DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
Minutes of SDWG Meeting
Chena Hot Springs, Alaska
October 1-2, 2015
Table of Contents
Day One: October 1, 2015 .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Welcome ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Approval of Agenda ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Approval of Minutes of Last SDWG Meeting ....................................................................................................... 3
4. SDWG Chair's Opening Remarks ............................................................................................................................. 3
5. Review of 2015-2017 SDWG Work Plan .............................................................................................................. 4
6. Revised Project Proposals .......................................................................................................................................... 5
6a. The Arctic as a Food Producing Region ......................................................................................................... 5
6b. Econor III .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
6c. Rising Sun .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
6d. WASH ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
6.e One Health............................................................................................................................................................... 10
7. Current Projects and Reports ................................................................................................................................. 11
7.a EALLU........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
7.b Arctic Adaption Exchange Portal update ................................................................................................... 12
7.c Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK)..................................................................................................... 13
8. New Projects .................................................................................................................................................................. 14
8.a Indigenous Languages ........................................................................................................................................ 14
8.b Microgrids ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
8.c Solid Waste Handling .......................................................................................................................................... 15
1
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
9. Expert Group Reports ................................................................................................................................................ 16
9.a Social, Economic & Cultural Expert Group (SECEG) .............................................................................. 16
9.b Arctic Human Health Expert Group (AHHEG) ......................................................................................... 16
10. Cross-Cutting Issues ................................................................................................................................................ 17
10.a Revised Project Proposal Template incorporating TLK .................................................................... 17
10.b Enhancing Capacity for the Arctic Water Resources Vulnerability Index (AWRVI).............. 17
10.c One Health ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
10.d Cross-cutting Issues with PAME: MEMA and AMSP ........................................................................... 17
10.e Reporting to SAOs ............................................................................................................................................. 18
10f. Arctic Investment Protocol.............................................................................................................................. 18
10.g Other ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18
10.h Structuring Cross-cutting work................................................................................................................... 18
11. In Camera......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Day 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
12. Strategic Planning ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
12.a Meetings and Logistics .................................................................................................................................... 19
12.b Work Flow Planning......................................................................................................................................... 19
13. Other Reports.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
13.a Arctic Energy Summit ...................................................................................................................................... 19
13.b GLACIER ................................................................................................................................................................ 20
13.c Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network (CLEO) ...................................................... 20
14. Observer Statements................................................................................................................................................ 21
14.a Statements ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
15. Other Matters .............................................................................................................................................................. 22
15.a Additions to the Agenda ................................................................................................................................. 22
15.b SDWG Chair’s Meeting Summary ................................................................................................................ 22
2
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
Decisions:............................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
15.c Meeting Adjourns .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Day One: October 1, 2015
1. Welcome
This was the first meeting of the SDWG during the 2015-2017 U.S. Chairmanship. The SDWG Chair
opened the meeting by welcoming participants to Alaska and with introductions.
2. Approval of Agenda
The following changes were recommended to the draft agenda:

Canada noted that item 8.a “ Traditional and Local Knowledge” is an ongoing activity. It
requested that this item be moved to Section 7 “Status Reports on Current Projects &
Activities” and be renumbered 7.c.

AIA requested the addition of item 8.c, “Solid Waste Handling in the Arctic”, in order to
provide a briefing on a new project proposal that would be brought forward at a future
meeting.

United States requested time under item 13, “Other Business”, in order for Sydney Kaufman
to provide a briefing on a potential project relating to an energy training program for remote
rural communities and for Santina Gay to provide a briefing on the Circumpolar Local
Environmental Observer Network (CLEO).
With these changes, the agenda was approved.
3. Approval of Minutes of Last SDWG Meeting
The Minutes of the SDWG meeting held in Whitehorse, Yukon, February 28 – March 1, 2015 were
approved unchanged.
4. SDWG Chair's Opening Remarks
The SDWG Chair advised participants that SAOs want to change the structure of their meetings to
move away from updates on working group projects and detailed reports on working group meetings.
SAOs have asked working groups to raise cross-cutting issues that need SAO decisions or guidance.
If there are few such matters that require the attention of SAOs, it would then be appropriate to
provide information that highlights some projects or activities that are likely to be of interest to SAOs.
Normally working groups need to submit documents for SAO Meetings at least 30 days prior to the
meeting. However, because of the unique timing of the SDWG meeting, the SDWG Chair pledged to
submit a report of the Chena Hot Springs Meeting by Tuesday, October 6, 2015.
3
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
Ongoing efforts to strengthen the Arctic Council are also relevant for the SDWG. The SDWG Chair
stressed the need to build momentum and consider ways to improve the working group. For
example, at the SAO Meeting in Washington in June 2015, there was support for using the expertise
and input of Observers, where appropriate, within the working groups. During the item on “Observer
Statements”, Observers are invited to suggest ways they can contribute to the work of the SDWG.
The SDWG Chair reiterated that the United States sees stewardship, climate change, and improved
economic and living conditions in the Arctic as the pillars of the USA Chairmanship.
Comments and Discussion:
During the discussions following the SDWG Chair’s opening remarks, questions and concerns were
raised about the reference in the SAO Executive Report (p.8) from the June meeting in Washington
relating to a strategic review of the structure of the Arctic Council, including the roles of the working
groups. Participants were uncertain what implications a strategic review might have for the SDWG’s
work (e.g. in relation to cross-cutting issues), its structure, and even its continued existence. The
SDWG Chair explained that working groups have different ways of operating and are faced by
growing demands. Organizing the work of the working groups, task forces, and other Arctic Council
bodies is an ongoing issue. Further discussion was deferred to agenda item 12, “Strategic Planning”.
5. Review of 2015-2017 SDWG Work Plan
Under this agenda item the SDWG Chair briefly reviewed the SDWG Work Plan for 2015-2017 for the
benefit of new participants and to highlight some projects where important changes had occurred. In
particular, the project on the Arctic Water Resource Vulnerability Index (AWRVI) is now being led by
AMAP. In addition, the work plan states that the ICC-led work on assessing, monitoring, and
promoting Arctic indigenous languages will continue during 2015-17 building on the research results
of the first phase under the Swedish and Canadian chairmanships as well as the outcomes of the
February 2015 Symposium. However, the status of this ongoing work is uncertain and will be more
fully discussed under agenda item 8.b (see below).
Comments and Discussion:
During the discussions, it was noted that the SDWG Work Plan for 2011–2013, identified seventeen
(17) projects under six thematic areas and that these thematic areas continue to be a useful
framework for SDWG work.
The 6 thematic areas were:

ARCTIC HUMAN HEALTH

ARCTIC SOCIAL ECONOMIC ISSUES

ENERGY AND ARCTIC COMMUNITIES

MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

ARCTIC CULTURES AND LANGUAGES.
4
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
It was clarified that the references to assessing, monitoring, and promoting indigenous languages
would not be removed from the work plan. Efforts are ongoing to find resources to continue this work
during the U.S. Chairmanship. The Saami Council advised that it is working to increase its
involvement in this project and funding is being sought.
It was noted that the AWRVI project is closely tied to the Arctic Adaptation Exchange portal. Further
discussion on this matter was deferred to agenda item 7.b.
6. Revised Project Proposals
Background:
It was agreed at the last SDWG meeting in March 2015 that the new project proposals associated
with the SDWG 2015-2017 Work Plan (except for EALLU and the Arctic Energy Summit) would each
be revised to include a new section on Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK) as recommended in
the Integrating Traditional and Local Knowledge initiative. Accordingly a revised version of the
SDWG Project Proposal Template has been developed to include TLK issues. This SDWG Meeting is
the first opportunity to consider the revised project proposals.
6a. The Arctic as a Food Producing Region
Norway presented this project proposal. The project aims to identify the conditions for increased
production and the potential for added value of food from the Arctic. Local and regional industrial
development in the Arctic will be the focus of the project and the primary industries to be examined
are fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture (incl. herding and gathering).
Norway noted three sets of conditions or driving forces that are to be analyzed:

Biological conditions - climate change, increased production and new species

Business conditions - commercial resources, infrastructure, and industry policy

Market conditions - market opportunities and consumer demand - local, national, and
international market
Three research questions are to be addressed:

What is the status and what is the potential for food production in the Arctic?

What is the added value of these products when marketed by their special qualities and
unique origin?

What conditions are important to further develop the Arctic as a food-producing region?
o
How can production be increased and how can new species and products be
developed?
o
How are the market conditions for adding value or branding the “Arctic” at local,
national and international markets?
5
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
o
What role does industry structure, infrastructure and organization of different value
chains and industry policy play for the potential development?
o
What role do local cultural values have for the development of new food products and
local markets?
On this latter issue relating to local cultural values and TLK, the project aims to:

Identify challenges and conditions for food production in different indigenous communities;

Assess the possible added value of branding food originating from hunting/herding/gathering;

Contribute to the strengthening of food production in indigenous communities;

Make local food more accessible in local communities; and

Contribute, eventually, to business development and improved living conditions.
The research tasks in the proposal include:

Macro studies of the driving forces affecting the food-producing industries (biological,
business and market conditions).

Micro studies of selected successful cases to highlight possibilities and challenges, with
special focus on products marketed by “Arctic origin”.

Comparison across sectors and countries.

Assessing the potential for Arctic food in local, national and international market.

Assessing the conditions for industry development (for each industry), with special focus on
products marketed by “Arctic origin”.
The research consortium that would undertake this work includes:

Nofima - the Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research

Nilf - Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute

Bioforsk - Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute

Matis - Icelandic food and biotech research and development institute

ISER - Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage

BPBE - Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics, College of Agriculture
and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan
Norway aims to include institutions in the other Arctic states in the project.
Comments and Discussion:
6
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
During discussions, Permanent Participants raised a number of issues that they felt made
endorsement of this project premature. It was recommended that these issues be addressed before
consideration of opening the Arctic for industrial scale food production. Some of the points raised by
Permanent Participants included:

conditions in Europe are different than in North America and the project should reflect this;

in some regions of the Arctic food security is a priority issue;

this project seems to focus on food production in the Arctic for the benefit of non-Arctic
populations;

there are legal constraints in some jurisdictions against selling game so this factor needs to
be taken into consideration;

in some regions of the Arctic there are legal issues relating to rights to food products;

indigenous peoples need to be involved in management and equity positions in any business
that enters into food production in the Arctic;

health issues, including meat inspection issues, and many other questions arise from matters
of food production;

there has been insufficient consultation with local peoples during the development of this
project;

the project’s focus on aqua culture and fish farming was problematic for some Permanent
Participants;

competing land use issues relating to food production require attention (e.g. mining
development on reindeer herding lands);

the mixed economies of many Arctic communities often get overlooked;

promoting traditional food production and products needs to be considered;

fishing and other Arctic food sources have cultural significance for indigenous peoples.
The Saami Council suggested that a workshop could be held before the next SDWG Meeting to
address the issues with a view to developing the project proposal for approval.
Several Arctic States voiced positive support for such a project provided many of the issues raised by
Permanent Participants could be considered and addressed. It was noted that there is a need to
balance the perspectives and interests. Importation of food into the Arctic is done on large scale but it
is very susceptible to disruption. Arctic residents have a strong interest in improving local production
to guard against disturbances. If invasive species are brought in these can cause further issues.
Several cross-cutting issues could provide a rationale for cooperating with CAFF on this project.
Decision:
Delegates did not reach consensus on this project, with many delegates requesting that it is further
refined and scoped.. Norway committed to discuss the proposal further with project managers and
7
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
other interested participants. In addition, Norway advised that it would consider the Saami Council
suggestion for a workshop to develop the project for approval at the next SDWG meeting or at an
intersessional meeting. Norway will also determine whether the project should be designated or
endorsed.
6b. Econor III
Norway presented this project proposal. The project updates the ECONOR I (2006) and ECONOR II
(2008) reports, including updating time series and Arctic petroleum prospects to 2050. ECONOR III
will have more focus on mining and tourism and will include a new chapter on impacts on biodiversity.
The ECONOR projects have contributed to a better understanding of:

Large variations in livelihood and living conditions between Arctic regions;

Crucial role of petroleum industry and other natural resource extraction as source of income;

The importance of the subsistence and local market economy;

Resilience of socio-ecological systems; and

Systematic statistical knowledge of socio-economic and ecological conditions for Arctic
sustainability.
Norway stated that the project had been revised since the March 2015 SDWG Meeting to include
consideration of TLK. The project will examine subsistence livelihoods that reflect TLK and will
consider how this characterizes the economy of the North. With the exception of Alaska, Norway
noted traditional use is not currently visible in the statistical records of the Arctic States. It is
anticipated that this project could help find identifiers for this information in the future. A separate
chapter will be dedicated to traditional economies. The project is already up and running with an
expected completion date at the end of 2015.
Comments and Discussion:
There was broad support for the value of the ECONOR reports which have built an important
knowledge base for Arctic economies. They have provided data collection and reporting on a
consistent basis. Some suggestions for future reports included focused reporting on 1) trends and
best practices across the Arctic; 2) indigenous peoples traditional economies; 3) mixed economies.
Some SDWG delegates stated that the project’s short timeline, concluding in December 2015,
precludes significant SDWG involvement in the initiative’s design and execution. Some delegates
requested that Norway consider seeking only SDWG designation for ECONOR III, rather than
endorsement. The United States expressed an interest in acting as a co-lead.
Decision:
There was no objection to Norway going forward on ECONOR III as a designated project; however,
Norway took this under advisement pending further consultations with Oslo.
8
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
6c. Rising Sun
The United States presented this project proposal for endorsement. RISING SUN (Reducing the
Incidence of Suicide in Indigenous Groups-- Strengths United through Networks) is designed as a
follow-on activity to the Canadian-initiated mental wellness project of 2013-2015. The objective of
project is to create common metrics for evaluating suicide prevention efforts in the Arctic as a key
component of scaling up and evaluating interventions across the circumpolar region. Co-leads include
Canada, Kingdom of Denmark, Norway and ICC. Finland also offered to join as a co-lead. All Arctic
States have shared in the scientific work.
Whereas the Canadian-initiated project focused on best practices from the literature and communitybased interventions, RISING SUN is designed to take the next logical step: creating a common,
science-based set of metrics to evaluate the key correlates and outcomes associated with suicide
prevention interventions, across Arctic States. Common metrics, developed through an on-going
engagement with Permanent Participants and community leaders, as well as mental health experts,
will facilitate data sharing and pooling, evaluation, and interpretation of interventions across service
systems. These metrics will aid health workers to better serve the needs of their communities while
helping policymakers measure progress, evaluate the scale up of interventions, and identify
impediments to implementation and cultural adaptability challenges. Arriving at common metrics and
reporting systems is especially important in the Arctic, where the vast geography, significant number
of remote communities, and breadth of cultural diversity, pose challenges for systematic approaches
to suicide prevention.
Comments and Discussion:
Many delegates had positive comments about the recently-held Anchorage workshop. The
Permanent Participants expressed strong support for this project. AIA suggested that perhaps some
regional initiatives and subgroups could be approached to contribute. ICC expressed strong support
but noted that full engagement was dependent on capacity issues. Obtaining input from the Inuit
Circumpolar Health Committee was recommended. The Saami Council advised that it is conducting a
related local project for Saami. GCI suggested that cultural concerns affecting suicide should include
metrics such as diet, including lack of traditional food sources or various deficiencies caused by diet.
Norway advised that it was examining the possibility of a second workshop in Norway in spring 2016
to assist in the development the project’s activities. Canada offered to host a third workshop at an
appropriate time.
USA welcomed Finland as a co-lead and advised that the project is exploring ways to create
continuum of dialogue so there is not a haphazard series of meetings. This might be an approach to
addressing the comments from AIA and ICC.
Decision:
Delegates formally endorsed the project on Reducing the Incidence of Suicide in Indigenous Groups
–Strengths United through Networks (RISING-SUN).
9
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
6d. WASH
The United States presented this project proposal. WASH (Improving Health through Safe and
Affordable Access to Household Running Water and Sewer) is intended to address four of the six
SDWG’s thematic areas, including Arctic Human Health, Arctic Socio-Economic Issues, Energy and
Arctic Communities, and Adaptation to Climate Change. There are no formal co-leads to date.
The key event associated with the project will be a two-day circumpolar conference to be held in
Anchorage, Alaska during the fall of 2016. Additionally, prior to the conference, the project will deliver
an informational summary of the status of household running water and sewer service and a
comparison of water-associated illness rates across Arctic and sub-Arctic communities. The
circumpolar conference will bring together researchers, engineers, manufacturers and vendors, and
health experts to discuss health benefits, challenges and solutions associated with making running
water and sewer in small Arctic and sub-Arctic communities safe, affordable and sustainable. A
comparison of technical approaches and the different governance and regulatory frameworks and
approaches utilized by Arctic nations will be discussed together with problems and solutions
regarding the potential impact of climate change on sanitation infrastructure in the Arctic and subArctic.
The State of Alaska will also present information about The Alaska Water and Sewer Challenge
Project, a multi-year research and development effort started in 2012. The project focuses on
decentralized water and wastewater treatment, recycling, and water minimization in cold climates.
These approaches have a high potential for use in individual homes and housing clusters. The goal is
to reduce significantly the capital and operating costs of in-home running water and sewer in rural
Alaska homes. By the fall of 2016, three pilot systems will be available to demonstrate at the
conference, where the system developers could interact with other experts from throughout the Arctic
and sub-Arctic region to gather input on their ideas.
The USA advised that the AHHEG Co Chair, Dr. Tom Hennessy, was in discussions regarding the
possibility of holding a conference on WASH in Denmark in March 2016. A technology workshop was
also being planned for Alaska prior to that date.
Comments and Discussion:
ICC advised that it is fully supportive of this project but has capacity issues that will limit their
involvement. AIA and GCI also expressed support for this project. The United States acknowledged
the capacity issues that affect Permanent Participants.
Decision:
Delegates approved the project on Improving Health through Safe and Affordable Access to
Household Running Water and Sewer (WASH) as a designated project with the United States as
lead. The SDWG Chair noted the possibility of the project being approved as an endorsed project at a
later date if one or more co-leads came forward.
6.e One Health
The United States presented this project proposal. Operationalize a One Health In the Arctic (One
Health) is intended to forge co-equal, all inclusive collaborations across multiple scientific disciplines
10
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
and Arctic communities in order to enhance resiliency of the Arctic inhabitants through an enhanced
understanding of climatic change impacts on health risks to people, animals, and the environment.
Canada is a co-lead.
One Health is an approach to assess health issues at the interface between humans, animals, and
ecosystems. It is a strategy for understanding the complex nature of climatic change on the health of
all of the Arctic. It is intended to contribute to the development of new tools for effective policies
focused on reducing the burden of health threats and enhancing community resiliency. These include
tools and methods for assessing vulnerability, screening and evaluation strategies, programs for
climate risks assessments, identifying adaptation options, and weighing the costs and benefits of
those options. Through a Regionalized One Health approach assessing health risks at the humananimal-ecosystem interface will significantly contribute to understanding the complex nature of
climate change on health of all Arctic inhabitants.
Comments and Discussion:
The United States noted that CAFF and AMAP have interests in this project given its cross-cutting
nature. A key component is examining infectious diseases in the Arctic and the environmental or
animal signals that presage them. The intention is to develop an early warning system by building on
the connections between human, environmental, and animal health. There is some practical
application of this already in Alaska. Project outlines champions of this approach, a survey of the one
health approach, and those institutions set up to do this work. There are plans to have knowledge
sharing workshops.
ICC, AIA, and GCI stressed that local communities need to be involved and commended the
community-based nature of the project. It was noted that the benefits of country/traditional foods
needs to be emphasized, not just the risks. Finland supported the involvement of local residents in
this project. Consideration could be given to linking activities between this One Health project and
the Global Health Security work. The Global Health Security Agenda is currently chaired by Finland
through their Occupational Health Ministry.
Decision:
Delegates formally endorsed the project entitled Operationalize a One Health In the Arctic (One
Health).
7. Current Projects and Reports
7.a EALLU
Norway introduced this ongoing project on Indigenous youth, climate change and food culture.
Norway, United States, Canada, and Saami Council are co-leads. Norway indicated that additional
co-leads would be welcome. The project is well underway and has significance for all Arctic states.
The Association of World Reindeer Herders, which is managing the project, provided an update.
Food cultures of Indigenous Peoples are very rich. However, food knowledge is not currently used
much as a foundation for local economies, but there is potential for growth in this area. This project
intends to use TLK or food knowledge to adapt to change. It provides concrete examples of TLK and
11
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
why this knowledge is practical for building northern societies in accordance with their own rules and
values. The Arctic Indigenous Peoples Culinary Institute advancing this idea.
Culinary, food culture and related events have included:

Herzen University Food Seminar in St Petersburg in Nov. 2014;

Presentation of the EALLIN Executive Summary Report in the presence of Prince Albert of
Monaco in Jan. 2015;

Visit from Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region (SCPAR) to
Kautokeino in March 2015.

Presentation of a 27-dish feast dinner with meat, fish, berries, birds, etc.;

Anniversary of Reindeer herding in Canada in March 2015 in Inuvik at the Muskrat Jamboree.
(Herders from Scandinavia and Russia came to Inuvik to focus on slaughter, preparing and
serving reindeer,);

Copenhagen Northern Nordic food festival, involving world-renowned chefs from Noma
Restaurant in Copenhagen;

Outreach on traditional food knowledge at the Lavvu Camp;

Eastern Siberia gathering in the taiga where there is herding and gold mining are occurring;

Saami youth gathering in Inari, Finland in Sept. 2015;

Rievdan (Change) Food Culture Course in Kautokeino in Sept. 2015 using scientific
documentation of traditional ways to store food such as smoking.
Other activities are occurring that include reindeer herding peoples of China and Mongolia. Additional
funds are being sought for some of these activities. Some are funded by indigenous peoples
themselves. Next steps include production of a food map with a circumpolar focus; a reindeer youth
summit in Alaska; examination of the potential of the Northern Sea Route as an export route for
northern foods to southern markets.
Comments and Discussion:
The Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Denmark offered to join this project as co-leads and
Norway welcomed this support and participation. AIA also indicated that it hoped to be formally
involved in the near future. ICC invited the project to visit Greenland and suggested contact with a
school in southern Greenland that is using traditional foods.
7.b Arctic Adaption Exchange Portal update
AIA provided a brief overview of status of the Arctic Adaption Exchange Portal. The portal, hosted at
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, was established to enhance access to relevant adaptation
resources by Arctic residents, researchers, and decision-makers and to foster the exchange of
experiences, lessons learned, and best practices. In addition, an objective of the portal is to facilitate
12
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
innovation and the creation of new practices and tools that support adaptation decision-making,
including adaptive capacity indices.
Comments and Discussion:
The United States encouraged Arctic States and other organizations to supply useful information to
the portal if possible. This could include adaptation information in relation to water, sanitation projects,
and other related topics. AIA noted that many of the SDWG projects could feed into the portal in
relation to adaptive capacity. Finland observed that international networks on adaptation will be even
more essential in the future. GCI, a co-lead on this project, stressed that the community perspective
makes this portal unique and encouraged Permanent Participants to get their information on the
portal and to make it work effectively for communities.
The United States advised that there were plans to hold a virtual meeting of the advisory committee
pending further consultations with the University of Alaska which hosts the portal.
7.c Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK)
It was clarified that TLK is an ongoing area of work under the SDWG work plan. Canada tabled a
short draft discussion paper on this item during the morning session. The Canadian draft paper
outlines various options for TLK going forward. No decision is sought on these options at this time.
During the Canadian chairmanship, the SDWG developed seven recommendations for TLK, which
Ministers adopted at their April 2015 meeting. However, there is an ongoing issue of implementation.
There is some interest in expanding the integration of TLK beyond SDWG to make it a cross-cutting
element of all Working Groups, Task Forces and SAO activities.
The draft Canadian paper contains four options: 1) Secretariat Support: ACS/IPS monitoring and
supporting implementation of TLK as a cross-cutting issue in Arctic Council; 2) Discussion and
Periodic Review: Arctic Council Meetings: using SAO meetings to monitor and implement TLK and
discuss best practices; 3) Communication and Outreach: development of a role for ACS in
communication and outreach in relation to TLK; and 4) Developing a Best Practice Case Study:
e.g. using projects such as PAME’s MEMA project to demonstrate implementation of TLK.
Comments and Discussion:
The SDWG Chair identified two key issues for discussion: 1) Does the SDWG see the TLK issue as
an SDWG issue? and 2) Should the SDWG take on some responsibility for moving TLK forward in the
broader context of the Arctic Council?
ICC suggested that there needs to be some standardization of TLK across the Arctic Council. Using
the tracking tool is one way to keep track of this. If a project is identified as one that requires the
integration of TLK, then ways need to be found to do this. ICC found the idea of using PAME’s MEMA
project as a pilot project interesting but felt that Ministers had made clear declaration that went further
than this.
GCI expressed the view that the SDWG can lead by example. This would require factoring in TLK at
the stage of accepting projects and providing clear guidelines on how SDWG projects are to be
developed. SECEG could contribute to this work. GCI suggested that in a designated project, maybe
13
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
there could be a chapter on TLK related matters, but for an endorsed project, TLK should permeate
the project.
Saami Council observed that the seven recommendations require followup work and suggested that if
tracking of TLK is to be done, it should be the IPS to do this rather than the ACS. Other pilot projects
on TLK with CAFF could also be considered.
AIA stated that the seven recommendations adopted by the Ministers will require further work to
implement and somebody has to do this. AIA suggested that as a first step a lexicon could be
developed to create standard terminology for TLK. The tracking tool was mentioned as a good way
to track progress. All of this requires a lead and AIA suggested SDWG should undertake this role.
Iceland reminded participants that these efforts should include local knowledge.
Norway observed that there was agreement during Canadian chairmanship that all proposals should
consider TLK, so in the SDWG we are following these recommendations. Therefore, if this process in
the SDWG leads to better projects, these can be a good showcase for TLK. Saami Council stated
that Permanent Participants have the responsibility for identifying knowledge holders, not the Working
Groups.
The SDWG Chair summarized by noting that the SAOs would discuss TLK at their October 2015
meeting, where she would report on the SDWG’s discussion. Representing SDWG, she would stress
that the working group is willing to do its best to integrate/implement TLK, but the SDWG needs to
know if the SAOs see a role for SDWG in doing this on a broader Arctic Council scale. It is accurate
to say that the SDWG is currently uncertain and divided about its role outside the SDWG.
Decision:
Delegates expressed their strong commitment to the thoughtful incorporation of TLK into the SDWG’s
work but did not reach consensus regarding if the SDWG has a role in shaping the Arctic Council’s
TLK implementation outside of the SDWG. This will be reported to SAOs in Anchorage for their
consideration.
8. New Projects
8.a Indigenous Languages
Background:
The Indigenous Languages initiative has been a five-year project and continues to be listed as an
activity in the SDWG Work Plan. The SDWG Work Plan for 2015-2017 states:
Assessing, Monitoring, and Promoting Arctic Indigenous Languages
The ICC-led work on assessing, monitoring, and promoting Arctic indigenous languages will
continue during 2015-17, building on the research results of the first phase under the Swedish
and Canadian chairmanships, as well as the outcomes of the February 2015 Symposium.
Working with Canada, ICC (Canada) has managed the project. Kingdom of Denmark has also been a
co-lead and all Permanent Participants have participated on the steering committee. No activities
have been identified to date for the U.S. Chairmanship.
14
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
Comments and Discussion:
The SDWG Chair noted that this item is not really a “new project” and in future should fall under the
section of the agenda dealing with continuing work. Canada reiterated its support for this initiative and
for the work done to date by Permanent Participants; however, going forward it will be necessary to
obtain broader Arctic State support and involvement. Working through the National Science
Foundation process has been difficult for ICC (Canada) and assistance has been provided by ICC
(Alaska). The Saami Council indicated an interest in increasing its role and has applied for funding
that would assist the project. AIA indicated that it might have some resources to dedicate to continued
work.
8.b Microgrids
Background:
The topic of microgrids was covered in detail at the recent Arctic Energy Summit (AES) in Fairbanks,
Alaska, September 28-30, 2015. The SDWG Chair noted that this item is on the agenda primarily for
information purposes; however, the United States intends to bring forward a project in this field in the
future.
The United States is seeking to develop a project that looks holistically at how Arctic rural
communities plan and use energy. The project would focus on microgirds but would also look beyond
the technology to identify a test community or communities. Surveys would be conducted to get base
line data on community energy use and to analyze a number of factors relating to how energy
development is planned and carried out. This project would encourage others to contribute data to
help in the research and analysis of community energy issues. Potentially, this project could lead to
more investment in community energy research and development. A third dimension of the project
would be to advance partnerships in relation to leading technologies. Currently, the project’s focus is
Alaska, but it could be expanded to take on a circumpolar scope. Observer States could also play a
role in this project.
Comments and Discussion:
The SDWG Chair noted that the project is under development and there are opportunities, for
example, to include Observer participation. GCI supported the project and expressed an interest in
partnerships relating to community energy projects that can improve access to reliable, affordable,
renewable energy. GCI observed that many communities have data that would be useful and some
have unique systems. Canada inquired as to whether the project proponents were just looking for
data sets at this point. The United States responded that it would be useful to have such data for
comparative purposes. As the project moves more into the development phase there could be the
possibility of a workshop on matters such as best practices and energy planning. AIA suggested that
statistical information is likely available but commented that more practical information from
communities might be helpful.
8.c Solid Waste Handling
AIA presented this item for information purposes and indicated that a formal project proposal would
be brought forward in the future. Many Arctic communities have issue with solid waste handling.
15
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
The idea is to gather circumpolar data on this topic to explore different practices. A few case studies
that illustrate best practices would be examined and recommendations on solid waste handling in the
Arctic could be developed. This project has some cross-cutting dimensions. There have been some
discussions with ACAP, for example on contaminants that can be released by burning solid waste.
AIA advised that it would table a short paper in advance of a formal proposal would likely come
forward prior to the March SDWG meeting.
9. Expert Group Reports
9.a Social, Economic & Cultural Expert Group (SECEG)
Background:
The SECEG co-chair, Liza Mack, provided an update on activities since the last SDWG meeting. She
advised that SECEG was working on establishing membership on group and requested nominations
from those participants that currently had vacancies. It is preferable that every Arctic State and
Permanent Participant should be represented on the group.
In September 2015, SECEG held a virtual meeting and will try to do this more regularly. Currently, the
expert group is developing its goals for next two years. There has been some discussion of the “rules
of engagement” and SECEG wants to build on this work and on identifying clear goals for the expert
group. In response to requests, such as PAME’s project on Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous
Peoples in Marine Activities (MEMA), and other initiatives, SECEG will conduct an assessment of
experts that can be approached to assist in addressing issues relating to TLK. SECEG would like to
provide practical examples of how TLK is being done now and identify experts who might help in
some future projects. As appropriate, SECEG could offer some recommendations to the SDWG on
the implementation of TLK.
Comments and Discussion:
Canada commended SECEG on their efforts to conduct a capacity assessment. Iceland inquired as
to whether SECEG would hold face-to-face meetings and, if so, when. The SECEG Co-Chair
advised that they would like to have at least one such meeting on the margins of a future SDWG
meeting during the U.S. chairmanship. Financial resources and maximizing participation of SECEG
representatives would be key factors. The SDWG Chair invited SECEG to look at ways that it could
contribute to SDWG.
9.b Arctic Human Health Expert Group (AHHEG)
The AHHEG co-chair, Dr. Cody Chipp, provided an update on activities since the last SDWG
meeting. AHHEG met in June 2015 in Finland at the International Congress on Circumpolar Health.
He advised that a number of health projects had been completed and reported, and referenced some
work yet to be released on ethical issues in relation to Indigenous health research. A number of new
initiatives are moving well, among them the RISING SUN project. Following on the recent workshop
in Anchorage, efforts are being made to involve regional and local networks as subgroups to the
broader project. AHHEG is exploring ways to fund these subgroups. A meeting of AHHEG is planned
for Tromso, Norway at end of April or early May 2016.
16
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
In respect of the WASH project, there was mention of a possible event in Sisimiut, Greenland and an
Alaskan stakeholder conference in 2016.
A hybrid web-based and in-person meeting on the One Health project is scheduled for October 20,
2015 in Anchorage.
10. Cross-Cutting Issues
10.a Revised Project Proposal Template incorporating TLK
The SDWG Chair presented this item as a point of information only. At the SAO Meeting in
Washington, D.C. in June 2015, the SDWG had been asked to share, through ACS, the revised
SDWG project template that incorporates certain requirements in respect of TLK. This template was
sent to ACS soon after the June meeting, therefore, the SDWG has fulfilled the requested action.
10.b Enhancing Capacity for the Arctic Water Resources Vulnerability Index (AWRVI)
The AWRVI project is referenced in the SDWG Work Plan for 2015-2017. However, AMAP is now
the lead on AWRVI. It was an Alaskan project that is now being expanded to have a circumpolar
scope. Water vulnerability ties into a number of SDWG projects. There is likely to be a role for
SDWG in relation to the community dimensions of the project. In addition, AWRVI outputs could be
included in the adaptation portal.
The United States advised that some technical revisions are being made to the project and a new
version would be available in the near future. Finland advised that AMAP is planning a joint
workshop with CAFF and SDWG for May 2016.
The SDWG Chair concluded that the SDWG should await the updated information on the project from
AIA and the United States and deal with this issue intersessionally, including how it relates to the
adaptation portal and how SDWG will work with AMAP to clarify our mutual roles.
10.c One Health
The SDWG Chair observed that the project proposal relating to One Health suggested that the
SDWG work with AMAP and CAFF, and requested the United States to clarify expectations in this
regard and provide an update on communications with the other working groups. The United States
advised that there was some consideration of this project at the joint meeting of the four Working
Groups in Tromso, Norway in September 2015. AMAP, for example, tends to focus on contaminants
so AHHEG is looking more at water use and other community-related matters. Experts responded
favorably to the project and have agreed to assist with disseminating information, expanding the
network of experts and addressing a range of issues (e.g. avian flu, invasive species, etc.). The
SDWG Chair concluded that the One Health project appears to have a clear perspective on what help
it needs and how the division of labour will be handled.
10.d Cross-cutting Issues with PAME: MEMA and AMSP
Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples in Marine Activities (MEMA): The SDWG Chair
reviewed PAME’s request for SECEG to assist on the MEMA project. Following discussion it was
17
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
concluded that while the SDWG probably has a role in contributing to the MEMA project. However,
before committing SECEG, more information and clarification would be required from PAME.
Attendance of SECEG and SDWG representatives at PAME’s briefing/meeting on MEMA scheduled
for Anchorage on 19 October 2015, would provide an opportunity to obtain some of this information.
It was anticipated that SDWG, following a formalized request from PAME, could deal with this issue
intersessionally.
Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (AMSP): AMSP is a document that is intended to capture all marine
environment activities over several decades. A lot of the items in the previous plan have been
completed. One was the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009). Looking at the marine
environment long-term and strategically involves all working groups. Therefore, the SDWG needs to
look at the activities in AMSP through an SDWG lens and determine how it might contribute. It was
noted that PAME has scheduled a workshop/meeting to discuss the AMSP implementation plan on
October 19, 2015 on the margins of the SAO Meeting in Anchorage. It was concluded that
participation by SDWG at that meeting would help clarify this exercise and allow SDWG to determine
intersessionally how it wants to contribute.
10.e Reporting to SAOs
The SDWG Chair noted that currently the SDWG has one item (on TLK) to report to SAOs at their
meeting in Anchorage on October 21-22, 2015. The Chair also recommended that the SDWG
highlight some important projects such as RISING SUN.
10f. Arctic Investment Protocol
The SDWG Chair reported that some information and a request for cooperation had been received
from Guggenheim Partners in respect of an Arctic Investment Protocol. They contacted SDWG at the
suggestion of the Arctic Economic Council because the investment protocol would be relevant for
development of Arctic infrastructure. A detailed presentation on this initiative was included on the
agenda of the recent Arctic Energy Summit (AES). Following discussions on the margins of the AES,
SDWG is awaiting clarification of their intentions as to whether or not they want some formal
connection with SDWG, why, and how. It was noted in discussions that the SAOs are currently
considering the issues of engagement of working groups and other Arctic Council bodies with entities
outside the Arctic Council.
10.g Other
The SDWG Chair invited comments on any other cross-cutting matters. AIA referenced an EPPR
project on small community preparedness and response to pollutants and natural disasters. This
project could have some linkages to MEMA. EPPR is holding a workshop on their project in
Anchorage from October 7-9, 2015. AIA advised that EPPR would welcome suggestions for
community people who could participate in this would be welcome. Permanent Participants were
encouraged to nominate participants. The SDWG Chair concluded that it would be helpful to monitor
this project for now.
10.h Structuring Cross-cutting work
The SDWG Chair concluded that this issue had been adequately discussed under each of the crosscutting items above and did not require further discussion as a separate agenda item.
18
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
Day 2
12. Strategic Planning
12.a Meetings and Logistics
The SDWG Chair reviewed the schedule of SDWG meetings for the U.S. chairmanship:

March 11-12, 2016: Barrow, Alaska

September 29-30, 2016: Unalaska, Alaska

February 7-8, 2017: Kotzebue, Alaska
On the margins of the Alaska-based SAO meetings, there will be "deep dives" with each of the
working groups. SDWG participants indicated a preference for the “deep dive” session with SDWG to
be held on the margins of the SAO Meeting in Juneau in 2017.
12.b Work Flow Planning
The SDWG Chair advised that she will propose a date and time in January 2016 for an SDWG
intersessional teleconference. This will be sent out after to SAO meeting in Anchorage. Participants
were reminded that they will need to get any paperwork requiring consideration to the Secretariat for
circulation at least 30 days in advance of the teleconference.
13. Other Reports
13.a Arctic Energy Summit
The SDWG Chair reminded participants that the Arctic Energy Summit (AES) project is a designated
project of the SDWG. Nils Andreassen provided a brief overview of the event held in Fairbanks on
September 28-30, 2015. The AES covered many issues that cross-cut SDWG projects and activities.
He advised that the executive and final reports of the AES would be sent out to participants when it
was completed. The report will detail the many policy-relevant findings, best practices, research
gaps/questions, and potential projects. The AES website can currently be found at:
www.ion.evomac.com but the site will be moved in the future.
Mr. Andreassen encouraged the SDWG to see the AES as a deliverable and suggested that the
SDWG might want to consider making it an endorsed project under the direction of a steering
committee. The AES could be rotated among the Arctic States so that it has circumpolar exposure.
Comments and Discussion:
Iceland stressed the importance of energy for Arctic communities and supported keeping the AES
affiliated with the SDWG. Iceland encouraged the SDWG to take an active role in shaping the next
AES event with more participation from all Arctic States and Permanent Participants. ICC agreed that
19
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
the AES should be formalized within the Arctic Council under the auspices of the SDWG and that the
AES should be rotated among the Arctic States. The United States also suggested that the SDWG
should continue to be involved with AES. Energy is deeply tied to community wellness. Finland
indicted that it would consider the possibility of hosting the AES in Finland in the call of 2017. Mr.
Andreassen advised that a planning horizon of at least one year was required and the SDWG Chair
observed that a steering committee would therefore need to be in place by the fall of 2016 if the
SDWG decided to take this on. AIA indicated it would be interested in participating on any such
steering committee.
13.b GLACIER
The SDWG Chair noted that the GLACIER conference was not an Arctic Council activity. It is on the
SDWG agenda information purposes only and so that consideration can be given to any threads
SDWG might want to take up.
The United States provided a briefing on GLACIER and noted that the item on Healthy Homes might
be relevant to SDWG. The panel on healthy homes discussed a range of issues including sanitation,
internal air quality, and innovative building design. This might be relevant for clusters around
community resilience, energy, and health projects for the benefit of communities. In addition, some of
the health announcements and projects could feed into the SDWG’s One Health and WASH projects.
Given the close linkages among SDWG initiatives relating to energy, climate change, and community
health, the U.S. Head of Delegation noted that the United States may develop an energy and health
“cluster project,” incorporating several current SDWG initiatives into one overarching project.
The United States raised the possibility of a project, still in the early stages, on remote energy
training. Such a project would contribute to developing human capacity in rural communities on
energy issues and maintenance of energy systems. The objective would be to establish a 14-week
training program specifically for energy practitioners (operators or professionals) to operate
microgrids and diesel microgrids. Iceland observed that it has UN Geothermal training program
which sounds similar and would like geothermal systems to be included in any such circumpolar
project. Canada, GCI, and AIA expressed interest in participating in any such project. The SDWG
Chair noted that if a formal proposal were developed, it would be possible to consider it
intersessionally.
13.c Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network (CLEO)
The United States (Santina Gay) provided a briefing on the Circumpolar Local Observer Network
(CLEO), an ACAP project with cross-cutting elements relevant to the SDWG. This project was
originally focused on working with tribes in Alaska to build trust and partnerships to establish the LEO
network. ACAP has taken LEO Alaska and is expanding it to the whole arctic. The project uses
Google Maps to enter community-based observations and information to the network. The objective
is to address trends, issues, and solutions. Linking LEO to other observation systems in the
circumpolar north could be beneficial for broader success of the Arctic Council. Partnerships across
projects could benefit indigenous communities in providing links to technical experts for consultations
and collaboration. The SDWG Chair noted the strong interest of SDWG Participants in this project
and concluded that there are already links to SDWG (e.g. One Health). SDWG will continue to follow
this initiative with interest, seeking updates to determine areas in which SDWG may engage.
20
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
14. Observer Statements
14.a Statements
South Korea provided a brief statement on their Arctic interests, including their Arctic expert network,
research on polar science, energy security, and infrastructure development. South Korea is trying to
take a more systematic approach to its Arctic activities by implementing its Arctic Policy Master Plan.
It is seeking contacts in the social sciences with expertise in indigenous communities and hope to
improve ties to indigenous communities through their research. The Korean Maritime Institute (KMI)
has sponsored a program for indigenous students. AIA has a cooperation agreement with KMI on a
marine mapping project.
Netherlands noted that it has participated in SDWG meetings since the working group was formed in
1998. Netherlands is currently working on a new polar program for 2016-2020. The main focus will
be research and Netherlands with continue its participation in AMAP, CAFF, and SDWG mainly
through University of Groningen. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs engages in PAME work
on marine policy issues. Netherlands offered to host a future SDWG meeting because of its central
location. A former participant from Netherlands has just finished his PHD on "Inuit Outside the Arctic".
Reference was made to www.eu-polarnet.eu as a possible subject for consideration at a future
SDWG meeting.
NEFCO gave a brief statement on how NEFCO might be relevant to the SDWG. Funds have been
placed in the Project Support Instrument (PSI) since July 2014. NEFCO does not give advice on
priorities for use of these funds. Nonetheless there appears to be a strong interest in using the PSI to
advance with energy projects, including energy security. For example, ACAP has a project in Russia
directed at black carbon but which also seeks to improve the conditions for reindeer herders. Water,
sanitation, and waste disposal are all possible project areas. Several ACAP demonstration projects
focus on health and pollution. So there is some potential for projects to come from the SDWG if they
have health and environmental components. Partnering with ACAP is one possibility for moving
forward. The microgrid project is a good example of a project that might have the possibility of
accessing PSI funds. NEFCO offered to provide briefings and assistance to guide SDWG on
administrative requirements under the PSI process and on the specifics that need to be identified in a
project proposal.
Germany provided a brief overview of its current and possible future contributions to Arctic issues
generally and the SDWG in particular. Reference was made to the German government’s published
Arctic Guidelines (September 2013) that focus on opportunities on the one hand, but taking
responsibilities on the other. The latter refers not only to the various changes occurring in the Arctic,
which are global in nature, but especially in relation to indigenous peoples of the Arctic. Germany is
seeking closer and regular contacts between Observers and Permanent Participants. Germany
supports increased Arctic research activities, not just in respect of natural sciences, but also on interand transdisciplinary research where the focus is on various social and natural science research
questions. These questions include energy governance issues, environmental pollution-- especially
through black carbon, the teleconnections between Arctic and non-Arctic systems and processes,
and related teleconnections between Arctic and global change. The Alfred-Wegener-Institute in
Bremerhaven (AWI) and the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) have been
developing a joint research project proposal, called “Governance of Resources for Arctic Sustainable
Policy and Practice” (GRASP). This project will be open to other national and international Arctic
partners. A crucial part of this project is the engagement of societal stakeholders, not least Arctic
21
DRAFT: Minutes of SDWG Regular Meeting, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, October 1-2, 2015
communities and indigenous peoples, and to use different kinds of knowledge, crucially traditional
local knowledge. The next step will be to reach out to the Arctic States and Permanent Participants,
and specifically the SDWG, to explore opportunities for how Germany can contribute through this
project to the work of the SDWG. In addition Germany would like to: contribute to research on
sustainability and sustainable development in the Arctic; and possible engagement in the Renewable
Energy Microgrid Project, and in the Social, Economic, and Cultural Expert Group (SECEG).
UARCTIC advised that it had circulated a paper to participants entitled NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE
ARCTIC.
IASSA made a brief statement referencing the upcoming Arctic Science Summit Week in Fairbanks
in March 2016. Reference was made to the importance of ethical issues as one of the challenges to
be addressed in Arctic research. IASSA also referred participants to the ICARP III Report which
outlines a research roadmap for the future.
15. Other Matters
15.a Additions to the Agenda
Nothing added under this item.
15.b SDWG Chair’s Meeting Summary
The SDWG Chair summarized the meeting’s decisions and the topics that she would raise on behalf
of the SDWG at the October 2015 SAO meeting in Anchorage.
Upcoming Meetings:
The SDWG will meet intersessionally in January 2016 to consider new project proposals and discuss
ongoing work. The group will also meet March 11-12, 2016, in Barrow, Alaska.
15.c Meeting Adjourns
Chief Mickey Stickman gave a closing address. He provided a brief history of the original Chena
community, which resided on the Tanana and Chena Rivers. He spoke of the Athabaskan culture’s
respect for all living things and the need to take care of the Arctic. The meeting adjourned at noon
October 2, 2015.
22