Knowledge development and monitoring environmental and biological diversity
58 Document 3:3 2014–2015 Report
Start-up of projects
The working groups prepare biennial work plans that are approved at the Ministerial Meetings after initial processing by the SAOs.
63
While the working groups point out that projects can be initiated by several parties, projects are generally proposed by the
working group itself or one or more member states. The projects can also be gener- ated as a result of work by other working groups or at a senior level.
64
Each project that is proposed must be approved – actively or tacitly – by all member states of the
individual working group.
65
The Ministry of Foreign Afairs believes that the working groups have great profes- sional freedom to deine the work programmes, but the Chairmanship Programmes
are also of importance for the topics emphasised by the working groups. The Chair- manship Programme must be accepted by all member states, and is regarded as a joint
Arctic Council programme, not a national programme. The two-year Chairmanship Programmes coincide with the working groups’ two-year work plans, so the Chair-
manship’s priorities are relected in the working groups’ projects.
66
The Arctic Council Secretariat is in the process of preparing an overview of all Arctic Council projects Tracking Tool for Arctic Council Ongoing Projects and Deliver-
ables. Of the 80 ongoing projects at May 2014, the working groups are responsible for between 7 and 21 projects for an overview, see Figure 2. There is wide variation
between the projects in terms of scope, number of participants and implementation time.
Despite the large number of projects, a limited number of projects have been high- lighted as important. Which projects are considered key will depend on who is asked.
The respondents highlighted 5–6 reports as particularly important, including the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment ACIA, Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the
Arctic SWIPA, AMAP’s status reports, The Arctic Biodiversity Assessment ABA, Arctic Ocean Acidiication Assessment and Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment
AMSA.
67
This is essentially in line with the 2012 study by Kankaanpää and Young on the efectiveness and performance of the Arctic Council. In the study, ACIA,
AMAP reports, AMSA and the Arctic Human Development Report received the highest score in response to the question of which projects or reports have made
a diference in sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.
The Ministry of the Environment and one working group referred to the high number of projects and questioned whether this is too many, not least in light of how few
projects lead to the major fact inding reports that are involved in setting the agenda for the management of the Arctic. According to the Ministry of the Environment, one
of the reasons for the high number of projects is that each Chairmanship wants to make its mark, and there is limited possibility of implementing major projects over
a two-year period, which is the length of each chairmanship.
68
Internal reporting and follow-up within the Arctic Council
Internally, the Arctic Council has drawn up a practice under which the working groups report via the SAOs to the ministers, according to the approved work plan.
69
63 Interview with the Arctic Council Secretariat for the Scandinavian countries on 13 September 2012. 64 Minutes and written feedback from the six working groups.
65 The Norwegian Environment Agency on 13 June 2013. 66 Interview with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 14 June 2013.
67 Interview with the Arctic Council Secretariat for the Scandinavian countries on 13 September 2012, interview with the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs on 14 June 2013 and interview with the Ministry of the Environment on 31 May 2012. 68 Interview with the Ministry of the Environment on 26 August 2013.
69 Interview with AMAP on 13 May 2013.
59 Document 3:3 2014–2015 Report
Despite these formal reporting and follow-up mechanisms between the working groups and the SAOs and ministers, several pointed out that the working groups play
a much too independent role in the Arctic Council.
70
Three working groups pointed out that the internal management of the Arctic Council can be a challenge, and that
the SAOs follow up the working groups in varying degrees. While the SAOs’ report to the ministers is viewed as an important document in the management of the working
groups, the SAOs could increasingly consider the contents of the working groups’ work schedules and provide clearer advice on future project priorities.
71
However, two working groups believe that communication and coordination between the working
groups and the SAOs is good. Kankaanpää’s and Young’s 2012 study of the Arctic Council cites a lack of suicient
commitment on the part of the SAOs as a factor that negatively afects the efective- ness and performance of the Arctic Council.
When it comes to the work processes of the Arctic Council, the Ministry of the Environment points out that there is no common template for how processes and
projects should be designed and carried out. Consequently, there is a tendency for individual projects to live a life of their own to a certain extent. In the Ministry of the
Environment’s view, it would be better if the diferent processes in the Arctic Council were more predictable. The work processes may take a long time and if the partici-
pants do not come to an agreement at a Ministerial Meeting or SAO Meetings, it may take six months to make progress on a given matter. The Ministry of Fisheries and
Coastal Afairs noted that the relationship between the SAOs and working groups appears to be unresolved.
72
The Ministry of Foreign Afairs notes that from Norway’s perspective, stronger administrative control of the working groups is desirable. The member states agree on
this, and the Canadian Chairmanship will prioritise the streamlining of working groups. There are also plans to prepare joint criteria for follow-up and coordination,
both between the diferent working groups and vis-à-vis the SAOs. Furthermore, the Ministry of Foreign Afairs says that there is agreement among the SAOs to reduce the
number of projects and achieve better management. In 2013, a list of projects Tracking Tool for Arctic Council Ongoing Projects and Deliverables was prepared
that maps large and small projects with a view to reducing the number of projects in the Arctic Council.
The Ministry of Foreign Afairs also has a long-term desire for the permanent secre- tariat to have the resources to follow up the work of the working groups. In the
Ministry of the Environment’s opinion, the permanent secretariat in Tromsø will help to ensure more systematic processes and coordination between the working groups
and in the Arctic Council as a whole.
73