Saving Svalbard? Contested Value, Conservation Practices and Everyday Life in the High Arctic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Saving Svalbard? Contested value, conservation practices and everyday life in the high Arctic Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in Human Geography Samantha M Saville Department of Geography and Earth Sciences Aberystwyth University December 2016 Thesis Summary Saving Svalbard? Contested value, conservation practices and everyday life in the high Arctic This thesis examines the relationships between human societies, the material landscape and nonhuman life in the archipelago of Svalbard. The investigation draws inspiration from posthuman, neomaterialist geographies and political ecology. Frameworks, processes and practices of value are traced through conservation initiatives and everyday actions and ideas around protecting Svalbard’s environment. Practical, political and ethical questions underscore this work: what can and should be ‘saved’; how and for whom are we trying to save species, landscapes, and artefacts? If saving is possible, is it the ‘right’ thing to do? Svalbard, as a place undergoing climatic change, economic and social transitions in a physically and politically fragile environment, provides a setting where such questions are particularly pertinent. This thesis develops a theoretical approach to value, which demonstrates that when value is treated as contingent practice and process, as verb rather than noun, it can be a useful analytical tool for uncovering complex, multi-scalar processes, such as conservation practice. I advance this methodologically to combine a value-as-practice approach with feminist care ethics, assemblage thinking and the notion of a ‘humble’ research practice. This humble research practice brings together recent thinking around situated knowledges, participatory and posthuman geographies. Through documentary research, extensive site-based interviews and ethnographic empirical material, I uncover what is valued as natural and cultural heritage in Svalbard and how value is practiced. I chart how political, economic and cultural frameworks shape, circulate and manipulate value through categorisation and legitimation processes. Everyday practices of care and the dynamic life and ‘thingyness’ of Svalbard challenge value frameworks which seek to measure and fix value. I contend that future ecologies and conservation strategies need to more fully take into account the value(s) of human and more-than-human life in Svalbard and beyond. ii Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to all the residents and visitors of Svalbard who participated in and contributed to this research, without this it would never have left the drawing board. I am also indebted to all those in Svalbard and at home who facilitated the research – from lending warm clothes, books, cameras, inviting me to events, helping me get out of Longyearbyen town, to trying to teach me Russian, Norwegian or shooting skills. In a similar vein, I am exceedingly thankful for the funding that enabled this research: both the UK Economic and Social Research Council and Department of Geography and Earth Sciences of Aberystwyth University contributed to this project financially. My sincere thanks go to my supervisors, Dr Gareth Hoskins and Dr Kimberley Peters for sustaining their calibrated balance of challenging questions and encouraging support throughout the project, and indeed their generosity for extending this to other academic activities. Likewise, I very much appreciate my examiners’ (Professors Mike Crang and Caitlin DeSilvey) comments, which have improved the final thesis greatly. Thanks are also due to additional academic supporters: Dr Kelvin Mason, Dr Dag Avango and Professor Gunhild Setten, who have collaborated with me, facilitated research, read and commented on my work. I have been lucky to share the PhD journey with an eclectic bunch of colleagues, thank you for your comradeship. Thanks particularly to the ‘Bull- pen’ crew past and present for their companionship in our corner of the department: Marton Lendvay, Robert McKinnon, Neil Waghorn and Kate Stewart, and of course to Justa Hopma for her friendship and all our wide- ranging discussions. I am also grateful to my new colleagues for their support and encouragement in the final months and for some lively assemblage theory discussions. I am very grateful to mum and Jim, Sophie van de Goor, Serena Turton, Lotte Reimer, Kelvin Mason, Alyson Tyler and Karl Drinkwater for collectively trying to teach me grammar – you are all stars. I thank my family for trying their best to leave me alone, and being there when I called. Finally, Dr Stephen John Saville has been relentless in his faith and nurturing of my abilities. He has, always in good humour, suffered far too many long-sentences and academic-anxiety-grumblings. Thank you for being my biggest fan and most courageous constructive critic. ii Contents Thesis Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….. i Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………........ iii List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. vii List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix Abbreviations and Helpful Norwegian Terms ............................................................. x 1: Converging on Svalbard ………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1. Locating Svalbard ...................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Geopolitical Svalbard ........................................................................................... 11 1.2.1. Arctic governance and Svalbard’s Sovereignty ............................................... 12 1.2.2. Resources ........................................................................................................ 17 1.2.3. Research .......................................................................................................... 19 1.3. Research settlements ............................................................................................... 23 1.3.1. Longyearbyen .................................................................................................. 23 1.3.2. Barentsburg ..................................................................................................... 25 1.3.3. Pyramiden ....................................................................................................... 28 1.4. Thesis outline ...................................................................................................... 30 2. Saving Value: Value as practice and process ……………………………………………….. 37 2.1. Value and everyday parlance .............................................................................. 39 2.1.1. Value and values ............................................................................................. 39 2.1.2. Valuable, valuing, to value .............................................................................. 41 2.2. Geography and value .......................................................................................... 43 2.3. Value and Marxism ............................................................................................ 49 2.4. Value as arbitrary ................................................................................................ 52 2.5. Objective value .................................................................................................... 56 iii 2.5.1. Calculation and Metrology .............................................................................. 57 2.5.2. Ecosystems Services ........................................................................................ 59 2.5.3. Dissolving dichotomy? ..................................................................................... 63 2.6. Intrinsic value ..................................................................................................... 64 2.7. Value as practice .................................................................................................69 2.7.1. Categorisation and value ................................................................................. 73 2.7.2. Legitimation and value .................................................................................... 75 3. Towards a Humble Research Practice ………………………………………………………… 79 3.1. Humble Beginnings ................................................................................................. 80 3.1.1. Value, Svalbard and I ....................................................................................... 84 3.1.2. Research practice as if place matters .............................................................. 87 3.1.3. Vulnerable solidarity and humble research practice? .................................... 92 3.2. Messy Methods Assemble................................................................................... 95 3.2.1. Hanging Around and Tagging Along ................................................................ 99 3.2.2. Focus groups.................................................................................................. 100 3.2.3. Interviews ...................................................................................................... 102 3.2.4. Photography .................................................................................................. 106 3.2.5. Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 110 3.2.6. Coding ...........................................................................................................