Documents considered by the Committee on 20 January 2010, including the following recommendations for debate: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2009-2010, etc - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


9   The EU and the Arctic Region

(30227)

COM(08) 763

Commission Communication: The European Union and the Arctic Region

Legal base
DepartmentForeign and Commonwealth Office
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 7 January 2010
Previous Committee ReportHC 19-viii (2008-09), chapter 1 (25 February 2009)
Discussed in Council8-9 December 2008 General Affairs and External Relations Council
Committee's assessmentPolitically Important
Committee's decisionCleared (decision reported 22 April 2009); further information provided

Background

9.1  On its website, the Arctic Council describes the Arctic as "an enormous area, sprawling over one sixth of the earth's landmass; more than 30 million km2 and twenty-four time zones", with a population of "about four million, including over thirty different indigenous peoples and dozens of languages." The region has "vast natural resources and a very clean environment compared with most areas of the world."

9.2  The Ottawa Declaration of 1996 formally established the Arctic Council as "a high level intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic Indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic." Member States of the Arctic Council are Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America. A category of Permanent Participation also provide for active participation of, and full consultation with, the Arctic Indigenous representatives within the Arctic Council.[23]

Commission Communication

9.3  The Commission describes the European Union as "inextricably linked to the Arctic region[24] (hereafter referred to as the Arctic) by a unique combination of history, geography, economy and scientific achievements." The November 2008 Commission Communication, "The European Union and the Arctic Region", reviewed EU interests in the Arctic and proposed action around three main policy objectives:

—  protecting and preserving the Arctic;

—  promoting sustainable use of resources;

—  enhancing Arctic multilateral governance.

Our assessment

9.4  The countries and issues involved are of some significance. But the Explanatory Memorandum from the then Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Caroline Flint) neither summarised the document properly, nor outlined in any real way the Government's views. We also felt that the areas discussed in subsequent correspondence referred to above should have been outlined in the first instance in a more substantial Explanatory Memorandum. Though a further Communication was promised with more detailed proposals, we also felt that sufficiently major policy issues were already raised in this Communication for a debate in the European Committee to be warranted, and so recommended. That debate took place on 21 April 2009.[25]

9.5  We also raised an initial query about the Community's competence to make recommendations in all of the areas covered by the Communication.[26]

9.6  Nothing more was heard until the present Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant) wrote to the Committee on 9 December 2009, with his views on the Council Conclusions on this topic adopted by the 8 December Foreign Affairs Council (which are reproduced at Annex 1 of this chapter of our Report).

9.7  In responding to him, the Committee noted its surprise that the debate was led not by his ante-predecessor, who had submitted the Communication for scrutiny, but by the then "geographical" Minister (Gillian Merron). The Committee recalled the then Minister for Europe's sketchy Explanatory Memorandum of 16 December 2008, where she welcomed the Commission's Communication as "an example of renewed EU interest in Arctic issues", regarded it as "important to take a holistic view of the Arctic Region", supported the overall approach as set out in the Communication and looked forward to "the more detailed EU Arctic policy which the Commission has planned for early next year".

9.8  But, the Committee noted, this further Commission Communication had not materialised; instead, a substantive set of Council Conclusions had been adopted which, as the Minister said, constituted "a set of overarching principles and actions which the Commission can begin to develop in collaboration with Member States."

9.9  The Minister also noted the Government's continued support for the EU "in its efforts to become more engaged on the Arctic" and consider that the Commission "has a valuable role to play in many areas as outlined in the Council Conclusions." But, the Committee observed, nowhere did the Minister explain what he considered that valuable role to be.

9.10  The Minister also said that, at the same time, he had "striven to ensure that, where competency is reserved or shared, UK interests are protected [and] also sought to ensure that our bilateral and multilateral relationships with the Arctic States and the Arctic Council are unaffected." But, again, he did not explain where he believed such competency was reserved or shared, how UK interests were protected or how he had sought to ensure that these relationships would be unaffected.

9.11  Looking ahead, the Minister said that, as with the development of these Conclusions, "future work will continue to be a partnership between the Commission and Member States [in which] … the UK will engage closely, through the relevant EU Working Groups, to further develop policy and ensure that our views are taken into account."

9.12  The impression left with the Committee was that an important stage in the parliamentary scrutiny of this sensitive but nonetheless developing EU policy had been passed over, by virtue of there being no further Commission Communication but instead — as if there had been, and it had been appropriately scrutinised — the adoption of very substantive Conclusions setting out the way forward.

9.13  The Committee accordingly asked the Minister for an explanation of what had happened over the past year, as well as a response to the detailed points outlined above.

The Minister's letter of 7 January 2010

9.14  The Minister begins his letter by expressing his sorrow that that the Committee "feels so querulous" about the level of scrutiny that has been applied to the developing EU Arctic policy but assures the Committee that he has been "very conscious of the need to keep the Committee fully informed of developments." He continues as follows:

"Let me explain the situation. As you say in your letter, and as my predecessor (as Minister responsible for the Arctic) Gillian Merron said then, it was at the time the intention of the Commission to produce a new, more extensive Commission Communication before the end of 2009. However, in September, Member States were informed that the Commission no longer intended to issue a new Communication, and that instead the Presidency intended to take the policy forward through new Council Conclusions. A draft Conclusions text then issued in November. The UK played a significant role in developing and improving those Conclusions ahead of their adoption at the FAC on 8 December. Throughout this process, FCO officials worked to ensure that UK interests related to the Arctic were protected."

9.15  Recalling his letter to the Committee of 9 December 2009, the Minister says: "I do not believe that writing to the Committee before their adoption would have been appropriate, given that negotiations were on-going."

9.16  While professing to understand the Committee's frustration that the Commission decided not to proceed with a further Communication, the Minister says:

"this was entirely their decision and we could not oblige them to do so. However, the decision by the Council to proceed with a second set of Conclusions does, I believe, provide a platform to take this policy forward and, importantly, ensure that the Council and Member States remain fully involved in the process."

9.17  With regard to the role that he considers the EU can play in the Arctic, the Minister says:

"By virtue of its size and weight, scientific expertise and funding possibilities, the EU can exert a positive influence over Arctic issues that is complementary to and greater than that exerted by the UK alone.

"The EU and the UK have shared objectives in the Arctic relating to climate change, sustainable development, environmental protection, governance and access for shipping.

"Therefore a co-ordinated approach seems sensible and prudent. The EU is already engaged in the Arctic, including through the Northern Dimension and EU-Barents Sea groups, and so has significant regional expertise. As you know, science is an important influencing factor in the region and the EU's significant level of science funding and ability to co-ordinate that effort amongst Member States is one of the primary advantages of its involvement.

"The Council Conclusions deal with matters of both reserved (such as fishing) and shared competence (for example environment, transport, energy). We have sought throughout this process to ensure that the Conclusions do not impinge upon UK bilateral relations or allow any form of Commission 'competence creep.' My officials were also able to ensure that the Council Conclusions did not contain any inappropriate specific commitments, especially spending commitments. We believe that the Conclusions provide an operational framework for the Commission's work in the Arctic over the next 18 months, until June 2011, at which stage the Commission has been tasked to provide a progress report to the Council. This will help ensure engagement with Member States and adequate oversight. It should also address concerns raised in the April 2009 debate and emphasises the fact that the Conclusions are of course a Council not a Commission text."

9.18  The Minister then goes on to "stress that bilateral and multilateral relations will not be affected", as follows:

"The UK will be able to continue our excellent relationships with the Arctic States, such as our memorandum of understanding with Canada, our close working relationship on Polar issues with Norway and our ongoing work as a Permanent Observer at the Arctic Council."

9.19  The Minister concludes by referring again to the status report that the Conclusions ask the Commission to provide by June 2011, at which point "we and other Member States will be able to assess how effective this new programme has been and to decide how to take the work forward."

Conclusion

9.20  Whether or not the Council could oblige the Commission to produce the promised further more detailed Communication is not the point: the case was, in the Minister's words, that "instead the Presidency intended to take the policy forward through new Council Conclusions" — i.e., the decision was taken by the Council, not the Commission. We do not understand why the Minister did not report that decision to the Committee. Indeed, we feel that he should have taken care to do so, given that the "framework" Communication had been debated on that basis.

9.21  As to whether writing to the Committee before their adoption would have been appropriate, given that negotiations were on-going: this is a matter upon which the Committee has long taken a view different to that of the Government. However, regardless of the present difference of view, we see no reason why the Minister, in fulfilling the obligation we feel he had to notify the Committee of the change of plan, could not have outlined what he would be seeking in negotiating those Conclusions.

9.22  Indeed, this seems to us to be a perfect example of why the Committee takes the view that draft Conclusions should be deposited for scrutiny. As we observed in our letter to the Minister, the effect of the course he has chosen to take is that an important stage in the parliamentary scrutiny of this sensitive but nonetheless developing EU policy had in effect been passed over, by virtue of there being no further Commission Communication but instead the adoption of very substantive Conclusions setting out the way forward to be taken by the Commission.

9.23  What this does is to reinforce the strong sense of the avoidance of proper scrutiny that we felt from the outset, when the Minister speaking for the Government was not the Minister for Europe, who had submitted the original Explanatory Memorandum and who was versed in the issue in question — the competence and proper role of the Commission within the existing, well-established governance framework for the Arctic and, beyond generalities, what the Government's policy is. We do not feel consider the answers provided by the Minister on both the process and the key issue of competence are adequate, and accordingly ask that he appear before us at an evidence session in order to provide them.

Annex: Council conclusions on the European Union and the Arctic region

"1. The Council welcomed the Commission's Communication on the European Union and the Arctic region, considering that it is a first layer of an EU Arctic policy. The Communication is also an important contribution to implementing the Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU.

"2. The Council agreed that the effects of climate change and of human activities in the Arctic have significant repercussions for the European Union as a whole. The European Union should therefore aim at preserving the Arctic in unison with its population and address Arctic challenges in a systematic and coordinated manner in areas such as environment, biodiversity, climate change, chemicals, maritime affairs, energy, research and observation, fisheries and transport, as well as the protection of the livelihood of indigenous peoples. This should have due respect for and take into account the special position and interests of the Arctic areas of the three Arctic Member States, including those areas of one Member State enjoying OCT status and special contractual links with the EU. Furthermore, the Council welcomed the conference "The Arctic: observing the environmental changes and facing their challenges", organised by the Presidency in Monaco in November 2008.

"3. The goals of the EU can be achieved only in close cooperation with all Arctic partner countries, territories and communities, noting also the inter-governmental cooperation in the region. The European Union should enhance its contribution to Arctic multilateral cooperation, in conformity with international conventions, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and recognising the role of the Arctic states and that of the Northern Dimension policy. The Council welcomed the decision of the Commission to apply for permanent observer status in order to represent the European Community in the Arctic Council.

"4. The Council agreed that the proposals for action contained in the Communication should lead to a more detailed reflection and looked forward to further examining them in the first half of 2009."





23   For full information on the Arctic Council, see http://arctic-council.org/article/about.  Back

24   The notion "Arctic region" used in this Communication covers the area around the North Pole north of the Arctic Circle. It includes the Arctic Ocean and territories of the eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.  Back

25   See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmgeneral/euro/090421/90421s01.htm for the record of that debate. Back

26   See headnote: HC 19-viii (2008-09), chapter 1 (25 February 2009). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 2 February 2010