opinions
Center for Geopolitics, UiT:
Northern Norway: Norway's most strategically important area?
Published
Modified
This is an op-ed written by an external contributor. All views expressed are the writer's own.
A year ago, the government launched "Norway in the North - High North Policy in a New Reality". The strategy, the latest in a series of strategies spanning over 20 years, received a rather lukewarm reception.
A deeper situational understanding and concrete initiatives can enhance the strategy’s impact - not least when it comes to conducting the research and acquiring the knowledge that is highlighted as the basis for good policy.
Situational understanding and priorities
The motivation for the 2025 strategy was the geopolitical changes in the North: great power rivalry, growing international interest in the Arctic and increased security tensions as a result of Russian warfare in Europe.
The strategy repeatedly states what has been a mantra since the second Stoltenberg government (2005-2013): Northern Norway is Norway's most strategically important area.
The strategy addresses five initiatives that will "set the direction for the high-north policy in a new reality": freedom of action and influence in the High North, total defense, vibrant, safe communities, infrastructure to connect communities, and business development that promote value creation. They are all important topics.
There are only 1.5 people per km2
The situational backdrop of which the strategy is based could show a deeper understanding of geography and demography in the north. Large areas, vast distances, harsh climate and small population are important premises here. Finnmark county is larger than Denmark.
There are only 1.5 people per km2, compared to well over 100 per km2 in, for example, Vestfold county in the south. We are also facing a demographic downturn - over a few decades, the population in vulnerable municipalities has been significantly reduced and this downward slope will continue.
Another point is the proximity to, and dependence on, the sea. Over 80% of Norway's sea areas lie north of the Arctic Circle. It is the norther coastline that gives Norway sovereign rights over large sea areas rich with resources – resources that are the bases for developing communities and businesses.
Research and education
Previous visions for the high north brought major research initiatives: a new ice-going vessel and the Fram Centre for Climate and Environmental Research in the North.
The current strategy states that knowledge and ideas are more important than ever and that it is in Norway’s interest to conduct high-quality research with associated higher education. New initiatives such as the Arctic Ocean 2050 research programme and a research office in Svalbard are mentioned.
Norwegian leadership in polar research is a high-level ambition.
However, such initiatives in the polar regions are not particularly relevant to the coastal communities in northern Norway. The strategy is vague when it comes to specific research initiatives of direct value where people actually live. A possible exception is a seabed mapping exercise in the Varangerfjord that is now underway.
The EU is playing an increasingly important role in our research activities. Following US cuts, the EU is now the largest funder of Arctic research.
Norway and Norwegian research institutions have benefited and are benefiting directly from this through project funding, and indirectly through international research cooperation and increased knowledge production.
Arctic research is essential for understanding developments in, among other things, climate and marine ecosystems in the high north, topics with consequences both globally and locally.
Is the strategy working?
Not all developments are going in the right direction. International cooperation in the Arctic has been set back. The Arctic Council is not what it used to be. The US's advances regarding Greenland and the Russian war in Ukraine are contributing to the erosion of international Arctic cooperation as we know it.
Something that was not addressed in the strategy
However, international organizations are based in the region, and Tromsø, as the Arctic capital, is host to these bodies. Norway supports important arenas for cooperation in the Arctic, such as the Arctic Frontiers conference and now also the International Coordination Office for the International Polar Year IPY (2032-2033).
The role as host and initiator of science initiatives provides a strategic advantage, something that was not addressed in the strategy, nor is it reflected in reality.
It is easy to agree that it is "... crucial that our political goals, priorities and initiatives pull in the same direction". But the strategy does not provide any instructions on how trade-offs should be made, for example when it comes to economic development versus nature conservation.
It is said that the Norwegian High North policy is based on close interaction between national, regional and local levels of governance and that dialogue and shared responsibility (are) crucial. Yes, dialogue is important, but are the channels and platforms for dialogue good enough?
Do they contribute to a common understanding of the challenges at different levels of governance? One initiative that can contribute to this is having local representation from responsible ministries in the North.
When local decisions have national and international consequences, local presence can provide a more nuanced understanding of the situation in the north than what can be obtained in the capital.
There are important developments within all five of the strategic priority areas. One question is whether this is linked to the implementation of the strategy directly, or whether such developments would have happened anyway.
The strategy is said to “provide direction” and that specific policy initiatives and measures will be included in the annual budget processes.
Given the premise that Northern Norway is Norway´s most strategically important region, one could wonder if measures and priorities instead should be set in the strategy rather than left to be negotiated in the budgetary processes.
