Report

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Ryan Leef led a Canadian delegation of two, including Mr. Dennis Bevington, to the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (the Standing Committee) held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 10 June 2014. 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 (CPAR) 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 Tenth Conference was held in Akureryri, Iceland, 5-7 September 2012.[1] The Eleventh Conference is to take place in Whitehorse, Yukon, 9-11 September, 2014.

The Conference adopts a statement with recommendations to the Arctic Council (AC) and to the governments of the eight Arctic states and the European Commission. The Standing Committee closely monitors how the governments implement the Conference Statement, and take new initiatives to further Arctic cooperation.

Between conferences, Arctic parliamentary cooperation is facilitated by the Standing Committee, which began 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 AC. The Standing Committee takes part in the work of the Council as an observer.[2]

MEETING SUMMARY[3]

The agenda for the meeting and the draft minutes of the previous meeting held 24 February 2014, Ottawa, Canada, were adopted.

A.   PRESENTATION OF THE DANISH ARCTIC POLICY

Mr. Martin Lidegaard, Minister of Foreign Affairs, presented the Danish Arctic policy. The Danish Arctic Strategy[4] emphasizes the need for international and domestic cooperation “towards the common overall goal of creating a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable future for the Arctic.”  Minister Lidgaard began his presentation by stating that it is crucial to involve Arctic parliamentarians in this cooperation to address Arctic issues. Cooperation between the five Arctic coastal states was also stressed, specifically by noting the Ilulissat Declaration of 2008.[5] It is a common responsibility of all Arctic nations to maintain peace and security while establishing economic, social and environmental development.

Noting the central role of the Arctic Council in achieving this overall goal, the Minister affirmed Denmark’s support for more observers. This would benefit not only the Arctic but the whole world. He noted that non-Arctic states should be treated in a consistent manner and stated his support for the European Union’s application for observer status. With the EU seal product ban final decision at the World Trade Organization[6] it was his hope that the EU status at the Arctic Council could be resolved.

During discussion on possible new areas for legal agreements between the Arctic states the Minister noted that some point to The Antarctic Treaty and its protocol on environmental protection as examples for the Arctic..[7]  The original treaty is about preserving the Antarctic for peaceful purposes and scientific research while the protocol commits parties to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment. The Minister, however, noted that the Arctic is a different situation as there are no permanent residents in the Antarctic.

With respect to the remark that there is a lack of search and rescue capacity in the waters around Greenland he questioned the meaning of adequate SAR capacity. For example, when is enough, enough? The tourist boats in particular should be responsible but all actors have to be involved.

A Canadian delegate asked the Minister about his thoughts on the nature of the role of the Arctic Economic Council (AEC). He noted that the roles and actions of the AEC were being developed “as we speak” and would also depend on new roles taken on by the Arctic Council itself. Of importance was the fact that the Arctic is still a high risk area for investments because of weather and infrastructure challenges.  Attracting investments in the first place and ensuring that there is economic activity to benefit people were therefore seen as issues to be addressed.

Regarding the development of the Polar Code[8] under the International Maritime Organization, the Minister stated that there should not be a rush to the bottom line. There should be high standards in the agreement or there should be no agreement. The question was posed as to what the Arctic coastal states would do in the absence of a strong Polar Code.

In response to a question on indigenous businesses the Minister commented that defining an indigenous business was already difficult and that as indigenous peoples develop and adopt new models of business it would become even more difficult.

B.   TO THE BENEFIT OF GREENLAND

Professor Minik Rosing of the Natural History Museum of Denmark and chairman of the Committee for Greenlandic Mineral Resources to the Benefit of Society, presented the committee’s report To the Benefit of Greenland.[9]

Professor Rosing described the historic economic links between Greenland and Europe from whale oil to crysolite[10] before elaborating on the committee’s report.  In summary, the report essentially concludes that Greenland has insufficient human resources and infrastructure capacity to exploit its non-renewable resource potential sufficiently to wean itself off the block grants from Denmark. The report suggested that better harvesting of living resources could be an advantage as well as international collaboration to put a price on the preservation of nature. However, limitations on increasing revenues from its living resources in combination with the demographics of Greenland inevitably lead to a deficit situation.

The Chair of the Standing Committee, who is from Greenland, noted that it was important to identify the advantages of the Arctic and use them to develop it in its own way, not using the models used elsewhere in the world.

C.   ARCTIC COOPERATION ON MANAGEMENT OF LIVING RESOURCES

Mr. Njord Wegge, Senior Research Fellow at Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen Institute, presented information on cooperation in management of living resources, specifically fisheries. The fisheries in question were those in the high Arctic Ocean beyond the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones[11] of the five coastal Arctic states. Such waters are generally characterized by depths of 4,000 to 5,000 metres.

Mr. Wegge began by summarizing the current legal regime governing high Arctic fisheries. The 1995 United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (in force December 2001) would apply to the high Arctic Ocean as would, in part, the Convention on the Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries.[12] Other regional fisheries management organizations also exist.[13] He also noted that there seemed to be no desire to use the Arctic Council as an organization to address fisheries management issues.

With changing oceanic ecosystems managing the high Arctic may become more important. For instance fish had been caught up to 82^o N, north of Svalbard, a new occurrence. The five Arctic coastal states agreed in February 2014 to a temporary prohibition of commercial fishing in the high seas of the central Arctic Ocean until a regulatory regime is in place, but noted that “commercial fishing in the high seas area of the central Arctic Ocean is unlikely to occur in the near future.”[14]

He concluded by noting that non-Arctic coastal states might be involved in the future, as well as posing questions such as: whether an agreement is needed; who would decide on an agreement; whether experimental fisheries should take place; and how Indigenous fisheries would be accounted for.

A Canadian delegate commented on this issue noting that fisheries may be migrating, not expanding, their populations thus leaving other areas void of fish. He noted that: ocean currents are changing; the oceans’  are acidifying; and predation may be changing.

In response, Mr. Wegge noted that areas void of fish would usually be filled by migrating fish from the south but that there might be winners and losers in the fisheries. Migration is normal, noting the mackerel war in the area of Faeroe Islands and Iceland as the result of mackerel migrating into their fishing areas. He further commented on the movement of predators suggesting that it was too early to know if predators would follow fish migration to the Arctic, as it would depend on such criteria as the need for land.

On indigenous participation in the activities of the five coastal Arctic states, he noted that it was not an official organization and that it would have to be up to the central governments to agree on such participation. The Chair of SCPAR noted that it is important to have indigenous participation at meetings of the Arctic five coastal states.

D.   TOWARDS COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING IN ARCTIC PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr. Kristian Søby Kristensen, senior researcher at the University of Copenhagen, introduced the topic of cooperation in preparedness and response by summarizing his conclusion that regional cooperation becomes more difficult as nations move from signing agreements to actually implementing cooperation.

Emergency management is difficult, complex and expensive. Being a shared responsibility it needs champions both domestically and for increased regional cooperation. Cooperation has to go beyond memoranda of understanding to include training and exercises. Mr. Kristensen posited that the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response working group of the Arctic Council was the obvious venue for cooperation to occur, but resources need to come from individual nations.

A Canadian delegate emphasized that emergency preparedness needs to be a risk management exercise in that the types of risks and their likelihood have to be understood. Preventive measures can then be used to reduce the probability of the more frequent event occurring. Low cost actions such as people taking locators would prevent them from getting lost on land. The speaker extended this idea to advocating mapping of vulnerability to identify what makes countries vulnerable or resilient.  The Canadian delegate reiterated that in a world of limited resources and increasing Arctic traffic that it is necessary to understand the likelihood of events occurring and applying risk management to emergency preparedness.

E.   CONFERENCE IN WHITEHORSE 9-11 SEPTEMBER 2014

The head of the Canadian delegation introduced the latest version of the draft program for the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region to be held in Whitehorse, Yukon, 9-11 September 2014. No comments were made.

Rapporteurs for the four themes then presented outlines of their approaches to the themes. Mr. Bevington of Canada is the rapporteur on Sustainable Infrastructure Development. The focus of Mr. Bevington’s report will be: renewable energy; food security; infrastructure that supports sustainable economic activities such as tourism; and training and research though the University of the Arctic.

The latest draft conference statement was discussed and various ideas exchanged (see Draft Minutes).

F.    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE NORTH

The Standing Committee has been developing a report on economic development and capacity building in the North entitled Capacity Building and Economic Development in the High North. A similar process on the subject of governance, in the lead up to the Tenth Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, led to a strong influence on the Conference Statement. The latest seventh draft of the paper was discussed.

One member felt that it was important to discuss regional level transport, citing the Northern Dimension Transport and Logistics partnership.[15] Cross border cooperation was recommended as a means to address shortages of labour in certain industries.

The head of the Canadian delegation expressed his opinion that the recommendation regarding making “overall strategies for assessing environmental, social and cultural consequences when developing natural resources in the Arctic” had solely negative implications that did not reflect the text of the report which speaks of both “social benefits and costs” of development projects. He suggested adding the concept of benefits of development to the recommendation. In a separate note, he suggested that the report should be consistent in its use of “North” and Arctic.”

G.   STATUS OF THE WORK OF SCPAR

The Chair announced that she will be stepping down after the Conference in September. There will therefore have to be decisions made regarding a new chair of the Standing Committee at the meeting of the Committee following the Conference.

The Chair then related to the Committee an exchange of letters between herself and the Canadian Chairmanship of the Arctic Council (Minister Aglukkaq). The exchange related to an incident at the meeting of the Senior Arctic Officials that took place in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, 26 – 27 March 2014. The Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee, Mr. Bevington, requested to address the SAOs but was refused. The letter to Minister Aglukkaq noted that the Chair of the Committee was “very disappointed” at this “historical decision.” In return, Minister Aglukkaq noted the “very large and time-consuming agenda” of the SAO meeting which precluded verbal statements.

The Vice-Chair then addressed the Committee noting the breadth and importance of the work of the Arctic Council, concluding that there was a need for active participation in the work of the Arctic Council. There was therefore a need to re-establish the relationship between Arctic parliamentarians and the Arctic Council.

The Chair then summarized her conclusions from this exchange of letters. She saw a movement in the Arctic Council that needed to be countered with clear communication. The Standing Committee is made up of members of parliaments and therefore represents the Arctic peoples. As such it should be allowed to give short speeches at meetings of the SAOs and at the working groups of the Arctic Council. She felt that it was necessary to reiterate that the Standing Committee wants to be in direct dialogue with the SAOs.

The Head of the Canadian delegation spoke to the necessity of caution in the wording of letters such as these. He noted that he was not challenging the right of the Standing Committee, as an observer to the Arctic Council with a little higher stake, to request to address the SAOs. However, he was concerned that the language in the letter might have been a bit strong, particularly if this was note truly a historical decision. The language of such letters must be carefully crafted or could be perceived as a shot over the bow of the recipient of such a letter, in this case the Minister of the Arctic Council.

The Chair of the Committee responded by confirming that such a request had never been refused. This situation was new and different. Her perception was that the Arctic Council was becoming more rigid in the way it works, referring to how Greenland had previously been treated. There is a job for the Standing Committee, which, being made up of parliamentarians, represents the people, to be in open dialogue with the Arctic Council. If there are time constraints, particularly with more delegations at meetings, then perhaps observers could be categorized and parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, should be given the time to address SAOs. There was general agreement to her suggestion that this issue could be addressed in the conference statement of the eleventh Conference.

There followed a round table of activities of the delegations (see Draft Minutes).

H.   NEXT MEETINGS OF SCPAR 

The next meetings of the Standing Committee will take place on 9 September and 10 September immediately preceding and following the Conference. The Chair will step down at the meeting on 10 September.  The next meeting after this will take place in Helsinki, Finland, 10-21 November, 2014, and will include a seminar on increased cooperation on security in the Arctic.

 

Respectfully submitted,