Arctic Blockades
By NICK DRAGE
The year is 2031. Three new routes are now open across the Arctic each year every summer. And governments, NGO’s and native communities all have very different vested interests.
We can discuss and debate different solutions to the problems that this scenario presents, but we believe that “playing” with them can be a helpful alternative to generate new insights, new solutions, as well as being a lot more engaging.
This is why we developed and ran a new game called Arctic Blockades recently which is an abstract “wargame” representing the kind of clashes and news stories we might see in the early 2030s, as global warming makes arctic trade routes easier to traverse.
In this blog post we outline what we did, why we did it, what happened, and how this way of working could be applied elsewhere.
Why did we do this?
Liminal is a collective intelligence community focussed upon building a habitable planet for all through connecting people, data and ideas. The world is complex, the future is unknown. We are interested in helping to address the most difficult and interesting problems. Anything related to climate change is full of complex and emotive issues, the kind of situations that a game can help explore and understand.
By playing different roles within a situation players can see it from each party’s perspective, and potentially find new ideas and solutions. Also it allows people to play rather than a more formal or structured workshop or exercise, which is an engaging and therefore effective way to learn about different aspects of the situation.
A “wargame” can take many forms. For Arctic Blockades the main format choices were:
Each player adopts a specific role within the game, and so sees the situation from their viewpoint rather than an apparently external or “objective” viewpoint.
The outcome is unknown - there are no wrong or right answers, as long as players stay within the rules they are welcome to take whatever actions they see fit, making or breaking alliances in order to achieve their aims.
The game is unfair. A common feature of most hobby games is that they are fair, either the opposing teams are symmetrical - such as chess, or even if they have uneven resources or forces they still have an equal chance to win. That requirement does not fit models of the real world, putting players into that situation gives them some empathy with their real world equivalents, or enables them to start to work through new options and strategies.
How did we do this?
The game was played over Zoom over 2 hours on a Friday afternoon, with an introduction and the main management of the game taking place in a single Zoom meeting. Breakout rooms were created to enable players to go to a private locations (i.e. breakout rooms) to discuss their options, and how their teams might work together. Within fairly short time frames of about fifteen minutes per turn each team submitted their “move” into a Google Sheet dedicated to their team.
Each team represented one of the following groups with an interest in the Arctic region, especially when it becomes more accessible due to global warming:
One of the indigenous tribes: the Inuit, the Nenets, or the Saami.
One of the two protesting NGOS: GreenPeace or the Sea Shepherds.
One of the three Governments looking to send shipping through these new routes: the USA, Russia, or the People’s Republic of China.
The tribes are the least powerful of the groups, with a very limited ability to blockade, and under risk of having to abandon their homelands if too much trade shipping goes through their route. The wargame mechanics encourage them to work together, but also does allow them to betray each other, by encouraging the Governments to use another tribe’s lands in order to save their own.
The NGOs have more agency, each having a small fleet with a limited ability to blockade a trade route. They can’t stop all of the Government trade, but with careful coordination can stop some of it. However they are competing on who makes the most impact, as their public impression affects how much funding they receive, and therefore what resources they can spend supporting blockades in future.
The Governments are the most powerful groups, they can operate escorted trade shipping through any of the available routes, or spy on any of the other parties and obtain complete information on what moves they submitted. The game mechanics encourage them to use any of the available trade routes without regard for the local population, but if two or more Governments try to use the same route with equal commitment this will result in a standoff, stopping any of their trade from making it through. This does mean they will need to communicate and collaborate, but also does mean they have something to gain from deceiving each other, or providing information to the tribes and NGOs.
What this means in practice is as follows:
Each turn the teams are encouraged to discuss their available choices, and negotiate or threaten ( within the context of the game ) each other.
They then submit their chosen moves. Everyone is brought together for a quick explanation - at a high level - of the results of those choices, covering who used or blockaded which route, and the result of those clashes.
One event - be it a successful blockade, or over-use of a route endangering a tribe - is then designated as the main news story. For the main news story one party is designated as the Hero, the other as the Villain. The two parties involved have time for very quick statements explaining their involvement in the story, before every player votes on whether they agree or disagree with the narrative that was chosen.
The result of the narrative affects the Influence Score of the involved parties, which for the Governments is how they measure their success against each other, and for the NGOs affects how much funding they receive from the public.
what happened?
The great thing about this format of wargame, especially with simultaneous discussions within different breakout rooms, is that no-one quite saw everything, even myself as the Game Control - the person facilitating the wargame. At a very abstract level this is much like real world situations, and helps the players see how they only have a partial view of a complex situation.
But even with that in mind there were some clear highlights: Russia enjoying exerting its might and using all of its available shipping on a single route regardless of the consequences, the tribes becoming frustrated at their lack of agency, the NGOs working together despite my best efforts through game mechanics to make them compete. And players rising to the challenge when asked to give a public statement at very short notice, notably the Sea Shepherds “we’re not pirates, we’re just trying to save the world”.
By the end - the Russians were making enemies of everyone, but engaging in successful trade; the Chinese were scoring badly in Influence Points because their involvement in events wasn’t balanced by successful navigation of trade routes, and the Americans were starting to build alliances with the NGOs and tribes. Those tribes were struggling to survive and the level of shipping continued to endanger their lands, and the NGOs were co-ordinating well together.
Most importantly everyone was engaged with the challenge. With absolutely any game design, of any type, a key consideration is ensuring everyone is involved in the outcome at all times, they’re not dejectedly waiting for their turn, or waiting for an inevitable result to play out.
This effect was helped by the immersion, which was elementary but effective. I referred to all players at all times by their in-game names, which also makes life easier as Control. Also I asked players to set their Zoom background to their flag, or some other representative picture - which the first player did with the flag of the United States. Having set this default I think everyone else in the game followed suit - it’s so minor, but also immediately changes who people are to each other.
And finally - I think one of the main outcomes was that the players saw how this could be useful. The mechanics made enough sense not to get in the way, and the limits they imposed caused players to be frustrated by their situation within the game but not by the game. And while no-one took the game too seriously, I believe divisions and alliances were starting to be formed, and people cared about what happened.
Where is this game going next?
The game will be iterated and improved, especially with regard to an audience who aren’t familiar with this style of thinking through a situation.
Our next game is being planned due to the interest shown. If you’re interested in playing Arctic Blockades please subscribe here and sign up to this mailing list specifically for this game.
If you are interested in exploring how “wargaming” can be used to address a complex challenge that you are facing - whether climate-related or otherwise - please do get in touch for an exploratory conversation.
__
By Nick Drage
Principal Consultant at Path Dependence and Liminal Partner.
Image Credit: Hubert Neufeld (via Unsplash)
