Andreas Raspotnik presents the new Arctic policy study to the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs in Brussels. Photo by European Union.
BRUSSELS: The EU must decide what it wants to achieve in the Arctic and match its ambitions with funding, institutions and concrete action.
That was the central message when Andreas Raspotnik, Director of the High North Center at Nord University, presented the study Focus on the High North: Upgrading the EU's Arctic policy and protecting the EU's interests in a rapidly evolving region to the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs on Tuesday this week.
The 60-page study was requested by the committee and is written by Andreas Raspotnik, Adam Stępień and Andreas Østhagen.
All three are affiliated with Nord University or the High North Center, alongside the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and the Arctic Centre at the University of Lapland.
A policy covering almost everything
Raspotnik opened the presentation by asking what first comes to mind when people think about the Arctic. His examples ranged from climate change, Greenland and polar bears to Iceland and Bodø/Glimt.
“The Arctic means many different things for many different people. When something means everything to everyone, it tends to mean very little in policy terms,” he told the committee.
The report finds that the EU has gradually expanded its Arctic policy since 2008, but that the policy still functions mainly as an umbrella for activities taking place across numerous sectors.
Decisions concerning energy, trade, critical raw materials, transport and space can have major consequences in the Arctic, even when they are not formally considered part of the EU’s Arctic policy.
The study therefore calls for a more focused approach that distinguishes between the European Arctic, where the EU has considerable influence, and the wider circumpolar Arctic, where its role is more limited.
A different Arctic after 2022
The report concludes that the EU’s Arctic policy from 2021 was developed for a political environment that no longer exists.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has weakened or dismantled several of the structures that supported cooperation in the region. The Northern Dimension has ended, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council has collapsed, and the Arctic Council continues under severely constrained conditions.
At the same time, security concerns, hybrid threats and competition over strategic infrastructure and critical raw materials have become more prominent.
The Arctic of today is not the Arctic of 2021 anymore
Andreas Raspotnik
Raspotnik welcomed the fact that the Arctic is expected to appear in forthcoming European security documents, but argued that recognition alone is insufficient.
“Naming is not enough. You need to follow up with actual investments in the Arctic and strategic thinking about infrastructure and security of supply.”
Eight recommendations to the EU
The externally peer-reviewed study presents eight recommendations:
- Establish a permanent Arctic knowledge hub within the European Commission and assess how major EU decisions could affect the Arctic.
- Develop a new northern cooperation framework involving Norway, Iceland and Greenland, with possible participation by Canada and the United Kingdom.
- Give the Arctic a clear place in the EU’s new European Security Strategy.
- Strengthen maritime monitoring, preparedness and responses to hybrid threats in northern waters.
- Change EU space regulations that currently prevent Andøya Spaceport from participating fully in programmes such as the IRIS² secure satellite system.
- Support strategic projects across Finland, Norway and Sweden, including infrastructure connected to critical raw materials, while ensuring local and Indigenous participation.
- Focus Arctic climate policy on measures where the EU can make a concrete difference, including black carbon, adaptation, permafrost monitoring and long-range pollution.
- Strengthen Arctic science diplomacy and secure continued funding for international research cooperation.
Security also means viable communities
Members of the committee questioned the researchers about Indigenous rights, resource development, Russia, China, the United States, data centres, icebreakers and the recent referendum in Iceland.
Raspotnik stressed that security policy cannot be separated from the people and communities of the European North.
“People live in the Arctic. When we talk about security in the Arctic, we also talk about building strong regional societies in the European North,” he said.
The report connects investments in transport, energy, digital infrastructure and critical raw materials with employment, demographic development and local preparedness.
It also argues that Sámi and other local interests need meaningful influence over projects, including co-decision and benefit-sharing from the outset.
Calls for a northern neighbourhood
The timing of the presentation also brought Iceland into the discussion, following the country’s vote against reopening EU accession negotiations.
Raspotnik described the result as an “eye-opener” and said the EU should communicate more clearly what cooperation could offer countries outside the Union.
The report proposes a new framework for practical cooperation with Norway, Iceland and Greenland in areas such as maritime security, energy, civil protection, connectivity and critical raw materials.
“There is a southern neighbourhood and there is an eastern neighbourhood, but there is no northern neighbourhood,” Raspotnik said.
The committee chair welcomed the concept and said the Foreign Affairs Committee would continue working on the Arctic, including the EU’s forthcoming update of its Arctic policy.
