Procedural reform at the Arctic Council: the amended 2015 Observer Manual

Abstract

This note studies the addendum to the Arctic Council (AC)'s 2013 Observer Manual adopted at the Senior Arctic Officials’ (SAO) meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in October 2015. The amendment means another essential step to systematise further and improve the council's working relations with currently 32 entities that hold observer status in the forum. Compared to the initial manual that sketched out the role observers should play in the council's subsidiary bodies, the latest revisions delineate a framework for enhancing observer participation and commitment in working group, task force and expert group meetings. After reviewing the content and practical implications of the addendum in the context of larger reform efforts to adapt the council to the age of a global(ising) Arctic, the article further discusses a number of signals the Anchorage decision sends to observers. These comprise the council's willingness and ability to quick, unified and purposeful action towards institutional adaptation and procedural reform as considered necessary to address organisational deficiencies, strengthened top-down steering of the reform processes by SAOs as related to the work conducted in subsidiary bodies and the overall functioning of the council, and higher expectations on observers to contribute to the AC system and deliver on the new provisions.

Science diplomacy and Asian states: Transforming the governance landscape in the Arctic

“…The rising awareness of ocean connectivity in relation to climate change effects (Popova et al, 2019; Rogers et al, 2014) and the increasing involvement of non-Arctic states in Arctic science (research, investment and infrastructure) initiated the development of a “globalized Arctic Council” through the reform of observers’ status in 2013 and 2015 (Arctic Council, 2013, 2015; Popova et al, 2019; Rogers et al, 2014). These reforms gave place to the participation of non-Arctic states as observers in negotiation processes, widening their role in Arctic governance (Knecht, 2016).…”

‘Have you entered the storehouses of the snow?’ China as a norm entrepreneur in the Arctic

“…Since China and other new observers were admitted in 2013, the organisation has sought instead to clarify the relationship between the council and its observers. An amended and expanded council observer manual was approved at a senior Arctic officials meeting in Anchorage, Alaska in October 2015, incorporating calls for observers to participate more fully in council affairs, including in the organisation's working groups, and to provide logistic and financial support to council projects (Knecht 2016). It remains to be seen, however, whether these upgrades will be sufficient to address the ongoing Arctic globalisation questions, especially with other potential observers waiting for admission.…”

“…A senior representative of the China National Petroleum Corporation, speaking at the annual Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, noted that his firm stood ready to participate in regional fossil fuel extraction and that developing Arctic resources required the ‘joint efforts of all countries’ (China Daily/Xinhua 2015). Speculation about an Arctic boom, however, was quickly squelched by the commodity crash (Koyanagi 2016), which rendered local large-scale resource extraction, via drilling and mining, financially nonviable. However, given the cyclical rise and fall of commodities markets over the past century, there remains the question of when resource prices will recover to the level where the Arctic will again be considered an attractive region for resource development.…”

The politics of Arctic international cooperation: Introducing a dataset on stakeholder participation in Arctic Council meetings, 1998–2015

“…Consensus reached on the SAO level is subsequently transferred to ministers. (Graczyk and Koivurova, 2015: 588; see also Haavisto, 2001) Over the past few years, however, there has also been a growing tendency towards more top-down steering and control over institutional procedures in the light of the high number of newly interested actors and their admission to the Council (Knecht, 2016).…”

“…Over the past few years, however, there has also been a growing tendency towards more top-down steering and control over institutional procedures in the light of the high number of newly interested actors and their admission to the Council (Knecht, 2016).…”