Report

 

Mr. James Bezan, led a Canadian delegation of two to the  meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (the Standing Committee) held in Brussels, Belgium, 25 November 2009.  The meeting of the Standing Committee was held in conjunction with the First Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum, 25 - 26 February, 2009.  The other delegate was the Honourable Larry Bagnell. Accompanying the delegation was Mr. Tim Williams from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament as advisor to the delegation. 

The Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region is a parliamentary body comprising delegations appointed by the national parliaments of the Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United States of America) and the European Parliament.  The conference also includes Permanent Participants representing Indigenous peoples, as well as observers. The conference meets every two years. The Eighth Conference was held in Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A., 12-14 August 2008.^[1]

Between conferences, Arctic parliamentary cooperation is carried on by the Standing Committee, which started its activities in 1994.  The Conference and Standing Committee take initiatives to further Arctic cooperation, and act, in particular, as a parliamentary forum for issues relevant to the work of the Arctic Council. The Standing Committee takes part in the work of the Council as an observer.^[2]

The Northern Dimension

The Northern Dimension of European Union policy was established in the late 1990s as a European Union (EU) policy intended to deal with issues concerning western Russia, as well as to increase general cooperation among the EU, Iceland and Norway.  It has since become a multilateral, equal partnership among the EU, Iceland, Norway and Russia. Canada and the United States are observers to the partnership.

The Northern Dimension remains focused on EU relations with western Russia, as it is “a regional expression of the four EU/Russia Common Spaces^[3]with participation of Norway and Iceland.”^[4]  It has six priority areas for cooperation: economic cooperation; freedom, security and justice; external security; research, education and culture; environment, nuclear safety and natural resources; and social welfare and health.

In February 2007, a parliamentary conference on the Northern Dimension decided that a parliamentary forum for the Northern Dimension should be held every two years to discuss issues of common concern and examine the evolution of the Northern Dimension policy.  The First Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum was held in the European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium on 25 -26 of February.  The Standing Committee and Canada both participated in the Forum.

MEETING SUMMARY

The Arctic Council

Following adoption of the minutes from the previous meeting (Östersund, Sweden, 5 November, 2008) and the Agenda, the Standing Committee was given a presentation by Ms Elisabeth Walaas, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway regarding preparations for the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Tromsø 28-29 April, 2009.  Norway is the chair of the Arctic Council from 2006-2008 after which Denmark and Sweden will have the chair until 2012. The three chairs decided on common objectives for their Arctic Council chairmanships.^[5]

Norway’s priorities for the Arctic Council have been: integrated resource management; climate change; and improving the Arctic Council’s effectiveness and efficiency.^[6]

Some of the final assessments performed by the Arctic Council working groups ready to be presented at the Ministerial Meeting (termed “deliverables” by Senior Arctic Official of the Arctic Council) include (working group of the Arctic Council responsible in parentheses):

-        The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME));

-        Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA), (Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG));

-        Energy Report to Ministers, (Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG)); and

-        SAON – Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks, (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)).

The State Secretary described why the Arctic Council is essential and that it should be strengthened to meet new challenges.  In particular she stated how climate change is increasing the importance of the Arctic region to the world, and therefore the reasons why the Arctic Council is also increasingly important.  This includes both the ecological and social effects of climate change in the Arctic, such as changes in sea ice and biodiversity upon which local peoples depend, but also the effects of a warming Arctic on the global climate itself.

Regarding a response to these changes, the State Secretary stated that the only way to maintain the Arctic as it is known today is to mitigate emissions.  To this end she emphasized that the Arctic Council ministerial declaration should send a strong message to the 15^th Conference of the Parties (CoP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held in Copenhagen, 7-18 December, 2009.  In order to stress this message, particularly with respect to the changes in sea ice, a conference entitled “Melting Ice – Regional Dramas, Global Wake-Up Call,” hosted by Norwegian minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Støre, and former Vice-President Al Gore, is to be held in conjunction with the April ministerial meeting,.

Several of the deliverables for the Arctic Council ministerial meeting deal with significant issues in the Arctic such as the requirement for increased safety, search and rescue due to increased marine transportation potential and suggested guidelines for oil and gas exploration.  A scientific report on the Greenland Ice Sheet from the Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA, being performed by AMAP) should be ready for CoP 15 and SWIPA should be a major deliverable under the Danish chairmanship of the Arctic Council.

The State Secretary stated that the international legal framework was already in place for dealing with the changes that are taking place in the Arctic.  The problem was in a lack of implementation rather than a lack of rules.  There is a need to refocus on wise, sound and sustainable policies.  The only forum for the Arctic is the Arctic Council.  It is also a forum where indigenous peoples could participate on an equal footing.  The fact that many non-Arctic countries are becoming interested in the Arctic Council and requesting observer status should be seen in a positive light as an asset.

The Arctic Council should also be streamlined to better translate the valuable knowledge that it has gained into guidelines generated by other bodies, including the International Maritime Organisation.

The State Secretary finished by reiterating the importance of the Arctic Council sending a strong message to COP 15 on the Arctic, particularly the changes in sea ice.

Discussion arose on strengthening the Arctic Council, the contribution of indigenous peoples, the international legal regime and possible linkages between the work of the Council and the Northern Dimension.

It was noted that, while indigenous people have made a valuable contribution to the work of the Council, this could be improved with better funding to support their participation.  A Canadian delegate noted that he was in agreement with the support for the current international regime governing the Arctic.  One improvement in response to climate change would be to create a new category of “environmental refugees,” an effort that he was working on in Canada.

The Chair of the Standing Committee noted that the statement of the Eighth Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, held in Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A., 12-14 August 2008, included a paragraph in support of a greater role for the Arctic Council stating that the Conference:

Is convinced that the political role of the Arctic Council should be enhanced given the many challenges facing the region, particularly by ensuring more regular ministerial meetings with all participants, no less than once a year, and to ensure its full engagement with other international bodies working on the same issues, particularly the United Nations (Paragraph 37).^[7]

The Chair concluded by saying that there should be deeper involvement of the Ministers at the Council, and that meeting once a year instead of the current two years would be valuable.

Report on the Development of the IPY-Project “Sustaining Arctic Observing Network” (SAON)

A report on the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network (SAON) was to be given at the previous Standing Committee meeting in Östersund Sweden but was postponed as the recommendations of the SAON Initiating Group had not been finalised.

In the last Ministerial Declaration of the Arctic Council the Ministers agreed to:

Urge all the Member countries to maintain and extend long term monitoring of change in all parts of the Arctic, and request AMAP [Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program] to cooperate with other AC Working Groups, IASC and other partners in efforts to create a coordinated Arctic observing network, that meets identified societal needs^[8]

As the Standing Committee heard from Mr. Lars Otto Reiersen, Executive Secretary of AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program), this decision had developed based on the realization that obtaining reliable data on various Arctic Council assessments had been difficult and that there was therefore the need for open and transparent access to data on the Arctic.

The Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks Initiating Group (SAON-IG) was subsequently formed in January 2007, and consists of 13 international organizations representing the Arctic Council, Arctic residents, the Arctic research community and operational and funding agencies.  The group facilitated three international workshops and two regional meetings that were broadly attended by representatives of the science community, operational agencies and indigenous peoples.^[9]

Some examples of current monitoring efforts were described and included the use of the ice breaker Amundsen, which had a good strategy to go to coastal villages to deliver medical services and at the same time obtain samples for analysis.  The station at Alert, Canada was also mentioned for being the longest running Arctic atmospheric monitoring station for atmospheric mercury and persistent organic pollutants.  Mr. Reiersen then described how many observing stations were cut back, though some refurbishment is now occurring.

The Initiating group recommendations were then described. Chief among these is the recommendation for the establishment of an Arctic Observing Forum (AOF) within the Arctic Council:

the Arctic Council and partners are encouraged to establish an Arctic Observing Forum (AOF), with adequate resources and defined roles for the Arctic Indigenous Peoples, to facilitate Arctic observing, and related data and information management services. The AOF shall address issues that transcend individual Arctic observing systems and national capabilities.

Draft terms of reference for the AOF were also published.^[10]

During the ensuing discussion the head of the Canadian delegation expressed concern for future funding of Arctic observing systems after the end of the International Polar Year and asked if there was going to be any carry-forward of projects.  The presenter replied that some Canadian and Norwegian projects had started late and therefore would continue for a while, but had no information on whether individual governments would continue to support IPY projects.

Presentation of the Development of an Arctic Policy in the European Union

Two recent documents speak to the evolving Arctic policy of the European Union. The first is the European Parliament Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance and the other the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council the European Union and the Arctic Region (17 November 2008).  The Standing Committee was given a presentation on both of these documents.

European Parliament Resolution of 9 October 2008 on Arctic Governance

Ms Bilyana Raeva, MEP, gave a presentation on the European Parliament Resolution.

She began by describing some of the history of European Parliamentary interest in the Arctic which included involvement in the Northern Dimension since 2001 and seven other resolutions touching on health, safety of transport, environment and climate change and energy resources.  The resolution itself was the work of three years and was supported by all Parliamentary groups.

The overall aim of the resolution was to maintain the Arctic as a low-tension region and to encourage prudent management.  The resolution also supported a new international treaty based on The Antarctic Treaty.^[11]

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council the European Union and the Arctic Region

Mr. Janos Herman, Principal Adviser, Deputy Political Director of for Regional Policy, Directorate-General for External Relations, then gave a presentation on the European Commission Communication.

Mr. Herman began by the origins of the communication in the realisation that the Arctic was important to the European Union and vice versa particularly in light of the rapid changes happening in the Arctic.  The EU has been developing policies of global scope with relevance to the Arctic such as those on climate change and maritime policy that have a direct bearing on the Arctic and there was a need for an overarching policy.

The communication had three objectives:

-        Protecting and preserving the Arctic in unison with its population;

-        Promoting sustainable use of resources; and

-        Contributing to enhance Arctic multilateral governance.

A delicate balance was sought on two aspects of the Communication: resource exploitation and the environment; and the legal regime. Exploitation is going to take place no matter what and it must therefore be a priority to make such exploitation sustainable.

With respect to the legal regime Mr. Herman acknowledged the recommendations of the EP Resolution, but explained that the Commission Communication states that the current legal regime is sufficient but that it could be adjusted to the rapid changes occurring in the Arctic and that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in particular could be implemented in a more efficient manner.  There must be a contribution of the EU to the institutions of governance, particularly the Arctic Council.

Within the EU, the Northern Dimension policy is the main forum for Arctic policies in the EU.  The Arctic policy would be more circumpolar, and therefore would have to be coordinated with Northern Dimension activities.  An example given was that the Northern Dimension Partnership on the Environment could be used to promote projects with Arctic relevance.

The communication had support from Norway and Iceland, was under discussion at the time of the Standing Committee meeting and he expected the conclusions to be adopted by the European Council by early fall 2009.

Discussion started with comments of the Chair in support of the Commission’s approach to governance.

The head of the Canadian delegation intervened by supporting the Chair’s comments after which he commented forcefully on paragraph 2.2 of the Communication which refers to the discussions occurring in the European Community in support of a ban on the placing on the market, import, transit export of seal products.  He saw it as hypocritical that the Commission would state that it wants to support indigenous peoples while at the same time seriously discussing a ban on seal products.  Seals are valuable for food and the economic value of the harvest is in the vicinity of $40 million.  The idea of classifying seals products by who does the harvesting would be difficult leading to impact on all peoples.  In addition, a ban on seal products might well lead to a ban on other animal products that are harvested by indigenous populations.

Mr Herman replied that these were difficult questions but that the Community was working with indigenous people of Greenland and Russia to develop a dialogue.  The EU supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but as well there was a very strong message from their constituents on animal welfare including seals.  The ban would only be on trade, not on hunting, which could happen anytime.  The intent was to provide an exemption for products related to Inuit traditional subsistence and a derogation clause^[12] so that if Canada could show that the hunt meets the expectations of the EU the products could be approved.  He also stated that he hoped that a final decision would actually allow trade of indigenously harvested seal products since the draft ban had effectively killed the market in any case.

The member from Greenland commented that these were “impressive words” but that the whaling and sealing countries saw it as a race-based ban given that other indigenous peoples harvested alongside Inuit. She also mentioned the negative effects that the likely common policy of the EU on whaling would have on Greenland.  She felt that the word “sustainability” was being abused by the EU and that feelings and propaganda would win out over the needs of indigenous and other peoples dependent on animal harvesting.

The member from the RAIPON (Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East) commented on the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Northern Dimension, emphasizing the need for a special working group under the Northern Dimension to deal with indigenous peoples.

A member from the Russian Federation stated that indigenous rights are important to Russia particularly regarding customs and traditions. With respect to the legal regime, any changes had to respect decisions already adopted.

Ms Raeva noted that the European Parliament and Commission did not always agree. She stated that even a new regime would have to complement and not destroy the current balance.  Humanitarian interests in particular need more attention.  It would be helpful to have a body to implement UNCLOS in an impartial manner representing all interests.

Mr. Herman also downplayed the differences between the Parliament and the Commission. As an example, he suggested that the increased access to fisheries as a result of the diminishing sea ice might require a new agreement on fisheries.  In response to the intervention of the member from Greenland he noted that the EU was just an observer at the International Whaling Commission and that the Commission had attempted to incorporate the Nordic Councils views on whaling to the maximum extent.

A member of the Russian Federation mentioned that he felt that the actions taken within the Northern Dimension by the EU made the partnership unbalanced.

DISCUSSION ON THE “RULES OF PROCEDURE” OF SCPAR

As requested by the Standing Committee at the previous meeting, a report regarding changes to the Rules of Procedure” produced by the Secretariat was tabled by the Chair.  The report discussed to possible changes: the election of a vice chair and the increased participation of observers at the Standing Committee.

The Chair reminded the members that changes to the Rules of Procedure could only be finalized by the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (CPAR).  It was also noted that, since there were some countries not represented at the Standing Committee for this meeting, any decision by the Standing Committee should be put off until the next meeting.

There was general agreement that the election of a vice-chair would be a good idea.  Regarding the participation of observers, it was noted that the Standing Committee should be kept small and efficient.  To this end observers should be limited to those at the Arctic Council and/or the CPAR, and there should be limited acceptance of Non-Governmental Organizations.  A member from the Russian Federation suggested that the number of observers be kept to the same number as participating members, namely eight.

Status of the Work of SCPAR

Delegates were invited to report on their country’s work with respect to the Standing Committee. See the attached draft minutes (Appendix 1) for a summary of interventions.

The head of the Canadian delegation described recent activities of the Canadian Government.  He noted that Canada’s Health Minister, Leona Aglukkaq, represents Nunavut in Canada’s western Arctic.

Steps being taken to assert Canada’s sovereignty include:

-        Arctic/Offshore patrol vessels to monitor and respons to incidents;

-        Mandatory reporting for all vessels entering domestic internal waters; and

-        On-going sea-bed mapping to support delimitation of Canada’s Arctic continental shelf via UNCLOS.

Canada is also taking steps to strengthen economic development in the North.  The Budget for 2009 included $50 million to establish a new regional economic development agency for the North.  The budget also stated that $90 million was to be provided to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) in support of the Strategic Investments in Northern Economic Development program.  Social housing in the North will be supported with an additional $200 million over two years.  In order to facilitate the regulatory approval process for the MacKenzie gas pipeline $37.6 million in 2009–10 will be provided to departments and agencies in support of environmental assessments, regulatory coordination, science, and Aboriginal consultations. Key existing research stations will be maintained or upgraded with up to $85 million over the next two years.

In addition to these monetary investments, the Canadian government has introduced amendments to its Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to change the definition of Arctic waters from 100 to 200 nautical miles in order to extend the enforcement of the anti-pollution provisions of the Act.

Economic and social development is best facilitated by local governments with sufficient capacity and therefore ongoing transfer of federal responsibilities (devolution) to territorial governments will help realize the aspirations of northerners.

A Canadian Delegate also made an observation on a point of interest that the melting of Arctic ice could have profound effects on ocean currents.  A guest speaker on this subject was requested.

Next Meeting

It was decided that the next meeting of the Standing Committee will be in Ilulissat, Greenland, 27 May, 2009.  A program on climate change will be arranged for 28 May.

Any Other Business

The Committee took note of the US National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives on the subject of Arctic Region Policy, 9 January, 2009.^[13]

FIRST NORTHERN DIMENSION PARLIAMENTARY FORUM

The First Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum was held the afternoon of 25 February and the morning of 26 February, 2009.  The Forum consisted of several speakers giving ten minute speeches on their perspectives on the Northern Dimension. Question and answer sessions followed groups of speakers.

Most interventions noted the need for increased cooperation in the circumpolar region and discussed the role that the Northern Dimension could play in this cooperation.  The various efforts in the Arctic should avoid duplication and attempt to find synergies.

One concrete discussion occurred regarding whether or not the European Union should have a dedicated budget line to the Northern Dimension.  Currently there is no such dedicated funding.  The Commission was opposed to this, explaining that there is an attempt to reduce the number of budget lines and that having a dedicated budget line might put limits on the flow of money to the Northern Dimension.

The possibility of transforming the Northern Dimension Forum into a new international organization for the Arctic, similar to a parliament, was also discussed.  This idea was not received well, with some saying that there was a need for concrete action now, rather than getting bogged down in negotiating a new constitution and rules.  It was suggested that the Forum could become a gathering point, open to all players such as scientists and financiers, so that it could have greater impacts outside the Forum.

A final report will be produced and when ready will be available at the Arctic Parliamentarians website.^[14]

Canada participated actively in all aspects of the Forum.  The head of the Canadian delegation gave a speech (see Appendix 2) which was aimed at aiding the discussion on the Northern Dimension by describing Canada’s federal government activities occurring in the Canadian Arctic.

In addition a Canadian delegate also made an intervention during the discussions. He noted that he was opposition critic for the north, and represented the Yukon which had fourteen different First Nations.  The delegate made a number of points. He generally approved of the draft statement, particularly as an historical background document.^[15] Support was given to the idea that the Northern Dimension activities must be coordinated with the EU’s arctic policy.  He supported the current legal regime for the Arctic as opposed to producing a new treaty or agreement as well as the concept that the North should remain a non-military region.  In addition he noted that climate change could bring security issues to the north.  The incorporation of circumpolar Indigenous Traditional Knowledge into decision making was very important.

A draft declaration was distributed in advance of the Forum and a drafting committee was assigned with the task of debating changes and presenting a final draft to the Plenary for approval.  The final statement is attached as Appendix 3.  A significant paragraph from the statement calls for “reports on the implementation of the partnerships within the Northern Dimension, to be presented at the next Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum.”  The fulfillment of this request to the Northern Dimension partners will help parliamentarians at the Forum better understand the concrete steps that are being taken within the Northern Dimension.

 

Respectfully submitted,