Advertisement

Policy Paradoxes: Challenges Confronting the Contemporary Arctic

  • Amy Lauren LovecraftEmail author
  • Douglas Cost
Chapter
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)

Abstract

There is both continuity and change in the challenges facing governance of the contemporary Arctic. Since the inception of the Arctic Council, the Chairs have played a significant role in highlighting or reducing the importance of different variables related to the region’s interlinked social and environmental changes. We argue that many of the current challenges confronting Arctic residents and stakeholders are in fact paradoxes – examples of irresolvable tensions at the top of the world that can be researched and managed, but are unlikely, without a significant unanticipated event, to be resolved. This chapter approaches the challenges faced in the twenty-first century Arctic from a perspective that recognizes the complexity of the agenda-setting that an Arctic Council Chair encounters. In the past 20 years interest in the poles has grown and the conduct of research has evolved, yet there remain disconnects between local, national, and Pan-Arctic actors’ policies and the security and vitality of the region. As more information about Arctic systems - social, ecological, and geophysical – becomes available at ever-faster speeds, the meaning of this information to diverse and competing actors is also evolving. The Arctic Council Chairmanship process has a role in promoting a better fit over time between Arctic Council governance and government policies in the North.

Keywords

Arctic Council Policy paradox Problem definition Arctic governance Arctic policy Co-production of knowledge 

References

  1. AMAP. (2017). Adaptation actions for a changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort region. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).Google Scholar
  2. Arctic Council. (2013). Arctic resilience interim report 2013. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre http://www.Arctic-council.org/arr.Google Scholar
  3. Arctic Council. (2016). Arctic resilience assessment, M. Carson and G. Peterson (eds). Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre http://www.Arctic-council.org/arr.Google Scholar
  4. Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dalea, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 995–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blair, B., Lovecraft, A. L., & Hum, R. (2018). The disaster Chronotope: Spatial and temporal learning in governance of extreme events. In S. Bonati, L. M. Calandra, & G. Forino (Eds.), New trends for governance of risks and disasters: Theory and practice. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bosso, C. (1994). The contextual bases of problem definition. In D. Rochefort & R. Cobb (Eds.), The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  10. Busenberg, G. (2001). Learning in organizations and public policy. Journal of Public Policy, 21(2), 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Busenberg, G. (2004). Adaptive policy Design for the Management of wildfire hazards. The American Behavioral Scientist, 48(3), 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapin, F. S., III, Sommerkorn, M., Robards, M. D., & Hillmer-Pegram, K. (2015). Ecosystem stewardship: A resilience framework for arctic conservation. Global Environmental Change, 34, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(March), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J., Pfeiffer, K., & Francis, J. A. (2018). Warm Arctic episodes linked with increased frequency of extreme winter weather in the United States. Nature Communications, 9, 869.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-02992-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cost, D. S. (2015). The role of public education in governance for resilience in a rapidly changing Arctic. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 29.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07757-200329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(2 January), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniel, R., & Behe, C. (2017). Co-production of knowledge: An inuit indigenous knowledge perspective. Abstract #C13H-04 given at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union.Google Scholar
  18. DeRue, S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dhillon, J. (2017). Prairie rising: Indigenous youth, decolonization, and the politics of intervention. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144–161).Google Scholar
  21. Eicken, H., Lovecraft, A. L., & Druckenmiller, M. (2009). Sea-ice system services: A framework to help identify and meet information needs relevant for Arctic observing networks. Arctic, 62, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fazey, I., Fazey, J. A., & Fazey, D. M. A. (2005). Learning more effectively from experience. Ecology and Society, 10(2), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Jr., Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Svedin, U. (2007). The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions ten years later. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Francis, J., Vavrus, S. J., & Cohen, J. (2017). Amplified Arctic warming and mid-latitude weather: New perspectives on emerging connections. WIREs Climate Change, 8, e474.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hiedanpää, J. (2013). Institutional misfits: Law and habits in Finnish wolf policy. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inuit Circumpolar Council-Alaska. (2015). Alaskan Inuit food security conceptual framework: How to assess the Arctic from an Inuit perspective. Technical report. Anchorage: ICC-Alaska. Available online at: www.iccalaska.org.
  28. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2018). Public policy (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  30. Krajick, K., et al. (2007). Race to plumb the frigid depths. Science, 315(5818), 1525–1528.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.315.5818.1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larsen, J. N., & Fondahl, G. (eds). (2015). Arctic human development report : Regional processes and global linkages. Copenhagen.  https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-567.
  32. Lovecraft, A. L. (2013). The human geography of Arctic Sea ice: Introduction. Polar Geography, 36(1–2), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovecraft, A. L., & Eicken, H. (Eds.). (2011). North by 2020: Perspectives on Alaska’s changing social-ecological systems. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of organizational culture on learning in public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meek, C. L., Lovecraft, A. L., Varjopuro, R., Dowsley, M., & Dale, A. T. (2011). Adaptive governance and the human dimensions of marine mammal management: Implications for policy in a changing north. Marine Policy, 35, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meier, W. N., Hovelsrud, G. K., van Oort, B. E. H., Key, J. R., Kovacs, K. M., Michel, C., Haas, C., Granskog, M. A., Gerland, S., Perovich, D. K., Makshtas, A., & Reist, J. D. (2014). Arctic Sea ice in transformation: A review of recent observed changes and impacts on biology and human activity. Reviews of Geophysics, 52, 185–217.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nilsson, A. E., & Meek, C. L. (2016). Organizational learning in regional governance: A study of the Arctic Council. Stockholm Environmental Institute, Working paper 2016–14, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  39. Nuttall, A. D. (2014). Sovereignty, security, and international cooperation. In W. R. Murray & A. D. Nuttall (Eds.), International relations and the Arctic (pp. 599–623). Amherst: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
  40. Palosaari, T. (2012). The amazing race. On resources, conflict, and cooperation in the Arctic. In L. Heininen & R. Rouge-Oikarinen (Eds.), Nordia geographical publications yearbook 2011: Sustainable development in the Arctic region through peace and stability (pp. 13–30).Google Scholar
  41. Pretes, M., & Robinson, M. (1989). Beyond boom and bust: A strategy for sustainable development in the north. Polar Record, 25(153), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robards, M. D., & Lovecraft, A. L. (2010). Evaluating co-management for social-ecological fit: Indigenous priorities and agency mandates for Pacific Walrus. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  44. Romanovsky, V. E., Isaksen, K., Drozdov, D., et al. (2017). Changing permafrost and its impacts. pp 65–102 in AMAP, 2017. Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017. Arctic monitoring and assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  45. Sabatier, P. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In P. Sabatier & H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). The study of public policy processes. In P. Sabatier & H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  47. Seidman, E., & Rappaport, J. (Eds.). (1986). Redefining social problems. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  48. Serreze, M. C., & Stroeve, J. (2015). Arctic sea ice trends, variability and implications for seasonal ice forecasting. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 373(2045), 20140159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R., & Friedlingstein, P. (2009). Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. PNAS, 106, 1704–1709.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812721106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  51. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Pernilla, M., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thornton, T. F. (2001). Subsistence in northern communities: Lessons from Alaska. The Northern Review, 23, 82–102.Google Scholar
  53. Trainor, S. F. (2017). Adaptation. In Adaptation actions for a changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort region. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP): Oslo.Google Scholar
  54. USGCRP. (2017). In D. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, & T. K. Maycock (Eds.), Climate science special report: Fourth national climate assessment, Volume I (470 pp). Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program.  https://doi.org/10.7930/J0J964J6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waters, C. N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A. D., Poirier, C., Gałuszka, A., Cearreta, A., Edgeworth, M., Ellis, E. C., Ellis, M., Jeandel, C., Leinfelder, R., McNeill, J. R., Richter, D., Steffen, W., Syvitski, J., Vidas, D., Wagreich, M., Williams, M., Zhisheng, A., Grinevald, J., Odada, E., Oreskes, N., & Wolfe, A. P. (2016). The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science, 351(6269), 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitt, L. (2009). Science, colonialism, and indigenous peoples. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wohlforth, C. (2004). The whale and the supercomputer: On the northern front of climate change. New York: North Point Press.Google Scholar
  58. Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Young, O., & Underdal, A. (1997). Institutional dimensions of global change. IHDP Scoping Report. International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  60. Zellen, B. S. (2009). Arctic doom, Arctic boom: The geopolitics of climate change in the Arctic. Praeger, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Arctic Policy Studies, International Arctic Research CenterUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA

Personalised recommendations