WEBINAR 3: WHAT INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS/PROCESSES ARE
NEEDED TO FACILITATE PROGRESS IN UNDERSTANDING THE ARCTICSYSTEM AND ITS GLOBAL IMPACTS?
THURSDAY, 24 MARCH 2022
TRANSCRIPT (RECORDING AVAILABLE ON THE UNITAR WEBSITE)
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:00:19
Great. Excellent. Well, good morning, everybody. Good afternoon. Good evening. For
wherever you are, welcome to this webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific
Cooperation: Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries.
My name is Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman and I have the honour as well as pleasure to coordinate
this webinar series that is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, concluding todaywith Webinar 3.
Our open and inclusive dialogue today is far more important than was ever imagined – under
the gathering clouds of world war – but with hope that informed decisionmaking will prevailin the spirit of science diplomacy “to balance national interests and common interests for the
benefit of all on Earth across generations.” This is a time for all of us to be brave; cherishingand preserving the integrity of humanity to pursue knowledge and wisdom; recognizing thatdoors of dialogue shut among academic communities when militaries dictate the fate ofhumanity.
I thank the Japanese Consulate in Boston and excellent team of collaborators with thewebinar series: Dr. Jenny Baeseman at Baeseman Consulting and Prof. Akiho Shibata at thePolar Cooperation Research Center, Kobe University for their core partnership; Ms. Clara
Lopez and her team at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) for
superbly managing the logistics of this webinar series; and wonderful team of scholars fromthe Harvard Kennedy School (including Mr. Teruaki Fujii and Ms. Nadia Filimonova) and theArctic Challenge for Sustainability (ArCS II) program in Japan (Dr. Zia Madani, Dr. Osamu
Inagaki and Mr. Jugo Sato).
Importantly, I thank each of you from across the 21 nations and many time zones, with deep
appreciation for sharing your insights today with inclusion, championing the transdisciplinary
as well as transboundary capacities of the scientific community to build bridges between thepresent and the future.
We are living through an important moment in human history, which relates to theaspirations of this webinar series to enhance international cooperation with science, applying
the Arctic as a global case study. Just after this webinar series was proposed, the COVID-19
pandemic erupted with devastating consequences worldwide. Now, just after the firstwebinar in this series last month, events in Ukraine have created new peril that has thepotential to cascade into world war, something we all have responsibilities to prevent foreverafter the 20th century.
Circumstances in Ukraine already have created significant instabilities in international
relations, including for the Arctic region, jeopardizing dialogue, cooperation and progress
among the eight Arctic states, six Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and international
community of observers participating in the Arctic Council. Our informal dialogue today,
convened with inclusion, is a timely opportunity to contribute substantively to informed
decisionmaking, short-to-long term, especially in view of the Joint Statement on Arctic Council
Cooperation Following Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine on 3 March 2022, considering “thenecessary modalities that can allow us to continue the Council’s important work in view of
the current circumstances.” Closely coupled to our webinar today also is the International
Science Council Statement on Ukraine from 28 February 2022, noting bravely that: “Sciencehas proven to act as a platform for dialogue even in times of war.”
As previously, this webinar will involve an opening plenary session for an hour with keynote
presenters who will introduce expert insights, addressing a set of questions, designed to build
common interests. I will facilitate the panel dialogue among these experts, welcoming
questions and comments from the audience in the chat for consideration toward the end of
the panel, addressing the framing questions for today:
What international efforts/processes are needed to facilitate progress in understanding theArctic system and its global impacts?
❖ What are the mechanisms that exist?
❖ Are these mechanisms adequate?
❖ How could enhanced science cooperation impact other areas of international
relations?
To reflect on these questions, it is an honour as well as pleasure to briefly introduce the three
keynote presenters for today:➢ Hon. Fran Ulmer (Former Lt. Governor, Alaska; Former Chair, US Arctic ResearchCommission; Senior Fellow, Arctic Initiative, Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School.
➢ Amb. Anton Vasiliev (Russia's Senior Arctic Official 2008-2014; Ambassador to the
Republic of Iceland 2014-2020.
➢ Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto (Vice Director-General, National Institute for Polar Research,
Japan; Co-chair 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM3) Advisory Board; Vice-President,International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).
This plenary session is being recorded and will placed on the UNITAR platform, as with theplenary dialogues from the first two webinars.
Unfortunately, Dr. Andrey Bryksenkov sent me a note this morning that he has come downwith COVID and will be unable to contribute today. Andrey apologizes for “the objective
reasons and hopes for further cooperation.”In the first two webinars, after the plenary session, we turned off the recording, and moved
into pre-assigned breakout sessions for open dialogue among the webinar participants. As aconsequence of this unexpected change among the keynote presenters today – recognizingthat doors are rapidly shutting for inclusive dialogue across the global scientific community –we will turn of the recording after the plenary session and have an open dialogue off-therecord (Chatham House guidelines) for the 70 minutes among all of us. For the remaining 20
minutes in Webinar 3, I will then invite closing 5-minute summary comments from our three
keynote presenters in the final plenary session, as with previous webinars, which will berecorded.
With appreciation for the scholar-rapporteurs, reporting from this webinar will be further
distilled into a Science Diplomacy Action publication, capturing insights from the webinar
series to help enhance international scientific cooperation in the Arctic with global lessons toboth promote cooperation and prevent conflict as the umbrella goal.
This webinar series and its journey reveal common-interest building as a necessary
complement to conflict resolution to operate across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ from security
time scales that are immediate to sustainability time scales across generations. Perspectives
about time are the bread-and-butter of science, considering: months-years in view of ourglobal pandemic; years-decades with the acceleration of high-technologies; and acrossdecades-centuries with exponential changes in human-population size and atmosphericcarbon associated with Earth’s climate.
Today’s concluding webinar has direct application to the challenges we collectively face as a
globally-interconnected civilization – enhancing international scientific cooperation as acentral interaction among great powers to both promote cooperation and prevent conflict –building dialogues among allies and adversaries alike inclusively based on our common
interest to survive.
With that as opening remarks, it is an honor as well as pleasure to invite the Honorable Fran
Ulmer to share her comments. Fran please. You are on mute.
Hon. Fran Ulmer – 00:10:08
There we go. Can you hear me now?
Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:10:10
Yes. Thank you very much, Fran.
Hon. Fran Ulmer – 00:10:12
Thank you, Paul. And thanks to all of the organizers for this opportunity for us to discuss avery important topic, which you point out has become increasingly timely as we look for waysthat countries with shared goals, particularly as it relates to the Arctic and to scientificresearch, can still find ways to have not only conversations but also opportunities tobrainstorm about the future, not just the past.
When I was asked if I would participate in this gathering, I said yes, because I do believe thatthe way in which the Arctic countries and frankly, many countries all around the world have

spent a great deal of time, energy, money, and effort to better understand the changing
conditions of the Arctic, and that although we've already done a lot in that regard, that there
are ways in which we could potentially do a better job. And as the changing conditions aregoing so rapidly in the Arctic, it's important for us to be open to other ways in which we could
actually work together internationally.
So just very briefly, all of the people on this call, I suspect, are very familiar with why all thosechanges in the Arctic are important not only to the people who live in the Arctic, but to people
literally everywhere in the world. So the role of scientific research organizations that support
that research, countries that support that research is not only to understand what is changing,but to use that information to adapt, to prepare, to make decisions, policy decisions,investment decisions, decisions about infrastructure, decisions about how to avoid risk to theenvironment and to the people being able to take what we learn and apply. It is obviously
why much scientific research is done everywhere, but is particularly important in a place likethe Arctic region, which is experiencing such a rapid rate of change and such a dramaticchange from what the Arctic was 50 years ago to what it is today to what we know it will bequite different 50 years from today.
Over the years, in addition to the individual efforts of countries and of universities and ofmany organizations to do that kind of research that would help guide decision-making andimprove our ability to face an uncertain future, many countries and many organizations havefound ways to bridge across the nations to be able to more effectively, efficiently,
comprehensively do that research, sharing across borders, not only resources and researchcapabilities, but also data, information, and results that are relevant all across the Arctic.
Why is this so important in the Arctic? It's a huge area. Again, as everyone who is on this callunderstands that you can't really understand one part of the Arctic, you have to think more
holistically because it is a system, and because it is such a huge area, it is obviously importantto spend resources wisely and share the information, share the resources and share theaccess to the entire Arctic region to be able to fully understand it. So that is why over theyears, many things have evolved. Special events, like the international polar years that started
all the way back in 1882 and then 1932, and then 1957 and then more recently, 2007, wereliterally the world focused on the challenges of both doing research and understanding thepolar regions. There have been many, many specialized events that have looked at Arctic
science cooperation recently.
A couple of examples of the Arctic science ministerials one, two, and three, and hopefully
there will be a fourth at some point. These not only for the Arctic Nations, but for all thenations who are doing Arctic research, provides these specialized moments when there is aconvening of those who are interested in Arctic science research to really focus the attentionof not only those who are doing the Arctic science and Arctic research and Arctic countries,
but literally the world. And, of course, there are numerous organizations, some that bridge in
an interdisciplinary way Arctic science research, like the International Arctic Science
Committee, or some that are specialized, like the International Permafrost Association thatjust focuses on bringing together permafrost researchers, or IASSA, the International Arctic
Social Sciences Association.

There are specialized and there are interdisciplinary general organizations that through theyears have provided a forum for dialogue and exchange of information and the opportunity for
scientists to network in a way that really enables them to expand their sphere of understanding
and the way in which they do research with partners across borders. I could go on for quite awhile describing all of these, but I'm not going to I'm just going to stop by saying these areimportant building blocks toward what I would describe as an extremely important overarchinggoal, which is to build the bridges necessary, not only across disciplines but across borders, todo what society needs, which is a better understanding of how the Arctic is changing, how thosechanges are impacting the people of the Arctic, as well as globally, and to be able to preparesocieties, governments, businesses, individuals, communities for the rapid rate of changeahead, being able to use that information to improve decisions, to reduce risk, to enable society
to adjust and adapt in a way that minimizes the pain, suffering, and expense of not being
prepared for what lies ahead.
I will close by simply pointing out, as I'm sure we will discuss the importance of the ministerials
from all of the countries that have leaned into supporting these efforts, and particularly as it
relates to the Arctic Council, which I'm certain that Anton will talk about after his longexperience with the Arctic Council, which is, I think, where we first met years ago.
Clearly, the Arctic Council, since its formulation in 1996, also provides one of these importantbuilding blocks of infrastructure that has enabled, supported, and encouraged the kind ofinternational scientific cooperation that is so essential that, of course, was the body that reallyput in place the International Arctic Science Agreement back in 2017 which was focused
primarily on assuring access to the other Arctic regions. But it again describes and shines alight on the importance of different parts of society, both different parts of government,
different parts of scientific operations, different parts of the Indigenous communities of the
Arctic being able to participate in a meaningful way to advance our goals for science
cooperation. I will stop there. Thank you again, Paul for inviting me and thanks to all of theorganizers for putting together this series of webinars back to you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:19:16
Thank you very much, Fran for your eloquent observations, insightful and helpful as always.
And now it's a pleasure and an honor to introduce to you, Ambassador Anton Vasiliev. Anton,
please.
Amb. Anton Vasiliev – 00:19:29
Thank you very much, Paul and thank you very much for your kind invitation. It's my pleasure
to be here and share my views about the Arctic and past and its present and its future. I think
it's really very important subject and it really has global dimension, and the importance ofthings is being understood would become aware by many people in the world now. So you
don't need to be so eloquent to describe that. I think it's now clear for everyone. But quite
briefly, I think the two things have changed the Arctic in the last couple of decades. One isclimate change and the second is technological progress. Both have made accessible manythings in the Arctic that were not accessible from the economic point of view, from politicalpoint of view, from security point of view. So we have found ourselves in front of a vast area
which possesses a lot of mineral resources and accessible now and which is open fortransportation for whatever purpose it may be used.

So there are two major things that have changed the face of the Arctic. And there are two major
magnets that have ignited the interest to the Arctic in the world. So in parallel to this processof changes in the Arctic, I think the Arctic States themselves have arranged themselves andarranged the dialogue Fran open dialogue based on one simple foundation which I felt for many
years of my work in the Arctic constant the commonality of interests of all Arctic States. We all
Arctic States. We all face the same challenges, huge challenges because of the changing in the
climate and also the huge potential. And all of us, we agreed to the understanding that it ismuch more efficient, better and perspective to fight these challenges and use theseopportunities collectively in unison with the others.
So this is the basis of the work of many Arctic for us, including the ministerials. And I shared
the view that ministerials of course important. And it was a great pleasure for me to work in
the Arctic Council because I felt this unity of interests of Arctic Council States every day of mylife. Arctic Council is my professional life in the Arctic Council. Arctic Council is the key
mechanism of international Arctic scientific cooperation, by the way. And the agreement onenhancing such cooperation is one of the three legally binding agreements elaborated underthe Arctic Council. And quite frankly, in my judgment, about 90% of everything the Artic
Council does is scientific collaboration.
If you open the web page of the Arctic Council, we will find that there are around 100 projects
currently underway in six working groups of the Arctic Council. It is a unique combination ofscience and traditional knowledge of Indigenous people. And of course, the key areas are
climate change and environment. And the important part of this, a scientific preparation, isthat it's not art for the arts sake, it's not the science for the science’s sake, although it may be
important for many. But it's a unique combination of science and practical recommendations
on many, many things such as, for example, extraction of natural resources or shipping in the
Arctic, many other practical areas. And what's important about the Arctic Council that is thatrecently we have adopted strategic vision of our common movement forward. That is the
Arctic strategic plan. It's set of research priorities for ten years ahead.
Apart from the Arctic Council there are many other mechanisms of the Arctic scientificcooperation. Yes, International Polar Year is one of them and we support the idea of arranging
the fifth international polar year in 2032-33. And I think that would be a great way to moveon with globalization of Arctic research.
In a nutshell, IPY International Polar Year is an international coordinated research project overlong term geophysical, hydrometeorological, environmental and other monitoring andanalyzing of the situation in both poles. And its value is in comprehensive, sufficient,
systematic, and prolonged measurements of changes that produce a more detailed and solid
picture and thus producing more solid basis for political decision making.
So, it allows us to use efficiently the limited resources of individual countries, however big they
are, including Russia to concentrate on key areas and have the research and share thisresearch results among many participants. So, we can talk more about that later. But I also
agree that the initiative of the Arctic Circle, this is one of the NGOs in the Arctic, one of the
non-governmental organizations which is to arrange the Arctic Science Ministerial during each

period of a two-year chairmanship of a country in the Arctic Council by the chair itself, plus by
one of the observations. It's a very good initiative.
We had three Arctic science ministries already. They were quite effective. And we had the lastone, the third one in Tokyo, coverage by Icelandic Chairmanship of the Arctic Council andJapan as observer of the Arctic Council. That was quite an effort because it was very hard to
arrange by itself. Plus there were so many limits because of transportation, has hazards,
because of COVID. But still it was a very effective and very useful meeting.
We as chair of the Arctic Council this year we are working together with our French colleagues
and we have already agreed preliminary agreed that yes, we are going to arrange the ASM4 in
spring of 2023. I'm part of the organizing community of ASM4, so I’m working closely I've beenworking closely with our French colleagues till the very last moment and still resolute inarranging the ASM4 four whatever the circumstances. And we shall bear responsibility for thatas the shares of the Arctic Council now. So, we feel it is our responsibility to do. We are working,we are preparing everything, and I hope we should succeed.
So are many other forums. There are many Arctic Circle, very successful NGO, very informativeand very high-level meetings. Regular meeting is important here. So other conference, regular
Council such as Russian Arctic Territory of Dialogue or the Norwegian Arctic Frontiers. There
are many. I think there's even a sort of competition between the Arctic States to have theirown regular NGO meeting. I think there's one in Alaska as well. I forgot the name, but it's Arctic
something. But I don't want to offend anyone. But I think Russia was the first. Nevertheless, I
think all of this is important and we're not really competing that, and I think it's very much
more than the self-supporting, let me finish here and tell you that.
I think that we have many mechanisms of Arctic scientific cooperation and, yes, the challenges
we face are really very serious and we need to have a very serious and open dialogue and wehave a very good basis for cooperation and scientific area among the Arctic States, which isthe agreement on enhancing cooperation in the Arctic and we are open to cooperation witheveryone in the world of who have interest or stake in the problems that we are discussing in
the Arctic in various form. So yes, we are there.
We have problems now currently, but I hope that taking a broader picture in our mind thinking
about broader I think we share a huge common interest here and I think climate change is oneof the most important things. This is something that knocks at our door everywhere in theworld now in form of floods, wildfires et cetera, melted permafrost and other many things.
So we need to move forward. And with this I would simply like to welcome the idea of
discussion of international scientific operation in the Arctic about Arctic and hope that it willbring even more attention to this issue and bring more interested scholars and expert andresearchers into the field, and we will be more than happy to cooperate with them. Thankyou.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:31:09

Thank you very much Anton for your important and helpful observations. Certainly, in the spiritof building common interests it is an honor as well as a pleasure to introduce and welcome
observations from Professor Hiroyuki Enomoto. Please.
Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – 00:31:26
Thank you very much. Paul. As Paul introduced me, I'm those natural scientists and also Vice
President of the International Arctic Science Committee and I was the co-chair of the ASM3
science advisory board. I worked at the individual scientist Institute administration and IASC
member and ASM3 organizer. There is many participants today and from the national interest
there is a wide range of interest and intent to know. I from the individual condition to theinternational action. And also I'm from Japan, not Arctic country and not the member of the
Arctic Council. But we are acting as a scientist in the Academy IASC and ASM3.
We organized ASM3 with Iceland, that dimension out of the Arctic Council member. What we
can do is also one idea from me. So the picture behind you can see that is “unclear”. We startobservation there from 1991. IASC established in 1990. Since then, we start observation there
and almost the same period of IASC and Arctic Council established and researchers who areacademic movement of IASC are almost same timing. So the scientist is very much proud of
the good starting to the international Arctic science in the 1990s.
Why 1990s? It is the end of the east west of political suspension with eastern countries. We
started peaceful station in the Arctic region. We could start the international cooperation over
the Arctic. So we are aiming to continue this situation for coming decades. That is so on thebehind of the starting IASC international science activity the peaceful condition is very essential.
The previous webinars already introduce.
So I want to introduce some main action of the ASM3 and please use that legacy to the ASM4.
And I work also as leaders of the IPCC and IPCC is global wide, but I joined a special report on
ocean and crisis in climate exchange. It's focused in polar region and also focus on thecontinuous knowledge and recent knowledge how to work together. It's also a very uniqueissue of that special report on ocean changing climate. That is my thought behind.
And I will talk about the ASM3 procedure, each correct member countries information on theactivity of the Arctic, and ASM analyze the activities. ASM Also so the Arctic science ministerial
meeting every two years. Also proposing recommendation and deduction and each country
approves them. Then all agree must start. But not yet all was done. So it's a black problem.
Many research activities of 434 registered projects were submitted at ASM3 2021, last yearin Tokyo and ASM3 calls the importance of observation, understanding, response, andstrengthen. So it is many important suggestions from the previous ASMs. But ASM3 tried toconcise that message. So this is the first step observation.
We know that we must understand and not only the understanding that is maybe Academy isfine only for understanding. But ASM must respond and strengthen the next generation ofinternational cooperation. That is sustainable Arctic and development. So that's the first stepis very important. And in many stages of national or the international individual activities. We
are trying to implement these four steps. They were enhanced those actions under the sameknowledge or Sustainable Arctic. So knowledge was very essential point IPCC knowledge isbased then regarding what not to transfer the aggregated knowledge to realization. ASM3
proposed long-term and near-term realization. So then comes to the practical problem.
As a practical problem. There remains an issue of system who insensibly invested in station
resources for strengthening the network of international cooperation. So cooperation,observation and survey must be done in a short period with a very integrated system. So when
we observe the world, Europe as Atlantic area cooperation action, European Power Board andmany different groups exist in Europe. But in Asia and or Pacific region it is still developed
thing. So Japan, China, Korea and Mauritius and India has a polar science. And we aredeveloping that system. And maybe future we can connect east and west.
And the scientist is already working north and South Arctic and middle Arctic issue is alreadyestablished as international important Arctic activity. Then the implementing system we need
the mechanism across the world including Asia, command coming from the Asian country. So
we have a room and it is not so difficult. And then. So Hawaii, Japan, no Arctic countries areworking in the Arctic. That is the number of countries now it's increasing. I asked Arctic Council
is eight countries. But I asked has 24 countries member and ASM3 had 28 countries and region.
So not only the closing circle inside. So the issue is expanding globally. So Arctic science
cooperation goes beyond solving problems surrounding the Arctic. The problem is now a
global issue. Through this attempt or through this challenge, through the method of
discussion, probe solutions, and spreading Arctic problem, we can get maybe a good exampleof how to solve the problem and to get a good example of the human nature balance. So goodmodels can be seen from Arctic activities.
So now Arctic researchers can also see what Arctic members are doing, such as the link
between the recent or modern science and traditional knowledge mentioned in the IPCC. So
I already talked and also ASM3 is also enhanced in community, decision-making by themselves
and that is a way to move towards achieving the SDGs. So the community's work is very
important and Arctic issue is trying to make a good example of that. So it's not only the Arctic
issue, but you can learn from the Arctic what they are doing and how you can apply that.
And finally I want to mention there is a many big committee IASC or ASM3 organizers. But if
you attend that you can find the very key person. So today the panelists Anton and Fran is avery good example of the key person and also some individual continuous effort is moving allorganization hard. So then come to how Japan or Asian can do or any Arctic country can do isthat is there any key person we have or a key person that stands out or is there any platform
where he can stand out? And the point is how we activate him or her properly that is the next
generation development and through the Arctic issue, we want to find that very good modelcase. Thank you very much.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:43:49
Thank you. Hiroyuki for your important comments. I have a couple of questions to pose toFran, Hiroyuki and Anton, but perhaps with the first question just following on Hiroyuki last
observation about how to cultivate; who to cultivate. We as a generation have responsibility,
I think to create capacities among next generation leaders.
And I would reflect recently on the association for Polar Early Career Scientists. And they're
relatively brave and I would say statement on circumstances with Ukraine seeking to facilitatedialogues rather than closed doors as we move forward and think about how to cultivate those
key persons, as you identified Enomoto-san.
With consideration, Fran and Anton, how do we do that? How do we elevate the next
generation leaders, given that the people that are placed in positions of influence generally
have worked through their careers? But can we figure out mechanisms to elevate next
generation leaders because of their passion and insights and quite honestly, their skills tothink in terms of common interests?
Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – 00:45:22
Can I answer very quickly, please? I have no good answer yet. But we are trying and theimplementation of the ASM3 ideas come to Japan they implement the next generation. So
Japanese government or Japanese Arctic research club project, is investing in the next
generation training was not very sharp, narrow science area, but we want to try to make theleader person who's the next generation. But it is a very big challenge, and we want to run,for example, and also oversee Arctic scientists to work together. And very good example. We
are trying to run and also, we have a homeport system which has a very good continuous
support system. And we want to run from those ongoing system to apply able to new Japaneseactivities. So I have not yet good solution. But we are working.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:47:15
The passion is the key. So, thank you very much for your leadership. Fran or Anton, do you
have observations? Please? You're muted, Fran, you're muted.
Hon. Fran Ulmer – 00:47:32
There we go.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:47:34
Good.
Hon. Fran Ulmer – 00:47:35
Yeah. Three quick comments on your question. First of all, the pipeline of people who areyoung and interested in the Arctic and also obtain information about it and become active in
it is many different paths. One, of course, is the University of the Arctic. And the University of
the Arctic has been for a number of years been a mechanism for connecting universities
across the world with Arctic programming to make it easier for people, regardless of where
they live or where they are going to school, to be able to take deeper dives into Arctic
programming and understand the issues and the potential research questions associated with
the Arctic.
And similarly, many institutions, including Harvard, where I am with the Arctic Initiative at the
Kennedy School, definitely provides opportunities for young scholars to find not only
colleagues, but also get to know mentors who can help open doors for them. So I just want tobasically thank the University of the Arctic and the many universities like my own that are reallytrying very hard to find mechanisms to both bring more students who may be interested in bothscientific research, but also policy, governance, law, economics, and the other aspects of Arctic
issues that are important in terms of better understanding the Arctic.

Also, I would just say that as you pointed out, the association for early-career scientists inpolar regions is an important thing for all of us who have been around Arctic meetings for along time. To always be looking for younger people to pull in to the meetings, to speak on
panels and to provide them avenues to be able to effectively engage.
And I guess one example of that Anton mentioned another Arctic gathering that is happeningin Alaska next month. The Arctic Encounters is actually organized by a young woman who isin her early 30s. Arctic encounters which will happen in Anchorage is a great example, franklyof a young person who found Arctic issues interesting and has gone on to organize eyes efforts
that really bring both nationally and internationally people together to better understand thechallenges of the region and to work on problem-solving. So those are just a few quick
thoughts but it is a very important question that you have raised and something that I think
we all have an obligation to attempt to work on in whatever way we can.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 00:50:42
Thank you very much, Fran for your helpful observations. Anton please thank you.
Amb. Anton Vasiliev – 00:50:48
First of all, bringing youth in research of the Arctic to live in the Arctic and to participate indecision making in the Arctic about Arctic is one of the priorities of the Russian Championshipin the Arctic Council. We already have a lot of events already taken and planned for the future
for this particular purpose. I agree with Fran. I think that we have nearly everything we have it's
enough for us, nearly enough. Of course, there's always a room for perfection. We should think
about any new routes, new pipelines and new incentives.
But I think that the key thing here is to make Arctic interesting for the young researchers
because as we remember from our childhood that as we grow we see the whole world aroundus. There are so many attractive things. So I think the important in a very general sense theimportant thing is while fighting to bring to the Arctic the best, the brightest minds, the best
way is to make it interesting. You can do it by many ways, but I think the key idea is to do that.
We have many apart from the Arctic Council. We have many other for us which are doing that.
There's a lot of things that have been done already within the Arctic Council.
A lot of things have been done in the forest such as Arctic Frontiers in Norway or Arctic Circle
in Iceland. And it's important everywhere I talk about in nearly all these forests I can tell youthat huge attention is paid to participating of young scholars and they're making speeches,bringing out their ideas, whatever answer they are and they raise the discussion and they feelthat what they are doing is interested and they are in demand and this is the most important
thing. This is the most important thing. That's a very interesting and very important question.
And I think while arranging new initiatives such as International Polar Year or expedition suchas last year, the year before we had a fantastic MOSAiC expedition, international expedition
there.
We should always bear it in mind and bring young scientists, the young scholars in I think that
as we are arranging the Arctic science ministerial are building on the experience of ourpredecessors, including the fantastic experience, very helpful experience of our Japanese call itand part of the huge work that they have done, which is reproduced in this big booklet. This is
the outcome of ASM4, there's a very big part devoted to the bringing of young scholars into the
Arctic and the cooperation of science ministers around the world in bringing young scholars tothis particularly interesting and fascinating subjects. I think I will limit myself.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:54:55
Thank you very much, Anton. As I mentioned in my opening comments, this initial Plenary
panel was intended to go for an hour and then to open it up for a general dialogue among all
participants off the record. But before going to that general dialogue, open dialogue that will
be off the record, I have a last question to ask Fran, Hiroyuki, and Anton, in view of yourcomments, both introducing the Arctic Science Ministerial process with Arctic Science
Ministerial 1,2 and 3, beginning in the United States in 2016; in Germany in 2018; in Japan in2021; and presumably in France in 2023. With the Arctic Science Ministerial process, you alsomentioned in your comments the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific
Cooperation, which is a binding agreement among the eight Arctic States.
When this webinar series was initially convened, proposed it was a question was, are there
relationships, are there synergies that can emerge in terms of the spirit of international
scientific cooperation between the Arctic Science Ministerial process, which is a process, and
the Arctic Science Agreement, which is a binding agreement that's enforced among the Arctic
States? Are there synergies that would be self-reinforcing, that would enhance thecapabilities to enhance international scientific cooperation between these twocomplementary activities that both involve the Arctic science and ministries? So it's a questionin terms of seeking synergies to enhance international scientific cooperation, are there
synergies relationships between the Arctic Science Agreement and the Arctic Science
Ministerial Process?
Hon. Fran Ulmer – 00:57:17
Am I off mute? Can you hear me?
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:57:19
Yes, please.
Hon. Fran Ulmer – 00:57:20
Okay, fine. I would add one more to that list of whether or not there are synergies and what
are they, and it would be the Arctic Observing summit and all of the efforts associated with
Arctic observing efforts. I think those three things, in a way, fit together in the sense that theyall, as you point out, support the spirit of Arctic research cooperation across borders, but they
are all different in terms of what they are actually trying to achieve and how they might achieveit.
The International Arctic Science Agreement is really intended to bring down any doors or
barriers to access to the Arctic region so that researchers, regardless of where they comefrom, have the opportunity to do the research necessary in the region and have access to data,
information and be able to share it. So for me, it's the equivalent of opening up the doors andwindows. It's basically saying there aren't going to be barriers that artificially restrict theability of the Arctic research community to be able to do the kind of collaborative and cross-disciplinary and cross-border research, which is essential, that is, different than the Arctic
science Ministerial's purpose, which is really to focus the world's attention on what Arctic
research is being done and by whom and where might there be potential synergies so thatcountries can work together, perhaps along the lines of the mosaic project, but even if not
the mosaic project at a different level, being able to connect dots and over time have thatkind of continuity that will really enhance the ability of the science community to be able to do
the research, whether it's on a specific topic like permafrost or more general topic ofunderstanding how the Arctic ocean is changing.
And the third piece of what I added, which is the observing summit and the Arctic observing
efforts, is this notion that if you do not have sustained overtime funding and resources and astructure that will organize the way and which the way in which the various observing efforts,
which really basically just gives you the basic data, it doesn't necessarily tell you what to makeof that. It just allows the observing networks to be able to integrate their information, theirdata, their ability for others to take advantage of that information and do research with it. That
third piece is also very important to any of these discussions about how to enhance andimprove and strengthen the science community and the science effort at understanding Arctic
change. So, yes, Paul, they are connected, but they're not the same, and they each play adifferent role in the spirit of enhancing, supporting, improving, strengthening all those things.
And I know that as the Arctic Science ministerial three left with some recommendations for
how to go forward and whether or not those will be topics taken up at an ASM4 or in adifferent setting. I think it's very important because one of the limitations that was identified
was the lack of funding across borders to actually do the necessary planning and collaboration.
In other words, many countries fund their researchers, but they don't fund these large
international projects across borders. And that's understandable at one level, that's sort of incountries trying to do the research that's in their national interest. But when you're talking
about a region like the Arctic where understanding the entire ecosystem and the entire
system is so important, we need to find ways that not only organize those projects but fundthem. And that seems to me something that could logically grow out of these three things
that we've identified, the ASMs and the International Arctic Science Agreement and the effort
to build an observing network. That's all for now.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:02:26
Outstanding. Thank you very much for bringing in the Arctic Observing Summit, which will
happen on the 1 April in Tromsø. So, Hiroyuki, or Anton, do you have additional comments?
Anton, please?
Amb. Anton Vasiliev – 01:02:41
Yes, of course. I was one of the initiators of the Arctic scientific operation agreement. So I cansay that, yes. The one common thing about where you can find the synergy among the two is
the spirit is the spirit of enhancing cooperation in the important area. But there are, of course,
different areas that the two processes, two documents to events, the target it the agreement
is about moving the barriers, moving the barriers of movement scientists across the board ofmoving research equipment, of issuing visas, et cetera, et cetera. But this is an agreement
among the Arctic Council States, and it is agreement among them. And this is important tounderstand the nature because we, the Arctic States, took these obligations visually eachother, understanding that we shall open our borders and for movement of people, movementof researchers, moving of scientific documents and scientific equipment, et cetera, in
exchange for the others opening their borders for us, that was a sort of multilateral agreementwith one common interest. I will not repeat myself, but what Fran has said about the purposeof ASM3. It's exactly that different thing. But again, the purpose of both is to stimulate thefoster Arctic scientific research.
But the agreement, it doesn't exclude the fostering of international preparation beyond thesphere of the Arctic circle. And if you read carefully the agreement, there's an article about
preparation with observers in Arctic research which is welcome. And I would also say that in
the practical performance of the Arctic counselor many scientific projects which include theobservers and nonmembers of the Arctic Council. And this is also important. And anotherthing, one more thing to insert here is that it is important in all scientific research processes.
It's important to sustain cohesion and to sustain continuity. And this is why we as ASM4 arebuilding on what has been already achieved by previous isms and especially by ASM3. And in
this way, we want to use the spirit of the agreement of cooperation in the Arctic, applying it to
ASM process. So this is really important. Yes, I agree totally with funding. This is one of the key
problems that all scientists are solving. And I think it's the work with funders potential funded.
There is really one of the important issues under all activities of ASM processes and even therealization of the Arctic science capacity and also many other things. I think one of theanswers to the question why are you proposing an international polar year ten years aheadof the dates is that we should have enough time to work with potential funders to interest
them, to convey them the idea of the importance of the exercise. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:07:09
Thank you very much. Anton. Hiroyuki, please, if you have a response.
Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – 01:07:14
Thank you very much. So Arctic Science Agreement is a critical rule to realize cooperation.
And then the question comes to what do we want to realize? There is a gap of the observation
area in the Arctic. The research analyzes the gap of the observation area and hook can fill thatarea and how they can fill that area. ASM2 recommended. Still separating arctic science. The
new mechanism is now initiating. Who can fill that gap or area? Depending on the design,
ASM3 strongly recommended sustainable Arctic observing network system for all countries of
28 countries should join not only the Arctic country, but 28. Then we can start, and we can ask
to no Arctic country to fill some point so Japan can fill some area. So that is not only the Arctic
country but including the member countries of the ASM3, 28 we can feel more efficiently thatis moving forward from the agreement and the ASM3 implementation.
And one more point, the Arctic Observing Summit, so there was a global issue session in 2016.
Some people noticed 2016 is also a very difficult condition to implement Arctic reason so
Arctic observation so also political is a difficult situation. So in that case researchers try to
collaborate over the border of the country. Someone please fills the data. Continue
observation. Even the country and country are not accessible. So that country is researcher.
Please keep that data and continue. If the situation changes, we can collaborate again our
experience in 2016 and discuss in AOS 2016 in Fairbanks. Thank you very much.

Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:10:40
Thank you very much. Hiroyuki. At this point what I would like to do and recognizing takehealth breaks and so on. So we're not programming that into the schedule.
Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – 01:10:52
Sorry. Sorry. So in the chat box I put the ASM3 digital database you can access and yourself
analyze that data which country what they are doing what is a newly database we are
expecting ASM4 organizer use to expand that system. Sorry.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 01:11:14
No. No. No. This is very important and welcome other observations to put in the chat in thespirit of transparency and sharing with all involved. At this point, what I'd like to do is ask
Clara to turn off the recording please.
SUMMARY SESSION
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 01:11:24
And this is an opportunity an invitation to Fran, Hiroyuki, and Anton to provide their summarycomments and observations from this third webinar which was designed to address what
international efforts and processes are needed to facilitate progress in understanding theArctic system and its global impacts. Certainly, we have had a very rich discussion stimulated
by opening comments from yourself Professor Enomoto, Ambassador Anton Vasiliev and the
Honorable Frances Ulmer. So I would leave it to the three of you to provide summarycomments please. How would you like to proceed? Just raise your hand and I will choose you
first hear. Hiroyuki. Please.
Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – 01:12:32
I want to state only a small comment. There are many big countries’ projects but the reading
effort is done often by some individuals. So, in the current situation and previous situations.
And in the coming situation, For example, COVID-19 limitations of the local observation.
Scientists have a good contact and asked the local scientist we could not go to Greenland but
Greenland scientists in Greenland supported our instrument maintenance and taking data anda new system is we asked the Indigenous people to maintain our instrument. They learned
how to use, and the new collaboration has started during COVID-19, and also most sensing cancover that area. So it's a Norwegian activity to try to compensate and cover other countries’
observations, not to miss the data. Talking to Russia, big part is Russian database. The 1990s,
ran data rescue. had a very good quality data and it is a very dangerous condition or disappears
that data. So, US researchers tried to data rescue and still, we have used as climatic data. I hope
the current situation is not the case of missing data. So using the individual connection with
we can find some solutions but try to continue the data, not by the national but using thecommunication effort. That is my final comment.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:15:10
Thank you very much Enomoto for those important observations. Anton, please.
Amb. Anton Vasiliev – 01:15:17
Thank you very much for an interesting webinar. I think I will not repeat myself and sum up
what I said but another contribution, one contribution to our discussion. I would like to tellyou that I am by a growing a group of Russian scientists who are signing a letter addressed tome in my capacity of Vice President of the Russian Association of Polar Explorers. This is why
my hats I'm wearing now and they are trying to solve the question that is in the air that wehave been discussing that didn't touch upon yet what to do in the current situation, what is
our way out of the pores in the working of existing mechanism of international arts scientificoperation. And I can read out such some points of this letter and they addressed to me andthe scientists.
Many scientists signed a letter with a request to head an initiative to create an international
move in the field of joint international scientific activities, scientists for further strengtheningof international cooperation, among other things. What is being addressed to me is the phrasethat in recent days, despite the difficult geopolitical situation, a number of Russian
universities and scientific institutions have received requests from scientists from Western
Europe, the US, Japan, and to continue working together in international scientificcooperation, including the Arctic region and the context of the Russian chairmanship of the
Arctic Council.
We clearly understand that the development of science as a field of activity for creating new
knowledge requires the expansion and strengthening of scientific ties between scientists fromall the countries. The implementation of the international collaboration Science initiative.
Scientists for the further strengthening of international cooperation should lead to thedevelopment of forms of what is commonly called open science, unified platforms where datafrom observations and experiments are collected and open access to publication international
for us and the preparation of special monograms and reports could be events. So now I am
contemplating, I'm considering this very interesting interest public initiative and this is why
I'm putting the, as they say, putting a beer in your ear and asking you to think about this thing.
If you further support these people to people scientific cooperation, that could be one of thepossible layouts of the pause in international Arctic scientific cooperation in the current
geopolitical situation. Thank you very much for a very successful webinar.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:18:30
Thank you very much, Anton, for sharing that letter and those observations. Certainly as one
in this group, as just an individual, it would be an honor and a pleasure to contribute to thosepeople to people interactions going forward in the spirit of preserving the integrity of thescientific community. Fran, please, I leave the closing comments to you.
Hon. Fran Ulmer – 01:18:54
Well, first of all, let me say, Anton, I'm very grateful that you read that and shared it with us
because I think many of us were hoping that there may be some sort of initiated dialogue atthis level among not only the science community, but frankly, the people to people communitythat for a very long time has provided the kind of continuity of positive relationships, even when
our national governments find many things to disagree about. So I would just note that manyof the scientists with whom I have dialogue on a regular basis express very similar sentimentsthat it is so important that for those of us who believe in science diplomacy, for those of us whobelieve that it is in the best interests of all of our people, for these lines of communication andcollaborative work to continue that we can individually do whatever we can to foster that, toexplain to the rest of our governments and people as to why this is important. Obviously, thescientific research that is being done in the Arctic must be done collaboratively if it's going tobe effective.
We must continue to honor the institutions that have served us so well, like the Arctic Council,
like the University of the Arctic, like so many of the other entities that have really erased
borders as a problem and rather emphasize what it is that we share as common needs andvalues and experience and understanding and resources. And it is my hope that dialogues likethe one we have had today will continue the momentum for strengthening theseorganizations, as well as shining a light on things where additional entities or organizations or
funding would be helpful, like the discussion we've just had about the Central Arctic Ocean.
I do believe that more can be done to create the platforms for Arctic observing that would,
over time, enhance the ability of scientists, regardless of what country they are in, Arctic or
non-Arctic, to be able to do the work they do. And I do hope that over time, we can strengthen
things like the International Arctic Science Agreement to make certain that there aren't
boundaries and unnecessary barriers put up to making sure that that kind of scientific research
can benefit all humanity.
So with that, I will just say thanks again to Paul, to Jenny, to all of the organizers that madethis possible. And may we all remain optimistic that the Arctic science community will play animportant and positive role during not only these difficult times, but long into the future.
Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:22:12
Thank you very much, Fran. It is an honor and a pleasure to thank you, Fran. Honorable Fran
Ulmer, Professor Hiroyuki Enomoto, and Ambassador Anton Vasiliev, for your important,insightful observations during this third webinar.
By way of concluding the webinar series, again with appreciation to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan, there is a synthesis that will emerge. The scholars from the Harvard Kennedy
School and from the Japan ArCS II program have been thoughtfully compiling observations
that have been circulated to the keynote presenters from each of the webinars. We will turnthose observations, along with the transcripts that are presented as part of the recording intoa publication through Science Diplomacy Action. And we certainly invite the keynote
presenters to assist us in completing that synthesis and invite you to serve also as co-authors
if that as appropriate.
With that, it has truly been an honor. And it is a pleasure to convene these three webinars on
Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation with the Arctic as a case study, but certainlywith global relevance and with hope and inspiration as a primary responsibility that all
generations have to think short term to long term for the benefit of all on Earth, acrossgenerations.
With that, I thank each of the participants for your thoughtful observations and comments. I
thank the team for being a team for having fun together and producing this in a way that has
resonated with hope and inspiration for all of us and to that I wish everybody good healthgoing forward and look forward to our next meetings. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thankyou. Bye.