OVERVIEW:
- Oil anxieties are woven in to the space and practices of the state in Norway
- Dispute over access to hydrocarbon deposits in the Norwegian Arctic
- Highlight three theoretical points:
- continuing relevance of the state in the governing of nature-society relations
- increasingly fragmented and fluid nature of state space
- significance of ‘security’ as a term around which social, economic and environmental tensions pivot
SUMMARY
The ‘Battle of the North’ is an ongoing dispute over the potential exploitation of hydrocarbon deposits located just south of the Barents Sea, in the Norwegian Arctic. In recent years, it has been warned by many vested interests that Norway’s petroleum reserves have peaked and there may soon be an energy crisis, helping to fuel this debate. The issue is further complicated by the Norwegian government’s pledge for the country to be carbon neutral by 2030.
There has been a trend in the past decades toward seeing the state as incapable of governing a world defined by neoliberal deregulation and privatisation; however, the state is a fluid and dynamic entity. In Norway, the government has largely been able to retain control over oil resources, having originally provided the bulk of the funding for the development of oil fields, and legislating the ten ‘Oil Commandments’ that give itself a dominant, though actively inclusive role. Oil is a major source of export revenues and is therefore linked to public programs linked to ‘social security’, giving the state room to claim continued control of oil resources. This has evolved largely out of step with the global trend to more neoliberal forms of statehood.
The position of the state on the topic of oil has evolved over the years, as public response, in the forms of petitions and protests, indicated increased expectations that something must be done to combat environmental risks. Environmental policy was adopted by the Norwegian government, however this was done so at the expense of civil society, as the active government absorbed its role. Over the years, the lack of checks from civil society may have influenced the slow degrading of environmental policies by lobbying efforts from oil interest groups.
It is in this context that concerns about peak oil first began to rise. Despite nationalising and centralising oil extraction, decreasing reserves have already begun to decreasing revenues, posing difficult questions for the future of Norway’s social security. This threat has led to industry-government cooperation on every level, whilst marginalising environmental concerns. The main arena in which the oil industry has been able to strategise with government officials for access to new oil fields is a forum called Konkraft.
Konkraft has led to intensive lobbying for the opening of unexplored deposits in the Barents Sea. This included secret meetings of government officials with industry representatives to advise them on how to run an effective lobbying campaign. A report outlining the benefits of mining the area has also been produced, emphasising the economic benefits that will ensure the continued strength of te Norwegian welfare system.
The down-side? Reports from the WWF show that shipping in the Barents Sea could increase by ten-fold, with coastlines in that region being among the most hazardous in the world. Clearly, there were severe concerns for accidents and chronic pollution. Local fisheries have also pointed out that drilling so closely to the major breeding area of the Arctic cod poses too great of an environmental risk. Despite civil society being relegated in recent decades, environmental influences have helped shape Norwegian policy, leading to the ‘integrated management plan’.
The authors argue that a stronger reconnection of different social and institutional spheres is necessary to avoid this plan turning in to another exercise in the techno-scientific management of offshore territory.
IMPORTANT QUOTE:
“Ultimately, the power of this discourse is in the disembodied and commodified view of the landscape it projects, which abstracts away the complex links through which the ecology of the region is sustained. Whilst appearing neutral and technical, mapping and surveying practices are political technologies that create spaces of governmentality whereby information about natural resources can be calculated and compiled. And just as such mas work to produce state space, they are also constitutive of ‘the state’, which is reified as a coherent, disciplined actor, able to reorganise and rationalise territory, in the process.”
