Sustainable Development Working Group, Arctic Council’s

There has been great popular and scholarly interest in the activities of non-Arctic actors in the Arctic region, and in the Arctic Council specifically. We find controversy around the activities of Observers in the Council, with some seeing challenges to Arctic states and others seeing positive co-operation. The Arctic Council is the preeminent governance forum for the Arctic region, consisting of the Arctic states (as of 2023, minus Russia) and six Indigenous peoples’ organisations. Non-Arctic states, intergovernmental organisations and non-governmental organisations can be Observers in the institution. Existing literature has examined the significance, interest and powers of these actors; this paper answers the research question, what do Observers actually do in the Arctic Council? To answer this question, this paper presents the results of content analysis of official Arctic Council Observer reviews and reports, which catalogue their activities. The answer may seem obvious: Observers observe. However, Arctic Council Observers do more than this simple function. This paper proposes that all of the activities of Observers fit into a typology of six types of activity. The ultimate finding is that Observers in the Arctic Council work with Arctic states to enhance institutional work around climate change and sustainable development; we see examples of positive co-operation that enhances regional governance. It is another example of peaceful international relations in the Arctic.

Thinking about Russian Arctic council chairmanship: Challenges and opportunities

Arctic-wide intergovernmental cooperation protecting the Arctic environment formally began with the establishment of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), which later transformed into the Arctic Council. However, the founding documents of cooperation in both were soft-law in nature rather than internationally concluded treaties. The main objective of the Arctic Council is to promote ‘environmental protection’ and ‘sustainable development’ in the Arctic. Neither the AEPS nor the Arctic Council included the issue of climate change in their working agenda or as a primary concern during their establishment. However, the AEPS was concerned with the ‘global climate’ during its formation, although it decided not to address the issue since other international forums had already started to work on it. Nevertheless, climate change seriously affects both of the main objectives of the Council: environmental protection and sustainable development in the Arctic. In the course of time, climate change has become an important issue within Arctic-wide cooperation. The Council provides significant information to policy-makers and other actors by conducting a number of projects to limit climate change in the Arctic or address the consequences caused by climate change to its ecosystems and inhabitants. Even with its institutional weaknesses due to the lack of proper mechanisms, the Council functions through its various working groups and their programs. Two decades after the beginning of cooperation, it is timely to conduct an extensive evaluation of its success mainly in the field of climate change.

The article covers the legal aspects of the establishment of a new international forum – the Arctic Economic Council – and its role in the existing international legal framework for governing the Arctic Ocean, including the Arctic seas. The status and the functioning of this international forum, particularly with regard to the activities within its Working Groups, are examined based on an analysis of the documents adopted by the forum since its establishment. Special attention is paid to the legal analysis of the coordination of the newly established forum with the Arctic Council and the prospects of such institutional cooperation. The research is based on the relevant documents released by the Artic Council, in the context of legal and scientific sources on the topic of the Arctic Ocean and its seas, as well as on the Reports of the Arctic Economic Council submitted to the Senior Officials of the Arctic Council. The article also takes into consideration the political and legal research into the Arctic Council’s work, aimed at the sustainable development of economic activities in the region, as well as respective archive documents from the electronic database of the Arctic Council, including relevant press releases. The Arctic Economic Council (AEC), established at the initiative of the Arctic Council in 2014, is a new circumpolar business forum, which aims at fostering the sustainable development of the Arctic region by substantive cooperation with entrepreneurs who carry out economic activities in the region or plan to do so. The new international organization has the potential to become an effective international legal mechanism to promote greener economies in the Arctic. At the same time, however, the organization is yet to become a constructive platform for dialogue on fostering economic activities in the region. The AEC foundational documents determine the structure and the course of action of the organization. The article, nevertheless, suggests that the executives and the Secretary of this newly established international forum ensure that business representatives, committed to conducting activities in the Arctic, seek to comply with international environmental standards, applicable to the Arctic, namely, the exchange of best practices, with due account of the unique vulnerability of the Arctic environment. Moreover, in view of the growth in shipping and other marine activities in the region, Arctic business standards need to be more environmentally oriented, while also taking into account the possibility of diversifying the Arctic economy. The AEC could focus its efforts on enhancing the quality of regional regulation of the economic activities in the Arctic, paying particular attention to the coordinated self-regulative measures of the legal entities in different countries. In this case, its activities may prove to be more relevant and effective.

This seventh Synthesis with the Science Diplomacy Action serial emerged from the panel session on Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries, which was convened during the Arctic Circle Japan Forum in Tokyo on 5 March 2023. This session built on transdisciplinary dialogues with the February-March 2022 webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries, which was funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan with coordination and logistics provided by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), as represented in Synthesis 6. Dialogues in both venues were strongly influence by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war with consequences for international Arctic scientific cooperation, as reflected by the 3 March 2022 “pausing” of the Arctic Council. With this background, the Arctic Circle Japan Forum session addressed three questions: 1. How can nations maintain as well as enhance international Arctic scientific cooperation, especially in the context of Open Science? 2. How can individual scientists work with ministries to build Open Science inclusively during times of geopolitical strain? 3. How can ministries facilitate continuity with the Arctic Council inclusively beyond the Arctic Council chairship rotation from Russia to Norway in May 2023? The panel involved leaders from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), National Institute for Polar Research (NIPR), Sasakawa Peace Foundation, Science Diplomacy Center™ and the University of the Arctic (UArctic). Panelists’ international perspectives from Finland, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and the United States are represented in the transcript of their panel dialogue, which is reproduced herein to provide insights about continuity with international scientific cooperation and Open Science inclusively to achieve progress with Pan-Arctic sustainable development.

This article focuses on the question to what extent wilderness protection receives attention in the international governance systems for the Polar Regions (Arctic Council and Antarctic Treaty System). First, on the basis of a definition of the term ‘wilderness’, the role of law in protecting wilderness is discussed. Next, attention is focused on wilderness protection in the Arctic and Antarctic. It is concluded that the international governance systems pay very little attention to the preservation of the Polar Regions as the last relatively untouched wildernesses on earth. The applicability of various multilateral environmental agreements (particularly the Arctic) is not very helpful in this respect as wilderness protection does not receive substantial attention in these legal instruments either. In view of the broad acknowledgement of the wilderness values of the Polar Regions and the fast increase of commercial activities in these regions, the author urges stakeholders involved in the Arctic Council and the Antarctic Treaty System to open the debate on relevant questions: What are wilderness values in the context of the Polar Regions and when would these values be affected? For the Arctic, how could wilderness protection be integrated in the efforts regarding sustainable development to ensure the right balance between wilderness protection and the protection of indigenous peoples rights? The questions are certainly complex; however, excluding these questions from the international governance debate with the argument that the concept is too vague, subjective or sensitive will most certainly result in a continuing loss of untouched nature, both in the Arctic and Antarctic.

The study aims to identify the main trends in the sustainable development of tourism in the Arctic Region of Russia and to develop theoretical, methodological and practical recommendations for the Russian Arctic tourism promotion. Crucial principles of tourism sustainability are listed. The author analyses the concepts of integrated tourism promotion of regions and sustainable tourism development, identified by the World Tourism Organization and the Arctic Council. The article outlines the concept of sustainable development of Russian Arctic tourism, defined by the national legislative, directive and statutory laws regulating tourism and the Arctic Region. Along with an analysis of tourism business modification, a review of the particular directions of the organisation and implementation of tourist services of the Russian Arctic is carried out. As a result, promising directions for promoting Russian Arctic tourism in correlation with the global trend of sustainable development, which is characteristic of a modern intensive economy using socially responsible management, are identified. The suggestions to improve the branding system and create an “umbrella brand” of tourism in the Arctic Region of Russia are formulated. The primary role and degree of involvement of the indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North in the development of Arctic tourism are determined. Innovative pedagogical technologies for highly specialised tourism personnel training are proposed.

Like all spatially delimited regions in international society, the Arctic is socially constructed. Political and economic considerations play prominent roles as determinants of the region’s boundaries, the identity of those states regarded as Arctic states, and the nature of the interactions between the Arctic and the outside world. From this perspective the recent history of the Arctic divides into two distinct periods: the late 1980s through 2007 and 2007 to the present. As the cold war faded, the Arctic became a peripheral region of declining importance in global political calculations. No one challenged the dominance of the eight Arctic states in regional affairs, and the Arctic Council focused on regional concerns relating to environmental protection and sus tainable development. Today, by contrast, the ‘new’ Arctic is a focus of intense glo bal interest, largely because climate change is proceeding more rapidly in this region than anywhere else on Earth with global consequences and because the increasing accessibility of the Arctic’s natural resources has generated enhanced interest on the part of outside actors. As a result, Arctic issues have merged into global issues, making the region a prominent arena for the interplay of geopolitical forces. Cooperative arrangements established during the first period (e.g. the Arctic Council) may require adjustment to operate effectively in the ‘new’ Arctic. Treated as a case study, the Arctic story provides an illuminating lens through which to analyze the forces that shape thinking about the nature of regions in international society and the role of cooperative arrangements at the regional level.

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) is a follow-on effort to the Council's Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and Arctic Marine Strategic Plan, both released in November 2004. The AMSA 2009 Report, a policy document that has been negotiated by the eight Arctic States, focuses on Arctic marine safety and marine environmental protection which fit the overall Arctic Council mandates of environmental protection and sustainable development. The Council's expert working group, Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), was tasked with conducting this assessment with Canada, Finland, and the United States as lead countries. The primary AMSA research areas were: Arctic marine geography; Arctic marine transport history; governance of Arctic shipping; the human dimension and indigenous marine use; development of scenarios or plausible future for Arctic marine navigation; conduct of data survey of vessels operating in the Arctic during 2004; an environmental impacts review; and a key review of Arctic marine infrastructure. Keywords: Arctic marine geography; Arctic marine navigation; Arctic marine safety; Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA); Arctic Marine Strategic Plan; Arctic marine transport history; eight Arctic States

This Field Report describes the stages in the development of the Arctic Food Innovation Cluster (AFIC). Motivation for AFIC arose during research supported by the Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group, which found the development of Arctic food industries was constrained by a general absence of innovation in primary and secondary product development. Through a series of iterative stages—scoping, consultations, design—a vision for AFIC emerged. This involved the establishment of a central AFIC hub that would promote strategic coordination, direction, and knowledge mobilization between stakeholders. The High North Centre (HNC) for Business and Governance at Nord University in Norway has assumed this central role and will guide the development of the AFIC initiative. The AFIC strategy assumes development of a network of regional pan-Arctic food hubs that will serve as aggregation points for knowledge sharing and strengthening the interconnectivity between local food producers and other value chain actors in the Arctic food system. Ultimately, the goal of AFIC and its associated regional hubs is to help instill a sense of pride, empowerment, health, and wellbeing in Arctic communities through the sustainable development of Arctic food industries.

Climate change provides opportunities in the surrounding areas of North Pole to commercial shipping activities, but which also poses risks to ship strikes, oil spills, chronic marine environmental pollution, etc. However, the public product supply of Arctic environmental emergency response and governance is seriously insufficient. As such, a collective and effective system should be established to protect the Arctic environment. In the present paper, a complex network model of Arctic environmental emergency response and governance system is developed. The strategy of each country in the complex network is demonstrated by evolutionary game simulations of this system model. Computational results indicate that the benefit of environmental emergency response and governance affects the cooperation strategy of each country. Moreover, Long-term benefit and return intensity are the key parameters of environmental emergency response and governance benefit. These findings extend theoretical research in the sustainable development Arctic routes and provide reference for the participation of other countries beyond the Arctic Council.

Numerous specialized and unauthorized landfills and huge volumes of waste are a serious problem for the use of minerals. The country's system of solid waste management, based on burial, incinera-tion, partial processing, does not fully comply with the climatic and socio-economic characteristics of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Russia is one of eight members of the Arctic Council, international organizations promoting development of cooperation in the field of environmental protection and sustainable develop-ment of circumpolar areas. In 2001, the Arctic Council approved an Action Plan for the elimination of pollution in the Arctic. For the implementation of the Plan, a specially created expert group on waste supports and oversees pilot projects demonstrating environmentally friendly waste management in the Arctic. Waste dis-posal methods that do not meet environmental standards can contribute to soil, water and air pollution through toxic emissions. Improper waste management can also lead to transboundary emissions. While there is clear progress in this direction in Europe due to the implementation of effective public policies on waste and a focus on the transition to a circular economy, significant amounts of valuable resources remain untapped as a result of ineffective waste management in practice.

I argue that Model Arctic Council (MAC) has a role to play in Arctic sustainable development. Like the better-known Model United Nations (MUN), MAC is a form of simulation pedagogy, an experiential learning process in which secondary-school pupils or university students comprehend the nature and importance of complex issues such as sustainable development by imagining themselves as diplomats trying to negotiate a common approach to them. After demonstrating the educational value of diplomatic simulations in general, I introduce MUN as its most popular form, and I assess a case-study of a global MUN program designed to advance knowledge and action among youth in respect of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This case-study, taken together with the structure, subject-matter and educational value of MAC itself, strongly suggests that MAC can be used to advance knowledge and action among both Arctic and non-Arctic youth in respect of Arctic sustainable development, including understanding how the notion of sustainable development is both contested in general and contextualized in the Arctic. Combining this analysis with professional experience, I offer practical recommendations to educators about the effective design and use of MAC and other simulation pedagogies.

The formation of cooperation policy in the field of environmental protection and sustainable development of the Arctic is connected with international institutions. At the beginning of the 1990s, transformations in the international arena took place that were also affecting the Arctic region. The collapse of the USSR changed the geopolitical situation, while globalization raised public awareness of global issues. The fact that the Arctic States were parts of different political blocs during the Cold War hindered their political and economic interaction in the early 1990s. The then-existing international organizations present in the Arctic did not cover issues related to soft security and international cooperation. It was necessary to ease tensions between the Arctic States and thus prepare the ground for further enhancement of cooperation.At the same time, environmentalism within the world community peaked at the turn of the decade, affecting the work of international organizations at the political level. After the 1987 report by the Brundtland Commission, the Arctic strategy for sustainable development was only a matter of time. The proposals made in Mikhail Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech in 1987, as well as Finland’s initiative in the Rovaniemi Process, came to pass due to the Arctic States’ readiness to cooperate on non-military matters. The choice fell on environmental protection and sustainable development. The article examines the activities of the Arctic Council as a unique organization that was created to ensure environmental cooperation in the Arctic. The main research question is to study the place and role of environmental cooperation for the member states of the Arctic Council and assess the possibility of a joint environmental policy in the Arctic.KeywordsArcticArctic CouncilCooperation in environmental protectionSustainable development

The United States and Canada, along with Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden, are the so-called "official" Arctic countries. In the 21st century, The United States and Canada have begun to implement national Arctic strategies and updated them. The accepted documents have both similarities and differences. The United States and Canada are active members of the Arctic Council and view it as a platform for negotiations on a wide range of issues related to the development of the Arctic. The United States has come a long way in the Arctic, including in terms of regulation. Unlike other Arctic countries, the United States has a minimal area of access to the Arctic Ocean, their strategy as a whole is turned “outward”. The first Canadian strategy for the development of the Northern Territories (2013) is addressed directly to the development of the northern periphery of the country, formulates tasks for its sustainable socio-economic development, the development of indigenous peoples, and the support of sovereignty. In 2019, the updated strategy presented already combined national and international goals for the development of the Arctic and the North. To advance national interests in the Arctic, the US and Canada have developed and funded a geographically, infrastructure, stakeholder, and thematically differentiated Arctic research policy in which higher education institutions play an important role and are used to reinforce their geopolitical aspirations. The purpose of the article is to characterize the features of the Arctic strategies of the USA and Canada, as well as to analyze the contribution of universities and colleges in Alaska (USA) and the northern territories and provinces of Canada to the implementation of research policy in the Far North and the Arctic. The practical significance of the paper is in the possibility of its use in the educational process, as well as for the analysis and updating of international aspects of research activities by universities in the Arctic zone of Russia.