The Arctic Council, as you know, is a continuation of the Arctic environmental protection strategy. Now that we've been a part of the Arctic Council for well over 10 years, going on 20 years, there are many agenda items on the Arctic Council that sort of roll over from chairship to chairship, so there's not a lot of room to include new agenda items because it's limited to environmental protection and sustainable development.
That being said, where I think the Scandinavians and their six-year agenda helped tremendously was in the area of fundraising. When you have a six-year timeframe, it does make fundraising easier, because you have the luxury of time.
It would make sense if Canada and the U.S. had sort of a North American chairship, but there's nothing then stopping the Russians who follow from being part of that six years as well.
My one concern with having the Scandinavian and then a North American chairship is that we get very mired into very specific national issues, when the Arctic Council is all about the issues affecting all of the Arctic. It can also squeeze out the permanent participants.
If we have coordinated agendas that don't clash, if we allow for predictable funding, and if we ensure that the timelines that are set are met, that's fantastic. The Scandinavians were very good about not strictly focusing on Scandinavian issues. As long as we keep it global and to issues of the Arctic generally, then there is an advantage to having a North American chairship.