Arctic Issues: Better Direction and Management of Voluntary Recommendations Could Enhance U.S. Arctic Council Participation
Published: 2014-05-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Recent changes in the Arctic from a warming climate, such as decreased sea ice coverage making marine areas more accessible, have increased global attention to the region's economic opportunities. In 1996, the eight Arctic States—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States—formed the Arctic Council to promote cooperation on various Arctic issues with input from indigenous groups. U.S. Arctic policy highlights the importance of the Council to pursue U.S. Arctic interests.
GAO was asked to examine matters related to U.S. Council participation. This report examines (1) the Council's organization and how it addresses environmental and economic development issues; (2) how key U.S. agencies participate in the Council and any challenges; and (3) agencies' actions to implement and manage voluntary Council recommendations and any challenges. GAO analyzed key documents; interviewed federal and other Arctic stakeholders; attended a Council meeting; and visited four Alaskan Arctic communities selected for their sizes and needs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Arctic Council (Council) 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 United States will assume the chairmanship in 2015. The participants meet in six working groups, four task forces, and various expert groups to produce such documents as scientific assessments and guidance. For example, the Council has produced assessments of Arctic climate change impacts and shipping. As Arctic issues have emerged, the Council has expanded and broadened its work to address them. For example, since the Council's was established in 1996, the number of ongoing projects has increased from about 30 to 80.
Six key federal agencies hold leadership roles in the Arctic Council and other agencies participate through the Council's working groups and task forces. The U.S. Department of State (State) leads this participation and collaborates with the five other key agencies that lead the delegations to Council working groups—the Environmental Protection Agency, National Nuclear Security Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Global Change Research Program—as well as other federal agencies with Arctic interests. In collaborating on Council work, the agencies face challenges 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. GAO previously reported that agencies can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts by engaging in various practices, such as establishing joint strategies and identifying necessary resources.
Federal agencies have acted on some voluntary recommendations that the United States and other Arctic States have adopted through the Council. However, State does not review or track progress made on these actions and faces challenges implementing the voluntary recommendations. Specifically, State 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. State officials said that the agency may need to more formally assess such progress because, without such a process, State 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 States—with State as the lead agency—and other Arctic States face challenges implementing the Council's broad and numerous recommendations. To address these challenges, State 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that State work with relevant agencies to develop a strategy identifying direction for agency Council participation and resource needs; develop a process to review and track progress on recommendations; and work with other Arctic States to develop guidelines for clear and prioritized recommendations. State agreed with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A warming climate is changing the Arctic environment and bringing  economic development opportunities to the region. For example, over  the 50-year period ending in 2009, average annual temperatures in  Alaska have increased by 1.9 degrees Celsius (3.4 degrees Fahrenheit),  more than twice the average global temperature rise for this period. In  addition, the coverage of summer sea ice has declined at an average rate  of about 14 percent per decade since 1979, reaching its lowest point on  record in 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
As Arctic marine areas become more accessible, the region has attracted  increasing global attention for its economic opportunities. For example,  the U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 2008 that the Arctic has  approximately 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil resources. In addition, trans-Arctic shipping routes are thousands of miles shorter than  traditional routes between the Atlantic Ocean and Asia, and traffic through  the Bering Strait increased from 217 vessels in 2008 to 484 vessels in  2012 and 434 vessels in 2013, according to data from the Coast Guard.  However, potential increased economic development opportunities bring  increased concerns about possible pollution risks from oil spills and  accidents, as well as challenges responding to such incidents in the  region. Amid these environmental and economic changes, many  indigenous people of the Arctic struggle to maintain their traditional way of  life that relies on the ecosystem for subsistence resources.
These complex and interrelated Arctic issues transcend borders and  increase the importance of cooperation among the Arctic States— Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark), Finland, Iceland, Norway,  the Russian Federation (Russia), Sweden, and the United States—as  they address common challenges and opportunities. began coordinating officially through the Arctic Environmental Protection  Strategy adopted in 1991 and formed the Arctic Council (Council) in 1996  to promote cooperation, coordination, and interaction on Arctic issues,  particularly those related to environmental protection and sustainable   The Council’s charter expressly omitted matters  economic development.related to military security. The Council’s chair rotates among each of the  eight Arctic States every 2 years. Canada assumed the chair in 2013, and  the United States will succeed it as chair in 2015.
U.S. Arctic policy and strategy highlight the importance of working with  other Arctic States through forums such as the Council to pursue U.S.  Arctic interests, including protecting the environment, managing  resources, involving indigenous communities and the state of Alaska, and  supporting scientific research. The U.S. Department of State (State)
The Arctic States all have territory north of the Arctic Circle. The Kingdom of Denmark  includes Greenland and the Faroe Islands. leads the U.S. participation in the Council and coordinates the related  work of five other key federal agencies with a leadership role in the U.S.  delegation—the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy’s National  Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Department of the Interior’s  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Global Change Research Program  (USGCRP)—as well as other federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard  and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), that play various  roles in the Council.
We have previously reported on emerging issues and challenges for the  United States in the Arctic. For example, we have reported on Alaska  Native villages threatened by flooding and coastal erosion, finding that no  single federal agency manages and allocates the limited assistance  available to protect and relocate these villages. 2014, we reported on U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure challenges and  the actions taken by federal, state, and local stakeholders to plan for  future Arctic maritime infrastructure investments. We have included a  list of related products at the end of this report.
In addition, in March  You asked us to review matters related to U.S. participation in the  Council. Our objectives were to examine (1) how the Council is organized  and how it addresses environmental and economic development issues;  (2) how U.S. federal agencies with a key leadership role participate in the  Council and the associated challenges, if any; and (3) the actions State  and other federal agencies have taken to implement and manage  voluntary recommendations the United States has adopted through the  Council and associated challenges, if any.
GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages  Threatened by Flooding and Erosion, GAO-09-551 (Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2009). interviewed (1) knowledgeable officials from State and other U.S.  agencies with a lead role in the U.S. delegation to the Council; (2) leaders  of organizations that represent Alaska Natives in the Council; and (3)  Arctic stakeholders including state of Alaska officials, Alaska Natives,  representatives of nongovernmental organizations with Arctic interests,  and academics that we selected by referral from key federal agency  officials and based on their experience participating in the Council or their  knowledge of its work. In addition, we attended a Council coordination  meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, and conducted site visits to the Arctic  Alaskan communities of Barrow, Kivalina, Kotzebue, and Wainwright. We  identified these communities through stakeholder referrals and a review  of literature and reports describing the issues facing Alaskan  communities, and selected them to include a range of community sizes  and needs, as well as their accessibility. We also analyzed Council  documents from 1998 to 2013 to identify recommendations made by the  Council to Arctic States. Appendix I provides additional information about  our objectives, scope, and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to May 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: This section discusses the origins of the Council and other international  forums for addressing Arctic issues, U.S. Arctic policy, and key Arctic  issues.
subsections: section_title: Arctic Council Origins and Other International Forums for Addressing Arctic Issues
paragraphs: The Ottawa Declaration, signed in 1996 by the eight Arctic States,  formally established the Council as an intergovernmental forum with the  involvement of Arctic indigenous communities and others. The eight  Arctic States are Council members and have exclusive decision-making  responsibilities. The Ottawa Declaration named three Arctic indigenous  organizations as “Permanent Participants” and opened such status to  other Arctic indigenous organizations that met specified criteria, as well  as observer status for non-governmental and intergovernmental  organizations that can contribute to the Council’s work. The chairmanship  of the Council rotates among the eight Arctic States. Appendix II lists the  chairmanships since the Council’s inception.
In addition to the Council, other international treaties, fora, and  organizations exist that cover specific Arctic issues. For example, the  United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) treaty  provides a legal framework governing the uses of the oceans and its  resources. The treaty gives coastal states exclusive sovereign rights to  explore and use the natural resources, including oil and gas, of their  continental shelves. In addition, it establishes a procedure for coastal  states that intend to establish the outer limits of their continental shelf  beyond 200 nautical miles, when it extends that far. The United States is  the only Arctic State that is not a party to UNCLOS, but supports and  observes it as customary international law and practice, as stated in the  National Strategy for the Arctic Region. However, without ratifying  UNCLOS, the United States cannot make claims or participate in the  proceedings to establish states’ outer limits on their continental shelves.
Next, through an informal forum, the five Arctic States with coastal  territory above the Arctic Circle—Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and  the United States—adopted the Ilulissat Declaration in 2008. The declaration stated, in part, that these five states remained committed to  the legal framework of UNCLOS and saw no need to develop a new  comprehensive legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean. In addition, at a  February 2014 meeting, these five states agreed to work toward  preventing unregulated commercial fishing in the central Arctic Ocean  and conduct additional scientific research.
Finally, all eight Arctic States work through the International Maritime  Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency, on issues related to the  safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by  ships. The IMO expects to complete in 2014 a mandatory International  Code of safety for ships operating in polar waters, which it terms the Polar  Code.
section_title: U.S. Arctic Policy
paragraphs: The United States has articulated its interests in the Arctic since the early  1970s. Three key documents that guide current U.S. Arctic policy and  management recognize the importance of the Council in pursuing U.S.  Arctic interests but do not expressly guide U.S. participation in the  Council. First, the Arctic Region Policy issued in 2009 specifies U.S.  priorities in the Arctic related to national security, international  governance, international scientific cooperation, economic issues,  environmental protection, and maritime transportation. The policy  recognized, among other things, the establishment and ongoing work of  the Council and that the United States participates in the Council to  promote U.S. interests in the region. Second, in May 2013 the  administration issued the National Strategy for the Arctic Region that  articulates U.S. strategic priorities in the Arctic and the federal, state, and  international partners that are involved in the Arctic dialogue. The  strategy states that the United States participates in international forums  like the Council to promote U.S. interests in the region and that the United  States will pursue agreements that advance collective interests, promote  shared Arctic State prosperity, protect the Arctic environment, and  enhance regional security, among other things. The administration  released an implementation plan in January 2014 identifying the  methodology, process, and approach for executing the strategy and  recognizing the importance of international engagement for successfully  managing the Arctic Region. Third, a 2013 report on Arctic management  produced by an interagency group recognizes the expert advice the  Council provides on a range of subjects and recommended that the  United States continue to play an active role in the Council.
section_title: Key Arctic Issues
paragraphs: Numerous scientific studies, assessments, and government reports have  documented the widespread changes occurring in the Arctic and their  local and global implications. Climate change affects many of these  issues because warming in the Arctic has exceeded the warming in the  rest of the world. Scientists have documented the wide-ranging effects of  such warming on various aspects of the Arctic environment.example, the coverage of Arctic sea ice has steadily declined since 1979,  when satellite measurements became available. As shown in figure 1, an  interactive graphic, sea ice coverage in the years from 2001 to 2013 had  decreased compared to the 1979-2000 average, reaching its lowest  coverage in 2012 (see app. III, fig. 7, for a printable version).
section_title: The Arctic Council Is a Voluntary Intergovernmental Forum for Arctic States, with the Involvement of Others, to Address Environmental and Economic Development Issues
paragraphs: The Council is a voluntary intergovernmental forum for the eight Arctic  States, with the involvement of indigenous organizations and other  stakeholders, to address environmental and economic development  issues through various projects and reports. Arctic States, indigenous  organizations, and others serve in various roles and cooperate and  coordinate through numerous Council meetings to discuss and conduct  work. The Council conducts a variety of projects including scientific  assessments, reports, guidance, and regional and pan-Arctic initiatives.  Arctic States, indigenous organizations, and others provide financial and  in-kind contributions to carry out these projects, and the Council has  expanded and broadened its work to address emerging issues.
subsections: section_title: Arctic States and Others Serve in Various Council Roles
paragraphs: Arctic States serve as the members of the Council and make decisions by  consensus among themselves. The Arctic States set the priorities for the  Council, make decisions on Council matters, coordinate the Council’s  meetings, perform administrative functions, and finance the Council’s  work on a voluntary basis. Foreign ministers from Arctic states typically  serve as Arctic Ministers and high-level staff from foreign ministries  typically serve as Senior Arctic Officials (SAO). Staff from various  agencies and ministries within Arctic State governments serve as  members of the six working groups that perform the majority of the  Council’s technical and scientific work.
Certain Arctic indigenous organizations serve as Permanent Participants  in the Council. The Ottawa Declaration named three Arctic indigenous  organizations as Permanent Participants and opened such status to other  Arctic indigenous organizations that met specified criteria. Permanent  Participants have the opportunity to participate in all Council meetings  and provide input to reports and other projects but the Arctic States make   Six Permanent Participants currently  Council decisions by consensus.represent indigenous organizations across the Arctic, and four of the six  Permanent Participant organizations represent Alaska Natives (see fig.  3).
The Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat provides some  assistance to the Permanent Participants.communicates information about Council activities and decisions and  disseminates it to the Permanent Participants.
In addition, under the Ottawa Declaration, non-Arctic states;  intergovernmental, interparliamentary, global and regional organizations;  and nongovernmental organizations may apply for “Observer” status. The  Arctic States grant Observer status to these parties through consensus.  Observer organization representatives may attend Council meetings and  can actively participate in the Council’s working groups and projects but  Arctic States make Council decisions by consensus. As of April 2014, the  states had granted 32 organizations and non-Arctic states Observer  status: 12 non-Arctic states, 9 intergovernmental organizations, and 11  nongovernment organizations. Guest organizations can also attend  meetings at the discretion of the chair and can contribute to certain  Council work.
The Council has six permanent working groups composed of Arctic State  representatives that cover a broad range of issues such as emergency  response, protection of the Arctic marine environment, and the  conservation of Arctic flora and fauna. In addition to the working groups,  the Council can establish task forces and expert groups, also composed  of Arctic State representatives, for a limited period to address a specific  issue. Figure 4 identifies the Council members, Permanent Participants,  Observers, working groups, and active task forces as of April 2014.
section_title: Arctic States and Others Cooperate and Coordinate through Numerous Arctic Council Meetings
paragraphs: Council participants cooperate and coordinate through numerous  meetings including: (1) ministerial meetings; (2) meetings of SAOs; and  (3) working group, task force, and expert group meetings.
Ministerial meetings. Arctic Ministers meet biennially to set the Council  agenda for the coming 2 years. The foreign ministers of the eight Arctic  States typically serve as the Arctic Ministers. According to senior State  officials, the U.S. Secretary of State serves as the U.S. Arctic Minister  during the 2-year chairmanship and presides over the biennial Council  ministerial meeting at the chairmanship’s conclusion. At the ministerial  meetings, the Council chair typically proposes the priorities and projects  for its chairmanship. For example, during the last Council ministerial  meeting held in Kiruna, Sweden, in May 2013, Canada—which assumed  the chairmanship in 2013—announced that the Council would focus on  “Development for the People of the North” during the next 2 years.  Canada proposed projects focused on responsible resource  development, safe shipping, and sustainable circumpolar communities,  among other things. Arctic Ministers may also set Council priorities, direct  the SAOs and working groups to initiate new projects, establish new task  forces, change the Council structure, approve new Permanent Participant  or Observer groups, and endorse Council reports and other projects. To  document decisions, highlight the accomplishments achieved over the  past 2 years, and formally announce the priorities the Council will address  for the next 2 years, the Arctic Ministers issue a ministerial declaration at  the conclusion of each ministerial meeting.
SAO Meetings. SAOs meet biannually to review and approve ongoing  Council work. SAOs are government officials selected by the Arctic States  who manage day-to-day Council activities. Most of the Arctic States  designate an Arctic Ambassador to serve as their SAO, but the United  States and Canada do not currently have Arctic Ambassadors. A senior State official serves as the U.S. SAO. During SAO meetings, SAOs  review the ongoing work and approve reports from the Council working  groups, task forces, and expert groups to forward to the Arctic Ministers.  Arctic States or Permanent Participants may also propose new projects at  these meetings, and the SAOs decide which proposals to submit to the  Arctic Ministers for approval.
Working group, task force, and expert group meetings. The Council’s  work takes place in the working groups, task forces, and expert groups  that the Arctic States chair on a rotating basis. As such, the meetings  occur in locations that span the eight Arctic States. The working groups  meet biannually and the task forces and expert groups meet at times  decided by the participating Arctic States. Each Arctic State selects a  number of experts from government agencies to comprise a national  delegation for each of the six working groups. Permanent Participants  may also serve as members of a Council working group and Observers  may participate in the work. Working group members carry out scientific  assessments, draft reports and recommendations, and work on other  Council projects as directed by the Arctic States. Each working group  may establish operating guidelines and work plans. Arctic Ministers and  SAOs review and approve the work plans and any revisions made to the  operating guidelines for each working group.
section_title: Arctic States and Others Conduct Projects Funded through Voluntary and In- Kind Contributions
paragraphs: According to federal agency officials, Permanent Participant  representatives, and other Arctic stakeholders, projects conducted by the  Council have played a major role in advancing the global understanding  of environmental and sustainable development issues in the Arctic, and  enabled Council participants to discuss possible actions to address them.  These projects include scientific assessments, guidelines,  recommendations, best practices, and other initiatives. Some key Council  assessments and guidance include the following:
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004: The Arctic Climate  Impact Assessment describes ongoing impacts of climate change in  the Arctic and their consequences such as rising temperatures; loss of  sea ice; unprecedented melting of the Greenland ice sheet; and many  impacts on ecosystems, animals, and people. This assessment was  the first comprehensively researched, fully referenced, and  independently reviewed evaluation of climate change and impacts in  the Arctic.
The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, 2009: The Arctic Marine  Shipping Assessment is the first comprehensive analysis of current  and potential future Arctic shipping activity. It provides 17  recommendations, which are still being implemented, related to  enhancing Arctic marine safety, protecting Arctic people and the  environment, and building Arctic marine infrastructure.
Community Based Monitoring Handbook, 2010: Federal officials  described this Handbook as the best manual available for researchers  to use when interacting with local communities in the Arctic. In particular, they said that the handbook’s positive examples of  engaging with indigenous communities helped guide many  researchers that may have had limited previous contact with  indigenous communities.
In addition to assessments and guidance, the Council has undertaken  regional and pan-Arctic initiatives that produced concrete deliverables  and, in some cases, led to measurable outcomes. For example, the Arctic  Contaminants Action Program project on obsolete pesticides began in  2001 to reduce environmental releases of outdated pesticides found in 11  Northern territories of Russia. Through this project, working group  members report they have inventoried, repackaged, and stored nearly  7,000 tons of outdated pesticides. Maritime and Aviation Transportation Infrastructure Initiative carried out  by the Sustainable Development Working Group developed a Web-based  searchable map of Arctic infrastructure to better identify capacity and  capability needs for future infrastructure development.
For additional information regarding the Arctic Contaminants Action Program’s project  on obsolete pesticides, see: http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/acap-home/acap- psgs/obsolete-pesticides.
The Council does not have a central source of funding for projects, and all  funding is voluntary. Specifically, each working group relies on its own  mechanisms to fund projects. State officials said that Arctic States  provide nearly all funding and in-kind contributions. The officials also said  that Permanent Participants sometimes provide small amounts of funding,  but their contributions to the Council’s work are almost entirely in-kind.  Financial support from Observers cannot exceed that of the Arctic States,  unless the SAOs decide otherwise by consensus. In addition, some  working groups seek supplemental financing from international financial  institutions to carry out some projects. According to some Council  stakeholders, working groups may compete for project funding because  different working groups might simultaneously have several applications  for financing under review at the same international financial institution  without any coordination. This arrangement places responsibility for the  prioritization of projects in the hands of these external institutions rather  than with the Council itself. Some federal agency officials also said that  the voluntary funding structure makes the working groups and their  projects vulnerable to political forces because Arctic States fund projects  that reflect their own priorities. Further, federal officials said that these  projects may not always reflect Council priorities and that the projects  undertaken may not always be the most important or the most strategic.
section_title: The Arctic Council Has Expanded and Broadened Its Work to Address Emerging Issues
paragraphs: As the opportunities and challenges facing the Arctic have grown in  volume and complexity, the Council has increased its workload and  created new task forces to address emerging issues. According to federal  officials, when the Council was established in 1996, it had about 30  ongoing projects. Over the years, that number has increased, and State  officials now estimate that the Council has about 80 ongoing projects. In  addition, the Council has created a number of task forces to supplement  the work of the working groups. The first task force was initiated at the  2009 Norwegian Ministerial meeting to negotiate a search and rescue  agreement that was delivered at the 2011 Danish Ministerial meeting. The  Council currently has a total of four task forces to address emerging  issues during the 2013 to 2015 Canadian chairmanship. Some federal  officials said that task forces address specific cross-cutting issues that  require high-level discussion from decision makers. Two task forces, one  during the Danish chairmanship from 2009 to 2011 and one during the  Swedish chairmanship from 2011 to 2013, resulted in two multilateral  agreements among the eight Arctic States. However, according to federal  officials, the expanded use of task forces sometimes pulls experts away  from the core working groups. Further, one official said that if these task  forces respond to new priority issues, the Council may want to revisit the  structure and scope of the existing working groups and incorporate the  emerging issues into the mandate of the working groups.
The Canadian chairmanship has further broadened the Council’s work to  address emerging issues. For example, Canada’s plan for its  chairmanship includes facilitating the creation of a business forum to  foster sustainable economic development in the Arctic and provide  opportunities for businesses to engage with the Council. Some  stakeholders said that, prior to this initiative, the Council did not have  mechanisms to involve industry and businesses, but some industry and  business experts participate on a meeting- or project-specific basis.  According to an Arctic stakeholder, business and industry have an  interest in Council activities because the discussions and decisions made  at the Council can directly affect their work. Moreover, stakeholders said  that industry and business representatives provide valuable knowledge,  expertise, and equipment for oil spill and other emergency prevention,  preparedness, and response.
As the Council’s workload has expanded, the Council has facilitated and  integrated its operations. For example, to enhance administrative support  and continuity of its operations, the Council established a small,  voluntarily funded administrative Secretariat in Tromsø, Norway, in  January 2013. Prior to this development, the Arctic State holding the  chairmanship performed the Secretariat functions. The Secretariat, which  had a staff of seven at the time of our review, maintains and updates the  Council’s website; provides a repository for information; and facilitates  information sharing among the Council working groups, task forces, and  expert groups. Federal officials said that the Secretariat will enhance the  institutional memory of the Council, increase information sharing, help  organize activities across the working groups, and make the work of the  Council more manageable and transparent. Some Arctic stakeholders  said that the Secretariat will also help strengthen relationships with other  organizations by providing up-to-date information regarding the Council’s  projects.
In addition, federal officials said that the Council has adopted measures  aimed at increasing communication and cooperation among the various  Council working groups. For example, the Council encourages  representatives from working groups to attend one another’s meetings.  Federal officials said that in early years of the Council, the Council  working groups operated independently with little interaction. According to  some Arctic stakeholders, this limited communication led to some  competition for projects among the Council working groups. In addition,  the Council issued a strategy in 2012 to improve internal communication,  facilitate cooperation, and avoid overlap in Council work. Among other  things, the strategy recommends that working groups prepare 2-page  summaries following all meetings and distribute the summaries to the  SAOs, Secretariat, working groups, and chairmanship to quickly inform  them of meeting outcomes.
section_title: Six Key U.S. Agencies Participate in the Council with Leadership Roles and Face Challenges by Not Having a Clear Direction or Specific Resources for the Work
paragraphs: Six federal agencies with leadership roles participate in the Council  mainly by heading U.S. delegations to working groups and face  challenges in doing so. Other federal agencies participate in Council  working groups and lead U.S. participation in some task forces.  Numerous agencies with Arctic interests collaborate through an informal  interagency group to conduct Council work but face challenges because  of not having a clear direction and specific resources for their participation  in the Council. Finally, some mechanisms exist to consider Alaska’s and  Alaska Natives’ interests in federal agencies’ Council work, but agencies  face additional challenges considering these interests.
subsections: section_title: Six Key Agencies Hold Leadership Roles in the Council, and Other Agencies Participate Through Working Groups and Task Forces
paragraphs: Six key agencies hold leadership roles as head of the U.S. delegations to  the Council’s working groups, and other agencies lead the U.S. efforts on  Council task forces (see fig. 5).
As one of the six key agencies, State leads federal agency efforts and  participates in the Council in several capacities. For example, in addition  to the Secretary of State’s role as the U.S. Arctic Minister, State leads the  U.S. chairmanship of the Council, which first occurred from 1998 to 2000  and will occur again in 2015. A State official also serves as the U.S.  SAO and leads U.S. participation in the Sustainable Development  Working Group. State officials said they consult with federal agencies to  select U.S. heads of delegation and U.S. representatives to the Council’s  working groups and task forces. For example, State asked USGCRP to  head the U.S. delegation to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment  Programme working group and EPA to co-chair a task force on Short- Lived Climate Forcers with Norway and Sweden that produced a report  on black carbon, among other products. Some of these agencies  provide varying amounts of funding to the working groups and task forces  in which they participate.
In addition to agencies with leadership roles, at least 15 agencies with  Arctic interests participate in the Council’s working groups and task forces  (see app. IV for a list of agencies participating in working groups and task  forces as of January 2014). For example, a BOEM official participates in  the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme working group’s effort  to produce a three-volume oil and gas assessment, which discusses the  potential effects of oil and gas activities in the Arctic. Furthermore, Coast  Guard officials said they formerly served as the head of the U.S.  delegations for the Task Forces on Search and Rescue and on Arctic  Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response, and authored various  chapters of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment.
Most officials we interviewed from key agencies said their participation in  the Council enhances their ability to leverage resources, fulfill their  missions, learn best practices, or further develop relations with other  Arctic States. For example, an FWS official said the work of the Council  enables the agency to leverage resources to accomplish Council projects  that align with its mission, and provides access to other Arctic States with  common interests. In addition, a NOAA official said the Council helps the  agency build partnerships that have provided opportunities crucial for  conducting its work, such as obtaining access to other countries’   A Coast Guard  exclusive economic zones to conduct scientific research.official said the participation in the Council facilitated valuable interactions  with international partners to sponsor research, identify best practices,  and support development of shipping standards at the IMO and other  standards bodies. Coast Guard officials also said working through the  Council particularly enhanced bi-lateral relations with Russian and  Canadian officials, supporting related initiatives outside the Council such  as updating joint contingency plans between the United States and  Canada to manage a cross-border oil spill, among other things.
section_title: Agencies Collaborate on Arctic Council Work and Face Challenges by Not Having a Clear Direction or Specific Resources for the Work
paragraphs: Within the United States, federal agency officials who participate in the  Council collaborate primarily through the Arctic Policy Group, an informal  interagency group led by State but is not part of the Council itself.  According to State officials, this group discusses Council issues and  shares Arctic-related information, among other things.the group monthly and uses it to circulate information and identify agency  officials to work on Council projects. According to a National Security  Decision Memorandum and State officials, the Arctic Policy Group  oversees implementation of U.S. Arctic policy but does not make policy  decisions. As of December 2013, this group consisted of officials from at  least 39 federal agencies and the state of Alaska Governor’s and  Lieutenant Governor’s offices (see app. V for a list of agencies  participating in the group). In addition to the Arctic Policy Group, EPA   State convenes  officials said the six U.S. heads of delegation collaborate through informal  meetings, which generally occur quarterly and involve discussion of  current Council work and priorities.
Several agency officials we spoke with said that the Arctic Policy Group  helps them collaborate on Council work, but some officials said agencies  face challenges participating on the Council. First, some key agency  officials and Arctic stakeholders said collaborating agencies face a key  challenge by not having a clear direction to guide and align their Council  work. Specifically, some agency officials and these stakeholders said that  the six agencies have not developed a strategy that guides agency  collaboration for Council participation and aligns the agencies’ work. For  example, a USGCRP official said, aside from State’s overall role as the  lead U.S. agency, other federal agencies have limited ability to influence  one another and have no strategy to guide their Council work. The U.S.  government and various agencies have Arctic strategies, but these  documents do not articulate an overall approach for agencies to follow in  Council participation. State officials said these strategies do not guide  agency participation in Council activities instead, they reflect work  conducted in the Council.
In the absence of clear direction that helps align collaborating agencies’  Council work, some stakeholders said the United States faces challenges  prioritizing the work and delivering unified messages to other Arctic  States. For example, an NNSA official said that U.S. agencies do not  have a strategy applied across the agencies, but agency officials discuss  and agree upon projects within the Arctic Policy Group as they arise. In  addition, one stakeholder who participated in the Council said different  agencies have delivered inconsistent messages when providing  comments on various working group reports. The stakeholder said at  times agency officials provide comments on reports but do not do so in an  official capacity. The stakeholder also said that establishing Council  priorities could unify U.S. agencies’ voices.
In addition to not having a clear direction for Council participation, officials  from most of the six key agencies said they face challenges sustaining  their collaborative Council efforts because they do not have specific  resources for their Council work. In particular, agency officials said federal  funding and staff time for Council activities come from general program  budgets, which creates challenges when Council work must compete with  other agency priorities for funding. For example, NOAA officials said their  agency focuses mainly on domestic issues, which limits funding for  international activities such as Council work even though this work relates  to NOAA’s mission. State officials also said the United States does not  have specific funding for Council work because it had not formerly  prioritized Council participation. In addition, agency officials said they do  not identify their in-kind time spent on Council activities, primarily because  of challenges differentiating Council tasks from their other duties.
Some agency officials said that without specified resources for their  Council work, they face challenges implementing agreed-upon actions  and committing to Council activities. For example, EPA officials said the  absence of funding specific to Council projects limits their ability to  participate. In particular, EPA officials said Council ministers approved  projects on mercury contamination, but these projects had not occurred at  the time of our review because of limited funding from Arctic States,  including the United States. In another case, according to a FWS official,  the FWS official who leads the U.S. delegation for the Conservation of  Arctic Flora and Fauna working group was not able to attend in-person  two working group meetings in 2012 and 2013, although FWS officials   Some stakeholders said  attended these meetings in previous years.inconsistent U.S. participation concerns other Arctic States, which may  cause some loss of U.S. influence in the Council. Furthermore, State  officials said the absence of specified funding for Council work makes it  challenging to manage the increased workload. For example, State  officials said the agency had two full-time employees dedicated to Council  work, as of February 2014. Various agency officials and stakeholders said  that State does not have enough staff necessary to carry out the agency’s  increasing Council responsibilities. State officials said they hoped to  identify additional funding for staff dedicated to Council work and were  developing a plan at the time of our review to identify their anticipated  staff needs for the U.S. chairmanship in 2015.
State officials said that developing a Council strategy, in collaboration  with other agencies that participate in Council activities, which outlines a  clear direction for participation and identifies resources might help sustain  the collaborative effort to address these challenges and support the  United States’ role as chair in 2015. We previously reported on key  practices for enhancing and sustaining collaboration among federal  agencies.establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to help align activities  and resources for the collaborative effort and (2) identifying and  addressing needs by leveraging resources, which entails, among other  things, identifying human and financial resources needed to initiate or  sustain a collaborative effort. Without engaging in these practices, the  collaborating agencies that hold leadership roles may continue to face  challenges prioritizing the work, delivering unified messages, and  consistently participating in the Council.
These practices include collaborating agencies (1)
section_title: Agencies Consider Alaska’s and Alaska Natives’ Interests in Their Arctic Council Work, but Challenges Exist with These Efforts
paragraphs: Key federal agency officials we spoke with said they consider the state of  Alaska and Alaska Natives’ interests though various mechanisms,  including the Council and the Alaska Arctic Council ad hoc working group,  but they said challenges exist in doing so. In addition, key documents  articulate the federal government’s intent to consider the interests of  Arctic stakeholders. For example, the 2013 National Strategy for the  Arctic Region includes fostering partnerships with the state of Alaska and  consulting and coordinating with Alaska Natives and a 2013 interagency  report to the President prioritizes partnering with them to implement the  national strategy.Alaska Natives we spoke with had concerns about the extent to which  federal agencies and their Permanent Participant representatives view  them as partners and consider their interests since the United States is  an Arctic nation because of Alaska.
However, officials from the state of Alaska and some  Regarding the state of Alaska, federal agency officials that we interviewed  mainly consider its interests in their Council work through the Arctic Policy  Group, direct interactions on the U.S. delegation to the Council, and the  Alaska Arctic Council ad hoc working group consisting of interested  parties in Alaska. Most of the key federal agency and state of Alaska  officials we interviewed said the Arctic Policy Group is the primary  mechanism for considering the state of Alaska’s interests. An Alaska  official cited the Arctic Policy Group as a helpful way to incorporate input  from the Alaska region. For example, in February 2012, an Alaska state  official presented the Arctic Policy Group with a state legislative-led task  force’s efforts to identify opportunities for addressing the economic and  environmental effects of diminishing sea ice on Alaska, according to State  officials.
In addition, state of Alaska officials said they work directly with federal  agencies by participating in Council working groups and projects. For  example, regarding the upcoming U.S. chairmanship of the Council,  Alaska officials sent State a list of four priority themes the state of Alaska  would like considered when the United States assumes the chair in 2015,  such as creating jobs and economic opportunities for Arctic residents and   In addition, state of Alaska  ensuring safe, secure, and reliable shipping. officials said they participated on the Council’s Task Force on Arctic  Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response and the Arctic Maritime   Finally, Alaska  and Aviation Transportation Infrastructure Initiative.officials said they also host a bimonthly Alaska Arctic Council ad hoc  working group teleconference, which involves coordination with State  officials, Alaska-based Permanent Participants, the Alaska Congressional  Delegation, and others to facilitate communication on Council issues.
Alaska state officials we spoke with said they faced three main challenges  while working with the federal agencies to have them consider the state’s  interests in the agencies’ Council work. First, Alaska officials said the  state’s Arctic priorities sometimes differ from those of the federal  agencies, making it challenging for the state to have its perspectives  incorporated into agencies’ Council work. For example, Alaska officials  said they tried to have their interests reflected in a report by the Council’s  Ecosystem Based Management expert group, but could not do so  because the U.S. delegation working on the report had different priorities  than the state of Alaska. Second, state of Alaska officials said State does  not provide enough information on the process used to make policy  decisions regarding the Council. Without this information, Alaska state  officials said it is difficult to know which federal agency they should  contact to provide their input and when to do so. In particular, Alaska  officials said that federal agencies leading U.S. participation in Council  working groups have a considerable amount of autonomy to direct  participation and ability to affect project outcomes, which may not align   Third, Alaska officials said the state had limited  with Alaska’s priorities.resources to engage with the federal agencies and participate in Council  projects. Because of limited information on the process used for federal  decision making regarding the Council and resources for Alaska’s  participation, Alaska state officials said they could not participate as fully  as desired to ensure that the Council addresses their interests. Overall,  an Alaska state official said that increasing collaboration between the  state and federal government would help address some of these  challenges.
With respect to incorporating the perspectives of Alaska Natives, some  federal agency officials leading U.S. participation in the Council said they  consider Alaska Natives’ interests through engagement with the four  Permanent Participant groups that represent Alaska Natives. For  example, State officials said they primarily consult with Permanent  Participant representatives prior to SAO meetings on an as-needed basis  to discuss items on upcoming meeting agendas. Officials from other  agencies said they work with the Permanent Participant representatives  during Council meetings. For example, a USGCRP official said he  engages with the Inuit Circumpolar Council through the Arctic Monitoring  and Assessment Programme working group. In addition, a Permanent  Participant representative said his group regularly talks with the U.S.  head of delegation to the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna working  group, an FWS official based in Alaska. However, this Permanent  Participant representative said he interacts less frequently with federal  officials located outside of Alaska, such as the U.S. head of delegation to  the Sustainable Development Working Group, a State official based in  Washington, D.C.
Various agencies and Alaska-based Permanent Participant  representatives we spoke with said Permanent Participants’ limited  financial resources and number of staff for Council participation created  challenges when considering Alaska Native interests in agencies’ Council  work. One Permanent Participant representative said over the years,  increases in the number of Council activities, projects, and task forces in  turn increased the burden on the Permanent Participants, particularly for  travel to meetings. To help address these issues, State provides annual travel funding to the four Alaska-based Permanent Participant groups. Without State funding, the groups would have a more difficult time  maintaining their Council participation, according to a Permanent  Participant representative. In addition to travel challenges, the increasing  number of Council projects challenges Permanent Participants’ capacity  to keep up with the workload. For example, a former Permanent  Participant representative said that effective involvement requires  participation in activities taking place between SAO meetings, such as  spending time reviewing draft documents. This can pose challenges for  some Permanent Participants because of a limited number of staff.
For example, in 2012, an Aleut International Association representative said State  provided $75,000 and, in 2013, it provided $55,000. Not all Permanent Participants use  this funding. For example, Gwich’in Council International has not used this funding in  recent years mainly because of limited number of staff, according to a Permanent  Participant representative.
Specifically, some of the Alaska-based Permanent Participant groups  have no permanent staff, and others have only two to three staff.
Our site visits to Alaska Native villages reinforced some of these  challenges. Alaska Natives we interviewed from Barrow, Kivalina,  Kotzebue, and Wainwright said some of their primary environmental and  economic interests included the following: ensuring sustainable economic development; preventing pollution from oil spills and other hazardous materials;  reducing the effects of increased shipping traffic on the wildlife they  hunt and rely on for food, such as whale, caribou, walrus, seal, and  salmon; addressing the adverse effects of climate change, such as sea ice  retreat and coastal erosion;  reducing the effects of rising fuel prices; and preparing for increased visitors from cruise ships and any related  incidents.
One community leader said oil and gas development would provide jobs  and address infrastructure gaps, but he would like this development  conducted responsibly. Other community leaders said the changes in the  climate, such as declining sea ice, make it more difficult for Alaska  Natives to hunt the animals they primarily rely on for food and require  some villages to construct sea walls or relocate due to rising seas and  coastal erosion.each site visit location (see app. VI for the full text of this graphic).
section_title: Agencies Have Acted on Some Arctic Council Voluntary Recommendations but State Does Not Track Actions and Faces Challenges Implementing Them
paragraphs: Federal agencies have taken various actions on some voluntary  recommendations that the United States and other Arctic States have  adopted through the Council, but State does not have a process to review  and track progress made on these actions and faces challenges  implementing them. The United States endorses actions to address Arctic  issues by adopting voluntary recommendations approved in nonbinding  ministerial declarations and, more recently, signing two formal multilateral  agreements that address specific high-priority issues. State relies on  other agencies to act on the recommendations, but the agency does not  review or track their overall implementation. According to State officials  and other stakeholders, the recommendations provide a mechanism to  strengthen the Council’s ability to address Arctic issues, but the United  States—with State as the lead agency—and other Arctic States face  challenges implementing them.
subsections: section_title: The United States Endorses Actions to Address Arctic Issues through Voluntary Recommendations and Formal Agreements and Has Taken Some Related Actions
paragraphs: The United States and other Arctic States adopt voluntary  recommendations that the Council makes in nonbinding biennial  ministerial declarations, which Arctic States negotiate and approve by  consensus. We analyzed the eight Council declarations issued from 1998  to 2013 and consulted with State officials to identify statements in the  declarations that State considers as recommendations to Arctic States. In  total, State officials identified 39 recommendations in the declarations that  spanned many Arctic issues addressed in the Council including the  marine environment, biodiversity, climate change, environmental  protection, emergency prevention, and human health and development  (see app. VII for the list of recommendations that State officials identified).  In general, the recommendations either identified broad actions  associated with various Arctic issues or endorsed numerous  recommendations made in reports and assessments produced by  working groups and task forces.
State relies on other agencies to act on the recommendations, and  agencies have taken some actions in response. For example, several  U.S. agencies have actively contributed to a monitoring initiative  endorsed in the 2006 Salekhard Declaration. declaration encouraged the Arctic States to contribute to the Circumpolar  Biodiversity Monitoring Program, an international network of scientists,  governments, indigenous organizations, and conservation groups working  to integrate efforts to monitor the Arctic’s living resources. In response,  U.S. agencies have contributed to the program through the Bureau of  Land Management co-chairing the effort with the North Slope Science  Initiative, an intergovernmental effort to improve collection and  dissemination of ecosystem information in the U.S. Arctic, and the Arctic  Research Centre in Denmark.
Arctic Council, Salekhard Declaration: On the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the  Arctic Council, the Fifth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting (Salekhard, Russia: Oct. 26,  2006). the Arctic States apply guidelines developed by the Council for offshore  oil and gas development. According to a BOEM official, these guidelines  reflected some practices already used in the United States, such as  conducting environmental studies to establish baseline information for a  region included in an oil and gas lease sale. In another example, the  Council declarations in 2011 and 2013 encouraged Arctic States to  implement recommendations in Council reports on short-lived climate  forcers, including black carbon.States has already implemented some actions aimed at reducing black  carbon pollution. These actions include developing standards under the  Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of particulate matter, of which black  carbon is a component, as well as implementing voluntary EPA programs  to retrofit diesel vehicles, the largest source of black carbon emissions.
According to State officials, the United  In addition to voluntary recommendations adopted through the Council,  starting in 2011, the United States signed multilateral agreements with the  other Arctic States on search and rescue and oil spill preparedness and  response that were developed by Council task forces. In the 2011 Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and  Rescue in the Arctic (Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement), the Arctic  States committed to search and rescue actions, such as promoting the establishment, operation, and maintenance of an  adequate and effective search and rescue capability within an area  specified in the agreement; ensuring that assistance is provided to anyone in distress regardless  of the nationality or status of such a person or circumstances in which  that person is found; exchanging information that may serve to improve the effectiveness of  search and rescue operations; and meeting with the other parties on a regular basis to consider and  resolve issues regarding practical cooperation.
In the 2013 Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution  Preparedness and Response in the Arctic (Arctic Oil Pollution  Preparedness and Response Agreement), Arctic States committed to oil  spill preparedness and response actions, such as maintaining a system for responding promptly and effectively to oil establishing, as appropriate, a minimum level of prepositioned oil spill establishing, as appropriate, a program of exercises for oil pollution  response organizations and training of relevant personnel; establishing, as appropriate, plans and communications capabilities  for responding to an oil pollution incident; promoting cooperation and coordination by endeavoring to carry out  joint exercises and training; and developing and maintaining, with the other parties to the agreement, a  set of operational guidelines to assist in the agreement’s  implementation but these guidelines will not be legally binding.
The Coast Guard acts as the lead agency for implementing the two  agreements and has taken or planned various actions in response. These  actions include the following:
Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement. According to Coast Guard  officials, the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement solidified  partnerships with neighboring countries and formalized an existing  understanding but did not formally commit the United States to  allocate additional resources to search and rescue in the Arctic. Since  the agreement was signed, the United States has organized some  high-level meetings and committed to joint training exercises. Even  while meeting the intent of the agreement, the absence of a  permanent physical presence in the region limits the U.S.  government’s ability to respond to vessels or persons in distress in the  Arctic, according to Coast Guard and State officials.
Arctic Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response Agreement. The  Coast Guard has not dedicated any additional resources to implement  this agreement but plans to participate in the first exercise under the  agreement in 2014 with the other Arctic States, according to Coast  Guard officials. An oil and gas industry stakeholder said that the  Coast Guard could face challenges implementing the agreement in  the event of an oil spill incident because the government does not  own adequate equipment to respond to an emergency. This  stakeholder said that oil and shipping companies own approximately  90 percent of the emergency response equipment in the Arctic.  However, Coast Guard officials said the agency plays an oversight  role in maritime incident response and that industry must provide any  response resources.
section_title: State Does Not Track Agencies’ Progress Toward Implementing Recommendations
paragraphs: State does not review or track agencies’ overall progress toward  implementing the recommendations the United States has adopted  through the Council. According to State officials, agencies discuss the  implementation of recommendations informally during monthly  interagency Arctic Policy Group meetings, but State does not formally  follow up with the agencies to identify their progress toward  implementation. Several senior agency officials said that historically, the  United States has not made a concerted effort to follow up on  recommendations because the Council had not been a high priority for  State. However, the officials said that State has increased the priority of  the Council recommendations as the United States prepares to assume  the Council chair in 2015.
Senior State officials said that they may need to more formally focus on  follow-up and provide an overall assessment of progress made by  agencies toward implementing recommendations. According to the  officials, developing a process for U.S. agencies to review and track  implementation progress would increase accountability across the  government, enhance coordination across agencies, and avoid overlap.
However, the officials also said that they would have to weigh the benefits  of such a process against the resources it would require for maintenance.
Without such a process to review and track progress toward  implementing Council recommendations, State officials said that State  and other key agencies do not know the status of the recommendations  and could face challenges planning for and prioritizing actions to address  Arctic issues. Specifically, State officials said that the agencies use the  same resources to implement recommendations as they do for their other  Council work, so adopting new actions reduces the resources available to  take on the increasing workload of the Council working groups, task  forces, and other efforts. The officials said they need to know the capacity  of agencies to implement new recommendations as State prepares for  the Council chairmanship through steps such as developing new project  proposals and determining priorities.
section_title: Broad and Numerous Recommendations Create Implementation Challenges
paragraphs: Some federal officials and stakeholders directly involved in Council work  said that the United States—with State as the lead agency—and other  Arctic States at times face challenges implementing the broad  recommendations made in the declarations and the numerous  recommendations made in the working group and task force reports.  First, according to the officials, the ministerial declarations do not always  clearly specify measurable actions that the Council recommends Arctic  States take. For example, the broad recommendations included such  statements as, the Arctic States “encourage actions to reduce the risks of  radioactivity in the Arctic” and “urge implementation of early actions  where possible on methane and other relevant short-lived climate forcers”  in the 2000 and 2009 declarations, respectively.
In addition to the broad declaration recommendations, our analysis found  and State officials said the working group and task force  recommendations endorsed by the declaration statements are too  numerous for Arctic States to fully implement. State officials said that a  complete list of these recommendations does not exist, but our analysis  identified several instances in which working group and task force reports  and assessments had from 10 to 20 recommendations directed to the  Arctic States. For example, a 2004 Council climate change report  included 16 recommendations related to climate change, and a 2009  Council report on Arctic pollutants made 18 related recommendations.
In this context, State officials said that the working groups produced too  many recommendations to the Arctic States without specifying priorities,  making it difficult for the States to implement all of them or focus on  priority issues.
According to senior State officials, the Council does not have guidelines  for developing clear and prioritized recommendations for the Arctic  States. The officials said that not having such guidelines has contributed  to the Council adopting broad and numerous recommendations, resulting  in implementation challenges. State officials said that Arctic States intend  for their governments to implement the recommendations, but act on  them voluntarily and must balance recommendation implementation with  competing needs and resources for the increasing volume of Council   Recognizing some of these challenges, the Council has started to  work. take a more strategic approach to adopting recommendations than it had  in the past, placing a greater focus on outcomes, according to some  federal officials and stakeholders. Starting in 2006 the Council began  developing a more formal process for reviewing and negotiating  recommendations. However, challenges implementing the broad and  numerous recommendations remain and State officials said that a need  exists for the Council to more clearly specify actions with measurable  outcomes and prioritize the Council recommendations to better ensure  their implementation.
According to EPA officials, the Arctic States have varying abilities to implement the  Council’s recommendations, so the Council includes the phrase “as appropriate in their  national circumstances” in the language of some recommendations to Arctic States. measurable outcomes in addressing Arctic issues within the Council’s  purview. The officials said that the recommendations, if implemented,  provide a means to strengthen the Council’s ability to address Arctic  issues, which represents a goal of the Council and the United States.  Specifically, Council declarations have underscored the importance of  such strengthening, and U.S. Arctic policy states that the United States  seeks to strengthen institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic  States, such as the Council. When the United States assumes the  chairmanship in 2015, it will have an opportunity to guide and more  effectively advance the Council’s efforts to address Arctic issues. For  example, according to the 2013 National Arctic Strategy Implementation  Plan, the United States will lead the development of the 2015 ministerial  declaration that will include recommendations related to priorities for the  U.S. chairmanship.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Arctic region’s rapid changes alter the environment, provide  economic opportunities, and affect the people living there. With these  changes and an increase in global attention on the region, the Council’s  work will likely continue to expand. The federal government has increased  its focus on Arctic issues, and U.S. participation in the Council provides a  forum to address some of these issues, collaborate domestically and  internationally, and leverage resources. State leads U.S. participation in  the Council and relies heavily on the work of other federal agencies for  most of the U.S. contributions to the Council. However, State has not  established a joint strategy for U.S. participation that outlines a clear  direction or specifies necessary resources. Without a joint strategy, key  collaborating agencies may continue to face challenges prioritizing the  work, delivering unified messages, and consistently participating in the  Council. In addition, the U.S. chairmanship will span two presidential  administrations, making it particularly important to plan for continuity.
Furthermore, as Arctic issues have emerged and become a priority for the  United States, State has increased its attention on the voluntary  recommendations the United States has adopted through the Council and  identified a need to more formally follow up on and assess progress  toward implementing them. Because State does not have a process to  review and track progress made by U.S. agencies to implement  recommendations, State faces challenges planning for and prioritizing  future areas of action on Arctic issues within the Council’s purview. This  will become increasingly important when the United States chairs the  Council starting in 2015, providing State with valuable opportunities to  shape future Council priorities.
Finally, State has recognized the importance of strengthening the  Council’s ability to make progress toward addressing Arctic issues  through implementing recommendations and identified the need to more  clearly specify actions with measurable outcomes and prioritize  recommended actions. Specifically, State officials said the Council does  not have guidelines for adopting clear and prioritized recommendations.  Having no such guidelines has led to the Council adopting broad and  numerous recommendations that the Arctic States face challenges  implementing. As a result, State officials said that the Council has  produced valuable work, but the recommendations have not historically  produced actions leading to measurable results in addressing Arctic  issues.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help clarify the direction of future U.S. participation and position the  United States for a successful Arctic Council chairmanship, assess the  status of recommendations adopted through the Council, and strengthen  the Council’s ability to address Arctic issues within its purview, we  recommend 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided EPA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy,  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior, State,  and USGCRP with a draft of this report for review and comment. In  written comments, reproduced in appendix VIII, State generally agreed  with our recommendations.  State also noted that the Council  recommendations we discuss in the report are expressly voluntary and  should be differentiated from more formal commitments made through the  international agreements.  We modified the text to make this distinction.
EPA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of  Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior, and USGCRP  provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of the  EPA, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of  Homeland Security, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of State,  Executive Director of USGCRP, the appropriate congressional  committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202)512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Appendix IX lists the GAO staff who made key  contributions to the report.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to review matters related to U.S. participation in the Arctic  Council (Council). This report examines (1) how the Council is organized  and how it addresses environmental and economic development issues;  (2) how U.S. federal agencies with a key leadership role participate in the  Council and the associated challenges, if any; and (3) the actions the  Department of State (State) and other federal agencies have taken to  implement and manage voluntary recommendations the United States  has adopted through the Council and associated challenges, if any.
To choose from the many federal agencies involved in Council work and  to scope our work, we selected agencies that hold key leadership roles.  We chose State because it leads U.S. participation in the Council and  agencies that head the U.S. delegations to the six Council working  groups. These agencies are the U.S. Global Change Research Program,  the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the  Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the  Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration.
To provide information to answer all three of our objectives, we  interviewed the following:  1.  knowledgeable officials from the key federal agencies with a  leadership role in the Council;  2.  leaders of Permanent Participant organizations that represent Alaska  Natives in the Council, including the Aleut International Association,  Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwich’in Council International, and Inuit  Circumpolar Council; and  3.  key Arctic stakeholders.
To select key Arctic stakeholders, we first identified a potential list of over  100 contacts by conducting research, as well as collecting referrals  through a snowballed process, starting with key agency officials and  stakeholders known to have direct involvement in the Council. Our list  included contacts who represented diverse perspectives such as federal  agencies, Alaska state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, groups  representing Alaska Natives, science and policy research organizations,  industry groups, and academic institutions. We ranked each contact from  highest to lowest priority based on whether they: (1) had significant  involvement in the Council – the six key agencies, Alaska-based  Permanent Participants, and the state of Alaska; (2) were referred to us  based on their experience working with the Council in the past; (3)  worked with the Council as identified by Council documents or individual  biographical research, but were not referred to us; and (4) represented an  organization that applied for Council Observer status, or was in the  process of doing so during our review. Once we organized our  stakeholder list based on these rankings, we categorized the list by topic  areas to acquire a balance of perspectives. These topic areas included  environmental groups, federal agencies, health and human development  groups, indigenous groups, industry, local or state agencies, policy  groups, and science and research groups. Finally, we narrowed our list of  stakeholders to those who were the highest priority based on our  rankings, could offer a diverse perspectives, and had availability while  ensuring alignment with GAO’s allotted staff resources and time. Because  of our scope and resources, we did not interview all stakeholders.  Findings from our report based on stakeholder perspectives are not  generalizable.
In addition, to identify how the Council is organized and addresses  environmental and economic development issues, we attended a Council  Senior Arctic Officials meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, in March 2013, and  we analyzed Council documents, academic publications, and the  Council’s website. We also reviewed Arctic State publications, peer- reviewed academic literature, and nongovernmental organization reports  published from 2008 to 2013. We determined these sources were  sufficiently sound for our purpose. Furthermore, we focused on Arctic  environmental and economic issues because the Council’s mission  outlines these as issues to address. We did not assess the effectiveness  of the Council.
In addition to conducting interviews with key U.S. federal agency officials  to determine how they participate in the Council and identify any  associated challenges, we reviewed relevant agency and Council  documents. We also conducted site visits to the Arctic Alaskan  communities of Barrow, Kivalina, Kotzebue, and Wainwright. We met with  community leaders to learn their perspectives on environmental and  economic issues facing their community and how, if at all, key federal  agencies considered their interests in their Council work. We selected  these four communities based on the following factors: (1) stakeholder  referrals, (2) location above the Arctic Circle, (3) representation of a range  of community sizes and perspectives, and (4) accessibility in order to  accommodate GAO’s allotted staff and financial resources. Findings from  these site visits cannot be generalized to those we did not include in our  nonprobability sample. In addition to these four locations, we visited  Anchorage, Alaska, where we interviewed knowledgeable Alaska state  officials, key Arctic stakeholders, and two Permanent Participant group  representatives to help inform our objectives.
Finally, to identify and assess the actions that State and other federal  agencies take to implement and manage voluntary recommendations the  United States has adopted through the Council, we first analyzed Council  ministerial declarations from 1998 to 2013 to develop a list of statements  that directed actions to Arctic States. To create the list, two analysts  independently identified these statements, compared results, and  resolved any differences. We then asked State officials to review our list  and identify which statements they viewed as Council recommendations  to Arctic States. We also analyzed Council reports endorsed in the  recommendations and the two multilateral agreements negotiated through  the Council. Finally, we selected examples of actions agencies took to  implement Council recommendations and multilateral agreements.
This report will contribute to a multilateral audit of the Council led by the  Supreme Audit Institutions of Norway and Russia, also with participation  by Denmark, and Sweden.Finland, and Iceland observed the multilateral audit.
The Supreme Audit Institutions of Canada,  We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to May 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Arctic Council Chairmanships
subsections: section_title: Arctic state Canada
section_title: Appendix III: Full Text of Figure 1, Changes in September Ice Coverage from 2001 to 2013, Compared with the 1979- 2000 Median September Ice Coverage
paragraphs: Figure 7 shows changes in September sea ice coverage, by year from  2001 through 2013 (see interactive fig. 1).
section_title: Appendix IV: U.S. Agencies Participating in Arctic Council Working Groups and Task Forces as of January 2014
subsections: section_title: Arctic Council working groups Arctic Contaminants Action Program
section_title: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program
section_title: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
section_title: Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response
section_title: Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
section_title: Sustainable Development Working Group
section_title: Task Force on Science Cooperation
section_title: Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Prevention
section_title: Task Force to Create a Circumpolar Business Forum
section_title: Appendix V: Arctic Policy Group Participants as of December 2013
subsections: section_title: Executive Office of the President
section_title: Federal agencies
section_title: Other federal entities
section_title: State of Alaska
section_title: Appendix VI: Full Text of Figure 6, Arctic Alaska Site Visits
paragraphs: Name: Barrow (traditionally known as Ukpeagvik)
Population: 4,212, of which approximately 61 percent are American  Indian and Alaska Native, which includes Iñupiat Eskimos.
Location: Located on the Chukchi Sea coast, Barrow is the northernmost  community in the United States.
Brief background: During the 1940s and 1950s, the military played an  influential role in the Barrow area and constructed a Distant Early  Warning line – a system of radar stations established to detect incoming  Soviet bombers during the cold war and provide early warning of  incursions into North American airspace. Exploration in the National  Petroleum Reserve, which is a 22.8-million acre area with oil on Alaska’s  North Slope, brought new people to the region, and construction of the  Prudhoe Bay oilfields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have each contributed to  its development. Since that time, tax revenues from the North Slope oil  fields fund services in the area. Barrow has become the economic,  transportation, and administrative center for Alaska’s North Slope region.
Main industries providing employment: According to 2008 to 2012 data,  out of 1,969 employed, 23 percent were in educational services, health  care, and social assistance; 22 percent were in public administration; and  13 percent were in retail trade.
Alaska Native concerns on various Arctic issues: Some community  leaders said they were concerned about the affects of increased Arctic  activities and change in the climate on their access to subsistence  resources, as well as limited plans and regulations to guide oil exploration  and response to spills.
Name: Kivalina (traditionally known as Kivaliniq)
Population: 374, of which approximately 96 percent are American Indian  and Alaska Native, which includes Iñupiat Eskimos.
Location: Kivalina is at the tip of an 8-mile barrier reef located between  the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina River. It is 80 air miles northwest of  Kotzebue and approximately 50 miles from the Red Dog Mine.
Brief background: The first recorded history of Kivalina occurred in 1847  when a Russian naval officer mistook a seasonal hunting camp at the  north end of Kivalina Lagoon as a permanent settlement. Kivalina was  located at its current location in 1905 when the Bureau of Indian Affairs  built a school on the southern tip of the island. This compelled people  who lived in the original Kivalina to migrate to the Kivalina created by the  Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Main industries providing employment: According to 2008 to 2012 data,  out of 132 employed, 24 percent were in educational services, health  care, and social assistance; 23 percent were in retail trade; and 17  percent were in public administration.
Alaska Native concerns on various Arctic issues: Community leaders said  severe coastal erosion has significantly affected Kivalina. The village  intends to relocate to a new site 2.5 miles away. In addition, homes do  not have full plumbing, and there is only one public space with three  showers available.
Name: Kotzebue (traditionally known as Kikiktagruk)
Population: 3,201, of which approximately 74 percent are American  Indian and Alaska Native, which includes Iñupiat Eskimos.
Location: Kotzebue lies on the Baldwin Peninsula in Kotzebue Sound  where the Noatak, Kobuk, and Selawik rivers end.
Brief background: The Iñupiat have occupied the area for at least 600  years. The site was a trading location for local natives for hundreds of  years. Expansion of economic activities, such as oil and mineral  exploration, and services to support these activities contributed to  Kotzebue’s development. Kotzebue is the service and transportation  center for all villages in Alaska’s northwest region.
Main industries providing employment: According to 2008 to 2012 data,  out of 1,326 employed, 38 percent were in educational services, health  care and social assistance; 13 percent were in transportation,  warehousing, and utilities; and 11 percent were in public administration.
Alaska Native concerns on various Arctic issues: Community leaders said  they have seen changes in sea ice, which affects the community’s  traditional subsistence lifestyle. As a result, many have turned to  participating in the cash based economy, although there is strong desire  to return to their traditional lifestyle.
Name: Wainwright (traditionally known as Olgoonik)
Population: 556, of which approximately 92 percent are American Indian  and Alaska Native, which includes Iñupiat Eskimos.
Location: Wainwright sits on a wave-eroded coastal bluff of a narrow  peninsula, which separates Wainwright Inlet from the Chukchi Sea.  Wainwright is about 70 miles southwest of Barrow.
Brief background: The region around Wainwright was traditionally well  populated, though the present village was not established until 1904 –  when the Alaska Native Service built a school and instituted medical and  other services. Wainwright is the third largest village in Alaska’s North  Slope region.
Main industries providing employment: According to 2008 to 2012 data,  out of 233 employed, 25 percent were in educational services, health  care, and social assistance; 15 percent were in construction; and 13  percent were in transportation, warehousing, and utilities.
Alaska Native concerns on various Arctic issues: Community leaders said  they were concerned about the effects of climate change in their  community and were in the process of constructing a seawall to protect a  bluff from wave erosion. Leaders also said they would like to increase  responsible oil and gas exploration to help support the community’s  lifestyle.
section_title: Appendix VII: Arctic Council Declaration Statements Identified by Department of State Officials as Recommendations to Arctic States
subsections: section_title: Year Declaration 1998 Iqaluit
paragraphs: No.  Declaration statement   1.
Reaffirm our commitment from the Alta Declaration to take the findings and recommendations from  the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Report, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the  Arctic Environment Report, into consideration in our policies and programmes, to increase our efforts  to limit and reduce emissions of contaminants into the environment and to promote international  cooperation and make a determined effort to secure support for international actions in order to  address the serious pollution risks reported by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.
Endorse and adopt the Arctic Council Plan to Eliminate Pollution in the Arctic.
Encourage actions to reduce the risks of radioactivity to the Arctic.
Acknowledge the recommendations arising from the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna report  Arctic Flora and Fauna, Status and Conservation as a strategy for future biodiversity conservation  work of the Arctic Council.
The Ministers took note of recommendations generated by projects on timberline forests, sustainable  reindeer husbandry, and sacred sites and encourage further dialogue among stakeholders on this  basis.
Welcome with appreciation Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme’s “Arctic Pollution 2002”  Report and take the recommendations into consideration in our policies and programmes to reduce  pollution affecting the Arctic.
Encourage Member States to take effective measures to adapt to and manage the environmental,  economic and social impacts of climate change and ultraviolet radiation, inter alia through enhancing  the access of Arctic residents to information, decision makers and institutional capacity building.
Encourage relevant national and international research bodies and sponsors to take into account the  Arctic Climate Impact Assessment science recommendations in the planning, development, and  implementation of their programmes.
Endorse the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan and encourage its implementation through the working  groups and other mechanisms and in cooperation with regional and global bodies.
Encourage Member States and others to disseminate the Arctic Waters Oil Transfer Guidelines  widely.
Direct Member States and the relevant working groups of the Arctic Council to consider appropriate  follow-up actions .
Reconfirm  commitments to the Reykjavik Declaration and to the Arctic Climate Impact  Assessment policy document, adopted at the Arctic Council meeting in 2004, and that the Member  States will continue their active efforts to implement the recommendations on mitigation, adaptation,  research, monitoring and outreach.
Urge Member States and other entities to strengthen monitoring and research efforts needed to  comprehensively address Arctic change and to promote the establishment of a circumpolar Arctic  observing network of monitoring stations with coordinated data handling and information exchange  for scientific data, statistics, and traditional knowledge as a lasting legacy of the International Polar  Year (and as the evolving Arctic component of the Global Earth Observing System of Systems).
Encourage research and practical actions, as well as exchange of expertise and best practices  among the Member States to increase stability of the Arctic infrastructure in changing climatic  conditions.
Urge all the Member countries to maintain and extend long-term monitoring of change in all parts of  the Arctic.
section_title: Year Declaration 2006 Salekhard
paragraphs: No.  Declaration statement   16.
Encourage the Arctic Council Member States to implement the Assessment Report on Acidifying  Pollutants, Arctic Haze, and Acidification in the Arctic recommendations addressing acidification and  Arctic haze effects, as appropriate, recognizing that the effects are regional in nature.
Endorse long-term monitoring of Arctic biodiversity to provide policymakers with the information  needed to accurately assess the impacts from global environmental change and increased human  activities related to regional development and economic growth.
Encourage countries to contribute actively to Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program and  expect the program to provide valuable data for increased knowledge and improved management of  biodiversity in the Arctic.
section_title: Year Declaration 2013 Kiruna
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Michael Hix (Assistant  Director), Cheryl Arvidson, Keesha Egebrecht, Cindy Gilbert, Jessica  Hilbrich, Anne Hobson, Dan Royer, Jeanette Soares, Emily Suarez- Harris, and Kiki Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Maritime Infrastructure: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the  U.S. Arctic Over the Next Decade. GAO-14-299. Washington, D.C.:  March 19, 2014.
Managing for Result: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance  Collaboration in Interagency Groups.GAO-14-220. Washington, D.C.:  February 14, 2014.
Arctic Capabilities: DOD Addressed Many Specified Reporting Elements  in Its 2011 Arctic Report but Should Take Steps to Meet Near- and Long- term Needs. GAO-12-180. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2012.
Managing for Results, Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency  Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.:   September 27, 2012.
Coast Guard: Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but  More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be  Beneficial. GAO-10-870. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2010.
National Security: Key Challenges and Solutions to Strengthen  Interagency Collaborations. GAO-10-822T. Washington, D.C.:   June 9, 2010.
Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating  Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. GAO-09-551. Washington,  D.C.: June 3, 2009.
Result- Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and  Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,  D.C.: October 21, 2005.
Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but  Few Qualify for Federal Assistance. GAO-04-142. Washington, D.C.:  December 12, 2003.