A two-class Arctic society?

- The majority of people in the Far North are not represented in the Arctic Council due to a design fault in the Council’s very own setup, argues Tony Penikett, former Premier of Yukon Territory.

When the Arctic Council was established in 1996, permanent participation was granted to organisations representing indigenous peoples with majority Arctic indigenous constituency. Today the Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council are the Aleut International Association (AIA), the Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), the Gwich'in Council International (GCI), the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) and the Saami Council (SC).


- Regional representation must be strengthened

However, non-indigenous peoples were and are still not properly represented in the Arctic Council, Penikett argued in a conversation with High North News.

- As a matter of fact, settlers that have inhabited Arctic territories for more than 4-5 generations are perceived as 2nd class Arctic citizens and still lack proper representation in the regional governance structures, Penikett elaborated.

In order to strengthen regional representation of non-indigenous peoples, Penikett reasons to refine the Northern Forum into an updated Northern Forum 2.0.

- It could become a central forum that builds on the existing Northern Forum and enhances the debate between northern regions and its citizens, he said.

- Such advancement would demonstrate the real power structures in the Arctic as not national governments (as represented in the Arctic Council) hold Arctic agency, but regional governments.


A considerable challenge

These arguments are not new in an Arctic context. Last year, Rune Rafaelsen – major of Sør Varanger municipality in North Norway – argued along the same lines, pointing out that the Arctic Council lacks the voices of those inhabiting the Arctic. National governments located in capitals far away from the Arctic region, however, tend to maintain that regional concerns and interests are adequately represented through the national seats in the Arctic Council.

Another pertinent point to this debate is the heterogeneity across the Arctic regional entities. Ranging from nations with self-governance like Greenland, or the State of Alaska, to relatively dependent counties in Finland, Norway and Sweden, the power of the regional level in the Arctic varies considerably. Eventually, the question on how to incorporate this discrepancy in the Arctic Council governance structure poses a considerable challenge to the idea of regional representation in the Council.