The Arctic Circle Assembly is the largest non-political meeting of Arctic stakeholders worldwide. Over three days, women and men from all sectors and regions of the world discuss the challenges facing the Arctic region. This year, the former president of Iceland again hosted the event and presented a colorful mix of topics, which, however, did not manage to cover the shadows over the region.
The traditional keynote speech by Iceland’s Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdottír exemplified the meeting in Reykjavik. For it was not just a series of kind words and congratulations addressed to the thousands of participants in this year’s Arctic Circle Assembly. Using clear words, the left-green head of government threw light on the shadows that lie over her homeland and the other 7 Arctic nations and the whole world. She clearly named Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, climate change, and backward steps on equality as she addressed the threats facing the Arctic. The challenges are greater than ever and action is essential to follow, she said in her speech. But she also highlighted the Arctic as a place of cooperation and that meetings such as the Arctic Circle Assembly are of great importance in addressing the problems.
The home of about 4 million people is indeed increasingly in the focus of the world in many ways. This diversity was also reflected in the topics raised from Thursday to Saturday in hundreds of presentations, discussion panels, at more or less private meetings. From the often-discussed energy transition to climate-related research on social challenges and increasing traffic to security-related aspects, information was provided, debated, discussed and presented.
A glance at the list of topics, however, showed that energy, climate, security and indigenous issues were particularly high on the agenda. Numerous indigenous representatives from Alaska, Arctic Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia were present and tirelessly pointed out that they hold a key role in the network of issues and in finding solutions. “We were here when no one else was talking about the Arctic,” a representative from Nunavut told us. “Our experiences and knowledge need to be part of the solutions to preserve our cultures and traditions as well.”
Once again this year, the Frederik-Paulsen Arctic Academic Action Award, or FPAAA for short, was presented. This time, the award, which is endowed with 100,000 euros, went to Greenland geologist Professor Minik Rosing. He was awarded the prestigious prize for his initiative to use rock pulverized by glaciers, known as glacial flour, on the one hand to help fix CO2 in tropical and temperate soils, and to use the powder there as a fertilizer for the food supply. On the other hand, the powder can be used in the oceanic environment to fix CO2 and thus counteract the acidification of the ocean.
In general, sustainable solution strategies were repeatedly part of the discussion rounds. However, it became clear that opinions diverge as to what is actually sustainable. The most prominent example is the use of nuclear microreactors in Arctic regions to produce heat and electricity. While opponents point to the dangers of such technology, proponents counter that the technical development of such reactors has made massive progress. They say the devices are much more robust and safer than many of the world’s nuclear reactors in operation today. According to them, building and operating such reactors creates jobs in structurally weak regions and diversifies energy sources, moving away from diesel generators and fossil fuels more quickly.
The latter was also often part of discussions, especially its origin. Ships and pipelines are still transporting enormous quantities of liquefied gas from Russia’s production regions to Europe, “to secure energy supplies,” as several experts repeatedly pointed out. However, they added, these transports and production volumes are being reduced, and the price cap is a weighty tool for keeping the flow of money to the east as low as possible.
In general, Russia was even more absent this year than it had been the year before. In many discussions and especially in the plenary sessions, the largest country in the Arctic in terms of area was hardly mentioned. Especially when it came to highlighting the positive aspects that had emerged through the cooperation of various countries in the Arctic (example: fisheries agreements in the central Arctic), Russia was discreetly omitted. Even China avoided explicitly mentioning its economic partner. The only comment was that they were sad about the current situation. However, neither the plenary sessions with high-ranking politicians nor the discussion rounds and meetings of experts provided any answers as to how Russia was to be dealt with in the future. Questions were also rarely asked about it, or were only answered evasively, because people did not really want to comment on it. The issue is too sensitive and, above all, too complex, and no solutions have yet been found.
If such solutions are found over the next 360 days, then perhaps the colors could shine a little brighter at the next Arctic Circle meeting in 2024.
Dr Michael Wenger, PolarJournal
More about this topic
