The Svalbard Treaty established Norway’s full and absolute sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard. At the same time, it also established special territorial status for the archipelago, providing nationals of all signatory nations equal access to its resources. During fieldwork in Longyearbyen, conducted as part of a bottom-up exploration of place in 2018, several recurring issues came up in the analysis of interviews with residents using grounded theory methodology. Two of these issues, sometimes linked and sometimes seen as separate, were a questioning of the legitimacy of the community and a sense of geopolitical vulnerability. These emerging categories led to a series of focus groups, conducted between December 2018 and November 2019, that was designed to explore the impacts and implications of the Svalbard Treaty through the articulation of residents’ lived experiences in Longyearbyen. This paper examines the findings that emerged within an Identity of Place framing that point to an inherent conflict between the Svalbard Treaty’s special territorial status and the possibility of establishing a fully functioning local democracy in Longyearbyen.

Despite advances in impact assessment (IA) practice in Arctic regions, persistent challenges remain. This article examines how baseline information needs and associated uncertainties are presented and understood in the regulatory context of IA. The focus is on marine-related information needs in the Nunavut IA process. The method used a document review of operational IA reports and focus groups with the Nunavut Impact Review Board – the agency responsible for IA in the territory. The results show that information challenges are largely linked to the availability, suitability and accessibility of data; while challenges to addressing information needs are related to broad capacity constraints, as well as responsibility, and cooperation among parties to the process. Similar to other settings, in Nunavut, there is a need to develop better guidance for parties regarding information uncertainties in IA and how such may be addressed. To help address information needs, there is also a need to clarify the roles, responsibilities and expectations of all parties (e.g. Inuit organisations, proponent, government and communities), as well as improving coordination and advancing collaboration, while also addressing capacity constraints.

Each year, hundreds of international researchers enter Greenland to conduct scientific fieldwork. Historically, they have had little interaction with local communities and scientists at Greenland research institutes. Recognising that collaboration between Greenland and the United States can yield better research, consider more diverse perspectives, articulate the benefits of research to Greenland society, and train the next generation in a collaborative framework, representatives from both countries have been engaged in a series of events to cultivate bilateral relationships. Here, we describe the process of these events (workshops, conference sessions, and public dialogues), the findings, and the outcomes that have followed. Prior to this focused engagement, United States and Greenland scientists typically pursued their research independently. Since the engagement, more researchers from both countries have successfully partnered to obtain funding for collaborative research. Furthermore, development of a bilateral collaboration network is underway. The focused approach on bilateral engagement also proved essential for maintaining research and other activities during the global pandemic. When United States researchers were prevented from entering Greenland, their Greenland partners were able to continue the fieldwork, ensuring that progress was not lost. Future international projects can build on these successes to expand collaborative and interdisciplinary research in Greenland.

“The Question of Icebergs” is a cryo-history (Sörlin, 2015) of Arctic infrastructures: How has ice and snow shaped communication infrastructures in the Arctic by both drawing in and deterring interest in travelling through, connecting with and building in the region? This study follows the case of the 160-year-old plans for “The Northern Route,” a transatlantic telegraph which would have placed Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands at the centre of transatlantic communication in the early 1860s. I draw on Actor-Network Theory and postcolonial studies to trace how notions of the Arctic Sublime, a dependency on “credible ice witnesses,” local ice knowledges and the “politics of comparison” influenced the eventual abandonment of the route, where Arctic territories were (dis)regarded and considered as mere “substrate” for infrastructure. I argue that this cryo-history of Arctic telecommunication infrastructures is an essential contribution to a new socio-technical agenda in cable studies, which shows how established logics about who to connect, and where, still influence infrastructural development in the region today.

The Swedish North is sometimes described as a resource periphery, while others choose to label it a pleasure periphery. Regardless of the terms used, the region is characterised by problems such as out-migration and demographic issues. This study investigates why there are such different perceptions of the same area, and whether there is any contradiction between extractive resource industries and the tourism industry. This is done by collecting visitor data from mining companies and conducting interviews with a variety of respondents in three mining communities in northern Sweden. Mining tourism is a phenomenon occurring in this region and can be regarded as a context in which the two main narratives meet while being a rather overlooked form of tourism. This is partly due to the low level of knowledge regarding its impacts, but also to a somewhat established idea of mining tourism as a “bad” form of tourism. Individuals’ perceptions of mining tourism as a phenomenon seem to be highly value-related and influenced by both location and occupation. As such, various opinions can be explained by social exchange theory, which proposes that attitudes will be influenced by individuals’ evaluation of outcomes for themselves and their community. In this paper, the emergence of mining tourism is understood as knowledge creation rooted in a regional path dependency on mining and tourism. Hence, mining tourism becomes a new regional tourism product that contributes to tourism, at least in terms of standard technical visits and, at best, a well-developed tourist attraction that appeals to visitors in quantities similar to iconic regional attractions such as the Icehotel. Then again, a tourism industry selling dreams of “untouched nature” argues that this tourism product produces “bad imaging”.

Reginald Ford, steward on Scott’s Discovery expedition, settled in New Zealand in 1905 and over the next two decades gave public lectures about his Antarctic experiences. Hitherto unrelated biographical details of Ford’s early life are assembled, and something of the character of his lantern slide lectures are reconstructed from various sources. The means by which Ford established his authority as a public speaker included his actual participation in the events he lectured about, his credentialling as a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and the use of his own lantern slides. The “performative triangle” established around the audience, the lantern slide images, and Ford as lecturer, is examined via contemporary newspaper accounts and Ford’s other writings.

Two factors historically played a decisive role in the West Nordic region’s affairs: its strategic location and small societies’ long struggle for independence. The current power balance shift challenges the progress of Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland towards strengthening their independence and sovereignty. The research suggests a theoretical contemplation of the West Nordic region’s shifting practices of sovereignty in current affairs with Russia and China amid the US’ patronage. Drawing on the model of Patron-Client relations, the article considers the US as a patron state for the West Nordic region, whereas Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland are discussed as clients. The Kingdom of Denmark is regarded as a junior patron due to its intermediate position in relations with the US on the one hand and the Faroe Islands and Greenland on the other. Russia and China are addressed as patron adversaries. The research enquires as to whether any of the two US opponents advertise themselves as alternative patrons for the West Nordic region and what explains the weak or alarmist US reactions to Russia and China initiatives in the region. Special focus is on the comparison of the three great powers’ behaviour in the region. Major findings raise the discussion of customisation of sovereignty and its consequences for future relations in the West Nordic and globally.

Based on long-term ethnographic fieldwork data, this article argues there is tension between how Longyearbyen’s residents wish to perform as a community and hindrances the town inherited from its past and accepts as demarcation lines of Norway’s Svalbard politics. The population of Longyearbyen has undergone considerable change since the 1990s, turning from a predominantly Norwegian mining community into a highly diversified group of people from all over the world. This article places Longyearbyen into the wider context of settlements with similar traces (in Scandinavia, the Arctic, multilingual and immigrant communities worldwide, or in the context of extractivism) and discusses the existing barriers of communitification. Encounters with four participants illuminate the tensions and contradictions when it comes to cultivating social cohesion and shaping Longyearbyen’s “desired futures.” Unless the process of increasing the community’s agency is actively encouraged by people living there and those governing it from the outside, the future of the settlement risks being alienating for its inhabitants, weakening further the communitification potential.

Roald Amundsen’s exact route from the top of the Axel Heiberg glacier to the South Pole and back in 1911–1912 has always been somewhat unclear because he never observed his longitude during his southern journey. His approach was simply to steer approximately in a true southerly direction by magnetic compass as long as obstacles did not force him to deviate. The fact that he only knew approximately where he was most of the time on the polar plateau never caused any severe problems for him, but it complicated the search for a depot during the return journey. Based on Amundsen’s bearings of some peaks in the Transantarctic Mountains, in combination with his compass courses adjusted with accurate values for the magnetic declination at the time, this paper elucidates Amundsen’s actual route across the polar plateau in 1911–1912. The main result is that Amundsen must have taken a more easterly route than what previously has been assumed.

Longyearbyen, Svalbard, has become showcase of Arctic climate change. However, we know little about how these changes are dealt with locally. This article aims to fill this gap by examining climate change impacts and adaptation in a non-Indigenous “community of experts” and sets out to 1) describe observed changes and perceived societal impacts of climate change and 2) discuss adaptation measures and related understandings of adaptation. The research consists of ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with planners, engineers, architects, scientists, construction workers and local politicians. The research finds that climate change impacts the built environment in Longyearbyen, and that there is vast awareness of and concern related to these impacts. There is a substantial knowledge base for adaptation, and a special trust in scientific knowledge, skills and experts. The interview partners consider adaptation as necessary and feasible. Adaptation is understood and implemented as technical responses to physical problems, rooted in a modernist understanding of the environment as separated from humans, who can control it through technical means. This suggests a narrow understanding of adaptation that might fail to address more socially transformative processes.

Reliable access to Arctic research infrastructure is critical to the future of polar science. In cultivating proposals, it is essential that researchers have a deep understanding of existing platforms when selecting the appropriate research site and experimental design for projects. However, Arctic infrastructure platforms are often funded as national assets, and choices for what would be the best platform for the project are sometimes at odds with a researcher’s ability to gain access. Researchers from Arctic and non-Arctic nations are poised to benefit from reducing barriers and increasing cooperation around transnational access to Arctic infrastructure, allowing scientists to successfully execute the research that is most needed rather than what is just logistically feasible. This commentary provides a summary of findings from a workshop held at the 2021 Arctic Science Summit Week to discuss navigating “transnational” or “cross-border” access to national research infrastructure. This workshop brought together users and operators of Arctic infrastructure platforms with the three goals of identifying challenges, best practices, and possible next steps for improved collaboration.

Dominant geopolitical narratives on the Arctic argue that the region is either edging towards conflict or international law is respected and peace is maintained through cooperation to address shared concerns. While both of these narratives are present in the Arctic states’ strategies, most of them tend to support collaborative efforts. Science diplomacy (SD) is a useful mechanism in this regard as it helps states overcome potential disagreements and can stimulate cooperation in other areas. Given the growing concerns about global risks, SD is more important now than ever before. In our study, we identify and focus on three indicators for potential SD in the Arctic strategies: i) scientific infrastructure; ii) membership in intergovernmental/interparliamentary and scientific/education organisations and networks and iii) specific areas of scientific cooperation. Considering the intensive scientific activity in the region, it is not surprising that the strategies discuss different forms of research and scientific cooperation, although none explicitly use the term “science diplomacy”. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals the Arctic states do apply the SD concept in their strategies and use three types of diplomacy – science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy or diplomacy for science – in the three indicators.

The present article extends recent studies that ask what might else have been considered by Scott and Amundsen in planning their sledging operations to reach the South Pole during the southern summer of 1911/12. Both were on the cusp of changes in exploration methods and had at hand significant knowledge from past expeditions. Scott’s preparations were based on British Arctic experiences using several haulage methods including the recent innovation, motor sledges. He had little success with them although more research and experimentation might have made them valuable. Amundsen’s integrated program was based on previous American and Norwegian exploration in the Arctic and Antarctica. The race was between two men with very different backgrounds. Scott and Amundsen belonged to the same generation, Scott followed the romantic tradition of heroism as suffering; whereas Amundsen came from a culture that did not value unnecessary risk to life and limb. He won the race with a different organizational type and a different approach to gathering and using knowledge. Evolutionary economics with its focus on organizational structure and its impact on the use of knowledge and innovation is used to evaluate the plans and results of Scott and Amundsen.

The archipelago of Svalbard is a good example of an Arctic locale undergoing rapid changes on multiple levels. This contribution is a joint effort of three anthropologists with up-to-date ethnographic data from Svalbard (mostly Longyearbyen and Barentsburg) to frame and interpret interconnected changes. The processes impacting Svalbard are related to issues such as geopolitical interests, and increasing pressure by the Norwegian government to exercise presence and control over the territory. Our interpretations are based on a bottom-up approach, drawing on experiences living in the field. We identify three great ruptures in recent years – the avalanche of 2015, the gradual phasing out of mining enterprises and the COVID-19 pandemic – and show how they further impact, accelerate or highlight preexisting vulnerabilities in terms of socio-economic development, and environmental and climate change. We discuss the shift from coal mining to the industries of tourism, education, and research and development, and the resulting changed social and demographic structure of the settlements. Another facet is the complexity of environmental drivers of change and how they relate to the socio-economic ones. This article serves as an introductory text to the collection of articles published in Polar Record in 2021/2022 with the overarching theme “changing Svalbard”. Issues discussed range from socio-economic change and its implications for local populations including identity of place, through tourism (value creation, mediation, human–environment relations, environmental dilemmas, balancing contradictory trends), to security and risk perception, and environmental and climate change issues.

A review of historical documents concerning the 1859 discovery of the skeleton of a member of the 1845 Franklin expedition on southern King William Island revealed a significant but previously unrecognized geographical error about the site’s reported and mapped location. Archeological investigations conducted in 2019 established the site’s correct location and the fact that it had unwittingly been rediscovered in 1973. Misconceptions concerning the site’s location and key aspects of its interpretation highlight the importance of careful evaluation of historical and archeological data regarding the 1845 Franklin expedition.

It has been argued that science diplomacy (SD) helps avoid or mitigate conflicts among stakeholders in the Arctic. Yet underlying some of these well-intended and sometimes successful initiatives is a one-sided understanding of SD. The most recent literature takes a more differentiated approach towards the means and ends of SD. It shows that international scientific interaction is shaped by the twofold logic of competition and collaboration. Instruments of SD can be meant to serve national interests, collective regional goals or global agendas. The present paper disentangles these confounding discourses of collaboration and competition based on a conceptually enhanced SD framework. It analyses Arctic strategies and two cases of Arctic SD, the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation and research activities on Svalbard, to reveal the mechanisms of collaboration and competition in the sphere of international science in relation to security, environment and economy. By pointing out where and how science is currently being used in the Arctic, this article provides (a) a systematic overview of the state of SD in the region and (b) a tool for policy-makers and scientists to assess what impact different facets of SD have in Arctic politics.

In the context of socio-economic transformation of Svalbard, from a place dominated by the coal mining industry to a nature-based tourism destination, the article focuses on how this transformation is co-created with material objects of coal mining remnants. These seemingly marginal, insignificant or even out-of-place remnants of coal mining activity (such as rusty barrels or collapsing infrastructure) have become, by law, a protected part of the Svalbard environment, a cultural heritage. Based on the relational (more-than-human) ethnography of guided tours, the analysis shows that this transformation is co-creating the characteristics of both the past of coal mining and the present notion of wilderness. It demonstrates the process not only as a transformation of interpretations, knowledge and values but also as a transformation of relations with non-human components of the environment. Rather contextual than linear shifts in a biography of the objects, together with the temporality of the objects and their porous character, play a significant role in the Svalbard’s transformation into a nature-based tourism destination.

For many years, and within the context of pre-pandemic tourism growth in the Norwegian Arctic, governmental institutions have had expectations that Sámi indigenous people of the north of Norway should engage more strongly in the tourism economy. What does it however imply for Sámi people to become agents in tourism and take ownership to tourism development? This paper attends to Sámi people who engage as entrepreneurs in tourism in Norwegian parts of Sápmi. We suggest ways to identify when and how indigeneity emerges as a topic and meaning dimension that makes a difference in the entrepreneurship process and discuss how Sáminess can mark the process in ambiguous ways. The current paper’s exploration is enabled by a qualitative co-creative study and detailed account of a Sámi tourism venture in a coastal town in Finnmark, Norway. The paper attends to the venture as part of the entrepreneurs’ life stories, everyday life, and material relational practices and explores the intrinsic geographies and histories to which their various relational practices connect the enterprise. Sámi entrepreneurships in tourism are considered in light of the unstable and changing ethnic qualities of places, through an approach that acknowledges the current transformative complexities of indigeneity. The analysis illuminates tourism entrepreneurs’ engagements in indigenously transgressive enactments of places and of Sámi culture and tells about vitalities and vulnerabilities involved in becoming indigenous agents in Arctic destinations.

Science diplomacy has been instrumental in facilitating cooperation in the Arctic region, yet through the projection of vast hydrocarbon potential in the region, it has also served to undermine the major transformation necessary in Arctic decision-making towards the goals of climate governance. This article surveys the translation of science from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports (i.e. the CARA study and Factsheet 2008-3049) on Arctic oil and gas and its transformation into common knowledge within Arctic discourse through repetition by the agents in between and its subsequent adoption into Arctic policy documents. In this process, we interrogate the production of the science underpinning US science diplomacy and the influence of this science on international Arctic discourse and policy use science diplomacy. This paper contributes to the literature of science diplomacy in the Arctic by examining the contributions of the USGS to Arctic policy discourses and its impact on Arctic governance at the nexus of science diplomacy on climate and energy.

Science diplomacy can be defined as “the use of scientific collaborations between countries to address joint problems and to build constructive international partnerships for delivering effective scientific advice for policy making”. During the last 10 years, the Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR) has been active in finding ways to solve global Grand Challenges, particularly climate change and poor air quality in polluted megacities, and at the same time, better bridge research to international climate policy and science diplomacy processes. INAR has introduced Pan-Eurasian Experiment programme running since the year 2012 (www.atm.helsinki.fi/peex) to better address the scientific challenge to understand Atmosphere – Earth Surface – Biosphere interactions and feedbacks in the Northern Eurasian context. INAR has also launched a measurement concept called the Global Network of Stations Measuring Earth Surface and Atmosphere Interactions (GlobalSMEAR) and has hosted the European Centre of the International Eurasian Academy of Sciences since 2015. Most recently, INAR has coordinated the Arena for the gap analysis of the existing Arctic Science Co-Operations (AASCO), 2020–2021, to promote research with a holistic and integrated approach in understanding feedbacks and interactions globally and locally at the Arctic and outside the Arctic environments.