This week’s Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø took place following a tumultuous 2019 in the far north, including growing evidence of climate change’s distinct effects on the region, various geo-political frictions, and questions about the role of science in far northern development.
The conference commenced during a month when Norway itself was going through a busy political season, including in the Arctic. Earlier this month, the national government of Prime Minister Erna Solberg was reduced to a minority coalition after the far-right Progress Party withdrew in protest over immigration policies. At the beginning of the new year there were several mergers between various fylker (counties) in the country, including the controversial creation in the Norwegian far north of Troms og Finnmark county.
As well, the Norwegian government this month won a politically sensitive appeal of a lawsuit filed by Greenpeace, with the environmental lobby group claiming Oslo was in violation of its own constitution [pdf] by allowing the expansion of oil drilling blocks in the Arctic Ocean. Norway’s commitment to green policies, while simultaneously seeking to further develop its oil industry has on occasion been viewed as a policy contradiction, reflective of the still-dominant role of the petroleum industry in the Norwegian economy despite lower prices and a volatile global market.
The main theme of the 2020 gathering, ‘The Power of Knowledge’, reflected the challenges of obtaining and transmitting information not only between Arctic communities which at times can appear very far apart, but also to the global community in its entirety. Arctic Frontiers, which held its first conference in 2007, has since developed a persona as being the comparatively more buttoned-down, (and pricier), elder sibling of other like-minded regional policy events, including the Arctic Circle in Reykjavík and Arctic Encounter in the United States, with a stronger focus on business interests but also acting as a conduit for much specialised scientific discussion.
There was noticeably less emphasis on regional politics and policy at this year’s event, with some conspicuous absences on the docket of presenters and commenters. No high-level Russian officials were in attendance, and while Greenland was omnipresent at the most recent Arctic Circle conference last October, few officials or representatives from the nation were in evidence at this event.
The first plenary did touch upon some difficult policy differences regarding governance and regional diplomacy in the Arctic. One noteworthy quote about the emerging role of great powers appearing, (or more to the point, reappearing), in the Arctic was that in the region, China was playing ‘go’ (weiqi 围棋), reflecting a longer-term strategy, while Russia was playing ‘Survivor’, seeking to hang on to its Arctic assets, and the United States was playing ‘Twister’, trying to occupy as many diverse spots at once. Vice-Admiral Scott A. Buschman of the United States Coast Guard had the difficult task of outlining American business interests in the Arctic, including the construction of new icebreakers and promoting regional economic ties, given the current US government’s evolving hard-line strategic approach in the Arctic, including challenging Canada and Russia over the sovereignty of maritime trade routes.
For the most part, however, the remainder of the first half of the event was devoted to economic opportunities and challenges, especially on local levels. This was reflected by remarks by Aileen Campbell, MSP and Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Scotland, who illustrated Scottish historical and economic connections to the Arctic, important at a time when the British government was putting the final touches on the Brexit process this month.
The problem of overcoming geographic barriers and isolation in other parts of the Arctic was often discussed, including in the case of Alaska where high food and transportation prices have been considered a hindrance to development, and in the Nordic-Arctic, where despite township level enthusiasm for more robust transportation links, including a long-discussed Kirkenes-Rovaniemi rail link, the costs and logistics of the rail line, along with environmental concerns and opposition from local Sámi communities, have meant that any short term construction is unlikely. Other sectors, including oil and gas, shipbuilding, and fisheries, (as Mr Sackur suggested, ‘never forget the fish,’), showed greater promise, especially in the Atlantic-Arctic region.
The specific economic possibilities and challenges stemming from the Arctic Ocean were also discussed by representatives of non-Arctic states, including Dr Hide Sakaguchi, executive director of the Japan Agency for Marine Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC). He outlined plans for a new icebreaking vessel as well as Japan’s hosting of the next Arctic Science Ministerial conference in Tokyo this November. Mr Sam Tan, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and de facto Arctic ambassador for Singapore, described the ties between his country and the Arctic Ocean, given the threat of sea level rise from ice melting, and turned a popular phrase in the region on its head, namely that ‘what happens outside the Arctic does not stay outside the Arctic.’
Another ‘outsider’ perspective was given by Ms Annika Olsen, Mayor of Tórshavn, the capital of the (near-Arctic) Faroe Islands, who described the challenges of better connecting the archipelago with more advanced communications technology, and the success of the ‘closed for maintenance’ conservation campaign in May last year, (a similar program is planned for three days in April 2020).
Other breakout and side events featured topics as diverse as food security, communications and high technology applications, the ‘blue economy’ and aquaculture, and science diplomacy, reflecting a still-widening array of policy and intellectual areas relevant to the future of the Arctic.
Over the Circle 