| dc.description.abstract | Making predictions in a highly uncertain environment is always a hazardous enterprise. Confronted with global warming, the future of the Arctic region has been often debated, both in terms of the scope and the speed of expected changes, including the future of resource development, the opening of shipping routes, and the evolution of multilateral fora. These predictions have come from different sources: governments through different policy papers and statements, the media, civil society, and academics, to name but a few. It can be difficult to account for this vast and diverse array of predictions, considering that each actor has interests to promote. We decided to develop a survey asking different actors to make predictions about possible Arctic geopolitical developments. Instead of letting individuals make their own predictions on the topic of their choice, we selected plausible scenarios and prompted respondents to evaluate if these developments were likely or unlikely to happen. Scenarios were developed to be both visible and concrete: we can evaluate if the scenario unfolded or not during a certain time period. For example, we can observe if Russia violated the airspace of another Arctic state, if Greenland reached state sovereignty, or if the U.S. deployed a freedom of navigation operations in the Arctic region. In total, our scenarios covered two dimensions: governance and security. On governance, potential developments around diplomatic initiatives or multilateral cooperation were tested. On security, the possibility of military conflict in the region or of military intrusions were considered. Two main objectives justified this approach. First, we wanted to evaluate if experts were correct in their predictions. Related to this, we were curious to know which type of issues caused incorrect assessments. Second, we repeated the same scenarios in multiple waves: the objective was to analyze if specific geopolitical developments occurring between waves would change predictions, moving the needle on experts’ predictions | |
