479
Arctic Yearbook 2014
footprint as well as the EU’s influence on international processes of relevance for the Arctic (for
example the Polar Code or CITES).
One must keep in mind that there is a comparatively limited interest in the Arctic affairs within
the EU. Taking into account the EU’s role in the region, sustaining an ongoing long-term
commitment of the EU to the Arctic affairs and sensitizing the EU policy-makers to Arctic
particularities is in fact in the interest of Arctic communities, nations and stakeholders and
should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
Building on ideas coming from stakeholders, the report offers a number of recommendations for
the EU policy-makers. Many of these recommendations touch upon human dimension in
regional development and enhancing human capital in the European North. For instance, the
EU is urged to develop instruments specifically addressing the needs of Arctic cities. Although
relatively small in size, northern towns play a role similar to that of major population centres in
central Europe. The policy-makers should also continue to facilitate entrepreneurship and
innovation (including social innovations) in the region, but with increasing focus on women and
dynamic indigenous youth. A greater attention to intra-regional connectivity rather than only
North-South links is needed, as it contributes to building northern knowledge- and
entrepreneurship-based economies.
A separate chapter in the report analyses various activities relevant for the land use in the
European Arctic, highlighting cumulative impacts as well as both tensions and synergies between
developments. In the light of these tensions, properly designed mechanisms for resolving
conflicts are crucial, as the social capital is founded primarily on trust both within and between
communities. Improved and integrated impact assessments, especially if they include a strong
social dimension, as well as participatory mechanisms are among the key suggested responses.
The EU policy-makers need to take into account diversity within the Arctic region and pay
special attention to the European Arctic, where the EU has the greatest leverage. It seems
inevitable that the EU policy-makers will have to keep balance between the internal and external
aspects and look for golden mean between the extremes of artificial coherence and failure to
properly coordinate between numerous branches of EU Arctic policy. However, what is also
important is that the EU communicates clearly – as it is not always the case in the EU policy
documents – when its actions refer to EU’s internal or external affairs and to the European
Arctic or circumpolar level.
Editors of the “Strategic Assessment of Development of the Arctic” report: Adam Stepien,
Timo Koivurova, Paula Kankaanpää (Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland)
Lead authors: Sigmar Arnarsson (UiT Arctic University of Norway), Kim van Dam (Arctic
Centre, University of Groningen, the Netherlands), Debra Justus (Pierre and Marie Curie
University, France), Kirsi Latola (Thule Institute of the University of Oulu, Finland, University
of the Arctic Thematic Networks), Michał Łuszczuk (Committee of Polar Research – Polish
Academy of Sciences), Gunnar Sander (Norwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, Norway),
Annette Scheepstra (Arctic Centre, University of Groningen, the Netherlands), Adam Stepien
(Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland), Mikko Strahlendorff (Finnish Meteorological
Institute).
The EU-Arctic Nexus