Tobias Etzold
Tobias Etzold (PhD) is a Senior Research Fellow in the Research Group for Security and Defense at NUPI. He mainly works as project leader of the C...
Security realities of freezing politics and thawing landscapes in the Arctic
Navigating Breakup: Security realities of freezing politics and thawing landscapes in the Arctic
Russia’s re-invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has had immediate and ongoing effects for Arctic security and cooperative governance at both a regional and international level. The region is impacted by the increased sanctions, the withdrawal of Western companies from Russia, the Western disconnect from energy dependencies, and has also witnessed an increase in hybrid security incidents. In addition, climate change continues at to change the environment at a staggering pace in the north. This report is an input to the Arctic Security Roundtable (ASR) and the Munich Security Conference, February 2023. It provides insights into both established and novel drivers of change in Arctic and security governance. Chapters cover the impacts of climate change on the physical environment, human security and the Arctic region’s military operational environment, and review the regional security policies of the three major powers (USA, China and Russia). The report argues leaders must continue to address Arctic governance challenges and take concrete steps to mitigate and manage risks, regardless of the cessation of cooperation with Russia and the radical uncertainty shaping the broader political environment.
A Governance and Risk Inventory for a Changing Arctic
Background Paper for the Arctic Security Roundtable at the Munich Security Conference 2020
International Cooperation in the Arctic 2035 – The Four Scenarios
The Arctic has always fascinated people; its history, its present, and its future. The future of the Arctic has increasingly become a subject of academic research and the application of scenario methodology. Scenarios can be defined as pro- spective storytelling (Schoemaker, 1993), presenting a set of plausible, contrasting images of the future (Schatzmann et al., 2013), and indicating what alternative futures might look like (Amer et al., 2013). Studies offering scenarios of future development of the Arctic include Brigham (2007), Myllylä et al. (2016), Lazariva et al. (2021), Petrov et al. (2021), Haavisto et al. (2016), and Bourmistrov et al. (2015); see also the chapter by Krivorotov in this volume. The farther we look ahead, the more uncertain the future appears. There can never be full consensus on what major trends and driving forces will have the greatest impact on the future. But precisely for this reason, any kind of structured thought experiment, such as scenario development, is valuable and can add new knowledge and shared understanding.
Siri Strand
Siri Strand is a visiting research fellow at NUPI’s Centre for digitalisation and cyber security studies and a member of the Research Group on Sec...
Munich Security Forum - Arctic Security Roundtable (MSF - ASR)
This roundtable is organized by the MSC in cooperation with NUPI and Wilson Centre....
The Arctic Environmental Responsibility Index: A method to rank heterogenous extractive industry companies for governance purposes
The Arctic Environmental Responsibility Index (AERI) covers 120 oil, gas, and mining companies involved in resource extraction north of the Arctic Circle in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Finland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. It is based on an international expert perception survey among 173 members of the International Panel on Arctic Environmental Responsibility (IPAER), whose input is processed using segmented string relative ranking (SSRR) methodology. Equinor, Total, Aker BP, ConocoPhillips, and BP are seen as the most environmentally responsible companies, whereas Dalmorneftegeophysica, Zarubejneft, ERIELL, First Ore-Mining Company, and Stroygaz Consulting are seen as the least environmentally responsible. Companies operating in Alaska have the highest average rank, whereas those operating in Russia have the lowest average rank. Larger companies tend to rank higher than smaller companies, state-controlled companies rank higher than privately controlled companies, and oil and gas companies higher than mining companies. The creation of AERI demonstrates that SSRR is a low-cost way to overcome the challenge of indexing environmental performance and contributing to environmental governance across disparate industrial sectors and states with divergent environmental standards and legal and political systems.
Norway and Great Power Politics – Geopolitics, Technology and Climate (NISP)
Our times are shaped by developments in geopolitical power dynamics, fast-paced technological development and climate change. In this research program NUPI analyses how these developments change the s...
The Arctic Environmental Responsibility Index: A method to rank heterogenous extractive industry companies for governance purposes
The Arctic Environmental Responsibility Index (AERI) covers 120 oil, gas, and mining companies involved in resource extraction north of the Arctic Circle in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Finland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. It is based on an international expert perception survey among 173 members of the International Panel on Arctic Environmental Responsibility (IPAER), whose input is processed using segmented string relative ranking (SSRR) methodology. Equinor, Total, Aker BP, ConocoPhillips, and BP are seen as the most environmentally responsible companies, whereas Dalmorneftegeophysica, Zarubejneft, ERIELL, First Ore-Mining Company, and Stroygaz Consulting are seen as the least environmentally responsible. Companies operating in Alaska have the highest average rank, whereas those operating in Russia have the lowest average rank. Larger companies tend to rank higher than smaller companies, state-controlled companies rank higher than privately controlled companies, and oil and gas companies higher than mining companies. The creation of AERI demonstrates that SSRR is a low-cost way to overcome the challenge of indexing environmental performance and contributing to environmental governance across disparate industrial sectors and states with divergent environmental standards and legal and political systems.