DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015

DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015

Minutes of SDWG Meeting

Chena Hot Springs, Alaska

October 1-2, 2015

Table of Contents

Day One: October 1, 2015 3

1. Welcome 3

2. Approval of Agenda 3

3. Approval of Minutes of Last SDWG Meeting 3

4. SDWG Chair's Opening Remarks 3

5. Review of 2015-2017 SDWG Work Plan 4

6. Revised Project Proposals 5

6a. The Arctic as a Food Producing Region 5

6b. Econor III 8

6c. Rising Sun 9

6d. WASH 10

6.e One Health 11

7. Current Projects and Reports 11

7.a EALLU 11

7.b Arctic Adaption Exchange Portal update 13

7.c Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK) 13

8. New Projects 14

8.a Indigenous Languages 14

8.b Microgrids 15

8.c Solid Waste Handling 16

9. Expert Group Reports 16

9.a Social, Economic & Cultural Expert Group (SECEG) 16

9.b Arctic Human Health Expert Group (AHHEG) 16

10. Cross-Cutting Issues 17

10.a Revised Project Proposal Template incorporating TLK 17

10.b Enhancing Capacity for the Arctic Water Resources Vulnerability Index (AWRVI) 17

10.c One Health 17

10.d Cross-cutting Issues with PAME: MEMA and AMSP 18

10.e Reporting to SAOs 18

10f. Arctic Investment Protocol 18

10.g Other 18

10.h Structuring Cross-cutting work 19

11. In Camera 19

Day 2 20

12. Strategic Planning 20

12.a Meetings and Logistics 20

12.b Work Flow Planning 20

13. Other Reports 20

13.a Arctic Energy Summit 20

13.b GLACIER 21

13.c Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network (CLEO) 21

14. Observer Statements 22

14.a Statements 22

15. Other Matters 23

15.a Additions to the Agenda 23

15.b SDWG Chair’s Meeting Summary 23

Decisions: 23

15.c Meeting Adjourns 25

Day One: October 1, 2015

1. Welcome

This was the first meeting of the SDWG during the 2015-2017 U.S. Chairmanship.The SDWG Chair opened the meeting by welcoming participants to Alaska and with introductions.

2. Approval of Agenda

The following changes were recommended to the draft agenda:

·  Canada noted that item 8.a “ Traditional and Local Knowledge” is an ongoing activity. It requested that this item be moved to Section 7 “Status Reports on Current Projects & Activities” and be renumbered 7.c.

·  AIA requested the addition of item 8.c, “Solid Waste Handling in the Arctic”, in order to provide a briefing on a new project proposal that would be brought forward at a future meeting.

·  United States requested time under item 13, “Other Business”, in order for Sydney Kaufman to provide a briefing on a potential project relating to an energy training program for remote rural communities and for Santina Gay to provide a briefing on the Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network (CLEO).

With these changes, the agenda was approved.

3. Approval of Minutes of Last SDWG Meeting

The Minutes of the SDWG meeting held in Whitehorse, Yukon, February 28 – March 1, 2015 were approved unchanged.

4. SDWG Chair's Opening Remarks

The SDWG Chair advised participants that SAOs want to change the structure of their meetings to move away from updates on working group projects and detailed reports on working group meetings. SAOs have asked working groups to raise cross-cutting issues that need SAO decisions or guidance. If there are few such matters that require the attention of SAOs, it would then be appropriate to provide information that highlights some projects or activities that are likely to be of interest to SAOs.

Normally working groups need to submit documents for SAO Meetings at least 30 days prior to the meeting. However, because of the unique timing of the SDWG meeting, the SDWG Chair pledged to submit a report of the Chena Hot Springs Meeting by Tuesday, October 6, 2015.

Ongoing efforts to strengthen the Arctic Council are also relevant for the SDWG. The SDWG Chair stressed the need to build momentum and consider ways to improve the working group. For example, at the SAO Meeting in Washington in June 2015, there was support for using the expertise and input of Observers, where appropriate, within the working groups. During the item on “Observer Statements”, Observers are invited to suggest ways they can contribute to the work of the SDWG. The SDWG Chair reiterated that the United States sees stewardship, climate change, and improved economic and living conditions in the Arctic as the pillars of the USA Chairmanship.

Comments and Discussion:

During the discussions following the SDWG Chair’s opening remarks, questions and concerns were raised about the reference in the SAO Executive Report (p.8) from the June meeting in Washington relating to a strategic review of the structure of the Arctic Council, including the roles of the working groups. Participants were uncertain what implications a strategic review might have for the SDWG’s work (e.g. in relation to cross-cutting issues), its structure, and even its continued existence. The SDWG Chair explained that working groups have different ways of operating and are faced by growing demands. Organizing the work of the working groups, task forces, and other Arctic Council bodies is an ongoing issue. Further discussion was deferred to agenda item 12, “Strategic Planning”.

5. Review of 2015-2017 SDWG Work Plan

Under this agenda item the SDWG Chair briefly reviewed the SDWG Work Plan for 2015-2017 for the benefit of new participants and to highlight some projects where important changes had occurred. In particular, the project on the Arctic Water Resource Vulnerability Index (AWRVI) is now being led by AMAP. In addition, the work plan states that the ICC-led work on assessing, monitoring, and promoting Arctic indigenous languages will continue during 2015-17 building on the research results of the first phase under the Swedish and Canadian chairmanships as well as the outcomes of the February 2015 Symposium. However, the status of this ongoing work is uncertain and will be more fully discussed under agenda item 8.b (see below).

Comments and Discussion:

During the discussions, it was noted that the SDWG Work Plan for 2011–2013, identified seventeen (17) projects under six thematic areas and that these thematic areas continue to be a useful framework for SDWG work.

The 6 thematic areas were:

·  ARCTIC HUMAN HEALTH

·  ARCTIC SOCIAL ECONOMIC ISSUES

·  ENERGY AND ARCTIC COMMUNITIES

·  MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

·  ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

·  ARCTIC CULTURES AND LANGUAGES.

It was clarified that the references to assessing, monitoring, and promoting indigenous languages would not be removed from the work plan. Efforts are ongoing to find resources to continue this work during the U.S. Chairmanship. The Saami Council advised that it is working to increase its involvement in this project and funding is being sought.

It was noted that the AWRVI project is closely tied to the Arctic Adaptation Exchange portal. Further discussion on this matter was deferred to agenda item 7.b.

6. Revised Project Proposals

Background:

It was agreed at the last SDWG meeting in March 2015 that the new project proposals associated with the SDWG 2015-2017 Work Plan (except for EALLU and the Arctic Energy Summit) would each be revised to include a new section on Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK) as recommended in the Integrating Traditional and Local Knowledge initiative. Accordingly a revised version of the SDWG Project Proposal Template has been developed to include TLK issues. This SDWG Meeting is the first opportunity to consider the revised project proposals.

6a. The Arctic as a Food Producing Region

Norway presented this project proposal. The project aims to identify the conditions for increased production and the potential for added value of food from the Arctic. Local and regional industrial development in the Arctic will be the focus of the project and the primary industries to be examined are fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture (incl. herding and gathering).

Norway noted three sets of conditions or driving forces that are to be analyzed:

·  Biological conditions - climate change, increased production and new species

·  Business conditions - commercial resources, infrastructure, and industry policy

·  Market conditions - market opportunities and consumer demand - local, national, and international market

Three research questions are to be addressed:

·  What is the status and what is the potential for food production in the Arctic?

·  What is the added value of these products when marketed by their special qualities and unique origin?

·  What conditions are important to further develop the Arctic as a food-producing region?

o  How can production be increased and how can new species and products be developed?

o  How are the market conditions for adding value or branding the “Arctic” at local, national and international markets?

o  What role does industry structure, infrastructure and organization of different value chains and industry policy play for the potential development?

o  What role do local cultural values have for the development of new food products and local markets?

On this latter issue relating to local cultural values and TLK, the project aims to:

·  Identify challenges and conditions for food production in different indigenous communities;

·  Assess the possible added value of branding food originating from hunting/herding/gathering;

·  Contribute to the strengthening of food production in indigenous communities;

·  Make local food more accessible in local communities; and

·  Contribute, eventually, to business development and improved living conditions.

The research tasks in the proposal include:

·  Macro studies of the driving forces affecting the food-producing industries (biological, business and market conditions).

·  Micro studies of selected successful cases to highlight possibilities and challenges, with special focus on products marketed by “Arctic origin”.

·  Comparison across sectors and countries.

·  Assessing the potential for Arctic food in local, national and international market.

·  Assessing the conditions for industry development (for each industry), with special focus on products marketed by “Arctic origin”.

The research consortium that would undertake this work includes:

·  Nofima - the Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research

·  Nilf - Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute

·  Bioforsk - Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute

·  Matis - Icelandic food and biotech research and development institute

·  ISER - InstituteofSocialand Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage

·  BPBE - Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan

Norway aims to include institutions in the other Arctic states in the project.

Comments and Discussion:

During discussions, Permanent Participants raised a number of issues that they felt made endorsement of this project premature. It was recommended that these issues be addressed before consideration of opening the Arctic for industrial scale food production. Some of the points raised by Permanent Participants included:

·  conditions in Europe are different than in North America and the project should reflect this;

·  in some regions of the Arctic food security is a priority issue;

·  this project seems to focus on food production in the Arctic for the benefit of non-Arctic populations;

·  there are legal constraints in some jurisdictions against selling game so this factor needs to be taken into consideration;

·  in some regions of the Arctic there are legal issues relating to rights to food products;

·  indigenous peoples need to be involved in management and equity positions in any business that enters into food production in the Arctic;

·  health issues, including meat inspection issues, and many other questions arise from matters of food production;

·  there has been insufficient consultation with local peoples during the development of this project;

·  the project’s focus on aqua culture and fish farming was problematic for some Permanent Participants;

·  competing land use issues relating to food production require attention (e.g. mining development on reindeer herding lands);

·  the mixed economies of many Arctic communities often get overlooked;

·  promoting traditional food production and products needs to be considered;

·  fishing and other Arctic food sources have cultural significance for indigenous peoples.

The Saami Council suggested that a workshop could be held before the next SDWG Meeting to address the issues with a view to developing the project proposal for approval.

Several Arctic States voiced positive support for such a project provided many of the issues raised by Permanent Participants could be considered and addressed. It was noted that there is a need to balance the perspectives and interests. Importation of food into the Arctic is done on large scale but it is very susceptible to disruption. Arctic residents have a strong interest in improving local production to guard against disturbances. If invasive species are brought in these can cause further issues. Several cross-cutting issues could provide a rationale for cooperating with CAFF on this project.

Decision:

Delegates did not reach consensus on this project, with many delegates requesting that it is further refined and scoped.. Norway committed to discuss the proposal further with project managers and other interested participants. In addition, Norway advised that it would consider the Saami Council suggestion for a workshop to develop the project for approval at the next SDWG meeting or at an intersessional meeting. Norway will also determine whether the project should be designated or endorsed.

6b. Econor III

Norway presented this project proposal. The project updates the ECONOR I (2006) and ECONOR II (2008) reports, including updating time series and Arctic petroleum prospects to 2050. ECONOR III will have more focus on mining and tourism and will include a new chapter on impacts on biodiversity. The ECONOR projects have contributed to a better understanding of:

·  Large variations in livelihood and living conditions between Arctic regions;

·  Crucial role of petroleum industry and other natural resource extraction as source of income;

·  The importance of the subsistence and local market economy;

·  Resilience of socio-ecological systems; and

·  Systematic statistical knowledge of socio-economic and ecological conditions for Arctic sustainability.

Norway stated that the project had been revised since the March 2015 SDWG Meeting to include consideration of TLK. The project will examine subsistence livelihoods that reflect TLK and will consider how this characterizes the economy of the North. With the exception of Alaska, Norway noted traditional use is not currently visible in the statistical records of the Arctic States. It is anticipated that this project could help find identifiers for this information in the future. A separate chapter will be dedicated to traditional economies. The project is already up and running with an expected completion date at the end of 2015.