Well-Being of Circumpolar Arctic Peoples: The Quest for Continuity

Abstract

This chapter focuses on well-being in the Arctic. The Arctic encompasses one independent state, Iceland, and the northernmost regions and territories of seven sovereign states: Canada, United States, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The latter receives its Arctic status from the two self-governing entities within the Danish Realm, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The historical development of the circumpolar North has an array of common elements: early settlements of indigenous peoples adapting to harsh environments, an abundance of wildlife, and both renewable and non-renewable resources that have attracted a variety of people from more southern regions in Europe and North America. The newcomers included hunters, tradesmen, explorers, researchers, colonizers, and missionaries as well as civil servants, experts in different fields, military personnel, individual entrepreneurs, and large corporations. Interactions between indigenous residents and the newcomers created experiences that were parallel in time and space, whereas the narratives were developed from diverse perspectives. Furthermore, the colonization and modernization processes, which were conducted without, or at best with very little, inclusion of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic regions, have resulted in social traumas and severe social problems such as elevated rates of substance abuse, child neglect, violence (including domestic violence), and suicidal behavior. These problems are dealt with differently in the different jurisdictions—ranging from “a state of denial” to initiation of reconciliation processes that establish a common ground for understanding and addressing the aftermaths of colonization. Despite communalities, the developmental processes in the various regions of the Arctic have progressed differently, and the results represent a variety of political settings, standards of living, and well-being. Livelihoods and living conditions have changed everywhere in the circumpolar North within the last century, not least due to globalization that, to a still larger degree, affects daily life in the Arctic. The impacts of the changes in world market prices for non-renewable resources, fish, and shellfish and the devastating consequences for Inuit subsistence hunters of anti-seal-hunting campaigns are just a few examples of the presence of globalization within Arctic-lived experiences. The Arctic has also taken center stage in many different ways in international politics since World War II. Marked temporal examples include the Cold War era and, more recently, through the impacts of the discoveries and exploitation of non-renewable resources and of climate change. Furthermore, the creation of self-governing regional political entities and a high-level intergovernmental forum—the Arctic Council, with the representative organizations of the Arctic indigenous peoples as active partners with the eight Arctic states—has garnered international attention. Depending on where the southern borders of the Arctic are drawn, the total population living in the circumpolar North amounts to between 4 and 10 million people, of which between 400,000 and 1.3 million residents belong to one of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. The extension of the Arctic region—even when the narrowest delimitation is applied—is 40 million km2, which is about 8 % of the total area of the Earth. The Arctic’s share of the world’s total population in contrast is measured in thousandths. The overall findings, which are based on official statistics made comparable and on more region-specific analyses, indicate that improvements have been made during the first decade of the twenty-first century in physical health (measured by infant mortality rates and life expectancy), educational attainment (measured by people with a tertiary education), and income (measured by gross regional product per capita. These findings also reveal huge differences between regions and between population groups, especially indigenous and nonindigenous, within regions. The differences also exist when mental health and overall well-being are assessed.