EU Engagement in the Arctic: Do the Policy Responses from the Arctic States Recognise the EU as a Legitimate Stakeholder?

• Author: Kamrul Hossain
• Pages: 3-24

EU Engagement in the Arctic:

Do the Policy Responses from the

Arctic States Recognise the EU as a

Legitimate Stakeholder?

Kamrul Hossain*

Research Director, Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre,

University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

Abstract

The Arctic states are bound in an institutional relationship by means of their actions through the

Arctic Council (AC)*an organisation created by the eight Arctic states. Although a number of its

European Union (EU) states are both members and observers in the AC, the EU is not, despite its

clear stake in the Arctic, for of a number of reasons. The AC twice postponed the application of the

EU in 2013; however, it granted the EU the right to observe the AC meetings as an ‘‘observer in

principle.’’In addition to the significant resource and commercial interests ofthe EU in the Arctic, it

assumes a stewardship role in the Arctic. As the leader in combating global climate change, for

example, the EU is committed to assuming responsibility for protecting the Arctic environment

given that climate change does have a devastating impact in the Arctic. Moreover, the EU is also

concerned about its and continental Europe’s only indigenous people, the Sa´mi, a significant pro-

portion of whom live in its Arctic member states of Finland and Sweden. Thus, in recent years,

the EU has endorsed a series of policy documents concerning the Arctic. Against the background of

this development, this article examines whether the policy responses of the Arctic states with regard

to the EU’s increased ambition to engage in Arctic matters make it a legitimate actor or stakeholder.

The article concludes that even though the Arctic states, as the primary actors, determine the region’s

governance approach, they see also a general partnership role for the EU with regard to the common

goals of knowledge-based responsible governance and sustainable development of the Arctic.

Keywords: Arctic Council;Arctic states;European Union;climate change;Sa

´mi;

observer status;stakeholder

Received: March 2015; Accepted: July 2015; Published: November 2015

1. Introduction

Since the end of past decade, the European Union (EU) has started showing notable

interest in the Arctic. While this focus is motivated in part by the resource-oriented

and commercial ambitions of the EU in the region, it also*and perhaps more

*Correspondence to: Kamrul Hossain, Research Director, Norther n Institute for Environmental

and Minority Law, PO Box 122, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Fin-96101 Rovaniemi,

Finland. Email: kamrul.hossain@ulapland.fi

Arctic Review on Law and Politics

Vol. 6, No. 2, 2015, pp. 89110

#2015 K. Hossain. This is an Open Access article distributed under the ter ms of the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to

copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any

purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

Citation: K. Hossain. ‘‘EUEngagement in the Arctic: Dothe Policy Responses from the Arctic States Recognise the EU as a Legitimate

Stakeholder?.’’ Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2015, pp. 89110. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v6.97 89

importantly*reflects a concern over the rapid climate change occurring in the

region. As the leader in combating global climate change, the EU is committed to

assuming responsibility for protecting the Arctic environment. Climate change will

have a devastating impact not only in the Arctic but also globally; for example,

melting ice in the Arctic, in particular the Greenlandic ice sheet, is causing sea levels

to rise. In addition, the EU is concerned about its and continental Europe’s only

indigenous people, the Sa´mi, a significant proportion of whom live in its Arctic

member states*Finland and Sweden*and the protection of whose rights falls

within the ambit of the EU’s policy priorities.

It is in light of these commitments that the EU has developed a policy of its own

towards the Arctic. It has concluded bilateral and multilateral cooperation arrange-

ments with a number of states located in the region. While the EU considers the

Arctic Council (AC) as the primary intergovernmental body in the region, it has not

been admitted as a formal observer in the Council. The AC has twice postponed the

EU’s application for observer status*in 2009 as well as in 2011. In 2013, however,

at the Council’s Kiruna meeting, a relatively positive decision was taken concerning

the application: although the EU still was not granted official observer status, it

was given the right to observe the AC’s meetings as an ‘‘observer in principle.’’

1

The most recent AC ministerial meeting, held in Iqaluit, Canada, in April 2015,

suggests another 2 years of deferral of its formal observer status to the Council.

2

Why should the Council be unwilling to formally endorse the EU as an observer?

The most obvious answer to the question is that Canada has been unwilling to do so.

At the Ministerial Meeting in Kiruna in 2013, Canada was backed by Russia in its

efforts to oppose EU observership.

3

The reason for Canada’s reluctance is seemingly

the EU’s Seal Ban Regulation,

4

which has aggrieved Canada, whose Inuit population

is clearly economically affected by the instrument. However, while Canada, at least

seemingly formally, had lifted its opposition at the 2015 AC ministerial meeting,

Russia’s opposition still led once more to a deferral of the EU becoming a formal

observer,

5

and this is said to be due to the recent diplomatic battles between the

EU and Russia. In any case, although the EU is geographically linked to the Arctic

(in particular the European Arctic), Canada, Russia, and the United States generally

consider it an external player in the region.

6

In particular, Russia has been tra-

ditionally sceptical of any external involvement in regional issues.

7

Even though the

creation of the AC is a product of the post-Cold War era, tensions remain that make

Russia cautious despite its gradual engagement in many multilateral for ums, such

as the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in

Europe, and its recent membership in the WTO. With regard to external engagement

in Arctic affairs, especially with respect to the Arctic Ocean, Russia tends to view

matters as essentially pertaining to the coastal states only.

8

As for the European

Arctic countries, on an official level they apparently view the EU’s engagement as

beneficial. However, the bilateral disagreement between the EU and Denmark seems

to have created some tension. Denmark’s willingness to have an independent Arctic

policy, and its distinct position within ‘‘the Arctic five’’ (the Arctic Ocean coastal

states) concerning the future management of living resources in the Arctic Ocean

K. Hossain

90