- Email: [email protected]
The changing role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect The changing role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance Machiel Lamers1, Alexey Pristupa1,2, Bas Amelung2 and Maaike Knol3 In the Arctic region global environmental change creates economic opportunities for various sectors, which is increasing pressure on marine biological resources. Next to state governance arrangements, informational governance instruments deployed by non-state actors, such as private certification schemes, mapping exercises and observation systems, play a progressive role in introducing ecosystembased approaches for governing the marine environment. In this paper we review recent academic literature to understand the role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance. Our review reveals that environmental information may on one hand enable safe or sustainable operations of actors by creating legitimacy and building trust, while on the other hand the participation and empowerment of some actors may constrain other actors, leading to conflict and controversy. We conclude that the growing importance of environmental information in Arctic marine governance is driven both by state management systems and non-state actors, that currently the enabling role of information dominates the literature, but that the constraining role of information will likely increase in future Arctic marine governance. Addresses 1 Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 2 Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 3 Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, Norway Corresponding author: Lamers, Machiel ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 18:49–55 This review comes from a themed issue on Sustainability governance and transformation 2016 Edited by Bertrum MacDonald, Katrien Termeer, Paul Opdam and Katrine Soma
Received 27 February 2015; Revised 31 August 2015; Accepted 31 August 2015
[2,3]. Retreating sea ice and technological developments are making the Arctic’s treasures increasingly accessible [4–7], such as huge stocks of natural resources and potential shipping corridors between Europe and the Far East, and between America’s East and West coasts [8]. Businesses from a variety of industries attempt to seize the emerging opportunities [7,9]. The Arctic is vulnerable to change, however, and its accelerating exploitation may pose a threat to the area’s ecological quality and environmental sustainability [10,11]. In response, approaches have been developed to allow further economic development while maintaining the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and communities. The ecosystem-based management (EBM) paradigm has become central to this endeavour [12]. In the Arctic context, EBM is defined as ‘the comprehensive, integrated management of human activities based on best available scientific and traditional knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences that are crucial to the health of ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity’ [13]. This definition implies the need for broad stakeholder engagement as well as a wide variety of environmental information. Environmental information is defined as any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form about (1) the state of the elements of the environment, natural sites, biological diversity, and the interactions between those elements; (2) factors affecting, or likely to affect, the elements of the environment; (3) various measures and activities affecting, or likely to affect, the elements of the environment and the above factors; (4) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation; (5) cost–benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions; and (6) the state of human health and safety.a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.015 1877-3435/# 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
The growing demand for environmental information about the Arctic has run parallel to advances in the fields of geographical information systems and mobile communication technology that increase the availability and improve the accessibility of information. As a result, a
Introduction The Arctic is hot [1]. The region is rapidly turning into a focal point of economic and geopolitical development www.sciencedirect.com
a
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
50 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016
wealth of information is now available to stakeholders and decision-makers, ranging from real-time information on sea-ice conditions [14], to strategic vulnerability maps [15]. The disclosure of data, information and knowledge affects governance processes. This driving capacity of information in environmental governance constitutes the core of informational governance theory. This theory holds that increased transparency through the disclosure of data, information, and knowledge can be beneficial for governance quality, but also detrimental, depending on whose information is disclosed, and for whom it is disclosed [16,17]. Although advances with regard to information growth often carry a positive connotation, potential pitfalls and drawbacks need to be recognized as well. On one hand, disclosure of information can generate trust in policy networks or provide legitimization for policy decisions, for example regarding the safety or sustainability of existing or prospective activities. On the other hand, it can influence political agenda setting, allowing for the participation and empowerment of particular actor groups, possibly at the expense of others [17]. In this paper we will refer to these dual roles of information as enabling and constraining. Information is called enabling when it facilitates desired changes or developments. It can also function to bring together governance actors, thereby enabling cooperation. The constraining role of information refers to adverse consequences of rapid information progress. Such repercussions can relate to an incapacity to deal with information overload, or the inability to guarantee reliable information and distinguish it from poor-quality information [18]. Further, the interpretation of environmental information involves value judgements; this can lead to controversies and conflicts between different groups of actors, and as such hinder governance.
governance setting, and outlines trends affecting the role of environmental information. The second section presents the review results. The third section discusses and concludes the insights gained about the steering role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance.
Trends in Arctic marine governance States have traditionally dominated Arctic governance. Five of them (US, Canada, Russia, Norway and Greenland/Denmark) border the Arctic Ocean and thus have direct access to Arctic marine resources. Three additional states (Sweden, Finland and Iceland with its island of Grı´msey) have land territory north of the Arctic Circle. In 1996, as their interests in Arctic resources grew and became more divergent, these eight Arctic states established the Arctic Council as a platform for communication and coordination. The Arctic Council’s main objective is to promote coordination and interaction among Arctic states, in particular relating to issues of sustainable development and environmental protection. Producing and exchanging information, through the operation of six working groups and various expert groups [19], has been the main method of reaching this objective within the Arctic Council. Six international organizations that represent Arctic indigenous peoples have a permanent participant status in the Arctic Council, and several non-Arctic countries, intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary, and non-governmental organizations have been admitted as observers. Currently, the Arctic Council is considered to lack a legal mandate [20,21]. To this end, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a broadly accepted legal mechanism to balance the interests of the Arctic states that signed the convention (with the exception of the USA) [22,23].
From an informational governance perspective, this article assesses what role environmental information plays in Arctic marine governance. To this end, recent literature on marine governance in the Arctic was reviewed, focusing on the enabling and constraining roles of environmental information. Only literature published after the International Polar Year (2007–2008) was considered, that is, literature published between 2008 and 2015. As a first step, the Scopus database was queried using the following combination of keywords: information(al) AND governance AND Arctic. This resulted in a useful but limited list of eleven articles. The list was subsequently extended by adding relevant literature from the authors’ libraries. The resulting set of around sixty articles was analyzed using a general inductive approach to identify clusters of topics and themes dealt with in the literature.
Under the auspices of the Arctic Council in 2011–2013 an expert group on ecosystem-based management (EBM) was assigned to create a common understanding of the ecosystem approach across all Arctic Council bodies [24]. The expert group came up with a set of EBM principles, and 12 recommendations for specific activities that the four Arctic Council working groups (AMAP, CAFF, PAME, and SDWG) should monitor and regularly report on [25]. Thus, ecosystem-based marine governance requires the development of cross-sectorial management frameworks that create a balance between commercial and nature conservation interests in given geographical regions and guide the form in which new activities can take place [10,26–28]. Scientific, as well as traditional and local knowledge about the environment and ecosystems, together with assessments of the environmental risks and social impacts of industrial activities, constitute the basis for such approaches [29].
The remainder of the article consists of three main sections. The first section introduces the Arctic marine
In the past decade, attempts and investments have been made to expand, connect, and streamline the fragmented
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental information in Arctic marine governance Lamers et al. 51
observation activities and systems for monitoring Arctic change, such as the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) process initiated by the Arctic Council [4,14,30] and the Arctic Spatial Data Infrastructure, a cooperation of mapping agencies from eight Arctic states. Increasingly, data is collected through a wide range of new technologies, such as satellite observation and remote sensing, in situ observation systems, and floating and flying observation devices. These observation efforts are initiated and carried out by a wide variety of actors, such as state agencies, non-governmental organizations, private companies and local communities from a wide range of countries inside and outside the Arctic region. Arctic Observation Systems (AOS) inform the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of economic development in the Arctic [4,30,31]. They can contribute to agenda-setting and decision-making on long term policies, strategic issues, and operational tactics [32]. As a result of these trends Arctic marine governance is in transformation. The collection of environmental information in marine governance in the Arctic is still predominantly state-based, that is, knowledge generation by states for state decision-making, but this situation is changing. The Arctic Council is the most prominent intergovernmental body that generates and exchanges information about Arctic (marine) ecosystems, and the economic activities that affect these ecosystems [21,23,24,33]. An increasing and widening scope of other actors also produce information and knowledge for Arctic marine governance. Local and regional governments, private companies (e.g. oil or shipping companies), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and knowledge institutions interact in a variety of regional, bilateral and multilateral fora, including those of the Arctic Council institutions [11]. Thus, non-state actors have increasing involvement, not only as users of information and information systems, but also as producers and disclosers of strategic information. At the same time information and communication technology (ICT) not only compiles new data and information, but also enables the processing of integrated assessments of different types of information [9,31,34,35], as well as the disclosure of Arctic environmental information to new audiences in and outside the Arctic region [36]. The introduction of new actors, rules and information systems that are transforming Arctic marine governance, can also be witnessed elsewhere [37–39]. Actors in Arctic marine governance are redefining their role and have varying abilities to set the rules of the game, depending on their abilities to mobilize financial or informational resources, in the context of Arctic marine resource use and governance. Information is changing from being a passive input or output of state policy decision-making, towards being a transformative factor in multi-actor governance. The next section shows how this works out in practice. www.sciencedirect.com
Themes in Arctic marine governance and the role of environmental information Three broad functions of environmental information inductively emerged when reviewing the Arctic marine governance literature, namely enabling human safety, guaranteeing sustainable resource use and empowering particular actor groups. In this section the role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance is explored structured by these three themes. Human safety
Recent literature on Arctic marine governance extensively reports on the development of information systems that enable actors to safely carry out their activities. The increasing availability and accessibility of environmental information reduces the vulnerability of human actors who (intend to) operate in the remote and hostile Arctic environment, such as local marine mammal harvesters, oil and gas companies, fisheries and tourism operators. Environmental information enables them to take better informed instant decisions while operating in the field, as well as longer-term decisions about the viability of economic and traditional activities. The increasing capacity to monitor and model the presence and dynamics of sea-ice enables Arctic stakeholders, such as indigenous subsistence hunters [14], oil and gas operators [40,41] and ship navigators [42–44,45,46], to plan if, how, and where to operate in the Arctic ocean and coastal areas. More generally, the development of AOS is seen as a way to enhance human safety [30,32,44], as well as meet the knowledge needs of decision-makers, local communities and other stakeholders [4,14,31,47]. The same is argued for the development of oil spill response systems that should mitigate the risks for the environment as well as for human safety [41,48,49]. Enhanced human safety thereby underlies the development of Arctic marine activities. There seems to be less attention currently for the potential adverse effects of information disclosure on safety of operations, as, for example, enhanced observation systems could lead to an illusion of more safety [45,46], and attract a wider pool of actors with varying safety procedures or levels of preparation. Environmental sustainability
The literature increasingly reports on the role that environmental information plays, or should play, in ensuring environmentally sustainable resource use, particularly on the role of scientific information and monitoring systems in management and governance processes [9,36,50]. Environmental concerns about increasing economic activities in the Arctic marine environment are widely shared among scientists, governments, NGOs, and the public in and outside of the Arctic, particularly in relation to oil and gas extraction [11,51]. For example, it is claimed that the threat to the marine environment from petroleum activity in the Russian Barents Sea is considered to be higher than in other far north regions [41,48], while the oil spill Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
52 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016
emergency system is not clearly defined and underfunded by Russian authorities [52]. This clearly affects the legitimacy of oil extraction and transportation in this region of the Arctic. It is interesting to note that both Norwegian oil companies and conservation NGOs see it in their interest to invest in necessary facilities for oil spill response and environmental impact assessments for environmentally sustainable operations in the Russian Arctic [41,49]. Further, the Arctic Council and the governments of Arctic states play a crucial role in setting environmental standards, and producing, exchanging and disclosing environmental information that allows for testing the legitimacy of Arctic marine activities [11,21,24,33]. Participation
A substantial share of the studied literature deals with the challenges related to complex processes that involve the participation, and affects the interests, of multiple stakeholder groups. The challenges in these participatory processes are described in relation to integrated assessments in the context of risk management [48,53], fishing and hunting quota setting [34,54,55], marine transport [56], and marine spatial planning [28]. For example, Norway has carried out various multi-actor mapping exercises during the marine spatial planning of the Barents Sea, aimed at governing the multiple spatial claims among different sector interests [15,57]. Through the collective creation of maps of activities, impacts, and claims, state planning authorities exercized control over a range of dynamic, complex, and controversial processes. This illustrates that the inclusion of different types and sources of knowledge in assessments, monitoring, and decision-making can build trust among stakeholder groups, and can increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance decisions, because different actors often possess information that is impossible for scientists or state agencies to obtain [58,59]. A crucial question is whose information needs to be, or is, included to make governance instruments and processes more adaptive, sustainable, or effective [27,54,60,61]. The literature is predominantly focused on the inclusion of traditional environmental knowledge of indigenous groups in science-driven ecosystem-based management systems for marine resources [60], as well as strengthening the role of local ecological knowledge in governance [54,62]. Similarly, there is agreement within academia that adaptive governance functions best when diverse networks of actors are involved to disclose knowledge on conservation dilemmas, create mutual understanding, and enable social learning [31,61]. Groups of actors can also actively drive the Arctic marine governance agenda by developing and disclosing information. The empowering role of information and information systems is seen as something particularly desirable with regard to increasing the adaptive capacity of marginalized Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
groups in dealing with changing physical or socio-economic conditions [14,34,63,64]. Dallmann and his colleagues, for example, report about strategic mapping of industrial and traditional activities and associated impacts, conducted with, and for, the Nenets indigenous communities along the Barents Sea coast in Russia [63]. Here, maps are created to anticipate interactions and negotiations with oil and gas companies, in order to function as a powerful tool for local communities in decision-making. Forms of public participation are well-established in Canada and Alaska; public hearings and consultations are institutionalized procedures to include opinions of indigenous communities on oil and gas developments [65]. However, the concerns raised here relate to frequent and abundant opportunities for local population to provide input, resulting in information overload and reduced quality of consultation processes. Not only marginal societal groups are empowered, or empower themselves, through the disclosure of information. The market-based fish certification scheme operated by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is active in various Arctic regions, including in the Russian Barents Sea [66]. It appears MSC mainly benefits large certified fishing companies by promoting certified fish among environmentally aware consumers, and in return rewarding the producers with either additional financial stimulus or a guarantee for enduring market access. Coastal fisheries, which target the same fish stock as large certified commercial companies, are left outside of the MSC system due to a lack of financial resources, limited knowledge of MSC-related information, and poor engagement with global fisheries markets [67]. Powerful actors, such as large certified fishing companies in the case of MSC certification in the Russian Barents Sea, therefore seem to have more opportunities to further empower themselves through information. Challenges of invited and uninvited participation are also voiced, such as communication difficulties due to cultural differences, cases of unequal access to data management systems, challenges of interpreting data that is highly contextual, and unwillingness to share sensitive information [61], as well as the opportunities for industries or interest groups to seek influence in an issue arena [31]. In these cases the disclosure of environmental information is claimed to fuel prevailing controversies between actor groups [28,53].
Conclusions Based on our review of the recent literature concerning Arctic marine governance we draw the following conclusions. First, the Arctic marine context provides a fruitful environment for exploring the changing role of information in environmental governance. The variety of cooperation fora in the Arctic — of which the Arctic Council is the most prominent — illustrates that information about www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental information in Arctic marine governance Lamers et al. 53
the Arctic stimulates collaboration across nation states and other actor groups. Further, the development of ecosystem-based approaches and AOS in the Arctic, and the increasing involvement of non-state actors, are key current trends that make the role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance more prominent. Second, the disclosure of environmental information by various actors in Arctic marine governance currently seems to predominantly play an enabling role. Information facilitates the legitimization of operations in terms of human safety and sustainability. Participatory processes of information disclosure build trust between varies groups of actors, and empower marginalized groups in assessments and governance arrangements. However, due to the initial state of development and prospective nature of many Arctic marine resource sectors, this enabling role may well change in the future towards a more constraining one. Some examples discussed in the literature already point at these challenges regarding participation and (dis)empowerment. In some instances, information can unintentionally reinforce already existing power imbalances, such as the case of market-based fisheries certification in the Russian Barents Sea. Additionally, different actors have a strongly varying capacity to access and deal with information and specialized ‘expert’ knowledge. This may lead to information overflow and misunderstandings. Local and traditional ecological knowledge often diverge from scientific expert knowledge, in particular when decisionmakers lack understanding of cultural background, resulting in ‘solving one problem by creating another’ [68]. Importantly, information can also become a constraining factor when it is analyzed: different qualitative judgements and moral considerations about how to use information can lead to an impasse in decision-making. This can postpone the development of activities. As such, environmental information can become a politicized tool in governance.
developing an informational governance perspective. Our review of the Arctic marine governance literature highlights a number of roles that information plays in environmental governance, in particular as providers of legitimacy, trust, and power. Environmental information is used to legitimate Arctic marine resource activities, by guaranteeing minimal levels of human safety or by complying with sustainability standards. Information disclosure can also build trust among groups of actors and empower particular actors when included in Arctic marine governance. However, through these processes information disclosure can also lead to controversy and conflict. Therefore, more empirical research into these paradoxical tendencies of information disclosure is needed to further explore the extent to which information constrains and whether proper procedures will be able to lessen these effects.
Acknowledgements This paper was written as part of the Informational Governance and TripleP@Sea Research Programmes of Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) aiming to contribute to solutions for the most pressing global environmental problems. The programmes are cofinanced by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Anonymous: Arctic politics: cosy amidst the thaw [Internet]. Economist 2012. March 24.
2.
Anderson A: After the Ice: Life Death and Politics in the New Arctic. Virgin Books; 2009.
3.
Smith LC: The New North: The World in 2050. Profile Books; 2011.
4.
Eicken H, Forbes B, Wiggins H: State of the Arctic Conference 2010: international perspectives on progress of research responsive to decision-makers’ information needs [Internet]. Ambio 2011, 40:824-827.
5.
Lamers M, Amelung B: Climate change and its implications for cruise tourism in the polar regions. In Cruise Tourism in Polar Regions: Promoting Environmental and Social Sustainability. Edited by Lueck M, Maher P, Stewart E. Earthscan; 2010:147-162.
6.
Emmerson C: The Future History of the Arctic: How Climate, Resources and Geopolitics are Reshaping the North, and Why it Matters to the World Vintage. 2010.
7.
Hovelsrud GK, Poppel B, van Oort B, Reist JD: Arctic societies, cultures, and peoples in a changing cryosphere [Internet]. Ambio 2012, 40:100-110.
Third, and related, we conclude that the increasing role of non-state actors has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature. The roles of environmental information outlined above is in line with Mol’s claim that transparency in environmental governance is fuelled by both normative drivers, such as legitimacy, empowerment and participation, as well as market-based objectives, as environmental monitoring programmes, certification of products, GIS, remote sensing, and AOS are increasingly developed and funded by private companies [17]. The implications of the trend towards greater societal involvement are so far poorly understood, thus we contend that further study should be undertaken in this field.
8.
Finally, the trends and dynamic role of information in Arctic marine governance provide a rationale for further
10. Berkman PA, Young OR: Governance and environmental change in the Arctic ocean. Science 2009, 324:339-340.
www.sciencedirect.com
Smith LC, Stephenson SR: New trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013, 110:4871-4872. This article illustrates very well how data of the Arctic environment (sea ice models) can be used and combined with other sources (here vessel data and climate scenarios) to project future Arctic shipping potential. It illustrates the strong potential of environmental information to enable strategic Arctic governance and economic development.
9.
Corell RW: Arctic impact assessment: setting the stage [Internet]. In Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean. Edited by Berkman PA, Vylegzhanin AN. Springer; 2013:59-72.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
54 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016
11. Humrich C: Fragmented international governance of arctic offshore oil: governance challenges and institutional. Glob Environ Polit 2013, 13:79-99. 12. Hoel AH: Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the Arctic. 2009. 13. Arctic Council: Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic. 2013. 14. Druckenmiller ML, Eicken H, Craig George JC, Brower L: Trails to the whale: reflections of change and choice on an In˜upiat icescape at Barrow, Alaska [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2013, 36:5-29. 15. Knol M: Mapping ocean governance: from ecological values to policy instrumentation [Internet]. J Environ Plan Manage 2011, 54:979-995. 16. Kosack S, Fung A: Does transparency improve governance? [Internet]. Annu Rev Polit Sci 2014, 17:65-87. 17. Mol APJ: The lost innocence on transparency in environmental politics. In Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives. Edited by Gupta A, Mason M. MIT Press; 2014:39-59. 18. Mol APJ: The future of transparency: power, pitfalls and promises. Glob Environ Polit 2010, 10:132-143. This article convincingly discusses the implications of the disclosure of environmental information on governance processes. It shows that the growing importance attached to transparency in environmental governance ensures that it becomes a central object of power struggles, with uncertain outcomes in terms of democracy as well as environmental effects. 19. Murray K: The Arctic council: a brief history, its partnership with indigenous groups of the arctic, and its role in uncovering and addressing health issues in the far north. J Can Heal Libr Assoc 2014, 35:27-31. 20. Koivurova T: Alternatives for an Arctic treaty — evaluation and a new proposal. Rev Eur Community Int Env Law 2008, 17:14-26. 21. Molenaar EJ: Current and prospective roles of the Arctic council system within the context of the law of the sea [Internet]. Int J Mar Coast Law 2012, 27:553-595.
32. Lee CM, Melling H, Eicken H, Schlosser P, Gascard J, Proshutinsky A, Fahrbach E, Mauritzen C, Morison J, Polyakov I et al.: Autonomous platforms in the arctic observing network. In In Proceedings of OceanObs’09: Sustained Ocean Observations and Information for Society, vol. 2. Edited by Hall J, Harrison DE, Stammer D. ESA Publication WPP-306; 2010. 33. Koivurova T, Molenaar EJ, VanderZwaag D: Canada, the EU, and Arctic ocean governance: a tangled and shifting seascape and future directions. J Transnatl Law Policy 2009, 18:247-288. 34. Danielsen F, Topp-Jørgensen E, Levermann N, Løvstrøm P, Schiøtz M, Enghoff M, Jakobsen P: Counting what counts: using local knowledge to improve Arctic resource management [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2014, 37:69-91. The authors of this article argue for the development of community-based monitoring of Arctic change and present a simple, field-based system for monitoring and managing resources developed specifically to enable Greenlandic fishers and hunters to document trends in living resources and to propose management decisions themselves. 35. Kumpula T, Forbes B, Stammler F: Combining data from satellite images and reindeer herders in Arctic petroleum development: the case of Yamal, West Siberia. Nord Geogr Publ 2006, 35:17-30. 36. Kullerud L: A green Arctic. Nature 2011, 478:179-180. 37. Van Tatenhove J: Integrated marine governance: questions of legitimacy. Marit Stud 2011, 10:87-113. 38. Mol APJ: Environmental governance in the information age: the emergence of informational governance [Internet]. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 2006, 24:497-514. 39. Mol APJ: Environmental Reform in the Information Age: The Contours of Informational Governance. Cambridge University Press; 2008. 40. Galley RJ, Else BGT, Prinsenberg SJ, Babb D, Barber DG: Summer Sea Ice concentration motion, and thickness near areas of proposed offshore oil and gas development in the Canadian Beaufort Sea — 2009. Arctic 2013, 66:105-116.
22. Jarashow M, Runnels M, Svenson T: UNCLOS and the Arctic: the path of least resistance. Fordham Int Law J 2006, 30:68.
41. Ivanova M: Oil spill emergency preparedness in the Russian Arctic: a study of the Murmansk region [Internet]. Polar Res 2011, 30:1-13.
23. Molenaar EJ: Arctic marine shipping: overview of the international legal framework, gaps, and options. J Transnatl Law Policy 2009, 18:289-326.
42. Stephenson SR, Smith LC, Agnew J: Divergent long-term trajectories of human access to the Arctic [Internet]. Nat Clim Chang 2011, 1:156-160.
24. Stoessel S, Tedsen E, Cavalieri S, Riedel A: Environmental governance in the marine arctic [Internet]. In Arctic Marine Governance. Edited by Tedsen E, Cavalieri S, Kraemer RA. Springer; 2014:45-69.
43. Stephenson SR, Smith LC, Brigham LW, Agnew J: Projected 21st-century changes to Arctic marine access [Internet]. Clim Change 2013, 118:885-899.
25. Arctic Council: ANNEX 5 IQALUIT 2015 SAO REPORT TO MINISTERS. Summary Report: Work on the Ecosystem Approach within the Arctic Council. 2015. 26. De La Fayette LA: Oceans governance in the Arctic [Internet]. Int J Mar Coast Law 2008, 23:531-566. 27. Siron R, Sherman K, Skjoldal HR, Hiltz E: Ecosystem-based management in the Arctic ocean: a multi-level spatial approach. Arctic 2008, 61:86-102. 28. Knol M: Scientific advice in integrated ocean management: the process towards the Barents Sea plan [Internet]. Mar Policy 2010, 34:252-260. 29. Curtin R, Prellezo R: Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Mar Policy 2010, 34:821-830. 30. Berman MD: Next steps toward an Arctic human dimensions observing system [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2011, 34:125-143. 31. Lovecraft A, Meek C, Eicken H: Connecting scientific observations to stakeholder needs in sea ice social– environmental systems: the institutional geography of northern Alaska [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2012, 36:1-21. This article explores the linkages between scientific data production and policy implementation related to sea ice loss in the Arctic. The authors argue that sea ice information services may present barriers to, or facilitate, effective translation of scientific data into broadly available information for stakeholders to create and debate policy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
44. Ho J: The implications of Arctic sea ice decline on shipping [Internet]. Mar Policy 2010, 34:713-715. 45. Stewart E, Tivy A, Howell S, Dawson J, Draper D: Cruise tourism and Sea Ice in Canada’s Hudson Bay Region. Arctic 2011, 63:57-66. This article analyses the relationship between cruise tourism activities and sea ice dynamics in the Canadian Arctic. The article is particularly interesting as it signals the complexity between improved sea ice information and potential cruise torusim use. 46. Stewart E, Dawson J: A matter of good fortune? The grounding of the clipper adventurer in the northwest passage, Arctic Canada. Arctic 2011, 64:263-267. 47. Eicken H: Arctic sea ice needs better forecasts. Nature 2013, 498:7-9. 48. Ivanova M, Sydnes AK: Interorganizational coordination in oil spill emergency response: a case study of the Murmansk region of Northwest Russia [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2010, 33:139-164. 49. Knol M, Arbo P: Oil spill response in the Arctic: Norwegian experiences and future perspectives [Internet]. Mar Policy 2014, 50:171-177. 50. Parlee B, Furgal C: Well-being and environmental change in the arctic: a synthesis of selected research from Canada’s International Polar Year program [Internet]. Clim Change 2012, 115:13-34. www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental information in Arctic marine governance Lamers et al. 55
51. Hossain K, Koivurova T, Zojer G: Understanding risks associated with offshore hydrocarbon development. In Arctic Marine Governance Opportunities for Transatlantic Cooperation. Edited by Tedsen E, Cavalieri S, Kraemer A. Springer; 2014:159-176. 52. Bambulyak A, Frantzen B: Oil Transport From The Russian Part of the Barents Region Status per January 2011. 2011. 53. Knol M: Constructing knowledge gaps in Barents Sea management. MAST 2010, 9:61-79. 54. Dowsley M: Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapid environmental change [Internet]. Polar Res 2009, 28:43-59. 55. Meek CL: Forms of collaboration and social fit in wildlife management: a comparison of policy networks in Alaska [Internet]. Glob Environ Chang 2013, 23:217-228. 56. Reeves R, Rosa C, George JC, Sheffield G, Moore M: Implications of Arctic industrial growth and strategies to mitigate future vessel and fishing gear impacts on bowhead whales [Internet]. Mar Policy 2012, 36:454-462. 57. Olsen E, Gjøsæter H, Røttingen I, Dommasnes A, Fossum P, Sandberg P: The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 2007, 64:599-602. 58. Pulsifer P, Gearheard S, Huntington HP, Parsons MA, McNeave C, McCann HS: The role of data management in engaging communities in Arctic research: overview of the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA). Polar Geogr 2012, 35:271-290. The article describes new approaches and special considerations for managing (societal) information from Arctic communities. It shows how information management can contribute to linking traditional knowledge and various sciences and building connections between researchers and communities and across communities. 59. Johnsen JP, Hersoug B, Sola˚s A-M: The creation of coastal space — how local ecological knowledge becomes relevant. Marit Stud 2014, 13:1-20. 60. Meek CL, Lauren Lovecraft A, Varjopuro R, Dowsley M, Dale AT: Adaptive governance and the human dimensions of marine mammal management: implications for policy in a changing North [Internet]. Mar Policy 2011, 35:466-476.
www.sciencedirect.com
61. Pulsifer PL, Huntington HP, Pecl GT: Introduction: local and traditional knowledge and data management in the Arctic [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2014, 37:1-4. 62. Brattland C: Mapping rights in coastal sami seascapes. Arctic Rev Law Politics 2010, 1:28-53. 63. Dallmann WK, Peskov V, Murashko O, Khmeleva E: Reindeer herders in the Timan-Pechora oil province of Northwest Russia: an assessment of interacting environmental, social, and legal challenges [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2011, 34:229-247. This article is interesting as it reports on strategic mapping of industrial and traditional activities and associated impacts, conducted with, and for, indigenous communities to empower them in political negotiations. 64. McCarthy DDP, Whitelaw GS, Anderson S, Cowan D, McGarry F, Robins A, Gardner HL, Barbeau CD, Charania Na, General Z et al.: Collaborative geomatics and the Mushkegowuk Cree First Nations: Fostering adaptive capacity for community-based sub-arctic natural resource management [Internet]. Geoforum 2012, 43:305-314. 65. Huntington HP, Lynge A, Stotts J, Hartsig A, Porta L, Debicki C: Less ice, more talk: the benefits and burdens for arctic communities of consultations concerning development activities. Carbon Clim Law Rev 2012, 1:33-46. 66. Gulbrandsen LH, Hønneland G: Fisheries certification in Russia: the emergence of nonstate authority in a postcommunist economy. Ocean Dev Int Law 2014, 45:341-359. 67. Pristupa AO, Lamers M, Amelung B: Private informational governance in Post-Soviet waters: Implications of the Marine Stewardship Council certification in the Russian Barents Sea region. Fish Res 2015, in press. This article raises attention for the unintended consequences of information disclosure; in this case the implementation of the MSC fish labeling scheme in the Russian Barents Sea. The authors show how indirectly MSC certification contributes to a growing divide between larger-scale, internationally oriented, distant-water fishing companies and the smaller-scale coastal fisheries. 68. Sheehan GW, Jensen AM: Emergent cooperation, or, checkmate by overwhelming collaboration: linear feet of reports endless meetings. In Diplomacy on Ice. Edited by Pincus R, Ali S, Speth J. Yale University Press; 2015:213-223.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
ScienceDirect The changing role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance Machiel Lamers1, Alexey Pristupa1,2, Bas Amelung2 and Maaike Knol3 In the Arctic region global environmental change creates economic opportunities for various sectors, which is increasing pressure on marine biological resources. Next to state governance arrangements, informational governance instruments deployed by non-state actors, such as private certification schemes, mapping exercises and observation systems, play a progressive role in introducing ecosystembased approaches for governing the marine environment. In this paper we review recent academic literature to understand the role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance. Our review reveals that environmental information may on one hand enable safe or sustainable operations of actors by creating legitimacy and building trust, while on the other hand the participation and empowerment of some actors may constrain other actors, leading to conflict and controversy. We conclude that the growing importance of environmental information in Arctic marine governance is driven both by state management systems and non-state actors, that currently the enabling role of information dominates the literature, but that the constraining role of information will likely increase in future Arctic marine governance. Addresses 1 Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 2 Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 3 Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, Norway Corresponding author: Lamers, Machiel ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015, 18:49–55 This review comes from a themed issue on Sustainability governance and transformation 2016 Edited by Bertrum MacDonald, Katrien Termeer, Paul Opdam and Katrine Soma
Received 27 February 2015; Revised 31 August 2015; Accepted 31 August 2015
[2,3]. Retreating sea ice and technological developments are making the Arctic’s treasures increasingly accessible [4–7], such as huge stocks of natural resources and potential shipping corridors between Europe and the Far East, and between America’s East and West coasts [8]. Businesses from a variety of industries attempt to seize the emerging opportunities [7,9]. The Arctic is vulnerable to change, however, and its accelerating exploitation may pose a threat to the area’s ecological quality and environmental sustainability [10,11]. In response, approaches have been developed to allow further economic development while maintaining the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and communities. The ecosystem-based management (EBM) paradigm has become central to this endeavour [12]. In the Arctic context, EBM is defined as ‘the comprehensive, integrated management of human activities based on best available scientific and traditional knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences that are crucial to the health of ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity’ [13]. This definition implies the need for broad stakeholder engagement as well as a wide variety of environmental information. Environmental information is defined as any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form about (1) the state of the elements of the environment, natural sites, biological diversity, and the interactions between those elements; (2) factors affecting, or likely to affect, the elements of the environment; (3) various measures and activities affecting, or likely to affect, the elements of the environment and the above factors; (4) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation; (5) cost–benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions; and (6) the state of human health and safety.a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.015 1877-3435/# 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
The growing demand for environmental information about the Arctic has run parallel to advances in the fields of geographical information systems and mobile communication technology that increase the availability and improve the accessibility of information. As a result, a
Introduction The Arctic is hot [1]. The region is rapidly turning into a focal point of economic and geopolitical development www.sciencedirect.com
a
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
50 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016
wealth of information is now available to stakeholders and decision-makers, ranging from real-time information on sea-ice conditions [14], to strategic vulnerability maps [15]. The disclosure of data, information and knowledge affects governance processes. This driving capacity of information in environmental governance constitutes the core of informational governance theory. This theory holds that increased transparency through the disclosure of data, information, and knowledge can be beneficial for governance quality, but also detrimental, depending on whose information is disclosed, and for whom it is disclosed [16,17]. Although advances with regard to information growth often carry a positive connotation, potential pitfalls and drawbacks need to be recognized as well. On one hand, disclosure of information can generate trust in policy networks or provide legitimization for policy decisions, for example regarding the safety or sustainability of existing or prospective activities. On the other hand, it can influence political agenda setting, allowing for the participation and empowerment of particular actor groups, possibly at the expense of others [17]. In this paper we will refer to these dual roles of information as enabling and constraining. Information is called enabling when it facilitates desired changes or developments. It can also function to bring together governance actors, thereby enabling cooperation. The constraining role of information refers to adverse consequences of rapid information progress. Such repercussions can relate to an incapacity to deal with information overload, or the inability to guarantee reliable information and distinguish it from poor-quality information [18]. Further, the interpretation of environmental information involves value judgements; this can lead to controversies and conflicts between different groups of actors, and as such hinder governance.
governance setting, and outlines trends affecting the role of environmental information. The second section presents the review results. The third section discusses and concludes the insights gained about the steering role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance.
Trends in Arctic marine governance States have traditionally dominated Arctic governance. Five of them (US, Canada, Russia, Norway and Greenland/Denmark) border the Arctic Ocean and thus have direct access to Arctic marine resources. Three additional states (Sweden, Finland and Iceland with its island of Grı´msey) have land territory north of the Arctic Circle. In 1996, as their interests in Arctic resources grew and became more divergent, these eight Arctic states established the Arctic Council as a platform for communication and coordination. The Arctic Council’s main objective is to promote coordination and interaction among Arctic states, in particular relating to issues of sustainable development and environmental protection. Producing and exchanging information, through the operation of six working groups and various expert groups [19], has been the main method of reaching this objective within the Arctic Council. Six international organizations that represent Arctic indigenous peoples have a permanent participant status in the Arctic Council, and several non-Arctic countries, intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary, and non-governmental organizations have been admitted as observers. Currently, the Arctic Council is considered to lack a legal mandate [20,21]. To this end, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a broadly accepted legal mechanism to balance the interests of the Arctic states that signed the convention (with the exception of the USA) [22,23].
From an informational governance perspective, this article assesses what role environmental information plays in Arctic marine governance. To this end, recent literature on marine governance in the Arctic was reviewed, focusing on the enabling and constraining roles of environmental information. Only literature published after the International Polar Year (2007–2008) was considered, that is, literature published between 2008 and 2015. As a first step, the Scopus database was queried using the following combination of keywords: information(al) AND governance AND Arctic. This resulted in a useful but limited list of eleven articles. The list was subsequently extended by adding relevant literature from the authors’ libraries. The resulting set of around sixty articles was analyzed using a general inductive approach to identify clusters of topics and themes dealt with in the literature.
Under the auspices of the Arctic Council in 2011–2013 an expert group on ecosystem-based management (EBM) was assigned to create a common understanding of the ecosystem approach across all Arctic Council bodies [24]. The expert group came up with a set of EBM principles, and 12 recommendations for specific activities that the four Arctic Council working groups (AMAP, CAFF, PAME, and SDWG) should monitor and regularly report on [25]. Thus, ecosystem-based marine governance requires the development of cross-sectorial management frameworks that create a balance between commercial and nature conservation interests in given geographical regions and guide the form in which new activities can take place [10,26–28]. Scientific, as well as traditional and local knowledge about the environment and ecosystems, together with assessments of the environmental risks and social impacts of industrial activities, constitute the basis for such approaches [29].
The remainder of the article consists of three main sections. The first section introduces the Arctic marine
In the past decade, attempts and investments have been made to expand, connect, and streamline the fragmented
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental information in Arctic marine governance Lamers et al. 51
observation activities and systems for monitoring Arctic change, such as the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) process initiated by the Arctic Council [4,14,30] and the Arctic Spatial Data Infrastructure, a cooperation of mapping agencies from eight Arctic states. Increasingly, data is collected through a wide range of new technologies, such as satellite observation and remote sensing, in situ observation systems, and floating and flying observation devices. These observation efforts are initiated and carried out by a wide variety of actors, such as state agencies, non-governmental organizations, private companies and local communities from a wide range of countries inside and outside the Arctic region. Arctic Observation Systems (AOS) inform the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of economic development in the Arctic [4,30,31]. They can contribute to agenda-setting and decision-making on long term policies, strategic issues, and operational tactics [32]. As a result of these trends Arctic marine governance is in transformation. The collection of environmental information in marine governance in the Arctic is still predominantly state-based, that is, knowledge generation by states for state decision-making, but this situation is changing. The Arctic Council is the most prominent intergovernmental body that generates and exchanges information about Arctic (marine) ecosystems, and the economic activities that affect these ecosystems [21,23,24,33]. An increasing and widening scope of other actors also produce information and knowledge for Arctic marine governance. Local and regional governments, private companies (e.g. oil or shipping companies), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and knowledge institutions interact in a variety of regional, bilateral and multilateral fora, including those of the Arctic Council institutions [11]. Thus, non-state actors have increasing involvement, not only as users of information and information systems, but also as producers and disclosers of strategic information. At the same time information and communication technology (ICT) not only compiles new data and information, but also enables the processing of integrated assessments of different types of information [9,31,34,35], as well as the disclosure of Arctic environmental information to new audiences in and outside the Arctic region [36]. The introduction of new actors, rules and information systems that are transforming Arctic marine governance, can also be witnessed elsewhere [37–39]. Actors in Arctic marine governance are redefining their role and have varying abilities to set the rules of the game, depending on their abilities to mobilize financial or informational resources, in the context of Arctic marine resource use and governance. Information is changing from being a passive input or output of state policy decision-making, towards being a transformative factor in multi-actor governance. The next section shows how this works out in practice. www.sciencedirect.com
Themes in Arctic marine governance and the role of environmental information Three broad functions of environmental information inductively emerged when reviewing the Arctic marine governance literature, namely enabling human safety, guaranteeing sustainable resource use and empowering particular actor groups. In this section the role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance is explored structured by these three themes. Human safety
Recent literature on Arctic marine governance extensively reports on the development of information systems that enable actors to safely carry out their activities. The increasing availability and accessibility of environmental information reduces the vulnerability of human actors who (intend to) operate in the remote and hostile Arctic environment, such as local marine mammal harvesters, oil and gas companies, fisheries and tourism operators. Environmental information enables them to take better informed instant decisions while operating in the field, as well as longer-term decisions about the viability of economic and traditional activities. The increasing capacity to monitor and model the presence and dynamics of sea-ice enables Arctic stakeholders, such as indigenous subsistence hunters [14], oil and gas operators [40,41] and ship navigators [42–44,45,46], to plan if, how, and where to operate in the Arctic ocean and coastal areas. More generally, the development of AOS is seen as a way to enhance human safety [30,32,44], as well as meet the knowledge needs of decision-makers, local communities and other stakeholders [4,14,31,47]. The same is argued for the development of oil spill response systems that should mitigate the risks for the environment as well as for human safety [41,48,49]. Enhanced human safety thereby underlies the development of Arctic marine activities. There seems to be less attention currently for the potential adverse effects of information disclosure on safety of operations, as, for example, enhanced observation systems could lead to an illusion of more safety [45,46], and attract a wider pool of actors with varying safety procedures or levels of preparation. Environmental sustainability
The literature increasingly reports on the role that environmental information plays, or should play, in ensuring environmentally sustainable resource use, particularly on the role of scientific information and monitoring systems in management and governance processes [9,36,50]. Environmental concerns about increasing economic activities in the Arctic marine environment are widely shared among scientists, governments, NGOs, and the public in and outside of the Arctic, particularly in relation to oil and gas extraction [11,51]. For example, it is claimed that the threat to the marine environment from petroleum activity in the Russian Barents Sea is considered to be higher than in other far north regions [41,48], while the oil spill Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
52 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016
emergency system is not clearly defined and underfunded by Russian authorities [52]. This clearly affects the legitimacy of oil extraction and transportation in this region of the Arctic. It is interesting to note that both Norwegian oil companies and conservation NGOs see it in their interest to invest in necessary facilities for oil spill response and environmental impact assessments for environmentally sustainable operations in the Russian Arctic [41,49]. Further, the Arctic Council and the governments of Arctic states play a crucial role in setting environmental standards, and producing, exchanging and disclosing environmental information that allows for testing the legitimacy of Arctic marine activities [11,21,24,33]. Participation
A substantial share of the studied literature deals with the challenges related to complex processes that involve the participation, and affects the interests, of multiple stakeholder groups. The challenges in these participatory processes are described in relation to integrated assessments in the context of risk management [48,53], fishing and hunting quota setting [34,54,55], marine transport [56], and marine spatial planning [28]. For example, Norway has carried out various multi-actor mapping exercises during the marine spatial planning of the Barents Sea, aimed at governing the multiple spatial claims among different sector interests [15,57]. Through the collective creation of maps of activities, impacts, and claims, state planning authorities exercized control over a range of dynamic, complex, and controversial processes. This illustrates that the inclusion of different types and sources of knowledge in assessments, monitoring, and decision-making can build trust among stakeholder groups, and can increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance decisions, because different actors often possess information that is impossible for scientists or state agencies to obtain [58,59]. A crucial question is whose information needs to be, or is, included to make governance instruments and processes more adaptive, sustainable, or effective [27,54,60,61]. The literature is predominantly focused on the inclusion of traditional environmental knowledge of indigenous groups in science-driven ecosystem-based management systems for marine resources [60], as well as strengthening the role of local ecological knowledge in governance [54,62]. Similarly, there is agreement within academia that adaptive governance functions best when diverse networks of actors are involved to disclose knowledge on conservation dilemmas, create mutual understanding, and enable social learning [31,61]. Groups of actors can also actively drive the Arctic marine governance agenda by developing and disclosing information. The empowering role of information and information systems is seen as something particularly desirable with regard to increasing the adaptive capacity of marginalized Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
groups in dealing with changing physical or socio-economic conditions [14,34,63,64]. Dallmann and his colleagues, for example, report about strategic mapping of industrial and traditional activities and associated impacts, conducted with, and for, the Nenets indigenous communities along the Barents Sea coast in Russia [63]. Here, maps are created to anticipate interactions and negotiations with oil and gas companies, in order to function as a powerful tool for local communities in decision-making. Forms of public participation are well-established in Canada and Alaska; public hearings and consultations are institutionalized procedures to include opinions of indigenous communities on oil and gas developments [65]. However, the concerns raised here relate to frequent and abundant opportunities for local population to provide input, resulting in information overload and reduced quality of consultation processes. Not only marginal societal groups are empowered, or empower themselves, through the disclosure of information. The market-based fish certification scheme operated by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is active in various Arctic regions, including in the Russian Barents Sea [66]. It appears MSC mainly benefits large certified fishing companies by promoting certified fish among environmentally aware consumers, and in return rewarding the producers with either additional financial stimulus or a guarantee for enduring market access. Coastal fisheries, which target the same fish stock as large certified commercial companies, are left outside of the MSC system due to a lack of financial resources, limited knowledge of MSC-related information, and poor engagement with global fisheries markets [67]. Powerful actors, such as large certified fishing companies in the case of MSC certification in the Russian Barents Sea, therefore seem to have more opportunities to further empower themselves through information. Challenges of invited and uninvited participation are also voiced, such as communication difficulties due to cultural differences, cases of unequal access to data management systems, challenges of interpreting data that is highly contextual, and unwillingness to share sensitive information [61], as well as the opportunities for industries or interest groups to seek influence in an issue arena [31]. In these cases the disclosure of environmental information is claimed to fuel prevailing controversies between actor groups [28,53].
Conclusions Based on our review of the recent literature concerning Arctic marine governance we draw the following conclusions. First, the Arctic marine context provides a fruitful environment for exploring the changing role of information in environmental governance. The variety of cooperation fora in the Arctic — of which the Arctic Council is the most prominent — illustrates that information about www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental information in Arctic marine governance Lamers et al. 53
the Arctic stimulates collaboration across nation states and other actor groups. Further, the development of ecosystem-based approaches and AOS in the Arctic, and the increasing involvement of non-state actors, are key current trends that make the role of environmental information in Arctic marine governance more prominent. Second, the disclosure of environmental information by various actors in Arctic marine governance currently seems to predominantly play an enabling role. Information facilitates the legitimization of operations in terms of human safety and sustainability. Participatory processes of information disclosure build trust between varies groups of actors, and empower marginalized groups in assessments and governance arrangements. However, due to the initial state of development and prospective nature of many Arctic marine resource sectors, this enabling role may well change in the future towards a more constraining one. Some examples discussed in the literature already point at these challenges regarding participation and (dis)empowerment. In some instances, information can unintentionally reinforce already existing power imbalances, such as the case of market-based fisheries certification in the Russian Barents Sea. Additionally, different actors have a strongly varying capacity to access and deal with information and specialized ‘expert’ knowledge. This may lead to information overflow and misunderstandings. Local and traditional ecological knowledge often diverge from scientific expert knowledge, in particular when decisionmakers lack understanding of cultural background, resulting in ‘solving one problem by creating another’ [68]. Importantly, information can also become a constraining factor when it is analyzed: different qualitative judgements and moral considerations about how to use information can lead to an impasse in decision-making. This can postpone the development of activities. As such, environmental information can become a politicized tool in governance.
developing an informational governance perspective. Our review of the Arctic marine governance literature highlights a number of roles that information plays in environmental governance, in particular as providers of legitimacy, trust, and power. Environmental information is used to legitimate Arctic marine resource activities, by guaranteeing minimal levels of human safety or by complying with sustainability standards. Information disclosure can also build trust among groups of actors and empower particular actors when included in Arctic marine governance. However, through these processes information disclosure can also lead to controversy and conflict. Therefore, more empirical research into these paradoxical tendencies of information disclosure is needed to further explore the extent to which information constrains and whether proper procedures will be able to lessen these effects.
Acknowledgements This paper was written as part of the Informational Governance and TripleP@Sea Research Programmes of Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) aiming to contribute to solutions for the most pressing global environmental problems. The programmes are cofinanced by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Anonymous: Arctic politics: cosy amidst the thaw [Internet]. Economist 2012. March 24.
2.
Anderson A: After the Ice: Life Death and Politics in the New Arctic. Virgin Books; 2009.
3.
Smith LC: The New North: The World in 2050. Profile Books; 2011.
4.
Eicken H, Forbes B, Wiggins H: State of the Arctic Conference 2010: international perspectives on progress of research responsive to decision-makers’ information needs [Internet]. Ambio 2011, 40:824-827.
5.
Lamers M, Amelung B: Climate change and its implications for cruise tourism in the polar regions. In Cruise Tourism in Polar Regions: Promoting Environmental and Social Sustainability. Edited by Lueck M, Maher P, Stewart E. Earthscan; 2010:147-162.
6.
Emmerson C: The Future History of the Arctic: How Climate, Resources and Geopolitics are Reshaping the North, and Why it Matters to the World Vintage. 2010.
7.
Hovelsrud GK, Poppel B, van Oort B, Reist JD: Arctic societies, cultures, and peoples in a changing cryosphere [Internet]. Ambio 2012, 40:100-110.
Third, and related, we conclude that the increasing role of non-state actors has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature. The roles of environmental information outlined above is in line with Mol’s claim that transparency in environmental governance is fuelled by both normative drivers, such as legitimacy, empowerment and participation, as well as market-based objectives, as environmental monitoring programmes, certification of products, GIS, remote sensing, and AOS are increasingly developed and funded by private companies [17]. The implications of the trend towards greater societal involvement are so far poorly understood, thus we contend that further study should be undertaken in this field.
8.
Finally, the trends and dynamic role of information in Arctic marine governance provide a rationale for further
10. Berkman PA, Young OR: Governance and environmental change in the Arctic ocean. Science 2009, 324:339-340.
www.sciencedirect.com
Smith LC, Stephenson SR: New trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013, 110:4871-4872. This article illustrates very well how data of the Arctic environment (sea ice models) can be used and combined with other sources (here vessel data and climate scenarios) to project future Arctic shipping potential. It illustrates the strong potential of environmental information to enable strategic Arctic governance and economic development.
9.
Corell RW: Arctic impact assessment: setting the stage [Internet]. In Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean. Edited by Berkman PA, Vylegzhanin AN. Springer; 2013:59-72.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
54 Sustainability governance and transformation 2016
11. Humrich C: Fragmented international governance of arctic offshore oil: governance challenges and institutional. Glob Environ Polit 2013, 13:79-99. 12. Hoel AH: Best Practices in Ecosystem-based Oceans Management in the Arctic. 2009. 13. Arctic Council: Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic. 2013. 14. Druckenmiller ML, Eicken H, Craig George JC, Brower L: Trails to the whale: reflections of change and choice on an In˜upiat icescape at Barrow, Alaska [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2013, 36:5-29. 15. Knol M: Mapping ocean governance: from ecological values to policy instrumentation [Internet]. J Environ Plan Manage 2011, 54:979-995. 16. Kosack S, Fung A: Does transparency improve governance? [Internet]. Annu Rev Polit Sci 2014, 17:65-87. 17. Mol APJ: The lost innocence on transparency in environmental politics. In Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives. Edited by Gupta A, Mason M. MIT Press; 2014:39-59. 18. Mol APJ: The future of transparency: power, pitfalls and promises. Glob Environ Polit 2010, 10:132-143. This article convincingly discusses the implications of the disclosure of environmental information on governance processes. It shows that the growing importance attached to transparency in environmental governance ensures that it becomes a central object of power struggles, with uncertain outcomes in terms of democracy as well as environmental effects. 19. Murray K: The Arctic council: a brief history, its partnership with indigenous groups of the arctic, and its role in uncovering and addressing health issues in the far north. J Can Heal Libr Assoc 2014, 35:27-31. 20. Koivurova T: Alternatives for an Arctic treaty — evaluation and a new proposal. Rev Eur Community Int Env Law 2008, 17:14-26. 21. Molenaar EJ: Current and prospective roles of the Arctic council system within the context of the law of the sea [Internet]. Int J Mar Coast Law 2012, 27:553-595.
32. Lee CM, Melling H, Eicken H, Schlosser P, Gascard J, Proshutinsky A, Fahrbach E, Mauritzen C, Morison J, Polyakov I et al.: Autonomous platforms in the arctic observing network. In In Proceedings of OceanObs’09: Sustained Ocean Observations and Information for Society, vol. 2. Edited by Hall J, Harrison DE, Stammer D. ESA Publication WPP-306; 2010. 33. Koivurova T, Molenaar EJ, VanderZwaag D: Canada, the EU, and Arctic ocean governance: a tangled and shifting seascape and future directions. J Transnatl Law Policy 2009, 18:247-288. 34. Danielsen F, Topp-Jørgensen E, Levermann N, Løvstrøm P, Schiøtz M, Enghoff M, Jakobsen P: Counting what counts: using local knowledge to improve Arctic resource management [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2014, 37:69-91. The authors of this article argue for the development of community-based monitoring of Arctic change and present a simple, field-based system for monitoring and managing resources developed specifically to enable Greenlandic fishers and hunters to document trends in living resources and to propose management decisions themselves. 35. Kumpula T, Forbes B, Stammler F: Combining data from satellite images and reindeer herders in Arctic petroleum development: the case of Yamal, West Siberia. Nord Geogr Publ 2006, 35:17-30. 36. Kullerud L: A green Arctic. Nature 2011, 478:179-180. 37. Van Tatenhove J: Integrated marine governance: questions of legitimacy. Marit Stud 2011, 10:87-113. 38. Mol APJ: Environmental governance in the information age: the emergence of informational governance [Internet]. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 2006, 24:497-514. 39. Mol APJ: Environmental Reform in the Information Age: The Contours of Informational Governance. Cambridge University Press; 2008. 40. Galley RJ, Else BGT, Prinsenberg SJ, Babb D, Barber DG: Summer Sea Ice concentration motion, and thickness near areas of proposed offshore oil and gas development in the Canadian Beaufort Sea — 2009. Arctic 2013, 66:105-116.
22. Jarashow M, Runnels M, Svenson T: UNCLOS and the Arctic: the path of least resistance. Fordham Int Law J 2006, 30:68.
41. Ivanova M: Oil spill emergency preparedness in the Russian Arctic: a study of the Murmansk region [Internet]. Polar Res 2011, 30:1-13.
23. Molenaar EJ: Arctic marine shipping: overview of the international legal framework, gaps, and options. J Transnatl Law Policy 2009, 18:289-326.
42. Stephenson SR, Smith LC, Agnew J: Divergent long-term trajectories of human access to the Arctic [Internet]. Nat Clim Chang 2011, 1:156-160.
24. Stoessel S, Tedsen E, Cavalieri S, Riedel A: Environmental governance in the marine arctic [Internet]. In Arctic Marine Governance. Edited by Tedsen E, Cavalieri S, Kraemer RA. Springer; 2014:45-69.
43. Stephenson SR, Smith LC, Brigham LW, Agnew J: Projected 21st-century changes to Arctic marine access [Internet]. Clim Change 2013, 118:885-899.
25. Arctic Council: ANNEX 5 IQALUIT 2015 SAO REPORT TO MINISTERS. Summary Report: Work on the Ecosystem Approach within the Arctic Council. 2015. 26. De La Fayette LA: Oceans governance in the Arctic [Internet]. Int J Mar Coast Law 2008, 23:531-566. 27. Siron R, Sherman K, Skjoldal HR, Hiltz E: Ecosystem-based management in the Arctic ocean: a multi-level spatial approach. Arctic 2008, 61:86-102. 28. Knol M: Scientific advice in integrated ocean management: the process towards the Barents Sea plan [Internet]. Mar Policy 2010, 34:252-260. 29. Curtin R, Prellezo R: Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Mar Policy 2010, 34:821-830. 30. Berman MD: Next steps toward an Arctic human dimensions observing system [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2011, 34:125-143. 31. Lovecraft A, Meek C, Eicken H: Connecting scientific observations to stakeholder needs in sea ice social– environmental systems: the institutional geography of northern Alaska [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2012, 36:1-21. This article explores the linkages between scientific data production and policy implementation related to sea ice loss in the Arctic. The authors argue that sea ice information services may present barriers to, or facilitate, effective translation of scientific data into broadly available information for stakeholders to create and debate policy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55
44. Ho J: The implications of Arctic sea ice decline on shipping [Internet]. Mar Policy 2010, 34:713-715. 45. Stewart E, Tivy A, Howell S, Dawson J, Draper D: Cruise tourism and Sea Ice in Canada’s Hudson Bay Region. Arctic 2011, 63:57-66. This article analyses the relationship between cruise tourism activities and sea ice dynamics in the Canadian Arctic. The article is particularly interesting as it signals the complexity between improved sea ice information and potential cruise torusim use. 46. Stewart E, Dawson J: A matter of good fortune? The grounding of the clipper adventurer in the northwest passage, Arctic Canada. Arctic 2011, 64:263-267. 47. Eicken H: Arctic sea ice needs better forecasts. Nature 2013, 498:7-9. 48. Ivanova M, Sydnes AK: Interorganizational coordination in oil spill emergency response: a case study of the Murmansk region of Northwest Russia [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2010, 33:139-164. 49. Knol M, Arbo P: Oil spill response in the Arctic: Norwegian experiences and future perspectives [Internet]. Mar Policy 2014, 50:171-177. 50. Parlee B, Furgal C: Well-being and environmental change in the arctic: a synthesis of selected research from Canada’s International Polar Year program [Internet]. Clim Change 2012, 115:13-34. www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental information in Arctic marine governance Lamers et al. 55
51. Hossain K, Koivurova T, Zojer G: Understanding risks associated with offshore hydrocarbon development. In Arctic Marine Governance Opportunities for Transatlantic Cooperation. Edited by Tedsen E, Cavalieri S, Kraemer A. Springer; 2014:159-176. 52. Bambulyak A, Frantzen B: Oil Transport From The Russian Part of the Barents Region Status per January 2011. 2011. 53. Knol M: Constructing knowledge gaps in Barents Sea management. MAST 2010, 9:61-79. 54. Dowsley M: Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapid environmental change [Internet]. Polar Res 2009, 28:43-59. 55. Meek CL: Forms of collaboration and social fit in wildlife management: a comparison of policy networks in Alaska [Internet]. Glob Environ Chang 2013, 23:217-228. 56. Reeves R, Rosa C, George JC, Sheffield G, Moore M: Implications of Arctic industrial growth and strategies to mitigate future vessel and fishing gear impacts on bowhead whales [Internet]. Mar Policy 2012, 36:454-462. 57. Olsen E, Gjøsæter H, Røttingen I, Dommasnes A, Fossum P, Sandberg P: The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 2007, 64:599-602. 58. Pulsifer P, Gearheard S, Huntington HP, Parsons MA, McNeave C, McCann HS: The role of data management in engaging communities in Arctic research: overview of the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA). Polar Geogr 2012, 35:271-290. The article describes new approaches and special considerations for managing (societal) information from Arctic communities. It shows how information management can contribute to linking traditional knowledge and various sciences and building connections between researchers and communities and across communities. 59. Johnsen JP, Hersoug B, Sola˚s A-M: The creation of coastal space — how local ecological knowledge becomes relevant. Marit Stud 2014, 13:1-20. 60. Meek CL, Lauren Lovecraft A, Varjopuro R, Dowsley M, Dale AT: Adaptive governance and the human dimensions of marine mammal management: implications for policy in a changing North [Internet]. Mar Policy 2011, 35:466-476.
www.sciencedirect.com
61. Pulsifer PL, Huntington HP, Pecl GT: Introduction: local and traditional knowledge and data management in the Arctic [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2014, 37:1-4. 62. Brattland C: Mapping rights in coastal sami seascapes. Arctic Rev Law Politics 2010, 1:28-53. 63. Dallmann WK, Peskov V, Murashko O, Khmeleva E: Reindeer herders in the Timan-Pechora oil province of Northwest Russia: an assessment of interacting environmental, social, and legal challenges [Internet]. Polar Geogr 2011, 34:229-247. This article is interesting as it reports on strategic mapping of industrial and traditional activities and associated impacts, conducted with, and for, indigenous communities to empower them in political negotiations. 64. McCarthy DDP, Whitelaw GS, Anderson S, Cowan D, McGarry F, Robins A, Gardner HL, Barbeau CD, Charania Na, General Z et al.: Collaborative geomatics and the Mushkegowuk Cree First Nations: Fostering adaptive capacity for community-based sub-arctic natural resource management [Internet]. Geoforum 2012, 43:305-314. 65. Huntington HP, Lynge A, Stotts J, Hartsig A, Porta L, Debicki C: Less ice, more talk: the benefits and burdens for arctic communities of consultations concerning development activities. Carbon Clim Law Rev 2012, 1:33-46. 66. Gulbrandsen LH, Hønneland G: Fisheries certification in Russia: the emergence of nonstate authority in a postcommunist economy. Ocean Dev Int Law 2014, 45:341-359. 67. Pristupa AO, Lamers M, Amelung B: Private informational governance in Post-Soviet waters: Implications of the Marine Stewardship Council certification in the Russian Barents Sea region. Fish Res 2015, in press. This article raises attention for the unintended consequences of information disclosure; in this case the implementation of the MSC fish labeling scheme in the Russian Barents Sea. The authors show how indirectly MSC certification contributes to a growing divide between larger-scale, internationally oriented, distant-water fishing companies and the smaller-scale coastal fisheries. 68. Sheehan GW, Jensen AM: Emergent cooperation, or, checkmate by overwhelming collaboration: linear feet of reports endless meetings. In Diplomacy on Ice. Edited by Pincus R, Ali S, Speth J. Yale University Press; 2015:213-223.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 18:49–55