The Arctic Council as an international forum

55 Document 3:3 2014–2015 Report There are still diferent views on whether the working groups have a clear mandate or not, and whether their mandate overlaps with other working groups’ areas of responsi- bility. Representatives from three of the working groups believe the mandates overlap, and are critical to how the mandates work in practice. Although overlapping mandates was a major challenge in the past, it is still a challenge, because it can take a lot of time and resources to clarify which working group is responsible for following up individual projects. It is emphasised that such challenges are always resolved in prac- tice, but it may involve unnecessary coordination work – time and resources that could rather be spent on technical issues. 48 The Ministry of Foreign Afairs noted that the Sustainable Development Working Group SDWG has a broad mandate that encompasses social science issues that can be challenging to deine. 49 In interviews, SDWG claims that it is not necessarily sustainable development that is the key word for the working group, but rather the human dimension. The human dimension is a comprehensive term that includes everything from society, health, indigenous peoples, and oil and gas to shipping. SDWG notes that many working groups would like to work on topics that lie within SDWG’s mandate, and since SDWG has not always fulilled its function, it has been possible for other working groups to do so. 50 The other three working groups ACAP, PAME and CAFF believe that they have clear mandates that do not overlap with the mandates of other working groups. It was pointed out, however, that environmental issues are an interdisciplinary matter where it can be diicult to draw clear boundaries in certain matters, such as oil pollution. The working groups work well together and achieve synergies through various approaches to a subject. In cases where a project can in principle be chaired by several working groups, they choose cooperation rather than competition. 51 These three working groups have no objections to the current organisation of the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council has made several adjustments to the working groups’ work processes in recent years, which has led to better coordination and communication. For example, the chairmanships of the various working groups meet prior to the SAO meetings, in addition to having two phone meetings per year. Representatives from one working group attend the meetings of other working groups. Information memos two pages from the meetings are prepared so that everyone can easily access infor- mation about the activities of the working groups. The groups also collaborate on projects, and they hold joint symposia and seminars. 52 Working groups without a permanent secretariat There are considerable diferences between the working groups. This is evident, among other things, from the scope of projects and expert groups that are under the individual working groups, and whether they have a permanent or rotating secretariat. According to a survey in Kankaanpää’s and Young’s 2012 Arctic Council study, AMAP, CAFF and PAME are considered to be the three working groups with the greatest inluence and achievement. 53 Four working groups have a permanent secretariat, while EPPR’s and ACAP’s secreta- riats rotate with the chairmanship. CAFF and PAME both have a secretariat consisting 48 Based on interviews with AMAP, EPPR and SDWG. 49 Interview with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 13 September 2012 and interview with AMAP on 13 June 2013. 50 Interview with SDWG on 10 June 2013. 51 Interview with CAFF and PAME letter from ACAP. 52 Interview with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 13 September 2012, interview with CAFF on 29 August 2013, interview with EPPR on 8 May 2013 and interview with the Ministry of the Environment on 26 August 2013. 53 Paula Kankaanpää and Oran R. Young 2012 The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Arctic Centre University of Lapland, Finland.