205
Arctic Yearbook 2015
interparliamentary cooperation” (Thórdarson & Gallagher 2013). Since the Barents region is a subregion of the Arctic, virtually all discussion taking place during the Conference meetings are relevant
for the Arctic. At the same time, without any standing body, the Barents Parliamentary Conference
has no formal and working relations with the Arctic Council, and the representatives of the latter are
just participants of the conferences.
According to Ari Sirén, former Head of the International Barents Secretariat:
In spite of the fact that political issues are not dealt with by the Barents Cooperation,
a political instrument in the form of biennial parliamentary conferences is nevertheless
significant. Taking into consideration the increasing international role of Arctic
cooperation the parliamentarians from member states could perhaps discuss Barentsrelated issues more often. Brainstorming is, after all, needed when coming up with
good idea (Sirén 2012).
Conclusions
To summarize the findings and reflections presented in this paper, firstly, there are many differences
in the foundations and level of engagement of the four assemblies in cooperation on matters of the
Arctic. The institutions in question were formed at different stages of development of Arctic
cooperation, while for two of them – the Nordic Council and the West Nordic Council – the Arctic
region became only one of many areas of interest, and did not even gain immediate priority when the
respective Councils were created. The Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians represents the opposite
case, where exclusively Arctic issues were in the spotlight from the outset. The Barents Parliamentary
Forum’s attention is focused mainly on a part of the European sector of the Arctic region; moreover,
its activities have reflected the ups and downs of the Barents cooperation.
This complex situation of the four institutions under scrutiny here has its impact on the differential
degrees of activity of the different assemblies with respect to issues affecting the region, as well as
their different roles in the Arctic governance system. One interesting feature of all four institutions is
their openness to mutual contact, collaboration, and effectively warmer relations. This supports the
notion that parliamentary diplomacy in the Arctic is an attractive and dynamic form of regional
cooperation that elicits great interest from its participants, with the willing engagement of individual
parliamentarians as the glue that binds them together. Finally, out of the four assemblies, only the
Standing Committee of the Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians possesses the authority to
contribute to the proceedings of the Arctic Council as an Observer; the West Nordic Council is only
in the process of petitioning for this status, while neither the Nordic Council nor the Barents
Parliamentary Forum seem interested in applying for it.
The varying degree of participation of each of the institutions in Arctic cooperation does not indicate
any vital role of the ‘Nordic dimension’ in ensuring their continued success and activity. What is more,
a breakdown of the motivations underlying each institution creates the impression that only the
Nordic Council is truly interested in chiseling out common Nordic responses to questions affecting
the Arctic. At the same time, it is difficult to estimate the extent to which its resolutions and
recommendations have even a marginal, indirect effect on the operations of the Arctic Council. Jointly,
Łuszczuk