Mistra Arctic Futures Annual Report 2011 (pdf)

Other upcoming project activities
[r] Various The development of the contingent valuation study will involve follow-up contacts with the
stakeholder group gathered in Bodø on 7 March 2012 (see [m]). Further, a Reference Group
of stakeholders will be established, drawing from this stakeholder group. A meeting for the
Reference Group is planned for early 2013.
Stakeholders and selected
team members
[s] Various Meetings for all team members are planned for Autumn 2012 (video) and February 2013 (physical meeting). Team members will
also be present at the Annual Programme Meeting 2012 and the Hearing in May 2012.
TABLE 4 LINKING DELIVERABLES AND ACTIVITIES TO EXPECTED OUTCOMES FROM THE PROJECT PLAN
Expected outcome (as described in the Project Plan (#0 in Table 2)) Project deliverable (Table 2), or Project activity (Table 3)
An evaluation of the approach of working with a transdisciplinary framework to analyze and
assess governance options for sustainable use of natural resources in the Arctic.
An economic approach to assessing costs and benefits resulting from Arctic policymaking. The
approach includes economic effects from a changed provision of ecosystem services (ES).
All deliverables feed into this expected outcome, reported
in #10 and #12
#3, #8, #9, #10, #13, #15
References
AGP, 2010. Arctic Governance in an Era of Transformative Change: Critical Questions, Governance Principles,
Ways Forward. Report from the Arctic Governance Project, April 2010.
Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R., Weimer, D.L., 2010. Cost-Benefit Analysis – concepts and
practice. Fourth edition. Pearson education, Inc., New Jersey.
Carson, R., R. Mitchell, M. Hanemann, R. Kopp, S. Presser, P. Ruud. 2003. Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive
Use: Damages from theExxon Valdez Oil Spill. Environmental and Resource Economics 25 No. 3: 257-286.
Durant, J. M., Hjermann, D.Ø., Sabarros, P. S. & Stenseth, N. C. 2008 Northeast Arctic Cod population
persistence in the Lofoten–Barents Sea system under fishing. Ecol. Appl. 18, 662–669. (doi:10.1890/07-0960.1).
Fabritius, M. K., Sandberg, A., 2012. Lofoten tourism futures; actors and strategies. UiN Report No. 3-2012.
University of Nordland, Bodø, Norway.
A theoretical analysis of incentives for, and interactions among, actors with interests in natural
resources in the Arctic region, and implications for sustainable governance options.
A substantially increased socio-economic knowledge base through scientific papers accomplished
through interdisciplinary and international cooperation in the project, as well as improved capacity
in Sweden to perform research regarding the Arctic (through the involvement of PhD students and
researchers in Swedish organizations).
The provision of new knowledge to decision makers and other involved actors regarding issues
analyzed in Arctic Games, and the development of a framework that will be available after the
project for further analyses regarding the sustainable use of natural resources in the Arctic.
Arctic Games will also provide general knowledge to the scientific community on how to use game
theory, cost-benefit analysis, economic valuation methods and governance tools for analyzing
problems involving strategic behaviour, natural resource scarcity in regions with open access, and
unclear property rights or diffuse governance structures.
6. Financial details
The Arctic Games budget of SEK 6.6 million covers a project period of
three years. Ninety-one percent of the budget is used for personnel
costs (see Table 1 for person-months) including overhead. The remaining
nine percent is used primarily for travel and data collection. A detailed
budget is available in the Project Plan (#0). The year 1 instalment
received from Mistra in March 2011 was SEK 1.975 million, of which SEK
1.875 million was consumed by 31 December 2011. The positive balance
of SEK 0.1 million is due to travel and data collection costs anticipated
for 2012-2013.
#4, #5, #7, #14
All academic reports and papers (#2-#10), cooperation
within the project and with researchers from other projects
(e.g. [j], [k], [o]), and PhD theses (#13 #14, #15)
All academic reports and papers (#2-#10), #12,
presentations (e.g. [g], [h]) stakeholder meetings ([p], [r])
All academic reports and papers (#2-#10), presentations at
conferences (e.g. [d], [i])
Gradinger, R., Hopcroft, R., and Bluhm, B. 2004. Arctic Census Diversity of Marine Life. Program proposal
to Census of Marine Life Project. Available online: www.coml.org/comlfiles/press/Arctic_CoML_public.pdf
(Accessed 9 April 2012).
Lebel, L., J. M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C. Folke, S. Hatfield-Dodds, T. P. Hughes. and J. Wilson, 2006.
Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society
11(1): 19.
NRC, National Research Council. 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decisionmaking.
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten.
Melding till Stortinget nr 10, 2010-2011.
Ostrom, E., 2005 Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, USA.
Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach of going beyond panaceas. PNAS 104(39): 15181-15187.
Stokols, D. 2006. Towards a Science of Transdisciplinary Action Research. American Journal of Community
Psychology. Vol. 38, No. 1-2, 63-77.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by
Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London
Young, O.R., 1998. Creating regimes: Arctic accords and international governance. Cornwell University Press.
USA.
PAGE 20 ARCTIC FUTURES 2011 ARCTIC FUTURES 2011 PAGE 21