Chapter VI — The Arctic 



tional legal obligations that were beyond the mandate 

 of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. For 

 example, several papers tabled by task force members 

 had advocated amendment of the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act to eliminate restrictions on import into 

 the United States of furs and other articles and prod- 

 ucts derived from marine mammals. Other papers 

 had proposed that Arctic nations take collective action 

 to restore markets for seal skins and other marine 

 mammal products in the United States and Europe. 



Canada subsequently prepared and circulated a 

 paper to serve as the basis for discussion at the June 

 1995 meeting. The paper, entitled "The Arctic 

 Council: Objectives, Structure, and Program Priori- 

 ties," placed substantial emphasis on development. 

 For example, it proposed that the Arctic council 

 afford priority attention to such things as management 

 and development of both renewable and non-renew- 

 able resources, promotion of circumpolar trade, and 

 development of Arctic transportation and communica- 

 tion systems. It proposed formation of additional 

 working groups to address a range of development- 

 related issues. It made no provision for involving 

 non-Arctic countries in the work of the council even 

 though many non-Arctic countries have legitimate 

 interests and are carrying out research relevant to the 

 protection of the Arctic environment. 



A member of the Marine Mammal Commission 

 staff served as an advisor to the U.S. delegation to the 

 June 1995 meeting. The meeting produced general 

 agreement on a number of key points. For example, 

 it was generally agreed that the council should be 

 formed by signature of a non-binding declaration; that 

 indigenous peoples groups should be afforded perma- 

 nent participant status; that the four Arctic Environ- 

 mental Protection Strategy working groups should be 

 continued under the umbrella of the council; that 

 additional working groups should be established as 

 necessary to address economic, social, cultural, and 

 other issues of common interest; and that secretarial 

 duties should rotate with the host of council meetings. 



The meeting revealed substantially different views 

 among the participants on a number of key points. 

 For example, there was no consensus on how the 

 Arctic council should interact with existing regional 

 and international bodies involved in Arctic issues. 



Nor was there consensus on broadening representation 

 of indigenous peoples on the council or involving non- 

 Arctic countries in the activities of the council. It was 

 agreed that Canada would prepare a draft declaration 

 taking into account the various views expressed during 

 the meeting, and that a second informal negotiating 

 session would be held during a meeting of senior 

 Arctic officials in Washington, D.C. on 6-8 Septem- 

 ber 1995. 



Following the Ottawa meeting, Canada prepared 

 and circulated a draft "Charter on the Establishment 

 on the Arctic Council." The U.S. Government views 

 on the draft were developed through the interagency 

 process and were communicated to Canada on 2 

 August 1995. A small drafting group met in Copen- 

 hagen in July 1995 to prepare a draft declaration for 

 consideration at the 6-8 September meeting in Wash- 

 ington, D.C. This draft, dated 16 August 1995, was 

 forwarded to the meeting participants late in August. 



During the first day of the Washington meeting, 

 representatives of international and regional organiza- 

 tions, non- Arctic states, indigenous peoples groups, 

 and public interest groups were given the opportunity 

 to explain their interests in Arctic affairs and how 

 they would like to be involved in the activities of the 

 Arctic council. Much of the discussion the next two 

 days focused on the possible role of non-Arctic states 

 in the work of the council and a proposal by the 

 United States that two Alaska Native groups — the 

 Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments and the 

 Aleutian/Pribilof Island Association — be afforded 

 permanent participant status comparable to that 

 proposed in the draft declaration to be afforded to the 

 three groups mentioned above. These and a number 

 of other issues could not be resolved. It was agreed 

 that further discussions would be held during the 

 meeting of senior Arctic officials in Toronto on 29 

 November - 1 December 1995. Participants in the 6-8 

 September meeting were requested to forward com- 

 ments on the 16 August draft declaration to Canada by 

 1 October 1995. 



The United States provided comments on the 16 

 August working draft as requested, and Canada 

 prepared and circulated a revised draft on 6 Novem- 

 ber 1995. The Marine Mammal Commission, in 

 consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, 



141 



