Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic

Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv, Dawn Bazely, Marina Goloviznina, Andrew Tanentzap, Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv, Dawn Bazely, Marina Goloviznina, Andrew Tanentzap

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134634927
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Économie
• Categoria: Développement durable

This is the first comprehensive exploration of why human security is relevant to the Arctic and what achieving it can mean, covering the areas of health of the environment, identity of peoples, supply of traditional foods, community health, economic opportunities, and political stability. The traditional definition of security has already been actively employed in the Arctic region for decades, particularly in relation to natural resource sovereignty issues, but how and why should the human aspect be introduced? What can this region teach us about human security in the wider world?

The book reviews the potential threats to security, putting them in an analytical framework and indicating a clear path for solutions.Contributions come from natural, social and humanities scientists, hailing from Canada, Russia, Finland and Norway.

Environmental Change and Human Security in the Arctic is an essential resource for policy-makers, community groups, researchers and students working in the field of human security, particularly for those in the Arctic regions.

Chapter 1

---

Introduction

Can we broaden our understanding of security in the Arctic?

Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv and
Marina Goloviznina

---

Introduction

Security is a concept about power, as well as a powerful concept. Invoking the concept is a political act. It makes a claim to power. The debate around what the concept means is itself a practice in power. It is a concept that has been, and continues to be, invoked to draw attention to ‘something’ that is or should be valued above all other things. Often this something is ‘existence’ and a continued existence (it is about the future), and a core feature of the ‘security debate’ is a debate as to the existence of what. So-called ‘narrower’ or ‘traditional’ approaches to security demand restrictions upon how the concept is used, who can use it and how. These narrower approaches demand that the existence we should be most preoccupied with is the existence of the state, assuming that without the state, nothing else really matters (Buzan et al. 1998). These approaches assume that security is provided through the use or threat of use of military force (Walt 1991). They assume that the state establishes and maintains security for itself as well as for its ‘contents’ (people and territory), partly reflecting, for example, social contract theory and related traditions in western political thought that assume a relationship of security between the individual and the state. What is lost in state-focused approaches to security, however, is the important role of the individual, which has also had a significant role in western philosophical thinking about security (Rothschild 1995; Hoogensen 2005a).

The concept of security can invoke a sense of urgency and sometimes fear. At the same time, it can also invoke a sense of stability, comfort and hope. The concept is used to draw attention to that which we consider most important to my, your or ‘our’ existence, depending on how the security referent is defined. The identification of a security referent (the ‘object’ or ‘subject’ that should be made secure) depends further on the values held by the security or ‘securitizing’ actor (the one who wishes to alert a public or an audience to a security problem). What that person or organization/institution values most will play a role in how that same actor interprets and identifies security and insecurity. Narrow conceptions of security are the purview of elite state interests, and thus the values and priorities of the state as an actor are those that give content to the concept of security. Opening the space for competing (and possibly complementary) security perspectives means recognizing and allowing that different actors other than the state are given the power to have their primary concerns and values heard.

Studying security and identifying security actors and practices is, therefore, both a scholarly/analytical activity as well as a political activity. The very act of defining security and making a claim for that definition is an act of power, supporting the politics that depend on that definition, or making a normative claim for why security ought to be defined in a particular way. When security analysts ‘observe’ acts of security or security moves, the analyst has immediately contributed to the politics of the process by recognizing (or not recognizing) an actor as a security actor and a securitizing move as being successful or not.

These dynamics of security are well illustrated in the Arctic. The notion of security has had a constant presence in the Arctic, but its meaning has changed over time, based on alterations in values and priorities for the region. The Cold War has played a particularly significant role in the ways in which security has been understood in the Arctic, whereby individual and community perceptions of security have, to be fair, never really played a role. This was largely a result of policy makers and security analysts focusing almost exclusively upon the tensions between two superpowers, reducing Arctic security to the balance of power played out with the threat of nuclear force (Heininen 2004). Since the Cold War, however, understanding security in the Arctic has broadened its scope, including environmental, energy, economic and, as we wish to argue here, human security (Hoogensen et al. 2009; Broadhead 2010; Offerdal 2010; Stokke 2011).

The focus of this book is therefore not re-articulation of ‘traditional’ Arctic security focusing solely upon protection of borders and the power dynamics between nation states, linked to a classic geopolitical framework. These security manoeuvres matter and are always a relevant factor in the security dynamic, but are limited in their capabilities to provide a more holistic and comprehensive security picture of the region. Although recognizing the importance and role of more limited perceptions of security, the work in this book draws on a wide variety of intellectual traditions, of which many, if not most, break beyond the narrow concept. Some of these traditions remain close to the narrow limitations of traditional security, like the Copenhagen school on securitization, while others explore a deeper connection between security actors and security practices as informed by feminist security studies, critical security studies and human security studies.

As many of the authors in this volume acknowledge, human security was initially conceived as a concept for the ‘global South’, with the implication that the concept has no relevance for global North states. Indeed, it appeared to be a concept designed for global North states to act for or in the global South, identifying human security needs, if not potentially rectifying them. This approach seemed to take a form of ‘virtuous imperialism’ where the North intervened in the South with the best of intentions (see Hoogensen 2006 and Hoogensen Gjørv, this book). The activities of northern-based actors (such as NGOs or other non-state actors, or state-based actors) work to provide human security in other states, such as humanitarian or development assistance, as well as military interventions that claim a humanitarian cause (see Anderson 1999 and Polman 2010). However, this is equally the case in the North, such as Norwegian actors attempting to affect health security in Russia (see Stuvøy, and Rowe, Rowe and Hønneland, this book), which is not always received as a purely noble activity in all instances. The legitimacy and authority of security actors are thus equally relevant in North–North interaction as they would/should be in North–South interaction. This point is emphasized with examples where local security actors, with or without additional support mechanisms, attempt to address their own local health/food/environmental/personal security needs on the basis of their own capacities and definitions about what the potential threat is and how it can be addressed (such as women in Northwest Russia, Inuit in Canada). In all cases a multi-actor security process is operating, where in each context the power dynamics between actors (state and non-state) will differ. The question is to what extent the different ‘voices’ of these actors are heard (the power between them). In a narrow security approach, the position of different actors does not matter, as there is only one ‘legitimate’ voice that comes from the state (and, if necessary, acted out through the tool of the military). The work in this book is meant to make visible the voices and values that are relevant to understanding security in a more comprehensive sense, including a human security approach that centres on the experiences and practices of individuals and communities.

The contributors to this volume come from a variety of backgrounds within the social and natural sciences. The contributions thus vary in the ways in which security is conceptualized and the extent to which, and the complexity with which, each author engages the debates. Not every author is convinced of the efficacy of using the term ‘human security’, or security at all, particularly in the Arctic setting. This scepticism was reflected when this project had its modest beginnings in 2004 when researchers of different disciplines, ranging from international relations/political science, to anthropology, ecology and ecotoxicology, met in Tromsø, Norway, to discuss if the concept of ‘human security’ was at all relevant to the Arctic context. There was by no means agreement at that time, and these same, and other, researchers will undoubtedly continue to debate this question. However, the question has not died out. In fact, it is arguable that an increasing acknowledgement of the complexity of security in the Arctic region, not least including human security perspectives, has become both relevant and necessary to better understand the complex concept of security.

The 2004 debate in Tromsø led to the development of the International Polar Year (IPY) project, Impacts of Oil and Gas Activity in the Arctic Using a Multiple Securities Perspective (GAPS) (2006–2012), which examined the relationship between hydrocarbon extractive activities and the people living in the regions where these activities are taking place. This relationship has been examined through a multiple security approach (Hoogensen Gjørv 2012), whereby security is understood comprehensively (see also Heininen, this book), including but reaching beyond solely state interests, making visible processes by which individuals, communities, states and the international community ensure that that which they value in life, that which defines life for them, is maintained in the future. The GAPS project team examined the ways in which hydrocarbon extractive industries have affected/influenced the future expectations/security of communities in the Arctic, focusing in particular in northern Norway (Lofoten), northern Canada (Northwest Territories) and in Russia (Komi Republic).

Perhaps one of the most significant results of the project was the extent to which the project extended out to communities in an attempt to bridge a gap between communities and academia. The extensive collaboration that took place between scientists and community members ranged from participation by Grade 7 school children researching impacts of oil and gas development for their community (at the annual Forskningdagene in 2009), to talking with people in oil and gas impacted regions about their health (Komi Republic) and listening to people about the potential effects of oil and gas development in communities with long traditions connected to nature and the seas (Lofoten and fisheries; Dale 2012). Security in the Arctic has been demonstrated to be much more than ‘states and borders’.

It is our general hope that this book will act to strengthen further development of multi-actor-based debates towards complex challenges facing Arctic peoples, communities and the environment today, with a special space for the voices of ordinary people living in the Arctic.

Overview of the book and its contents

As it was envisioned by the editors’ team from the beginning, this book is a forum, in which all have come to share their thoughts, experiences and research results that have a bearing upon understanding security in the Arctic. The contributors to this book come from different disciplines, ranging from political science and philosophy to engineering and ecology, and from different nationalities, including Russian, Canadian, Norwegian, American and Finnish, as well as indigenous and non-indigenous. This results in a combination of works that understand security from different vantage points. Some authors concentrate more on the concept of security itself, while for others it lies in the background of the topic they are exploring. Taken together, the book provides one glimpse into an emerging security dynamic that is developing in the Arctic and how this is discursively conceptualized and practically developed, organized and delivered by multiple security actors, both state and non-state.

An examination of the security dynamics between Russia and Norway opens the discussion, where Kristian Åtland and Torbjørn Pedersen use securitization theory to analyse the ways in which Russian security politics has developed in relation to the Svalbard archipelago. The authors note that despite the thawing of relations due to the end of the Cold War, Norway's continued membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been a source of suspicion for Russian leaders, influencing their perceptions of Norway's Svalbard policies in the region. The authors argue that a historical analysis demonstrates that Russia's policies towards Svalbard post-Cold War have much in common with the Soviet policies during the Cold War, demonstrating that Russian attitudes have not changed much despite the fall of the Soviet Union. Thus today's fears that Svalbard will be used for military purposes by Norway (military security), that Russian mining will be hindered by Norwegian environmental policy (societal security) and that Russian fishing will likewise be negatively affected by Norwegian fisheries policy (economic security) are rooted in Russian perceptions developed during the Cold War. The authors show however that many of the security moves (securitizing an issue) that took place after the fall of the Iron Curtain were done by upper-level government officials or high-ranking military personnel who were addressing a likeminded audience, taking their ‘historical baggage’ with them into the post-Cold War period. Åtland and Pedersen provide a strong historical analysis using securitization theory to show how perceptions of security develop, how such perceptions can have staying power despite changes in global politics and how such perceptions influence state policy.

The chapter by Lassi Heininen makes a case for comprehensive security, where state-based security policy and practices are recognized as playing a central role in our understanding of security, but that to obtain a holistic picture of security in the Arctic, this perspective must be accompanied by human and environmental security perspectives. Heininen does so by looking at the Arctic as a region and developing a regional security approach that integrates different perspectives. He takes as his departure point the military and military security, but demonstrates that even this actor has had to expand its understanding of security due to the influences of priorities and values generated by environmental issues, such as nuclear waste, environmental degradation and pollution. Further, other issues in addition to environmental degradation are generating opportunities for cooperation between traditional and non-traditional security actors, such as in the monitoring and use of transportation in the Arctic, the development of hydrocarbon industries, the impacts of climate change, processes of transnationalism and globalization, and the development of governance.

Chapter 4 moves deeper into the concept of human security itself and its possible relevance to the global North. Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv examines the use of the concept when it first became popular in the 1990s, where it was perceived as having a relevance to the glob...