256
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Nord
foster a spirit of compromise between the parties. Still the issue lingered as a seemingly unsolvable
question.
The Kiruna Ministerial Meeting
A day prior to the Ministerial Meeting the portents for the upcoming session were not entirely
promising. Cool, showery weather had descended upon Swedish Norrland and a thick blanket of
fog had both enveloped the meeting site and threatened to prevent the arrival by air of some of the
foreign ministers scheduled to attend the Kiruna session. While these climatic conditions gradually
improved, there persisted a number of policy questions (the most significant being who were to be
admitted as new observers) that still needed to be fully resolved before the opening of the
Ministerial Meeting. As a consequence, the normally relaxed and informal dinner gathering which
had been scheduled for the evening prior became more of a final and prolonged negotiation session
over a meal among the ministers and their advisors. It was not to break up until just before one in
the morning.
As the new day began, it was not entirely clear whether the Swedish Chairmanship had accomplished
its overriding goal of ―letting the Council do its work‖ and building consensus among its members.
The setting had been carefully prepared within the City Hall of Kiruna, but it remained to be seen
whether Arctic harmony would prevail. There was a bit of nervous tension in the air with the
realization that as Gustaf Lind, the Swedish SAO had put it: ―Two years of work will be summed up
in two hours‖ (Lind, 2013). However, as the Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, called the meeting
to order, it became increasingly evident to all in attendance that much had been achieved over the
past years through concerted effort, and that the Swedish Chairmanship would conclude having
accomplished most of its original goals.
In the Swedish Foreign Minister‘s opening speech, and in the subsequent statements offered by
most of his Council colleagues, it was noted that the Arctic Council had achieved significant results
over the past two years both in the areas of environmental stewardship and in protecting the quality
of life for residents of the north. Furthermore it was maintained that the Council, itself, had matured
institutionally and had ―come of age‖ by undertaking the internal reforms and improvements that
provided for ―the self-confidence necessary to stimulate a global approach to the most urgent
problems in the region and to build bridges
of cooperation to outside stakeholders‖ (Bildt, 2013).
Foreign Minister Bildt also indicated that the Council had clearly demonstrated that it was capable of
fostering consensus and taking concrete action on important issues for the Arctic and the broader
world. These sentiments were underscored both in the
Kiruna Declaration
issued that day and in the
accompanying
Vision for the Arctic
, a document that sought to outline the future path of the Council
over its next round of chairmanships.
13
While several important challenges and opportunities still remained to be addressed, the Council
could, nonetheless, point with pride to a number of significant Arctic scientific studies and policy
actions being announced at Kiruna. These included the
Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, the Arctic Ocean
Review, the Arctic Ocean Acidification Assessment,
and the
Agreement on Marine Oil Pollution and
Preparedness
and Response in the Arctic
. Additionally, the
Senior
Arctic Officials Report
that was also tabled at the