Researchers Call for an EU Arctic Strategy with Investment in Security and Submarine Cable Protection

The European Union should coordinate its actions in the Arctic more closely and finance concrete measures to protect submarine cables, monitor northern waters and respond to hybrid threats, three researchers recommend in a study prepared for the European Parliament. Andreas Raspotnik, director of the High North Center at Nord University in Norway, presented the study to the Committee on Foreign Affairs on September 1, 2026.

In brief, the researchers recommend a permanent center within the European Commission to coordinate information on the Arctic and support assessments of the effects of EU policies on the region. Security proposals include rapid-response teams, joint monitoring and alternative routes for submarine cables. The study calls for the Arctic to be explicitly included in the new European security strategy and for an EU–NATO coordination mechanism for the region. Investments in transport, energy and raw materials should be linked to environmental protection, local community participation and benefit-sharing. The authors propose closer cooperation with Nordic partners, changes concerning space launches from Norway and stable funding for research.

Andreas Raspotnik, Adam Stępień and Andreas Østhagen consider that the EU’s Arctic policy has so far functioned as “a collection of ongoing activities grouped under a geographic label,” without a sufficiently clear strategic vision or a dedicated budget line. They recommend that European objectives in the region be accompanied by institutional responsibilities, funding and concrete projects. The eight recommendations represent the position of the authors of the study commissioned by AFET. In his presentation, Raspotnik called for efforts to focus on the European Arctic, where the EU has the greatest capacity to act, and for a clearer distinction from the rest of the circumpolar region.

One of the central proposals is the creation of joint EU–Nordic country teams for rapid response, bringing together specialists in civilian and military repairs, cyber investigations and legal response. The authors also recommend a European Arctic monitoring structure combining satellite observations, ship identification and positioning data, and information from partners. Investments in alternative submarine cable routes and in securing shore connection points would be complemented by funding to prepare communities for communications outages and other emergencies.

To coordinate these measures, the researchers call for the Arctic to be explicitly designated a priority region in the new European security strategy. They subsequently propose an Arctic chapter in the Strategic Compass, the EU’s security and defense plan, and a coordination mechanism with NATO linked to the work of Arctic Sentry and the responsibilities of the Allied command in Norfolk for the North Atlantic. Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Canada are identified as priority partners for cooperation on security, maritime surveillance and emergency preparedness.

The distinction between a policy and a strategy was challenged by Michael Gahler of the European People’s Party, who said that the European response in support of Denmark and Greenland had been adequate. He also called for greater attention to defending the Arctic against Russian aggression. Rihards Kols of the European Conservatives and Reformists questioned the usefulness of a northern neighborhood policy and insisted on NATO’s defense framework; in response, Raspotnik clarified that his cooperation proposal concerned Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Canada.

Within the European Commission, the authors recommend a permanent Arctic expertise center with staff, a budget and a clear mandate. It would bring together information on the environment, security, the economy and Indigenous peoples’ knowledge. European proposals affecting the region, including those concerning energy, transport, mining and communications, would be systematically assessed for their consequences for the Arctic.

External cooperation would receive a new framework, developed together with Norway, Iceland and Greenland, with possible participation from Canada and the United Kingdom. The researchers propose selecting three to five practical priorities from areas such as maritime security, raw materials, the energy transition, civil protection and connectivity. Joint funding could be provided through a dedicated instrument in the 2028–2034 multiannual budget or by strengthening the existing program for the northern periphery and Arctic.

In infrastructure, the study recommends modernizing rail and port links between the mines in Kiruna, Sweden, and the port of Narvik, Norway, as well as a grant, loan and guarantee mechanism for projects in northern Finland, Sweden and Norway. Support for extraction, processing and renewable energy should be conditional on environmental protection, workforce training and benefit-sharing with communities. The authors call for the effective participation of Indigenous peoples and residents in decisions affecting them.

The limits of resource exploitation were explicitly raised by Finnish Member of the European Parliament Ville Niinistö of the Greens/EFA. He asked whether a project should be halted when the harm caused to the Sámi and other land rights holders makes its social acceptance impossible. Niinistö also called for climate adaptation not to reduce attention to limiting global warming. Raspotnik argued for community involvement and the responsible development of European resources, without providing a concrete criterion for halting such a project.

The debate also linked investment to the region’s ability to retain residents and attract workers. Raspotnik noted that technology projects and data centers need people in a region where young people leave for larger cities or head south. He called for European regional development policies to be used to strengthen northern communities.

The recommendations also address the access of Norway’s Andøya launch center to the European IRIS² secure satellite communications program. According to the study, the rules in principle provide for launches from EU territory, with justified exceptions for sites outside the Union. The researchers propose recognizing Andøya as an eligible European site and co-financing the European Space Agency’s proposed Arctic space center in Tromsø. On climate and research, they recommend concrete support for adaptation, reducing black carbon particles and internationally funded scientific cooperation during 2028–2034.

The discussion of relations with Nordic partners also included fisheries. Danish MEP Villy Søvndal called on the EU to explain more clearly what it can offer Iceland, Norway, Greenland and the Faroe Islands in this area, following Iceland’s referendum on resuming accession negotiations. David McAllister noted that Icelandic authorities had asked the EU not to intervene in the campaign and announced a visit by an AFET delegation to Iceland at the end of September.

The 2021 European Arctic policy was built around climate and environmental protection, sustainable development and peaceful cooperation. The authors consider that Russia’s war against Ukraine, changes in regional cooperation structures and Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO have altered the conditions under which this policy must be implemented. The study, entitled “Focus on the High North,” contributes to the discussion on updating the EU’s Arctic policy in 2026, while McAllister called for the new communication to be presented to the parliamentary committee in good time.‌‌