Exponential Growth and New Agendas – a Comprehensive Review of the Arctic Conference Sphere

Abstract

The Arctic region has attracted the interest of Arctic and non-Arctic states, as well as non-state actors, for decades. Corresponding with the growing attraction towards the region, the number of conferences attending to Arctic issues has expanded. This article provides an historical mapping of the Arctic conference sphere, and demonstrates how the establishment of Arctic conferences has both paralleled central events in Arctic affairs and can be linked to important international developments. Firstly, there is a notable peak conforming with the “second state change” in 2005, brought about by developments opening the Arctic to global concerns: the impacts of climate change and the spread of the socio-economic effects from globalization to the Arctic. Secondly, the expanding number of conferences around 2013 can be seen in relation to the growing interest in the region from non-Arctic states. As such, this article builds the argument for conferences as a central element within the Arctic governance architecture, creating linkages among units in the regime complex. The article devotes particular attention towards the two largest international conferences on Arctic issues – Arctic Frontiers and Arctic Circle Assembly – to illustrate how the necessity for hybrid policy-science-business conferences arose from a more complex governance system, and challenges requiring cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary, and international collaboration.

Between an archipelago and an ice floe: The know-where of Arctic governance expertise

“…Conferences, as “periodic or one-off gatherings” the professionals who produce knowledge on particular topics (Craggs and Mahony, 2014, p. 415), are a good example. Beate Steinveg (2020, p. 5) notes that conferences constitute an important element in Arctic regulation because they blur the line between dialogue and governance. She demonstrates how different conferences, such as Arctic Circle in Reykjavik and Arctic Frontiers in Tromsø, jockey for position in the Arctic knowledge complex.…”

“…A similar point could be made about the blurry lines between public and private sectors. At Arctic conferences, a civil servants and businesspeople mix more than they do at the more established area studies events (see Steinveg, 2020 for discussion).…”

“…Significantly, the former President of Iceland, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, who founded the Arctic Circle assembly specifically sought to brand the meeting as an assembly and not a conference. “We create the platform, participants create the dialogue” he stated in 2013 (Einarsdóttir, 2018, quoted in Steinveg, 2020, p. 136). The ambition of the “big tent” approach is not lost on the participants, who quickly picked up on the meeting’s potential to be the Davos of the Arctic region, the kind of “high-profile, dynamic conference where India and Google and Greenpeace—and countless others with a stake in the Arctic” can all vie for attention and influence (Koring, 2013).…”

“…Put differently, the geography of Arctic knowledge can help us understand the sociology of that knowledge. Within the literature of Arctic governance, the paper complements the theoretical repertoire of epistemic communities (Burke, 2019; Steinveg, 2020), communities of practice (Powell, 2017) or bazaar governance (Depledge & Dodds, 2017) by adding the concept of social field. The key issue here is not about any one term, however: it is about the need to understand a spatially variegated and rapidly expanding sphere of knowledge production.…”

“…As a result, there is substantial investment from states and businesses in Arctic expertise. It is significant that the 2020 Arctic Frontiers conference, a prominent venue of quasi-diplomatic networking in the region, was themed “Power and Knowledge” (Steinveg, 2020, p. 193). Given the centrality of expert knowledge in Arctic governance, we need to study the practices and practitioners of such knowledge in closer detail (Powell, 2017, p. 15).…”