Why would politicians care about an ice edge in extremely remote Arctic waters? Because the ice edge is in effect the boundary between petroleum exploration versus climate policy and other environmental concerns.
Tip to the question above: Choose science that
aligns with your political objectives. That is what top politicians seemed to
be doing in the controversy regarding the Arctic ice edge during the spring of
2015. Why would politicians care about an ice edge in extremely remote Arctic
waters? Because the ice edge is in effect the boundary between petroleum
exploration versus climate policy and other environmental concerns. In this
piece we will take a look behind the scenes on how the controversy played out
in different policy documents, and in the public debate.
On January 20th, 2015, Prime Minister Erna Solberg famously uttered: “We have not moved the ice edge. It has moved by itself.” The very same day, two different, yet interconnected events took place. One was the news that the management plan for the Barents Sea and Lofoten area would be updated with new data on the ice edge. The other was the announcement of the 23rd licensing round which opened up new areas for petroleum activity in the Barents Sea southeast – an area included in the management plan.
Petroleum exploration is prohibited north of
the ice edge in Norway. That makes the ice edge a strategic concern for actors concerned
about petroleum activities in the North. It is easy to imagine the ice edge as
a line on a map, where the Arctic ice sheet meets open ocean. But instead of a
sharp cliff, it makes more sense to think of the ice edge as thick, pulsing
belt of slush, ocean and ice. In fact, the ice edge zone is the term used in scientific reports and several policy
documents. The ice edge moves many kilometres over the annual seasons,
processes increasingly impacted by accelerating climate change. And precisely
because of these factors, determining the geographical position of the ice edge
is everything else but a straightforward task. Any attempt at doing so would
require a definition and a dataset.
In January 2015, the Norwegian government
presented new data sets on the Arctic sea ice extent. What may seem as a pretty
ordinary event (the data series stretches back several decades) of presenting
physical data on a natural phenomenon sparked a heated public discussion. Why?
Because no scientifically “correct” definition of the ice edge exists. Which
means that different actors can argue for different definitions, in line with
their own agendas. We argue that this is what happened, and that it turned the
debate about an ice-cold natural phenomenon into a hot political debate, during
the spring of 2015.
Instead of using regular climate periods
(1960-1991) these new data sets used a fluid version of it (1984-2013 at the
time, to be updated annually). Officially, this was to reflect a changing
climate in a more precise way. Yet, it was perceived as a clever way of
politically moving the ice edge and its limitations for petroleum activity to
open up new areas, further north than ever, for exploration. Monitoring
programs and facts derived from long data series are expected to increase
legitimacy and compliance with decisions, as independent and unbiased insights
are expected to reduce diverging views across stakeholder groups. However, neutral
and objective science does not always play out in a settling way in political
disputes. As we will see in this case, the scientific definitions themselves
became the core of the debate.
Defining the ice edge thereby evolved into an
area of political interest, and into the Norwegian Parliament, where top
politicians discussed scientific definitions from the rostrum. In the end, four
different definitions of the ice edge were used. Here, it is interesting to see
who used the definitions: three of
them has the government as sender, and the Ministry of Climate and Environment
has gone from using one of them (definition 1), to another one (definition 2),
while still referring to a third one (definition 3).
NPI is the
official knowledge provider of knowledge on polar issues to Norwegian
authorities. This does, apparently, not necessarily mean that their opinion on
the matter is used by the authorities. This is due to the definition of the ice
edge is important for the petroleum sector, making it an issue of political
interest. Environmental NGOs and opposition parties continued to use the
maximum sea ice extent definition actively, and will likely do so in the future.
Eventually,
Parliament refused to accept the Government’s proposal for a new positioning of
the ice edge, and asked the Government to come back with another proposal. That
means that there is no hard line on the state’s map at the moment.
The main reason why the debate about a cold
phenomenon became so heated, is that it was – and still is – a proxy for a
political debate about petroleum exploration and activities in the Arctic.
The controversy shows how a natural phenomenon,
seemingly independent from the social and political world and opinions, can be
changed through documents and definitions. The controversy regarding the Arctic
ice edge shows how science and policy are interconnected and co-produced.
Furthermore, it shows how scientists tried to shy away from policy discussions,
while politicians and other actors openly discussed natural scientific
definitions, datasets and phenomena.
As pointed out by numerous colleagues, including Berit Kristoffersen, Phil Steinberg, Siri Veland and Amanda Lynch, the case of the ice edge clearly demonstrates the classic Science and Technology Studies (STS) argument that natural phenomena are not only about nature, they should also be defined and perceived as political phenomena. And it is only by acknowledging that very basic STS lesson that we can recognize proxy debates, and contribute to transparent, democratic deliberation.
The next phase of this controversy
plays out as we write this. The government will have a new try in 2020 to get a
revised management plan for the area approved by the parliament. In the
background report regarding the ice edge, produced by NPI and the Institute of
Marine Research, it is clearly stated that their task is not to define where the “administrative limit for these valuable
and vulnerable areas should be in a revised management plan”. And so, the story
continues...
