Report

 

Introduction

Senator Percy E. Downe led a delegation of four parliamentarians to the 10th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Akureyri, Iceland, 5-7 September, 2012.  The delegation was comprised of Senator Nancy Ruth, Mr. Larry Miller and Mr. Dennis Bevington. Accompanying the delegation was Mr. Tim Williams from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament as Advisor to the delegation.  Two meetings of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SCPAR) were held in association with the Conference.

The Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (CPAR) is a parliamentary body consisting of 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 Ninth Conference was held in Brussels Belgium, 13 - 15 September 2010.^[1] The Conference adopts a statement with recommendations to the Arctic Council and to the governments of the eight Arctic states and the European Commission.

Between conferences, Arctic parliamentary cooperation is carried on by SCPAR, which began its activities in 1994. The SCPAR closely monitors how the governments implement the Conference Statement, and undertakes new initiatives to further Arctic cooperation. The Conference and Standing Committee assume initiatives to further Arctic cooperation, and, in particular, act 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 PROCEEDINGS

The main body of the conference was separated into four parts, beginning with opening remarks and an overall discussion of issues on the agenda. This was followed by three sessions on the following topics:

·Arctic Governance and the Arctic Council;

·Economic Opportunities in the Arctic; and

·Human Development in the Arctic: Interplay of Research, Authorities and Residents.

Speakers addressed each topic, followed by discussion.^[3] The SCPAR had appointed three members to research the topics and prepare papers summarizing their findings with recommendations. Each of these rapporteurs presented their papers to the conference, along with experts in the field.

A.   Opening Session

The Speaker of the Icelandic parliament, H.E. Mrs. Ásta R. Jóhannesdóttir, opened the Tenth Conference by noting that the CPAR is an excellent example of parliamentary cooperation.  Specifically, she remarked that many such parliamentary bodies are created after a related intergovernmental body is formed, but in the case of CPAR, it predated the formation of the Arctic Council by three years and was instrumental in pushing for the Council’s formation.

The co-chair of the conference, Gudfridur Lilja Gretarsdottir, MP, Iceland, commented on Iceland’s recovery since the economic downturn.  She stressed that the success of the conference would be achieved through putting actions the conference discussed into place, so that parliamentarians would make a difference.

The mayor of Akureyri emphasized that though the city is small, it has over 7 000 students and its university housed the secretariats for two of the Arctic Council’s working groups.

In his opening statement, Mr. Össur Skarphéðinsson, Icelandic Minister for Foreign Affairs, noted the links between the Arctic and the lives of its inhabitants, as recounted in the case of his nation as far back as the Icelandic sagas. He remarked that for better or worse there would always be change, in particular referring to how natural resources will be exploited. He discussed the Arctic Council’s evolution toward having a stronger operating framework and supported the idea put forward at the conference to make the Arctic Council a treaty-based organization. In addition, he noted three other issues facing the Arctic Council, namely:

1.    The development  of a separate political statement being undertaken for the Kiruna ministerial meeting (Spring 2013) regarding a vision for the Arctic Council;

2.    The need to map gaps in infrastructure and capacity in search and rescue; and

3.    The importance of reaching a decision regarding a consensus on observers at the Arctic Council.

He concluded by stressing the importance of caring for and strengthening the Arctic Council.

Mr. Gustaf Lind, Senior Arctic Official Chair, Sweden, reported on the activities of the Arctic Council, noting that the current record sea ice melt was a call to action for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as action against black carbon and other short lived climate forcing agents. He emphasized the work under the Arctic Council to protect the environment from oil spills, as well as the assessments on biodiversity, the oceans and ocean acidification. He noted it was important to work toward better living conditions in the Arctic, including food and water security. He also remarked on the work toward a vision for the Arctic occurring under the Swedish chairmanship, noting that it had been inspired by the 2010 CPAR statement which asked the Arctic Council and Arctic governments to create a vision for the Arctic in 2030.^[4] He closed by stating that it was also important for Sweden to work with Canada during the transition to the new chair, which Canada will assume starting in 2013.

Mr. Morten Høglund, Chair of SCPAR, Norway, reported on the work of the SCPAR, particularly regarding arctic governance. The Standing Committee had just that morning delivered a paper entitled Arctic Governance in an Evolving Arctic Region (Appendix I), upon which it had been deliberating for almost two years.  In recommending a stronger Arctic Council, specifically for it to become a treaty-based organization, SCPAR was emphasizing the need to translate all of the good work of the Arctic Council into action, and to maintain decision-making with respect to the Arctic within the Arctic countries, even as more countries show their interest in the Arctic and become observers to the Arctic Council.  He stressed that it was a forward-looking report and thanked the work of Clifford Lincoln in its development.  In addition, Mr. Høglund emphasized the importance that the SCPAR places on circumpolar cooperation in education, remarking on the important role of the University of the Arctic in this area. He closed by stating his opinion that the SCPAR was not like other observers to the Arctic Council because it comprises elected officials from the Arctic region.

Senator Vladimir Torlopov, Head of Delegation, Council of Federation, Russia, greeted the CPAR stating that, because it comprised parliamentarians, it had the creativity to address the challenges facing the Arctic.

Discussion arose regarding the need to better communicate the work of the Arctic Council and the needs of the people of the Arctic. This would help to counter the misunderstanding, and dominant perception, that international competition was transforming the Arctic.  Rather, a great level of cooperation is occurring in the region. It was noted that a paper on a strategic communication plan was being developed for the Arctic Council. It was also emphasized that communicating how people live was also a challenge, particularly with regard to their reliance on living resources such as whales and seals.  A member from the European Parliament stressed the importance of including the European Union as an observer given its importance to global issues and its financial contribution to the Arctic region. The need to be patient on the issue of the seal ban was also noted, and the need to communicate the impact of the ban. The significance of supporting Indigenous peoples in the face of large corporations and development was discussed, with the need to strengthen the role of Indigenous peoples within the business community being stressed. It was noted that business was not represented at the Arctic Council discussions.

B.   Arctic Governance and the Arctic Council

Mr. Clifford Lincoln, former MP and former Chair of the SCPAR, Canada, and original author of the draft of the paper Arctic Governance in an Evolving Arctic Region opened the discussion on Arctic Governance by recounting how he had helped to negotiate a land management plan for a First Nation in Canada. A pilot area of land was set aside and  was split into regions marked for easy development; more rigorous conditions for development; and,  no development, designated green, orange and red respectively. He used this as a starting point to discuss the importance of creating a vision for the sustainable development of the Arctic, including a strengthened Arctic Council, which was easy to understand and communicate.  He also referred to Switzerland’s efforts to manage their alpine ecosystems as the “roof of Switzerland”, in the same manner the Arctic is the indispensible roof of the planet.  Making the Arctic Council a treaty organization with a vision would give it a more potent place in the international world to help preserve the Arctic as a region for the sake of the people that live there.

Ms. Ann-Kristin Johansson, MP, Sweden, and SCPAR rapporteur on Arcitc governance summarized the paper (Appendix I) accepted a the morning meeting of SCPAR.

Dr. Valur Ingimundarson, Professor, University of Iceland, gave his independent views of the Arctic Council and some of the problematic issues that it was not discussing, namely fisheries and security. Though some had complained that the meetings of the five Arctic coastal states^[5] were a challenge to the Arctic Council, the Council had actually since strengthened. Though the Search and Rescue (SAR) agreement^[6] was given as evidence of this strengthened Council, he also noted that it was not very ambitious and could have been written a long time ago. Regarding fisheries he noted that scientists were calling for a moratorium on commercial fisheries in the Arctic while the Arctic Council was not discussing the issue. Nor was it discussing security; the SAR was a “soft security” issue and he stressed that, for the benefit of all security must be discussed. He also felt that the impact of potentially increased numbers of observers at the Council on Indigenous participation was overblown and was standing in the way of decisions.  He finished by citing an article in Economist magazine which stated: “The message is clear: welcome to the new world of the warming Arctic. But remember who runs it.”^[7]

The following discussion included a wide range of views, from possible moratoria on development to give hope to the next generation, to the reality of a race for resources and an acknowledgment that hard security is expressly excluded by the Arctic Council’s founding documents. The concept of integrated management was discussed, stressing that a well-managed area reduces risk of conflict. It was noted that while it was an interesting idea to denote areas where resource could not be developed, that this would impinge on the quality of life of Indigenous people. If they cannot exploit natural resources and cannot sell the products of living natural resources, what are they to live on? A Canadian delegate noted that there was a lot of conflicting interests in the Arctic that arouse strong emotional responses. He stressed the need for collaboration on research to supply the answers to important questions. With so much attention and so many conflicting values centred on the Arctic, it was important for the conference to send a message of progressive cooperation to the world.

C.   Economic Opportunities in the Arctic

Mr. Larry Miller, MP, Canada co-chaired this session with Ms Ann-Kristin Johansson, MP, Sweden.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senate discussed a wide range of issues regarding economic development, including the need for navigation aids and the state of U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In her opinion there might be a window after the U.S. election during which ratification might be possible. The senator also stressed that since living resources such as whales define Indigenous communities and subsistence living was a necessary part of life in remote communities, any potential development must take this into consideration.

Ms. Johanna Ojala-Niemelä, MP, Finland and rapporteur for SCPAR, noted that the respective national Arctic strategies of Arctic nations include many similarities. They emphasize the use of natural resources, energy, tourism as well as new technology, and they consider developing infrastructure and transportation important. With interest in the Arctic growing she felt that it was important that the Arctic Council remains open to the outside world and allows non-Arctic states to make a constructive contribution to its work. Regarding sustainable development, she noted that the application of ecosystem based management and strategic environmental assessment were important. Education and research are also vital. Improved east-west and north-south transport will be beneficial. Having commonly accepted rules or guidelines for marine transport will be needed. The SCPAR supports the recommendations of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment^[8] and supports increased efforts to establish a mandatory polar code for shipping under the International Maritime Organization.^[9] Guidelines were also stressed as necessary for oil and gas exploitation. As for energy sources in the Arctic, replacement of fossil fuels in the region by solar, wind, biomass and other alternative energy sources suitable for the region should be underlined. Tourism and mining were also discussed. A common theme that emerged was that development of these industries must benefit the people who live in the Arctic. Swedish efforts to focus on guidelines of corporate social responsibility were highlighted.

Mr. Michael Slipenchuk, MP, Russia stated that some reaction to the planting of the Russian flag at the north pole was overblown and that it was not a sign of ownership, and after all, the U.S. planted a flag on the moon and no one thought that this has been a symbol of ownership. He commented on climate change being natural and went on to stress the importance of the Northern Sea Route to Russia and the need for infrastructure.

Two people from the shipping industry then described the relevance of Arctic shipping. Mr. Tero Vauraste, President and CEO of Arctia Shipping Ltd. stressed the strategic importance of icebreakers, however, their expense requires public private partnerships to decrease the burden on national taxes. Mr. Felix Tschudi, Chairman of Tschudi Shipping Co. described the use of the Northern Sea Route to save time. An 8-day savings of US $200 000 per day could be expected. Factors controlling the use of the route include climate change, technology, active interest in developing the route from Russia, and high commodity prices. However, he also stressed that a possible polar code with mandatory requirements for the use of diesel over heavy fuel oil would kill the route entirely.

The discussion initially centred on a call for a moratorium on oil and gas and mining, given that no country would act if others did not. However, others noted that Russia and Norway were already dependent on oil and gas and it was impossible to ask them to reduce their standards of living. What other opportunities existed for the people of the Arctic if oil and gas exploitation were not allowed and living resources were banned as commodities? It was remarked that economic development and environmental protection should not be seen as a balance but needed to be integrated. Caution should be used and more expensive technology applied given that the people, the Conference in particular, were signalling that the Arctic is special. Other instances of pollution control (such as catalytic converters in automobiles) had also been opposed based on unfounded potential economic impacts. Others noted that there might be too much emphasis on oil and gas and that more attention should be paid to improve cooperation on fisheries management. Technology and good, or best, practice sharing was seen as key. Industry should adhere to standards more stringent than regulation and if a project was too expensive perhaps it should be revisited.

D.   Human Development in the Arctic: Interplay of Research, Authorities and Residents

Ms. Sara Olsvig, MP, Denmark/Greenland stressed the importance of the human dimension of development. The well-being of people of the North have always been central to the SCAPR. The primary factor is to ensure that the peoples of the Arctic are not undermined. The research summarized in the Arctic Human Development (AHDR) report was valuable and she looked forward to the second AHDR. Arctic peoples are resilient and change natural, but rapid change in small communities can be unhealthy. Protecting humans and the environment is not a contest, but emphasis on capacity building, education, mental health, human rights and gender equality is needed. Major projects should not be a new form of colonization. It was legitimate to ask whether or not oil and gas exploitation and mining were necessary, but alternatives should be sought without limiting the right of peoples of the north to determine their own destinies.  Decisions on what, when and how development will occur must be founded in facts and knowledge. The Arctic people and peoples are part of a globalized world, their rights must be respected and they must be responsible for decisions making. She concluded with a quote from Albert Camus: “Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend.”

Mr. Larry Miller and Mr. Dennis Bevington, MPs, Canada, gave a joint intervention on this subject.  Mr. Miller noted that Canada plays a leading role in the Arctic and this will be especially true as it takes over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2013, for which the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health will be chair. The north is a fundamental part of Canadian heritage and identity. As such Canada introduced its Northern Strategy in 2009 with four pillars:

·Exercising our Arctic Sovereignty;

·Promoting Social and Economic Development;

·Protecting our Environmental Heritage; and

·Improving and Devolving Northern Governance.^[10]

He remarked that he believed that the Arctic Council should be at the forefront of opposing bans on seal products and that this statement should bebacked up with action. The North should not be a playground for the South. We should all work toward a healthy and prosperous North.

Mr. Bevington’s intervention stressed that human development and research go hand in hand, but that it had so far not played out well. The North is a difficult environment yet has sustained humans for millennia.  Such resilience is clear, but research can help modern societies as they adapt to current changes. However, such research must include the people of the North. He asked the question as to whether people might be trapped by resource development being carried out by others. He noted in particular a collaborative research effort in Canada to examine how Canadians living in northern communities can benefit from the sustainable development of the Arctic’s natural resources in a manner that improves northerners’ health and well-being, while preserving the region’s unique environment.^[11] Parliamentarians should be made aware of its results. In addition, the importance of sources of energy in the north was emphasized. Prices were dropping and technologies were advancing so fast that policy-based research cannot keep up, particularly noting that solar installations were now cheaper than diesel. Research was needed on energy storage.  He also noted that it was his belief that the CPAR had become stronger over the years, with this strength being driven by the rapid changes occurring in the Arctic.

Dr. Joan Nymand-Larsen, Senior Scientist, Stefansson Arctic Institute, introduced the work being undertaken toward a second AHDR. Noting that the first report concluded that people are resilient but that change was very rapid, he stated that the summary of the first report is feeding into the second report. Among new topics to be considered for inclusion in the AHDR-II are: Globalization and the Arctic; Climate Change in the Arctic; Migration and Urbanization in the Arctic; Language Change and Revitalization; and Issues of Inequality.^[12] Its guiding questions are:

·How does the Arctic differ from the outside world and especially from the metropoles or heartlands of the Arctic states?

·How much variance is there from one part of the Arctic to another?

·What are the major trends unfolding at this time?

·What are the main regional processes and global connections?

·Main changes since AHDR (2004) –10 years on?

Dr. David Hik, President of the International Arctic Science Committee, then discussed the legacy of the International Polar Year 2007-2008 (IPY). The IPY positioned the polar science communities to address important societal issues. Three unique characteristics of the IPY were international partnerships, data sharing and preservation, and education and outreach. The IPY legacies included those associated with scientific infrastructure and collaboration, baseline data sets, and a better understanding of Earth systems. In addition, a next generation of researchers and leaders were created within the scientific community, but importantly, also involved Arctic residents. Continued research in the Arctic is well-positioned to lead new Earth Systems Sustainability programs being lead by the International Council for Science. This could help determine what institutional, economic and behavioral changes can enable steps toward global sustainability. A planned international polar decade initiative^[13] was described, and it was emphasized that there was no demand for new money, just an effort to better coordinate research and data analysis to better support risk management and policy making. This was an important theme; that the coordination of scientific research and analysis can address societal issues.

Mr. Kemal Siddique, Ambassador, Special Envoy for Arctic Affairs, Singapore,^[14] requested an intervention and emphasized that his country was very aware of the risks associated with changes happening in the Arctic as they affect Singapore, particularly with respect to sea-level rise. He stressed that Arctic change has global repercussions.

A representative of RAIPON^[15] discussed the interplay between government and societies and implications for Aboriginal communities.  He stressed that co-management of natural resources functions well, but that partnerships in management would need some local autonomy. The question was asked as to whether or not Indigenous peoples’ voices were too small compared to the international companies that bring work to the region. Gender issues were also stressed. How do women have an impact, and are they impacted by change? For instance, women were moving to the south. It is important to have gender issues in the conference statement. It was noted that this was true in Greenland as well, and that social sciences should focus on gender issues.  Workers will actually have to be imported to do the work. However, the question must be asked as to whether it should be expected that the young men of the North should all want to become miners, etc.  It was stated that resource extraction industries were not transparent, with information only being available in English for instance, not in Aboriginal languages. A Canadian delegate stressed that sustainability and natural resource development must be coordinated in development projects, noting that some terms of reference for projects include sustainability. Roads and hydro power may be legacies of development but this should go further. Governments as partners and collectors of royalties should push companies to manage for the benefit of the people. It was also noted that the second AHDR would be examining these very issues.

Mr. Morten Høglund, Chair of SCPAR, Norway, introduced the draft conference statement for CPAR approval. He stressed a number of the paragraphs including the need for a vision for Arctic ecosystem based science, traditional knowledge, and a move toward annual CPAR conferences. He also noted that it was the first time that the CPAR statement had included a request for applying gender-based analysis to decision making. The conference statement was adopted. Mr. Larry Miller invited parliamentarians to the eleventh CPAR to be held at a location in Canada. The CPAR was adjourned.

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS OF THE ARCTIC REGION

There were two meetings of the SCPAR associated with the tenth CPAR. The first was held before the CPAR in preparation for the Conference. The SCPAR also met with some observers who expressed their interest in the CPAR. At the second meeting, held after the conference, Mr. Morten Høglund was re-elected chair until autumn 2013, when he will not stand for re-election in the Norwegian elections. Ms. Guðfríður Lilja Grétarsdóttir, MP, Iceland was re-elected as vice-chair. Mr. Bjørn-Willy Robstad was also re-elected as secretary. A Canadian delegate requested that communications be opened directly with staff of the parliamentarians attending. The next meeting is to take place in Finland in November, with a spring meeting to be held in Washington, D.C., United States. A preliminary invitation was made from the chair for a meeting to be held in June in Svalbard.

 

Respectfully submitted,