Indigenous peoples Further details on the cooperation subjects in the Arctic Council .1 Climate

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.