Mistra Arctic Futures Annual Report 2011 (pdf)

TABLE 1 PARTNERS, PERSONNEL AND NUMBER OF PERSON-MONTHS (PM)
Partners
Enveco Miljöekonomi AB, Stockholm (Sweden), www.enveco.se
(Enveco is the contractor with Mistra. The partners below are
subcontractors to Enveco.)
The Centre for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR), Moscow
(Russia), www.cefir.ru
Department of Economics, Stockholm University (Sweden),
www.ne.su.se
Division of Environmental Strategies Research, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm (Sweden), http://www.kth.se
In this report we present the status of the project as of 31
March 2012. The report is structured, in part, around Arctic
Games’ stepwise framework (Figure 1). The motivation for
and aims of the project are explained in Section 2. Preliminary
findings, corresponding to framework Steps 0 and 1 in Figure
1, are summarized in Section 3. Continued work and expected
outcomes, corresponding to Steps 2, 3, and 4, are discussed
in Section 4. Project activities, including project deliverables
(Table 2) and outreach and communication (Table 3), are
summarized in Section 5. Finally, project activities are linked
to the expected project outcomes from the Project Plan (#0) in
Table 4. Financial details are included in Section 6. More details
Researchers
Dr. Tore Söderqvist (TS), project leader
Ms. Gerda Kinell (GK), deputy project leader/Mr. Scott Cole
(SC), deputy project leader during GK’s parental leave in 2012
Ms. Frida Franzén (FF), PhD student at Södertörn University/
KTH
Mr. Linus Hasselström (LH), PhD student at KTH
Ms. Åsa Soutukorva (ÅS)
Dr. Sergei Izmalkov (SI)
Ms. Yulia Khaleeva (YK)
PM per year
(average over 3 years)
1
3.5
about project results through 31 December 2011 can be found
in the 2011 Annual Project Report (#1).
2. Motivations, aims and value to stakeholders
The future development of the Arctic is of global interest, as it is
biologically connected to the rest of the world through migrating
fish, whales and birds. The area acts as a cooling system for
the Earth; the direct impacts from glacial melting and sea-level
rise will lead to inevitable changes for the global community
(Gradinger et al. 2004). Effective environmental governance in the
Arctic is indispensable for ensuring global ecosystem health, peace
4
1.5
2.4
Mr. Eric Sjöberg (ES), PhD student 6.4
Dr. Cecilia Håkansson (CH)
Ms. Maria Noring (MN), PhD student
EnviroEconomics Sweden, Umeå (Sweden), www.eesweden.com See SC above. See SC above.
Northern Research Institute (NORUT), Tromsø (Norway), www.norut.no Dr. Eirik Mikkelsen (EM) 0.5
University of Nordland, Bodø (Norway), www.uin.no
Ms. Merete Kvamme Fabritius (MKF)
Prof. Audun Sandberg (AS)
Total
(% person-months for PhD students)
1
1
1
4.1
0.2
0.5
27.1
(59 %)
and prosperity. The area poses decision-making challenges due
to strategic interests in resources in the region (e.g., oil and gas,
fisheries, tourism) and the potential for new shipping routes (AGP
2010). Under a faster-than-expected global-warming scenario,
confrontations between stakeholders (nation states, multinational
corporations, indigenous peoples, etc.) are likely to increase,
which will exacerbate the problem of increasing global resource
scarcity. Effective governance must incorporate these interests
while balancing several unavoidable financial, social, cultural and
ecological trade-offs. Future decision-making will likely address
issues such as resource extraction, economic growth, sustainable
management of fisheries, preservation of natural, cultural and
landscape values, and opening up new transportation routes. The
challenge for future Arctic development is to evaluate resource
trade-offs and the strategic behaviour of various stakeholders
in a manner consistent with social profitability and sustainable
development, and to do so under the auspices of efficient and
accepted governance structures. Existing social-science tools
Figure 1. Stepwise transdisciplinary framework
require improvement, to better support decision making and
avoid potentially-costly resource conflicts.
Arctic Games’ main deliverable is a framework to better
address these types of conflicts. The framework has two
objectives:
(1) to improve social-science research, and;
(2) to provide value to stakeholders.
The final framework (#10 and #12) fulfils the first objective
by being a point of departure for further research, analysis,
critique and peer review among researchers who wish to better
understand decision-making processes. The second objective will
be fulfilled by ensuring that the framework helps decision makers
understand the motivations of different actors, to better foresee
conflicts and possible solutions, and to assess the ecological values
at stake. We consider the framework transdisciplinary, in the sense
that it requires not only discussion among academic disciplines
(economics, game theory, governance), but also interaction
with the stakeholders themselves (Stokols 2006). As a key social
science contribution, the final framework will provide value for
both researchers, who will apply and critique the framework,
and decision makers, who will benefit from its application to
specific conflicts. The stakeholders themselves will vary depending
on the policy application, but may include multinationals, local
fishermen, indigenous cultures, the tourist industry, etc.
The framework structure is based on the stepwise progression
shown in Figure 1, where researchers begin by identifying a
potential case and future policy scenarios (Step 0). The following
four steps in the framework – which may be somewhat iterative
in nature – are used to characterize challenges and suggest policy
options. Ultimately, the research may also result in suggestions
for new governance structures.
The project team is developing the framework by
incorporating and integrating four main components:
Game Theory is used to model interactions between individuals,
firms, or corporations (actors), to better illuminate their interests
(strategies) so that decision-makers can better understand
motivations and likely outcomes. This social-science tool has been
PAGE 10 ARCTIC FUTURES 2011 ARCTIC FUTURES 2011 PAGE 11