Emilie Canova
Since European Union (EU)-Arctic relations have been increasingly under scrutiny both by the media and researchers since 2008. Yet, because there was no EU policy documents dedicated to the Arctic region before 2008, the literature is scarce on their relations pre-2008. This has consequences for how post-2008 relations have been framed and understood as Europe- Arctic and even EU-Arctic relations predate 2008. A historical perspective adding nuances and context is thus lacking in our current understanding of the relations between the Arctic and its governance (the ArctiC) and EU/Europe (EUrope). This paper fills in missing links and knowledge gaps by examining how EUrope and the ArctiC interacted as ‘macro-regions’ through a close historical analysis of their relations from the 1970s to 2008. Documents from Arctic and European institutions’ digital archives have been studied using critical geopolitics and region building approaches. Three periods with key documents are analysed. Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech in 1987 and Stoltenberg’s Rovaniemi speech in 1992 are first scrutinized. It then moves on to describe how Arctic Council SAO meeting minutes and EU’s Northern Dimension documents respond to each other from 2000 to 2007. Finally, it focuses on the emergence of the proposition by the European Parliament of an Arctic treaty (2005-2009) as being part of a longer trend of geopolitical reconceptualization of the ArctiC and EUrope. The paper highlights the dynamic interactions between the evolving geographical and political entities that EUrope and the ArctiC have been and traces shifts in power relations.
Alexandra Middleton & Elena Zhurova Sæther
The Arctic region faces a significant demographic challenge, characterized by a population decline and youth outmigration projected until 2060. This phenomenon, driven by harsh climatic conditions, limited economic opportunities, and social isolation, threatens the region's future sustainability and development. Universities play a crucial role in mitigating this challenge by attracting, retaining, and integrating young talent into the Arctic workforce. This study investigates the role of institutional settings in facilitating the integration of highly skilled migrants into the Finnish and Norwegian Arctic regions. This paper explores national higher education strategies, employability support mechanisms and the strategies employed by several prominent Arctic universities, University of Oulu and University of Lapland in Finland, and Nord University in Norway, to retain graduating students and foster their engagement and employment in the corresponding Arctic regions. Employing a comparative case study approach, this study analyzes qualitative and quantitative data, including university strategies, government policies, and regional demographic statistics. Additionally, the analysis incorporates relevant sociological theories on employability and social capital, providing a deeper understanding of the factors that influence youth migration decisions. The study also explores the potential conflict between university-led retention strategies and national-level policies, such as the introduction of tuition fees for non-EU students. This policy change, while generating revenue for universities, might impede international student recruitment and contribute to regional brain drain. Finally, this study questions how universities can embed retention strategies into their core functions and foster sustainable long-term solutions to the demographic challenges of the Arctic regions. By understanding the effectiveness of various strategies and potential challenges, stakeholders can collaborate to develop comprehensive approaches to retaining young talent and creating vibrant, sustainable communities in the Arctic and beyond.
Nuppu Mielonen and Hanna Lehtimäki
The global environmental and geopolitical situation is affecting the energy transition in business and society. The Arctic region has critical materials that are valuable for the EU in the green transition. In response to geopolitical instabilities and to secure access to energy transition materials, the EU is aiming for European and Arctic resource extraction and related value chains. As a result, electric vehicle battery value chains will concentrate in smaller geographical areas with diverse industrial backgrounds within Europe. The purpose of this paper is to examine: What enables environmentally, socially, and economically successful regional circular industrial ecosystem collaboration? A regional industrial ecosystem with symbiotic synergies requires collaborative efforts and value creation from many actors, varying from the government to regional, business, and local actors. We present an intensive qualitative case study on an industrial ecosystem with a long history of operations in the Nordic region: Kokkola Industrial Park (KIP) in Finland. With the current movement of the developing energy transition and of EV battery materials value chains in Europe, it is important to examine local ecosystem flows and the ways in which they connect to global value chains. The data comprises semi-structured interviews with various ecosystem actors and secondary research material, such as reports, documents, social media, and news articles. With interpretative qualitative analysis, we scrutinize and detail the actors, the collaborative practices and activities of an industrial ecosystem. We elaborate on shared interests, and analyze the environmental, social, and economic value creation of the process. The results of this study contribute to our understanding about the role and importance of ecosystem flows in value creation. The results can be utilized in planning and establishing new industrial ecosystems for energy transition and EV battery materials in the Arctic region in Europe.
Niall Juval Janssen
Arctic governance is an ever-transforming and crowded field: from states with Arctic territory to those without, from vast multinational corporations mining in the region to Indigenous peoples and local communities living in the North. One of those actors, the European Union (EU), has repeatedly tried to establish its place in this packed field by inter alia becoming a permanent observer to the Arctic Council (AC). As can be taken from statements of several Arctic foreign affairs officials, the EU’s failing to gain this status is due in significant part to its relations with the Indigenous peoples of the North which have been troubled by poor policy and sometimes even poorer communication. This article seeks to examine the policy positions of the EU towards the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic as communicated in the EU’s Arctic policy papers since 2008. Therefore, it analyses six germane policy papers and communications by relevant political actors and institutions of the EU. To investigate how the inclusion and articulation of Indigenous-specific issues differs from one EU institution to another and how they have changed from 2008-2021, this article employs a quantitative N-dataset/corpus analysis supplemented with minor qualitative research methodologies. The article finds that across relevant EU institutions, the regard for Indigenous-specific issues has increased since 2008. Further, the article argues that the EU needs to improve its coherence and coordination of policies amongst the different institutions to achieve a more successful and sustainable European contribution to Arctic governance. Finally, the author elaborates on possible avenues for future research to assess EU-Indigenous relations in the Arctic.
Sergey Sukhankin & P. Whitney Lackenbauer
This article examines Russia’s changing approach regarding the role and place of non-western actors in the Arctic. The outbreak of Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has exacerbated political and economic tensions between Moscow and its Western counterparts, seriously undermining Arctic cooperation. Consequently, Russia has looked for alternatives to Western partners in the Arctic. China occupies a special place, but Beijing’s economic might and growing military ambitions preclude Moscow from considering China its only partner in the Arctic. Accordingly, Russia is actively trying to engage other partners from BRICS and G-20 platforms – such as India, Brazil, South Korea, and Singapore – who, in addition to foreign direct investment, could contribute expertise and unique competences to regional development. Yet, cooperation with these partners, while lucrative and promising in theory, cannot replace what Russia has lost by destroying its traditional ties with other Arctic nations. While some actors (such as Brazil) have only limited interest in the Arctic, others (such as India, South Korea, and Singapore) will likely abstain from comprehensive cooperation because of the economic and geopolitical risks posed by Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine and the prospect of secondary sanctions.
Maria Lagutina, Yana Leksyutina, and Alexander Sergunin
The Arctic governance system, which has been relatively settled over the past decades based on a fragile balance of interests and obligations of the Arctic Council member states, is now undergoing a rigorous endurance test. The short-term hang-up of the multilateral cooperation regime due to the de-facto freezing of Russia’s activities in the Arctic Council is being overlaid by longterm structural shifts in the geopolitical landscape of the macroregion. There is a growing contradiction between the responsibility of the Arctic states for the environmental situation and the sustainable development of national Arctic territories and the search of non-Arctic countries, primarily China, for bolstering their interests in the Far North in terms of intensifying their research and economic activities in the Arctic. The new normal economic and political reality requires a revision of the rigid Arctic region’s cooperative network through engaging non-Arctic stakeholders in joint searching for niches for collaboration in the already established relations of the Arctic states and sectors of the Arctic economy. Attempting to contribute to the convergence of positions of the two sides, the chapter summarizes China’s fundamental interests in the development of international cooperation in the Arctic, analyzes China’s current research, economic, and infrastructural projects in the High North, and outlines niches for China’s involvement in the advancement of the Arctic agenda. Potential areas of tensions and cooperation in China’s bilateral relations with the key Arctic players are identified.
Designed & hosted by Arctic Portal