Disaster Diplomacy for Svalbard
Longyearbyen, Svalbard, a disaster diplomacy research locale. Photo: Ilan Kelman
Disaster risks and disasters are important topics for the Arctic, especially where trans- or cross-national disaster risk reduction and response mechanisms exist, such as for the Svalbard archipelago. Svalbard has experienced numerous disasters and is governed by a unique international treaty permitting citizens of countries who have signed the treaty to live and work there. This combination should be perfect for “disaster diplomacy” among countries—that is, when dealing with disasters leads to peace and cooperation1)—yet our research found no evidence for it for Svalbard.2)
With funding from the Research Council of Norway through the NORRUSS programme over the past two years, we set out to examine Norway-Russia relations in the context of disaster risk reduction and response on Svalbard.3)
Disaster-related activities on Svalbard
Disasters and disaster risks on Svalbard are common and require a swift and efficient response due to the often severe conditions such as harsh weather, low levels of infrastructure, difficulties with access for rescue teams and equipment, and for parts of the year, months of darkness.4)
Past and current risks around Svalbard include its role in World War II, transportation-related crashes (mainly aircraft, boats, and snowmobiles), health-related incidents and outbreaks, polar bear attacks, power outages, oil spills, fears over leaks from nuclear-powered icebreakers or submarines near Svalbard’s waters, avalanches, landslides, weather, storm surge, melting ice and permafrost, coastal erosion, earthquakes, and tsunamis, as well as climate change related concerns such as sea-level rise. Increased maritime traffic and scientific, economic, and touristic activities add further disaster risks.
These risks and disasters frequently require coordinated—often collaborative and international—preparedness and response.5) Such disaster-related activities have traditionally been perceived as the responsibility of formal disaster actors and mechanisms including governmental and non-governmental agencies and organisations, along with traditional emergency responders, such as ambulance, police, and fire departments. On Svalbard, this effectively requires formal cooperation between Norwegian and Russian governmental or governmentally mandated entities.
Given historical and geopolitical tensions, acting on disaster-related activities is not always easy for Svalbard’s formal institutions. Russia is often presented as a dangerous aggressor seeking resources and territory. Conversely, Norway’s environmental protection regulations to safeguard the archipelago anger some Russians who believe that such moves are designed to thwart their economic activities, and ultimately, to inhibit their presence in the region.6)
Disaster-related help might thus not always be forthcoming. For instance, ensuring emergency access for Russian search-and-rescue vessels in Svalbard territorial waters is not straightforward, as it would require permission from Norway, which would be performed according to the existing bilateral and Arctic Council search-and-rescue agreements.7) Without some form of pre-approval, which Norway is unlikely to grant given its preference for retaining control of Svalbard’s disaster-related activities, as per its mandate, valuable time could be lost in getting permission.
These political ploys might be the view from capital cities and of national governments. The approximately 3,000 residents of Svalbard have some different perspectives.
Informal disaster governance and diplomacy
On Svalbard, all people must deal with the environmental conditions, while being wary of avalanches, aircraft crashes, maritime incidents, roaming polar bears, and coal mine fires and collapses.
As our research shows they do so together, helping each other out when needed and sharing relevant information, irrespective of nationality.8) Despite the multinational presence on the archipelago, and on-and-off geopolitical tension between Norway and Russia, Svalbard’s residents express trust, belonging, and reliance on each other.
Examples of such informal disaster governance are plentiful.9) In the summer of 2018, when the Aurora—a Norwegian ship carrying international tourists—crashed into the docks off the Russian settlement of Barentsburg, its residents sprang into action. In the words of a member of the local Russian rescue services (GSV):
“We were performing search and rescue operations. The medics were preparing their equipment, setting up the field hospital. The garage was providing equipment and transport. The cafeteria was providing hot food […]. There were volunteers, scientists, who had snowmobiles […]. Everyone tried to contribute to saving people.”
Multi-stakeholder and multi-national cooperation is common for Svalbard. Residents from all nationalities connect via specifically established social media groups, cultural and sporting events, and in-person meetings. These connections have led to exchanges of information and skills regarding disasters, such as snow conditions, equipment availability, and search-and-rescue. For instance, local (and otherwise competing) Norwegian and Russian tourism companies regularly update each other on the state of the ice, avalanche risks, and other environmental conditions, also routinely assisting each other when difficulties occur.
The implications of these findings are two-fold. First, our research highlights the importance of both formal and informal actors in disaster risk reduction and response. The emphasis is frequently placed on the role of formal services in ‘saving the day’ when disasters occur. In our study, most interviewees expressed satisfaction with existing disaster governance structures while relying on both formal and informal disaster-related sources for information and help. They revealed the significant and seemingly interdependent roles that formality and informality play in fostering trust and action.
Second, by revealing the frequent and normalised nature of formal and informal cooperation among residents on Svalbard, ostensibly irrespective of the political dynamics of their respective countries, our findings suggest that disaster-related activities may serve as a platform for international cooperation. Seen from Oslo or Moscow, the ‘border’ between Norwegian Longyearbyen and Russian Barentsburg may appear to constitute a real boundary. Residents engaged in day-to-day and single-incident disaster-related activities may be hard-pressed to pinpoint such a border, with the potential for bottom-up influence on international relations.
Relationship between the formal and the informal
Our research further demonstrated that informal disaster diplomacy tends not to spill over into more governmental cooperation. Instead, Russia is lobbying for its own search-and-rescue facilities. Norway is eyeing fossil fuel exploration farther north than ever before. A generation after the end of the Cold War was supposed to have fostered peace amongst the world’s political powers, the Arctic is seen as a potential flashpoint between Russia and NATO with Norway as a member.
With climate change10) and resource extraction11) impacts increasingly highlighted as concerns around the Arctic, including for Svalbard, understanding how to deal with them and other risks collectively and cooperatively is of vital importance to avoid disasters. While the people of Svalbard use local disaster diplomacy every day to stay safe and to create their own community, national governments continue to avoid it to pursue their own Arctic interests.
Patrizia I. Duda and Ilan Kelman are both at University College London and the University of Agder.
References