Report

INTRODUCTION

Dr. James Lunney, M.P. led a Canadian delegation of two to the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (the Standing Committee) held in Tromsø, Norway, 22 February 2011.  The meeting of the Standing Committee was held in conjunction with the Second Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum (NDPF), 22 - 23 February 2011.  The other delegate was the Honourable Larry Bagnell, M.P. Accompanying the delegation was Mr. Tim Williams from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament as advisor to the delegation. 

The Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (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 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. 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 started its activities in 1994. The Conference and Standing Committee take initiatives to further Arctic cooperation, and act, in particular, as a parliamentary forum for issues relevant to the work of the Arctic Council. The Standing Committee takes part in the work of the Council as an observer.^[2]

A.   The Northern Dimension

The Northern Dimension of European Union policy was established in 1999 as a European Union (EU) policy intended to address issues concerning western Russia, as well as to increase general cooperation among the EU, Iceland and Norway. It has since become a multilateral, equal partnership among the EU, Iceland, Norway and Russia. Canada and the United States are observers to the partnership while the CPAR is a participant. The Northern Dimension remains focused on EU relations with western Russia, as it is “a regional expression of the four EU/Russia Common Spaces^[3] with participation of Norway and Iceland.”^[4]

The policy’s main objectives are to provide a common framework for the promotion of dialogue and concrete cooperation, to strengthen stability and well-being, intensify economic cooperation, and promote economic integration, competitiveness and sustainable development in Northern Europe.^[5] There are four official “partnerships” under the Northern Dimension: environment (NDEP), public health and social wellbeing (NDPHS), culture (NDPC) and transport and logistics (NDPTL) with the NDEP remaining the flagship partnership.

B.   Canada’s Participation in the Northern Dimension

Canada has participated in both the NDEP and the NDPHS.^[6] In particular, Canada contributed $32 million in March 2004 through the NDEP to aid in nuclear clean-up projects in north west Russia resulting from the operations of the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’  northern fleet during the Cold War. In addition, Canada contributed $133.9 million through Canada’s Nuclear Powered Submarine Dismantling Program in the Barents Sea area, which was completed in March 2010.^[7]

C.   The Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum

In February 2007, a parliamentary conference on the Northern Dimension decided that a parliamentary forum for the Northern Dimension should be held every two years to discuss issues of common concern and examine the evolution of the Northern Dimension policy.  The Second NDPF was held 22 - 25 February 2011.  The CPAR and Canada both participated in the Forum.

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS OF THE ARCTIC REGION

The Agenda was adopted with the addition of an item to select a member to the drafting committee for the NDPF statement.  One member for each participant in the ND could contribute. Canada, as an observer, could not participate individually at the drafting committee.  The minutes for the last Standing Committee meeting held in Ottawa 16 November 2010 were approved.

A.   REPORT FROM THE ARCTIC COUNCIL CHAIRMANSHIP

Mr. Lars Möller, Chair of the Senior Arctic Officials of the Arctic Council, presented the activities of the Arctic Council. He noted that the chairmanship would change from Denmark to Sweden at the next ministerial meeting in Nuuk, Greenland, 12 May 2011.

At the meeting, several studies now being finalized by various Arctic Council working groups will be presented for ministerial approval (so called “deliverables”) including the Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA). Others include the Mercury Assessment and the recommendations of the Short-lived Climate Forcers Task Force.

A Search and Rescue (SAR) agreement should be ready for signature at the Nuuk meetings.  This will be a binding agreement on the 8 Arctic states to coordinate SAR operations which is important as shipping is increasing in the Arctic. The SAR agreement will be the first of its kind and the Chair stated that he hopes and expects more of this kind of agreement.  This would mark a shift in the Arctic Council from a strictly decision-shaping organization to having a greater role in decision-making.

The strengthening of the Arctic Council has been an important part of the Danish Chairmanship.  A number of issues are related to this goal. The first mentioned was that of the status of observers at the Arctic Council.  This has been an important area of discussion. Increasingly non-Arctic states are becoming interested in the Arctic, for potential resource exploitation, transportation routes and for scientific reasons. Many have acquired icebreaker capabilities.  China, Italy, the Republic of Korea and the European Commission have all applied for observer status.  He noted that there was no consensus on the European Commission, though Demark supported the application.  The criteria for accepting observers were at the core of discussions.

Of the issues facing the Council, the Chair thought that this was the most important political problem, but that it was linked to other issues.  At the Deputy Minister level meeting in Copenhagen 27 May 2010 a process was initiated that included discussion of:

·The possibility of setting up a permanent secretariat for the Council -  how such a  body would be funded and where it would be located and its role, size and composition;

·Greater uses of task forces; and

·Communication and outreach activities at the Council.

The fourth draft of a paper on these subjects was in circulation, and while there is hope for a resolution at the Nuuk meeting there are no guarantees.

The Chair stressed that the relationship between the Arctic Council and Arctic parliamentarians was very important. He noted that it was important for the two groups to inspire each other and to maintain various similarities.  As an example of shared priorities he noted that the Fairbanks Statement of the 8^th CPAR (12-14 August 2008)^[8] stressed human health issues in the Arctic, while also being a crucial element of the Danish Chairmanship.  He noted that a seminar entitled Hope and Resilience in Suicide Prevention was held in Nuuk, Greenland Nov. 7-8, 2009.^[9]

In addition, though not an official Arctic Council meeting, the Danish and Greenlandic Health Ministries invited the ministers of health in the Arctic states to a meeting with the focus on “Shared Challenges – Different Solutions, Arctic Health Cooperation in the 21st Century.” The meeting took place 16 February 2011 and resulted in the signing of the Arctic Health Declaration which focused on increasing collaboration in health promotion and the sharing of knowledge and best practices.^[10]

Discussion following the presentation focused on the linkages between the CPAR and the work of the Arctic Council. Members pointed out that it is important for the Council to take up some of the parliamentary initiatives.  The Chair responded by stating that the Arctic Council, under the next chairmanship, would have to pick up the possibility of having a meeting of ministers responsible for education and research and the possibility of having an international polar decade was being discussed.  In addition, a second Arctic Human Development report was being met with sympathy but no decision had been made.

The member of the European Parliament noted the passage on 20 January 2011 of a resolution on a sustainable EU policy for the High North.^[11]  He also thanked Denmark for its support for the European Commission’s application for observer status.  The Chair replied that the question of observer status was not easy and noted that the resolution was a fine report.

The head of the Canadian delegation congratulated Mr. Möller on the progress made under the Danish chairmanship and noted that he looked forward to the finalization of the SAR agreement in Nuuk. Concerning the observer question, he noted that it was very important that the role of the permanent participants at the Arctic Council not be diluted. Mr. Möller noted that he was aware that this was an important issue for Canada but that others also held this view.  The role of permanent participants was unique and it should be possible to maintain their real and direct participation in the Arctic Council.

B.   Arctic Strategies and State Policies – An overview and comparative Study

Dr. Lassi Heininen, Chair, Northern Research Forum, presented the draft results of a comparative study of national Arctic policies that he had undertaken.  He noted that it was important to perform such an exercise given the increased geo-economic and geopolitical interest in the Arctic.  He noted that while all nations stressed cooperation through the Arctic Council, they all have their own interests.  While the individual states would continue to be the most important actors, new challenges such as globalization were emerging.

He noted and summarized the participation of the Arctic states in various intergovernmental organizations (such as NATO and the International Maritime Organization) as well as other regional organizations and Arrangements (such as the Arctic Council and the Northern Dimension) and treaties that deal with the Arctic such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Spitsbergen treaty.

He then summarized the various national Arctic policies. Regarding Canada, he noted both Canada’s Northern Strategy^[12] and its Foreign Policy Statement.^[13]  In commenting on Canada’s policies he emphasized what he felt were interesting findings:

·The North is central to Canada’s character and national identity

·Canada’s Arctic Maritime Sovereignty is the “...number one Arctic Foreign Policy Priority”

·Canada’s sovereignty over its Arctic lands and waters is “undisputed”

·Canada will continue to be a “global leader” in Arctic science

·Economic development as high priority, and shall include indigenous participation in relevant processes

·The Strategy reflects a vision about, and for, the North in the context of the entire country

In his analysis, he found that each policy had its own style.  Canada seemed to emphasize science and the fact that the North was central to Canadian identity. He came to some conclusions regarding aspects that were common to various policies. In summary:

Sovereignty and defence:	Five littoral states
Comprehensive security:	Finland and Iceland
Economic development:	All the strategies
Regional development and infrastructure:	Most of the strategies
Transportation:	Finland, Iceland, Russia and USA
Aviation:	Iceland and Russia
Environment:	Most of the strategies
Governance:	All the strategies
Safety/Rescue:	Finland, Iceland, Norway  and Russia
Peoples/Indigenous peoples:	Most of the strategies
Science/Scientific cooperation:	All the strategies

There was general recognition of the efforts invested in the study and its value.  It being a draft report, various members pointed to some corrections that should be made. Canada noted that the change of government occurred in 2006, not 2007.

The head of the delegation also congratulated Dr. Heininen for his ambitious efforts and remarked that Canada did indeed take science very seriously, acknowledging as well the efforts of the Norwegian Polar Institute, which had been the subject of a site visit the previous day. He also noted various changes to pollution laws and transportation regulations that Canada had put in place.

C.   The draft Nordic SAAMI Convention – The view of the Norwegian Sami Parliament

Ms. Suuvi Juntunen from the Finnish Saami parliament presented progress with respect to the finalization of the draft Nordic Saami Convention.  The 2005 convention arose because the Saami traditionally moved without borders.  The aim is harmonize legislation in the Nordic countries. Russia is currently not included, though the situation of the Saami in Russia was, in her opinion, worse than in the Nordic countries.

The draft was created in 2005 but it was not until 2008 that a meeting of ministers responsible for Saami affairs occurred, when working groups were formed, that progress began to take place.  At the 2010 meeting of ministers, negotiations started toward a final agreement with a goal of completion in 5 years. After finalization the convention would be presented to national and Saami parliaments for ratification.  Finland has already stated that it will not ratify if the Saami parliament do not ratify.

Negotiation teams comprise equal number of Saami in Sweden and Finland but for Norway this has not been decided, and the presenter felt that it was likely that there would be a majority of Norwegian government representatives, which was a difficulty.  The major area for negotiations concerns land rights and use for reindeer herding.  It was also noted that Sweden and Finland were part of the EU while Norway is not.  The views of the EU therefore have to be a consideration. Though there are difficulties, it was noted that it took 20 years to negotiate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The member for Greenland noted that a similar process had occurred during the negotiations on Greenland Home Rule and raised the question about property rights and revenue sharing for natural resources.  In reply it was noted that the Saami looked to Greenland Home Rule as an example.  It was not just a matter of negotiating ownership, but also administration, particularly when private land was involved.

D.   ARCTIC GOVERNANCE IN AN EVOLVING ARCTIC REGION

At the Ottawa meeting of SCPAR, the former chair of SCPAR, Mr. Clifford Lincoln presented a proposal for SCPAR to formulate some concrete recommendations to support, particularly regarding the Arctic Council. It was agreed that Mr. Lincoln would write a paper for consideration at the next meeting.

The paper was presented at the meeting along with comments from the Secretary General.  It was noted by the General Secretary that the introduction was problematic because of the choice of language and the lack of a link between it and the recommendations. The recommendations should also be directed to the Council and not to the 2012 International Polar Year conference in Montreal.

Some of the ideas regarding a permanent secretariat and observer status at the Arctic Council were well received, but it was noted, in particular by the head of the Canadian delegation, that decisions regarding these issues may well take place at the next Ministerial meeting in Nuuk so that decisions by the Standing Committee on the proposals would have to put on hold until after the meeting. There was a need to focus on what is new in the proposal, from the perspective of the work of the CPAR and the Arctic Council.

It was noted that for decisions to be made by the Standing Committee the views of the United States of America would have to be sought, their representative being absent at the meeting.

The Committee gave the Chair the authority to report back to Mr. Lincoln and his group on the basis of the discussion and agreed to arrange a joint meeting in conjunction with the next meeting of the Standing Committee in Iceland 9-10 June 2011.

E.   ROTATING CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE

The proposal of the Icelandic delegation to rotate the chairmanship of the Standing Committee by country through its membership was discussed. The idea was that other bodies such as the Nordic Council follow this model and that there was a need to share the burden and luxury of being chair.  The possibility of skipping a chairmanship if a country, for whatever reason, was unwilling or unable to take the chair, was given as an option. However, a Canadian delegate noted that this should then not preclude that country from becoming chair until its turn came around again, in the case of a 2 year rotation 16 years later.

It was agreed to discuss this further at the next meeting with a view to coming to a final decision.

F.    FOLLOW-UP OF THE CONFERENCE IN BRUSSELS 13-15 SEPTEMBER 2010

After a brief discussion the Committee decide to follow up the discussions with the Arctic Council by:

·Having the Chair of SCPAR write a letter to the Danish Chair of the Arctic Council on the basis of what happened in Tromsø and the discussion with Mr. Møller.

·Having the Chair of SCPAR and the SCPAR representative from Sweden meet with the incoming chairmanship of the Arctic Council, Sweden.

·Inviting Sweden to the meeting in Iceland in June to present the Swedish Chairmanship program for the Arctic Council.

G.   STATUS OF THE WORK OF SCPAR

This part of the agenda opens the table up for representatives to state new activities in their countries.  The attached minutes describe what was said (Appendix 1).

The head of the Canadian delegation introduced his presentation of Canadian activities by stating that there were clearly expanding pressures in the North.  A whole government response is necessary.  For instance, infrastructure needs were being addressed as well as health needs, in particular maternal and child health.  An international research station is in the planning stages at Cambridge Bay.  As a result of increased shipping he welcomed the SAR agreement and noted that navigation charts were needed. Canada has committed to increasing its presence with patrol vessels and the construction of a deep-water port in Nanisivik.  The environment was also important and satellite and on the ground monitoring were important aspects of Canada’s response.  The head of the delegation noted that he would be giving a more detailed accounting in a presentation at the NDPF (Appendix 2).

A Canadian Delegate also noted that he had introduced a private member’s bill in the Canadian parliament to make the Arctic a nuclear weapons-free zone, and he encouraged other countries and parliamentarians to join his effort.

H.   NEXT MEETING

The next Standing Committee meeting will be in Iceland 9-10 June 2011.

The meeting in the fall is proposed to be 27-30 September in Syktyvkard, Komi Republic.

I.      ANY OTHER BUSINESS

As per the change in Agenda, Mr Høglund (chair elect of the Standing Committee) was elected as the Standing Committee’s representative on the drafting committee for the statement of the NDPF.

Mr. Hannes Manninen, outgoing chair of the Standing Committee, thanked the members for their work on Arctic parliamentary cooperation and wished them well, as he would not be returning as a member of the Committee from Finland.  Mr Morton Høglund, replaced Mr. Manninen as chair and thanked him for all his work.

THE SECOND NORTHERN DIMENSION PARLIAMENTARY FORUM

The Second Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum (NDPF) was held the afternoon of 22 February and the morning of 23 February, 2011.  At the first NDPF held in 2009, a statement was prepared. One of the paragraphs asked for “reports on the implementation of the partnerships within the Northern Dimension, to be presented at the next Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum.”  The second NDPF was therefore centred on a series of presentations detailing some of the progress made expectations for the partnerships.

The meetings began with some introductory comments about cooperation and some hopes for the partnerships.  The Saami, for example, are interested in the partnerships increasing their economies, mobility and improving the environment, with particular benefits looked for from the partnerships on health and well being and culture.  The Russian speaker looked to the partnership on transportation and logistics.

The head of the Canadian Delegation gave a presentation on Arctic cooperation from the Canadian perspective, integrating Canada’s domestic actions into circumpolar activity, particularly with respect to the Arctic Council, but also bilateral relations and actions under international conventions.  He remarked that the Forum was a good place to discuss other issues, including the EU ban on seal products.  This inspired a question from the audience on how to remove the ban. In response, it was noted that the issue is about the support for the livelihoods of people in remote areas, not about conservation, and yet environmental nongovernmental organizations still misrepresent the hunt by using the white coat pups as emotive image to fundraise.  He also noted that Canada had signed an agreement with China to create a market for seal products there, and that this should be beneficial to communities hurt by the EU ban.

In addition, a presenter from Norway replied that his country knew the difference between people who care about real environmental action and “haute-couture” environmentalists.  A representative from the EU replied that they were trying to reach out to the north and were planning a visit from Brussels to the Canadian North in March or April of this year.

The discussion on the The Partnership on Public Health and Social Well-Being centered on addressing non-communicable diseases that could be addressed through lifestyle changes and restrictions on the access to harmful substances such as alcohol.  A Canadian noted that higher prices on cigarette taxes, for instance, had only led to increased smuggling where they had been attempted.  He also noted that too many people with alcohol or mental health problems were in hospitals or jails whereas specialized facilities were more effective.  There was a need to look at the root causes of alcohol abuse.

Regarding the new Partnership on Culture the essential nature of arts, culture to both the economy and health were emphasized. International cultural exchanges are important in building understanding but also important to the economy, and therefore it this partnership should be taken seriously.  It was noted that culture includes how people make a living, from scientific research to the arts.

The Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership is the flagship partnership with over € 3 billion having been invested.  It is strongly linked to the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea.

The discussion on the Partnership on Transport and Logistics noted that transport and logistics is required to give value to the resources of the North.  Regional cooperation is essential, such as the planned improved road links between Norway and Sweden.  Mostly, this partnership is about financing, however, given the nature of the Baltic Sea as an enclosed body of water, the lessons of the Mexican oil spill put an emphasis on doing so in an environmentally responsible manner.  There is an issue because the secretariat has yet to be established, and this is required to prioritize projects.  Current plans were already competing with each other, but needed to be more coordinated to take advantage of synergies.

The head of the Canadian delegation reiterated that navigation charts and information on weather was vital and that Canada had invested $35 million to these efforts.  He asked what could be done in the short term if the wait for the secretariat is too long.  A Canadian delegate noted that not enough is known about cleaning up pollution in ice and storm filled waters.  Permafrost is melting and this was having effects on infrastructure. He noted that sharing methods on addressing this issue would be of great help.

In conclusion, it was emphasized that none of these efforts would be successful if there was not a feeling of regional ownership of plans.  As noted by the head of the Canadian delegation at the beginning of the NDPF, community buy-in is essential for the implementation of effective policies and regulations. The necessity for community and local engagement therefore emerged as recurring theme at the conference.

Respectfully submitted,