Report

Mr. Bob Mills, MP led a delegation of three Parliamentarians to the Eighth Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region^[1] in Fairbanks, Alaska from 12 to 14 August 2008.  The Senate of Canada was represented by the Hon. Yoine Goldstein, and the House of Commons was represented by Mr. Bob Mills, MP and Mr. Dennis Bevington, MP.  The delegation was assisted by Mr. Philippe Méla, Executive Secretary to the delegation, and advisor Lalita Acharya 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)^[2] were held in association with the Conference at which Canada was represented by the Hon. Yoine Goldstein (meeting one) and Mr. Bob Mills (meeting two).

The first Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians (hereafter referred to as “Conference”) 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^[3] 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 Eighth Conference was hosted by the United States of America, and was attended by more than 100 participants, including delegates from all eight members of the Arctic Council.  As in previous years, the Conference focused on major themes that were introduced by addresses from keynote speakers.  The themes addressed at this year’s Conference were:

·        Human Health in the Arctic;

·        Arctic Marine Policy;

·        Adaptation to Climate Change; and

·        Energy Resources in the Arctic – Development of Rural Energy Resources.

These themes were reflected in the subtitles on the Conference Statement (see Appendix 1) that was adopted by consensus among the delegations at the end of the Conference.  The Statement will be forwarded for consideration by the governments at the next Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Norway, which will take place in April 2009 under the chairmanship of Denmark.

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

The Conference opened with welcome statements from U.S. Senator (Alaska) Lisa Murkowski; Mark Hamilton, President, University of Alaska; Patricia Cochran, Chair, Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) and Sarah Palin, Governor, State of Alaska. 

Of particular note, Ms. Cochran (ICC) raised concerns about what she saw as the exclusion of Arctic indigenous peoples from certain international forums that deal with Arctic issues.  As an example, she cited the May 2008 meeting of the five Arctic Ocean rim states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States) that resulted in the “Ilulissat Declaration (Appendix 2).”  She noted that the Inuit were excluded from this exercise.  Ms. Cochran also discussed the growing number of non-Arctic states and non-governmental organizations that would like to receive observer status at the Arctic Council.  She indicated that before more observers are added to the Council, questions should be asked about their past commitment to indigenous peoples and what these groups would do to enhance the participation of indigenous peoples within the Council.

A.   HUMAN HEALTH IN THE ARCTIC

1.    Dr. Alan Parkinson, Deputy Director of the Arctic Investigations Program of the National Center for Infectious Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): “Human Health in the Arctic.”

            The session on human health in the Arctic began with a presentation by Dr. Alan Parkinson that focused on efforts to improve the wellness and health of Arctic peoples.  He began by discussing the CDC’s Arctic Investigations Program (AIP) located in Anchorage, Alaska.  The mission of the AIP is to prevent infectious disease morbidity and mortality in people of the Arctic and Subarctic, with a special emphasis on diseases of high incidence and concern among indigenous peoples.

            Dr. Parkinson noted that Arctic human health has improved over the last 50 years.  Much of this improvement can be attributed to a reduction in morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, and the vaccine preventable diseases of childhood.  The introduction of safe water supplies, sewage disposal, and improved health care has also led to increased life expectancy for Arctic populations. 

            Dr. Parkinson pointed out, however, that significant challenges still remain in the area of Arctic human health.  In Alaska, for example, life expectancy, and rates of unintentional injury mortality, suicide, and cancer mortality are all significantly higher than elsewhere in the United States.  Other challenges to health and wellness include environmental contaminants entering the traditional food supply; rapid economic change and modernization that are associated with the “modern diseases” (e.g., obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease); and the indirect and direct health impacts of climate change (e.g., changes in vector-borne diseases and changes in access to clean water).

            Noting that these issues are circumpolar challenges, Dr. Parkinson mentioned some of the international forums in place to address these problems, including the Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI) of the Arctic Council.  The AHHI is an Arctic Council-US led International Polar Year (IPY) project whose goal is to increase awareness and visibility of human health concerns of Arctic peoples, foster human health research, and promote health strategies that will improve health and well being of all Arctic residents.  A variety of research projects and education and communication initiatives fall under the AHHI umbrella.

            Dr. Parkinson concluded by making some recommendations to the Conference on how Arctic Parliamentarians can help in improving the health of Arctic citizens:

·        Support the development of a strategic plan for human health activities within the Arctic Council;

·        Identify human health priorities that require action, and make recommendations to the Arctic Council;

·        Provide country support for Arctic networks that enhance collaboration on the health concerns of Arctic peoples; and

·        Promote forums to exchange information on best practices.

2.    Ms. Leanndra Ross / Dr. Douglas Eby: “Preventative Work on Health of Indigenous Peoples – The Southcentral Foundation NUKA Model of Care: Customer Owned, Customer Driven Healthcare.”

            Ms. Ross and Mr. Eby’s presentation described how dramatic improvements in health outcomes, per capita costs, and patient and staff satisfaction were achieved by a native Alaskan healthcare provider.  Ten years ago, the Southcentral Foundation in Anchorage, Alaska, provided inefficient, impersonal healthcare to its patients.  In 1999, the Southcentral Foundation and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium signed an agreement to take over management of all Indian Health Service programs on the Alaska Native Health Campus in Anchorage.  Since that time, the Foundation has introduced changes to both the design and administration of its programs.

            One of the biggest changes has been that Native people are now owners and leaders of the Foundation (62% of managers are Alaskan Native or Native American).  Additionally, the Foundation’s services have been redesigned to respond more to the needs and wishes of its patient base.  For example, traditional healing and complementary medicine are provided along with “standard” healthcare services.  The Southcentral Foundation also has a research department.  It wants to become a centre of excellence in Alaska Native health research and in training Alaska Native researchers. 

            Dr. Eby focused on the healthcare results that have been witnessed since the changes to the delivery system were implemented.  Some of the highlights include a decrease in emergency room urgent care by 40%; a decrease in speciality care by 50 %; and a decrease in primary care visits by 20%. 

B.   SPECIAL REPORTS ON ARCTIC MARINE POLICY

1.    Rear Admiral Henrik Kudsk, Commander, Greenland Command: “Maritime Safety in the Arctic.”

            Rear Admiral Henrik Kudsk provided an overview of the search and rescue responsibilities (SAR) and capabilities of the Greenland Command.  He noted that the Command has only a limited number of ships and aircraft and a sledge dog patrol, and no dedicated search and rescue resources.  The Command is authorised to request

additional support from naval vessels and civilian ships, among others.  In terms of international resources that can be summoned, the closest SAR unit is based in Reykjavik, Iceland.

            The focus of the Rear Admiral’s talk was on emerging challenges that are facing the Greenland Command’s SAR capabilities, including offshore activity, new international shipping routes, increased scientific activity, and increased cruise ship tourism.

            Cruise ship tourism has increased markedly over the last few years.  In 2007, 30 cruise ships operated in Greenlandic waters carrying a total of about 23,000 passengers.  In 2008, 45 cruise ships were expected to operate around Greenland carrying a total of up to 55,000 passengers, which is equivalent to the size of the Greenlandic population.  He pointed to cruise ship accidents in Antarctica in 2007, and suggested that it was just a matter of time before similar incidents happen in Arctic waters.  He informed the Conference that SAR resources in the area were not equipped to deal with such accidents.  He noted that the Greenland Command has advised cruise ship operators to coordinate their voyages in remote areas (i.e., have more than one cruise ship in the area at a time).

            The Rear Admiral noted that the International Maritime Organization^[4] has issued guidelines for the equipping and operation of ships operating in ice-covered Arctic waters, but that these guidelines are just recommendations.^[5]  The Danish Maritime Authority has proposed that a mandatory code for the conduct and equipment requirements of ships operating in ice-covered waters be established.  The Rear Admiral requested help from Arctic Parliamentarians in raising this issue in their respective Parliaments.

2.    Dr. Lawson Brigham, Chair of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment: “Update on the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment.”

            Dr. Brigham presented an update on the status of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), which is a project commissioned by the Arctic Council (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment working group) that is being led by Canada, Finland and the United States.  The Assessment was requested by the Arctic Council in 2004, and the results of the AMSA will be delivered in 2009.  The focus of the report is on marine safety and marine environmental protection.  The initial stage of the AMSA was

centred on examining the current level of Arctic marine shipping activity and its environmental, social and economic impacts.  The final stage of the Assessment has been the creation of a set of scenarios for the future (to 2050) of Arctic marine navigation.

            Recent work on the Assessment includes an Arctic Marine Incidents Workshop held in March 2008 where participants from Canada, Denmark, Finland Norway, Russia, South Africa and the United States simulated incidents (e.g., a grounded barge with explosives, and a collision or fire on a mobile drilling rig and support ships).  A Scenarios Workshop held in 2007 examined the future of Arctic marine navigation in 2050 under various scenarios of governance (ranging from stable and rules-based to unstable and ad-hoc) and resource and trade demand.

            The final report (research document) will be more than 1500 pages long and includes chapters on Arctic marine geography; the history of Arctic marine transport and governance; scenarios and futures (2020 and 2050), environmental impacts and Arctic maritime infrastructure.  The negotiated report will be a shorter, 125 page document and will contain the Assessment’s findings, research agenda, and recommendations.

            Dr. Brigham concluded his presentation with four recommendations for Arctic Parliamentarians:

1.    Support the work of the International Maritime Organization;

2.    Support completion, wide dissemination and implementation of AMSA’s recommendations and research agenda;

3.    Encourage Arctic infrastructure investments by the Arctic States and global maritime industry;

4.    Support development of a comprehensive Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) Agreement for maritime and aviation regions (to be executed by the civil maritime and aviation organizations in the eight Arctic States).

3.    Mr. Björn Bjarnason, Minister of Justice & Ecclesiastical Affairs, Iceland: “Civilian Role for Safety in the North Atlantic.”

            The focus of Björn Bjarnason’s talk was on the contribution of Iceland to North Atlantic security, and the importance of civilian institutions in all aspects of Arctic exploration and activity.  Minister Bjarnason suggested that because of its vast energy resources and new East-West energy transport corridors, Europe’s High North is poised to become one of the key regions in the global economy.  He indicated that given that sea routes for transporting energy from Russia and Norway to North America lie partly in Icelandic waters, Iceland’s geographical position makes it a key factor in ensuring security in the North Atlantic and in ensuring energy security in the United States. 

Iceland has no armed forces, and its contribution towards security in the North Atlantic is of a civil nature.  Minister Bjarnason stressed the importance of existing treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in establishing a legal framework for determining maritime delimitation and in the peaceful settlement of disputes.  He detailed Iceland’s ongoing efforts to determine the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.  He pointed to an agreement between Iceland, Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands) and Norway on the division of one part of this area as being, to his knowledge, the only agreement on the division of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles that has been concluded between more than two states.  Minister Bjarnson identified the agreement as a textbook example of how to settle disputes between neighbouring countries peacefully.

            Minister Bjarnson suggested that, given the relatively high price of oil and gas, the world can expect great strides in exploration technology and in Arctic oil and gas exploration.  In this context, he called for closer cooperation between nations bordering the North Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea with a view to tightening surveillance and security at sea.  The Minister pointed to the establishment of the 18-member North Atlantic Coast Guard Forum in 2007 as an example of such cooperation.  The Forum is an informal organization that focuses on facilitating multilateral cooperation on matters related to combined operations in the areas of illegal drug trafficking, marine security, environmental protection, information exchange, fisheries enforcement, illegal migration and search and rescue operations. 

4.    Rear Admiral Gene Brooks, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard: “The Changing Arctic and Coast Guard Operations.”

            The Rear Admiral began his talk by discussing the changing “Arctic frontier.”  He pointed to the opening of new shipping routes (because of retreating Arctic sea ice) as being problematic given international disputes over Arctic borders, and indicated that Arctic boundaries had to be established through collaboration.  Other changes or challenges to the Arctic include coastal erosion; large quantities of untapped resources (oil, gas and minerals); growing eco-tourism (particularly cruise ships), and a lack of a full service port beyond Nome, Alaska; the movement of fish stocks north; and the presence of threatened and endangered species, some of which are “politically charged climate canaries.”

            In conclusion, Rear Admiral Brooks suggested that all of these changes in the Arctic mean that all Coast Guard missions in southern Alaska must be expanded to northern Alaska.  Furthermore, all Federal, State, and local agencies must prepare for full seasonal operations in the Arctic.

C.   PROGRESS REPORTS FROM THE ARCTIC COUNCIL AND SCPAR

1.    Mr. Robert Kvile, Senior Arctic Official, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway.

            Robert Kvile presented an overview of the priorities and general direction of the Arctic Council’s work.  Climate change issues continue to be at the top of the Council’s agenda.  There are currently three major projects in this area:

(1) The Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic project, which is mapping the status and consequences of the retreat of the Arctic sea ice, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and changes in Arctic permafrost and snow cover (final report will be presented to the Ministerial Meeting in 2011, and a progress report will be submitted to the Ministers next spring);

(2) a project on non-CO₂ drivers of climate change - black carbon, methane and tropospheric ozone;  and

(3) a project on adaptation to climate change, which seeks to identify and share adaptation expertise, best practices and possible actions tailored to the needs and conditions of the Arctic.

            Other ongoing Arctic Council initiatives include:

·        a project on identifying best practices in ecosystem-based ocean management in the Arctic;

·        the upcoming release of the Oil and Gas Assessment overview report by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Working Group.  The report clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of Arctic ecosystems, and calls for strict regulations on operations involving drilling and emergency response equipment.  It also calls for an update of the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines, which were first formulated in 1997 and revised in 2002;

·        the establishment of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) group, which is made up of 13 international partners.  The goal of the SAON project is to set up a monitoring network for knowledge-based conservation and sustainable management of the Arctic;

·        a Norwegian proposal to maximize IPY’s legacy with respect to the societal application of research findings; maintaining an Arctic observing network; ensuring access for scientists to Arctic areas (especially Russia); and increasing circum-Arctic scientific cooperation and funding.  Since the proposal was not accepted by all Members, the project will be implemented by interested parties only and the IPY Secretariat; and

·        the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment.

            Mr. Kvile discussed the increased attention being paid to legal issues and the question of a possible need for a new legal instrument for the Arctic.  He pointed to the Ilulissat Declaration, which suggests that the UNCLOS fully responds to these needs.  Increased interest in the Arctic has also led to more applications for observer status at the Arctic Council.  In 2007, applications were received from China and Italy, and in May 2008 from South Korea.  The Council’s Rules of Procedure state that observer status in the Arctic Council may be granted to non-Arctic states, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations that, in the Council’s view, could contribute to its work. However, Mr. Kvile stressed that further criteria are needed both for how to consider applications and on the role observers should play within the Council.  Senior Arctic Officials have started a discussion on these questions, and hope to present their recommendations at the next Ministerial Meeting.

2.    Ms. Hill-Marta Solberg, Chair of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region.

            Hill-Marta Solberg provided a summary of SCPAR’s work since the last Conference in 2006.  Some of the major projects include:

·        Hosting a joint seminar on “Adaptation to Climate Change” and “Borders and Access to the Sea” with the University of the Arctic in Rovaniemi, Finland in February 2008;

·        Hosting the seminar “The Arctic – A Barometer for Global Climate Change” in the UN in June 2008;

·        Meeting with Chief of the Treaty Section in the UN to propose that UN treaties relevant to the Arctic should become part of the UN Annual Treaty Event.  As a result of this meeting, the UN Secretary-General agreed to have treaties relevant to IPY included in the list of treaties in 2008’s Annual Treaty Event;

·        Participating in the Northern Dimension [of the European Union] Parliamentary Conference in February 2007.  SCPAR’s goal is to ensure that the EU’s Northern Dimension policy has a strong Arctic dimension; and

·        Hosting a seminar with UNEP Grid-Arendal on “Multilateral Environmental Agreements and their Relevance for the Arctic” in September 2006.  The seminar was a direct follow-up of the Kiruna Statement, its intention being to gain an overview of the environmental agreements relevant to the Arctic.

            Ms. Solberg noted that the European Parliament is in the process of preparing the first Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum, which is expected to take place in the spring of 2009.  She emphasised that SCPAR must play a role in the preparation of this conference, and continue to raise a strong Arctic voice in this forum.  Ms. Solberg also made reference to the Arctic Policy currently being developed by the EU, and stressed that SCPAR must provide input to the EU to encourage the development of a forceful policy.

            Ms. Solberg suggested that the Arctic Council needs stronger political involvement and leadership.  At present, Ministerial Meetings occur every second year; Ms. Solberg recommended that given the increasing geopolitical importance of the Arctic, Ministers should meet on a yearly basis.  The process of enhancing the political leadership must run parallel to the work of involving the state observers to the Arctic Council in a more efficient way.  Additionally, parliamentarians should contribute to further politicizing the role of the Arctic Council by attending these meetings (SCPAR is usually represented by its Secretariat at these meetings).  This participation would be an important tool for connecting policy-making in the Arctic Council with national parliaments.

            Ms. Solberg suggested that the Arctic Council initiate a process to create an “Arctic Memorandum of Understanding”. Such an instrument could commit Arctic nations and other interested states to develop the Arctic into a peaceful and prosperous region; underline the importance of the existing legal framework relevant to the Arctic; and address the protection of the Arctic environment. Through this instrument, the Arctic Council would create a basis for closer cooperation between Arctic and non-Arctic states.

3.    Ms. Margaret F. Hayes, Director, Office of Oceans Affairs, U.S. Department of State: “Recent Developments in U.S. Arctic Policy.”

            Margaret Hayes provided an overview of U.S. Arctic policy, which was established when Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1857.  At that time, the focus was on foreign policy.  Now the policy also includes environmental protection, energy development, scientific research and human health issues.  The Executive Branch has been reviewing US Arctic Policy for the last 1.5 years, the first time an internal review has been conducted since 1994.  The revised policy is to be released in the near future.

            Although Ms. Hayes could not discuss the contents of the revised policy, she noted that much has changed since 1994, especially with respect to climate change.   Melting sea ice will open the Arctic to shipping, cruise ship tourism and energy development.  The United States wants to make sure that the environment is protected as development in the Arctic increases.  The new policy will focus on national security; international governance; continental shelf and boundary issues; international scientific co-operation; shipping; economic issues including energy; and environmental protection and conservation of natural resources.

            Ms. Hayes noted that the 1994 policy preceded the establishment of the Arctic Council.  The United States plans to continue its strong support of the Council.  In recent months important diplomatic developments outside the Arctic Council have occurred, including the release of the Ilulissat Declaration.  Ms. Hayes suggested that the need to improve international capacity to promote safety of life at sea in the Arctic would be the first area to be addressed as a direct result of the Ilulissat Declaration.

            Ms. Hayes asserted that U.S. climate policy is based on sound science for sound decision-making.  Providing the example of a recent United States Geological Survey study, which indicated that 22% of undiscovered oil and gas reserves are located north of the Arctic Circle,^[6] Ms. Hayes suggested that more scientific research of this nature needs to be undertaken before decisions on the future use of resources, and related environmental decisions, can be made.  She noted that the United States is collecting data on the extent of its continental shelf 200 miles from shore.   Ms. Hayes remarked that the United States has invested billions of dollars on multi-agency research programs related to climate change in recent years, and that US Agencies spend more than $360 million per year on Arctic research.  She also noted that the United States is a strong supporter of IPY. 

D.   ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

1.    Dr. Mead Treadwell, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission: “How is Alaska Adapting to Climate Change?” 

            Dr. Treadwell described the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, established in 1984, which is a seven-member body of scientists, business and indigenous leaders that advises the President and Congress on goals for the U.S. Arctic Research program.  Funds for the Program total approximately $400 million per year distributed across at least 15 federal agencies.  The Program involves cooperation with over a dozen nations.  The Program focuses on five key issues: environmental change of the Arctic and Bering Seas; Arctic human health; civil infrastructure; natural resource assessment and earth science; and protection of indigenous languages, identities and cultures. 

            Dr. Treadwell noted that Alaskans want to know more about global warming; want to help stop it; while they try to stop it, want to adapt to it; and if possible, want to profit from it.  Dr. Treadwell emphasised that knowing more about the effects of feedbacks is very important.  As ice recedes, more heat from the sun is absorbed by land.  The effect of losing this “albedo” – the reflection of solar heat back into space – along with the release of greenhouse gases from the permafrost could lead to the Arctic adding to the earth’s heat budget.  For this reason, Dr. Treadwell urged Arctic Parliamentarians to support and monitor the international commitment to the Arctic Observing Network.  He also stressed that Parliamentarians should help Arctic researchers gain greater access to the Arctic Ocean.  The UNCLOS does not ensure access to the area for scientists, and Russia’s current practice of often denying access to research vessels in its Arctic waters could impede the flow of knowledge from the Arctic.

            Dr. Treadwell observed that two expensive approaches have been proposed to fight global climate change – carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes.  Dr. Treadwell asserted that, although such approaches must be tried, there is no guarantee that they will work and only innovation will offer real solutions.  The U.S. Arctic Research Commission is currently preparing its goals report for the next president and Congress and is focusing on research and demonstration projects that can be conducted in the North that will help to mitigate climate change globally.  Dr. Treadwell noted that work on adaptation to climate change being conducted in Alaska includes health monitoring for zoonotic diseases, and engineering to maintain infrastructure.  As the Arctic Ocean opens to shipping, Dr. Treadwell also stressed the importance of ensuring that the right rules are set and investments made to ensure that shipping occurs in a safe and reliable manner.  Alaska may also be able to profit from mitigation and adaptation schemes.  For example, the Alaskan legislature established a study to see how forest management could bring revenue to the state through carbon trading schemes.

2.    Mr. Robert Mills, MP, Canada: “New Ideas to Deal with Climate Change.”

            Robert Mills presented an overview of various potential alternative energy sources including solar, wind, garbage gasification, run of the river, geothermal, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, clean coal, and Hydrogen.  He also talked about the merits of an integrated power grid, and referred to the success of European projects in this area.  He asked the question why not an integrated power grid for Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Washington, Oregon and California that uses multiple power sources?  The focus of Mr. Mills’ talk was on solar power and garbage gasification.

            Mr. Mills outlined the difficulties he experienced in setting up his own solar project and selling extra energy produced into the grid in Alberta, Canada.  He had to obtain a licence to do so, which involved a lot of paperwork and obtaining permission from various government bodies to install the panels and sell into the grid.  He asserted that although governments say that they want individuals to engage in such projects, the reality is that the regulatory system acts as a barrier.  Mr. Mills has lobbied for, and obtained, changes to rules related to selling energy into the grid in his jurisdiction.  He stressed that Parliamentarians should work to ensure that such regulations do not act as a disincentive for individuals to set up alternative energy technologies.

            Mr. Mills described the technology behind garbage gasification, which involves heating solid waste at an intense heat and breaking it down into a gas.  The gas is then burned in a high-efficiency turbine to produce electricity.  The slag by-product can be used to manufacture concrete and asphalt.  Mr. Mills contended that no harmful products are produced by gasification, and that the process is economical.

            Mr. Mills stressed how important it was for politicians, bureaucrats and the public to embrace change in order to deal with climate change and other environmental problems.  He suggested that Parliamentarians have to demonstrate leadership, develop a vision, stop talking about problems, and start talking about solutions instead.

3.    Mr. Mikhail Nikolaev, Deputy Speaker of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of Russian Federation: “Problems of Global Climate Warming and Human Challenges.”

            Mikhail Nikolaev affirmed that each day brings new proof that climate change is a reality.  As an example, he cited recent data on the melting of Arctic sea ice, which suggest that melting is happening at a faster pace than previously predicted, and that 40% of the ice covering Arctic waters in the summer will disappear by 2050.

            Mr. Nikolaev asserted that climate change is the most important issue of our time, and that if necessary measures are not taken, there will be devastating consequences in several decades.  He noted that climate change and expanding

economic activity in the North are disrupting the lives of indigenous peoples.  He suggested that international cooperation, especially through such bodies as the Arctic Council and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, is important in resolving problems that indigenous peoples are facing.

            In order to make informed decisions on climate change policy, Mr. Nikolaev stressed the importance of increasing the level of scientific research in the Arctic.   He proposed that as IPY comes to an end, there should be increased effort focused on planning an international conference, under the auspices of the UN, on global cooperation in the Arctic Region.  He also suggested that measures should be developed by the UN for the adaptation of infrastructure facilities to climate change.

            In conclusion, Mr. Nikolaev noted that the Russian Federation has implemented several programs at the federal level that are aimed at supporting sustainable economic development of regions in the Arctic, social development of Arctic peoples, and assuring the environmental protection of Arctic ecosystems.  However, he emphasised that the policy of a single state is clearly not enough to deal with the problem of climate change, and that closer international cooperation in this effort is essential.

E.   ENERGY RESOURCES IN THE ARCTIC – DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL ENERGY RESOURCES

1.    Mr. George Cannelos – Executive Director, Denali Commission: “Denali Commission on Alaska Experiences.” 

            George Cannelos began his presentation by describing “Rural Alaska” where more than 50% of Alaska’s population resides.  He noted that living conditions and health problems (e.g., infant mortality rates and the incidence of tuberculosis) in much of rural Alaska resemble those in the developing world.  Rural Alaskans also face problems associated with relatively high energy costs; a net migration of people away from rural communities; and distorted age structures in many smaller, rural communities, with very few men and no women in the 20-29 age group.

            To help address some of these problems in a strategic manner, the Denali Commission^[7] was established in 1998.  The Commission is an independent agency that is a collaboration among federal, state, local and tribal governments.  The Commission, which has seven commissioners, has a small staff, relatively low overhead (less than 5%), shared resources (with other groups) and is committed to openness and transparency with respect to its projects and data.  Additionally, funding decisions are made in Alaska.

            With respect to energy issues in rural Alaska, the Commission has focused on the following issues: replacing bulk fuel systems; upgrading power plants; conservation; renewable energy; capacity building (e.g., training); and developing a sustainable economy.  Mr. Cannelos provided examples of work supported by the Denali Commission in Alaska in each of these areas.  Mr. Cannelos asserted that each region needs a private sector anchor in order for it to be viable.  In order to be funded by the Denali Commission, projects must i) be desired at the local level; ii) have a viable business plan; iii) comply with the Commission’s policies; iv) have multiple funding partners (preferred); v) be located in an environmentally safe location; and vi) contribute to the village and the region.

            Mr. Cannelos stressed that Alaska must have a new energy vision.  He indicated that the Denali Commission has to be engaged in supporting green building design; pushing hard for renewable energy solutions; finishing the legacy energy programs; finding regional rural energy solutions; engaging in the Arctic policy dialogue and sharing lessons learned.

2.    Mr. Gudni A. Jóhannesson, Director General, Orkustofnun, National Energy Authority of Iceland: “Geothermal Energy - The Icelandic Experience and Potentials for Other Countries.”

            The focus of Gudni Jóhannesson’s presentation was on sharing Icelandic experiences with respect to geothermal energy.  He began his talk by noting that only a small percentage of the world’s electricity is from geothermal sources (0.32% in 2004).  The known sources of geothermal energy could, in theory, replace 30% of the world’s primary energy use.  Mr. Jóhannesson indicated, however, that the Icelandic example demonstrates that exploitation of geothermal fields often leads to further discovery.  In 2007, total installed capacity for geothermal electricity production was 9.7 GW.  Projections suggest that electricity generation could reach 40 GWe by 2020.

            Mr. Jóhannesson described the complex and multidisciplinary (geological mapping, geochemistry and geophysics) geothermal exploration process.  He then went on to provide a historical overview of Iceland’s experiences with geothermal energy.  In 1900, the first attempt to pipe hot water into houses and greenhouses from natural hot springs was made, and in 1928, the first geothermal district heating system in Reykjavik was installed.  By 1970, 40% of all houses were geothermally heated.  Today, 90% of houses are heated with geothermal energy and the rest with electricity from other sources.

            Most geothermal energy in Iceland is used for space heating (57.4%), and the rest is used for electricity generation (16%), fish farming (10%), snow melting (5.4%), industry (5%), swimming pools (4%), and greenhouses (3%).  According to Mr. Jóhannesson, compared to fossil fuels, these geothermal heat applications save from 1.5 to 4.4 million tonnes of CO₂ per year, depending on the type of fossil fuel being compared.

            The first attempts to produce electricity from geothermal sources in Iceland began about 1950, and in the 1970s a geothermal power plant was built.  Electricity is now produced in six geothermal power plants with a total of 485 MWe^[8] installed capacity and an annual production of more than 3600 GWh.  Planned geothermal power plants are expected to bring the total power capacity up to 1 GW.  New or refined technologies have enhanced the ability to locate geothermal sources more accurately, and to drill at higher temperatures (up to 500ºC).  Additionally, new turbines are being developed to extract mechanical power from water and steam at lower temperatures.

            Mr. Jóhannesson noted that Iceland participates in a number of geothermal-related training programs and information exchanges.  Icelandic specialists in geothermal energy from the private and public sectors also act as consultants around the world.

3.    Mr. James Hemsath, Senior Fellow, Institute of the North: “Observations from the Arctic Energy Summit and Results from the Arctic Energy Action Team.”

            The Conference’s final keynote speaker, James Hemsath began his talk by describing the Institute of the North (ION), which was created to address issues important to the people of the Arctic, especially with respect to issues of “connectivity,” i.e., telecommunications, aviation and marine transportation.  Three years ago the ION started discussions on energy deployment and developing the Arctic as an “energy province.”  The ION made a proposal to the IPY to develop a summit “to bring together the people of the Arctic to discuss, share and develop a balanced approach to develop extractive, renewable and rural power all in a sustainable way supporting the vision of creating energy wealth while eliminating energy poverty.”  The IPY and the Arctic Council sanctioned the project - The Arctic Energy Summit - in 2006.

            The Summit is composed of three components:

1.    An educational outreach program, which is implemented through an Arctic energy website^[9] and an electronic newsletter;

2.    A technology conference, held in Anchorage, Alaska in October 2007, which was attended by more than 300 people from 14 nations.  The conference featured a series of plenary sessions, technical papers and panel sessions in four different areas: “extractive” energy, renewable energy, rural power issues, and sustainability issues (the environment, education, planning and traditional knowledge); and

3.    An “Arctic Energy Action Team” (AEAT) which is a follow-up activity to the conference.  The AEAT does much of its work virtually through GoogleGroups.  The AEAT has identified three energy themes to address initially - extractive energy, renewable energy, and rural energy issues – and one area to examine within each of those themes – 1) the development of Arctic coal; 2) the potential use of tidal power; and 3) reducing transportation costs in rural villages by developing alternative transportation fuels.  The goal is to identify technology needs for each area, and to develop a technology roadmap for the development and the demonstration of the enabling technologies.  A report is to be delivered to the Arctic Council in 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

The Honourable Yoine Goldstein, Senator
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association