In a recent article by World economic forum by Sturla Henriksen, five Arctic myths were identified in need of busting (https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/11/5-arctic-myths-that-need-busting/).

These five myths are:

1. The Arctic is an uninhabited, unclaimed frontier with no regulation or governance
2. The region’s natural resource wealth is readily available for development
3. The Arctic will be immediately accessible as sea ice continues to disappear
4. The Arctic is tense with geopolitical disputes and the next flashpoint for conflict
5. Climate changes in the Arctic are solely of local and regional importance

Henriksen points out that the region is home to about 4 million people and many economic activities, all under the jurisdiction of eight countries, their areas being regulated and governed by national structures and international frameworks like any other place in the world. Many challenges, some technological, often related to infrastructure and to available information, and others to lack of capabilities in navigation, search and rescue, for example, make the natural resource development in the Arctic challenging. International collaboration in the region is well-established, forms of cooperation institutionalized and conforming to many relevant international treaties (e.g. UNCLOS) and no major conflicts or disagreements can be seen in the near future. The effects of climate change felt in different parts of the Arctic have consequences beyond its region, for example, the ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet will contribute to the sea level rise globally as well as thawing of permafrost increase greenhouse gas emissions from soils.

I agree the author about the situation in the Arctic and would like to add some more myths in need of busting.

1. The fragility of Arctic environment – what about the human fragility?
2. The unity of the Arctic – What about diversity in the Arctic?
3. The uniqueness of the Arctic – What about global developments?
4. Climate change is the main problem in the Arctic – What about other environmental and social issues?
5. Arctic politics – is there politics beyond Arctic Council?

Much of the international debate focuses on the environmental fragility ignoring the human fragility, especially other than indigenous populations. Out of the 4 million inhabitants, 3,5 million are non-indigenous – what about their vulnerability? The Arctic is described, for political reasons obviously, as one region described by only few common characteristics (resource potential, indigenous peoples, environmental fragility) forgetting the diversity and complexity of developments in different parts of the region. Especially, the Barents Euro-Arctic region has the most population, many, sometimes competing activities and forms of land use, several countries, nationalities, minorities and indigenous peoples living there. The Arctic region and its development is described as unique, however, many of the same development trends are seen in the Arctic as elsewhere and the region is increasing globally connected. For example, the latest is the influx of refugees as a response to the crisis in the Middle East follows the pattern similar to other parts of the Europe. Up to 500 people have arrived over the border from Sweden to Finnish Lapland, and close to 30 000 asylum seekers have arrived altogether this year to Finland, most of them via northern borders. In addition to climate change, there are many pertinent environmental and social concerns in the region but not in the focus because of the attention to climate change. Most of the climate change work, both mitigation and adaptation, means work in general towards sustainable development in the region, which requires a broader understanding of the issues in the region and efforts to balance economic, environmental and social considerations. Much of the writings on the Arctic politics acknowledge only the Arctic Council as the only regionally relevant sphere of politics that matter. However, there are many other relevant political processes taking place in the region, which could of interest to the political scientists, such as renegotiating the role of the state in the region, neoliberalization of social and environmental risks, glocalisation, to name a few.

Text and Picture: Monica Tennberg