SDWG Regular MeetingOrono, Maine, 01-02 October 2016
Table of Contents1. Welcome by SDWG Chair...............................................................................................................................................3
1. a. Introduction of New Participants.................................................................................................................3
1. b. Administrative announcements....................................................................................................................3
2. Approval of Agenda..........................................................................................................................................................3
3. Approval of Barrow Minutes........................................................................................................................................3
5. a. Review of Timelines........................................................................................................................................6
5. b. The Economy of the North: ECONOR III..................................................................................................7
5. c. RISING SUN.......................................................................................................................................................10
5. d. One Health.........................................................................................................................................................12
5. e. WASH.................................................................................................................................................................. 15
5. f. EALLU.................................................................................................................................................................. 17
5. g. Arctic Adaption Exchange Portal............................................................................................................19
5. h. Indigenous Languages..................................................................................................................................20
5. i. ARENA..................................................................................................................................................................20
5. j. The Arctic as a Food-Producing Region................................................................................................22
5. k. AREA....................................................................................................................................................................24
6. Project Proposals, Decisions and Notifications.................................................................................................27
6. a. Finnish Chairmanship Priorities for the SDWG................................................................................27
6. b. Gender Equality...............................................................................................................................................32
6. c. Solid Waste Disposal.....................................................................................................................................33
6. d. Measures and Practice of Social Support for Indigenous Peoples in Russia........................33
7. Expert Group Reports...................................................................................................................................................35
7. a. AHHEG................................................................................................................................................................ 35
7. b. SECEG...................................................................................................................................................................37
8. a. Report on Strategy Group Activities Since Last SDWG Meeting................................................38
8. b. Discussion of Draft Documentation Prepared by the Strategy Group.....................................39
8. c. Reconsidering Tiered Approach to Project Approvals..................................................................39
8. d. Presentation on Past Report Recommendations..............................................................................40
8. e. Next Steps..........................................................................................................................................................41
9. SDWG Work Planning for 2017-2019...................................................................................................................41
9. a. Review of Timetable for Submission of SDWG 2017-2019 Work Plan..................................41
9. b. Discussion of Working Draft of the 2017-2019 SDWG Work Plan..........................................42
9. c. Coordinating SDWG Work Plan with other Working Groups.....................................................42
10. a. Germany........................................................................................................................................................... 43
10. b. International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA)..........................................................44
11. Other Matters............................................................................................................................................................... 44
11. a. Logistics for SDWG Meeting in Kotzebue, Alaska...........................................................................44
11. b. Matters to be Raised with SAOs in Portland....................................................................................45
11. c. Additions to the Agenda............................................................................................................................45
11. d. Summary of Decisions...............................................................................................................................45
11. e. Meeting Adjourns.........................................................................................................................................45
The Acting SDWG Chair welcomed new and returning participants to the meeting and introduced new Heads of Delegation from the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Norway, USA, ICC, GCI, and AAC.
1. b. Administrative announcements
The Chair delivered a number of administrative announcements, including details of side events while in Orono, and logistical information relating to the transfer of several participants to Portland, Maine for the SAO Meetings on 04-07 October 2016.
2. Approval of Agenda
The meeting agenda was approved subject to a correction on item 6 to clarify that Finland would make a presentation on anticipated priorities for the SDWG during their chairmanship from 2017 to 2019.
3. Approval of Barrow Minutes
The minutes of the last SDWG Regular Meeting in Barrow, Alaska on 11-12 March 2016 were approved.
4. Arctic Resilience Action Framework (ARAF)1
A progress report on the ARAF was delivered by Joel Clement, the Director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the United States Department of the Interior. He explained that the Arctic Council is working to produce two key reports that will improve understanding of the impacts and effects of a changing Arctic upon communities and ecosystems, as well as practices for avoiding and responding to those impacts. The final scientific report of the Arctic Resilience Assessment (ARA) will be released in late 2016, while the Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA) – Part C team will release three regional scientific assessment reports in early 2017 (Barents Region; Baffin Bay/Davis Strait Region; and Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Region)..
In March 2016, the Senior Arctic Officials requested the development of an Arctic Resilience Action Framework (ARAF) that builds on the key findings of the ARA and the AACA reports
1 The information below is taken from Mr. Clement’s presentation and a document circulated to SDWG participants prior to the meeting entitled “Adaptation and Resilience in the Arctic: A Primer on the Arctic Resilience Report, the Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic Report, and the Arctic Resilience Action Framework” (02 September 2016).
to provide a framework of common priorities and targets. The ARAF intends to promote improved collaboration and effectiveness among the Arctic Council and Arctic Council partners as they strive to enhance the resilience of the region.
Mr. Clement explained the differences between ‘adaptation’ and ‘resilience’. He noted that adaptation and resilience are related but not interchangeable concepts. Adaptation is an active adjustment, in response to change, which moderates disruption or takes advantage of opportunities. Resilience is a condition that describes a system or community’s ability to absorb disruption and “bounce back”, or attain a desired future. While both terms are used in discussions of climate change response strategies, adaptation is described in terms of specific actions and measures taken, while resilience is an underlying capacity that can enable effective adaptation. Resilience can be altered – strengthened or undermined – often as a result of such efforts as adaptation.
Mr. Clement reviewed the two underlying assessments noting that they share a common focus on the question: "What can be done to prepare for Arctic changes?” Most Arctic Council assessments regarding Arctic change have focused primarily on identifying or describing the state of the science related to specific characteristics, or ongoing changes in the characteristics, of a given Arctic system. The ARA and AACA will move beyond assessing the state of science to evaluate the societal actions that can and are being taken to adapt to a changing Arctic, build resilience, and cope with both climate change and other processes affecting the Arctic.
The ARA and AACA employ different but complementary methodologies. AACA examines adaptation opportunities based on projections well into the future. By comparison, the ARA identifies properties that make systems more resilient to both anticipated and unanticipated changes by drawing on a substantial set of case studies from the recent past where major thresholds (or tipping points) were already apparent. The objective is to combine these efforts to provide a foundation for a powerful roadmap for addressing climate and other impacts.
Building on the ARA, the AACA, and the ongoing work of Arctic Council Working Groups, Mr. Clement noted that the ARAF articulates a set of priorities that can be used by Arctic actors to identify actions that will strengthen resilience in the region. The ARAF will be the first comprehensive regional adaptation and resilience framework for the Arctic. A community of practice will be formed that periodically evaluates the implementation of the ARAF in order to identify effective practices and adjust priorities as necessary.
Many of the priorities and action areas that are outlined in the ARAF are drawn from findings of the ARA and AACA regional reports Both the ARA and AACA provide insights into effective practices for adaptation and resilience, and the ARAF articulates a set of “guiding principles” for enhancing adaptation and resilience. The ARA and AACA will continue informing resilience and adaptation priorities in the region as they are updated in ongoing assessments. As the implementation of the ARAF is evaluated, lessons learned will feed back into the ARA and AACA assessment processes. All of the reports will provide information that can facilitate effective responses to rapidly changing conditions at the international, national,
Mr. Clement noted that there is currently global momentum on initiatives to address climate change and sustainable development (e.g. the UN Sustainable Development Goals; COP21; resilience frameworks for Pacific islands, etc.) and the ARA, AACA, and ARAF are contributing to the Arctic dimensions of these issues. A draft document entitled “Arctic Resilience Action Framework: Cooperating for a More Resilient and Prosperous Arctic Region”2 will be presented to the Senior Arctic Officials in Portland (4-6 Oct. 2016) on behalf of the ARAF Drafting and Review Committees. (The ARAF Review Committee is co-chaired by Finland and the Saami Council. The Drafting Committee is chaired by the United States.) He advised that broad ongoing collaboration and participation would be needed to achieve targeted outcomes and build capacity. Effective implementation would also require systematic monitoring and tracking, as well as regular review and updating of the framework. However, no formal processes would be put in place until SAOs have reviewed the various draft reports.
Mr. Clement invited SDWG participants to please feed future questions or comments about ARAF through SDWG Chair.
Comments and Discussion:
During the discussions it was noted that the resilience assessments and resilience framework must work together, and must be useful to Arctic communities in their efforts to adapt to change. One participant described “resilience” as a way of thinking that needs to be broadly adopted. To date the development of the ARAF has been a very inclusive process. It was specifically mentioned at the Arctic Science Ministerial held in Washington, D.C. in September 2016.
It was observed that the draft text of the ARAF report is very long for Ministers and SAOs, and that further consideration could be given to who would have ownership/leadership of this initiative in the Arctic Council into the future. Finland expressed an interest in organizing the first follow-up forum during its chairmanship.
It was suggested that the resilience theme should be reflected in the new SDWG strategy documents being developed by the SDWG Strategy Group.
2 This draft document was also circulated to SDWG Participants prior to the meeting.
The SDWG Chair advised that this portion of the agenda would focus on the process and timing for completion and review of projects prior to 2017 Ministerial Meeting. In their presentations, project leads were encouraged to address, among other issues, the following points:
Project progress to date Remaining work to be accomplished Nature of deliverables for the May 2017 Ministerial & timelines for project completion Anticipated policy-relevant recommendations (if any) that will arise from the project Anticipated obstacles (if any) in completing the project by deadline Anticipated work (if any) that could continue into the next Chairmanship.
The Chair then reviewed key dates for the remainder of the US Chairmanship as follows:
2016
01-02 Oct. 2016: SDWG meeting in Orono, Maine 04-06 Oct. 2016: SAO meeting in Portland, Maine 21 Nov. 2016: First drafts of 2017-2019 work plans and list of
deliverables/input for final SAO Report for Ministers due to ACS 09 Dec. 2016: Coordinating meeting of the Working Group Chairs, Executive
Secretaries, and SAO Chair (This meeting will primarily focus on Ministerial preparations and harmonizing draft work plans.)
2017
05 Jan. 2017: Submission deadline for documents for consideration at the springSDWG meeting.
07-08 Feb. 2017: SDWG meeting in Kotzebue, Alaska. This meeting represents thefinal opportunity for the SDWG to approve deliverables for the 2017 Ministerial.
07 Feb. 2017: Submission deadline for documents for consideration at the springSAO meeting.
08-09 Mar. 2017: SAO meeting in Juneau, Alaska. At this meeting, SAOs plan toapprove all deliverables for the 2017 Ministerial.
11 May 2017: Arctic Council Ministerial meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska.
The Chair stressed that by the end of November 2016 it will be necessary to know what the SDWG work plan will be for the Finnish Chairmanship 2017-2019. 05 January 2017 is a critical deadline date. While this is very early for projects to have their final products completed, the SDWG needs to keep to the 05 January 2017 target date in order to ensure SDWG work products will make the Ministerial deadlines for submission of deliverables. There can be no guarantees that deliverables completed after 05 January 2017 will be accepted by SAOs and Ministers. The Chair further advised that if policy recommendations were to be contained in the project deliverables, SDWG Heads of Delegation needed to know this as early as possible so that due consideration could be given to them.
The Saami Council advised that they will have difficulty attending the SDWG meeting scheduled for 07-08 February 2017 in Kotzebue, Alaska because the dates coincide with a100-year anniversary celebration of the Saami Parliament that will be held in Trondheim.
5. b. The Economy of the North: ECONOR III
The Economy of the North (ECONOR) project is co-led by Norway, the United States, Canada, and the Saami Council. Norway invited Iulie Aslaksen, Senior Researcher at Statistics Norway, to make the presentation on The Economy of the North: ECONOR III. This project provides a statistical overview of the circumpolar Arctic in respect to the economy, social conditions and the environment. The project is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Nordic Council of Ministers, and the participating institutions. An editorial group comprised of officials from Statistics Norway and CICERO is preparing the report. Ms. Aslaksen stressed that the document circulated for this meeting was only a draft report that provides a snapshot of the project’s findings. It was not ready for distribution or citation. The report will be submitted to SDWG for approval at a future meeting once it has undergone revision and editing by the ECONOR team.
There have been two previous ECONOR reports in 2006 and 2008. ECONOR III will provide an update as of 2015. Ms. Aslaksen explained that economic data are not easily available at a circumpolar level for the Arctic regions in the eight Arctic states. Regional statistics are less developed than national statistics and geographic location is less a priority than other dimensions of statistics. In addition, some Arctic regions have small populations and therefore lack administrative capacity to collect economic statistics and national accounts.
However, over the past 10 years the ECONOR projects have made efforts to harmonize statistical data across national borders by collecting and comparing central economic data and living conditions in the Arctic. A central task of ECONOR is to fill the gaps with data in common format; compare income, production and economic structures across Arctic regions; develop building blocks for a harmonized database on Arctic socio-economic issues; and update and expand economic and socio-economic data at the circumpolar level. A longer-term goal is to establish circumpolar economic and socio-economic data as official statistics anchored in relevant institutions.
ECONOR is also looking at environmental change and its effect on the Arctic economy. The focus of the current ECONOR project is on the global demand for Arctic natural resources; communities dependence on single sources of income and income diversification opportunities; the intertwining of the subsistence with the money economy; and the human dimensions beyond just natural resources to include the broader economic picture (such as social indicators and information about subsistence activities).
Ms. Aslaksen described what is new in ECONOR III. Since the ECONOR II report in 2008, in the midst of the global financial crisis, there have been:
large fluctuations in the Arctic economy due to global natural resource pricesand the financial crisis;
time series developed through the ECONOR projects to give valuable information oneconomic fluctuations;
needs identified for new indicators for social and environmental impacts of climatechange and economic activity.
In addition, ECONOR III has new chapters on Tourism and on Environmental Impacts (human impact on Arctic biodiversity studied by the GLOBIO3 model). The ECONOR report will complement the resilience report being prepared by the U.S. Chairmanship.
She presented the draft findings on the basis of three themes: 1) economic; 2) social/socio-economic; and 3) environmental indicators.
In respect of the Economic theme, the report compares gross regional production (GRP) and disposable income of households (DIH). A typical pattern is that production is larger than income, because of value taken out of the Arctic. Even where there is high GRP, not much of the wealth stays in the region in the form of disposable household income. However, she noted that the model does not take into account value brought back into the region through public sector services.
As a result of climate policy, gas production is expected to be higher (and oil production lower). There is also expected to be higher levels of tourism in the Arctic in the future, in part because of climate change impacts on marine accessibility.
Also under the Economic theme, the report examines regional economic structures. Alaska has the highest disposable income per capita in the Arctic. Petroleum is still backbone of Alaskan economy; however, the report concludes that it is in decline. This would make public services the largest sector again.
In the Canadian North, minerals, oil, and gas are in decline. In the Northwest Territories (NWT), diamond-mining activity is high. Public services are the second largest sector.
In Greenland, seafood is the main export. Climate change impacts can be seen in the statistics: for example, mackerel was seen in Greenland waters in 2011 for the first time, but by 2014 mackerel accounted for 23% of fish export. This compensated to some extent the decline in
In Arctic Russia, the largest Arctic region, there has been high growth in the range of about 4% annually from 2000 to 2012. This is largely due to petroleum and other mining industries. In 2008 to 2012 the mineral base was also further strengthened.
In respect of the Social/Socio-economic theme, the report examines social indicators to explore the questions as to which Arctic socio-economic models contribute to social equality and to identify where social vulnerability is the largest. As mentioned above, there is some difficulty obtaining subsistence data, with the exception of Alaska where consumption and food harvesting data are collected and broken down by region. ECONOR III will attempt to give an indication of the relationship between the money-based and subsistence economies. Dr. Ellen Inga Turi has provided data on traditional reindeer herding and some analysis of the income picture for this economy which is intertwined with the cash economy.
Under the Environmental theme, the report examines land use and biodiversity based on the GLOBIO3 model to see if it is useful for the Arctic. The GLOBIO3 model involves impacts of land use, infrastructure, land fragmentation, and climate change on biodiversity (Mean Species Abundance MSA). ECONOR III undertook a pilot study to determine if global assumptions could apply to Arctic conditions and to explore whether this model could be useful for future ECONOR studies.
Ms. Aslaksen pointed out that the ECONOR editors are still working on sections relating to Faroe Islands, Arctic Finland, Iceland, Arctic Norway and Arctic Sweden.
In conclusion Ms. Aslaksen noted some results from ECONOR III that might be relevant for policy-makers:
There are large variations in livelihoods and living conditions between Arctic regions. The petroleum industry and other natural resource extraction industries play a crucial
role as sources of income. ECONOR III recognizes the importance of the subsistence and local market economy. Climate change impacts require policy-makers to explore the resilience of socio-
ecological systems. There is a need for more systematic statistical knowledge on socio-economic issues and
on impacts of ecological conditions for Arctic regions.
Comments and Discussion:
Some concerns were raised by AAC about information displayed in relation to subsistence harvesting in Alaska and benefits from oil and gas flowing to indigenous people. Ms. Aslaksen expressed appreciation for this feedback and undertook to review the relevant data.
Russia, Iceland and Sweden indicated that they would try to contribute more information to the report. The Kingdom of Denmark will also provide more information in relation to the Faroe Islands, in particular in respect of fisheries. Iceland noted that total value creation in a region
is important. Ms. Aslaksen clarified that the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Sweden and Norway were not covered in the current draft of the report but would be covered in the final version.
AIA pointed out that in their region there is a significant mix of subsistence and cash economies. The subsistence economy has important cultural connections, as well as relevance for other projects such as RISING SUN and Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic.
The Saami Council welcomed this contribution to the Arctic knowledge base, observing that this type of work can contribute to informed decision-making and could help indigenous peoples develop their economies.
5. c. RISING SUN
This project, Reducing the Incidence of Suicide in Indigenous Groups–Strengths United through Networks (RISING-SUN), is co-led by the United States, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, and ICC. The U.S. invited U.S. project leads from U.S. National Institute for Mental Health, Pamela Collins and Roberto Delgado, to make the presentation.
The RISING SUN project has built upon previous work conducted during previous chairmanships of Canada (Sharing Hope) and the Kingdom of Denmark (Hope and Resilience). The overall goal of RISING SUN is to produce a toolkit that enables communities, governments, and key stakeholders to measure the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions in indigenous Arctic communities. The project is making an efforttoolkit will help to identify promising practices even if they do not yet have support from scientific studies. The challenge is to understand these interventions by understanding their outcomes. The project team is looking for to make the toolkit relevantce in various cultural contexts, given the large, diverse stakeholder group around Arctic.
MsDr. Collins reported that to date there have been two workshops, and two of a total of three rounds of the modified-Delphi process. A third round of the modified-Delphi process is under way. Work on building a toolkit for interventions on suicide is continuing.
The first workshop was convened in Anchorage on 19-20 September 2015. An updated report is now available on the RISING SUN website. This workshop focused on the epidemiology of suicide, namely studying its context, patterns, causes, and effects in Arctic populations.
A second workshop, coordinated by the NIMH Office for Research on Disparities and Global Mental Health (ORDGMH), together with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, was held in Tromsø, Norway on 09-10 May 2016. Participants of the workshop included members of the RISING SUN Scientific Advisory Group, advocates, clinical professionals, indigenous community members, researchers, and members of the AHHEG. The first day of the workshop reviewed the landscape of suicide and suicide prevention in northern Scandinavia (Sápmi), followed by breakout sessions to develop ideas for a robust Saami-Specific Transnational Suicide Prevention Plan. Discussions focused on the challenges and needs the plan should
address and the necessary actions to make the plan work.
The second day of the workshop was centered on reviewing the preliminary findings of the Delphi consensus-building exercise. The modified Delphi method is ideal for attaining the goals of this initiative: distilling knowledge and building reliable consensus to produce a toolkit of outcomes and their measures to evaluate interventions that will help reduce the incidence of suicide among indigenous communities of the Arctic. Following the review of preliminary findings, workshop members offered suggestions on how to frame the initial responses to best reflect the views of all stakeholders. In an effort to be as inclusive as possible, the workshop addressed the need to incorporate other sources of information in addition to the responses from the Delphi process, and provided a tentative outline for the supplemental activities. Findings from a Canadian focus group on mental wellness and suicide prevention, the proceedings from the Saami Suicide Prevention Plan workshop, and results from anticipated focus group discussions in Alaska and Greenland are expected to be integrated into the final RISING SUN products.
The second round of the consensus-building process (modified Delphi method) was completed in June 2016, with 146 (81%) of the original 180 people participating. Participants included advocates, clinicians, community members (e.g., Tribal elders and Native youth), federal and regional government officials, researchers, and survivors of family members who have completed a suicide. Individuals represented all of the Arctic States and five of the Arctic Council Permanent Participants (i.e., AIA, AAC, GCI, ICC and the Saami Council). An initial list of 600 responses was distilled down to 99 outcomes. Those 99 outcomes were distributed during the second Delphi round in which participants were directed to select the top 25 outcomes they viewed as the most important outcomes of suicide prevention programs. The results of the second round are currently being analyzed. The third, and final round of the Delphi process will be underway in Fall 2016 with analyses completed by early 2017.
A final workshop for the RISING SUN project is anticipated to be held in Iqaluit, CA, no later than March 2017. During this gathering, the results of the Delphi process and a suicide prevention toolkit with the identified outcome measures will be presented. The US-NIMH Team launched the RISING SUN web page3 that will serve as a platform for background information, news, and further updates.
The presenters stressed that it has been important to receivethe critical role of input from indigenous communities throughout the project. A technical paper is being written for a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be available in a web-based format.
The project is on track to deliver the draft final report by 05 January 2017; however, the final workshop takes place in March 2017. It is anticipated that follow-on work will be conducted during the Finnish Chairmanship, especially with regard to disseminating and gaining feedback on the toolkit. It is undecided at this time as to whether or not the final report will contain any policy recommendations.
Sweden indicated that although they had not been deeply involved in the current project, they hoped to co-lead follow-on work during the Finnish Chairmanship. Norway and the Kingdom of Denmark also expressed interest in participating in the next steps. The Saami Council made reference to the involvement of Saami youth in the trans-national suicide prevention program and recommended that this work on suicide prevention should continue on the SDWG Work Plan and be expanded to include the Swedish and Finnish regions of Sápmi. Consideration could also be given to the issue of the male role/masculinity in the Arctic and its relationship to suicide. The Kingdom of Denmark recommended that further efforts could be made to translate the toolkit and reports into other languages to help improve outreach and collection of data to support the project.
Canada advised that it is working with ICC to do a focus group within the next few months. Preparations for the third workshop in Iqaluit, Nunavut in March 2017 are also proceeding. It is anticipated that this third workshop will help in the development of a circumpolar project that can continue into the Finnish Chairmanship.
The SDWG Chair summarized the discussions by concluding that there appeared to be consensus for an ongoing project in this field. The project leads for RISING SUN were requested to provide to the SDWG Secretariat some general language about what a next project might look like so that this text could be included in the SDWG draft work plan that must be prepared by November 2016.
The Chair also noted that if there were to be policy recommendations in the RISING SUN final report, the SDWG would need to see this language well in advance of 05 January 2017 in case negotiations were needed to finalize it.
5. d. One Health
Operationalizing a One Health Approach in the Arctic (One Health) is co- led by the USA and Canada. The U.S. invited Dr. Tom Hennessey, the co-chair of AHHEG, to present the update.
Dr. Hennessey provided some background on the concept of One Health which takes an holistic, integrated approach to human, animal, and environmental health. This approach developed in the veterinary medical world and has been subsequently expanded into environmental contaminants and climate change adaptation. The One Health approach can be used, for example, where there are health issues related to animal-to-human infectious diseases, or to environmental contaminants, wildlife health and subsistence foods.
The project is intended to advance a One Health approach across the Arctic region as a strategy to enhance resiliency. The goal is to build on and expand existing networks and collaborative efforts of diverse scientific disciplines and stakeholders to advance a regional One Health approach so as to better the understanding of impacts of climate change on health of humans,
animals and ecosystems of the Arctic and circumpolar north. In addition, the project is intended to build on existing One Health frameworks in the Arctic and to build regional capacity to deal with climate threats. An effort is being made to link One Health activities in order to obtain the benefits of best practices.
The process has 4 phases:
Phase 1: Baseline Survey AssessmentThe objective of this phase was to better understand existing activities and identify regional networks and champions by:
o Developing a baseline assessment of One Health activities/programs across the region – create inventory
o Assessing the interest in the One Health approacho Identifying One Health champions/leaderso Establishing a One Health Leadership Team from a diverse range of scientific
disciplines, Permanent Participants and other stakeholderso Developing a strategy to implement activities in phases.
The One Health survey was the first survey to assess evidence of a holistic approach to health issues in the Arctic. A total of 334 respondents completed the survey representing Permanent Participants, government and non-government agencies, universities, private industries, citizens and internal bodies from Austria, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Sápmi, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Analysis of the responses is providing evidence of an underlying One Health mindset across the Arctic. The results suggest that there is an opportunity to build on the expertise of a diverse group of stakeholders to operationalize a regional Arctic One Health network to enhance international health cooperation in the Arctic.
Phase 2: Regional Workshops
The objective of this phase is to conduct regional workshops to focus on dialogue between different groups for knowledge sharing. An example in this regard is the Local Environmental Observer (LEO) network in Alaska which engages local observers and topic experts who share knowledge about unusual animal, environment, and weather events through technology. LEO allows local people to connect with others in their community, share observations, raise awareness, and find answers about significant environmental events. They can also engage with topic experts in many different organizations and become part of a broader observer community. LEO links Arctic residents through technology. A Northern Climate Observer newsletter is distributed regularly.
During this phase, the One Health project will: o Identify partners and communities of practice;o Gather stakeholder guidance on an implementation strategy;o Develop timelines and metrics to measure progress; ando Bolster commitments from key national and community institutions to designate
Goal of this phase is to help coordinate different groups in society to address issues jointly across sectors. Table-top exercises are a critical phase when moving from “observing” to “developing” a response from different quarters of society. In terms of methodology, table-top exercises gather participants in a common space, provide an example and ask a simple set of questions about possible responses. The process requires a diverse group of people who can engage for two to four days. These exercises can then be rerun in communities. A table-top exercise is planned for Anchorage in February or March 2017 (the dates currently under consideration are Feb 1-3, 2017).4 The One Health project leads encouraged SDWG participants to identify anyone who might be willing to participate in this exercise.
The presenters showed a short video on the One Health Systems Mapping and Analysis Resource Toolkit (OH-SMART).
During this phase, the One Health project will:
o Conduct a One Health Systems Mapping and Analysis exercise (table top exercise -TTX)
o Initiate cross-agency collaborations at the local, regional, and national levels.o Determine where animal, human and environmental health services can align
more closely to meet common One Health goals. o Initiate development of an action plan specific to the Arctic.o Identify successes/best practices and gaps to address.o Identify specific actions to address the gaps.o Provides a benchmark for planning and evaluating progress of future One Health
activities.
Phase 4: Designate One Health Hubs or Centres of Excellence
The designation of One Health hubs or Centres of Excellence during this phase is intended to for facilitate information sharing and the development of a framework for capacity building. The intention is to link these hubs through agreements, thereby establishing a One Health Network System for the Arctic. This network could then develop a framework for future capacity building and activities.
The presenters advised that the anticipated deliverables for the 2017 Ministerial would include: the One Health Survey Report which will be completed by 05 January 2017; and a report on the table-top exercise will be done by March 2017. The establishment of One Health hubs will be an ongoing process.
4 A concept note is contained in the meeting documents. See: Concept Note: Circumpolar Table Top Exercise (TTX), Time Frame: February or March 2017 (2-4 days), Location: Anchorage, AK.
Several participants expressed appreciation for the One Health project which provides a useful model to help better understand the emerging picture of health in the Arctic. There was general interest in continuing the work. Finland advised a representative from Finland would chair AHHEG during its Chairmanship and that it hoped continue the One Health work. Finland invited the current project leaders to provide their advice on ways to keep the project going during 2017-2019. The USA suggested three possible ideas: 1) It noted that 2/3rds of survey respondents indicated that they would be prepared to participate in follow-on interviews (about 200 people), so conducting these interviews would be useful; 2) Conducting other table-top exercises on a regional or circumpolar basis might be possible; and 3) Deepening the engagement on the hubs and Centres of Excellence – especially with a view towards concrete activities on the ground. The latter may involve would be possible (e.g.experts from AHHEG and AMAP’s HHAEG; people who completed the survey are a potential pool; CAFF and its network; expertise in other areas besides human health might be usefuland those with expertise in other topics, such as climate change, etc.).
AIA observed that there are other community-based observing efforts in existence with longer time series data. AIA suggested that outreach to identify other community-based networks might be helpful.
Canada advised that the results of the analysis of the survey would be available in the near future. The USA thanked Canada for its time and effort to the design and interpret the survey. Germany noted that Future Earth has a program that could potentially collaborate with One Health and offered to connect the project leaders if they are interested.
The SDWG Chair encouraged all SDWG participants to identify the important points of contact for the table-top exercise. She clarified that One Health was requesting a formal extension of the project into the Finnish Chairmanship. The USA advised that the current project description contained in the original project template would be retained. Some revisions might be brought forward at the SDWG Kotzebue meeting. All agreed to the extension.
5. e. WASH
This US-led project on Improving Health through Safe and Affordable Access to Household Running Water and Sewer (WASH) focuses on water-related health challenges in Arctic and sub-Arctic communities. The Kingdom of Denmark is a co-lead. The U.S. invited Dr. Tom Hennessey, the co-chair of AHHEG, to present the update.
Dr. Hennessey described WASH as primarily a health project related to the United Nations Sustainable Development goals (i.e. Goal 6: “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”). The greatest water and sanitation needs are generally in tropical areas, but there is also a high need in parts of the Arctic (Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia). In Canada, the sub-arctic tends to have the highest needs. Dr. Hennessy
referedreferred delegates to recent publication in the International Journal of Circumpolar Health for more background information: (http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/ijch/article/view/31149).
One objective of the WASH project is to promote innovation in water and sanitation technologies and services as they relate to the Arctic. Some communities cannot depend on traditional water and sewer service technologies. To date, two international WASH conferences have been held. The first was held in Sisimiut, Greenland on 12-14 April 2016 as an ARTEK 2106 event entitled “Sanitation in Cold Climate Regions”. The conference was organized by the Arctic Technology Centre and the Technical University of Denmark. Participants were mainly water and sewer engineers but also some policy-makers. The conference discussed ways to improve health in Arctic communities through safe and affordable access to household running water and sewer.
The second conference was held in Anchorage, Alaska on 18-22 September 2016. The International Conference on Water Innovations for Healthy Arctic Homes (WIHAH) was interdisciplinary in nature and sought to engage community members in particular. Themes and issues included:
the impact of household water and sanitation on health; climate change impacts on water and sanitation infrastructure in the Arctic; innovative engineering approaches to increase access to water of adequate quality and
quantity, including water reuse; methods of ownership, operations and maintenance to maximize the useful life of water
and sewer systems; and regulations and policies affecting access to and the cost of providing
adequate quantities of water in the home.
Country and regional comparisons took place at the Anchorage conference. Presentations are posted on the website for the meeting: http://wihah2016.com.
Dr. Hennessey made reference to the Alaska Water and Sewer Challenge, a U.S domestic program to find better and more affordable ways to deliver drinking water and sewage disposal services to rural Alaska.
Another objective of the WASH project is to document the status of water and sewer service and associated health outcomes. AHHEG has coordinated a Survey of Arctic Water/Sanitation Services. This survey was Internet-based and open to the public. It contained questions in three areas:
Water and sanitation services; Water- and sanitation-related disease surveillance; and Climate or environmental changes affecting water and sanitation.
The survey was distributed to professionals in the health, water and sanitation sectors; government authorities; and interested residents in the Arctic nations. It was available for completion from April through 30 September 2016 and received about 150 respondents.
WASH is also seeking expert input and data relevant to UN Sustainable Development Goal #6 as it relates to the Arctic.
A third objective of the WASH project is to describe climate-related vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies for community water and sewer systems and source water protection. This was done through the survey and through expert and community input. Discussion of strategies by communities was very useful. The survey results have not yet been fully analyzed, but early analysis indicates that climate change has affected infrastructure planning in this area.
The anticipated WASH deliverables for the spring of 2017 are: Reports on the status of water and sewer services in the Arctic Survey results from the WASH survey A summary of ARTEK and WIHAH Conferences A special issue on Arctic water and sewer, with papers from ARTEK and WIHAH, in
the Journal of Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
The project leads anticipate ongoing collaboration beyond 2017, including a student and academic exchange, and another WIHAH conference in 2018. No follow-on project has yet been planned beyond the spring of 2017, but there is good potential for such work.
Comments and Discussion:
The Kingdom of Denmark remarked on the good work of the project and the collaboration with the U.S.-based team on its April conference. The SDWG Chair reminded the project leads that if there were any policy recommendations planned for their final report, these would need to be received by Heads of Delegation as early as possible. She noted that if the project continues into the Finnish Chairmanship, there would need to be a new project proposal template submitted.
5. f. EALLU
This Norwegian-led project on Arctic Indigenous Youth, Climate Change and Food Culture (EALLU) seeks to maintain and further develop a sustainable and resilient reindeer husbandry in the Arctic in face of climate change and globalization, while working towards a vision of creating a better life for circumpolar reindeer herders. The project is managed by the Association of World Reindeer Herders. Canada, Russia, USA, AIA, Saami Council are co-leads. Norway invited Anders Oskal, the Executive Director of the International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry, to provide the project update.
This project is designed to document, systematize, make use of and respect the traditional knowledge of food cultures of Arctic indigenous/reindeer herding peoples. Many of the project activities build upon the knowledge and experience of local indigenous/reindeer
herding societies in the Arctic with a focus on food culture and youth. The objective is to build understanding of Arctic indigenous food cultures and value added, by disseminating and giving a voice to traditional knowledge and food cultures of Arctic indigenous peoples.
Activities focus on youth involvement and engagement, seminars and place-based workshops, local capacity building, summer/winter schools, networking, as well as co-production of project outputs by youth. The project contents and process contribute directly to capacity building in Arctic indigenous societies.
Mr. Oskal reported that there had been a significant amount of activity since the last update in Barrow in March 2016. Approximately 26 community-based events and workshops have been held across the circumpolar North. Some examples include a food-centered event at the Midnight Sun Reindeer Farm in Nome, Alaska, in partnership with the Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association -- a first in North America for herders. Another example activity was an event that took place at the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow that focused on the reindeer meat industry. This event bought together various actors in the reindeer industry. Young chefs served a range of reindeer dishes to approximately 200 guests, including members of the public. This event was done in collaboration with RAIPON.
Mr. Oskal advised that the U.S. Embassy in Norway had allocated Fulbright funds to bring some Alaska youth to Kautokeino to study and this will allow follow-up to the Nome workshop. Russia has also supported the EALLU work. Positive discussions are continuing with Norway regarding funding for printing and graphics work. An operational challenge for this project is language because the youth participants that are doing most of the work must communicate in a multilingual way -- aside from English and Russian. EALLU started as a project but it is has now become a process with considerable engagement from institutions and communities. In addition this project has successfully worked with youth who are expected to then engage with their elders as part of a dynamic process with issues raised in an event or in an academic setting are taken home around the kitchen table.
Project outputs to date include:
Seminars and Courses on Indigenous Peoples’ food cultures; An MSC program in Reindeer Herding at the Saami University; A new course on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge; and Local engagement through the development of an Arctic cookbook.
Mr. Oskal reported that the AWHR will advise the SDWG in the near future about the deliverables that will be completed for the 2017 Ministerial meeting and the project is already approved for continuation into the Finnish Chairmanship. The current status of deliverables is as follows:
Arctic Council Cookbook on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Culture: this cookbook will be a snapshot of culinary traditions of Arctic peoples. In this respect it is a cookbook about people and their knowledge includes information on food, materials, recipes, health,
values, preparation, conservation, stories about food, and about the land and sea. This book demonstrates traditional and local knowledge that strengthens people and cultures in the face of change in the Arctic. The focus is on indigenous food systems. Approximately 10 indigenous groups are featured based. One or two traditional dishes are detailed for each group, including explanations as to the reasons behind the way things are done. An example of such a publication is the Aleut cookbook, Traditional Foods And Recipes From The Aleutian And Pribilof Islands.
A short movie or multimedia display about Arctic food culture. AWRH is exploring thepossibility that this movie could be a co-production between CAFF and SDWG. This movie would be completed by 05 January 2017.
There might be three to five policy recommendations in this deliverable.
The strict deadlines for project submission might affect the content. The current plan is to have text and recommendations ready for review by the SDWG by 05 January 2017. Some graphic design elements will have to be finalized after that date but the final publication would be ready for the 2017Ministerial Meeting.
Comments and Discussion:
Russia observed that this is a very useful and practical project that is important for all Arctic regions and for the SDWG. The USA expressed some interest in discussing a possible EALLU event in Kotzebue around the time of the next SDWG meeting in February 2017. AIA noted that food is a vital element of the culture and peoples lives in the Arctic and would also be interested in discussing more workshops in Alaska, if possible in the Aleutians. GCI and AAC also supported more workshops in Alaska. Canada congratulated AWHR and Norway on the concept of a cookbook about people. Canada also suggested that Canadian youth could participate in the courses in Norway and that AWRH might wish to consider the potential linkages between EALLU and project on the Arctic As a Food Producing Region. ICC observed that in some parts of the Arctic youth are not eating traditional foods as much as their parents and grandparents. There are also food security issues (e.g. disappearance of caribou in Canada’s Arctic). ICC congratulated AWHR bringing people to together, not just around matters of food, but also about culture, tradition, health, education and pride. ICC observed that the potential of young people was closely tied to proper meals and nutrition. Some successful small community initiatives include instruction in traditional food harvesting and preparation, combined with a literacy program.
The SDWG Chair confirmed that there were no objections regarding AWHR’s request to co-produce their short movie deliverable with CAFF.
5. g. Arctic Adaption Exchange Portal
The Arctic Adaptation Exchange Portal was established as on online portal during the
Canadian Chairmanship of the SDWG (2013-2015). The project promotes community exchange and dissemination of information to support innovative approaches to climate change adaptation. Member States of the Arctic Council were expected to continue to build on their open data policies to consolidate and facilitate access to climate-related Arctic data sets. Other Arctic Council Working Groups were encouraged to submit links to their data sets and/or reports related to adaptation. Canada, USA, GCI, AIA are project co-leads.
AIA reported that while the portal is now live online, this was the initial phase and there are intentions for future additions to the project. Exchanging information on adaptation is the main theme. The comprehensive report on Adaptations For A Changing Arctic (Part C) will be released during the U.S. Chairmanship. This report is relevant for further developing the portal. For example, consideration could be given to including an “innovation space” and “early warning system” in the portal. The USA suggested that the portal could be linked to other relevant sites.
The SDWG Chair clarified that there is no specific deliverable from this project for the Ministerial Meeting in 2017. She suggested that if there is an intention to undertake some addition work during the Finnish Chairmanship it would be necessary to submit a new project proposal template. AIA was asked to prepare some possible language for the 2017-2019 work plan.
5. h. Indigenous Languages
Saami Council reported that their application for funding for a continuation of work on indigenous languages was not successful so matters have been on hold. Canada re-iterated that this issue is a priority and a considerable amount has been invested to date in this project. However, the support of others will be necessary to carry out follow-on work.
The SDWG Chair summarized that while there is still interest in the project, further discussion is needed to determine next steps and how they will be funded.
5. i. ARENA
The Arctic Remote Energy Networks Academy (ARENA) project addresses the need for the development of community energy experts to ensure affordable, reliable, renewable source energy solutions for Arctic communities. Its approach integrates web-based seminars with classroom learning and field exposure. The project draws from best practices established through the experience of the people living and the organizations operating in the Arctic. Participants will bring back to their home countries knowledge, skills, tools, and a network of collaborators that will facilitate integrating clean energy technologies in their communities and improving management of fossil fuel resources used for power production and heating. USA, Canada, Finland, Iceland and GCI are co-leads on the project. The USA invited Dr. Edward Canuel to present the update.
Dr. Canuel described briefly the first phase of the project which involves a series of pre-
recorded, widely accessible, web-based seminars that will provide overviews of key Arctic energy topics. These webinars are currently under development. The webinars will be pre-recorded in English, and packaged as self-contained modules that can be watched as streamed media or downloaded for off-line viewing. Subject matter experts from across the Arctic will participate in these knowledge-sharing opportunities, using illustrations from throughout the circumpolar region. This ARENA webinar series introduces viewers to the remote energy networks (microgrids) that provide power and heat in Arctic communities. Examples and case studies will be included from multiple Arctic locations for each topic. Links to supporting materials are provided as applicable. Viewers can post comments and questions at each webinar's site.
The second phase of the project combines mentoring on microgrids, project financing, and onsite training and field experiences at three locations across the Arctic with a competitively selected multi-national group of about 20 individuals. There have been some delays in this phase of the project. Onsite visits will now take place in March 2017 in northern Canada and in June 2017 in Alaska. A third location is under discussion.
Dr. Canuel then showed a beta version of an outreach video to the SDWG meeting and advised that, if there was agreement, this could be provided to the SAO Meeting scheduled for 04-06 October 2016 in Portland, Maine.
Comments and Discussion:
Canada observed that the beta version of the outreach video did not display the SDWG or Arctic Council logos and requested that this be done for the final version. Canada also requested that the SAOs be informed that the logos would be added, if the video was displayed or distributed in Portland. The SDWG Chair advised that the ARENA project was not on the agenda for the SAO Meeting in Portland so the beta video would not be shown there, but a ink to the video could be provided to SAO delegates.
Russia noted that several scenes in the video appeared to be shot in Russia (Yakutia), although Russia had not been participating in the project. Dr. Canuel undertook to check on Russian input into the project.
GCI noted that this cross-cutting project could have significant impact in virtually all Arctic communities and encouraged other Permanent Participants to get involved. The project will help communities that are looking at their own solutions for their energy challenges. AIA requested that it be added as a co-lead to the project and noted the importance of involving communities at the earliest stages of planning energy projects.
Canada advised that the first training workshop would be held on 20-27 March 2017in the NWT. Wind, solar and storage solutions would be examined. Site visits were being planned to Colville Lake, Łutsel K'e and Diavik diamond mine. The project is now more circumpolar in scope so students in the program will see and share experiences from different parts of the Arctic. Canada noted that there continues to be a need for financial contributions to the project
from Arctic States and Observers, and thanked WWF for their contribution. Canada also observed that the project would continue into the Finnish Chairmanship. Finland, one of the co-leads, noted that VTT Technical Research Centre is involved in the project. Finland also suggested that linkages between ARENA and the proposed Arctic Energy Summit in Finland in 2017 should be considered.
Iceland advised about their National Energy Authority and Icelandic expertise in educational modules. Iceland intends to bring forward useful information about renewables and Arctic energy generally. Further discussions about the project will occur in Iceland in the coming week on the margins of Arctic Circle Conference.
Germany brought to the attention of SDWG participants two projects that could be linked to ARENA. The first is Kopernikus (a German-led project at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies) which is looking at renewable energy in remote communities, not just in Arctic (http://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/news-media/news/kopernikus-project-energy-transition-navigation-system-kick-berlin-19-21-december). Another relevant project is the Global Sciences Initiative at Canada’s University of Waterloo where entrepreneurial issues in remote communities were examined at a recent energy summit on 24-27 April 2016 (see: https://uwaterloo.ca/magazine/spring-2016/feature/8-ways-change-global-energy-landscape for the Openaccess Energy Summit Recommendations and communiqué). A central issue is to look beyond the technology, to explore social innovation to make meaningful changes in livelihoods, maintenance and entrepreneurial opportunities in communities.
Canada inquired as to whether or not a selection committee had been created to select students in accordance with any agreed-upon criteria. Dr. Canuel advised that there was to be some discussion of this matter in the coming week in Reykjavik on the margins of the Arctic Circle Conference. AAC volunteered to participate on the selection committee.
Some of the possible deliverables from ARENA that could be ready by the time of the 2017 Ministerial Meeting include:
A short report on lessons learned from the training seminar in Canada scheduled for March 2017.
The ARENA webinar series on remote energy networks.
The SDWG Chair requested the ARENA project leads to report back on possible deliverables for the 2017 Ministerial after their discussions in Iceland on the margins of the Arctic Circle Conference.
5. j. The Arctic as a Food-Producing Region
The objective of this project is to assess the potential for increased production and added value of food from the Arctic, with the overarching aim of improving food security, and enhancing
the social and economic conditions of Arctic communities. The project co-leads are Norway and Canada.
Norway reported that the project was a bit delayed by funding issues, but is now moving forward.
Canada noted that the project is gaining momentum. Food security is a very important issue in many Arctic communities. Reference was made to the presentation in Barrow delivered by Dr. Natcher, from the University of Saskatchewan, College of Agriculture and Bio-resources. Based on feedback from the Barrow meeting, the project leads are trying to build partnerships with Permanent Participants and Arctic stakeholders to ensure the project takes into consideration the various perspectives.
GCI observed that this project is a good example of collaborative process development in the Arctic Council and fits well in the context of developing a strategic plan. The prior Permanent Participant consultation is very important in designing projects that affect their communities. GCI requested to be added as a project co-lead.
Canada reported that in addition to providing support to GCI to conduct a workshop for this project, it would be establishing an indigenous advisory committee to provide input. Discussions on this matter were taking place with the Kingdom of Denmark. AAC and ICC had indicated to Canada that they wanted to be involved in this advisory committee. An invitation had also been received from the Governor of Alaska to bring the project to a future conference in Alaska. The project has been nominated for the Arctic Inspiration Prize. (The $1 million CAD Arctic Inspiration Prize is awarded annually to recognize and promote the extraordinary contribution made by teams in the gathering of Arctic knowledge and their plans to apply this knowledge to real world applications for the benefit of the Canadian Arctic, Arctic Peoples and therefore Canada as a whole.) The winner of this year’s prize will be announced in Reykjavik at the Arctic Circle Conference.
ICC also requested to be identified as a co-lead to the project and as a member of the advisory committee mentioned by Canada. It was observed that the official policy of Greenland is to produce more “country food” and own-food sources. ICC offered to host a workshop in Nunavut in early 2017 to discuss the project including mapping food resources for food security. ICC is also planning a Wildlife Management Summit in 2017 which is relevant for this project.
The Kingdom of Denmark indicated that in the future it intended to be more involved in this project and commented that best practices for management of food production and veterinary affairs were elements of the project that could be strengthened. Traditional and local knowledge are necessary for home production but can also have some application to industrial production. The economies of some Arctic regions depend on the export of food. At the Arctic Circle Conference, NAAMCO will hold a break out session about marine mammals as a food source. There are opportunities to find new ways to use traditional resources.
The Saami Council expressed appreciation for the efforts to make this project more inclusive of the indigenous perspective. However, it was observed that this project in the draft work plan is placed under the thematic heading of “economic development” while the EALLU food product is placed under the thematic heading of “culture”. The SDWG Chair acknowledged that there should be consistency in terms of work plan placement.
Iceland observed that this project has high potential and urged that the issues be treated in a holistic manner. A related conference, the 9th International Conference of the Circumpolar Agricultural Association entitled “The Role of Agriculture in the Circumpolar Bioeconomy” will take place in Reykjavik, Iceland on 06-08 October (see: http://www.caa2016.com).
Italy noted the influence and importance of climate change in the context of food production and food security in the Arctic. This would be an important message from this project.
In summary, the SDWG Chair noted that: GCI and ICC are added as co-leads. The Kingdom of Denmark is considering greater involvement in the project. The anticipated deliverable for the U.S. Chairmanship is an interim report, but
additional discussions about deliverables will be held on the margins of the Arctic Circle Conference and reported to the SDWG Chair.
Policy recommendations are not foreseen from this project until possibly the Finnish Chairmanship.
5. k. AREA
The Arctic Renewable Energy Atlas (AREA) is a project that will contribute to sustainable development in the Arctic region by creating a comprehensive online tool to enhance knowledge of the best practices and local adaptation actions on renewable energy and energy efficiency within the Arctic region. The project will design and maintain a free-of-charge resource for the general public, researchers and Arctic public officials to raise awareness of energy efficiency opportunities and renewable energy solutions. Specifically, AREA will develop a renewable energy atlas; enhance knowledge of best practices; create a community energy database; and highlight community energy stories (e.g. through videos). The U.S. and Canada are co-leads.
The U.S. invited Nils Andreassen, the Executive Director of the Institute of the North, to present the project update. The AREA project arose from recommendations in past SDWG projects. For example, the Arctic Maritime and Aviation Transportation Infrastructure Initiative (AMATII) developed an online interactive map of port and airport infrastructure; and recommendations from the 2013 Arctic Energy Summit suggested that renewable energy resources be assessed and mapped as a overlay on existing oil and gas resources. In addition, it recommended that an energy development and distribution roadmap be developed together with a best practices guide for northern energy efficiency. More recently the 2015 Arctic Energy Summit recommended that best practices for energy efficiency and/or renewable energy be shared; that access to energy education and literature be increased; that a centralized source
of free, web-based energy case studies be developed, including best practices, design checklists, and model examples; and that all available renewable energy resources in the Arctic be mapped.
The project’s objective is to develop a platform to share energy best practices and specific examples of how Arctic communities are handling energy developments. Most atlases do not cover the Arctic on these matters. However, the Arctic is a rich region for renewable energy. Reference was made to the Fort Simpson Solar Energy Project in the Northwest Territories of Canada where the territorial power corporation, NTPC, and the Government of the NWT have invested in a football-field-sized solar energy project that is the largest solar-powered system in northern Canada. The solar system can generate 100 kilowatts on bright days, enough to power about 17 houses. Solar power supplements the community’s diesel operations, and reduces greenhouse gases by about 76 tonnes per a year.
The online Renewable Energy Atlas will catalog renewable energy data from all eight Arctic countries, including wind, hydro, solar thermal, geothermal, biomass, and tidal resources. It will overlay existing energy generation capabilities to allow easy visualization of localized supply and demand. In addition, it will showcase Arctic community stakeholders’ successes and challenges relating to the development of clean energy projects.
The community energy database will contain information about energy production, consumption and efficiency in Arctic communities. The project will also produce a Best Practices Guide for Remote Community Renewable Energy Integration and Efficiency.
The Community Energy Stories dimension of the project will use videos to profile local energy projects, challenges and opportunities.
This project presents many opportunities for engagement by Arctic states, Permanent Participants and Observers, including in relation to data collection, information dissemination and financial support. (The Netherlands has already committed funds). The anticipated project budget is USD $275,000.
Mr. Andreassen reported that the project is on schedule. A beta version is currently available with some global and national data from Canada and the U.S. Data collection from Greenland, Faroe Islands and Finland is about to begin. Still to be accomplished is national data collection for all eight Arctic states, the development of best practice guide, and production of the videos.
Points of Contact are requested from all Arctic states. These Points of Contact should be technical experts in each region who can identify and provide accessible data. Letters will be sent out following this meeting to request information for a range of data layers. These data layers, include:
Biomass – soft and hard wood products, solid waste, landfill gas and bio gas, biodiesel, biomethane, algae
Geothermal – volcanoes, thermal conductivity, wells and springs, EGS, existing and developing plants
MHK – tidal and ocean current speed and power density, wave energy period, instream river potential
Wind – wind farm sites, wind speed, wind power class Solar – GHI, DNI, DHI, Latitude Tilt, TMY data Transportation – fueling stations, vehicle density Power network – transmission lines, substations Market and Demand – fuel cost and usage, peak load demand, avg. power usage,
generation infrastructure Meteorological data – air temperature, cooling and heating degree days, atmospheric
pressure
Some additional funding for the atlas and the best practices guide is still needed. In-kind contributions will also be welcomed. The website and interactive map with all global data and national data will be ready for the 2017 Ministerial; however, the best practices guide, videos and additional data will need to be finalized during the Finnish Chairmanship for delivery at the 2019 Ministerial. This project does not anticipate any policy recommendations.
Comments and Discussion:
GCI requested to be a project co-lead and observed that AREA and ARENA are closely linked. The high cost of energy in the Arctic is likely to be an issue for the foreseeable future. Consequently, this project could conceivably continue beyond the Finnish Chairmanship. Some policy recommendations would likely emerge over this longer term.
In answer to a question from AIA about the sorts of videos that might be produced by AREA, Mr. Andreassen responded that the videos would be like the ones employed at the Arctic Energy Summit 2015 to show stories from around Arctic.
Norway observed that hydro-power did not appear to be referenced and noted that the Norwegian Energy Ministry would consider how to contribute. Mr. Andreassen clarified that hydro resources would be included in the atlas. The U.S. suggested that consideration be given to seeking input from meteorological bureaus to provide relevant weather data that would show hours of sunshine and direction and intensity of winds. Mr. Andreassen agreed and noted that data layers would not come from any single agency.
Iceland questioned why the Arctic was not included in the global picture in existing atlases and asked to what extent Arctic information is readily available. Mr. Andreassen responded that the use of Mercator projections in some atlases affected depictions of the Arctic, but also there were issues of scale. The AREA project is not asking participants to generate new data. Local data will provide a degree of resolution.
The SDWG Chair thanked GCI for offering to co-lead and re-iterated the need for all SDWG Heads of Delegation to advise the project leads as to their Points of Contact for AREA, including ministries and agencies other than just energy (e.g. meteorological agencies; local authorities, etc.). The original project timeline indicated completion by the 2017 Ministerial,
but the project will now continue to 2019. All agreed.
6. Project Proposals, Decisions and Notifications
6. a. Finnish Chairmanship Priorities for the SDWG
Finland reported that the full details of its Chairmanship program will be presented to SAOs in Portland. Finland has identified three possible projects for SDWG and has invited feedback on these prior to developing the formal project proposals:
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Arctic (EIA) Arctic Teacher Education Arctic Energy.
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Arctic (EIA):
Ms. Tuuli Ojala outlined the EIA project prepared by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment. She informed SDWG participants that this is not the first effort to do Arctic EIA. Almost 20 years ago EIA guidelines we developed in the Arctic Council but they were not implemented. This time there is a hope for broader and deeper engagement.
The objective is to develop a process of assessment for major projects (e.g. mines, energy projects, roads, ports, etc.) to avoid environmental damage and negative affects on people, given Arctic factors such as a cold climate, biology, social components and climate change. The EIA project would bring together Permanent Participants and EIA authorities to identify tools to better prepare for major projects. The intention is to find balance among the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, environmental, social) by allowing for public concerns to inform decision-making. The project would create a network and identify best practices for use by decision-makers.
Comments and Discussion:
Several participants expressed strong interest in being involved in the project. Some observed that a better understanding of EIA processes would be helpful, in particular the differences of approach that might be necessary in the Arctic. It was pointed out that some of these processes can be very demanding on communities especially if they overlap.
Others observed that there is much to learn about best practices and public input in the Arctic context. This EIA project could help identify best practices but some wanted to hear more about the scope of the project, for example: how will information will be collected and categorized; how might this EIA project complement or relate to other projects such as the resilience framework; how would the project relate to the work streams in other working groups and any other cross cutting elements.
Finland offered to raise these questions with the project leaders in Finland and advised that they would be developing a formal project proposal.
Arctic Teacher Education
Ms. Outi Snellman, the UArctic Vice-President of Organization and Director of International Relations at the University of Lapland, presented the proposed Arctic Teacher Education project on behalf of Finland. UArctic was created through an initiative of the Arctic Council (Iqaluit Declaration 1998) and was officially launched in 2001 in Rovaniemi, Finland. UArctic is an Arctic Council Observer. Many UArctic activities have been intertwined with the work of the SDWG over the years. Several SDWG projects have continued to live on in the work of researchers at UArctic.
Ms. Snellman explained that UArctic is a cooperative network of universities, colleges, research institutes and other organizations concerned with education and research in and about the circumpolar North. It began with a people-first approach. UArctic builds and strengthens collective resources and collaborative infrastructure that enables member institutions to better serve their constituents and their regions. Through cooperation in education, research and outreach UArctic seeks to enhance human capacity in the circumpolar North, promote viable communities and sustainable economies, and forge global partnerships.
UArctic has 175 members from institutions of higher education and other organizations. These members are from Arctic and non-Arctic regions. Groups of UArctic members work together in thematic networks to conduct research and create learning experiences for students, faculty and communities. There are numerous network partners in all Arctic states and in some non- Arctic states.5 The UArctic network also sustains government initiatives.
“Teacher education for diversity and equality in education” in the Arctic region is one of the thematic networks. The goal of the SDWG project will be to enhance teacher training, and basic education for sustainable development of the Arctic region. This will include:
Advancing shared research on topics related to teacher education in basic education Establishing steady cooperation between teacher educators Stimulating staff and student exchange Developing a virtual research and resource centre for high quality teacher education
research and practice in the Arctic.
The project lead will be Tuija Turunen (University of Lapland) and the vice-lead will be Sai Väyrynen (University of Helsinki).
These partner institutions will look at teacher training for remote areas. Planned activities
5 Copenhagen Business School; Educational Studies School - Mongolian National University of Education; Memorial University of Newfoundland; Murmansk Arctic State University; Northern (Arctic) Federal University; Sámi University College; UiT The Arctic University of Norway; University of Aberdeen; University of Helsinki; University of Iceland; University of Lapland; University of Manitoba; University of Oulu; Sami Education Centre (SAKK); University of Turku; University of Alaska, Fairbanks
include: Establishing circumpolar networks of teachers, policy makers and researchers and
sharing good practices in the following topics:o inclusive practiceso participation and agency in digitalization in educational settings, and o pedagogical models to promote high quality teaching and learning in digital
environments; (contributing to bullet 3 below); Local/regional summits of education practitioners, administrators and researchers to share
research knowledge and good practices (early 2018); An international symposium of teacher educators of the Arctic region as part of the
Finnish Teacher Education Forum organized by the Ministry of Education and Culture.o The symposium will be adjacent to the Finnish Education Research Association’s
annual Conference in Rovaniemi in November 2017. The symposium (“Diversity and Identity in the North”) will focus on teachers and teacher educators.
The proposed SDWG project would be responsible for the above international symposium in November 2017 and would support the implementation of local/regional summits.
An International Symposium on Arctic Teacher Education will be organized in conjunction with the 2nd UArctic Congress in Finland in 2018. The themes of the Congress follow the priorities of the Finnish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
The long-term goal of the project (beyond 2019) is to address the issue of people dropping out of the education system or leaving the Arctic region. Planned activities include:
Establishing a virtual resource centre under the auspices of UArctic that will promote ongoing networking and provide easy access to information.
The core of the network will continue as a UArctic Thematic Network among Teacher Education institutions that focuses on delivering quality teacher training for the circumpolar North.
The Network would establish permanent cooperation with appropriate regional/national authorities at the circumpolar level on teacher education to conduct local summits and training opportunities for local teachers.
The timeline below shows milestones for the proposed project:
Date Activity
End 2016 Project plan finalized
May-June 2017 Establishing networks of teacher education institutions, teachers, policy makers and researchers
Aug-Sept 2017 Networks identify salient topics related to the FERA pre-conference
Nov 2017 International Symposium of teacher educations of the Arctic region: Diversity and identity in the North (pre-conference of the FERA conference)
Feb 2018 Local / regional summits, research activities
Aug/Sept/Oct? 2018
International symposium on Arctic Teacher Education, as a part of the UArctic Congress (Finland); the themes of the Congress follow the priorities of the Finnish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council
Oct-Dec 2018 Research activities, finalization of the comparative study
Early 2019 Dissemination of the research findings locally / regionally, establishing the virtual resource center, continuing and expanding collaboration between teacher education institutions in the Arctic region; continuation through SDWG?
Comments and Discussion:
USA and Canada noted that education is under local/territorial/provincial jurisdiction in their respective countries, but expressed interest in the proposed project. Others remarked that this project could address skills development, which is important for remote communities. UArctic has some experience with incorporating traditional and local knowledge into its programs. Some participants recommended that the Permanent Participants be consulted in the development of the project proposal to examine ways to integrate traditional and local knowledge.
Some linkages were observed with the RISING SUN project in respect of “training the trainers” who deal with suicide prevention issues. It was suggested that a language component could be built into this project. Others wanted to know if the proposed project would address early childhood education, anti-bias issues, and other coaching models such as vocational education. Finland responded that as the network develops there would need to be some definition of boundaries; however, it was recognized that investments in early childhood and basic education for teachers are important in the context of resilience. Given the jurisdictional issues raised by Canada and USA, the project needs to have a common denominator so that manageable levels of authority are engaged.
ICC advised that ICC Greenland is planning a summit on Inuit education in late 2017 or 2018 which might be relevant to the Finnish education project and the proposed teachers conference in Finland in November 2017.
Arctic Energy
Nils Andreassen, the Executive Director of the Institute of the North, presented the proposed
energy project on behalf of Finland. He reminded participants that previous Arctic Energy Summits had been “designated projects” in the SDWG classification system. The Institute of the North was working in cooperation with Finland to develop the next Arctic Energy Summit. The program will take an holistic approach to energy. The Summit is planned for 18-20 September 2017 in Helsinki at Finlandia Hall. An organizing committee was currently being established to steer and shape the agenda. Financial support was coming from Finland. Germany and the Netherlands had expressed interest in project.
The Arctic Energy Summit 2017 would follow a similar format to other summits and would bring forward best practices and recommendations. It could also be a platform for projects like AREA and ARENA to report out on their work and next steps. The Summit can also be relevant in context of Finland’s proposed EIA project. A vision of the future might include of the Summit being moved each biennium to the SDWG host country.
All states are encouraged to participate on the organizing committee, as well as relevant agencies and academic organizations.
Mr. Andreassen advised that government partners would be helpful to make the Summit a success. There are numerous ways to be involved by providing expertise and funding.
Comments and Discussion:
Some Permanent Participants recommended that the dates for the Arctic Energy Summit 2017 be coordinated with an SDWG meeting to facilitate travel and participation.
It was acknowledged that the Summit would be a good venue to showcase projects like AREA and ARENA. It was also noted that ACAP and some of the other working groups might be interested in the cross-cutting dimensions of this project.
The SDWG Chair reminded participants that if the more than 50% of the sponsorship for the AES 2017 were to come from Observers, the SDWG would need to inform the SAOs.
In summary, Finland requested that the above information be considered notification of their intention to bring forward formal project proposals for these three projects. Further work will be done in the coming weeks and Finland will submit formal proposals by 14 November 2016 in time to be considered at the SDWG Inter-sessional Teleconference scheduled for 28 November 2016. All agreed to the shorter than 30 days timeline for submission of the project proposals for consideration.
6. b. Gender Equality
In due time prior to the SDWG Meeting Iceland submitted a formal project proposal template for a new project and requested that it be approved as an endorsed project. The proposal lists Finland, Sweden, the Aleut International Association and the Saami Council as co-leads.
Iceland provided some background on previous projects in SDWG relating to gender equality. The Akureyri Conference in October 2014 was referenced. This conference produced a comprehensive report entitled Gender Equality In The Arctic, Current Realities Future Challenges which was available at the Iqaluit Ministerial in May 2015. The new project flows from the recommendations of the 2014 project.
Iceland emphasized that the proposal is open and flexible. The objective is to have specialists develop a network to formulate their own work plans and schedules under the supervision of the project leads and co-leads. The Centre for Gender Equality in Iceland under Ministry of Health and Welfare will be the main actor from the Icelandic side. However, other participants and specialists are welcomed. There are many existing networks and fora on gender equality, so efforts will be made not to duplicate these initiatives. The goal is to follow-up on the recommendations from the Akureyri conference in 2014. Iceland advised that the budget for this project would be modest. The participants in the network would be expected to pay their own way so having someone already working in the area would be an advantage.
Iceland advised that the deliverable for the 2017 Ministerial would be the establishment of the network.
Comments and Discussion:
Sweden, Finland and AIA acknowledged that they would be co-leads to the project and offered to provide points of contact. In addition Sweden indicated that it would seek some funding for the project.
The Kingdom of Denmark and Norway indicated that they were considering also being co-leads and would report on this subsequently. The Saami Council clarified that it could not yet confirm that it would a project co-lead but it will nominate someone to the network.
Several others acknowledged that the development of such a network would be a useful initiative and expressed intentions to join the network. The Saami Council indicated that this might be where the role of masculinity could be explored which was raised in the RISING SUN update.
In summary, the SDWG Chair confirmed that the project was approved as an endorsed project led by Iceland. Sweden, Finland and AIA are the co-leads. Norway and the Kingdom of Denmark might come in as co-leads at a later date. There will be an opportunity to add other co-leads during the SDWG Inter-sessional teleconference on 28 November.
6. c. Solid Waste Disposal
AIA provided a brief update on the development of a proposal for a solid waste disposal project. Participants were reminded that a short paper on this matter had been distributed at the
SDWG Barrow Meeting in March 2016. The project objective would be to examine current best practices with an eye to potential needs, including policy changes to address these needs. The project would include recycling issues, building on traditions of re-use and maximum use in indigenous communities. In addition the project would involve cross-cutting elements such as human health and the effects of contaminants on communities. Cooperation with other working groups, for example ACAP, is anticipated. AIA advised that the project plan is the same as outlined in Barrow, but there are challenges associated with timing and resources. A formal project proposal template is anticipated to be ready for review and approval at the Kotzebue SDWG meeting in February 2017. The project, if approved, would be carried out during the Finnish Chairmanship.
Comments and Discussion:
Canada expressed interest in possibly co-leading this project and offered to communicate with AIA by email to provide comments and suggestions for the project proposal template. Finland also expressed interest in the project and highlighted the connections to ACAP.
6. d. Measures and Practice of Social Support for Indigenous Peoples in Russia
This item was presented for the information of participants by the RAIPON representative, Vladimir Klimov, the Chairman of Social Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Tyumen Region and Member of the Coordinating Council of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East Russia.
Russia is one of the largest “multi-national” states in the world with 193 ethnic groups. Indigenous people number less that 50,000. Russia has a complex regulatory framework for regulating aspects of indigenous peoples’ lives, including education, health-care, socio-economic development and culture. Indigenous peoples have special rights and preferences such as access to water and hunting resources; use of lands where they traditionally live and conduct there household activities; and social benefits, including earlier retirement. For example, when indigenous peoples get hunting licenses they are allowed to hunt during all seasons of the year and have no limits on their catch.
According to official data indigenous peoples of Russia have one of the highest levels of
education among the indigenous peoples of the world. Official figures indicate that 98% of the Russian indigenous peoples receive secondary education, 40% receive professional education, 12% have higher education diplomas and 0.3 % continue into further education. Based on his involvement in the indigenous peoples language symposium during the Canadian Chairmanship, Mr. Klimov observed that there are common language issues across the Arctic.
Mr. Klimov explained that most children of Russian nomadic indigenous families had typically gone to boarding schools. This can cause mental health issues and other stresses. In the 1990s, through cooperation between the Russian state and indigenous peoples, Nomadic schools were
introduced and appeared to alleviate this situation. These schools allowed the introduction of ethnic course materials to support indigenous cultures and languages. RAIPON followed the implementation of this program.
Initially there were nomadic nursery schools. These schools travelled with the nomadic communities. These were supplemented by community schools that are small-scale stationary schools. The staff of these community schools is generally related by kinship to the students. A third model, known as tutor schools also exists. For these schools the teachers/tutors travel with the nomadic community and teach the children. Fourth category is the Taiga schools where parents teach the children. In addition, summer schools are aimed at introducing language and culture to children. These schools operate only in summer in areas where indigenous languages are not practiced.
Nomadic schools now play a key role in introducing children to their native language and culture, and in the preserving languages. Schools of this type exist on the Yamal Peninsula, in Taimyr, and in Yakutia where there are 13 nomadic schools. Mr. Klimov believes there is great potential in this form of educational process for indigenous peoples, and RAIPON has supported its dissemination and development. He pointed out that teachers are being trained for these nomadic schools in Salekhard.
In a similar way, fully-equipped mobile medical clinics are also deployed to address the medical needs of the nomadic indigenous peoples of the North. There are approximately 2800 such mobile medical teams who conduct medical checkups and provide basic health care. In Sakha (Yakutia), for example, telemedicine consultations are frequently used.
Russia and its indigenous peoples have a large base of knowledge in these sorts of education systems but are keen to learn of other experiences. RAIPON suggested that perhaps they could provide input into the SDWG language project if follow-on work is approved.
Comments and Discussion:
The SDWG Chair thanked RAIPON for this presentation and its insights into the situation in Russia. She also acknowledged the potential to connect this information to other project areas in the SDWG.
The Saami Council and the Association of World Reindeer Herders (AWRH) agreed that nomadic schools are useful and successful, given historic experiences with boarding schools. These schools can provide culturally and ethnically-appropriate teaching for indigenous peoples. Of particular importance are the connections to language issues. The Saami Council and AWRH suggested that this provides a strong rationale for finding the necessary support to continue the languages initiative.
AIA informed participants of an Aleut-led project to document a disappearing language in the Commander Islands of the Russian Federation. RAIPON noted that nomadic schools can help revive indigenous languages.
The SDWG Chair noted that a formal project proposal template would be required for any new project to be considered.
7. Expert Group Reports
7. a. AHHEG
Dr. Tom Hennessey, the co-chair of AHHEG, presented this update. A written update was also posted on the SDWG website in advance of the meeting.
AHHEG’s last face-to-face meeting was held in Tromsø, Norway on 11 May 2016 in conjunction with the RISING SUN Scientific Advisory Group. Twelve representatives attended and eight guests participated including the SDWG Chair, Roberta Burns, and Canadian representatives Sarah Cox and Jyoti Bhargava. AHHEG reviewed the current work plan, heard an update on the Finnish Chairmanship and underwent a review of AHHEG activities and gaps to help inform the SDWG strategic planning process. Dr. Hennessy noted that AHHEG had appreciated, in particular, the opportunity to contribute to the development of a new SDWG strategic plan.
AHHEG representatives have been named from each of the Arctic member states and Permanent Participant organizations. There are no further plans for face-to-face meetings during the remainder of the U.S. Chairmanship. Finland will take on chairmanship of AHHEG for the period 2017 to 2019.
Dr. Hennessey observed that the proposed Finnish-led EIA project had health dimensions and suggested that health impact statements, which are public health evaluations for development projects, could complement EIAs. The Alaskan expertise in this regard could be brought to bear through AHHEG for use in the EIA project.
AHHEG has been working on guidelines for Indigenous Research Ethics. The Point of Contact is Ann-Ragnhild Broderstad of the Saami Council. The plan is to collate and report on existing guidelines for research in indigenous communities in the Arctic region. The goal is to identify common features and desired attributes of such ethical guidelines and provide a reference for communities and researchers interested in implementing or updating such guidelines. The Saami Council has undertaken a process to review the ethical guidelines for specimen banking and to consider the legal structure that is relevant to storage and use of the specimens. A final report is pending and should be available at next SDWG meeting.
Dr. Hennessey referenced the International Circumpolar Surveillance of Infectious Diseases (ICS) which was has been one of the longest-running SDWG projects. The project started in the SDWG in 1999, and although it is no longer on the SDWG’s work plan, the ICS has continued to collect and compare infectious disease data from participating Arctic states. The Faroe Islands have been added to the surveillance group. ICS contributors are largely
physicians and public health officials in the International Union of Circumpolar Health (IUCH).
The ICS Steering Committee met recently in Copenhagen (11-15 September 2016). Hepatitis, tuberculosis (TB), and climate-generated infectious diseases were discussed. Consideration was given to expanding the network to include sexually transmitted diseases and to make preparations for the 17th International Congress on Circumpolar Health. A new report6 was released on a comparison of tuberculosis surveillance in the Arctic. This showed that the systems were similar enough to include regular combined reports of TB disease in the ICS system.
Other initiatives in which AHHEG is engaged include RISING SUN, WASH and One Health.7 AHHEG is also undertaking related collaboration with the UArctic as a result of the WASH project. This activity relates to the UN Sustainable Development goals in the Arctic context and examines ways to educate students on these issues. Student group met in Sisimiut and now an interdisciplinary course is being developed at the UArctic on this subject.
Comments and Discussion:
AIA advised that they would welcome of the input of AHHEG and SECG on the development of the proposed solid waste project.
In response to questions about the ethical guidelines and samples/specimens housed at the Alaska Native Medical Centre, Dr. Hennessey explained that ethical guidance is obtained from indigenous peoples on the use of specimens. Consent has been required since the mid-1990s and is now standard practice. Historic specimens are used only if guidance has been given by the tribal authorities of origin. Tribal health leadership is involved in these decisions.
Similarly in response to questions about potential health risks for animal and human remains being exposed by melting permafrost, Dr. Hennessey advised that there had been recent incidents in Russia and Sweden. There is some threat of pathogens emerging from the permafrost. Any risks are generally from a small set of diseases like anthrax and there have been some limited outbreaks. Public health officials are very watchful in such situations. The LEO and CLEO networks can be useful in this regard and responses can be organized.
Responding to questions about diseases that could be eradicated through immunization and concerns of some parents about immunizing their children, Dr. Hennessey observed that most governments track immunization data. Measles outbreaks are an example of the reactivation of a disease that had not been seen since the 1990s. Generally indigenous peoples in the Arctic are at, or above, national levels of immunization.
The Saami Council pointed out that traditional knowledge can be relevant for tracking of
6 The report can be found at: http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/ijch/article/view/30322 .7 For additional details see the Section 5 of these Minutes and the AHHEG written update provided in the documents for the Orono meeting on the SDWG website: http://www.sdwg.org/meetings/orono-meeting-oct-2016/documents-for-sdwg-orono-meeting/
infectious diseases and referenced traditional stories cautioning people to avoid certain sites or locations for fear that diseases or sicknesses will re-emerge.
7. b. SECEG
Liza Mack, the co-chair of SECEG, presented updates on the expert group’s involvement in PAME’s project on Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples in Marine Activities (MEMA), and on other SECEG activities.
Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples in Marine Activities (MEMA)
SECEG, with the assistance of ICC, has been developing a paper that will be a contribution to this PAME project. MEMA now covers all marine activities engaged in by indigenous peoples. The MEMA project held a well-attended workshop in Portland, Maine in the week prior to the SDWG Orono Meeting. This workshop was a planned activity of the project and a workshop report on meaningful engagement, and how it has worked, is planned as a project deliverable. This will include a discussion as to what meaningful engagement means to outside parties and what it means to indigenous communities. The SECEG paper (chapter 2 of the report) focuses on what meaningful engagement means to indigenous communities. PAME will circulate the draft report soon to delegations for review.
Other project deliverables will include a database on engagement of indigenous peoples based on input from governments, academic institutions, NGOs, indigenous peoples communities, and other sources. Currently the database contains about 800 documents; however, language issues could be a factor.
Other SECEG Activities
Ms. Mack reported that SECEG is also attempting to arrange a face-to-face meeting of SECEG on the margins of the SDWG Kotzebue Meeting scheduled February 2017. This group would include experts on traditional and local knowledge. SECEG is currently seeking funding to support the travel and other arrangements for this meeting. Comments and Discussion:
The SDWG Chair noted that SECEG had also provided input (i.e. a brief gap analysis) to the development of a new SDWG strategic plan. The Chair offered to help as necessary with the meeting of SECEG on the margins of the SDWG Meeting in Kotzebue. In addition, it was noted that both AHHEG and SECEG had found it helpful to receive focused and direct requests for input from the SDWG.
Finland advised that it would assume the chair of SECEG and AHHEHG during the Finnish Chairmanship of the Arctic Council 2017-2019. Dr. Timo Koivurova, a Research Professor in Law and Director of the Arctic Centre in Rovaniemi, will chair SECEG.
8. a. Report on Strategy Group Activities Since Last SDWG Meeting
The SDWG Chair reported that this item had been largely covered in the Executive Session on the morning of 01 October 2016. The current Strategy Group comprises: Canada, Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Russia, USA, ICC, Saami Council, GCI, SECEG and AHHEG. A set of guidelines were developed for the Strategy Group to proceed to next steps. There is a compressed timeframe to develop the plan. The Chair reminded delegations that participation on the Strategy Group is open to other Arctic member states and Permanent Participants. Canada had offered to fund a professional writer or editor to prepare the final print version of any new strategic plan documents. An item of business remaining to be decided is the date for the next Strategy Group teleconference.
Comments and Discussion:
Canada clarified that the professional editor would be engaged towards the end of the process to assist with layout design and minor editing tasks, rather than on matters of substantive content. The SDWG Chair observed that both an online version and a printed version of the new strategic plan would be produced. There seemed to be a general consensus that a professional editor could be useful to the process and should be asked to produce both the online and printed versions.
Iceland and AAC requested to be added to the Strategy Group.
It was agreed that the next Strategy Group teleconference will take place on 17 October 2016, at 11:00AM (Washington, D.C. time). The call would be approximately 90 minutes. The SDWG Executive Secretary will advise all participants of the agenda and call in details by email. The SDWG Chair requested that in preparation for the discussions, all participants should review the relevant documents posted for this agenda item on the SDWG website, including the Russia paper and presentation provided for this meeting. A summary of the discussions and guidelines produced at the Executive Session will be circulated to participants prior to the 17 October teleconference.
Canada requested that the Strategy Group be given a mandate to revisit the project proposal template as part of its strategic discussions and to align the project proposal template with any new strategic plan. All agreed.
IASC suggested that consideration be given to including in the project proposal template a section that would identify contributions sought or needed from other stakeholders, including Observers. This would help Observers identify whether the SDWG was looking for funding,
8. b. Discussion of Draft Documentation Prepared by the Strategy Group
The SDWG Chair advised that this item had been covered in the Executive Session on the morning of 01 October 2016. New draft strategy documents will be prepared in the coming weeks and months.
8. c. Reconsidering Tiered Approach to Project Approvals
Canada spoke to this agenda item, noting that past discussions on the SDWG strategic plan, as well as the discussion paper tabled by SDWG Chair in Barrow in March 2017, had raised the possibility of reviewing and revising the SDWG’s tiered approach to project approvals. Canada suggested that while this tiered approach might have been appropriate in the past, it no longer appeared to be useful. Some of the categories have not been used or are practically difficult. Streamlining appears warranted and would make SDWG practices more consistent with other Arctic Council working groups. The “designated” category, for example, seems to be in conflict with the SDWG Terms of Reference (1998) which requires projects to have participation by “more the one Arctic state”. Internal and external participation in SDWG projects would be encouraged by simplifying the project categories. Canada proposed that the focus should be on projects that have broad support and are circumpolar in nature, namely those that have participation by two or more Arctic states. The current strategic planning initiative is the right time to make these changes and to develop a manageable work plan. Canada proposed that there be a single category of approved projects, namely those that are referred to as “endorsed projects” under the current system.
Comments and Discussion:
After some discussion of the possible merits of the “Designated” category of project and a range of justifications for it to be retained and removed, it was decided that the “Authorized” and “Cluster” would be discontinued. The “Designated” category would be referred to the Strategy Group for redrafting into a process that would culminate in having a single category of project approval analogous to the existing “Endorsed” project category. It was acknowledged that the tiered system of project approval had originally been approved by SAOs, as was the SDWG project proposal template. Therefore, the Strategy Group would also consider, and report back to the SDWG, as to whether the new approach might need to go to SAOs for approval.
Some participants suggested that it would also be helpful to explore what it means to be a “lead” and “co-lead” on a project. Some definition of these terms could be considered in the project proposal template or other relevant document such as the implementation section of a new strategic plan.
Canada made a presentation on the results of a project it had undertaken to review past recommendations. This Canadian project was inspired by prior discussions from the SDWG Meeting at Chena Hot Springs in October 2015 and by questions raised in the Chair’s discussion paper on Strengthening the SDWG tabled in Barrow in March 2016. This initiative was intended to be complementary to the SDWG strategic planning exercise that is currently underway and was designed to inform the planning process regarding the SDWG’s approach to recommendations.
The SDWG has been mindful that there is a need to better implement recommendations. Canada reviewed a range of 18 final reports from completed projects during the past 10 years to identify recommendations; to examine how they were formulated; and to analyze the degree to which they had been implemented.
Canada’s researcher concluded that about half of the identified recommendations had been implemented. However, less than half of the implemented recommendations called for actions on the part of the SDWG or the Arctic Council. Canada concluded from this finding that the SDWG needs to consider more carefully the sorts of recommendations that it wants to see coming from reports. The Canadian researcher identified a correlation between the specificity of recommendations and the degree to which they appear to have been implemented. (For example, ECONOR I and II had very specific recommendations which were predominantly implemented.) No consistent pattern was found in the way recommendations were implemented based on thematic areas.
Based on its independent study, Canada suggested three recommendations for consideration: SDWG should encourage recommendations that are more specific, given the apparent
higher rate of implementation of such recommendations; A systematic tracking framework could be developed to complement these more specific
recommendations; Consideration should be given to Canada’s findings in the development of the new
SDWG strategic plan.
Comments and Discussion:
The SDWG Chair noted that SAOs are also discussing issues relating to the proliferation and implementation of recommendations.
It was pointed out that other working groups track recommendations and implementation. For example, PAME’s tracking in relation to the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) could be examined as a potential model. Some external actors have begun to present Arctic Council “score cards”, so having accurate data and information inside the working groups and Council can be helpful.
Some participants suggested that consideration should be given to including guidelines in the implementation section of the new SDWG strategic plan to assist project leaders as to how to develop recommendations that are appropriate in the context of the SDWG and the Arctic Council. For example, when drafting recommendations the project leads should ask: who is making the recommendations; to whom should the recommendation be addressed; are the recommendations practical; and so on. In addition, the new strategic plan could address ways to track implementation of recommendations. There might also be ways to connect recommendations to strategic goals and objectives set out in project proposals.
There was general agreement that the issue of recommendations and their tracking and implementation were appropriate issues for discussion in the SDWG Strategy Group.
8. e. Next Steps
The matters identified in agenda items 8a. to 8d. above are referred to the SDWG Strategy Group for further deliberation and action, and are to be reported back to SDWG Heads of Delegation for review and approval.
9. SDWG Work Planning for 2017-2019
9. a. Review of Timetable for Submission of SDWG 2017-2019 Work Plan
Key Date: Draft SDWG Work Plan, 21 November 2016
The SDWG Chair advised that this agenda item had been adequately covered under other parts of the agenda. The SDWG Chair and Executive Secretary will follow up on the preparation of a draft work plan based on the projects reports. The first drafts of 2017-2019 work plans and input/deliverables list for final SAO report to Ministers must be submitted to the Arctic Council Secretariat (ACS) by 21 November 2016. The Chair undertook to circulate this draft to SDWG Heads of Delegation prior to submitting it to ACS.
Key Date: SDWG Inter-sessional Teleconference, 28 November 2016
The SDWG Chair advised that the next SDWG Inter-sessional Teleconference would take place on Monday, 28 November 2016 at 11:00am Washington time. The call will be approximately 90 minutes. The SDWG Secretariat will circulate an agenda and call-in information prior to the call. Items identified to date for this call include:
Discussion of the draft SDWG work plan in preparation for the meeting of the SAO Chair and Working Group Chairs on 09 December 2016 in Copenhagen.
Update from the SDWG Strategy Group on matters referred to it for drafting and discussion. Any new documentation prepared by the Strategy Group will be
submitted to the SDWG Secretariat by 18 November 2016 for circulation to SDWG Heads of Delegation.
Review and approval of the three Finnish project proposal templates (Arctic EIA, Arctic Teacher Education, Arctic Energy Summit 2017). The formal project proposals will be submitted by Finland to the SDWG Secretariat by 14 November 2016 for circulation to SDWG Heads of Delegation.
Key Date: 05 January 2017
As mentioned elsewhere, 05 January 2017 is the key date for SDWG deliverables to be sent to the SDWG Secretariat so they can be distributed in due time prior to the next SDWG Regular Meeting in Kotzebue, Alaska on 7-8 February 2016.
The SDWG Chair then did a tour de table to determine if there were other projects that need to be mentioned in the draft SDWG work plan.
Canada inquired whether “Use of Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK) in the Work of the Arctic Council” was still an active item on the SDWG Work Plan 2015-2017. The SDWG Chair advised that this item was not currently an active element of the work plan and informed the participants that at the last SAO Meeting in Fairbanks, Canada had undertaken to develop a lexicon of terminology related to traditional and local knowledge. The Chair offered to ask the SAOs for an update on TLK at their meeting in Portland if the group requested it. However, following additional interventions by other participants, the Chair concluded that Canada will follow up with their new SAO on this matter.
GCI informed participants about a cursory review it had undertaken of Arctic Council projects that apparently integrated TLK. On closer inspection it appeared that project leads had not contacted Permanent Participants or indigenous peoples. It was suggested that for current projects in the AMAROK tracking tool, there might need to be some form of verification. It was also suggested that the use of TLK should be a matter for consideration in the development of the new SDWG Strategic Plan.
9. b. Discussion of Working Draft of the 2017-2019 SDWG Work Plan
The SDWG Chair advised that this item had been adequately covered during discussions under other agenda items.
9. c. Coordinating SDWG Work Plan with other Working Groups
The SDWG Chair advised that this item had been adequately covered during discussions under other agenda items.
Germany informed participants about an international research project called “Blue Action”. The project is a case study in the Russian Arctic of the impact of global changes and oil and gas development on rights-holders, stakeholders, and shareholders. This four-year case study on oil and gas development in the Russian Arctic aims to improve the capacity in the Arctic for adapting effectively to changing conditions and opportunities using improved predictive methods and knowledge. The project takes a trans-disciplinary approach using co-design and co-production of knowledge to make better-informed decisions at multiple levels and scales. The focus is on potential social, economic and environmental impacts arising from opportunities and risks due to climate change and energy resource development in the Western Russian Arctic.
The project is funded through the Horizon 2020 Program of the European Commission. The “Blue Action” consortium is led by the Danish Meteorological Institute. Partners include the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) - Potsdam, Germany; the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO) - Moscow, Russian Federation; and Foresight Intelligence - Berlin, Germany. Four case studies will examine resource development at four sites of current and future oil and gas development in the Western Russian Arctic, namely:
The Yamal LNG project, The Kharyaga oil project, The Achimgaz project; and The Yuzhno-Russkoye field project
These sites are subject to both negative and positive consequences of climatic, environmental, and economic changes.
The study components include: Characterizing views and needs on Arctic climate information and resource
development of Russian and international stakeholders and rights-holders; Economic and policy analysis on energy resource development and potential
consequences based on projections of a) international market, legal, regulatory, andpolitical conditions, b) climate change impacts and c) expectations and perceptions ofrights-holders and stakeholders.
Scenarios for decision making - co-design, develop, and test scientifically plausiblescenarios of climate, environmental, social, economic and health impacts of changes inthe Arctic.
Capacity-building workshops on decision making by and for rights-holders andstakeholders.
Germany invited members of SDWG to join in designing and developing scenarios, gathering relevant data, and participating in the scenario use workshops. Some funding for this participation might be available. Germany also requested that the information about Blue-Action be shared with others who might be interested in working on this project.
10. b. International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA)
IASSA gave a short presentation stressing the necessity of communicating the importance of the Arctic inside and outside the Arctic. It is particularly important to communicate more than stereotypes. It was noted that IASSA is involved in collaboration within the Arctic Council as well as in other research organizations. IASSA looks for synergies and solution-oriented research to support sustainability. Social impacts research is necessary to prove that actions are making a difference. SDWG participants were encouraged to attend the ICASS IX Conference that will be held in Umea, Sweden on 08-12 June 2017. The conference theme is “Arctic Social Sciences: People and Place”. Session themes include: Archaeology, Art & Design, Cultures, Environment & Climate Change, Governance, Health and Well-Being, History, Indigenous Issues, International Relations & Law, Knowledge Systems & Education Languages, Literature, Monitoring Arctic sustainable development and socio-ecological systems' resilience, Museums & Heritage, People & Place, Religion & Spirituality, Research Methodologies, Resource Development & Extractive Industries, Settlements in the Arctic, Sustainability and Tourism. The ECONOR III report will be presented at ICASS IX.
11. Other Matters
11. a. Logistics for SDWG Meeting in Kotzebue, Alaska
The SDWG Chair advised that the next SDWG Regular Meeting would take place in Kotzebue, Alaska on 07-08 February, 2017. The Chair noted that the timing of the Kotzebue meeting creates some challenges for the Saami Council because of an important anniversary celebration in the Saami community that is taking place around the same.
Marilynne Bonner advised that there was only one hotel in Kotzebue and the SDWG has reserved a block of 60 rooms. The meeting location will likely be in hotel but other possible meeting rooms are being examined.
The Chair re-iterated that the deadline for submission of documents for the Kotzebue meet is 05 January 2017.
The Kotzebue meeting is not back-to-back with the next SAO Meeting which will take place in Juneau, Alaska on 06-07 March 2017.
The SDWG Chair advised that a short two-page summary of this Orono meeting would be submitted to SAOs for consideration at their upcoming meeting in Portland on 05-06 October 2016. In addition, a presentation on the ECONOR III project will be made to SAOs.
11. c. Additions to the Agenda
Russia distributed information about an upcoming major conference entitled “The Arctic: Territory of Dialogue” which will be held in Arkhangelsk in March 2017. The conference will focus on the human dimensions of the Arctic and will include such major issues as sustainable development and the search for solutions for the most acute issues in the region.
Anna Polezhaeva of the Russian Federal Agency for Nationality Affairs, informed participants about an educational camp that will be held in Russia in 2017. This event will focus on sustainable development of indigenous peoples. Additional details can be obtained from Ms. Polezhaeva: [email protected]).
The USA distributed a draft informational brochure on ARENA and participants were reminded that comments are due on the ARENA brochure and video by Monday, 04 October 2016.
11. d. Summary of Decisions
The SDWG Chair summarized the decisions from the meeting. This summary is available as a separate document that was circulated to SDWH Heads of Delegation on 04 October 2015 and submitted to SAOs at their meeting in Portland, Maine on 05-06 October 2016.
11. e. Meeting Adjourns
The SDWG Chair adjourned the meeting at approximately 5:00pm on Sunday, 02 October 2016.
