Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:38:53.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discourse analysis of the 2013–2016 Arctic Circle Assembly programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2017

Lara Johannsdottir
Affiliation:
Environment and Natural Resources, School of Business, University of Iceland, Gimli v/Saemundargata, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland (laraj@hi.is)
David Cook
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics and Faculty of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Iceland, Gimli v/Saemundargata, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland

Abstract

The Arctic Circle Assembly has established itself as a forum for stakeholders from all around the globe to discuss Arctic affairs. This includes discussion about the future of the Arctic, impacts of climate change on local inhabitants and indigenous peoples, the natural environment and wildlife, geopolitical issues, international treaties, research projects, business-related risks and opportunities, etc. At this international conference, the interests of stakeholders vary greatly. Some want to reap the economic and strategic benefits of melting glacial and sea ice, while others want to reduce the negative impacts of climate change. It is therefore important to analyse the conference discourse in order to understand the main emphases of stakeholders, and if some express their views more loudly than others. Through greater weight of voice in the Assembly and beyond, some stakeholders have more impact on the development of a region that is of economic, geopolitical and environmental importance, not only for the northern hemisphere but globally.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arctic Circle Assembly. (2013). Program. Retrieved from http://www.arcticcircle.org/assemblies/2013/program Google Scholar
Arctic Circle Assembly. (2014). Program. Retrieved from http://www.arcticcircle.org/assemblies/2014/program Google Scholar
Arctic Circle Assembly. (2015). Program. Retrieved from http://www.arcticcircle.org/assemblies/2015/program Google Scholar
Arctic Circle Assembly. (2016). Program. Retrieved from http://www.arcticcircle.org/assemblies/2016/program Google Scholar
Columbia Climate Center, World Wildlife Fund, Woods Hole Research Center, & Arctic 21. (2016). A 5°C Arctic in a 2°C world. Washington, DC: WWF Publications.Google Scholar
Emmerson, C., & Lahn, G. (2012). Arctic opening: opportunity and risk in the high north. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Hinzman, L.D., Bettez, N.D., Bolton, W.R., Chapin, F.S., Dyurgerov, M.B., Fastie, C.L., . . . Yoshikawa, K. (2005). Evidence and implications of recent climate change in Northern Alaska and other Arctic regions. Climate Change, 72 (3), 251298.Google Scholar
Jacob, T., Wahr, J., Pfeffer, W.T., & Swenson, S. (2012). Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise. Nature, 482 (7386), 514518.Google Scholar
Screen, J.A., Deser, C., Simmonds, I., & Tomas, R. (2014). Atmospheric impacts of Arctic sea-ice loss, 1979–2009: separating forced change from atmospheric internal variability. Climate dynamics, 43 (1–2), 333344.Google Scholar
WWF (World Wildlife Fund). (n.d.). Arctic climate change. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/what_we_do/climate/ Google Scholar