue. There
is growing concern amongst theindigenous populations in terms
of what increased shipping withmeat. And so we say within
Canada through reconciliationand other means of trying to
understand and to extend thepower that the Indigenous
peoples have over theirterritories. How do we reconcile
the fact that if we have someonesaying no, we have the
(32:46):
international right to gothrough because it's an
international straight? We haveindigenous communities saying,
you know, what, we've got somemajor hunting or fishing going
on, we don't want any shipsgoing through at this point in
time. Then mighty interesting tosee how the Canadian government
response to that, you know,we'll just basically say, yeah,
that's internal waters, we'renot going to let you come
through and physically stop,when in fact, we weren't willing
(33:08):
to stop, you know, spend theeffort to stop a sailboat for
some communities they welcomedwhen the Crystal Serenity came
in. They saw that as an economicopportunities that Cambridge
Bade, they said, This is great.
Come on, in, you know, respectto our territory, and make sure
that you're not overwhelming usgive us notice. But yeah, we
want to showcase our culture, wewant to also see if people want
(33:29):
to buy some of the variouscrafts that we're capable, some
community said, No, you know, wejust can't handle you. So in
that context, one has to be alittle careful in terms of over
characterizing that there is onevoice on this, there's not. And
so, you know, that's a bit of acolonial legacy. When we turn
around and say, Okay, weunderstand that there is one
(33:51):
voice that is saying this,that's not the case.
David Evans (33:57):
Absolutely, very well put Rob. Okay, so the
Northwest Passage is going toremain contentious. But we've
kind of strayed a little bitfrom the two existential crisis
is that we're facing climatechange and Russian aggression.
As the ice melts, there's moreopportunity for vessels to
operate within the north. Andthis only sheds more light on
(34:20):
how we've invested in thedefense of our north. So Rob, do
you have any good news on thatfront?
Dr. Rob Huebert (34:27):
We're being honest with ourselves. We
haven't really done anything. Wehave a surveillance system that
was last modernized in 1985. Letme ask you this. Would you be
wanting to use a computer thatwas built in 1985, let alone
defend against Russianhypersonic missiles with that?
We are flying an aircraft thatwe bought in 1982. Are you
(34:51):
driving a car that was built in1982? Do you know anyone who
drives a 1982 car? Yeah, so doyou want to defend against hyper
Sonics with it in the shop allthe time. So our fighter is
1982, vintage, full stop, let'snot mince words about it. We
have got a constabIe tutorinaval vessel, the Arctic
(35:13):
offshore patrol vessels, theNavy's gonna get six ultimately
the Coast Guard we'll get tothat is something that has
occurred. Our submarines are notat arised capability. They two
were built in the end of the1980s. seeing a theme here,
there's even questions in termsof, you know, whether or not our
runways and hangar system in thenorth can actually sustain our
(35:36):
air capabilities. I thinkCanadians should be outraged.
You know, I'm an academic, I'msupposed to be neutral on this.
But I mean, just the fact thatwe are so vulnerable, is going
to be problematic.
David Evans (35:50):
Yeah, that's not good. I don't know about you,
but I do not want to bedefending against hypersonic
missiles with computers from1985. So just for context, this
interview with Dr. Rob happenedback in March. So things have
changed since then, the federalgovernment has pledged to spend
$30 billion dollars over thenext 20 years to modernize our
(36:15):
defense systems in the Arctic.
Now, the proof is in thepudding. And we'll see when that
actually gets put into place.
But currently, it's not entirelysure how fast that will actually
happen. In June, they announcedan additional $4.9 billion that
was going to be spent on Arcticdefense this year. And now it's
(36:35):
kind of murky, whether or notthat was in the original budget
for this year. But at leastwe're doing something. Actually,
while I'm recording this rightnow, the NATO Secretary General
Jens Stoltenberg is actuallyvisiting Canada and visiting our
Arctic stations to see what ourpreparedness is like and is
showing that we're on the NATOfront, we're all part of one
(36:57):
team, that Canada is stilllagging behind the rest of the
NATO Arctic nations with notproviding 2% of GDP towards our
defense. Whether that's a goodthing or not, I will leave up to
the listener, but that's wherewe're at currently. So has that
been enough? Talk abouthypersonic missiles nuclear
(37:18):
problems, maybe let's end on apositive note. How can water
bring us together for peace?
Unknown (37:28):
And one example I'm thinking of is the Balkans
during the wars in the 1990s.
These countries that share theSava river basins of former
Yugoslavia had been at war witheach other. So when the war
ended, and the first peace talksstarted, the question came up,
what would be an issue that wecan bring the countries together
on that is not are not too muchcontested, and that they would
(37:49):
all have an interest to at leastcome together sit around the
table and talk and what wasidentified as that issue and the
stability pact, that the EUdesigned for the Balkans
actually very much promoted thenegotiation of a treaty over
water. And the setting up of ajoint commission and water was
then the first issue thatcountries actually signed a
(38:10):
treaty on beyond the peacetreaty itself, and started to
cooperate and with that not onlypromoted peace, but also managed
to address challenges in theriver, like there were remnants
of war in the river, that nocountry could have cleared
themselves, they could addressflood risks that were a huge
threat to downstream countries.
But by doing these technicalmeasures, they actually build
(38:32):
trust, and they startedcooperating again, meeting each
other visiting each other intheir respective countries. So
that really was an entry pointof bridge into cooperation more
broadly. And that was withinless than 10 years between the
war and then cooperating at thisreally legally binding level.
David Evans (38:54):
Did you really think I was forgetting about
this tune. Thank you so much,Dr. Susannah Schneier, and Dr.
Rob Hubert, for being on thepodcast this week. Make sure
you're subscribed because youwon't want to miss both of our
deep dive episodes, each of ourfull interviews with Dr.
Susannah Schneier, and ourinterview with Dr. Rob Hubert,
if you're interested in learninga bit more about Dr. Susan Myers
(39:16):
work. Take a look at the IheDelft Institute for water
Education website at U N dash ih e dot o RG and for the water
Peace and Security Partnershipwebsite, you can find them at
water peace security dot o RG,definitely check them out.
There's a really, really coolunderstand portion where you can
(39:39):
actually take an online coursewhere Suzanna will actually take
you through water peace andsecurity, how it works, and just
a much more deeper dive thanthis podcast episode. So highly,
highly recommend. For moreinformation on Dr. Rob, I'll
post some of the links to someof his research down in the show
notes. Also there'll be links toArctic net as well, there'll be
(40:00):
links to the North America andArctic Defense and Security
Network website as well. Verygood resources to be able to
learn more about these issues.
I'm the host and producer DavidEvans. And I just like to thank
the rest of the team,specifically Paul Polman, Lee
Burton, and the rest of theaquatic biosphere board. Thanks
for all of your help. And tolearn more about the aquatic
(40:21):
biosphere project and what we'redoing right here in Alberta
telling the story of water, youcan check us out at aquatic
biosphere.ca. And we also havelaunched our new media company,
ABN aquatic biosphere network,which you can find that the
public place dot online andsearch for the aquatic biosphere
network channel, where we willactually be posting all of the
(40:44):
video episodes that we're goingto be creating this year. So
tune in, they will be out forthe next little while, but very
excited to start sharing videocontent as well as our
interviews. Next week, we'll bereleasing our deep dive
interview with Dr. Rob So youwon't want to miss it. Make sure
you're subscribed. You get tohear even more about Russia. The
fishing that's going to behappening at the North Pole,
(41:05):
China going to the Arctic, allof these crazy situations is a
wild one. Get ready. It's superfun. If you have any questions
or comments about the show, we'dlove to hear them. Email us at
conservation at aquaticbiosphere.org. Please don't
forget to like, share, andsubscribe. Leave us a review. It
really helps us out. Thanks andit's been a splash
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!