The Arctic is a region where climate change has become very apparent in recent years. Impacts include rapidly melting sea ice, erosion that forces coastal communities to relocate and a resurging geopolitical interest in the region’s resources. Several on-going and projected ecosystem changes have the character of tipping points with global consequences, for example changes in wetlands and forests that affect carbon storage.[i]
In the summer of 2007, Russia placed a symbolic flag on the sea bottom of the North Pole, effectively changing the tone in the discussion of Arctic climate change from the human face of its impacts to energy security and economic development.
Though actors from the research world, indigenous groups and conservation organizations are extremely concerned about these developments, other actors appear to welcome greater access to the vast fossil-fuel and mineral resources of the region. Industry and some local politicians see opportunities for economic development at the same time as national security priorities centred on the Arctic are becoming apparent. Russia’s new Arctic policy is a case in point, where the region’s fossil fuel and mineral reserves are national resources of geopolitical significance.[ii]
The Arctic in recent years illustrates a complex web of physical, ecological, and political events that are linked to climate change but cannot be understood solely in the context of climate. Issues of energy security, the political dynamics of international regimes, traditional geopolitics, and media images also play important roles in the debate. In the midst of this rapid change, there is a lively discussion about how the Arctic should be governed. Proposals range from suggestions about a regional treaty to protect unique ecological values to leaving matters to existing international law, especially the UN Law of the Seas. Some suggestions highlight the role of the Arctic Council as an important coordinator, while others point to the weaknesses of this soft-law regional regime.[iii]
I propose that the Arctic presents an opportunity to study the potential and limitations of regional international governance in responding to global change. How do activities at the regional level relate to global events and processes? What role do they play for resilience at the subregional level? Some work on Arctic climate governance, mainly based on international law and international relations, has recently been published[iv] but more needs to be done that takes into account the rapid evolution of events in recent years and which specifically links the environmental and political dynamics.
One of my concerns is the limitations of conventional theories of international relations. For example, the carrying ideas in realism and institutionalism do not hold up very well against the empirical evidence of change in Arctic politics. Realism would predict a strong focus on the self interest of sovereign states and a need for security, which fits Cold War Arctic politics and some recent development but completely misses the key role that non-state actors in current Arctic politics. Institutionalism captures the variety of actors, the role of common norms and the loyalty to international regimes that major actors express, but misses the recent security turn in the Arctic debate.[v] Both theories ignore the role of environmental change in shaping politics. Therefore it would be worthwhile to analyze what resilience theory, with its attention to complex social-ecological systems, has to offer in explaining past and recent changes. Such a study may also highlight theoretically weak spots in resilience thinking and could include discussions of how issues of power, conflicting interests, and moral argument have shaped the Arctic debate. In doing so it would identify which themes from the earth systems governance framework[vi] that could add to the analytical power.
The ultimate goal would be to further the international relations component of SRC’s common analytical frameworks. Depending on how the analysis is set up, it could also produce knowledge about the role of vertical links in the governance systems, and more closely tie insights about adaptive governance at the local level to studies of the international system. This would require local/subregional case studies within the broader Arctic context, where it would be most feasible to connect to on-going projects. The potential of the study would also increase greatly if it could be linked to similar studies in other regions experiencing rapid change. I thus hope to get input from any relevant on-going research and suggestions on how to develop my ideas.
[i] The impact of climate change in the Arctic has been reviewed in several reports, including ACIA, (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); Anisimov, O. and Vaughan, D. G. (2007) "Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic)" in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); and ISAC, (2009) "International Study of Arctic Change. Science Plan Draft for Public Comment March 2009"; http://www.arcticchange.org/isac2009/attachments/059_ISAC%20Science%20Plan%2030%20March%2009a.pdf. Latest news on sea ice is available at National Snow and Ice Data Center, (2009) "Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis"; http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
[ii] Lomagin, N., (2008) "Russia's Perception of the Arctic" Presentation at the Northern Research Forum 5th Open Assembly "Seeking Balance in the Changing North" in Anchorage, Alaska in 24th - 27th of September 2008; Vasiliev, A., (2008) "Russian Policy In The Arctic And The Arctic Council" Presentation at the Northern Research Forum 5th Open Assembly "Seeking Balance in the Changing North" in Anchorage, Alaska in 24th - 27th of September 2008.
Policy statement pointing to security concern have also been issued by the United States, Canada and the EU, see US Government, (2009) "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD - 66. Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD - 25: Arctic Region Policy. January 9, 2009" ;Canadian Government Office of Foreign Affairs, (2009) "Minister Cannon Outlines Canada's Arctic Foreign Policy. Press release March 11, 2009" ; and Borg, J., (2009) "The European strategy of sustainable management for the Arctic. Speech at Arctic Frontiers Conference in Tromso, Norway 19 January 2009" ;
[iii] For reviews of arguments about Arctic governance, see Young, O. R., (2009) "Whither the Arctic? Conflict and cooperation in the circumpolar north" Polar record 45:73; Koivurova, T. and Vanderzwaag, D. L., (2007) "The Arctic Council at 10 Years: Retrospect and Prospects" U.B.C.Law Review 40:121
[iv] Koivirova, T. Keskitalo, E.C.H. and Bankes, N. (eds) (2009). Climate Governance in the Arctic. Springer.
[v] A useful standard reference for international relation theory is The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations, 141-161 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
[vi] See www.earthsystemgovernance.org
