Barrier 1: the far north dimension
The first barrier may appear as a truism for the High North as it concerns the geographical dimension of transport from a geophysical perspective.
This inescapable dimension of circumpolar geography endlessly provides the quintessential pitch line of transport planners who argue that transport faces unique challenges in the polar regions and must de facto be treated differently.
The vast territory and its relative ‘inaccessibility’, the cold temperatures of the high latitudes, the sensitive environment, the strong manifestation of climate change and its impact on transport infrastructures all make adapted engineering, complex environmental procedures and exorbitant investment in cold regions essential. In some polar regions, the material needed for infrastructure construction or simply for maintenance must be transported by boat during the navigable season. Bad planning and neglectful requisitions cause delays and raise the cost of intervention. Broken pieces of transport machinery cannot always be replaced the following day, and calling in a transport specialist may involve extravagant expenditures. The capricious northern weather also has an impact on transport delays and practice and the non-exceptional presence of wild fauna on roads or even landing strips forces transport planners to heighten alertness concerning mobility aspects that are relatively less disturbing in the southern part of the northern hemisphere.
Even when it comes to transport regulations, one may state that some standard transport rules are difficult to apply in the High North. This might be the case, for instance, concerning the statutory maximum hours that a trucker may drive for safety reasons. Without a place to stop and rest alongside the road, truck drivers venturing into the north will probably not risk stopping in mid-winter on the shoulder of the roadway under the pretext of respecting the regulation. Despite the risk, it might appear safer for truckers to extend
the driving time and arrive at their destination (Gouvernement du Québec
5, ).38
The geophysical aspect of circumpolar geography is, however, not the only factor that has an impact on the complexity of transport planning in the High North. The social and political context has proven to be challenging as well for planners, and planning tools must take into consideration several elements which appear totally different in the southern and more populated areas of the Arctic countries. The strong presence of indigenous communities, sometimes as a regional majority, the existence of a non-market economy and subsistence/
traditional activities, the convolution of multi-level Arctic governance, the unusual nature of Arctic demography (low-density population, high birth rates, and the percentage of young people in many indigenous communities, the challenges and patterns of migration), and the importance of some social and cultural issues affecting well-being in northern communities compel transport stakeholders to negotiate the priorities differently. Classic conflicts linked to land-use in the context of new transport projects constitute one example of challenge and clash between values and stakeholders: the preservation of fauna and flora for traditional activities vs. the development of new access for industry that may lead to profits for the economy (Northern Development Ministers Forum ).
When linked together, the social and physical dimensions of High North geography contribute to the image of the Arctic Region as a unique ecosystem far from the rest of civilisation. In fact, many areas of the Arctic are well-developed both technologically and socially. However, the persistent remoteness and the distance between southern and High North communities as well as between the northern communities themselves, nonetheless, appear to Northerners as a major issue for mobility. Ironically, one important planning issue of High North transport planning is transport itself, as meeting sessions between stakeholders become an amazing puzzle of logistics.
Meetings between northern stakeholders and sometimes their southern partners generally involve long journeys. Meeting possibilities depend on the availability and length of flights, weather conditions, the availability
38 I have occasionally seen a plane crew (pilot and co-pilot) forced to share the same room in Nunavik on an overnight trip. While each crew member should, in theory, be provided with his or her own room in order to get as much rest as possible, the unavailability of rooms can lead to some deviation from the regulations.
of accommodation, and the costs of transport. As a result, many transport planning meetings concerning ‘northern remote regions’ have to take place in southern capitals or administrative centres.
These factors have a major impact on project costs, risks, social outcomes and the political life of Northern stakeholders. But they also affect long-term transportation planning itself by:
a) making it more difficult to predict trends and needs and to provide adequate consensual long-term transport solutions that are adapted to northern conditions;
b) forcing decision-makers and transport planners to think outside the square and justify their actions;
c) compelling policy makers to adapt the transport policy standards to the regional context;
d) making the logistics of the transportation planning process itself a puzzle.
Barrier 2: Lack of awareness of the transport system
Considering what has just been said about the High North as an awkward field for transport planning, one might believe that a good knowledge of the Arctic Region and transportation can at least guarantee better transport planning. A second barrier to arctic transport planning comes from the complexity at the core of transport planning itself. In fact, transportation itself - like many other political areas and regardless of the geographical region that one considers - has been developed in sub-sectors and requires nowadays the expertise of many specialists. There are good reasons to believe that this complexity is amplified in the High North, but to what extent?
Horizontally, many transport practitioners have their own geographical areas. In many transport geography books, the geographical division is still dominated by the twosome ‘urban area’ and ‘rural area’. General transportation plans conducted at the more global or national levels try to embrace this general vision. This nomenclature is usually constructed on the basis of subjective criteria of demography/density and geographical functions (cities
= industrial transformation, commercial activities and main administration of services; rural area = extraction/exploitation of natural resources) (Desmarais and Ritchot ). Transport geography theories have notably developed
the concept of IURT (Inter-Urban and Regional Transport) to facilitate the implementation of policies targeting the improvement of mobility between the two parts of the so-called centre-periphery paradigm (Charlton and Vowles
). If under this classical geographical paradigm, the Arctic appears at first glance to be a northern periphery opposed to the great southern centre, many High Northerners may not recognize themselves in the former category.
They usually argue that the Arctic Region has its own development dynamics where major cities like Murmank (approx. , inhabitants), Arkhangelsk (approx. 5, inhabitants) and Anchorage (approx. , inhabitants) are, demographically speaking, similar to major areas in the south. Small and middle-sized cities in the North, like Akureyri, Rovaniemi, Tromsø, Kirkenes and Fairbanks, have developed into important centres of knowledge and education.
The geopolitical position and security issues related to the whole region also contribute in general to the distinctive dynamics of the region. In terms of transportation, the ‘shared’ area has notably triggered cross-border initiatives at a high political level in order to find the best solutions to link and harmonize disparate national practices, regulations, norms and infrastructural systems. The presence of traditional activities and the spectacular development of the mass-tourism sector may also puzzle transport planners: aren’t the transport systems of the High North different from those described in the classical categories of urban transport systems and rural transport systems?
Vertically, in term of means of transport – air transport, maritime transport, railways, road transport, off-road vehicles (ORVs), public transport, bikes, etc. – in land transport, structures and infrastructures are differentiated.
These divisions are reflected in the departmental organization of national and even regional transport administration. Despite global planning, one may observe that relations between those fields are intricate and often rare, and specialists of air transport and land transport seem to live in different worlds.
It is interesting to note that many localities in the High North, despite their small size, have to cope just as much as populous major southern cities with all kinds of transport infrastructures: ports, airports, roads and sometimes railways. The geographical context requires infrastructures and transport equipment to find technology that is adapted to northern conditions while the social context and the distinctive environment demand the adaptation of southern transportation policies to the northern context. As a consequence, the administration of northern transport policies necessitates the contribution
of many specialists in different fields and, moreover, special knowledge of the cold regions and the hyper-peripheral context.
Transversely, the focus on domains of intervention in transportation also adds to the complexity of knowledge requested to ensure shared, accepted solutions. Core specialties like safety, economy and the environment have found an important place in transport administration and planning, even sometimes eclipsing issues like mobility and access itself. In the Arctic, the development of aboriginal law, the emergence of new agreements and treaties, and the consolidation of new governance architecture have necessitated the improvement of competence in legal terms.
Barrier 3: a cumbersome process
between tokenism and the zeal of expertise
Because of the complexity of the High North, planners risk falling awkwardly into one of two non-constructive tendencies in planning: tokenism or the zeal of expertise.
In the first case, facing the complexity and the large number of various groups and interests represented by the stakeholders, planners may try to comply quickly with principles to plug the holes, for instance, by forming a symbolic work committee on the environment or by supporting the participation of one representative from indigenous people on a project work committee.
In the second case, the good intention of being inclusive by involving a maximum number of stakeholders can lead to a long and cumbersome process of planning. Such decisions may appear as a good strategy to avoid implementing some projects quickly and thus to play for time. Sometimes, however, this may be the only level-headed opportunity to make interveners face each other and try to benefit from the point of view/know-how of everyone and avoid possible misunderstandings. In -, in Québec, when the community of Whapmagoustui and the Ministry of Transport of Québec started exploring the possibility of building the first road connection between the south and the adjacent Cree and Inuit communities of Whapmagoustui and Kuujurapik, the Ministry of Transport of Québec organized the first two committee meetings, which were attended by organizations, many of them coming with several representatives including specialists and lawyers.39 A similar project in the south
39 The meeting was not a consultation. The idea was to form an authentic working group.
would not have involved as many actors. In the transport planning process, this kind of project constitutes just one among many that should be coordinated to optimize the results.
Barrier 4: the eternal dissatisfaction of users
and the necessity of prioritization by decision makers
This barrier arises notably for three reasons. First, because the interventions sometimes need to be implemented in a specific order so as to maximize results;
many projects may not figure in a specific plan or suddenly come out at the top of a list of priorities even if they were not planned earlier, turning the original plans upside-down. The operational sequences are particularly significant in logistical and economic terms. For example, some villages in the Far North cannot afford the purchase of a crusher for infrastructure maintenance. Such equipment must be moved by barge during the navigation season from one village to another. As there is a risk that they will not see the crusher again for a few years, localities might be tempted to improve not only the road but also the apron of the airport, which is not a priority if we compare it to another community airport that might be waiting for its turn.
The pre-project committee included from the Federal Government: Economic Development Canada, Transport Canada, Public Works Canada, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada;
from the Provincial Government: Hydro-Québec, Tourisme Québec, Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (Mining Sector); Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (Forest Sector), Ministère des Transports du Québec, Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones (two representatives: one for the Crees and one for the Inuit); Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions (MAMR), and Ministère du Développement économique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation (MDEIE); for the Inuit: Makivik Corporation, Kativik Regional Government, and the Community of Kuujjuarapik; for the Cree: the First Nation of Whapmagoostui, the Grand Council of the Crees, the Cree Regional Authority, and the Nation of Chisasibi. To avoid burdening the process at this stage, both federal and provincial ministries of the environment were not invited at this stage. (Is this an example of tokenism? It is difficult to say.) However, even though they would have been concerned by the project as the proposed road would pass through the James Bay area, the Municipality of Baie-James, the Regional Council of Baie-James and the Société de développement de la Baie-James were not invited either. They nevertheless asked to participate.
The second reason arises from the trivial human fact that although there are a number of important concerns that all translate into concurrent needs or desires from various stakeholder groups, there is unfortunately, in principle, a limited number of resources to respond to the demand. This situation is not unique to the High North, but concerns the typical problem of resource allocation. Everybody wants the latest technology and the best transportation services. We all want an asphalt road in front of our place, and if others have one, why shouldn’t we? Moreover, once a project has been implemented, we tend to forget it and move on to our next request. Different agendas, visions and concerns may lead to tumultuous or long negotiation processes between the parties involved. An important source of stress for transportation decision makers is the creation of a precedent: “If we do it here, they will all want the same thing there”. In this case, one may say that this situation is especially true in the North, where decision makers have to justify high levels of investment and public expenses in areas with small populations.40
Finally, changes that occur during the planning process complicate the situation. These changes have various roots: natural disasters, new economic potential, lack of resources, new social priorities, new political orientations, etc.
Changes can be expected especially when the established order of priorities is planned within a fixed long-term framework (typically 5 to years). The rapid changes in the Arctic over the last years have forced planners to up-date their agendas constantly.
40 I remember, while working on new projects in the High North of Québec, the reactions of some high-level administrators and even one politician. One project, for instance, involved the paving of the local road in Nunavik, notably to limit the negative effects of dust from gravel roads. Though the project was intended for municipalities which were under the responsibility of the provincial government, the fact that the municipalities were inhabited by Inuit led some governmental administrators to say: “If we asphalt a road for Inuit, we will have to do it in all the other aboriginal areas.” A similar reaction happened later when working on the delivery of the Transport Strategy for the Nord-du-Québec region in 2007-2008. Some provincial civil servants were unenthusiastic about the idea of strong public participation of the Northerners – and especially the Crees and the Inuit – in the planning process. They were worried that Natives from other regions might ask for similar conditions in future projects. These kinds of reactions are taboo and not well documented or publicized among the public and the public administration.
Barrier 5: the unnoticed high north dimension in transport planning - the gap between southern and arctic transport planners Whether we talk about general reports, public policies or national strategies on transportation, polar transport in both its political and technical dimensions still remains overlooked. To illustrate the situation, one may refer to most official policies concerning transport planning in the West. For instance, the document from the European Commission “A sustainable future for transport:
Towards an integrated, technology-led and user friendly system” may be considered as representative of the style of semiotics (European Commission ). As in many cases, transport is represented visually in the main document as well as on the website by the most common means of transport (maritime, air, terrestrial), but the general semiotics concerns the urban dimension of great cities during summer time. In such a representation, it is difficult to find the presence of any circumpolar dimensions. In reality, despite the fact that many national and transnational policies intend to pay more attention to issues of equity and transport for remote regions (Hoffmann and Bentzen
; Spiekermann and Wegener ; White ), remoteness remains scantily represented. Obviously, the illustration of heavy traffic in urban agglomerations is a well-known issue in Europe, whereas the simple northern image of reindeers on the roads of Lapland is far from being part of general European transportation concerns. In the case of Europe, this situation is especially interesting as Europe is currently engaged in an important process of creating a European Arctic policy (Airoldi , ; Council of the European Union ; European Commission ).
One of the most important meetings of transport specialists in Europe is the Association of European Transport. The association holds a three-day congress (the European Transport Conference) every year, attracting more than 5
specialists from more than countries. Since , the proceedings of the conferences have usually been published on the website of the association as well as the list of presentations. Of a total of papers listed, only two of them include the keyword ‘Arctic’.41 More than papers include the keywords
‘urban’, 5 contain the word ‘London’, and have ‘Paris’ (Association for European Transport). Transportation analysts admit that transport geography
41 One of them was written by Serge B. Shlikhter (1998). The other was written by the author of this paper in 2009 (Ampleman 2009).