Arctic Strategies and Policies

Home , Baltoscandia

Inventory and Comparative Study

Lassi Heininen

April 2012

Northern Research Forum 2

Arctic Strategies and Policies: Inventory and Comparative Study

Published by: The Northern Research Forum & The University of Lapland

Available at: http://www.nrf.is

Author: Lassi Heininen, PhD., University of Lapland, Northern Research Forum

Editor: Embla Eir Oddsdóttir, The Northern Research Forum Secretariat

Photograps: © Embla Eir Oddsdóttir

Printing and binding: University of Lapland Press / Stell, Akureyri, Iceland

Layout and design: Embla Eir Oddsdóttir

Arc c strategies and policies 3

Contents

Introduction – 5

Background – 7

Inventory on Arctic Strategies and State Policies – 13

1. Canada – 13 2. The Kingdom of Denmark – 17 3. Finland – 23 4. Iceland – 29 5. Norway – 35 6. The Russian Federation – 43 7. Sweden – 49 8. The United States of America – 53 9. The European Union – 57

Comparative Study of the Arctic Strategies and State Policies – 67

(Re)constructing, (re)deﬁ ning and (re)mapping – 68 Summary of priorities, priority areas and objectives – 69 Comparative study of priorities/priority areas and objectives – 71 International Cooperation – 77

Conclusions – 79

References – 83

Appendix - tables – 91

Northern Research Forum 4

Arc c strategies and policies 5

tors and dynamics, as well as mapping rela- Introduction onships between indicators. Furthermore, it is relevant to study the Arc c states and their policies, and to explore their changing posi- In the early twenty-fi rst century interna onal on in a globalized world where the role of a en on and global interest in the northern- the Arc c has become increasingly important most regions of the globe are increasing, at in world poli cs. Moreover, a careful analysis the same me the geo-strategic importan- of the interrela ons between the Arc c sta- ce of the Arc c is growing. Since the end of tes and other important interna onal actors, the Cold War interna onal northern coope- par cularly Northern indigenous peoples´ ra on - both between the Arc c states and organiza ons, and those between the Arc c between them and non-state actors - has be- interests, agendas and objec ves, would come more ins tu onalized and dynamic. On be essen al for such a study. Thus on one one hand there is mul lateral interna onal hand, an in-depth scien fi c mul - or inter- coopera on within the Arc c Council as well disciplinary research eff ort, and the ability to as coopera on with and between indigenous transform scien fi c knowledge into decision- peoples’ organiza ons, other interna onal making is required (e.g. Segerståhl 2008). On organiza ons and forums, in addi on to bila- the other hand, an open and issue-oriented teral inter-state rela ons. On the other hand, dialogue between members of the research coopera on is func onal within certain fi elds, community and a wide range of stakeholders for example, between academic ins tu ons is needed, as is the crea on of knowledge- on higher educa on, civilian organiza ons on based networks or ‘epistemic communi es’ environmental protec on, and civil socie es (e.g. Heininen 2008). This could be achieved on regional development and culture. by observing the accumulated experience such as in the work of the Arc c Council and The circumpolar North is changing rapidly its working groups; the processes of the Arc c with respect to environmental, geo-economic Climate Impact Assessment report (ACIA) and geopoli cal terms. Among the more re- and the Arc c Human Development Report levant indicators of such change are those (AHDR). Other examples would be those of of climate change, the importance of energy the Arc c Parliamentarians and its conferen- security, the increased u liza on of ener- ces as well as in the open assemblies of the gy resources and related transport, and the Northern Research Forum1. possibility of new global sea routes. All eight Arc c states – Canada, Kingdom of Denmark The Northern Research Forum (NRF) and the including Greenland and the Faroe Islands, University of the Arc c (UArc c) have put Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and forth a tenta ve proposal to ini ate a project the USA – are responding to these changes by concerning an “Inventory and Assessment on (re)defi ning their northern policies and inte- Arc c and Northern policies, and the Interp- rests na onally, as well as their posi on and lay between Science and Poli cs in Northern role in the Arc c region and northern coope- Issues” (see Tenta ve dra of November ra on. A er Sweden launched its strategy 2009). Such a project would be a (modest) for policy in the Arc c region in May 2011 step in support of the ambi ous eff orts men- all of them have adopted their specifi c na- oned above. Ini ally this would require the onal arc c strategies and policy papers, or coopera on of the NRF, the UArc c and the a dra thereof. Interes ngly, The Kingdom of Standing Commi ee for Parliamentarians of Denmark launched its Strategy for the Arc c the Arc c Region (SCPAR) - all of which have 2011 - 2020 (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2011), accepted the principle idea - but would la- including Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe ter, hopefully, include both the Interna onal Islands, in August 2011. Arc c Science Commi ee (IASC) and the In- terna onal Arc c Social Sciences Associa on With this in mind, it would be poli cally re- (IASSA). One way of implemen ng this idea levant and scien fi cally interes ng to analy- ze the geopoli cal situa on and dis nguish 1 See also the tenta ve Implementa on Plan on “Social Impact As- sessment of Arc c Science” based on the work of ICARP WG11 – Arc c infl uen al indicators, by inden fying key fac- Science in the Public Interest which has been produced in coopera on beween the NRF and the University of the Arc c (UArc c).

Northern Research Forum 6

would be by organising issue speciﬁ c joint I would like to dedicate this publica on to the sessions in conferences and other mee ngs memory of my mother, Kaino Annikki Heini- of the Arc c Parliamentarians or those of the nen, who died in August 2010 and of whom University of the Arc c, as well as in the Open I was thinking and missing while working on Assemblies of the NRF2. Furthermore, the this study. joint Thema c Network on Geopoli cs and Security of the UArc c and the NRF would act as a springboard or scien ﬁ c advisory board, and the Standing Commi ee for Arc c Parlia- mentarians as a poli cal advisory board for this kind of project.

A logical ﬁ rst step toward a comprehensive study would be an inventory and compara ve analysis of the strategies, policies and agendas of the Arc c states regarding the Arc c. Consequently, this paper presents such an inventory on, and compara ve study of, the na onal arc c / northern strategies and policies, and priori es / priority areas and policy objec ves of of the Arc c states as well as the emerging Arc c policy of the European Union; a dra version of this (Heininen 2011) was presented to the Standing Commi ee for Parliamentarians of the Arc c Region in February 2011 in Tromsö, Norway. Were there to be enough interest and (ﬁ nancial) support, this could be followed through with, for example, an inventory on, and assessment of, policies and agendas of of the Arc c states as well as the emerging Arc c policy of Indige- nous peoples’ organiza ons and other Arc c actors. Another method could include a survey and assessment of the interplay between science and poli cs in northern coopera on and policies, possibly including recommenda- ons on how to further promote and strengthen such interplay.

I acknowledge M.A. Harry Borlase and Dr. Thorsteinn Gunnarsson for their contribu on to the publica on3. However, all ﬁ ndings are the work of the author and only represent opinions of the author. I also acknowledge M.Sc. Embla Eir Oddsdó r, who has pa ently taken care of reviews, edi ons and the layout of the publica on.

2 Like, for example, the 6th Open Assembly of the Northern Rese- arch Forum, which took place in Hveragerði, Iceland in September 2011.

3 Borlase pulled together a ﬁ rst dra of summaries of the strategies of Canada and Denmark/Greenland, and the 2006 Strategy of Norway (see also Borlase 2010), and Gunnarsson contributed a transla on of the Icelandic Report into English.

Arc c strategies and policies 7

and coopera on, but which hinge to a large Background extent on the Arc c states and their arc c policies (Heininen 2010b). First, a signifi cant and rapid environmental, geo-economic and In the early twenty-fi rst century interna o- geopoli cal change has occurred in the Arc c. nal a en on in the northernmost regions Among relevant indicators of this change are of the globe is increasing, at the same me on one hand, globaliza on and global chan- the geo-strategic importance of the Arc c ges, par cularly climate change, and on the is growing (e.g. Heininen 2010a). Since the other hand, the strategic importance of ener- end of the Cold War interna onal northern gy security, and consequently, an increase in coopera on - largely through mul lateral re- u liza on of oil and natural gas resources and la ons within the Arc c Council and between related transport, as well as the poten al for indigenous peoples’ organiza ons but also new global sea routes. However, due to the func onally between academic ins tu ons mul func onal nature of these changes and on higher educa on, civilian organiza ons the resul ng complex situa on it is neither on environmental protec on, and civil socie- en rely clear what other indicators may exist, es on regional development and culture, as nor what is the specifi c nature of interrela- well as other interna onal organiza ons and ons between these and the more obvious forums - has become more ins tu onalized ones4. and dynamic. As a result there is increasing circumpolar coopera on amongst indigenous Admi edly climate change - with its severe peoples’ organiza ons and renewed region- impacts precipita ng physical change such as building with states as major actors. A new the increased mel ng of sea ice and collap- kind of rela onship between the Arc c region ses of infrastructure in areas of permafrost - and the outside world is emerging (Heininen adds to the growing level of uncertainty that 2004; also Östreng 1999). Consequently, the contributes to the vulnerability of the Arc c region is stable and peaceful without armed region. The severe socio-economic impacts of confl icts or the likelihood thereof. climate change endanger both environmental and human security as well as posing ques- In the Circumpolar north there are, however, ons about the state sovereignty in Canada also geopoli cal and economic reali es which and Russia. Furthermore, rich energy resour- correspond to real changes in the Arc c; the ces of the Arc c, op ons to them, and highly resource-rich region is under pressure for in- poten al global sea routes a ract both the creasing u liza on of its energy resources, Arc c states and major powers from outside as historically it has been for fi sh stocks and the region; these include China and South marine mammals. There are land claims by Korea in Asia, France and Germany in Euro- northern indigenous peoples which are lin- pe and the European Union as a whole, all of ked to debates and confl icts over ownership which are already ac vely exploring their po- and access. Its northern seas are the subject licy op ons for the Arc c. of mari me border disputes, par cularly the boundaries between exclusive economic zo- Second, without a doubt the geo-strategic nes (EEZ) demarca ng the con nental shelves importance of the Arc c in world poli cs and of the li oral states. These are subject to legal the globalized world economy is increasing, rights of the li oral states as posited by the and the region is playing a more important United Na ons Conven on on the Law of the role. This is largely due to the highly strategic Sea (UNCLOS) for the establishment of exclu- posi on of the region and con nuing milita- sive economic zones, and for making submis- ry-strategic importance to the major nuclear sions for sovereign rights to resources beyond powers, the growing interna onal interest in exclusive economic zones. its energy resources and associated fi nancial instruments, and the poten al value of new Furthermore, there are two important perspec ves that deserve more a en on 4 Among poten al key indicators and factors of change might be, an emphasis of state sovereignty and na onal security (par cularly and enable us to approach arc c geopoli- by li oral states), (new) op ons for u liza on of natural resources on the shelf of the Arc c Ocean (by UNCLOS), a need of more advanced cs beyond the familiar terms of confl ict technology and diff erent knowledge(s), (emerging) global environmental problems and fragmenta on of interna onal coopera on.

Northern Research Forum 8

trans-Arc c global sea routes. Trans-Arc c major actors of the region and are a crucial naviga on is becoming more accessible, not source of regional poli cal and social stabi- least the Northern Sea Route. This develop- lity. This is achieved with intergovernmental ment mobilises a range of interna onal in- coopera on through channels that do not sig- terests posi oning themselves in new ways nifi cantly impinge on na onal sovereignty or around naviga on and environmental issues. strategic interests. Furthermore, the region´s reputa on of being a scien fi c ‘laboratory’ or ‘workshop for re- Indeed, there are several intergovernmental search’ amplifi es the a en on given to the poli cal organiza ons where the Arc c states environment and climate change, for examp- are members. Among the most relevant ones le by the United Na ons and the Intergovern- are: The United Na ons - all eight states are mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). members; The European Union – Denmark, Finland and Sweden are members (Iceland All of these factors above have placed the has started the accession talks with the Uni- Arc c squarely on the world map. However, on); The North Atlan c Treaty Organiza on beyond these geo-strategic interests, know- (NATO) – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway ledge prac ces and their implicit values, there and the USA are members; The Euro-Atlan c is also an alterna ve point of view saying that Partnership Council (EAPC) – all the Arc c the Arc c plays an important role in world states are involved, the NATO member-states poli cs because of its diverse natural and as allies and the others as partner count- cultural environment, i.e. indigenous peoples ries; Group7/8/20 – Canada and the USA are (e.g. Heininen 2010b). This comes with the members of G7, these two and Russia are growing realisa on that arc c ecosystems members of G8, and these three and the EU make a major contribu on to biodiversity are members of G20; and The Interna onal on Earth – the familiar idea of the Arc c as Mari me Organiza on (IMO) - all the Arc c a barren wasteland is now discredited. This states are members with the Faroe Islands an new epistemological a en on to the Arc c associate member (see Table 1). is refl ected to some extent in innova ons in poli cal and legal arrangements as the Arc c Here the European Union’s posi on as well as Human Development Report (2004, 229-242) its policy is par cularly interes ng, since the has pointed out in its major fi ndings. Final- Union “is inextricably ed to the Arc c Regi- ly, the region is becoming a ‘workshop’ for on ...by a unique combina on of history, geo- implemen ng and studying the interplay bet- graphy, economy and scien fi c achievements. ween knowledge(s), and that between scien- Three Member States – Denmark (Green- ce and poli cs. land), Finland and Sweden – have territories in the Arc c. Two other Arc c states – Iceland Despite growing global strategic importance, and Norway – are members of the European the severe impacts of climate change endan- Economic Area. Canada, Russia and the Uni- gering both environmental and human secu- ted States are strategic partners of the EU.” rity or posing ques ons about state sovereig- (Commission of the European Communi es nty, let us not forget that this region is in no 2008, 2). Furthermore, Iceland, Norway and way terra nullius. To the contrary, its territo- Russia are party to the EU’s Northern Dimen- ries are subject to na onal sovereignty with sion along with the Union, and Greenland has fi xed na onal borders; most mari me boun- the status of Overseas Countries and Territo- daries have been agreed upon. Furthermore, ries with the European Union. Finally, Iceland within the region there is a considerably dy- has started its accession talks with the Union. namic and ins tu onalized coopera on between states, with the Arc c Council being the There are also intergovernmental associa- most important so -law instrument (e.g. Koi- ons and areas of economic integra on, for vurova 2009). Recently there have been new the promo on of free trade, which are pre- addi onal arrangements of intergovernmen- sent and infl uen al in the Arc c region: The tal coopera on, such as the ministerial mee- European Economic Area (EEA) – Iceland ngs of the fi ve li oral states of the Arc c and Norway, and the EU and its member-sta- Ocean. Finally, the Arc c states are s ll the tes are the par es; The European Free Trade

Arc c strategies and policies 9

Associa on (EFTA) – Iceland and Norway are ven on; The Interna onal Conven on for the members; and The North American Free Tra- Preven on of Pollu on from Ships (MARPOL) de Area (NAFTA) - Canada and the USA are - all the Arc c states have ra fi ed the Conven- members (see Table 2). on; The Stockholm Conven on on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) – all the Arc c sta- The Arc c states are also members in seve- tes, except Russia and the USA have ra fi ed ral regional, intergovernmental organiza ons the Conven on (Denmark has ra fi ed it “with and involved in regional coopera ve forums a territorial exclusion in respect of the Faroe or arrangements. Among those are, fi rst of all: Islands and Greenland”); The Kyoto Protocol The Arc c Council (AC) (and its predecessor – all the Arc c states, except the USA, have the Arc c Environmental Protec on Strategy, ra fi ed the Protocol (Denmark with the ter- AEPS) - all eight Arc c states are members, ritorial exclusion of the Faroe Islands); The and through Denmark both Greenland and Antarc c Treaty System (ATS) – all the Arc c the Faroe Islands are involved; the ministerial states, except Iceland, are members of the mee ngs of the li oral states of the Arc c Treaty; Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and Ocean (Ilulissat) – Canada, Denmark and the USA are consulta ve members, and Nor- Greenland, Norway, Russia and the USA have way has made claims on the territory; and a ended these mee ngs; The Interna onal The Interna onal Whaling Commission (IWC) Arc c Science Commi ee (IASC) – all the – all the Arc c states are members, except Arc c states are members; The Barents Euro- Canada (see Table 4). Arc c Council (BEAC) as well as The Council of Bal c Sea States (CBSS) – the European Arc c Of par cular importance is the UNCLOS con- states and the EU are members5; The Nordic ven on which all eight Arc c states have Council of Ministers (NCMs) – the fi ve Nor- signed; all except the USA have ra fi ed the dic countries, and Greenland and the Faroe conven on. There are other addi onal inter- Islands are members; and the EU’s Northern na onal agreements or trea es and bodies Dimension – Iceland, Norway and Russia, and dealing with the Arc c region. For example, the EU are par es (through the Union the EU the ILO Conven on 169 – ra fi ed by Denmark member-states are involved), and Greenland and Norway; The Interna onal Treaty on through the ND Arc c Window6 (see Table 3). Spitzbergen - all Arc c states are members; The Interna onal Agreement on Polar Bears Here the Nordic Council of Ministers is struc- – Canada, Denmark on behalf of Greenland, turally interes ng, since not only the fi ve Nor- Norway (because of Svalbard), Russia and the dic states are members, but Greenland and USA on behalf of Alaska are par es to the the Faroe Islands (as well as the Åland Islands) Agreement; The North East Atlan c Fisheries are also ins tu onally involved in the coope- Commission (NEAFC) – Denmark (in respect ra on, in their status of autonomous regions. of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Iceland, Norway and Russia, and the EU, are contrac- In addi on to these intergovernmental orga- ng par es, and Canada is a non-contrac ng niza ons there are also Arc c-relevant inter- party; The North-West Atlan c Fisheries Or- na onal agreements and trea es which the ganiza on (NAFO) – Canada, Denmark (in Arc c states have signed and ra fi ed. Among respect of Greenland and the Faroe Islands), those are: The United Na on’s Conven on of Iceland, Norway, Russia and the USA, and the the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - all the eight EU, are member states of the Organiza on; states except the USA have ra fi ed the Con- and the Arc c Military Environmental Coope- ven on; The Conven on on the Preven on of ra on (AMEC) – Norway, Russia and the USA Marine Pollu on by Dumping of Wastes and are par es (see Table 5). Other Ma er (London Conven on of 1972) – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Nevertheless, the posi on of the Arc c states Sweden and the USA are par es to the Con- is changing. More strategic emphasis is now placed on sovereignty and na onal interests 5 Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden are included in rota ons of linked to climate change or energy security. the chairmanship of the BEAC There is evidence that the li oral states are 6 It is not clear, if the Faroe Islands is offi cially involved in the EU’s Northern Dimension or not, at least it is not men oned. using all legal rights available to them in the

Northern Research Forum 10

UNCLOS to make submissions for sovereign dic Council of Ministers has been ac vely rights to resources on the main basin of the discussing and launching programs for the Arc c Ocean. This new posi on is best il- Arc c region during the 2000s, such as the lustrated by the ministerial mee ngs of the recent project of “Megatrends in the Arc c”. fi ve Arc c Ocean li oral states that took place As men oned earlier, the European Union is in May 2008 and in March 2010 (e.g. Ilulissat in the process of formula ng and approving Declara on 2008; Foreign Aff airs and Interna- an Arc c policy, which is already emerging. onal Trade Canada 2010). The three na ons Furthermore, the Assembly of Western Eu- without the High Arc c coastlines and con - ropean Union in its 55th session discussed nental shelves of the Arc c Ocean - Finland, Arc c ins tu onal and legal frameworks as Iceland and Sweden - as well as the six Perma- well the as security situa on in the North, nent Par cipants, i.e. Indigenous Peoples’ or- based on the report on Europe’s Northern ganiza ons took excep on to being excluded Security dimension (European Security and from such important discussions7. This led Defence Assembly 2008). And Nato has dis- commentators more generally to ask whet- cussed security prospects in the High North her this might jeopardise or marginalise the in an academic roundtable in January 2009, Arc c Council itself. The counter-argument is organized by the NATO Defence College. that because the Arc c Council is a so -law instrument, it has avoided issues dealing with Finally, non-Arc c states both in Europe - such industrial-scale exploita on of natural resour- as France, Germany and the United Kingdom ces (oil, natural gas, and marine mammals) (e.g. Plouff e 2011) - and in Asia - such as China and tradi onal security. Whether this signals (e.g. Jakobson 2010), Japan and South Korea a return to the poli cs of a more las ng and - have clearly shown, and partly defi ned, their strident na onalism is unclear. interest in the Arc c, although these states have not approved their Arc c strategies, yet10. In summary, all the Arc c states - Sweden being the last one - have recently approved The present paper is an inventory on and their na onal priori es and policy objec ves compara ve study of, the Arc c and nort- in the Arc c and on northern issues.8 This is hern strategies, state policies, priori es and a response to changes in the posi on of the objec ves of Canada, The Kingdom of Den- Arc c states and the signifi cant and mul fun- mark including Denmark, Greenland and c onal geopoli cal changes that have already the Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, taken place. Russia, Sweden and the USA, as well as the emerging Arc c policy of the European Uni- Importantly, the Arc c states are not alone on. Although each of the Arc c states have in their remapping of the Arc c and (re) for- rather recently approved their na onal stra- mula ons of agendas or policies. Northern tegy or policy on Arc c and northern aff airs indigenous peoples’ organiza ons, as Perma- there have been earlier northern agendas nent Par cipants of the Arc c Council, have and dimensions - policies even - with na onal their own agendas and priori es, par cipa- approaches concerning Arc c related issues ng in discussions concerning the future of and northern aff airs, by Arc c states. These the Arc c, as is indicated by the Indigenous included themes such as “Arc c ambience Peoples’ Secretariat. A par cularly strong and iden ty, sovereignty and security, indi- voice is “A Circumpolar Inuit Declara on on genous peoples, natural resources and rese- Sovereignty in the Arc c” adopted by the arch” (Heininen 1997, 219). Thus, the present Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) in April 2009 paper is not exactly the fi rst - though more (Inuit Circumpolar Council 2009)9. The Nor- comprehensive and systema c - compara ve study of northern approaches, agendas and 7 However, Iceland has made it clear that it does defi ne itself as a coastal state and is “fi rmly against” these mee ngs (Minister for Foreign policies of the Arc c states, but rather con n- Aff airs 2010), as I will discuss later. uity to a previous study of mine, “Na onal ap 8 Academically, this is very interes ng and frui ul, but also hec c and demanding, since the process of these launches of na onal 10 Among others these Asian states as well as the European Union strategies and state policies – both dra and fi nal ones – seems to be have applied for the status of observer to the Arc c Council. However, almost endless. a decision regarding their applica ons was not reached during the ministerial mee ng of the Council in May 2011, as the mee ng only 9 The Declara on was followed by “A Circumpolar Inuit Declara on adopted recommenda ons “on the role and criteria for observers to on Resource Development Principles in Inuit Nunaat”. the Arc c Council” (Nuuk Declara on 2011, 2).

Arc c strategies and policies 11

proaches to the Arc c” which covers Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Swe- den (Heininen 1992; also Heininen 1997)11.

11 The 1992 study was a part of the TAPRI Workshop on Alterna ve Development and Security in the Arc c Region, an interna onal research project run by the Tampere Peace Research Ins tute in 1987- 1993 (e.g. Vulnerable Arc c need for an Alterna ve Orienta on, ed. by Jyrki Käkönen, 1992. This was followed by the 1997 study covering all the Arc c states based on my presenta on in the conference Barents Region Today: Dreams and Reali es, where the Finnish Prime Minister launched an ini a ve for a Northern Dimension of the European Union (for more details see, Europe’s Northern Dimension: the BEAR meets the south, eds. by Lassi Heininen and Richard Langlais, 1997).

Northern Research Forum 12

Arc c strategies and policies 13

fi rst, exercising our Arc c sovereignty; se- Inventory on Arc- cond, promo ng social and economic development; third, protec ng the North’s envi- tic Strategies and ronmental heritage; and fourth, improving State Policies and devolving northern governance. Background As men oned earlier Canada, Denmark/ 12 Greenland, Finland, Iceland , Norway, Rus- The Canadian Government has been ac ve in sia, Sweden and the USA have recently ap- interna onal northern and Arc c discussions proved their agendas and strategies depic ng and coopera on during the last decades, such na onal priori es, priority areas and policy as in proposing and promo ng the establish- objec ves both locally and in the circumpo- ment of the Arc c Council in the early-1990s lar Arc c region as a whole. Furthermore, the (Canadian Arc c Resource Commi ee 1991), European Union is in the process of approving and later in the 1990s pushing sustainable its emerging policy paper with priori es in the development and human security as the fo- Arc c region through the EU Commission’s cus of circumpolar coopera on (e.g. Heininen Communica on on Arc c issues. 1997, 230-233). Furthermore, already in the 1970s Canada enacted the Arc c Waters Pol- This chapter consists of an inventory of the lu on Preven on Act (AWPPA) to protect its Arc c strategies and state policies of the marine environment in its Arc c archipelago. eight Arc c states (in alphabe cal order) and It was an early and unique environmental the communica on of the EU (see Heininen preven on act, though it did not wholly ma- 2011, the DRAFT version of the Inventory, nage to convince other states that the North- February 2011). The main content and the west Passage is Canada’s internal waters (e.g. priori es or priority areas of each of them are Heininen 1992). The AWPPA was extended summarized and followed by a discussion on from 100 to 200 nau cal miles in 2009 (Go- interes ng and relevant fi ndings. In the very vernment of Canada 2010, 16). beginning of each sub-chapter there is a brief introduc on and background to the history In dealing with its Northern region, Canada of each country’s arc c / northern policy or has been somewhat ambivalent. On one agenda. hand, it has approved strategies or policies at the local and regional circumpolar level, such as through the Northern Dimension of Canada’s foreign policy (see Department of Foreign Aff airs and Interna onal Trade 2000), 1. Canada and on the other hand, the Canadian Govern- ment has a history of ins tu onal neglect when it comes to its Northern region, and the Canada’s Northern Strategy “Our North, Our way in which it could become be er incorpo- Heritage, Our Future” was released on July rated and developed (Borlase 2010, 83-92). 2009 in Ga neau Quebec (Government of Canada 2009) by the Government of Canada. In 2006 the Liberal Party of Canada launched It was followed by “Statement on Canada’s Canada`s Northern Dimension, which policy Arc c Foreign Policy” (Government of Canada had ambi ous goals in terms of a na onal 2010) which was launched on August 2010. and foreign policy direc ve (e.g. Heininen and Here the Strategy and the Statement are vie- Nicol 2007). The government, however, failed wed and analyzed as one document. to pursue these objec ves prior to its fall (up to 2007) and adopted a defensive stance fol- The priority areas of the Strategy, which the lowing the Russian expedi on to the shelf Statement fully promotes, are the following: under the North Pole in August 2007. This shi ed the debate towards an emphasis on 12 The Icelandic foreign ministry has published a relevant report on the High North which is considered here as a na onal strategy. sovereignty and na onal defence. Although

Northern Research Forum 14

therehf are a few on-going ddisputes concerning anddl launched h d“ “Statement on Canada’s d ’ Arc c northern waters, par cularly the Northwest Foreign Policy” in August 2010 to promote Passage (e.g. Byers 2009), these are largely the Strategy and be the “government’s Arc c diploma c and poli cal disputes, the most foreign policy statement” (Cannon 2010). challenging of which is the status of the Nort- hwest Passage as internal waters, with the USA. They are not, however, conﬂ icts which Summary of Canada’s ArcƟ c cons tute a real threat to Canadian sovereignty in the High North. Strategy

In spite of this, no other country refl ects the The Strategy starts with the preamble from Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Aff airs and complexity of geopoli cal change(s) in the Northern Development, “Canada is a Nort- Arc c as well as Canada. More recently, the hern na on. The North is a fundamental part Conserva ve Party of Canada and Prime Mi- of our heritage and our na onal iden ty, and nister Stephen Harper have taken a conside- it is vital to our future”. It con nues with the rably more direct interest in the North and statement that “Our government recognizes “made the Arc c a major poli cal pla orm” the tremendous opportuni es – as well as (Globe and Mail (Metro) Na onal News, the many challenges – that exist in the North 2011-01-25, A12), also emphasizing Canada’s today. That is why we are alloca ng more sovereignty in the Arc c. Harper’s conserva- resources and a en on to Northern issues ve Government has also ini ated a number than at any me in our country’s history.” of projects aimed at bolstering the state, and (Government of Canada 2010, 3) thus Government`s impact on the territory of Canada’s North and in its communi es. The- Both the Strategy and the Statement empha- se projects were compounded into Canada`s size that the North / the Arc c is central and Northern Strategy which was released in the fundamental to Canada’s character and na- summer of 2009. Though the government onal iden ty, and “to secure the future of had expressed its inten on on developing a Canada’s North, for the benefi t of all Cana- strategy in advance, the release of the Stra- dians”. Furthermore, that exercising sovereig- tegy was also met with cri cism for failing to nty over Canada’s North is “our number one properly consult with northern indigenous Arc c Foreign policy priority” (Government organiza ons and northern communi es as of Canada 2010, 2-3). The Canadian North well as the academic community. The Govern- is about people, including the Inuit peoples. ment has, however, con nued on this track And fi nally, that the Government has a clear vision for “Our True North”.

Arc c strategies and policies 15

Canada will con nue to mana- The Strategy has four priority areas: 1) “Exer- ge these discrete disputes and cising our Arc c sovereignty”; 2) “Promo ng may seek to resolve them in the social and economic development”; 3) “Pro- future, in accordance with in- tec ng our environmental heritage”; and 4) terna onal law” (ibid, 13); “Improving and devolving northern gover- 13 nance” . Finally, it means emphasizing and promo ng a human dimension in the North. The fi rst priority “Exercising our Arc c Sove- reignty” states that Canada’s sovereignty in The second priority, “Promo ng Social and the North is longstanding and based on histo- Economic Development” is a vision to create rical tle which is founded on the presence of a method that ensures the sustainable use of the Inuit peoples. Implementa on would fi rst Arc c poten al, is inclusive and geared to- of all mean the strengthening of Canada´s wards improving both self-suffi ciency and the presence in the Arc c by “... asser ng its pre- health of northern communi es. Implemen- sence in the North” through improving land, ng this priority means fi rst of all, suppor- 14 sea and air capability and capacity . It also ng economic development by establishing means enhancing stewardship by “.taking eff ec ve ins tu ons and transparent rules, concrete measures to protect our Arc c wa- promo ng development and protec on of ters by introducing new ballast water control the environment16; it also requires addres- regula ons”, to amend the Arc c Waters Pol- sing cri cal infrastructural needs as modern lu on Act to 200 nau cal miles, to establish infrastructure will contribute to a stronger new regula ons under Canadian Shipping Act economy, cleaner environment, and increa- 2001 to require repor ng to the Coast Guard singly prosperous communi es17. Finally, prior to entering Canadian waterways, and to it requires suppor ng healthy and vibrant improve search and rescue needs for com- communi es and human well-being in the muni es. Further, it means defi ning Canada´s north18. domain and advancing knowledge of the Arc c through the con nued use of UNCLOS The third priority “Protec ng our Environmen- 15 in defi ning maximum outer seabed limits . In tal Heritage” entails a commitment towards regard to Hans Island, the Beaufort Sea, the ensuring the safeguarding of northern ecosys- Northwest Passage and the Lincoln Sea, whe- tems for future genera ons. Implemen ng re Canada’s sovereignty is disputed, this priority means on one hand, a global leadership in Arc c sciences which are an impor- “these disagreements are well- tant founda on for the priori es presented managed and pose no sovereignty or defence challenges 16 This will be done through: i) Improving development regula ons for Canada. In fact, they have for new development projects, ii) Construc ng a new economic development agency to deliver on the Strategic Investments in Northern had no impact on Canada’s abi- Economic Development Program, iii) Mining ac vi es and other major projects like the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline which are cornerstones to lity to work collabora vely and economic development and key to building communi es, iv) Commit- ment towards Beaufort explora on and support for Aboriginal Pipeline coopera vely with the United Group, v) Investments in geo-mapping (Geo-Mapping for Energy and Minerals) to build understanding and poten al of northern geology, States, Denmark or other Arc c and vi) Increased funding for tourism as well as community cultural neighbours on issues of real and heritage ins tu ons (ex. cultural facility in Clyde river). 17 This will be implemented by: i) Tailoring needs specifi c to com- signifi cance and importance. muni es and territories, ii) Con nued development of the commercial fi sheries harbour in Pangnirtung, and iii) Inves ng in infrastructure programs like broadband internet connec ons and green infrastructure. 13 The Strategy is 40 pages including photos and the Statement itself. 18 This will be implemented through: i) Monetary commitment of $2.5 billion annually to territories through Territorial Formula Financing for schools, hospitals and social services, ii) Other targeted 14 Through using the following concrete ways: i) Developing an army investments in housing, skills development and infrastructure, iii) Con- training centre in Resolute Bay, ii) Expanding and modernizing the nued support for the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership Northern Rangers, iii) Crea ng a deep water berthing and fuelling sta- which provides sustainable employment opportuni es in resource on in Nanisivik, iv) Construc ng a new polar icebreaker, v) Inves ng industries; iv) Increased commitment towards Canada Social Transfer in new patrol ships with annual icebreaking capabili es, vi) Developing to improve social programs; v) Con nued direct territorial support RADARSAT II, and vii) Undertaking training exercises like Opera on with investments based on their specifi c social needs; vi) Making Nanook, conduc ng regular patrols for surveillance and security and health care more responsive to northern needs, including reduced con nuing NORAD opera ons. reliance on external medical assistance and travel for pa ents; vii) Improvements in promo ng awareness of general health and diseases 15 “This process, while lengthy, is not adversarial and it is not a race. and cost-eff ec ve provision of food for isolated communi es; and viii) Rather, it is a collabora ve process based on a shared commitment to Establishing annual graduate scholarships regarding Canada’s role in interna onal law. Canada is working with Denmark, Russia, Norway the Circumpolar world. and the United States to undertake this scien fi c work.” (p.12)

Northern Research Forum 16

in the Strategy as well providing guidance states in May of 2008. for decision-makers. This will be achieved by Although the Statement also talks of the Arc c establishing a world-class research sta on in states as close partners of Canada, unlike the the High Arc c to serve as the hub for scien - Strategy it also men ons the second Foreign fi c ac vity, and by providing for similar invest- Ministers’ mee ng of the fi ve Arc c Ocean ments through the recently established Arc c states in March of 2010 in Chelsea, Quebec Research Infrastructure Fund. On the other (see Foreign Aff airs and Interna onal Trade hand, it means protec on of Northern lands Canada 2010). Furthermore, in its last chap- and waters with a comprehensive approach ter, “The Way Forward” the Statement also to protec ng natural environments. This will men ons the Arc c Council contending that it be achieved by i) Construc ng two new na- “needs to be strengthened to ensure that it is onal parks and expanding the Nahanni Na- equipped to address tomorrow’s challenges” onal Park Reserve; ii) Establishing three new (Government of Canada 2010, 25). wildlife reserves in Nunavut with consulta - on from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated; iii) Establishing a na onal marine conserva on Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- area around Lancaster Sound; iv) Con nuing ings community support from Transport Canada for response systems to marine pollu on; and In the Strategy Canada is defi ned as a “Nort- v) Commi ng to cleaning-up and repairing hern na on”; the North is central to Canada’s former industry sites and to pre-development character and na onal iden ty. The term environmental impacts assessments. “Our North, our Heritage” refers geographically to Canada’s Far North which is included The fourth and fi nal priority “Improving and in the defi ni on of Canada’s heritage and fu- Devolving Northern Governance”, in general ture, even “central to the Canadian na onal terms means that Northerners have a greater iden ty” (Government of Canada 2009, 3). say in their own des nies; in prac se, prog- Further, Canada’s North is said to be “fi rst ress should be made towards devolving ma- and foremost about people – the Inuit, other nagement of resources and responsibility of Aboriginal peoples and Northerners” (ibid 3). developments to the Northwest Territories However, neither (indigenous) peoples nor and Nunavut, as well as establishing rules for the human dimension are among the priori- devolvement and a protocol for future ge- es of the Strategy, although “Empowering nera ons, in coopera on with Nunavut. To the Peoples of the North” is included in the implement this means “Made-in-the North Statement´s four priori es (Government of policies and strategies”, since “Canada’s Canada 2010, 22-24). North is home to some of the most innova- ve, consulta ve approaches to government Second, both the Strategy and the Statement in Canada and the world” (ibid 30) when it emphasize Canada’s “Arc c (mari me) So- comes to land claims, self-government agree- vereignty” as a fi rst priority. It is manifested ments and models for governance. Further- to be “our number one Arc c Foreign policy more, it means “Providing the right tools”, i.e. priority” (Government of Canada 2010, 3). Canada will con nue to implement past and According to the Munk School/Gordon Foun- new land claims agreements in accordance da on survey of public opinion (University of with individual needs as well as provide more Toronto and Munk School of Global Aff airs territorial fi nancing. 2011) almost 60% of Northern Canadians agree that security of the Canadian Arc c is Subsequent to the sec on on priority areas “extremely important and we should be put- in the Strategy there is a short chapter on in- ng more military resources in the area”. Also terna onal coopera on under the tle “The emphasised is the importance of strengthe- Interna onal Dimension of our North Strate- ning Canada’s presence in the Arc c by, for gy”. In this chapter the Arc c Council as well example, exer ng rights based on the histori- as Canada’s Arc c partners - the USA, Russia cal presence of the Inuit, and with the aim of and the Nordic countries, and UK as a non- strengthening military presence and control Arc c state – are men oned; there is nothing in the Arc c through the establishment of an about the Ilulissat mee ng of the fi ve li oral

Arc c strategies and policies 17

Army Training Centre (= military aspect) and Arc c partners but excludes the Northern Di- the construc on of a power icebreaker (= mension of Canada’s foreign policy - it is not control). really concerned with foreign policy. Obvious- ly, it is rather geared for a domes c audience The Strategy refers to exis ng disagreements, and a part of internal poli cs. Therefore, the for example between Canada and the USA, Statement on Canada’s Arc c Foreign Policy contending that Canada’s sovereignty over was launched to promote the Strategy and be its Arc c lands and islands is “undisputed”. It the “government’s Arc c foreign policy state- however says explicitly that there are neither ment” (Cannon 2010). confl icts nor a “race” and consequently, according to the Statement, Canada is seeking Finally, all in all, in spite of its cri cism within to resolve these boundary issues. This does Canada the Strategy includes a vision about, not change the posi on of the Northwest and for, the North in the context of the en re Passage, except that it has been recently re- country. Both the Strategy and the Statement named the Canadian North-West Passage can be seen as a refl ec on, a response even, (Borlase 2010, 94), and the applica on of the to the ongoing signifi cant and mul -func o- AWPPA has been extended from 100 to 200 nal changes in the High North. nau cal miles, in accordance with the UN- CLOS). Third, despite reference to the AWPPA in 2. The Kingdom of terms of ac vi es an emphasis of the Strate- gy is much on Arc c Science and the Interna- onal Polar Year (IPY), with two key priority Denmark areas: climate change impacts, and health and well-being. Through its big investments The Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy for the into the IPY Canada has become, and is, very Arc c 2011-2020” was adopted by the Gov- much a global leader in Arc c science. Now it ernment of Denmark, the Government of the seeks to secure that posi on by establishing Faroe Islands and the Government of Green- a new world-class research sta on, and thus land. It was launched by the Danish Ministry trying to become a hub for scien fi c ac vi es, of Foreign Aff airs in August 2011. an image of apparent importance to Canada. According to the Strategy document, the Fourth, economic development, including the Kingdom of Denmark “in an equal partner- explora on and u liza on of natural resour- ship between the three parts of the Danish ces (e.g. Geo-Mapping for Energy and Mi- Realm” - Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe nerals), is a high priority with the Canadian Islands - will work for “A peaceful, secure and Government whereas transporta on appears safe Arc c; with self-sustaining growth and less so. Indigenous groups are included in development; with respect for the Arc c’s processes leading up to mega-projects regar- fragile climate; and in close coopera on with ding the u liza on of natural resources (e.g. our interna onal partners” (Ministry of For- Mackenzie Gas Project). This is ed in with in- eign Aff airs of Denmark, 2011, 10-11). digenous ownership and land claim nego a- ons, and is thus an indica on of devolu on. Based on the above-men oned four main Health and well-being are also men oned. aims and the en re content of the Strategy I An interes ng point in the Statement is the interpret that the priority areas / main tasks implementa on of a free trade agreement of the Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy for the with EFTA member countries, as an avenue to Arc c are the following ones: enhancing trading rela ons with other Arc c states. 1) To enhance mari me safety, and enforce sovereignty and surveillance; Fi h, though the Strategy includes a short chapter on interna onal coopera on – it 2) To exploit mineral resources and new eco- men ons the Arc c Council and Canada’s nomic opportuni es, and use renewable en-

Northern Research Forum 18

ergy sources, maintain a leading role in Arc c sat Declara on`s statement of coopera on. research, and promote Arc c coopera on on Both the 2008 dra strategy and subsequent human health and social sustainability; reports from the Danish Foreign Ministry il- lustrate that the Declara on, and par cularly 3) To pursue knowledge building on climate Denmark`s leading role as host, has solidifi ed change, and manage the Arc c nature based its - namely The Kingdom of Denmark`s - posi- on the best scien fi c knowledge; and on as a permanent Arc c player, albeit despite power sharing with Greenland. This point 4) To priori ze global coopera on, and en- of view is strongly present in the fi nal Strategy hance coopera on in the Arc c Council and document. under the ‘Arc c 5’, and with the EU as well as the Nordic countries. The dra Strategy document - a fi rst me for a Greenlandic-Danish involvement concerning Background the Arc c – clearly emphasises the domes c model through which Denmark and Green- The joint dra strategy of Denmark and Green- land will share these interests and du es. The land “Ark s I en brydnings d: Forslag l stra- idea for a comprehensive and ac ve strategy tegi for ak viteter I det ark ske område” (The came from the need to balance Greenland’s Arc c at a Time of Transi on: Dra Strategy emerging autonomy and stronger legal status for Ac vi es in the Arc c Region) was pub- with the stresses placed on it from outside lished in May 2008 (Namminersornerullu k sources. Indeed, based on a na onal referen- Oqartussat, Udenrigsministeriet, Maj 2008). dum in Greenland in November 2008 Green- It contains a series of objec ves for the work, land achieved in 2009 a stronger legal status which broadly fall within two categories: fi rst, of Self-Government. This made the Home suppor ng and strengthening Greenland’s de- Rule Government of Greenland, established velopment towards increased autonomy; and in 1979, a unique form of governance with a second, maintaining the Kingdom’s (Denmark) growing level of self-determina on (see Lou- posi on as a major player in the Arc c. The kacheva 2008). dra strategy was based on the work of the joint Greenlandic-Danish “Working Group for Already in 1985 the status of the Home Rule an Arc c Strategy” ini ated by the Minister of Government was strong enough to authorize Foreign Aff airs, Möller and the Minister Mem- a referendum by which Greenland withdrew ber for Finance and Foreign Aff airs, Motzfeldt from the European Union (which it joined in in August 2006 (ibid, 43). The dra Strategy 1973 along with Denmark). Following the wit- was published in Danish, but there was an hdrawal from the EU Greenland was granted unoffi cial English transla on of it which I used the status of Overseas Countries and Terri- in my 2011 study on Arc c strategies and state tories (OCTs) (e.g. Airoldi 2008, 93-96). From policies (Heininen 2011). that me rela ons between the Union and Greenland have been strained par cularly Possibly there is a connec on between the due to disagreements concerning sealing and content and release of the dra Strategy on trade in arc c wildlife products, but also cli- one hand and Denmark´s/Greenland´s hos- mate change and interna onal climate policy, ng of the Polar Sea Conference in May 2008 and exploita on of hydrocarbons. However, in Ilulissat, Greenland on the other: The Ilu- the EU has recognized Greenland as a relevant lissat Declara on signed during that mee ng Arc c actor through, for example, the Green- provides an indica on (at least publicly) of landic ini a ve on the ‘Arc c Window’ within how the Arc c coastal states intend to pur- the EU’s Northern Dimension policy and the sue their interests as well as their willingness Commission’s proposal for enhancing “Arc c- for coopera on (Ilulissat Declara on 2008). related coopera on with Greenland” in its The declara on can thus be considered a Communica on on the Arc c Region (Com- success in rela ons between the li oral sta- mission of the European Communi es 2008, tes and a milestone in Arc c coopera on. 12). The subsequent dra Strategy released more or less at the same me supports the Ilulis- The Kingdom of Denmark’s chairmanship of

Arc c strategies and policies 19

the Arc c Council in 2009-2011 – highligh- will form a cross-disciplinary steering commit- ng peoples (of the Arc c), the IPY legacy, tee for the Strategy, make a middle-term eva- climate change, biodiversity, megatrends lua on of the Strategy and start preparing an (in the Arc c), integrated resource manage- updated version (in 2018-2019). ment, opera onal co-opera on and the AC in a “new geopoli cal framework” - likely Summary of Denmark & focuses on making sure that its posi on as an important interna onal actor will not be Greenland`s Strategy changed. (The Kingdom of Denmark’s Chair- manship, 29.4.2009). Further, to ensure that The Kingdom of Denmark’s 2011 strategy is Greenland`s evolu on to territorial autonomy described “fi rst and foremost” as a “a strat- will be recognized globally for its accomplish- egy for development that benefi ts the in- ments towards indigenous rights, rather than habitants of the Arc c” (Ministry of Foreign an exit from the Arc c arena. Aff airs 2011, 10), and its main aim is said “to strengthen the Kingdom’s status as a global Parallel to this, the process of fi nalising a stra- player in the Arc c” (ibid, 11). The chapters of tegy on the Arc c region con nued, as was in- the Strategy, each of which has a certain num- dicated by informa on received from the Da- ber of men oned tasks, are according to the nish Ministry of Foreign Aff airs in September above-men oned four aims of the strategy: 2010, sta ng that the Kingdom of Denmark “A peaceful, secure and safe Arc c”; “Self-sus- will in the near future formulate an Arc c taining growth and development”; “Respect strategy with objec ves, including Denmark, for the Arc c’s fragile climate”; and “Close the Faroe Islands and Greenland (Udenrigsmi- coopera on with our interna onal partners”. nisteriet 28.9.2010). This happened in August In each chapter the Strategy also takes into 2011, when the Foreign Ministry launched considera on the three parts of the Danish The Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy for the Realm, greatly emphasizing the posi ons and Arc c 2011-2020 with the purpose of focusing roles of the Faroe Islands and Greenland, par- “a en on on the Kingdom’s strategic priori- cularly the new status of Greenland, as the es for future development in the Arc c to- northern-most parts of the Danish Realm. wards 2020” (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2011, 11). To secure implementa on the Kingdom The primary focus of the 2011 Strategy, as

Northern Research Forum 20

was already that of the 2008 dra Strategy, eral resources under the highest interna onal is indeed on Copenhagen’s rela ons with standards; To increase the use of renewable Greenland and the devolu on of responsibili- energy sources; To harvest living resources es and authority. The “Terms of Reference” in sustainable ways (including considera on of the Danish-Greenlandic “Working Group of indigenous peoples’ rights); To exploit for an Arc c Strategy” determines priority new economic opportuni es in the Arc c in issues, as posited by the ministers, to be the close coopera on with industry; To maintain Northwest Passage; Greenland, globaliza on, a leading role interna onally in a number of and trade; EU partnership; Joint Commi ee; research fi elds reach concerning the Arc c Con nental shelf; the Arc c Council and the and; To promote Arc c coopera on on hu- Kingdom of Denmark’s chairmanship of the man health and social sustainability. Council 2009-2011; and Interna onal Polar Year 2007-2009. The Strategy has indeed a strong emphasis on “new” economic ac vi es and industries In the fi rst chapter, “A peaceful, secure and in the Arc c in addi on to fi sheries, which is safe Arc c” the following three goals are dis- tradi onally the most important one. These cussed: to resolve mari me boundary dis- include hydropower, mining, tourism, oil ex- putes in accordance with interna onal law, plora on, and that of other minerals. Explora- to enhance mari me safety, and to enforce on of off -shore fossil fuels and other energy sovereignty and surveillance. resources are viewed as cri cal to development in Greenland. Shipping and transport The Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy clearly on new sea routes receives less a en on indicates an importance of interna onal law, than other priori es or objec ves. Here the par cularly the UN’s Conven on of the Law of Strategy goes further in drawing a en on to the Sea, and that of peaceful (interna onal) the need for a stronger integra on in interna- coopera on in, and for, the development of onal trade the Arc c, which is defi ned as the fi rst task of this chapter. Mari me safety is explicitly At the same me, however, high standards for men oned in the Strategy with an urgent the exploita on as well as the use of renew- need to improve infrastructure and imple- able (marine) resources are emphasized. The ment preven ve safety measures. The strat- rhetoric in the Danish strategy concerning egy also men ons several tasks dealing with “the use of renewable energy resources” and mari me safety, such as “to introduce bind- that living resources “shall be harvested in a ing global rules and standards for naviga on sustainable manner based on sound science” in the Arc c” (ibid, 18). It includes the priority (ibid, 23) indicates a more comprehensive (and task) of enforcement of sovereignty ex- and sophis cated method of linking the u li- ercised “by the armed forces through a visible za on to sustainable use of natural resources, presence in the region where surveillance is as well as to environmental protec on. Here, central” (ibid, 20). “The long-term poli cal whaling is described as a somewhat unique agreement on defence” with four overriding economic ac vity as the Kingdom’s three ini a ves, such as the establishment of an parts “each have their own whaling policy” Arc c Response Force”, and to carry out “a (ibid, 33). comprehensive analysis of the armed forces future tasks in the Arc c” (ibid, 20), is men- Growth and development is described as oned. A more sophis cated picture is re- knowledge-based and consequently, interna- vealed through emphasizing the importance onal coopera on in science and research as of sovereignty and na onal security as the well as is Greenland’s prominent role in such strategy highlights a linkage between the im- coopera on is highlighted. Thus, the King- portance of security and for protec ng the dom will strive, for example, “to maintain economic base of Greenland’s economy. its leading role interna onally in a number of research fi elds reach concerning the Arc- The list of tasks in the second chapter, “Self- c”, par cularly global and regional impacts sustaining growth and development” is long of climate change, and “to promote the par- including the following ones: To exploit min- cipa on of Danish, Greenlandic and Faroese

Arc c strategies and policies 21

academic and scien fi c ins tu ons in inter- which is a smart slogan but also indicates the na onal research and monitoring ac vi es”. aim to priori ze global coopera on in fi elds Research must, however, “also help to sup- relevant to the Arc c. This clear global dimen- port the cultural, social, economic and com- sion of the Strategy as well as the Kingdom’s mercial development”. (ibid, 36) Finally, the global policy is materialized through a long Kingdom of Denmark’s strategy emphasizes list of world-wide organiza ons or ini a ves Arc c coopera on on human health and so- including the UN, such as the UNFCCC, UNEP, cial coherence. the Conven on on Biological Diversity, IMO and WTO. Furthermore, the UN’s Conven on The third chapter, “Development with respect of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as well as the for the Arc c’s vulnerable climate, environ- Commission on the Limits of the Con nental ment and nature” includes the following two Shelf is emphasized. tasks: fi rst, to pursue knowledge building on climate change and its global and regional im- When it comes to (enhanced) regional co- pacts and reinforce research; and second, to opera on the Kingdom of Denmark’s Strat- manage the Arc c nature based on the best egy emphasizes the fact that Denmark and scien fi c knowledge and standards. Greenland arranged the Polar Sea Conference in May 2008 for the fi ve li oral states of the The Kingdom of Denmark’s strategy men ons Arc c Ocean and its (Ilulissat) Declara on. the Arc c’s fragile climate and Arc c pollu on Here the Kingdom “will retain the ‘Arc c 5’”. as a priority through pursuing knowledge and Also men oned are the Arc c Council and knowledge building on climate change and its the goal of strengthening coopera on within impacts in order to improve understanding of the Council and “to ensure a future-oriented the consequences of global, regional and lo- Arc c Council”; the EU and Greenland’s good cal impacts of climate change. Here again, the rela ons with the Union (the Northern Dimen- strategy emphasizes the importance of inter- sion and the Arc c Window are not men oned na onal coopera on, as well as the reinforce- as was done in the joint strategy); the Nordic ment of ”the rights of indigenous peoples in Council of Ministers; and coopera on through nego a ons towards a new interna onal cli- sub-regional organisa ons - such as the North mate agreement by promo ng the visibility of Atlan c Coopera on, NORA and West Nordic indigenous peoples’ situa on” (ibid, 44). Fur- Coopera on - and through sector organiza- ther, it includes a discussion on the protec on ons such as NAMMCO. of the environment and biodiversity, and the managing of the Arc c nature “based on the When it comes to sovereignty and defence the best possible scien fi c knowledge and stan- Danish Strategy is the only one emphasizing dards for protec on” (ibid, 43). the importance of NATO and the coopera on between the ‘Arc c 5’. Coopera on with the USA receives less a en on then was evident The main tasks included in the fi nal chapter, in the joint dra strategy. As regards indig- “Close coopera on with our interna onal enous peoples, the United Na ons, its Human partners” are the following ones: To priori ze Rights Council and the Permanent Forum for global coopera on in fi elds relevant to the Indigenous Peoples Aff airs are men oned, Arc c including a focus on climate change, and the Kingdom of Denmark has ra fi ed the protec on of the environment, strict global ILO Conven on 169. ICES, NAMMCO, NAFO, mari me rules, and giving high priority to NEAFC and IWC are men oned in the context indigenous peoples’ rights; To enhance coop- of fi sheries and hun ng; and the University of era on in the Arc c Council, as well as with the Arc c in the context of knowledge-based the EU and the Nordic countries, and empha- development. Finally, in terms of bilateral co- sizing the ‘Arc c 5’ as an essen al regional opera on the following are men oned (in this forum and; To upgrade bilateral coopera on order): Canada (par cularly dealing with the and dialogue (regarding the Arc c) with es- con nental shelf); USA (and the Joint Commit- tablished and new partners. tee coopera on between Greenland, Denmark and the USA); Norway and Iceland; Finland The fi nal chapter includes a sub- tle, “Glob- and Sweden; Russia; the EU; and China, Japan al solu ons to global challenges” (ibid, 49), and South Korea.

Northern Research Forum 22

The Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy for the ferred to in the 2008 joint strategy in terms of Arc c is described as represen ng “an im- maintaining a visible presence of Greenland portant milestone towards 2020 and beyond defence, and upgrading the Thule Radar Sta- and aims to contribute to a sound founda- on according to the Danish-Greenlandic-US on for posi ve development” (ibid, 57). To agreement from 2004. This is one aspect of ensure implementa on the Strategy docu- an interes ng development, where the Home ment concludes with a short chapter includ- Rule Government demanded to have its say ing a statement of the inten on to form a in ‘hard’ issues. This was achieved ‘de facto’ cross-disciplinary steering commi ee for the when Copenhagen permi ed the Home Rule Arc c Strategy and its evalua on, meaning a Government to take the lead in nego a ons middle-term (??) evalua on of the Strategy in on fi sheries with the European Union, and 2014-2015. The role of the steering commit- when Greenland and Denmark jointly nego- tee would further include the reinforcement ated with the US on Thule (Olsen 2010). The of foreign policy coordina on and coopera- Strategy emphasizes the importance of sove- on between the three parts of the Danish reignty and na onal security, as do the stra- Realm, and the intensifi ca on of public diplo- tegies of the other li oral states of the Arc c macy regarding the Arc c. An updated strat- Ocean. It is the only one among the strate- egy will likely be prepared in 2018-2019. gies of the Arc c states which emphasizes the importance of NATO and the coopera on Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- between the ‘Arc c 5’ and it creates a linkage between security and economy in a more so- ings phis cated fashion.

First, the Kingdom of Denmark has recently Third, in addi on to fi sheries the Strategy st- had an ac ve, eff ec ve and even impressi- rongly emphasises ‘new’ economic ac vi es ve infl uence in the Arc c region, par cularly and industries in the Arc c including hydro- Greenland. This was already apparent in the power, mining, tourism and oil explora on fi rst joint Greenlandic-Danish (dra ) strategy and that of other minerals. Here the strategy in 2008, and the approved Strategy of 2011 is can be seen as a means to a ract industries to comprehensive and includes all relevant sec- come, par cularly to Greenland, and invest in tors and fi elds in substan al detail. However, these ac vi es. Although the explora on of the dra of the Strategy may not have been off -shore fossil fuels and other energy resour- adequately discussed within the Kingdom ces are viewed as cri cal to Greenland’s de- before its fi nalisa on. The emphasis of the velopment, the use of renewable resources is 2008 joint strategy was clearly the stronger also emphasized. self-government of Greenland and its new jurisdic onal posi on and the redefi ni on of Fourth, the Kingdom of Denmark’s 2011 Stra- the interrela onship between Denmark and tegy - in line with the joint Denmark/Green- Greenland. Correspondingly, due to this new land dra strategy - recognises a clear con- poli cal and jurisdic onal situa on the ob- nec on between climate change, increased jec ves of the fi nal Strategy is twofold: fi rst, accessibility and opportuni es for explora- to react and respond to signifi cant environ- on. Interes ngly, it emphasizes the Arc c’s mental and geopoli cal change(s) in, and the vulnerable climate whereas the dra strategy growing global interest toward, the Arc c re- claimed that climate change “will increase ac- gion; and second, to redefi ne a (new) posi on cessibility and opportuni es for explora on”. of the Kingdom of Denmark and strengthen Here the fi nal Strategy is somewhat more so- its status as a player in the Arc c. Based on phis cated, emphasizing knowledge and kno- this it makes sense and legi mizes the use of wledge building concerning climate change the term “Kingdom of Denmark” rather than and its impacts. “Denmark” when it comes to Arc c aff airs. Fi h, the Arc c Council is men oned in Second, in spite of old ‘skeletons in the closet’ the Strategy with the goal of strengthening the US-Danish Defence Agreement (of 1951) coopera on within the Council. Notably, the regarding US presence in Greenland was re- ‘Polar Sea Conference in 2008’ and the ‘Arc c

Arc c strategies and policies 23

5’ are also emphasized as is the UN Conven - sions and proposes further measures. on on the Law of the Sea. Background Sixth, already the dra strategy also respon- ded to some extent to the signifi cant chan- Finland is a part of the circumpolar North and ges of the early-21st century in the Arc c, for has been one of the eight Arc c states from example it stated that poli cal globaliza on the beginning of the current northern and is a reality which “requires a comprehensive arc c coopera on. Further, “Finland has a strategy for eff ec ve representa on of inte- primordial interest toward Arc c issues. Our rests” (Namminersornerullu k Oqartussat, geography and history make us an Arc c sta- Udenrigsministeriet, Maj 2008, 7). The fi nal te, and we have signifi cant economic, poli cal Strategy has a clear global perspec ve star ng and security interests in the region.” (Mäke- by a statement that the vast changes in the läinen-Buhanist 2010) Finland is, however, Arc c is one of most signifi cant global issues. an arc c country without access to the Arc c Further, that “[T]he world has again turned Ocean or its sub-seas a er Finland lost the its a en on to the Arc c”, and consequently Petsenga area (the Petsamo Municipality) to the aim is “to strengthen the Kingdom’s sta- the Soviet Union in the 2nd World War. tus as global player in the Arc c” (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2011, 9-11). Finland has also had some sort of ‘de facto’ Arc c / Northern policy since the beginning Finally, all in all the primary focus of the fi nal of the 1990s based on two Finnish proposals: Strategy is undoubtedly twofold, but now in fi rst, in 1989 Finland ini ated interna onal a diff erent way: on one hand, to strengthen coopera on on environmental protec on in Greenland´s new posi on in its status of self- the Arc c, based on the Murmansk Speech government and (re)defi ne a new posi on by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev; and of the Kingdom of Denmark in the Arc c as second, in 1997 Finland ini ated the Nort- a “global player”; and on the other hand, to hern Dimension of the European Union (e.g. react and respond to recent signifi cant envi- Heininen 2002a; also Lipponen 1997): The ronmental, geo-economic and geopoli cal fi rst ini a ve led to the Arc c Environmen- change(s) in, as well as the growing global in- tal Protec on Strategy, which was signed by ministers of the eight Arc c states in 1991 in terest toward, the region. Rovaniemi, Finland. Correspondingly, the second one led to the EU’s Northern Dimension policy, approved in 2000, which brought northern issues on the poli cal agenda of the EU 3. Finland (European Union Commission 2000). Further, the new Northern Dimension Framework Do- “Finland’s Strategy for the Arc c Region” was cument (European Union Commission 2006), adopted by the Finnish Cabinet Commi ee which was adopted in November 2006, has on the European Union and launched in June emerged as a common policy of the EU, the 2010 (Prime Minister’s Offi ce 2010)19. Here Russian Federa on, Iceland and Norway in the Strategy is used as the main reference. North Europe.

The Strategy defi nes Finland’s objec ves in Despite the two successful ini a ves Finland the following substan al sectors: fi rst, the en- has neither shown interest at all mes toward vironment; second, economic ac vi es and the en re circumpolar North nor been ac - know-how; third, transport and infrastruc- ve in interna onal arc c coopera on. This is ture; and fourth, indigenous peoples. These due to its geopoli cal situa on and strong are followed by a list of the diff erent levels of interests within the Bal c Sea region, being means with which to reach these Arc c policy within the EU and neighbouring Russia, as the goals. Addi onally there is a chapter on the EU’s Northern Dimension indicates. In 2009, European Union and the Arc c Region. Final- however, the Ministry of Finnish Foreign Af- ly, the Strategy includes the principle conclu- fairs started a process of developing Finland’s Arc c agenda with the objec ve of crea ng a 19 The Strategy was fi rst published in Finnish in June (Val oneuvosto 2010) and in English in September 2010. policy or strategy. An ambassador for Arc c

Northern Research Forum 24

issues was nominated as Finland’s “own nort- Finland’s increased ac vity at the Assembly hern envoy” in the summer of 2009. The of the Parliament in November 2009 (Ulkoasi- Finnish Minister of Foreign Aff airs Alexan- ainvaliokunta 2009). This parliamentary state- der Stubb (2009) said in his keynote speech ment accelerated the ac vi es of the Govern- in Rovaniemi, September 2009 that “Finland ment and the Finnish MFA. Prior to this the needs a comprehensive and ambi ous Arc c fi rst seminar of a Finnish research network on strategy of its own”20. Previously, the (East-25 Northern Poli cs and Security Studies took Department at the) Ministry of Foreign Aff airs place in September 2009 and the second one prepared a confi den al memorandum that in Helsinki in February 2010 with representa- served as founda on for a na onal debate ves from the Ministry of Foreign Aff airs21 . and policy-statement on Arc c issues, made in July 2008 (Ulkoasiainministeriö 2008). A couple of days later, the Prime Ministers’ Offi ce appointed a working group of civil The Minister’s speech sparked a growing in- servants represen ng all the ministries that

terest in Arc c issues within Finland, par cu- was “to prepare a report on Finland’s policy larly as regards economic interests, in light of review for the Arc c region” (Mäkeläinen- climate change. This emerging interest was Buhanist 2010; also Prime Minister’s Oﬃ ce especially evident among stakeholders in 2010, 7). Furthermore, in April 2010, the Go- businesses and organisa ons involved in the vernment appointed an Advisory Board on pursuit of regional development, economics Arc c Aﬀ airs to follow-up on the Strategy and and trade (e.g. HS 27.11.2008, A8; 30.9.2009, to support, monitor and harmonise Finland’s B11; HS 22.2.2010, B3). This growing interest ac vi es in the Arc c (Val oneuvoston vies- toward the High North was manifested and ntäyksikkö 2010). further supported by the statement “Finland and the Arc c regions” made by the Foreign Finally, “Finland’s Strategy for the Arc c Regi- Policy Commi ee of the Finnish Parliament on” was adopted by the Finnish Cabinet Com- as well as a general discussion regarding mi ee on the European Union in June 2010. It is based on proposals made by the above-

20 Further, Minister Stubb (2009) proposed that at the fi rst stage men oned working group of civil servants Finland’s Arc c policy would focus on the following key projects: fi rst, to “strengthen the Arc c Council as a ‘global’ forum for enhancing the interna onal governance of Arc c issues”; second, to respond to a 21 Based on presenta ons of these seminars the book “Jäitä poltel- need for “a stronger European Arc c policy”; third, to work on enhan- lessa. Suomi ja ark sen alueen tulevaisuus” (edited by Lassi Heininen cing and pu ng to use “the EU tools for concrete Arc c ac on; and ja Teemu Palosaari, published by Rauhan- ja konfl ik ntutkimuskeskus fourth, “to explore the Nordic approaches to the Arc c issues”. TAPRI at University of Tampere) was published in May 2011.

Arc c strategies and policies 25

from diff erent ministries (appointed by the Finland’s objec ves here are fi rst, to draw Prime Ministers’ Offi ce). The issue re-emer- a en on to the special features and risks of ged on the agenda of the Foreign Policy Com- the arc c nature in interna onal coopera on; mi ee of the Finnish Parliament in autumn second, to give strong support for arc c re- 2010, when the Commi ee had its hearings search, the development of regional climate and discussion on the Strategy. models and the monitoring of the environment as the basis for decision-making; and third, to promote nuclear safety, par cularly Summary of the Finnish Strat- in the Kola Peninsula; egy 2) In the second sector “Economic ac vi es At the very beginning the Strategy states that and know-how” Finland’s objec ves are fi rst, Finland is one of the northernmost states to strengthen its role as an interna onal ex- of the globe, and that “As an Arc c country, pert on arc c issues; second, to make be er Finland is a natural actor in the Arc c region” use of Finnish technology-based exper se of (Prime Minister’s Offi ce 2010, 7). Further, it winter shipping and transport, and ship-buil- states that there is a global interest toward ding; and third, to expand opportuni es of the Arc c, and consequently the region has Finnish companies to benefi t from their arc c growing global signifi cance. Although, the re- exper se and know-how in the large and me- gion is stable and peaceful, it is going through ga-projects of the Barents Region. All this is signifi cant changes, such as climate change summarised in the slogan “Finnish know-how and increased transporta on. Due to all this, must be u lised and supported.” (ibid, 18); a holis c evalua on on the current situa on and circumstances is required, as is briefl y 3) Finland’s objec ves in transport and infra- touched on in the introduc on. All in all, the structure are fi rst, to improve business opportuni es in the Arc c by developing transport, Strategy is said to focus on external rela ons. communica on, logis cal networks and border crossings; second, to develop transport The Strategy defi nes Finland’s policy objec - routes in the Barents region; and third, to ves and few concrete goals in the following harmonise interna onal regula ons concer- substan al sectors: fi rst, the environment, ning the safety of shipping and environmental “Fragile Arc c Nature”; second, economy, protec on in the Arc c region; “Economic Ac vi es and Know-How”; third, 4) The slogan of the fourth sector of the Stra- “Transport and Infrastructure”; and fourth, tegy states that “Finland con nues to work “Indigenous Peoples”. These are followed by for the rights of indigenous peoples” (ibid 30). a list of means at diff erent levels for reach- ing these Arc c policy goals. There is also a This will be realised through the following ob- chapter on the European Union and the Arc c jec ves: fi rst, to ensure Indigenous peoples’ Region. Finally, the Strategy includes princip- par cipa on when dealing with their aff airs; le conclusions and proposes further measu- second, to safeguard the funding needed for res, and addi onally, 15 appendices, many of effi cient par cipa on; and third, to strengt- which are informa ve and illustra ve, such as hen the status of the Barents Region’s indi- maps on popula on, mel ng of sea ice and genous peoples within the work of the Arc c northern sea routes22. Council (AC) and the Barents Euro-Arc c Council (BEAC). Correspondingly, the main policy objec ves in the four themes include, for example: These four sectors and their objec ves are followed by more general goals called Finland’s 1) The fi rst sector “Fragile arc c nature” indi- tools in arc c policy and interna onal arc c cates that “(T)he environmental perspec ve coopera on. These objec ves are as follows: must be taken into account in all ac vi es in fi rst, to emphasise the Arc c Council as the the region” (ibid, 13) including climate change primary coopera on forum on arc c issues; as one of the most serious challenges. Among second, to strengthen the Barents Euro-Arc c Council in the European Union (EU) as the voice of regional actors; third, to strengthen 22 This resulted in a book of 94 pages, of which the Strategy´s text is 55 pages. Finland’s representa on in the Russian North;

Northern Research Forum 26

and fourth, to use the neighbouring area appointed by the Prime Minister´s Offi ce coopera on funds for Finland’s par cipa on which consisted of civil servants rather than in arc c coopera on. Among the levels, and a broader advisory board represen ng diff e- interna onal agreements and inter-govern- rent stakeholders. Such a working group was mental organiza ons men oned, are the Uni- appointed only two months later. However, ted Na ons Conven on on the Law of the Sea the process was greatly accelerated by the (UNCLOS) and the Interna onal Mari me Or- Finnish Parliament and promoted through its ganiza on (IMO) at the global level, and the Foreign Policy Commi ee’s statement23. AC, the BEAC and the Nordic Council of Minis- ters at the regional level. Second, the four substan al main sectors and related objec ves are according to Finland’s As men oned earlier the Strategy includes long-term tradi onal, na onal, poli cal and a special chapter on the European Union, economic interests in the Arc c and general- which emphasizes both that “the EU has rely in northern regions (they were also men- cognised the importance of the Arc c Regi- oned in the Statement by the Parliaments’ on” (ibid, 45), and consequently, that the EU Foreign Policy Commi ee). However, it is not is accepted to be an Arc c player. Here Fin- en rely clear if they are priori es or priority land has the following three objec ves: fi rst, areas, or mostly objec ves, and consequent- that the EU considers the special features ly, what in fact Finland´s main priori es are. of the Arc c in its various policy sectors and increases its contribu ons in the region; se- Based on the text of the main sectors and cond, the EU will be approved as an observing their objec ves one can, however, deduce member of the Arc c Council; and third, the that the highest priori es of the Strategy are EU’s Northern Dimension becomes a central primarily economic interests generally, and tool for the EU’s (emerging) arc c policy in those of marine transport, infrastructure and terms of external rela ons. know-how, specifi cally. These contain concrete proposals for ac on. For example, it sup- Finally, the conclusions of the Strategy include ports increasing marine traffi c and transport a summary of the objec ves and proposals and be er infrastructure. Indeed, there is a for ac on for the four sectors as well as inter- perceived need to develop transport and ot- na onal organisa ons, funding and the EU. It her logis cal networks in both the Barents also gives three more general objec ves for region and North Finland. This is clearly in- Finland’s policy in the Arc c - they are: fi rst, dicated by a list of fi ve transport networks “Coopera on based on interna onal trea es and corridors of Northern Finland, which are lays the founda on for Finland’s ac vi es in under discussion (ibid, 26 and 74); in reality the Arc c region”; second, “Finland strives to only one or two of those might properly be increase interna onal coopera on in Arc c implemented24. On the other hand, some of issues at global and regional levels and in bila- the objec ves, par cularly those dealing with teral rela ons”; and third, “Finland considers the drilling for oil and gas in the Barents Sea, it important that the EU develop its Arc c po- can be seen rather as hopeful expecta ons licy” (ibid, 52), ), and proposes to establish an rather than realis c goals, although at least EU Arc c Informa on Centre in Finland. one Finnish company is involved in the Stock- man gas fi eld project25. The same applied Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- when the Snöhvit gas fi eld in the Barents Sea was developed by the Norwegians; expecta- ings ons among Finnish companies, par cularly in North Finland, were high, but very li le First, the Strategy is comprehensive and am-

bi ous. It refl ects great eff orts in preparing 23 The Statement received great interest and cross-party support in general discussions on Finland’s interests at the Assembly of the and outlining of Finland´s fi rst arc c strategy, Finnish Parliament in November 2009. clearly asser ng itself as an Arc c state while 24 This was seen already in October 2010, when mining company referring to the European Union as “a global Northland Resources decided to transport iron ore mined in Pajala, just beside the Finnish border, to the port of Narvik in Norway instead Arc c player”. This refl ects the fact that the of the port of Kemi which is much closer (HS 18.10.2010, A11). document was prepared by a working group 25 The company, Steel Done Group has signed a contract of 10 million euro with the Russians (HS 27.11.2008, A8).

Arc c strategies and policies 27

was gained from that project. air and water pollu on, and mass-scale oil drilling. Furthermore, it says that arc c rese- Thus, the Strategy is business-oriented with arch, regional climate models and long-term a strong emphasis on economic ac vi es, monitoring of the state of the environment coupled with exper se, or know-how, par- should feed into decision-making processes, cularly the u liza on of natural resources, clearly indica ng the importance of the in- such as the oil and gas reserves of the Arc c terplay between science and poli cs. Inte- region. To a certain extent, this is understan- res ngly the uncertainty related to climate dable, since this is a na onal report which change is not emphasized (as a challenge), refl ects strong na onal interests and expecta- but nuclear safety in the Kola Peninsula is, ons of stakeholders in both business and or- though this problem has been under control ganisa ons engaged in the pursuit of regional for a few years now. development and economic interests (e.g. HS 22.8.2010). This is also in line with a strategic Here the Strategy has an inner contradic on: point of view which emphasises the impor- It states that “(I)ncreased human ac vity in tance of the High North security-poli cally, the region also raises the risk of environmen- due to its high strategic posi on and (global) tal pollu on” (ibid, 15), but then later in the energy security, and economically, due to its text it states that “(F)rom the perspec ves rich natural resources and poten al for tran- of Finnish – especially Northern Finnish – in- sporta on (new global sea and air routes). dustry and employment, it is important that all types of economic ac vity increase both Third, the Strategy refl ects the desire to pro- in large seaports and in land-based support mote and strengthen Finland’s posi on as areas of oil and gas fi elds in Norway and Rus- an interna onal expert on arc c issues and sia” (ibid, 18). Which of these is a priority? Is know-how in several fi elds (e.g. technology- there a greater emphasis on more strict envi- based knowledge on winter shipping, sea ronmental protec on, or is it mass-scale u li- transport and ship-building, forest exper se, za on of natural resources? mining and metals industry, and cold-climate research). This sounds logical and sensible, Fi h, all this shows a somewhat short-sighted and might be the case in terms of some fi elds policy in a strategy claiming a focus “on ex- of research, but is not necessarily the case ternal rela ons”, and where climate change is when generally evalua ng Finnish research in defi ned as one of the most severe challenges the context of interna onal scien fi c coope- in the Arc c. Consequently, though somew- ra on26. Therefore, the proposal to launch a hat abstract, it seems logical to give highest study program, with interdisciplinary and in- priority to protec ng arc c ecosystems, which terna onal coopera on on northern issues, is are threatened or at risk due to rapid climate very welcome and needed; change, for example by promo ng and ex- por ng Finnish know-how and exper se in Fourth, the Strategy also emphasizes the environmental technology. Or, at the very le- special features of and risks to fragile arc c ast to iden fy more clearly linkages between ecosystems; importantly the term “fragile” the diff erent sectors, i.e. the interac ons of has re-emerged, but of even greater impor- economic ac vi es with both ecosystems and tance is the protec on of ecosystems. Clima- peoples, as is actually done later in the docu- te change, pollu on and biodiversity receive ment when the ‘Arc c Window’ of the Nort- considerable a en on. A need for safe navi- hern Dimension is introduced (ibid, 49)27. This ga on in the arc c sea is of great importance, would establish a more global perspec ve both in terms of physical impacts of climate and invite an alterna ve interpreta on as to change and in terms of general increase in sea why the High North plays such an important transports. Increasing sea transport is even role in world poli cs; defi ned as “the biggest threat to Arc c marine ecosystems” (ibid, 28), despite the fact Sixth, the Strategy is at its best when empha- that there are heavy impacts from long-range

27 The fragile natural environment, long distances, indigenous peop- 26 The latest Finland’s Strategy on Arc c Research is created in April les and the economic poten al of the regions are ed together as the 1999 (Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö 1999). ﬁ rst requested element of the Northern Dimension’s ‘Arc c Window’.

Northern Research Forum 28

sizing that the Arc c region is a stable and and their ac ve par cipa on in interna onal peaceful area - “High North – low tension”, coopera on. Absent, however, is a clear ob- and that Finland supports “non-confl ictual jec ve to ra fy the ILO 169 Conven on, alt- rules” (see Stubb 2010; Heininen 2010b). hough it is very mely and relevant for the Further, in recognising that signifi cant chan- Saami and their self-determina on. Further- ges are taking place, when for example, the more, Finland believes that UNCLOS is, and importance of the Arc c climate globally is will be, a suffi cient framework and tool to re- obvious, and consequently, the global signifi - solve arc c issues, and that there is no need cance of the region is increased. This is a clear for a new interna onal, legally-binding agree- statement in support of both the main dis- ment or regime. Albeit poli cal realism, this is course of the Arc c being a stable and peace- a rather tradi onal and narrow state-oriented ful region in spite of its challenges, and a re- approach, when the real challenges are com- cent and emerging discourse on globaliza on prehensive and global, and request the a en- (e.g. Globaliza on and the Circumpolar North on and par cipa on of a global community, 2010). In declaring that the Arc c Council is coupled with a desire to engage in new ways now, and should con nue to be, the main fo- of thinking. rum on Arc c aff airs and policy “Finland strives to increase interna onal coopera on in Ninth, the Strategy emphasizes the impor- the Arc c” at many levels and bilaterally (ibid, tance of the European Union’s arc c policy as 52). well as its role in the Arc c region, referring to “The EU as a global Arc c player”(Prime Seventh, the above-men oned statement is Minister’s Offi ce 2010, 45). It is also empha- both very important and mely. It is impera- sised that the EU’s arc c policy should be ve that the mandate of the Council be rene- further developed. This could be interpreted go ated and broadened so that it may move to mean that poli cs is a priority, trumping away from its current state, which is some economics. Consequently, Finland could be sort of poli cal ‘inability’. Thus, there may be seen to be claiming itself an advocate for, good cause to organize a Summit of the Arc c or defender of, the EU in arc c aff airs. This states, as Finland indeed has proposed (Stubb sounds logical from Finland´s point of view, 2010; Halinen 2010), where challenges of the but may involve risks for Finland as a member future, such as the interrela onship between country of the AC and generally in the context the u liza on of natural resources and the of mul lateral arc c coopera on. Opinion re- fragile environment, as well as the mandate garding the role of the EU as an arc c actor of the AC and its further development will be varies signifi cantly between the Arc c states discussed. and indigenous peoples, refl ected in somewhat hesitant responses to the EU´s eff orts. A necessary prerequisite would be enough poli cal will among the eight arc c states to broaden the AC mandate and working met- Finally, all in all, the Finnish Strategy covers hods to include discussion on the u liza on most features of a modern strategy adop ng of natural resources, security and security- a holis c approach. It can also be seen as ref- policy (Heininen and Numminen 2011). Furt- lec ng and responding to the recent signifi - her, that the Arc c states are ready for a dee- cant and mul -func onal (global) change in per coopera on with all relevant non-state the Arc c Region. It does not have clear prio- northern actors, such as Indigenous peoples, ri es or priority areas, though there is appa- academic ins tu ons and NGOs. Moreover, rent preference of economic ac vi es inclu- to be willing to enhance interac ons with ding transport, infrastructure and know-how non-arc c states interested in Arc c issues as as well as in its general objec ves of interna- well as with relevant inter-governmental or- onal coopera on in Arc c issues, based on ganiza ons, i.e. the rest of the globe. interna onal trea es.

Eight, the Strategy includes objec ves concerning Indigenous peoples, par cularly those of the Barents Region such as the Saami,

Arc c strategies and policies 29

dependent on fi sheries, as refl ected in the 4. Iceland events related to the Cod Wars of the 1970s between Iceland and Britain. Furthermore, The Report “Ísland á norðurslóðum” (“Iceland the country played a special role in the is- in the High North”) on Iceland’s posi on and sue of nuclear safety in Northern seas in the status in the Arc c was published by the Ice- 1980s and early 1990s, as regards nuclear landic Ministry of Foreign Aff airs in Septem- submarine accidents and radioac ve wastes, ber 2009 (Utanrikisraduney d 2009). This and the connected risks. The main issue, and report was followed by “A Parliamentary Re- reason for concern, was fi sh and fi sheries, solu on on Iceland’s Arc c Policy” which was but underlying were no ons of the interplay approved by the Icelandic Parliament, Althin- between u liza on of resources and environ- gi in March 2011 (Althingi 2011). I have used mental security, indica ng a preference of here the report and its summary (unoffi cial comprehensive security. English transla on) as the main references (Report on Sustainable Development in the Early 21st century Iceland is a small island na - Arc c 2009). I have also taken into considera- on with a unique geographical and geopoli - on the Parliamentary Resolu on as Iceland’s cal loca on in the North Atlan c. It is a Nordic Arc c policy is to encompass its twelve prin- country, with a clear European heritage and ciples. connec ons and signifi cant contribu on to European culture, such as through the Ice- The six highlights of the Report are: fi rst, landic Sagas. There are however clear signs interna onal coopera on; second, securi- of American infl uences, such as the NATO ty through interna onal coopera on; third, membership, the 1951 Bilateral Defence Ag- resource development and environmen- reement with the USA and the US air and tal protec on; fourth, transporta on; fi h, radar base at Kefl avik which was dissolved people and cultures; and sixth, interna onal in 2006. Among Icelanders there is a strong coopera on on research and monitoring. feeling of independence and an ac ve civil society, as was refl ected in heightened ac vity The twelve principles of the Resolu on in 2008/2009 during the ini al stages of the greatly support all these, going even further fi nancial crisis. by emphasizing the importance of securing Iceland’s posi on as a coastal state within the Arc c region on one hand, and on the Iceland is an ac ve and infl uen al northern other, the improvement of wellbeing of Arc c country in interna onal poli cs and rela ons, residents and their communi es, and advanc- a founding member-state in NATO, the OECD ing Icelanders’ knowledge of Arc c issues. and the Organiza on of Security and Coope- ra on in Europe (OSCE). It is a member of the European Free Trade Associa on (EFTA) and Background the European Economic Area (EEA) as well as in the Nordic coopera on, the Arc c Council, Iceland’s posi on has been described as and the Barents Euro-Arc c Council, even in ambivalent due to its geographic loca on the Council of Bal c Sea regional coopera on. between North America and Europe though Furthermore, Iceland has its own interna o- being a clear part of Europe and the Northern nal coopera ve region, the West-Norden with European heritage. Indeed, the country was Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Norway. caught between the two fronts, placed at the Iceland has recently applied for membership centre of naval-fi gh ng in the 2nd World War in the European Union, and nego a ons are and then the mari me strategies of the Cold under way. War. Iceland played a strategically important role in the development of the UN’s Conven- Iceland has also been very ac ve in, and is one on on the Law of the Sea in the 1970s and of the leading countries of, current interna o- 1980s as one of the leading countries in the nal, and mostly mul lateral, northern coope- nego a ons. This was largely because the ra on. Examples of this include: the fi rst mee- Icelandic economy at the me was en rely ng of Parliamentarians of the Arc c took

Northern Research Forum 30

place in Reykjavik; the offi ces of two working condi ons) and meline (e.g. experimental groups of the Arc c Council, CAFF (Conser- trans-arc c voyages could start during sum- va on of Arc c Flora and Fauna) and PAME mer season within 10-15 years). However, (Protec on of Arc c Marine Environment) are in this context the most interes ng aspect is located in Iceland; the Northern Research Fo- Iceland’s role here, and indeed, the general rum (NRF) is based on an Icelandic ini a ve agreement was that “Iceland could play a role and the NRF secretariat is located in Akureyri; in the opening of a Trans-arc c Shipping Ro- Iceland’s chairmanship of the Arc c Council ute, because its loca on in the middle of the (in 2003-2004) was successful as is indicated Northern Atlan c”, and serve “as a leading through a launch of two important reports, hub for container traffi c” (ibid, 26). the Arc c Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) This growing interest towards the Arc c regi- and the Arc c Human Development Report on can also be seen in the report of the Minis- (AHDR)28; an Interna onal Polar Law LLM and ter for Foreign Aff airs to the Icelandic Parlia- M.A. program was established at the Univer- ment in May 2010 where “Iceland’s interests sity of Akureyri; and fi nally, the University as in the High North” is one of the four areas well the Town of Akureyri have hosted several emphasized. The main objec ves as regards interna onal conferences and mee ngs con- those interests are: fi rst, to secure Iceland’s cerning northern issues. posi on as a coastal state (and thus achieving the same status as the so-called fi ve li oral According to the Report Iceland is the only states) by for example, developing “legal and country located en rely within the Arc c regi- geographical arguments for Iceland’s role in on, and indeed, its prosperity relies heavily on interna onal decision-making regarding the sustainable u liza on of the regions’ natural High North”; second, “to promote and st- resources. rengthen the Arc c Council as the most important forum for circumpolar coopera on”, Indeed, Iceland has recently (re)defi ned its and to oppose the mee ngs of those fi ve geopoli cal posi on in the High North. For li oral states; third, to support interna onal example, there has been an emphasis on ma- agreements, par cularly UNCLOS, and cont- rine transporta on in the High North through ribute to establishing the Search and Rescue new trans-arc c sea routes as presented by agreement; fourth, “to work against the mili- the report “North meets North. Naviga on tariza on of the High North”; fi h, to increase and the Future of the Arc c” published by the coopera on between Iceland and Greenland Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Aff airs (2006). within the energy sector; and fi nally, to sup- This trend was strengthened by the presen- port the rights of indigenous peoples (Minis- ta ons and comments of foreign and Icelan- ter for Foreign Aff airs 2010, 3). dic experts in an interna onal conference on Arc c development and mari me transporta- The policy of emphasizing northern coope- on organized by the Icelandic Government ra on has been part of mainstream Icelan- in March 2007 (Government of Iceland 2007). dic foreign policy for some me and appears The Chairman’s Summary includes many rele- successful. Furthermore, Iceland´s future po- vant aspects to take into considera on when licy will most probably con nue along these planning transporta on in trans-Arc c sea lines, as is indicated by the Report “Iceland routes, such as the environment (e.g. decrea- in the High North” by the Icelandic Ministry sing ice), technology (e.g. new genera on of of Foreign Aff airs. The Minister for Foreign double ac ng arc c ships), emergency res- Aff airs indicated in 2010 that prepara ons ponse (e.g. capacity for emergency response for an ac on on arc c issues are under way should be increased), legal issues (e.g. move with “the goal to develop, for the fi rst me, from guidelines towards mandatory rules a further policy for Iceland on issues pertai- has been slow), economic factors (e.g. need ning to the High North” (Minister for Foreign 29 for increased transporta on capacity bet- Aff airs 2010, 4) . This process is supported ween North Pacifi c and North Atlan c), rese-

arch (e.g. more informa on is needed on ice 29 Based on the report by Össur Skarphedinsson to the Parliament of Iceland in May 2010 among the main objec ves of Iceland are to emphasize Iceland’s posi on as a coastal state, promote the Arc c 28 The project of the AHDR was coordinated by the Stefansson Arc c Council, support interna onal agreements (par cularly UNCLOS), and Ins tute in Akureyri, Iceland. increase coopera on between Iceland and Greenland (ibid,

Arc c strategies and policies 31

by “A Parliamentary Resolu on on Iceland’s is the most important venue for coopera on Arc c Policy” (Althingi 2011) which states of all the Arc c states with the par cipa on that Iceland’s Arc c policy is to encompass of indigenous organiza ons, and focusing on the twelve principles of the Resolu on. sustainable development in the region. The Barents Euro-Arc c Council (BEAC) is also a priority as an important venue for coopera- Summary of the Icelandic Re- on in the Barents region covering the most densely populated areas of the Arc c region port in northern parts of Scandinavia, Finland and Northwest Russia. Finally, increasing bilateral The “Iceland in the High North” report starts coopera on with Iceland´s neighbors within by emphasizing that Iceland is “the only West Norden is men oned; country located en rely within the Arc c regi- Second, security through interna onal coope- on and its prosperity relies heavily on sustai- ra on, par cularly environmental security: nable u liza on of the region’s nature resour- Interac ons among the Arc c States have ces”. Further, that Iceland is located “on the been characterized by peaceful coopera on periphery of the Arc c in the centre of the since the end of the Cold War. There is a con- North Atlan c Ocean”. sensus that, in general, security in the Arc c is best served through close coopera on of The Report consists of six substan al chap- all the states in the region based on interna- ters, the tles of which are its highlights, and onal law. In addi on there should be a focus it does not have an ac on plan30. The high- on emergency response and environmental lights of the Report are as follows: protec on due to increasing sea traﬃ c.

First, interna onal coopera on with an Transporta on of oil and gas through Ice- emphasis on mul -laterality: Interna o- landic waters must be closely monitored nal coopera on with neighboring countries and provisions made to protect the marine within the Arc c region is of utmost impor- environment and spawning grounds of ﬁ sh tance for Iceland based on its immediate stocks. The growing number of inadequately and long-term interests. The Arc c Council equipped cruise ships in ice-infested areas is of great concern. It is a priority that the 30 The original Icelandic version of the report “Ísland á norðurs- Interna onal Mari me Organisa on (IMO) lóðum” is 67 pages including pictures and maps; the Parliamentary Resolu on is 11 pages. updates and makes mandatory applica on

Northern Research Forum 32

of relevant parts of the Guidelines for Ships Fourth, transporta on; new shipping routes Opera ng in Arc c Ice-Covered Waters. Fur- are expected to open between the Pacifi c thermore, coopera on with other countries and North Atlan c Oceans over the Central on preparedness and response measures Arc c Ocean as a result of decreasing sea-ice against accidents and environmental emer- and the introduc on of a new genera on of gencies must be strengthened. The feasibility double-ac ng Arc c ships capable of year- of establishing interna onal monitoring and round opera ons in both ice-covered and ice response centers in Iceland, in connec on free waters. There are good condi ons in Ice- with resource development in the Arc c, and land for establishing a transshipment hub that increased shipping traffi c in the North-Atlan- could serve transporta on between the con- c should be explored; nents of Europe and North America and Asia across the Central Arc c Ocean through trans- arc c sea routes. The Icelandic Government Third, the environment and resources, is monitoring these developments and will be emphasising both sustainable development introducing Iceland’s poten al in this regard. and Iceland’s interests, par cularly those of Iceland’s fi shing industry: The utmost cau on Increased interac ons between Arc c com- must be prac ced in resource development muni es have created the need for a regio- in the Arc c region to protect its fragile envi- nal avia on network where Iceland could ronment and ecosystems. Resource develop- play a role. Furthermore, Kefl avik Inter- ment in the Arc c should not undermine sus- na onal Airport is well posi oned to ser- tainable development in the region. It must ve long distance fl ights between des na- serve the interests of its inhabitants and com- ons in Asia, North America and Europe; muni es contribu ng to long-term economic development, providing las ng benefi ts and Fi h, people and cultures with unique cul- improved living condi ons. Care must be tak- tural heritages: Arc c communi es possess en to protect Iceland’s interests in a rapidly unique cultural heritages which should be changing situa on where previously inacces- preserved. Their cultural iden ty can be st- sible resources are being developed on the rengthened through increased coopera - ocean fl oor; new shipping routes are open- on, making use of modern technologies in ing in the Arc c and fresh fi shing grounds are a globalized world community. Iceland’s ex- emerging following the retrea ng ice. perience can be of relevance in this regard. The inhabitants of the Arc c can make use The interests of Iceland’s fi shing industry of various business opportuni es connected must be protected through fi shery agree- to the region’s uniqueness through coopera- ments with other states and regional fi sher- on and marke ng, including the promo on ies management organiza ons, ensuring full of sustainable tourism. Close coopera on share in sustainable fi sheries ac vi es even if with Iceland’s neighbors in Greenland and fi sh stocks may shi between areas as a result the Faroe Islands is of par cular importan- of changing condi ons in the marine environ- ce for Iceland in view of their proximity and ment. Iceland’s loca on on the periphery of interests, which coincide in many respects; the Arc c in the center of the North Atlan c Ocean is ideally suited for servicing resource Sixth, interna onal coopera on on re- development and shipping in the High North. search and monitoring: The strengthe- There are indica ons of oil and gas in the ning of interna onal coopera on on rese- Dreki fi eld on the Jan Mayen Ridge and Ice- arch and monitoring in the Arc c can turn land could play a role in the development of science into an important tool for policy oil, gas and other minerals in East Greenland making in response to changing environ- and further in the north. The u liza on of re- mental and social condi ons in the region. newable energy resources should be emphasized as long-term value is greater than that The University of the Arc c - which most Ice- of fossil fuel resources, in spite of their high landic ins tu ons of higher educa on are revenues; members of - and the Northern Research Fo- rum are men oned as important pla orms

Arc c strategies and policies 33

for collabora on and coopera on in Arc c clearly indicates that there is a strong focus studies. The Arc c Portal (www.arc cportal. on the Arc c, or the High North31 in Iceland´s org) is an Icelandic ini a ve, which is playing foreign policy and that it has become one of an increasing role as an internet-based venue the key priority areas. for communica on and informa on sharing on Arc c aff airs, research and monitoring. Also emphasised in Iceland’s foreign policy is The Ministry for Foreign Aff airs has signed a to be involved in, and a member of interna- partnership agreement with the University of onal and intergovernmental organiza ons, Akureyri to develop an Arc c Centre in close such as the UNs, NATO and the Arc c Council, collabora on with exis ng ins tu ons situat- and par cularly to be ac ve in interna onal, ed at the University to provide, among other northern coopera on. The results of this po- du es, expert advice on various Arc c issues licy have been evident in the UNCLOS pro- to the Icelandic Government. cess in regard to the extension of the Exclu- sive Economic Zone up to 200 nau cal miles, which in no small part is because of Iceland’s The twelve principles of the Parliamentary infl uence. Resolu on can be summarized and cat- egorized, and highlighted as follows: fi rst, to Second, stability and security through inter- strengthen coopera on with other states, na onal and scien fi c coopera on, even in par cularly with the Faroe Islands and Green- terms of the safety of cruise ships, is great- land, promote and strengthen the Arc c ly emphasized both in the Report and the Council, and resolve diff erences on the ba- Parliamentary Resolu on. It is also said that sis of UNCLOS; second, “[S]ecuring Iceland’s one of the objec ves of Iceland is “to work posi on as a coastal State within the Arc c against the militarisa on of the High North” region” and “[P]romo ng understanding of (Minister of Foreign Aff airs 2010, 3). Despite the fact that the Arc c region extends both to the US troops having only recently le Ice- the North Pole area and the part of the North land, the importance of state sovereignty is Atlan c Ocean…”; third, “to prevent human- not emphasized in the Report, as it is in the induced climate change and its eff ects in or- strategies of the fi ve li oral states. der to improve the wellbeing of Arc c resi- There is no men on of the race for natural dents and their communi es”, and preserve resources or emerging confl icts in the Report. the unique cultures, life and rights of north- This is probably due to the fact that Iceland ern indigenous peoples; fourth, to safeguard has no outstanding territorial claims in the “broadly defi ned security interests… through Arc c region, and the emphasis is rather on civilian means and working against any kind interna onal and regional coopera on, safety of militarisa on of the Arc c”; and and knowledge. This also seems to refl ect the no on of comprehensive security and can be fi h, to advance Icelanders’ knowledge of interpreted to be an adop on of environmen- Arc c issues and the importance of the re- tal security, similar to the Icelandic posi on gion, and promote “Iceland abroad as a ven- regarding nuclear safety in the 1980s. ue for mee ngs, conferences and discussions on the Arc c region”. Third, resource development, including renewable energy and the fi shing industry, is of high importance in the protec on of Iceland´s Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- interests; higher even than environmental ings protec on, which is barely men oned. Furt- her evidence of economic interests is strong visions of a new and global trans-arc c ship- First, the clear emphasis of the Report is on interna onal, mul lateral coopera on, most- ping route and the use of such a route for tra- ly referring to neighbouring countries, par - de and cargo in the near future. Furthermo- cularly Greenland and the Faroe Islands (as re, the vision of Iceland playing an important does the Parliamentary Resolu on), but also 31 It is interes ng to note that the report and some other recent including the Barents Euro-Arc c Region and documents of the Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Aff airs (e.g. Minister of Foreign Aff airs in May 2010) use the term “the High North” unlike the the Arc c Council. Furthermore, the Report report of the interna onal conference in March 2007 “Breaking the Ice” which uses the term “the Arc c”.,

Northern Research Forum 34

role in these developments and in becoming coastal state, promote the Arc c Council, a trans-shipment hub for container traffi c is and emphasize an importance of the West evident and seen as logical in light of its cent- Norden coopera on between Iceland, Green- ral loca on in the Northern Atlan c. What is land, and the Faroe Islands. also interes ng is that Iceland envisions a role in a new avia on network. Fi h, though it is not directly men oned in the Report, Iceland’s EU membership would This vision of the prospect of the trans-arc c most probably be viewed as a posi ve deve- sea route is a new trend originally proposed lopment within North Europe and the Nordic and strongly promoted by Iceland. It was fi rst Region. And further, that it might accelerate proposed by the Icelandic MFA in the “North a similar process within Norway. From the meets North” report of experts (Icelandic point of view of the Arc c region and its in- MFA 2005), and supported by the interna- terna onal coopera on Iceland’s possible EU onal conference on Arc c development membership would not be such a signifi cant and mari me transporta on in 2007 organi- development, since Iceland is already en - zed by the Government of Iceland. A er the rely involved and integrated in the current economic crisis it has again been emphasized northern coopera on and its ins tu ons. A by President Grímsson (FT, March 10, 2010). more signifi cant development would be were Here Europe and Asia are coming together, Iceland’s membership to cause a sort of a ‘do- as they have many common interests. No mino eff ect’, i.e. that it will increase the likeli- wonder then, that Iceland has invited China hood of Norway joining the EU, or Greenland to become involved in the u liza on of these even, in the near future. new global sea routes (Barentsobserver.com One reason for Iceland to join the EU is in 30.10.2010). terms of interna onal coopera on as the EU would certainly provide a bigger stage for Fourth, the Report emphasizes that Iceland many ac vi es, par cularly if the EU laun- is “the only country” located both “en rely ches its Arc c strategy. This would strengthen within the Arc c region” and “in the centre Iceland’s posi on in Arc c and North Atlan c of the North Atlan c Ocean”. This is a strong coopera on, par cularly in the West-Norden response to the fi ve (offi cial) li oral states coopera on with Greenland, the Faroe Is- of the Arc c Ocean, and a statement against lands and Norway - all of which stand outside the legi macy of their ministerial mee ngs the EU. in May 2008 and March 2010. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Report of the Minister for Sixth, the importance of interna onal, mul - Foreign Aff airs states as Iceland´s objec ve lateral coopera on is also refl ected in the way “to side fi rmly against the so-called fi ve states in which the Report strongly emphasizes in- mee ngs”. This was made even more clear by terna onal coopera on on research, monito- the Parliament’s Resolu on (in March 2011) ring and higher educa on. This is supported through the objec ve of securing “Iceland’s by the Parliamentary Resolu on promo ng posi on as a coastal State within the Arc c Iceland “as a venue for mee ngs, conferences region”, promo ng an interpreta on of the and discussions on the Arc c region”. Arc c that “should not be limited to a narrow geographical defi ni on but rather be viewed Finally, both the Report by the Ministry of Fo- as an extensive area when it comes to eco- reign Aff airs and the Parliamentary Resolu - logical, economic, poli cal and security mat- on of March 2011 can be seen as refl ec ons ters” (Althingi 2011, 1). of and responses to changing condi ons in the Arc c, or the High North. Accep ng the above-men oned report of the Minister for Foreign Aff airs (to the Ice- landic Parliament in May 2010) as a relevant indicator, the forth-coming Icelandic foreign policy strategy on the High North will most probably be a con nuity to the Report and thus emphasize Iceland’s posi on as an Arc c

Arc c strategies and policies 35

spill) response and mari me safety systems in 5. Norway northern waters; third, to promote sustainable use (and business ac vi es) of off -shore Norway`s policy in the Arc c region and nort- petroleum and renewable marine resources; hern aff airs has recently been defi ned by fourth, to promote on-shore business (and “The Norwegian Government`s High North industry) development in the North; fi h, Strategy” (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Af- to further-develop the infrastructure in the fairs 2006), which was launched in December North; sixth, to con nue to exercise sove- 2006 and focuses on long-term predictability reignty fi rmly and strengthen cross-border and perspec ve as important features with coopera on (with Russia) in the North; and the keywords of presence, ac vity and kno- fi nally, to safeguard the cultures and liveli- wledge. Its follow-up and the latest version hoods of indigenous peoples. of the High North strategy, the “New Building Blocks in the North” (Norwegian Ministry of Background Foreign Aff airs 2009) was launched in March 2009 and largely con nues the chosen policy Norway was the fi rst country in the 21st cen- features but with a focus on business deve- tury to release its Arc c strategy and policy, lopment, and on knowledge and the environ- since in the early 2000s there was an expert ment. Here both versions, the 2006 Strategy report on Norway’s strategic interests and and the 2009 Strategy, are used as the princi- new policy in the High North, “Mot nord! pal references and, unless otherwise indica- U ordringer of muligheter I nordområde- ted, discussed as a whole. ne” (Statens for valtningstjeneste Infor- masjonsforvaltning 2003). “The Norwegian According to the 2006 Strategy, the main po- Government`s High North Strategy” was laun- li cal priori es for the Government’s High ched in December 2006 by the Stoltenberg North strategy are: fi rst, to exercise Norwe- government. This is according to the policy of gian authority in a credible, consistent and the current governmental coali on in main- predictable way; second, to be interna onally taining a focus on the High North. at the forefront in developing knowledge in and about the High North; third, to take a The 2006 Strategy explicitly sets out a direc - leading role in environmental issues and use ve for the High North to become the Norwegi- of natural resources of the environment and an Government’s main area of focus. The do- natural resources in the High North; fourth, to cument itself is robust, with a en on being provide a suitable framework for further de- placed on topics related to environment, velopment of petroleum ac vi es in the Ba- humans, foreign policy, business, knowledge, rents Sea for the benefi t of (North) Norway; and indigenous peoples. Within these sec- fi h, to ac vely safeguard the livelihoods, ons are a number of policies, promises and tradi ons and cultures of indigenous peoples; inten ons for the Government of Norway to sixth, to further develop people-to-people follow. It is clear that the inten on of making coopera on (in the High North and the Ba- the High North the focal area of interest for rents Region); and seventh, to strengthen the the Government in the years to come requi- coopera on with Russia and increase Russia’s res a commitment from all levels and sectors engagement. of government and is thus an embracement from the country as a whole. Correspondingly, in the 2009 Strategy the Norwegian Government presents a series Perhaps the most progressive part of the text of strategic areas, which con nues the cho- is Norway’s focus on Russia. At several points sen policy lines and supports the seven main in the Strategy are references to how it plans poli cal priori es of the 2006 Strategy. The on building and engaging its Russian partners. revised and advanced strategic priori es By focussing on Russia, Norway is clearly de- areas, also seven of them, are: fi rst, to defi ning the importance of the rela onship in velop knowledge about climate change and terms of regional security, economic growth the environment in the High North; second, and environmental management. The text is to improve monitoring, emergency (and oil progressive, even aggressive, at mes in the

Northern Research Forum 36

way that it calls on an ac ve Russian par ci- Summary of the Norwegian pa on in coopera on. Indeed, this ul mate High North Strategy aim gained some ground in September 2010, when Norway and Russia managed to reach The 2006 Strategy starts by saying that “[O] an offi cial agreement by their Treaty of Ma- ne of the Government’s most important priori me Delimita on and Coopera on in the ri es in the years ahead will be to take advan- Barents Sea and the Arc c Ocean (Treaty bet- tage of the opportuni es in the High North”, ween the Kingdom of Norway and the Russi- where “we are seeing the most rapid deve- an Federa on 2010; also Boswell 2010)32. lopments in our neighbourhood” (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2006, 5). This is fol- Evalua on of the Norwegian High North Stra- lowed by the fi ve objec ves of Norway in the tegy focuses on foreign aff airs and interna o- High North: fi rst, to con nue building friendly nal coopera on, which are the most relevant rela ons with Russia; second, to con nue to and interes ng indicators from the point of combat illegal fi shing and create a sustainab- view of this inventory. The foreword and sum- le industry for future genera ons; third, to mary also men on priori es from other sec- develop the Barents Sea’s energy resources; ons, as well as the framework through which fourth, to make environmental and climate the 2006 Strategy will be implemented. Cor- considera ons apparent at all levels of deci- respondingly, the 2009 Strategy, New Building sion-making; and fi h, to improve the living Blocks in the North outlines a set of follow-ups condi ons of northerners and safe-guard the and new sugges ons of measures to be ta- rights of indigenous peoples. ken with the main poli cal priority areas (of the 2006 Strategy). Therefore, its evalua on “The main purpose of the is limited here. This follow-up version of the Government’s High North stra- Strategy also takes a broader view of the High tegy is to coordinate eff orts in North, to be more inclusive of the whole Cir- all fi elds rela ng to the deve- cumpolar Arc c. Finally, the 2009 Strategy was lopment of the High North. We updated and concre zed with fi gures of allo- have mobilised the whole go- cated budget money through a status report in vernment apparatus in order to October 2010 (Utenriksdepartementet 2010). give our overall policy a clearer and more coherent High North 32 The Mari me Delimita on Treaty between Norway and Russia focus. Ministries and govern- was approved on the 8th of February 2011 by the Stor ng of Norway (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, Press release 8.2.2011). ment agencies have focused

Arc c strategies and policies 37

on further developing and in- that it is to ensure the maximum sustainable tensifying eff orts in their policy yield from these resources” (ibid, 8); areas. The High North strategy outlines a framework for ac - Fourth, to provide a suitable framework for on, which the Government will further development of petroleum ac vi es in strive to fi ll in the coming years. the Barents Sea, seeking to ensure that these It is not a catalogue of measu- ac vi es boost competence in (North) Norway res, although it does mark the and foster local and regional business ac vity: launch of a number of forward- Authori es will make sure that natural resour- looking eff orts.” (ibid, 5-6)33 ce development is benefi cial to local communi es by promo ng spin-off opportuni es; The 2006 Strategy consists of nine parts and a follow-up, and it is rather long34. The main po- Fi h, safeguarding the livelihoods, tradi ons li cal priori es for the Norwegian High North and cultures of indigenous peoples: Norway Strategy are said to be the following ones: intends the High North Strategy to safeguard the livelihoods, tradi ons and cultures of First, an exercise of the Norwegian authority its indigenous peoples, par cularly for Sami in a credible, consistent and predictable way: se lement pa erns and to safeguard the Sami By exercising its authority and maintaining its culture; sovereignty, Norway is making it clear that it takes its na onal and interna onal obliga ons Sixth, further developing people-to-people seriously. Presence of armed forces, police coopera on: Norway will further develop and prosecu ng authori es is impera ve to people-to-people coopera on in the High this priority. Armed Forces are also crucial for North and the Barents Region; and mee ng na onal security needs and maintaining crisis management capabili es; Seventh, strengthening the coopera on with Russia and increase Russia’s engagement: Second, to be interna onally at the forefront Norway will seek to strengthen its coopera- in developing knowledge in and about the on with Russia, which is undergoing rapid High North: This priority is linked to resource economic development and big changes in the development, and environmental protec on, country’s economy, society and poli cs. This and is an important factor in seizing opportu- does not aff ect the objec ves of Norway’s po- ni es and dealing with challenges; licy towards Russia, since it is based on pragma sm, interests and coopera on. Third, to take a leading role in environmental issues and natural resources in the High North: The Government intends to implement and It will promote value crea on around use and follow-up on these poli cal priori es by 22 exploita on of natural resources while main- specifi c ac on points, which can be taken as taining natural ecosystems. Strict environmen- concrete goals of the 2006 Strategy. Among tal standards for all ac vi es in the High North those are to: engage in dialogue-building with are emphasised. Further, the Government’s its neighbours and allies; further develop a li- fundamental aim is that “the management of censing policy for petroleum ac vi es and de- living marine resources is to be based on the velop a proposal for economic and industrial rights and du es set out in Law of the Sea, and zone in the border regions of the High North; improve border crossing and cultural coopera on with Russia; examine the need for ice- 33 “An inter-ministerial commi ee, headed by the Minister of Foreign Aff airs, has coordinated the work on the strategy. Addi onal class research vessel; strengthen knowledge exper se has been provided by an external commi ee of experts chaired by the Rector of the University of Tromsø, Jarle Aarbakke, who building; increase mari me safety around has drawn on the knowledge and experience to be found in the High North.” (ibid, 6) Svalbard; strengthen coopera on with Russia on illegal fi shing ac vi es; intensify its capa- 34 The content of the 73 pages long document are: Part 1 - A new dimension of Norwegian foreign policy; Part 2 - Knowledge genera on bili es for monitoring changes due to climate and competence building; Part 3 - Issues rela ng to indigenous peoples; Part 4 - People-to-people coopera on in the North; Part change; engage in eff orts related to nuclear 5 - The environment; Part 6 - The management and u lisa on of marine resources; Part 7 - Petroleum ac vi es; Part 8 - Mari me safety; increase research and environmental transport – safety and emergency response systems´; Part 9 - Business development; and Part 10 - Follow-up. technology; engage in interna onal recruit-

Northern Research Forum 38

ment for qualifi ed jobs; and carry out an ana- petroleum resources. lysis of the exis ng transport infrastructure and future needs of, and commercial basis for, “Norwegian resource manage- new transporta on solu ons, such as a railway ment combines ac ve use of from Nikel to Kirkenes and new fl ights within na onal regulatory authority the High North. with credible enforcement of legisla on and interna onal The focus of this new dimension of Norwe- coopera on. Under current in- gian foreign policy will be on predictability terna onal law there is a wide and long-term perspec ve, two hallmarks of range of instruments that Nor- Norway’s past foreign policy direc ons. Consis- way can apply in its eff orts to tent approach means increased stability within develop knowledge- and per- the region; fi rmness in exercising control over formance- based resource ma- sovereignty and responsibility towards natural nagement.” (ibid, 15) resource use, but also openness to coopera - on for problem-solving. When it comes to the issue of transparency and the future of coopera on it is stated that: “This new dimension includes increased ac vity and a strong- ”Norway will con nue to fulfi l er strategic focus on maintai- its responsibility in a transpa- ning longstanding Norwegian rent and predictable way. We interests, developing coopera- expect other actors to comply on with Russia, and gaining with na onal and interna o- acceptance for the importance nal rules and regula ons. The of sound resource management High North is at the top of our and eff orts to protect the envi- foreign policy agenda, and we ronment and address climate will seek the support of our al- change.” (ibid, 13) lies and partners to ensure that Norway is able to address the The 2006 Strategy asks for a stronger focus on real challenges we are facing in energy and the environment, since energy po- the High North.” (ibid, 17) licy is increasingly shi ing northward. These two are also acquiring a foreign policy dimen- Regarding Norway’s submission to the UN- sion since they are increasingly being linked CLOS Commission the Strategy states that to security and energy supply, and globally, “The delimita on of the con nental shelf “energy is becoming more clearly defi ned as and the 200-mile zones in the Barents Sea is a part of security policy” (ibid, 14). “Climate an essen al basis for the explora on and ex- issues must, however, also be refl ected in fo- ploita on of petroleum deposits in the area reign and development policy, because it is of overlapping claims” (ibid, 16). It prefers an clear that climate change will have an impact agreement on the ma er, which will make it on the security of countries and people all possible to establish the necessary predictab- over the world” (ibid, 14). le framework and cross-border coopera on schemes in the petroleum sector. However, Regarding the need to extend the issues and the delimita on of the con nental shelf of the method of coopera on, par cularly on the Barents Sea can only be resolved from coope- issue of regional forums, Norway speaks of ra on with Russia and resolving the dispute inten ons to augment the posi oning of the would open up valuable new opportuni es, High North in Bal c, Barents, and European as it happened. Forums by making it a priority for all levels of government. As regards confl icts of inter- This is based on a statement concerning ests, Norway will work towards maintaining Norway´s coopera on with Russia, in claiming the orderly and peaceful rela onship within Norway´s support of Russia’s introduc on to the Barents Sea - ‘sea of coopera on’- despite global and European bodies, welcoming the the increased interests in the sea’s fi shing and developments since the Cold War. Yet, there

Arc c strategies and policies 39

remains uncertainty of how Russia will deve- In the 2009 Strategy the Norwegian Govern- lop, and what principles of governance it will ment presents a series of strategic areas, choose to follow. Norway will, however “main- which support and improve on the main po- tain a candid dialogue with Russia and will be li cal priori es of the 2006 Strategy35. The clear about Norway’s views on human rights”. revised and advanced strategic priority areas The premise of this is the fact that “Norway’s (again seven of them) are as follows: policy towards Russia is based on pragma sm, interests and coopera on”. (ibid, 18) First, developing knowledge about climate change and the environment in the High Here the text is quite progressive, since it di- North; to “make Norway a rac ve as a base rectly deals with a specifi c country and am- for interna onal research ac vi es” (Norwegi- bi ously aims to develop close coopera on an Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2009, 8) through with Russia on exploita on of the petroleum strategic investments, such as developing a resources, as well as advocate strict envi- centre for climate and environmental research ronmental goals in the Barents Sea. The text in Tromsö and establishing an Arc c earth ob- con nues by showing steps that Norway will serving system in Svalbard; take to ensure that environmental protec - on is met within the Barents Sea based upon Second, improving monitoring, emergency a coopera ve model so that it ensures the (and oil spill) response and mari me safety health of the natural and other environments systems in northern waters; to prepare for the of the region. Norway also men ons the im- mel ng of sea ice and the consequent increase portance of u lizing a rela onship with Russia in mari me traffi c and fossil fuel extrac on for developing future petroleum sites in the Norway will establish an integrated monito- Barents Sea. Here the Government’s ambi on ring and no fi ca on system, further develop is to develop close coopera on with Russia, the Coastal Administra on’s mari me safety and it has accepted “President Pu n’s invita- exper se, and strengthen oil spill response; on to forge a strategic partnership between Third, promo ng sustainable use of off -shore Norway and Russia in the north” (ibid, 19). petroleum and renewable marine resources; in order to secure the u liza on of renewab- Finally, regarding the presence of Norwe- le marine resources and at the same me gian Armed Forces it is contended that chan- “to facilitate the use of new resources and ges in the High North are also changing the development of new products” (ibd, 18) the role of the Norwegian Armed Forces in terms Government will develop marine industries of security and protec on. Here the keyword and business ac vi es. This will par cularly is military presence, in order ”both to enable include petroleum-based industry – “the High Norway to exercise its sovereignty and autho- North as a petroleum province” (ibid, 18) – rity and to ensure that it can maintain its role but also a na onal ini a ve for cod farming, in resource management”.. which “ increa- comba ng illegal, unreported and unregula- ses predictability and stability… in the High ted fi shing, developing Norwegian ports for North.” (ibid, 19). Defence coopera on with the poten al new sea routes, and encoura- Russia is not in confl ict with this, but rather ging “regional ripple eff ects from petroleum geared towards building mutual trust and ma- ac vi es in the north” (ibid, 24); king joint problem-solving possible, such as in the Kursk and Elektron incidents. Fourth, promo ng onshore business development in the North; the Government’s inten - Correspondingly, the 2009 Strategy starts by on is to make be er use of Northern Norway’s the words of Prime Minister Stoltenberg: “[T] (onshore) natural advantages by developing he High North is Norway’s most important tourism, mineral-based industries, and ex- strategic priority area…..The need to develop per se and business ac vity based on Arc c our High North Strategy is greater than ever. condi ons, and strengthening innova on and This is apparent when we look at how the development capacity; world around us is changing.” (Norwegian Mi- nistry of Foreign Aff airs 2009, 3) 35 The 2009 version of the Norwegian High North Strategy has two parts and is 92 pages long.

Northern Research Forum 40

including diff erent interna onal interests, the Fi h, further developing the infrastructure interna onal order, regional organisa ons in the North; since the fi sheries and tourism and Arc c strategies (such as the Norwegian industries as well as the realiza on of the High North one). It includes a discussion con- above-men oned objec ves “are dependent cerning the presence of the Norwegian Coast on good roads and reliable air connec ons”, Guard and the Norwegian defence Armed maintenance and further development of Forces as well as the neighbourly rela onship infrastructure are needed. Therefore, the Go- with Russia in terms of coopera on between vernment intends to develop the knowledge peoples and cultures, collabora ve projects infrastructure, the transport network and and exchange. space-related infrastructure, and upgrade electric power infrastructure and security of The next chapter, “The Region of Opportu- supply; nity” focuses on wealth crea on, such as marine bio-prospec ng, promo ng innova- Sixth, con nuing to fi rmly exercise sovereig- ons and outdoor adventures for sale; be er nty and strengthen cross-border coopera on transport and mobility for example through in the North; based on the complexity of se- improving the road system and expanding curity and a wide range of risk factors in the railway capacity. The next chapter “Wealth North the Government intends to increase Crea on from Oil and Gas” con nues to ac vi es of the Coast Guard, further develop emphasise wealth crea on and focus on the border control and civilian border surveil- development of the South Barents Sea, a new lance and control (in the Norwegian-Russian European energy province as refl ected in the border). Furthermore, to strengthen compe- opening of the Snöhvit gas fi eld. Correspon- tence-building coopera on with Russia and dingly, the chapter on “Environment, Liveli- develop cultural coopera on. hoods and Fisheries” focuses on sustainable use of marine and land resources through Seventh, safeguarding the cultures and liveli- nature conserva on (e.g. in the Barents Sea hoods of indigenous peoples; the objec ve to and Lofoten), promo ng sustainable fi shing “safeguard the language, culture, livelihoods and safety at sea. and way of life of the indigenous peoples of The fi nal chapter “Knowledge paves the Way” the region” (ibid, 42) is implemented by do- highlights the importance of the fi rst strate- cumen ng tradi onal Sami knowledge, de- gic area, knowledge, “[T]he key industries of veloping a programme for cultural industries, the future will be knowledge-based, and wit- ethical guidelines for economic ac vi es and hout new knowledge the problems will not digital infrastructure for indigenous langu- be solved” (ibid, 81). This will be achieved by ages, as well as strengthening the capacity alloca ng more funds for arc c research, st- and competence of Sami ins tu ons. rengthening educa onal ins tu ons and establishing a Centre for Ice, Climate & Ecosys- This substan al descrip on of the strategic tems. In knowledge-building climate research areas is followed by Part II “The High North - is highlighted and special a en on is given to Challenges and Opportuni es” which consists Svalbard which allows for a “unique access to of fi ve chapters36 . Finally, the 22 specifi c ac- the Arc c” (ibid, 85). on points of the 2006 High North Strategy are listed with the informa on that most of All in all, the Norwegian High North Strate- them were either implemented or started by gy is focussed on long-term predictability March 2009. and perspec ve as important features of Norway’s High North policy. The keywords of The chapter on “Coopera on in the High the Strategy are: Presence, Ac vity and Kno- North” consists of themes of interna onal wledge. Presence means suppor ng se le- coopera on in the High North, or the Arc c ments and being physically present in all areas of Norway’s jurisdic on. The second goal is Norway´s leadership in key areas of Ac vity, 36 Those chapters are en tled as follows: “Coopera on in the High North”, “The Region of Opportunity”, “Wealth Crea on from Oil and including fi sheries, tourism, bio-prospec ng, Gas”, “Environment, Livelihoods and Fisheries” and “Knowledge paves the Way”. etc. Knowledge refers to becoming a driver in

Arc c strategies and policies 41

scien fi c understanding of the North, as well “broad concept both geographically and poli- as improving the capacity-building of nort- cally” (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs hern communi es through a strengthened 2006, 13), though it really refers to the Ba- educa onal system. Knowledge also refers to rents Sea and the surrounding areas, including na onal interests interna onally, since “[O]ur Svalbard. Although the 2009 Strategy claims focus on knowledge will include further deve- that ‘the High North’ is without a precise de- loping our capacity to safeguard Norway’s fo- fi ni on in the Norwegian poli cal debate, the reign policy interests in the High North” (Nor- term is “broader than Northern Norway and wegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2006, 6). Svalbard since Norway has major interests to safeguard in a greater region“. This is claimed The High North is also seen as an opportu- to be “really a Norwegian perspec ve“. (Nor- nity for the interna onal community, both wegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2009, 50).37 public and private, to become increasingly involved in these ventures, and is open to Third, the Norwegian Government has built its new endeavours therein: “The overall objec- High North Strategy on the general percep on ves of the Government’s policy is to create that the main feature of the geopoli cs of the sustainable growth and development in the Arc c region at the early 21st century is sta- High North” (ibid, 7). And at the same me, bility and peaceful coopera on; neither ‘race’ to develop petroleum-based ac vi es and ot- of energy resources nor emerging confl icts or her mari me industries so that local commu- “the return to a cold war”, although Russia has ni es will be the primary benefactors, since increased its military ac vi es in the Arc c they are seen to “play a crucial role in ensu- (e.g. Faremo 2010). Therefore, it makes great ring welfare and employment in the north” sense to emphasize the development of kno- (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2009, wledge, to promote sustainable use of natural 24). Finally, the Norwegian High North Stra- resources and business, and to maintain sta- tegy also focuses on improved and extended te sovereignty by strengthening cross-border interna onal coopera on in the areas of en- coopera on (with Russia) in the North. vironmental management, natural resources and research. Fourth, based on and followed from this, it is not surprising that perhaps the most progres- Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- sive part of the High North Strategy, par cularly in the 2006 version, is Norway’s focus on ings Russia and coopera on with Russia. Objec - ves in that regard are numerous, ambi ous First, the Norwegian High North Strategy is and concrete. In several places, for example, comprehensive and includes many fi elds of references are made to how Norway plans on poli cs, issues and strategic areas with conc- building and engaging its Russian partners. rete goals of both internal and external aff airs. The text is almost aggressive at mes in the Actually, it is more so than is usual in foreign way it calls on an ac ve Russian par cipa on policy; an advanced strategy with a follow-up in coopera on. As men oned earlier, much system to further long-term Norwegian poli- was gained in achieving this objec ve when cy in the North, par cularly by the (current) in September 2010 Norway and Russia mana- government coali on. Furthermore, the High ged to reach an agreement on where to draw North is given a place “at the top” as the most an off shore boundary line in the Barents Sea. important strategic priority area of Norway with a growing recogni on of the importan- This indicates the signifi cant shi in the Nor- ce of the High North for Norway as a whole. wegian foreign policy in the early 1990s - af- Consequently, the High North Strategy with ter the end of the Cold War period and the its main poli cal priori es plays an important collapse of the Soviet Union - towards dec- role. reasing military tension and increasing stability in the European North. This objec ve has Second, the Strategy uses consistently and stubbornly the term, “the High North”. In the 37 It is also said that “the High North is gradually becoming more synonymous with the Arc c” (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2006 Strategy the High North is described as a 2009, 50).

Northern Research Forum 42

been implemented on one hand, by establis- Seventh, primarily, the High North Strategy hing the Barents Euro-Arc c Region between is on one hand, an advanced con nuity to the Nordic countries and Russia, and on the the long-term Norwegian policy in the High other hand, by star ng bilateral func onal North, meaning the Barents Sea region. The coopera on with Russia. As a consequence, most strategic element is Norway’s focus on keen rela ons and a new kind of confi dence Russia and an ac ve engagement of Russia’s has been built between the former enemies par cipa on in bilateral coopera on. On the and the ul mate goal has largely been achie- other hand, it is for the strengthening of Nor- ved. This can be viewed as a success story in wegian state sovereignty in the High North, interna onal poli cs (e.g. Heininen 2010a, as is evident from statements, such as “large 282-284). parts of the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea are under Norwegian fi sheries jurisdic - A consequence of this strong Russia focus is on”, or that Norway will maintain its “presen- that other northern countries and regions ce on the islands of Jan Mayen, Björnöya and connected with the Norwegian High North Hopen” as well as its infl uence in Svalbard seem almost forgo en. For example, neither (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2006, the other Nordic countries nor Nordic coope- 31-32). ra on in general are men oned in the main poli cal priori es, objec ves or specifi c ac- Finally, as men oned earlier, the Norwegian ons of the Strategy. High North Strategy, par cularly the 2006 version, fi rst of all refl ects the rela onship Fi h, the Government also aims to develop between Norway and Russia and the goal of marine industries and business ac vi es, par- further improving those rela ons. The Stra- cularly petroleum-based business ac vi es, tegy can be seen as an important means to and therefore defi nes “the High North as a achieving such a goal. If this is the case, the (new) petroleum province”, in coopera on Strategy cannot be seen as a real response to with Russia, as a part of promo ng sustainab- the newest signifi cant geopoli cal and envi- le use of off -shore petroleum and renewab- ronmental change in the Arc c region. le marine resources (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2009, 18). And furthermore, describes its determina on to be “the best steward of resources in the High North” (Nor- 6. The Russian wegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2006, 13 and 55). The premises for this is energy secu- Federation rity on which the Strategy states that globally “energy is becoming more clearly defi ned as a part of security policy”, and further that “it The Arc c policy of the Russian Federa on is clear that climate change will have an im- “Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian pact on the security of countries and people Federa on in the Arc c in the Period up to all over the world” (Norwegian Ministry of Fo- 2020 and Beyond” was adopted by President reign Aff airs 2006, 14). D. Medvedev in September 2008, and made public in 2009 (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, March Sixth, by focussing on (North-West) Russia, 30 2009). Here the English transla on of the Norway is clearly defi ning the importance document, which was published (or “promul- of regional coopera on and region-building gated”) in the offi cial governmental newspa- as well as business development in foreign per, Rossiyskaya Gazeta on the 30th of March and security policy in terms of comprehensi- in 2009, is used as the main reference. ve security, economic growth, environmental management and knowledge-building. Furt- The strategic priori es of the State Policy of hermore, issues dealing with, par cularly the the Russian Federa on in the Arc c (up to cultures and livelihoods of, northern indigeno- 2020 and beyond) are: fi rst, to carry out an us peoples are among the main priori es. Here ac ve interac on of Russia with the sub-Arc- the term “indigenous peoples” is used along c states with a view of delimita on of mari- with, or even more than, the term “Saami”. me areas on the basis of norms of interna-

Arc c strategies and policies 43

onal law; second, to create a uniform Arc c sian Federa on deal with northern regions, search and rescue regime and preven on of the North is important in the Russian context, man-caused accidents; third, to strengthen and was very important in the modernisa on bilateral rela onships within the framework project during the Soviet era (e.g. Helanterä - of regional organiza ons, such as the Arc c Tynkkynen 2003). Second, due to minerals, oil Council and the Barents Euro-Arc c Council; and gas drilling as well as all the investments fourth, to assist in the organiza on, man- of the Soviet era, the North is s ll an impor- agement and eff ec ve use of cross-polar air tant reserve and resource area for the whole routes and the Northern Sea Route for inter- Russian Federa on. Further, it is strategically na onal naviga on; fi h, to ac vely contrib- important from a military point of view. Third, ute to interna onal Arc c forums through the interes ngly the discourse is increasingly aca- Russia-European Union partnerships; sixth, to demic including ac vi es to create an acade- delimit mari me spaces in the Arc c Ocean mic network where the need to redefi ne the and maintain a mutually advantageous pres- role of the Russian north is addressed. This ence of Russia in the Spitsbergen archipelago; is a response to the current changes taking seventh, to improve state management of the place in the northern regions and to its peop- social and economic development of the Arc- les sta ng their concern of being merely a c, such as to increase support for scien fi c geo-strategically important resource reserve, research; eight, to improve the quality of life ’the other’. There are now new opportuni es for indigenous peoples and their social and for increasingly horizontal discussions and economic ac vi es; ninth, to develop the Arc- coopera on between the northern regions, c resource base through improved techno- rather than being ed within the very sectoral logical capabili es; and tenth, to modernize structure of the Soviet Union, including the and develop the infrastructure of the Arc c Soviet / Russian Academy of Science (RAS) transport system and fi sheries in the Russian with its many branches. Arc c. At the turn of the 21st century Russian poli- Background cal discussions on the West / EU / Russian rela ons and in terms of EU’s Northern Di- In October 1987, a speech by the then–So- mension were concerned with the role Rus- viet president Mikhail Gorbachev (1987) in sia might play in Northern (geo) poli cs (e.g. Murmansk gave the ini al impetus for the Sutyrin 2000). At the same me there was current intergovernmental coopera on in the a more academic discourse where the im- Arc c. It outlined six proposals; two of them portance of redefi ning the role of the Rus- were concerned with confi dence building, sian North as more than a geo-strategically arms control and disarmament, whereas the important resource reserve was addressed remaining four were concerned with civil (e.g. Alekseyev 2001). There was also an in- coopera on38. The speech was an early indi- teres ng, though not well known, statement cator of a change in the closed nature of the by then-President Pu n, who stated in his Soviet North and represented an important speech at the mee ng of the Security Coun- turning point for the en re Arc c. It led to a cil of the Russian Federa on in March 2004 signifi cant geopoli cal change and the start that there is a need for a long-term northern of broad interna onal northern coopera on, policy in the Russian Federa on (ITAR-TASS such as the crea on of the Arc c Environ- 2004). Although nothing tangible emerged mental Protec on Strategy (AEPS) in 1991. at the poli cal level before September 2008, (e.g. Heininen 2004) Russia has con nued its scien fi c expedi- This development was a response to the fol- ons in the Arc c (and the Antarc c); tens lowing factors: fi rst, since most of the seven of them every year. Among such expedi ons, federal districts and 83 subjects of the Rus- taking place back in 2007, were the North Pole-35 dri research sta on (supported

38 The speech outlined six proposals: The fi rst two were about by the Akademik Fedorov research vessel), establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in northern Europe and reducing military ac vi es. The others discussed confi dence-building the integrated high la tude Arc c Expedi - measures in northern seas, civilian coopera on in developing natural resources, coordina on of scien fi c research, coopera on in envi- on (onboard the atomic icebreaker Rossiya), ronmental protec on, and the opening of the Northern Sea Route to foreign ships (Gorbachev 1987). and the high la tude deepwater Arc c Expe-

Northern Research Forum 44

di on to the North Pole (IPY-2007/08 News, Policy: The fi rst one was the Russian Mari me N 5-6, 2-6; IPY-2007/08 News, N 7, 2-12). Doctrine of 2001 which had four broad objec- The last one became a somewhat of an inves: guaranteeing free access to the Atlan c terna onal public and media hype, largely for Russian commercial fl eets, access to na- misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is a tural resources within the Exclusive Econo- manifesta on of how an ac vity, which is basi- mic Zones (EEZs) (for example, in the Barents cally scien fi c, can be transferred into a high- Sea), the strategic importance of security for ly (geo) poli cal incident (e.g. Heininen 2010). Russia`s Northern Fleet, and the importance of the Northern Sea Route for sustainable In September of 2008 the newly-elected Pre- economic development of the State.

sident Medvedev adopted an oﬃ cial state A second important document is the “Foreign policy, Fundamentals of State Policy of the Policy Concept of the Russian Federa on”, ap- Russian Federa on in the Arc c in the Peri- proved in July 2008 and which re-introduces od up to 2020 and Beyond. This was intended Russia as an energy super-power. The Con- as a clear indica on of na onal interests and cept carries more than just symbolic weight basic objec ves of the Russian Federa on in since it also s pulates the exact importance the Arc c region, and of how Russia`s sta- of the Arc c and its resources to fulﬁ lling te policy in the region should be developed Russia`s future economic plans, as well as the (e.g. Lavrov 2009). The document was sup- need for linking energy security with tradi o- ported by the guidelines of Russia’s Security nal forms of security. In July 2008 President Council on the same day (Lomagin 2008). A Medvedev also signed a new Russian Law on number of publica ons released by the State Arc c Resources which determines how the Duma were a part of the process leading up country’s underwater arc c resources will to the release of the September 2008 State be tapped, and that the con nental shelf of

Arc c strategies and policies 45

the Arc c Ocean is Russian na onal heritage conserva on infrastructure” which is intend- (ibid). This follows from Russia´s ra fi ca on ed to include of UNCLOS in 1997 and its scien fi c expedi- on to the bo om of the Arc c Ocean in “a serious spring-cleaning of August 2007 to gather evidence to support our Arc c territories in the its submission of a proposal, or claim, to the most direct sense of the word. shelf beyond. I mean cleaning up the garbage that have been accumula ng A third document, useful in understanding for decades around the ci es, Russia`s Arc c Policy, is “Russia`s Na onal Se- villages, mineral deposits, mili- curity Strategy to 2020”, which was released tary bases, seaports, airfi elds, in May 2009. It has a much stronger concilia- on the tundra, on the islands tory tone when compared to its previous ver- and in the Arc c Ocean” (Pu n sions. It also greatly expands the tradi onal 2010). concepts of security to include aspects of human and environmental security, and reaches Summary of State Policy of into new ground by emphasizing Russia`s con- the Russian FederaƟ on nued commitment towards interna onal law. Despite this, there remains an ominous in the ArcƟ c sense of curiosity and anxiousness about the country`s inten ons in adhering to these The Arc c policy of the Russian Federa on policies, since an unfavourable verdict on its “The Fundamentals of State Policy of the Rus- mari me delimita on could spark hos le and sian Federa on in the Arc c in the Period up to uncoopera ve inten ons. 2020 and Beyond” was adopted by President D. Medvedev in September 18, 2008 (Rossiyskaya A fourth important document dealing with Gazeta, March 30, 2009)39. It is based on Rus- the Russian Arc c and North in general is sia’s Security Council Guidelines on September “Energy Strategy of Russia For the Period up 17, 2008 which became public in 2009. to 2030” (Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federa on 2010). It is a comprehensive and The State Policy lays out the general objec - ambi ous strategy with clear priori es and ves, main priori es, meline and mechanisms includes chapters on foreign energy policy for implementa on of Russia’s interests in the and regional aspects and peculiari es of fuel North. Russia limits its geographical mapping and energy complex development. Finally, of the Arc c to Siberia and the Far East (Rus- “The Concept of Sustainable Development Of sia), Norway, US, Canada and Denmark. Cha- the Small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of racteris cs infl uencing the State Policy are: the North, Siberia and Far East” was adopted extreme natural clima c condi ons; industrial and released in February 2009. economic growth within a low popula on- density; remoteness from centres and high In addi on to these, Prime Minister Pu n´s economic dependency on transfers from sout- speech of September 2010 at the interna on- hern hubs; and low sustainability of ecological al forum “The Arc c: Territory of Dialogue” systems (see also Loe 2011). in Moscow included another list of Russian top priori es. This list consists of three top The sec on “Na onal Interests of the Russian priori es: fi rst, “the crea on of top-quality, Federa on in the Arc c” includes the basic na- comfortable living condi ons for local people onal interests of the Russian Federa on in the and the pursuit of a frugal a tude towards Arc c, which are fi rst, to use the Russian Arc c the indigenous and small Arc c na ons’ so- as a strategic resource base providing the socio-economic infrastructure and tradi ons”; lu on of problems of social and economic de- second, “[S]upport for new economic growth velopment of the country; second, to maintain points and incen ves for large-scale domes- the region as a zone of peace and coopera on; c and foreign investment”, and exchange of third, to preserve the unique ecological sys- ideas and innova ons; and third, “[S]ubstan- al investment in the scien fi c and nature- 39 The English transla on of the State policy is short, about nine pages long.

Northern Research Forum 46

tems; and fourth, to use the Northern Sea Ro- for tackling issues of an interna onal legal sub- ute as a na onal sea transport route of Russia stan a on of the external border of the Rus- in the Arc c. sian Arc c Zone;

Also included is Russia’s commitment to inter- 2) Building-up on eff orts to create a uniform na onal law: Arc c search and rescue regime and joint preparedness; ”The realiza on of na onal interests of the Russian Federa- 3) Strengthening of bilateral rela onships with- on in the Arc c is provided by in the framework of regional organiza ons, in- ins tu ons of the state power cluding the Arc c Council and Barents EuroArc- together with ins tu ons of the c Region Council, maximizing the poten al for civil society in strict conformity economic, scien fi c and cultural interac ons with the legisla on of the Rus- as well as improved coopera on in the fi elds sian Federa on and its interna- of natural resource management and environ- onal trea es.” mental preserva on; 4) Assistance in the organiza on, management The basic objec ves of the State Policy of the and eff ec ve use of new transporta on routes Russian Federa on in the Arc c are in the in the Arc c, including the Northern Sea Route spheres of: for interna onal naviga on, according to interna onal trea es; 1) Social and economic development: expansion of the resource base (hydrocarbon re- 5) Ac va on of the par cipa on of Russian of- sources, biological resources and strategic raw fi cial agencies and public organiza ons in the materials); work of interna onal Arc c forums, including the inter-parliamentary ini a ves through the 2) Military security: maintenance of a favorable Russia-EU partnerships; opera ve regime in the Russian Arc c zone including that of fi gh ng poten al; 6) Delimita on of mari me spaces in the Arc c Ocean and maintenance of a mutually advan- 3) Environmental security: preserva on and tageous presence of Russia in the Spitsbergen maintenance of the Arc c environment; archipelago; 4) Informa on technologies and communica- 7) Improvement to state management of the on: forma on of a uniform informa on area; social and economic development of the Arc- 5) Science and technology: maintenance of a c through increased support for scien fi c re- suffi cient level of fundamental and applied sci- search; en fi c research on the accumula on of knowl- 8) Improvement of the quality of life for indig- edge, and crea on of scien fi c bases of man- enous peoples and their economic ac vi es in agement; and the Arc c environment; 6) Interna onal coopera on: maintenance of 9) Development of the Arc c resource base mutually advantageous bilateral and mul lat- through improved technological capabili es; eral coopera on of Russia with the sub-Arc c and states on the basis of interna onal trea es and agreements. 10) Moderniza on and development of the infrastructure of the Arc c transport system and Correspondingly, the strategic priori es of the fi sheries in the Russian Arc c. State Policy in the Arc c are: The sec on ”Primary goals and measures on 1) Carrying out an ac ve interac on of Russia realiza on of the State Policy” iden fi es how with the sub-Arc c states with a view of delimi- the aforemen oned basic priori es and strate- ta on of mari me areas on the basis of norms gies will be realized by solving the main prob- of interna onal law, mutual arrangements tak- lems such as: ing into account Russia’s na onal interests, and

Arc c strategies and policies 47

1) Social and economic development: This of commercial and non-commercial organiza- sec on iden fi es challenges to economic ons for suppor ng these objec ves, as well ac vity in terms of technological capacity as the emphasis on the general popula on for for hydro-carbon and mineral explora on in commitments towards social and cultural de- the Arc c natural environment and the need velopment. for improved infrastructure to realize future economic projects. It also supports the need Finally, the State Policy will be realized and for improved transporta on, coast guard and materialized in the following three stages: military fl eet vessels capable of naviga ng The fi rst stage (2008-2010) priori zes the ex- Arc c Ocean condi ons. Further, there is ref- pansion of resource explora on and trade; erence made to improvements in social and expansion of interna onal coopera on in- economic development of Arc c residents cluding on issues related to resource devel- through moderniza on of educa on, housing opment; greater fi nancial commitments from and health facili es; state departments in support of technological capacity; and greater emphasis on investment 2) Military, security and defense: This sec on projects from state-private partnerships. The discusses the necessity of crea ng armies of second stage (2011-2015) priori zes a legal the Armed Forces, military forma ons and recogni on of Russia’s claims to its mari- other organs capable of defending the Arc c me boundaries and the realiza ons from region, depending on various poli cal and its claims to resource explora on and trans- military situa ons. Levels of control over the porta on of its energy resources; structural Arc c should be op mized through advanced reorganiza on of its northern economy; and boundary control, improvements to surveil- developments in infrastructure and commu- lance techniques of its mari me areas and nica on, including the North Sea Route. The greater patrolling of trade; third stage (2016-2020) priori zes the realiza on of full explora on and exploita on of 3) Environmental security: Objec ves include onshore and off shore resource ac vity, thus ensuring environmental preserva on and fulfi lling its objec ve as a leading resource biological diversity of Arc c fl ora and fauna, base of the Russian economy. while taking into account the poten al of economic ac vity of Russia’s Arc c region The Russian State Policy in the Arc c is con- and global climate change. Ways of achieving cluded with the following statement: these aims are introduc on of new wildlife management regimes, improving monitoring “As a whole, in the interme- of pollu on, and restora on of natural envi- diate term, the realiza on of ronments; and the state policy of the Russian Federa on in the Arc c will 4) Informa on, science and technology: Ob- allow Russia to maintain the jec ves include improved capacity for com- role of a leading Arc c power. munica ons in Arc c communi es, naviga on Further, it is necessary, to carry and industries. Further, increased support for out a complex construc on of scien fi c research into environmental protec- compe ve advantages of the on and climate change as well as the econ- Arc c region in the Russian Fe- omy, health and military security is needed. dera on with a view of strengthening the posi on of Russia in The next sec on describes basic mechanisms the Arc c, the consolida on of of how all levels of government will need to interna onal security, and the be ac ve in order to carry out and imple- maintenance of the peace and ment the stated objec ves. Commitment stability in the Arc c region.” and targeted expenses from all government departments are required to improve the coordina on of ac vi es, effi ciency of their implementa on and enforcement of their authority. Also men oned is the importance

Northern Research Forum 48

Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- 2020 (Lomagin 2010)41. ings Third, when it comes to real priori es of the First, it was not un l the presidency of Med- Russian Federa on in the Arc c, this State vedev that the Russian Federa on managed Policy document is not very helpful as so to formulate a comprehensive state policy in many priori es are included - altogether ten its Arc c Zone as well as in the en re region. – all of which are called “strategic priori es”. Situated at the level of the highest authori es Thus it comes as no surprise that several in- it will be implemented by way of three Ac on terpreta ons concerning the actual main Plans. Thus, Russia has recovered and defi ned priori es exist. An example would be Nikita itself as an Arc c state, and in a way is return- Lomagin´s (2008) short list: fi rst, ac ve ex- ing back to the Arc c region. The fact is, how- trac on of natural resources; second, build- ever, that even without the State Policy Russia ing transport, telecommunica ons and boris generally viewed as an Arc c na on, in some der infrastructure; and third, make the Arc c cases even ´the´ Arc c na on. a primary strategic resource base of Russia. Or, the above-men oned interpreta on by Second, the new Arc c State Policy is strongly Minister Basargin (2010) that the State Policy linked with and supported by other federal includes three basic ideas42. policies and strategies as the region is a strategic resource base for the whole Federa on. Perhaps the most recent list of Russian real This is an important considera on in the con- “top priori es” in the Arc c can be found in text of the socio-economic gap which exists Prime Minister Pu n´s 2010 speech men- within the Federa on. This is largely support- oned above. It consists of the crea on of ed by the Minister of Regional Development, top-quality, comfortable living condi ons for Viktor Basargin, who interpreted in October local people; support for economic growth, 2010 that one of the three basic ideas of the large-scale investments, and exchange of Strategy is to harmonize the interests of the ideas and innova ons; and investment in the federal subjects and other actors into a com- scien fi c and nature-conserva on infrastruc- mon na onal Arc c policy40. ture.

Furthermore, it is possible to interpret the Correspondingly, the main objec ves of the State Policy as a pragma c means for domes- State Policy can be interpreted to be on one c poli cs and development of the Federa on, hand, stabilizing Russia’s northern fron ers par cularly in light of infrastructural challeng- and guaranteeing legal ground for explora on es in the Russian Arc c and the out-of-date of Arc c resources, and on the other hand, condi on of elements such as the road net- bridging the gap in socio-economic dispari- work, air fi elds, harbors and fl eets (also Num- es between Russian Arc c regions and the minen 2010). Improvements are needed, and rest of the country, paying special a en on to of par cular importance is the Northern Sea indigenous popula ons and sustainable de- Route with a status of na onal passage and velopment. The tools with which to achieve federal line of communica ons. This includes these objec ves will primarily be through bi- the construc on of ten permanent sta ons lateral and mul lateral coopera on in areas of the Russian Ministry for Emergency Situa- which provide rela vely speedy pay off s and ons along the Route, in coopera on with the strengthens na onal security. All relevant Hydro-Meteorological Service. Here it is rel- federal ministries, regional authori es and evant to note that the economic crises did not academia are to be included into strategic have any signifi cant impact on Russia’s policy planning of the Arc c and the appropriate in the Arc c, an example being the announce- fi nancing will be provided by way of Federal ment on the 27th March 2009 of the plan to create an Arc c Group of Forces as a part of 41 The Forces would be readily deployable across the vast region and maintain interoperability with the general Russian armed forces, Russia’s strategy for Arc c explora on un l border guard and coast guard. Special ammuni on, weaponry and transport would be designed for the ‘freezing temperature’ task force.

42 The emphasis of this interpreta on is on the u liza on of 40 The two other ideas are to maintain and strengthen Russian (northern) natural resources; mostly through mega-projects, such sovereignty and strategic interests in the Arc c; and to u lize the as in Chukotskoye, the Yakutsk Region, the Urals, Nenetsia and the poten al of northern human capital by transforming Russian society Murmansk Region (Terva 2010). into one of informa on and economy.

Arc c strategies and policies 49

development programs (Lomagin 2008). states. Interna onal forums and regional organiza ons, such as the AC and the BEAC as More interes ngly the State Policy defi nes well as bilateral rela ons, such as the Russia – Russia´s basic na onal interests in the Arc- EU partnership, are men oned, although not c very clearly. The Russian Arc c as a stra- greatly emphasized. tegic resource base is seen as a prerequisite to solving challenges of social and economic Finally, though the Russian State Policy in the development. It is necessary to maintain the Arc c can be interpreted as a response to region as a “zone of peace and coopera on”, the new geopoli cal situa on in the chang- preserve its unique ecological systems, and ing North, it is more a pragma c means for use the Northern Sea Route as a na onal domes c poli cs of the Federa on to achieve transport communica on in the Arc c. the primary aim of President Pu n, i.e. the stabiliza on of the Federa on and its econo- Fourth, taking into considera on that delimi- my. Furthermore, the Policy can be seen as a ta on of mari me spaces in the Arc c Ocean process through which Russia will again be- (and maintenance of a mutually advanta- come a (regional) major power and a global geous presence of Russia in the Spitsbergen energy player in world poli cs. archipelago) is one of the strategic priori es of the State Policy it is easier to understand why Norway and Russia were able to agree on the dispute of mari me borders in the Bar- ents Sea and signed a treaty concerning mari- me delimita on and coopera on as men- 7. Sweden oned earlier (Treaty between The Kingdom of Norway and The Russian Federa on 2010). A Swedish strategy for policy in the Arc c region, “Sweden’s strategy for the Arc c region” Fi h, another interes ng no on is that the was adopted by the Swedish Government in State Policy describes the Arc c both as “a May 2011 (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, Press zone of peace and coopera on” and as “the release, 12 May 2011). Here the Swedish ver- sphere of military security” including the sion of the Strategy, “Sveriges strategi för den maintenance of a favorable opera ve regime, ark ska regionen” (Regeringskansliet, Sverige such as “a necessary fi gh ng poten al”. Such 2011), is used as the main reference44. contradic on is also found where concerns the environment. Preserva on of the environment is to take place while at the same me The Swedish Strategy par cularly concerns Russia is going to increase its military pres- three areas, which are defi ned as the priori- ence and arrange for ‘serious spring-cleaning’ es, are: fi rst, Climate and the environment; in the Arc c territories of the Federa on. second, Economic development; and third, The human dimension. In spite of the discourse concerning the race for natural resources and emerging confl icts, Correspondingly, Sweden’s Chairmanship as well as some western reac ons and re- Programme for the Arc c Council 2011-2013 sponses, the Russian State Policy in the Arc- gives priority “to issues that will promote en- c seems to be largely aimed at maintaining vironmentally sustainable development of stability and the peaceful coopera on already the Arc c” emphasizes the following three found in the region (also Pu n 2010)43. areas: fi rst, Environment and climate; second, Sixth, in the State Policy the defi ni on of the The people; and third, A stronger Arc c Coun- Arc c region includes only the fi ve li oral cil (Government Offi ces of Sweden 2011).

43 A er the break-up of the Soviet Union up to sixty thousand tons of oil products are s ll kept in bad quality; 250,000 barrels are sca e- red here and there. Moreover, there are more than one million empty barrels le . In addi on to this, other materials such as coal, broken planes and radars, rus ng trucks and various construc ons further contribute to the situa on. As a result, pollu on exceeds acceptable levels six mes. In order to solve the problem, Pu n has called for the se ng up of a private-state partnership, although ini al eﬀ orts should be the responsibility of the state. 44 The Strategy is also published in English.

Northern Research Forum 50

Background and on the other hand, demographically, since the Saami have lived in Sweden for centuries. As well, Sweden has substan ally As men oned earlier in this study, Sweden contributed to Polar research for more than a was the last of the eight Arc c states to issue hundred years and this research is promoted and approve its Arc c or northern strategy and coordinated by the Swedish Polar Re- or policy, when the Government of Sweden search Secretariat45 : For example, the Abisko adopted its fi rst strategy on the en re Arc- Scien fi c Research Sta on was established in c region in 12th of May 2011. There was the beginning of the 20th century, and one of already a growing pressure toward Sweden latest Swedish research projects is “Mistra – and its government to do so, not least due to Arc c Futures in a Global Context” (also SWE- the Swedish Chairmanship of the Arc c Coun- DARCTIC and SWEDARP 2011-2015). cil. Indeed, at the same day when Sweden launched its Arc c Strategy the country took over the Chairmanship of the Arc c Council All in all, as the Strategy clearly points out, as well as published “Sweden’s Chairmanship there are many es which connect Sweden to Programme for the Arc c Council 2011-2013” the Arc c region. (Government Offi ces of Sweden 2011). Summary of the Swedish Arc- Before this state, there were not so many poli cal statements of Sweden, or speeches by Ɵ c Strategy Swedish poli cians, on the Arc c and northern issues. One of those is the speech by At the very beginning, the Strategy explains Foreign Minister Carl Bildt at the Ministerial that there are several reasons why there is mee ng of the Arc c Council in 2009, where a growing interest to the Arc c region and he indicated which key issues or priori es issues and why a strategy for the region is may be found on the Swedish agenda. These needed. Among them are climate change included strengthening of the Arc c Council, and global warming, the living condi ons of shipping in Arc c waters, research, climate indigenous peoples and natural resources. change and other environmental challenges, The introduc on also briefl y introduces (Arc- and policy concerning the Swedish Saami c) strategies of the other Arc c states, and popula on (Bildt 2009). fi nally discussed on several defi ni ons of “the Arc c (Ark s)”. Furthermore, two Swedish research ins tu- ons, The Swedish Ins tute of Interna onal Then the Strategy clearly points out and lists Aff airs (UI) and Stockholm Interna onal Peace that there are many es linking - and have Research Ins tute (SIPRI) organized an inter- connected for a long me - Sweden to the na onal conference “The New Arc c: Build- Arc c region. These include historical es, ing coopera on in the face of emerging chal- such as Carl Linney’s journeys in Lapland and lenges” in April 2011 in Stockholm. It was the fi rst conference organized in Sweden focused other explora ons; security-policy; economic on iden fying the emerging challenges in the interests, such as mining and space industry; Arc c, and on exploring how to promote co- climate and environment, research, such as opera ve governance frameworks, such as Swedish expedi ons in the Arc c for more the Arc c Council. than 150 years; and cultural es, par cularly the Saami culture.

Sweden has, however, been involved in the current interna onal Arc c coopera on from The next chapter is about objec ves of, and the very beginning, since it is a co-founder of implementa ons in, Arc c coopera on. Here the Arc c Council. Historically Sweden has the Strategy clearly states that the well-func- natural and strong es which have linked oning mul lateral coopera on on the Arc c Sweden to the Arc c region on one hand, is the main priority for Sweden (Regerings- geographically due to the fact that the coun-

try’s territory goes beyond the Arc c Circle, 45 It publishes an annual Årsbok/Yearbook.

Arc c strategies and policies 51

kansliet, Sverige 2011, 15).)f As forums ffor co- greenhouse gases’’ emissions; to ensure that opera on it men ons the Arc c Council; the climate change in the Arc c and its impacts is European Union; Nordic coopera on (includ- highlighted in interna onal climate nego a- ing the Nordic Council of Ministers); the Bar- ons; to work for conserva on and sustain- ents region’s coopera on; the United Na ons able use of biodiversity in the Arc c; and to and its conven ons (e.g. UNCLOS), agencies invest for to be a leading na on in research (e.g. IMO, UNFCCC and the UNs Conven on on climate and the environment as well as the on Biodiversity) and bodies (e.g. UNEP, WHO); impacts of climate change on humans. the fi ve li oral states of the Arc c Ocean; and the Saami coopera on, par cularly the Saami 2) The second one is economic development Parliamentary Council. with several business fi elds and interests. Somewhat surprisingly, Sweden has found The rest of the document is all about the many business and economic interests in (free three Swedish priori es, or priority areas of trade of) the en re Arc c as well as in the the Sweden’s Arc c Strategy: Climate and the Barents Region. Those include fi rst, mining, environment, Economic development, and petroleum (oil and gas resources) and forest- The human dimension, i.e. people (of the re- ry; second, land transport and infrastructure; gion) and their living condi ons. Each prior- third, mari me security and shipping; fourth, ity starts by a list of objec ves, what Sweden sea and air rescue; fi h, icebreaking; sixth, will, or would like, do in the near future. energy; seventh, tourism; eight, reindeer- herding; and ninth, other livelihoods, such as ICT and space technology. Educa on and 1) The fi rst priority is climate and the envi- research are also included as well as a few ex- ronment. The men oned sub-priori es, or amples of further needs of educa on like for focuses, under the main priority are Climate, example, in the fi eld of mining and mineral Environmental protec on, Biodiversity, and industry. Research on climate and the environment. Par cularly interes ng and substan al is biodiversity. Among the objec ves, what Sweden will, or is planned to, do are: to promote economically, socially and environmentally sustainable de- Among the objec ves, what Sweden will, or velopment (in the Arc c); to highlight the is planned to, do are: to work for to reduce

Northern Research Forum 52

importance of respec ng interna onal law the Strategy which is rather tradi onal with- when u lizing the energy resources (of the out any big surprises or special emphasizes. region); and to promote the use of Swedish This might, however, be taken as strengthen, exper se in environmental technology as well since now the Strategy is straight-forward and as for to promote Swedish commercial inter- has clear, though not surprising, priori es. ests in the Arc c. Second, what is interes ng here is the discus- 3) The third priority is the human dimension sion of the many es which linking, and have which includes people (of the region) and connected, Sweden to the Arc c region, such their living condi ons. Six sub-priori es or as historical, security-poli cal and cultural focuses, which are men oned, are: the Arc c es. The main reason to include the chapter condi ons aff ec ng human health; impacts of “Sweden and the Arc c” the Strategy might climate change and toxics aff ec ng the peo- be to have a legi macy to defi ne Sweden as ple; impacts of climate change to indigenous an Arc c country; and indeed, na onal iden- cultures and industries; resistance of Saami ty-building is socially constructed and all the languages; tradi onal knowledge; and a re- me under discourse. However, the chapter search program on the Saami society. is fi rst of all very informa ve and interes ng, and it gives good background informa on on Sweden. Among the objec ves, what Sweden will, or plans to, do are: to highlight the human dimension, such as the Saami Conven on, in Third, as men oned earlier the three priori- the Arc c Council; to promote the preserva- es of the Strategy are neither surprising nor on of the Saami and other indigenous lan- that climate and the environment is the fi rst guages; to support ini a ves of more ac ve men oned priority. The fact that there are par cipa on of young people and women in only three priori es shows that the Swedish poli cal processes; and to use and u lize the Strategy is one of the most focused among all Nordic and Arc c coopera on for to promote the strategies of the Arc c states. knowledge transfer between research and local indigenous and other Arc c communi es. From the three priori es, economic development can be taken as the most rich and mul- Finally, the Strategy includes three appen- func onal one of the Strategy including an dices, fact sheets on the Arc c Council, the emphasis of free trade (in the en re Arc c Barents Euro-Arc c Council and the Northern region), industrial policy (in the Barents re- Dimension. gion) and economic interests in many fi elds, such as mining, petroleum, forestry, tourism, transport, shipping and ice-breaking, and Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- reindeer-herding. A slightly surprising thing is ings that the Strategy emphasizes petroleum, i.e. oil and gas resources of the Barents Sea region, even more than mining which has been, First, and foremost, it can be taken as an and is s ll, the main industry in North Swe- achievement that the Swedish Government, den. As a conclusion, economic development or the Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, adopted may even be some sort of top priority of Swe- and launched the Arc c Strategy at the same den’s arc c policy. me, even day, when the Swedish chairmanship of the Arc c Council started. Although, Sweden was the last one of the Arc c states, Fourth, the two other priori es, Climate en- there was not so much me for the prepara- vironment and the environment, and The ons of the both, but a growing interna onal human dimension (i.e. people) are much the pressure toward Sweden and domes c ex- same as the focus areas of Sweden’s Chair- pecta ons toward the Government, to do so. manship Programme for the Arc c Council 2011-2013. Here one relevant diff erence is that ‘Resilience’ which is some sort of fl ag- In a way, these circumstances can be seen in ship project of the Swedish Chairmanship

Arc c strategies and policies 53

(Lind 2011), is not emphasized in the Strategy. interna onal scien fi c coopera on; fi h, mari me transporta on; sixth, economic issues, including energy; and seventh, environmen- Fi h, the Strategy clearly states that the cur- tal protec on and conserva on of natural rent and effi cient mul lateral coopera on in, resources. and dealing with, the Arc c is a clear priority of Sweden. This is confi rmed by a long list of forums and organiza ons, where Sweden Background is a member and ac vely involved in. Unlike the Finnish Strategy it does not, however, em- The Arc c has not played an important role phasize a role of the European Union in the in US foreign or domes c policy. However, Arc c. the Clinton Administra on issued, but did not publicly circulate, US Arc c Policy Objec- ves in 1994 with the following six objec ves: This can be interpreted to be men oned protec on of the Arc c environment, sustain- mostly due to the Swedish chairmanship of able use of natural resources, strengthening the Arc c Council. Actually, it is (also) much of coopera ve ins tu ons among the Arc c along to the main tradi on of the foreign states, involving northern indigenous peoples policy of Sweden to be ac ve in interna onal (mul lateral) coopera on, which is now (fi rst in decision making (that aff ects them), en- me) applied to the modern Arc c coopera- hancing scien fi c monitoring and research, on. and to meet post-Cold War na onal security and defence needs (Macnab 2009).

Finally, all in all, Sweden’s strategy for the Arc- A er the Russian expedi on to the North c covers most features of a modern strategy, Pole in August 2007 some USA analysts tes - par cularly adop ng concrete objec ves of fi ed before Congress that the US was falling each priority. It can also be seen as a refl ec- behind Russia in the Arc c ‘race’. However, on and response to the recent signifi cant the U.S. State Department declared in Sep- and mul -func onal (global) change(s) in the tember 2008 that Arc c countries use diff er- Arc c as well as to the growing interest and ent criteria to defi ne whether their territory pressure by the other Arc c states and sev- is considered to be a part of the Arc c region eral non-Arc c states. or not; that Russia as well as other Arc c states has “its rights to delineate an extended con nental shelf so long as the outer limits are consistent with interna onal law as supported by sound scien fi c data” (Lomagin 2008). In early-21st century there were some 8. The United lobbying eff orts within the US, such as A Com- monwealth North, the purpose of which was States of America to emphasize that the United States needs “an Arc c agenda” and has to understand its The United States of America’s document iden ty as “an Arc c na on”, too (Common- “Na onal Security Presiden al Direc ve/ wealth North Study Report, May 2009). NSPD – 66” concerning an “Arc c Region The United States released its Arc c Region Policy” was released on January 9, 2009 by Policy on January 9, 200946. This direc ve President Bush’s Administra on (The White is said to supersede the “Presiden al Deci- House, Offi ce of the Press Secretary January sion Direc ve/NSC-26 (PDD-26; issued 1994) 12, 2009). with respect to Arc c policy but not Antarc- Based on this US Arc c strategy the policy c policy” (The White House 2009, 1). The objec ves / priority areas of the United Sta- Arc c Policy was released by President Bush tes’ Arc c Policy are fi rst, na onal security just weeks before his presidency concluded, and homeland security; second, interna o- but because of its bipar san fl avour, it is s ll nal governance; third, extended con nental 46 It is said to go through “an extensive two-years consulta on with shelf and boundary issues; fourth, promo ng a broad community of northern stakeholders” (Macnab 2009, 27).

Northern Research Forum 54

considered relevant for current and future on to say that the direc ve will aﬀ ect many administra ons. Indeed, the updated version departments because of the nature of global places the Arc c as a much greater interest developments in security, resources, climate for the United States. change and the work of the Arc c Council.

In her interview in Newsweek (2009/2010) The Policy defi nes the US interests in the Arc- Secretary of State Hilary Clinton also sup- c in light of several developments including: ported this view and has taken a personal in- 1) Altered na onal policies on homeland se- terest in the region as was demonstrated in curity; 2) The eff ects of climate change and her hos ng of the joint Antarc c Treaty-Arc c human ac vity; 3) The establishment and Council mee ng last year. She also men oned ongoing work of the Arc c Council; and 4) the Arc c as a new emerging area in the US A growing awareness that the Arc c is both foreign policy with “a matrix of issues”. fragile and rich in resources. Other major points of interests are related to boundary Summary of the US ArcƟ c delimita on, scien fi c research, transporta- on, energy and environmental protec on. Policy The Policy commits the United States to inter- state coopera on but also leaves the door The fi rst sec on of the US “Arc c Region Poli- open to unilateral ac on if necessary. cy” clarifi es the purpose of the Policy and that its implementa on must be in honour of the The next sec on includes policy deliverables US’ own Cons tu on, as well as in connec- with six themes through which policies are on with its interna onal treaty obliga ons organized. Based on this the Arc c Region Po- and in concert with customary interna onal licy “is the policy of the United States to: law, such as the Law of the Sea47. The second sec on provides background informa on 1. Meet na onal security and homeland secu- and reaffi rms the US’ interest in the region rity needs relevant to the Arc c region; sta ng that “The United States is an Arc c na on” (The White House 2009, 2). It goes 2. Protect the Arc c environment and conser-

4747 The document “Na onal Security Presiden al Direc ve/NSPD – 666”6” is only 10 papages,ges, but is very dense and compact.

Arc c strategies and policies 55

ve its biological resources; those straits” (ibid, 3). The quote also publicly defends the importance of the Northwest 3. Ensure that natural resource management Passage to be recognized by interna onal law and economic development in the region are as an interna onal strait and the detrimental environmentally sustainable; precedent it could have on mari me naviga - on and transport if it is recognized otherwise. 4. Strengthen ins tu ons for coopera on among the eight Arc c na ons (the United The implementa on of this policy is carried States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, out through: fi rst, the development of capa- Norway, the Russian Federa on, and Swe- bili es and capacity for protec ng the US’ air, den); land, and sea borders in the Arc c; second, to increase Arc c mari me domain aware- 5. Involve the Arc c’s indigenous communi- ness to protect commerce and key resources; es in decisions that aff ect them; and third, preserva on of the global mobility of the US’ military and civilian vessels through- 6. Enhance scien fi c monitoring and research out the Arc c; fourth, projec on of a sover- into local, regional, and global environmental eign US mari me presence in the region; and issues.” (ibid, 2) fi h, encouraging the peaceful resolu on of disputes. These general objec ves are concre zed and implemented by the following more exact po- Second, Interna onal Governance: This sec - licy objec ves or priority areas, which consist on lists the involvement of the US government of the major part of the policy document: in the interna onal Arc c poli cal forum and recognizes the accomplishments of the Arc c First, Na onal Security and Homeland Secu- Council for working within its limited manda- rity Interests in the Arc c: This sec on prio- te of environmental protec on and sustainab- ri zes the importance of na onal defence for le development. Further, “the Arc c Council the US’ policy in the Arc c by saying that the should remain a high-level forum devoted US is willing to cooperate, or act, unilaterally to issues within its current mandate and not to safeguard its interests in the region. These be transformed into a formal interna onal interests are defi ned as: missile defence and organiza on, par cularly one with assessed early warning; deployment of sea and air sys- contribu ons” (ibid, 4). The text, however, tems for strategic seali , strategic deterrence, does promote a revived Arc c Council that mari me presence and security opera ons; would require changes to its structure and and ensuring freedom of naviga on and over- mandate, and that “The United States is ne- fl ight. The text also refers to the heightened vertheless open to upda ng the structure of human ac vity, which is projected to inc- the Council…to the extent such changes can rease, and the necessity of asser ng a more clearly improve the Council’s work and are ‘ac ve and infl uen al’ presence in the region consistent with the general mandate of the to protect its interests. Council” (ibid, 4). As regards implementa on the policy document encourages the review The USA clearly states that it preservers the of the Arc c Council’s recommenda ons by rights and du es for naviga on and over- Arc c governments. fl ight in the Arc c region which “supports our ability to exercise these rights throughout the The text con nues by recognizing the growing world, including through strategic straights”. support for an Arc c Treaty, but dismisses the Furthermore, the policy reaffi rms its stance idea on the grounds that “it is not appropriate on the Northwest Passage and its recogni on or necessary”. of it as an interna onal strait by sta ng that This sec on also promotes the ra fi ca on of “Freedom of the seas is a top na onal prio- the Law of the Sea by lis ng the advantages of rity. The Northwest Passage is a strait used par cipa on in fulfi lling US mari me interests for interna onal naviga on”, as well as the including the securing of US claims over its Northern Sea Route, and thus “the regime extended mari me areas and representa on of transit passage applies to passage through at the table when these decisions are carried

Northern Research Forum 56

out. In its implementa on of these policies, tate safe, secure, and reliable naviga on; to the text iden fi es that the US shall con nue protect mari me commerce; and to protect to cooperate on Arc c issues through the UN the environment” (ibid, 6). To ensure safety and its agencies and interna onal laws, such of naviga on an eff ec ve search and rescue as the United Na ons Framework Conven on regime should be developed in the region on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Further, it sup- requiring mul -level coopera on by all rele- ports the considera on of new interna onal vant actors. Correspondingly, implementa on arrangements for the Arc c to address issues should include the establishment of a sort of likely to arise from expected increases in hu- ‘risk-based’ capacity for addressing hazards in man ac vity in the region. Finally, it promotes the Arc c. the US ra fi ca on of the 1982 Law of the Sea Conven on (LOS). Sixth, Economic Issues, Including Energy: This sec on starts with sustainable development, Third, Extended Con nental Shelf and Bound- which poses “par cular challenges” in the ary Issues: This sec on begins by iden fying Arc c, and climate change, which is “signifi - that the most eff ec ve method in safeguard- cantly aff ec ng the lives of Arc c inhabitants, ing US off shore resources is through proce- par cularly indigenous communi es” (ibid, dures available through LOS. The text con- 7). Furthermore, the USA intends to works nues by claiming that the United States and “with other Arc c na ons to ensure that hyd- Canada have an unresolved boundary in the rocarbon and other development… is carried Beaufort Sea. It is recognized that a bound- out in accordance with accepted best prac - ary in this area is based on equidistance, and ces” (ibid, 8). The central focus is, however, further, that the boundary area may contain on energy development in the Arc c region oil, natural gas, and other resources. The text which “will play an important role in mee- also encourages Russia to ra fy the boundary ng growing global energy demand” (ibid, 7). treaty concluded in 1990. Implementa on of Thus, the policy document seeks the protec- these policies should take place through tak- on of “United States interests with respect ing all necessary legal ac ons for extending to hydrocarbons reservoirs that may overlap the US con nental shelf, that the process of boundaries to mi gate adverse environmen- extension be in considera on of the natural tal and economic consequences related to environment and fragile marine ecosystem, their development” (ibid, 8). and the encouragement of Russia to ra fy its mari me boundary agreement. Seventh, Environmental Protec on and Con- serva on of Natural Resources: The fi rst pa- Fourth, Promo ng Interna onal Scien fi c ragraph of this sec on clearly recognises the Coopera on: The policy document recogni- Arc c ecosystem as unique and in transi on ses the importance of scien fi c research for due to human ac vity, the result of which are the promo on of US interests in the Arc c addi onal stressors with poten ally serio- and “promotes the sharing of Arc c research us consequences for northern communi es pla orms with other countries in support of and the Arc c ecosystem. Also iden fi ed is collabora ve research that advances funda- the high level of uncertainty concerning the mental understanding of the Arc c region in impacts of climate change; a top priority is to general and poten al arc c change in par - base all necessary decisions on “sound scien- cular” (ibid, 5). The text also asks and sup- fi c and socioeconomic informa on, Arc c ports research in the Arc c Ocean, including environmental research, monitoring, and por ons expected to be ice-covered as well vulnerability assessments” (ibid, 9). Imple- as seasonally ice-free regions, with other na- menta on should include iden fying “ways ons. The document manifests that the USA to conserve, protect, and sustainably mana- will “con nue to play a leadership role in re- ge Arc c species”, and the pursuit of “marine search throughout the Arc c region“(ibid, 6). ecosystem-based management in the Arc c” (ibid, 9). Fi h, Mari me Transporta on in the Arc c Region: The US priori es in mari me transporta on in the Arc c region are “to facili-

Arc c strategies and policies 57

Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- President Obama issued a Presiden al Me- morandum in the summer of 2010 “that as- ings signs responsibility for Arc c research to the White House Na onal Science and Technolo- First, the US Arc c Region Policy emphasizes gy Council” (Farrow 2010). strongly na onal and homeland security and borders, par cularly dealing with mari me Although, the US “Arc c Region Policy” was areas – “(F)reedom of the seas” - through in- approved and released by the Bush Admi- creased military presence and “to project sea nistra on as one of its last documents, it it- power throughout the region” (ibid, 3). This self as well as a few documents of the Obama is not surprising, but what is striking (Macnab Administra on indicate that in the early-21st 2009) is that the US Policy is the only one century the Arc c region is steadily emerging excluding (indigenous) peoples or commu- as a new important area in US foreign policy, ni es from main priori es or objec ves, alt- as pointed out by State Secretary Hilary Clin- hough the involvement of “Arc c’s indigeno- ton (Newsweek 2009/2010, 26-30). us communi es in decisions that aff ect them” is stated to be one of its targets (ibid, 2). Finally, the US Policy in the Arc c Region can be interpreted as a response to the newest Second, US ra fi ca on of the Law of the Sea signifi cant geopoli cal changes in the Arc c Conven on is supported. Although the US region to the point of making “it necessary have not as yet ra fi ed the UNCLOS, it would to develop coherent approaches to problems like to establish the outer limits of the con- that occupy a wide spectrum of issues” (Mac- nental shelf as well as push Russia toward nab 2009, 27). ra fi ca on of the 1990 US-Russian boundary agreement.

Third, the Policy places a high priority on the environmentally sustainable management 9. The European of natural resources and economic development in the region. Furthermore, it appears Union to promote interna onal governance taking place largely through the Arc c Council and the strengthening of ins tu onal coopera on The European Union’s interests and poli- among the eight Arc c states. cy objec ves in the Arc c region are mostly based on the “Communica on from the Fourth, the Policy declares con nued US Commission to the European Parliament and coopera on on Arc c issues through the Uni- the Council – The European Union and the ted Na ons and its agencies as well as inter- Arc c Region” (Commission of the European na onal trea es, such as the United Na ons Communi es 2008), which was launched in Framework Conven on on Climate Change November 2008. It is supported by the Euro- (UNFCCC). On the issue of environmental pean Council’s Conclusions on Arc c issues in protec on the text iden fi es the challenge of March 2009 and in December 2009 (Europe- climate change and the related uncertain es, an Council 2009a and 2009b). Here the 2008 and recognizes that “[B]asic data is lacking in Communica on and the December 2009 Con- many fi elds”. However, there is no men on of clusions are used as major references. climate change as regards the implementa - on of the Policy. The main policy objec ves of the EU Commission’s Communica on (supported by Fi h, the Policy states that the United States the Council’s Conclusions) are fi rst, protec ng of America is “an Arc c na on, with varied and preserving the Arc c environment and its and compelling interests in that region” (ibid, popula on; second, promo ng sustainable 29). Furthermore, in order to implement the use of resources; and third, contribu ng to US objec ve to “con nue to play a leadership enhanced Arc c mul lateral governance. role in research throughout the Arc c region“,

Northern Research Forum 58

Background Due to the environmental issues of the Arc c being regulated interna onally by interna o- A er Greenland le the European Commu- nal environmental trea es, such as the Stock- nity in 1985, the European Union was phy- holm Conven on on POPs (Persistent Organic sically not part of the Arc c but has nonet- Pollutants), the EU has been involved either heless remained infl uen al for the region in through its member-states or the EU Com- several ways. In 1995 the European Union mission, or both. Furthermore, as long-range returned geographically to its northern, or air and water pollu on has been one of the arc c, dimension when Finland and Sweden most severe environmental problems in the joined the Union. This was promoted and highest la tudes, the EU legal competence strengthened by the Finnish ini a ve of in- would also come through the Common Agri- cluding a Northern Dimension policy within cultural Policy. the Union. Furthermore, the EU Commission was one of the original signatories of the Kir- Impacts of climate change, which both di- kenes Declara on, along with Russia and the rectly and indirectly aff ects the Arc c ecosys- Nordic countries, establishing the Barents tem and peoples, has been recognized by the Euro-Arc c Council in 1993. This was largely due to eff orts in confi dence-building with EU and is men oned in many policy docu- Russia and in support of the EU referenda in ments by the Union. Although the EU has not Finland, Norway and Sweden. par cularly emphasized the Arc c region´s vulnerability to climate change and its im- Followed from this, the EU’s Commission pacts, the Union has been involved in inter- claims in the 2008 Communica on that the na onal nego a ons on climate policy, such European Union as the United Na ons Framework Conven on on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto “is inextricably ed to the Arc c Protocol. It has also recognized the Arc c re- Region... by a unique combi- gion as a key area of infl uence in Northern na on of history, geography, Hemisphere climate and climate research economy and scien fi c achieve- (e.g. Lipiatou 2008). This is based on the EU ments. Three Member States – adop ng a central role in interna onal clima- Denmark (Greenland), Finland te change nego a ons and preferring to see and Sweden – have territories itself as “a leader in fi gh ng climate chan- in the Arc c. Two other Arc c ge” (Commission of European Communi es states – Iceland and Norway – 2008, 3), being a pathfi nder in interna onal are members of the European climate policy by making climate change one Economic Area. Canada, Russia of main priori es in internal and external re- and the United States are stra- la ons (e.g. Barroso 2006; Airoldi 2008, 10; tegic partners of the EU. Euro- Neumann and Rudloff 2010, 7-8). pean Arc c areas are a priority in the Northern Dimension poli- Logically, EU policy on research, as well as a cy” (Commission of the Europe- European research agenda such as on the en- an Communi es 2008, 2). vironment or the climate system, is also relevant for Arc c peoples and communi es48 Although, the EU is not (yet) a formal Arc c (e.g. Egerton 2008; Lipiatou 2008). player, its infl uence in the Arc c is evident in several fi elds (e.g. Airoldi, 2008). Further- An ac ve EU – Arc c rela onship is seen in more, the Union has a relevant role and le- energy and transport, mainly because many gal competence in the Arc c; in some sectors EU member-states are heavily dependent strong competence (Directorate-General for on fossil fuels produced in, and transported External Policies of the Union, 2010). Among from, the Norwegian and Russian parts of the these are environmental and climate change Arc c. Furthermore, it is also seen in fi sheries policy, research, fi sheries, animal welfare and and conserva on of marine resources, which trade, energy and mari me transport, and 48 The EU research on Polar Regions (both the Arc c and the regional development through the cohesion Antarc c) has mostly been allocated via the Framework Programme; for example, more than 50 research projects of the Fi h and Sixth policy and par cular programs. were related en rely or par ally to polar issues (Lipiatou 2008).

Arc c strategies and policies 59

under the common Fisheries Policy belongs 2008; Cannon 2009). to an exclusive competence of the Union. Here the Union’s main infl uence is refl ected The Northern Dimension - the Finnish ini a- on how the Arc c fi sheries are conducted; ve from 1997 - was approved by the Euro- for example in terms of reducing illegal, unre- pean Union in 2000 and implemented by way ported and unregulated fi shing (Directorate- of two Ac on Plans. Originally, this policy was General for External Policies of the Union, primarily defi ned as an external foreign policy 2010, 8 and 27-29). Although the EU mem- of the Union in (North) Europe, par cularly ber-states only hold a minor share49, infl uen- as regards (Northwest) Russia, and a part of ce is exerted through fi sh trade as the EU is a confi dence-building measures. Although not major export des na on for the Arc c states. always explicitly men oned, the Arc c region For example, about 80% of Icelandic and 60% - mostly meaning European - has been a cross- of Norwegian fi sh exports go to EU markets cu ng issue within the Northern Dimensi- (Neumann and Rudloff 2010). on policy. For example, in the process of the fi rst Ac on Plan of the Northern Dimension The EU’s legal competence in the Arc c region (The European Council 2000) – its main aims is clearly witnessed through sealing and trade were to increase stability and civic security; in Arc c wildlife products. These issues, gene- to enhance democra c reforms; and to create rally related to animal welfare, are under the posi ve interdependence and sustainable de- Union’s agricultural and environmental poli- velopment - the partner countries and Green- cies, but also deals with the internal market land had an almost equal voice and were regula ons and northern Indigenous peoples able to take ini a ves. One of those was the (Directorate-General for External Policies of ‘Arc c Window’ within the Northern Dimen- the Union, 2010, 10 and 32-36; Airoldi 2008, sion ini ated by the Home Rule Government 87-90). These are controversial topics which of Greenland in 1999. To include the Arc c have recently been the subject of disagree- as a real “cross-cu ng issue, main-streamed ments between the EU, the Inuit and Canada within each key-priority” would emphasize as refl ected in the EU trade ban on seals from the role of northern socie es (ibid), and thus April 2009 (e.g. Arc c Athabaskan Council form new and more frui ul kinds of global north-south rela ons. 49 Annually about 4% of all EU catches are caught in the Arc c waters, which is 2.6% of total EU catches.

Northern Research Forum 60

Correspondingly, the new Northern Dimen- (European Parliament 2010a, 5). Furthermo- sion of the European Union, adopted in No- re, through it the European Parliament would vember 2006, has been developed to mean like to infl uence the Commission in the formu- a common policy by the EU, the Russian la on of the Union’s ‘emerging’ Arc c policy. Federa on, Iceland and Norway in and for Therefore, the Report states that ”whereas North Europe (European Union Commission the Commission communica on cons tutes 2006). Rhetorically, this is a strong statement a formal fi rst step towards responding to the to promote dialogue and concrete cross- European Parliament’s call for the formula - border coopera on, and strengthen stability on of an EU Arc c policy, whereas the Council and integra on in the European part of the Conclusions on Arc c issues should be recog- circumpolar North. It can also be interpreted nised as a further step in the defi ni on of an as suppor ng the discourse of region-buil- EU policy on the Arc c” (European Parliament ding (in the North) by state-actors through, 2010b, 5).50 for example, equal partnership of the EU, the Russian Federa on, Iceland and Norway In conclusion, based on the Communica on, or the objec ve of visa-free travel between Council Conclusions and Report an EU Arc c the EU and Russia. As a part of the Northern policy is emerging, though not yet offi cially Dimension policy several Members of the Eu- launched. ropean Parliament (MEP) from North Europe wanted to concentrate on the Bal c Sea Re- Summary of an emerging EU gion, and consequently, the European parliament adopted in July 2010 “The European ArcƟ c Policy Union Strategy for the Bal c Sea Region” (Eu- ropean Parliament 2010). As men oned earlier the “Communica on from the Commission to the European Parlia- Finally, the European Union Commission ment and the Council – The European Union approved its communica on on the Arc c and the Arc c Region” includes three main Region in November 2008, an indica on of policy objec ves (Commission of the Euro- growing interest of the EU in the High North pean Communi es 2008) each of which con- and that it is likely to develop its own Arc c tains concrete policy objec ves and proposals policy. The Council of the European Union has for ac on51. released two Council Conclusions on Arc c issues in March 2009 and December 2009 with The fi rst main policy objec ve is ”Protec ng the same main policy objec ves. A more fi nal and preserving the Arc c environment and its contribu on, or even a statement, of the EU’s popula on” and its sub-themes are: Arc c policy is expected to be implemented by the EU Council in its mee ng in 2011. 1) Environment and climate change where the main goal is “to prevent and mi gate the The European Parliament has recently be- nega ve impacts of climate change as well as come ac ve in Arc c aff airs, for example by to support adapta on to inevitable changes” hos ng the conference of The Parliamenta- (ibid, 4); rians of the Arc c Region in Brussels in Sep- tember 2010. The “Report on a sustainable 2) Support to indigenous peoples and local EU policy for the High North” (European Par- popula ons with the statement that “[A]rc c liament 2010b) (with MEP Michael Gahler as indigenous peoples in the EU are protected the Rapporteur) was adopted by the Commit- tee on Foreign Aff airs of the European Parlia- 50 The Final Report is much broader than the dra one (European ment in December 2009 and as non-legisla - Parliament 2010c) which for example largely takes ‘Sustainable development’ as a given, though it is more a norma ve ideal, which ve resolu on by the Plenary si ng in January should be defi ned and implemented, and should be interpreted as a process. In its Explanatory statement it is said that “the idea of an 2011. It builds on this trend by claiming that Arc c Treaty, modelled along the Treaty for the con nent of Antarc - ca, … is not only not promoted by the peoples and states of the Arc c, “there has been a longstanding engagement but also wouldn’t be an appropriate way to deal with the challenges of the Arc c” (ibid, 12). However, the Antarc c Treaty (System) cannot be of the EU in the Arc c by way of its involve- a proper model for an Arc c treaty, because the situa on of the Arc c much diff ers from that of the South Pole; actually the Antarc c Treaty ment” in Northern Dimension policy, the Ba- has never really been a model for the Arc c.

rents coopera on and bilateral coopera on 51 The Communica on is rather short, 12 pages long.

Arc c strategies and policies 61

by special provisions under European Com- Also included here is policy objec ve of gra- munity Law”, and the no on that modern hu- dually introducing arc c commercial naviga- man ac vi es have put certain marine mam- on, while promo ng stricter safety and en- mals “in danger and there is growing concern vironmental standards, and defending “the in the EU about animal welfare” (ibid, 4); and principle of freedom of naviga on” (ibid, 8); and 3) Research, monitoring and assessments with the statement that “EU Member Sta- 4) Tourism- including a policy objec ve of tes and the European Community are major con nuing“to support sustainable Arc c tou- contributors to Arc c research”, and a policy rism” but try to minimise “its environmental objec ve to “maintain the Arc c as a priori- footprint” (ibid, 9). ty area for research to close knowledge gaps and assess future anthropogenic impacts, es- The last main policy objec ve “Contribu ng pecially in the area of climate change” (ibid, to enhanced Arc c mul lateral governance” 6). is without sub-themes but include comments saying that “[T]here is no specifi c treaty re- Correspondingly, the sub-themes under “Pro- gime for the Arc c. No country or group of mo ng sustainable use of resources” are: countries have sovereignty over the North Pole or the Arc c Ocean around it” (ibid, 9). 1) Hydrocarbons – including a comment on And, that “[A]n extensive interna onal legal how the signifi cant and known Arc c off sho- framework is already in place that also app- re hydrocarbon resources “are located inside lies to the Arc c”, such as UNCLOS (ibid, 9). the Exclusive Economic Zone of Arc c states” Furthermore, that “[T]he EU should work to (ibid, 6), and a policy objec ve saying that the uphold the further development of a coope- exploita on of these resources “should be ra ve Arc c governance system based on the provided in full respect of strict environmen- UNCLOS which would ensure: security and tal standards taking into account the par cu- stability, strict environmental management, lar vulnerability of the Arc c” (ibid, 7); including respect of the precau onary principle, and sustainable use of resources as well 2) Fisheries - including comments saying that as open and equitable access” (ibid, 10). Se- “[T]he only signifi cant Arc c fi sheries occur at parately, there is also a short paragraph on present in the Barents Sea and to the east and Greenland saying that although it is a part south of the Norwegian Sea”, and that “The of Denmark it is also “one of the Overseas EU is among the most important consumers Countries Territories (OCTs) associated to the of Arc c fi sh, of which only a small part is Community” (ibid, 12). caught by Community vessels”. Also included is the policy objec ve of ensuring exploita on Finally, the conclusion states that the sugges- of Arc c fi sheries to be “at sustainable levels ons of the Communica on aim “to provide whilst respec ng the rights of local coastal the basis for a more detailed refl ec on”, and communi es” (ibid, 7); and that it should lead “to a structured and coordinated approach to Arc c ma ers, as the 3) Transport -including a statement saying fi rst layer of an Arc c policy for the European that Union” (ibid, 12).

“EU Member States have the The Communica on was followed by two world’s largest merchant ﬂ eet Conclusions of the European Union’s Council and many of those ships use on Arc c issues in March and December 2009 trans-oceanic routes. The mel- (European Council 2009a and 2009b). Both ng of sea ice is progressively include the main policy objec ves men o- opening opportuni es to navi- ned above. The December 2009 Conclusion gate on routes through Arc c is more relevant because it includes several steps (altogether 23) “towards the formula - waters. This could considerab- on of an overarching approach to an emerging ly shorten trips from Europe to EU policy on Arc c issues”. It also requests the Paciﬁ c.” that the EU Commission “present a report on

Northern Research Forum 62

progress made in these areas by the end of Communica on indicates that the EU will June 2011” (European Council 2009b, 2 and create its own arc c policy, or “a structured 5).52 Among these are principle issues, such and coordinated approach to Arc c mat- as to recognize “the par cular vulnerability ters”. Therefore, “[T]he Council requests the of the Arc c region” and that it is recognised Commission to present a report on prog- that “EU policies on natural resource mana- ress made in these areas by the end of June gement that impact on the Arc c should be 2011” (European Council 2009b, 5). This is formulated in close dialogue with Arc c sta- clearly supported by the conclusions of the tes and local communi es”, to support “sus- European Council in December 2009 whe- tainable development for indigenous peop- re the aim is to take steps “towards the for- les”, and to state that “the EU should ac vely mula on of an overarching approach to seek consensus approaches to relevant Arc c EU policy on Arc c issues” (ibid, 2). Finally, issues through coopera on also with Arc c both the whole process of the forma on of states and/or territories outside the EU” (Eu- a Union’s Arc c policy and the cri cal role of ropean Council 2009b). the Council Conclusions are strongly promoted by reports of the European Parliament, There are also more concrete policy objec - such as the above-men oned “Report on ves, such as to contribute to the Sustainab- a sustainable EU policy for the High North”. le Arc c Observing Networks, recognize the Arc c Marine Shipping Assessment report, However, although the adop on and launch become a permanent observer in the Arc c of the Communica on is a signifi cant fi rst step Council, a ach “great importance of the st- toward an EU Arc c policy - an emerging poli- rong links between the EU and Greenland” as cy – it is not yet an offi cial policy. It should no- well as the Arc c EEA/EFTA countries, Iceland netheless be viewed as an achievement, par- and Norway, and examine the benefi ts “of cularly when considering that un l recently establishing an informa on centre on Arc c interest in the region was rather limited, and issues in the EU” (European Council 2009b). the fact that the EU has its Northern Dimensi- on policy for North Europe and Russia and its Relevant and interesƟ ng fi nd- strategy for the Bal c Sea Region. ings Third, the three main policy objec ves of the European Union are not surprising - i.e. pro- First, the main message of the EU tec on of the Arc c environment and its po- Commission’s communica on and its follow- pula on, sustainable use of resources and go- ups is that the European Union has a gro- vernance - since these are largely mainstream wing interest in the Arc c and the High North and refl ect well the so values of the Union. and would like to secure its interests within If the Council Conclusions go along these li- the region. Therefore, the EU strives for inc- nes and support these policy objec ves, this reased involvement in the Arc c, with ac ve would be slightly diff erent from the report by par cipa on in all aspects of Arc c policy and the European Parliament, since the report interac on as well as achieving the status of men ons “New world transport routes” and an observer of the Arc c Council.53 This is a “Natural resources” under the tle of “The EU result of a new geopoli cal situa on in the and the Arc c” before “Climate change and 21st century, in which the Arc c has become pollu on eff ects on the Arc c”, “Sustainable environmentally, economically and poli cally socioeconomic development” and “Gover- more important and a rac ve globally. nance” (European Parliament 2010b, 7-10).

Second, followed from this, the Commission’s Followed from this and based on these policy objec ves, the Communica on and the Council Conclusions can also be interpreted 52 This did not seem to take place, since such a report has not, yet, been published. to represent EU’s new moral language and

53 This did not, however, happen in the 7th Ministerial Mee ng geopoli cal discourse with the objec ve of of the Arc c Council on the 12th of May 2011 in Nuuk, Greenland. The mee ng could only adopt the recommenda ons on the role and entering the North to assert control over criteria for observers to the Arc c Council, but not accept new observers (Nuuk Declara on 2011). northern social space and knowledge (Moisio

Arc c strategies and policies 63

2003). This is seen for example, in disagree- of Europe. This means the deepening of eco- ments on whaling between the EU, and Nor- nomic and poli cal integra on in Europe and way, Iceland and the Inuit; those on sealing further expansion. Perhaps then, a key premi- and trade in Arc c wildlife products between se is to enlarge the core idea of EU integra on the EU, and the Inuit and Canada, such as the “shared values mean added value” to cover EU’s seal trade ban in April 2009, (e.g. Arc c the Arc c region. Athabaskan Council 2008; Cannon 2009; also Airoldi 2008, 87-90); and disagreements on Fi h, another kind of answer is derived from climate change and interna onal climate po- the EU and its legal competencies having licy between the EU and the Greenlandic Self- had an impact in the Arc c in many ways, Government (e.g. Kleist 2010). as men oned earlier. The EU has adopted a central role in interna onal climate policy Or, the Communica on can be interpreted nego a ons and would like to see itself as a to mean that the EU has moved “to join the global leader in fi gh ng climate change. Thus scramble for the vast mineral riches of the it needs an ac ve Arc c policy, par cularly in Arc c being opened up by global warming” light of the Arc c´s central role in global clima- which could be a declara on of those resour- te change. From this point of view the EU can ces being able to “help stem anxiety about be interpreted to be “a global Arc c player” Europe’s energy security” (Traynor 2008). (as it is referred to in the Finnish Arc c Strate- Thus, the growing interest toward the Arc c gy). This would explain why all the three main will perhaps soon be refl ected in the EU ener- policy objec ves of the Communica on clear- gy policy, par cularly in terms of growing in- ly indicate that the EU would like to empha- terest toward the rich hydrocarbons of the size its ‘so ’ values and policy in the region. Arc c and northern seas, such as those of the Among those are increased stability and the Russian North and the Barents Sea region. preserva on of “the Arc c environment and Behind this interest towards energy is energy the need for sustainable use of resources”, all security, which together with climate change of which can be interpreted to be key priori- (and climate security) can be interpreted to es of the emerging EU arc c policy. cons tute a sort of dualism of the new security dimension of the EU (see European Com- Sixth, it is striking that the Northern Dimen- mission 2008). sion policy is not more emphasized in the Communica on. It is men oned briefl y (on Fourth, due to, or in spite of this, one might page 4), whereas in the Council Conclusions ask “why should the EU have an Arc c poli- of the Council mee ng in December 2009 the cy?”, or “what are the premises of the EU’s ND policy received greater a en on. Further- arc c policy?” According to the “Consolida- more, there are no real visible connec ons ted Versions of the Treaty on European Union between the EU’s ND policy and the emerging and the Treaty of the Func oning of the Eu- arc c policy, although the other par es of the ropean Union” the EU’s aims are: “to promo- ND - Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Greenland te peace, its values and the well-being of its - are among the Arc c states. Norway, Russia peoples”; it shall “off er its ci zens an area of and Greenland are also among the li oral sta- freedom, security and jus ce without internal tes of the Arc c Ocean, and Iceland and Nor- fron ers”; and”establish an internal market”; way among the EEA countries. The role of the and “an economic and monetary union (EMU) Common ND policy is promoted by the Gahler whose currency is the euro”. Since the Arc c Report, as men oned earlier. region is both stable and peaceful, these aims are of li le consequence. The last goal where However, what is most interes ng is that it is stated that “In its rela ons with the wider the Communica on includes a short para- world, the Union shall uphold and promo- graph on Greenland where it is expressed te its values and interests and contribute to that although Greenland is not a part of the the protec on of its ci zens” perhaps sheds EU territory de jure, it is “one of the Overse- a light on the main premise. The EU is fi rst of as Countries Territories (OCTs) associated to all an economic - and also poli cal - union. It the Community” (ibid, 12), and thus cons - is neither a federa on nor the United States tu onally dependent on an EU member state

Northern Research Forum 64

(Airoldi 2008, 94). The European Parliament’s report promotes this by men oning “an increased interest in the explora on and exploita on of resources in Greenland and its Con - nental shelf” (European Parliament 2010b, 6).

All this shows clearly the unique geopoli cal posi on Greenland has in (North) Europe and the en re Arc c. It is evident that the EU is perfectly aware of this and that it recognises the importance of Greenland. Consequently, the EU would like to increase its coopera on with Greenland and perhaps forge an even stronger rela onship.

Seventh, generally speaking the Communi- ca on can be seen as a response to and recogni on of environmental and geopoli cal changes. Furthermore, it can partly be seen as a response to the ‘race’ for natural resources in the Arc c region, or the rhetoric of a race, largely created and followed by misin- terpreta ons of the Russian expedi on to the bo om of the Arc c Ocean in summer 2007 (e.g. Heininen 2010b).

Finally, the Union “is aﬀ ected by Arc c policies and likewise has an impact on Arc c policies” through its northern member states and candidate countries (European Parliament 2010b, 7). In spite of this, the Communica on and the Council’s Conclusions along with the European Parliament’s Report clearly indicate that, the current situa on of being “inextricably linked to the Arc c region” is seen to weaken the Union and perceived to be a problem. Consequently, there is a perceived need for strengthening the Union’s posi on and presence in the High North, and the EU aims to become a real Arc c player.

Arc c strategies and policies 65

Northern Research Forum 66

consequently, interpreted as responses to the Comparative signifi cant and mul func onal change in the Arc c environment and northern geopoli cs. Study of the Arc- This is rather obvious in the cases of Canada, tic Strategies and Finland, Iceland, Sweden, the USA and the EU. The reasons for this range from the broad to State Policies the narrow: Security risks and threats to sovereignty because of poten al impacts of climate change are large factors in the Canadian Na onal strategies and state policies concern- Strategy as well as in the EU Communica on. ing the Arc c region and northern aff airs are Further, the growing global interests toward a clear manifesta on of the growing interest the Arc c region and its rich natural resources of the Arc c states toward their own north- lie at the core of the Finnish Strategy, which ernmost regions as well as the en re Arc c also refl ects the EU’s growing interest in the Region. The communica on of the European Arc c. Union shows the same level of interest. In the cases of The Kingdom of Denmark, The Arc c strategies and state policies also Norway and Russia there are other reasons as show a need for a special emphasis toward important or even more so: The new self-gov- arc c and other northern aff airs, and interna- erning status of Greenland as well as the fi rst onal coopera on in the Arc c, either to be ad-hoc mee ng of the fi ve li oral states pro- implemented by a strategy or policy. Further- vides a central focus in the Denmark/Green- more, these Arc c strategies and state poli- land’s Strategy. The Norwegian High North cies fall somewhere in between the classic, Strategy, however, is more independent and and the looser contemporary, defi ni ons of refl ects Norway’s new posi on in the Post- the word ‘strategy’: First, they mostly cover Cold War and the new Norwegian-Russian re- civilian fi elds of interna onal rela ons, such la onship in the Barents Sea region, empha- as economy and development, governance sizing closer bilateral coopera on between and environmental protec on, and scien fi c the two countries. Correspondingly, the coopera on. Some of them also cover the Russian State Policy is fi rst of all a pragma c military, or a sphere where military force is means for domes c poli cs of the Federa on. not en rely out of the picture but might also be used in a variety of more ‘peaceful’ ways, Fundamental to the emphasis of sovereignty such as for search and rescue; Second, a part and security “are two basic points of discus- of the policy challenge they address involves sion that are most o en referenced within calcula ng one’s posi on in rela on to other Arc c geopoli cs: that of confl ict and cooper- ‘powers’; Third, like earlier military strategies, a on” (e.g. Borlase 2010, 60-61). This is o en these documents are about mapping future the case when dealing with states and state uncertain es and preparing both guidelines interests, simply because ‘the state’ is (s ll) and instruments to deal with them; Fourth, the major (interna onal) actor of the interna- they are designed to mobilize, steer and co- onal system. Now the situa on is more com- ordinate the na onal communi es that they plex as there are other interna onal actors to cover; and Fi h, two features of these papers consider, such as indigenous peoples and in- strike a more modern note: a) the wide range terna onal non-governmental organiza ons. of the substan ve issues they cover, and b) One of the special features of the post-Cold their role as public documents (Bailes and War Arc c has been that although the state Heininen, forth-coming). is s ll the main interna onal actor and centre of a en on – these are strategies and poli- Furthermore, the na onal strategies and cies of states - northern indigenous peoples state policies as well as the EU Communica- have also emerged as interna onal actors. on can be seen as refl ec ons of the recent They are now represented in interna onal co- changing condi ons in the Arc c region in opera on through their interna onal organi- general, and / or dealing with the state, and za ons, as the permanent par cipants of the

Arc c strategies and policies 67

Arc c Council include six such organiza ons. the major factors include those of the increasing strategic sig- Further, a common feature in the strategies nifi cance of the area and the and state policies is that the Arc c states as growing interest in mul lat- well as the EU either would like to become a eral coopera on. However, the natural or real, even leading, actor / player ‘northern feeling’ has tended in the Arc c (or in some fi eld of northern af- to come and go in waves.” fairs), or would like to maintain a leading role (Heininen 1992, 36) there (see Table 6). Further, in the classifi ca on of the 1992 study Finally, what, however, is surprising in these on na onal approaches to the Arc c there strategies and state policies is a lack of world- are “two countries which most evidently wide or global perspec ve(s), not explicitly meet the criteria of Arc c states” i.e. Canada men oned in most of the strategies. Par cu- and Norway and which had “an explicit Arc c larly so in a me and world of globaliza on, policy” (ibid, 36). or when considering the strategic role of the Arc c Region and Northern issues in world One of the main conclusions of the 1997 poli cs and the globalized world economy, as study was that all the Arc c states “have vest- is men oned in the introduc on54. That said, ed their na onal interests in the North, i.e. unlike most of the strategies, the Strategy either a northern dimension, or even their for Denmark/Greenland does recognise that own northern policy” including “na onal ap- “Poli cal globaliza on” is a reality which “re- proaches to issues related to the Arc c region quires a comprehensive strategy for eff ec ve and northern aff airs in the following fi elds: representa on of interests“(Namminersorne ‘Arc c ambience and iden ty, sovereignty rullu k Oqartussat and Udenrigsministeriet and security, indigenous peoples, natural re- 2008, 7). Furthermore, the Finnish Strategy sources and research” (Heininen 1997, 219)56. describes the Arc c as having new poten al which stresses its strategic importance and In this sec on I discuss and compare the re- global signifi cance (Prime Minister’s Offi ce cent Arc c strategies and state policies, their 2010, 9-10 and 14-15). priori es and main objec ves, followed by a brief conclusion57. I will begin by (re)posi on- Comparing this to the situa on in the 1990s ing and (re)defi ning the Arc c states. as regards internal and foreign policies of the Arc c states there has been a clear shi to- (Re) construcƟ ng, (re) defi ning ward the Arc c or the North in general. My previous study on, and analysis of, na onal and (re) mapping approaches and policies of the Arc c coun- 55 tries in the region in the period between the The strategies and state policies show the 1980s-1990s revealed that although certain need and interest of each Arc c state, and knowledge existed there was barely a com- the European Union, to on one hand (re)posi- mon understanding that the Arc c eight con- on and (re)defi ne itself as an Arc c or Nort- sisted of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, hern country or na on On the other hand, to Norway, Russia (the Soviet Union at the me), (re)construct its internal and foreign policies Sweden and the United States, although dealing with Arc c or northern aff airs as well as (re)map the Arc c region (also Dahl 2010, “[A]ll these countries have 34). Consequently, Arc c states (re)defi ne or vested interests in the Arc c re- (re)map their northernmost regions and wa- gion and correspondingly their ters as a part of the en re Arc c region and own Arc c policies, in which interna onal Arc c coopera on.

56 In the study a northern dimension meant “na onal aspects and 54 See also Globaliza on and the Circumpolar North, edited by ac vi es in the North and/or dealing with the North, and a northern Lassi Heininen and Chris Southco , University of Alaska Press, Fair- policy [meant] a na onal strategy toward the North” and/or to gain banks 2010. something there (Heininen 1997, 243).

55 The Soviet Union and the USA as the global major nuclear 57 A deeper, more detailed analysis is underway in a forth-coming powers of the Cold War were excluded in the 1992 study. paper by Bailes and Heininen.

Northern Research Forum 68

northern, but also arc c, dimension59. This is refl ected in the way in which each state / na on iden fi es itself as an Arc c or North- Iceland is “the only country located en rely ern country or na on (or major player, or within the Arc c region” according to the leading power in the Arc c). For some states Icelandic Report. In addi on to this, Iceland it is the fi rst me they iden fy themselves in is primarily a northern marine na on - in be- such a way, such as in the case of Finland, an tween Europe and North America - largely de- “Arc c country” or the US, an “Arc c na on”. pendent for its survival on the resources from The eight Arc c states iden fy themselves as the surrounding seas (ibid, 221). follows: (see also Table 6):58 Norway is a “leading na on as regards envi- According to its 2009 Northern Strategy Can- ronmental policy and…as a steward of the nat- ada is a “Northern country” and “the global ural and cultural heritage in the High North”. leader in Arc c science, and “the North is Furthermore, there is a “[G]rowing recogni- central to the Canadian na onal iden ty”. on of the importance of the High North for There is nothing new in this since Canada has Norway as a whole” according to the Govern- been “an arc c state, a mul cultural society, ment’s High North Strategy. Indeed, Norway a consciously northern na on” although the has always had important na onal interests images of “northern homeland and north- in the North (those of security, economic de- ern fron er” when it comes to the Canadian velopment and regional coopera on) since North may be seen as represen ng two diff er- the North is and historically has been “a natu- ent northern solitudes (Penike 1997). ral direc on, important and sensi ve for Nor- way” (ibid, 221). The joint (dra ) Strategy of The Kingdom of Denmark has the objec ve of maintaining According to its State Policy in the Arc c the “the Kingdom [of Denmark]’s posi on as a Russian Federa on would like to “maintain major player in the Arc c”. Correspondingly, the role of a leading Arc c power”. Indeed, the Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy for the the geographical and geopoli cal fact that Arc c 2011-2020 has the aim “to strengthen the Federa on owns and controls the rimland the Kingdom’s status as global player in the of the Eurasian North - almost a half of the Arc c” (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2011, 11). coastal area of the Arc c Ocean - makes Rus- Thus, Denmark has its current interests in the sia very much a northern and Arc c country. North, but even more so it has had historically The end of the Cold War meant an end to the its interests there through the ‘overseas terri- costly arms race and the collapse of the So- tory’, i.e. Greenland (Heininen 1997, 220). viet Union - which modernized, industrialized and militarized the Russian North for decades The Finnish Strategy defi nes Finland as an -, drama cally decreased state funding of “Arc c country“ and “a natural actor in the infrastructure and se lements in the North. Arc c region”. Although Finland is a Nordic This became problema c for Moscow for a country with its own northern iden ty “the while, but never meant that Russia would North has been a rather delicate issue for lose its interest in the Arc c, a real asset for Finland, both in foreign policy and in domes- Russia in the future. c terms”. This includes on one hand strong ambi ons and eff orts to emerge as a major Correspondingly, the Swedish Strategy clearly power in the European North, and on the points out that there are many es which other hand, periods in which it has appeared con nue to link Sweden to the Arc c, histori- to lose interest (ibid, 220-221). At the early- cal, security-poli cal, economic, climate and 21st century, in an emerging Arc c Age the environmental, scien fi c and cultural ones. situa on might be changing so that Finland’s self-percep on naturally includes not only a Based on the current US Arc c Region Policy

59 As an example of this, the Finnish know-how, also introduced by the Finnish Arc c Strategy, was adver sed as a new brand, the ‘Finnish snow-how’ meaning the eﬃ ciency of the Helsinki-Vantaa Airport as well as that of the City of Helsinki to clean the masses of snow in 58 All the quota ons are referred from the strategies and state winters (e.g. the winter of 2010-11) within a short meframe (e.g. HS policies. and 9.1.2011. A15).

Arc c strategies and policies 69

the USA is an “Arc c na on”. Indeed, the The USA: The Arc c represents ”a matrix of United States of (North) America is an Arc c issues” for the USA. state because of Alaska which was bought from Russia in the 19th century. However, in the 1980s, and perhaps to some extent a bit Summary of prioriƟ es, priority later, there was a general a tude that “most Americans do not think of Alaska as a part of areas and objecƟ ves the United States in the same way that they think of dis nc ve geographical regions of In this sec on I will begin with a brief summa- other states”, rather it remains a remote, fro- ry of the (strategic) priori es / priority -areas zen desert (Roederer 1990, 15). and policy objec ves of the Arc c strategies and state policies. Based on these it is possi- What is interes ng, though not par cularly ble to iden fy and defi ne which might be the surprising, is that almost all the strategies and most proper indicators to be used for a com- policies include a defi ni on of the region, i.e. para ve study of the strategies and state poli- how the region – the Arc c, or the circumpo- cies as well as their priori es and objec ves. lar North, or the High North (in the case of Norway) - is defi ned by each state. The docu- The priority areas of Canada’s Northern Strat- ments include the following kinds of defi ni- egy are: ons: 1) Exercising our Arc c sovereignty; Canada: “Own North” is Canada’s Far North, 2) Promo ng social and economic devel- and “Canada’s North is about people”; opment; 3) Protec ng the North’s environmental The Kingdom of Denmark: “The Arc c in re- heritage; and cent years becomes a central loca on on the 4) Improving and devolving northern gov- world map”, and “One of the most signifi cant ernance global issues over the past 10 years is the vast changes in the Arc c region... The Arc c and The joint dra strategy of Denmark and the global community are presented with Greenland “contains a series of objec ves, both new challenges and new opportuni es.” which is twofold: (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2011, 9); 1) Suppor ng and strengthening Green- Finland: “The Arc c Region can be defi ned us- land’s development towards increased ing various criteria, e.g. the Arc c Circle”; autonomy; and 2) Maintaining the Commonwealth’s posi- Iceland: The country is located “on the pe- on as a major player in the Arc c” riphery of the Arc c in the center of the North Atlan c Ocean” Correspondingly, the strategic priori es of The Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy for the Norway: The High North means “the Barents Arc c 2011-2020 can be interpreted to be: Sea and the surrounding areas” including 1) A peaceful, secure and safe Arc c; Svalbard, though it is described as a “broad concept both geographically and poli cally… 2) Self-sustaining growth and develop- broader than Northern Norway and Svalbard ment; since Norway has major interests to safe- 3) Development with respect for the Arc- guard in a greater region”; c’s fragile climate, environment and nature; and Sweden: There are several defi ni ons of the 4) Close coopera on with interna onal Arc c, such as the Arc c Ocean (and its fi ve li oral states) and the (eight) Arc c states; partners.

The Russian Federa on: To be consisted of Finland’s Strategy for the Arc c Region de- the ﬁ ve li oral states of the Arc c Ocean; ﬁ nes the country’s objec ves in the following

Northern Research Forum 70

substan al sectors: the basis of norms of interna onal law; 1) The environment; 2) To create a uniform Arc c search and 2) Economic ac vi es and know-how; rescue regime and preven on of man- 3) Transport and infrastructure; and caused accidents; 4) Indigenous peoples. 3) To strengthen bilateral rela onships within the framework of regional organi- In addi on, there is a list of means for the dif- za ons, such as the Arc c Council and the ferent levels with which to reach policy goals Barents Euro-Arc c Council; as well as proposals for further measures. 4) To assist in the organiza on, manage- The six highlights of Iceland’s posi on in the ment and eff ec ve use of cross-polar air Arc c are: routes and the Northern Sea Route for in- 1) Interna onal coopera on; terna onal naviga on; 2) Security (through interna onal coop- 5) To ac vely contribute to interna onal era on); Arc c forums through the Russia-Europe- 3) Resource development and environ- an Union partnerships; mental protec on; 6) To delimit mari me spaces in the Arc c 4) Transporta on; Ocean and maintain a mutually advanta- 5) People and cultures; and geous presence of Russia in the Spitsber- 6) Research and monitoring gen archipelago; 7) To improve state management of the The revised and advanced strategic priori es social and economic development of the areas of the Norwegian High North Strategy Arc c, such as to increase support for sci- (based on the 2009 version) are: en fi c research; 1) To develop knowledge about climate 8) To improve the quality of life for indig- change and the environment in the High enous peoples and their social and eco- North; nomic ac vi es; 2) To improve monitoring, emergency 9) To develop the Arc c resource base (and oil spill) response and mari me safe- through improved technological capability systems in northern waters; es; and 3) To promote sustainable use (and busi- 10) To modernize and develop the infra- ness ac vi es) of off -shore petroleum and structure of the Arc c transport system renewable marine resources; and fi sheries in the Russian Arc c 4) To promote on-shore business (and industry) development in the North; Sweden’s Strategy for the Arc c Region par- 5) To further-develop the infrastructure in cularly concerns the following three areas, the North; which it defi nes as the Swedish priori es: 6) To con nue to exercise sovereignty 1) Climate and the environment; fi rmly and strengthen cross-border coop- 2) Economic development; and era on (with Russia) in the North; and 3) The human dimension. 7) To safeguard the cultures and livelihoods of indigenous peoples. The strategy and policy objec ves / priority areas of the United States’ Arc c Policy are: The strategic priori es of the Russian State 1) Na onal security and homeland se- policy in the Arc c are: curity; 1) To carry out an ac ve interac on of 2) Interna onal governance; Russia with the sub-Arc c states with a 3) Extended con nental shelf and view of delimita on of mari me areas on boundary issues;

Arc c strategies and policies 71

4) Promo ng interna onal scien fi c co- ing rescue and safety); opera on; 8) peoples (including indigenous peoples); 5) Mari me transporta on; 9) science (including scien fi c research 6) Economic issues, including energy; and coopera on, and knowledge) (see and Table 7); and fi nally 7) Environmental protec on and conser- 10) interna onal coopera on (see Table va on of natural resources 9).

The main policy objec ves of the EU Com- 1) Sovereignty and na onal security munica on on the European Union and the Arc c Region are: The fi rst indicator, “Sovereignty and na onal 1) Protec ng and preserving the Arc c security” includes state sovereignty (or au- environment and its popula on; tonomy)- territorial and mari me (spaces) 2) Promo ng sustainable use of resourc- sovereignty -, and na onal (or homeland) security, security/military-policy and defence. es; and 3) Contribu ng to enhanced Arc c mul - Briefl y stated, sovereignty and na onal se- lateral governance curity are among the strategic priori es, or priority areas, of all fi ve li oral states of the Arc c Ocean. This is not so for Finland, Ice- ComparaƟ ve study of prioriƟ es land and Sweden. The Swedish Strategy, for / priority areas and objecƟ ves example, only men ons security as that of Sweden having been infl uenced by Arc c de- Based on the (strategic) priori es / priority ar- velopments for a long me. eas, substan al sectors and policy objec ves of the strategies and state policies - published In the case of Canada and the USA it is the pri- or emerging - it is possible to paint a holis- mary priority. The Canadian Strategy claims c picture of the primary (na onal) interests that in spite of exis ng disputes with the USA and policy objec ves of the Arc c states, as Canada’s sovereignty over its Arc c lands and well as the European Union. Furthermore, it islands is “undisputed” and Canada’s fi rst is possible to gain a general understanding of priority will be to “seek to resolve bound- the poten ally most important and relevant ary issues in the Arc c region” (Government issues in the Arc c region in the early-21st of Canada 2010, 6). Correspondingly, the US century in the context of state poli cs. Arc c Policy reaffi rms its stance on the North- west Passage and its recogni on as an inter- Here I have defi ned ten inwards and out- na onal strait by sta ng that “Freedom of wards-oriented indicators which I have used the seas is a top na onal priority” (The White in a comparison of the strategies and policies. House 2009, 3). These are the following ones: 1) sovereignty and na onal security (in- Furthermore, the strategic importance of sov- cluding security/military-policy and de- ereignty and na onal security is manifested fence); by implementa on of defence and strengthening of military presence and control in 2) comprehensive security; the Arc c, as Canada states. Consequently, 3) economic development (including u - Canada’s fi rst priority includes strengthening liza on of natural resources and energy); of Canada’s military presence in the North 4) regional development and infrastruc- for example, by establishing an Army Train- ture; ing Centre in Resolute Bay and expanding the 5) transporta on; capabili es of the Canadian Rangers (Govern- ment of Canada 2010, 10). Or, projec ng sea 6) the environment (including environ- power through the region, as the USA does mental protec on); by preserving “the global mobility of United 7) governance and management (includ- States military and civilian vessels and air-

Northern Research Forum 72

cra ” (The White House 2009, 3). and increased stability in Post-Cold War Bar- Correspondingly, the Russian State policy ents Sea region and then second, the benefi t states that the Arc c is also “the sphere of the country’s economy. of military security” (including crea on of groupings of army forces, protec on and 2) Comprehensive security control of state borders) to the Russian Fed- era on, which is one of the basic objec ves Followed from and contrary to the fi rst in- of the state policy in the Arc c. At the same dicator, “Comprehensive security” includes me, one of the strategic priori es of the Rus- human and environmental (and climate) se- sian State Policy is interna onal coopera on curity. “within the framework of regional organiza- ons”. Also the Danish/Greenlandic Strategy Briefl y stated, compara ve security is a start- includes the aspect of defence under both ing point in the Arc c strategies of Finland, sovereignty (“Defence authori es in Green- Iceland and Sweden, since these strategies - land”) and Home Rule Government (“Upgrad- as well as the EU Communica on - emphasize ing of the Thule Radar”) (Namminersornerul- neither (state) sovereignty nor na onal secu- lu k Oqartussat, Udenrigsministeriet 2008, rity / defence. On the contrary they stress the 10 and 12). importance of interna onal and mul lateral coopera on. For Sweden, for example, it is The Norwegian High North Strategy is rather the main priority. Furthermore, they empha- mul -func onal when dealing with sover- size the use of interna onal trea es in an Arc- eignty and defence: On one hand, it states c where the likelihood of a military confron- that presence of armed forces as well as po- ta on or armed confl ict is very low. This is in lice and prosecu ng authori es is impera ve line with the no on that poli cal stability as to the priority of the exercise of authority, well as economic, environmental and poli cal or “sovereignty fi rmly”, and consequently, it security can be best maintained and fostered men ons, though not emphasizes, defence, through coopera on across na onal borders i.e. the role of the Norwegian Armed Forces (e.g. Heininen 2004, 207). in the North; interes ngly this chapter is a er that of “Coopera on with Russia” (Norwe- Correspondingly, this is also a good - or may- gian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2006, 17-20). be the best - way to guarantee na onal secu- On the other hand, it emphasizes developing rity (without warfare). of border control and civilian border surveillance, increasing of coast guard ac vi es, Indeed, these strategies also emphasize com- and strengthening of (bilateral) competence- prehensive security, for example by promot- building and cultural coopera on and “good ing “safety in the wide sense” (Prime Minis- neighbourly rela ons” with Russia (Norwe- ter’s Offi ce 2010, 10), or “the Arc c will stay gian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2009, 37-42 as a region of low security-poli cal tension” and 54-57). (Regeringskansliet, Sverige 2011, 2). Conse- quently, the Icelandic Report explicitly men- There are, however, also more sophis cated ons security emphasizing environmental pictures among those who emphasize the im- security and response measures against ac- portance of sovereignty and na onal security: cidents and environmental emergencies. Fi- For example, Canada’s priority area on sover- nally, the EU emphasizes its ‘so ’ values and eignty is said to include human dimension. policy in the Arc c. The Strategy of Denmark/Greenland makes a linkage between the importance of secu- 3) Economic development rity and for protec ng the economic base of Greenland’s economy. Furthermore, the Nor- The third indicator “Economic development” wegian Strategy states that climate change includes the u liza on of natural resources, has an impact on the security of countries explora on of energy resources, tourism and and peoples, and includes energy as a part of other economic ac vi es as well as knowl- security policy. This is in line with the primary edge and relevant know-how. goals of Norway’s High North policy; fi rst the strengthening of its coopera on with Russia

Arc c strategies and policies 73

As a brief summary, economic development able”. Further, the EU Communica on speaks is among the main priori es or key objec ves of “Promo ng sustainable use of resources” of all the states in ques on, as well as the EU. with exploita on of Arc c off shore hydrocar- Generally this refers to exploita on of natu- bons “provided in full respect of strict envi- ral resources, both renewable resources such ronmental standards taking into account the as fi sheries and marine mammals and non- par cular vulnerability of the Arc c”, and that renewable ones, par cularly fossil energy Arc c fi sheries should take place “at sustain- resources, and diff erent kinds of economic able levels whilst respec ng the rights of lo- ac vi es in, and dealing with, the Arc c. cal coastal communi es” (Commission of the European Communi es 2008, 7). For example, both strategies of The Kingdom of Denmark has a strong emphasis on (new) 4) Regional development and infrastructure industrial ac vi es in addi on to fi sheries, such as hydropower, mining, tourism, oil ex- Economic development and ac vi es mostly plora on, and other minerals and energy do - or should - include regional economic resources which are viewed as cri cal to de- development and improvement of regional velopment in Greenland. Finland would like infrastructure. Regional development is, how- to improve the opportuni es of Finnish com- ever, referred to in diff erent ways in the strat- panies to benefi t from their arc c exper se egies and state policies and thus it is treated and know-how in the large and mega-projects here as a separate indicator. of the Barents Region. Norway is very ac vely engaged in ac vi es of oil and natural gas In the Canadian Strategy they speak of “pro- drilling and (re)defi nes the High North as a mo ng social and economic development” “new petroleum province”. Through its new and “improving self-suffi ciency and the health State Policy Russia would like to “develop the of northern communi es”; Russia intends “to Arc c resource base through improved tech- modernize and develop the infrastructure of nological capabili es”. Finally, for Sweden the Arc c transport system and fi sheries in economic development is to some extent a the Russian Arc c”. top priority. Concerning regional policy and regionalism A more comprehensive and sophis cated the Icelandic Report emphasizes the role of method would be to link the environment Akureyri, par cularly the importance of the and resources, including their u liza on. This University of Akureyri. Correspondingly, in ad- linkage can be found in the Icelandic Report di on to Svalbard - which has a special status which emphasizes “sustainable” and “long- and role due to its unique posi on in, and ac- term economic” development, par cularly in cess to, the Arc c - the Norwegian High North terms of ensuring their full share in sustain- Strategy men ons a few important northern able fi sheries. Norway intends to be the best universi es and towns in North Norway, such steward of environmental and natural re- as the University of Tromsö and other knowl- sources in the High North. High environmen- edge-based ins tu ons in Tromsö, Kirkenes tal standards will be set for all exploita on of (including the Interna onal and Norwegian natural resources with a par cular emphasis Barents secretariats) and the university col- on the protec on of “vulnerable areas against leges of Narvik and Bodö. nega ve environmental pressures and impacts” (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 5) Transporta on 2006, 45). The fi h indicator, “Transporta on” generally Indeed, in many cases the rhetoric gener- refers to naviga on, shipping and mari me , ally indicates that economic development, in- transporta on, but also air transport and avi- cluding ac vi es, means “sustainable use” of a on, and regional avia on networks. natural resources: For example, the Danish/ Greenlandic strategy speaks of “protec on To summarise briefl y, transporta on, largely and sustainable use of natural resources” and, in terms of mari me shipping and transport, the US Policy of “environmentally sustain- is among the priori es or objec ves of the

Northern Research Forum 74

strategies and policies of Finland, Iceland, versity as well as research on climate and the Russia and the USA. Less so in those of Can- environment. ada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Sweden and the EU. For example, one of the prior- The dra Denmark/Greenland Strategy in- ity areas of the US Arc c Policy is mari me cludes “Protec on and sustainable use of transporta on “to facilitate safe, secure, and natural resources” with a concentra on of reliable naviga on”, and to protect mari me management and effi cient use of resources. commerce and the environment. The Final Strategy of the Kingdom goes further and includes the Arc c’s vulnerable cli- Correspondingly, the island-state of Iceland mate, environment and nature as a strategic has a par cularly strong emphasis on shipping priority for example, by pursuing ambi ous and northern sea routes, such as trans-arc c knowledge building on climate change in the routes, but also on avia on. Russia, similarly Arc c to Iceland, emphasizes “management and ef- fec ve use of cross-polar air routes and the Interes ngly, the Norwegian and Swedish Northern Sea Route for interna onal naviga- strategies are the ones where climate change on”. is explicitly men oned in the priori es (though in the case of Sweden it is “climate”). 6) Environment Environment and climate change is however the main sub-theme under a main policy ob- Here the environment includes several as- jec ve in the EU Communica on “to prevent pects: fi rst, environmental protec on and and mi gate the nega ve impacts of climate conserva on, and protec ng or preserving change as well as to support adapta on to environmental heritage; second, climate inevitable changes”, (Commission of the Eu- change and its impacts; third, knowledge ropean Communi es 2008, 3). about the environment and climate change; and fi nally, interna onal coopera on for envi- The Finnish Strategy emphasizes special at- ronmental protec on and on climate change. ten on “to measures that would support the adapta on of livelihoods dependent on To summarise briefl y, the environment is ei- the Arc c environment” and aims to support ther explicitly men oned as a priority or pri- the development of regional climate models ority area in most of the strategies and poli- (along with monitoring of the environment) cies, or one of the basic objec ves. In some “as the basis for decision-making” (Prime Min- strategies the environment / environmental ister’s Offi ce 2010, 13-15). The US State Policy protec on is a priority (area) per se, such as says that “[H]igh levels of uncertainty remain “The Environment” in the Finnish Strategy, concerning the eff ects of climate change and and “Climate and the Environment” in the increased human ac vity in the Arc c. Given Swedish one. Meanwhile, in some it is one of the need for decisions to be based on sound the policy objec ves, such as “Environmental scien fi c and socioeconomic informa on” protec on and conserva on of natural re- (The White House 2009, 9). Correspondingly, sources” in the US State Policy. Correspond- in the chapter on energy and minerals of the ingly, in some strategies the environment / Denmark/Greenland’s Strategy it is said that environmental protec on is linked with re- climate change “will increase accessibility and source use or development. This is the case opportuni es for explora on” (Namminer- in the Icelandic Report where environmen- sornerullu k Oqartussat, Udenrigsministeriet tal protec on has been linked with resource 2008, 22-23). The Icelandic Report refers to development. Furthermore, the fi rst priority the new shipping routes which are expected area of the revised 2009 Norwegian Strat- to be open as a result of decreasing ice. egy is “Developing knowledge about climate change and the environment in the High Finally, it is interes ng to note that the Arc c North” including the development of a centre Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report is for climate and environmental studies (Nor- men oned in most of the strategies, (except wegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2009, 8). in those of Russia, Sweden and the USA. Correspondingly, Sweden emphasizes biodi-

Arc c strategies and policies 75

7) Governance and management or “Popula on” (or “The human dimension”) are explicitly men oned among the priori es Here “Governance and management” in- or objec ves of the strategies and policies of cludes on one hand, concern and measures Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and for management of resources, establishing the EU. In the cases of Finland, Norway and rules for development, and improving and Russia (only) indigenous peoples are explic- devolving northern governance. On the other itly men oned. Finland, for example would hand, it includes safety and rescue, i.e. safety like to ensure their par cipa on when deal- in naviga on and preparedness, response ing with their own aff airs and decisions that and rescue measures in the case of air or aff ect them. If the Danish/Greenlandic joint mari me accidents. Strategy uses the tle of “Original Peoples of the Arc c”, the fi nal 2011 Strategy empha- To summarise briefl y, governance - and man- sizes arc c coopera on on human health and agement of resources - is among, or inte- social coherence (Ministry of Foreign Aff airs grated in, the main priori es and / or objec- 2011, 40) ves of all the strategies or policies, though explicitly men oned in the cases of Canada, Iceland and Sweden as well as the EU, how- Iceland, Norway, Russia, the USA and the EU. ever, refer to people (and cultures) in general This is most probably because governance terms; Sweden frames it in terms of “The can be understood to mean almost every- human dimension” including people (of the thing dealing with the environment and natu- region) and their living condi ons; and in ral resources such as environmental protec- Iceland there are no aboriginal peoples. Fi- on and / or management of resources. nally, in the Norwegian Strategy and the EU Communica on both indigenous peoples and Safety and rescue is explicitly men oned the popula on of the region are men oned, in the strategies of Iceland, Denmark, Nor- though indigenous peoples are emphasised. way and Russia, and the Finnish and Swed- ish strategies refer to the need for mari me It is important to note that the rest of the strat- security and safety, and safe naviga on. The egies and state policies include the human 2009 Norwegian Strategy es monitoring and aspect in terms of people (s) although they emergency response to oil spills in with mari- have not been explicitly referred to in the prime safety systems in northern waters. The ori es or policy objec ves. For example, the Russian State Policy adopts a comprehensive Canadian 2009 Strategy states that “Canada’s approach by aiming to create “a uniform Arc- North is “fi rst and foremost about people – c search and rescue regime and preven on the Inuit...” (Government of Canada 2009, 3), of man-caused accidents”. and in the 2010 Statement “Empowering the Peoples of the North” is included among the 8) Peoples priori es. The other objec ves of the Dan- ish/Greenlandic strategy is strengthening of The eighth indicator “Peoples” includes all Greenland’s increased autonomy, which is all the residents of the Arc c region and their about the people of the island, primarily the communi es, mostly emphasizing indigenous Inuit. The Arc c indigenous communi es are peoples. One of the special features of the also men oned as one of the targets of the post-Cold War Arc c - though the state is s ll US State Policy. the main interna onal actor and the centre of a en on - is how northern indigenous 9) Science peoples have emerged as interna onal actors and are represented in interna onal co- “Science” here includes fi rst, science and opera on through their own (interna onal) scien fi c research; second, technology and organiza ons. For example, the permanent know-how; third, higher educa on; fourth, par cipants of the Arc c Council include six knowledge in general, and fi nally, interna o- such organiza ons. nal coopera on on research, monitoring and higher educa on, such as through the Inter- To summarise briefl y, “(Indigenous) Peoples”, na onal Polar Year (IPY).

Northern Research Forum 76

To summarise briefl y, science is explicitly the Arc c states at that me, today the case men oned as a priority in the Iceland Report: is quite diff erent. “Research and monitoring”, the Norwegian High North Strategy: “To develop knowledge The main conclusion is, however, that there about climate change”, in the Russian State are many commonali es between the current Policy: “To develop the Arc c resource base list of indicators on the priori es and objec- through improved technological capabili es”, ves of na onal strategies and state policies, and in the US State Policy: “Promo ng inter- and the previous one of na onal interests na onal scien fi c coopera on”. and agendas. Based on my studies (Heininen 1992 and 1997) all the previous indicators are It is either as one of the main objec ves in included in the current list, i.e. sovereignty the remaining strategies, or in some cases ot- (the fi ve li oral states); security-policy (all herwise implicitly integrated. For example, in Arc c states); economic development (all Arc- the men oned ac vi es of the 2009 Canadi- c states, excluding perhaps Sweden); the en- an Strategy “Arc c Science and Interna onal vironment / environmental protec on (Cana- Polar Year (IPY)” is connected with the key pri- da (esp. the AWPPA), Finland (esp. the AEPS), ority areas of climate change, and health and Iceland (e.g. nuclear safety) and Russia (due well-being. The Norwegian High North Stra- to the ini a ves by President Gorbachev)); tegy includes science and educa on, par - indigenous peoples (Canada, Denmark (The cularly meaning development of “knowledge Home Rule Government of Greenland) and about climate change and the environment”. Norway (the Alta case)); and science (Canada, Norway, Russia, Sweden (e.g. the voyage of The second sec on of the Finnish Strategy YMER) and the USA (see also Table 8)). includes research, i.e. “technology-based exper se” and “know-how” with objec ves In addi on to these, at the early-21st century such as to strengthen Finland’s role as an in- there are more and new fi elds of ac vi es, terna onal expert on arc c issues and make and thus, the whole picture of na onal inter- be er use of Finnish technology-based ex- ests is more sophis cated. per se of winter shipping and transport, and ship-building. One of the priori es of the InternaƟ onal CooperaƟ on Russian State Policy is “technological capabili es” which includes technology-based ex- As the last indicator of the study, there is per se. Finally, the Swedish Strategy includes “Interna onal Coopera on”. It includes in- research on climate and the environment as terna onal – both mul lateral and bilateral one of the sub-priori es under “Climate and - coopera on in general, and par cularly co- the Environment”. opera on within intergovernmental organiza ons (IGOs) with world-wide perspec ves, Another interes ng note is that the Arc c Hu- such as the UNs and the IMO, and within man Development Report (AHDR) – the result IGOs with regional perspec ves, such as the of interna onal scien fi c coopera on, like the AC, the EU, and fi nally, within IGOs with sub- ACIA report - is men oned in the strategies of regional approaches, such as the NCMs and Canada, Denmark/Greenland and Iceland. the BEAC.

The intergovernmental organiza ons (IGOs) A comparison of these priori es / priority and other interna onal bodies men oned, or areas and policy objec ves, to the situa on priori sed, in each strategy and state policy at the turn of the 1980s-1990s and the early- are the following ones (see Table 9): 1990s - emphasising and implemen ng na- onal interests of the Arc c states a er the Canada: end of the Cold War - is not en rely valid, since in the early-1990s only Canada and Nor- Canada’s Northern Strategy has a strong em- way had some sort of an explicit Arc c policy. phasis on interna onal coopera on at dif- Whereas there were no clear priori es or pri- ferent levels and with several interna onal ority areas and policy objec ves deﬁ ned by organiza ons and partners, and it is further

Arc c strategies and policies 77

promoted by the Statement on Canada’s Arc- ac vi es in the Arc c” (Prime Minister’s Of- c Foreign Policy. On one hand, the Arc c fi ce 2010, 10). Consequently, the most im- Council is emphasized as the major venue and portant intergovernmental organiza ons, or forum for a mul lateral policy dialogue, and “Arc c Policy Tools”, are the United Na ons, on the other hand, the “Arc c Ocean Foreign par cularly the UNCLOS but also the Interna- Ministers’ mee ng” is men oned with the onal Labour Organiza on’s Indigenous and no on that it “needs to be strengthened to Tribal Peoples Conven on 169 (though Fin- ensure that it is equipped to address tomor- land has not (yet) ra fi ed it), the Interna onal row’s challenges” (Government of Canada Mari me Organisa on (IMO) at a global level, 2010, 24). In bilateral coopera on Canada and the Arc c Council “as the primary coop- priori ses its Arc c partners, par cularly era on forum on Arc c ma ers” (ibid, 37) - the USA (e.g. the North American Aerospace though it should be strengthened in various Defence Command, NORAD), Russia and the ways -, the Barents Euro-Arc c Council (BEAC) Nordic countries, and UK as a non-Arc c and its Regional Council, and the NCMs at a state. Among the global IGOs are the United regional level, and bilateral coopera on with Na ons and its CLOS as well as its Framework Norway and Russia. Finally, as men oned Conven on on Climate Change, and the IMO; earlier there is a special emphasis on the Eu- among regional bodies NATO, OSCE and EFTA, ropean Union “as a global Arc c player”, and and the ICC represen ng the Inuit. the EU’s Northern Dimension “as a tool in the European Union’s Arc c Policy” (ibid, 48). The Kingdom of Denmark: Iceland: Denmark/Greenland’s (dra ) Strategy emphasizes the fact that Denmark/Greenland Interna onal coopera on, par cularly with hosted the Arc c or Polar Sea Conference in neighbouring countries within the Arc c re- Ilulissat in May of 2008. The role of the Arc- gion, is one of the highlights or priority areas c Council is emphasised but also cri cized. of the Icelandic Report. The Arc c Council The strategic importance of NATO and the and its working groups, and BEAC, are par- Danish-US, or Danish-Greenlandic-US coop- cularly men oned as important venues for era on for sovereignty and defence is empha- coopera on. The Nordic coopera on, par- sized; interes ngly this trilateral coopera on cularly West-Norden, and the EU’s North- also covers other fi elds, such as culture and ern Dimension are also men oned. Concern- educa on. Other organiza ons are the EU’s ing security and mari me safety (the) IMO Northern Dimension and its Arc c Window, is men oned. Also referred to are NASCO, in general coopera on with the EU, and the NAMMCO, NAFO and NEAFC in the context of Nordic coopera on at a regional level, and the fi shery and other resource development. Un- UNCLOS at a global level. Finally, the Strategy der “People and culture” the six indigenous men ons coopera on between indigenous peoples’ organiza ons are men oned, i.e. the peoples within the United Na ons and its Hu- Permanent Par cipants of the Arc c Council, man Rights Council at a global level, for ex- as well as the Northern Forum and the BEAC ample, to establish a Permanent Forum for and its Regional Council. Important partners Indigenous Peoples Aff airs, and at a regional in interna onal coopera on on research and level the AC as well as the Arc c Environmen- monitoring include the ICSU and the WMO, tal Protec on Strategy (AEPS). The Kingdom’s par cularly dealing with the IPY, the IASC, the fi nal Strategy also men ons IMO, NAMMCO, IASSA - and fi nally - the University of the Arc- NAFO and NEAFC, and Interna onal Whaling c, and the Northern Research Forum (NRF). Commission (IWC) as well as the NCMs and the Nordic Atlan c Coopera on (NORA). Norway:

Finland: The two last main poli cal priori es of the Norwegian 2006 High North Strategy are The Finnish Strategy clearly states that “[I] ﬁ rst, to “further develop people-to-people nterna onal coopera on and interna onal coopera on in the High North”, and second, trea es also lay the founda on for Finland’s to “strengthen our coopera on with Rus-

Northern Research Forum 78

sia” and increase Russia’s engagement. This fi ve li oral states of the Arc c Ocean, and the is followed-up by the 2009 Strategy with an Saami coopera on, par cularly that within aim to further develop border control (in the the Saami Parlamentary Council. Norwegian-Russian border) and strengthen competence-building with Russia and de- The USA: velop cultural coopera on. Indeed, bilateral rela ons and coopera on with Russia - for One of the purposes of the US Arc c Region example, on the environment -, and coopera- Policy is to “strengthen ins tu ons for coop- on within and in the context of the Barents era on among the eight Arc c na ons” (The Sea region are explicitly men oned as main, White House 2009, 2), but no ins tu ons are and very pragma c, targets and pla orms of men oned. However, later on in the text the coopera on, such as the Barents Euro-Arc c value and eff ec veness of the Arc c Council Transport Area (BEATA). However, Norway is recognized; that it “should remain a high- also par cipates “in a number of coopera on level forum devoted to issues within its cur- forums” linked to the AC, the Nordic Coun- rent mandate”, and further, to cooperate “on cil, the BEAR, the Bal c Sea region and the Arc c issues through the United Na ons” and Northern Dimension. Finally, under “Knowl- its agencies, such as the UNFCCC and the UN- edge genera on and competence building” CLOS, though the USA has not (yet) ra fi ed it the University of the Arc c is men oned. Un- (ibid, 4). der “The management and u lisa on of marine resources” the North East Atlan c Fisher- The EU: ies Commission (NEAFC) is men oned and as part of improving mari me safety, the IMO. The European Union being “inextricably linked to the Arc c Region” the EU Commis- Russia: sion’s Communica on on the Arc c Region is to a great extent about (interna onal) co- One of the strategic priori es of the Russian opera on. On the one hand, with the Arc c Arc c policy is to strengthen bilateral rela- states including Greenland, and on the other onships both within regional organiza ons, hand with the Arc c Council (with the aim of including the Arc c Council and Barents Eu- being ac ve within the Council in the future). ro-Arc c Council (BEAC) and good neighborly Under the three main policy objec ves the rela ons with sub-arc c states. Another pri- Communica on names func onal coopera- ority, ac va on of Russian offi cial agencies’ on with the BEAC, the Interna onal Whal- par cipa on in interna onal forums, includes ing Commission, the NEAFC, the IMO and the “the inter-parliamentary interac on within UNCLOS, and further to promote dialogue the framework of the Russia-European Union with the Arc c EEA and EFTA countries as well partnership”. as with the Northern Dimension’s par es.

Sweden: To summarise brieﬂ y, interna onal coopera- on per se as well as several bodies for co- The Swedish Strategy clearly states that the opera on are explicitly men oned in all the well-func oning mul lateral coopera on Arc c strategies and state policies. When it dealing with the Arc c is the main priority comes to priori zing which organiza ons to for Sweden. The strategy men ons several connect and cooperate with, there are incon- forums for coopera on, such as the Arc c sistencies between the strategies and state Council, IASC and the University of the Arc c policies: All of them, including the EU commu- dealing with the Arc c; the European Union nica on, explicitly men on the Arc c Council and its Northern Dimension, the Nordic coop- and coopera on within (and in the case of the era on, and the BEAC and its Regional Coun- EU with) the Council. Furthermore Canada, cil in (North) Europe; and IGOs with world- Finland, Iceland and Sweden also emphasize wide perspec ves, the United Na ons and its the (Arc c) Council as an important or major Conven on on the Law of the Sea, IMO and venue for interna onal coopera on. other UN bodies (e.g. UNFCCC, CBD, UNDP, UNEP, WHO). The strategy also men ons the Other intergovernmental organiza ons or

Arc c strategies and policies 79

bodies, which are men oned in more than half of the strategies, are the United Na ons Conclusions and its agencies, UNCLOS and IMO (as global bodies). The Arc c region in the early-21st century is stable and peaceful without armed confl icts Furthermore, the EU’s Northern Dimension or the likelihood thereof. There are also geo- is men oned in the strategies of the Nordic poli cal and economic reali es corresponding countries and the EU. Also the BEAC is men- on one hand to the fact that the en re region oned by most of the Nordic countries and is legally and poli cally divided by the na on- the Russian State Policy. al borders of the eight Arc c states, and on the other hand to real changes and challeng- Finally, when it comes to bilateral coopera on es in the Arc c, since the resource-rich region other Arc c countries are usually men oned. is under pressure for an increased u liza on For example, in the cases of Canada and Den- of its rich (energy) resources. Furthermore, mark/Greenland, the USA is par cularly men- there are land claims by northern indigenous oned. In the case of Finland, Norway and peoples, mari me border disputes and asym- Russia are men oned, and correspondingly, metric environmental confl icts. There are also in that of Norway, Russia is men oned, and two other perspec ves that deserve more at- coopera on with Russia is emphasized. ten on and may enable an approach to Arc- c geopoli cs that goes beyond the familiar Comparing the intensity of interna onal co- terms of confl ict and coopera on: First, a opera on at the early-21st century to that signifi cant and rapid environmental, geo-eco- of the turn of the 1980s-1990s and the ear- nomic and geopoli cal change has occurred ly-1990s there is a clear diff erence. Interna- in the Arc c; and second, the region’s geo- onal, largely mul lateral, Arc c coopera on strategic importance is increasing, and consequently, the region is playing a more impor- – since the approval of the AEPS in 1991 - has tant role in world poli cs. emerged and expanded since that me, at which there was less coopera on. However, The posi on of the Arc c states is changing - there were at the me: the Nordic coopera- changing again a er the end of the Cold War, on between fi ve (Nordic) Arc c states; mili- when stability and peace building through in- tary coopera on between fi ve (NATO) Arc c terna onal coopera on became the ul mate states; and coopera on on fi sheries between aim instead of confronta on: As a so -law in- North-West Atlan c countries. There were strument, the Arc c Council is s ll the major also new and emerging bilateral rela ons be- forum for both intergovernmental and other tween the Arc c states, even across the Iron cross-border coopera on on arc c aff airs, Curtain, such as the scien fi c coopera on much enriched by the knowledgeable contri- between Canada and the Soviet Union, and bu ons by its Permanent Par cipants, Indig- economic coopera on between Finland and enous Peoples’ organiza ons and by other the Soviet Union (Heininen 1992, 49-52). non-state actors. More strategic emphasis is now placed on sovereignty and na onal interests linked to climate change or energy security. As evidence of this the fi ve li oral states of the Arc c Ocean are using all legal rights available to them (in the UNCLOS) to make submissions for sovereign rights to resources on the main basin of the Ocean, and holding their exclusive (ministerial) mee ngs.

Finally, a reﬂ ec on of a new posi on or a response to the mul func onal changes that have already taken place, is that all eight Arc- c states - the ﬁ ve li oral states and Finland, Iceland, Sweden - have in a short me period (within 2008-2011) approved - and some them also promoted - their own strategy or

Northern Research Forum 80

state policy in the Arc c and northern aff airs, and Russia; se ng their na onal priori es or priority areas. Eighth, Peoples - generally, though not always referring to indigenous peoples - are explicitly Here is a brief conclusion of the inwards and men oned among the priori es or priority ar- outwards-oriented indicators based on the eas of most of the strategies and policies, ex- priori es / priority-areas as well as the main cept in those of Canada, Denmark/Greenland policy objec ves of these strategies and state and the USA. Furthermore, Norway and the policies, and the Communica on of the Euro- EU talk about people (and cultures) both in pean Union: terms of a general popula on and indigenous peoples; First, Sovereignty and na onal security is among the main priori es and policy objec- Ninth, Science, including technology, knowl- ves of the strategies and state policies of the edge, and scien fi c coopera on, is explicitly fi ve li oral states; in the case of Canada and men oned as a priority or main objec ve in the USA it is a primary objec ve; four of all the strategies and policies, those of Iceland, Norway, Russia and the USA. In oth- Second, Finland, Iceland and Sweden as well ers it is integrated into other priori es; as the European Union neither emphasize na onal security nor sovereignty but compre- Tenth, Interna onal coopera on in general, hensive security; par cularly the Arc c Council and coopera- on within the Council, is explicitly men oned Third, Economic development is among the in all the strategies and state policies. Other main priori es or key objec ves of all the intergovernmental organiza ons or bodies, strategies as well as in that of the EU. It gen- men oned in more than half the strategies, erally refers to the exploita on of natural re- are the UNCLOS and the IMO (as global bod- sources, both renewable and non-renewable ies) and the EU’s Northern Dimension and the ones, par cularly fossil energy resources. BEAC (as regional ones). There are also examples of more comprehensive and sophis cated methods to link the Finally, what is a common feature in the strat- environment and the u liza on of natural egies and state policies, is that the Arc c resources; states, as Arc c countries or na ons, as well as the EU either would like to become a natu- Fourth, In most of the strategies economic ral, or real, or major actor or player, or even ac vi es also include regional development (global) leader or power, in the Arc c (or in and improvement of regional infrastructure some fi eld of northern aff airs), or would like but is referred to in diff erent ways; to maintain a leading role there. Furthermore, another common and surprising feature is Fi h, Transporta on, meaning mari me ship- how li le a world-wide, global perspec ve ping and transporta on is among the priori- is discussed in most of the strategies, except es or objec ves of the strategies and policies of Finland, Iceland, Russia and the USA. the Kingdom of Denmark’s Strategy, where it Transporta on in terms of avia on is only is taken into considera on and men oned. men oned by Iceland and Russia;

Sixth, The environment including environmental protec on is explicitly men oned as a priority or prority area in most of the strategies and state policies. In that of Russia it is referred to as an objec ve;

Seventh, Governance and management is among the main priori es or objec ves of most of the strategies or policies. Mari me safety and rescue is men oned in the strategies of Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Norway

Arc c strategies and policies 81

Northern Research Forum 82

Arc c strategies and policies 83

Canadian Arc c Resources Commi ee, 1991. References “To establish an Interna onal Arc c Council. A Framework Report.” Prepared by the Arc c Council Panel chaired by Franklyn Griﬃ ths and Rosemarie Kuptana. 14 May 1991. Airoldi Adele, 2008. The European Union and the Arc c. Denmark: Nordic Council of Minis- Cannon 2010. “Address by Minister Cannon at ters. ANP 2008: 729. Launch of Statement on Canada’s Arc c Fo- reign Policy”. No. 2010/57 – O awa, Ontario Alekseyev, V. 2001. “The Russian North at – August 20, 2010. the Crossroads of Two Epochs.” In North Meets North: Proceedings of the First Nort- Commission of the European Communi es, hern Research Forum, ed. T.S. Björnsson, J.H. 2008. “Communica on from the Commission Ingimundarson, and L. Olafsdo r, 87-89. to the European Parliament and the Council – Stefansson Arc c Ins tute and University of The European Union and the Arc c Region”. Akureyri, Akureyri, 2001 . Brussels, 20.11.2008 COM(2008) 763 ﬁ nal.

Althingi 2011. “A Parliamentary Resolu on Commonwealth North, 2009. “Why the Arc c on Iceland’s Arc c Policy”. Approved by Alt- th Ma ers – America’s Responsibili es as an hingi at the 139 legisla ve session March Arc c Na on”. A Commonwealth North Study 28, 2011. Report, Mead Treadwell and Tim Wiepking, co-chairs. May 2009. Arc c Athabaskan Council, 2008. Le er “Eu- rope and the Arc c” to Mr. Jose Manuel Bar- Dahl, Jus ina, 2010. “THE POLITICIZATION OF roso. September 29, 2008. THE ARCTIC IN THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY: How do the Arc c Ocean states le- Arc c Human Development Report (AHDR). gi mate their new role in the Arc c of mel- Akureyri: Stefansson Arc c Ins tute, Reykja- ng ice and new opportuni es?” Pro-gradu vik, Iceland, 2004. – tutkielma / Master’s theis, Kansainväliset suhteet / Interna onal Rela ons, syksy 2010 / Bailes, Alyson and Heininen, Lassi, forth-co- autumn 2010. Yhteiskunta eteiden edekun- ming. “Strategy Papers on the Arc c or High ta / Faculty of Social Sciences, Lapin yliopisto North - a compara ve study and analysis”. / University of Lapland. Dra of January 2011. Department of Foreign Aﬀ airs and Interna o- Barentsobserver 2010. Barentsobserver.com nal Trade 2000. “The Northern Dimension of 30.10.2010 Canada’s Foreign Policy”.

Barroso, Jose Manuel, 2006. “Euroopalla kes- Directorate-General for External Policies of keinen rooli ilmastonmuutosasioissa”. Helsin- the Union, 2010. “EU Competencies Aﬀ ec ng gin Sanomat 12.11.2006, C6. the Arc c”. Timo Koivurova, Kai Kokko, Sebas- en Duyck, Nikolas Sellheim, Adam Stepien. Borlase Harry, 2010. “Consistencies and In- Directorate B - Policy Department. EP/EXPO- consistencies in the Na onal Strategies of the 7B7AFET7FWC/2009-01/lot2/04 – 28 Octo- Arc c Li oral States”. Master’s Degree Thesis ber 2010. at University of Akureyri, Iceland. Egerton, Paul, 2008. “Enhancing the Coordi- Boswell Randy, 2010. “Norway, Russia stri- na on and Integra on of European Research ke deal on Arc c boundary”. Canwest News Ac vi es in the Arc c Region and Perspec - Service, April 28, 2010. h p://www.vancou- ves for Interna onal Science Coopera on”. In: versun.com/news/Norway%20Russia%... Conference Report ‘Common Concern for the 9.5.2010 Arc c’. Conference arranged by the Nordic Council of Ministers 9-10 September 2008, Byers, Michael, 2009. Who owns the Arc c? Ilulissat, Greenland. ANP 2008: 750, 131-133. Understanding sovereignty disputes in the North. Vancouver/Toronto/Berkely: D&M European Council 2009a. Council Conclusions Publishers Inc.

Northern Research Forum 84

at 297th FOREIGN AFFAIRS Council mee ng, Farrow, Kathy, 2010. ”Obama reassigns re- Brussels, March 2009. sponsibili es for Arc c Research to a White House council”. Arlington, VA - July 22, 2010. European Council 2009b. Council of the Eu- ropean Union, 2009. “Council conclusions on Financial Times (FT), March 10, 2010 at 02:00. Arc c issues”. 298th FOREIGN AFFAIRS Council “Iceland uses Arc c thaw to turn heat on UK” mee ng, Brussels, 8 December 2009. by Andrew Ward in Reykjavik.

The European Council. 2000. Ac on Plan for Foreign Aﬀ airs and Interna onal Trade Northern Dimension with External and Cross- Canada, 2010. “Arc c Ocean Foreign Minis- border Policies of the European Union 2000- ters’ Mee ng, 29 March 2010, Chelsea – 2003. Doc. No. 9401/00 NIS 78. Brussels, 14 Canada - Chair’s Summary. June 2000. Globe and Mail (Metro) Na onal News, 2011- European Parliament 2010a. The European 01-25 2:19 AM. “Arc c Sovereignty”. Page: Union Strategy for the Bal c Sea Region and A12. the role of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy. European Parliament, Procedu- Globaliza on and the Circumpolar North. Eds. re selected: A7-0202/2010. Texts adopted: by Lassi Heininen and Chris Southco . Univer- Tuesday, 6 July 2010 – Strasbourg. h p:// sity of Alaska Press, Fairbanks 2010. www.europarl.europe.eu/sides/getDoc. do?pubRef=-//EP//T – 27.1.2011 10:59 Gorbachev, M. 1987. The Speech of Presi- dent Mihail Gorbachev on October 2, in Mur- European Parliament 2010b. REPORT on mansk. Pravda, October 2. a sustainable EU policy for the High North (2009/22114(INI)). Commi ee on Foreign Government of Canada, 2010. “Statement Aﬀ airs. Plenary si ng. Rapporteur: Mi- on Canada’s Arc c Foreign Policy – Exercising chael Gahler. A7-0377/2010. 16.12.2010. Sovereignty and Promo ng Canada’s NORT- PR\452510EN.doc - PE452.510v03-00 HERN STRATEGY Abroad”.

European Parliament 2010c. DRAFT REPORT Government of Canada, 2009. “Canada’s on a sustainable EU policy for the High North NORTHERN STRATEGY Our North, Our Heri- (2009(22114(INI)). Commi ee on Foreign Af- tage, Our Future”. Minister of Indian Aﬀ airs fairs. Rapporteur: Michael Gahler. 26.10.2010. and Northern Development and Federal In- PR\836872EN.doc - PE452.510v02-00 terlocutor for Me’ s and Non-Status Indians, O awa. European Security and Defence Assembly. Europe’s northern security dimension. Report Government of Greenland, Bureau of Mine- submi ed on behalf of the Poli cal commit- rals and Petroleum, Explora on and exploi- tee by Paul Wille, Rapporteur and Odd Einar ta on in Greenland. Economical aspect of oil Dörum, co-Rapporteur. Assembly of Western produc on. (copy of PowerPoint presenta - European Union. Document c/2016. 5 No- on, no year) vember 2008. Government of Iceland, 2007. BREAKING THE European Union Commission, 2006. North- ICE. Arc c Development and Mari me Tran- ern Dimension Policy Framework Document. sporta on. Prospects of the Transarc c Route (mimeo) – Impact and Opportuni es. Akureyri, March 27 – 28, 2007. (mimeo) Faremo, Grete, 2010. “The strategic challenges in the Arc c and the High North”. Speech Halinen, Hannu, 2010. Presenta on in the for the Atlan c Council, Washington DC, 28 seminar of ‘Pohjoisen poli ikan ja turvalli- October 2010, by Grete Faremo, Minister of suuden tutkimuksen asiantun javerkosto’ at Defence, Norway. h p://www.regjeringen. Tampere Peace Research Ins tute in Tampe- no/em/dep/fd/aktuelt/taler_artikler/minis- re, Finland in September 29, 2010. (personal teren/taler-og-ar kler-... 30.10.210 notes)

Arc c strategies and policies 85

Heininen, Lassi, 2011. “Arc c Strategies & Po- reign Policies in the Geopoli cs of the Circum- licies: Inventory & Compara ve Study”. The polar North”. Geopoli cs, Volume 12, Issue 1, Northern Research Forum, Iceland and The 2007, 133-165. University of Lapland, Finland. DRAFT Februa- ry 2011. Heininen, Lassi and Numminen, Lo a, 2011. “Suomi ark sena maana ja Euroopan unionin Heininen, Lassi, 2010a. “Circumpolar Interna- jäsenval ona: miten Ark sta neuvostoa vahv- onal Rela ons and Coopera on”. Globaliza- istetaan”. In: Arc cfi nland 13/03/2011 www. on and the Circumpolar North. Eds. by Lassi arc cfi nland.fi . Heininen and Chris Southco . University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks 2010, 265-304. Helanterä, Juha - Tynkkynen, Veli-Pekka, 2003. Maan eteelle Venäjä ei voi mitään. Heininen, Lassi, 2010b. “Post-Cold War Arc c Gaudeamus. Geopoli cs: Where are the Peoples and the Environment?” Arc c Geopoli cs and Auto- Helsingin Sanomat (HS): 9.1.2011, A15, ”Uu- nomy. Edited by Michael Bravo & Nicola Tris- skanava tuli Helsinkiin kuvaamaan tulevai- co . Arc c Pedrspec ve Cahier No. 2, 89-103. suuden kaupunkia, Sauri seli lumisotaa CNN:lle” (Katja Kuokkanen); 18.10.2010, A11, Heininen, Lassi, 2008. ”Introductory Words”. “Länsi-Lapin kaivoksilta alkaa massiivinen rek- Seeking Balance in a Changing North. The karalli” (Tapio Mainio); 22.8.2010, D4 ”Katse Proceedings Papers from the 5th Northern Re- pohjoiseen” (Juha Mäkinen); 22.2.2010, B3, search Forum Open Assembly in Anchorage, ”Entä jos Suomen uusi Nokia onkin kuljetus- Alaska, September 24th-27th 2008. Opening rei pohjoisessa? Tulevan vaurauden väylä” Session. NRF website: www.nrf.is / Books & (Susanna Niinivaara); 30.9.2009, B11, ”Suo- Publica ons. malaisyritykset hakevat urakoita Stokmanin kaasukentältä Barentsinmereltä” (Susanna Heininen, Lassi, 2004. “Circumpolar Interna- Niinivaara); 27.11.2008, A8 ”Suomalaiset onal Rela ons and Geopoli cs”. In: AHDR pääsivät kiinni Stockmanin kaasu-urakkaan” (Arc c Human Development Report) 2004. (Tapio Mainio).] Akureyri: Stefansson Arc c Ins tute, Reykja- vik, Iceland. p. 207-225. Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, 2006. “North meets North. Naviga on and the Fu- Heininen, Lassi 2002. “Finland as a Nordic ture of the Arc c”. Country, and a European State”. Scandinavi- an-Canadian Studies / Etudes Scandinaves au Inuit Circumpolar Council 2009, “A Circum- Canada, Volume 13, 2000-2001, 36-48. Editor polar Inuit Declara on on Sovereignty in the / Redactrice Gurli Aagard Woods. AASSC - AA- Arc c”. Adopted by the Inuit Circumpolar ESC. Canada 2002. Council, April 2009.

Heininen, Lassi, 1997. “Northern policies The Ilulissat Declara on, Arc c Ocean Con- of the Arc c states: a compara ve study”. ference in Ilulissat, Greenland, 27 – 29 May In: Europe’s Northern Dimension: the BEAR 2008, in Arc c Idea, 2008 August, 12-13. meets the south. Eds. by Lassi Heininen & Richard Langlais. Publica ons of the Admi- IPY-2007/08 News, Informa on Bulle n (The nistra ve Oﬃ ce of the University of Lapland Interna onal Polar Year 2007/08 in the Rus- 1997: 39. Rovaniemi, 219-249. sian Federa on and around the World): N 5-6 (July/August 2007); N 7 (September 2007). Heininen, Lassi, 1992. “Na onal Approaches to the Arc c”. In: Vulnerable Arc c: Need for ITAR-TASS News Agency. 2004. “Pu n Says an Alterna ve Orienta on? Ed. by Jyrki Käkö- Northern Regions Need ‘Intelligent Long term nen. Tampere Peace Research Ins tute. Rese- Policy,’” April 28. arch Report No. 47. Tampereen Pikakopio Oy, Tampere, 35-66. Jakobson Linda, 2010. “China prepares for an Ice-free Arc c”. SIPRI Insights on Peace and Heininen, Lassi and Nicol, Heather N., 2007. Security, No. 2010/2 March 2010. “The Importance of Northern Dimension Fo-

Northern Research Forum 86

Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö 1999. Suomen Anchorage, September 23-27, 2008. (power- ark sen tutkimuksen strategia. Kauppa- ja point) teollisuusministeriön neuvo elukuntaraport- teja 3/1999. Loukacheva, Natalia, 2008. The Arc c Prom- ise: Legal and Poli cal Autonomy of Green- Kleist Mininnquag 2010. Presenta on Kleist land and Nunavut. Toronto: University of To- in Edmonton, Alberta in May 2010. ronto Press.

Koivurova, Timo, 2009. Limits and Possibili- Macnab, Ron, 2009. “A Tale of Two Ci es: es of the Arc c Council in a Rapidly Chang- Washington, O awa, and Arc c Governance”. ing Scene of Arc c Governance.” Polar Record Meridian, Fall/Winter 2009, 22-28. online ar cle (Received September 9). Minister for Foreign Aﬀ airs, 2010. An execu- Lavrov, Sergey, 2009. “Outline of the State- ve summary of the report of Össur Skarphe- ment by Sergey V. Lavrov at the Session of dinsson, Minister for Foreign Aﬀ airs to Alth- the Arc c Council, Tromso, April 29, 2009. ingi, the Parliament of Iceland on 14 May (mimeo) 2010. (mimeo)

Lind, Gustaf, 2011. “Priori es of the Swedish Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federa on, Chairmanship”. A presenta on at the interna- 2010. “Energy Strategy of Russia. For the Peri- onal conference “The New Arc c: Building od up to 2030”. Approved by Degree N1715-r coopera on in the face of emerging challen- of the Government of the Russian Federa on ges” in April 26, 2011 in Stockholm, Sweden. dated 13 November 2009. Moscow 2010. (personal notes) Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, 2011. “Denmark, Lipiatou, Elisabeth, 2008. “Way Forward for Greenland and the Faroe Islands: Kingdom of Research in the Arc c Region – European Denmark Strategy for the Arc c 2011-2020”. Research, Instrument and Objec ves”. In: Copenhagen, August 2011. Conference Report ‘Common Concern for the Arc c’. Conference arranged by the Nordic Moisio, Sami, 2003. “Back to Baltoscandia? Council of Ministers 9-10 September 2008, European Union and Geo-Conceptual Re- Ilulissat, Greenland. ANP 2008: 750, 133-138. making of the European North”. Geopoli cs, Vol.8, No.1 (Spring 2003) pp. 72-100. Lipponen, Paavo. 1997. The European Union Needs a Policy for the Northern Dimension. Mäkeläinen-Buhanist, Soili, 2010. “Finland’s Speech delivered by the Prime Minister of approach to the Arc c; The past and the futu- Finland at ‘Barents Region Today’ conferen- re”. Statement by Ms Soili Mäkeläinen-Buha- ce, Rovaniemi 15 September 1997. Europe’s nist, Director, Unit for Regional Coopera on, Northern Dimension: the BEAR meets the Ministry for Foreign Aff airs of Finland, May south. Eds. by L. Heininen and R. Langlais. 27, 2010 O awa, Canada. Rovaniemi: Publica ons of the Administra ve Offi ce of the University of Lapland 1997: 39. Namminersornerullu k Oqartussat and Udenrigsministeriet, 2008. Ark s I en bryd- Loe, Julia S.P. 2011. “Working Paper – Geo- nings d: Forslag l strategi for ak viteter I det poli cs in the High North”. DRIVING FORCES ark ske område. Maj 2008. (mimeo) IN RUSSIAN ARCTIC POLICY. Pöyry Econ WP- 2011-001. Neumann, Antje and Rudjoff , Be na, 2008. Impacts of EU Policies on the High North. The Lomagin 2010. “Russia’s Percep on of the Cases of Climate Policy and Fisheries. Directo- Arc c”. Presenta on at the Interna onal rate-General for External Policies. Policy De- Summer School in Karelia 2010 in Petroza- partment. European Parliament. AFET, August vodsk, Russia in May 13, 2010. 2010.

Lomagin Nikita, 2008. “Russia’s Percep on of Newsweek, Dec. 28, 2009/Jan. 4, 2010. “Hil- the Arc c”. Presenta on at the 5th Open As- lary Clinton – Henry Kissinger” by Meacham sembly of the Northern Research Forum in Jon, 2010, 26-30.

Arc c strategies and policies 87

September 2009. (unoffi cial transla on by Nordic Council of Ministers 2008. “Common Thorsteinn Gunnarsson) concern for the Arc c” Conference arranged by the Nordic Council of Ministers 9-10 Sep- Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2009. “The Fundamentals tember 2008, Ilulissat, Greenland. Conferen- of State Policy of the Russian Federa on in ce Report. APN 2008: 750. Denmark 2008. the Arc c in the Period ll 2020 and beyond”. Adopted by the President of the Russian Fe- Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2009. dera on D. Medvedev, September 18, 2008. “The Norwegian Government`s High North Promulgated: March 30, 2009, publica on of Strategy”. the offi cial governmental newspaper “Rossi- yskaya Gazeta”. (translated from Russian) Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aff airs 2006. “The Norwegian Government`s High North The Rovaniemi Declara on 1991. Signed by Strategy.” the Eight Arc c Na ons, June 14, 1991 Rova- niemi, Finland. NRF – UArc c, 2009. “Social Impact Assess- ment of Arc c Science” based on the work Segerståhl, Boris 2008. “Clusters and Net- of ICARP WG11 – Arc c Science in the Public works – Tools for Northern Development”. Interest. Tenta ve Implementa on Plan, No- The Borderless North – Publica on of the vember 2009. (mimeo) Fourth Northern Research Forum. Edited by Lassi Heininen and Kari Laine. Oulu: The Thu- Numminen, Lo a, 2010. Sulavan ark sen le Ins tute, University of Oulu and Northern avainkysymykset. Luonnonvarat ja hallinnoin- Research Forum. 65-71. . Ulkopolii nen ins tuu , Briefi ng Paper 52, 1. helmikuuta 2010. Statens for valtningstjeneste Informasjons- forval ng, 2003. “Mot nord! U ordringer of Nuuk Declara on 2011. On the occasion of muligheter I nordområdene”, Ekspertutvalg the Seventh Ministerial Mee ng of The Arc c for nordområdene nedsa av Regjeringen Council - 12 May 2011, Nuuk, Greenland. (mi- 3. mars 2003. NOU Norges off entlige utred- meo) ninger 2003:32, Oslo 2003.

Olsen, Inuuteq Holm, 2010. Response to an E- Stubb, Alexander, 2009. “A New Arc c Era mail correspondence between Lassi Heininen and Finalnd’s Arc c Policy”, Keynote speech and Inuuteq Holm Olsen, February 2, 2010 at in the 20th Anniversary Seminar of the Arc- 22:53. Personal archives by Lassi Heininen. c Centre, 29th September 2009, Alexander Stubb, Minister for Foreign Aff airs of Finland. Penike , Tony 1997. Northern Solitudes: (mimeo) Canadian policy, aboriginal actors and the Arc c Council. BEARing the European North: Sutyrin, Sergei, 2001. “The North / Russian the Northern Dimension and Alterna ve North within the Context of Globaliza on”. Scenarios. Edited by L. Heininen & R. Langlais. North Meets North. Proceedings of the First Rovaniemi: Arc c Centre Reports 23, 79-88. Northern Research Forum. Edited by T.S. Björnsson, J.H. Ingimundarson and L. Olafs- Prime Minister’s Offi ce, Finland. 2010. do r. Akureyri: Stefansson Arc c Ins tute & “Finland’s Strategy for the Arc c Region”. Pri- University of Akureyri, 79-81. me Minister’s Offi ce Publica on 8/2010. SWEDARCTIC and SWEDARP 2011-2015. Pri- Pu n, Vladimir, 2010. Prime Minister Vladi- ori zed projects of the Swedish Arc c and mir Pu n speaks at the interna onal forum Antarc c programmes. Swedish Research “The Arc c: Territory of Dialogue” in Septem- Council and Swedish Polar Research Secre- ber 23, 2010. RIA Novos , News, September tariat, Bromma 2011. 23, 2010. h p://www.arc c.ru/print/467 - 7.10.2010 Terva, Jyrki, 2010. “Aluekehitysministeri Viktor Basarginin esitys Venäjän ark ses- Report on Sustainable Development in the ta strategiasta Murmanskissa 1.10.2010”. Arc c. Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Aff airs, Suomen Pääkonsulaa , Pietari, PIE. Muis o

Northern Research Forum 88

06.10.2010, Korja u versio. and Northwest Passage. Munk School/Gor- don Founda on release public opinion report Traynor, Ian, 2008. ”Europe joins interna onal tled: Rethinking the Top of the World, Toron- contest for Arc c’s resources”. The Guardian, to, Jan. 25, 2011. November 21, 2008. h p://guardian.co.uk 21.1.2008 Utanrikisraduney d, 2009. “Ísland á norðurs- lóðum” (“Iceland in the High North”). Treaty between The Kingdom of Norway and The Russian Federa on concerning Mari me Utenriksdepartementet, 2010. Nordområde- Delimita on and Coopera on in the Barents satsingen. Status oktober 2010. Utenriksde- Sea and the Arc c Ocean. September 15, partementets hustrykkeri 10/2010. 2010. (mimeo) Val oneuvosto, 2010. “Suomen ark nen Udenrigsministeriet / Ministry of Foreign strategia”. Finnish Cabinet Commi ee on Eu- Aﬀ airs of Denmark, 2010. Rigsfaellesska- ropean Union, June 2010. bet ivaerksae er udarbejdelse af ark sk strategi. h p://www.um.dk/CMS.Web/Tem- Val oneuvoston vies ntäyksikkö, Tiedote plataes/Content%20Pages/DefaultPage. 120/2010 – 8.4.2010 13.36. aspx?FRAME...28.9.2010 The White House, 2009. NATIONAL SECURITY Ulkoasiainministeriö, Itäosasto, Itä25/Jyr- PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD – 66 / HOME- ki Kallio, ”Ark set kysymykset – pohjustusta LAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/ kansalliselle kannanmuodostukselle. Muis o HSPD – 25. The White House, Oﬃ ce of the (Luonnos), 24.7.2008. Press Secretary, January 12, 2009. (mimeo)

Ulkoasiainvaliokunta, 2009. “Ulkoasiainvalio- Östreng, Willy, ed. 1999. Na onal Security kunnan mie ntö 12/2009 vp – Suomi ja ark - and Interna onal Environmental Coopera on set alueet”. UaVM 12/2009 vp – K 3/2009, K in the Arc c—the Case of the Northern Sea 8/2009 vp, K 13/2009 vp). Route. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publish- ers. University of Toronto and Munk School of Glo- bal Aﬀ airs, 2011. Press Release “Canadians Uniﬁ ed on the Arc c – Want Government to Asser its Sovereignty over the Beaufort Sea

Arc c strategies and policies 89

Northern Research Forum 90

Arc c strategies and policies 91 Appendix - Tables

Table 1. Membership of the ArcƟ c States in Intergovernmental PoliƟ cal OrganizaƟ ons

UNs EU NATO EAPC G7/8/20 IMO Canada x x x x x Denmark x x x x x - Greenland (x-OCT) - Faroes (x-ass.) Finland x x x x Iceland x (x-acc.) x x x Norway x x x x Russia x x x x Sweden x x x x USA x x x x x (EU) x

UNs = The United Na ons EU = The European Union; Greenland has the status of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union, and Iceland has started the accession talks with the European Union. NATO = The North Atlan c Treaty Organiza on EAPC = The Euro-Atlan c Partnership Council G7/8/20 = Canada and the USA are members of G7, the two ones and Russia are members of G8, and the three states and the EU are member of G20 IMO = The Interna onal Mari me Organiza on; The Faroe Islands is an associate member of the IMO

Table 2. Membership of the ArcƟ c States in Intergovernmental Economic AssociaƟ ons and Areas

EEA EFTA NAFTA Canada x Denmark x - Greenland - Faroes Finland x Iceland x x Norway x x Russia Sweden x USA x (EU) x

EEA = The European Economic Area EFTA = The European Free Trade Associa on NAFTA = The North American Free Trade Area

Northern Research Forum 92

Table 3. Membership of the ArcƟ c States in Regional OrganizaƟ ons and Arrangements

AEPS/AC Ilulissat IASC BEAC CBSS NC(M) ND Canada x x x Denmark x x x x x x x - Greenland (x) (x) x x - Faroes (x) x ? Finland x x x+ x x x Iceland x x x x x x Norway x x x x+ x x x Russia x x x x+ x x Sweden x x x+ x x x USA x x x (EU) x x x

AEPS / AC = Arc c Council Ilulissat = Ministerial mee ng of the li oral states of the Arc c Ocean IASC = Interna onal Arc c Science Commi ee BEAC = Barents Euro-Arc c Council (x+ = country within the rota on of the chairmanship) CBSS = Council of Bal c Sea States NCM = Nordic Council / Nordic Council of Ministers ND = EU’s Northern Dimension (it is not clear, if the Faroe Islands is involved in the EU’s ND, or not)

Table 4. Membership in and raƟ ﬁ caƟ on of the ArcƟ c States in Relevant InternaƟ onal Agreements / Bodies

UNCLOS London C. MARPOL POPs Kyoto P. ATS IWC Canada x (2003) x x x x x Denmark x (2004) x x x x x x - Greenland (x) x - Faroes (x) (x-ass) . Finland x (1996) x x x x x+ x Iceland x (1985) x x x x x Norway x (1996) x x x x x++ x Russia x (1997) x x x+ x Sweden x (1996) x x x x x+ x USA x x x+ x (EU (x-obs) x x

UNCLOS = UN’s Conven on of the Law of the Sea, 1982 (in the table the year of ra ﬁ ca on) London C. = London Conven on on Dumping (The Conven on on the Preven on of Marine Pollu- on by Dumping of Wastes and Other Ma er), 1972 MARPOL = Interna onal Conven on for the Preven on of Pollu on from Ships, 1973 (the Faroe Islands is an associate member; EU Commission has an observer status) POPs = Stockholm Conven on on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2001 (Denmark has ra ﬁ ed the Conven on “with a territorial exclusion in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland) Kyoto P: = Kyoto Protocol, 1997 (Denmark with the territorial exclusion to the Faroe Islands) ATS = Antarc c Treaty System, 1959 (x = consulta ve member, xx = with claims) IWC = Interna onal Whaling Commission, 1946

Arc c strategies and policies 93

Table 5. Membership in and raƟ ﬁ caƟ on of the ArcƟ c States in In InternaƟ onal Agree- ments / Bodies dealing with the ArcƟ c Region

ILO169 Svalbard PolarB NEAFC NAFO AMEC Canada x x (x) x Denmark x xxxx - Greenland (x) (x) (x) - Faroes (x) (x) Finland x Iceland x x x Norway x x x (Svalbard) x x x Russia xxxxx Sweden x USA x x x x (EU x x

ILO169 = ILO Conven on 169, 1989 Svalbard = Interna onal Treaty on Spitzbergen, 1920 PolarB = Interna onal Agreement on Polar Bears, 1973 NEAFC = North East Atlan c Fisheries Commission, 1982 - contrac ng par es (Denmark is a party in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland) (Canada and Japan are non-contrac ng par es) NAFO = North-West Atlan c Fisheries Organiza on, 1979 AMEC = Arc c Military Environmental Coopera on, 1996

Table 6. Each state described itself as an ArcƟ c / Northern country / state

Canada is a “Northern country” and “the global leader in Arc c science, and “The North is central to the Canadian na onal iden ty”. The Kingdom of Denmark seeks “to strengthen the Kingdom´s status as global player in the Arc- c”.

Finland as an “Arc c country is a natural actor in the Arc c region”. Iceland is “the only country located en rely within the Arc c region”. Norway is a “leading na on as regards environmental policy and…as a steward of the natural and cultural heritage in the High North”, and furthermore, there is a “[G]rowing recogni on of the importance of the High North for Norway as a whole”. Russia would like to “maintain the role of a leading Arc c power”. Sweden: “(T)here are many es linking Sweden to the Arc c”. The USA is an “Arc c na on”.

Northern Research Forum 94

Table 7. PrioriƟ es / Priority Areas or Highlights of the ArcƟ c Strategies / State Policies

Sover/Sec Econ/Dev Transport Envir Gov/Res Peo/Ind Scien.

Canada x/x x/x x x Denmark x x/x x x/x Finland /x x/x x x /x Iceland /x x/x x x x/x x x Norway x/x x/x x x/x /x x Russia x/ x/x x x/x /xx Sweden x x x USA x/ x x x x x (EU x x x x)

Sover = Sovereignty and na onal security Sec = Comprehensive security Econ = Economic development Dev = Regional development and infrastructure Transport = Sea transporta on and avia on Envir = Environment and environmental protec on Gov = Governance and management Res = Rescue and safety Peo = Peoples (in general) Ind = Indigenous peoples Scien = Science, technology and knowledge, and scien ﬁ c coopera on

Table 8. Main ObjecƟ ves and Highlights of NaƟ onal Interests of the ArcƟ c States at the turn of 1980s-1990s (Heininen 1992 and 1997)

Sover SecPol Econ Envir Indi Scien Canada x x x x x x Denmark x x x x Finland x x x Iceland x x x Norway x x x x x Russia x x x x x Sweden x x USA x x x x

Sover = Sovereignty SecPol = Security-policy and na onal responses Econ = Economic ac vi es and natural resources Envir = Environment and environmental protec on (and coopera on) Indi = Indigenous peoples Scien = Scien ﬁ c research

Arc c strategies and policies 95

Table 9. Intergovernmental and Other InternaƟ onal OrganizaƟ ons and bodies men- Ɵ oned in the ArcƟ c Strategies and State Policies

Can Denmark Fin Ice Nor Rus Sweden USA AC+A5 AC+A5 AC AC AC AC AC+A5 AC ICC IASC IASC IASSA UArc c+NRF UArc c UNs UNs UNs UNs UNs UNCLOS UNCLOS UNCLOS UNCLOS UNCLOS UNFCCC UNFCCC ILO UNFCCC UNFCCC IPA-forum IPCC UNEP IWC WHO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO NATO NATO NAMMCO NORAD NAMMCO NASCO NAFO NAFO NEAFC NEAFC OSCE EFTA EU EU EU EU ND ND ND ND ND NCMs NCMs Nordic Nordic NORA BEAC BEAC BEAC BEAC BEAC BEATA BASREC Saami

AC = The Arc c Council NCM = The Nordic Council of Ministers A8 = the eight arc c states ND = The EU’s Northern Dimension A5 = the ﬁ ve li oral states NEAFC = The North East Atlan c Fisheries Com- BASREC = Bal c Sea Region Energy Coopera on mission BEAC = The Barents Euro-Arc c Council NORA = Nordic Atlan c Coopera on BEATA = The Barents Euro-Arc c Transport Area NORAD = The North American Aerospace Defence EU = The European Union Command IASC = Interna onal Arc c Science Commi ee NRF = The Northern Research Forum ICC = The Inuit Circumpolar Council Saami = The Saami Parliamentary Council ILO = The Interna onal Labour Organiza on UArc c = The University of the Arc c IWC = Interna onal Whaling Commission UNCLOS = The United Na on’s Conven on of the NAFO = The North-West Atlan c Fisheries Orga- Law of the Sea niza on UNEP = The United Na on’s Environmental Pro- NAMMCO = The North Atlan c Marine Mammal gram Commission UNFCCC = The United Na on’s Framework Con- NASCO = The North Atlan c Salmon Conserva on ven on on Climate Change Organiza on WHO = The World Health Organiza on

Northern Research Forum 96

Arc c strategies and policies 97

Northern Research Forum