Report

INTRODUCTION

Peter Goldring,  M.P.,  led a Canadian delegation of two to the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (the Standing Committee) held in Ilulissat, Greenland, 27, 28 May 2009.  The other delegate was Mr. Robert Oliphant, M.P. 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]

MEETING SUMMARY

The Standing Committee agreed to drop agenda item 3 (Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment – Final Report and Findings) and agenda item 6 (Implementation of the Conference Statement from Fairbanks – Cooperation with the University of the Arctic) as the speakers for these topics were unable to attend. The agenda

and the minutes from the previous meeting in Brussels, Belgium, 25 February 2009 were approved. The meeting in Brussels was held in conjunction with the First Parliamentary Forum for the Northern Dimension (25, 26 February 2006). The Standing Committee took note of the final report from the Forum.

Report from the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Tromsø and Presentation of the Program of the Danish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council

Ministers from the eight member states of the Arctic Council meet every two years. The latest meeting took place 29 April in Tromsø, Norway. The Standing Committee is an observer to the Arctic Council, and the Chair, Hill-Marta Solberg, made an intervention at the meeting.  The Standing Committee was informed of the outcomes of the meeting, particularly those related to work of the Committee. In addition, the chairmanship of the Council rotates with the meetings, and the Standing Committee was given a presentation of the intentions of the new chair, Denmark.

The Chair of the Standing Committee, who was present at the Arctic Council meeting, gave a brief summary.  The Ministerial meeting was preceded by a conference entitled, Melting Ice: Regional Dramas, Global Wake-Up Call, co-chaired by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mr. Al Gore and Mr. Jonas Gahr Støre, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.   As the Standing Committee was told, the conference was presented with high quality up-to-date data that made it clear that the conclusions of the Arctic Council’s Arctic Climate Impact Assessment^[3] were too conservative.  Ice is melting far more quickly than thought in 2004 when that report was released.^[4]

The Arctic Council is currently completing an assessment entitled Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA).  The full report will be completed for the next Ministerial meeting in 2011, however a part of it related specifically to the Greenland Ice Sheet was presented to the Ministers who decided to report on it at the next Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CoP 15, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7-18 December 2009). 

Other decisions of note included one to establish a task force on short lived climate forcers (such as black carbon).  The intervention of the Chair of the Standing Committee centered on the need for more frequent meetings of the Arctic Council in order to more effectively meet the rapid changes happening in the Arctic.  The Council decided that a meeting of deputy ministers should occur in the years when there is no Ministerial meeting.

Mr. Inuuteq Holm Olsen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Greenland Home Rule Government, then informed the Standing Committee of the program of the Kingdom of Denmark’s^[5] chairmanship of the Arctic Council. The emphasis will be on human health and societal needs, a focus that was well received by the Standing Committee.  The Chairmanship will focus on:

·        Peoples of the Arctic;

·        The International Polar Year Legacy;

·        Climate Change;

·        Biodiversity;

·        Integrated Resource management;

·        Operational Co-operation; and

·        The Arctic Council in a new Geopolitical Framework.

More details of the intentions of the Kingdom of Denmark can be found in the attached draft minutes of the Standing Committee (Appendix I) and in the document entitled “The Kingdom of Denmark, Chairmanship of the Arctic Council 2009-2011.”^[6]

A lively discussion ensued centred on the role of the Arctic Council and how to strengthen it in the face of increased interest in the Arctic from non-Arctic states and other bodies.  The member from Sweden asked if, though the Arctic Council is always cited as the relevant regional body for Arctic issues, whether it was really taking the lead on issues or waiting for others with money to do so.

There was agreement that the Arctic Council should take the lead, but that the treatment of observers at the Council was a delicate issue that had been deferred pending decisions on the role of observers.  The delegate from Sweden responded that, with all the reports of oil and gas and other natural resources,  people were looking to politicians to take the lead.  With this in mind the delegate hoped that there would be greater cooperation between the Standing Committee and the Arctic Council.

The Chair of the Standing Committee intervened by stating that the Council is as strong as the Arctic Governments want to make it.  It is a young body that is developing in a positive direction.  She warned, however, that should it become an exclusive club for the Arctic nations that it would be weak, and that it needed to find a way to involve other countries as observers.  It was noted that a similar discussion regarding the role of observers was occurring at the Standing Committee.  Better dialogue with observers was seen as positive.  She felt that it was in the best interest of everyone to have better contacts with other countries.

The Finnish delegate noted that it was very important for the Arctic Council to take the lead. Observers need to obtain information, but the Council must set the direction for Arctic cooperation.

The speaker noted that strengthening the Arctic Council would not happen over night but incrementally. He noted that the United States recent directive on Arctic Policy gave a lot of weight to the Arctic Council. He also stressed that the real strength of the Council was its scientific knowledge base (the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was given as an example). He noted that Norway (the previous chair), Denmark and Sweden were cooperating on six consecutive years of chairmanship priorities.^[7]

Some of the limitations of the Arctic Council were noted after an intervention by a Canadian delegate. He applauded the general thrust of the direction of Denmark’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council. As a subset of the questions being raised, he posed the question of whether or not such a vehicle was the best for advancing the needs of indigenous populations. The assumption that states were the best bodies to do this might not be correct and that discussion of self-rule, self determination and governance was important.

The speaker noted, however, that such highly political issues were outside of the scope of the mandate of the Arctic Council.  The Council was established with a focus on environmental issues but had broadened this to have a more complete picture of sustainable development in the North.  It was noted that the Tromsø Declaration included a paragraph recognizing the urgent need for action to support Arctic Cultures and reduce the loss of Arctic indigenous languages.

The head of the Canadian delegation also noted, within the context of the proposed European ban on seal products, that the use of language was important.  He noted the use of the word “peoples” as opposed to “indigenous” or Inuit, could be a less divisive way of referring to those whose culture needs to be protected.  The European Parliament position on the seal ban refers specifically to the need to protect the fundamental economic and social interests of Inuit communities. 

Since Denmark is only part of the Arctic Council as a result of Greenland, the question was raised of Greenland’s role in the chairmanship.  A delegate from Greenland noted that there was a perception that they had not been consulted adequately given the importance of Greenland to Denmark’s role as chair.

It was noted that the chairmanship was shared between Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark and that it had been developed with Greenland.

Greenlandic Home-Rule on the Basis on the New Agreement

Ms Juliane Henningsen, member of the Parliament of Greenland and of the Standing Committee gave a presentation on the “self rule” act and referendum.

She began her talk by welcoming the Standing Committee to Ilulissat, which is her home town and one that she represents in Parliament.  A brief account of the election to be held on 2 June 2009^[8] was also given.

On the 25 November 2008, 72% of eligible voters voted over 75% in favour of “self-rule.”  Self rule is essentially a continuation of the transfer of powers from Denmark to Greenland that began with Home Rule in 1979. According to the speaker, the vote has brought joy, pride and hope for the future and that it was a clear indication that Greenlanders are ready for self-determination.

The new act was the result of hard negotiations.  Up to 32 new fields of responsibility could be eventually transferred to Greenland. However, the constitution, foreign policy the Supreme Court, defence and monetary policy, among others, will remain the responsibility of Denmark. Some of the important responsibilities to be transferred, according to the speaker, include control over natural resources, aliens and border control and food regulations.

Each of the new responsibilities will be transferred only when Greenlanders agree that they are ready. In the words of Ms. Henningsen, Greenlanders will decide which fields and when they will be transferred, so that the pace of transfer will be controlled. This decision will be based largely on the financial capacity to take over the responsibility.

Financing was the result of difficult negotiation. Greenland will continue to receive stable funding of DKK 3.2 billion (CDN 679 million^[9]).  Funding for transfer of powers is most likely to come from control over natural resources.  The first 75 million DKK from natural resources will remain in Greenland, beyond which revenues will be split evenly between Denmark and Greenland. When the revenues accrued by Denmark match the DKK 3.2 billion transfer, negotiations will commence, though the goal of this negotiation is vague at this time.

The next step will be to decide how a new Greenlandic society can be formed. Ms. Henningsen mentioned a number of priorities including equal opportunity, access to education, expanded trade, strengthening identity, adapting to climate change and addressing the economic crisis.  Greenlanders are anxious to take on more responsibility.

An article in the new act refers to Greenland’s access to independence, thus the self rule act could eventually facilitate full independence.  This would only occur under the act after a Greenlandic referendum on an agreement negotiated between the Danish Government and the Naalakkersuisut (Greenlandic government) consented to by the Danish Parliament and the Inatsisartut (Greenlandic Parliament).  Greenland could not unilaterally declare independence under this act. As it stands, the self-rule act will eventually give powers (such as over natural resources and courts) similar to those that Canadian provinces currently have, with some other others including border control, ship regulation and food regulation.

The Chair of the Standing Committee congratulated both Greenland and Denmark governments for the successful conclusion of difficult negotiations.

The member from Sweden brought up the problem of language at higher levels of education.  Greenlandic will be the language in elementary school while, acknowledging that there is a need for youth to be able to function abroad, secondary and university levels will also be taught in Danish and English. 

The Icelandic representative brought up the question of the state of natural resource development in Greenland.  This will be of particular importance since the funding from such development will be necessary for Greenland to take on more fields of responsibility. There are 70 active exploration licences, one or two active mines with a gold mine having been recently closed.  Three to five new mines are in the planning stages but the economic crisis has slowed them down. 

ALCOA is thought to be planning an aluminium smelter just north Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.  It is hoped that exploration may increase with the current economic conditions facilitating cheaper operation and rental of ships.  The possibility of uranium mining is being discussed but is very political.  Until recently this would have been a joint decision but now will be made by Greenlanders.

It was noted that the presentation by the speaker represented the political view of one party. The question was asked as to whether or not independence was a goal in and of itself or a tool to achieve other goals.  Ms. Henningsen noted that her party was known as the “independence party” but that this goal was shared by other parties and that collaboration was possible to achieve the goals of a stronger Greenland.  The referendum had pointed out that Greenlanders were not shy.

The head of the Canadian delegation congratulated Greenlanders on the result, particularly the percentage of voters who voted for self rule. This resounding result was a clear endorsement of the proposal, unlike a situation where a 50% plus 1% would lead to an ambiguous mandate to move forward with the results of a referendum.

Introduction to the University of Greenland

As the Chair of the Standing Committee stated, the members are very concerned about competence and capacity building in the North, and especially the role that education plays in meeting these goals.  The Committee was therefore very interested in the presentation by Ms Tine Pars, Rector of the University of Greenland, on the current status and future plans for the University.

The University is 25 years old and is currently governed by legislation passed in 2007.   It has 120 employees, nine institutes and an annual budget of DKK 110 million (CDN 23 million). Of the nine institutes, school teaching and education pedagogics (87 of 120 staff) dominate.

The rector described changes coming and her vision for the University.  The 9 institutes will be reduced to three to try and take advantage of more synergies and develop cooperation.  The University will also be introducing research-based professional bachelor degrees.  One of the challenges that has been faced is to keep students in university until completion.  The university graduates, on average, approximately 9 bachelors students each year and 4 masters level students.  This has been identified as a key challenge to be addressed.

The rector would like the university to be renowned for Inuit Studies, climate issues, resource management and development issues for indigenous peoples. However, the budget will likely be reduced in the future rather than being increased.  Funding is therefore also a priority. Fund raising and renewed negotiations with the Greenlandic government as well as more international cooperation and perhaps European Union research money will be part of the strategy to look for new funding opportunities.

During discussion it was noted that the University was not a part of the University of the Arctic.  It costs money to join, but there could be rewards as well.  The rector was asked if there were any formal agreements with other Nordic universities.  There are formal agreements with all Danish universities but no others. It was perceived that having too many small institutions at the University was an impediment to drawing other universities into agreements.

A Canadian delegate suggested that language programs such as interpretation and linguistics might be important.  Language is very important and the chair is very interested in it.  It would not be so much about learning Greenlandic, but about the language, such as creating words for new terminology.

The member from Iceland asked about opportunities at the university, as reflected in the graduating class.  There are currently many more women than men.  The Rector believes that information and communication technology could be used to a greater extent and that it should be a strength of the university.

It was also noted that it must be difficult to keep students in Greenland once they had graduated.  The University did not know how many students remained in Greenland following graduation.

Preparations for the Arctic Conference in 2010 in the European Parliament

The secretariat of the Standing Committee, consisting of the support staff of each delegation, met in advance of the Standing Committee meeting to discuss possible topics for discussion and introduced six topics for discussion. At the Standing Committee, it was noted by one delegate that there should be no more than three topics in order to help focus the Conference and allow for plenty of discussion and debate.

The Standing Committee was very supportive of the topic of the use of living resources (fish, seals, whales), particularly in the context of how it relates to the quality of life for the peoples of the Arctic region.  The Standing Committee was also supportive, as it has been in the past, of the issues of the International Polar Year, education and capacity building, as it was thought that an integration of these topics could form the basis of interesting discussion.  Since the IPY is now finished, the focus would be on the legacy of IPY and how this can be used to improve education and capacity building in the north.

Two other related topics that are of ongoing interest were also discussed.  Governance issues such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, strengthening the Arctic Council and the relevance and effectiveness of multilateral environmental agreements were of particular interest.  The head of the Canadian Delegation intervened to give support to bringing forward the issue of UNCLOS claims to an extended continental shelf.  Increased accessibility of Arctic waters to maritime transport has many associated issues such as safety and the development of new regulations to govern arctic maritime traffic.

The timing of the Conference was of concern since, in the past, it had been held in close proximity to the Ministerial meetings of the Arctic Council so as to maximise the impact of the Conference statement on Ministerial commitments.  The Arctic Council has changed the timing of its meetings to the spring from the fall. The Standing Committee still believes that August/September is the best time for the Conference, but that a meeting with the Arctic Council early in the year of a Ministerial meeting will be essential to ensure parliamentary input into Arctic Council is fresh in the minds of governments of the Arctic Council.  A suggested time for the next Conference, to be hosted by the European Parliament, is early September 2010.

Discussion on the “Rules of Procedure” of SCPAR

The Rules of Procedure were a topic of discussion at the meeting of the Standing Committee in Brussels, 25-26 February 2009.  There were two topics of interest: the election of a vice chair to help with the work of the Standing Committee, particularly for engagements between meetings; and how to better involve observers to the Standing Committee into its work.

It was decided to elect a vice chair at the next meeting of the Standing Committee.  Observers will be invited to a special meeting the day before the next Conference.

Appointment of Rapporteurs in SCPAR

The Standing Committee has used rapporteurs in the past, namely for the issue of human health in the Arctic.  It was thought that this had been successful at bringing focus to certain issues.  Ms Juliane Henningsen, was name rapporteur on the subject of climate change.

Status of the Work of SCPAR

Delegates were invited to report on their country’s work with respect to SCPAR. See the attached draft minutes (Appendix 1) for a summary of interventions.  The head of the Canadian delegation made an intervention focusing on the issue of the European Union ban on seal products and the UNLCOS procedure for delineating the extended continental shelf (Appendix II).

Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Standing Committee will take place in Helsinki, Finland, 19 November 2009.  The day before the meeting a workshop will be held on the procedure of the UNCLOS delineation of the extended continental shelf.

Any Other Business

The Committee was informed of a conference on human health that will take place in Copenhagen, Denmark in early November 2009.  Members were invited as a matter of interest rather than an official Standing Committee event.

New Leadership of SCPAR

Ms Hill-Marta Solberg, who has been chair of the Standing Committee for a number of years, will no longer be a parliamentarian as of the 14 September 2009 election in Norway, the result of a decision not to stand for reelection.  As such, Ms. Solberg will no longer chair or be a member of the Committee.  Mr. Hannes Manninen (Finland) was nominated and elected as the new chair for the period leading up to the next Conference in 2010.

RODEBAY, GREENLAND

In keeping with the Standing Committee’s focus on the human dimension of the Arctic (living conditions of peoples of the Arctic region), members travelled for a site visit to Rodebay, Greenland, a fishing village in the middle of Disko Bay 18 km from Ilulissat and accessible only by boat or foot, to learn more about the problems faced there and how challenges are being overcome.

Rodebay is a small fishing village, like so many others in the Arctic, which is struggling to survive.  It is a village of 50 inhabitants with approximately 200 working dogs which are used to haul fish.  The Committee was informed of the various ways by which Rodebay has so far succeeded in maintaining a vibrant community.

Fishing is still the main industry. A small factory has been established that uses a special drying method, developed locally, for halibut.  The industry has established itself as a unique enterprise with consistent demand for its product.  In addition, the natural surroundings are being used as a draw for tourists.  A group of people from Ilulissat has helped to purchase a number of buildings that have been turned into a restaurant and a number of hostel-like accommodations.

During the site visit, Dr. Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, a key member of the Danish scientific team tasked with producing the Climate Change and the Greenland Ice Sheet portion of the Arctic Council’s SWIPA project that will be presented to the CoP 15 in Copenhagen, gave a presentation on the Greenland Ice Sheet.  In addition,   Lene Kielsen Holm, who is a native of Greenland and a member of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, gave a presentation on her work discovering how the Inuit people have adapted their lives and culture to fit their harsh and changing climate.   

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

[1] The Conference report is available at: http://www.arcticparl.org/announcements.aspx?id=3319

[2] Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region,  http://www.arcticparl.org/  accessed 6 December 2007

[3] The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment is available at  http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

[4] Co-Chair’s Summary, Melting Ice: Regional Dramas, Global Wake-Up Call  Tromsø, 28 April 2009,  http://arctic-council.org/workarea/agenda_tromso_meeting_april_2009/filearchive/co-chair_summary_melting_ice_conference.pdf

[5] Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands

[6] http://arctic-council.org/workarea/agenda_tromso_meeting_april_2009/filearchive/chair-013-240209-program-final.pdf

[7] Arctic Council, “Norwegian, Danish, Swedish common objectives for their Arctic Council chairmanships 2006-2012,” http://arctic-council.org/article/2007/11/common_priorities

[8] Ms. Henningsen noted that her party, Inuit Ataqatigiit, a “left wing” party with eventual Greenlandic independence from Denmark as part of its platform, was doing well in the polls.  The party won the election with over 43% of the vote.

[9] Universal Currency Converter, http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi, 17 June 200