“It belongs to the world.” Oil,conservation and futures in the making in Lofoten,Norway

Abstract

This article analyzes how debates on the potential exploration of petroleum, a World Heritage Application and the establishment of a national park in Lofoten, Northern Norway, have interacted between 2008 and 2017. By using an ontological security perspective on anticipation, we identify and analyze how local responses to petroleum and conservation processes diverge and connect over a cross-cutting set of concerns about the future. Through qualitative interviews and media analyses of local newspapers, we identify four themes of concerns over which the processes interact: the environment, jobs and demographic development, decision-making processes and livelihoods and identities. Our findings show that when played out in the same time period and geographic setting, the seemingly different development proposals of petroleum and conservation have become entangled and embedded in a broader discussion about what constitutes Lofoten today and how the region can be secured in the future. As such, the processes have mirrored each other’s style of anticipation, demonstrated by that petroleum debates span the viability and identity of coastal communities and identities, and by that conservation initiatives focus on economic generation and job creation. We argue that anticipatory practices in Lofoten are funded upon the specific human–nature relationships that characterize the region, emerging through cross-cutting concerns related to the viability of fisheries, the existence of coastal communities and the possibility of self-determination. We approach these concerns as local manifestations of sources of ontological security that influence how any future in the making are imagined, supported and resisted in the region. The article adds new perspectives to current debates on how future development directions are envisioned and enacted locally by underlining the interrelationship between the search for ontological security and anticipatory practices.

Keywords

Futures ontological security anticipation petroleum conservation

Introduction

We believe the landscape and nature here to be so special that it belongs to the world.¹

The coastal waters outside Lofoten archipelago, Northern Norway host the world’s largest cod spawning site with related fishing traditions and stock fish trade patterns spanning back millennia (Bertelsen and Urbańczyk, 1988; Nielssen, 1993). During the last two decades, the issue of whether to open the sea areas outside the regions Lofoten, Vesterålen and Senja (LoVeSe) for petroleum extraction has become somewhat of an environmental, developmental and political trauma in Norway. The core of the debate hinges on whether petroleum development can be undertaken without threatening the viability of the fisheries, and the LoVeSe issue has come to exemplify Norway’s dubious role as a nation dependent on income from petroleum exports whilst championing global climate initiatives such as REDD+ (Hermansen and Kasa, 2014). Examples from the Arctic (e.g. Dale, 2011, 2016; Hansen and Tejsner, 2016; Wilson and Stammler, 2016) and beyond (see for instance Appel et al., 2015) show that when petroleum emerges as a potential development trajectory, counter-narratives and alternative visions of the future also appear, hinging on resources and activities largely incompatible with industrialized extraction of petroleum resources. In the past decade, large-scale conservation measures including a World Heritage Status application and the establishment of a national park have emerged as alternatives, describing different potential futures for Lofoten, mainly based on the protection and strategic development of land- and seascapes and traditional livelihoods in conjunction with rapid growth in the tourism sector.

The World Heritage Status application has been forwarded as an explicit response to the push for oil in the region exemplified by the statement that should Lofoten become a World Heritage Site, prospects of petroleum development would effectively be ruled out (Rapp, 2008).

Petroleum and conservation issues in Lofoten have previously been addressed primarily as parallel political processes (Czynski, 2013; Fossland, 2014; Sande, 2013). In this article, we instead analyze the interaction of the seemingly different processes of the potential opening of the LoVeSe oil and gas shelf, the application for a UNESCO World Heritage Status and the establishment of a national park in western Lofoten, and investigate how local responses to these processes make up a broader conversation about the future. These processes have stirred up strong feelings and resistance locally as they all are seen to both provide opportunities and threats to livelihoods, land and seascapes, albeit in different ways. Despite the inherent differences in what typically constitute futures based on oil and gas exploration vis-à-vis conservation, this article will illustrate that the prospect of these future developments has generated a cross-cutting set of essential concerns, emerging regardless of what future alternative that is considered. In Lofoten, specific society–nature relations including the longstanding presence of spawning cod and the economic, cultural, social and symbolic importance ascribed to fisheries characterize how the region is understood and lived (Kaltenborn et al., 2017b; Kristoffersen and Dale, 2014; Misund and Olsen, 2013). This collective source of identity found in the land and seascapes and the past and present usages associated with these, we will argue, serve as a context specific source of ontological security (Giddens, 1991) and as a common foundation upon which futures are anticipated.

Previous research has not paid attention to the way in which local responses to petroleum development and nature conservation in the Lofoten region share some common denominators. By using an ontological security lens on anticipation, we will identify and analyze in what ways these debates diverge and connect over concerns about the future in Lofoten. Our aim is to examine how context-specific sources of ontological security influence how futures are anticipated in the region. We will show how petroleum and nature conservation debates in the Lofoten region have interacted between 2008 and 2017 and that these futures—both supported and strongly opposed—reveal how ontological security concerns matter when politics are performed.

Setting the scene: Petroleum and conservation processes in Lofoten

The Lofoten archipelago stretches out into the Norwegian sea from the mainland and is with its row of alpine mountain tops a landmark in the Norwegian north (Figure 1). It consists of a total of 365 islands, its population of around 24,500 lives on the seven main islands, politically and administratively divided into six municipalities. The main economic sectors of Lofoten are tourism and fisheries, although small-scale agriculture, wharf industries, and a growing service sector are also important.

Figure 1.

Map of the Lofoten Islands with main areas of cod spawning areas, petroleum fields and suggested borders for Lofotodden national park and UNESCO world heritage site delineated.

In 1994, parts of the oil and gas shelf outside LoVeSe (the “Nordland VI” field) was opened for seismic testing and test drilling, and six years later Statoil (now Equinor) drilled their first test without results. The following year, a second test drilling was postponed by the Labour party led Cabinet due to protests from local fishers. This was followed up by the subsequent center-right Cabinet due to criticism from the Environment Agency, highlighting inadequacy of the impact assessment as their foremost concern. A formal investigation was launched in 2003, which led to the process of establishing an ecosystem-based management scheme in 2006, later updated in 2011 (Norway, 2006, 2011). Plans for petroleum development have since been postponed, and as every cabinet since has been dependent on support from parties in parliament opposing oil and gas in LoVeSe. Even with the opening of the Barents Sea for exploration in the 23rd and 24th licensing rounds for the Norwegian shelf in 2016 and 2017, the petroleum industry in Norway still place access to the LoVeSe-region high on their agenda. The argument is that access to LoVeSe is a deciding factor for the future prospects for Norway as an oil and gas producing country, driven by both industry concerns about future access to potential fields and a national political concern about the future income for the state if petroleum revenues were to decline (Dale and Kristoffersen, 2018). Adding to the complexity is Norway’s dual position on petroleum and climate change, which permeates strategic development processes and documents (Jensen, 2012; Kristoffersen and Dale, 2014). In short, the Norwegian government has sought to align its continued northward expansion in search for oil and gas with climate change concerns by arguing that Norwegian petroleum production is less polluting than elsewhere (see Down and Erickson, 2017), mirroring the industry’s argumentation on the matter, despite its troublesome reconciliation with the ambitions in the Paris climate agreement (UN, 2015).

Conservation as a means to both protect land and seascapes and strategically develop Lofoten’s fisheries, agriculture and tourism sectors has been envisioned as an alternative development pathway for the region (Kaltenborn et al., 2017a; Sande, 2013). Lofoten as a UNESCO world heritage site was first introduced in 1996 and was added to Norway’s tentative list of potential sites in 2002. A secretariat was established and an application prepared, with the main bulk of activities taking place between 2004 and 2009 (Isdal, 2009). Although the UNESCO heritage area did not include the areas where potential oil and gas exploration would take place, experts assessing Lofoten’s potential for achieving world heritage status noted that petroleum extraction would be in conflict with the objective of securing biological diversity to safeguard coastal fisheries and stock fish traditions (Misund and Olsen, 2013; Sande, 2013). Furthermore, the absence of national conservation measures such as large marine and terrestrial protected areas and extensive cultural heritage sites were seen as weaknesses in the application. Due to uncertainties about the influence a UNESCO status could have on the ability to make local decisions, The Lofoten Council—a joint political body for six municipalities in Lofoten—halted the process in 2009 when the application was close to completed (see Czynski, 2013: 63–79; Sande, 2015). The nomination process came to a full stop, as the question of whether petroleum exploitation and the UNESCO status could hinder each other remained unresolved (Sande, 2013). In 2014, the Lofoten Council reversed their decision to halt the process, and asked the national government to move forward with the nomination process. The Ministry of Climate and Environment, undoubtedly uncertain about the status of the application in Lofoten, stated that local support for establishing Lofotodden National Park was a precondition before an application to UNESCO would be even considered, thus effectively establishing an order of business concerning conservation measures in the region.

The establishment of a national park in the western part of Lofoten has a shorter history and is thus partly an outcome of the processes outlined above. Lofotodden National Park was initiated by the local municipality Moskenes in 2007, an exception in Norway as national parks are typically initiated by the state. The national park will cover almost 60% of Moskenes municipal area and a smaller area of the neighboring municipality Flakstad. The process proved to be challenging as the plan met significant local resistance. Due to demands from opponents, a local advisory referendum on the establishment of Lofotodden was held in Moskenes in April 2015. It resulted in a 58 to 42% victory for the no-side. However, only 44% of eligible voters in the municipality participated and the municipal board therefore decided to go against the popular vote and still recommend the establishment of a national park. Accordingly, the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in March 2017 that it supported the designation of Lofotodden National Park. The Norwegian parliament formally established the park in late June 2018, a decision that met both resignation and delight locally.

The politics of anticipation and ontological security

It is argued that we now live in “an age of anticipation” (Granjou et al., 2017), largely driven by unfolding climatic and ecological changes and associated crises in coupled natural and social systems. How futures are imagined, enacted, supported or contested in other words anticipated has been conceptualized in several disciplines such as economics, psychology, anthropology and sociology (Poli, 2014). We argue for the importance of a more explicit acknowledgement of sources of ontological security when anticipatory practices are analyzed, as a sense of being ontologically secure or insecure play into how futures are imagined. Moreover, analysis of concrete sources of (in)security potentially reveal the capacity to influence decisions about the future.

In a widely cited definition, Anthony Giddens (1991) refer to ontological security as

… a person’s fundamental sense of safety in the world and includes a basic trust of other people. Obtaining such trust becomes necessary in order for a person to maintain a sense of confidence and trust that the world is what it appears to be. (p. 39)

Sources for sustaining ontological security used to be (and to a certain extent still are) based on kinship systems, state obligations towards its population and face-to-face interactions but have, according to Giddens, become more fragile in the modern world. Actions people undertake to attain security are both “routinized” (predictable and stable over time) and “regionalized” (ordered spatially), and are thereby dependent on the particularities of any given context. An ontological security approach focuses our attention to the social, emotional and cultural processes through which individuals and communities seek to create and reaffirm an order of things, a way to understand and find meaning in the world; in short, to tackle both assessments of risk, security and anticipation as potential futures are discussed (Dale, 2011). The same mechanisms used to ensure a sense of security such as religion, ritual and institutions have traditionally also been used for “taming the unknown future” (Adam and Groves, 2007). Anticipating possible futures thus emerge from social life and as result “action depend both on imagination and on a political ontology or a sense of being in the world and of the nature of that world” (Connor and Marshall, 2015:1 in Granjou et al., 2017). In line with Appadurai (2013), we view ideas and aspirations about the future as a “meta capacity” founded in larger cultural norms and interaction of social as well as natural life. Sources of ontological security, inherent in larger societal norms, therefore play an important role when futures are imagined and enacted. A focus on anticipation can also reveal how people see themselves in the world and how the search for ontological security influence people to act to make certain futures more likely than others (Nuttall, 2010).

Any future in the making consists of specific constellations of knowledge practices, socio-technical infrastructure and importantly also material and biophysical components (Groves, 2017). In modern societies, it is assumed that the future will diverge from the past and that rational planning and deliberate calculation by individuals, organizations and states can shape future outcomes (Zinn, 2008). Bringing futures into being comes with different styles, practices and logics (Anderson, 2010). Adam and Groves (2007) distinguishes between anticipation of “embedded futures” (contextualized within a specific setting) and “emptied futures” (decontextualized to make them valid in any setting and derived from calculation and commodification). Embedded future making builds on a sense of being-in-the-world and an understanding of what constitute interaction between humans and non-humans and the nature of this world. In an ethnographic account of hunters in Greenland, Nuttall (2010) argue that anticipation based on skills, knowledge and flexibility determine hunters’ ability for success and also survival. Anticipation, he shows, is rooted in everyday life and knowledge of how to make use of possibilities is associated with landscapes and the ability to recall and draw upon stories of specific places to navigate the opportunities and perils that emerge from the landscape successfully. Nuttall’s (2010) account exemplify a contextualized and embedded way of anticipation, rooted in everyday life and the social and cultural practices taking place in specific land and seascapes—the same knowledge that ensures ontological security. Conservation of land and seascapes may at least in theory follow this mode of anticipation, where landmarks of the past and features of the present are to be safeguarded for the future. This involves making certain features desirable for conservation appear, and offered with relevance in the present (Hinchliffe, 2008). By using science and establishing facts on aspects of socio-natures become stabilized even though the facts are uncertain, contested and that natures are dynamic and constant evolving. Nevertheless, these kinds of conservation futures, as seen in Lofoten, often draw upon the role of past human practices and attachment to specific biophysical features (Sande, 2015).

In contrast, “emptied futures” are disentangled from contexts, structures and interactions and brought into being by calculations with the purpose of commodification and exploitation so as to make valid in any context and also tradable (Adam and Groves, 2007). Adams and Groves (2007: 8) argue that an emptied future

is simply there, an empty space waiting to be filled with our desire, to be shaped, traded or formed according to rational plans and blueprints, holding out to the promise that it can be what we want it to be.

Contrary to the future ontological security outlook of local communities in Lofoten, anticipations of a future where petroleum is a required resource based on energy scenarios, calculated risk and welfare economics is in fact the modus operandi of the Norwegian state (cf. Groves, 2017). Here, the petroleum-based economy is highly intertwined with the workings of the welfare state and by extension also ontological security provided to citizens by the state (Szeman, 2007). Emptied futures with the promise of exploitation and development may therefore also meaningfully connect with people’s needs for ontological security as citizens of the nation state, such as the promise of jobs and investments when certain resources are exploited. However, we will argue that the emptied future outlook that characterize petroleum can in a local context also include a sense of interconnectedness; where past, present and future connections to the material surroundings and the knowledge produced from it represents an important basis for ontological security.

Managing the future through planning processes such as those here analyzed are about ensuring that certain characteristics and practices can be sustained in the future, and that alternative desirable futures may be reached. However, any imagined and planned future simultaneously requires the abandonment of others (Anderson, 2010), which is why both conservation and petroleum debates meet vocal resistance. Moreover, the capacities of imagining and enacting futures (and the present) are unevenly distributed in any society and, according to Appadurai (2013), make the future “a cultural reservoir,” accessible to some and not to others. This asymmetry in anticipatory capacities is exacerbated by the fact that the livability of a global future hinge on (in)decisions taken by often distant and powerful actors (Granjou et al., 2017). The capacity to influence how futures are imagined increases ontological security, which then shape what is seen as possible and desirable—or inconceivable and undesirable. As such, the imagining of potential futures and the capacity to influence decisions about the future shapes individual and community ontological security, as what matters presently and, in the future, are brought to the fore.

Methods and data collection

This study forms part of a larger project with the objective of comparing how communities in Alaska, Greenland and Norway imagine potential futures (see Dale et al., 2019). Here we focus solely on the Lofoten case. Our data draw on 35 qualitative interviews undertaken in 2008–2011 and 2015–2017, on-and-off fieldwork during the intermediate period and a media analysis of local newspapers (Lofotposten, Lofot-tidene, Avisa Nordland) from the period 2008–2017. The 10 interviews from 2009 to 2011 are from another project, here re-analyzed (see Dale, 2011 for details). We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009) during April–May 2015, November 2015 and May–June 2016, followed by another five interviews in late 2016 to early 2017. The interviews were based on a dynamic interview guide encompassing themes relating to the prospect of oil exploration, World Heritage Status Application and Lofotodden National Park, what informants viewed as risks and opportunities with these processes, how they valued living in Lofoten and what hopes and fear they held for the future. The majority of interviews were recorded and transcribed, but when some informants were uncomfortable with the recorder, the interviews were instead recorded through detailed note taking. The transcribed interviews, fieldnotes and media articles were organized and analyzed using the software NVivo, for categorization and coding (Bazeley and Jackson, 2013). The research processes and data analysis followed an inductive and iterative logic (Crotty, 1998). We first set out to analyze the relationship between petroleum and conservation development in Lofoten, as we had observed that people tended to discuss these processes as a part of a larger phenomenon. The material was first coarsely coded, based on the interview guide and more general themes. The codes contained sub-codes such as “co-existence,” “national park,” “value generation” and “fisheries.” After an initial analysis of the data derived from the 2015 fieldwork, we more explicitly aimed to analyze similarities between patterns of resistance to the three processes and how these proposed developments brought peoples hopes, wants and fears about a future to a fore. The final set of codes developed to capture concerns was: “demography,” “economy,” “market branding,” “employment,” “environment,” “power, process and decision-making” and “traditions and identity.” These set of codes were used to analyze the totality of interview data, also those from 2008 to 2011. During the process of writing and framing the article, we merged “demography” and “employment” and integrated economy related concerns into the other categories.

Relevant informants were identified based on their engagement in development projects, private businesses and organizations, and public service and administration, as well as through “snow-balling” (Gobo, 2007). Therefore, this article focusses on the perspectives of those particularly engaged in petroleum and conservation issues, and does not necessarily reflect therefore the overall sentiments of the broader population in Lofoten (see Kaltenborn et al., 2017a, 2017c). The Lofoten region hosts a relatively small population and the people engaged in these debates often have multiple roles in the local communities, for example as a politician and a school teacher. This likely influenced their positions and views relating to the region’s overall development and potential future direction. We limit our analysis to the period between 2008 and 2017, motivated by our available data and because important decisions concerning the future of oil and conservation in Lofoten have been made during this period (e.g. Dale and Kristoffersen, 2018; Kristoffersen and Dale, 2014).

Identified themes of concern

In this section, we will present the way specific themes are discussed in the three debates studied. We have identified four themes of concern through which petroleum and conservation processes interact to imagine different futures: environmental concerns, jobs and demographic development, decisions making processes, and livelihoods and identities. We recognize the interrelatedness of these concerns, and we will discuss this further in the Discussion section.

The environment and natural resources

Concerns about if and how natural resources can be used without harming Lofoten’s land and seascapes play an important role in petroleum as well as conservation debates but take different forms. Discussions tended to touch upon the relationship between past, present and future usages of land and seascapes and whether a specific development would reinforce or depart from what was conceived of as traditional usages of resources. If Lofoten should aim for a World heritage status or a national park, relate to how conservation measures would protect and enable or hinder development of landscapes, natural resources and associated practices. In contrast, petroleum debates centered on if extraction could be carried out without damaging or even ruining existing ecosystems and the sectors relying on these.

Pro-conservation informants viewed a potential world heritage status or a national park as development that could sustain “green values” through supporting the primary sectors and enable sustainable tourism. Increasing number of tourists have made visitation management a real concern for politicians, residents and thus our informants. Overfilled waste bins, toilet paper and human feces scattered around popular hikes and tourists camping in cemeteries and local gardens are a source of irritation and resentment and according to many residents, signs of a tourism sector “out of control.” The potential environmental benefits of Lofotodden national park were primarily articulated in terms of being able to take better care of environments and local communities, currently showing stark signs of wear and tear from tourist activities, as expressed in an editorial in a local newspaper: “We’re usually proud when images of our beautiful islands travel the world. After this summer, I think we will want it to happen less often. We’ve just about had it. It’s no fun anymore” (Valberg, 2017: our translation from Norwegian).

Benefits associated with a world heritage status and a national park were described as access to sources of funding for protecting and developing nature-based sectors and to undertake necessary measures such as reinforcing dangerous mountain paths, building sanitation infrastructure and waste disposal systems in order to “…look after our unique nature…threatened by increasing tourism now,” as stated by an informant involved in the national park process. However, informants opposing conservation measures argued that a green branding of Lofoten would attract more tourists that the local authorities would have difficulties in managing, which would further contribute to environmental degradation and alienation for communities.

Petroleum debates concerned what impacts exploration and extraction would have on marine ecosystems and the fisheries. The issue was discussed in terms of risks associated with seismic shooting, oil spills and blowouts. Informants expressed different understandings of risk and what knowledge that is required to judge what constitute acceptable vs. inacceptable risk. For example, local politicians and businessmen in favor of petroleum argued that impacts of seismic activities on fish are unclear and that further studies are needed, while those against argued based on fishers’ experience that seismic shooting is highly damaging to fish.

Likewise, the role of risk assessments, probability assessments and oil spill preparedness were strategically used as part of the argumentation for both opponents and proponents. The latter arguing that the risk of an accident in Lofoten is way smaller than for instance in the Mexican Gulf while others argue based on the same assessments that even if the risk of an oil spill is very small, there is too much at stake. A sentiment exemplified by a statement from a woman engaged in the tourism sector:

Everyone remembers the pictures from Exxon Valdez … [in case of an oil spill] we would be done for (…) the fish and birds and the whole structure around our lives would be destroyed in something like a collective suicide. We don’t want to be the position where we need to consider how to deal with that.

What role Lofoten’s environment and natural resources should play globally appeared in all debates. In arguments supporting conservation and opposing petroleum development, Lofoten’s environment was depicted as unique and something that deserves to be protected for the world and that petroleum resources should be left in the ground for the global climate. However, some informants argued that the oil and gas should be extracted, referring to the (controversial) claim that Norwegian petroleum is among the cleanest in the world and that gas extracted from Lofoten could contribute to phase out coal elsewhere.

There were differences in terms of monetary value ascribed to the environment in the different debates. Those in favor of conservation often argued that a world heritage status or a national park had the potential to realize value generation that is not readily appreciated, while the value of petroleum is “known,” quantified and used in elaborate calculations.

Jobs and demographic development

How to secure jobs was a key question in petroleum and conservation debates, intimately connected with demographic concerns. Employment opportunities in the region was linked to local attractiveness, to ensure that young locals stay or return, and that people from other areas move to Lofoten. Although there has been a small increase in population over the last 15 years, the region experienced outmigration and declining population in the preceding three decades. Demographic trends vary between different areas in Lofoten, but fears of an ageing and declining population were shared by most informants, no matter their position on either petroleum development or conservation measures. The main reason for saying yes to petroleum—the hope for jobs—is thus part of the reason why many informants somewhat paradoxically say yes to both a national park and petroleum development.

A given set of guidelines, regulations and management that steer uses of natural resources in a given direction was by proponents of both a world heritage status and a national park seen to contribute to job creation while opponents argued that this will restrict development opportunities and new jobs. To what extent local communities could benefit from tourism was a central theme in conservation debates. For example, supporters of the national park argued that its entry point, buffer zone and visitor center could give rise to local businesses such as cafes, shops and tour guiding. Such jobs were envisioned to be realized by entrepreneurship rather than larger firms or authorities. Local knowledge about the natural as well as cultural landscapes were forwarded as necessary assets that could enable local ownership, as expressed by a teacher supporting the national park:

I do see opportunities with the national park, we will be eligible to apply for funding that we cannot access now…We need more businesses, we need jobs, everyone will agree to that, either they are for or against the national park. Some say that we could have all that without the national park, but I wonder why they don’t work for that now.

Another informant who had been politically active at the local level highlighted how the economic situation within the municipality constrained attempts to attract families to live and work in Moskenes. Others opposed to the national park claimed that the focus on tourism made the region turn a blind eye to more industrial sectors such as mining that could prosper with less environmental regulations. From this perspective, conservation supporting tourism narrowed rather than widens the window of opportunity for more employment opportunities.

The ripple effects a national park, a world heritage status or petroleum exploration could give were topics people continuously returned to. Employment opportunities conservation might provide were assumed by those favoring such processes, but rarely quantified. This lack of precision has also been used as an argument against conservation initiatives. Local jobs and ripple effects from petroleum development figured prominently in regional debates and tended to be presented in numbers, although subject to much contestation, as estimates varied.

In 2010, the potential of petroleum was discussed in a context where the fisheries were slow, and outmigration of youth was a prominent concern. Thus, the argument for petroleum was entwined with the claim that coastal communities was on the verge of disappearing due to a lack of employment opportunities. In 2011 an informant, engaged in a local petroleum company, stated that the Lofoten petroleum debate in many ways was the region’s approach of drawing attention a systemic problem: “…it is not only about a yes or a no to oil but that the fisheries are going down, that people are moving away.”

The expected ripple effects of petroleum were often juxtaposed to fisheries and tourism as explained by the same informant, this time five years later, in 2016:

Let’s say that the landing facility becomes the driver, then you’ll also get activity at the base, preparedness and so forth…Fisheries, tourism and aquaculture are important to maintain a certain level of employment, but I’m convinced that you need new drivers on top of that.

At the time of our second and third round of interviews, from 2015 to 2017, the tables had turned drastically. In the wake of the oil crisis in 2014, lower oil prices, a new momentum for climate mitigation, profitable fisheries and a booming tourism sector meant that the arguments concerning how to create local jobs had changed. An entrepreneur engaged in the tourism sector therefore stated that the oil proponents ‘had fallen victim of their own rhetoric’. In fact, local politicians (like those on the national stage), who in 2010 argued for petroleum in LoVeSe because of local jobs and ripple effects, did in 2016 instead argue for its contribution to national welfare and national jobs:

Oil and gas would never make the future in Lofoten for anyone. No one believes that. We have seen that jobs promised to LoVeSe because of oil has ranged between 3 and 500. So it’s more likely to be the larger national perspectives that tips it one way or another.

The emphasis on the importance petroleum revenues have had in enabling the Norwegian welfare state was referred to in several interviews. This reflects debates on a national level where not being able to exploit blocks outside of LoVeSe have been compared to a de-industrialization of Norway and a dismantling of the welfare state. In the light of such argumentation, local politicians at times described exploiting the petroleum resources in LoVeSe as an obligation toward Norway as a welfare state and the oil workers who have lost jobs in western Norway.

Decision-making processes

The legitimacy of decision-making processes, use of knowledge and power emerged as equally challenging as the proposed use and management of natural resource in petroleum and conservation processes. Concerns centered around the right of local ownership to development and where decisions should be taken and by whom, what sources of knowledge that were used and on conflicts of interests.

Similar in all three processes was the sentiment that these had been pushed down from above (the national level), leading to perceptions of lost control. Having to apply for using and modifying objects and landscapes people felt belonged to them as a consequence of stricter regulations and more bureaucracy stirred up emotions locally. This was expressed by a young fisher in 2010:

… my father had a boating house when there were talks about a world heritage status. He had to apply just to get a permit to paint his own building, it shouldn’t be changed. He got so mad that he sold that building.

While the “permit to paint” in this example had nothing to do with the potential world heritage status, many feared that the status would result in many more regulations in this vein.

Skepticism to rules and regulations from above may, according to some informants, stem from recent history and the “væreier” system² as elaborated by a woman involved in the UNESCO world heritage application:

Here in the northern areas one is skeptical to everything that is initiated from above or the outside, people are against too much regulations, special laws and restrictions…Private property is a strong principle here and one fears losing out on something that one owns.

In a similar vein, the debates concerning the national park, spurred questions about who or which institutions represented “local” interests in the matter. Here, it was argued that the local population, rather than the local political representatives, should decide on whether the national park should be established, leading to a local municipal guidance referendum on the issue. This failed attempt to influence decision-making left the community divided and informants who pushed for a referendum and engaged in the No to Lofotodden National park movement expressed a sense of being deceived.

The role of and production of knowledge has been heavily debated in the studied processes. While knowledge is seen as something that can legitimate decision-making, informants engaged in all three debates expressed concern about tainted knowledge rife with subjective ideas, lack of complete information that hindered decision-making based on “neutral facts.” Assessments undertaken to investigate the possibility of petroleum exploration, a national park or a world heritage status were therefore received in very different ways depending on what idea about viable futures informants supported. In small communities, this often related to the trust-worthiness of specific individuals. For example, those in favor of a national park argued that assessments had carefully considered different outcomes of a national park and that the collected body of knowledge strongly endorsed the national parks advantages to the region. Opponents on the other hand tended to disregard such assessment by claiming that they were biased from the outset and led by people who had personal stakes in developing Lofoten in one way or another. For petroleum, the battle over knowledge is exemplified by the question of whether the area should be subject to a formal environmental impact assessment (EIA). Opponents and the resistance movement for an oil-free LoVeSe have argued that an EIA is the first step for opening up the ocean blocks for petroleum. According to them, such an assessment, is primarily initiated to meet a judicial requirement in Norway, and not necessarily to secure new knowledge, when millions have already been spent on assessments about environmental, societal and economic consequences of petroleum development. As stated by an informant engaged in the “people action for an oil free LoVeSe” movement: “We understood early on that our most important task was to make people understand what an EIA means—which I think is kind of an invitation to the oil industry to come here and start an opening process.”

In contrast, others—such as local politicians as well as national petroleum companies—argue heavily for more and new knowledge to “… find out what it (petroleum development) would mean” for the region.

According to this line of argumentation, resistance to assessments, scientific knowledge and “facts” are irrational and emotionally funded. The discussion on the world heritage status also ended with calls for more knowledge before a decision could be taken. Thus, drawing on the need for knowledge has also been shown to be an effective way that slows down decision-making. As we shall see, such assumptions are indeed challenged by alternative knowledge traditions, as well as other ways of valuing what is at stake in both natural and cultural systems potentially influenced by these processes.

Livelihoods and identities

We found that both newcomers and those who had grown up in the region adhere to many of the same identity characteristics when they explained their connection to the region and the way these properties influence their position on the matters here analyzed. Arguments for the establishment of a national park focused on the history of utilization of nature—also as a space for recreational activities. A man living in the Moskenes area supporting the establishment of Lofotodden stated: “People here have always been walking in the mountains and done fishing. It is basically the same things we do today and a national park could enable us to continue to do so.”

Such arguments were also reflected in a statement by a young fisher:

Because of my upbringing here, I have never seen oil as an alternative, from my point of view it [Lofoten] would not be the same, the culture would die out and the fisheries would have to yield … to end up seeing a platform from my living room window, I do not like the idea.

Sustainability concerns thus traverse debates on traditional fisheries, tourism and environmental protection—and on petroleum, as informants refer to many of the same traits of “being a Lofoting” when arguing for a focus on a viable future in which petroleum is, at best, a passing occurrence—at worst, a threat to nature, natural resources and the people living off them. An informant actively engaged in the tourism sector stated:

…the image of Lofoten today is tied to mountains, fjords, the ocean—the rough and unspoiled nature. And to the fisheries, its culture—the “rorbu”, the fishing boat, the stock fish on racks, the coastal culture. This is what creates positive reflections … as the national news reports sometime in the future that the Lofoten area now has been opened for petroleum development, this mental image will forever have changed—even though it might take another ten years before production, even though subsurface installations might be invisible…

Although Lofotodden national park was initiated by the municipality rather than national authorities, some informants feared a new set of regulations being administrated partly at the national level would prevent locals from keeping second homes in places where their grandparents and ancestors lived.

There are other ways also that specific concerns about identity traverse these processes, where connections between a “no” to oil—perhaps for some surprisingly—and a “no” to any sort of conservation are found. These, we claim are aligned in their implicit and explicit critique of process, of center-periphery relations and thus of the way power is perceived evoked from national authorities and “outside stakeholders.”

Discussion

Through the perspectives of anticipation and ontological security, we here discuss how and why debates over nature conservation and petroleum development futures align over a common set of concerns in Lofoten. These processes have been accompanied by fierce debates nationally, regionally and locally, as opposing interests focused on the potential and threats petroleum in LoVeSe could represent, and concerns about the way conservation might limit local decision making and use of resources. Despite the significant differences between the underlying rationalities between conservation and petroleum, we find that resistance and support for petroleum, a world heritage status and the national park converge along four major themes of concern: the environment, jobs and demographic development, decision-making processes and livelihoods and identities.

We argue that when played out in the same time period and spatial setting, petroleum and conservation processes have become entangled and embedded in a broader discussion of what constitutes Lofoten today and how the region can be secured in the future. Managing the future through planning, as is the case in both petroleum and conservation processes is about ensuring that certain characteristics and practices can be sustained, while more or less implicitly letting others go (Anderson, 2010). In Lofoten, these processes have accentuated arguments on why certain resources and activities are necessary to sustain in the future as seen in other studies (e.g. Stedman, 2002).

In Lofoten, the seasonal rhythms including climate variability and the provisions of nature appear as taken-for-granted aspects of the naturalized temporal and material landscapes of the region (Tavory and Eliasoph, 2013)—even if one does not engage in activities like fishing or berry picking. We see that human–nature relations are foregrounded in all debates about the futures as recognized sources of identity, livelihood and social cohesion (Kaltenborn et al., 2017b). However, what is seen to be at stake in environmentally related concerns vary. In conservation debates, concerns were dominated by fears of discontinuation of traditional landscape forming livelihoods, often tied to the challenges of increasing tourism visitation. The rise of tourism has in some areas disrupted everyday routines for local residents, such as when berry picking grounds have been turned into camping sites and “natural” toilets for tourists. While this was a concern raised by many informants, they disagreed on if a world heritage status or a national park would mitigate such problems. In petroleum debates, environmental concerns were expressed as more fundamental risks to marine ecosystems and the continuation of fisheries. Debates over petroleum and environmental concerns become matters of acceptable risk and if and how such risks can be managed, which relates to issues such as trust in authorities, companies and knowledge guiding decisions (e.g. Fischhoff et al., 1983; Giddens, 1991). While tourism has disrupted local activities, petroleum is seen to have the potential to discontinue fisheries and thereby the associated future viability of Lofoten communities (Misund and Olsen, 2013). Petroleum debates thus spans a more fundamental source of ontological security namely the viability of fisheries shared by informants opposing and favoring petroleum development. Ontological insecurities related to climate change, fickle oil prices and the future of Norway’s national economy are also reflected in how potential petroleum futures are debated locally (Kristoffersen and Dale, 2014). Natural and cultural landscapes are resources of importance for ontological security as they secure living in meaningful environs and protecting them also provide a means for the state to ensure that international obligations are met, and nature secured for the future. In all debates, ongoing global environmental changes are thus contended with also at the local level (cf. Granjou et al., 2017).

Differences in future imaginaries are brought to the fore in discussions related to how the environment should be used to address challenges of jobs as a means of securing a stable population over time. One vision is a more industrialized Lofoten associated with technological competencies achieved partly through petroleum, while another emphasizes diversification and development of existing industries. In Lofoten, similar to what has been shown in anticipation of energy and petroleum (Groves, 2016; Szeman, 2007), quantification and management of risk, local jobs and national welfare are at the core of discussions. We observe that the debate has however shifted from providing development and job locally, to upholding the role of oil and petroleum jobs on a national level. We found that the promise of local jobs as well as the continuation of the Norwegian welfare provisions, are both argument that align with some people’s need for ontological security. Petroleum debates in Lofoten thus go beyond the typical repertoire of risk and economics and touch upon place attachment and traditions in linking petroleum development to viable coastal ecosystems and communities. Conservation initiatives in Lofoten, on the other hand, have had to include assessments and projections of employment and deal with concerns of economic returns as a central part of their argumentation. That conservation debates mainly have focused on how nature protection can enable development rather than the intrinsic value of protecting the environment, we argue, is a response to development and industrialization prospects from petroleum.

Our findings show that how decisions are made, by whom and what knowledge that is used to justify decisions is a major concern in the studied processes. The perceived legitimacy of decision-making relates to concerns over local ownership. Resistance to the World Heritage Status, the national park and petroleum development share commonalities in that these are seen to be pushed down from above with implications for local self-determination and by extension the ability to shape the future. Issues of representation were particularly prominent in the debate about the national park. The local referendum in Lofotodden shows how both sides interpreted the results to be in their favor and conceived the process as highly divisive, and indeed touching upon a core premise for ontological security: identity construction and the ability to influence futures. In petroleum debates, concerns other than those found in the LoVeSe region itself is what fundamentally lies behind the initiative in the region, which makes it pertinent to see the local reactions as responses as a center-periphery concern, where response to structural power relations plays a part (Dale, 2016). Furthermore, calls within the petroleum debate for new knowledge are based on the underlying conviction that more knowledge can solve conflicts, provide a basis for consensus, legitimize decisions and shape development trajectories (Dale, 2016).

When anticipating both petroleum and conservation futures, elements of the past are foregrounded to shape future development directions. This is particularly prominent in conservation debates where a stricter regulation of landscapes of resources are steered toward a continuity of a predefined set of practices and identities that not everyone identifies with. Ties to landscapes are articulated in many ways and identities building on for example ancestral use and habitation as in the case of Lofotodden turn out for some to be conflictual to reconcile with promoting the area for tourism. (cf. Nuttall, 2010). Thus, also conservation initiatives can be interpreted as a threat to ontological security concerns that we find has had importance for the resilience of local skepticism towards petroleum development in the region (see also Dale and Kristoffersen, 2018; Dale et al., 2019). The right to a self-claim to identity emerges as highly important and our findings indicate that when petroleum or conservation force a set of predetermined values or identities on people and landscapes, development meet resistance.

Contrary to industry and state argumentation, our material does not indicate that people stay in or move to Lofoten because of the potential for economic growth and industrialization that petroleum development might lead to. Rather, the attractiveness of the region is connected to the heritage connected to traditional fisheries and the potential it represents to other ways of valuing the natural resources in the region—including those tied to landscape, to wilderness, to recreation—and to the potential these alternatives represent for a sustainable management of areas. A desirable future in the area thus seem intimately embedded to Lofoten’s past traditions, and that the ontological security stemming from it thus matters for Lofoten residents.

We see that neither oil nor conservation futures fall into a strict characterization of emptied or embedded futures (Adam and Groves, 2007), rather that when discussed locally all three processes take on elements from both. The identified themes of concern and the way futures are imagined, we argue, are shaped by the specific human–nature relations that characterize how the region is understood and lived and thereby also form a basis for ontological security. This follows Appadurai’s (2013) argument that the capacity to aspire or to anticipate the future should be regarded as a “meta capacity,” collectively founded in larger cultural norms and social life. However, the role the identified objects of concern play or should play vary and what is seen to be at stake in petroleum or conservation processes varies markedly between informants, which we relate to the differentiated need for ontological security between individuals in the same spatial setting (Country et al., 2016).

Conclusion

This paper has analyzed how debates on the potential opening of the LoVeSe shelf, a World Heritage Application and the establishment of Lofotodden national park diverge and connect over a common set of concerns. We have further examined how the search for ontological security influences how futures are imagined, supported and resisted. By juxtaposing local responses to petroleum and conservation between 2008 and 2017, our findings show how the processes have become entangled and relate to a broader discussion about Lofoten’s future. We have identified four themes of concern that emerge in all three processes: the environment and natural resources, jobs and demographic development, decision-making processes and livelihoods and identities. The above-mentioned processes have mirrored, interacted and influenced each other’s repertoire of anticipation in a number of ways. Futures with petroleum tend to emphasize possibilities of industrialization, new technologies and entrepreneurship as means of (re)-building communities and ensuring a viable population. In contrast, conservation debates to a larger extent draw on existing livelihoods, landscapes and resources to imagine a future Lofoten. However, petroleum exploitation has not only had to engage with how fragile ecosystems can be protected but has also spanned issues relating to traditional livelihoods and sources of identity. Similarly, conservation initiatives in Lofoten, have emphasized development, jobs and the prospect of economic returns as a central part of their argumentation. Anticipation of these futures do not fall in the archetypes of embedded or emptied futures (Adam and Groves, 2007) but as a mélange of locally funded human–nature relationships, linked to national and global trends and events. Therefore, we have found that many of the same arguments (and actors) opposing petroleum development have had similar reasons for being skeptical to conservation measures, a finding which indicates that the sense of alienation towards decision making processes concerning local lives that threatens ontological security both now and in the future was an important basis for resistance and skepticism to both petroleum and conservation initiatives in Lofoten. Modes of anticipation anchored in local settings tend to draw on broader cultural norms such as heritage and rights (cf. Appadurai, 2013), which point to why the different processes that we analyzed share a common set of concern relating to the future. Notably, in all three processes, certain themes appear as non-negotiable building blocks of the futures, including the viability of the fisheries, the existence of coastal communities and the possibility of self-determination (Dale, 2011; Kaltenborn et al., 2017a). As we approached these themes as sources of ontological security, our analysis shows how these concerns indeed shape how futures are anticipated. We conclude that the concepts of ontological security and anticipation in tandem contribute toward a deeper understanding of how futures are imagined, resisted and supported locally.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all our informants in Lofoten for sharing their time and insights with us. We are grateful to Ingrid Bay-Larsen and Randi Kaarhus for insightful comments on earlier drafts.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the PETROSAM 2 program of the Research Council of Norway through the project Arctic petroleum development as a challenge to societies: a comparative look at Norwegian, Greenlandic and US case sites.

Notes

Marianne Karlsson is a researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research and holds a PhD in International Environmental and Development Studies. Her research focuses on adaptation to changing climatic and societal conditions, understandings and management of risk and transformation to a low-emission future. She has a particular interest in coastal livelihoods and the governance and use of the coast with fieldwork experience from Belize as well as Northern Norway.

Brigt Dale is a senior researcher at Nordland Research Institute in Bodo, Norway and holds a PhD in Political Science and an MSc in anthropology. A combination of ethnographic approaches, security theory and a critical constructivist approach has permeated Dales research, and he has focused on the political, social, cultural and economic preconditions for and consequences of extractive industries’ activities in the Arctic. His interest includes a broader concern for long-term sustainability issues, green transition and a low-carbon future. Dale is the project leader for ARCTICCHALLENGE and editor of the Springer volume on mining and Arctic communities, “The Will to Drill” (2018).

References

Adam

Groves

(2007) Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Supplements to the Study of Time. Vol. 3. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.

Anderson

(2010) Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography 34: 777–798.

Appadurai

(2013) “The Future as Cultural Fact” Essays on the Global Condition. London: Verso.

Appel

Mason

Watts

(2015) Subterranean Estates. Lifeworlds of Oil and Gas. Berkeley: Cornell University Press.

Bazeley

Jackson

(2013) Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: SAGE.

Bertelsen

Urbańczyk

(1988) Two perspectives on Vågan in Lofoten. Acta Borealia 5: 98–110.

Country

Wright

Suchet-Pearson

, et al. (2016) Co-becoming Bawaka: Towards a relational understanding of place/space. Progress in Human Geography 40: 455–475.

Crotty

(1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: SAGE.

Czynski

(2013) Oljeeventyr Eller Verdensarv. Politikk og Vitenskap i Kontroversen om Lofotens Framtid, Senter for Teknologi, innovasjon og Kultur (TIK). Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

10.

Dale

(2011) Securing a Contingent Future: How Threats, Risks and Identity Matter in the Debate over Petroleum Development in Lofoten, Norway. Tromsø: Department of Sociology, Political Science and Community Planning, University of Tromsø.

11.

Dale

(2016) Governing resources, governing mentalities. Petroleum and the Norwegian integrated ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents and Lofoten seas in 2011. Journal of Extractive Industries and Society 3: 9–16.

12.

Dale

Kristoffersen

(2018) Post-petroleum security in a changing arctic: Narratives and trajectories towards viable futures. Arctic Review 9: 244–261.

13.

Dale

Veland

Hansen

(2019) Petroleum as a challenge to arctic societies: Ontological security and the oil-driven ‘push to the north’. The Extractive Industries and Society 6(2): 367–377.

14.

Down

Erickson

(2017) Norwegian Oil Production and Keeping Global Warming Well below 2 C. Seattle: Stockholm Environment Institute.

15.

Fischhoff

Lichtenstein

Slovic

, et al. (1983) Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Fossland

(2014) Hva Kom Først – kunnskapen Eller Politikken? En Studie av Relasjonen Mellom Kunnskap og Politikk i Debatten om Petroleumsvirksomhet Utenfor Lofoten, Vesterålen og Senja. Tromsø: Institutt for sosiologi, statsvitenskap og samfunnsplanlegging, UiT Norges Arktiske Universitet.

17.

Giddens

(1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

18.

Gobo

(2007) Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In Seale

Gobo

Gubrium

, et al. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, pp. XVII, 534 s.

19.

Granjou

Walker

Salazar

(2017) The politics of anticipation: On knowing and governing environmental futures. Futures 92: 5–11.

20.

Groves

(2017) Emptying the future: On the environmental politics of anticipation. Futures 92: 29–38.

21.

Hansen

Tejsner

(2016) Identifying challenges and opportunities for residents in Upernavik as oil companies are making a first entrance into Baffin Bay. Arctic Anthropology 53: 84–94.

22.

Hermansen

Kasa

(2014) Climate Policy Constraints and NGO Entrepreneurship: The Story of Norway's Leadership in REDD+ Financing. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

23.

Hinchliffe

(2008) Reconstituting nature conservation: Towards a careful political ecology. Geoforum 39: 88–97.

24.

Isdal

(2009) Management Plan Lofoten: Preliminary Version, Norwegian Nomination for the UNESCO World Heritage List. Leknes: Lokalt sekretariat for verdensarvarbeidet.

25.

Jensen

(2012) Norwegian petroleum extraction in Arctic waters to save the environment: Introducing ‘discourse co-optation’ as a new analytical term. Critical Discourse Studies 9: 29–38.

26.

Kaltenborn

Krange

Tangeland

(2017a) Cultural resources and public trust shape attitudes toward climate change and preferred futures – A case study among the Norwegian public. Futures 89: 1–13.

27.

Kaltenborn

Linnell

JDC

Baggethun

, et al. (2017b) Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological Economics 140: 166–176.

28.

Kaltenborn

Linnell

JDC

Thomassen

, et al. (2017c) Complacency or resilience? Perceptions of environmental and social change in Lofoten and Vesterålen in northern Norway. Ocean & Coastal Management 138: 29–37.

29.

Kristoffersen

Dale

(2014) Post-petroleum security in Lofoten: How identity matters. Arctic Review of Law and Politics 5: 201–226.

30.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2009) Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: SAGE.

31.

Misund

Olsen

(2013) Lofoten – Vesterålen: For cod and cod fisheries, but not for oil? ICES Journal of Marine Science 70: 722–725.

32.

Nielssen

(1993) Viking age chieftains in Lofoten in the medieval literature. Acta Borealia 10: 19–31.

33.

Norway (2006) Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands. Oslo: Ministry of the Environment.

34.

Norway (2011) Meld. St. Nr 10: Oppdatering av forvaltningsplanen for det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten. Oslo: Ministry of the Environment.

35.

Nuttall

(2010) Anticipation, climate change, and movement in Greenland. Études/Inuit/Studies 34: 21–37.

36.

Poli

(2014) Anticipation: What about turning the human and social sciences upside down? Futures 64: 15–18.

37.

Rapp

(2008) FN kan bli oljebroms. Aftonposten. Available at: https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/0KMdG/FN-kan-bli-oljebrems (accessed 5 March 2019).

38.

Sande

(2013) Slaget om Lofoten. Olje eller verdensarv? Bergen: Akademika.

39.

Sande

(2015) Mixed world heritage in Scandinavian countries. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21: 791–804.

40.

Stedman

(2002) Toward a social psychology of place predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior 34: 561–581.

41.

Szeman

(2007) System failure: Oil, futurity, and the anticipation of disaster. South Atlantic Quarterly 106: 805–823.

42.

Tavory

Eliasoph

(2013) Coordinating futures: Toward a theory of anticipation. American Journal of Sociology 118: 908–942.

43.

UN (2015) Paris agreement of 12 December 2015 under the UN framework convention on climate change. Ed T United Nations. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed 5 March 2019).

44.

Valberg

(2017) Spådom: Dette blir en kjip sommer… Lofotposten, 14 June 2017. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed 5 March 2019).

45.

Wilson

Stammler

(2016) Beyond extractivism and alternative cosmologies: Arctic communities and extractive industries in uncertain times. The Extractive Industries and Society 3: 1–8.

46.

Zinn

(2008) Heading into the unknown: Everyday strategies for managing risk and uncertainty. Health, Risk & Society 10: 439–450.