Political Ecologies of Knowledge: Locating value(s) of knowledge production at the

(scientific) field sites of Svalbard.

Samantha Saville

Paper presented at the Locating Value: Ecologies session at the Royal Geographic Society

(with Institute of British Geographers) Annual Conference, 28th August 2014

In this paper I am exploring what value can say and what value and values do within the

arena of knowledge production (which although can be interpreted far more widely, is taken

here to be the research and higher education sector) and how that relates to environmental

protection. This is still a work in progress but I’m envisioning these relations as an ‘ecology

of knowledge’ between the ecology, physical forms and phenomena of Svalbard, state

regulations, policy goals and practicing researchers.

I start with a short background as to why and how Svalbard is valued as a site for knowledge

production. Before looking at how these factors contribute to the practice of increasing and

circulating value through knowledge production activities. Then I want to discuss a specific

case of the East Svalbard Management Plan as an example of tensions between different

ways of enacting value and values.

I am taking as guidance and inspiration the work of those such as George Henderson (2013),

David Graeber(2001), Bev Skeggs (2014) and Daniel Miller (2008) who are keen to focus not

on what value is exactly, but what value does, how it is practiced and what relations are

caught up in the production of value and values. Daniel Miller argues that the term value

encompasses both what can be measured, that which is beyond measurement and

everything inbetween. I’m looking at what value and values of knowledge means in terms of

practice in Svalbard and following Miller, paying special attention to how value and values

flow and relate between state and ‘on the ground’, everyday experiences.

Svalbard as a valued site for knowledge production

Svalbard has been the subject of scientific enquiry for hundreds of years, it’s physical

features of relative accessibility, arctic ecology, geological and glacial formations as well as

an exciting and frontier destination have attracted many expeditions from many nations.

Plus the more recent interest in climate change and arctic climate systems that can be

studied here. Since the 1990s Norway (the governing nation of Svalbard) has actively sought

to support, encourage and promote Norwegian science and international collaborations in

Svalbard as part of its economic diversification away from a sole reliance on coal mining and

active demonstration of sovereignty in Svalbard. In 1993 University Centre in Svalbard,

UNIS, opened in the main town of Longyearbyen.

Activity in this sector in Svalbard is certainly rising, UNIS reports continued growth in

student numbers, staff and publications, the international research base in Ny Alesund

reports increased numbers of research days a year and 13 nations have research stations

there. Scientific activity operating from Russian bases in Barentsburg and Pyramiden is also

increasing and is seen as a key area of growth for Russian presence in Svalbard as well,

although for the purposes of this talk, I am focussing on the main settlement and access

point of Longyearbyen where the UNIS centre and several associated research facilities are

located and around one third of the scientific activity takes place.

The support for research and education in Svalbard can be read as part of Norway’s High

North Strategy, which focusses on ‘knowledge, activity and Presence’. More specifically,

research, knowledge and higher education forms a key focus area for development of the

most recent Svalbard white paper from Norway. Svalbard is seen as being,

Of vital importance as a platform for Norwegian and international research…

Although Svalbard must remain an attractive venue for scientists from

around the world, Norway is to have a leading role and be a key player in the

area of developing knowledge in and around Svalbard. (Norwegian Ministry

of Justice and the Police 2010, p.11)

Another important aspect in Svalbard policy is environmental protection, which they are also keen to promote and be renowned for. A large proportion, 65% of the land area, is protected, outside the settled zones. The green areas shown in Figure 1 are national parks, which are less restrictive than the nature reserves shown in red. Scientific knowledge feeds into this and was indeed used to identify park areas when they were initiated beginning in the 1970s. However, now we can see a balancing act between protection of the environment from research and the value of that research to environmental protection:

Research that is conducted ought to be of such a nature that it only or best can be conducted in Svalbard, and it must always take the vulnerability of the environment into consideration. This caution must go hand in hand with the acknowledgement that knowledge through research is necessary in order to achieve a reliable management of the natural wilderness in Svalbard. (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police 2010, p.75)

An important aspect to note then is that environmental protection is the trump card in

terms of policy priority, “environmental considerations are to take precedence over other

interests whenever they conflict” (ibid, p. 10).

Figure 1: Svalbard's Protected areas. Norsk Polarinstitutt (2010)

So at the level of national and international policy, geo-politics and economic development,

Svalbard is clearly a highly valued site for both Norway and other nations. Not only in terms

of valuing increased knowledge and data about the arctic, but also in terms of the political

prestige or symbolic value of being an active arctic nation with high scientific and

environmental standards. It’s certainly somewhere you definitely need a sign, or a flag and

preferably both for your scientific endeavours.

Everything we do, everything everyone does on Svalbard, including the

janitors is part of a geopolitical framework. Having contact with all these

nations means that every word I say has to be weighed…It influences

everything that happens in Svalbard, including your work. (Interview, 27th

May 2014)

Figure 2: The entrance to the Science Centre and UNIS (author's collection)

Behind this political and policy support, is of course a large economic framework for both

the scientific activity and the governance structures of environmental protection– in both

cases jobs are considered very prestigious, have good salaries and other valuable benefits

like subsidised accommodation. In recruitment terms they are aiming high. Research

positions at UNIS come with a far larger research budget than colleagues on the mainland

which is a key attraction. Yet, the economics are, I would argue not the driving force or a

least not the most interesting aspects of this ecology.

A hub of opportunities: practice and values

The 2008-2009 Norwegian White paper stated that “Svalbard has become a meeting place

for the Government’s international network, where climate-related research and

cooperation are given top priority… Svalbard has become a land of opportunity for the

development of knowledge” (2010, pp.74–76). These policies and support frameworks

appear to be working. Indeed this was a widely recurring theme within the interviews and

conversations I had in and around the scientific community in Longyearbyen, which these

are samples of but which don’t capture the breadth of examples that were shared.

The list of politicians, business men, religious leaders and others that come

here is very long. And we get to meet them and explain what we see and

understand. So it's an opportunity to influence directly those who would

listen that is not as readily available elsewhere. (Interview 27th May 2014).

The only reason I keep coming back is because the geology is so good, the

research environment is so good, the opportunities we get to do the work

that I want to do personally is just incredible. (Researcher, Interview 27th

June 2014)

Svalbard, and perhaps especially Longyearbyen, is seen as a place of opportunities, where a

great deal is on offer to develop scientific careers, to undertake research or education in

exciting and interesting fields, in a supportive, well-funded and well-equipped way with

direct access to the physical phenomena, to influential people in the field, to make

connections and to find others interested in your work.

So the practice of research and its growth creates more value – a kind of spiralling outwards

of value as networks, collaborations, equipment and experiences expand and link together.

There is also the sheer enthusiasm, curiosity and for some, the more emotional, affectual

elements of the relationship with Svalbard as a field site to consider, as the quote below

exemplifies, which feed into this growing’ value vortex’.

I think all the researchers have an emotional connection to their field…

having the luck to see glaciers out of my window everyday…, it inspires you a

lot more. ... It’s amazing we have these images every 10 or 11 days, oh this

one is surging, let's go and have a look at it. It's easier to do field work to get

the data. But at the same time we have this very tight connection with the

landscape where we are, so I think it’s a really big deal for sure. (Researcher,

Interview 13th June 2014)

Within this vortex it would seem that environmental protection, responsibility, respect and

affinity for the ‘wilderness’ of Svalbard are values that are in concert with the

environmental legislation goals of the state. However what is also seen as important and

valuable were furthering knowledge and data collection of the area and access to

accomplish this as well as for locals and tourists. There were clear feelings from the majority

of participants that carefully managed access for all should be possible and environmentally

beneficial whether because that represents an acceptable level of regulation and therefore

keeps good will with the governing bodies; through the educational and potential advocacy

effects of seeing and experiencing such areas; or from a equality point of view.

Practices of value and values: The East Svalbard Management Plan

You protect what you know, and you protect what you can see. You protect

what you love. (Interview 21st May 2014)

This issue of access is where there has recently been a lot of tension, surrounding the

specific case of the East Svalbard Management Plan, which has just come into force. Though

there are no new reserves or parks created as part of the process, the plan tightens

restrictions to the access of East Svalbard, making two zones scientific reference areas (see

Figure 3).

Figure 3: Zone A - Scientific Reference Areas (Norsk Polarinstitut 2014)

Somewhat ironically what the scientific reference area means is that access will be very

limited for science, the idea being to create an area as unaffected by humans as possible.

According to the latest English version of the management plan, climate research and other

environmental research that requires access to large, and essentially undisturbed, areas

may receive permits for activities. Ongoing monitoring can continue, with the best available

environmentally sound technology, but is expected to require less travel and presence in

the nature reserves, and less direct handling of animals. New surveys that require permits

in Zone A will be kept to a minimum. Surveys that will create basic knowledge about

prioritised or Red-listed habitats and species, or natural qualities mentioned in the purpose

of protection, will be granted permission. (Governor of Svalbard 2012, p.34).

The new management plan, despite quite subtle changes is taking an effect, with permits

being harder to obtain and meet conditions for, as one researcher describes:

We've been absolutely slammed recently, by Sysellmannen … they are really

trying to limit the areas in which people work. We're very lucky because as

geologists we have to go where the rocks are. But I think it's unfair to limit

the research in other kind of areas because there's a lot to see over there

[East Svalbard]. (Researcher, Interview 27th June 2014)

Another change was the summer closing of bird reserve areas such as Tusenøyane, a

Thousand Islands, meaning that due to sea ice, and restrictions on helicopter usage it is

highly unlikely access will be possible.

The whole plan was a massive consultation exercise, lasting over 8 years with several

different working groups including research and education, tourism. A number of

informants observing or participating in this process felt that despite this, the evidence

advice and experience fed into the process was not taken on board and the outcome was

therefore more a reflection of the values of the Governor’s Office and staff, the Norwegian

Environment Ministry or ‘symbolic politics’ in action.

There has been a case built for protection for this and that, and there was no evidence. All the evidence was flawed, or out-dated, or simply not there, or made on presumption…. I must say, I find it hard to take these people seriously now, because they wilfully ignore evidence, which is my profession is a cardinal sin. (Interview 3rd June 2014)

They close one area which is actually quite big which they call a bird reserve: A Thousand Islands, yet there's no birds there… you've put lots of lines on the map you made lots of legal texts and operation manuals that no one can understand, but you protect nothing of the environment. (Interview 14th May 2014)

Moreover the physical environment and non-human species in this area present a challenge

and tension to this approach whether from not being there, like the birds; sea ice conditions

or offering unique features, ecologies and conditions which meant the Svalbard white paper

envisaged increased research activity in this area rather than restrictions.

The environmental protection element is given the trump card in these eastern zones of

Svalbard. My interpretation is that this is not so much about what is valued, all are in

agreement that Svalbard’s natural wilderness is highly valuable, but how it is valued and

what such a valuation does. This in turn is related to definitions and ideas of wilderness and

human relations within and as part of that wilderness. We can treat these mountains and

glaciers as pristine and an opportunity to show the world high level environmental

protection in action, a time-capsuled gift to future generations, including scientists, or as a

site for knowledge production: learning about and demonstrating fragile arctic

environments, inspiring ‘people based management’ and wider environmental awareness.

Interestingly, from the Environment department at the Governor’s office, I heard very

similar views in terms of letting people experience ‘the nature’ and therefore inspiring

protection, but that this should only occur in the Western Spitsbergen area. The process of

developing a management plan for the Western Spitsbergen area is looking far less fraught

so far. Already the proposed Scientific Reference Area has been questioned by scientists

themselves and dropped as an idea in this case. However, it seems that East Svalbard, and

possibly mid-Svalbard are another matter.

We must have the guts to say no for a lot of activities. Everybody wants to

go into the wilderness and they want to go to places which nobody else has

been before and we must say no, we don't want people to go in there

because of the possibility to destroy the wilderness and the untouched

landscape. When you come back in 50 years, it still has to be looking like

there hasn't been any people there. (Interview 19th June)

It looks like in their mindset they [the Governor’s Office] are against humans. Humans disturb nature. And nature should be left alone and not disturbed, not visited, and not used by humans. On a philosophical level I disagree. (Interview 3rd June 2014)

And this is where the tension lies. Whereas some see this to be more locals who don’t want

to give up the rights they have always had and want to carry on as they have before; there

are, for some at least, more reasoned arguments alongside those who support increased

regulation.

These rings on the map and low intensity zones, 'no humans have been here

since Sysselmannen has last inspected the site' certified, verified: this is

something that they place value in, and I find that value meaningless and

offensive even. Because it treats them as a better class of humans, they are

the stewards; they have a deeper understanding and will always know far

more because they are the only ones who have access. (Interview 3rd June

2014)

The birds are not gonna come back. You know people there might actually

clean up the beaches from the rubbish, and might actually see the damage

the fisheries are doing, yet you've lost all your ambassadors. I would say the

east Svalbard protection plan probably does damage to the environment.

What did you stop there? You stopped 173 environmental

protectionists…who are some of the richest people in the world, or a film

maker or a scientist who wants to do good. (Interview 21st May 2014)

Conclusion

Hence, whilst Svalbard as the land of opportunity for scientists creates value in a growing

cyclic manner: economic , social, cultural, environmental and symbolic; it also creates values

which are not necessarily in tune with the values and practices of value the government

bodies are working with. As such the value and processes of knowledge production come

into question over the role of science and expert opinion in policy making decisions. Miller

suggests that ideally “values are realised in the diverse desires and needs of

populations...political and commercial systems work to our advantage when they do the

same thing that we do every day in retaining this breadth of value and not flying apart until

we end up with an opposition between value and values”(2008, p.1130).

In Miller’s examples it is the drive for quantification of qualitative values from state or

corporate bodies that disrupts the flow between high level aims and societal and individual

values. Here we have a more complex happening whereby quantification can both support

and challenge either side but certainly there is a disruption and discordance of value and

values at work. What I hope this is a good example of is how by tracing the values and value

of knowledge production, uses and practices associated with it can provide an illuminating

tool for investigation and analysis, which can open up discussions and make more

transparent the processes of evaluation and decision making at work in contested areas.

References

Governor of Svalbard (2012) Management Plan for Nordaust-Svalbard and Søraust-Svalbard Nature Reserves: Draft proposals for amendments to the protection regulations (English version), Available at: http://oldweb.sysselmannen.no/hoved.aspx?m=44365&amid=3182719&fm_site=44265 (Accessed: 17 August 2014).

Graeber, D. (2001) Toward an anthropological theory of value: the false coin of our own dreams, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Henderson, G. (2013) Value in Marx: The Persistence of Value in a More-Than-Capitalist World, Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Miller, D. (2008) 'The uses of value', Geoforum, 39(3), pp.1122–1132.

Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police (2010) Report No.22 to the Storting: Svalbard, Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police. Available at: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/jd/documents-and-publications/reports-to-the-storting-white-papers/reports-to-the-storting/2008-2009/Report-No-22-2008-2009-to-the-Storting.html?id=599814.

Skeggs, B. (2014) 'Values beyond value? Is anything beyond the logic of capital?', The British Journal of Sociology, 65(1), pp.1–20.