Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Race to Resources in the Arctic: Have We Progressed in Our Understanding of What Takes Place in the Arctic?

  • Chapter
The New Arctic

Abstract

This article examines how we have progressed in our understanding of what is unfolding in the Arctic in regard to non-renewable natural resource exploitation. It first demonstrates how the Arctic expert community developed its understanding of what is happening in the offshore Arctic, as regards oil and gas exploitation. The aim is to enquire over the way the expert community has progressed in its analysis of what is driving natural resource development, and in what manner. It is shown that because of this learning process taking place in the expert community, we can nowadays ask more nuanced questions in regard to the operation of extractive industries in the Arctic. The final part of the article focuses especially on the main drivers of mining activity in the Arctic, and studies the kind of questions we can ask about how mining can be undertaken in a sustainable manner.

This article is based on a presentation delivered by the author at the first stakeholder consultation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Development in the Arctic project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a theoretical examination of why and how continental shelf activity has been interpreted in different ways, the mechanisms which have influenced the expert community’s understanding, and why the media keeps relying on simplistic views of what is unfolding in the Arctic – see: Koivurova (2013).

  2. 2.

    Struck (2007).

  3. 3.

    Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (2002).

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., World Nuclear Association (2014).

  5. 5.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982, 2006).

  6. 6.

    Canada made a partial submission in 2013, and stated that it will make the submission on the Arctic Ocean at a later date, see Government of Canada (2013).

  7. 7.

    See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_dnk_28_2009.htm. Accessed 05 May 2014.

  8. 8.

    See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_dnk_54_2010.htm. Accessed 05 May 2014.

  9. 9.

    See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_dnk_61_2012.htm. Accessed 05 May 2014.

  10. 10.

    See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_dnk_68_2013.htm. Accessed 05 May 2014.

  11. 11.

    Borgerson, at the time argued e.g. that: “The situation is especially dangerous because there are currently no overarching political or legal structures that can provide for the orderly development of the region or mediate political disagreements over Arctic resources or sea-lanes. The Arctic has always been frozen; as ice turns to water, it is not clear which rules should apply. The rapid melt is also rekindling numerous interstate rivalries and attracting energy-hungry newcomers, such as China, to the region. The Arctic powers are fast approaching diplomatic gridlock, and that could eventually lead to the sort of armed brinkmanship that plagues other territories, such as the desolate but resource-rich Spratly Islands, where multiple states claim sovereignty but no clear picture of ownership exists”. Borgerson (2008). Recently, in 2013, Borgerson has revisited his views, with his new article in Foreign Affairs arguing e.g. that: “…a funny thing happened on the way to Arctic anarchy. Rather than harden positions, the possibility of increased tensions has spurred the countries concerned to work out their differences peacefully. A shared interest in profit has trumped the instinct to compete over territory. Proving the pessimists wrong, the Arctic countries have given up on saber rattling and engaged in various impressive feats of cooperation”. Borgerson (2013).

  12. 12.

    See the Convention text at http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm. Accessed 05 May 2014.

  13. 13.

    For the purpose of this article, the term “continental shelf” is used to refer: (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea to a depth of 200 m, or beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters permits the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands.

  14. 14.

    UNCLOS, Annex II art. 4. This date was postponed by the parties to UNCLOS for those states that had become parties before May 1999, thus extending their submission deadline to May 2009.

  15. 15.

    See an important study made by the Committee of the International Law Association (ILA) (2004).

  16. 16.

    See UN General Assembly (2002). “As regards the Central Arctic Ocean, the Commission recommended that the Russian Federation make a revised submission in respect of its extended continental shelf in that area based on the findings contained in the recommendations.”

  17. 17.

    A Barents Observer news release from 7 Apr. 2014, states that this will take place in 2015, see: Barents Observer (2014).

  18. 18.

    Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (2009).

  19. 19.

    See The Ilulissat Declaration (2009).

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic (2011) and Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (2013); See also Koivurova (2012).

  23. 23.

    The first Guidelines were published in 1997, the first revision was done in 2002 and the latest revision was in 2009. Arctic Council, Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines (2009).

  24. 24.

    See e.g. Heikkinen et al. (2013).

  25. 25.

    These lands have been used by the Sámi since time immemorial and play a key role in Sámi reindeer herding. The Swedish government has given test mining permission to a British owned company – Beowulf. Mining permission on these lands offers various adverse consequences to the Sámi in terms of both their livelihood practices, as well as other land use and resource practices. The mining location is expected to put the Luleå River at risk of pollution and affect the River’s water quality. Thus the Sámi have strongly resisted the developments by means of active demonstration and road blocking. Clashes between government forces and Sámi activists brought mining issues to the fore in discussions regarding Sámi rights within the country, in response to the emerging mining activities which affect indigenous livelihoods and culture.

  26. 26.

    Greenland’s government, amidst much controversy, lifted its ban on uranium mining. McGwin (2013).

  27. 27.

    For instance, Finland revised its 1965 Mining code in 2011, to better take into account the other interests and rights adversely affected by mining. See Koivurova and Stepien (2008). See also Koivurova and Petrétei (2014).

  28. 28.

    The concept of social license originates from community opposition to mining projects, but now the concept is being applied in a broader context. It is understood not as something granted by government, but rather as an intangible agreement that is renewable daily and granted by the people only when their needs are being met. Patience and constant attentiveness to the aspirations of the local people are necessary in maintaining such a license. Gunningham et al. (2004).

References

Web Links

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Timo Koivurova, Arctic Centre, 122, Rovaniemi, 96101, Finland

    Timo Koivurova

Authors
  1. Timo Koivurova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timo Koivurova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Microbiology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Birgitta Evengård

  2. Stefansson Arctic Institute, Akureyri, Iceland

    Joan Nymand Larsen

  3. Department of Research Management, University of Bergen Bergen Marine Research Cluster, Bergen, Norway

    Øyvind Paasche

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Koivurova, T. (2015). Race to Resources in the Arctic: Have We Progressed in Our Understanding of What Takes Place in the Arctic?. In: Evengård, B., Nymand Larsen, J., Paasche, Ø. (eds) The New Arctic. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17602-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation