by Odd Rogne
Arctic vs. Non-Arctic Interests
Why polar research?
In the early 1950s, Arctic science was dominated
by thematic mapping and research serving domes-
« The Arctic countries, having needs for data and
tic needs simply because the broader interest was
information for the management of their Arctic
limited and resources (including logistics) were con-
areas, have a broader interest in Arctic research
trolled by national agencies. However, as logistical
than non-Arctic countries. Whereas non-Arctic
opportunities improved and the Arctic attracted
countries focus their Arctic research on global issu-
attention as a scientific laboratory, basic science in-
es, the Arctic countries have to cover a wide range
terests started to grow both inside and outside the
of science-based data and information for the ma-
Arctic countries.
nagement of their Arctic area. This management
involves answering three basic questions: What?,
Nevertheless, an important barrier – the Cold War –
Where?, and Why? The two first questions are
meant limited (or no access) to some Arctic areas.
answered by thematic mapping, usually underta-
This ‘sensitivity fear’ continued to linger for most
ken by specialized, national agencies. The `Why´
of the last century. In addition, there was growing
is answered by drawing on basic research inside or
awareness of Arctic resources and the suspicion
outside the agency. Examples of this type of the-
that non-Arctic countries were after these resourc-
matic mapping/research are: management of na-
es under the guise of Arctic science.
ture (wildlife, fish resources), industrial activities
(resource management, industrial threats to na-
Full control of their own Arctic territory was a man-
ture—such as pollution). In other areas of research,
tra for some Arctic countries, and a challenge that
in particular those related to humans and social
multinational research projects had to face (military
issues, scientists from Arctic countries dominate.
sensitivity, perceived threats to sovereignty, etc.
were a part of it). Planning an IASC under these con-
Scientists from non-Arctic countries mainly focus
ditions was not easy, and required understanding
on global issues that are of prime concern to their
and respect for the challenges faced by the repre-
home country; for example, climate change. Global
sentatives of the various countries.
issues are also of interest to Arctic scientists and
countries, and so this forms the logical basis for
It was a strong wish by some countries to have
some ‘governmental control’ of the potential new
circumarctic research cooperation. In the RRT report
to the Stockholm meeting, it was suggested that
this need could be met by an ‘Intergovernmental
Forum on Arctic Science Issues.’
‘Governmental control’ is not popular with ‘free science,’ a dilemma that caused numerous discussions
by the IASC Planning Group.
15
00
01 Development of
02 IASC Initiatives IASC
Arctic/non-Arctic cooperation. »