255
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Creating a Framework for Consensus Building & Governance
conclusion of such negotiations was seen to provide further evidence that the Arctic Council was
not simply a ―talking shop‖ but could undertake important steps to deal with pressing Arctic
concerns. With the precedent of the Agreement on Search and Rescue in Arctic Waters that had
been signed in Nuuk in 2011 very much in mind, the members of the Council moved forward to
finish the final draft of this new legal document in sufficient time for signature at the 2013 Kiruna
Ministerial Meeting.
11
Though criticized by some – including Greenpeace – for not seeking to
address the sources of oil spills in the Arctic, the agreement, nonetheless, represented a solid step
forward in encouraging international cooperation in addressing environmental challenges arising
from energy development in the region. Interestingly, as had been the case with the earlier Arctic
Search and Rescue Accord, both Russia and the United States played significant roles in developing
and shaping this new agreement. In so doing, these two major powers demonstrated their renewed
interest in the concrete work of the Council and their willingness to collaborate on a multilateral
basis on important Arctic concerns.
Throughout this period, headway was also made in providing a ―face and voice‖ for the Arctic
Council as an organization. Within weeks of assuming the leadership role, the Swedish
Chairmanship began revamping and updating the website of the Arctic Council. It published its new
agenda for action over the coming two years as well as the earlier undertakings of the Council. It
also began implementing a formal communications strategy for the organization.
12
Through such
efforts, vital information regarding the work, capabilities and interests of the body and its several
sub-units were shared both internally within the organization and with the broader external
community. It was recognized that the latter included both Arctic residents and those living further
south who, nonetheless, maintained an interest in the region. The Swedish Chairmanship took the
initiative to actively highlight on the organization‘s website the variety of significant issues that were
being considered within the Council. Using new social media tools, it also indicated a number of
ways in which policymakers and the public might involve themselves in these discussions.
Additionally, it sought to bring Arctic issues and concerns to the attention of larger international
conferences and meetings. During the 2011-13 period, representatives of the Swedish Chairmanship
took part in a number of such gatherings including those related to the World Oceans Summit in
Singapore and the UN World Climate Conference in South Africa. As a consequence, the profile of
the Arctic Council was raised not only throughout the circumpolar world but in non-Arctic settings
as well. It carried the message forward that Arctic concerns should be global concerns.
This latter focus – on the interests and potential contributions of non-Arctic states to the work of
the Arctic Council – was to occupy a good deal of the remaining time and energies of the Swedish
Chairmanship during its term of office. Specifically, it was active from its first days in office to the
conclusion of the Kiruna Ministerial Meeting, in seeking to forge a consensus among the members
of the Council as to which new observers might be added to the body. Taking the new criteria for
admission that had been earlier approved at the Nuuk Ministerial Meeting in May of 2011, Sweden
worked with both applicants and Council members to ensure that all submissions were adequately
prepared and considered in a comprehensive fashion. Through both formal and informal
discussions with the parties, it helped to identify areas of concern and to facilitate dialogue between
the parties involved. It sought to use the ―good offices‖ of the chair, to bridge disagreements and to