washington, dc | june 2015 · 04-08-2015 · discussions that engage working groups, saos and pps...

SAO Executive meeting US-01 Washington, DC | June 2015

This report has 13 pages. This is page 1.

Washington, DC | June 2015

First SAO meeting during the U.S. Chairmanship

FINAL: Amended 4 August 2015 to include participant list



1. WELCOME

Delegates were welcomed to the meeting by Dr. Ralph Cicerone of the National Academy of

Sciences and by Admiral Robert Papp, U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic, who

described the Council as the “center of gravity” for Arctic affairs.

The SAO Chair introduced Arni Thor Sigurdsson, the new Senior Arctic Official representing

Iceland and Bobbie Jo Greenland, the new head of delegation for the Gwich’In Council

International. He then welcomed six new Working Group Chairs.

2. AGENDA

With minor additions to the agenda under points 7 (Arctic Council Agenda 2015-2017), 8

(Observers) and 9 (Any Other Business) the agenda for the meeting was approved.

[Note: These changes are reflected in the report below.]

3. SAO MEETINGS

Background

Delegates were invited to consider several different aspects of SAO meetings, with an eye

towards identifying best practices and areas for potential changes. Supporting

documentation for the discussion included a U.S. concept paper that suggested different

options for SAO meetings.

Summary of Discussion / Decision

Following extensive discussion:

No final consensus was reached as to every element of SAO meeting “best

practices”. However, all did agree to use executive sessions only for matters not

appropriate for discussion in plenary sessions (for example, sensitive or

administrative issues). Regarding the allocation of time between plenary and

executive SAO meetings, there was agreement that there is no universally

appropriate percentage or dividing line; “form follows function”. And, while it is

indeed important that decisions taken in executive SAO meetings be reported out,

there was broad support for keeping duplication of discussions to an absolute

minimum.

Regarding the use of time in plenary sessions, there was broad support for a focus on

discussions that engage Working Groups, SAOs and PPs on cross-cutting issues that

are pertinent to all. Accordingly, there was broad willingness to allow the U.S.

Chairmanship to experiment with such a “thematic” approach to a plenary SAO

meeting, perhaps starting at the next opportunity in October 2015. The U.S.

delegation was encouraged to suggest potential cross-cutting themes.



Regarding Working Group participation in SAO meetings, there was agreement that

simple status updates on projects that are underway are not needed and may not be

an efficient use of SAOs’ or Working Groups’ limited time together, as the tracking

tool serves this purpose. Instead, time should be devoted to the Working Groups’

requests for guidance from SAOs, discussion of any problems that the Working

Groups are experiencing that SAOs could help to solve, and cross-cutting issues that

are pertinent to multiple Working Groups. Working groups were asked to develop a

list of overlapping issues or problems that need guidance from the SAOs, in

preparation for the October SAO meeting.

There was broad support for the idea of experimenting, as early as October 2015,

with appropriate ways to set aside some time to allow Observers an opportunity to

“have the floor.”

There was general willingness to consider occasional invitations to speakers from

outside the Arctic Council “family” to present, with the caveat that Arctic Council

meetings should not be turned into seminars.

Several noted the importance of using SAO meetings as an occasion to connect more

closely with the communities in which they are held.

The possibility of increasing the number of face-to-face SAO meetings was raised;

most felt that getting together by teleconference intersessionally would be

preferable to traveling for additional face-to-face interactions.

4. OTHER GROUPS

Background

The Arctic Council has a history of facilitating the creation of other groups; e.g., the

University of the Arctic (UArctic), the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON), the

Arctic Economic Council and the Arctic Offshore Regulators Forum. The Council also has

shared interests with external bodies such as the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, the Arctic

Regional Hydrographic Commission, etc. Most groups are not directly part of the Arctic

Council process, but at least one – the University of the Arctic – has become an accredited

Observer. There may be opportunities for Arctic-related information from other Arctic

groups to inform the work of the Arctic Council. Delegates were asked to consider the best

way for the Arctic Council to manage information flow to and from these groups and, more

broadly, the nature of the relationship that should exist between the Arctic Council and

these groups. Supporting materials included a U.S. concept paper on clear and transparent

relationships between the Arctic Council and other bodies.


No prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solution or answer was identified for the question of how

the Arctic Council should define its relationships with these external bodies. There was

broad support for the idea that, while there is a need for flexibility to accommodate each

unique relationship, some effort should be made to define such relationships in a general

way. Virtually all emphasized that the actual list of other groups contained in the U.S.



concept paper (and as reflected in the “Background” section above) is merely illustrative,

not exhaustive, and that there are other current and future groups which will merit

consideration.

Working Group chairs drew attention to existing relationships that several of the

Working Groups have with external bodies. There was a unanimous call for the

documents describing those relationships to be provided to the ACS and circulated,

so that delegates may assess them as possible models for use by the Arctic Council

as a whole.

Delegates differed as to whether a formal, bilateral document ought to be developed

with each relevant external body. Most indicated that this was, generally speaking,

less desirable, and that a better approach would be for the Arctic Council to

articulate some general principles about the nature of its relationships with external

groups writ large. It was also noted that the Arctic Council can itself “play” in other

fora, and that information flow need not, and should not, be unidirectional.

Some delegates noted the existing provision in the Rules of Procedure (article 39)

which permits invitations to outside experts. There was broad support for the option

of inviting outside groups to provide experts to participate in Arctic Council meetings

more frequently.

There was no consensus among SAOs regarding the Arctic Economic Council as a

special case. However, there was broad agreement on the importance of the Arctic

Economic Council, and it was noted that the Arctic Economic Council terms of

reference do make reference to the Arctic Council. Most (if not all) delegates noted

that they envision a relationship growing between the bodies. Accordingly, there is a

desire to make that relationship clearly understood to all.

For SAO consideration, the ACS was asked to collect agreements that WGs have

established with outside bodies, to make a tentative list of pertinent outside bodies,

and to assemble examples of how other international fora have dealt with and

resolved this question. It was noted that – as one potential model – it is common for

international organizations to establish agreements running between two

Secretariats. [Note: The Director of the ACS expressed readiness to take on the task,

but a reluctance to promise delivery by 15 September.]

In sum, no consensus was reached regarding a particular model for the Arctic Council’s

relationship with external bodies. Existing examples from other fora are to be considered,

and the issue may be raised again at another SAO meeting in the near-term future. The goal

of reaching general principles or a general statement about how the Arctic Council will

interact with external bodies (rather than creating specific agreements with individual

external bodies) by the conclusion of the U.S. Chairmanship was offered as a potential

target.



5. PERMANENT PARTICIPANT CAPACITY

5i. Permanent Participant Capacity – planning calendar

Background

This agenda point addressed the creation of an Arctic Council planning calendar (as distinct

from the public calendar of confirmed events), including not-yet-confirmed meetings of

Arctic Council subsidiary bodies as well as relevant external events at which a significant

Arctic Council stakeholder presence is expected.


There was renewed agreement to make use of the recently-created and strictly

internal planning calendar. The calendar will include not only Arctic Council events

that are planned but not yet confirmed, but also external events that may be

pertinent to the Arctic Council.

Working Groups, Task Forces, expert groups and others were called to include their

planned events for the planning calendar. In terms of a timeline, all were

encouraged to share their to-be-confirmed events as far in advance as possible – one

year ahead or, ideally, still longer in advance.

Delegates were reminded that, in order to facilitate participation in multiple

meetings while simultaneously reducing travel, events should be held truly back-to-

back, instead of concurrently.

5ii. Permanent Participant Capacity – standard project tool

Background

The SAO Chair introduced delegates to the idea of developing a standardized project “tool”,

to be used during the planning phase, which would help to ensure the consideration of

Permanent Participant input during the shaping of Arctic Council projects.

Summary of discussion / Decision

Most agreed that it is highly desirable to ensure that PPs have a reasonable capability to

provide input to Arctic Council projects from their inception, and that a simple, non-

bureaucratic way to verify that such input has been sought and received would be optimal.

Two suggestions were made:

To create an additional element in the existing project tracking tool that would be

used at the inception of each project to ensure that Permanent Participant input has

been sought and obtained.

To create a separate checklist or form of some kind that would serve the same

purpose.

As a next step, the SAO Chair agreed to work with the ACS on a concrete proposal for a way

forward. The SDWG has developed a method of monitoring TLK input in projects that could



be used as a basis for similar work in other groups. The proposal will be planned for

consideration and decision in October of 2015. In the meantime, the Working Groups were

encouraged to continue seeking Permanent Participant input during the project-planning

process.

5iii. Permanent Participant Capacity – exemptions to the 50%

funding rule

Background

Currently, there is no specified procedure for seeking exemptions to the 50% funding rule

(Article 7.5 of the Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies). The SAO Chair reviewed Article

7.5, and invited delegates to consider whether there might not be a simple solution

whereby any subsidiary body desirous of an exemption could seek one, in writing, for

consideration by SAOs at an SAO meeting or, if appropriate, intersessionally.


Following discussions during Day 1 of the meeting, the SAO Chair drafted language on this

issue. The draft language was table-dropped on Day 2, and was discussed, edited, and

agreed upon. The final, agreed language can be found in Annex 1 to this report.

5iv. Permanent Participant Capacity - Core Capacity fund

Background

Delegates discussed the PP Core Capacity Fund and PP Project Support Fund. The discussion

began with an initial presentation from the Aleut International Association on the details of

the two proposed funds.


Following discussions in which many delegates expressed a desire to ensure that these

funds do not create conflicts with other funding mechanisms, and to ensure that projects

supported by these funds are approved through standard Arctic Council channels, the SAO

Chair expressed the expectation of hearing, in the future, further information on the

funding mechanism, including the two particular funds.

5v. Permanent Participant Capacity – Process for Observer

funding

This item was folded in to the discussion on Observer issues held on day 2 of the meeting.



6. IPS RELOCATION

Background

At their Whitehorse (2015) and Ottawa (2015) meetings, the SAOs and PPs considered

issues relating to the relocation of the IPS to Tromsø. The Informal Committee for

Administrative Issues was assigned to work on a package of options regarding integration

with the ACS and bring them to the June 2015 executive SAO meeting in Washington for

consideration.


The SAO Chair noted uniform support for the move of IPS to Tromsø in the relatively

near future, along with a desire to see IPS integrated with the ACS while maintaining

its independent identity as a unit within the ACS.

Those concerned with the details of the move were asked to be flexible on the

“move date” of 1 Jan 2016 in order to accommodate staffing matters.

Regarding funding, the current (Kingdom of Denmark) and future (Norway) IPS hosts

expressed willingness to provide funding for the IPS after its relocation, noting that

such funding would not alter their approach to other funding of Permanent

Participant activities. No other funding commitments were made, though a request

to all States to consider contributions was made.

Several delegates noted a desire to have a concrete set of amendments to the

relevant ACS documents presented for consideration and possible approval at the

SAO meeting in October 2015. In addition to these, an illustrative budget for at least

the first year of IPS’s existence in Tromsø (and beyond, if possible) should be

circulated in advance of the October meeting. The preparation of that budget was

assigned to the ACS, IPS and the team already working on the relocation, jointly with

those States willing to provide funding.

Delegates expressed continued approval for the ongoing mandate of the Informal

Committee to proceed with its work.

7. ARCTIC COUNCIL AGENDA 2015-2017

Background

The SAO Chair introduced several diverse items for discussion under this agenda point,

including:

initial discussion of the set-up of the new Task Forces and expert groups;

any potential issues for projects and priorities;

the potential to introduce long-term priorities to the Council’s work, and the need

for balance with individual Chairmanship agendas;

the inclusion of traditional & local knowledge in Arctic Council work;

invitations to Working Groups to hold meetings in Observer States;



a brief report-out from the lunch meeting with Working Group Chairs;

historical archiving and Open Access archiving;

the potential for a strategic consideration of the structure of the Arctic Council, as it

pertains to Working Groups in particular;

States reporting back on implementation of decisions; and

the possibility of developing an Arctic Council handbook to explain what the Arctic

Council is and does, and how it is organized.

Brief oral presentations by the Working Group chairs initiated the discussion.


As an overarching point, the SAO Chair emphasized that the States, Permanent Participants

and Working Groups constitute one Arctic Council, under the leadership of ministers of the

eight Arctic states. He then noted several takeaways from the lengthy discussion.

The SAOs tasked the Working Groups to keep the project tracking tool up to date,

and have it updated in advance of the October SAO meeting and subsequent SAO

meetings. The SAOs also encouraged all Working Groups to examine SDWG’s

processes for inclusion of traditional & local knowledge as possible models for their

own use.

No consensus was reached regarding meetings hosted in and by Observer states.

Most delegates expressed a preference not to accept such offers, at least in most

cases, with some expressing the belief that any such offer would have to come back

to SAOs for consideration on a case-by-case basis. Others preferred a clear rule that

excluded formal higher-level meetings in Observer countries altogether, with the

caveat that expert and/or project-specific workshops could be hosted by Observer

countries where their expertise and inputs would add value to the process. Based on

the discussion, the SAO Chair advised PAME to decline the offer from South Korea to

host a PAME Working Group meeting. Invitations from South Korea and from the

Netherlands to host CAFF related meetings were left to further discussion, if such is

needed, recognizing that CAFF is working on a migratory bird project that is relevant

to South Korea and other Observer states.

SAOs were open to consideration of a review of Working Group structure, number

and mandates, with the additional detail that dealing with impressions of duplication

or overlap is one desired element of such a review. Two suggestions on process were

made: (1) to use an independent consultant, or (2) to begin such a review within the

Arctic Council. No decision was taken, and the issue is to be considered again at the

SAO meeting in October 2015.

SAOS and PPs strongly encouraged Working Groups to work towards greater

alignment and harmonization of the structure and content of their work plans.

No clear directive was offered regarding whether PAME or EPPR is the appropriate

point-of-contact for oil spill prevention issues, though a preference for EPPR was

expressed by some. The Chairs of PAME and EPPR agreed to consult with a view to

providing a proposed resolution of the matter at the October 2015 SAO meeting.



Similarly, there was no agreement as to whether EPPR is responsible for tracking

implementation of the oil pollution preparedness and response agreement. It was

noted that four States have yet to ratify the agreement.

Regarding the historical archiving initiative and the Open Access archiving work,

SAOs instructed Working Groups, AMAP in particular, to deliver all existing final

documents that are the subject of the Open Access repository to the ACS for physical

inclusion in the repository no later than 1 August 2015. Regarding the most efficient

way to include future documents in the Open Access repository, those technical

experts who wish to be part of exploring this issue were asked to discuss and present

such technical solutions, if appropriate, for SAO consideration by 1 September 2015.

No clear consensus emerged regarding the development of long-term strategic goals

for the Arctic Council’s work. Delegates referred to existing long-term strategic

guidance contained in the Ottawa Declaration, the Vision for the Arctic (Kiruna

2013), and long-term Working Group plans such as the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan

and the Actions for Arctic Biodiversity: 2013-2021 Implementing the

recommendations of the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Most delegates expressed a

desire to achieve a balance between long-term thinking and the new ideas brought

forth by each new Chairmanship. The SAO Chair asked the U.S. delegation to

circulate further thoughts on the matter, in writing, to delegates for potential

consideration at the October 2015 SAO meeting.

Regarding a potential process by which the Arctic Council States could report back

on the implementation of Arctic Council decisions, views varied widely, and no

consensus was reached. Concerns raised included the appropriateness, and the

potential additional burden, of any such reporting. There were no volunteers to

“start the ball rolling” by sketching out a voluntary reporting idea. Reference was

made to the multilateral audit conducted by the audit agencies of five Arctic states,

in which such a step is encouraged.

Regarding the development of an Arctic Council handbook describing what the Arctic

Council is, how it is structured, and what it has accomplished to date, there was

broad consensus that this is a good idea. Several States offered contributions of

various “Arctic Council 101” materials; the SAO Chair asked those States to send any

such materials to the ACS. Working Groups noted their efforts to prepare a

handbook specifically addressing Working Group activities, which could be appended

to, or included as part of, any such Arctic Council handbook. The SAO Chair noted a

desire to take existing material and assemble it in an easily-accessible style and

format with links to other things for those who might need more information. Such a

handbook could be updated from time to time and, resources permitting, translated

into other languages. It was decided that the Chairmanship and ACS would prepare a

draft, subject to review by all, and with the goal of completion by the 2017

Ministerial meeting, or possibly in time for a celebration of the Arctic Council’s 20th

anniversary.

Regarding the Task Force on Telecommunications Infrastructure in the Arctic, the

SAO Chair urged co-chairs Norway and the Kingdom of Denmark to circulate



information to those parties that might be struggling to identify their appropriate

representatives and, more broadly, to understand the precise mission of the Task

Force.

Regarding the Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation, the SAO Chair reiterated

that the first meeting is to be scheduled back-to-back with the next PAME meeting.

Delegates accepted an offer from Iceland to provide a third co-chair to the Task

Force, joining the U.S.A. and Norway. Regarding the possibility of a Permanent

Participant as a co-chair for a Task Force (an issue raised during this discussion), no

definite conclusion was reached, and the SAO Chair asked delegates to consider the

possibility for future Task Forces.

Canada expressed an interest in providing a co-chair for the expert group on black

carbon & methane. The SAO Chair encouraged Canada, the U.S. and others to

consider this possibility.

8. OBSERVERS

Background

The discussion took up four main issues concerning Observers.

What is the role of Observers, and how ought they to engage in Arctic Council

activities?

How ought a review of accredited Observers be conducted?

How will the sixteen pending applications for Observer status, as well as any others

that may come in over the next two years, be reviewed and decided upon?

If there are problems relating to the presence of too many Observers in any meeting

or event, e.g. in small venues, should steps be taken to resolve such problems? If so,

what steps might be taken?

The SAO noted three items to help frame the discussion: (1) a concept paper from the U.S.;

(2) a report from the third Warsaw-format workshop; and (3) some materials covering

Observer activity prepared by the ACS.


Regarding the role of Observers and their engagement in Arctic Council activities,

there was broad agreement that no adjustment is needed, or desired, to either the

Arctic Council Rules of Procedure or to the Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies.

These existing rules, as they apply to the Working Groups and Task Forces in

particular, should continue to apply and be enforced. However, there was broad

acknowledgement that the role of Observers in the various Working Groups may

vary in a number of ways and that some flexibility for Working Groups’ engagement

with Observers should remain.

Views varied as to whether greater Observer engagement is, in general, desired.

However, many delegates expressed support for the idea that it is worthwhile for

the SAO Chair to reach out more actively to Observers.



Support was expressed for the idea of a separate half-day meeting in October with

the Observers, with the caveat that the agenda for any such meeting should be

carefully considered.

There was broad support for encouraging Observers once more to focus their

attention on the Working Groups and their projects, rather than focusing on

attending meetings. Further, many supported the idea that the responsibility lies

with Observers to identify their interests and seek opportunities to engage. Working

Groups, Task Forces, and Expert Groups were urged to enforce the RoP and be

consistent in their treatment of Observers.

It was suggested that “Observer success stories” highlighting such participation

might be included in, for example, the ACS communications & outreach newsletter

or on the website.

As with the earlier agenda point related to external bodies, it was suggested that the

ACS could do some elementary research into how other fora that are similar to the

Arctic Council have grappled with the “Observer question”.

Deputy SAOs were charged to continue to their discussions and work on this suite of

Observer issues, in order to support continued discussion in the future. Deputy SAOs

were asked to develop a process for the review of Observers for the SAOs to

consider at the October SAO meeting.

There was broad acknowledgement of the commitment to conduct reviews of

Observers. Most delegates favored a review in which a portion of Observers – e.g.,

starting with the longest-serving ones – are reviewed every two years (rather than all

at once). The SAO Chair noted that, if the Arctic Council is to complete a review of

the longest-serving Observers, and if those Observers are to receive fair warning (ca.

1 year), that a process will need to be developed and agreed upon reasonably soon.

Regarding the consequences of any such review, there was agreement that one goal

is to spark better participation by the Observers being reviewed. Views differed,

however, on the appropriate consequence (if any) for Observers whose participation

has been very weak or nonexistent. Some felt that a termination of Observer status

by the Arctic Council would be the most appropriate consequence, while others

suggested that a softer approach, inviting any such Observer to reconsider its status

for itself, would be the better way forward. In the latter case, such a discussion could

be followed by termination if appropriate or, alternatively, by guidance from the

Arctic Council as to how participation could be improved.

Regarding the criteria for such a review, there was broad agreement that the Nuuk

criteria for admission should be the basis– even if imperfectly – for use in the review

process. The SAO Chair noted, however, that the Nuuk criteria may not adequately

address the evaluation of Observers’ contributions since their admission, in which

case some additions or adjustments would be needed in order to make the Nuuk

criteria serve adequately as review criteria.

Regarding existing and future Observer applications, it was agreed to “depoliticize”

the process where possible. Some noted that SAOs should strive to reach consensus

positions on applications, with final decisions taken by Ministers. The ACS was asked



to locate the standard admission application used during the Swedish Chairmanship

and revise it to reflect the Nuuk criteria.

Regarding the number of Observers, there appeared to be two general points of

view. One suggested that the benefit of increasing the number of Observers to the

Arctic Council might be outweighed by the cost of increasing difficulty in holding

meetings in small Arctic communities. Another felt that the benefit of Observers’

contributions outweighs the cost of constraints to Arctic Council meeting venues. To

address these issues, several delegations suggested considering different ways to

reduce the footprint of Observers at Arctic Council meetings, such that venues in

smaller cities and towns would continue to be feasible. Others felt that each

Observer should be permitted to attend meetings. There was no movement towards

consensus on this issue, and delegates were encouraged to continue discussions and

work towards a future shared understanding of the best way forward.

9. OTHER BUSINESS

Canada presented, for the delegates’ information, a précis of the outcomes of the

Youth Arctic Competition and the Future Arctic Leaders’ Workshop.

The SAO Chair offered to include discussion of the Multilateral Audit Report in the

October Agenda and Norway agreed.

Delegates bid farewell to Mikael Anzén (Sweden) and Peter Linde (Kingdom of

Denmark) as they move on to new roles within their respective ministries.



Annex 1 | Exemptions to Article 7.5 of the

Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies

If a Working Group or other subsidiary body wishes to request an exception to Article 7.5 of

the Observer Manual for Subsidiary Bodies, it shall, with the support of at least one SAO or

one Permanent Participant, submit the request in writing to the SAOs via a communication

to the SAO Chair, along with a justification not to exceed 2 pages. The justification should:

Indicate which SAO(s) and/or Permanent Participant(s) support the request;

Briefly describe the nature of the project;

Estimate the overall cost of the project, the amount of anticipated financing from

Arctic Council States and the amount being offered by Observers;

Identify the Observers that wish to contribute financing; and

Briefly explain why the SAOs should grant an exception to Article 7.5 with respect to

the project in question.

The SAOs shall decide upon each such request within 30 days of its submission, either at an

SAO meeting, by teleconference, or by written communications.

Participant List: SAO Executive meeting, Washington, DC, June 2015

Last Name Delegation HoD

1 David Balton Chairmanship Yes

2 Nikoosh Carlo Chairmanship No

3 Erin Robertson Chairmanship No

4 Susan Harper Canada Yes

5 Sarah Cox Canada No

6 Robert Kadas Canada No

7 Erik Vilstrup Lorenzen Kingdom of Denmark Yes

8 Peter Wilhelm Lund Linde Kingdom of Denmark No

9 Uiloq Mulvad Jessen Kingdom of Denmark No

10 Margretha Nonklett Kingdom of Denmark No

11 Heikki Aleksi Härkönen Finland Yes

12 René Söderman Finland No

13 Árni Thór Sigurdsson Iceland Yes

14 Atli Mar Sigurdsson Iceland No

15 Else Berit Eikeland Norway Yes

16 Gunnhild Eriksen Norway No

17 Vladimir Barbin Russian Federation Yes

18 Yury Tsaturov Russian Federation No

19 Grigory Zasypkin Russian Federation No

20 Krister Bringéus Sweden Yes

21 Mikael Anzén Sweden No

22 Julia Gourley United States of America Yes

23 Evan Bloom United States of America No

24 Brian Israel United States of America No

25 Elizabeth McLanahan United States of America No

26 Adrianna Muir United States of America No

27 Michael Stickman AAC Yes

28 Terry Fenge AAC No

29 James Gamble AIA Yes

30 Bobbie-Jo Greenland-Morgan GCI Yes

31 Ethel Blake GCI No

32 James Stotts ICC Yes

33 Duane Smith ICC No

34 Vladimir Klimov RAIPON No

35 Ellen Inga Turi SC Yes

36 Ulrik Westman ACAP Yes

37 Patti Bruns ACAP/EPPR No

38 Martin Forsius AMAP Yes

39 Lars-Otto Reiersen AMAP No

40 Reidar Hindrum CAFF Yes

41 Thomas Barry CAFF No

42 Amy Merten EPPR Yes

43 Renée Sauvé PAME Yes

44 Soffia Gudmundsdottir PAME No

45 Nomi Seltzer SDWG Yes

46 Doug Klassen SDWG No

47 Magnús Jóhannesson Arctic Council Secretariat Yes

48 Jesper Stig Andersen Arctic Council Secretariat No

49 Thomas Fries Arctic Council Secretariat No

50 Kseniia Iartceva Arctic Council Secretariat No

51 André Skrivervik Arctic Council Secretariat No

52 Nina Vaaja Arctic Council Secretariat No

First name

washington, dc | june 2015 · 04-08-2015 · discussions that engage working groups, saos and pps...

Documents