Perspectives on International Research Collaboration in the North

Translation from Norwegian
Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all I would like to thank the Research Council of Norway for inviting me to participate in this conference. It is a great pleasure for me both to be here in Kirkenes and to meet representatives of the Research Council.

Some have made fun of the Government’s High North efforts, claiming that they amount to little more than an increasing number of conferences. This is of course not true. What is more, if the conferences in question foster agreement, common understanding and insight into what needs to be done, we can live with such claims. And this conference is one of these.

The Research Council of Norway has established itself as a key actor as regards innovation, initiatives and activities in the north, and this conference is but one of many examples of this. Just think of the International Polar Year and the huge boost it provided – both in Norway and internationally. We can’t turn everything we are doing in this connection into news items, but at times I think it’s a pity we aren’t able to tell the exciting stories behind all the projects. They would make truly fascinating news stories.

I often say that knowledge is at the core of our High-North efforts. I could also call it the fulcrum, the pivotal point. I am pleased that the Research Council is focusing on the High North, and I hope to see more of this and to be able to contribute myself.

The implementation of the Government’s High North Strategy, which was presented in Tromsø almost exactly two years ago, is being followed up in a number of areas. There are 22 specific points. The environment, business development, infrastructure and maritime surveillance are a few of these areas.

Two of the areas stand out due to their cross-sectoral nature. One is the strategy’s foreign policy dimension, which has a bearing on all the other areas. The other area is knowledge, expertise and research.

Research is also an area in its own right, and is likely to be an important growth area in the future. However, research is a basic element that is linked to almost all other areas. It is therefore an element that is crucial to success.

*****

One of the things I value most in my job as Foreign Minister is that it allows me to travel so much within Norway – and with good reason. Such as meeting and maintaining close contact with people and networks in North Norway. I find this very inspiring. It also underlines something we often say, namely that the distinction between domestic and foreign policy is blurring. And that the fundamental goal of foreign policy is to make domestic policy possible.

At this time of year it is dark day and night in Kirkenes. The last time I was here, there was continuous daylight. That was in June, when I was here together with my Russian colleague Sergei Lavrov. He had never been in Murmansk, Storskog or Kirkenes before. When he laid down a wreath at the Russian-Norwegian war memorial here in Kirkenes, he was both surprised and touched to find that it was well kept and in good condition – in a NATO country! I will return to the issue of Norway and Russia a bit later.

There is another important reason to travel north. This is the centre of what is becoming a strategic region of great importance to us, to Europe and to the world. This has always been the case, but it is now true in a new way. It concerns us, because this is a region that covers areas close to home or in our neighbourhood, and where some of the most important changes of our time are taking place simultaneously: climate change and melting ice – a strong warning that we and the whole world need to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But these changes also herald opportunities created by new transport routes across the Arctic Ocean to Asia. And by access to resources, both renewable and non-renewable. And then there is the issue of managing our relations and cooperating with Russia – a neighbour in a process of change, the outcome of which remains to be seen.

All of this means that we will continue to define the High North as the Government’s most important strategic priority area.

And just wait and see – the whole world is about to open its eyes: neighbouring countries, the EU, transatlantic friends and even Asian countries. We are talking not only about foreign policy, where the perspective is out towards the world, from the shore out to sea, but also about domestic policy – about value creation, culture and livelihoods on land, which is after all where we live our lives. The Norwegian foreign minister should therefore – and indeed wants to – travel a lot, both in North Norway and in the whole Barents Region.

In this age of globalisation we are reminded of the following strategic fact: North Norway is ”the most globalised part” of our country.

And what does that mean? It means that all the activities we believe will play key roles in North Norway in the future – be it the use of living marine resources, petroleum activities, tourism, shipping, culture, research or development of our relations with neighbouring Russia – these are all activities that are entirely dependent on close international  cooperation in areas such as administration, management, financing, knowledge development and labour recruitment.

They require coordination between people across borders, a communication network in our age of borderless information technology.

And as everywhere else, economic development and resource management depend on scientific knowledge. Knowledge is the fulcrum.

The politician in me was formed largely during the eight years I worked with Gro Harlem Brundtland – both in Norway and in the World Health Organization. I could talk for hours about Gro’s personality and political method. Here I will limit myself to saying that one of her absolute political principles was to listen to researchers, to show them respect – and therefore also ask critical questions. She always took the necessary time to listen and make sure that decisions and management were based on the best available knowledge. It was a joy to observe.

However, it is not only researchers who provide such knowledge. It can also be acquired through life and long experience. But we cannot permit ourselves to ignore any scientific knowledge. We must listen, reflect and learn.

Let me take an example that is near at hand: the entire basis for the joint Norwegian-Russian management of fish stocks in the Barents Sea, a practical task that has been very successful seen in an international context, will crumble if we don’t have reliable scientific data. We certainly hope they are reliable now that we have recommended a 20% increase in the total allowable catches for cod.

Research expeditions in each other’s economic zone and exchange and comparison of data are essential if we are to achieve satisfactory results. And if we are to make good recommendations and sound decisions.

Another example is related to the management of living marine resources. I am referring to the whaling issue, which figured prominently during many of the years Gro was Prime Minister. Research brought home a fact that the critics in Europe and the US tended to ignore: a whale is not just a whale – it is crucial to distinguish between different kinds of whales. For example, the minke whale was not, and is not, an endangered species. It should therefore be harvested. The blue whale, on the other hand, is indeed endangered, and must be protected.

Our position was not mere conjecture. It was based on facts, data compiled and assessed by Norwegian and international scientists over many years, research that required considerable resources. We have always claimed that sustainable management must be based on the best available knowledge. However, we see that this will continue to be a challenge. The EU’s Artic strategy gives reason to believe that sealing and whaling will continue to be challenging issues. 

The same thinking underlies our integrated management plan for the Barents Sea and the sea areas off the Lofoten Islands. There are those who trivialise the management plan by calling it a political compromise, as if it were a mere trade-off between conflicting interests. 

But the importance and value of compromises are grossly undervalued in much of our debate. The fact is that virtually everybody wants both rich fisheries and petroleum development. But can we be sure that both are possible? And how should we weigh the various considerations?

It is essential that we apply the precautionary principle. This has had a clear impact on the first management plan. Our approach allows time for research to find the necessary answers. For they can only be found through research and systematic data collection. This knowledge can help to supplement, support and challenge political views, business experience and environmental awareness. It is not merely a question of choosing, but also of balancing concerns.

*****

In our time – these days – in fact right now, there is growing awareness of issues related to the Arctic and the fascinating Arctic Basin. During the past three years I have noted that the term “the Arctic” and what we in Norway call “the High North” seem to have amalgamated in people’s awareness. They form one exciting and challenging whole.

As all the data on man-made climate change sink in, for example about increasing temperatures and melting ice, it is only natural – and in fact good – that we become worried. Some may even become despondent. Climate change is happening more rapidly than most people believed was possible only a few years ago. We know too little about the impact this will have on animal life and the whole Arctic ecosystem.

What we do know is that the Arctic offers front-row seats for observing global warming. That the melting ice is our times’ canary in the coalmine. That the most dramatic consequences of these changes will not necessarily be seen in the north. They could just as easily be felt in the middle of Africa where drought is increasing, water is disappearing, and people are being forced to flee. We need to see the bigger picture.

In some years’ time, we are likely to experience an ice-free Arctic Ocean. This will open up maritime transport routes that are close to half the length of the current routes. There can be no doubt that these shorter routes will be used. Nobody can stop this. According to the Law of the Sea it is entirely legal. The Law of the Sea applies in the Arctic just as it does in the Atlantic.

How can this development be managed in a responsible way? What about environmental emergency response and search and rescue systems? These are important questions that will need good answers soon. We will have to find them in the Arctic Council, the International Maritime Organization and other bodies and institutions both within and outside the UN.

It is also the case that new technology needs to be developed to realise the potential for business development. The Shtokman field in the Russian part of the Barents Sea is a good example.

The world has developed offshore technology, but never before has such a large-scale project been attempted so far from land and under such harsh climatic conditions.

Our knowledge of marine life is still quite limited as regards the potential future use of micro-organisms and other biological resources in shallow and deep waters in medicine, materials technology and other areas.

All in all, this means that we need more and better research, more systematic knowledge-building. This knowledge will also be used by others because it is objective, not angled to support the position of any party.

When the foreign ministers from the five Arctic coastal states met in Greenland in May there was a lot of focus on climate issues. Pål Presterud of Cicero (the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo) presented a keynote address on the ocean. To many of the questions about the responses and mechanisms of the oceans that followed, his answer was “I don’t know”. To me there can hardly be a more compelling argument for increasing research in this field.

*****

It could be argued that advocating the vital role of research in this forum is like carrying coals to Newcastle. Most of those present have detailed knowledge of the matters I have barely touched on here.

I am trying to identify the connections between the most important areas, the interlinkages that should inspire the policies we develop. And as I said earlier, the fulcrum is research and knowledge.

Not many towns in Norway contribute more constructively to regional and foreign policy than Kirkenes.

A lot of positive developments have taken place here during the past two or three years. The Government will not attempt to take credit for all of this. Our basic approach has been to facilitate constructive partnerships: public-private partnerships, partnerships between authorities at government, county and municipal level, and partnerships between Norwegian and foreign actors.

The Government has worked systematically within its area of responsibility, in cooperation with local and regional authorities, our Russian partners, the Sami Parliament, the Barents Secretariat and others. Forward-looking business leaders, cultural workers, researchers and others have seen opportunities and have had the courage to grasp them. The public and private spheres should coordinate their efforts in the north – and have done so. Let me give you some concrete examples:

• We have determined the delimitation of the Varangerfjord. We have resumed negotiations with Russia on delimitation in the Barents Sea.
• We have simplified border-crossing procedures and hope to make even further progress on this issue.
• Together with our Russian friends, we are considering the introduction of a border resident ID card, which would further simplify border crossing.
• The Pechenga road between Kirkenes and Murmansk is now open seven days a week, and I would like to commend our Russian friends for making this possible.
• About 40 Norwegian companies are established in Murmansk, and Russian companies are showing interest in investing in Norway.
• Business activity in Kirkenes related to the provision of services to the Russian shelf has increased significantly.
• The mines outside Kirkenes will be reopened.
• We are in the process of establishing a more flexible cross-border labour market, following the presentation of the Government’s white paper on labour immigration. I have received feedback on certain things that are not working satisfactorily, and we will take measures to change this.
• Kirkenes is an example of successful integration of immigrants, and this is something both Norwegians and Russians (and people of other nationalities) can take credit for.
• We will ensure that the new National Transport Plan, which will be presented early in 2009, has a clear High North profile.
• All in all, we are changing people’s mindsets and their ideas of what this region has to offer, both of opportunities and challenges.

In other words:

The High North Strategy has both a domestic policy aspect and a foreign policy aspect. And in turn the foreign policy aspect consists of two elements.

One is our relations with Russia.

The other is our close dialogue and cooperation with other neighbouring countries, partners and allies on developments in the High North.

Taken as a whole, Norway’s High North Strategy is an example of Norway’s policy of engagement.

As the regards the first element, our neighbour in the east: the fact that Russia is a key actor goes without saying. When the High North Strategy was being drafted, the High North was sometimes defined as “the Barents Sea and adjacent land areas”. In short that means Norway and Russia, but we must see our efforts in a perspective that includes the whole Arctic.

From the outset we have wanted to realise the potential for cooperation with Russia as far as possible, to our mutual advantage.

This is also a question of active institutions and committed people.

I am pleased that Ambassador Andreyev will be making an address here today. He and his staff are key partners in ensuring that practical cooperation in this region maintains momentum.

Governor Yevdokimov of Murmansk oblast just across the border is also an important partner. I meet him on a regular basis and get to know him better each time. Another important partner is, of course, my colleague, Mr Lavrov, who truly became aware of Norway’s engagement in the north during his visit in June.

I have yet to meet a Russian who disagrees with me on the importance of further developing our practical cooperation and the integration policy we have chosen to pursue in the north. That is quite simply because it is in both countries’ interests. The development we hope to see here – both offshore and onshore – will benefit from close cooperation and on realising even more of the potential of common efforts.

As I see it, Russia’s High North policy has five main priorities.

First, there is energy – making the vast oil and gas resources accessible. Second, there are fisheries and other bioresources – making gradual use of these resources. Third, there are the environment and climate change – participation in binding international cooperation in this area. Fourth, there is clarification of legal status where this is necessary – the peaceful establishment of the northern boundary of Russia’s own continental shelf in accordance with the principles of the Law of the Sea and the establishment of the southern boundary of what the Russians call “the Arctic” in their own land territory. And finally, there is the fifth point, which is a constant – the concern to safeguard the Northern Fleet’s capacity and freedom to exercise.

In short, apart from the last point, which is something we have had to live with, and will continue to live with, these points largely coincide with our own main priorities.

Then there is our bilateral dialogue with Russia, which covers certain other topics and questions where our views differ – in some cases fundamentally. This applies for example to our critical view of the situation in Russia as regards democratic development, freedom of expression and the lack transparency in Russia’s economy and business sector. It is also applies to our criticism of Russia’s use of military force in the Caucasus and its threatening rhetoric about deploying missiles in our neighbouring areas. But this is not the main theme of this conference or of my address.

*****

During the past two years we have conducted dialogues on the High North and explained our policy to neighbours, partners and other key interested parties. We have listened to other countries’ views and arguments.

We have sought to – and succeeded in – creating interest in the north. Interest has also been kindled by climate change and economic developments. Our mindsets are changing. Something interesting and important is happening. The new and relatively broad international interest in the High North and the Arctic is particularly related to three main areas: climate change, energy resources and maritime transport.

And if we, Norway, are to succeed in setting the agenda on these matters, we must maintain our focus on having the best knowledge. No less.

The challenges are the same for all Arctic areas. Ever since we assumed the chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2006, we have sought to strengthen the organisation and the activities it is responsible for. The Council has launched important studies and research projects, and a report commissioned by the Council had an important bearing on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So knowledge on climate change in the Arctic had a decisive impact on the IPCC’s Assessment Report. And I know for certain that the reports that are now being prepared will also have great impact.

Resource management issues have been on the agendas of a small number of states in the High North for a long time, but recent developments in the Arctic have made virtually “the whole world” interested in these issues. India, China and other countries are establishing research programmes in Svalbard and have applied for observer status in the Arctic Council.

Just think about it. During the past year, India’s Minister of Science and Technology has visited Svalbard twice. And that is not because he has many voters there.

We welcome this, but at the same time it places greater demands on us and the other coastal states around the Arctic Ocean when it comes to taking – or maintaining – the lead in a constructive way. So far, the Arctic Council has not dealt with political issues to any great extent, but it is clear that this may change. Not politics aimed at differentiating between states, but politics in the sense that governments engage and take direct responsibility.

We will develop these views ahead of the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Tromsø in April, at which Norway will hand over the chairmanship to Denmark. We wish to develop the Arctic Council so that it operates and is organised in a way that corresponds to the challenges it faces.

*****

In this perspective the importance of Svalbard, the northernmost part of Norway, increases.

If we are to be able to make our voice heard and shape our own future in a situation where an increasing number of weighty players are becoming involved, it is essential that we continue to focus on the importance of presence, activity and knowledge.

Presence, activity and knowledge.

These three keywords were the point of departure when we started developing our High North Strategy in October 2005. Hardly anywhere are they more important than in Svalbard. It is in our interests to facilitate and develop activity in Svalbard that other countries, too, consider it useful and sensible to participate in. This was also why we set up an internationally recognised and cutting-edge Arctic research platform in Svalbard.

Here as well, research plays a vital role. Svalbard is core area of Norwegian Arctic research, and is gaining importance internationally. Even before the International Polar Year in 2006, nearly 30 000 man days were invested in research in Svalbard annually, and foreign researchers counted for nearly half of this work – 47% to be precise.

Norway is the leading research nation in Svalbard, followed by Russia, Germany and Poland. The Government will continue to give priority to Svalbard in its efforts to boost knowledge in the north.

We must also consider what other activities it might be advantageous to base in Svalbard. Some day in the future these may also include petroleum activities, but here, as in general in the north, we are speaking of long-term perspectives. In any case, Norway will take its responsibility for regulating such activities very seriously.

We are in no hurry. We will not proceed without the necessary knowledge. And as opposed to the impression you might get from some of the debate in the media, I do not see any race for the energy resources in the north. To put it another way: 2008 is not a repetition of 1911, when there was a race to reach the other pole.

The actors are making haste relatively slowly, and issues related to technology, funding and safety give good cause to do so. It seems more probable that the first major changes in the pattern of economic activity will be related to maritime transport.

If the shrinking ice cover in the Arctic Ocean opens up transport routes over the North Pole, passing close to Svalbard, it is important that we have thought through what additional land-based activities this would require. This applies not least to emergency preparedness, surveillance and search and rescue services.

*****

As Foreign Minister, I am responsible for coordinating our High North policy. But, as I often say to my colleagues when we are discussing budgets, in my capacity as minister I am a “minority shareholder” in this growing, exciting enterprise. This applies also to research policy. Here the main responsibility lies with the Ministry of Education and Research, but the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development and the Ministry of the Environment provide considerable assistance. My colleagues Tora Aasland, Magnhild Meltveidt Kleppa and Erik Solheim have done a great deal of important work related to the Government’s High North policy. 

Some aspects of the Government’s research policy are particularly important here, also from my point of view.

One of these aspects has to do with showing a presence in areas where we have interests to defend – and I mean both areas of expertise and geographical areas. Geographically, these areas extend beyond Svalbard, to Jan Mayen and the mainland in North Norway. Because of the small population spread over a vast area, it is difficult to create the “critical mass” required to establish a good research and educational environment in several places at the same time.

There is one answer to this problem: network-building and cooperation across institutions and national borders. The University of the Arctic, which is a network of higher education institutions at high latitudes (but spread over many longitudes) is a good example of this. The network offers courses in Arctic studies based on harmonised curriculums, irrespective of whether students are located in Alta or Fairbanks.

A second aspect has to do with focusing our energy on areas where we can play a leading role globally, where we can make a difference.

One example is knowledge of the Arctic, of ice conditions and climate, an area where we have long-standing expertise and unique research capabilities. We are well underway in establishing Tromsø as a leading centre in this field.

Another example is expertise on indigenous peoples – not just knowledge of their language, culture, traditional livelihoods and history, but also expertise in the fields of legislation, administration, rights and education related to indigenous peoples living in a modern society. I might also mention the maritime sector and traffic control and safety.

The third important aspect is, of course, mobility. Here I am talking about exchanges of researchers, teachers and students that go beyond those provided automatically by a free international education and labour market.

This is particularly important as regards exchanges between Norway and Russia. I would like to commend institutions such as the university colleges in Bodø, Harstad and Alta and many others for their longstanding efforts in this area. It is very exciting to visit these university colleges, where Russian students who speak fluent Norwegian are studying for their degrees. It is like visiting a miniature High North.

*****

Let me say a few more words about the knowledge structure in the north that is envisaged in Government’s High North Strategy.

The primary, or most important, element is scientific research in priority areas. Such as environmental research and monitoring, where Svalbard is in a unique position. Such as energy, both oil and gas and renewable energy. Such as fisheries and fish farming, including the new, exciting field of marine bioprospecting, on which the committee of experts on the High North reported to me in June.

The report is now being studied, and we will soon draw up the main lines of our reply. Earmarked funds have been allocated both last year and this year. Marbank and Marino have been established in Tromsø, and the new Marine Resources Act provides a new legal basis. Things are falling into place.

Our scientific efforts must go hand in hand with further research in the social sciences, economics, law and humanities. These disciplines are important for understanding the operating parameters and room for manoeuvre – both the possibilities and the limitations – that apply when developing new economic activities and new areas of cooperation. They are also important from the point of view of promoting our interests.

In this connection I would also like to mention the research project Geopolitics in the North, which will be the topic of the next session of this conference. The underlying premise is that foreign policy is developed through interaction between the authorities, other foreign policy actors and experts, such as researchers, and interest organisations.

The new situation I have already described, with much stronger international focus on the Arctic, means that the range of actors is becoming more complex and diverse. We need to understand the goals, commitment and priorities of the other actors, and how the dynamics between the actors is likely to develop. This is why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be particularly interested in following the project Geopolitics in the North, for which it has provided NOK 26 million from the Barents 2020 programme.

Much of the research on High North issues has been carried out in other parts of the country. The High North strategy envisages that this research will be based mainly in North Norway and Svalbard, and that in future North Norway should have more man-years per capita in research than other parts of the country.

Cooperation with the local business community will play an very role. Wherever possible, we will encourage the establishment of public-private partnerships, that is to say co-funded projects between public entities and private interests.

I was very pleased that just before the opening of this conference today, we could launch a public-private partnership for the establishment of an endowed chair in maritime logistics. It is to focus on Kirkenes and cooperation along the axis Bodø/Kirkenes/northwestern Russia. This is precisely where the focus will be in the decades to come when it comes to maritime transport in these waters; it is important that we have the necessary knowledge to stay in the lead.

The initiative for this innovative scheme was taken by the shipping industry, with Tschudi Shipping in the lead. The same company will provide NOK 6 million in funding over a five-year period. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will match this sum, through its Barents 2020 programme. Over time we hope to involve other contributors and relevant knowledge centres in order to ensure momentum.

We are also in the process of establishing a similar scheme in the field of earth observations and satellite remote sensing in association with the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Tromsø.

*****

On 1 December, two years will have passed since the High North Strategy was presented. That is not a long time, and I see it merely as the beginning. Most of the measures outlined by the Government will need to be followed up over many  years.

But nearly all of the measures have been initiated, and many of them are well underway. I note that there is considerable impatience, and that is something we actually need. But I also feel that there is growing understanding of the fact that these things will take time and that this is a large, long-term undertaking. A project with a time horizon of generations.

As you know, the Orheim Committee recommended the allocation of what became known as the High North billion, and some media commentators ask about it regularly. I see the value for our High North Strategy of reaching such a symbolic amount. But the success of the strategy should not be measured by the amount of money that has been spent. It is just as much about identifying connections and possibilities, involving actors and thinking strategically, in both the public and private spheres.

But if we sum up the figures, we have in fact allocated close to NOK one billion in additional funding to various High North projects through three government budgets.

And we do not intend to stop there. This morning I had an inspiring meeting with the Government’s committee of experts on the High North, which has played an important role in generating ideas and proposals. I would like to thank Professor Aarbakke and the other committee members for our close and fruitful cooperation, which will be continued on the initiative of the committee.

There is an ongoing process in the Government as regards setting priorities and determining on which areas we should particularly focus in our High North efforts.

I would like to mention two sectors that will be given more attention. The first of these is the knowledge sector, where we intend to intensify our efforts. Some of the projects being discussed are the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System, which will help to optimise the scientific use of the monitoring and research activities in Svalbard and stimulate international research cooperation, and the EISCAT 3D system. We are also aware how much a new ice-class research vessel would mean to the scientific community, and the preliminary assessment is well advanced. A decision on this matter will soon be made.

The following are some key aspects of our intensified focus on knowledge:

First, there are measures designed to enhance knowledge institutions’ expertise in the fields of business development, resource management, indigenous peoples and health, and to encourage them to cooperate and coordinate their work to allow specialisation.

Second, we intend to continue strengthening higher education and further develop institutions and organisations that have expertise on Norwegian-Russian cooperation.

Third, we will promote cooperation between organisations and institutions, for example on graduate schools, grant schemes, professional networks and new educational programmes. These measures are aimed at educating the next generation of researchers.

Fourth, we will support programmes to develop environmental and energy technology, and we would like to see a more strategic approach to cooperation with northwestern Russia on education. Of course this overlaps to some extent with work the Research Council of Norway is engaged in.

Fifth, there are other areas where we are discussing new measures, for example the environment, climate change, maritime safety and emergency preparedness –areas that are given high priority in our 2009 budget proposal – and also business development. Here, the focus will be not only on living marine resources and petroleum-related activities, but also on a cross-cutting, general effort to create better framework conditions for innovation, tourism and land-based industry in the High North.

The second of the two sectors is infrastructure. I will give you just a brief outline. I have already mentioned the National Transport Plan. The next plan will be for the period 2010-2019. But we must think even further – of the strategic needs that will arise along our coast as maritime transport increases.

That is not to say that we need a deep-water port in every fjord, but sufficient capacity to keep up with increasing activity at sea. We have done this before, further south, on the coast of western Norway. We will do this again in the north, when and if developments make it necessary.

*****

Dear friends,

We cannot make everything a priority, because that would mean a complete lack of priorities. We need committed actors, who are impatient and provide input, and who can suggest an extra push where they believe it can make a difference. Such actors can be found here in Kirkenes. You who are present here today, from Norway, Russia and other countries, have the expertise that is needed. We are entirely dependent on close cooperation and sound knowledge to address the global challenges of the future. That is simply a fact.

Good luck with the conference.