As a permanent participant to the eight-nation Arctic Council, ICC participates in many of the councils activities, including contaminants assessment, climate change, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable development, all of which are addressed by working group, programmes or task forces. ICC Canada leads for ICC on many of these files. ICC Canada attended all meetings of the councils Senior Arctic Officials during the 2002-2003 year. In addition we have:
Assisted the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) prepare its second circumpolar assessment to be presented to ministers in October 2003;
Assisted the Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) develop a broad agenda to be approved by ministers;
Represented the permanent participants on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) steering committee; and
Participated in deliberations by the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna working group.
Arctic Council
The Arctic Council is a “high level forum” established in September 1996 through a political declaration signed in Ottawa by representatives of the governments of Canada, Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America. The founding declaration and other documents about the council’s structure, programme and priorities, and minutes of meetings are located on the council’s official web site at arctic-council.usgs.gov/.
Although only the eight Arctic states are formal members of the council, room has been made for Arctic indigenous peoples to engage the council as “permanent participants.” Currently four such permanent participants are recognized: Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), Sami Council, Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), and the Aleut International Association (AIA). The Ottawa Declaration allows for seven permanent participants.
Four European states are official observers to the council: Federal Republic of Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Non-governmental observers include: International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), Nordic Council, Northern Forum, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH). Ad. hoc. observers also attend council meetings.
The Arctic Council continues four programmes initiated through the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) created by the Arctic states in 1991 including: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP); Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR); and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME). The Ottawa Declaration promises the creation of a sustainable development programme. Indeed, it is this still evolving programme that distinguishes the council from the AEPS.
The council operates at three interconnected levelsministerial, senior officials, and programmes. Ministers meet every two years to evaluate achievements and set broad priorities. Senior Arctic Officials (SAOs) meet every six months to ensure that the five programmes are moving ahead according to direction provided by ministers. Officials implementing the council’s programmes meet on an as-needed basis.
There are 6 permanent participants in the Arctic Council. The 4 mentioned above and then: Gwitch’in Council International (GCI) and Arctic Athabaskan Council (ACC). The Ottawa Declaration and the council’s Rules of Procedures agreed to in 1998 require decision-making by consensus. In operation, the permanent participants are able to speak at all political and operational meetings of the council without let or hindrance. They are aided by the Copenhagen-based Indigenous Peoples Secretariat (IPS) set-up under the AEPS and continued under the council. IPS can be contacted atwww.grida.no/caff/
Indigenous Peoples Secretariat
P.O. Box 2151, Pilestraede 52
DK 1016 Copenhagen
Denmark
Phone: 45 33 69 34 98
Fax: 45 33 69 34 99
email: ips@ghsdk.dk
Web site: www.arcticpeoples.org
Observers are also afforded the opportunity to intervene and comment at council meetings.
Funding the council’s activities and the engagement of the permanent participants remains a thorny and difficult issue. Most members, permanent participants, and observers favour the application of the financial formula to equitably share the costs of running the council and to provide it with a firm footing to promote long-term planning and priority setting. It has proven impossible, however, to develop a full consensus on this principle. As a result, individuals nations voluntarily contribute funds to specific programmes or work items usually in line with national priorities to be carried out by the council. In the absence of an agreed financial mechanism, the council does not enjoy a central secretariat. Instead, the chair country provides basic secretariat services. Canada chaired the council from 1996 to 1998, and the United States has assumed this responsibility until Autumn 2000.
The absence of a common means of funding council activities creates co-ordination problems between and among programmes and activities, and makes it difficult for the council to engage in strategic, policy and priority oriented discussion. By and large, the permanent participants have to raise funds domestically to attend council meetings. The Government of Denmark generously funds IPS.
Senior Arctic Officials And Ministerial Meetings
Full records of discussion at these meetings is found on the council’s official web site.
Arctic Monitoring And Assessment Programme
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) monitors levels and assesses the effects of anthropogenic pollutants in the Arctic. As well, this programme generates and publishes reports on the status and trends in and threats to the condition of the Arctic ecosystems and recommends responses. The full list of AMAP’s reports and future plans, including its participation in an examination of climate change in the Arctic is found on the council’s official web site and at www.grida.no/amap.
Conservation Of Arctic Flora And Fauna
The working group on Conservation of the Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) has four main goals:
to conserve Arctic flora and fauna, their diversity and their habitats;
to protect the Arctic ecosystem from threats;
to improve conservation management laws, regulations and practices for the Arctic;
to integrate Arctic interests into global conservation fora.
The working group exchanges information and co-ordinates research on species and their habitats in the Arctic with the aim of promoting good conservation practice. CAFF is interested in traditional ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples and how the perspectives of northerners can be best reflected in conservation planning and management. Further detail about CAFF’s achievements, ongoing work and priorities can be found in the council’s official web site and at www.grida.no/caff/.
Emergency Prevention, Preparedness And Response
The working group on Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) was formed to provide and framework for future co-operation in responding to the threat of environmental emergencies, particularly from accidental discharges of pollution, in the Arctic. EPPR assesses threats which would require emergency response measures and facilitates the improvement of response capabilities. Additional detail about EPPR can be found on the council’s official web site.
Protection Of The Arctic Marine Environment
The Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group takes preventive and additional measures to prevent and mitigate marine pollution in the Arctic regardless of source. Developing regional and national plans of action has been PAME’s main goal.
Sustainable Development Programme
Developing a coherent and comprehensive sustainable development programme pursuant to the Ottawa Declaration and based upon strategic analysis of shared problems and priority setting is proving very difficult. The United States, in particular, objects to such an approach favouring instead “concrete” projects that individual states may support and fund. The result is a still evolving series of activities that may or not add up to a programme, depending upon the interpretation of the term “sustainable development”.
It was not until Summer 1998 that terms of reference for the sustainable development programme were agreed. At Iqaluit in Autumn 1998 ministers approved an initial set of activities that, while having the imprimatur of the council, may or may not be carried out collectively. These activities include a project focusing on children and youth, the potential of telemedicine, and fisheries management in coastal Norway.
Upon the establishment of the council, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference tabled in September 1996 a short paper proposing priority themes for the sustainable development programme. This paper, posted below, has not been accepted by the council and none of the work proposed by ICC is being carried out. The Government of Canada sponsored a major international conference on sustainable development in order to glean ideas and potential priorities for the council to consider. The proceedings of this conference are found in The Northern Review No. 18 Summer 1998 available from Yukon College in Whitehorse, Yukon. Unfortunately, the lack of agreement in the council on an approach to sustainable development has effectively prevented consideration of the recommendations generated at this conference.
Concept Paper On Sustainable Development, Tabled With The Arctic Council On September 20th, 1996
The AEPS task force/working group on sustainable development initiated interesting and important work summarized in the attached table. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) hopes this work will be completed and its results broadly circulated. The challenge now before us is to adopt terms of reference for the Sustainable Development Programme (SDP) that will allow the Arctic Council to sponsor and carry out a broad programme of research, publish crisply written and well documented reports that will influence national policies, and, generally, promote arctic sustainable development in national, circumpolar and even global fora. In Particular, The Council’s Sustainability Agenda Must Be Issued And Problem Driven, And Not Subject To Political Caprice. This is important for the SDP will give to the council its overall flavour and purpose, and distinguish it from its predecessor, the AEPS.
National policy documents published by Arctic countries generally adopt, in whole or in part, the broad definition of sustainable development used in the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Similarly, this broad view of sustainability underlies the Rovaneimi, Nuuk and Inuivik declarations. Most observers acknowledge that sustainability has many dimensions-economic, environmental, social, cultural, political etc. ICC Believes That The SDP Should Aspire To Similar Breadth, And Its Terms Of Reference Should Promote Work On All Facets Of Sustainability.
ICC wishes to see the SDP implemented as soon as possible. To this end We Suggest That Terms Of Reference For The SDP Be Defined By November 1996. Work on the new SDP agenda should be well underway by the planned ministerial conference in Norway in Summer 1997. At that meeting we envisage a full report to ministers on completion of studies initiated under the AEPS sustainable development task force as well as progress reports on SDP studies undertaken by the Arctic Council.
ICC suggests the following research and policy priorities for the SDP.
1. The Arctic In National Sustainable Development Strategies
Countries use different mechanisms to promote sustainable development. For example, Canada has a Green Plan; the United States a President’s Council; and Finland a national commission. ICC suggests, as a first order of business, research to determine how the Arctic has fared in national sustainable development strategies and plans. This project might link well with AEPS work underway on the regional application, in the Arctic, of Agenda 21. Conceivably this initiative might help Arctic countries prepare statements on implementation of Agenda 21 for next year’s session of the UN general assembly.
2. Economic Rent From Natural Resource Development
Oil, gas, mineral and hydropower development is already an enduring feature of Arctic and sub-Arctic lands. Mineral companies, including subsidiaries of RTZ, BHP and DeBeers operate in several Arctic countries, as do multinational oil and gas companies. Various tools and techniquesincluding royalties, acreage bids, bonus payments, permit and licence fees, corporate and personal taxationare used by governments to obtain economic rent generated by resource development in the Arctic. We suggest this project also examine arrangements to share economic rent between national, and local governments and aboriginal peoples.
3. Support For Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Gathering And Herding By Aboriginal Peoples
The economy of many aboriginal peoples in the Arctic remains linked to local and regional renewable resources. Certain Arctic nations implement income support programmes to assist aboriginal peoples to remain on the land. We suggest a project to examine and to evaluate these arrangements. This project might link well with AEPS work on trade barriers, and the collapse and rejuvenation of the Arctic sealskin market.
4. Aboriginal Land And Resource Use
ICC suggests a project to document and interpret land and resource use by aboriginal peoples. Such studies have been carried out in Canada and Alaska. Interestingly, the Arctic Institute of North America and Saami resident in the Kola Peninsula of Russia recently completed a land use and occupancy study using money provided by the Gorbachev Foundation. ICC suggests that similar studies be carried out in other Arctic regions. We are especially keen to see such a study initiated in Chukotka.
5. Environmental Change And Traditional Ecological Knowledge
The AEPS working group on Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna initiated work on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) upon which ICC seeks to build. We suggest a project to look at how TEK and scientific information can be integrated to provide a more complete picture of climate- induced ecological change in the Arctic. Such a project might also incorporate work carried-out by the AEPS monitoring and assessment working group, and would situate the Arctic Council in the midst of the global climate change debate.