SYNTHESIS NO. 6

SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ACTION
An Incidental Serial for Rigorous Meeting Syntheses

July 2022

Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation:
Arctic Science and Technology Advice
with Ministries
Webinar Series TeamISSN 2573-9751 (print)
ISSN 2573-976X (online)(DOI) 10.47555/162022

SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ACTION
An Incidental Serial for Rigorous Meeting Syntheses(Print) ISSN 2573‐9751 / (Online) ISSN 2573‐976X / (DOI) 10.47555/162022

Synthesis No. 6(31 July 2022)

ENHANCING INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION:
ARCTIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVICEWITH MINISTRIESWEBINAR SERIES TEAM#&

This synthesis is produced by a team (see Appendix 1 – Co-Author List in Alphabetical Order), reflectedalso by the compilation of transcripts from public panel dialogues (see Appendices 2-4) among keynote
presenters in three holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) webinars, funded by the Ministryof Foreign Affairs of Japan with logistics provided by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research(UNITAR) during February-March 2022.
#

Corresponding author, please contact:
PROF. PAUL ARTHUR BERKMANFULBRIGHT ARCTIC CHAIR 2021-2022
paul.berkman@unitar.org / pberkman@law.harvard.edu / paul@evresearch.com&

All views expressed are personal and do not reflect the views of any organization, agency or government.
i

ABSTRACTThis sixth Synthesis with the Science Diplomacy Action serial is the product of the February-March 2022
webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic Science and Technology Advice
with Ministries, funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan to EvREsearch LTD with Science
Diplomacy Center™ coordination and logistics provided by the United Nations Institute for Training andResearch (UNITAR). These inclusive webinars began on 21 February 2022 and continued despite Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, emphasizing the importance of Open Science with both allies
and adversaries for our shared survival as a globally interconnected civilization. The webinar series was
designed to address an inevitable question: “What are the relationships and synergies between the
Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM) process and the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic
Scientific Cooperation, both of which involve ministries and science?” The three webinars involved
keynote presentations from leaders of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), International
Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA) and University of the Arctic (UArctic) as well as from ASM1
(2016), ASM2 (2018), ASM3 (2021) and ASM4 (2023 pending). Each webinar was designed further
around leading questions with keynote presenters from Arctic and non-Arctic states inclusively,
involving: Finland, Germany, Japan, Norway, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and Unites States withregistered participants from 49 nations. The first webinar focused on “What is Science” with expert
contributions from the perspectives of the natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge.
The second webinar was convened on 10 March 2022 to address: “How Can Science Transform Data into
Evidence for Informed Decisionmaking?” The third webinar was convened on 24 March 2022, focusing
on “What International Efforts/Processes Are Needed to Facilitate Progress in Understanding the Arctic
System and Its Global Impacts?” These transdisciplinary dialogues demonstrated the importance ofinternational cooperation and common-interest building with science diplomacy, enabling Open Science
with inclusion and continuity despite global geopolitics. The webinar series originated in sight of Scienceand Technology Advice with Ministries, initially with foreign affairs, science and environment ministries
but extending to ministries of defense under current world affairs. Lessons from this holistic(international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) webinar series reinforce strategies with informed
decisionmaking to operate across a ‘continuum of urgencies’, short-to-long term (pandemic to climate
timescales) “for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.”ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS(hyperlinks below)
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION
WEBINAR SERIES BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
WEBINAR SERIES GOAL AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 3
WEBINAR SERIES IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 3

WEBINAR SERIES AGENDA ...................................................................................................... 6
RAPPORTEUR SYNTHESESWEBINAR 1 (21 FEBRUARY 2022) ............................................................................................ 8
WEBINAR 2 (10 MARCH 2022) ................................................................................................ 9
WEBINAR 3 (24 MARCH 2022) ....................................................................................... 10

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS AND FEEDBACK ............................................................................ 12
CONCLUSIONS
Observations from the Webinar Series Dialogues ................................................................. 16
Enhancing Open Science Beyond the Geopolitics of Ukraine .............................................. 17

APPENDICESAPPENDIX 1: LIST OF CO-AUTHORS ........................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX 2: PANEL DIALOGUE TRANSCRIPT – WEBINAR 1 (21 FEBRUARY 2022) ............................. 22
APPENDIX 3: PANEL DIALOGUE TRANSCRIPT – WEBINAR 2 (10 MARCH 2022) ................................ 43
APPENDIX 4: PANEL DIALOGUE TRANSCRIPT – WEBINAR 3 (24 MARCH 2022) ................................ 64
APPENDIX 5: INVITED NATURE CORRESPONDENCE (28 APRIL 2022) ............................................... 81iii

INTRODUCTION
Webinar Series Background:International scientific cooperation is fundamental to the implementation of the seventeen United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), 1 involving science with decisionmaking by institutions inview of governance mechanisms and built infrastructure. The changing Arctic has increasingly important
global consequences, generating strategies that involve Arctic and non-Arctic States along with Indigenous
Peoples’ Organizations to enhance international cooperation with science.
Research and action contributions with science propel international cooperation, starting withquestions (Figure 1), as highlighted with the Arctic by the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International
Arctic Scientific Cooperation 2 that entered into force in 2018, signed by Foreign Ministers of the eight
Arctic states. In parallel with the 2017 Arctic Science Agreement, the Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM)
process began in 2016 among Arctic and non-Arctic states with Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations,involving diverse Ministries among nations (Table 1) along with many international organizations.

FIGURE 1: PYRAMID OF INFORMED DECISIONMAKING 3 as the engine of science diplomacy, initiated with questions
inclusively to reveal questions of common concern that require Open Science to address with holistic integration,building common interests short-to-long term while enhancing research capacities as a positive feedback at local-global
levels “for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.” Informed decisions operate across a ‘continuum of urgencies’,
as introduced during the 1st International Dialogue on Science and Technology Advice in Foreign Ministries4 in 2016.
United Nations. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations
General Assembly, New York. (https://sdgs.un.org/goals).
2
Arctic Science Agreement. 2017. Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation. Signed Fairbanks, Alaska,
United States, 11 May 2017. Entry into Force, 23 May 2018. (https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/other/2017/270809.htm).
3
Berkman, P.A., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Young, O.R., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. (eds). 2022. BUILDING COMMON INTERESTS IN THE
ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION. VOLUME 2. INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY. Springer, Dordrecht.
(https://link.springer.com/book/9783030893118).
4
Vienna Dialogue Team. 2017. A Global Network of Science and Technology Advice in Foreign Ministries. Science Diplomacy
Action 1:1-20. (https://scidiplo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Synthesis_1.pdf).
1

1

TABLE 1: ARCTIC SCIENCE MINISTERIAL (ASM) PROCESS INVOLVING MINISTRIES OF THE EIGHT ARCTIC STATES WITH THE
SIX ARCTIC INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ ORGANIZATIONS AND NON-ARCTIC STATES INCLUSIVELY
Process Year Location
Host(s) Participants
Themes
1. Arctic-Science Challenges and Their Regional and Global
24 Nations
Implications
Washington,
and2. Strengthening and Integrating Arctic Observations and Data-Sharingst
United1
2016
DC
European 3. Applying Expanded Scientific Understanding of the Arctic to Build
StatesASM1(US)Regional Resilience and to Shape Global Responses
Union
4. Empowering Citizens through Science Technology, Engineering, and(EU)
Mathematics (STEM) Education Leveraging Arctic Science
1. Strengthening, Integrating and Sustaining Arctic Observations,
Facilitating Access to Arctic Data, and Sharing Arctic Research
Finland and2nd
Berlin23 Nations
Infrastructure
2018
Germanyand EU
2. Understanding Regional and Global Dynamics of Arctic Changes
ASM2-3(Germany)
with EU
3. Assessing Vulnerability and Building Resilience of Arctic
Environments and Societies
1. “Knowledge for a Sustainable Arctic” is the overall theme with
sub-themes:
2. Observe the status of Arctic changesrdTokyoJapan and 27 Nations
32021
3. Understand the local and global impacts(Japan)Icelandand EU
ASM4-6
4. Respond to the changes based on a sharedunderstanding
5. Strengthen these efforts through education and capacity-building
for future generations
Russia4th
2023
TBD(and France
TBD
TBD
7
ASM
postponed)1
Supporting Arctic Science: A Summary of the White House Arctic Science Ministerial Meeting (September 28, 2016,
Washington, DC). (https://asm3.org/library/Files/Supporting_Arctic_Science_1.pdf).
2
Report of the 2nd Arctic Science Ministerial: Co-Operation In Arctic Science – Challenges and Joint Actions (26-28 October,
2018, Berlin). (https://asm3.org/library/Files/190402_ASM2_Bericht_V2_bf.pdf)
3
Joint Statement of Ministers on the Occasion of the 2nd Arctic Science Ministerial (26 October 2018, Berlin).
(https://asm3.org/library/Files/ASM2_Joint_Statement.pdf).
4Knowledge for a Sustainable Arctic 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial Report (8–9 May 2021, Tokyo).
(https://asm3.org/library/Files/ASM3_Final_Report.pdf).
5
Joint Statement of Ministers on the Occasion of the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial (9 May 2021, Tokyo)(https://asm3.org/library/Files/ASM3_Joint_Statement.pdf).
6
The ASM3 Project Database. (https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/ASM3DB/).
7
Planning for the 4th Arctic Science Ministerial has been paused because of the Ukraine invasion by Russia.

Both the ASM process (Table 1) and the 2017 Arctic Science Agreement involve national ministries,
focusing specifically on science and international scientific cooperation. However, only the ASM processincludes non-Arctic states, notably Japan and other nations that are observers to the Arctic Council. 5
Building on contributions with the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM3) co-hosted by Japan and Iceland inTokyo in May 2021 – at the invitation of the Consulate General of Japan in Boston – this project wasconceived around an inevitable question that had yet to be formally addressed:

What are the relationships and synergies between the Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM)
process and the 2017 Arctic Science Agreement, both of which involve ministries and science?

Arctic Council. 2022. https://www.arctic-council.org/ [paused until further notice due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine thatbegan on 24 February 2022].
5

2

This question was designed to complement syntheses underway in various venues supporting the“Science-to-Policy Process” with ASM3 (Table 1), considering the umbrella context of enhancing
international scientific cooperation, which is a positive feedback with building common interests (Figure 1).
The holistic framework of this webinar-series project extends from a 2017 policy forum in Science 6
about the Arctic Science Agreement, crafted in view of propelling science diplomacy with the University of
the Arctic (UArctic) and International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) as well as the International Arctic
Social Sciences Association (IIASA). Together, these international Arctic science organizations contributed
to keynote presentation across this webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic
Science and Technology Advice with Ministries. The three resulting webinars in February-March 2022 also
follow on an earlier high-level dialogue that was convened just before the 2nd ASM in 2018, supporting
implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement. 7

Webinar Series Goal and Objectives:
The stated goal of this holistic project funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan was to help
enhance international scientific cooperation with transdisciplinary 8 integration of international law,
ministries of nations, Indigenous peoples and science inclusively. The Arctic was applied as a global casestudy with science diplomacy – considering climate and other planetary challenges for humankind – “withholistic integration, involving informed decisionmaking to balance national interests and common interests
for the benefit of all on Earth across generations” (Figure 1). The first webinar was convened on 21
February 2022, formally with three objectives for the webinar series:
Objective 1. Convene holistic dialogues to address the umbrella question (above) with subsets ofquestions to consider governance mechanisms and built infrastructure along with their coupling for
Arctic sustainability, applying science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking (Figure 1).
Objective 2. Stimulate and share holistic perspectives on the umbrella question (above).
Objective 3. Produce a summary document that can contribute to the “Science-to-Policy Process,”building on contributions from ASM3 in view of the ASM process.

Following the 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the goal of this holistic webinar series
was adapted, simply to maintain the inclusive dialogue as planned. Stability of the dialogue series was
facilitated throughout by applying the transdisciplinary methodology of science diplomacy with its engine
of informed decisionmaking, founded on questions, building common interests with questions of common
concern among allies and adversaries alike (Figure 1).

Webinar Series Implementation:
This webinar-series project was funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan to EvREsearch
LTD with Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman as the Chief Executive Officer. In addition to serving as Director ofBerkman, P.A., Kullerud, L., Pope, A., Vylegzhanin, A.N. and Young, O.R. 2017. The Arctic Science Agreement Propels Science
Diplomacy. Science 358:596-598 (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/596).
7
Arctic Science Agreement Dialogue Panel. 2019 Supporting Implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement. Science
Diplomacy Action 3:1-58. [involving Foreign Ministries of four nations with former Prime Minister of Greenland and heads ofinternational science organizations as co-authors]. (https://scidiplo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Synthesis_3.pdf).
8Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. 1989. Chapter 1. Generating new directions in career theory: The case for atransdisciplinary approach. IN: Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (eds.). HANDBOOK OF CAREER THEORY, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. Pp. 7-25.
63

the Science Diplomacy Center™ at EvREsearch LTD as well as MGIMO University in Moscow, Prof. Berkman
is an Associated Fellow with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and a Faculty
Associate with the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School along with serving as Fulbright Arctic
Chair 2021-2022 awarded by the United States Department of State and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Importantly, the coordination team involved Dr. Jenny Baeseman, who assisted withadministration of the ASM2 and ASM3 (Table 1), and Prof. Akiho Shibata, who is Professor of International
Law and Director of the Polar Cooperation Research Center at Kobe University. There was additional
synergy with Prof. Shibata serving as the convener and host of the 14th Polar Law Symposium, 9 involving
the Policy-Law-Science Nexus in the Arctic session that also addressed the umbrella question (above). The
coordination team framed the subsets of questions (see Webinar Series Agenda below) to integrate thethree webinars and engage the keynote presenters.
Essence of the webinar series was the inclusive dialogue among leaders with diverse vantages,
who were inspired to build common interests with questions, promoting cooperation and preventing
conflict with science as a tool of diplomacy to enhance international cooperation. In this journey, keynote
presenters (see Webinar Series Agenda below) were invited by Prof. Berkman individually to develop abalanced dialogue with the webinar series, considering the six elements of inclusion (who, what, when,
where, why and how) that operate across the pyramid of informed decisionmaking (Figure 1).
Passion, curiosity and hope were brought into this webinar series with next-generation leaders,triangulating education, research and leadership with lifelong learning. Three students from Japan wereidentified by Prof. Shibata from among institutions with the Arctic Change for Sustainability II (ArCS II) 10
program, which is the “national flagship project for Arctic research” in Japan. Two post-doctoral
researchers from Kobe University (Drs. Zia Madani and Osamu Inagaki), also representing the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) program, and a graduate student from Tohoku University (Mr.
Jugo Sato) were joined by students in the United States, similarly engaged through Harvard University
from the John F. Kennedy School of Government. The special mix of students from the Harvard Kennedy
School involved a diplomat from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (Mr. Teruaki Fujii) and a doctoral fellow from Russia with the Arctic Initiative at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs (Ms. Nadezhda Filimonova). These next-generation
leaders contributed fundamentally to the planning of all three webinars along with their implementation
as rapporteurs and co-authors of this report.
In assembling the team with keynote presenters to address the questions (see Webinar Series
Agenda below), Prof. Berkman built on his science-diplomacy training initiatives with UNITAR, engaging thispinnacle of inclusive education in our globally-interconnected civilization. Beyond geopolitics – enabling
continuity before (21 February 2022) as well as after the Ukraine invasion began (10 March 2022 and 24
March 2022) – this webinar series was hosted by the Multilateral Diplomacy Program (directed by Mr. Rabih
El-Haddad) with a talented young lawyer as the key facilitator (Ms. Clara López). Each webinar was plannedfor 150 minutes with plenary presentations and panels that were recorded along with breakout sessions,which were unrecorded to further enable open dialogues with the audiences, who were invited andregistered inclusively by UNITAR. Transcripts of the plenary panels from the three webinars 11 are included
as appendices with this Science Diplomacy Action synthesis, as the anticipated project deliverable.
14th Polar Law Symposium. 20211. The Blue Earth, from the Poles, through the Law. 21-23 November 2021. Polar Cooperation
Research Center, Kobe University. (https://2021polarlawsymposium.org/).
10
Arctic Research for Sustainability II (ArCS II). (https://www.nipr.ac.jp/arcs2/e/).
11
Video recordings of the plenary sessions from the three webinars (21 February 2022; 10 March 2022; and 24 March 22) havebeen archived and can be accessed from the UNITAR platform: (https://unitar.org/sustainable-development-goals/multilateraldiplomacy/our-portfolio/enhancing-international-scientific-cooperation-arctic-science-and-technology-advice-ministries).
94

Emphasizing holistic contributions of the high-level leaders (see Webinar Series Agenda below),
significance of their continuous dialogues to enhance international Arctic scientific cooperation waselevated with the Ukraine invasion, demonstrating the arena of common-interest building (Figure 1) thatis essential for humanity to survive beyond this period of self-interested geopolitics when conflict resolution
prevails. As memorialized unexpectedly in an invited Correspondence published in Nature 12 on 28 April
2022 (included as an appendix), this webinar-series project highlights local-global responsibilities toprotect as well as enhance Open Science 13 “for the benefit of all on Earth across generations” (Figure 1).

Berkman, P.A., Baeseman, J. and Shibata, A. 2022. Arctic science diplomacy maintains Russia co-operation. Nature 604:625.
(https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01105-3).
13
UNESCO. 2021. Recommendation on Open Science. Adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) among 193 nations. (https://en.unesco.org/sciencesustainable-future/open-science/recommendation).
12

5

WEBINAR SERIES AGENDA
ENHANCING INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION:
ARCTIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVICE WITH MINISTRIES 14
WEBINAR 1: WHAT IS ARCTIC SCIENCE?
21 FEBRUARY 2022 – 13:00-15:30 GMT

 How do natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge ‘fit together’ and enhance each other?
 How is science facilitated/conducted? Who is needed to do ‘the science’?
 Is international cooperation needed? If so, to what degree?
 Mr. Henry Burgess – Head, UK Arctic Office, Vice-President, International Arctic Science
Committee (IASC).
 Dr. Kirsi Latola – Vice-President Networks, University of the Arctic (UArctic), Finland;
former Chair and current member of the European Polar Board.
 Prof. Andrey Petrov – Professor, University of Northern Iowa, US; Past President,International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA).
 Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev – Vice-minister for Arctic Development and Indigenous Peoples
Affairs of the Sakha Republic; Special Envoy of the Russian Chairmanship in the Arctic
Council on Indigenous Peoples and Regional Cooperation; Former Chair of the World
Reindeer Herders Association; Former Executive Director of the Northern Forum.

WEBINAR 2: HOW CAN SCIENCE TRANSFORM DATA INTO EVIDENCE FOR INFORMED DECISIONMAKING?
MARCH 10, 2022 – 13:00-15:30 GMT

 How are the decisions on what priorities are to be addressed made?
 Who are the decisionmakers?
 What evidence is needed and how is that evidence defined?
 Prof. Larry Hinzman – Executive Director, Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee(IARPC); Assistant Director for Polar Sciences, Office of Science and Technology Policy(OSTP), Executive Office of the President, The White House; President, International Arctic
Science Committee (IASC).
 Prof. Anne Husebekk – Professor and Former Rector, UiT | The Arctic University of Norway;
Vice-President for Freedom and Responsibility in Science, International Science Council.
 Dr. Volker Rachold – Head of the German Arctic Office, Germany; Co-Host 2nd Arctic
Science Ministerial (ASM2).

14 WEBINAR-SERIES PORTAL. United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). (https://unitar.org/sustainable-development-

goals/multilateral-diplomacy/our-portfolio/enhancing-international-scientific-cooperation-arctic-science-and-technology-advice-ministries).

6

WEBINAR 3: WHAT INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS/PROCESSES ARE NEEDED TO FACILITATE PROGRESS IN
UNDERSTANDING THE ARCTIC SYSTEM AND ITS GLOBAL IMPACTS?
MARCH 24, 2022 – 13:00-15:30 GMT

 What are the mechanisms that exist?
 Are these mechanisms adequate?
 How could enhanced science cooperation impact other areas of international relations?
 Dr. Andrey Bryksenkov – Deputy Director, Russian State Hydrometeorological University;
Co-Host 4th Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM4).
 Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – Vice Director-General, National Institute for Polar Research, Japan;
Co-chair 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM3) Science Advisory Board, Japan; VicePresident, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).
 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; Deputy Director, Russian Hydrometeorological University.

7

RAPPORTEUR SYNTHESES
Webinar 1 (21 February 2022)
1. Main Question: What is Arctic science?
In the rapidly changing Arctic environment caused by climate change, Arctic science has become
increasingly important. The holistic approach with international, interdisciplinary, and inclusive
cooperation is necessary for the Arctic that needs to balance national interests and common
interests. At the same time, there are emerging challenges relating to Arctic science such as how
to collaborate with Arctic, non-Arctic regions, and Indigenous Peoples. Against this backdrop, thekeynote speakers and participants of Webinar 1 discussed how to address these challenges.
2. Sub-question 1: How do natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge ‘fit
together’ and enhance each other?
The participants discussed how to improve the collaboration between scientists andIndigenous Peoples under this question. An important observation is that the combination ofscientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge gives us new and enhanced knowledge. To
achieve this, scientists and Indigenous Peoples need to work together with trust, respect andhumility recognizing that no knowledge system is perfect. In this respect, the Canada-Inuit
Nunangat-United Kingdom Arctic Research Programme 15 is particularly notable where funding
applications are reviewed by both scientists and Indigenous communities. It is also important
to share lessons with non-Arctic regions including the Asia-Pacific region and to develop ethicalprinciples and guidelines such as Ottawa Traditional Knowledge Principles. 16 Moreover, there
is an important issue of how to resolve differences of views between scientific knowledge andIndigenous knowledge, for example regarding the number of whales in their conservation
context. In other words, it is necessary to consider how to strike a balance between conservation
science and traditional livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.
3. Sub-question 2: How is science facilitated/conducted? Who is needed to do ‘the science’?
Many issues relating to research funding were raised under this question. One such issue is
how to make it easier for small institutions and Indigenous communities to have access tofunding, given their limited capacity. One option is that the University of the Arctic (UArctic)
and their thematic networks can help small institutions. Another practical issue is thatscientists have difficulty in building trust with Indigenous communities before submission of afunding application. Regarding the actors of science, the Arctic Council has played an importantrole to elevate Indigenous knowledge. The ASM process (Table 1) also provides opportunities
for non-Arctic States to share their experiences and capacities. In addition, there is increasing
recognition of the importance of social sciences and humanities as well as the business-sector
in Arctic science and Arctic research, more inclusively.

Canada-Inuit Nunangat-United Kingdom Arctic Research Programme. (https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/en/program/canada-inuitnunangat-united-kingdom-arctic-research-programme/).
16
Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat. 2015. Ottawa Traditional Knowledge Principles. Arctic Council, Ottawa.
(https://www.arcticpeoples.com/knowledge#indigenous-knowledge).
158

4. Sub-question 3: Is international cooperation needed? If so, to what degree?
Participants identified the various issues or areas that particularly need international
cooperation. One such area is the collaboration of Indigenous Peoples with co-production in
the scientific process from developing ideas to funding procedures to research activities andanalyses. Another issue is how to provide funding opportunities for small institutions including
Indigenous entities. Providing educational opportunities for Indigenous youth is also an area inneed of more cooperation. Investing in young people is a key in trust-building and knowledge
co-production. In addition, it is important to enhance cooperation with non-Arctic States toshare their practice and experience.
5. Concluding Observations
At the final plenary session of Webinar 1 (see Appendix 2), Dr. Kirsi Latola remarked: “What I
realized in this webinar is that we can certainly learn from each other from Asian Pacific and othercountries.” With UNITAR’s facilitation, Webinar 1 was held in an inclusive manner, involving
registrants from 49 countries (see Participant Demographics and Feedback) with participantsfrom Arctic states and Indigenous communities as well as many non-Arctic states who would be
new to the Arctic Council or the ASM process (Table 1). Webinar 1 itself demonstrated that
inclusiveness is a key element for enhancing international Arctic scientific cooperation.

Webinar 2 (10 March 2022)
1. Main Question: How can science transform data into evidence for informed decisionmaking?
Science is essentially important for building common interests. In reality, there are several
challenges between science and policymaking. For example, there are differences of priorities
among stakeholders. Also, we often see communication gaps between scientists andpolicymakers. In such situations, as discussed with the distinguished keynote presenters andparticipants from across more than forty nations, there is need to optimize available data andinformation by operating short-to-long term.
2. Sub-question 1: How are the decisions on what priorities are to be addressed made?
To decide the priorities, it is indispensable to have dialogue among scientists andpolicymakers/decisionmakers. Throughout the dialogue, questions were raised about what
and how advice should be introduced with decisionmakers. It was recognized that theidentification of the most urgent priorities always requires discussions among the affectedindividuals/groups to reach common levels of understanding, because no one has complete
knowledge of all challenges, opportunities, and solutions.
3. Sub-question 2: Who are the decisionmakers?
The main decisionmakers seem to be politicians, noting their abilities to understand science orto address questions about change differs greatly. Political parties also often have ideologies
that may set scientific questions aside. Other than politicians, scientists are decisionmakers
too. While there is a risk that scientists can become activists, scientists are responsible forcorrection if there is something wrong, particularly in the context of climate change that canaffect not only the Arctic but also the other parts of the world. At the same time, inputs fromother stakeholders (including Indigenous peoples, academia, United Nations, nongovernmental organizations, media and the private sector) have influences on political9decisions. Various channels of bringing local needs to national and global levels could becreated or enhanced to understand difficulties from residents’ perspectives.
4. Sub-question 3: What evidence is needed and how is that evidence defined?
Generally, evidence becomes an appropriate basis for assessing priorities. In this sense,
evidence is composed from academic or Indigenous knowledge as well as personalobservations. In some cases, witness testimony can exert tremendous influence, especially toraise emotional responses. Indigenous knowledge also is highly valuable to identify thequestions that will generate necessary and sufficient evidence (Figure 1) to produce informed
decisions, recognizing natural and social sciences have significant challenges to operate with
cultural respect. In addition, it is essential for scientific evidence to be communicated in anunderstandable way with decisionmakers engaged from the stage of questions onward.
Training scientists, especially young scientists, with skills and capacities to communicate withdecisionmakers is necessary for the next decades ahead.
5. Concluding Observations
This 2nd webinar was held, unexpectedly after the war in Ukraine began. In this uncharted
situation, it became more important than ever to think about evidence for informed
decisionmaking (Figure 1) to promote cooperation as well as prevent conflict with OpenScience, facilitating inclusive dialogues. The resulting peace, stability, balance and resilience
will come from Indigenous knowledge as well as natural and social sciences, enhancing
international cooperation together. Holistic opportunities among next-generation leaders areespecially important to protect – as with the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists(APECS) 17 that was co-founded by Dr. Baeseman (who subsequently became Founding Directorof this network that has grown with more than 3500 members in 76 countries) – enhancing
their capacities to build common interests and achieve progress with planetary-scalechallenges short-to-long term.

Webinar 3 (24 March 2022)
1. Main question: What international efforts/processes are needed to facilitate progress inunderstanding the Arctic system and its global impacts?
The 3rd webinar conceived to shed light on international efforts and processes that are crucial
to facilitate progress in understanding the Arctic system and its global impacts. Delving into
the issues of education, scientific data integration and funding schemes, this webinar examined
whether the present collaborative research mechanisms are adequate. Another importantquestion that the webinar elucidated was how the enhanced science cooperation in the Arctic
could impact other areas of international relations. The concluding remarks made by the
keynote speakers were devoted to the visions about the paths forward for the Arctic
collaborative research under the increased geopolitical tensions and the pressing
environmental problems.
2. Sub-question 1: What are the mechanisms that exist?
The Arctic Council remains as an important high-level forum to enhance international scientificcooperation in the Arctic with globally-relevant lessons, both helpful with inclusion and
17

Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS). (https://www.apecs.is/).

10

harmful with exclusion, emphasizing the precarious ‘pause’ among the eight Arctic states
without Russia following the Ukraine invasion. The Arctic Council working groups werehighlighted in view of enhancing international scientific cooperation, particularly in the key
areas of climate change and environment, integrating natural and social sciences with
Indigenous knowledge. Other existing mechanisms to enhance international cooperation with
science were discussed, including the ASM process (Table 1) and 2017 Arctic Science
Agreement as well as IASC, IASSA and UArctic along with diverse international conference
venues (including Arctic Frontiers in Norway; Arctic Circle Assembly in Iceland; Arctic Circle
Forums hosted in many nations; and the Arctic Territory of Dialogue Forums in Russia).
3. Sub-question 2: Are these mechanisms adequate?
There is always room for improvement and where projects are repetitive or overlapping, there
is a need more coordination particularly in the efficient utilization of funds. Furthermore, thequestion of knowledge aggregation is critical and there remains a need for processes (e.g.,
Table 1) to share observations that will reveal questions of common concern, enhancing
international scientific cooperation while building common interests. It was recognized that
research funding mechanisms differ widely among States with complexities that often create
confusion for international scientific cooperation. Bringing youth into Arctic research andtraining as well as elevating cohorts of next-generation leaders offers the path to enhanceinternational scientific cooperation in the Arctic and elsewhere short-to-long term.
4. Sub-question 3: How could enhanced science cooperation impact other areas ofinternational relations?
It is crucial to build research and action capacities (Figure 1) with Arctic residents, including
Indigenous communities, recognizing local knowledge is essential to be resilient in thechanging environments of the Arctic and elsewhere on Earth. In our world with digitaltechnologies to share knowledge virtually, as revealed prominently during the COVID-19
pandemic, international scientific cooperation has been enhanced. The current geopoliticalsituation with Ukraine also highlights the challenge to protect as well as enhance Open Sciencein the Arctic and across our globally-interconnected civilization, as illustrated notably among
Arctic Indigenous Peoples who have survived for millennia without the borders of nations.
5. Concluding Observations
The 3rd webinar was concluded by highlighting that scientific cooperation among Arctic states
and non-Arctic states is essential to build common interests, especially for nations to balance
their national interests in manner that prevents or diminishes conflict. In this sense, scientificcooperation is fundamental to ensure the sustainable development of the Arctic, which is a‘common Arctic issue’ among all Arctic states and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations. It also is
important that people around the world understand that the Arctic is connected with theirlives (e.g., with climate), rather than as a remote and isolated area. Science diplomats areneeded to communicate with politicians and decisionmakers to overcome conflicts born fromignorance or biased perceptions. It is especially important to have continuity with people-topeople dialogues, even when national governments exclude institutional collaborations, as has
happened with the Ukraine invasion, when each of us is a science diplomat. Protecting andenhancing international scientific cooperation, operating across and beyond diverse boundaries
at local-global levels, is at the heart of sustainable development for the future humanity.
11

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS AND FEEDBACK
As a final assessment of the webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation:
Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries, a survey was launched by UNITAR to collect data,
addressing a core question (Figure 1): who participated in the webinar series? Table 2 details the
distribution of participants who registered with UNITAR from 49 nations along with their involvement in
the webinar series. Participation involved more than sixty percent (60%) of registrants in the 21 February
2022 webinar, decreasing across the series, but with nearly one-third still participating in the final webinar
on 24 March 2022. Five of the Arctic states (Canada, Finland, Norway, Russian Federation and UnitedStates) contributed to the webinar series with the Russian Federation, United States, India and Japan eachhaving more than ten registrants.
TABLE 2: INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN THE FEBRUARY-MARCH 2022 WEBINAR SERIESNUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
NATIONALITY
Webinar 1
Webinar 2
Webinar 3
Registrants
21 February 2022
10 March 2022
24 March 2022
Afghanistan
2
1
1
1
Australia
2
Austria2
1
1
Bahamas1
Brazil2111Canada
4
1
1
China
3
1
3
1
Colombia
2
Ecuador
1
1
1
1
Egypt
2
1
1
Ethiopia2
Finland
1
1
France1Germany
4
1
1
1
Ghana
2
Greece2111Guinea
1
1
India
14
7
6
4
Indonesia
3
1
Iran
4
1
1
1
Iraq
1
Ireland
1
Italy
2
1
Japan
13
7
7
6
Kenya
1
Malaysia
11
1
1
Mexico11Morocco1
Nigeria51
1Norway1
1
Pakistan
3
Philippines2
1
Poland1
1
Russian Federation
23
5
8
4

12

TABLE 2: INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN THE FEBRUARY-MARCH 2022 WEBINAR SERIESNUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
NATIONALITY
Webinar 1
Webinar 2
Webinar 3
Registrants
21 February 2022
10 March 2022
24 March 2022
Saudi Arabia
1
Singapore
2
South Africa
1
Spain
3
Sudan
1
Thailand1111
Tunisia2
1
1
Turkey1
Uganda1
Ukraine111
United Kingdom
5
1
2
Tanzania
1
United States
143
5
5
Venezuela
1
Unidentified
52
13
19
TOTAL
149
90
61
49

A 7-question survey was designed and distributed by Ms. Clara López at UNITAR to 38 individuals
who participated in two or three webinars. There were 26 responses, which is an unusually high surveyresponse rate of nearly seventy percent (70%). Without interpretation, self-identified representation ofparticipants in the webinar series is shown below in view of their:• Demographics with societal sectors (Figure 2) and diplomatic rank (Figure 3);• Learning objectives in view of webinar-series novelty (Figure 4) and utility (Figure 5).
• Consideration of inclusivity (Figure 6), as an element of common interest building (Figure 1); 18 and• Alignment of learning objectives and needs with the webinar series (Figure 7).
3% 3%

11%
1: Central/ National government

8%

2: State/Provincial government
3: Local government/ authority

5%

4: International/ Regional organizations
5: NGO or Civil society
6: Private Sector

8%

7: Academia
8:National R&D Agency

62%

9. Student

Figure 2: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THEIR SECTOR AMONG SURVEY CHOICES.
18

Berkman, P.A., Young, O.R., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. 2022. Chapter 35. Conclusions: Building Global
Inclusion with Common Interests. IN: Berkman, P.A., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Young, O.R., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. (eds). BUILDINGCOMMON INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION. VOLUME 2. INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY. Springer,
Dordrecht. Pp. 409-425. (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-89312-5).

13

8%
5%
3%

AttachéCounsellor
Deputy Permanent Representative
59%

Permanent Representative

24%

Scientific Advisor
Other

Figure 3: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THEIR DIPLOMATIC RANK AMONG SURVEY CHOICES.

3%

11%

14%

Strongly Agree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree
N/A

19%

54%

FIGURE 4: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING WEBINAR SERIES WAS NOVEL AMONG SURVEY CHOICES.

5%

Strongly Agree
Agree

46%

NeutralDisagree49%

Strongly Disagree
N/A

FIGURE 5: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING WEBINAR SERIES WAS VERY USEFUL AMONG SURVEY CHOICES.
14

8%Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral38%

Disagree54%

Strongly Disagree
N/A

FIGURE 6: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THE WEBINAR SERIES FACILITATED AN INCLUSIVE DIALOGUE (without
discriminating against any of the collaborators in terms of nationality, ideas, profile or other features).

Strongly Agree

60%

Agree

NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

N/A

57%

54%
51%

50%

40%

30%

35%
30%
27%

20%
11%

10%

8%
5%

5%

5%
3%

0%

5%
3%

0%
a. What is Arctic Science?

b. How can science transform data into
evidence and informed decisionmaking?

c. What international efforts/processes areneeded to facilitate progress inunderstanding the Arctic system and its
global impacts?

FIGURE 7: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THEIR LEARNING OBJECTIVES WERE ALIGNED WITH THEIR LEARNING NEEDSin Webinars 1-3 (left to right), as elaborated in the WEBINAR SERIES AGENDA.

As a summary observation, the number of nations and diverse participation throughout the FebruaryMarch 2022 webinar series along with the enthusiastic survey responses all point to a high level of interest
in Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation, which is fundamental with Open Science.

15

CONCLUSIONS
Observations from the Webinar Series Dialogues
The following major themes emerged during the webinar series, stimulated by questions (see WEBINARSERIES AGENDA) to reveal questions of common concern about ENHANCING INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
COOPERATION: ARCTIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVICE WITH MINISTRIES:
Next-Generation Leaders. This topic was discussed in relation to the contributions of different
institutions and initiatives (e.g., APECS and UArctic) for training as well as educating nextgeneration leaders, especially with trust-building and common-interest building. The discussions
also emphasized the necessity to include early career scientists in research discussions andprojects, introducing a diversity of visions about sustainable development in the Arctic. How toempower next-generation leadership with transdisciplinary research capacities to achieve
progress with sustainable development at local-global levels?
Communication. This topic was discussed in relation to co-production of knowledge with designingand conducting field work that integrates Indigenous community-engaged knowledge andpractices with natural sciences as well as social sciences. How to facilitate inclusive andcontinuous dialogues with Indigenous communities through all stages of research design,development and implementation into outcomes that involve decisions? Another angle of this
topic was discussed in relation to communication of the importance of research to funders,
policymakers, and the public, placing the urgency of climate change in the frontline of the
discussions. How to communicate about change, which operates at local-global scales overdifferent periods (e.g., months-years with the COVID-19 pandemic to decades-centuries withclimate and human population demographics 19)? Participants discussed the necessity thatscientific communications should be understandable for funders, policymakers and the public,
requiring inclusion of stakeholders, rightsholders and actors from the start, as framed with thefoundation of questions (Figure 2).
Funding. Problems to fund projects led by Indigenous communities were discussed in relation to
the existing competition for financial resources among big and small research institutions. Anotherfunding challenge was identified in view of efficient allocation of funds to avoid repetition andoverlapping research projects. How to create synergies among diverse funding sources? Funding
allocations also were considered to support necessary research infrastructure (e.g., observing
systems) that also has diverse societal uses, especially to make informed decisions, as framed in
Figure 2. These matters represent important issues for discussion either led by the Arctic Council
or by other entities with a potential goal of creating a system based on collective funds.
Non-Arctic states. Discussions emerged around the role of non-Arctic states in advancing
knowledge about the Arctic, including with their research and participation in various regional
institutions. The engagement of non-Arctic states was considered especially in view knowledge
sharing about climate change, which is a planetary-scale process by definition (versus weather that
Berkman, P.A. 2020. The Pandemic Lens’: Focusing Across Time Scales for Local-Global Sustainability. Patterns 1(8):1-4.
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33294877/).

19

16

is regional), operating on Earth as well as all other planets with atmospheres in our solar
system. The Arctic is both the ‘climate canary’ with amplified warming and a pronounced sourceof climate feedbacks with albedo and methane. How to enhance knowledge development andsharing about Arctic change as a global concern?
Arctic Governance. The Arctic Council was discussed as a key player in enhancing the role ofIndigenous communities in Arctic decisionmaking and advancing knowledge about the global
impacts of climate change. Concerns were expressed about maintaining and advancing the Arctic
Council. Despite the diverse discussions about the important roles of different institutions, there
was an agreement among the participants about opportunities to better integrate Arctic
governance measures, including binding agreements about: search-and-rescue (2011); marine oil
pollution prevention preparedness and response (2013); maritime ship traffic in polar oceans(2017) and precaution with fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean High Sea (2018) with enhancing
international scientific cooperation (2017) as a core contribution 20 from the Arctic for our world.
Without Open Science, where is the capacity among institutions and decisionmakers to serve as
stewards of the governance complex that has evolved in the Arctic?
International Scientific Cooperation Beyond Geopolitics. Despite the geopolitical challenges with
the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the webinar series remained hopeful, highlighting the necessities
to enhance international scientific cooperation with inclusion and continuity. There wasrecognition that humanity is in great peril without Open Science that is continuous acrossdisciplinary boundaries and jurisdictional borders over generations forever. How can we enhanceOpen Science in the Arctic and across the Earth to evolve as a globally-interconnected civilization?
Enhancing Open Science Beyond the Geopolitics of Ukraine
This webinar-series on enhancing international scientific cooperation began with consideration
about an inevitable question regarding relationships as well as synergies with the 2017 Arctic Science
Agreement and Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM) process. Effective development and implementation ofthese Arctic science initiatives has been rotating with Arctic Council chairmanships among the eight Arctic
states, involving their rotating chairmanships also with the Arctic Coast Guard Forum 21 and Arctic
Economic Forum. 22 The setting for the webinar series also involves the history of Arctic Council
implementation as the “high-level forum” since its establishment with the 1996 Ottawa Declaration, 23
which is mapped with holistic consideration up to the current Russian Federation chairmanship, 24
rotating from Iceland in 2021 until the hand-off to Norway in 2023.
It is noteworthy that there was a transition in the operation of the Arctic Council with the previous
Norwegian chairmanship in 2006-2009, creating task forces that led to subsequent binding agreementswith Arctic Council Ministerial Meetings at the level of foreign ministers, who introduced “peace” for the

Berkman, P.A., Kullerud, L., Pope, A., Vylegzhanin, A.N. and Young, O.R. 2017. The Arctic Science Agreement Propels Science
Diplomacy. Science 358:596-598 (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/596).
21
Arctic Coast Guard Forum. (https://www.arcticcoastguardforum.com/).
22
Arctic Economic Forum. (https://arcticeconomiccouncil.com/).
23
Ottawa Declaration. 1996. Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council. 19 September 1996, Ottawa: Foreign Affairs
and International Trade Canada. (https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/85).
24
Vylegzhanin, A.N., Young, O.R, & Berkman, P.A. 2021. Russia in the Arctic Chair: Adapting the Arctic Governance System to
Conditions Prevailing in the 2020s. Polar Record 57(E37). (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247421000553).
20

17

first time in the Arctic Council lexicon with the Tromsø Declaration. 25 The Norwegian foreign minister atthat time, Jonas Gahr Støre, is now the Prime Minister of Norway, continuing to champion “high north,
low tension” 26 bravely with common-interest building even after the Ukraine invasion.
With direct relevance to this webinar series, lessons about science diplomacy and informed
decisionmaking (Figure 1) emerged from the first formal dialogue between the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and Russia regarding security in the Arctic, 27 which was convened in 2010 at the
University of Cambridge. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 was an “inflection” point for the NATO Science
for Peace and Security (SPS) program 28 that had supported the NATO-Russia dialogue in 2010. Afterward,
all SPS projects with Russia ceased, ending a path of international cooperation that had been ongoingsince 1959 throughout the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
The same response, shutting down international scientific cooperation, was pursued more broadly
with regard to Russia by European nations and allies after the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February
2022. As an outcome, the Russian co-editor, who bravely co-convened the NATO-Russia dialogue in 2010,
was excluded in May 2022 from the Arctic Frontiers book launch in Tromsø of BUILDING COMMON INTERESTSIN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION. VOLUME 2. INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINBILITY (FIGURE 1).
More directly, “pausing” the Arctic Council by seven of the eight Arctic States without Russia 29 on 3 March2022 was the unexpected backdrop for the two March 2022 webinars (see Webinar Series Agenda), noting“limited resumption” 30 of Arctic Council cooperation in June 2022.
The Ukraine invasion by Russia is the most prominent current example of nationalism, displacing
consideration of other global urgenices – notably with the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, foodsecurity and other challenges across the SDG. Consequently, there is renewed necessity to enhanceinternational scientific cooperation as the most inclusive path for trust-building among allies andadversaries alike, as practiced after the ‛iron curtain’ came down following the Cold War. It also is ironic
to see decades of investment in international scientific cooperation being squandered now withindiscriminate actions by nations, leading to uninformed decisions that operate only at a moment in time,in contrast to informed decisionmaking short-to-long term (Figure 1).
The Feburary-March 2022 webinar series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic
Science and Techology Advice with Ministries is both an hopeful example and a roadmap for dialouges
with Open Science facilitated by UNITAR. The UNITAR hosting of the webinar series also highlights thewisdom of the United Nations after the Second World War to operate across the subnational-nationalinternational spectrum of jurisdictions (Figure 1) inclusively in view of our common interest to survive at
personal-global levels.
These dialogues about enhancing international scientific cooperation will continue in-person withsessions on "Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries" during the Arctic Circle Japan Forum,

Tromsø Declaration. 2009. The Sixth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council. April 29, 2009. Tromsø, Norway.
(https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/91).
26
Reuters. 2022. UK and Norway Leaders Back Freedom of Choice for Nordic Partners on Security. 13 May 2022.
(https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-norway-leaders-back-freedom-choice-nordic-partners-security-2022-05-13/).
27
Berkman, P.A. and Vylegzhanin, A.N. (eds.). 2012a. ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN. NATO Science for Peace andSecurity Series. Springer, Dordrecht. (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400747128).
28
NATO. 2014. The NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme Annual Report. North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Brussels. (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/SPS-Annual-Report-2014.pdf).
29
Joint Statement on Arctic Council Cooperation Following Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine. 3 March 2022.
(https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-arctic-council-cooperation-following-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/).
30
Joint Statement on Limited Resumption of Arctic Council Cooperation. 10 June 2022. (https://www.state.gov/joint-statementon-limited-resumption-of-arctic-council-cooperation/).
25

18

which will be co-hosted with the Sasakawa Peace Foundation from 4-6 March 2023 in Tokyo. 31 These
dialogues represent ongoing leadership from Japan, which started with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
funding for this webinar series.
As summary observations from the February-March 2022 webinar series – promoting cooperationand preventing conflict are two sides of the ‘coin of peace’ 32 that require Open Science, which emanatesfrom questions among allies and adversaries alike (Figure 1). With consideration of the six elements ofinclusion (who, what, when, where, how and why), 33 Open Science is akin to free speech.
Building common interests is the key contribution of science diplomacy with Open Science forhumanity inclusively. In contrast, nations consider their national interests first and foremost exclusively.
Other than with Open Science – how can we enhance leadership capacities that are urgently needed
among nations to balance national interests and common interests so we can continue to evolve as a
globally-interconnected civilization? Empowering strategies with both conflict resolution and commoninterest building across a ‛continuum of urgencies’ (Fig. 1), our shared challenge and responsibility – alleight billion of us – is to learn the 20th-century lessons with the Second World War and the Cold War,
forever after with Open Science, enhancing international scientific cooperation “for the benefit of all on
Earth across generations.”

If we think it!! We can build it!!

Berkman, P.A. and Baeseman, J. (session conveners). Arctic Science and Technology Advice with Ministries. Arctic Circle Japan
Forum with Sasakawa Peace Foundation. Asia in the Future of the Arctic (Science – Geopolitics – Economy – Oceans – Climate– Technology). Tokyo. 4-6 March 2023. (https://www.arcticcircle.org/forums/arctic-circle-japan-forum).
32
Berkman, P.A., Lang, M.A., Walton, D.W.H. and Young, O.R. (eds.). SCIENCE DIPLOMACY: ANTARCTICA, SCIENCE AND THE GOVERNANCE
OF INTERNATIONAL SPACES. (With Foreword by HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco). Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington,
DC. (https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/16154).
33
Berkman, P.A., Young, O.R., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. 2022. Chapter 35. Conclusions: Building Global
Inclusion with Common Interests. IN: Berkman, P.A., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Young, O.R., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. (eds.).
BUILDING COMMON INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION. VOLUME 2. INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY.
Springer, Dordrecht. Pp. 409-425. (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-89312-5).
31

19

APPENDIX 1
LIST OF CO‐AUTHORS(alphabetical order)[Representing the Webinar Series Team with Keynote Presenters Invited Inclusively]
Mr. Philippe AubertMultilateral Diplomacy Program
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
7 bis, Avenue de la Paix, CH-1202 Geneva 2 SWITZERLAND
Philippe.AUBERT@unitar.org
Dr. Jenny Baeseman
Baeseman Consulting & Services, LLC
2316 Stone Crest Road, Stoughton, Wisconsin 53589 UNITED STATES
jbaeseman@gmail.com
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman
Science Diplomacy Center™
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School
23 Woodrise, Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540 UNITED STATES
paul.berkman@unitar.org / pberkman@law.harvard.edu
Mr. Rabih El-Haddad
Multilateral Diplomacy Program
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
7 bis, Avenue de la Paix, CH-1202 Geneva 2 SWITZERLAND
rabih.haddad@unitar.org
Prof. Hiroyuki Enomoto
Arctic Environment Research Center (AERC)
National Institute for Polar Research (NIPR)

10-3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa-shi, Tokyo, 190-8518 JAPAN

enomoto.hiroyuki@nipr.ac.jp

Ms. Nadezhda Filimonova
Arctic Initiative, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 UNITED STATES
nadezhda_filimonova@hks.harvard.edu / filimonova.nadezhda@gmail.com
Mr. Teruaki Fujii
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Nibancho Center Building
5-25 Niban-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8012 JAPANfujiofujio0317@gmail.com

20

Prof. Anne Husebekk
International Science Council
Faculty of Health Sciences
UiT | The Arctic University of Norway
PO Box 6050 Langnes, N-9037 Tromsø NORWAY
anne.husebekk@uit.no
Dr. Osamu Inagaki
Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC)
Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS)
Kobe University
2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501 JAPANosamui@people.kobe-u.ac.jp
Prof. Kirsi Latola
Thule Institute
University of Oulu,
P.O.Box 7300, Oulu 90014 FINLAND
Ms. Clara Sánchez López
Multilateral Diplomacy Program
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
7 bis, Avenue de la Paix, CH-1202 Geneva 2 SWITZERLAND
clara.lopez@unitar.org
Dr. Zia Madani
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellow
Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC)
Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS)
Kobe University
2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501 JAPANzmadani@people.kobe-u.ac.jp / madani.zia@gmail.com
Prof. Andrey N. Petrov
ARCTICenter, Department of Geography
University of Northern Iowa, 205 ITTC
1204 West 23rd Street, Cedar Falls, IA 50613
andrey.petrov@uni.edu
Mr. Jugo Sato
Graduate School of Environmental Studies
Tohoku University
6-3-2, Kamisugi, Aoba-ku, Sendai-shi, Miyagi, 980-0011 JAPANjugo.sato.q3@dc.tohoku.ac.jp
Prof. Akiho Shibata
Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC)
Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS)
Kobe University
2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501 JAPANakihos@kobe-u.ac.jp
21

APPENDIX 2
WEBINAR 1: WHAT IS ARCTIC SCIENCE?
MONDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2022
TRANSCRIPT (RECORDING AVAILABLE ON THE UNITAR WEBSITE WITH TIME STAMPS, NOTING THERE MAY BE
TRANSCRIPTION ERRORS REMAINING AFTER SEVERAL EDITS)
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 00:02
Welcome to this Webinar Series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic Science andTechnology 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, starting today with Webinar 1; Webinar 2(10 March 2022) and Webinar 3 (24 March 2022).
I thank Consul General Setsuo Ohmori from the Japanese Consulate in Boston for introducing theopportunity for this webinar series two years ago and Ms. Marisa Yamamoto for her efforts subsequently
to enable this important dialogue, building on the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial, which was convened inTokyo in May 2021 by Japan and Iceland.
I especially thank Dr. Jenny Baeseman as well as Prof. Akiho Shibata at the Polar Cooperation ResearchCenter, Kobe University, for their fundamental contributions to implement this project.
I thank Ms. Clara Lopez at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) for managing
the logistics of this webinar series, which was kindly enabled by Mr. Rabih El-Haddad who directs theMultilateral Diplomacy Program at UNITAR.
Importantly, I thank the wonderful team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School (Tulio Andrade,
Teruaki Fujii and Nadia Filimonova) and the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability program in Japan (Zia
Madani, Osamu Inagaki and Jugo Sato) who are contributing as rapporteurs with passion, initiative andcreativity to synthesize the insights that will emerge from our dialogues.
We are on a journey together and, importantly, I thank each of you from across the 43 nations and manytime zones, with deep appreciation for sharing your insights to help enhance international scientificcooperation “for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.” 34
The goal of this holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) project is to help enhanceinternational scientific cooperation with transdisciplinary integration of international law, ministries ofnations, Indigenous peoples and science inclusively.
34

Berkman, P.A., Vylegzhanin, A.N., Young, O.R., Balton, D.A. and Øvretveit, O. (eds). 2022. BUILDING COMMON INTERESTS IN THE
ARCTIC OCEAN WITH GLOBAL INCLUSION. VOLUME 2. INFORMED DECISIONMAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY. Springer, Dordrecht.
(https://link.springer.com/book/9783030893118).

22

The Arctic will be applied as a global case study, considering climate and planetary challenges to balancenational interests and common interests, promoting cooperation and preventing conflict for thesustainable development of our globally-interconnected civilization.
Research and action contributions to produce informed decisions that operate short-to-long term with
science in the Arctic are highlighted by the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific
Cooperation that is binding among the eight Arctic states and the Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM)
process 35 that began in 2016 among Arctic and non-Arctic states with Arctic Indigenous Peoples’
Organizations.
This project builds on contributions from experts involved with the ASM process since 2016, including:
ASM1 in Washington, DC with the United States as the initial host; ASM2 in Germany with Finland and theEuropean Commission as co-hosts in 2018; ASM3 in 2021 with Japan and Iceland as co-hosts; and ASM4
in 2023 with the Russian Federation and France as co-hosts.
Each 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, providing opportunity for the audience to raises
questions in the chat. The opening plenary panels will be recorded.
After the first hour we will break into pre-assigned sessions where you will have the opportunity tointeract with these experts, who will further facilitate dialogues with your inclusive input about addressingthese questions. I will explain details of these breakout sessions at the end of this panel, which willaddress:
What is Arctic science?
 How do natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge ‘fit together’ and enhanceeach other?
 How is science facilitated/conducted? Who is needed to do ‘the science’?
 Is international cooperation needed? If so, to what degree?
It is an honour as well as pleasure to briefly introduce the four keynote presenters for today: Mr. Henry Burgess – Head, UK Arctic Office, Vice-President, International Arctic Science
Committee (IASC).
 Dr. Kirsi Latola – Vice-President Networks, University of the Arctic, Finland; former Chair andcurrent member of the European Polar Board.
 Prof. Andrey Petrov –Professor, University of Northern Iowa, US; Past President, International
Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA).
35

See Table 1 (above) about the Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM) process with ASM1, ASM2, ASM3 and ASM4.

23

 Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev – Vice-minister for Arctic Development and Indigenous Peoples Affairs of
the Sakha Republic; Special Envoy of the Russian Chairmanship in the Arctic Council on Indigenous
Peoples and Regional Cooperation; Former Chair of the World Reindeer Herders Association;
Former Executive Director of the Northern Forum.
The three breakout sessions for each webinar (which will be unrecorded) will involve initial discussions (30minutes) followed by a plenary reporting from the three sessions (15 minutes) with continued breakout group
discussion (30 minutes) and final reporting (15 minutes). The breakout sessions will be managed by UNITAR.
The reports from each breakout session will be treated as data to synthesize for each webinar withleadership from the scholar-rapporteurs. The syntheses from the three webinars will be further distilledwith your input into a Science Diplomacy Action publication (as previously), capturing insights from thewebinar series that will help to enhance international scientific cooperation in the Arctic and globally as
the umbrella goal.
Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev – 08:04
Thank you and hello dear friends. First of all, I would like to thank all the organizers of this webinar forthe opportunity to share my thoughts and experience on Arctic science and I welcome everyone in mycapacity as the special envoy of the Russian chairmanship, in fact, of the Council on Indigenous andRegional Cooperation in general. Science, in my opinion, should mainly serve to the wellbeing of humanity,
for people and nature.
It should help us to comprehend and understand the processes taking place in the world around us andmake people live better, so that nature also remains resilient. Indigenous peoples are originally the firstresearchers, because Indigenous knowledge is tested knowledge, it is working knowledge. It is in ourpeoples’ nature to survive and thrive in some of the most inhospitable places on the planet.
This is a system of knowledge that has been accumulated and transferred by many generations of
Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge systems. Indigenous peoples have their own ontologies
epistemologies and methodologies. Indigenous knowledge is key to accurate interpretation of changes in
the natural and social systems in the Arctic. Science and policy that are not inclusive of Indigenous
knowledge cannot be considered as adequate to address the Arctic system.
The Arctic is changing, and we need to have the best available knowledge to better understand theprocesses of this change, and ensure a sustainable development, in accordance with our 2030 Agenda. 36
Therefore, in my opinion, it is necessary to talk about the co-production of knowledge. When scientificknowledge is combined with traditional knowledge, will allow us to obtain something new; new knowledge.
It seems to me strange to divide knowledge into natural sciences and social sciences from the point of viewof Indigenous peoples.
For example, it would be difficult for me to imagine that my uncle, when he was going reindeer hunting
would say: “Oh well, we need to think about natural science or maybe we need to do some more social
sciences”. Because the entire life of Indigenous people is a multidisciplinary knowledge system.

36

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda).

24

So what is Arctic science in Russia? We have a long experience in the development of the so-called
northern studies. And one of the brightest representatives of Indigenous people, Evenk, Indigenous
peoples of the north, was Vasilii Robbek. He was an outstanding scientist and first head of the world's only
institute for Indigenous Peoples on the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 37 and heused to talk about the introspective approach to research. This is when Indigenous knowledge holders doscience and combine scientific knowledge with Indigenous thought. By that time, at this institute ofIndigenous peoples in Yakutsk, 80% of the research staff were representatives of Indigenous Peoples. And
thanks to this, the institute conducted a large number of new studies and received new scientific results
which were acknowledged by many scientists in the world. Today we are observing an explosion ofscientific activity in the Arctic, including from Indigenous Peoples.
All sorts of scientists get into the Indigenous communities, sometimes quite unceremoniously and engage
in the extraction of traditional knowledge and thereby learn their scientific name.
Here it is necessary to develop ethical principles and guidelines, which should be followed in any processof scientific research. Indigenous communities today are absolutely not immune from this kind ofresearchers. There is no protection of the rights of Indigenous people. The process of co-production ofknowledge should be fair and equitable for Indigenous peoples and scientists. It is necessary to create andsupport institutions of Indigenous peoples, including educational and scientific ones, such as the Vasilii
Robbek Institute of Indigenous Peoples and underline this was the branch of the Russian Academy of
Sciences that was purely scientific.
I often say that an unfair situation is building up in science arena when competition for scientific funding
becomes practically impossible for Indigenous peoples, given that the few and small educational and scientificinstitutions of Indigenous peoples cannot compete with big universities and research centers for funding.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop special models for supporting the Indigenous institutions, especiallytransboundary institutions, which are very important from the point of view of international cooperationin science and the co-production of knowledge. International cooperation in science in the Arctic iscertainly needed. And I firmly think that we need even more cooperation in Arctic nowadays. I have been
involved in international cooperation regarding Indigenous Peoples for more than 30 years and in many
was this was knowledge cooperation. For example, when I was working in the Association of World
Reindeer Herders, 38 the first festival in Tromsø was held 30 years ago in 1993. Since then, we havemanaged to establish cooperation between reindeer herders, scientists, governments, and businesses,
which has developed into a big movement. Literally, in a week, there will be the 7th World Reindeer Herders
Congress 39 in Khanty-Mansiysk. We believe that it is necessary to invest in young people in order toincreasingly involve them in research, and also the research of traditional knowledge and science.

Institute for Humanitarian Research and North Indigenous Peoples Problems of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academyof Sciences (https://www.sbras.ru/en/organization/2418).
38
Association of World Reindeer Herders (https://www.arctic-council.org/about/observers/awrh/).
39 th
7 World Reindeer Herders’ Congress. 4-8 March 2022. (https://reindeerherding.org/news/310-7th-world-reindeerherders-congress-website)
37

25

Now, together with the Federal Agency for nationalities in Russia, MGIMO (international relations institutein Moscow), 40 the International Center for Reindeer Husbandry, 41 and others, we wish to create a training
course on traditional knowledge and science diplomacy for Indigenous youth based on International
Center for Reindeer Husbandry experience, which provided such courses for Indigenous youth and Arctic
cooperation. An action, traditional knowledge was used in the Arctic Council for diplomacy for decades.
We see that the Arctic Council are now developing. For example, Indigenous Peoples’ PermanentParticipants 42 of the Arctic Council, developed traditional knowledge principles. So there is a lot of workor movement inside the Arctic Council that also could be very useable for science in general.
I believe that with international cooperation in the field of science and co-production of knowledge, we
can conduct the comparative analysis and exchange of best practices. Again, when we combine these, twoplus two will make five, we can achieve optimal results. In conclusion, I would like to underline that weneed stability and cooperation in the Arctic are based on respect for each other.
Thank you. I think I will stop here and ready to discuss these points.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 17:03
Thank you very much. We call for your important insights and observations. Kirsi, I invite you to share yourobservations as well please. Thank you for that.
Dr. Kirsi Latola – 17:04
Thank you Paul and thanks for inviting me here. It's not easy to follow you Mikhail because you put it so
nicely some of things that I also would like to present to you. So, I hope you don’t mind about that. I
would like to give three points on openness, and openness and inclusiveness with are the values of the
University of the Arctic 43 that I work with, as Paul mentioned.
And first I would like to call for an open mind and everyone to give a chance for a new way of thinking on
what is Arctic research; how it's done; and how it's kind of handled.
We all know that traditional western knowledge and Western science is often understood as physical hardsciences, expeditions to the Arctic and so on. Sometimes, it's also thought that this type of research andscience is a stand-alone science. So, it's kind of done completely on its own. But, is that actually so?
Wouldn't it be beneficial for scientists and researchers to learn what people Indigenous or non-Indigenous
know about the place they have lived for 1000s of years? And, how the research benefits the peoples wholive in the region? If you think about climate change, it of course is their homeland and they are affectedby climate change. And we should have a huge meeting actually.
Secondly, I wanted to point out something that I quite recently heard from my colleagues in International
Central Reindeer Husbandry, because they pointed out that in second ICARP 44 in 2005, it was kind of astarting point of a new era, because it stated in its science plan that future activities and implementation
MGIMO University, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (https://english.mgimo.ru/).
International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry (https://reindeerherding.org/).
42
Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council (https://www.arctic-council.org/about/permanent-participants/).
43
University of the Arctic (https://www.uarctic.org/).
44
International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (https://iasc.info/our-work/icarp).
40
41

26

and I quote now: 45 “A key issue is the ownership and active participation of arctic indigenous peoples in
research activities. This should be reflected in future programs and the implementation of science plans.
For each of the four focal points in this ICARP II science plan (i.e., culture and education, health andwellbeing, economic models, and indigenous peoples and the state) scientists and concerned indigenous
persons and communities should be given the opportunity to propose specific research plans that break
new ground.” That was 17 years ago.
And since then, we have had ICARP III in 2015. We have, as Paul mentioned in his opening statement,
three Arctic Science Ministerial meetings and statements. We have had other political statements,
including the European Union's Arctic policy that was published last October. They all state the same.
They all state the importance of inclusion of Indigenous traditional knowledge using the participatory
research method, co-production of knowledge.
However, now, almost 17 years later, since we were in Copenhagen in 2005, we know that there has been
a lot of improvement, and we know that there are good examples of the co-production of research, but
as Mikhail has said it has also caused a kind of a negative effect that the ethical guidelines and all thesegood practices have also been forgotten.
I say that there's still a long way to get the full understanding on why Indigenous knowledge or local
knowledge should be used together with Western science. How the different knowledge systems could
actually work together in an ethical way? And how they could benefit each other, both locally and globally?
As Mikhail said, two plus two is actually five.
Thirdly, I wanted to point out something in relation about the social sciences and humanities because I
see that very often, the social sciences and humanities are not actually considered as sciences. They areoften thought to be less important, and they are less funded. We know that if you look at the statistics, forexample, in Europe, the most research funding has gone into the natural sciences an and not social sciences.
However, we cannot get the holistic understanding and knowledge on studied issue, whatever that is,
without working across the disciplines. We can't work in silos. We have to have a full complete
understanding. And we know that there isn't a single factor, which will not influence another factor.
Everything relates to everything, as my old professor used to say in the 1980’s, when I studying biology.
And I still believe in this because it is true. And this also why we need to do the cooperation; we need tocooperate across different disciplines.
We need to cooperate across the players. We need the research and educational organizations, publicbodies, businesses, and so on. And of course, we need to cooperate with the people who live in the Arctic,
whether they are Indigenous or not. We very often forget that there are actually non-Indigenous peoples
as well in the Arctic. I myself think of myself as an Arctic person. And we, those who do live in the Arctic,
we know our lands. We know what is going on here. We know what the issues are, and we do have acompetence. We do have a highly ranked scientists and researchers and we do welcome a cooperation
because we know that that is the key to the success to have a really full cooperation.
That was my short opening points. Thank you.
45

ICARP II – Science Plan (https://icarp.iasc.info/images/articles/icarp2/Science_Plan_02____ICARP_II.pdf).

27

Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 23:08
Thank you Kirsi for helping us better understand two plus two equals five. For the next presentation, I
invite Mr. Henry Burgess from the British Antarctic Survey to share insights as well, Henry, please.
Mr. Henry Burgess - 23:11
Paul, thank you very much indeed. Thank you to the previous two speakers and thank you to all for being
here. I recognize some of the faces on my screen but not all, but it's a pleasure to see you all, thank you forthis opportunity. My name is Henry Burgess, as Paul said I work at the British Antarctic Survey inCambridge, in the UK. The role I do is as head of the UK Arctic office, and our job is to connect researchers
from lots of different disciplines in the UK to researchers across the rest of the world with a view to kindof increasing scientific cooperation and coordination wherever possible.
The particular point I wanted to say at the start was that I come at this from a slightly different aspect, I
think, perhaps, compared to the previous speakers, I don't have a science background. I'm not from an
Arctic state, but the UK is a non-Arctic state, of course. My academic background is as a working
professional for government, essentially. I moved into this role five, six years ago.
Therefore, I wanted to kind of think about one issue in particular, which is in my mind, and then three
responses to that issue. I think we've been very good as a community at creating a powerful, necessary
narrative about the importance of the Arctic and the impact of environmental and social change in the
Arctic. And I think that cuts across lots of people who wouldn't consider that they know much about the
Arctic or about science in general; that sense of kind of rapid change in the Arctic; the way that the Arctic
is important for itself and for the people that live there, Indigenous, and local people. But also, for its
global connection, the impact that that change in the Arctic has had on the rest of the world. I think thatnarrative is very strong. Whenever I speak to policy and decisionmakers in the UK or more broadly, they
get that message essentially; that hits home. All of us have kind of worked very hard on that message overdecades. Nonetheless, I think we've been less successful. It's naturally the case about kind of the science
response to that message about how science organizes itself to respond to that change in a way that's
kind of as timely as possible and as powerful as possible. And it's partly because this is of course aninternational effort.
The way that science is funded in all our different countries is completely different. For some, it's very
directed from the top. Here, the government sets the priority. This is what we will study, these are theships that we have available. And then in other countries, it all comes from the bottom, it comes from ascience idea. Someone's kind of sitting on their own or working with colleagues to create a kind of an ideathat then becomes a funded program on a project. Nowadays, we have all kinds of different ways ofsharing data or not sharing data.
I think that narrative about change in the Arctic is very strong. And I'm not yet sure that we're in the rightplace when it comes to how science responds and particularly how science responds in connection; inclose engagement with Indigenous and local communities. So that is the issue on mind and there are others
too. What are their responses to that? Three of those, I think count and I’ll speak a bit about now.
The first one of those is the State of Arctic Science Report, which comes from the International Arctic Science
Committee. The first one of those was produced in 2020. The second one was last year. And this is notabout the science itself in the Arctic. It's not about how the Arctic is changing. It's about the state of the28

science, essentially. It's where the gaps are? Where we can cooperate more in the future? Where is the
beginning of knowledge in some particular areas that are going to become huge priorities in the future?
And so that's something that we can focus on in the future. That’s something that I think the International
Arctic Science Committee has provided a positive step forward because we know a lot about change in the
Arctic. Of course, we need to know more, but it's that sense of the other science communities in the rightplace. Are we asking the right questions in order to respond to that change? I will put a link in the chatshortly to the State of Arctic Science report. 46 But I think that's a powerful response to that to that issue.
The second response I wanted to raise was the creation of the Arctic Science Founders Forum. 47 Becauseof course, we know we need to understand more about changing the Arctic. We know that the Arctic is
absolutely not a homogenous environment, but it's very different in different places. And we don't haveanything like the coverage and the depth of knowledge about that change yet. And of course, all of that
happens because governments, states are keen to understand that change and to fund it fundamentally.
So, the Arctic Science Founders Forum should bring together the key nations who have an interest in
working together and in funding the understanding of change in the Arctic. The organization is very junior;very young. It's essentially only a couple of years old. And we're still working towards our Terms ofReference in our first meetings and kind of making something of this. But, I hope in the next year or two
years, as we build up to the next Arctic Science Ministerial Meeting, this Arctic Science Funders Forum will
be a really good place to think about some of these really big questions, because we're increasingly seeingthat the biggest questions in the Arctic need the biggest responses in terms of international coordinationand effort, much like the MOSAiC 48 cruise program in the past couple of years.
The third thing I wanted to mention just quickly, is a specific response that the UK and partners in Canada
have undertaken, thinking about how we can properly, respectfully engage between traditional westernscience, if I can use that term, and Indigenous and other local knowledge.
This is a new Arctic research program called the Canada Inuit Nunangat UK Arctic research programme 49
and it will run from 2021 to 2025. It will be several million pounds in the UK and several million dollars on
the Canadian side. What makes it different, we hope, is that this is started, planned, governed, assessed,delivered, and the data will be owned by all the different partners in the program. So right from the very
start, this has not been about teams in Canada and the UK deciding we want to work Inuit Nunangat in the
far north of Canada and here's what we'll do. It's actually a bit about what do the people that live in the
far north, the Inuit themselves want to know. how we can combine teams research from Inuit researchcommunities, Canadian research teams, UK research teams, all together and work together to support
those principles of self-determination and research, which are very important in the Inuit communities of
the North? And I'm happy to talk a bit more about that later on or in the facilitated breakout sessions.
For us, this is a really big step up, and it's been quite difficult to be honest, because all founders andorganizations have their red lines. And working together in this way has been difficult for us but it's been
intensely rewarding. We are now at the stage having signed a memorandum of understanding with all thedifferent partners in Canada and in Inuit Nunangat a year or so ago. We have the applications, and we're
IASC State of Arctic Science Report. (https://iasc.info/about/publications-documents/state-of-arctic-science).
Arctic Science Funders Forum. (https://iasc.info/cooperations/arctic-science-funders-forum).
48
Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate expedition (MOSAiC) (https://mosaic-expedition.org/).
49
Canada Inuit Nunangat UK Arctic research programme (https://www.ukri.org/what-we-offer/browse-our-areas-ofinvestment-and-support/canada-inuit-nunangat-uk-arctic-research-programme/).
46
47

29

just at the stage now of deciding what are going to be the successful applications. Successful projects will
now run for three years, we have joint teams between all the three different sets of partners, and they
will own that data together. They will publish that data together. We hope this will be an interesting modelfor the future. So, we're not saying it's perfect. That's the last thing I'm saying but we've made a big leap
forward I think in our understanding and hope that will make a significant difference.
Thank you, Paul. I'll leave it there but happy to come back to any of these points in the subsequentdiscussions. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 32:15
Thank you very much Henry for your helpful observations. The last keynote presenter today is Professor
Andrey Petrov from the International Arctic Social Science Association 50 and University of Northern Iowa.
Prof. Andrey Petrov - 32:30
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. It is quite early here. So, I'll try to be short and concise. I
have a few points to deliver. I am the former president of the International Arctic Social Science Association,
which of course brings together about 700 social scientists across the Arctic and beyond. I'd like to begin byreminding everyone that arctic scientists are diverse, and the social sciences and humanities are part of it,
as Kirsi already mentioned, and it's growing rapidly. I think it is very important to recognize the diversity of
the Arctic sciences family. At the same time, we must remember that Arctic research is incredibly andincreasingly international, the University of the Arctic has done a study a few years ago, comparing generally
research across the globe, whether using the Arctic regarding international cooperation, and we see that
Arctic is much more international than research in other regions of the world. At the same time, most of
the Arctic researchers are keen on international cooperation. About 90% of Arctic researchers in one way or
another are interested in pursuing international cooperation when there's access to it, and data being in thefield of sharing knowledge with each other or working with communities across the Arctic. Therefore, it's
very important that these points, of course, kept on being highly considered.
Paul mentioned that the Arctic science cooperation agreement is an interesting instrument that's beendeveloped with the cooperation of the science community, and it mentions some of the organizations thatare involved here; specifically, IASSC, IASC and UArctic, who can be one of the leading forces andimplementing it alongside the rest of the countries that are part of that agreement by creating a data
platform or by establishing procedures. That's for sharing and exchange; for generating support from thefunding agencies to the diverse research that is taking place in the Arctic.
At the same time, it's also important to remember that Arctic sciences, speaking together, have beenchanging quite rapidly as well. In terms of their methodological, even epistemological underpinnings fromvery disciplinary science perspectives that science organizations had 20-25 years ago; dominated heavily
by nature of sciences, and really not embedded with Arctic communities. We’re moving quickly sciencethat is inter- and transdisciplinary, in which different science disciplines are working together and mostimportantly, which different knowledge systems are acknowledged and respected, working together on
equal footing.

50

International Arctic Social Sciences Association (https://iassa.org/).

30

That is the future Arctic science that we would like to have. We, of course, are still experiencing COVID apandemic and, in terms of Arctic research, we could call as a strategic pause. This pause gave us an
opportunity to reflect on our work as scientists in the Arctic. Arctic communities and Arctic people are also
given an opportunity to reflect on what sort of science they would be welcoming in the future. And I think
it is an opportunity for all of us to sit down and stand back and reflect on those sort of things.
In a recent paper, approximately written a year ago, we co-wrote with the President of UArctic and IASC
and some other colleagues, particularly Indigenous partners, we outlined four important things thatshould be part of this reflection that are taking place right now. One of them is embracing the local turn.
The other is fostering knowledge co-production. The third is focusing on the next generation. And thefourth is emphasizing global nature of Arctic research. And I will just say a few words on each of them.
Regarding the local turn, is really a turn to localization and decolonization of Arctic research enterprises,
which means elevating role of Indigenous local communities, as we know that that is really important. We
knew this before the COVID-19 outbreak, but the actual situation, which the Arctic scientific enterprise,
speaking broadly, found itself two years ago, speaks to the necessity for us to double, triple, quadruple
those efforts.
The investment is in local infrastructure and connectivity. The investment is in Arctic residents as scientists
and as researchers who would conduct research in the Arctic, shifting to a paradigm where we have local
first, and early career student first, and now we're finding principles. Focus on community-driven research,
not just community-based, and also increase the role of citizens’ science are important elements.
At the same time, we must remember that the resilient Arctic science we can build is based on a global
coalition and meaningful collaboration of scientists, local and Indigenous rights-, stakes- and knowledge
holders, policymakers, science advocates, citizen scientists, industry partners, research institutions,financing and many others. Just one group by itself, one place by itself, one country cannot do it. Andeven the Arctic Council just acting alone can't deliver it.
It is an international cooperation that is at the forefront of this effort. And that would be of course, a partof the process is taking place right now. As an example, the preparation for the International Conference on
the Research Planning in Denver in 2025 or we all hope the International Polar Year 2032-2033. 51 And a partof these efforts is, of course, as a decolonization of Arctic research enterprise. And this is partially achieved
with co-production, knowledge co-production, of course from multiple times mentioned, ensuring thatIndigenous and non-Indigenous research partners share a common vision of what the research priorities
are; what these methods are; what are the goals and the products that are obtained by Arctic research;
and what practical results important for Indigenous communities are brought about with this research. Itmeans co-identifying research needs, co-creating research ideas, co-designing research questions codefining research objectives, co-authoring research results and in co-implementing them together and ofcourse, working to evaluate them collectively.
What does it mean for researchers? It means that a researcher or an agency must recognize and respect
Indigenous knowledge and other knowledge system. But, first of all, in the Arctic, support the Indigenous
knowledge. Support Indigenous people to identify Indigenous peoples’ research priorities and act upon51

4th International Polar Year 2032-2033 survey (https://form.jotform.com/220532776067054).

31

their own research projects. It is very important for us to keep that in mind, not just the priorities thatscience community is bringing, but their own research priorities that Indigenous communities have,enabling and encouraging development for an equitable relationship, and understanding between
Indigenous peoples and researchers, and very importantly, focusing on reciprocity and researchers. Thisshould be a mutually enriching process which can support capacity building, and communities, both in our
Arctic partner communities and in the science community itself, by expanding an understanding of therole and the opportunities that this co-production and collaboration can bring us.
I think we are in a very interesting juncture moment right now. Given all the circumstances, we can invest
our efforts to changing the landscape of Arctic sciences, whether it's natural sciences or social sciences,by embracing this pause, reflecting on what we have done and developing a better way forward. That is
my message.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 42:09
Excellent message. Indeed, Andrey, might I request you to put the reference for the paper you werespeaking with those four points into the chat? 52 I think that will be helpful and instructive. We have now
about 20 minutes there for a dialogue among the panelists. And rather than being presumptuous andasking questions myself, do any of the four panelists have questions for each other that you would like toraise? Andrey, Henry, Mikhail and Kirsi, any question that you would like to raise? Otherwise, let me startwith an observation that Mikhail made about how strange it feels to divide knowledge systems, from theperspective of Indigenous communities and as researchers. We should embrace all of these different
components from natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge, they're all knowledge
systems. Is the concept of a knowledge system more helpful than thinking in terms of science? Are allthese together at a higher level, knowledge systems that operate in concert to consider societal relevant
approaches. I would just put that out there as a question, do any of the four of you like to respond?
Dr. Kirsi Latola - 43:47
Maybe I can respond if I may. I have often heard, and I also know that for myself, as a non-Indigenous
person, it's not easy to understand what Indigenous knowledge outside the different knowledge systems
is. Therefore, we definitely need more understanding and more information on it. But there has been a
lot of discussion on how we could increase researchers and people's understanding about Indigenous
knowledge and different knowledge systems because they are so different. I understand that but I can't
explain, for example, very thoroughly, what is editor's choice because it, of course, depends on thecommunities but I know that Mikhail knows this much better than I do.
Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev – 44:48
I think that I probably don't know about the more general kind of system of knowledge which can provide
with more understanding to Indigenous knowledge. And I think, of course, for researchers who are not
Indigenous, it's often quite difficult to understand. The system and as I said, for example, in our region, ourscientists who were Indigenous proposed this introspective approach. When Indigenous representatives’
holders of this knowledge were educated as researchers, they started to combine knowledge and got
something new. And as I said, we got very good results after this.
Degai T, Petrov AN, Badhe R, Egede Dahl PP, Döring N, Dudeck S, Herrmann TM, Golovnev A, Mack L, Omma EM, Retter G-B,
Saxinger G, Scheepstra AJM, Shadrin CV, Shorty N, Strawhacker C. 2022. Shaping Arctic’s Tomorrow through Indigenous
Knowledge Engagement and Knowledge Co-Production. Sustainability. 14(3):1331. (https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031331).
52

32

Prof. Andrey Petrov – 46:20
This process is mostly capacity-building, institutional, but also individual. I think the best way is to always
listen, and that's something we do not always do, and we should therefore put it more into practice. That's
also the way to learn about different knowledge systems. Just sit down, step back, open your mind andlisten and that's really the first step that we all need to undertake.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 47:00
In this consideration of knowledge systems of science and thinking how they originated in the first instanceand why we have natural sciences, social sciences, Indigenous knowledge, and observation, they aimed toestablish additional discussions. Each of these knowledge systems emerged to help with decisions thatwould potentially change the world. And it has always happened in the past and we created humankind
systems to reveal understanding about patterns, trends, and processes. Ultimately, for the purpose ofdecisionmaking. Is it appropriate to think of science in a sense as a study of change? That all of theseknowledge systems have a purpose, to understand the difference in the context of making decisions, so I
throw that out as a question.
Mr. Henry Burgess – 47:59
I recognize what you said. I think that's a perfect way of looking at it. When you consider that traditional
western science is better for those operating within, it sort of aims to challenge each other professionallyand respectfully, and in order to understand that change of history, the systems of peer review, publishing,
and academic challenges, all that kind of dialogue.
That professional way of politely, meaningfully disagreeing with each other is all built-in. Furthermore, it is
not always polite that everyone understands how to challenge respectfully and how to change that senseof what is collectively known within that information system. I imagine a similar way within local
communities on how that Indigenous and local knowledge can potentially evolve. We're struggling withhow we can combine those two ways. Because sometimes it is more important to understand, tocomprehend a conflict rather than an agreement in a situation where western scientists think aboutchange for a particular case.
Because if we still have western scientists thinking about change in a particular way, and local Indigenous
communities are thinking about it differently, I am not sure we have an appropriate and effective language
for our lab. Both communities need to define a way of communicating and agreeing with each other in ameaningful and polite way to achieve a successful resolution. There must be a first learning stage at the
beginning of the process, rather than running to an end or a goal.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 50:24
So your observation, Henry, about starting with questions is the essence of the webinar series itself, in thesense that it is designed around questions when ultimately, if we're successful, to reveal questions ofcommon concern. Arguably, the questions are more critical in the process than the answers. And indeed,in terms of this evolution that Andrey had mentioned going from disciplinary to interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary, it's the design of questions among stakeholders, rights holders and actors together, this codesign that becomes important. Mikhail, Kirsi or Andrey, do you have additional observations based on
the notion that science and systems knowledge systems originated to assist in decisionmaking?

33

Prof. Andrey Petrov - 51:21
I can quickly say, in addition to what Paul mentioned, we also talk about emerging from convergence
research, which actually turns into disciplinary research. That is focused on addressing critical, specificchallenges, in our case in the Arctic for Arctic communities. That's really, again the future of Arctic scienceand its collaboration with Indigenous knowledge systems because of course; co-production is the best
way to conduct such convergence research.
Dr. Kirsi Latola - 52:18
I might be taking this in a different direction because I have been thinking that initially, when we started
talking about the funding, that kind of sets the frame for the research. And then, when we discussed coproduction and planning the research together, I wondered who makes the decision and who has the power
to decide what is conducted because that is one of the critical questions. There needs to be someone who
decides whether to fund or not. Therefore, there is still this kind of power question on who makes the final
decisions and who has been causing problems? Sorry, go ahead.
Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev - 53:17
Thank you. Yes, it's a very important thing, and I would like to follow your talk by mentioning theimportance of who has the power and the right to identify what kind of research should be done. The rules
on legislation are based on a core scientific understanding of these processes and scientific research. But
sometimes, we see that religious knowledge about nature is subject to different results, and occasionally,
Indigenous people do not have an opportunity. Or more capacity to change and present their vision for
the issues are particularly important to them. So I think it's crucial to always discuss who is identifying
research agenda in the beginning. Therefore, if we start working together on enhancing scientificknowledge, it would best to enhance decisionmaking.
So I see two questions in the chat from Yulia Zaika. One is an observation along these lines, how can we
ensure the proper application of knowledge systems of expertise across these different communities? For
example, the aspiration of co-production, co-design, but how do we facilitate that?
Prof. Andrey Petrov - 56:04
I mean, probably there's no recipe for that. I was curious about what Jenny was talking about, maybe
there are experiences to share, but really, it is an investment, an investment of time, an investment of
resources. Providing opportunities that can foster this idea needs a commitment. Again, it's all about
funding agencies for this purpose.
Mr. Henry Burgess - 56:54
I think the key for us has been giving everyone an equal stake in the program development. So, the reality
is that, if you live in Nunangat, the northern part of Canada, then you will be experiencing thisenvironmental social change firsthand. And the things that are happening to you and around you are of kindof huge interest to Western scientists. So it's a difficult starting point. The key is to work together, and the
key is that during the setting of questions, the themes for what the program would cover, has to start off
by responding to the concerns of the local community and those are in lots of cases. It is also importantthat in the funding program, researchers from all the different funding partners and from the local
communities have equal status. So we made sure that when we were going to the application setting
process, and nine months or so ago, it wasn't that you had to have a letter of support from the localorganization. You had to have that engagement in the program and they will be funded through the34

program. So if you're a Canadian and a UK researcher and you had a brilliant idea, that's not enough, youhave to have the agreement of the local community to take part in your project and only then, it will befunded through the project. Following that, there is not just the typical Western peer review process that
we all know about, but there is also an assessment process that is run by Indigenous communities
themselves to assess whether that is something that is really worth looking at and whether they want to
see that happening in their community, is it a priority?
In this case, we would work together, share the data, and publish together, and therefore, the credit of
the work would be extended to both ends as well. And then ideally, of course, there is a legacy that's left,from our project, our program is a three-year program. But we hope very much that there will be a legacy
format. And it's not just legacy in terms of explaining the science to school children a year later. It issomething really meaningful to create the next generation of researchers who can really work on the next
things together in international partnerships.
Did you have Canadian partners who knew the community beforehand or how did you build the trust?
How did you start that? It is always said that you have to have this trust. So on the Canadian side, thepartners are Polar Knowledge Canada, the National Research Council, Parks Canada, and the funding
councils in Québec, together with ITK 53 in new capital. So, yes, to all of those links, people were in an
excellent place to start. Because you're right, you can't just start from scratch in many cases. It would be
best if you had those links already to have the confidence to put an application together, but we did do a
two-stage process. So the first thing was just a simple two sides of the paper, you know, are you and theother three groups together able to take something in mind into agreeing to work on something. And once
we got through that stage, people had to develop an entire application, so you know, you can have theidea first, and then come to it kind of later on in six months.
Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev – 01:01:31
Thank you. As it said at the beginning, we have small educational and research institutions in the Arctic
with the US, as well as in Norway, for example, in New Delhi, in Finland, in the Russian Arctic, and otherplaces. As I said, it is challenging for them to compete with prominent universities for funding, when thereis quite a large pipeline of funding for research in the Arctic, usually from more renowned universities orconsortium States. Those remote and smaller institutions never get support to deliver their research anddevelopment projects on Indigenous people's knowledge. So I have 20 years of experience trying to get
this support and achieve an efficient response and disposable income. Therefore, there is a need for an
extraordinary approach or a particular model for small institutions to have a different solution when they
get funding for their projects. Moreover, they would have opportunities to participate in international
cooperation, which is also very costly for small Indigenous communities. It is challenging and we should
deem the complexity of the situation. It starts from education, the general education. Now we have federal
standards in education, and from the very beginning, it is impossible to pull it off in people's knowledge
development movements equally. We also have to look very seriously into the education standards.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:03:36
Thank you very much, Mikhail, Andrey, Henry, and Kirsi for your helpful insights and observations. Let mejust briefly share the objective of the breakout sessions. Clara has identified three breakout sessions,roughly the same size and we've gone through and tried to balance this in an international context as well.
53

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (https://www.itk.ca/).

35

Therefore, Clara will push a button and we will all disappear into the breakout sessions. The generalframework is that we'll have about half an hour in the breakout sessions to address the questions for thiswebinar. Then we will reconvene for about a 15-minute debrief from each of the three breakout sessions
and go back into a breakout session again for the remainder. Up until 15 minutes before the end. And
then a final debrief. The objective for each of the breakout sessions is to thoughtfully consider each of
the questions that were used to frame this webinar about what Arctic science is.
I think Henry, your observation about a dual review system where the Indigenous communities are inparallel with the formal national funding agencies is very important, and perhaps something that can beformalized more broadly. In terms of national responses, I think that would certainly send a clear andcompelling signal of co-production in terms of shared review so that was a very important insight that heshared with us.
Kirsi, Andrey, Henry or Mikhail, do you have any final observations before we press the button that we all
disappear into our breakout sessions?
Again, I thank all the presenters and all of the participants, I saw that there were many thoughtfulquestions in the chat. I encourage you all to make a copy of the chat to look at the questions. We willproduce a report from this workshop which will become available for the second webinar, and so on. So
again, I thank you and look forward to speaking after your first half-hour of dialogue.
FIRST BREAKOUT-SUMMARY SESSION
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:07:03
Thank you all for your contributions to these dialogues. We have about 15 minutes for the three breakout
sessions to share observations. So roughly five minutes for each breakout session. And starting withbreakout session number one, I would like to call on either the facilitator, the keynote presenter or the
rapporteurs to share observations, please.
Mr. Henry Burgess – 01:07:50
We had a good discussion in our group. There was a report discussion at the start about the value oftransdisciplinary research and making sure that that was appropriately respected. There was then adiscussion around the kind of practicalities of dealing with funding proposals that have co-development
at their heart and making sure that there's enough time to form the partnerships and genuinely give
people the ability to create interesting and innovative proposals, recognizing that funding agencies deal
with very short deadlines. The money comes in and then you've got to get it out the door very quickly andthat works against real projects that have co-development. So mainly, we discussed how we could getover those hurdles.
There was a discussion about the role of intermediaries’ interlocutors in connecting between funding
agencies and local communities, and we didn't get much into detail about that, but there was discussion
around the role of those bodies. That might be something that we could come back into in the future,whether that's, in many cases very valuable to identify local experts who can connect to funding agencies
and others, but also the tension perhaps about whether that takes away some agency from the local
communities in some form.
36

Then, we discussed how you resolve some of those conflicts between researchers and local communities,
Indigenous researchers, and how you can put that into practice. We talked through some examples of
how that might work.
I think we focused attention on making sure that both parties had equal stakes financially and ingovernance terms with the outcomes. Although we recognize that it is very, very difficult, particularly
when it comes down to disagreements on the data about wildlife and mammals in particular.
We touched on the issue of how Indigenous communities should be involved in Arctic science that doesn't
relate directly to their life experiences. So, we were talking there about the funding of icebreakers andsatellites, as well as aircraft. So, things that don't relate to the daily lived experience of communities andwhether there was a role for Indigenous involvement in those decisions.
We acknowledge that there's no day-to-day engagement in the reality of what happens in the Central
Arctic Ocean, but actually Indigenous communities are stakeholders in the wider Arctic. What happens in
the Central Arctic Ocean would affect them more quickly than what it would affect other people? We arejust beginning to get into some of that discussion. We also talked about learning from other Indigenous
communities across the world, in the Amazon or Asia, and elsewhere, about their experience and their
example of how you resolve some of these complexities and move forward.
Then we talked a little bit about funding and how we could be creative in funding new programs andprojects, and whether that should be done internationally by individual partners giving money, making a
project with another partner, or whether it is possible for countries to begin sharing funding in a central
fund that is then available for more people. So, a Circumpolar Arctic funding arrangement, which we
recognize is difficult and doesn't really exist at the moment.
Hopefully, that is reflective. If anyone remembers anything from my group that I have misrepresented orthat I might have missed out, please let us know.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:12:25
Thanks. Before inviting the second breakout room to share observations I just wanted to add a comment.
Henry, we did an analysis of the five binding agreements that entered into force in 2009. And curiously, thecentral Arctic Ocean High Seas fishery agreement includes the term Indigenous more than the search andrescue agreement, more than the pollution preparedness and agreement, more than the polar code, andmore than the Arctic science agreements. Therefore, the term Indigenous is actually most well represented
in the central Arctic Ocean High Seas fisheries agreement.
The second break breakout session, please. Jenny has requested a health break. Please, proceed without
concern. Jenny from your session.
Dr. Jenny Baeseman – 01:13:37
Andrey is incredibly eloquent and trying to do my best and if anyone from this session has other thoughts
or additions to what I'm about to say please, go ahead just when I finished.

37

Prof. Andrey Petrov – 01:13:48
There has been a very intense discussion and some of the topics are similar to what we were talking about,but I do want to highlight a few different ones that may be of interest to everyone. Firstly, was the thought
about co- production of knowledge and how to go about it. We returned to the discussion about listening
as the best way of starting and conducting co-production or beginning this relationship. But I think there
were other interesting concepts involved that require for listening to be successful on one hand, a kind of
humbleness that requires engagement but also for an understanding that no knowledge system, no matter
how long term and elaborate it is, is not perfect. Is also is an important kind of prerequisite for success. And
there is a corporate active process. There is a need for different knowledge systems to work together toattain the knowledge that would be actually beneficial for communities, for our planet. I think that is an
important thought that could be there. The other element we discussed is whether or why Arctic science issomewhat different or special in the way that this co-productive work is being conducted or in general,
what do we bring to the global society, a global science community in that experience. One context is the
Arctic Council which has been on for many years now, which recognizes and generalizes efforts to elevateIndigenous knowledge and its own work. And that's, of course, the representation of Permanent
participants as one of the ways in which in those discussions in the Arctic Council, the Indigenous
knowledge could be brought up and could be placed on a relatively similar footing as other knowledge
systems of scientific knowledge system, or Western science. At the same time, it was discussed that same
designed ministries have anyways different structures and different ways in which that is done and for avariety of reasons.
Of course, there are ways to go with understanding how exactly Indigenous communities could be
represented, but also, there is a variety of other parts of a dynamic state part of it and so kind of how thiscomplex system could work to further highlight and elevate Indigenous knowledge. I think they've beenquite a bit of effort made and fortunate to have other Arctic states contributing as wellAnother interesting thought that I actually didn't think of before, was about time. Both knowledge
systems, whether of course Indigenous systems that developed throughout millennia, and on the sciencesystems that were developed in the last few 100 years. I mean, they're long-term evolving systems, but
we really have a short time to develop a way that we could work successfully together to address very
urgent needs. So how do we play and work across the different timeframes? That is, I think, an importantquestion that we have not answered, but I think is really a very important question to ask. Thank you, and if
there are any additions, please, go ahead and add any of the members from the breakout session.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:18:15
Thank you very much, Andrey, just as an observation. The whole concept of informed decision operating
short-term to long-term has as the framework working across time, it's a security timescale, dealing withimmediate risks. And at the other end of the scale, it's at a sustainability timescale, trying to balanceenvironmental, economic, and societal issues across generations. For the third breakout session, Mikhail,would you like to share observations, please?
Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev – 01:18: 54
Yes, thank you. I would also say that there were many similar issues discussed in our session. Today, we
started our discussion with the question of how to make it happen that we just always Indigenous
knowledge also be incorporated into decisionmaking processes.
38

We all agreed that the most important thing is to begin with no fundamental ideas about the need forrespect and trust between researchers and Indigenous knowledge holders. Because sometimes it isdifficult to understand each other’s different understandings of what science is working. So, we agreed
that the respect and trust was very important. Then we also were discussing what could be the possiblemodels for the programs which could incorporate storage into research and into decisionmaking process.
We also discussed dual model for validation of different ways of knowledge.
And also, some participants were asking about, for example, different events like Arctic Resilience
Forum, 54 which could be also useful for the discussion on multidisciplinary ways of understanding different
types of knowledge and we were also thinking about how we could provide funding opportunities to small
institutions, and Indigenous peoples. And again, we had some discussion about what at the International
level what different programs there are to support research and use people for solutions. Of course, I said
that it's difficult for many small and remote institutions to be supported because they have limited accessto all these international funding institutions and also at a national level. We also had a discussion about
what are the differences between the situation of Indigenous knowledge between the Arctic States andnon- Arctic States. It was also said that there are similarities between other Indigenous peoples living in
non-Arctic states but that they face just the same challenges with regards to the use of their knowledge.
Another question was, how to use traditional knowledge in understanding of climate change, which is also
a global challenge. Here we also discussed there are many similarities in this regard, and of course theArctic is very place with special climate.
These are my observations, maybe someone could also add something I might have forgotten. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:23:11
Thank you very much Mikhail. The objective here is to continue to break out session dialogues. The idea isthat we will be punctual and try and complete the activity on time, which is at in another 34 minutes. So
why don't we plan to have a discussion for about another 20 minutes and then we'll have a brief
wrap-up in terms of any final conclusions from the keynote presenters from today. So why don't we returnto the breakout sessions Clara, please. And then we'll meet in about 20 minutes.

FINAL BREAKOUT-SUMMARY SESSION
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:25:48
Thank you, everyone, for your kind collaboration. The intention in the last few minutes is to identify any
overarching key points that emerged from the various breakout sessions. In terms of parity, perhaps Kirsi,
you'd like to comment on breakout session one since Henry provided the last helpful observations.
Dr. Kirsi Latola – 01:26:20
And he actually was willing to do that, but maybe I'll just say one thing and then I will give the floor to Henry
because I know that he is preparing excellent notes. I wanted to point out that I think that it's really
important and good that we have in this group also a lot of people who come from outside the Artic withdifferent backgrounds than in the Arctic countries and the Arctic context. We are very often facing thesame faces in these webinars, and we are here to say we know what each other is going to say. We arelike sitting among the family members because we know everyone so well. What I realized in this webinar
54

Arctic Resilience Forum, Belfer Center (https://www.belfercenter.org/event/arctic-resilience-forum).

39

is that we can certainly learn from each other from Asian Pacific and other countries, and we should kindof use that opportunity and maybe even often connect to the other parts of the world. Because the issueof climate change, for example, is exactly the same and it's an issue with how it works with the small
universities or small colleges. The Arctic is not unique in that sense. So, there's a lot for us to learn fromthe others. And I think that's it has been really good. So that's maybe also my conclusion. Paul, if I may,
but I think that was what I was just thinking. We can read if you have anything to add, please.
Mr. Henry Burgess – 01:27:54
I think you covered it very well. Actually. We have good contributions in our group from people that haveexperience of working with small island developing states, in the Asia Pacific and the Caribbean andbeyond, and some really extreme experiences of using the Green Climate funds and transboundary
funding. And people have experience of putting together programs and projects between different
universities over several years.
There is definitely a potential to share some of that learning more broadly at venues like the Arctic Circle
assembly, where it's happened, I think in the past but you know, potentially doing that again in the future.
It was also an interesting point that was made about non-Arctic Indigenous groups looking with envy alittle bit towards the north and thinking about how well integrated and how well connected some Arctic
Indigenous communities are for decisionmaking process. I'm not saying that's universal, but definitely,some people who were thinking kind of that way.
It is important to share practical experiences amongst Asian Pacific communities about dealing with someof the issues that we're going to be dealing with in the Arctic as well, for example, kind of shipping andaccess to shipping straights and to international waters and national waters issues where that's a very live
issue in some parts of the world and will increasingly become so in the Arctic.
And then Kirsi mentioned, particularly the University of the Arctic and the 61 thematic networks and how
those are particularly valued, I think, by small institutions because it gives people who have a kind of a
specific niche interest, a higher profile than they would normally have in a much bigger group. So you canfind even as a small institution, you can find your niche in one of those thematic networks and have a rolein helping to set the priorities and potentially have some funding through that route. So Thank you.
Prof. Andrey Petrov - 58:05
Thanks.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:30:03
Thank you, Kirsi and Henry, Andrey, please.
Prof. Andrey Petrov – 01:30:08
Yes, thank you. I think it was a very, very fruitful discussion. I guess maybe I'll summarize by saying thatthe time of action is now, and the burden is upon us to do stuff to pull off the work and make sure thatwhat we talk about is implementable. I mean, they don't want us to miss the importance of the moment
and actually, maybe the fact that this webinar did actually contribute to larger processes like international
conference obligations planning, which really is the process that will lead us to have priorities and Arctic
research, including priorities around co-production in the next 10 years. That will lead us to theInternational Polar Year. There are small deals and then the large things we could do. I mean, in our second
40iteration, we talked about funding mechanisms and a variety of funding mechanism that already exists, or
could be modified to ensure that Indigenous communities and knowledge holders have access to funding,whether it's a small funding process or big funding – all money is good. I think the idea is that we need toincorporate mechanisms in both very large-scale elements and then create small-scale opportunities aswell. Another thought was that since the Arctic's science community is working in many ways - there are
not only major needs and certainties about climate and other environmental change aspects but also workwith businesses to develop economic opportunities in a private-public partnership, but we are also part ofthe discussion, and we don't need to forget about it. The audiences for our collective future planning is
also changing. Again, it's not just the funding agencies and ministries, there's also the society and businessand that's, I think, something that is important for us to keep in mind as we move forward. The general
sentiment is that we come from various disciplines, various backgrounds, various knowledge systems andways of life, and we need to coalesce uniting forces now into building this resilience for Arctic science thatwould address the needs of the communities while of course providing us with fundamental knowledge
that will help us change the world. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 1:32:47
Thank you, Andrey. Mikhail, I invite you to share observations from the third breakout session, please.
Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev - 1:33:04
Yes, thank you I think it was a very interesting discussion. We've discussed many things and in general, forenhancing scientific cooperation in the Arctic, we have, as the previous speaker said, we have everything
we need. All the mechanisms are in place. We just need to continue and have more cooperation.
Of course, the pandemic gives us new challenges and it became, for one side more difficult to cooperate,
but on the other hand, we can meet online and discuss and have this webinar available. So opportunities
are here and I think that we should use the best practices that we already have on how to conduct researchon the Arctic. As Andrey said, there are already certain mechanisms and we just need to maybe think
about modifying them to meet the needs of the Indigenous communities and make science moresustainable, as we spoke about sustainable development in the Arctic. We also need that science, which
is dealing with the development of the Arctic and sustaining Indigenous communities and make thescience more sustainable with funding for research and also for Indigenous knowledge and co-production.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 1:35:21
Thank you very much. Mikhail. So before leaving today, I just want to share that the second webinar will
be on March 10. And the question there is how can science transform data into evidence for informed
decisionmaking so much of the discussion today is about roll up the role of science and Indigenous
knowledge with regard to decisionmaking? That will be the focus of the second webinar, dealing with how
are the decisions on what priorities are to be addressed, and made? Who are the decision-makers again,
the questions that came up in the discussion today and what evidence is needed, and how is that evidence
defined?
The next webinar will involve Professor Anne Husebekk Professor and Former Rector, UiT | The Arctic
University of Norway; Vice-President for Freedom and Responsibility in Science, International Science
Council. Professor Larry Hinzman who's the director, Executive Director for the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee, Assistant Director for Polar Sciences of the Office of Science and Technology
at the Executive Office of the President at the White House, and then president of the International Arctic
41

Science Committee. And the third distinguished presenter in the next session will be Dr. Volker Rachold,
who is involved with our discussions today as a head of the German Arctic office, former executive director
for the International Arctic science committee, and co-host of the second Arctic science ministerial.
It's truly been a pleasure and an honor to have the opportunity to convene this webinar series and to
begin today with the distinguished speakers, Keynote presenters. I'd like to thank Mikhail, Kirsi, Henry,and Andrey for your excellent contributions. I'd like to thank the scholars for their excellent job andreporting. I'd like to thank you UNITAR for their facilitation of this webinar series. And to all of you, I wish
you good health and I look forward to our next discussions. We will report on this, and we will share in
the next webinar the synthesis from today's dialogues. I look forward to the next steps and I wish
everybody well.

42

APPENDIX 3
WEBINAR 2: HOW CAN SCIENCE TRANSFORM DATA INTO EVIDENCE FORINFORMED DECISIONMAKING?
THURSDAY, 10 MARCH 2022
TRANSCRIPT (RECORDING AVAILABLE ON THE UNITAR WEBSITE WITH TIME STAMPS, NOTING THERE MAY BE
TRANSCRIPTION ERRORS REMAINING AFTER SEVERAL EDITS)
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:12
Welcome to this Webinar Series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic Science andTechnology 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, continuing today with Webinar 2 andWebinar 3 on 24 March 2022.
This webinar series is convened in the spirit of science diplomacy – as a “language of hope” – as aninternational, interdisciplinary and inclusive process, involving informed decisionmaking to balancenational interests and common interests for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.”
I thank the Japanese Consulate in Boston for introducing the opportunity for this webinar series buildingon the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial, which was convened in Tokyo in May 2021 by Japan and Iceland.
I especially thank the excellent team of collaborators with the webinar series: Dr. Jenny Baeseman at
Baeseman Consulting and Prof. Akiho Shibata at the Polar Cooperation Research Center, Kobe University
for their core partnership; Ms. Clara López and Ms. Michelle Glazer at the United Nations Institute forTraining and Research (UNITAR) for superbly managing the logistics of this webinar series; and wonderfulteam of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School (including Mr. Teruaki Fujii and Ms. Nadia Filimonova)
and the Arctic 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 43 nations and many time zones, with deep appreciation
for sharing your insights to help enhance international cooperation with science “for the benefit of all on
Earth across generations.”“What is science” was the focus of the first webinar. The observations from the keynote presenters (again
thank you to the Hon. Mikhail Pogodaev, Prof. Kirsi Latola, Mr. Henry Burgess, Prof. Andrey Petrov) andthe participants emphasized the transdisciplinary convergence of the natural sciences and social scienceswith Indigenous knowledge together as the ‘study of change.’ All of these knowledge systems reveal
patterns, trends and processes (albeit with different methodologies) that become the bases for decisions,which is the focus of today’s webinar to consider “How can science transform data into evidence for
informed decisionmaking?” Importantly, Webinar 1 highlighted the core elements of inclusion, respect
and trust that give us the capacity to enhance international scientific cooperation.
43

We are now confronted with the war in Ukraine, which is shaking the foundation of our globallyinterconnected civilization with great peril for all eight billion of us. This terrible situation has heightened
the importance of enhancing international scientific cooperation to make informed decisions, operating
across a ‘continuum of urgencies’ with resilience from security time scales (addressing immediate
instabilities) to sustainability time scales (balancing societal, economic and environmental considerations
across generations). Short-to-long term, international scientific cooperation is a vital bridge for dialogues
among allies and adversaries alike inclusively, ultimately to enable the stability and peace of our world
based on our common interest to survive.
As stated with Webinar 1, the Arctic will be applied as a global case study, considering climate andplanetary challenges to balance national interests and common interests, promoting cooperation andpreventing conflict for the sustainable development of our globally-interconnected civilization. The Arctic
also is a harbinger of great danger, where “burning security issues” noted by Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev in his 1987 Murmansk speech still remain as does the enduring hope for the North Pole as “apole of peace.”
This 1987 Gorbachev speech also introduced the concept of an “Arctic Research Council”, building on theexample of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research that preceded the 1959 Antarctic Treaty,
where the United States and Soviet Union along with ten other nations agreed to consult continuously on“matters of common interests.” The “matters of common interest” that enabled the United States andSoviet Union to cooperate continuously throughout the Cold War in Antarctica as well as outer space –the umbrella that was larger than the national interests of the two superpower adversaries – simply was
matter of survival in the face of mutually assured destruction, which is why the Antarctic Treaty became
the first nuclear arms agreement.
The instabilities from Ukraine have propagated prominently into the Arctic, challenging the dynamics ofthe eight Arctic states, who established the Arctic Council in 1996 along with the six Indigenous Peoples’
Organizations to address “common Arctic issues” of sustainable development and environmental
protection. 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.” More closely coupled to our webinar today is the IASC Statement on Ukraine from 7
March 2022, noting the International Arctic Science Committee “will evaluate the situation at its next
meeting at the end of March during the Arctic Science Summit Week 2022 in Tromsø, Norway” – with deep
respect for the leadership of Prof. Larry Hinzman as President of IASC and with sincere appreciation forhis contributions to today’s dialogue.
As noted in the International Science Council Statement on Ukraine from 28 February 2022: “Science has
proven to act as a platform for dialogue even in times of war.” Echoing the timeless guidance of US
President Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural speech: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear
to negotiate.”
Science is a critical tool of diplomacy because of its contribution to common-interest building as anecessary complement to conflict resolution. The freedom of Ukraine to speak as a nation demands
44

listening and hearing the voices, loud and soft, from wherever they come. This is our common
responsibility at local to global levels now and forever – facilitating dialogues with inclusion and respect
for the diversity of perspectives – ultimately to destroy the tyranny of systemic exclusion, condemningviolence in any form.
We are both observers and participants in the holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive)process of informed decisionmaking with research that involves data to answer questions and actions thatinvolve evidence for decisions by institutions that produce governance mechanisms and built
infrastructure as well as their coupling for sustainable development.
Enhancing international scientific cooperation involves contributions across the data-evidence interface
with research and action to produce informed decisions – not good decisions or bad decisions; rightdecisions or wrong decisions; but decisions that optimize the available information to operate short-tolong term.
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 audiencein the chat for consideration toward the end of the panel.
After the first hour we will break into pre-assigned sessions where you will have the opportunity tointeract with the keynote presenters, who will further facilitate dialogues with your inclusive input about
addressing the framing questions for this Webinar. Considering the focus on enhancing international
scientific cooperation, in view of the core elements of inclusion, respect and trust, this Webinar is designed
to consider:
How can science transform data into evidence for informed decisionmaking?
 How are the decisions and priorities to be addressed?
 Who are the decisionmakers?
 What evidence is needed and how is that evidence defined?
To reflect on these questions, it is an honour as well as pleasure to briefly introduce the three keynote
presenters for today: Dr. Volker Rachold – Head of the German Arctic Office, Germany; Co-Host of the 2nd Arctic Science
Ministerial; Former Executive Director of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).
 Prof. Anne Husebekk – Professor and Former Rector, UiT | The Arctic University of Norway; VicePresident for Freedom and Responsibility in Science, International Science Council.
 Prof. Larry Hinzman – Executive Director, Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC);
Assistant Director for Polar Sciences, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive
Office of the President, The White House; President, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).
45

This plenary session will be recorded and placed on the UNITAR platform, but the following 45-minutebreakout sessions will be unrecorded. There will be a health break after the breakout sessions, before thefinal plenary reporting. With appreciation for the scholar-rapporteurs, reporting from this webinar will
be further distilled into a Science Diplomacy Action publication (as previously), capturing insights from thewebinar series to help enhance international scientific cooperation in the Arctic with global lessons toboth promote cooperation and prevent conflict as the umbrella goal.
Dr. Volker Rachold – 09:33
Thank you very much, Paul, and welcome, everyone. Good morning or whatever time zone you're in. WhenI started thinking about this webinar and what I was supposed to say, the situation was a bit different than
it is today. And of course, it also has influence of what I'm going to say. Paul mentioned the various
statements that appeared in response to the war in Ukraine in the last days. This has major impacts on
international cooperation in the Arctic. We cannot ignore that. I think that's important that we cannot.
Of course, I want to start with the Arctic Council, which in my view, is, of course, the main forum for theArctic. It's very effective. It's successful in terms of providing the advice that people need for the Arctic todecisionmakers. But as you saw, the statement says that the Arctic Council decided to pause all these
activities, and that also relates to the working groups of the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council is currently
in a hold mode and is not doing any activities. Of course, this has some impacts on international
cooperation in the Arctic. I think what made the Arctic Council strong over the last 25 years are particularscientific assessments. The assessments are the main instrument that the Council has to get science into
policy advice. And I think if you take, for example, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which was reallythe first big one, I think it changed people's mind on what the Arctic is.
And that continued with various agreements, various assessments that the Arctic Council working groups
did and that were then translated to the ministers. I think it is a very efficient and very effective form ofproviding advice to policymakers. The other thing I think that the Arctic Council did was also very successful
is that they used the forum also to get the Arctic States together to negotiate legally binding agreements.
What the Arctic Council does is not really legally binding. It's more like advice or recommendations for themember countries. But these agreements that were developed under the auspices of the Arctic Council,
they are legally binding. So we can take the oil assessment, the oil school assessment, we can take thesearch and rescue assessment, the agreement, the agreement for scientific cooperation. All legally binding
agreements which are really actually the outcome of the work of the Arctic Council. And then of course
the Arctic Council is also very strong in terms of getting the Indigenous peoples on board. And I think that's
a unique setting in the Arctic Council that the Indigenous Peoples are participating in the activities, andthey have a say on what the Council does. They are asked. Furthermore, also the observer countries are
participating in the council's activities and providing their science and helping to get really the advice tothe right people.
So that's about the Arctic Council, of course, the Arctic Council, that's nothing that should be mentioned.
The Arctic Council does not talk about security issues and does not talk about resources. The Arctic Council
focuses on the environment of the Arctic and the Arctic Council focuses on sustainable development. And
I think that is what made it successful. And now of course, it's very sad that exactly those kinds of things
are affecting the Arctic and that the Arctic Council cannot continue its work simply because one member
country decided to get into war with another country. So that's about the Arctic Council.
46

The other thing I want to mention, of course, is the International Arctic Science Committee. I will not talkabout this too much because there are incidents also here. It is the role in defining scientific priorities thatmust be highlighted. I think it is the organization that helps to really identify what are the big questions inscience and it has been very effective and very successful on that with this international conference on Arctic
research planning. I'm honored to participate in two of them. I know they are working on the fourth one.
I think that's an extremely important element. Of course, this is connected to the Arctic Council. The active
climate impact assessment was a joint venture of the Arctic Council which was actually initiated by IASC.
The thing that most people don't know, it came from IASC and was then taken to the Arctic Council. The
third thing on that high international level that I want to mention is of course, the process of the Arctic
Science Ministerial started in the US in 2016 with the Washington Ministerial. And then I had the honor
and the pleasure together with Jenny Baseman to help coordinating the second one in Berlin. And thenthere was a third one held in Iceland, Iceland with Japan last year, and there was supposed to be a fourthone, and also for this fourth one, which was supposed to be jointly organized by Russia and by France, we
see that this is not going to work, at least in the timeline that was supposed to be organized. Also, here we
see that scientific cooperation in the Arctic, of course, is really substantially affected by the politicalsituation in the world, but the war in Ukraine. These are all the high-level things.
But I think we must go a bit deeper. If we talk about providing advice on policymakers, we must go a bit
deeper and also look into regional things. One thing that we have been working a lot on is the European
level. So how do we provide advice on the European level? We have instruments for that. We have
European funded projects like Europe PolarNet. 55 We have the European Polar Board 56 and othermechanisms for doing that. So that's one level, just an example of, let's say there's regional format. And
then the other one that I want to mention is the more local level. And we are also working, of course, with,for example, the Arctic mayors in terms of providing our advice or science to those kind of decisionmakers,
which are more, say lower level. Overall I think there are two things that we must keep in mind when we
translate science into policy advice or how do we transfer our science to policymakers. I think the firstthing is everything that we do need to have some dialogue.
If we don't know what the questions policymakers have, we cannot answer them. So, we need to havethat dialogue in order to be able to provide the advice that's needed. That's one central point. And thenthe second point, I think, is that we need to somehow translate our science in a way that is understandable
for decisionmakers, and that's very important if we just do our science and write a scientific paper thatwill not be understandable for a policymaker. And that is a very important process. And I think the Arctic
Council has been very good at that, because all the assessments that the Arctic Council produces, they all
have a scientific component, which is normally a book or a publication. They also have the layman version,
which is understandable for everyone. And then they have a very important document, which is theirsummary for policymakers. And that document really translates the science into an understandable
version for policymakers, including recommendations. I think these are the two main points, the two
overarching points that I put forward in terms of how do we communicate science to policymakers.

55
56

EU-PolarNet (https://eu-polarnet.eu/).
European Polar Board (https://www.europeanpolarboard.org/).

47

So, yeah, and with that I would like to end, and I guess that Larry will continue a bit more on IASC andAnne will also have something to say. I get. So, thank you very much and I'm looking forward to thediscussion and to the breakout session and to discuss this with you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 17:26
Thank you very much, Volker, for your thoughtful insights and passionate comments. I now have thepleasure and honor to introduce to you Professor Anne Husebekk. Anne. Please.
Prof. Anne Husebekk – 17:38
Thank you, Paul. Thank you for the nice introduction and thank you for inviting me to give a speech in thiswebinar. I think also I must start with Ukraine because that is in our mind all the time. And we could ask
ourselves and, maybe discuss in the breakout session, whether the war in Ukraine is in favor of science
diplomacy or not.
Also without an operating Arctic Council, I think we are so much worse off. I think that the Arctic Council
was sort of a guarantee that we could collaborate in the Arctic area around very important questions, forinstance the climate question. Without Russia participating in this research, I think we lose a lot of input,
discussions and also data that could provide a more accurate picture of the situation in the north. So,
these are very unfortunate things that have happened.
I would say that there is a ban on collaboration with Russia from almost every country in the world. And
that affects the politicians. But it also affects scientists that has condemned the war and young people
who we wanted to have discussions about Arctic questions. So exchange of students for instance, andcollaboration within the framework of University of the Arctic, in which I am also board member, is now
put back to a minimum. And it's very unfortunate. So, about the questions that are asked in this webinar.
How are the decisions on what priorities are to be best made? So I want to leave Ukraine and ask a moregeneral question.
Even in most democracies, politicians are elected for a four-year period. Many of the questions that we
think are important and which are important now have a much longer timeline. And many of the decisions
that politicians have to make are not necessarily very popular among the public that should eventuallyreelect the politicians. In that case, I think it's hard to see that the right decisions are made even in very
developed democracies. And I think that the SDGs made by the UN are an attempt to make a global
approach to really overarching questions that need to be addressed and hopefully we will succeed with the2030 agenda by the UN. But we cannot take that for granted. I think it is a very hard work to reach thegoals. And when we have setbacks, as we have right now, I think the chances of reaching these goals areless than we would like to see.
Who are the decisionmakers? I would claim that the decisionmakers are politicians. And I think thatpoliticians are normal people with some education, more education, and some have the ability tounderstand scientific questions and answers very well. Others have not. And also, the political parties are madeon or they are created by ideologies that may set scientific questions aside because the ideology is stronger.
I will give an example of how politicians can struggle. In Norway, for instance, the national budget is basedon the fossil fuels that are exploited in Norway and sold to other countries. And there is a big opposition to
what's been done today in order to stop exploiting fossil fuels. Knowing that one fifth of the national budget48

is based on income from fossil fuels. It is of course a challenge for the politicians to stop this exploitation
because it will affect the welfare, it will affect all kinds of things in the Norwegian society, and the politicians
will probably not be reelected.
Also, I can give another example related to the IPCC 57 reports it's made by scientists. The scientists say that
there is a 99.5% or even more percent probability that this information is correct based on all available
scientific knowledge. But even if there is a slight amount of uncertainty, I think many people will use that
uncertainty to say we cannot trust scientists; we see other solutions; we see other problems that is notaddressed by the scientists. So what evidence is needed and how is that evidence defined? I think and by
the examples I’ve made that politicians often base their ideas on other basis compared to scientists. It
may also be very difficult to understand a scientist’s approach. Also, some of the problems or challenges
we are facing are not addressed by one scientist in one discipline. It is a transdisciplinary societal
challenges that have to be approached. By just listening to one scientist’s approach is probably not thesolution to a problem.
I think that we, as scientists, must approach the public and politicians in a nice way so that we can give ourmessage in an understandable way and communicate the complexity by putting different disciplines
together to advise politicians. I think that we need communication skills. We need to discuss with eachother how to approach politicians on serious matters. And by doing this the right way, I think that we can
influence political decisions in a knowledge-based manner. But it takes some effort from our side. And I
think that the field of science diplomacy is addressed more than ever. And the International Science
Council 58 has now gathered a group of people being experts in science advice to try to approach thedifficult problems related to the war in Ukraine, but also other international questions. I think I’ll stop there
as an introduction. Paul. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 25:45
Thank you very much, Anne, for your helpful and insightful observations to stimulate the discussion.
Professor Larry Hinzman, it's an honor and a pleasure to have you participate in this webinar. I provide
the floor to you please, Larry.
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 26:03
Thanks, Paul. And it's wonderful to be a part of this. Thank you very much for this invitation. It's wonderful
to see so many of my old friends and colleagues and so many new faces. It's a real pleasure to be here. In
contrast to my previous colleagues. I'm going to end with Ukraine. I'm going to go back a little bit in history
and talk about how science does play a really important role in affecting diplomacy.
I guess first, I must say so. I am the assistant director for Polar Sciences at The White House Office of
Science Technology Policy, 59 and I'm also the Executive Director of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy
Committee. 60 And I need to say that because I have to note to acknowledge that I am not speaking for The
White House on this point. I will talk a little bit about the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee,
but not with respect to current world affairs.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (https://www.ipcc.ch/).
International Science Council (https://council.science/).
59
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/).
60
Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC). (https://www.iarpccollaborations.org/index.html).
57
58

49

I want to note that just going back, Volker and I will know very well how important Sciences played a rolein melting the Cold War. The first International Conference on Permafrost was held in Yakutsk, Russia 1973
and Volker and I have since and have since each hosted permafrost conferences on our own following that.
But it was those first meetings, those early scientific meetings that really opened the doors for scientificcollaboration cooperation. And from that following that policy relation relationships opened up. And so, thesame is true for other relationships with China and other nations around the world. I think we can't
underestimate the importance the value of maintaining these relationships and these partnerships.
I was also the director of the International Arctic Research Center, 61 which the purpose was to foster andpromote collaborations across the Pan-Arctic. And through that, I worked very closely with the Arctic
Challenge for Sustainability. And it's a pleasure for me to note all my colleagues, Drs. Fukasawa Masao andYuji Kodama on this call today, and that I think that those partnerships that we shared as far as studying theArctic, sharing data, sharing understanding, sharing resources, working together to advance thosecollaborations – that improved the strength of both of our nations. It improved our capability forunderstanding weather dynamics, for navigation, and just so many different aspects that carried on
helping our nations become stronger, but also helping the global environment maintain the peacefulnature that we had and we saw in the Arctic for so many years.
That understanding from those collaborations and research that reduced, that improved understanding,that reduced risk, that eliminated some hazards that our nations, our communities, our industry faced.
When we can reduce risk, we can improve business opportunities, industry, and it improves the economics
of all nations. Again, science led the way to do that. It is very important.
Another point that I want to note for my time at IARC, because when I worked with Jenny Baseman toestablish and she led the establishment of APECS, the Association of Early Polar Career Researchers,
Scientists, excuse me. And that is the program, the effort that gives me the most hope for our future.
Seeing these young researchers and the capability and the enthusiasm and the tools they bring to ourscientific world just opens the doors for great opportunities in the future. And in these dark times, it givesme the most hope for where we are going. I will forever be in debt to Jenny and the early career researchers
as far as where they will take us into the future.
I also want to come back to a comment that Volker made with respect to the Arctic Science Ministerial
and ICARP, the International Conference on Arctic Research Planning. Those have been very successful
efforts in uniting the world's researchers, at least Arctic researchers, and looking at what needs to be
done. And again, when we can focus our attentions and on challenges that are of international nature that
we can make great advancements on when we work together, again when we share our understanding,when we share our data, when we share our resources, when we share a common focus, we can makegreat achievements.
And, I think looking back, we are planning now the fourth International Conference on Arctic Research
Planning. But if we look back at the first, which was in 1995 and the second which was in 2005, and thethird, which was hosted in Toyama in 2015, by Dr. Enomoto was one of the leads on that. When we lookback at those programs and what has been accomplished, we have to take the long view. We have to lookback 10, 20, 30 years to see what those priorities were, what was accomplished, and how it changed the61

International Arctic Research Center (https://uaf-iarc.org/).

50

world. And looking back a year or two, you can't see that when we take a long view, we really do see wecan acknowledge the importance of science in advancing our nation's policies and making the world abetter place.
Finally, I do need to come back to Ukraine. I want to acknowledge and thank my friend Michael Lucia from
Poland. He's helped clarify my own thinking on this. This has been a very difficult time for all of us. As the
President of IASC, tThis has been a very difficult time for us. We do have the Arctic Science Summit Week 62
coming up in a couple of weeks in Tromsø. I look forward to seeing Paul there.
And it's a very difficult time for us because IASC has been the home for 23 member nations, including Russia,
and we've had strong, the purpose, again was to foster international collaborations. We've done so muchgood work over the past 30 years. It is very difficult for us now to lose our collaborations with Russia. I mustalso thank again, Volker helped us develop this statement that was issued by IASC a few weeks ago or I'm
sorry, just yesterday. And we are moving forward to look at the harsh actions that must be taken by theinternational Arctic research community and what we can do to help end this conflict in Ukraine.
It's so difficult for all of us. It's been very difficult for me as one who spent all my life essentially developing
these collaborations and string these partnerships to put up these walls and end it. But at the same time,
we do feel great sympathy for the people in Ukraine. And the world must stand United to stop theseharsh events. It is a difficult time for us. The host of the Arctic Science Summit Week in Norway have issued
a statement that the scientists from, the scientists and researchers, policymakers from Russia, frominstitutions within Russia will not be invited to participate, will not be allowed to participate either inperson or online. This is a very hard line for us. But unfortunately, it's a line that we had to draw on, a line
we have to stand behind. And so, with that, I will thank you and look forward to the discussion.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 34:42
Thank you very much, Larry, for your leadership in these difficult times and for your helpful comments. I'dlike to ask a question in response to one of the points that you raised, Larry, that has to do with the
Association for Polar Early Career Scientists and our responsibility collectively to empower and champion
the leadership of the next generation. What type of messages should we be giving to the next generationin terms of operating short-term to long-term in a hopeful manner, recognizing that we are struggling
seriously with problems that are of a global nature now? But what kind of message should we be giving
to the next generation leaders: To empower them rather than to incapacitate them with the gloom andthe doom? And so I asked that to each of you, Larry, Volker and Anne.
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 35:49
I will jump in really quickly with a brief response in that that's been the most fulfilling and rewarding partof my life is to work with the young researchers and to see how they can take the accomplishments of thepast, build upon the knowledge that we have, and really leap forward with that to resolve many of thesechallenges. Right now, this political situation is awful. The pandemic is terrible. But we also face this issueof climate change. And the challenges before us are beyond our capabilities that we're going to resolveby driving electric cars or using paper instead of plastic bags. We have to have some huge technologicaland scientific and policy advances. And, on I one hand worry, but I'm also grateful for our young people,
because I know that they can and will resolve these challenges. There are technological advances that we
62

Arctic Science Summit Week (https://www.assw.info/).

51

must, and we will make to resolve this and to preserve the world we have. But unfortunately, that
responsibility is going to fall to our next generation of researchers. Because I'm afraid that our generation
has not done such a great job resolving those issues. And I'll pass it to Anne and Volker.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 37:10
Please Anne or Volker
Prof. Anne Husebekk – 37:12
Well, I can maybe follow up. I did say something about young people. I think they are the future. We haveto invest in young people. We have to invest in young people in the circumpolar area as well as the restof the world. And as it is now, it is much harder in the Arctic area because there is sanctions that we haveto follow up. But I do not think that it is young people's will to have a war in Ukraine. And I think we haveto as soon as possible, when the actual situation probably is solved, and go back and resume of a programsfor young researchers and students in the Arctic area, including what is being done with Indigenous
peoples. I believe they are capable of looking into the future, trying to solve the most pressing problems.
And I fully agree with Larry that we do not leave the Earth in a good state. There is a lot to do for those
who are following in our steps. But I think we still have to prepare the best we can, a society that will be
resilient also in the future together with young people. So hopefully we can resume the work in UArctic
and with young Arctic researchers as soon as possible, also with Russia as a participant.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 38:48
Thank you, Anne. Volker, please.
Dr. Volker Rachold – 38:56
Yeah, I can only support what Larry and Anne said. I remember when APECS was starting, or APECS wasformed. When I met Jenny for the first time, it was within the IPY, International Polar Year, and I think it
was 2006 or seven or something like that. When we met Jenny, we met in Hanover, New Hampshire, I
think for the first time at the Arctic Science Summit Week. And then Jenny and a few other smart people
started to design APECS. Of course, they came to us and we supported them and helped them. And when I
look back and see what these people are, some of these people are doing now, it's interesting to observethat Jenny has been the Executive Director of SCAR 63 for a couple of years. My successors in IASC; the first
was Allen Pope. He was the President of APECS for some time. Now it is Gerlis Fugmann. She was theexecutive director of APECS for quite some time. She's now the direct director of IASC. I think it really pays
off that we changed things and made the young generation more responsible and gave them more
visibility and more responsibility.
The other example that I would like to mention is, of course, the IASC fellowship program that we started
in I think 2014 for the first time. Also, I did an Arctic Science Summit Week and these fellows that we
supported through IASC. And now there are more additional programs that were kind of modeled on the
IASC fellowship program. And I very much enjoyed working with these people. They are all dynamic andenthusiastic people, I think, who can really change things. I think this is a very successful thing. And I thinkit started within the International Polar Year. Before it was different, before it was just the old people
having to say what happens. But, now I think it has changed, and that's important.

63

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). (https://www.scar.org/).

52

Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 40:48
Thank you, Volker. I hadn't anticipated inviting Jenny to ask questions or comments, but Jenny, your nameis invoked with appreciation, and I would like to provide an opportunity for you to either address questions
or ask questions.
Dr. Jenny Baeseman – 41:05
Thanks, Paul, and thank you all for such wonderful comments. And it brings up great memories to think
about the building of APECS. And there were some struggles along the way to try and get people's minds
to change and to realize that young people did have a place and could have a voice, and that our well, I'm
not young anymore, but what we had to say or what young people had to say could be important. And I
can't help but thinking in these times of uncertainty and how really crucial of a role APECS could play,
particularly because it's an organization made up of members and not countries. And I think there's a real
strength in that, and I hope that the APECS leadership takes advantage of that and thinks long term
through some of these things. But I also want to make sure that it's clear that the three of you and Paulas well, you guys were instrumental in helping us make sure that we had a voice and that you helped usnavigate the political waters to do something really good. And I want to make sure that you get the definite
recognition for helping us to do that as well. I just really think it's great to see how things are changing andopening these wonderful opportunities for young people and just have been really glad to be part of it.
Thanks, Paul.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 42:32
Thank you. Jenny. Volker, you just mentioned the context of the IPY. I understand that there is planning
for another International Polar Year in 2032, and if we begin to think short-to-long term, that's a decade
into the future, how do we imagine the circumstances today where doors are being shut, isolation ishappening, Russia is being excluded from programs like the Arctic Science Summit Week. How do we
imagine moving to develop next International Polar Year in 2032?
Dr. Volker Rachold – 43:14
Maybe we should go back to history and see what the IPY originally was. The first IPY, I think, was the firstcoordinative effort to do polar research, extremely successful. And then the one, the International
Geophysical Year 1957-58, there was more on the Antarctic. It was a huge international Antarctic program,and it was in the 50s, where really during difficult political times, and still there was scientific cooperation.
And I mean, the outcome of that International Geophysical Year 64 was at the end, the Antarctic Treaty
System and also SCAR was formed as an outcome of this International Polar Year. The last one in 20072008, was a bit different because it was during very positive times, I would say. I'm not involved in thenext one. Because I will be retired at the time, I guess, I hope. So, but of course, I would hope that people
who oversee organizing it, they think about that, and they also think about the history of the International
Polar Year and what it can do. So, of course, it's a chance ten years, something like that, Larry, you know
more about it. But yeah, I would hope that it's a way to get people again on the same table and to continue
the 25 years of fruitful cooperation that we had in the Arctic until just two weeks ago.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 44:52
Very good.
International Geophysical Year, 1957-1958. (https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/internationalgeophysical-year-igy).
64

53

Prof. Larry Hinzman – 44:54
I've been working as the President of the University Arctic, Lars Kulerud, and with Andrey Petrov former
President of the International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA). We have been trying to promote
the initiation of the International Polar Year in 2032-2033. And we've been working with SCAR, which is
the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Because we can't have an International Polar Year without
the Antarctic research community. That is ten years away. But it is time to start thinking about this.
Because it takes ten years to really develop international programs. We get the international collaboration.
We get the funding agencies to develop new money to support these programs.
And I also think it's very appropriate to have it only 25 years after the fourth International Polar Year. In
that, at this point, many of the young researchers that we talked about in APECS, they will still be active
researchers in 2032. They will be the ones who can reoccupy the previous research sites who can repeat
the cruise tracks from the oceanographic expeditions. And revisit these studies that were conducted. Sothat we do understanding how our polar regions are changing. We can really characterize that and quantify
it well. So, we can develop the projections of where we're going. This really does need to be done in 2032.
With respect to Russian participation. It's my most fervent hope that this does not evolve into another
Cold War. That we don't enter those dark periods of isolation. I'm hoping. I'm just praying that this conflictends soon. And we can welcome back Russian researchers. Who have done so much for Arctic researchover the years. Welcome back into this international fold of collaborators. I do think we need to take ahard line now. But at the same time, we need to be optimistic and hopeful that international collaborations
and partnerships do continue again for the benefit of all our nations. I'll stop there. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 47:23
Thank you, Larry. Anne, did you have comments? Please.
Prof. Anne Husebekk – 47:26
Please just to say that I think the International Polar Year is in one year. But the process ahead of this year
is what is important. It seems a long way to go in 2032, but I think that the process that will go on until
this year arrives is very important. And it is, of course, not a possibility just to stop the Arctic research andwait for this International Polar Year. We need to do whatever we can to understand what's happening
and prevent climate change that are to make the situation bad for all of us, both in the south and the north.
So it is sort of a goal to look forward to the International Polar Year and then we have to do as much as
we can in the meantime to make the situation as good as possible. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 48:26
Thank you very much, Anne, for the audience. If you have questions, please put them in the chat. I will
endeavor to ask them in the remaining ten minutes. Larry, Volker, and Anne, the response from the seven
Arctic States without Russia regarding the Arctic Council talked about new modalities during this period.
What do you imagine those new modalities might look like to continue the operation of the science in the
Arctic going forward?
Prof. Anne Husebekk – 49:07
Well, I can start, the new modalities have to do research and approached without having Russia as active
participants, which is, of course, doable, but will not be a good solution. We can't stop collaborating theother seven countries in the meantime until we hopefully have Russia on board again in good shape. I
54think that this is an option that needs to be discussed, and we think that that is a new modality. I don't
know, but I think so.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 49:50
Thank you, Anne. Larry or Volker, please.
Dr. Volker Rachold – 49:52
I can say something. I think it is a bit more because the Arctic Council operates on consensus, and that's,of course, an issue. If one country is not there, you cannot reach the consensus. It is not possible for the,let's say, the remaining seven Arctic countries who just continue the Arctic Council and excluding Russia,
that will not work. I think that's what they mean with new modalities, that there must be anotherarrangement in order to continue the work of the Council. And I think that's what they must work on. I
mean, I don't think that anyone was surprised by the statement of the Arctic Council. At least I was not
surprised. It was to be expected, I think. But the way how they will continue the work of the Council,
especially at the moment since Russia has the Chairmanship, which makes it even more difficult. I don't
know. I don't think that people know this now. I think this requires some discussion.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 50:49
Larry, please.
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 50:51
I very much appreciate the comments from Anne and Volker. IASC, the International Arctic Science
Committee, is struggling with the same issues and how we will move forward, and we are fortunate tohave wonderful Council members and a wonderful Executive Committee. I need to acknowledge that Dr.
Enomoto from NIPR 65 is also one of our vice presidents and has been very helpful in trying to resolve thisas far as how we will move forward in a nature of international collaborations. And we're struggling withthis at this point. And unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for you, Paul. And I don't foresee a really
positive solution in the short term. I think the only thing we can say is that it is something we need to wehave the best intentions of working through and continuing our international collaborations. But exactly
how we will do this into the future is really a challenge for us at this point.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 52:00
Are there questions from the audience? Any questions will be welcome, particularly in the context of thiswebinar, which seeks to address informed decisionmaking, which operates across a ‘continuum of
urgencies’, short-term to long-term. The objective is not just thinking about the moment and the
responses now, but how to translate actions and research from the moment across time. Certainly, acomponent of this discussion was introduced in thinking about next-generation leaders. But are there
other elements of informed decisionmaking where we as a community of researchers can contribute to aprocess, not necessarily the answers, but the process of framing questions that bring together dialogues
among allies and adversaries to operate with continuity, peace, and stability going forward?
That is the intention of the Webinar series itself, to think about how science contributes to that type ofstability short-to-long term and brought specifically forward today and thinking about informed decisions.
Volker and Larry, do you have any observations based on what we've talked about? You're thinking about
65

National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR). (https://www.nipr.ac.jp/english/).

55

your activities. How given the circumstances, we operate with continuity from the present and the future,even with bumps in the road and wiggles and variability in terms of responses and dynamics. How do wecreate the continuity from the present into the future, recognizing we have challenges to address along
the way?
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 53:45
So maybe I'll respond first. I guess I'd like to come back and acknowledge something that Volker mentioned
really touched home on that the fellowship that IASC sponsored, as far as giving young people theopportunity to take a leadership role and to promote their ideas, moving forward, I think has been really
important. The other thing I think has been important, and I think looking back on the last 30 years that I
can see has been super effective is by sharing our expertise in that I think some of the most productive
researchers that we've had, those who have had the best impact, the biggest impact, have been those
who have worked across international lines. So, I know from all the collaborations that we've had withJapan over the years that the greatest productivity has been from those who have spent time in othernations when we have sent researchers to work in Japan or any other nation. What a great benefit it has
been to our nation as far as the tools, the techniques, the insights, the partnerships that they picked up
over the years and how that has benefited all our nations.
And so I would really strongly continue to encourage that sharing of information and that development of
those internships, those partnerships, those fellowships where we can share people. I think that's ourgreatest strength and allowing these individuals to develop those capabilities in other laboratories andthen bring that information home, or stay there and continue the collaborations that they have from theirhome nation. It's just a tremendous benefit to everyone and I think that's something we should reallycontinue to promote and foster in these coming years.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 55:44
Thank you, Larry. Anne or Volker, please.
Prof. Anne Husebekk – 55:48
I can continue I agree with Larry I think that science by itself is international, and science should be for the
global public good. So, in its nature it is to collaborate and to make progress together and today it's not
only a disciplinary progress. It is also combining different disciplines in interdisciplinary research and also
what's coming out of the transdisciplinary approach in research combined with collaboration with, forinstance, industry and so on. So, I think the time is not there anymore where you can sit in your laboratoryand doing the experiments that you think you should do without looking to the rest of the world and trying
to put your research into a global context. I think that young scientists today see this as something thatthey would like to participate in and see the beauty of this collaboration, which now is somewhat
destroyed, but hopefully it will be up and going soon again.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 57:22
Anne, thank you for this.
Dr. Volker Rachold – 57:24
Maybe in that context one thing that I always feel is somehow going wrong because the criteria for ascientist to be successful is still scientific papers. I mean, if I'm going into a scientific career and if I apply
for professorship, of course they only want to see peer-reviewed papers. So, there's nobody asking what56

did you do in terms of policy advice? What did you do in terms of communicating? And that's really aproblem. I mean for a young PhD or a postdoc. Of course, I get responses when I ask them can you help
with this? I don't have time. I must write a paper. So, nobody is giving me any credits for doing this kindof work. It's not part of my job. And I think there's something wrong in the system that we must think
about, that this kind of work needs to be somehow honored and somehow reflected. If you do something
like that, that this is the criteria for you also to be promoted in your career. I'm in a good position that I'm
only doing that. So, I'm beyond that already. So, I'm only getting paid for doing this kind of work. But foryoung scientists, it is difficult. And I think I hear that very often.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 58:31
It was very much along those lines. That sentiment, Volker, that the context of today's discussion emergedin the sense of bridging the data-to-evidence interface, recognizing that data is a component of research,and evidence for decisions involves actions with decisionmakers, and bridging that across that dataevidence interface was an intention of the discussion. So, I appreciate your highlighting that in the closing
remarks here. I have one question that has emerged in the chat.
It's sort of a specific question. I'll see if I can make it a more general. What is the success of joint
environmental research activities and scientific dialogues as confidence building measures? So how do
we, in a sense, take these dialogues, these research activities, as confidence-building measures?
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 59:34
Maybe I'll jump out with just talking about the recent MOSAiC expedition, which was very much atremendous ordeal. It was really led by the German government, but it was an international partnershipwhich strongly included the Russian government and China and Japan and just many other nations with
the interest in Arctic research. And it produced really important outcomes. So, it was an expedition where
the ship was frozen from the ice. But the studies that were able to be done extended far beyond anything
we've ever done before, as far as looking at the atmospheric processes, the influence of solar influences,
but also looking at the subsurface, the subsea dynamics of not just the major ocean currents, but also thesubtle eddies and what role they play in transferring heat. So really important results come out of thatstudy. It was a tremendous international collaboration as follows, involving so many ice breakers from somany countries and just the contributions of scientists from around the world playing a huge role.
The success that came out of that gives us great hope to look forward into other major international
collaborations that could do something very similar. So right now, there is international cooperation on a
program called T-MOSAiC, 66 which is terrestrial MOSAiC, looking at the same thing to try and make similar
progress in a different regime. Again, tremendous international interdisciplinary activities. And there's
also further plans on the horizon to think about something similar conducted in the Southern Hemisphere,around the Southern Ocean. I think it is those successes where success begets success, thoseachievements that give us great hope and great confidence that we can take this further. We can do more
if we work together. I'll stop there. Thanks.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:01:51
Thank you very much, Larry, for comments that are hopeful. Volker or Anne, please.
Terrestrial Multidisciplinary distributed Observatories for the Study of Arctic Connections (T-MOSAiC). (https://www.tmosaic.com/).
66

57

Prof. Anne Husebekk – 01:01:56
I think another example is the IPCC reports. I mean, it's so many researchers, so many scientists who aresort of forced in a good way to collaborate. And what comes out of it is meta-analysis. That is important.
And I think it makes impression also on public and politicians. But it is, of course, hard to take the steps
forward to avoid further damage to happen. But I think among the public, these reports are really discussed
and reported on discussed in the news. I think this is maybe the greatest effort ever to put scientificknowledge together in order to influence public and politicians. And, then you also have a summary forpoliticians, a summary for the public. You don't have to read those thousands of pages in order to knowwhat this is about. So, I think it is hope that it takes courage. It takes international collaboration, and it takes
a lot of money to have these things going on, but we can't afford not to do it.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:03:18
Thank you very much. Anne. Volker, do you have observation, please?
Dr. Volker Rachold – 01:03:22
Yeah, just a very short comment. I think the very best example is the Arctic Council itself. Because, I mean,
the Arctic Council started as an environmental protection strategy and then later became the Arctic Council.
So, in terms of the question, what is the most successful thing? I think you can just name the Arctic Council
because that's how it started from the common interests of the eight Arctic countries to protect the Arctic
and to have an Environmental Protection Strategy, 67 and that later became the Arctic Council. So, I think
it's a fantastic model.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:03:54
Excellent. I very much appreciate everybody's, Larry, Volker, Anne’s thoughtful comments throughout
this discussion and hope for the next-generation leaders listening that what they see is an approach of
everyone struggling in spirit of humanity to try and improve the research circumstances, recognizing wehave ongoing challenges to address. With that, I would like to take this opportunity to personally thankyou, Larry, Anne, Volker, for taking your time and participating in this opening plenary and now invite you
to facilitate breakout sessions for the next 45 minutes. Michelle and Reim, if you could transfer us into thevarious breakout sessions, and then after that, there will be a ten-minute break in preparing for the final
plenary. So again, thank you, Larry, Volker, and Anne, for your important and hopeful observations.
Final question to address before we go into the breakout sessions. I would like to ask how difficult it is, inyour opinion, to reach common people when promoting informed decisionmaking about major issues,particularly because most of the time people are not involved in science find it difficult to interpretscientific data? That's a question of communication and I would say it's a question of how do we as acommunity build common interests across the board with each other cross boundaries of nations, acrossboundaries of disciplines, across boundaries of ages? How can we as a community be inclusive? So,question of reaching common people. I would say the challenge is one of common-interest building. But,
leave us if Volker, Anne, or Larry have additional feedback on this question, please.

Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, Rovaniemi, June 1991.
(http://library.arcticportal.org/1542/1/artic_environment.pdf).

67

58

Prof. Larry Hinzman – 01:06:01
I have a slightly different take on this. I think one of the things that we've done over the last 30- 50 years
is much of our science has been focused upon understanding of processes, particularly in the Arctic. We
studied permafrost, we study sea ice, we study ocean circulation. But most of that is not of interest to the
public. For the last year I've been working on developing the Arctic Research Plan for the United States 68
and we've changed that as far as our approach and we've taken these disciplinary studies to address thechallenges that you see in the newspaper every day, the front page of the newspaper taking on those issues
people. They're of course interested in climate change; they're interested in sea ice dynamics. But, what
they're really concerned about is food security and how they're going to make their mortgage payments.
And so, what we're trying to do is take all these scientific studies and pull it together to address these major
challenges and so we're taking on issues of economics, livelihoods, community resilience. But, all of thatmust be those resolutions to those challenges has to be based in the strong understanding and coherence of
science. So, we bring all these multidisciplinary sciences together to address these common, everyday
challenges. And I'll stop there.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:07:35
Thank you very much, Larry. Anna or Volker, do you have any additional observations?
Dr. Volker Rachold – 01:07:41
I think we mentioned a few things already. I think it's all about how to translate your science to make it
understandable and make it interesting. I brought the example of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 69
and I think that report was so welcome communicated that it also changed the public opinion on the arcticthat was a successful story. And then the other thing is, of course, especially young people in APECS. I
must mention APECS again. Of course, they use different formats of communicating science. There are
citizen science projects. There are, for example, permafrost cartoons and different things, interactive
websites, and very different and modern ways of communicating science. And I think that's the way toreach, let's say the person on the street and not only other scientists or policymakers. So, I think it verymuch depends on how you sell your science and communicate it.
Prof. Anne Husebekk – 01:08:32
I totally agree with what has already been said. But I think that schools and universities also need to beplaces where the students learn to understand and to translate things into what must be understood by
the public. And since so many people or young people go to schools for a long period of time and thenmost of them go to universities, I think it is a big challenge and something that must be approached also
among students as sort of generic 21st century skills to understand and to participate in the public
discussion around these main challenges.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:09:28
You've set the bar high for next generation in terms of a skill for them to develop and communicating withthe public. So, I thank you again, Larry, Anne, and Volker. Michelle and Reim, if you could place us in our
various breakout sessions and we will continue from that.

Arctic Research Plan 2022-2026, Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee.
(https://www.iarpccollaborations.org/plan/index.html#download-plan).
69
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (https://acia.amap.no/).
68

59

FIRST BREAKOUT-SUMMARY SESSION
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:09:45
Thank you very much, everybody. I hope there was a lot of fun in the breakout sessions. I would like toinvite Anne, Volker, and Larry to provide debrief synthesis of the breakout sessions, if that makes sense.
And, if it does make sense, perhaps we can start with you, Anne.
Prof. Anne Husebekk – 01:10:17
I don't know if we had fun, but we had very good discussions Paul. So it was good to have a smaller groupand we went into the questions and discussed both the communication of scientific messages to the public
and to the politicians, which is maybe hard but could be done. And maybe we should think into new sources
or communication channels like social media, which is not new anymore, but which could be used actively.
And we could use influencers that are trustworthy to give our message to those who make the decision.
It was also discussed how we should communicate in a way that is understood by layman and by those
who we would like to address. It has to be a simple message that can be understood also with those with
science literacy. We discussed also how decisions are made. Is it so that there is a straight line from thescientist to the decisionmaker? No, it is not. It's a lot of influence. It's an ecosystem of influence on theway and all from different organizations, those who promote fake news, those who will lobby their own
view into a decisionmaker. And even in a perfect democracy, we must look at what those influencers are
in order to know that the message we want the decisionmakers to take is still in a way that is based on
knowledge. I think that was what is left from the discussion.
The last question that I haven't addressed in this breakout session is the homework that everyone had to
do to discuss the paper that was provided as homework. So, this has not been done. If this can beapproached now, I'm more than willing to participate in that discussion, but maybe some of therapporteurs from the group can add something to my summary. That's fine with me. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:13:08
Thank you very much, Anne. Was it Teru and Jugo were in this section? I don't know whether Akiho wasin that session or not. Teru or Jugo, did you have additional comments?
Teruaki Fuji – 01:13:23
No, thank you very much. I don't have additional comments. But, we had a very fruitful discussion andgood leadership by Anne. Thank you very much.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:13:34
Excellent. Thank you very much, Anne, for facilitating the discussion. Absolutely. Volker, please.
Dr. Volker Rachold – 01:13:42
Yeah, thanks, Paul. So, we didn't specifically work along the questions that you provided, but had a justgeneral discussion, but I think we touched upon all of them, and I think we had a very interesting and lively
discussion. So, with many points and many questions and many comments. It's all on the Google Docs.
But I will try to make just a few key points that we talked about.

60

We started with a question, who are decisionmakers? Are scientists decisionmakers too? And we thought,
yes, they somehow are. But of course, it's very often practical issues that dictate the science. But what we
agreed is that the fundament of any communication is scientific getting facts. Without scientific getting
facts, it doesn't make any sense to communicate things. This is something that I think is the starting point
where we are.
And then we talked a bit about the role of media communicating science or not communicating, translating
science. And is there an influence that the media has on the public, on the person on the street? Can
science be politicized? And we think, yes, of course it can.
Then we talked about what is the role of the scientists. So, should scientists also be part of this political
discussion or is there a danger to becoming an activist? Are you still a good scientist if you are consideredan activist? So, it's quite dangerous. But, we in any case agree that it's responsibility of scientists to makecorrections in the context of science. If there's something wrong, of course we as scientists set to takeresponsibility to correct things and, particularly in the context of climate change.
Then we talked a bit more about decisionmakers. Decisionmakers in the Arctic, are they more
knowledgeable than those outside of the Arctic? We agreed that they're probably not. But on the other
hand, politicians are traveling to the Arctic to see what climate change means because there's no placeon the globe where you can see climate change more obviously than in the Arctic. So, from that point ofview the Arctic plays a very important role in terms of decisionmaking.
We had a little discussion on non-Arctic countries what non-Arctic countries view as important in termsof science in the Arctic. And of course, we agreed that one thing is changes that happen in the Arctic andaffect the rest of the world. For example, permafrost. Also, economic interests are an important issue for
non-Arctic countries. Things like shipping, tourism, exploitation of resources. That's something that nonArctic countries are also very interested in.
And then we discussed Indigenous and Western research. And, we agreed that you cannot distinguishbetween Indigenous research and Western research. But, what is important to notice that there is
Indigenous knowledge. And we normally as scientists would not use this as research, but it is still
extremely important to get this traditional knowledge. The correct term is Indigenous knowledge, to get
this knowledge into our science and to use it in terms of making advice or giving advice to policymakers.
Decisionmakers so that this Indigenous knowledge is considered. We talked a bit more about the role ofmedia and of course the media is important to make people aware of what's happening in the Arctic.
And then in the last part we talked a bit about priorities. Who defines priorities? And now we noted thatof course an important thing is to have a dialogue between scientists and policymakers. Otherwise, youwill not be able to identify the priorities that scientific decisionmakers have. We need that dialogue.
Scientists, of course, are responsible to answer questions to society and that requires that you know thequestions, of course. Then we talked a bit the last part here. Oh, yeah, we talked a bit about the humanelement. We talked about who do you talk to if you talk to policymakers? And I think we agreed that you
will never talk to a Minister. There are always hundreds of people supporting the Minister, writing the
speeches, preparing agreements, and then at the end, the Minister comes and just signs this agreement
or gives a speech.
61

So, it's important, if you want to have an influence, to find the right people to talk to, talk to those people
who prepare the ministers for a decision. In that context, we talked about training opportunities for young
scientists. We talked about the role of APECS because as a scientist, you are normally not trained to do
science communication and policy advice. And Jenny highlighted that there are, of course, a couple ofactivities that APECS has and others have to help people getting into that field and to better understandwhat it means to do science communication. So, I think that more or less was what we talked about. And
Jenny, or any other one of the groups, if you have anything to add, please do. Jenny, are you happy with that?
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 01:19:29
Thumbs up from Jenny.
Dr. Volker Rachold – 01:10:31
Okay, good. Head over to Larry.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:10:34
Okay, Larry, please. Thank you very much, Volker.
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 01:19:37
Thanks. I'll be brief in the time we have left, so I apologize upfront to anybody if I missed your comments.
So, we had a really good discussion, and I think it reflected many of the comments that Anne and Volker
just mentioned on too. So, we did talk about the importance of culture and educational exchanges with
the next generation as far as facilitating the next generation of researchers to work with communities andto advance the science and how important it is. We also talked about how important it is, again, forresearchers and scientists, but also policymakers to spend time in other cultures, other communities, sothat they have that understanding of walking in their shoes and being able to understand where people
are coming from. Again, we talked much about APECS and significance of incorporating young scientists.
We all agree that's hugely important for building our world.
We talked about common-interest building and conflict resolution. And we think that common interest
building can be an effective mechanism for conflict prevention and conflict resolution. People have a goodunderstanding of where others are coming. From their perspective, we can really avoid a lot of problems
to begin with. Paul brought up a really good point. I thought that a great model that we should have forcontract resolution is the Antarctic Treaty and space cooperation. The Antarctic Treaty is signed by acouple dozen nations. The space collaboration is a smaller group of nations, but it's very positive approach.
And I think the big difference in those two examples is that both those examples are forward looking
examples. The nations came together and said, what do we have to do to go from where we are to where
we want to be? And so many of the other conflicts that we're in now are based on history, and it's so hard
to resolve history from everybody’s perspective. And so that's always difficult. So, if we can look forward
instead of looking backward, everybody would be better off. One of the challenges for conflict resolution
is negotiating with sides starting with different interests and so different perspectives.
The challenges again, how do we pull those all together? We did talk about the importance ofcommunications and informing at the local level. And it's not just providing science to the local level, butalso getting their perspectives and their concerns up to the higher levels. We talked about ways of bringing
those local needs to national and global awareness. And then we talked about the value of bringing science
into communities and how that can improve life in those communities, but also, again, expand our own
62capabilities, capacity for doing science in communities and in the future. And with that, I think I'll stop andturn it back to Paul. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:22:44
Thank you very much, Larry. It's truly an honor and a pleasure to have Larry Hinzman, Anne Husebekk, andVolker Rachold as the keynote presenters for the second webinar. And, I profoundly thank you for yourcontributions. And I thank you for your leadership and, just in general. And Larry, I wish you every successwith the challenging decisions that are coming up. And, I guess as one among many congratulate you on
your stewardship as President of the International Arctic Science Committee.
Next, we do have planned a third webinar on the 24th of March, and the webinar series has been developedand implemented in the spirit of inclusion, recognizing the challenges that are currently being faced.
Andrey Bryksenkov is one of the keynote presenters who's been involved in these throughout the first andthe second webinar. Andrey, very much appreciate your collaboration. Certainly, welcome yourcontributions in the third webinar. We'll also have Fran Ulmer, Anton Vasiliev was in the audience today. I
saw as well. And, we will also have Hiroyuki Enomoto, who is Vice President for IASC and is among theleadership at the National Institute of Polar Research in Tokyo in Japan.
So, I thank everybody for their kind collaboration, their important contributions to the second webinar. It's
truly an honor and a pleasure to be able to coordinate this series with support of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan and the implementation by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. Andagain, I thank Volker, Anne, and Larry for your important contributions today. Thank the audience andparticipants for your many important observations as well. And, to that on 4:30, looking at my time at theend is on time. I wish everybody good health and I look forward to next steps.
Stay healthy. Thank you very much.

63

APPENDIX 4
WEBINAR 3: WHAT INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS/PROCESSES ARE NEEDED TO
FACILITATE PROGRESS IN UNDERSTANDING THE ARCTIC SYSTEM AND ITSGLOBAL IMPACTS?
THURSDAY, 24 MARCH 2022
TRANSCRIPT (RECORDING AVAILABLE ON THE UNITAR WEBSITE WITH TIME STAMPS, NOTING THERE MAY BE
TRANSCRIPTION ERRORS REMAINING AFTER SEVERAL EDITS)
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:00:19
Well, good morning, everybody. Good afternoon. Good evening. For wherever you are, welcome to thiswebinar 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 today with 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 prevail in the spirit of science
diplomacy “to balance national interests and common interests for the benefit of all on Earth acrossgenerations.” This is a time for all of us to be brave; cherishing and preserving the integrity of humanity
to pursue knowledge and wisdom; recognizing that doors of dialogue are being shut among academic
communities when militaries dictate the fate of humanity.
I thank the Japanese Consulate in Boston and excellent team of collaborators with the webinar series: Dr.
Jenny Baeseman at Baeseman Consulting and Prof. Akiho Shibata at the Polar Cooperation ResearchCenter, Kobe University, for their core partnership; Ms. Clara López 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 from the Harvard Kennedy School (including Mr. Teruaki Fujii and Ms.
Nadia Filimonova) and the Arctic 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 the present and the future.
We are living through an important moment in human history, which relates to the aspirations of thiswebinar series to enhance international cooperation with science, applying the Arctic as a global casestudy. Just after this webinar series was proposed, the COVID-19 pandemic erupted with devastatingconsequences worldwide. Now, just after the first webinar in this series last month, events in Ukraine64

have created new peril that has the potential to cascade into world war, something we all have
responsibilities to prevent – all eight billion of us – 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-term 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 “the necessary modalities that can allow us to continue the Council’s important work in viewof 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: “Science has proven to act asa platform for dialogue even in times of war.”
As previously, this webinar will involve an opening plenary session for an hour with keynote presenters whowill 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 audiencein 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 the Arctic
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 Research Commission;
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; and Deputy Director of Russian State Hydrometeorological University).
 Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto (Vice Director-General, National Institute for Polar Research, Japan; Cochair 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 the plenary
dialogues from the first two webinars.
Unfortunately, Dr. Andrey Bryksenkov sent me a note this morning that he has come down with COVID
and will be unable to participate in today’s discussion. Andrey apologizes for the objective reasons andhopes for further cooperation.
65

As with the first two webinars, after the plenary session, we would have turned off the recording, andmoved into pre-assigned breakout sessions for open dialogue among the webinar participants. As aconsequence of the unexpected change among the keynote presenters today – recognizing that 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-the-record (Chatham House guidelines) for the
next 70 minutes among all participants. I ask you, request you to be cordial and respectful during the hour
and ten minutes. For the remaining 20 minutes in our webinar today, I will then invite closing 5-minutesummary comments from our three keynote presenters in the final plenary session. As with previous
webinars, the final plenary comments will be recorded.
With appreciation for the scholar-rapporteurs, reporting from this webinar will be further distilled into a
Science Diplomacy Action 70 publication, capturing insights from the webinar series to help enhanceinternational scientific cooperation in the Arctic with global lessons to both promote cooperation andprevent 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 tosustainability time scales across generations. Perspectives about time are the bread-and-butter ofscience, considering: months-years in view of our global pandemic; years-decades with the accelerationof high-technologies; and across decades-centuries with exponential changes in human-population size
and atmospheric carbon associated with Earth’s climate.
Today’s concluding webinar has direct application to the challenges we collectively face as a globallyinterconnected civilization – enhancing international scientific cooperation as a central interaction among
great powers to both promote cooperation and prevent conflict – building dialogues among allies andadversaries 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 toshare her comments. Fran please. You’re 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 a very important
topic, which you point out has become increasingly timely as we look for ways that countries with sharedgoals, particularly as it relates to the Arctic and to scientific research, can still find ways to have not only
conversations, but also opportunities to brainstorm 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 that the way inwhich the Arctic countries and frankly, many countries all around the world have spent a great deal of time,70

Science Diplomacy Action (https://scidiplo.org/science-diplomacy-research/science-diplomacy-action/).

66

energy, money, and effort to better understand the changing conditions of the Arctic. And, 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 are going so rapidly in the Arctic, it's important for us to be open to otherways 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 those changes 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 the environment 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 ina place like the Arctic region, which is experiencing such a rapid rate of change and such a dramatic change
from what the Arctic was 50 years ago to what it is today to what we know it will be quite different 50
years from today.
Over the years, in addition to the individual efforts of countries and of universities and of manyorganizations – to do that kind of research that would help guide decisionmaking and improve our ability
to face an uncertain future – many countries and many organizations have found ways to bridge acrossthe nations to be able to more effectively, efficiently, comprehensively do that research, sharing acrossborders, not only resources and research capabilities, 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 call understands
that you can't really understand one part of the Arctic, you have to think more holistically because it is asystem, and because it is such a huge area, it is obviously important to spend resources wisely and sharethe information, share the resources and share the access to the entire Arctic region to be able to fully
understand it. So, that is why over the years, many things have evolved. Special events, like theInternational Polar Years that started all the way back in 1882, and then 1932, and then 1957 and thenmore recently, 2007, were literally the world focused on the challenges of both doing research andunderstanding the polar 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 afourth at some point. These not only for the Arctic nations, but for all the nations who are doing Arctic
research, provides these specialized moments when there is a convening of those who are interested in
Arctic science research to really focus the attention of not only those who are doing the Arctic science andArctic research and Arctic countries, but literally the world. And, of course, there are numerousorganizations, 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 71
that just 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 the years haveprovided a forum for dialogue and exchange of information and the opportunity for scientists to network in
71

International Permafrost Association (https://www.permafrost.org/).

67

a way that really enables them to expand their sphere of understanding and the way in which they doresearch with partners across borders. I could go on for quite a while describing all of these, but I'm notgoing to. I'm just going to stop by saying these are important building blocks toward what I would describe
as an extremely important overarching goal, which is to build the bridges necessary, not only acrossdisciplines, but across borders, to do what society needs, which is a better understanding of how the Arctic
is changing; how those changes are impacting the people of the Arctic, as well as globally; and to be able toprepare societies, governments, businesses, individuals, communities for the rapid rate of change ahead;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 long long experience with the Arctic Council,
which is, I think, where we first met many years ago.
Clearly, the Arctic Council, since its formulation in 1996, also provides one of these important building
blocks of infrastructure that has enabled, supported, and encouraged the kind of international scientificcooperation that is so essential. That, of course, was the body that really put in place the International
Arctic Science Agreement 72 back in 2017 which was focused primarily on assuring access to the other Arctic
regions. But, it again describes and shines a light on the importance of different parts of society, bothdifferent 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 the organizers 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 isa 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 of things is being understood would becomeaware 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 is climatechange and the second is technological progress. Both have made accessible many things in the Arctic thatwere not accessible from the economic point of view, from political point of view, from security point ofview. 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 for transportation 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 haveignited the interest to the Arctic in the world.
Arctic Science Agreement. 2017. Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation. Signed Fairbanks,
Alaska, United States, 11 May 2017. Entry into Force, 23 May 2018.
(https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/other/2017/270809.htm).
72

68

So, in parallel to this process of changes in the Arctic, I think the whole world, the Arctic States themselves
have arranged themselves and arranged the dialogue, frank open dialogue based on one simple
foundation which I felt for many years of my work in the Arctic Council, the commonality of interests of
all Arctic States. We all Arctic States, we all face the same challenges, huge challenges because of thechanging in the climate and also the huge potential. And all of us, we agreed to the understanding that it
is much more efficient, better and perspective to fight these challenges and use these opportunities
collectively in unison with the others.
So this is the basis of the work of many Arctic foras, including the Ministerials. And I shared the view that
Ministerials, of course, are 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 my life. Arctic Council is myprofessional life in the Arctic Council. Arctic Council is the key mechanism of international Arctic scientificcooperation, by the way. And the Agreement on enhancing such cooperation is one of the three legallybinding agreements elaborated under the Arctic Council. And quite frankly, in my judgment, about 90% of
everything the Arctic Council does is scientific cooperation, 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 73 of the Arctic Council. It is a unique combination of science andtraditional knowledge of Indigenous people. And of course, the key areas are climate change andenvironment. And the important part of this scientific cooperation, is that 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 that recently 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 scientific cooperation. Yes,
International Polar Year is one of them and we support the idea of arranging the fifth International Polar
Year in 2032-2033. And I think that would be a great way to move on with globalization of Arctic research.
In a nutshell, IPY (International Polar Year) is an international coordinated research project over long termgeophysical, hydrometeorological, environmental and other monitoring and analyzing of the situation in bothpoles. 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 decisionmaking.
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 this research results among
many participants. So, we can talk more about that later. But, I also agree that the initiative of the Arctic
Circle, 74 this is one of the NGOs in the Arctic, one of the non-governmental organizations, which is toarrange 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 observer nations. It's a very good initiative.
We had three Arctic science ministries already. They were quite effective. And we had the last one, thethird one in Tokyo, coverage by Icelandic Chairmanship of the Arctic Council and Japan as observer of the
Arctic Council. That was quite an effort because it was very hard to arrange by itself. Plus there were so
73
74

Working Groups, Arctic Council (https://www.arctic-council.org/about/working-groups/).
Arctic Circle (https://www.arcticcircle.org/).

69

many limits because of transportation, has hazards, because of COVID. But still it was a very effective andvery useful meeting.
We as chair of the Arctic Council this year, we are working together with our French colleagues and we havealready agreed preliminary agreed that yes, we are going to arrange the ASM4 in spring of 2023. I'm part ofthe organizing community of ASM4, so I’m working closely I've been working closely with our Frenchcolleagues till the very last moment and still resolute in arranging the ASM4 whatever the circumstances.
And we shall bear responsibility for that as the chair 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 informative and very
high-level meetings. Regular meeting is important here. So other conference, regular Council such as
Russian Arctic Territory of Dialogue 75 or the Norwegian Arctic Frontiers. 76 There are many. I think there's
even a sort of competition between the Arctic States to have their own 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. We need to have a very serious and open dialogue
and we have a very good basis for cooperation and scientific area among the Arctic States, which is theAgreement on enhancing cooperation in the Arctic. And, we are open to cooperation with everyone in theworld, 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
one of the most important things. This is something that knocks at our door everywhere in the world 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 ofinternational scientific operation in the Arctic about Arctic and hope that it will bring even more attention
to this issue and bring more interested scholars and expert and researchers into the field, and we will be
more than happy to cooperate with them. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:31:09
Thank you very much Anton for your important and helpful observations. Certainly, in the spirit of building
common interests. It is an honor as well as a pleasure to introduce and welcome observations from
Professor Hiroyuki Enomoto. Enomoto-san please.
Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – 00:31:26
Thank you very much. Paul. As Paul introduced me, I'm from those natural scientists and also Vice
President of the International Arctic Science Committee. And I was the co-chair of the ASM3 scienceadvisory board. I worked as the individual scientist institute administration and IASC member and ASM3
organizer. There are many participants today and from the national interest there is a wide range of interest
75
76

Arctic: Territory of Dialogue (https://forumspb.com/en/programme/arctic/).
Arctic Frontiers (https://www.arcticfrontiers.com/).

70and intent to know from the individual condition to the international 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
as IASC and ASM3.
We organized ASM3 with Iceland, that expanded dimensions beyond Arctic Council members. What we
can do is also one idea from me. So the picture behind me, you can see the that is the Ny-Ålesund station 77
in Svalbard. We started observation there from 1991. IASC established in 1990. Since then, we started
observation there and almost the same period of IASC, the Arctic Council was established. Researchers
who joined the academic movement of IASC were almost same timing. So, the scientist is very much proudof 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 east-west countries. We started
peacefully this 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 the behind of the starting
IASC international science activity the peaceful condition is very essential. The previous webinars alreadyare introduced. So, I want to introduce some main action of the ASM3 and please use that legacy to theASM4. And I worked also as lead author of the IPCC. IPCC is global, but I joined a special report on oceanand cryosphere in climate change. It focused in the polar region and also on the Indigenous knowledge
and recent knowledge how to work together. It's also a very unique issue of that special report on oceanchanging climate. That is my thought behind.
And I will talk about the ASM3 procedure. ASM collects member country’s information on the activity of
the Arctic, and ASM analyzes their activities. ASM has the Arctic Science Ministerial meeting every two
years. Also proposing recommendation and direction. And each country approves them. Then all agreed
and it must start. But not yet all was done. So it's a problem. Many research activities of 434 registeredprojects were submitted at ASM3 held in 2021, last year in Tokyo. And ASM3 called the importance of“Observation”, “Understanding”, “Respond”, and “Strengthen”. So there were many important suggestions
from the previous ASMs. But ASM3 tried to concise state that message. So the first step is “Observation”.
We know that we must “Understand” and not only the understanding. That is maybe the academic is finefor understanding. But the ASM must “Respond” and “Strengthen” the next generation of international
cooperation. That is sustainable Arctic and development. So the first step is 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 theme, ‘Knowledge for a Sustainable Arctic.’ So knowledge
was a very essential point. IPCC also is knowledge based.
Then regarding what or not to transfer the aggregated knowledge to realization. ASM3 proposes longterm and near-term realization. So then comes to the practical problem. As a practical problem, there
remains the issue of a system for intensively investing in situations where resources for strengthening the
network of international cooperation. The cooperation, observation and survey must be done for shortperiod as a very integrated system.
When we observe the world, Europe and the Atlantic area of cooperative action. The European Polar Boardand many different groups exist in Europe. But in Asia, or the Pacific region, it is still developing. So Japan,

77

Ny-Ålesund research station, Svalbard (https://nyalesundresearch.no/).

71

China, Korea and Malaysia and India have a forum for polar science. 78 And we are developing that system.
And maybe future we can connect east and west.
And scientists are already working to connect north and south of the Arctic. Middle latitutude issues
already are established as an international important Arctic activity. Then as the implementing system,
we need the mechanism across the world, including commitments coming from Asian countries. So wehave room, but it is not so difficult.
So why, Japan, a non-Arctic country are working in the Arctic? The number of non-Arctic countries now isincreasing. The Arctic Council is eight countries. But IASC has 24 countries member and ASM3 had 28
countries and region. So, not only is the Arctic Circle closing inside, the issues are 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, the flow of solutions,and the spread, solving Arctic problem, we can get maybe a good example of how to solve the problem,
and to get a good example of the human-nature balance. So good models can be seen from Arctic activities.
Non-Arctic researchers can also see what Arctic members are doing, such as the link between recent ormodern science and traditional knowledge mentioned in the IPCC effort. So I already talked. And, also
ASM3 enhanced in community participation, decisionmaking by themselves and that is a way to movetowards achieving the SDGs. So the community's work is very important. And Arctic issue is trying to makea 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 are many big committees with IASC and ASM3 organizers. But if you
attend those, you can find very key persons. So today, the panelists, Anton and Fran are a very good
example of the key persons. And, also some individuals’ continuous efforts are moving all organization
forward. So, then it come to how Japan or Asian or any Arctic country can do? Is there any key person wehave? Or a key person that stands out, or is there a platform where he can stand out? And the point is how
we cultivate him or her properly? That is the next-generation development and through the Arctic issue,
we want to find that very good model case. Thank you very much.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:43:49
Domo arigato gozaimashita. Thank you Hiroyuki for your important comments. I have a couple ofquestions to pose to Fran, Hiroyuki and Anton, but perhaps with the first question just following on
Hiroyuki’s 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 their relatively brave, andI would say, statement 79 on circumstances with Ukraine seeking to facilitate dialogues rather than close
doors. As we move forward and think about how to cultivate those key persons, as you identified
Enomoto-san, and with consideration, Fran and Anton, how do we do that? How do we elevate the nextAsian Forum for Polar Sciences (AFOPS). (https://afops.org/).
APECS Statement on the Invasion of Ukraine. 18 March 2022. (https://apecs.is/news/apecs-news/4967-apecs-statementon-the-invasion-of-ukraine.html).
78
79

72

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, to think 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, the implementationof the ASM3 ideas came to Japan; the development of the next generation. So Japanese government orJapanese Arctic research projects are investing in the next-generation training. It was not only for very
sharp, narrow science area, but we want to try to make the leader person who is the next generation. But
it is a very big challenge, and we want to learn, for example, how to prepare scholarship for Japanese
researchers and also oversees early career scientists to working together. And, very good example, we areobserving the Fulbright system, which has a very good continuous support system. And we want to learn
from those ongoing systems, to apply this to new Japanese activities. 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 haveobservations? 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 are young andinterested 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 numberof years been a mechanism for connecting universities across the world with Arctic programming to makeit easier for people, regardless of where they live or where they are going to school, to be able to takedeeper 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 to basically thank the University of the Arctic andthe many universities like my own, that are really trying very hard to find mechanisms to both bring more
students who may be interested in both scientific research, but also policy, governance, law, economics, andthe 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 in polar regions is
an important thing for all of us who have been around Arctic meetings for a long 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.

73

And I guess one example of that Anton mentioned another Arctic gathering that is happening in Alaska next
month. The Arctic Encounters 80 is actually organized by a young woman who is in her early 30s. Arctic
Encounters which will happen in Anchorage is a great example, frankly of a young person who found Arctic
issues interesting and has gone on to organize efforts that really bring both nationally and internationallypeople together to better understand the challenges 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 somethingthat 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.
Amb. Anton Vasiliev – 00:50:48
First of all, bringing youth in research of the Arctic, to live in the Arctic and, to participate in decisionmaking
in the Arctic about Arctic, is one of the priorities of the Russian Championship in 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 weremember from our childhood that as we grow we see the whole world around us. There are so many
attractive things. So I think the important in a very general sense the important thing is while fighting tobring to the Arctic the best, the brightest minds, the best way is to make it interesting. You can do it bymany ways, but I think the key idea is to do that. We have many, apart from the Arctic Council, we have manyother 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 Reykjavik.
And it's important everywhere I talk about in nearly all these foras I can tell you that 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 feel that 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 andvery important question indeed. And I think while arranging new initiatives such as International Polar Yearor expedition such as 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. I think that as we arearranging the Arctic Science Ministerial are building on the experience of our predecessors, including the
fantastic experience, very helpful experience of our Japanese colleagues. It is a huge work that they havedone, 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 inbringing young scholars to this particularly interesting and fascinating subjects. I think I will limit myself here.
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 therecord. But before going to that general dialogue, open dialogue that will be off the record, I have a last
80

Arctic Encounter Symposium (https://www.arcticencounter.com/).

74question to ask Fran, Hiroyuki, and Anton. In view of your comments, both introducing the Arctic Science
Ministerial process with Arctic Science Ministerial 1, 2 and 3, beginning in the United States in 2016; inGermany in 2018; in Japan in 2021; and presumably in France in 2023. With the Arctic Science Ministerial
process, you also mentioned 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 abinding agreement that's enforced among the Arctic States? Are there synergies that would be selfreinforcing, that would enhance the capabilities to enhance international scientific cooperation between
these two complementary 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 orrelationships 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, andit would be the Arctic Observing Summit 81 and all of the efforts associated with Arctic observing efforts. I
think those three things, in a way, fit together in the sense that they all, as you point out, support thespirit 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 achieve it.
The International Arctic Science Agreement is really intended to bring down any doors or barriers to accessto the Arctic region so that researchers, regardless of where they come from, have the opportunity to do
the research necessary in the region and have access to data, information and be able to share it. So forme, it's the equivalent of opening up the doors and windows. It's basically saying there aren't going to bebarriers that artificially restrict the ability of the Arctic research community to be able to do the kind ofcollaborative 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 that kind of continuity that will
really enhance the ability of the science community to be able to do the research, whether it's on a specifictopic like permafrost or more general topic of understanding 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 thisnotion that if you do not have sustained overtime funding and resources and a structure that will organize
the way and which the way in which the various observing efforts, which really basically just gives you the81

Arctic Observing Summit (https://arcticobservingsummit.org/).

75

basic data, it doesn't necessarily tell you what to make of that. It just allows the observing networks to beable to integrate their information, their data, their ability for others to take advantage of that informationand do research with it. That third piece is also very important to any of these discussions about how toenhance and improve 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 a different role inthe 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 a different 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 theirresearchers, but they don't fund these large international projects across borders. And that's
understandable at one level, that's sort of in countries 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 ecosystemand 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 Cooperation Agreement. So I can say that,
yes. The one common thing about where you can find the synergy among the two is the spirit is the spiritof enhancing cooperation in the important area. But there are, of course, different areas that the twoprocesses, two documents, two events, the target. The Agreement is about moving the barriers, moving
the barriers of movement scientists across the board of moving research equipment, of issuing visas, etcetera, et cetera. But this is an agreement among the Arctic Council States, and it is agreement among
them. And this is important to understand the nature because we, the Arctic States, took these obligations
vis-à-vis each other, understanding that we shall open our borders and for movement of people,
movement of 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 agreement with one common
interest. I will not repeat myself, but what Fran has said about the purpose of ASM3. It's exactly thatdifferent thing. But again, the purpose of both is to stimulate and foster Arctic scientific research.
But the Agreement, it doesn't exclude the fostering of international cooperation beyond the sphere of the
Arctic circle. And if you read carefully the agreement, there's an article about cooperation with observers
in Arctic research, which is welcome. And, I would also say that in the practical performance of the Arctic
Council, many scientific projects which include the observers and nonmembers of the Arctic Council. And
this is also important. And, another thing, one more thing to insert here is that it is important in all scientificresearch processes; it is important to sustain cohesion and to sustain continuity. And this is why we as
ASM4 are building on what has been already achieved by previous ASMs 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.
76

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, this is really one of the important issues under all activities of
ASM processes and even the realization of the Arctic science capacity. And, also many other things. I think
one of the answers to the question why are you proposing an International Polar Year ten years ahead ofthe 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 thequestion 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 who can fill that area? And, how they can fill thatarea? ASM2 recommended the funders forum, but we still are preparing the funders forum for Arctic
science. The new mechanism is now initiating in the funders forum. Who can fill that gap or area,
depending on the design?
ASM3 strongly recommended Sustainable Arctic Observing Network 82 system for all countries of 28
countries should join, not only the Arctic countries, but 28. The SAON is trying to fill the gap of theobservation area and then we can start, and we can ask to non-Arctic countries to fill some points. So
Japan can fill some area. So, that is not only the Arctic country, but including the member countries of theASM3, 28 we can fill more efficiently the area.
That is moving forward from the agreement and the ASM3 implementation. And one more point, the Arctic
Observing Summit. I chaired the global issue session in 2016. Some people noticed 2016 was also a very
difficult condition to implement Arctic research and Arctic observations. So, also political is a difficult
situation. So, in that case researchers try to collaborate over the borders of countries. Someone, please
fills the data with continuous observation. Even if the country or countries are not accessible, thecountries have researchers. Please keep that data and continue. If the situation changes, we cancollaborate again, as with our experience in 2016 that we discussed at the 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 take health 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 83 you can access and yourself analyze thatdata which country what they are doing what is a newly database we are expecting ASM4 organizer use
to expand that system. Sorry.

82
83

Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (https://www.arcticobserving.org/).
The ASM3 Project Database. (https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/ASM3DB/).

77

Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 01:11:14
No. No. No. This is very important and welcome other observations to put in the chat in the spirit oftransparency and sharing with all involved. At this point, what I'd like to do is ask Clara to turn off therecording 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 summary comments
and observations from this third webinar which was designed to address what international efforts andprocesses are needed to facilitate progress in understanding the Arctic 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 threeof you to provide summary comments please. How would you like to proceed? Just raise your hand and I
will choose you first. Hiroyuki, please.
Dr. Hiroyuki Enomoto – 01:12:32
I want to state only a small comment. There are many big countries’ projects, but the leading effort wasdone 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 andasked the local scientists. We could not go to Greenland, but Greenland scientists in Greenland supported
our instrument maintenance and taking data. And with a new system, we asked the Indigenous people tomaintain our instrument. They learned how to use, and the new collaboration has started during COVID19. And, also remote sensing can cover that area. So it's a Norwegian activity to try to compensate andcover other countries’ observations, not to miss the data.
Talking about Russia, a big part are the Russian databases. In the early 1990s, the National Snow and Ice
Data Center 84 there was data rescue. They had a very good quality data that were in very dangerous
condition of disappearing. So, US researchers tried to rescue the data, which 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 effort, but using the individual
researchers’ communication. That is my final comment.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 01:15:10
Thank you very much Enomoto-san 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 approached
by a growing a group of Russian scientists who are signing a letter addressed to me in my capacity of Vice
President of the Russian Association of Polar Explorers. This is one of my hats I'm wearing now. And, they
are trying to solve the question that is in the air that we have been discussing that didn't touch upon yet.
What to do in the current situation? What is our way out of the pause in the working of existing mechanismof international Arctic scientific cooperation?

84

National Snow and Ice Data Center (https://nsidc.org/).

78

And, I can read out such some points of this letter. And, they addressed to me and the scientists. Many
scientists signed a letter with a request to head an initiative to create an international move in the field ofjoint international scientific activities, scientists for further strengthening of international cooperation.
Among other things, what is being addressed to me is the phrase that in recent days, despite the difficult
geopolitical situation, a number of Russian universities and scientific institutions have received requests fromscientists from Western Europe, the US, Japan, and to continue working together in international scientificcooperation, including the Arctic region in 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 from all the countries. The
implementation of the international collaboration Science initiative. Scientists for the further
strengthening of international cooperation should lead to the development of forms of what is commonly
called Open Science, unified platforms where data from observations and experiments are collected andopen access to publication. International foras 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 ‘bee in your ear’ and asking you to think about this thing. If you
further support this people-to-people scientific cooperation, that could be one of the possible layouts ofthe 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 those people-to-peopleinteractions going forward in the spirit of preserving the integrity of the scientific 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 at this level among not only thescience community, but frankly, the people-to-people community that for a very long time has provided thekind of continuity of positive relationships, even when our national governments find many things todisagree about.
So I would just note that many of the scientists with whom I have dialogue on a regular basis express very
similar sentiments that it is so important that for those of us who believe in science diplomacy, for those of
us who believe 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, to explain to therest 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 and values and experienceand understanding and resources. And, it is my hope that dialogues like the one we have had today will79continue the momentum for strengthening these organizations, 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 theCentral 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 todo 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 made this possible.
And may we all remain optimistic that the Arctic science community will play an important 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 ofJapan, there is a synthesis that will emerge. The scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and from theJapan ArCS II program have been thoughtfully compiling observations that have been circulated to the
keynote presenters from each of the webinars. We will turn those observations, along with the transcriptsthat are presented as part of the recording into a publication through Science Diplomacy Action. And we
certainly invite the keynote presenters to assist us in completing that synthesis and invite you to servealso as co-authors of 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 certainly with global relevance andwith hope and inspiration as a primary responsibility that all generations have to think short-term to longterm for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.
With that, I thank each of the participants for your thoughtful observations and comments. I thank theteam for being a team for having fun together and producing this in a way that has resonated with hopeand inspiration for all of us. And, to that I wish everybody good health going forward and look forward to
our next meetings. Thank you very much.

80

APPENDIX 5
INVITED NATURE CORRESPONDENCE (28 APRIL 2022)

81

ABOUT THE SERIAL

This incidental serial will share rigorous syntheses ofmeetings that relate to science diplomacy. The spirit of thisserial is to be holistic (international, interdisciplinary andinclusive) in a manner that will be helpful to the future of ourglobally-interconnected civilization.
This serial is intended to integrate stakeholder perspectives,
holistic evidence and governance records in a mannerthat reveals options (without advocacy), which can beused or ignored, with the goal of contributing to informed
decisionmaking in our world.
Informed decisions are at the summit, overlying options
and evidence. The evidence itself is distilled from data, withobservations and information integrated from questions at
the earliest stage possible for stakeholder engagement, whichis the reason for the meetings in the first instance.
The decisions relate to the combination of fixed, mobile,and other built assets (including communications,research, observing and information systems) that require
capitalization and technology PLUS regulatory, policy, legal,
official-statement and other governance mechanisms(including insurance). Behind the decisions is the science,as the study of change, including natural and social sciences
as well as Indigenous knowledge. Change itself reveals
patterns and trends over time and space – to anticipate aswell as respond to issues, impacts and resources – overgenerations within, across and beyond the boundaries ofnations.

Science Diplomacy Action addresses an immediate and longterm need to publish rigorous syntheses and summaries ofmeetings associated with science and technology advice
in government at all levels, especially among the foreign
ministries of nations. This need is reflected by the rapidly
growing number of meetings that focus on science diplomacy
as a holistic process of evidence integration to balancenational interests and common interests for the benefit of allon Earth. The value of these science-diplomacy meetings (orany meetings) is largely limited to those that attend. Science
Diplomacy Action recognizes this unrealized opportunity
to extend value beyond the meetings by soliciting andpublishing rigorous meeting syntheses.

SCIENCE DIPLOMACY CENTERTM

Nation states have sovereignty, sovereign rights andjurisdictions across nearly thirty percent of the Earth. In
contrast, international spaces established from World War
II beyond sovereign jurisdictions exist across nearly seventy
percent on the Earth as well as in outer space. On a global
scale, across one hundred percent of our home planet, thechallenge is to balance national interests and common
interests. Recognizing this forever challenge, the Science
Diplomacy Center was launched in February 2017, initially at
The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The NSF funding and Science Diplomacy Center™ weretransferred to EvREsearch LTD in 2020, extending into the
Science Diplomacy Center™ at MGIMO University in 2021.
With its three triangulated areas of focus – Education,
Research and Leadership – the Science Diplomacy CenterTM
aims to:• Educate the next generation of science diplomats;• Facilitate research to transform data into evidence andoptions that contribute to informed decisions, operating
across a ‘continuum of urgencies’; and• Provide leadership with science-diplomacy networks tobuild common interests among allies and adversaries alikeacross our globally-interconnected civilization.
The decision-support process applied by the Science
Diplomacy CenterTM involves holistic (international,
interdisciplinary and inclusive) integration from the naturaland social sciences as well as Indigenous knowledge
regarding impacts, issues and resources within, across andbeyond sovereign jurisdictions. This holistic integration
further involves stakeholder perspectives inclusively as wellas governance mechanisms that represent the operation of
government institutions. Importantly, this decision-support
process is designed to reveal options (without advocacy),
which can be used or ignored explicitly, contributing to
informed decisionmaking across the jurisdictional spectrumwith its subnational-national-international levels.

To help with informed decisions, involving the combination of
built elements and governance mechanisms for sustainableinfrastructure development, the Science Diplomacy CenterTM
operates across the ‘continuum of urgencies’ that exists forpeoples, nations and our world from security time scales(responding to the risks of political, economic and cultural
instabilities that are immediate) to sustainability time scales(balancing economic prosperity, environmental protection
and societal well-being across generations).
SUBMITTING MEETING SYNTHESES:As an incidental serial for rigorous meeting syntheses,
the intention is to grow this serial in a manner that is bothpractical and helpful. The standard for the publication in
Science Diplomacy Action is represented by Synthesis No. 1(September 1, 2017), which emerged from the 1st International
Dialogue on Science and Technology Advice in Foreign Ministries
in October 2016. Please see the Science Diplomacy Center
website for Instructions for Authors (https://scidiplo.org/
science-diplomacy-research/science-diplomacy-action/
instructions-for-authors/).
In an holistic manner – Science Diplomacy Action seeks
syntheses to share questions, observations, information,
data, evidence and options that contribute to informed
decisionmaking about issues, impacts and resources acrossjurisdictions in our globally-interconnected civilization.
Science Diplomacy Action will operate as a rigorous publication
with peer review, considering the overall quality, relevanceand integrity ofeach submission. Each accepted synthesis will be an
authoritative outcome of the relevant meeting with an author
point-of-contact and other meeting participants listed ascoauthors with their approval. This synthesis represents a
series of meetings.

Science Diplomacy Action is being published online(ISSN 2573-976X) through the Science Diplomacy
CenterTM at EvREsearch LTD, with print versions (ISSN
2573-9751) available upon request when hardcopy
and mailing costs are covered. Permission is grantedby the Science Diplomacy Center™ for personal use.
Please contact Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman directly withquestions or expressions of interest to publish yourrigorous meeting synthesis:
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman
Fulbright Arctic Chair 2021–2022
Associated Fellow, United Nations Institutefor Training and Research (UNITAR)
Geneva, Switzerland
Faculty Associate, Program on Negotiation (PON)at Harvard Law School
Associate Director of Science Diplomacy,
Harvard-MIT Public Disputes Program
Cambridge, MA USA
Chief Executive Officer, EvREsearch LTD
Director, Science Diplomacy Center™
Falmouth, MA USA
EvREsearch®
23 Woodrise
Falmouth, MA 02540
United States(e)paul.berkman@unitar.org
pberkman@law.harvard.edu
paul@evresearch.com(o)+1-617-902-8361(w)

https://scidiplo.org/

Thank you to the National Science Foundation for theirgenerous support of the Science Diplomacy CenterTM.
© 2022. Science Diplomacy Center™
Photos from Paul Arthur Berkman