Dr Jan Peter Laurens Loovers ARC0016
Written evidence submitted by Dr Jan Peter Laurens Loovers
My name is Dr Jan Peter Laurens Loovers, a Dutch anthropologist who obtained my PhD at the University of Aberdeen. I have studied and worked in Norway (Tromsø), Finland (Rovaniemi), Canada (Whitehorse, Fort McPherson, Old Crow, Arviat and upcoming Kinngait and Mittimatalik), and mostly in Scotland. I have been conducting ethnographic research in the Arctic and museum work on the Arctic since 2005. I have held various postdoctoral research positions. Most of my work is with Gwich’in in western Arctic, but currently I am a CINUK Research Fellow on UKRI NERC funded Inuksiutit: Food Sovereignty in Nunavut. Notably, I was the Project Curator for the British Museum’s Arctic: culture and climate exhibition (https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/arctic-culture-and-climate/). I will draw on these experiences to provide you with the evidence.
Short summary of action points and recommendations:
As UK’s Arctic Policy Looking North states, Indigenous Peoples form an integral part in the Arctic. Although recent funding schemes like CINUK (I am a Research Fellow in this scheme) are worth applauding, more UK scientific research needs to collaborate directly with Indigenous communities. Increase of this research scheme is recommendable. Indigenous knowledge and authorship needs to form a key role in scientific reports and projects, especially but not exclusively when it comes to climate change. UK Arctic policy-makers and UK businesses, too, need to work directly with Indigenous policy-makers to ensure that Indigenous interests are being heard and implemented. This is certainly the case with anything that affects their lives such as shipping, tourism, extractive industries etc. UK can take a leading role in advocating food sovereignty in the Artcic. This entails letting Indigenous organisations decide about hunting and trading traditional country food products including ivory (e.g. whale, seal, narwhal, caribou, geese). The restart of the Arctic Council with all parties involved is also recommendable, there is a dire need to have all Arctic parties with Indigenous partners come back together at the table to discuss urgent matters that do not stop with Russia’s invasion. A geopolitical conflict in the Arctic will be detrimental for Indigenous livelihoods.
As illustrated in the recent British Museum’s Arctic: culture and climate exhibition, it is projected that there will only be a fragment of summer ice in the Arctic by 2100. Subsequently, rising sea levels are to be expected and UK coastlines are bound to have to cope with this.
Action: There is a need for effective coastline protection and measurements that deal with the inevitable rise of water. The establishment of a Coastline Protection Fund could be an option. The Netherlands provides a good pro-active example and lessons can be learned from Alaska (USA).
Indigenous Peoples experience climate change and erratic weather patterns on a daily basis. Travelling for hunting or fishing has become increasingly difficult, animals face various challenges, melting permafrost causes issues with food storage and release of methane.
Action: Ensure that Indigenous Peoples are at the cornerstone of any policy-making, observation, and solution. Indigenous Peoples live with the daily changes in the Arctic and form the basis for a thorough understanding how climate change impacts animals, ice, sea-levels, biodiversity. Discussions with Indigenous Peoples is not enough, and the UK Government needs to bring Indigenous leaders to the table in meaningful and impactful conversations that lead to real decision-making. For example, the Select Committee can invite Indigenous leaders to provide evidence.
Extractive industries (mining) continue to be a sensitive and highly contested topic in the Arctic. One the one hand, there is support on a local and national/international level but, on the other hand, there continues to be a strong local and national/international level. The Willow development in Alaska showcases this tension. With receding ice, there will be various opportunities to develop claims in the Arctic. Tourism and shipping, likewise, will continue to increase and there have been various initiatives to build larger ports in the Arctic.
Action: Indigenous governance in Alaska, Canada and Greenland continues to increase and strengthen. UK businesses with an interest in the Arctic are bound to have to include Indigenous policy-makers and community-members from an early stage of any development. I can be foreseen that a lack of partnership with Indigenous Peoples will lead to economic downfall later on in the project. I advise UK businesses to familiarise and engage with Indigenous policies, interests, and futures to be certain to have a successful and enduring working relationship in the Arctic.
As noted above, the rapidly changing climate and weather can have adverse impact on business trends. Storms have become more sincere in Alaska, impacting coastlines where businesses might be held. At the same time, receding ice makes the Northwest Passage possible for shipping and an increase in shipping has already been seen (including cruise ships). There are various examples where extractive industries have had negative impact. In the Gwich’in Settlement Area, upper Peel River, for example, UK business Shell (and others) left various oil drums and other wastage on the land and in lakes after abandoning resource exploration in the 1950s-1960s. By the 2000s, with climate change drying up lakes and alternating riverbanks, much of these oil drums have appeared and cause environmental issues.
Action: The Arctic is a volatile region and climate change is alternating the land, sea, ice in unprecedented ways. Extractive industries have a long history in the Arctic that has not always been positive. The risk of any extractive resource project going wrong has immediate and lasting impact on Indigenous Peoples. Safety measures and urgent response are needed for any extractive industry failures (examples from Yamal Peninsula are exemplary of what not to do). Again, Indigenous governments will be well-placed to address any concerns and to be at the heart of any extractive industry initiative.
The Canadian Rangers program is an excellent example of how Canadian Military collaborates with Indigenous communities. The UK military might want to think about shared programs with the Rangers to increase their Arctic expertise and defence experiences. With receding ice, the Arctic continues to become an increasingly geopolitical region with Russian Federation and China making claims (as do Canada, USA and Fennoscandia).
Action: further discussions with Arctic countries to ensure that there will be no geopolitical conflict in the Arctic that will have detrimental effect on Arctic life.
NOTE – I address various questions together in this section.
With pride, I can say that I have benefitted from UK’s longstanding Arctic research interests for over twenty years. The UK has taken a proactive approach in collaborating with Russia, Fennoscandia, and Canada. As point of illustration, I have attended meetings with other Arctic scholars in Russia as part of a collaborative exchange program. I am currently in a multi-million research funding scheme (CINUK) that brings together POLAR Knowledge Canada (Canada), Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and UKRI-NERC. Funding such as this, and a multitude of others, have brought UK to the forefront of Arctic research. The University of Aberdeen’s Department of Anthropology has a world-leading reputation for its social research in the Arctic that draws numerous scholars and students to the University. UK research, too, has meant that the UK has a strong voice in any Arctic academic discussions and policy-making.
Action: continue UK research in the Arctic, increase funding schemes like CINUK that brings together research institutions with Indigenous organisations.
There is certainly room for “natural sciences”, but when it comes to the Arctic it is paramount that Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge is incorporated on an equal level. Much of scientific research leaves out Arctic voices (be reminded that the Arctic is home to a large percentage of Indigenous communities with various levels of political leverage). The fact that none of the questions in this Call for Evidence concerns or mentions Indigenous Peoples is telling
Action: This is an oft-repeated action point, but UK scientific institutions need to catch up when it comes to working with Indigenous communities. Decolonizing curriculums have been advocated in Universities, but this also needs to be implemented in scientific research design and execution. Partners in Canada and Alaska over a different perspective and UK can learn from this.
The UK’s most recent Arctic Policy document Looking North acknowledges Indigenous Peoples and governance, and this needs to be applauded but there are still “colonial” elements when it comes to Indigenous livelihoods. Hunting (e.g. whaling or seal-hunting) and trade in ivory (walrus or narwhal) are crucial in Indigenous lives. UK’s emphasis that Indigenous whaling needs to be upheld by International Whaling Organization and bound to regulations contradicts the acknowledgement to collaborate with Indigenous communities. Indigenous Peoples have been custodians and advocates for sustainable hunting for millennia. Our project Food Sovereignty in Nunavut aims to advocate traditional country food and address the rising food insecurity in the Arctic. Bans on hunting or limited trading have negative impact in the Arctic, reliance on traditional country food has decreased due to wildlife regulations, high living costs, and climate change.
Action UK to take a different perspective on whale hunting and ivory trade by Indigenous communities. Return decision-making and sovereignty back to Indigenous organisations. This is already acknowledged within the document when it comes to research but it also needs to implemented when it comes to wildlife regulations. As the document states: “The UK fully respects the sovereign rights of the eight Arctic States and indigenous people of the region.”
There certainly is a shift of collaborating with EU to working with Canada as CINUK exemplifies. Work with Fennoscandia, however, continues and there are strong ties between research institutions in Fennoscandia and UK (for example between Scott Polar Institute, University of Aberdeen, Arctic Centre in Rovaniemi). A major change, however, has been the Russian invasion in Ukraine and subsequent collapse of Arctic collaborative work with Russian partners. This is extremely unfortunate and has a detrimental impact of some of UK research in the Arctic. Working relationships with Russian partners have always been fruitful and there is a long history of establishing and maintaining these relationships. The Arctic Council’s current abeyance/suspension is worrying as this has been the only top-level platform where the eight Arctic States meet Indigenous organisations on an equal level. The collapse of this soft-power has meant that important environmental decisions are increasingly lop-sided. Without participation of Russia (and China like UK as Observer), climate change actions and Arctic regulations are limited.
Action During the Cold War, there was a continuous working relationship and knowledge sharing with Russian academics and cultural institutions. As example, Smithsonian Institution held an important exhibition that housed objects from Russian museums. The return to soft diplomacy working with Russian academics on a lower tone is advised. Allowing Russian academics to visit UK for research meetings is also advised.
The UK can take a leading role as the Arctic Council observer to revive the Arctic Council. It would be unadvisable to initiate a replacement for the Arctic Council without Russian (or Chinese for that matter) involvement. The Russian Federation constitutes almost half of the Arctic region and environmental or geopolitical policies can only have a success with Russian collaboration. Chinese increasing presence (including resource extraction projects in Canada) is cause for attention and the UK will have to take a proactive role when it comes it to geopolitical movements. UKs long scientific presence, and geopolitical location of Scotland, gives UK an important and influential role in Arctic policies. The Scottish Government’s involvement in the Arctic has increased and noticeable.
Action - A continued diplomatic effort with all Arctic countries AND Indigenous political organisations is recommendable. Perhaps a shift from Observer to Full Arctic Council member can be something that is possible.
April 2023