Arctic Environmental Cooperation

A Study in Governmentality

Monica Tennberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138720145
• eBook ISBN: 9781351763257
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This title was first published in 2000: The book analyses the development of arctic environmental cooperation since the late 1980s until the establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996. The study is based on the discourse analysis of statement, documents and interviews by the different actors in the cooperation. In this book, the problem of the environment is seen as a problem of order: it is a problem of ordering relations among related actors, of ordering priorities of action and of ordering relations between different institutional arrangements locally, regionally and internally. Three discourses were found in the cooperation: discourses of sovereignty, knowledge and development. In the discourse of sovereignty, the development of relations between state and indigenous peoples in terms of international environmental cooperation is central. In the discourse of knowledge, the different forms of knowledge and the role of different producers of knowledge in cooperation has been discussed. The discourse of development focuses on the idea of sustainable development and its applications in defining the future of the Circumpolar North and the activities of the Arctic Council. The arctic cooperation can be understood as a regional effort to make an order of sustainability into practice.

1 Introduction

Sustainable Development in the Arctic

A follow-up meeting to the United Nations’ Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in June 1997 to evaluate the progress made towards sustainable development since 1992. The different Arctic states at the meeting voiced concerns regarding global threats to the northern environment. The Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien (1997, p.2) stressed the interdependent nature of environmental problems:

Toxic chemicals do not respect borders. They even travel from distant sources to contaminate arctic food chains. This kind of threat can only be fought through international cooperation.

Circumpolar and global developments are also connected at an institutional level. Michael Grubb (1993, p.40) claims that ‘almost all international institutions are potentially affected by the implications of sustainable development and the UNCED agenda’ in the evaluation of the UN led process to advance a sustainable development world wide. However, efforts to define and enhance sustainable development are many. This is also the case in the Arctic.

The Arctic Council was established as ‘a high-level forum’ for cooperation on common Arctic issues, including environmental protection in the fall of 1996. International environmental cooperation in the circumpolar region was proposed almost ten years earlier, in 1987. Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev (1997, p.22–23) suggested cooperation in the exploitation of the northern natural resources and in developing a comprehensive plan for the protection of the Arctic environment. Two years of preparatory meetings initiated by the Finnish government led to a ministerial conference in 1991 in Rovaniemi, Finland. Here, a Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment and an Action Programme, known as the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), was agreed. The eight Arctic states are Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Russia (then the USSR), Canada and the United States of America.

The proposal for the Arctic Council was presented first at the AEPS ministerial meeting in Rovaniemi in 1991 but the idea did not develop. This was mainly due to the negative attitude of the U.S. government. The new Arctic Policy of the United States of America in 1994 provided the basis for a U.S. engagement in Arctic international forums and the strengthening of institutions of cooperation. Negotiations to establish the Arctic Council could be started the next year, following the meeting of U.S. President Bill Clinton and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien in Canada. Negotiations were not easy; the establishment of the council was the result of a process in which concerns relating to the content, structure, and participation in the work of the Arctic Council was thoroughly discussed. Defining sustainable development and applying the idea in practice was one main disagreement among participants during the negotiations.

Theoretical Approaches in Research

Several writers have followed developments in Arctic cooperation. Three theoretical approaches in this study on cooperation have emerged during the last few years. They are based on:

1. the concept of security, particularly focusing on the role of natural resources and the environment in security thinking,

2. on different theories about regions, regionalism and regionalisation, and

3. approaches deriving from regime theory, emphasizing either the legal content or political significance of international cooperative efforts.

In contemplating the development of cooperation in the northern regions, the relationship between security considerations and natural resources is often considered more of a hindrance, rather than a source of cooperation (Möttölä, 1988; Dosman, 1989; Huitfeldt, Ries and Øyna, 1992). The importance of natural resources in security issues has been discussed by Archer (1988), Archer and Scrivener (1989) and Bergesen, Moe and Østreng (1987). Concern for the environment, however, has been a common feature for all the Arctic states. This has formed a new basis for cooperation since the late 1980’s, which has led to a new combination of security notions and environmental concerns (Heininen, 1991). The importance of collective environmental security has been discussed in the Barents Euro-Arctic cooperation (Bröms, Eriksson and Svensson, 1994; Bröms 1995, 1997).

Studies in environmental security raise an interesting question about how the environment is defined in international relations theory. The words ‘environmental’ and ‘ecological’ are often used interchangeably. Richard Langlais (1995, p.268) makes a difference between these two words when security is involved:

Where the environmental implies a sense of surround, of surroundings, with the observer sharply defined as separate from the surroundings, the ecological, or, more precisely, the human ecological, denotes involvement that whenever possible includes the observer in the field that is being considered.

There is a fundamental difference in their use. This difference is about how the relationship between the actor and his or her environment is defined. Peter Bröms notes that ‘the environment cannot be studied except through the understanding of the people’. The environment cannot be understood more than in ‘social terms’. It cannot be comprehended solely as, an ‘objective, real restraint’ without regard to what the actors may think (Bröms, 1995, p.41).

The main question for regional studies is whether the Arctic has an identity as internationally meaningful region. In 1988, Franklyn Griffiths claimed that the Arctic was in a phase of transition, from a minimal political region with very little cooperation across borders to a ‘coordinated region’ where there are some efforts to establish cooperation (Griffiths, 1988, p.11). Young claimed in 1993 that the Arctic is emerging as a distinct region through current processes of cooperation (Young, 1993a, p.4). The development of Euro-Arctic Barents cooperation has increased interest among researchers into the problems of regionalism and regionalization (Stokke and Tunander, 1994; Dellenbrant and Olsson, 1994).

The process of region building is shaped into a ‘bottom-up’ process (‘regionalism’) as opposed to a process from the ‘top-down’ (‘regionalization’). Regionalism is said to include spontaneity and a new grass-root level in the processes of cooperation, including intensively into cooperation actors other than states. Regionalization, on the other hand, is seen as an important strategy for peripheral states in strengthening the position of their relationships with centers and to defend that position in the world economy. The current processes of cooperation have been evaluated as far from the ideals of regionalism. The ideal would be for a regional actor to emerge in the north. This, however, is considered very unlikely (see, for example, Käkönen, 1996). It is more likely that region building serves other interests and the interests of actors other than local. Environmental cooperation in the Barents Euro-Arctic region, for example, is considered a part of Europeanization processes (Nilson, 1996).

Regionality is about framing problems and solutions about a distinct geographical region. Environmental concerns are also framed in regional terms. Framing implies that both political decision makers and the public find it ‘natural’ to address certain matters on a regional level (Castberg, Stokke and Østreng, 1994, p. 72–75). In emphasizing the discursive side of regionality, Iver B. Neumann (1994, p.59) suggests that ‘regions are talked and written to existence’.

From this perspective, studying regions becomes a project of analyzing the processes by which identities are created and evolved. This includes studying self-images and discourses and understanding the processes by which particular identities are shaped by histories, cultures, domestic factors and the ongoing processes of interaction with other regions (Hurrell, 1995, p.352–353). The relevant question in region building is the role the environment (and the concern for the environment) plays in regional identity building and the interaction among different actors.

The regime approach is particularly well established in the study of international environmental cooperation (Brown et al., 1977; Young, 1989; Gehring, 1994; Vogler, 1996a). Regimes can be defined as ‘arrangements for institutionalized collaboration on topics and issues characterized by complex interdependence’ (Haas, 1980, p.358). They can also be defined as, ‘social institutions composed of agreed upon principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures that govern the interactions of actors in specific issue areas’ (Osherenko and Young, 1993, p.1). The regime theory has survived till the present, despite attacks on its being a woolly concept to which people apply different meanings (Strange, 1982), for its use of economic analogies and ignoring the context of cooperation (Walker, 1989; O’Meara, 1984), for repeating the problems of the state-centric approach (Milner, 1992) and for its claims of the false promise of international institutions (Mersheimer, 1994/95).

As Levy and colleagues (1995, p.267) note, the regime theory is ‘alive and well’. There is a body of work on regimes and the development of the regime theory based on neoliberalism. This could be labeled as ‘mainstream regime theory’ or ‘standard regime theory,’ or as Robert O. Keohane (1988, p.381) calls the ‘rationalistic study’ of international institutions.

Constructivist, or reflectivist thinking, has challenged the standard regime theory’s ontological and epistemological basis (Kratochwil and Ruggie, 1986; Czempiel and Rosenau, 1989; Rosenau and Czempiel, 1992; Behnke, 1993; Caporaso, 1993; Milner, 1993; Hurrell, 1993; Finnemore, 1996). The puzzle for a constructivist is how the human subjects constitute a social world, which in turn comprises the possible conditions for the actions of those subjects (Wendt, 1987, p.359). In a recent article Marlene Wind questioned whether the regime theory is worth saving from the constructivist critique of the rationalist, voluntarist and individualist assumptions of mainstream regime theory. To her, ‘rationalist regime theory is and remains… a dead-end with severe and up until now unresolved ontological and epistemological inconsistencies’ (Wind, 1997, p.258). My answer is positive ‘yes’. The regime theory is worth saving. The current theoretical discussion provides ideas for rethinking the regime theory. Regimes are what ‘we’ – as students of international relations – decide to make of as concepts, research objects and theories about the nature of international relations.

One of the most important sources of influence in this book had been a short concise article by James Keeley on Foucaultian regime analysis (1990). This led me to study the works of Foucault. However, this is not a work on Foucault’s thinking but one of using Foucaultian ideas to develop a regime theory restricted only by my limited understanding of Foucault. The point in this work is to reflect on the relations of power, knowledge and regime-building following Foucaultian ideas. That regime theory and power relations need to be more thoroughly analyzed is suggested by a recent evaluation of the state of the art in regime study by Hasenclever and colleagues (1996, p.205).

Foucault’s ideas question the mainstream understanding of power relations in international relations theory and in particularly the idea that power considerations could, somehow, be external to a regime. This means that regimes are embedded in the networks of power. Foucaultian ideas challenge the macro-level analysis of power relations suggested by international relations theorists. Rather, power should be studied as events, in different space-time forms of its emergence, at the micro-level. Power is not only restrictive, but productive. Foucaultian politics are not those of the critical theorist attacking the visible world of power relations. Power is not external to human activities and interaction. Power is present in all human activities. All human activities take place in networks of power (Foucault, 1980a, p.98).

Foucault provides a very special view on the processes of institutionalization. Institutionalization is a process of power; institutions are concentrations of power. Institutions govern human relations. To govern ‘is to structure the possible field of action of others’ (Foucault, 1982a, p.221). Governmentality is a question of analyzing ‘a ‘regime of practices’ – practices being understood here as places where what is said and what is done, rules imposed and reasons given, the planned and the taken for granted meet and interconnect’ (Foucault, 1991a, p.75). A study on governmentality is focused, not to the institutions and the process of institutionalization as such, but on the practices of power created and maintained through institutionalization.

The Research Problem

One may ask why there is a need for environmental cooperation since there are already several agreements covering the Arctic. Three explanations have been given. First, the existing agreements have been evaluated as inadequate because the existing arrangements do not address the specific needs of environmental protection and the regional conditions. Second, some existing arrangements have been evaluated as narrow and shallow. There is a problem of coverage for existing mechanisms; not they have signed or ratified all the agreements by all the states in the region. Finally, it has been claimed that not enough attention has been paid to the existing mechanisms of environmental interdependence. Many environmental issues and problems that have a transboundary nature are not handled within the current environmental protection regime. The problem is that the Arctic environment is in need of more extensive protection than individual states or existing various legal arrangements can provide (Stokke, 1990; Hoel et al., 1993; Rothwell, 1994).

The present state of Arctic environmental cooperation does not seem really to tackle the identified problems of the Arctic environment and its protection. Current cooperation does not produce the new agreements or binding conventions for the protection of the Arctic environment. These would deal with the application of the agreements or their existing problems. The cooperation is not creating new mechanisms for helping Arctic states to comply with existing arrangements. What is really needed are an implementation, and some consideration of the special situation and requirements of the Arctic. The critical issue is the financial and technological help for the cooperative parties that have problems in implementing existing agreements, particularly considering the special conditions of the Arctic.

None of these aspects, however, are part of the existing cooperative arrangements. Instead, cooperation so far has produced recommendations, action programs and guidelines that do not necessarily improve the quality of the environment or ensure more efficient measures to protect the environment from new threats in the region. Thus, the question is what is happening in the Arctic concerning international environmental cooperation. To study this problem, this research aims at answering three questions:

1. what is the meaning of environmental cooperation in the Arctic?

2. what does the establishment of the Arctic Council and inclusion of AEPS activities to its mandate mean for international environmental cooperation and the protection of the environment in the Arctic? And

3. what does studying the Arctic case give for the development of regime theory and research?

On a very superficial level the meaning of cooperation is, of course, ‘to protect the environment’. Different people attach a variety of meanings to this idea, and these reflect varying sets of human values in relation to the environment. Regimes are packed with meanings, which are under continuous negotiation and renegotiation through processes of definition and redefinition. Social institutions, such as regimes, and their purposes are associated with particular meanings (Conca, 1994, p.11–12).

The question about the meaning of cooperation has to be directed to the representatives of the different participants, not only to the diplomats and government officials. Although individuals were interviewed, the focus is not on individual meanings but in intersubjective meanings created in the cooperation. Intersubjectivity stresses that meanings are for subjects but they are not produced in a vacuum; they are produced for a subject or a group of subjects. Meanings are not separate from each other. Meanings cannot be identified except in relation to others. Those meanings are collective, that is, intersubjective (see Taylor, 1987; Fay, 1987). With an environmental protection regime, the struggle is over the meanings attached to the human-environment relationship. ‘Imposing a meaning’ suggests that regimes could also be seen as arenas for conflict and the exercise of power. From this perspective, regimes are foci and loci of struggles in meanings produced by different participants. Regimes not only react to a configuration of power but also to a configuration of dominant social purposes (Keeley, 1990, p.95).

The second question – the meaning of institutionalizing international environmental cooperation – refers to the reason for establishing the Arctic Council. This question cannot be understood without taking a closer look at the role of regimes in international relations. For the mainstream regime theorists, governance is an effort to manage two systems, the natural and the human, and means to control the increasing problems of interaction between these systems (see Choucri, 1993; Young and Druckman, 1992). Efforts at environmental governance include creating systems aimed at reconciling the conflicting interests of the actors while minimizing human-induced disturbances of the natural system (Young, 1993a, p.6).

The mainstream regime approach is agnostic about the changes in the human-environment relationship even when the studies focus on environmental protection regimes. According to this view, ‘truly effective international environmental institutions would improve the quality of the global environment…’ (Keohane, Haas and Levy, 1993, p.7). Because of the short-time of cooperation, such impacts are difficult to detect. The focus is on behavioral change, not an improvement in the quality of the environment.

One might ask what is the point in studying international environmental cooperation without at least a minimal interest in the effects of cooperation on human-environment relationship. Even if changes in the quality of the environment cannot be detected right now, changes in the meanings attached to the environment can be noticed. Concentrating on the ‘mentalities’ of governing rather than the effectiveness of the regulatory processes means studying ways of understanding the world and being in it. Studying mentalities is an effort to capture changes in collective ways of being; that is to study the collective meanings, norms, attitudes, knowledge, conventions, and the ways to perceive the world and respond to it. The word ‘mentality’ refers to the slow-changing collective understandings of human existence and relations with the environment (see Peltonen, 1992, p. 15).

For the mainstream regime theorists, governance is ‘any purposeful activity intended to ‘control’ or influence someone else that either occurs in t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• Major Events in the Arctic Cooperation
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Discourse on Sovereignty
• 3 Discourse on Knowledge
• 4 Discourse on Development
• 5 Governmentality in the Arctic
• Bibliography
• Index