57 Document 3:3 2014–2015 Report
Increased use of task forces
The Ministerial Meeting has been appointing task forces since 2009. According to the Ministry of Foreign Afairs, a task force has a time-limited mandate and is focused on
achieving concrete results within this period in priority areas, where the SAOs have more direct input on the process than in the working groups. A total of eight task
forces have been established; four have completed their work, and four were estab- lished at the Ministerial Meeting in Kiruna in 2013, see Fact box 3
57
Fact box 3 Task forces of the Arctic Council
Task forces at March 2014: • Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Prevention
• Task Force on Black Carbon and Methane • Scientiic Cooperation Task Force
• Task Force to Facilitate the Circumpolar Business Forum Task forces that have concluded their work:
• Task Force on Search and Rescue, 2009 • Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil and Pollution Preparedness and Response, 2011
• Task Force for Institutional Issues, 2011 • Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers 2009–2013
In interviews, difering views emerged on the use of task forces. On the one hand, it is argued that task forces are an eicient way of making progress in speciic subjects
prioritised by the Arctic Council.
58
Such groups can provide a good link and founda- tion with the Arctic Council if relevant expertise from both the working groups and
the task forces are involved. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the use of task forces can result in overlap-
ping work. As an example, reference is made to the mandates of the Task Force on Black Carbon and Methane and AMAP’s work in this area and the task force on eco-
system-based management and PAME. If the permanent working groups have a long- term mandate and work within deined areas, this may be a more eicient way of
organising work, rather than creating task forces that require staf, new management and inancing.
59
The Norwegian Polar Institute adds that although the speciic working groups can be efective, they could also undermine some of the position of the perma-
nent working groups. The work of the task forces does not provide the same degree of continuity as work in the permanent working groups.
60
4.1.3 Follow-up and the management of the working groups
Another aspect emphasised in the interviews is the overall management and follow-up of the working groups. The six permanent working groups have 10 expert groups
attached to them,
61
and the groups are responsible for 80 registered projects as at May 2014, for an overview, see Annex 3.
62
The question that arises is how the Arctic Council’s high-level representatives, the SAOs and ministers, follow up the work of
the Arctic Council.
57 Interview with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 14 June 2013. 58 Interview with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 14 June 2013 and interview with EPPR on 8 May 2013.
59 Interview with the Norwegian Environment Agency on 13 June 2013. 60 Interview with the Norwegian Polar Institute on 7 May 2013.
61 Arctic Council website at February 2014. 62 Tracking Pool for Arctic Council Ongoing Projects and Deliverables. Information in email of 27 June 2014 from the Arctic
Council Secretariat.
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.
