30 Years of Impact: What consensus can achieve

Thirty years of Arctic Council cooperation have produced more than assessments and recommendations. The Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter is one example of how consensus can turn shared knowledge into concrete action across the Arctic.

For Elizabeth McLanahan, who has spent 18 years representing the United States in the Protection of the Marine Environment Working Group, the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter is a particularly important achievement.

As the Arctic Council marks its 30th anniversary, she reflects on what the Council's consensus-based approach has made possible, why its work matters for people across the Arctic and beyond, and what it takes to keep cooperation going in the years ahead.

What would you say is the Arctic Council's greatest achievements?

One of the achievements that stands out most to me is the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter. We came up with more than 50 recommendations across a range of thematic areas covering everything from ship-based sources and fishing gear to land-based sources of marine pollution.

Some of these recommendations are directed at the Arctic Council as a whole, focusing on how members states can work together to achieve them. Others are aimed at individual states, outlining specific actions they can take at the national level.

What makes me especially proud of this work is that we didn't stop at making recommendations. We also developed an implementation plan, which allows us to track whether we're following through on the actions we recommended.

Why does it matter to have these recommendations and assessments in place?

The Arctic is a truly unique environment, and it faces a wide range of interconnected challenges. No single country or organization can address those challenges alone. That's why the Arctic Council is so important. It brings together knowledge and expertise from governments and Indigenous Peoples, while also building relationships with communities, scientists and organizations, to develop a shared understanding of the issues and identify the best ways to manage them, collectively.

A lot of the work within the Protection of the Marine Environment working group is built around the ecosystem approach to management. That means understanding how the environment functions, identifying the different human activities taking place, and considering how those activities interact. Instead of looking at each issue in isolation, we try to understand their cumulative impacts and use that knowledge to modify our actions and make positive change.

What makes the Arctic Council unique?

I think it's the fact that we have eight countries that share borders and a common ocean, while traditional territory of the Indigenous Peoples extends across the established political boundaries.

That means we are deeply interconnected through people, economies, and the natural environment. There is a strong spirit of cooperation where we all strive toward many of the same goals: protecting the Arctic environment, ensuring its use remains sustainable, and making sure people can continue to live there and pursue their traditional ways for generations to come.

The fact that we're consensus-based creates a shared desire to reach common goals.

Because there are only eight states, it gives us time to listen and understand everyone's concerns. In turn, this allows us to explore ways forward that accommodate different priorities, concerns, and interests.

I can think of instances where we knew a topic might be sensitive for one or more countries - such as fishing or oil and gas. In those cases, we worked together to address the issue without overstepping critical sensitivities.

I think because we're such a small group, we're able to listen carefully, accommodate different perspectives, and still reach consensus.

What does the Arctic Council need to do to stay relevant?

I believe the Arctic Council needs to demonstrate that it is the regional leader. The world is moving forward on issues of great importance to the Arctic, such as managing shipping and establishing high seas marine protected areas. The Arctic states should be at the forefront of these decisions in our backyard.

However, to do so, we need to prove that we can operate seamlessly by producing outcomes like declarations and reports that are agreed by all Arctic states. Also, it is important for Working Groups and project teams to be able to meet face to face to maintain momentum, connections, and cooperation.

Finally, I think we need to continue working closely with our observers, both observer states and observer organizations, as well as those that currently don't have formal observer status. It's important that they understand who we are, what we're doing, and why our work matters, so they can continue to see the Arctic Council as a relevant and valuable partner.

What can other organizations learn from the Arctic Council?
The fact that the Arctic Council is not a legally binding body, but rather a forum for cooperation, has been one of its strengths. This has given participants more flexibility and more willingness to support ideas and initiatives that might otherwise have been too difficult to advance.

It has allowed states to go a little beyond their comfort level. Over time, that has been important in encouraging dialogue, stretching perspectives, and pursuing programs and projects that some governments might initially have been hesitant to pursue.

While the Arctic Council's decisions are not legally binding, the knowledge, assessments, and recommendations it produces have been extremely important for understanding and improving the management of the Arctic. That is one of the Council's key contributions.