Research in Focus: Can the Arctic’s diversity withstand the impact of converging global pressures?

The “many Arctics” that currently exist may be threatened if modern technology drives a wedge between different communities.

This is part of an ongoing series where Arctic Today spotlights key research that should be read beyond the academic circles. Below is a brief summary by one of the research author, followed by a link to the full research article.

The idea that there are “many Arctics” reflects the region’s diversity, with a variety of factors shaping different communities. This research looks at whether these differences are likely to persist or lead to a greater degree of convergence across the region as engagement increases.

To explore this, the researchers divided the Arctic into four sub-regions, prioritizing economic and cultural connections over national boundaries. A survey of local knowledge holders and experts identified key regional differences in socio-economic areas such as resource extraction, Indigenous autonomy, food production, access to technology, conservation priorities, and military activity. 

These differences are expected to intensify in the coming decades. For example, Central Siberia may see an increase in mining activity and less focus on Indigenous governance, while the opposite could prove to be the case in Greenland and Nunavut.

Despite decades of dialogue and cooperation, this research suggests that reaching common priorities across the changing Arctic may become more challenging as global pressures – such as the influence of geopolitics and a growing digital divide  – help propel change in different directions in various locales.

Arctic may become more challenging. There are two reasons for this: growing geopolitical tensions and a widening digital divide. 

While some Arctic communities are well-connected, others lack basic telecommunications. These disparities underscore the complexity of managing socio-economic change in the Arctic, suggesting that cooperation in the region may become more difficult as local circumstances diverge.

To sum up: The diversity inherent in “many Arctics” is something to be celebrated. However,  it also presents challenges for local communities and policymakers as they try to navigate an uncertain future.

You can read the full report by Abbie Tingstadt and her colleagues here.

Would you like us to share your Arctic research with our readers? If so, please submit your report, along with a 300-400 word summary, to [email protected]. Please note that we may edit the summary if necessary.