BUS604: Innovation and Sustainability

Every state pursuing territorial or economic claims in the Arctic region does so with a legal, diplomatic and security strategy derived from a vision and concept for the future of the Far North. The 1996 Ottawa Declaration first affirmed a shared vision in a number of key principles, most notably commitments to the wellbeing of northern peoples, sustainable development, protection of the environment, international cooperation, and the advancement of science and research in all these areas. All these principles have trickled down and are reflected in the concepts of the published northern policies and strategies of the wider Arctic Five, the EU, and the non-littoral states Finland, Sweden, and Iceland.  This general agreement on the level of international vision is a positive development, but with regard to policy concepts and strategies there are important differences in emphasis and strategic priority. The littoral Arctic Five all emphasize sovereignty and national security, whereas the non-littoral states and the EU highlight international security. Russia emphasizes development of infrastructure, whereas Canada has recently made the development of northern peoples the priority in both domestic policy and its Arctic Council chairmanship.

In some cases, we see Arctic policies that are called 'strategies', but lack a genuine strategy. The difference is that a policy is more limited. A policy is a concept that states the preferences and goals of a government or a ministry. But without a comprehensive means of placing those goals in a process, the concept is not translated into a strategy. A viable strategy must have three characteristics: it should be comprehensive or integrated among a whole government or alliance; it should concern the long term; and it should incorporate a mechanism for dealing with a dynamic interaction with other players.

Several of our interview subjects have expressed a desire for good scenario planning capabilities, on the national level and in the Arctic Council, as well as in assessments of ecological resilience.  As we shall see, the Russians and the Chinese can be said to have comprehensive international strategies, whereas Canada has the most comprehensive domestic Arctic strategy and policy framework. All these national movements, taken together, reveal a breakthrough process that is still ongoing. We next examine the players in turn: Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, the US, China, the EU, and NATO.