259
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Creating a Framework for Consensus Building & Governance
they should retain a good deal of autonomy in their research undertakings and internal processes.
On the other hand, many of the SAOs argued for increased governmental oversight of these
research efforts and more centralized administrative accountability. This division of opinion was
exacerbated by the fact that new government interests in Arctic affairs seemed to be moving in the
direction of its ―human dimension‖ thus threatening the existing research priorities of some of these
established working groups. Finding an acceptable balance between these alternative viewpoints –
and building a consensus from which to move the organization forward – became a growing
responsibility of the Swedish Chairmanship during its tenure.
In meeting all of these challenges, the Swedes were simply demonstrating many of the classical roles
performed by a chair of any organization.
17
They undertook the responsibility for directing the
formal sessions of the body. They oversaw and gave form to many of the internal processes of the
organization. They helped to shape and maintain the agenda of the Council over their term of office.
They played a brokerage role in helping to resolve divisive issues between the members and build
consensus. Finally, they endeavored to represent the organization in other settings giving it a
distinctive face and voice. However, in most every instance, they took their responsibilities one step
further. They sought not only to carry out their specific short-term assignments as part of the
Swedish Chairmanship, but also to assist in setting a general pattern of leadership for the Arctic
Council that would allow the body to more fully develop and prosper.
In the period following the conclusion of the Kiruna Ministerial Meeting, most observers of the
Arctic Council have been generally complementary of the approach and achievements of the
Swedish Chairmanship. Its organized, focused and fairly transparent way of directing the affairs of
the Council have been applauded. So too has its willingness to play the role of an ―honest broker‖ in
seeking to build consensus among the members and in assisting them to find common ground on
potentially divisive issues. Sweden has been largely praised for its ability to deliver an impressive list
of important research studies and policy decisions by the Council on Arctic matters. However, it
may well be that its organizational building efforts (establishing a Permanent Secretariat, providing
new rules of procedure, creating a formal communication strategy and resolving the impasse over
new observers) will become the most important legacy of the Swedish Chairmanship. Sweden has
again demonstrated its considerable capabilities and skills in organizational leadership and reform.
Though Sweden will likely never be seen as a leading
Arctic
state, its specific contributions as Chair
of the Arctic Council from 2011-2013 were nearly a perfect fit for the needs of the organization at
that time.
Notes
1.
Sweden‘s own indigenous peoples, the Saami, form a distinctive element of its northern
population base and provide almost an iconic symbol of the area. Nonetheless, relations
between the Swedish national government and the Saami people have not always been
harmonious. The type of conflicts between indigenous peoples and settler communities
found elsewhere in the circumpolar world are also part Swedish history. Present relations