Report

Introduction

Mr. Bob Mills led a delegation of four parliamentarians to the Seventh Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Kiruna, Sweden, 2 to 4 August 2006.  The delegation consisted of members from the House of Commons and included Mr. Larry Bagnell, Mr. Yvon Lévesque, and Mr. Bradley Trost.  The delegation was assisted by Mr. Phillipe Méla, secretary to the delegation, and advisor Tim Williams from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament.  Two meetings of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SCPAR) ⁽¹⁾ were held in association with the Conference at which Canada was represented by the head of the delegation, Mr. Bob Mills.

The first conference of Arctic parliamentarians was held in 1993 in Iceland, and SCPAR was established the following year.  Conferences have been held in a different Arctic country every two years since the second conference in Yellowknife in 1996, the same year that the eight-nation Arctic Council was established at a Ministerial meeting in Ottawa.  The Arctic Council also gives standing to representatives of international indigenous associations and elected bodies.  Currently six of these bodies have “Permanent Participant” status in the Council, which meets at the ministerial level every two years.  SCPAR has observer status with the Arctic Council.  A primary role of the parliamentary group has been to advance the Council’s work, particularly on sustainable development issues.  Representatives of indigenous Permanent Participants have the same status within SCPAR as they have in the Council.

The Seventh Conference was hosted by the Swedish Parliament and it was held in the mining town of Kiruna, located at latitude 67° 49’ 19” north of the equator.  The Conference was attended by thirty three elected representatives from seven of the eight member states of the Arctic Council and three from the European Parliament as well as approximately 80 observers, invited guests, and representatives from conference and international secretariats and the press. 

The United States did not send a delegation to the Conference, although there was an American official in attendance.  The United States’ absence was noted by several delegates in statements made at the Conference, and some of these delegates suggested that more efforts should be made to encourage U.S. participation in the future.  The Conference received and accepted an invitation from the United States to host the Eighth Conference in the State of Alaska, guaranteeing that this will occur.

As in previous years, the Conference focused on major themes that were introduced by addresses from keynote speakers.  However, the seventh Conference allowed for greater dialogue and debate than previous conferences by shortening the addresses to allow greater time for interventions by conference participants.

The three themes chosen for the conference were: 

·        The International Polar Year;

·        Innovation in the Arctic Governance:  The possibilities and limitations of a binding legal regime for the Arctic; and,

·        The Opening of the Arctic Sea Route: economic/commercial opportunities and environmental/cultural challenges.

In addition, the opening ceremony was followed by a discussion of Arctic Cooperation including progress reports from the Arctic Council and SCPAR as well as a special report on information and communication technology (ICT) in the Arctic.  This report provides a brief overview of the Conference proceedings.

Conference proceedings

A.  Opening Statements

The Conference was opened with traditional Sami music and dance followed by welcoming statements from the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament, the Chairman of the Swedish Sami Parliament and by the Swedish representative on SCPAR.  The opening statements were followed by a discussion of arctic cooperation.

1.  Arctic Cooperation

Ambassador Alexander Ignatief submitted an update of the activities and direction of the Arctic Council, which has been under the chairmanship of Russia for the last two years.  Policy guidance in the Arctic Council is carried out by five expert working groups and the ambassador highlighted the work of each group.  In particular he stressed their work on:

·        Identifying and dealing with ecological “hot-spots” in the Russian part of the Barents region;

·        Plans to deal with the effects of climate change and marine and land-based development on the marine environment;

·        The selection of 12 indicator areas to be monitored in order to help stem biodiversity loss;

·        The implications and possibilities for follow-up to the Arctic Human Development Report; and,

·        Enhancing the security of marine transport and improving emergency response in the light of increasing use of natural resources and tourism in the Arctic.

In addition he discussed the Arctic Councils efforts to follow up on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and support the International Polar Year.

Further to the Ambassador’s comments the Swedish State Secretary for Foreign Affairs emphasized that, for the Arctic to prosper the problems it faces must be reconciled through cooperation, particularly with respect to climate change.

The report on the work of SCPAR was presented by its chair, Ms. Hill-Marta Solberg, and it emphasized that parliamentarians were obliged to focus on improving the human condition of life in the Arctic in addition to wildlife.  She mentioned the success of the University of the Arctic and the need to fund it properly as well as the need for information and communication technology.  She stressed that the parliamentarians present should work to represent the Arctic in their roles at home.

These reports were followed by a presentation by Bernard Funston, executive secretary of the Sustainable Development Working Group of the Arctic Council regarding the Information and Communication Technology Assessment that this group is undertaking.  He introduced the topic by commenting on the effect of ICT in the world describing the concept that “the Earth is flat.”  In essence this describes the fact that ICT connects people in space and time so that persons are in contact with each other at all times and that distant cities are made close neighbours.  He stressed the need to approach the assessment from a human perspective and not just the infrastructure.  Increasing the capacity to use ICT was just as important as actually building the systems.

A discussion followed in which delegates introduced a range of topics.  One focus was on climate change with the indigenous people emphasizing the need for urgent action as their future was “melting under their feet.”  Many people commented on the links between environmental and energy security and the need to find synergies between the two.  There were a number of calls to follow-up on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

In order to better respond to issues in general there were calls for a new and stronger role for SCPAR as well as a further widening of the mandate of the European Union’s Northern Dimensions Policy to include Canada and the United States.  The chair of the Arctic Council will soon be Norway, and its representative outlined three priorities for the work of the Council under its chairmanship:  cooperative management of the natural resources of the Arctic regions; climate change and the follow-up to the ACIA; and, an examination of the structure of the Arctic Council.

B.  International Polar Year

The International Polar Year is an effort to focus scientific and social research on the Arctic and Antarctic during the period from 2007 to March 2009.  The Conference heard from Dr. David Carlson, Director of the IPY International Programme Office and from Professor Terry Callaghan of the Swedish Abisko Scientific Research Station.

Dr Carlson outlined the IPY and the need to care about the environment, be socially and culturally responsible and to care for the legacy of the IPY.  He described how each project had urgent and significant themes that often overlapped between the Arctic and Antarctic regions.  One important aspect of the projects would be to build partnerships and connections.  A significant outcome of the IPY will be to bring the “polar message” to the world.  He then outlined a number of projects describing the science as “dazzling.”  The Abisko Station has 60 to 90 proposals and Professor Callaghan described some of the work that is undertaken there.

The discussion that followed was enthusiastically supportive of the IPY, in particular its human and social aspects.  A Canadian stressed that aboriginal involvement was absolutely necessary and Dr. Carlson outlined the efforts of the IPY in this area.  Many interventions, however, noted that lack of funding was a serious issue.  Of the 218 proposals only 10 to 20% have funding.  The role of the University of the Arctic was stressed, but it too lacked funding.  Dr. Carlson called this lack of funding the IPY’s most important short term question and it was suggested that the delegates work in their parliaments to increase the profile of IPY.

C.  Innovation in Arctic Governance

The key question under this theme was whether or not a new binding regime was needed in the Arctic region.  Ms. Diana Wallis, Member of the European Parliament and of SCPAR spoke in support of the need for a new binding legal regime.  With access to the Arctic increasing greatly there was the possibility for “untrammelled exploitation.”  The current governance system was seen to be not working as there were too many organizations for consistent and meaningful cooperation and, in practice, states were flouting international law and increasingly coming into conflict.  The fact that the Arctic is a sea surrounded by countries gives it a unique aspect that would have to be reflected in any governance structure.  Ms. Wallis gave a passionate speech that concluded that a treaty was needed to “give the Arctic back its voice.”

Ambassador Hans Corell on the other hand suggested that the time and energy needed to create a single comprehensive regime would be better spent identifying the threats and establishing facts to help build political support to improve existing regimes and to persuade countries that were not yet parties to accede to them.  He pointed out that unlike the Antarctic which is land surrounded by sea, that the Arctic is a sea surrounded by land.  Countries were already laying claim to the Arctic sea bed (under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and it was highly unlikely that they would cede their rights to another treaty.

During the discussion, Mr. Bob Mills, the head of the Canadian Delegation, made Canada’s position clear in that it would not support a new binding regime for the Arctic as decisions regarding the Canadian Arctic territories should rest with the Canadian Parliament.  He also noted that the Canadian government was committed to cooperation through the Arctic Council and was strongly supportive of the IPY.

A number of interveners remarked that the current regime was not working very well and that some kinds of change were urgently needed.  Some were supportive of a new regime but others felt that an audit of the current system was needed before any changes.  Article IX of UNCLOS (2) was mentioned as a possible avenue for greater cooperation in the Arctic Region.  The wording of the final declaration included a call for an audit of the legal regime for the Arctic.

D.  The Opening of the Arctic Sea Route

The discussion regarding the Arctic Sea Route was chaired by Mr. Bob Mills, head of the Canadian Delegation.  Mr. Sergey Kharyuchi, Chairman of Yamal-Nenets State Duma, introduced the topic.  He felt that interest was growing in the Arctic as a transportation route, particularly the Russian Northern Sea Route, because of the possibility to exploit oil and gas as well as other natural resources, shorten transportation distances and to accelerate economic integration.  Shipping safety remains a significant concern, however with design and upgrade changes needed to vessels as well as training of crews and the putting in place of a unified security plan including emergency safety and rescue.

The Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment was then described by Dr. Lawson W. Brigham, Vice Chair of the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (the working group undertaking the assessment).  The AMSA was requested as part of the Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Strategic Plan to examine the effects of plausible outcomes of changes in the Arctic sea ice.

Despite large interannual variability, continued sea ice reductions will likely lengthen the navigation season in all regions and increase marine access to the Arctic’s natural resources.  He noted that the Canadian archipelago will likely be one of the last places to clear.  These changes represent both a challenge and an opportunity for governments and local Arctic communities.  Of key significance are the effects of expanded marine activities on the cultures and well-being of Arctic populations, especially indigenous residents whose traditional way of life has been partially protected in the past by the very nature of the remote and extreme Arctic environment in which they live. ⁽³⁾

Of key importance at this stage of the assessment is the need for baseline data regarding shipping in the Arctic.

Conclusion

Delegates adopted a statement on the last day that reflected some of the discussions that occurred during the Conference (see appendix III).  It called for financial support for research and monitoring, the IPY and the University of the Arctic.  More generally it emphasized the need to acknowledge and integrate the rights and points of view of indigenous populations of the Arctic region in any decision making and to work in their home parliaments to advance the issues in the Arctic.

Respectfully submitted,