rir · H3B58 · 2015-05-05 00:00:00 — The audit is included in the Audit Offices audit strategy Sustainable development – climate. The audit primarily concerns the Government, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment and the . The most important material for the audit was the Governments strategy documents for the Arctic region, the Governments programme for the Chairmanship of the , ministerial declarations and other documents from the , as well as interviews with representatives of ministries and government agencies. Audit Office notes that the is an important forum for issues concerning the Arctic and for initiating central research projects on environmental and climate change in the Arctic. Audit Office considers that after almost 20 years of Swedish membership of the it is reasonable to also expect an effective process in for assessing and, where relevant, implementing recommendations. This is particularly applicable as decisions in the are made in consensus and are, if not legally, then politically binding. It is also reasonable that work in the Council proceeds from transparent priorities for the Arctic. Audit Offices overall conclusion is that does not receive an effective return in all respects from its membership of the . In the opinion of the Audit Office there is insufficient transparency in the Governments priorities for the work of the . It is therefore difficult to assess whether work in the proceeds from stated priorities. The Government has not ensured that recommendations from the are assessed, ranked in priority and, where relevant, implemented in . has the Government assigned responsibility for such a process. It is not clear whether the recommendations have been implemented in . Lack of transparency in the Governments priorities for work on climate change in the The assessment of the Audit Office is that the Governments priorities in the strategy documents and Chairmanship programme do not give a clear picture of the direction of the Governments work on climate change in the . Reduced emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases have priority in the Governments documents and the is presented as the foremost body for issues concerning the Arctic. However, the Government has not put the issue of long-lived greenhouse gases on the agenda. The Government works for reduced emissions of greenhouse gases by obtaining and spreading knowledge about the effects of climate change, but has above all decided to focus work on climate change on short-lived climate forcers. Audit Office makes no assessment of the contents of the Governments priorities, but considers that the priorities should be made clearly apparent by relevant documents. In the opinion of the Audit Office there is insufficient transparency in the Governments priorities for the work of the . It is therefore difficult to assess whether work in the Council proceeds from stated priorities. The Government has not created the conditions for implementing relevant recommendations from the . Audit Office notes that the Government has strengthened the processes in the during Chairmanship. Corresponding efforts have not, however, been put into ensuring an effective process for implementation in . The Government has not ensured that recommendations from the are assessed, ranked in priority and, where relevant, implemented in . has the Government assigned responsibility for such a process. Audit Office notes that it is not clear which measures have been taken in response to the recommendations. There is currently no monitoring of the Councils recommendations at national level. Consequently there is no process to ensure that the knowledge produced in the is utilised. ARKTISKA RÅDET – VAD KAN GÖRA FÖR ATT MÖTA RÅDETS UTMANINGAR recommendations are generally framed and in nature. Consequently it is even more important to clearly assign responsibility for interpreting the recommendations and putting them into practice, where deemed relevant. The Riksdag has not received regular information during the Chairmanship The Riksdag has requested regular information from the Government on the developments in the Arctic area and the Swedish Chairmanship of the . The audit shows, however, that the Riksdag has been formally informed of developments on only one occasion, at the end of , i.e. only weeks before the end of the Chairmanship. Agreements from the are described by the Government as legally binding, but do not oblige the member states to provide help The agreements drawn up within the framework of and air rescue are presented by the Government as legally binding. However, the Audit Office notes that member states are not obliged to provide resources if an accident should occur. Consequently, the agreement does not make the demands on resources that the Government has indicated. does the agreement entail any major legal change compared with previously existing search and rescue agreements. Audit Office notes that the Government has not been transparent in its presentation of the type and implication of the agreement. Audit Offices recommendations are aimed to give a more effective return on its membership of the . Audit Office makes the following recommendations to the Government: The Government should ensure that the priorities for the work of the are transparent. The Government should ensure that recommendations from the are assessed, ranked in priority and, where relevant, implemented in . The Government should clarify for government agencies where the responsibility for such a process lies. The Government should give the Riksdag regular information on activities in the , as requested by the Riksdag. A pdf of the report can be found at the following link: Start/publications/Reports/EFF/2013/Sweden-in-the-Arctic-Council---effective-return- from-membership-/ Better Direction and Management of Voluntary Recommendations Could Enhance U.S. Participation, GAO-14-435 (16, 2014) Recent environmental changes in the Arctic from a climate, such as decreased sea ice coverage making areas more accessible, have increased global attention to the regions economic opportunities. these changes, many indigenous people of the Arctic struggle to maintain their traditional way of life that relies on the ecosystem for subsistence resources. In 1996, the eight Arctic States , , , , , , , and the United States formed the (Council) to promote cooperation on various Arctic issues with input from indigenous groups. Arctic policy highlights the importance of the Council to pursue U.S. Arctic interests, including those of the State of the only U.S. state located in the Arctic and the indigenous people, or Natives, living there.18 These interests include protecting the Arctic environment, managing natural resources, involving indigenous communities and the state of , and supporting scientific research. Congress asked the Government Accountability Office () to examine matters related to U.S. participation in the Council, led by the U.S. (State)the federal agency responsible for managing the foreign relations. reported on (1) the Councils organization and how it addresses environmental and economic development issues; (2) key U.S. agencies participation in the Council and any challenges; and (3) agencies actions to implement and manage voluntary Council recommendations adopted within the and any challenges. analyzed documents and reports from the Council and reviewed relevant literature from U.S. government entities, academic sources, and nongovernmental organizations. also interviewed U.S. federal and Arctic stakeholders; attended a Council meeting; and visited four Alaskan Arctic communities selected for their sizes and needs. is a voluntary intergovernmental forum for Arctic States, with involvement of indigenous organizations and other stakeholders, to address various environmental and economic issues through projects and reports targeting a variety of subjects. The eight Arctic States guide the work of the Council through consensus decisions and rotate the chairmanship of the Council every 2 years. The will assume the chairmanship in 2015. The participants meet in six working groups, four task 18GAO´s report uses the term indigenous to describe the communities of people that have historically resided in the Arctic. The report uses the term Natives to refer to the indigenous people who reside in . ARKTISKA RÅDET – VAD KAN GÖRA FÖR ATT MÖTA RÅDETS UTMANINGAR forces, and various expert groups to produce such documents as scientific assessments and guidance. For example, the Council has produced assessments of and climate change in the Arctic. As Arctic issues have emerged, the Council has expanded and broadened its work to address them. For example, since the Councils was established in 1996, the number of ongoing projects has increased from about 30 to 80. Six key federal agencies hold leadership roles in U.S. delegation to the and other agencies participate through the Councils working groups and task forces. State leads this participation and collaborates with the five other key agencies that lead U.S. delegations to Council working groupsthe , , National Oceanic and , U.S. Fish and , and U.S. Programas well as other federal agencies with Arctic interests. In addition to agencies with leadership roles, at least 15 other agencies with Arctic interests participate in the Councils working groups and task forces. These agencies contribute expertise and financial resources to the Councils work. In addition, U.S. federal agencies provide financial support to the Council and its working groups. The federal agencies that participate in the Council face challenges collaborating by not having a clear direction or specific resources for their work. For example, key agency officials said that the agencies do not have a strategy that guides and aligns their Council work. Without a clear direction or specific resources for the collaborative effort, the agencies face challenges prioritizing the work, delivering unified messages to other Arctic States, and consistently participating in the Council. previously reported that agencies can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts by engaging in various practices, such as establishing joint strategies and identifying necessary resources.19 Furthermore, agencies consider and Natives interests in their work through various mechanisms, such as through an informal working group, but some officials from the State of and some Natives had concerns about the extent to which federal agencies and their Permanent Participant representatives consider their interests. federal agencies have acted on some voluntary recommendations that the and other Arctic States adopted through the Council in nonbinding biennial declarations approved by the consensus of the Arctic States. For example, several U.S. agencies have actively contributed to an environmental monitoring initiative endorsed in the 2006 declaration. In addition, agencies have implemented actions to reduce black carbon pollution, in line with recommendations made in the 2011 and 2013 ministerial declarations.20 However, does not review or track progress made on these actions and faces challenges implementing the voluntary recommendations. 19GAO, Results Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and , GAO-06-15 (, D.C. 21, 2005). 20Black carbon, which is soot, can warm the climate by darkening Arctic snow and ice and absorbing sunlight, which leads to further and melting. informally discusses the recommendations with other agencies during monthly meetings but does not have a process to review and track progress the agencies have made toward implementing them. officials said that the agency may need to more formally assess such progress because, without such a process, the agency does not know the status of recommendation implementation and faces challenges planning for and prioritizing future actions to address Arctic issues. In addition, the United Stateswith as the lead agencyand other Arctic States face challenges implementing the Councils broad and numerous recommendations. To address these challenges, officials said that the Council needs to more clearly specify and prioritize recommendations, but the Council does not have guidelines for doing so. Without such guidelines, officials said the recommendations have not historically produced actions with measurable outcomes. To help clarify the direction of future U.S. participation and position the for a successful chairmanship, assess the status of recommendations adopted through the Council, and strengthen the Councils ability to address Arctic issues within its purview, recommended that the Secretary of State take the following three actions: As a part of its responsibilities in assuming the Council chair in 2015 and in collaboration with other relevant agencies, develop a joint strategy for U.S. participation in the Council that outlines a clear direction for the agencies and identifies resources needed to sustain collaborative efforts and consistent participation in the Council. Develop a process to review and track U.S. progress in implementing existing and any future recommendations. Work with other Arctic States to develop guidelines for producing clear recommendations with measurable actions and prioritizing the recommendations. A pdf of the report can be found at the following link: ARKTISKA RÅDET – VAD KAN GÖRA FÖR ATT MÖTA RÅDETS UTMANINGAR Appendix 2 – Acknowledgements The project leaders would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to: all SAIs and individuals who have worked on this audit; the numerous government agencies and ministries who cooperated with us; the leadership of the , members of its working groups and task forces, and selected individuals who spoke with us regarding their perspectives on the Council. We would like to thank all of you for your support, cooperation, wise counsel and dedication. We could not have conducted this work without the leadership and commitment of the heads of the participating SAIs who have signed this document. We would also like to thank the former Auditors General of and , Mr. , respectively, for their joint initiative and vision in embarking on this unique effort. This report is the product of the efforts and contributions of project leaders and staff in each of the five nations. We would in particular like to acknowledge and thank all team members at the of , and the of as well as our leadership and audit teams in and . We sincerely appreciate your continued support and effort. This has been an extremely rewarding endeavor. ARKTISKA RÅDET – VAD KAN GÖRA FÖR ATT MÖTA RÅDETS UTMANINGAR Alla tidigare utgivna rapporter finns tillgängliga på Statens insatser för riskkapitalförsörjning – i senaste laget Bostäder för äldre i avfolkningsorter Staten och det civila samhället i integrationsarbetet Effekter av förändrade regler för deltidsarbetslösa Att överklaga till förvaltningsrätten – Handläggningstider och Ekonomiska förutsättningar för en fortsatt omställning av försvaret Försvaret – en utmaning för staten. försvarsområdet 2010–2014 Stödet till anhöriga omsorgsgivare Förvaltningen av regionala projektmedel – delat ansvar, Att tillvarata och utveckla nyanländas kompetens – rätt insats i rätt tid? Livsmedelskontrollen – tar staten sitt ansvar? Att gå i pension – varför så krångligt? Etableringslotsar – fungerar länken mellan individen och Nyanländ i – effektiva insatser för ett snabbt mottagande? – Är finansieringen av bolaget effektiv Det allmänna pensionssystemet – en granskning av granskningen Statens dimensionering av lärarutbildningen – utbildas rätt antal Valuta för biståndspengarna? – valutahantering i det internationella Överenskommelser mellan regeringen och SKL inom hälso- och sjukvården – frivilligt att delta men svårt att tacka nej – effektivitet i exportgarantisystemet? Primärvårdens styrning – efter behov eller efterfrågan? Informationssäkerheten i den civila statsförvaltningen Bistånd genom internationella organisationer – UD:s hantering av det multilaterala utvecklingssamarbetet ARKTISKA RÅDET – VAD KAN GÖRA FÖR ATT MÖTA RÅDETS UTMANINGAR Omskolad till arbete? – Utbildningsstödet till varslade vid Den officiella statistiken – en rättvisande bild av Återfall i brott – hur kan samhällets samlade resurser användas Digitalradio – varför och för vem? – konkurrenskraftigt och ledande i energiomställningen? Aktivitetsersättning – en ersättning utan aktivitet?