The Power of Connectivity in the Arctic: Citizen Participation in Arctic Institution

Increasing business opportunities in the Arctic in the spheres of tourism, transport, mining, oil and gas and creative industries require efficient connectivity. Arctic territories offer an attractive place for data servers running on green energy. The subsea fiber cable connecting European High North territories with the US and Asia is an opportunity to improve connectivity in the Arctic. The opening of the Arctic sea creates preconditions for such a project. In this paper, I study existing Arctic institutions that deal with connectivity issues in the Arctic. As theoretical frameworks, I use Gaventa’s (1982) framework of power and powerlessness and the stakeholder participation model. The power and powerlessness and modes of participation of stakeholders at the national and regional levels are investigated. I use secondary data, such as the EU and regional policies, statistical data on the topic of connectivity in the Arctic. The study contributes to the understanding of power structure and citizen participation in the Arctic institutions by using an example of connectivity in the Arctic. The findings suggest that Arctic institutions have very limited citizen participation opportunities due to their composition, working formats, and governance structures. Several suggestions for opening-up closed spaces to be inclusive of Arctic citizens perspectives are suggested.


Introduction
Arctic development has been under the radar of media and governments worldwide [1, Larsen J.N., Fondahl G., p. 22]. The Arctic is a prospective place for the development of tourism, transport, mining, oil and gas, food and creative industries. The Arctic region, however, requires substantial investments in the infrastructure such as urban, industrial, transport and telecommunication infrastructure 1 . Connectivity is defined as the quality, state, or capability of being connective or connected, the ability to connect to or communicate with another computer or computer system 2 . In the Arctic, context connectivity covers such topics as broadband accessibility for population and businesses, fibre network (including subsea cables), and data centres, amongst others.
Current modes of cooperation in the Arctic include a plethora of intergovernmental organisations and other fora that contribute to regional, national and global Arctic agenda. What remains uncertain is the role of Arctic citizens in these fora. The article's title is the power of connectivity, which metaphorically relates to the aspects of power and how Arctic citizens are connected to existing representations of power. As a demonstrative example, the issue of connectivity is chosen to limit the focus of the paper. However, the paper aims to investigate the power and power-  2 Merriam-Webster dictionary participation supported in the Arctic institutions? I find that while many institutions address Arctic issues, the Arctic Council (AC) and the Arctic Economic Council (AEC) have been most active in producing research and evidence concerning connectivity issues. Regarding citizen participation, the Arctic institutions (i.e., AC and AEC) have very limited citizen participation opportunities due to their composition and governance structures.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. First, Gaventa's power cube and citizen participation's theoretical background is summarised, followed by an overview of connectivity in the Arctic. Second, Arctic institutions and their work on connectivity are examined. Finally, the Arctic connectivity domain is analysed via power cube and citizen participation theoretical lenses.
In conclusion, several solutions are offered for opening existing power spaces for citizens' participation. The paper contributes to the discussion on the efficiency of Arctic organisations [2, Smieszek M., pp.  and to the research highlighting the need to reform current Arctic institutions [3, Stokke O.S., pp. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The article provides suggestions on the improvement of citizen participation in the work of Arctic institutions. This paper uses the power cube theory by Gaventa (2003) to demonstrate the power and powerlessness of citizen participation in the Arctic institutes by using an example of connectivity [4, Gaventa J., pp. 1-267]. By Arctic institutions, I mean different intergovernmental and regional organisations and other institutional forms involved in promoting Arctic research and cooperation 3 .

Power cube by Gaventa
The distribution of power can be deconstructed using Gaventa's power cube framework that includes power, places and spaces (see Figure 1). The power cube helps to understand how power operates, how different interests can be marginalised from decision making, and the strategies needed to increase inclusion [5, Luttrell C., Quiroz S., Scrutton C., Bird K., pp. 1-16.]. Spaces relate to the arena of power and how they are created. Three types of power spaces are distinguished [5,Luttrell C., Quiroz S., Scrutton C., Bird K., pp. 7-8]: 3 for a list of Arctic institutions see Table 1 4 Source: Institute of Development Studies. 1) Closed spaces. These are spaces reserved for elites, empowered groups and individuals.
Decisions are made with little consultation or involvement of other actors 2) Invited spaces. Under external pressure or faced with legitimacy concerns, authorities may create opportunities for involvement and consultation, often legally constituted 3) Claimed/created. These are spaces often created outside formalised policy arenas.
When external voices are excluded from formal organisations, they create collective action by themselves, through social movements or community associations.
Power in the power cube framework refers to the degree of power visibility. It can be regarded as the way the power is communicated. The third dimension on the power cube framework is "places," meaning the levels and places of engagement. Places are categorised into local, national, and global places. Local places include NGOs and local governments, national places refer to national governments, and global encompass international organisations and international NGOs.
Gaventta's power cube framework has been applied in studying ownership dynamics in local multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSI). Biekart and Fowler [8, Biekart K., Fowler A., pp. 1692-1710.] studied 17 MSI cases using a power cube framework and stakeholder engagement. They find that that "government ownership is less likely to arrive at successful outcomes unless there is a move towards more inclusive and broader societal ownership with its implications for how MSIs are For the purpose of this study, I do not submerge into the theoretical underpinning of citizen participation, but rather investigate its simplistic forms by addressing a question if current Arctic institutions allow any degree of citizen participation either by an opportunity to provide ideas, feedback or whether consultation process (stakeholder dialogue) is offered to the Arctic citizens.
By Arctic citizens, I mean people (indigenous peoples and local people) who live in the Arctic regions of eight Arctic states.
Exploiting northern connections greatly improves Finland's competitive position as a site for the information-intensive industry as the connections can be built in the direction of the North-East Passage linking Europe and Asia " 8 [p. 11 and p. 37]. During its chairmanship in the Arctic Council 2017-2019, Finland had connectivity as one of its priorities. It is worth noting that all strategies mentioned above will be replaced by newer versions in 2020-2021, but what remains to be seen is whether connectivity in the Arctic is going to play a more significant role in them.
Business Index North report (2018) 13 investigated the state of connectivity in the Arctic in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Russia. Currently, the northern regions do not have a direct subsea cable connection with Europe, the US, or Asia. All sub-sea cables land in the southern parts, creating a disadvantage of the Arctic region in terms of attractiveness for data centre players. Middleton and Rønning 14 emphasise that lack of infrastructure capacity and diversity within the region applies both nationally and internationally [18]. The connectivity issue needs to be solved before the data centre value proposition can be fulfilled in the Arctic. The importance of connectivity solutions in the Arctic regions is essential for tourism development, telemedicine, and online teaching.
Further, to answer the research question of what work on connectivity is produced by the Arctic institutions, I identify Arctic institutions and search for their work on connectivity issues. In order to answer the research question on the availability of citizen participation, I look at the working format and engagement opportunities for stakeholders. Seven different institutions promoting research and cooperation in the Arctic have been identified (see Table 1). Some are devoted to funding research (Nordic Council), some are dedicated to regional cooperation (BEAC and NF) and some have a clear emphasis on business cooperation (Arctic Economic Council).
Further, I list the work produced by these institutions that is related to connectivity in the Arctic.  Finally, the work produced by Arctic Economic Council, "Arctic Broadband -Recommendations for an Interconnected Arctic" (2017) 24 provides an analysis of the state of Arctic broadband. It also presents different funding options applicable in the Arctic, an overview of planned and ongoing projects related to connectivity, and recommendations for the future. The report also outlines building, maintaining and providing affordable communication services to end-users challenging in the Arctic due to dispersed population, geography, harsh climate, higher costs and human resource gap. The report brings forward the challenge: the lack of a comprehensive strategy for connecting all Arctic communities and the rest of the world. Overall, the analysis identified that two institutions Arctic Council and Arctic Economic Council, are the ones that produced work most relevant to connectivity issues in the Arctic.
The analysis of Arctic institutions' work regarding openness for citizen participation included studying their websites and working formats. In most institutions, the work is conducted in closed working groups that predominantly constitute scientists and experts. Next, I looked at the Arctic institutions' websites to access opportunities to provide feedback, consultation opportunities, and opportunities by the citizens to submit ideas and proposals. Based on the website information, none of these institutions offers such options (see Table 1). It should be noted that citizen

Analysis of connectivity domain via power cube and citizen participation
The Arctic Council (AC) is an intergovernmental forum for promoting cooperation, collaboration, and integration between Arctic nations, indigenous communities, and other Arctic inhabit-  Figure 3 with further description bellow. Some degree of openness is pertinent to this new initiative as keynote, and expert presentations will be shared publicly on the Arctic Council's Vimeo channel after the respective thematic session.
Why is the lack of access to meeting minutes or videos a challenge? Why should Arctic citizen participation be deemed important? As it stands, Arctic citizens do not have a direct communication channel with the two most influential organisations in the Arctic matters. Arctic citizens can potentially communicate their concerns via democratic institutions of their own countries, but this is time-consuming and a lengthy endeavour. Indigenous peoples that have representation in the AC as permanent participants have access to influence and participate in AC's work through indigenous peoples' organisations that represent their stake in the work of AC and AEC. While connectivity issues are of utmost importance for the Arctic citizens in terms of access to education, telemedicine and participation in the digital economy, the question addressed in this article is of a broader scale. What is Arctic citizens' agency in the research, collaboration, and political decisions that directly concern their place of inhabitance?
Regarding invited spaces (that create opportunities for citizens' involvement and consultation), there is no such option at the current working format of AC and AEC. Concerning connectivi-ty, the only invited space that was identified was initiated by the EU, which it currently does not have observer status in the AC but may observe Council proceedings until the decision on the status is made. In 2017, the EU launched the Arctic stakeholder forum consultation 27 to identify key investment priorities in the Arctic and ways to streamline better future EU funding programs for the region. As a result of the consultation process, the report states that stakeholders view as an investment priority "to extend and improve digital infrastructure " 23 [p. 2]. In 2020, the European Commission and the European External Action Service jointly launched a public consultation 28 on the way forward for the European Union's Arctic policy, offering an avenue for citizens' involvement and participation. No claimed spaced were identified in the Arctic context concerning connectivity issues. The value of power cube exercise lies in the applicability of the concept for any critical matter in the Arctic. For example, it can be done for food security in the Arctic, where main players, agencies, and stakeholders are placed in the power cube depending on their access to power and ability to influence decisions. Power cube is a useful instrument for bringing to light voices and perceptions of different stakeholders' capacity to exert power. It should also be noted that power cube may have other representations depending on the preparers' perspectives. Hence power cube framework represents a viable tool to reconcile views of different stakeholders.

Conclusions
The article identified many fora for conducting cooperation and scientific research in the Arctic, which, however, lacks a mechanism for Arctic citizen participation. An example of connec-27 Summary report of the Arctic stakeholder forum consultation to identify key investment priorities in the Arctic and ways to better streamline future EU funding programmes for the region, 2017. URL: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6a1be3f7-f1ca-11e7-9749-01aa75ed71a1/languageen/format-PDF/source-60752173 (accessed 05 December 2019). 28 EU Arctic policy public consultation, 2020. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-yoursay/initiatives/12523-EU-Arctic-Policy (accessed 15 September 2020). tivity was chosen to have a focused case study of the issue that deeply affects all Arctic citizens.
However, the chosen methodology can be applied to any sphere of human activity. This study contributes to the research addressing the need to reform existing-working mechanisms and govern-  Turnhout and Bommel (2010) suggests that participation creates citizens and "participation as a performative practice emphasises that identities, knowledge, interests, and needs are not represented but shaped, articulated, and constructed in the participation process itself" [19,Turnhout E., Van Bommel S., p. 26]. Hence, it becomes a feasible question to address for the future: whose identities, perspectives, and views are currently not included in Arctic institutions' work?
The following suggestions can be implemented for opening closed spaces. In AC and AEC's work, there can be more focus on transparency and citizens' rights to information disclosure. It can be achieved by greater accountability, starting from the publication of meeting minutes and release of recorded meetings; the research project selection process could benefit from more transparent disclosures. To engage with citizens AC and AEC can, e.g., adopt the EU model of the stakeholder consultation process to inform, for instance, on the needs of future research projects and initiatives. It shall be noted that facilitating citizen participation and breaking institutionalised power dynamics is not easy and shall be not done for the achievement of face value. Still, it should include a feasible, cost-efficient process based on the best practices of intergovernmental organisations works.
Furthermore, creation of the national Arctic strategies could involve elements of stakeholder consultation and citizen engagement process as well, ensuring that the people who live in the Arctic have their voices heard and mechanisms for citizen participation are embedded in the strategies' design. Procedures and policies that directly affect Arctic citizens' lives need to include meaningful priorities and improve everyday lives for people that inhabit the Arctic. Returning to this article's title, connectivity, and the power of connectivity, digital solutions appear to be some of the most efficient ways to have more engagement with the citizens and potentially enhance citizen participation in Arctic institutions' work. To sum, connectivity in the Arctic becomes even more critical in times of COVID-19 pandemic when people are forced to move their work, education and medical services online. Access to connectivity can be viewed as a lever that creates more equal opportunities for people in the Arctic remote areas. Citizen participation can also be considered as a lever that brings cooperation and research done in the Arctic closer to the people directly impacted by it.