9 The EU and the Arctic Region
| (30227)
—
COM(08) 763
| Commission Communication: The European Union and the Arctic Region
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 7 January 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-viii (2008-09), chapter 1 (25 February 2009)
|
| Discussed in Council | 8-9 December 2008 General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically Important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (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
| 
