A New Arctic Order
Geopolitical tensions and sustainability challenges collide, shaping the future of a critical region.
The Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the rest of the world.
The region is no longer just a scientific concern, but also a geopolitical flashpoint. At this year’s Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway, the theme “Beyond Borders” took on layered meanings – from the shared climate challenges that transcend national lines to the Arctic’s evolving security landscape, where physical and digital frontiers are increasingly tested and violated.
Defined as the area north of the Arctic Circle, the Arctic region comprises eight nations – Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States (via Alaska) – that hold governance responsibilities over its landmass, coastlines, and populations.
The Arctic Council, established in 1996, is the region’s primary intergovernmental forum which brings these states together alongside six Indigenous organisations with Permanent Participant status, ensuring that Arctic governance remains inclusive. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost three years ago, its role in the Arctic Council has been effectively frozen, disrupting the forum’s long-standing tradition of collaboration.
With the Kingdom of Denmark preparing to take over the Arctic Council chairmanship this May, questions over its strategic approach dominated discussions. The absence of Danish representatives at key sessions in Tromsø did not go unnoticed, particularly as Greenland, part of the Kingdom of Denmark – continues to assert its autonomy in global Arctic affairs. Meanwhile, just days after Donald Trump took office, discussions of the US buying Greenland resurfaced, culminating in his administration’s 2019 proposal to purchase the territory.
However, governance in the Arctic is not just about states; it is about communities. Across sessions, speakers emphasised that policy needs to be shaped by those who live in the region.
“The power of the Arctic lies with the people who live there.”
Sarah Olsvig, International Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council
On thin ice
While the Norwegian slogan “High North, Low Tension” has long been a guiding principle for Arctic governance, climate change increasingly blurs geopolitical boundaries. Melting ice is opening new trade routes and access to critical minerals, drawing heightened global interest and economic stakes.
The EU’s Mission Ocean projects aim to address these challenges through ecosystem restoration and marine conservation. Yet, these initiatives must align with local priorities. Mona Benjaminsen, Mayor of Karlsøy, emphasised that local expertise should drive environmental management, stating, “We need funding models that empower communities, not just policymakers.”
Norway’s Troms archipelago, home to one of Europe’s key marine biodiversity sites, and Portugal’s coastal kelp restoration efforts under the A-AAGORA, 2025 project were highlighted as successful examples of how ecological restoration can bolster local economies.
Decolonising the north
As Olsvig asserted in a recent statement, “There is no such thing as a better coloniser.” This sentiment resonates deeply in Arctic governance, where historical patterns of resource extraction and political oversight continue to shape the lives of Indigenous communities.
Indigenous communities have long lived beyond borders, stewarding Arctic ecosystems in ways that predate modern governance structures. However, as Aaja Chemnitz, Chair Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, noted, “We still don’t have the fundamental basics in place yet. Indigenous perspectives must move from consultation to leadership.”
The Sámi Council, a non-governmental organisation championing the Sámi peoples’ rights and Amnesty International recently published a report, “Just Transition or ‘Green Colonialism’?”, which highlights the failure of Nordic states to provide Indigenous communities with adequate resources to participate in decision-making. The reality is that green energy projects – like wind farms on Sámi lands – often mimic the extractive policies of the past.
For Indigenous leaders, the Arctic transition is not just about economics or security – it is about self-determination. As Justin Langan, an Indigenous youth advocate from the University of Manitoba, pointed out, “Decisions made in boardrooms in the South are shaping our future in the North. We need a seat at the table.”
Profit or preservation?
With sea ice receding, the region is increasingly viewed as a frontier for resource extraction, shipping routes, and renewable energy. But the very forces making development possible – rising temperatures and melting ice – also pose existential risks. This paradox was central to discussions in Tromsø, where policymakers, researchers, and Indigenous leaders debated how to balance sustainability with economic imperatives.
However, the pace and nature of development remain deeply contested.
The Arctic contains 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of its untapped natural gas, estimated to be enough to sustain global demand for nearly three years.
As the Arctic’s geopolitical and economic stakes rise, will governance models prioritise local agency and environmental resilience – or will external interests continue to shape the region’s future?
This opinion editorial addresses topics discussed at Arctic Frontiers – an annual international conference held in Tromsø, Norway which brings together researchers, politicians, business leaders, local communities, and indigenous peoples to discuss the future of the Arctic.