Fleener touts Alaska to Arctic Council

Gets Legislature nod as lieutenant governor successor, says US chair assignment to Arctic Council could be a needed boost to Alaska

Steve Quinn

For Petroleum News

The United States has assumed the post as chair for the Arctic Council and that could be great things for Alaska. In his state of the state delivery, Gov. Bill Walker identified Arctic policy as a priority, having previously naming Craig Fleener has his Arctic policy advisor. Fleener also received unanimous legislative approval to be the lieutenant governor’s successor during recent confirmation hearings.

The U.S. is part of the council that features seven other nations: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden. It also includes six indigenous organizations with permanent status, plus more than two dozen countries holding observer status.

For Fleener, the Arctic Council represents a reprisal of his work with the Gwich’in Council International, the International Porcupine Caribou Board and the Yukon River Panel.

Fleener spoke to Petroleum News about what the two-year term could mean for Alaska.

Petroleum News: What do you see is your job as the governor’s Arctic policy advisor?

Fleener: As the Arctic policy advisor, I think my role is to make sure that I am advising the governor on all things Arctic and of course implementing the Arctic policy that was adopted by the Legislature. It’s a rather robust policy, very robust in fact. It’s not missing a whole lot. The plan is find a good way for us to knit together what we would have wanted to do as an administration and what we’ve been provided by the Legislature.

The good news is the Legislature was very thorough in completing that work and so we will be implementing the Arctic policy. In addition to that is we’ve got other areas that we are interested in and other responsibilities outside of that. One of those is the Arctic Council chairmanship, and us making sure we have a very strong role in partnering with the State Department on developing Arctic policy and implementing that policy as we go forward.

The State Department, of course, has their own broad international objectives for Arctic policy. There aren’t a whole lot of domestic components to their plan. Part of our goal is to help remind them that Alaska has a lot of issues that need to be addressed. Most of our issues simply aren’t domestic. We can treat them as domestic because they impact all Alaskans.

At the same time because we are so much like northern Russia, so much like Greenland, so much like Canada that our issues are actually as impactful as the other Arctic nations. Maybe not so much like Scandinavia because their Arctic is so much further developed than the rest of the world’s Arctic. They don’t have the same types of problems. Water and sanitation is not an issue in much of northern Scandinavia; infrastructure is not a big issue there; jobs is not a big issue there. All of those are big issues for us, plus the costs of energy and developing resources. And the other four nations that I mentioned.

We need to somehow get what’s important to us on the radar screen of the State Department to help us develop those as we go forward. Even though the State Department’s responsibilities are international we want the U.S. in general to be more responsive to Alaska’s needs.

We want the United States itself when they use the word Arctic, I feel as though they are thinking primarily in terms of international. I want them when they say the word Arctic to think Alaska. There is only one Arctic component to the United States and that’s Alaska, so every time they say Arctic, we want them to think Alaska.

Petroleum News: How do you accomplish that?

Fleener: We’ve started by reaching our hand out and being available, trying to be everywhere. It’s a little tough with a one-man shop with other folks pitching in. It’s about forging partnerships and relationships, and asking to be involved with different activities that are going on. It’s about connecting the right people in state agencies with right people in the federal agencies to make sure we are involved. So mostly it’s about reaching out or partnering where we are allowed to.

We certainly aren’t going to be successful by being overly aggressive and threatening and bringing lawsuits, and that sort of mentality. That hasn’t proven to be successful in the past. In some cases lawsuits work to resolve issues. For the most part, I think we can get a lot more done in a lot more of a positive way if you are reaching out offering your assistance and expertise.

Petroleum News: You mentioned that the Legislature’s plan (House Bill 1) is very robust. Is that good? Are your hands tied by this?

Fleener: No. Not at all. There are things in there that it may take us forever to get to just by virtue of the amount of money we have right now. So it’s going to take us some time to get to all of those things rolled out. The Legislature did a good job of looking at Alaska holistically and saying what do we need to advance Alaska as the Arctic. You can look at it and say what does Arctic policy really mean?

Different people have different definitions. Some people treat it as if it’s everything north of the Brooks Range. Some people treat it as everything north of the Arctic Circle. We have the AYK line, which is a much more accepted delineation of the Arctic, which is down the Yukon River over to the Kuskokwim River and then down the Aleutian chain. That’s kind of what we’ve been using for the most part.

I pretty much see it as all of Alaska. The way I view it is most of us live in or are affected by what goes on in the Arctic. If you don’t live in the Arctic, you are affected by it. If you are not immediately impacted by it, the laws and regulations that come down to set goals and guidelines in the Arctic, they all affect us.

Oil and gas development is a perfect example: where we go with that, what we develop, the amount of taxation. That affects every single Alaskan. And that’s Arctic policy. Most of our oil and gas is coming from the Arctic. I prefer to use a broader definition to be able to be more responsive to a broader swath of Alaskans. I think the Arctic policy has done that. It’s been broad enough to incorporate the most important aspects of Alaska.

There are probably a few things that need more attention. There is not much given to military and defense, but those are really not Alaska issues on their own, but we need to be engaged in that because we are right next door to one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

Petroleum News: There’s always discussion about whether one person is the right fit for this job or that job. I gain a sense that you have wanted this job before it even existed.

Fleener: I think you’re exactly right. I think most of what I’ve done in my career led up to this very nicely. I served in the military for 28 years with a strong focus on Russia and the Arctic I researched wildlife species in the Arctic. I was born and raised in the Arctic. I was a permanent participant in the Arctic Council, representing the Gwich’in at the Arctic Council as the international chair.

The construct of the Arctic Council is the eight Arctic nations and six permanent participant indigenous organizations and four of them are actually in Alaska. They are all international: the Gwich’in are international in that we exist in Canada and the U.S.; Arctic Athabascan Council; the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and the Aleut International Association. Then there are two others: RIPON, which is Russian Association of Indigenous People of the North, and the Saami people (of Scandinavia). The RIPON is the only one that isn’t international, but Russia is half of the Arctic.

Petroleum News: Having been a part of that Arctic Circle discussion and having a seat at the table, why should Alaskans care about the U.S. becoming chair of the Arctic Council?

Fleener: It is the opportunity of a lifetime, or at least every 16 years when the chairmanship rolls around, for us to highlight issues that are important to Alaska. The benefit of being a chair is each nation gets to pick their own priorities. Now the priorities have to be approved. It’s a consensus-based organization, so all eight nations need to approve.

Sometimes they disapprove of parts they don’t want to see worked on and sometimes they are too domestic, but it’s still an opportunity for Alaska to be highlighted. As I said we are the only part of the Arctic. Every single thing they talk about over the next two years has an impact on Alaska.

It has to so we have a great opportunity to engage with international leadership. We will have ambassadors and foreign ministers and their cabinet - or their teams - coming from seven other countries. We’ll have environmental, NGO and observer nations. I think there are 26 of them right now and that number is set to climb. So we have all of those folks coming here for meetings.

Over the next two years we will probably have 15, maybe more, meetings where all of these folks with all of their brainpower and all of their political power are coming to Alaska to talk about these issues, talk about how we can work together and talk about our common problems.

So it’s important to Alaska because we want to be able to engage with these folks. When would we be able to engage with an ambassador from Norway or Russia? At what other time? Not many. It’s a great opportunity to get our business-oriented and tribal oriented folks in the same room and talk to those folks about partnering and business opportunities.

Petroleum News: So when you talk about priorities, there seems to be a conflict of priorities between what the State Department wants and what the state of Alaska wants as far as a climate change agenda versus one of economic development. Is that the sense you get as well?

Fleener: I agree with that. There is definitely a divergence of opinions. We look at more immediate success. We want to see the State Department address issues that help address Alaska problems. The United States sees itself in an international capacity wanting to push forward project ideas that are international in scope and have the potential to have large, long lasting global impacts.

So you really can’t blame them for that. But that’s a little too big for Alaska. There aren’t many of us. We are not typically thinking globally. Very clearly they are looking at it at the international level. We want them to do more than can benefit us.

What I’ve been trying to do - what many of us have been trying to do - is identify priority areas that would be a direct benefit for Alaska but also could be international in scope. For example, food security issues and how we do a better job that food security is maintained across the Arctic. It’s a tremendous issue in rural Alaska and important across the spectrum so that’s an issue we think we can work on.

Really, economic development is important everywhere. It’s really a shock to most of us that the U.S. hasn’t wanted to pursue that. But they have these big priority items that are supported by the president and Secretary Kerry and those are their priorities. They are in charge. They get to make the rules. We have to try and get our little project ideas in there when we can.

One of the ways we are addressing the lack of involving or adopting some of our priorities is that we are having a host committee and setting up activities and bringing our own people together and setting up different venues where we can bring people from the Arctic Council and talk about what’s important to us and hopefully work on a few projects. I think that will be a great opportunity to not only entertain the guests but really bring Alaskans together with those folks and talk about our priority areas.

Now of course that’s not as good as the U.S. saying developing an economy in Alaska is one of our priorities or reducing the cost of energy is one of our priorities. That’s really important not just to Alaska but all across the north: high energy costs are making it unlivable in most places. We think those are areas that could easily have been adopted but the State Department has put together a very robust set of objectives for their two-year priorities and there’s not much more room to put in anything else.

Petroleum News: OK, so let’s talk about economic development then. Wouldn’t there be international interest on oil exploration in the Arctic?

Fleener: Absolutely. So much so that every other country on the Arctic Council adopted Canada’s idea to put together the Arctic economic council - every other country except the U.S. So it’s a little odd to us that they weren’t interested in that. But every other country knows of the importance of economic development. No matter what it is. Oil and gas is critical, especially to Alaska. We need to look at diversifying our economy whatever that means.

We have to start somewhere. The Arctic economic council was a great idea to bring countries and business leaders together on an international scope to focus specifically on the problem of the Arctic. And the problem of the Arctic of course is lack of infrastructure, harsh conditions, small workforce, long distances, everything that you could imagine and this group is getting together to help solve these things.

Petroleum News: Still along the lines of economic development, you mentioned infrastructure. Would that be of international interest?

Fleener: It’s one of our priority areas. We cannot diversity our economy - we really can’t run a state successfully without good infrastructure. We have to have good, solid infrastructure that spans across the state that meets the needs of our people, provide emergency response capability, develop our resources, accesses resources in general.

Petroleum News: Do you get a sense that other nations are seeing the same things Alaska leaders are but the folks in Washington aren’t? Is that an accurate assessment of the landscape?

Fleener: Yes, it is. Absolutely. And we have made the point this is something we want them to support. When we are so opposed on an issue, we don’t have a problem bringing it up. It’s a matter of doing it diplomatically. We want to make sure we stay in the room and have an opportunity to be engaged so when the time is right we of course bring up issues where we are of divergent opinions.

Petroleum News: Some of the complaints I’ve heard about the U.S.’s role in Arctic policy is that we still don’t have a strong enough indigenous voice, even with you in the position you’re in. Do you see it that way?

Fleener: If you are talking about with the Arctic Council itself, I don’t think it’s entirely true although I’ve made that argument, so let me give you both sides of it. I don’t think it’s true that they don’t have a strong voice because they have been one of the founding components of the Arctic Council. Six indigenous representatives are at the table at every meeting and are not prevented from having their opinions known. So when every single issue comes up, they are able to speak on it. They speak passionately, intelligently. They speak with scientific rigor if needed. Those folks are there and they are available and they can talk about the issues.

From the perspective of being in the room and having the ability of engaging with the decision makers, they are there. They are not in the same position of the eight countries because the countries are the only ones with a vote. You have to have a compelling argument for the nations to switch their vote.

The part where indigenous people may not have enough of a voice is that the Arctic Council and the indigenous people themselves have not done a very good job of finding the kind of revenue that is needed to participate in the best way possible. So I think it would be far better if there was a revenue source that would enable indigenous participants to conduct their own resources and present their research to the council. I really think that is one of the strongest areas to have impact on the Arctic Council: the research that you have. We need to find a way to get these projects funded. Once we do, the indigenous people will have a stronger voice.

There is always a question of how do we incorporate indigenous knowledge and indigenous science into western science. Well, one of the best ways is hire an indigenous person that has traditional knowledge but is also a wildlife biologist.

In Alaska we have had a problem of making sure indigenous voices are heard because we’ve been at odds for too long. We’ve fought each other too many times. We’ve had too many lawsuits back and forth. That’s an area we are rapidly trying to fix.