The Arctic Council and the Search and Rescue Agreement: the case of Norway

Abstract

On 12 May 2011 at the seventh ministerial meeting, the member states of the Arctic Council (AC) signed the Arctic SAR agreement, the first legally binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the AC. Its objective is to strengthen search and rescue cooperation and coordination in the Arctic. The purpose of this article is to explore why an agreement on search and rescue under the auspices of the AC has been negotiated; what its key features are; and lastly, how it is and will be implemented. It is argued that the SAR agreement is more important for the AC than for Norway. It has had limited practical consequences in that country. The agreement may be politically and symbolically significant but it has neither financially nor organisationally changed Norwegian search and rescue policy.

Arctic governance

“…For example, it was initially not seen as necessary that search and rescue coordination -a US proposal that enjoyed fairly immediate support (Arctic Council, 2008: 6) -be supported by formal negotiations or a binding agreement (US Delegation of the Arctic Council, 2008). On a similar note, Russia is seen to have been instrumental in promoting the pursuit of a formal agreement on the topic of marine oil preparedness and response (Rottem, 2013;Arctic Council, 2011a: 8). Russia has been highly involved in the follow-up process (oil-spill pollution prevention framework), even submitting draft framework text early in the process (Arctic Council Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Prevention, 2014a).…”

“…Pan-Arctic social and economic assessments also tend to include useful overview chapters on 'governance' that present formal Arctic political structures; their competencies; and challenges relating to the division of responsibility between non-regional governance and national, local and indigenous governance structures (Nymand Larsen and Fondahl, 2015;Poelzer and Wilson, 2015). The Arctic Council itself as a political institution has garnered a particularly high level of attention and generated strong scholarship (Dodds, 2013;English, 2013;Graczyk and Koivurova, 2014;Nicol and Heininen, 2013;Pedersen, 2012;Rottem, 2013). Local, cross-regional diplomacy and people-to-people contacts has also garnered attention (such as Olsen and Shadian, 2016; Tennberg, 2012).…”

Russia in the Arctic region: Going bilateral or multilateral?

“…Second, it shows Russian interest in regional soft security in general. The agreement set up legally binding division of responsibilities for search and rescue operations, but does not interfere into national priorities (Rottem, 2014). For Russia, promoting this document granted it the role of a responsible neighbor, interested in fostering trans-border cooperation, which lies beyond its main field of interests.…”

Telemedicine Services for the Arctic: A Systematic Review

“…There are factors that affect successful implementation of maritime or offshore telemedicine in the Arctic, including long distance, extreme weather conditions, absence of good communication coverage, and the time required for search and rescue (SAR) helicopters to reach the Artic, which reduce the possibility of medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) [ 6 , 10 - 12 ]. According to AH Gundersen, Senior adviser at The Joint Rescue Coordination Centre of Northern Norway (JRCC NN) in Bodø, time is considered to be the scarcest resource in an emergency situation, particularly in the Arctic, because of the long distance and harsh environmental conditions [ 13 ]. Moreover, the absence of on-board trained nurses or physicians, limited equipment and medicine, and onshore professional advice limited to only radio medical advice, further aggravates the situation [ 6 ].…”