Brendan O'Donnell · Max Gruenig Arne Riedel Editors Arctic Summer College Yearbook An Interdisciplinary Look into Arctic Sustainable Development Arctic Summer College Yearbook Brendan O’Donnell • Max Gruenig Arne Riedel Editors Arctic Summer College Yearbook An Interdisciplinary Look into Arctic Sustainable Development Editors Brendan O’Donnell Max Gruenig Washington, DC, USA Washington, DC, USA Arne Riedel Berlin, Germany ISBN 978-3-319-66458-3 ISBN 978-3-319-66459-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-66459-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017913738 © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface The Arctic is on the front line in international news, whether it is about evidence of dramatic climate change, the future of the traditional fossil fuel energy sector, new trade routes, resource frontier, or perceived potential geopolitical conflicts. And that news is going way beyond the region and quickly becoming global. For many, the Arctic is the last large region in the world (almost 40 million km2) still with a relatively pristine environment and low-level ecosystem fragmentation. At the same time, it is the region which, as forecasted by financial institutions, will experience hundreds of billions of dollars in investments in the coming decades. It is also a region of fruitful, stable, and strong cooperation between eight Arctic states for many years, maintaining political stability within the current turbulent world. It experiences warming at an alarming rate which is double the global average, and it is happening today, as we read this book. All those features make the Arctic an area of significant challenges, but also unique opportunities, for humanity. We can shape the future of this region in a “right” – sustainable – way in advance of serious dam- age. All other regions have already changed drastically and have been damaged by human activities. In the Arctic, we can collectively, proactively design sustainability and stewardship instead of mitigating numerous negative impacts like in many other parts of the world. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our generation, for Arctic states, and for the planet. We cannot afford to miss it. The Arctic experiences well-known problems associated with the approaches of resource exploitation, perhaps the most consequential among them being “short- termism.” This is a key threat for both the present and the future Arctic, alongside sectoral silos and associated static management approaches. There is a great interest in the region’s future. In the last decade, the research community invested much of its efforts into developing scenarios for the future (or futures) of the Arctic (or Arctics), as in many ways we can speak about many Arctics while its ecosystem remains one. However, those scenarios are predominantly developed based on traditional and often fixed assumptions for “traditional” resource development, following current global market trends with a primary desire to main- tain the status quo. v vi Preface If we want to have a sustainable future for the Arctic that includes healthy eco- systems providing benefits for peoples of the Arctic and beyond, we need to switch to a different scenario-based and long-term approach. The Arctic states, Indigenous peoples of the Arctic, and various stakeholders need to unite and develop a clear vision for the Arctic and must together answer the following question: How do we want to see the Arctic in 2050 or even 2100? Developing this vision should be the priority. Such a shared vision can become the target for building further scenarios, and those scenarios should develop possible and plausible paths for achieving the vision. Such a vision will be useful for gover- nance systems, such as the Arctic Council, informing its own long-term strategy, which this prominent regional policy-shaping forum recently agreed to work on. The vision can inform future multiyear work for the Arctic Council and help it move from a 2-year, ad hoc planning. The Arctic needs to be prepared for investments which have returns over periods of decades rather than short-term “skim the cream off” resource use. New paradigm shifting from resource exploitation to stewardship, from low-hanging fruit to long-term investments, will benefit the future of the region and its people, making the Arctic an attractive place to live, work, and create community. What do we need to get there? First, support Arctic states in their strong desire to keep the Arctic as a territory of dialogue and cooperation involving several states and, as such, to shield it from external geopolitical storms. Second, further develop science and all types of knowledge systems, including Indigenous, to better under- stand changes, find the ways for mitigation and adaptation, and bridge this knowl- edge with management and policy-making processes. Third, invest heavily into new Arctic-specific technologies and innovations incorporating the best environmental and social standards. Fourth, prioritize Arctic people with high standards for health and wellness, bringing them in line with the rest of the countries. And fifth, ensure that all commitments and promises made by Arctic governments are implemented on the ground and are translated from declarations and papers into an improved state of the Arctic environment and living standards of Arctic people. Nobody can do these things alone. For us to get there, we need expertise and experience from across the Arctic and beyond. Ecologic Institute is one of those organizations that bring together scholars and practitioners from around the world to contribute to solutions and to design a stewardship future for the Arctic. Every exchange in knowledge will further enrich discussions and stimulate actions to shape the future for a still-cool Arctic. Gland, Switzerland Alexander Shestakov Contents Imagining the Arctic ....................................................................................... 1 Supriti Jaya Ghosh From Consultation to Consent: A Comparative Analysis of Arctic States ................................................................................................ 9 Sarah-Grace Ross The Arctic as a Region of Innovation ............................................................ 21 Heather Exner-Pirot Inclusive and Lateral Environmental Governance: Exploring Theoretical and Practical Capacity for Networked Environmental Governance in the Russian Arctic ....................................... 33 Nadia French Maritime Passages of the Future ................................................................... 45 Heather A. Conley and Matthew Melino Arctic Council Scorecards – Monitoring Arctic Policy Transfer ................ 59 Arne Riedel South Korea and the Arctic Region ............................................................... 73 Martin Kossa The Arctic Digital Divide ................................................................................ 93 Andreas Kuersten Arctic Freshwater – A Commons Requires Open Science .......................... 107 Sina Muster Human Dimension for Effective Climate Action: Synergies Between Traditional Ecological and Hydro Meteorological Scientific Knowledge in the Arctic and Beyond ........................................... 121 Olga Krylova vii viii Contents Contemporary Circumpolar Health Issues and Innovative Responses in the Anthropocene ..................................................................... 131 Carol Devine Local Initiatives to Reduce the Incidence of Sexual Assault in the North ........................................................................................ 143 Mary F. Ehrlander A Flourishing Arctic There has been a resurgence of the word “flourishing” in international relations in recent years. In contemporary political discourse, the term is often used to describe the seeming convergence of regenerative economic, social, and environmental poli- cies, particularly in emerging societies, that create a sense of sustainable progress, of viability and vitality, and, most important, of integration into global systems of governance, trade, and diplomacy. A flourishing society is able to efficiently adapt to externalities and respond to gaps in policy, producing a dynamic system that reinforces the traditional values of the community, as well as the commitment to its future. Much like the word’s etymology, however, this definition can come across as an embellishment, an apparition, and even an illusion used to distract from underly- ing structural issues. Is a Flourishing Arctic Possible? Flourishing is also a familiar term for those who have studied Aristotelean ethics. Eudaemonist, which has more recently been translated as “human flourishing,” phi- losophy posits reason as the foundation for virtuous action, thus making the good life objectively desirable. Applying these meanings of flourishing to the Arctic, it would seem that rational thought and discourse, delimited through a process of multilateral governance and intent on creating positive impacts for the diverse com- munities personally, financially, and politically impacted by developments in the region, would, in fact, lead to a collective flourishing in the region, a golden age of enlightened development that celebrates the traditions and histories of the peoples who call it home and establishes the Arctic as an integral, influential part of the global community’s collective future. ix x A Flourishing Arctic But This Remains Elusive. Why? The Arctic region is home to millions of people, the vast majority of whom are geo- graphically, socially, and economically isolated from the seats of power of their own countries. The Canadian capital, Ottawa, for instance, is further from the northern town of Iqaluit, capital of the Nunavut territory in the Canadian Arctic, than it is from Orlando, Florida. Russia, home to nearly half of the 4 million Arctic inhabit- ants, has an estimated total population of more than 144 million, meaning less than 1.4% of Russians live in the Arctic. The marginalization and isolation of Arctic populations are often manifested in national policies that regard these areas either as in need of protection, stifling the local economies and communities from full or even partial participation in the world economy, or as unlimited opportunities for commodities and resource extraction, denying the historical and human social reali- ties of the Arctic. These are, of course, extreme variations, but they are points on a continuum that for too long have defined the international discourse about the Arctic. On the one hand, there is a definite paternalism that seeks to deny the agency of the Arctic and its inhabitants and its ability and desire to adapt to a myriad of complex contemporary challenges, among them the existential threat imposed by global climate change. On the other hand, there is a quasi-colonialist agenda that attempts to erase any characteristic of the Arctic that does not serve the motivations and ambitions of a faraway authority. To date, the majority of international diplo- macy has been an attempt to find an equilibrium between these two viewpoints. However, neither viewpoint places the Arctic at the center of the debate, rendering the process a negotiation among third parties at best. Until this changes, Arctic policy will continue to be in flux, and the region will not be able to flourish. Making Progress Since 2011, the Arctic Summer College (ASC) has attempted to facilitate a reposi- tioning of the Arctic region and its many peoples, whether Indigenous or migrant, at the center of Arctic discourse. Academics around the globe, as well as policy experts and commercial interests, have been doing this for decades, but the opportunity to exchange and support each other’s work, not as anomalies or eccentricities but as essential contributions to comprehensive international policy, was lacking. After establishing a network of professionals producing some of the most forward- thinking work on the Arctic, ASC decided to take the program to the next level by encouraging aspiring students across disciplines to view their emerging areas of expertise within the context of the Arctic, making the Arctic less a niche subject and more a part of the complete academic and policy discourse. We united current pro- fessionals with the next generation of practitioners through a mentorship program that enabled both sides to learn from each other, allowing theory and practice to