The future of the Arctic Winter Games

The “why” seems pretty clear. In the months ahead, the Arctic Winter Games will consider who, where, what, when and how.

The games exist to promote youth sports and establish connections between young northerners from Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia.

But the week-long event costs money and can be hard to organize, so the people who lead the games will spend the months ahead determining whether the Arctic Winter Games must change with the times.

Where in the circumpolar North is there still the enthusiasm and money to host an event like this, with thousands of young athletes cramming 20 or so sports into a compressed schedule and all the logistics entailed?

Who still wants to pay to send a team every two years? Would three years be a better fit?

When is the best time of year to hold the games as the climate changes? Should the sports move to January or February, rather than March, to make the most of cooler conditions?

What might the games look like in the 2030s in terms of the sports involved, and how can the games be a sustainable proposition long into the future after a largely unspoilt 54-year history to date?

John Rodda is the president of the international committee that oversees the Arctic Winter Games.

“How we’ve done business in the past doesn’t really work as well in terms of how we need to function and operate together going forward,” he told Cabin Radio.

Rodda said the various contingents that send teams to the games are in the process of answering surveys that will inform a major meeting in Whitehorse this fall, at which key decisions about the games’ future are likely to be taken.

“Is the two-year rotation best-suited? Is it sustainable? Does it meet the needs of developing northern youth? All of that is under consideration,” he said.

Decisions have to be made in the months ahead, Rodda said, not least because it’s not clear who will host the games in 2028 – if a 2028 edition even happens. (Yellowknife is theoretically next on the hosting list after Whitehorse in 2026, but the NWT capital expressed reluctance when asked to host the 2026 event before Whitehorse stepped in.)

“We can’t just sit on it,” Rodda said of the issues in front of the international committee. “People are asking questions.”

The North’s shifting climate is a complicating factor.

Take Hay River as an example. A host community for the 2018 Arctic Winter Games, it’s the home of biathlon in the Northwest Territories. It’s also in severe drought right now, with records being set for lack of winter snow.

“Definitely, we don’t have much snow. For the trials that we had back in November, we had to shovel snow onto the trails just so we had enough for them to go on,” said Chuck Lirette, a Team NT biathlon coach who has been involved in the sport for decades.

“When you look at the packed snow that we’re racing on, it’s only four or five inches of snow – compressed – before you’re down to the dirt.”

Yellowknife-based biathlon coach Doug Lockhart said Arctic Winter Games organizers in Alaska had described a rush to rebuild many trails in the weeks before the games because “they lost all the snow with strong winds and warm weather.”

“It is on the table, it’s on our radar,” said Rodda of climate concerns.

“Traditionally, the games have been held between the first week and second week of March,” he said. “Should we shift to an earlier set of dates? That may be a question for Whitehorse.”

Below, read or listen to Cabin Radio’s full interview with John Rodda. For more interviews like this, listen to Afternoons at the Cabin from 12-3pm each weekday on Cabin Radio, or subscribe to Cabin Talks, our new podcast featuring the best Cabin Radio interviews with northerners in the news.

---

This interview was recorded on March 19, 2024. The transcript has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Ollie Williams: How sustainable is a two-year cycle going to be for the Arctic Winter Games? To what extent is that going to get examined?

John Rodda: It is under examination. We actually brought this forward at the political leaders’ breakfast meeting [during this month’s Arctic Winter Games in Alaska].

We have undertaken a couple of different projects. One, the international committee – in conjunction with the chefs and representatives from the 2024 host society – undertook what we call a roadmap project. Part of that project was to look at our future. How we’ve done business in the past doesn’t really work as well in terms of how we need to function and operate together going forward. Lots of that information is on the table. We’ll have a further discussion about that later this year with the chefs.

The other piece is we have initiated a survey with Sport for Life, and Sport for Life has got a series of questions it has sent out to the chefs, government representatives, a multitude of people, and it encompasses many things.

One of the questions is the frequency. We need to hear back from everybody. Is this the right rotation? Is the two-year rotation best-suited? Is it sustainable? Does it meet the needs of developing northern youth? All of that is under consideration. We’re waiting for responses to see what everybody’s sense is, what direction they want to go in, what’s the right way to go. No determination has been made. It’s under consideration, just like many other things,

Presumably one of the big considerations is: Can everyone afford it?

That’s true. That’s going to be a question for everybody. How willing and how capable are the governments? Yes, it’s going to go to the Yukon and Whitehorse. Who else has an interest for 2028 if 2028 becomes the focus? Same for 2030. If we modify the rotation, what does that look like? They’re all pieces of dialogue. But yes, finance comes into it.

Who can host? What’s the size of the games? We’ve implemented some changes over the last couple of years. Incorporating safe sport guidelines into the games increased the number of requirements for chaperones, for coaches. We tried to apply as best we could the rule of two, and that changes team size, categories. There’s many pieces, I guess is what I’m saying, to try to figure out what’s the best path forward, the most sustainable and economically viable path forward.

In probably the next six to seven months, we’re going to have a lot of responses and a lot of discussion. We will have a very large meeting with the chefs and the government representatives from the international committee, the host society, likely in late September, October, a meeting in Whitehorse.

All the input we’re going to receive is going to be valuable. Ultimately, what decisions need to be made? When do they need to be made? Who will they impact? How much notice do we have to provide so that whoever’s the next host after Whitehorse is duly informed far in advance? That decision has to be made. We can’t just sit on it. People are asking questions. So that’s the process we’re following.

The Arctic Winter Games is hardly alone in some of these concerns. You need only look as far as the Commonwealth Games to see an example of a major multi-sport event that appears to be struggling to understand its identity and find somewhere prepared to host. Events like the Winter Olympics share with the Arctic Winter Games an extra concern, which is climate. We are witnessing extraordinary shifts in climate that are likely to severely limit the places that can actually perform as a host, at all, for some of the outdoor sports. To what extent is that going to be a factor in some of these conversations in the months ahead?

That’s going to be a factor. It is on the table, it’s on our radar.

Traditionally, the games have been held between the first week and second week of March, other than a year ago. Because there were other factors involved in Wood Buffalo, the 2023 games were at the end of January, beginning of February.

Should we shift to an earlier set of dates? That may be a question for Whitehorse. Are they considering moving the dates earlier? I know their mayor spoke to climate change during her remarks prior to the closing ceremony, so it’s on people’s mind, and they have not set their dates yet.

I know one Yukon coach that expressed concern, and it may be – not speaking for them – but they may move the games to an earlier date, so that we have what I’ll call a cocoon of protection, weather-wise, that allows for the outdoor sports not to be negatively impacted.

I’m gathering that Whitehorse is locked in for 2026 but after that, there is very much a question mark over what exactly the calendar looks like, and that’s what will be decided later this year. Is that right?

That is correct.

Part of this, I guess, is also a question of character. Do you think the games loses some of its character if it does start to make significant changes?

That’s one of the questions. I know that former minister [Shane] Thompson brought that up. It is part of that discussion. We did put it before the political leaders last Monday morning, and it’s part of the survey from Sport for Life.

We’re going to get input from all jurisdictions and get a read from them. What should we be doing? Is it purposely to change the rotation to three years? What are the effects of that? Is it sustainable? Is it economically viable? But more so, a lot of comments have been: “OK, so how many kids is that going to affect and how many kids, potentially, will we eliminate from opportunities?” They’re all factors that are within the context of: Do we stay with two years or do we move to three years?

I’m anticipating a lot of response, probably a varied response. All of that is going to be put on the table, openly discussed, and whatever the decision is, it will be a collective decision based on that input.

What other issues and challenges are before the international committee in the months ahead?

Going back to the roadmap project, we’ve done a lot of preliminary work. The roadmap results have gone to all the chefs for their reviews. This was not the time to have that discussion, games time, everybody’s way too busy.

In June, I think that’s when we really take a deep dive into the future for all the questions that you’ve asked. We recognize that we have to work with the government leaders as well because they’re the funders. We need to take a clear, concise message or package back to them for review. Then we’ll see what that path forward looks like.