‘‘Energy Politics between Europe and the Arctic. Why choose a sociological route when investigating Northern Political Economy?’’ Michael John Laiho, MSc. PhD candidate at Arctic Centre, University of Lapland Arctic Energy Summit, Akureyri, Iceland. Panel on ‘Politics and Sovereignty in the Arctic.’ Thursday 19 September 2013, 15:30-17:30 (Dynheimar at Hof, Akureyri) Paper Presentation

Introduction Northern Political Economy Bourdieu’s Structural Constructivism ‘Practice of Practice’ Methodology Energy Politics between Europe and Arctic Conclusion Contents of Presentation

Richness, Resilience, Responsibility Two facets to ‘Energy (and) Politics’ ‘Arctic energy’ = Politics of Arctic energy resources Geopolitically the Arctic is an exclusive regional system (internally), plus external interaction with e.g. Europe (externally) Which other approaches are useful to understand ‘Arctic Energy’? What conclusions might be drawn from these other approaches? Introduction

Political entities Corporate entities State companies, non-state companies, stakeholders, other influential actors (states, intergovernmental organisations, stakeholders, NGOs, etc.) (Arctic? European? Other?) Look at who’s involved... Arctic Council (Arctic coastal states, other Arctic states, Permanent Participants), other influential actors (non-Arctic states, intergovernmental organisations, think tanks, NGOs, etc.)

Northern Political Economy (NPE) - International Political Economy of the North IPE originates from two schools of thought - British and American schools. Evolving IPE, ‘Energy (and) Politics’ of Arctic is a good case study for new approaches Northern Political Economy

Situating NPE

‘‘Relations of power that constitute and shape social fields.’’ (Calhoun 1993). Bourdieu emphasises: ‘fields,’ ‘habitus,’ and ‘capital.’ Energy (and) Politics as a ‘oil and gas race,’ an ‘El Dorado.’ Social relations = game -> ‘‘‘field’ is the pitch or board on which it is played, the rules, the outcomes at stake, etc. whereas the ‘habitus’ is the ongoing product of the game itself.’’ (Bourdieu 1990) ‘Capital’ is cultural, symbolic, social - it is a ‘currency’ of power. Bourdieu’s Structural Constructivism

Regionally? Economics vs. Politics vs. Environmental? Rules for actors - competition for capital. Re-production of ‘rules of game,’ stakes and practices - > Habitus Interaction between different fields, habitus, and transfer of capital leads to new, competing trends, status quo and conflict for power... Fields, Habitus, Capital = Conflict!

Geopolitics of the Arctic region -> actors and their roles ‘Rules of the game‘ influencing ‘Energy (and) Politics’ ‘Seeing’ EU-Arctic relations at different levels - not just intergovernmental or supranational Exploring the different ‘fields,’ ‘habitus,’ and ‘capital’... to see ongoing struggle resulting from conflicting logics and practices The ‘Practice of Practice’ Method Text Aims..

‘‘Putting practice theory into practice.’’ (Pouliot 2013.) Research design is crucial -> fields, habitus, capital completely ‘Practice of practice’ mixed methods, not to use theory but to remain ‘self-reflexive’... ‘Practices’ are the raw data of social sciences, to gain access to this data we use: ‘fieldwork,’ textual discourse, etc. Aiming to see logic behind practices The ‘Practice of Practice’ Method Practice..

HABITUS FIELD CAPITAL Structural Constructivism - how it works P otential field?

Arctic region deserted -> Cold War a ‘theatre’ of war Now Arctic cooperation European and Arctic systems differ and intersect ‘Seeing’ energy (and) politics depends on different actors... therefore, EU and Arctic governance is ‘material’ Different fields intersect (political sector + trade sector) Is there a ‘core’ in the ‘game’ of governance? Energy (and) Politics: between Europe and the Arctic

EU’s interest in the Arctic region Northern Dimension (2001) -> ‘European Arctic’ Now EU recognises the Arctic region’s relevance to Europeans EU policy on: environment, climate change, energy, transport, fisheries... all relevant to Arctic region However, no comprehensive EU Arctic policy exists yet EU wants to support actors in Arctic, promote cooperation EU recognises Arctic Council as main forum for Arctic issues EU and the Arctic - EU Policies

Arctic oil and gas rules Trade Field Political Field Arctic Energy EU and Arctic Energy - how it works? P Potential field: Icelandic Oil Arctic Oil and Gas rules

Oil and gas companies’ rules are set by Arctic States’ governments since according to the international law a States’ EEZ must be respected. Different rules apply in respect to different Arctic States’ rules; i.e. approval to drill, revenue and operations taxation, higher standards of safety, etc. In order to drill in the Arctic, different forms of capital must be first acquired, e.g. cultural prestige (respect) and wealth (funding). To gain the rights to operations in the Arctic, a conflict of interests with other companies must be fought and won. In the event of failing to comply to States’ rules, the company in question must forfeit capital, in the form of cultural prestige or wealth, for example. Potential rules for Arctic ‘oil and gas race’

Euro-investments? 18% of EU total energy resource is imported - Norway, Russia USGS (2008) resource potential -> new interest in Arctic energy EU Law, EEA, EU policies... room for influencing the Arctic? Forums for discussion -> Euro-interests affecting Arctic ‘game’ too? Interaction -> new rules in different fields so this is all possible UNCLOS can be interpreted differently, depending on who ‘sees’ it EU as a legitimate actor in the Arctic

Any analysis based on purely intergovernmental activity is flawed Other elements of NPE should consider: resource exploitation processes, legal regulation, mineral wealth, lobbying, etc. Data not available yet for proper analysis of power in Arctic game Transparency needed -> newer data for analysis for future NPE studies Conclusion:

End