Governance Case Study

Historical Background

Grew out of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (1991) and inaugurated 1996.

Canada, Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA.

Indigenous Peoples Participants.Soft law, high-level forum. No definitive location; meetings rotate and working

groups across the North.

Philosophy

Collective rights (cultural pluralism) and “public interest” of Arctic citizens is the major influence.

NOTE: “citizenship” is NOT based on bounded territorial citizenship - language, cultural heritage and regional location apply.

Participants: 8 nations, 6 indigenous peoples groups, registered “observers,” and working groups and task force members.

Sectoral Convergence – Public,

Private, and Voluntary

The Arctic Council blends Public, Private, and Voluntary sectors

8 liberal democracies.Numerous private businesses involved in

working groups and task forces to create and innovate in the North.

6 indigenous peoples groups that add traditional knowledge and monitor all work through the 3 level of hierarchy.

Registered observers include nation states, and NGOs such as WWF and IFRC

Leadership 1

Rotating Chair between 8 nations on 2-year termsLeadership Circle: Collegial and collaborative.Mission: sustainable development &

environmental protectionModel of Leadership: Based on Public Service

leadership Sources of Influence: Only Arctic States and

Indigenous Participants can propose new projects at Council Table; but Observers can propose projects outside of Council meetings.

Resources: Funded on a voluntary basis by nation states; Observers may not fund more than nation states

Leadership 2

Resources: Funded on a voluntary basis by nation states; Observers may not fund more than nation states.

Work Pattern: Uses all 3 patterns (Public, Private, and Voluntary).

Measure: “Public good” of Indigenous Peoples; new relationships between 3 sectors.

Key Challenges: Funding (nation states may not want to fund project) and Politics (heightening tensions between nation states, e.g. Crimea)

Accountability

Accountability is the responsibility of a person, or institution, who is obliged to answer questions regarding the report of, explanation of, or to justify actions that s/he has committed, or have been committed in his/her name.

To whom? Indigenous Peoples, national citizens, national governments, and professional (scientific) associations.

For what? 1) forming relevant projects and policy priorities; 2) fiscal responsibility; 3) effective organizational governance; and, 4) quality and range of scientific reports.

By what means? Yearly financial audits; performance/ program review audits; and, all papers, reports, programs, etc. are available for free on the internet.

Conclusions

New Governance demands the inclusion of the public – Arctic Council includes public voices.

New Governance recognizes issues (environment, sustainable development, etc.) are transboundary and should include those most impacted – Arctic Council includes Indigenous Peoples.

Leadership is a joint effort between sovereign states, scientists, and Indigenous Peoples.

Accountability is more open and easily seen via internet.

The Arctic Council can be used as “model” for further new governance formats to ensure the inclusion of all people.

Resources and References

Arctic Council: http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/

Note: This presentation is based on a Master’s course paper for GOVN500, Athabasca University.

Original (27 page) paper available at: http://www.slideshare.net/CharmaineBarton/paper-3-59793835

andhttps://www.academia.edu/15367401/Case_Study_of_the_Arctic_Council_Governance_Paradigm_Colouring_Outside_the_line