UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, as a member of the committee, I had the privilege of visiting the Arctic as part of our inquiry. I will confine my contribution to the issues we identified and received evidence on in relation to the indigenous communities of the Arctic.

More than 40 indigenous communities are spread across all eight Arctic states, speaking many different languages, and their status varies considerably. For example, the Samis in the Nordic countries enjoy a similar health and economic status to the general population, whereas the Inuits in Canada, Greenland and Alaska experience limited access to healthcare, high unemployment and poor housing.

The committee heard very troubling evidence about how Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has severely compromised the rights of the Sami and other indigenous groups to cross-border co-operation and contacts. The Russian Samis are closely controlled by the Russian Government and are reported to have been effectively coerced into declaring their support for the invasion of Ukraine. One witness told us that they were terrified that if there were a conflict between Russia and NATO, the Sami would have to fight each other.

From indigenous groups outside Russia, we heard of concerns that their interests are being overlooked when it comes to defence and security, economic development, and climate change. The good news is that the strongest guarantee that their voices will be heard is the structure of the Arctic Council, which includes the permanent representation of six participants from indigenous groups. This is an innovative, inclusive model, which has found a pragmatic way of continuing its work and dialogue, despite the formal suspension of Russia at ministerial level since the invasion of Ukraine. Every effort should be made, including by the UK as an observer state, to make sure it does continue.

Nevertheless, one of our recommendations was that the UK should prepare for the possibility that the Arctic Council may cease to function or diminish in importance, and that if a new governance structure were to emerge, we should advocate for indigenous representation that is at least equivalent to the status currently held. HMG’s official response to that recommendation was only partially to agree, though I am not sure it was clear which part was not agreed, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on this point, including whether the current Government are still committed to funding UK-based research to strengthen engagement with the Arctic Council’s working groups. Specifically, can the Minister update the House on the support we are providing for a UK and indigenous initiative on scientific research, modelled on the Canada-Inuit programme, for the study and protection of Arctic indigenous languages, and for social science research to improve our understanding of the impact that climate, development and geopolitical changes are having on indigenous people?

I want briefly to mention two other issues. First, there is a fear that further militarisation of the region, as a result of geopolitical tensions and the enlargement of NATO, could have an adverse impact on indigenous ways of life and security—for example, through forced displacement to make way for new military bases, or from the damaging effects of leaked radioactive material. Can the Minister say whether, and if so how, these concerns are being taken into account by HMG and NATO? Given that security and military issues are excluded from the remit of the Arctic Council, the UK’s influence could be significant in this regard.

Secondly, there is widespread concern that while global warming is damaging traditional lifestyles by reducing the amount of grazing land for reindeer herds, economic investment in Sami lands—including so-called “green investment” to support the transition to a low-carbon economy—is being conducted without sufficient consultation with indigenous groups. Indeed, the green transition has been called the “green colonisation”.

We heard of plans to develop a large onshore windfarm near traditional reindeer lands, which the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled would violate the human rights of the Sami people but on which the Norwegian Government have not yet taken any remedial action. Another conflict of interest is over the development of deep sea mining by Norway of rare and battery minerals, which some indigenous groups believe will harm or diminish their access to fish, depriving them of both economic activity and a food source. Could the Minister update the House on the agreement between the UK and Norway on the development of a green industrial partnership, which was referred to in the then Government’s response to this report, and say how it will reconcile these apparently conflicting interests and what its priorities will be?

We recommended that HMG should promote a sustainable approach to UK investment in the Arctic, including by directing potential investors to the Ruggie principles and the Arctic investment protocol. Could the Minister also confirm that the current Government stand by the response to this recommendation on the importance of justice and remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses, and of businesses conducting due diligence with respect to human rights?

I end by quoting one of the Greenlandic Inuit parliamentarians we met, who said quite simply that there should be

“nothing about us without us”.