Thursday April 27, 2017

Register today

REGIONAL JOURNALISM, GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE.

Opinion
Arctic Council 20 Years

Compelling co-operation

Formally including regional representatives in the Arctic Council would make it a stronger tool for regional development and policy-shaping
Opinion
We’re on a regional mission (Photo: Northern Forum)

Share this article

Facebook Google Twitter Mail

iAbout Press releases

As part of our continuing efforts to bring you as much information about our region as possible we offer readers a press release service that allows private firms, public agencies, non-governmental organisations and other groups to submit relevant press releases on our website.

All press releases in this section are published in their full length and have not been edited.

If you have a press release or other announcement you would like to have published, please send it to arcticjournal-editor@arcticjournal.com.

We reserve the right to reject press releases we deem irrelevant or inappropriate. 

All material submitted to The Arctic Journal, including pictures and videos, will be assumed to be available for publication by The Arctic Journal and its related entities.

Pictured (left to right): Yakutia (Sakha Republic) head Eduard Klimov; Northern Forum acting executive director Mikhail Pogodaev and Craig Fleener, Arctic Policy Advisor to the governor of Alaska (Photo: Northern Forum)


Arctic Council 20 Years
As the Arctic Council celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, we are taking a closer look at the organisation, its work and the people involved with it.

In our latest initiative, we are again this year partnering with the Arctic Yearbook, which devoted this year’s edition to the Arctic Council. We will be republishing yearbook commentary and opinion on a regular basis.

A selection of our recent articles related to the Arctic Council include:
Designing a better Arctic
Arctic Council upgrade

Moving forward
A wish for observers that work
Norway’s new Arctic ambassador
Maine meeting brings Arctic business out of area
Mr Consistency
US to end chairmanship on science note
North Atlantic group knocking on Arctic’s door
“The majority of people in the North aren’t represented on the Arctic Council”

The article below was originally published in the 2016 Arctic Yearbook, which was released on October 27.

The establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996 allowed not only the eight Arctic countries but also many countries situated southward, as well as international organisations, to combine efforts in the co-ordination of international and external economic relations in the Arctic region, which is of exceptional significance in shaping the global climate and has huge reserves of natural resources, primarily hydrocarbons.

Over the course of 20 years, the Arctic Council has provided a quite clear platform for discussing the issues related to the countries’ interests. New areas of testing co-operation, approaches and methods of joint work has appeared, and working groups on specific themes, interesting to all stakeholders, have been formed.

At the same time, the Arctic Council still doesn’t have a clear-cut answer to the possibility of engaging sub-regional partners to their full potential; all its activity has been aimed at the development and enhancement of inter-state co-operation. This article discusses the importance of involving sub-regional governments in global international co-operation in the Arctic.

Establishing the Arctic Council 
The 1990s were marked by a rapid development of international co-operation across the globe, but it was the Arctic region where the burst of a movement to each other was witnessed the most. Within a short amount of time there appeared a whole range of international organisations with different priorities and aims, and it was obvious that the establishment of an inter-state agency, coordinating the activities of all countries interested in dealing with the issues of development and use of the Arctic resources, was on the horizon. Generally, that was what happened.

In 1996, the eight countries with territory in the Arctic Circle announced the establishment of the Arctic Council, being a forum for discussing all issues requiring co-operative decision making, in order to avoid a chaotic and spontaneous approach, primarily with regards to the use of the Arctic’s rich natural resources. The Agreement on Protection of the Arctic Environment in Rovaniemi, Finland, in 1991 laid the foundation for the Arctic countries’ unity.

From the very beginning, the Arctic Council set up states’ meaningful joint work on solving global issues; at present, the working groups are implementing a significant number of projects; and the Arctic Economic Council has been established. All decisions made by the Arctic Council have direct relevance to the life of all people living beyond the Arctic Circle.

SEE RELATED: North Atlantic group knocking on Arctic’s door

Yet, the heads of the sub-national governments barely have access to the work of the Arctic Council, which results in a certain gap in the decision-making system, taking into account all trends in the global Arctic.

Some regional leaders are joined within the framework of the Northern Forum (NF), which has an observer status at the Arctic Council; they have an opportunity for indirect participation in the work of the inter-state agency in the Arctic, without a right to a direct involvement in the decision-making process, which is a major deficiency, taking into account that all of the Arctic Council’s projects are implemented in the territories governed by regional administrations.

We must give credit where it is due to the far-sightedness of some regional leaders who foresaw a significant thaw in relations between the US and USSR, and prepared a foundation for a quick interaction of the regions in the new conditions. Almost straight after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, 11 regions of Russia, the US, Canada, Japan, China, Mongolia and Finland established the NF under the initiative of then Alaska governor Walter Hickel.

The International Arctic Science Committee appeared a year earlier. Later on, other international organisations were appearing in sequence, the most significant of them being the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the University of the Arctic and the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region.

SEE RELATED: Change and resilience

The NF obtained observer status at the Arctic Council right from the very start and took active part in its events (ministerial meetings, senior-Arctic officials meetings and working-group meetings) and some projects. Interestingly, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council has not formalised its presence in the Arctic Council. Probably, the council decided to focus on co-operation within northern Europe, participating in the activity of the Arctic Council within national delegations.

Therefore, the question is raised: is active participation of regional governments and administrations in the work of the Arctic Council possible, and if so, what are the available forms and mechanisms for that, and which ones can be developed?

Regional governments in Arctic politics
Basically, the NF can ensure the presence of regional leaders at the meetings of the senior-Arctic officials, but the current observer participants quota doesn’t allow all members of the NF to be simultaneously involved in these events. At that, even when present at the meetings, regional leaders cannot give their point of view or make a proposal, as long as the Arctic Council’s bylaws do not provide for the observers’ right to speak at the forum’s meetings.

The same was true for the working groups’ meetings, but since 2014, under a proposal made by the NF, brief comments from observers have been allowed at the Sustainable Development Working Group meetings.

At the same time, in 2013, while holding its extended session in Yakutsk (Sakha Republic, Russia), the Working Group on Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna agreed to not only include in the agenda the presentations of the hosting region’s local experts, but also to arrange extra meetings with young specialists and speak on local television, which allowed the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) to be fully and actively involved in the meeting and make efficient proposals.

I am confident that such an event was beneficial to all stakeholders. Should this practise continue, the involvement of regional potential in the activity of the Arctic Council’s working groups would become tangible.

SEE RELATED: Northern bloc

Generally, the participation of regional experts in the Arctic Council’s project activity is not restricted. Provided they can speak English and have relevant qualifications, the experts can be included in different project groups through national delegations, permanent participants or international observer organisations.

This is quite a constructive means of co-operation with the Arctic Council, securing the involvement of the regions with a sound scientific and technical potential, but almost inaccessible for the Arctic regions where the number of such experts is limited.

Whereas the regions can participate at the expert level by some means, the participation of leaders and regional governments in the decision-making process in the global Arctic co-operation remains doubtful. Obviously, the participants in the NF can make certain joint decisions, taken into account at elaborating the plans and programs of the regions’ socio-economic development.

The regions are actively involved in the development of the Arctic territories in the law-making environment of their countries, and their opinion can be taken into account at developing the countries’ positions when constructing the dialogue within the Arctic Council. At the same time, it would be much more useful and effective to ensure direct participation of regional leaders in the work of the Arctic Council.

SEE RELATED: Location is no object

Together with the indigenous peoples of the North, the Arctic Council qualifies settlers, hunters and reindeer herders, rural populations and citizens as the Arctic population. Thus, many Arctic governors sometimes wonder why Arctic indigenous organisations have permanent-participant status at the Arctic Council, whereas regional governments/administrations do not have those, although the leaders and governments/administrations are the ones who are more responsible for the development of the Arctic territories, and, therefore, it seems logic enough for their voice to be always present at the Arctic Council.

In my opinion, the best form of regional involvement in the decision-making processes within the Arctic Council is the involvement through an international organisation joining most of the world’s Arctic regions.

The NF is the only interregional organisation of the Arctic and the North aimed at such unification; the organisation has survived through a period of decline and is now on rise, gradually increasing the number of its members. Four Russian regions joined the NF in 2015: Krasnoyarsk Krai, Primorsky Krai, Magadan Oblast and Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Two key regions, Alaska and Lapland (Finland) have returned to the NF in 2016.

In the foreseeable future there is certain confidence in the inclusion of Scandinavian and a number of Russian regions. There is certain difficulty with Canadian territories’ making a decision on joining the NF, but the organisation’s strengthening both in terms of its quantity and quality may tilt in favour of the NF. Although Canadian regions have begun to form their Northern regional council, without other regions of the circumpolar Arctic it may not claim to voice their interests.

SEE RELATED: A tale of two circles

Thus, the NF may become a true partner of the Arctic Council, being a regional wing of the Arctic’s major inter-state agency. Most probably, for the NF, there is no point in seeking permanent-participant status at the Arctic Council. It would make the most sense to give it a partner status based on either an agreement between the Arctic Council and the NF or introduction of a new concept of ‘partner’ in the Arctic Council’s structure, and giving this status to the NF on the basis of the ministerial meeting’s resolution. Certainly, this issue requires discussion and is given in this article as an idea.

In any case, considering the issue of enlarging the quota for the NF’s participants in the SAO and ministerial meetings will allow the regions to gradually enhance their input in the Arctic Council’s activity, bring its decisions to a wider range of the population, and effectively use all available resources. Organising the meetings of NF governors within the Arctic Council events, where their recommendations will be presented to the inter-state forum, can become one of the compelling forms of co-operation.

The introduction of regional input to the Arctic Council or signing of an agreement between the inter-state and inter-regional organisations will allow us to streamline the structure and hierarchy in Arctic co-operation and take into account the interests of all stakeholders.

The author is federative and external relations minister for the government of Yakutia (Sakha Republic). He was previously the executive director of the Northern Forum.

Pictured (left to right): Yakutia (Sakha Republic) head Eduard Klimov; Northern Forum acting executive director Mikhail Pogodaev and Craig Fleener, Arctic Policy Advisor to the governor of Alaska (Photo: Northern Forum)