Introduction - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 3

This approach seemed to take a form of 'virtuous imperialism' where the
North intervened in the South with the best of intentions (see Hoogensen
2006 and Hoogensen Gjørv, this topic). The activities of northern-based
actors (such as NGOs or other non-state actors, or state-based actors) work to
provide human security in other states, such as humanitarian or development
assistance, as well as military interventions that claim a humanitarian cause
(see Anderson 1999 and Polman 2010). However, this is equally the case in
the North, such as Norwegian actors attempting to affect health security in
Russia (see Stuvøy, and Rowe, Rowe and Hønneland, this topic), which is
not always received as a purely noble activity in all instances. The legitimacy
and authority of security actors are thus equally relevant in North-North
interaction as they would/should be in North-South interaction. This point is
emphasized with examples where local security actors, with or without addi-
tional support mechanisms, attempt to address their own local health/food/
environmental/personal security needs on the basis of their own capacities
and definitions about what the potential threat is and how it can be addressed
(such as women in Northwest Russia, Inuit in Canada). In all cases a multi-
actor security process is operating, where in each context the power dynamics
between actors (state and non-state) will differ. The question is to what extent
the different 'voices' of these actors are heard (the power between them). In a
narrow security approach, the position of different actors does not matter, as
there is only one 'legitimate' voice that comes from the state (and, if necessary,
acted out through the tool of the military). The work in this topic is meant to
make visible the voices and values that are relevant to understanding security
in a more comprehensive sense, including a human security approach that
centres on the experiences and practices of individuals and communities.
The contributors to this volume come from a variety of backgrounds
within the social and natural sciences. The contributions thus vary in the
ways in which security is conceptualized and the extent to which, and the
complexity with which, each author engages the debates. Not every author
is convinced of the efficacy of using the term 'human security', or security
at all, particularly in the Arctic setting. This scepticism was reflected when
this project had its modest beginnings in 2004 when researchers of different
disciplines, ranging from international relations/political science, to anthro-
pology, ecology and ecotoxicology, met in Tromsø, Norway, to discuss if the
concept of 'human security' was at all relevant to the Arctic context. There
was by no means agreement at that time, and these same, and other, research-
ers will undoubtedly continue to debate this question. However, the question
has not died out. In fact, it is arguable that an increasing acknowledgement
of the complexity of security in the Arctic region, not least including human
security perspectives, has become both relevant and necessary to better under-
stand the complex concept of security.
The 2004 debate in Tromsø led to the development of the International
Polar Year (IPY) project, Impacts of Oil and Gas Activity in the Arctic Using