Analysis | Creating an Arctic Eight (A8): A necessity for governance and security
The Arctic continues to become a key interest for many states across the globe, but the Arctic Council’s inability to provide effective cooperative governance is becoming glaringly obvious. The creation of an Arctic Eight would help solve this problem.
Jeremy T. Mathis, Ph.D.
The Arctic region, once a remote and inaccessible expanse of ice and cold, has now become a focal point of global interest and concern. As the Arctic warms about three times faster than the rest of the planet due to a phenomenon called “Arctic Amplification,” rapidly changing climate conditions and melting sea ice have unlocked new opportunities and challenges that demand diplomatic attention and new governance structures. As the nations of the Arctic grapple with the consequences of climate change, resource exploitation, and increased shipping, the establishment of an Arctic Eight (A8), similar to the G7, is a critical step towards responsible and cooperative governance of the Arctic region. The status quo will simply no longer suffice.
The status quo
The Arctic region is currently governed by the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental organization established in 1996 with limited financial resources and overly broad mandates. The council consists of eight member states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. However, there are now around 18 non-Arctic, observer states, including countries like India, Singapore, and Italy, as well as Arctic Native Coalitions that participate in and influence Arctic governance through the Arctic Council. Unfortunately, this has led to an even further dilution of decision-making by the council, especially as all decisions by the Arctic Council must be made unanimously by the eight member states. This poses another challenge to effectively managing emerging issues and potential conflicts over resource exploitation.
The primary focus of the Arctic Council has been environmental protection, sustainable development, and scientific cooperation. While the Arctic Council has been effective in addressing certain issues, it has always lacked the comprehensive authority needed to address the increasingly complex challenges facing the Arctic. Furthermore, the Arctic Council was temporarily suspended for more than a year as Russia served as the chair of the council when it invaded Ukraine in 2022. This threw Arctic governance into even deeper disarray and now that Norway is the chair of the council, Russia is barred from participating. But this isn’t stopping development of the region, especially in Russia where it has growing ties with China in the Arctic.
Stakes in the Arctic
As climate change accelerates, the Arctic is opening to new opportunities for resource exploitation, shipping routes, and tourism — all of great interest to China. These opportunities attract not only the current Arctic Council members but also non-Arctic countries, especially China, which declared itself a “near Arctic state” in 2018. Since then, China has used its diplomatic prowess and financial resources to gain considerable influence in the Arctic Council and is expanding its Arctic presence through energy and shipping deals with Russia and an ever-increasing science enterprise.
As more actors, including international corporations, become involved in the region, the governance framework must evolve to ensure equitable management and responsible development. An A8, with regular meetings, would enable a more robust, resourced, and comprehensive approach to governance, while the Arctic Council could continue to serve as a forum for collaboration and broader engagement for non-Arctic countries and other stakeholders. The current Arctic Council’s focus on environmental matters could be broadened to include discussions on adaptation, mitigation, and the protection of the Arctic’s fragile ecosystems, while the A8 would deal with economic and security issues.
In the United States, this new approach would better integrate Arctic issues into our current governance structures such as the National Security Council and White House Council of Economic Advisers. At a minimum, it would mean that the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and Congress would have to give the Arctic the attention that it now deserves. And it would increase the urgency to appoint and confirm a U.S. ambassador to the Arctic, a position that has languished in the Senate confirmation process for more than a year.
A future with an A8
There is no time to waste on creating a more robust Arctic governance framework. Interests among the Arctic nations for resource exploitation can lead to geopolitical tensions, especially as Russia makes aggressive claims of sovereignty in what are still disputed areas of the Arctic Basin. The A8 governance framework would only include those countries that have territory in the Arctic, and they would determine which issues would be decided by a majority vote of the eight members. The risks of accidents and potential environmental disasters are going up every year, so a new framework could further set guidelines and regulations to ensure that resource extraction in the region is carried out in an environmentally sustainable and responsible manner.
The current lack of emergency response capabilities and planning poses significant risks to the environment in the Arctic. At some point, there is going to be a major disaster. Even a relatively small oil spill, an unintentional release of nuclear material, or a disabled cruise ship full of tourists could be catastrophic. An A8 could effectively oversee the development of robust response capabilities, ensuring safety, regulating shipping activities, and preventing potential disasters.
While the idea of creating an A8 is promising, it comes with its own set of challenges. First and foremost, the current tensions between Russia and the West could pose significant challenges to such a construct, but it could also create more diplomatic leverage over Russia as the other Arctic nations better integrate with each other and form a counterweight to Russian power. Russia’s participation in a new governance structure could start with or even revert to an A7+1 format, depending on the need to sanction Russia for its geopolitical aggressions.
Another major challenge for an A8 would be balancing the interests of the Arctic nations with those of indigenous communities. Finding a governance model that is inclusive and fair to all stakeholders is, and will continue to be a significant challenge, but it will only improve if the whole of government, especially in the United States, can be brought into the fold.
Finally, creating an A8 would require extensive legal negotiations and international agreements. The legal framework for such an organization would need to be carefully established to ensure its effectiveness, resourcing, and mandates. The A8 would have to immediately address the security implications stemming from urgent environmental concerns of the Arctic, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution by developing meaningful and effective strategies to tackle these challenges in the near term.
Adaptive and responsible governance
The Arctic is undergoing rapid changes that demand adaptive and responsible governance. Regardless of any climate change mitigation efforts in the next few decades, the Arctic is going to look and feel completely different by 2050. It will be much warmer than at any point in human history and more active than we could have imagined even a decade ago. Shipping routes through the Arctic could displace traffic from the Suez and Panama Canals and upend the current global order in a number of ways.
While the existing Arctic Council has played a vital role in addressing certain issues, it is no longer sufficient to address the complex challenges of the Arctic. An A8, with a broader mandate and comprehensive authority, can ensure that the region is managed sustainably and that the interests of all stakeholders, especially indigenous communities, are considered. Establishing such a governance structure will require overcoming geopolitical tensions, establishing a new legal framework, and addressing environmental concerns, but the long-term benefits for the Arctic and the global community make it a necessary step toward securing the future of this unique and rapidly changing region.
Dr. Jeremy T. Mathis is an adjunct professor at both Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies Program and the Science, Technology, and International Affairs Program. His research and work specialize in environmental studies and national security.
Interested in learning more about the Arctic and climate diplomacy?
