Hello, everyone. My name is Timo Koivurova. I'm a Professor and a Director of the Arctic Center University of Lapland, Finland. I'm going to talk to you about the changing Arctic Council. The structure of the section of the course is the following. I'm going to be looking at how the pan-Arctic cooperation has changed over all these 25 plus years. First, in the general level, and then looking at the more specific aspect of change: institutional changes, changes in participants and decision-making, changes in how to influence national international policy from the part of the Arctic Council, and finally, draw some conclusions. During the Cold War, the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union were closest to each other in the Arctic. Obviously, it was a place for strategic confrontation at that time, which prevent it in the real deal cooperation between all the eight Arctic states. This started to gradually change before the end of the Cold War. This change happened already with the Secretary General Gorbachev, giving his famous Murmansk speech in 1907, identifying few areas for pan-Artic cooperation: nuclear free zone, coordinating scientific activities, even protecting and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the Arctic environment. Finland took up the idea of protecting the Arctic environment, and after a few rounds of negotiations, the eight Arctic states were able to conclude the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, AEPS, in 1901 in Rovaniemi, Finland. Very much about the environmental protection, working groups, environmental monitoring, and assessment. These activities of the AEPS were merged then later into the Canadian Initiative of the Arctic Council during 1996/1998. Yet main things remain the same. Main changes were only that Arctic indigenous peoples gained a better position as permanent participants and also that sustainable development was seen as the second pillar of activity in addition to environmental protection. The most recent change was really the so-called Arctic hype years, let's say from 2004 to 2008 when the Arctic was established as an early warning place of climate change. There were also expectations of vast resources offshore, oil and gas resources, in the Arctic. Also, there were some concerns about the geopolitical power game starting in the Arctic. Russians were planting their flag underneath the North Pole in August 2007. So, all of these events really meant that big players like China, European Union got interested, got interest in the Arctic issues which then again led to more expectations from the Arctic Council to become a stronger actor. Institutional changes from the beginning from the AEPS onwards, it has been coordinated from the foreign ministries of the Arctic Eight. Senior Arctic Officials have been really the crucial ambassadors that are coordinating the activity. There are two-year chairmanships that are rotating with the member states, and these always end with the ministerial meeting and a declaration. Secretariat used to follow the chairmanship. This changed when the permanent secretariat became operational in 2013. This is now located in Tromso, Norway. Main work has always already during the times of the AEPS has been in the working groups. But nowadays, there are more and more activities done via temporary task forces and also expert groups. So, the Arctic Council, as an intergovernmental forum, is expanding and becoming more complex. Changes in participants. First, during the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, eight Arctic states were the members and all others as observers. whether or not they were inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, or indigenous peoples' organizations. Consensus decision-making was the way to make decisions already at that time. Since the AEPS was not an intergovernmental organization, it was founded on a declaration, it could not enact any legally binding decisions. They were more like political commitments between the member states. The same applies to the Arctic Council. It is also not an intergovernmental organization. It is an intergovernmental forum. In terms of the participants, the change came with the Arctic Council that the indigenous peoples' organizations became quite uniquely, even in international comparison as permanent participants in an intergovernmental forum. The big change over the participancy in the work of the Arctic Council came with the observers. During the hype years, 2004, 2009, lets say so, especially starting from 2007, there started to be a controversy over the observers. There were new candidates coming in China, European Union, et cetera, et cetera wanting to become part of the activity of the Arctic Council. All the observers like France were wanting to have better position to influence the work of the Arctic Council, and the small indigenous peoples' organizations that were permanent participants were slightly concerned about these big delegations coming from China to these meetings of the Arctic Council. The problem was caused by the fact that there were no real rules about the observers; under what criteria one can be an observer, what are their rights and obligations. The solution came with the revision of the internal rules. In principle, it meant that all observers need to accept the primacy of eight Arctic states and permanent participants. Yet, and importantly, observers can now influence in the working groups, where, as I have already said, there the main bulk of the work is being done. Currently, there are 13 country observers, mainly from Asia and Europe, and 39 observers all together. Changes in decision-making. This had been, by consensus, from the beginning AEPS, Arctic Council. Yet, what is striking in the Arctic Council is really that the permanent participant organizations, these small indigenous peoples' organizations, are sitting at the same table then the governments, and they have to be consulted before any decision-making by the member states. In practice, if the permanent participants reject a certain motion for decision, it will not even proceed to decision-making. Changes to influence policy and law. What are the ways that the Arctic Council is trying to influence national and international policy? From the beginning, it has been a niche activity that produce these scientific assessment which identify threats to the Arctic environment. These have been also the basis where to which the Arctic Council actors have been able to rely on when they have influence, even global environmental negotiations such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants or the global mercury negotiations. This scientific assessments have become more and more ambitious starting with the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Now, including also recommendations to policymakers, and later assessments also include follow-up. So, really, following up whether these recommendations are being followed up by the relevant actors. Recently, Arctic Council started to catalyze independent Arctic international organizations such as the Arctic Economic Council and also legally binding agreements between the eight Arctic states. Three of such agreements have already been concluded, and the final one was now signed in the Fairbanks Ministerial Meeting in May 2017 on enhancing international scientific cooperation. Let me say a few concluding words. The original Finnish idea was really to enable the United States and the Soviet Union, the two superpowers during the Cold War, major rivalries of the Cold War, to focus on environmental protection and thereby enable their dialogue in a constructive manner. This seems to have been successful even after the Crimean annexation by Russia and the cold period that ensued between Russia and the Western powers, the Arctic Council has been able to function. With the increased attention to Arctic issues, the expectations from the Arctic Council has also increased, and as I've been demonstrating, the Artic Council has become much more ambitious body than it used to be. The pan-Arctic cooperation between the eight Arctic states has been able to react to all these changes without any long-term strategy. Currently, during the Finnish chairmanship, Finland is tasked now to provide the first ever long-term strategy together with the other seven member states by 2019. Thank you for your attention.
