The Will to Drill. Revisiting Arctic Communities

Chapter
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)

Abstract

This book has investigated current and future mining projects in several communities in three arctic countries: Norway, Greenland and (Northwest) Russia. Complex processes related to planning and operating arctic mines are taking place at a time when low-carbon transitions are at the top of the political agenda. While there’s a need for minerals in the transition to renewable energy – which means that mining could be seen as a necessary activity for global sustainable development – mining operations also challenge environmental, social and economic sustainability where they take place. Local and national environmental activists have applied the term ‘sacrifice zones’ to describe particular areas heavily (and negatively) influenced by the consequences of excessive mining, including landscape encroachments and pollution of ecosystems. The “will to drill” in arctic communities, as described and analyzed in this book, is intriguing in that it reveals multiple ways of interpreting sustainability in relation to mining. In this final chapter we elaborate upon the cases described in the earlier chapters. We consider how particular narratives might explain the way that trade-offs are made between developments that are considered sustainable and notions of sacrifice at the local level. These explanations include ways that legitimacy is secured (or not secured) through the use of scientific knowledge and other knowledge traditions, and how such knowledge, if used successfully, can provide legitimacy for both supporters and opponents of mining. The chapter also identifies knowledge gaps and unanswered questions that point towards a future political and academic mining agenda – in the Arctic and for the extractive industries as a whole.

Keywords

Sustainable development Mining Arctic Legitimacy Sacrifice zones Knowledge based management regimes 

References

  1. Bjørst, L. R. (2016). Saving or destroying the local community? Conflicting spatial storylines in the Greenlandic debate on uranium. The Extractive Industries and Society. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2015.11.006.
  2. Dale, B. (2016). Governing resources, governing mentalities. Petroleum and the Norwegian integrated ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents and Lofoten seas in 2011. Journal of Extractive Industries and Society, 3(1), 9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2015.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, M. (1993). The dead west: Ecocide in Marlboro County. New Left Review, 1(200).Google Scholar
  4. de Rosa, M. (2014). Mining in Greenland: The science-policy nexus in valuing the environment. (Master of Science). Norway: Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås.Google Scholar
  5. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fox, J. (1999). Mountaintop removal in West Virginia: An environmental sacrifice zone. Organization & Environment, 12, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanna, P., Vanclay, F., Langdon, E. J., & Arts, J. (2016). Conceptualizing social protest and the significance of protest actions to large projects. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(1), 217–239. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2015.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hovelsrud, G. K., Poppel, B., & Van Oort, B. (2011). Arctic societies, cultures and peoples in a changing cryosphere. AMBIO, 40, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Isaeva, L., & Masloboev, V. (2015). Poster: Research support of mining projects in the Arctic. Paper presented at the In the spirit of the Rovaniemi process, Rovaniemi, Finland.Google Scholar
  11. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Knol, M. (2010). Scientific advice in integrated ocean management: The process towards the Barents Sea plan. Marine Policy, 34(2), 252–260. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (Eds.). (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities. Technology, environment, social justice. Sussex: Earthscan Routhledge.Google Scholar
  15. Lerner, S. (2010). Sacrifice zones. The front lines of toxic exposure in the United States. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
  16. Nenasheva, M., Bickford, S., Lesser, P., Koivurova, T., & Kankaanpää, P. (2015). Legal tools for public participation in the environmental impact Assessment application in the countries of tha Barents Euro-Arctic region. Barents Studies, 1(3).Google Scholar
  17. Nuttall, M. (2013). Zero-tolerance, uranium and Greenland’s mining future. The Polar Journal, 3(2), 368–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nygaard, V. (2016). Do indigenous interests have a say in planning of new mining projects? Experiences from Finnmark, Norway. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(1), 17–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ostrom, E. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5412.278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reinert, H. (2016). On the shore: Thinking water at a prospective mining site in Northern Norway. Society & Natural Resources, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1132352.
  21. Scott, R. R. (2010). Hillbillies and coal miners: Representations of a National Sacrifice Zone. In R. R. Scott (Ed.), Removing mountains: Extracting mountains and indentity in the Appalachian coalfields. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  22. Storm, A. (2014). Post-industrial landscape scars: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, D. C. (2010). Paradoxes of transparency: Science and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wilson, E. (2015). Energy and minerals in Greenland. Governance, corporate responsibility and social resilience. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, E., & Stammler, F. (2016). Beyond extractivism and alternative cosmologies: Arctic communities and extractive industries in uncertain times. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(1), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, E., Best, S., Blackmore, E., & Ospanova, S. (2016). Meaningful community engagement in the extractive industries: Stakeholder perspectives and research priorities. Retrieved from LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nordland Research InstituteBodøNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Social ScienceNord UniversityBodøNorway

Personalised recommendations