The Political Economy of Northern Regional Development

The purpose of the POENOR project (Political Economy of Northern Regional Development) is to carry out research on sustainable development and Arctic economies. POENOR was established owing to the initiative of the Arctic Council on Arctic human development and owing to the working group on sustainable development and Arctic economies under the International Conference on Arctic research Planning II (ICARP II) in Copenhagen in 2005 and in Potsdam in 2006._

A Framework for the International Polar Year, 2007-2008

The polar regions are integral components of the Earth system. As the heat sinks of the climate system they both respond to and drive changes elsewhere on the planet. Within them lie frontiers of knowledge as well as unique vantage points for science. Yet because of their remoteness and harsh nature, the poles remain insufficiently studied. With recent technological advances providing new scientific possibilities, and humankind‘s need for environmental knowledge and understanding ever increasing, the time is ripe for a coordinated international initiative to achieve a major advance in polar science. For this reason, the International Council for Science (ICSU) decided to take the lead in organizing an International Polar Year (IPY) in 2007-2008. They did so by establishing an IPY Planning Group (PG) charged with developing the IPY 2007-2008 science plan and implementation strategy. This report is the outcome of the PG‘s work. It is based on input from individuals, from over 40 governmental and nongovernmental organizations that have endorsed or expressed support for IPY 2007-2008, and from the 32 IPY National Committees or National Points of Contact established so far. It is also results from discussions and debate at over a dozen international meetings covering the gamut of science disciplines, from a series of "town" meetings, and from two Discussion Forums hosted by ICSU and attended by representatives of the IPY National Committees and a variety of interested polar organizations

Survey of Living Conditions In The Arctic: What Did We Learn?

In countries around the Arctic, tens of thousands of Iñupiat, Inuit, and other indigenous peoples live in small, isolated communities where jobs are scarce, incomes are low, and life is not easy. Yet many—including large majorities in Canada, Northern Alaska, and Greenland—are satisfied with life in their communities. That was the puzzle researchers from Statistics Greenland faced in 1994, when they studied living conditions and found that common measures of well-being—like levels of employment—didn’t explain why so many of Greenland’s Inuit chose to stay in their communities. About 7,250 Inuit, Iñupiat, and other indigenous peoples were interviewed in Greenland, Northern Alaska, the Chukotka region of Russia, and the Inuit settlement areas of Canada. The Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) conducted the survey in Alaska. This publication describes the survey and introduces the wealth of new information now available on the lives of the Arctic’s first people, measured in ways they themselves chose. Also printed in Valerie Moller, Denis Huschka and Alex Michalos (eds). Barometers of Quality of Life Around the Globe: How Are We Doing? New York: Springer Verlag, 107-134.National Science Foundation; Nordic Council of Ministers; Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; Greenland Home Rule Government; Commission for Scientific Research in Greenland; Barents Secretariat; Nordic Arctic Research Programme; Danish Research Council for the Social Sciences; Swedish Research Council for the Social Sciences; Norway Department of Municipalities; Joint Committee on Research Councils for Nordic Countries; and Statistics Canada

Cooperative Societies in Greenland and Nunavik: A Lesson on the Importance of Supporting. Structures

We present different types of cooperatives in Greenland and Nunavik, Canada, in order to assess two different developments. A first approach to comparisons leads to an anomaly suggesting the necessity of empirical analysis in the two regions. Why is it that Greenland never really managed to create a cooperative movement? Except for consumer cooperatives, the remaining types of supply and worker cooperatives were a failure. There were isolated success stories for a limited period of time, butthe general picture remains the same. Most of these cooperatives are liquidated, and we never saw multi-purpose cooperatives established. Quite the contrary took place in Nunavik, in the northern part of Quebec in Canada. Here we saw a viable cooperative movement, and everywhere local communities established multi-purpose cooperatives. At the same time a strong cooperative association evolved. It seems that cooperative supporting structures are essential to a cooperative success in an Arctic regio