Camilla Aviaja Olsen’s Keynote Speech
Make the “co” make sense
 
We have the pleasure and honour of publishing a keynote speech delivered at the Arctic Frontiers conference. The conference was held in February 2026 in Tromsø, Norway. The keynote speech was part of the panel session organised by the CAP-SHARE project, entitled Intergenerational Capacity Sharing: The Connection Between Nature and Youth.
 
The speech was originally given in English.

Keynote speech:
Make the “co” make sense
Camilla Aviaja Olsen
Chair, Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG)
 
Good morning everybody and thank you for being here with us.

My name is Camilla Aviaja Olsen, and I work at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Research of the Government of Greenland. I am part of the Kingdom of Denmark’s Arctic Council Chairship team, and I also serve as Chair of the Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group. I would like to thank the organizers for the opportunity and begin by sharing my appreciation of the format.

I feel like it makes sense to meet in this space, which brings together people who are too often separated in decision-making processes: Indigenous Peoples and their communities, youth, elders, scientists, policy makers – all of you. Today’s conversation is about biodiversity, youth and resilience. But I would say that, more fundamentally, it is about who gets to define the issues, whose knowledge counts, and how decisions about the Arctic are made. I will focus my speech on one single syllable, which can prove incredibly complex to articulate and implement. That syllable is, simply, “co”.

Consultation, inclusion, stakeholder engagement.

These are terms we typically hear in policy development processes. They are not necessarily bad, but they are not enough. Participation in these processes alone does not equal power over them. Consultation does not equal consent, and listening does not equal concerted decision-making. Adding the prefix “co-” to ongoing processes without a genuine transformative intention can easily become a mere box-ticking exercise. There is a very thin line between meaningful engagement and tokenism.

• Co-creation means that knowledge is shaped together, from the very beginning, and not just added at the end.
• Co-development means that priorities are defined collectively, not explained or translated after decisions have been made.
• Co-implementation means communities are not just informants, but leaders and partners.
• Co-governance means that authority, accountability and responsibility are shared.

For Indigenous Peoples, this is not a new idea. It reflects the way in which knowledge has mostly been held and shared: through relationships, collectivity and across generations. But for many institutions, the “co” still challenges deeply rooted habits. Who sets agendas, who controls data, whose timelines matter, and whose knowledge is considered credible. I see this session as an attempt to take the “co” seriously. Not as a buzzword, but as a practice that requires time, trust and humility. Co-creation is necessary and, more often than not, is based on good intentions. But it is not enough. The “co” has to be extended to the implementation process, as well as to the very definition of the issues that are being addressed.

What is needed, in this particular context, is co-governance on equitable terms. This means recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights-holders, not just as one of many stakeholders. It means creating appropriate structures for co-leadership. It is not just a matter of them being consulted, so that only what is convenient is taken into account if it fits the project timeline. Indigenous Peoples are often on the receiving end of policies and frameworks that focus on the Arctic. I believe that it is only right that they should be in the driving seat, rather than being relegated to the back seat amongst other stakeholders. To achieve this, we need to invest in capacity-building and education. We need to invest in youth leadership and in structures that can outlast individual funding cycles. I noted my appreciation for the format earlier, and I think it is great to be able to create spaces like today’s discussion, which are rooted in this understanding. The challenge lies in sustaining them and allowing them to shape the way we do things.

Another challenge of working in a collaborative way lies in the fact that different knowledge systems can be seen as competing. I too often hear it presented as an either/or choice: Indigenous knowledge or scientific knowledge. Traditional versus modern. I don’t think we should let our reality be limited by this framing. Indigenous knowledge systems are adaptive, rooted in long-term observations, and closely tied to the land and our responsibility towards it. The challenge is not whether Indigenous and scientific knowledge systems can work together. The challenge is whether we are willing to create the ethical and synergistic conditions for its co-production.

• That means free, prior and informed consent.
• It means respecting Indigenous data ownership.
• It means understanding that knowledge is not just information.
• It is a responsibility, and often an identity.
• It involves a relationship.

And here we are today, trying to find ways for “intergenerational” to mean continuity, rather than rupture. When youth and elders are brought together in co-learning and co-leadership, knowledge is not just transferred, it evolves. Capacity is not only built, it is shared. This is why today’s panel session should not be a symbolic one-off. The youth are not here to represent a future idea; they are here as present-day knowledge holders. We have to make sure we are able to transform this engagement into actionable solutions, moving towards more thriving communities. This is done not by adding a “perspective” on already-shaped policies, but by a recognition of a deeper shared responsibility.

But again, this requires co-governance structures, not one-off consultations. It means that parties, institutions and individuals need to allow themselves to be transformed by the relationships they enter into. Even if that means moving away from the comfort of your day-to-day. Thriving communities create better policy. Thriving ecosystems sustain livelihoods, culture and identity. These outcomes are inseparable.

As we delve into this discussion, I invite us to shift the focus of our questions.

• Not only: How do we protect Arctic biodiversity?
  But also: How do we ensure that communities can thrive with it?
• Not only: How do we include Indigenous knowledge?
  But: How do we co-lead with Indigenous Peoples in shaping the future?

Thriving is not passive. It is practised. Through co-creation, co-governance and shared care for our environment.  So how am I hoping this session will contribute? First, it is around the voices of Arctic Indigenous youth. It also creates space to explore practical pathways for integrating Indigenous knowledge into biodiversity governance: ethically, respectfully, and effectively. And finally, it seeks to generate concrete outcomes: co-created principles for knowledge integration and co-governance. Youth-led ideas for education and policy engagement. And a pathway for continued cooperation between communities, scientists and decision-makers across the Arctic. But, just as importantly, it aims to model a different way of working together – one based on shared responsibility for the future of the Arctic.

As we move on to the panel discussion, I invite everyone here to listen a little differently. There may be a difference between what you want to hear and what you need to hear.  Let’s be honest: this isn’t your first discussion on the future of the Arctic, and nor will it be your last. We can do better. We have to do better. Allow yourselves to be inspired, but also challenged, and even provoked. The Arctic does not need more well-intentioned decisions made without the participation of those who live there. It needs shared leadership and relationships that are strong enough to withstand disagreements and uncertainty.

Make the “co” make sense.

I challenge you, for today’s discussion and for the rest of the conference, to remember that we are not talking about abstract concepts here. We are talking about people’s livelihoods, lands and languages. We are talking about heritage and culture. In my case, I am talking about home. Remember this when futures are being negotiated, often without the full involvement of the people who will be directly impacted.  We cannot afford that.

With that, I would like to thank you all and it will be a pleasure to continue this discussion with my fellow panellists.

Qujanaq. Thank you.