The atmosphere at this year’s
Arctic Frontiers conference was in stark contrast to that of last year. Whereas
the 2011 topic ‘Tipping Points’ focused on the climatic changes in the Arctic, this
year’s theme was directed towards businesses and local industry, as energy producing
activities move northwards. Regions and companies alike lined up to promote
their excellent track records when operating above the Arctic Circle. Words like
‘sustainable’, ‘local’, and ‘opportunity’ flourished: “The Nenets-region in
Russia has the best infrastructure for industrial development. The University
of Tromsø is the best place to establish new Arctic research. Statoil is the
most responsible of the Arctic oil companies.” These and other statements all
contributed to a general euphoric sentiment, where North Norway and the greater
Arctic will benefit widely from new industrial activities, both offshore and
onshore.
In Brussels, however, the focus in
last week’s seminar was not on local or regional development, but on how
vulnerable the Arctic environment has become as the amount of activity increases.
This is by no means a change in the Brussels-discourse described in previousarticles by The Arctic Institute. Instead, it stems from the geographical
position of the EU-capital, located far away from the Arctic territories. It
seems understandable that officials and politicians from more southern
countries are not preoccupied with, or in need of, acquiring an nuanced
conception of the Arctic region. Combine this with the pro-active work done by
some environmental NGOs, and you get a portrait telling the story of a vulnerable,
distant, and inhospitable region inhabited by different indigenous communities
that now find their traditional existence threatened.
This is not an inaccurate
portrayal of the region, as parts of the Arctic are inhospitable and vulnerable
indeed. However, if one defines the Arctic region as everything above the Arctic Circle, then such a portrayal is only
one of many. The Arctic region spans 24 time zones, 8 countries, and three
continents. Its territory is six times as large as the EU 27[2]. In addition,
due to the Gulf Stream, the Norwegian Arctic coast and the waters of North-West
Russia are completely ice free even during the coldest months of the year,
setting them apart from the ice-covered waters of North Alaska and Canada.
Drifting sea ice, darkness and low temperatures are no doubt common traits in
the region, but the climatic conditions vary across the Arctic region.
Furthermore, there are considerable
differences between parts of the Arctic in terms of level of development, culture,
infrastructure, and resources. The way of life in the university city of Tromsø
is different from the industrial and naval city of Murmansk, and these cities
are relatively close to one another. If one also considers the differences
between the local Inuit communities in North-West Greenland, and the oil producing
towns on the North Slope in Alaska, it is apparent that the Arctic is by no means one coherent region. In contrast to some of the ice-covered and
desolate Arctic territories, other parts of the Arctic are heavily
industrialized, with significant economic production since the 1970s. The North
Slope of Alaska and the Yamal region in Russia have for decades been supplying
North America and Europe with much needed oil and gas. Additionally, other
activities such as forestry, mining, fisheries, and metal production have had,
and will continue to have, a prominent role in many communities above the
Arctic Circle.
Subsequently there exists a need to
more carefully differentiate and distinguish the various sub-regions in the ‘Arctic
debate’, especially as the interest for the region continues to increase
amongst academics and media alike. A few years ago the scientific interest for
the Arctic was mainly found in the faculty of natural sciences, with emphasis
on climate change and bioprospecting. Arctic research has, however, evolved more
recently to encompass the wider spectrum of sociology, economy, political science
and law, as represented by the existence of institutions like The Arctic
Institute.
Media and politicians alike have realized
the ongoing changes in the Arctic, and for better or worse have started using
the region for their own benefit, e.g. to increase sales of a magazine by
writing about conflict in the Arctic. ‘Non-Arctic’ media like The Guardian, The
Financial Times, and The Economist have all written long pieces on this ‘new’
region. Politicians, like Russia`s Vladimir Putin, the Norwegian Foreign Minister
Gahr Støre, or Canada`s Prime Minister Harper, all use the Arctic actively in
their discourse to promote national identity in their domestic and foreign
policies. The Arctic has become ‘sexy’; as an exotic region symbolizing climate
change, and economic potential. Moreover, the region has not proven to be very
politically sensitive or relevant, as it is often located far away from the
volatile issues usually dominating national and international politics. Indeed,
there are conflicts of interest in the region. But these are not the topics
that make or break a bid for President or Prime Minister.
Even in Brussels, located multiple
flights away from the Arctic Circle, there are Arctic seminars and conferences
on a monthly basis, exemplified by the recent European Parliament exhibition. In
a month’s time, Brussels will again be the location for an Arctic seminar, when
on March 6th Statoil and North Norway will discuss the relevance of European
Arctic oil and gas development in the European Parliament. Again, the contrast
between the ‘environmental’ and the ‘industrial’ point of view becomes
apparent. And this is exactly where a distinction is needed, to avoid
polarization between interest groups that in the end are often discussing
different parts of the Arctic region.
The March 6th seminar on
developing Arctic oil and gas has indeed made such a distinction, taking into
account that the ‘European’ Arctic faces fundamentally different challenges, in
part due to a different climate than the North-American or Russian Arctic.
While scientists and journalists writing about the Arctic are without a doubt aware
of the differences between various Arctic regions, these nuances are often not
mentioned in the general Arctic debate. As a result, conflicts in the
international debate (i.e., in Brussels) between the environmental, the
industrial, and the local/regional interests often derive from this lack of
specification. In the end, all these interest groups could benefit from
improved regional differentiation.
There are without doubt
contentious and volatile issues in the Arctic due to multiple competing
interests. But often times these issues are fundamentally unrelated. For
example, certain commonly discussed oil and gas developments will not impact
the lives of indigenous communities mainly due to the lack of geographical proximity:
The continuation of oil and gas
drilling in the Barents Sea has little to do with the protection of Greenlandic
and Canadian indigenous communities. One interest group which may in fact not
benefit from a more differentiated and nuanced debate about the Arctic may be
the general media, which too often seems to portray the Arctic as a region of
conflict. For the rest of us, on the other hand, ‘Arctic détente’ would be a
welcome sight.
Sources:
[1] News article in Norwegian media, after the
discovery of the field ”Havis”. http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7945806
[2] The
Arctic Ocean (approx. 14 000 000 square kilometers) and the Arctic
landmass above the Arctic Circle (Russia, Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, The
United States, Greenland) altogether comprises of 30 000 000 square
kilometers, which equals the size of Africa. http://arctic.ru/arctic-facts, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xq.html
[3] Malte Humpert, "Petroleum Discoveries 2011 in mboe," based on data from aftenposten.no retrieved February 23, 2012 from http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/innland/Nordsjoen-var-langtfra-tom-6633132.html#.T0aUiJy2G4F
[3] Malte Humpert, "Petroleum Discoveries 2011 in mboe," based on data from aftenposten.no retrieved February 23, 2012 from http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/innland/Nordsjoen-var-langtfra-tom-6633132.html#.T0aUiJy2G4F
