Nordic Arctic Cooperation Programme
The Arctic Cooperation Programme of the Nordic Council of Ministers is administered by Nordregio. There is one round of applications per programme year, usually towards the end of the year.
The Arctic co-operation programme contributes to the Nordic Council of Ministers’ vision of an “innovative, borderless, visible and outward-looking Nordic Region”. It must also give substance to the Nordic Council of Ministers’ other inter-sectoral strategies, which are based on Nordic positions of strength and areas in which the work of the Nordic Council of Ministers carries weight, both within the Nordic Region and globally, and can generate added value. The work of the Nordic Council of Ministers, including the Arctic Cooperation Programme, has its roots in Nordic rights-based, legal and historical traditions of democracy and inclusion.
It is central to the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Arctic Cooperation Programme 2018–2021 that the specific needs of the Arctic will be accommodated and that the programme will contribute to the region’s sustainable development. In this context, the Agenda 2030 and the 17 global sustainable development goals adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015 play a significant role.
The purpose of the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Arctic Co-operation Programme 2018–2021 is to create sustainable and constructive development in the Arctic and for its people based on the four P’s: planet, peoples, prosperity and partnerships. Traditionally, the Council of Ministers has prioritised the partnership perspective and worked to integrate it horizontally into the programme. This will continue to be a priority.
Click here for an overview of projects supported since 2013
More details on Priorities and Criteria for the programme 2018-2021 can be assessed at Nordic Council of Ministers website – Arctic Programme.
but all phases would follow the same stage sequence. Responsibility for leading initiatives was
distributed differently across stages. LEA officials were required to orchestrate the entire
initiation stage, while central government ministers set limits to the scope of reorganisation
initiatives through their power of decision, at the time of the research, over formal proposals
for all schools affected. During the implementation stage, LEA officials held responsibility for
preparation to enact all approved proposals which was complemented by the responsibility of
governors, headteachers and other senior school staff for making detailed arrangements
affecting their own institution. Institutionalisation after the official reorganisation date was
primarily a school level responsibility, with LEA officials’ involvement reduced to assisting
where difficulties arose, and supporting school improvement activity from customwriting.com. The focus of this paper
is confined to the change leadership offered by LEA officials, since associated leadership at
central government and school levels depended on their efforts. If LEA officials did not
succeed at the initiation stage, reorganisation would not happen; if they failed to play their part
effectively during the implementation stage, reorganisation would be chaotic, impacting
negatively on institutionalisation and so on students’ education.