The regional governments of the Barents Region and the Sami Council established the Barents Regional Council (BRC) by signing a co-operational protocol (Protocol Agreement ) aimed at promoting basic day-to-day cooperation in the region (Kozyrev , 45; Holst 4). In fact, the BRC was established at the same place on the same day as the BEAC, and it was created with the same aims and objectives. It is true that the absence of participation in the BRC by national governments gives it a lower organizational and legal standard than the BEAC; however, international cooperation through sub-national governments is very important in addressing local issues in a region where the national capitals are far away in the south.
organizational elements of the BrC
The organizational framework of the BRC includes members and an Executive Regional Committee (and observers to a limited extent). The members of the BRC are sub-national governments in the Barents Region: three from Norway - Nordland Fylke, Troms Fylke and Finnmark Fylke; two from Sweden - Västerbotten Län and Norrbotten Län; three from Finland - Kainuu, Oulu and Lapland; and five from Russia - Murmansk Oblast, the Republic of Karelia, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Nenets Autonomous Okrug, and the Republic of Komi.11 The seven regional governments12, along with the Sami Council, that adopted the statutory protocol are considered to be permanent members of the BRC.
The chairmanship of the BRC rotates among the member regions every other year (Protocol Agreement , section 4). The BRC meets twice a year.
The idea of observer status, which is fairly new in the BRC, can be seen as a way of involving new regions in its activities without granting them membership.
In fact, the BRC refused to grant membership to North Karelia, having made a decision not to include any new members for a five-year period (BEAC Report
, p. 5), then approved observer status for North Karelia in .
The BRC has a central functional unit, the Executive Regional Committee (RC), which consists of advisors, mainly subordinate officials, from regional governments of the member regions along with the Sami Council in order to generate new business and follow up approved projects (Protocol Agreement
, section 4). The region that holds the chairmanship of the BRC also holds the chair of the RC at the same time.
Legal elements of the BrC
The BRC has adopted a number of Protocols, Joint Statements and Annual Reports along with its founding instrument. The Protocol Agreement, which established the BRC, encompasses some sort of commitments; it provides background
11 The Republic of Karelia joined the BRC in 1993, then Nenets Autonomous Okrug in 1996, Kainuu, Oulu and Västerbotten counties in 1998, and the Republic of Komi in 2002.
12 The founding members of the BRC are: Archangelsk County (Oblast), Finnmark County Council (Fylkeskommune), Lapland County (Lääni), Murmansk County (Oblast), Nordland County Council (Fylkeskommune), Norrbottens County (Län) and Troms County Council (Fylkeskommune).
information and describes its objectives and goals, as well as identifying the conditions for the establishment of the BRC and the RC (Protocol Agreement
, section 4). The Agreement includes authoritative instructions with respect to its operational expenditures (Protocol Agreement , section 5).
The BRC has produced Regional Council Protocols since 4; the Protocols are available mainly in Russian and Swedish, and there is a Finnish version of some of them. In fact, the Protocols describe the concerns of the region along with proposals for establishing necessary working groups through means other than obligatory commitments.
The BRC issues Joint Statements aimed at BEAC meetings of Foreign Ministers which mainly reaffirm its support for the activities of the BEAC and the International Barents Secretariat (IBS) along with its concerns regarding specific issues related to the living situation of local people in particular. A Joint Statement may include the future plan of the BRC or its priority projects.
However, the commitments in the statements do not create any legally binding obligations on the member regions. The Annual Reports provide background information on the Governance and descriptions of the member regions, past activities and future plans of the BRC. They are more in the nature of informative statements than obligatory commitments.
indicators of the BeaC and the BrC
The Governance has introduced a complex system the legal characteristics of which are somewhat difficult to determine. However, there are some common indicators as well as some that are more individual in nature; they will be described below.
Common indicators
There are a few institutions that provide support for seeing the Governance as a single entity rather than as two different units functioning in parallel. The International Barents Secretariat (IBS), the Working Group of Indigenous Peoples (WGIP), and Joint Working Groups formed by and including the participation of both the BEAC and the BRC can be considered as indicators of the Governance’s single identity.
The states that have territories in the Barents Region created the International Barents Secretariat (IBS) in by concluding an international instrument to provide technical support for multilateral coordinated regional activities organized by the BEAC together with the BRC (Barents Secretariat Agreement ).The International Secretariat is located in Kirkenes, Norway and enjoys legal personality under Norwegian national law (Barents Secretariat Agreement , arts. -). The IBS provides continuity in the activities of the Governance particularly when the chair changes to a new member. The Governance’s legal personality and other issues involving Norway and the IBS were settled through the conclusion of a bilateral agreement (Host Country Agreement ). The Terms of Reference of the IBS (IBS Terms of Reference
) connect both platforms by providing technical support. Later, a set of rules concerning the operation of the secretarial functions was formulated in a fashion that can be observed only in well-established international organizations (IBS Financial and Staff Rules ). The rules cover many essential components, including the appointment of staff and their facilities.
The idea of establishing a Working Group of Indigenous Peoples (WGIP) was already included in the Kirkenes Declaration (Kirkenes Declaration ,
‘Indigenous peoples’). The WGIP, established in 5, consists of six members:
one Sami representative from each country - Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden – and one Vepsian and one Nenets representative from the Russian side (WGIP Terms of Reference n.d., section 4b). There are altogether three observers, including one representative from the Sami Council, one from the Association of World Reindeer Herders, and one from the Russian Association of the Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) (WGIP Terms of Reference n.d., section 4c). The WGIP members elect the chair from among themselves for a period of two years; a person may be re-elected to the chairmanship (WGIP Terms of Reference n.d., section ).
The distinguishing characteristics of the WGIP are that it was established on a permanent basis and plays an advisory role in both units of the Governance along with its representation at Ministerial Meetings of the BEAC and the Regional Council of the BRC (WGIP n.d.). The Barents Indigenous Peoples Office (BIPO), established in Murmansk in and moved to Lovozero in
, is responsible for the activities of the WGIP.
The Governance has established a number of joint working groups, in addition to groups that work for one unit or the other. Among the joint groups
are the Joint Working Group on Health and Related Social Issues, the Joint Working Group on Education and Research, the Joint Working Group on Energy, and the Joint Working Group on Culture. The joint working groups have shared co-chairmanship at the national and regional levels. They report separately to the BEAC and the BRC concerning their activities.
The BEAC and the BRC share a similar exception to formal international organizations: as a forum of states, the BEAC includes the EC among its members, while the BRC has accorded membership to the Sami Council in addition to the regional governments. This type of exception is possible within soft-law cooperation and is appreciated to some extent in addressing complex problems which require contributions from different categories of actors.
individual indicators
The creation of separate frameworks by the BEAC and the BRC has provided each of them with an individual identity even though they are closely connected. For instance, in the case of the BEAC, the CSO is in charge of activities during the intervals between Ministerial Meetings, may form necessary WGs or Task Forces (TF), provides guidance to them, and monitors their functions. The subordinate bodies perform the tasks following this guidance and report to the CSO. Alternatively, for the BRC the RC carries out its functions during the time between Regional Council meetings, may form WGs or TF, supplies proper guidance to them, and observes their activities, while the WGs and TFs follow the guidance of the RC and report to it. The establishing instruments of the BEAC and the BRC are different and were concluded by the different forums. The Ministerial Meeting is the supreme authority in the BEAC decision making; while, the Regional Council makes decision for the BRC. Thus, the two platforms enjoy individual organizational merits in terms of their functioning systems. However, the fact that they share a common international secretariat and similar objectives could be taken as a sign that the two platforms form an associate partnership;
this creates some complexity and provides scope for new ways of evaluating the units’ legal position under international law. Since their creation the two individual bodies have never come into conflict with each other within the cooperation. As explained in the BEAC Joint Communiqué (BEAC Joint Communiqué , paragraph ):
The Council underlines that the International Barents Secretariat (IBS) should be utilized to improve the coherence, efficiency and the continuity of the BEAC and BRC cooperation and strengthen the effectiveness of their sectoral and intersectoral work.