257
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Creating a Framework for Consensus Building & Governance
Ministerial Meeting outlined a wide variety of additional undertakings of the Council and its
specialized working groups and task forces. These included inquiries into such diverse areas as
maritime shipping, ecosystem-based management and northern community health and resilience.
Taken as a whole, they represented a substantial body of both new research findings and concrete
policy deliverables.
Equally important, the long-standing and troublesome question of admitting new observers to the
organization was finally resolved in Kiruna. The Council decided to welcome six new observers:
China, Japan, Korea, India, Singapore and Italy. It also provided an opportunity for the European
Union to join this group in the near future. By reaching outward to include a number of non-Arctic
states within the body – and at the same time recognizing the primacy of the Arctic Eight and the
Permanent Participants – the Council arrived at the type of desirable compromise position that the
Swedish Chairmanship had long-encouraged. It had taken long hours and many meetings to
accomplish this, but the result promised a stronger and more effective Council in the future.
14
Having achieved most of its stated objectives with respect to promoting environmental protection in
the Arctic, encouraging sustainable development in the region, and strengthening the institutional
framework of the Council, Sweden now passed the gavel of the Arctic Council to Canada. It could
do so with some degree of satisfaction and sense of accomplishment. Two years of focused
attention and committed effort had brought about important results and an enhanced sense of
organizational vitality. These both could be celebrated at the Swedish Chairmanship‘s concluding
dinner at the Ice Hotel just outside of Kiruna.
Conclusion: Assessing the Impact of the Swedish Chairmanship
In many respects, the Swedish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council proved to be quite successful and
certainly exceeded the limited expectations that some held for it at the outset of its term. It delivered
on many of its proposed agenda items during the two years it was at the helm of the organization
and provided visible and adept leadership for the body as it undertook important steps in its own
development and evolution. Nonetheless, there were some limitations to its performance. Some of
these arose from an over-crowded schedule – too much to do in too little time. Others were
reflective of significant internal debates and changes taking place within the organization itself which
made it difficult to formulate consensus positions on all items. Examples of each type of problem
are provided below.
Although the Swedish Chairmanship had promised a wide-ranging discussion of Arctic issues, some
tended to get sidelined along the way. Two in particular – support for the culture and languages of
Arctic indigenous peoples and consideration of gender issues – received rather limited attention.
The Swedish government‘s relations with its own indigenous people, the Saami, have been troubled
and difficult for some time. Meaningful dialogue and shared perspectives on issues related to natural
resource utilization, autonomous cultural development and local decision-making in traditional
Saami lands have been limited. As such, it seemed difficult for the Swedish Chairmanship to decide
how to move forward on its planned initiative to encourage support for indigenous languages and
cultures across the Arctic. Though well-intentioned, its efforts often went in no particular direction