Water, Peace and Security with Dr. Susanne Schmeier and Dr. Rob Huebert

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 Aquatic Bisophere Project
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.

Transcript

David Evans: 0:25

Battle Stations everyone. What's the one thing that humans are taught in kindergarten but have never truly mastered sharing? You know what's really difficult to share? Water. Water plays such a pivotal role in our daily lives, everything from our economies, our culture's our everyday daily hygiene regimens. We all rely on water. So when you don't have access to it, you get pretty frustrated. Also, it can be deadly. So what happens if another group takes away your water? How are you going to feel? And what do we do in these situations when others are denied access to the water that they feel is rightfully theirs? Or if we're having different disputes between different countries militarily over the water that we're allowed to travel in? Well, you're in the right place, because today we're talking about water, diplomacy, conflict and sovereignty, what we can do, what we're currently doing, and what we can expect in the future. Today, we get it straight from the experts. We speak with a professor in water Law and Diplomacy who works all around the globe, and a professor who studies Canadian Arctic security and defense all this and more on today's episode of the watery doing podcast. Barney nippy, Oh, me, too low in zero to marry a cheap, Chinese way. Why net? Water we doing? And how can we do better? Your one stop shop for everything water related from discussing water, its use and the organisms that depend on it for all the global issues that you really never knew all had to do with water. I'm your host, David Evans from the aquatic biosphere project. And I just want to ask you something. What are we doing? How can we do better? Water has played a key role in many 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 a baseness. The other side, they really helped to delineate differences between countries and people, but also they bring us together. And it's these shared resources that often cause tensions to form or cooperation the form as well. There's examples of these conflicts dating way back in human history as far back as 2500 BC in ancient Mesopotamia, there was two cities uma and Allagash. And they both shared access to the Euphrates Tigris River basin. This is the area where currently we have Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Now this area is very, very dry. So these two city states, uma and Allagash, were actually competing for this access to water. So watering their agricultural plants, the irrigation, basically, their entire livelihood is dependent on their access to this water. And guess what, 2500 BC till now, there's still conflict in this area, when there's an area that has a large population, but a limited amount of water, tensions will rise because we all need access to it. So what do you do when you have this limited amount of water that needs to be shared between lots of different groups of people? Or different countries or different cities? Who do you call? How does that song go? When there's water stress in your neighborhood, Susanna smile.

Unknown: 4:48

My name is Susanna I work for Ihe Delft, which is a UNESCO affiliated Institute for water education in the Netherlands.

David Evans: 4:57

All right, clearly, that is not the music from a very famous movie franchise. But come on copyrights aside, it's still pretty infectious. So Dr. Susannah Smyers. She's an associate professor of water Law and Diplomacy at Ihe. Delft. Susannah leads the water peace and security partnership and works around the globe. Looking at potential water conflicts between Different groups, countries, organizations, you name it. So if you don't believe me yet that this is still an issue. Currently, let's hear from Suzanna.

Unknown: 5:30

When we think about water, we think about like rivers streams or the water that comes from the tap. But if we go a little bit beyond that, we can see that it's very much related to security issues to conflict, but also to cooperation and peace. We are seeing this, for example, in Mali, in the inner Niger Delta, where for some years, there have been violent conflict with quite a few people dying between farmers herders and fishermen that compete over the same an increasingly variable amount of water from the Niger River. We're also seeing this, for example, between Ethiopia and Egypt on the Nile, where the dam building of Ethiopia has caused severe concerns in Egypt that fears poor its own water security, and is therefore opposing the dam. So we're seeing that around the world that it can lead to tensions to conflict. But at the same time, these conflicts are prominent, and that's what the media speaks about. And we've all seen in the media, these reports on water wars that might be around the corner, or water being the source of wars in the 21st century. But if we take a bit of a closer look, we see that yes, there are saltwater conflicts, but they're by far outweighed by water cooperation.

David Evans: 6:41

Yeah, I know, back to the old music, maybe if you're lucky, you'll hear it again later in the episode. So water cooperation is actually really quite high, which is great news. Hopefully, we don't have any water wars on the horizon anytime soon. But there's still going to be those instances where we need someone to come in and help us figure out how to get to a resolution and how to reach an agreement that we're both going to be happy with. And that's where Dr. Susannah comes in. So Dr. Susanna, can you tell us a bit about what you do, what this water diplomacy concept is?

Unknown: 7:18

What diplomacy is actually quite a new term, but not necessarily a new phenomenon. It basically refers to the use of diplomatic so foreign policy means in order to address conflict or potential conflict over water mainly between different countries. And the idea behind that on the reason why suddenly diplomats and foreign policy makers become involved in something that's otherwise perceived as very technical and something that's dealt with by by engineers, by data people by people from Ministry of Water Environment, is because of the risk that water tensions, disagreements over water spill over into more broad relations between countries, right, we've seen a deterioration of relations, for example, between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan when in the 2000 10s, they were in a disagreement over Rakuen dam, a large dam. In fact, the world's highest dam, that particular son is building on the river that the country's share that had repercussions on trade relations, political relations, remittances sent in order to prevent such conflicts from escalating and ensure that broader bilateral relations or even regional stability are not affected. Diplomats get involved in these processes that are otherwise very technical, but that has, in spite of the newness of the word water diplomacy actually happened since a long time already. I mean, we have examples from the 1950s 1960s already where diplomats negotiated over water that they shared with neighboring countries.

David Evans: 8:46

Okay, I just looked up the lagoon dam in Tajikistan, so they're currently building it, they started pouring concrete this summer. Now, it's supposed to be the world's highest tallest dam, 335 meters tall. To put that in perspective, the Hoover Dam is 220 meters tall, two thirds the size of this dam. This is a huge, huge project. So when you're negotiating that with another country, that's also affected by the water that comes out from underneath that dam. Yeah, it's a it's a big deal. So water diplomacy, it's nothing new. But it definitely does require a steady hand, someone who knows how to open these doors, bring them to the table, so you can actually have these types of discussions. So I guess there's gonna, what does this look like from your perspective, from where you sit in these negotiations? How do these negotiations typically work? And how do you bring people in together so they can actually have these discussions?

Unknown: 9:46

I unfortunately can't give you a lot of details as this is something that by the nature of the process tends to happen behind closed doors. But yeah, I'll try to share a few thoughts. So basically, what diplomacy is about bringing the different parties together around the table first step usually being to create a joint understanding what the problem actually is. So is it that one country wants to build a dam and has very good intentions doing so because it actually needs the electricity? Like if you look at the Nile Ethiopia, there's a reason why topia wants To build the grantors, European Renaissance dam, because it needs electricity to power the country's economic development to lift people out of poverty, like kids who go to school and who need to study in the evening to provide them with electricity to do so. So very good reasons to build the dam, but to at least create a mutual understanding between this thinking and the thinking of a downstream country, in that case, Egypt, where there are huge fears about the impacts in terms of less water being available that potentially affecting water supply to the people or affecting agricultural production. And as a consequence, food security of people. So first of all, creating a joint understanding what a specific issue of contention means for the different parties, then it's a lot about trying to share data and information, make countries open up their data books, and share information on river flow on river quality, or whatever the issue might be. But then moving from an understanding of things being a zero sum game, what one party uses from the river, the water, or the fish resources in the lake or whatever it might be, that not being available to the other party. And therefore it being kind of a cake that if I eat the bigger piece, you will get the smaller piece moving away from that and moving towards a positive sum game where the idea is to actually not so much look into, for example, the volume of water that's being shared, you get 50%, I get 50%. But more look at what are we actually doing with our 50%?

David Evans: 11:47

So what Suzanne is talking about here is can we look at these projects through a different lens? Are there ways that we can get multiple benefits for all of the different parties? And we just aren't looking at it that way yet. So maybe there's a way to design the dam so that we have less flood risk, lower down? Is there a way that we can have aquaculture? Or is there a way that we could sell the electricity that's generated by this dam to the other country at a discounted rate? What are the ways that we can increase everyone's slice of the pie and make sure that we're maximizing everyone's benefits? Now, is it just me? Or does it seem like everyone knows this and should be working towards this? Why do we need to get diplomats involved?

Unknown: 12:31

One country might often not trust the other country, when, for example, we have this in the case of Afghanistan and Iran. Iran has been claiming for many years, that the water that Afghanistan provides as the upstream country to downstream Iran is not up to what they're supposed to provide, according to a really old and not very functional treaty that they have. Afghanistan at the same time is saying, Well, we are actually providing that water. But climate change makes it more and more difficult because the river doesn't actually hold as much water as was supposed to provide. And by the way, we don't have measurement stations anyway, because of the destruction of the war. So we don't actually know how much is flowing across the border. And then you can imagine what is difficult enough for technical people to talk about, but then bring political tensions relations, the overall regional setting in and things get very tricky and ultimately need the involvement of diplomats and other people experienced in dispute resolution and negotiation and mediation.

David Evans: 13:29

Yep, point taken. All right. Dr. Susannah, you'll be my first call if I ever need a water resolution specialist to come in and help me out. Alright, Susanna, are we missing anything right now? What else do we need to be considering?

Unknown: 13:43

also discussing the mitigation of impacts because no water project can be built without any environmental impacts. And these environmental impacts obviously, also have socio economic consequences for people depending on the water. But looking into how these impacts can be mitigated, and we are seeing examples around the world where countries have at least tried that. So I'm thinking about the Mekong, for example, where Laos

David Evans: 14:09

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry for the rude interruption. I just feel like I needed to say this. I needed basically to have an overworld map open in front of me to be able to understand where we were talking about because Dr. Susannah is working in so many places, and there's so many conflicts, and so many resolutions to work out that we're jumping from country to country, continent to continent. So just for a quick recap, here are the countries that we've already discussed the conflict between herders and fishermen in Mali in the inner Niger Delta, the creation of the grand Renaissance dam by Ethiopia that dams the Nile and affects Egypt's access to water, the lagoon dam built by Tajikistan that is affecting Uzbekistan's flow of water, the water flow out of Afghanistan into Iran, as it's affected by climate change, and lack of monitoring. And now this dam created by Laos, on the Mekong river that's affecting downstream Vietnam and Cambodia. Now, if you actually listen to the full interview with Dr. Suzanne, we talk about even more countries around the world. So definitely recommend a world map. All right, sorry. Back to you, Susanna.

Unknown: 15:18

Oh, Laos is undergoing a huge and very ambitious dam development program on the tributaries to the Mekong, but also on the mainstream. And there was in the early 2000s, a disagreement over the first mainstream dam that Laos intended to develop, it's called the Cybrary dam, where no environmental impact mitigation measures were foreseen. But through negotiations between the countries, especially Vietnam and Cambodia being particularly concerned, and through the involvement of a river basin organization, so a platform, a platform that brings all the countries together, the design of the dam was changed. In the end to account for sediment flushing needs to make sure that the sediments that the river carries that are crucial for the Mekong Delta, are actually making their way downstream. But also building in fish migration aid, and most of the Mekong fish a long distance migratory fish, that fish are able to migrate up and downstream passing the dam, we'll see to what extent these measures are effective. But I think it's at least a really a sign a symbol of how countries tried to come together, and at least mitigate the impacts that the developments in one might have on the other.

David Evans: 16:30

Wow, turns out environmental impact assessments are actually useful, and they're good. Well, when they're actually respected. So that's really good to know. And it's important not to miss out that this isn't only a human issue, but also an environmental issue that we need to take into consideration. So I'm sure that many of you listening must be asking yourself, What about the Russia, Ukraine conflict? what's currently being done about water? Well, you came to the right person to ask, and this is what Dr. Susannah could share when we recorded this interview in March 2022.

Unknown: 17:06

It's a bit difficult because we are involved in some work on that were until the recent escalation. So it's a bit difficult to talk about that. But yeah, I mean, water has not played a role there as in triggering the conflict. But of course, water is affected by conflict. I mean, any violent conflict, affects water affects water infrastructure, water quality water supply to people. And already with the occupation of Crimea, there were some issues coming up with water supply, from one part to the other part, which was still is theoretically one one country being affected by the divide. And there have been mutual accusations by the Russian occupied parts, saying that Ukraine didn't supply water as they should have and Ukraine, claiming that the Russian occupied parts had cut off the flow of a river that would go to the then Ukrainian part, which would be needed to actually produce the drinking water that would then be supplied to the other side again. Yeah, but it's a bit difficult to comment on that. But yeah, maybe just to add that the effects of armed conflict on water and water infrastructure is also something that we're increasingly seeing around the world, and also Yemen, Iraq, and so on Syria, that that's often overlooked?

David Evans: 18:23

Well, this kind of escalation is not being overlooked by our next guest. But his focus on water is a little bit more northern, in general,

Dr. Rob Huebert: 18:33

we should be absolutely concerned about the Arctic, the Arctic for Canada, is going to be the geographical center of two existential threats to Canadian Security. And by existential I mean, the possibility of extreme violence be falling upon Canadian citizens. My name is Rob Hubert, I'm with the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary, I study Arctic security, Arctic sovereignty. And when I say security, let me be clear, I'm talking about security. In its most extended of definitions, that means I do look at hard military issues as pertain as we're seeing right now. What's happening between Canada, Russia and the other Arctic nations, I also look at environmental security, human security, all these other issues that clearly affect the Arctic.

David Evans: 19:25

Now, you might be asking yourself, why should I care about the Arctic? It's frozen, it's very far away, doesn't impact me at all? Well, the simple thing is, the Arctic is changing drastically, as it changes, it's gonna allow access to so many new resources, shipping routes, for more and more vessels that frankly, just weren't able to smash through the ice before. And as this frozen ocean changes, it's going to affect our relations with our Arctic neighbors, but also international partners. And it's going to change the landscape quite literally change the global landscape of where ships can go, and who is allowed where. So Dr. Rob, do you mind just elaborating a bit more about these two existential threats so we should be really focused on in the Arctic.

Dr. Rob Huebert: 20:15

The first one of course, is the one that your listeners are probably more aware of FNS the impacts of climate change. We know that climate change is occurring at a rate roughly three to four times as severe in the Arctic as it is elsewhere. So, the Arctic is first and foremost a canary in the mineshaft. But the other factor is, of course, is that the Arctic is ultimately interconnected with almost every other type of biological climatic system within the international system. What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic, and will be spilling literally into the entire international system. And so therefore, there is a driving need to understand the processes of which that is occurring, the second existential threat and it has been made very clear with the actions of old Amir Putin, with his resumption of the 2014 war against Ukraine. And that is, of course, as he's reminded us that the Russians are a existential threat to Canada. Make no mistake about it when he is threatening to utilize nuclear weapons against the West. And he has made several statements to that extent, we need to take him very serious on that. Now, what does that have to do with the Arctic? Well, the Russians are truly an Arctic nation. I mean, Canada pretends about being an Arctic nation, but in terms of effort and political focus, it's in our national anthem, we'd like to think of ourselves but we do that little the Russians, the entire protection of the Russian geopolitical and geo economic capabilities is Arctic based. And as the relationship with the Russians have deteriorated since 2008, when they first began fighting against possible NATO expansions. And that's a Georgian war, not the Ukrainian war. Ever since that point in time, it has been clear that Russia in fact, is a danger to all Western countries, but in particular, because of our geography, are a threat to Canada. Now, once again, that threat comes into format. It does not come in landais. Let's be very clear on that. We're not talking about a Russian invasion, the CRL space capabilities capability that the Russians are the poses a threat. But the second component of that that poses a threat is the maritime dimension, through assistance provided by us by the Americans, the Norwegians and the British. They've been very successful in rebuilding a lot of their undersea capability in particular, and new types of threats such as autonomous underwater vehicles. And so taken in its whole, if you want to talk about where to the most dangerous threats facing Canadian Security are coming from, you have to understand the Arctic, and you have to understand the Maritime and Ocean component of it.

David Evans: 23:06

Well, Rob, that was truly terrifying. Alright, so we need to understand the Maritime and Ocean components of it. Do you say? Well, everyone, you're in luck. Since my interview with Rob, I put together a little ocean sovereignty 101 class, you're ready, let's get into it. Welcome to ocean sovereignty. 101. With your host, David Evans, between the 1960s and 80s, we realized that we really needed to have a way to govern what happens in the high seas, what happens in international waters, who has sovereignty over what, who has what, as part of their international space. So what this led to is the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. Basically, it's a way for countries to be able to share space. So what does this mean? Imagine you have three zones that go out from the low watermark off your country's coast? All right, so let's go visit the first zone. The first 12 nautical miles off of your coastline is what's considered your territorial sea. This zone is where the country has complete sovereignty over the airspace, the entire water column, and anything within the soil or sub soil. So that's all of the industries fishing oil and gas, aviation, everything is complete sovereignty of that nation. All right off to zone two. Welcome to the exclusive economic zone EEZ read this extends 200 nautical miles out from the coastline. Now remember, in Zone One, we had complete sovereignty over the airspace, the water column, everything in the soil and subsoil. 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 have control over the airspace. And we also don't have control over shipping. So international shipping can still come through, but the country still has complete sovereignty over the economic 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 as we get further and further away. As we lose more and more sovereignty. All right, time for our last stop before we get to the open high seas, let's check out zone three. Welcome to zone three, our most contentious of zones. This is the extended continental shelf in the zone, you've already lost sovereignty over the airspace and international shipping. Now you lose sovereignty over the water column as well. So this is only sovereignty over the soil and subsoil, nothing else really now why did I say this was contentious? So basically, what we're looking at is you can have sovereign rights over the subsoil as far as you can prove that your continental shelf for reaches out into the ocean. Now, what's a continental shelf? So really great question. Basically, the continental shelf is a portion of the continent that is submerged under a fairly shallow sea. When you look at a map of the bottom of the ocean, there's these really deep, deep sections. And then right along the margins and coastlines, there's these relatively flat looking shallow areas. If you look at a map of the Atlantic Ocean along eastern Canada, there's this really flat area that goes out quite far into the ocean. So that would be what we'd be trying to consider as our continental shelf. Now, where this becomes an issue is that the Arctic is basically one giant continental shelf that connects us with Russia, Denmark, Norway, all of the Arctic nations. And this is where we run into trouble in delineating where our continental shelf ends, and their continental shelf begins. So Rob, where are we now? Where are we at with the extended continental shelf?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 26:58

Right now, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Russia, are all trying to determine what their continental shelf in the Arctic is, the Americans have a continental shelf, but the problem with the Americans is that they never ratified the Convention, you have to join the convention, before you can acquire that benefit. So the big issue with the Arctic is who gets watch within the continental shelf, and that is what we are scientifically and internationally trying to determine.

David Evans: 27:30

Alright, so we're in these negotiations to determine where we have sovereignty. Now, what happens when you have a lot of islands? Do you measure your sovereignty from the low tide point on your furthest Island or from the main part of the continent? See, there's a little bit of a gray area here. And this gets really important when you start talking about the Northwest Passage. Now, the Northwest Passage is the potential shipping route that many countries are looking at, to go above North America, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and vice versa. Now, as sea ice begins to recede, it's potentially becoming navigable by many ships. And this is a bit of a problem for the Canadian government. Because what do we consider the Northwest Passage, right? No, Rob, we say that

Dr. Rob Huebert: 28:22

the Northwest Passage is internal waters, its internal waters, because from a historical perspective, we've always treated it as basically like we would treat Lake Winnebago or any other internal waters. We also sustain that argumentation that the indigenous people, the Inuit in particular, have lived there from time immemorial. The problem that we face is until we had the negotiations and the completion of the United Nations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNDRIP international law did not recognize digitality. In other words, we can say that that was important for us as Canadians, and it is important, but from an international perspective, most countries will shrug their shoulders and say, Well, so what, you know, so you've had indigenous people living there, you know, it doesn't make an international legal difference. UNDRIP may, in fact, change that. So with UNDRIP, that may see a much greater international recognition of the fact that indigenous reality does have a standing within international law and changes. Now we'll have to see, the problem that we have with the Northwest Passage is that for it to be a internal waters, you have to have the acceptance of the international community that in fact that is always been treated as internal waters. The problem is, is our neighbors to the south don't agree with that. The United States has sent two vessels through the Northwest Passage, one by accident, one by intent, without asking permission. In 1969 1970. When they sent the Manhattan which was an ice tanker, through they very deliberately did it to challenge Canadian sovereignty. the sending of the polar sea an icebreaker that went through in 1985 was not a challenge. They needed to get the ship from Seattle to to Lee and back, and they couldn't do it by going through the Panama Canal. They And we did all sorts of sort of somersaults to try to figure out a way in which we could say steal our waters, but the Americans did not go, you know, ultimately because it sets a precedent elsewhere. Now, up until very recently, it was a Canada US relations, the Russians weren't going to come over. They didn't, because the Cold War and whole bunch of other reasons, but very few countries have the capability of actually coming into the Northwest Passage outside of the Americans. As the ice melts, the shipping nations have been recognizing that, you know, the Northwest Passage is an international waterway just like any other water, and the only thing that made it different was the ice. And if the ice is disappearing, it's not internal waters anymore. Now Canada, of course, will argue no, it's always been internal waters. So therefore, it remains internal waters. countries like Singapore, Germany, they've said in the International Maritime market organization, sorry, Canada, you can't claim special status over then you don't have sovereignty over that you has to follow international law. Now, have we seen an issue ultimately push it? No. Is it coming? Absolutely.

David Evans: 31:33

So far, we've had a couple of vessels that have actually gone through, we had a cruise ship called the Crystal Serenity that went through in 2016. And in 2017, they did this with consulting and getting approval from the Canadian government. They consulted the indigenous communities that were along the path of the Northwest Passage that they were following as well. Basically, they followed all the rules, and they did a great job of it. Now, if you want the flip side of how this can go, look no further than in the summer of 2020. When COVID was ravaging the world, the Canadian government had said, Hey, let's not have any travel within the Northwest Passage, let's make sure everyone stays safe. Now, there was a New Zealander with a sailboat who said, Hey, I went across the Northwest Passage, I don't care, you can't stop me. These are international waters. And he successfully crossed but never asked for permission. And now he's in litigation with the Canadian federal government. But the problem comes because we never physically stopped them from crossing. So that sets the precedent that they are allowed to cross even though we're in litigation. It's really messy. So again, why is this a big deal? Well, I'll turn to rob once more.

Dr. Rob Huebert: 32:44

Where this is going to be a real issue. There is growing concern amongst the indigenous populations in terms of what increased shipping with meat. And so we say within Canada through reconciliation and other means of trying to understand and to extend the power that the Indigenous peoples have over their territories. How do we reconcile the fact that if we have someone saying no, we have the international right to go through because it's an international straight? We have indigenous communities saying, you know, what, we've got some major hunting or fishing going on, we don't want any ships going through at this point in time. Then mighty interesting to see how the Canadian government response to that, you know, we'll just basically say, yeah, that's internal waters, we're not going to let you come through and physically stop, when in fact, we weren't willing to stop, you know, spend the effort to stop a sailboat for some communities they welcomed when the Crystal Serenity came in. They saw that as an economic opportunities that Cambridge Bade, they said, This is great. Come on, in, you know, respect to our territory, and make sure that you're not overwhelming us give us notice. But yeah, we want to showcase our culture, we want to also see if people want to buy some of the various crafts that we're capable, some community said, No, you know, we just can't handle you. So in that context, one has to be a little careful in terms of over characterizing that there is one voice on this, there's not. And so, you know, that's a bit of a colonial legacy. When we turn around and say, Okay, we understand that there is one voice that is saying this, that's not the case.

David Evans: 34:16

Absolutely, very well put Rob. Okay, so the Northwest Passage is going to remain contentious. But we've kind of strayed a little bit from the two existential crisis is that we're facing climate change and Russian aggression. As the ice melts, there's more opportunity for vessels to operate within the north. And this only sheds more light on how we've invested in the defense of our north. So Rob, do you have any good news on that front?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 34:46

We're being honest with ourselves. We haven't really done anything. We have a surveillance system that was last modernized in 1985. Let me ask you this. Would you be wanting to use a computer that was built in 1985, let alone defend against Russian hypersonic missiles with that? We are flying an aircraft that we bought in 1982. Are you driving a car that was built in 1982? Do you know anyone who drives a 1982 car? Yeah, so do you want to defend against hyper Sonics with it in the shop all the time. So our fighter is 1982, vintage, full stop, let's not mince words about it. We have got a constabIe tutori naval vessel, the Arctic offshore patrol vessels, the Navy's gonna get six ultimately the Coast Guard we'll get to that is something that has occurred. Our submarines are not at arised capability. They two were built in the end of the 1980s. seeing a theme here, there's even questions in terms of, you know, whether or not our runways and hangar system in the north can actually sustain our air capabilities. I think Canadians should be outraged. You know, I'm an academic, I'm supposed to be neutral on this. But I mean, just the fact that we are so vulnerable, is going to be problematic.

David Evans: 36:09

Yeah, that's not good. I don't know about you, but I do not want to be defending against hypersonic missiles with computers from 1985. So just for context, this interview with Dr. Rob happened back in March. So things have changed since then, the federal government has pledged to spend$30 billion dollars over the next 20 years to modernize our defense systems in the Arctic. Now, the proof is in the pudding. And we'll see when that actually gets put into place. But currently, it's not entirely sure how fast that will actually happen. In June, they announced an additional $4.9 billion that was going to be spent on Arctic defense this year. And now it's kind of murky, whether or not that was in the original budget for this year. But at least we're doing something. Actually, while I'm recording this right now, the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is actually visiting Canada and visiting our Arctic stations to see what our preparedness is like and is showing that we're on the NATO front, we're all part of one team, that Canada is still lagging behind the rest of the NATO Arctic nations with not providing 2% of GDP towards our defense. Whether that's a good thing or not, I will leave up to the listener, but that's where we're at currently. So has that been enough? Talk about hypersonic missiles nuclear problems, maybe let's end on a positive note. How can water bring us together for peace?

Unknown: 37:47

And one example I'm thinking of is the Balkans during the wars in the 1990s. These countries that share the Sava river basins of former Yugoslavia had been at war with each other. So when the war ended, and the first peace talks started, the question came up, what would be an issue that we can bring the countries together on that is not are not too much contested, and that they would all have an interest to at least come together sit around the table and talk and what was identified as that issue and the stability pact, that the EU designed for the Balkans actually very much promoted the negotiation of a treaty over water. And the setting up of a joint commission and water was then the first issue that countries actually signed a treaty on beyond the peace treaty itself, and started to cooperate and with that not only promoted peace, but also managed to address challenges in the river, like there were remnants of war in the river, that no country could have cleared themselves, they could address flood risks that were a huge threat to downstream countries. But by doing these technical measures, they actually build trust, and they started cooperating again, meeting each other visiting each other in their respective countries. So that really was an entry point of bridge into cooperation more broadly. And that was within less than 10 years between the war and then cooperating at this really legally binding level.

David Evans: 39:14

Did you really think I was forgetting about this tune. Thank you so much, Dr. Susannah Schneier, and Dr. Rob Hubert, for being on the podcast this week. Make sure you're subscribed because you won't want to miss both of our deep dive episodes, each of our full interviews with Dr. Susannah Schneier, and our interview with Dr. Rob Hubert, if you're interested in learning a bit more about Dr. Susan Myers work. Take a look at the Ihe Delft Institute for water Education website at U N dash i h e dot o RG and for the water Peace and Security Partnership website, you can find them at water peace security dot o RG, definitely check them out. There's a really, really cool understand portion where you can actually take an online course where Suzanna will actually take you through water peace and security, how it works, and just a much more deeper dive than this podcast episode. So highly, highly recommend. For more information on Dr. Rob, I'll post some of the links to some of his research down in the show notes. Also there'll be links to Arctic net as well, there'll be links to the North America and Arctic Defense and Security Network website as well. Very good resources to be able to learn more about these issues. I'm the host and producer David Evans. And I just like to thank the rest of the team, specifically Paul Polman, Lee Burton, and the rest of the aquatic biosphere board. Thanks for all of your help. And to learn more about the aquatic biosphere project and what we're doing right here in Alberta telling the story of water, you can check us out at aquatic biosphere.ca. And we also have launched our new media company, ABN aquatic biosphere network, which you can find that the public place dot online and search for the aquatic biosphere network channel, where we will actually be posting all of the video episodes that we're going to be creating this year. So tune in, they will be out for the next little while, but very excited to start sharing video content as well as our interviews. Next week, we'll be releasing our deep dive interview with Dr. Rob So you won't want to miss it. Make sure you're subscribed. You get to hear even more about Russia. The fishing that's going to be happening at the North Pole, China going to the Arctic, all of these crazy situations is a wild one. Get ready. It's super fun. If you have any questions or comments about the show, we'd love to hear them. Email us at conservation at aquatic biosphere.org. Please don't forget to like, share, and subscribe. Leave us a review. It really helps us out. Thanks and it's been a splash