APPENDIX 3
WEBINAR 2: HOW CAN SCIENCE TRANSFORM DATA INTO EVIDENCEFOR INFORMED DECISIONMAKING?
THURSDAY, 10 MARCH 2022
TRANSCRIPT (RECORDING AVAILABLE ON THE UNITAR WEBSITE)
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 00:12
Welcome to this Webinar Series on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation: Arctic
Science and Technology Advice with Ministries
My name is Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman and I have the honour as well as pleasure to coordinate
this webinar series that is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, continuing todaywith Webinar 2 and Webinar 3 on 24 March 2022.
This webinar series is convened in the spirit of science diplomacy – as a “language of hope” –as an international, interdisciplinary and inclusive process, involving informed decisionmaking
to balance national interests and common interests for the benefit of all on Earth acrossgenerations.”
I thank the Japanese Consulate in Boston for introducing the opportunity for this webinar
series building on 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 ResearchCenter, Kobe University for their core partnership; Ms. Clara Lopez and Ms. Michelle Glazer
at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) for superbly managing thelogistics 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 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) and the participants emphasized the transdisciplinary
convergence of the natural sciences and social sciences with Indigenous knowledge together
as the ‘study of change.’ All of these knowledge systems reveal patterns, trends andprocesses (albeit with different methodologies) that become the bases for decisions, which isthe focus of today’s webinar to consider “How can science transform data into evidence forinformed decisionmaking?” Importantly, Webinar 1 highlighted the core elements ofinclusion, respect and trust that give us the capacity to enhance international scientificcooperation.
We are now confronted with the war in Ukraine, which is shaking the foundation of ourglobally-interconnected 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 fromsecurity time scales (addressing immediate instabilities) to sustainability time scales(balancing societal, economic and environmental considerations across generations). Shortto-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
and planetary challenges to balance national interests and common interests, promoting
cooperation and preventing conflict for the sustainable development of our globallyinterconnected 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 “a pole of peace.”
This 1987 Gorbachev speech also introduced the concept of an “Arctic Research Council”,
building on the example of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research that preceded the1959 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 and Soviet 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 survivalin the face of mutually assured destruction, which is why the Antarctic Treaty became the firstnuclear arms agreement.
The instabilities from Ukraine have propagated prominently into the Arctic, challenging the
dynamics of the eight Arctic states, who established the Arctic Council in 1996 along with thesix Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations to address “common Arctic issues” of sustainable
development and environmental protection. Our informal dialogue today, convened withinclusion, 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 “the necessary
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 thesituation 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 Presidentof IASC and with sincere appreciation for his 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 nevernegotiate 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 a necessary complement to conflict resolution. The freedom of Ukraine to speak as anation demands 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, condemning violence in any form.
We are both observers and participants in the holistic (international, interdisciplinary andinclusive) process of informed decisionmaking with research that involves data to answer
questions and actions that involve 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 dataevidence interface with research and action to produce informed decisions – not gooddecisions or bad decisions; right decisions or wrong decisions; but decisions that optimize theavailable information to operate short-to-long term.
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 andcomments from the audience in 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 theopportunity to interact with the keynote presenters, who will further facilitate dialogues withyour inclusive input about addressing the framing questions for this Webinar. Considering
the focus on enhancing international scientific cooperation, in view of the core elements ofinclusion, 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; Vice-President 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 andTechnology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President, The White House;
President, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).
This plenary session will be recorded and placed on the UNITAR platform, but the following
45-minute breakout sessions will be unrecorded. There will be a health break after the
breakout sessions, before the final plenary reporting. With appreciation for the scholarrapporteurs, reporting from this webinar will be further distilled into a Science Diplomacy
Action publication (as previously), capturing insights from the webinar series to help enhanceinternational scientific cooperation in the Arctic with global lessons to both promote
cooperation and prevent conflict as the umbrella goal.
Dr. Volker Rachold – 09:33
Yeah. Thank you very much, Paul, and welcome, everyone. Good morning or whatever timezone you're in. When I 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 the Arctic. It's very
effective. It's successful in terms of providing the advice that people need for the Arctic todecision makers. 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 particular scientific assessments. The assessments are the main
instrument that the Council has to get science into policy advice. And I think if you take, forexample, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which was really the first big one, I think itchanged 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 efficientand very effective form of providing 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 notreally legally binding. It's more like advice or recommendations for the member countries.
But these agreements that were developed under the auspices of the Arctic Council, they arelegally 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. Alllegally 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 theIndigenous peoples on board. And I think that's a unique setting in the Arctic Council that the
Indigenous Peoples are participating in the activities, and they 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 to the rightpeople. So that's about the Arctic Council, of course, the Arctic Council, that's nothing thatshould be mentioned. The Arctic Council does not talk about security issues and does not talkabout 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. The other thing I wantto mention, of course, is the International Arctic Science Committee. I will not talk about thistoo much because there are incidents also here. It is the role in defining scientific priorities
that must be highlighted. I think it is the organization that helps to really identify what are thebig questions in science and it has been very effective and very successful on that with thisinternational conference on Arctic research planning. I'm honored to participate in two ofthem. 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 Is. The thing that most people don't know, it came from Is and wasthen taken to the Arctic Council. The third thing on that high international level that I want tomention 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 then there was a third oneheld in Iceland, Iceland with Japan last year, and there was supposed to be a fourth one, andalso 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 beorganized. Also, here we see that scientific cooperation in the Arctic, of course, is reallysubstantially affected by the political situation in the world, but more of the 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, wemust 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. We have theEuropean Dollar Board and other mechanisms 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 decision makers, 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 first thing is everything that we do need to have some dialogue.
If we don't know what the questions are, policymakers have, we cannot answer them. So, weneed to have that dialogue in order to be able to provide the advice that's needed. That's one
central point. And then the second point, I think, is that we need to somehow translate ourscience in a way that is understandable for decision makers, and that's very important if wejust do our science and write a scientific paper that will not be understandable for apolicymaker. 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 their summary for policy makers. And that document really translates thescience into an understandable version for policy makers, including recommendations. I thinkthese are the two main points, the two overarching points that I put forward in terms of how
do we communicate science to policymakers. So, yeah, and with that I would like to end, andI guess that Larry will continue a bit more on IASC and Anne will also have something to say.
I get. So, thank you very much and I'm looking forward to the discussion 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 passion comments. I now havethe pleasure 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 aspeech in this webinar. 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 whether the war in Ukraine is in favorof science diplomacy or not.
Without an operating Arctic Council, I think we are so much worse off. I think that the Arctic
Council was the sort of a guarantee that we could collaborate in the Arctic area around very
important questions, such as the climate question. Without Russia participating in thisresearch, I think we lose a lot of input, discussions and data that could provide us with a moreaccurate picture of the situation in the north.
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 that is affected. But it also
affects scientists that has condemned the war and young people who wanted to havediscussions about Arctic questions. So exchange of students for instance, and collaboration
within the framework of University of the Arctic in which I also board member, is now putback to a minimum. And it's very unfortunate. So, about the questions that are asked in thiswebinar. How are the decisions on what priorities are to be test made?
Even in the greatest democracies, politicians are elected for a four-year period. Many of thequestions 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 eventually reflect 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 thinkthat the SDGs are an attempt to make a global approach to really overarching questions thatneed to be addressed and hopefully we will succeed with the 2030 agenda. But we cannot takethat for granted.
I think it is a very hard work to reach the goals. And when we have setbacks as we have rightnow, I think the chances of reaching these goals are less than we would like to see. Who are
the decision makers? I would claim that the decision makers are politicians and I think thatpoliticians are normal people with some education, more education, and some canunderstand scientific questions and answers very well. Others cannot. And also, the politicalparties are made on 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 based on the fossils that are exploited in Norway
and sold to other countries. And there is a big opposition to what's been done today in orderto stop exploring fossil fuel. Knowing that one fifth of the national budget 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 thepoliticians will probably not be reelected.
Also, I can give another example related to the IPCC reports it's made by scientists. The
scientists say that there is a 99.5% or even more percent probability that this information iscorrect 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 not addressed by the scientists. So whatevidence is needed and how is that evidence defined? I think that those politicians often basetheir ideas on other basis, in comparison to scientists. And it may also be very difficult tounderstand a scientist approach. Also, some of the problems or challenges we are facing is notaddressed by one scientist in one discipline. It is a transdisciplinary societal challenge what
we should aim to.
By just listening to one scientist’s approach is probably not the solution to a problem. I thinkthat we, as scientists, must approach the public and politicians in a nice way so that we cangive our message in an understandable way and communicate the complexity by putting
different disciplines together to advise politicians. I think that we need to enhance ourcommunication skills. We need to discuss with each other how to approach politicians onserious matters. And by doing this the right way, I think that we can influence political decisions
knowledge based, 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 has now
gathered a group of people being experts in science advice to try to approach the difficult
problems related to the war in Ukraine, but also other international questions. I think I stopped
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 thediscussion. Professor Larry Hinzman, it's an honor and a pleasure to have you participate inthis 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 areal 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, and I'm also the
executive director of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. 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 notwith respect to current world affairs.
I want to note that just going back, Volker and I will know very well how important Sciences
played a role in melting the Cold War. The first international conference on Permafrost washeld in 1973 and Volker and I have since and have each hosted for Frost conferences on ourown following that. But it was those first meetings, those early scientific meetings that reallyopened the doors for scientific collaboration cooperation. And from that following that policy
relation relationships opened. And so, the same is true for other relationships with China andother nations around the world. I think we can't underestimate the importance the value ofmaintaining these relationships and these partnerships.
I was also the director of the International Arctic Research Center, which the purpose was tofoster and promote 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 mycolleagues, Drs. Fukasawa Masao and Yuji Kodama on this call today, and that I think that thosepartnerships that we shared as far as studying the Arctic, sharing data, sharing understanding,sharing resources, working together to advance those collaborations that improved thestrength of both of our nations.
It improved our capability for understanding 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 peaceful nature 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
nation, our communities, our industry faced. When we can reduce risk, we can improvebusiness 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 to establish and she led the establishmentof APECS, the Association of Early Polar Career Researchers, Scientists, excuse me. And that isthe 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 theybring to our scientific world just opens the doors for great opportunities in the future. And inthese dark times, it gives me the most hope for where we are going. I will forever be in debt toJenny 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 havebeen very successful efforts in uniting the world's researchers, at least Arctic researchers, andlooking 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 make great achievements.
And I think looking back, we are planning now the fourth international conference on our own
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 look back at those programs and what has been accomplished, we must take thelong view. We have to look back 10, 20, 30 years to see what those priorities were, what was
accomplished, and how it changed the world.
And looking back a year, too, you can't see that when we take a long view, we really do see
we can acknowledge the importance of science in advancing our nation's policies and making
the world a better 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. This has been a very
difficult time for us. We do have the Arctic Science Summit week coming up in a couple ofweeks 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 much good work over the past 30 years. It is very difficult for
us now to lose our collaborations with Russia. I must also think 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 essentiallydeveloping 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 worldmust stand United to stop these harsh events. It is a difficult time for us. The host of the Arctic
Science Week in Norway have issued a statement that the scientists from, the scientists andresearchers, policymakers from Russia, from institutions within Russia will not be invited toparticipate, will not be allowed to participate either in person or online. This is a very hardline 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 helpfulcomments. I'd like 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 generation in terms of operating short term to longterm in a hopeful manner, recognizing that we are struggling seriously with problems that areof 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 and the 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 andrewarding part of my life is to work with the young researchers and to see how they can takethe accomplishments of the past, build upon the knowledge that we have. And really leap
forward with that to resolve many of these challenges. Right now, this political situation isawful. The pandemic is terrible. But we also face this issue of climate change. And thechallenges before us are beyond our capabilities that we're going to resolve by driving electriccars or using paper instead of plastic bags. We have to have some huge technological andscientific and policy advances. And 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 technologicaladvances that we 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 Anna 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 thefuture. We must invest in young people. We must invest in young people in the Circumpolar
area as well as the rest of the world. And as it is now, it is much harder in the Arctic area
because there is sanctions that we have to follow up. But I do not think that it is young
people's will to have a war in Ukraine. And I think we have to as soon as possible when thesituation agent probably is solved and go back and resume of a program for young researchersand 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 your Arctic 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 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, andI think it was 2006or seven or something like that. When we met Jenny, we met in Hanover,
New Hampshire, I think for the first time at the Artist Side summit. 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 thesepeople are doing now, it's interesting to observe that Jenny has been the Executive Director of
SCAR 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 the executive directorof APECS for quite some time. She's now the direct director of IASC. I think it really pays offthat we changed things and made the young generation more responsible and gave themmore visibility and more responsibility. The other example that I would like to mention is, ofcourse, the IASC fellowship program that we started in I think 2014 for the first time. Also, Idid an Arctic science summary and these fellows that we supported through IASC. And now
there are more additional programs that were kind of modeled on the highest 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 think it started within the international pull of year. Before it was different, before it
was just the old people having to say what happens. But now I think it changed and that's
important.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 40:48
Thank you, Volker. I hadn't anticipated inviting Jenny to ask questions or comments, but Jenny,
your name is invoked with appreciation, and I would like to provide an opportunity for you toeither 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 andcould 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 crucial of a role APECS could play, particularly because it's anorganization made up of members and not countries. And I think there's a real strength inthat, 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 Paul as well, you guys were instrumental in helping us make sure that we had a voice andthat you helped us navigate the political waters to do something really good. And I want tomake sure that you get the definite recognition for helping us to do that as well. I just reallythink it's great to see how things are changing and opening these wonderful opportunities foryoung 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 thereis planning for another International Polar Year in 2032, and if we begin to think short to longterm, that's a decade into the future, how do we imagine the circumstances today where
doors are being shut, isolation is happening. Russia is being excluded from programs like theArctic 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 first coordinative 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 hugeinternational Antarctic program, and it was in the 50s, where really during difficult politicaltimes, and still there was scientific cooperation. And I mean, the outcome of that
International Geophysical Year was at the end, the Antarctic Treaty System was formed as an
outcome of this national polar. The last one in 2007-2008, was a bit different because it was
during very positive times, I would say. I'm not involved in the next one. Because I will beretired 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 and what it can do. So, of course, it's a chance ten years, something like that, Larry, youknow more about it. But yeah, I would hope that it's a way to get people again on the sametable 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.
Prof. Larry Hinzman – 44:54
I've been working as the President of the University Arctic. And I have been trying to promote
the initiation of the international polar in 2032 and 2033. And we've been working with SCAR,
which is the Scientific Committee on Antarctic research. Because we can't have aninternational polar. 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 theprevious research sites who can repeat the cruise tracks from the Oceanographic expeditions.
And revisit these studies that were conducted. So that we do understand 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 intoanother Cold War. That we don't enter those dark periods of isolation. I'm hoping. I'm justpraying that this conflict ends soon. And we can welcome back Russian researchers. Who havedone so much for Arctic research over the years? Welcome back into this international foldof collaborators. I do think we need to take a hard 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 aheadof this year is what is important. It seems a long way to go. But I think that the process thatwill go on until this year arriving is very important. And it is, of course, not a possibility just to
stop the arctic research and wait for this international polar here. We need to do business.
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. We must 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 thechat. I will endeavor to ask them in the remaining ten minutes. Larry, Volker, and Anne, theresponse 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 mightlook 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 be researched and approached without having
Russia and active participants, which is, of course, doable, but will not be a good solution. We
can't stop collaborating the other seven countries in the meantime until we hopefully have
Russia on board again in good shape. I 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 Council operates on consensus, andthat's, of course, an issue. If one country is not there, you cannot reach the consensus. It is notpossible 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 newmodalities, that there must be another arrangement in order to continue the work of theCouncil. And I think that's what they must work on. I mean, I don't think that anyone wassurprised 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 now
since Russia has the Championship of the Council, 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 weare fortunate to have wonderful council members and wonderful executive committee. I needto acknowledge that Dr. Paula Kankaanpää is also one of our vice presidents and has beenvery helpful in trying to resolve this as far as how we will move forward in a nature ofinternational collaborations. And we're struggling with this at this point. And unfortunately, I
don't have a good answer for you, Paul. And I don't foresee a positive solution in the shortterm. I think the only thing we can say is that it is something we need to we have 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 thecontext of this webinar, which seeks to address informed decision making, which operates
across a continuum of urgency, 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 fromthe moment across time. Certainly, a component of this discussion was introduced in thinking
about next generation leaders. But are there other elements of informed decision making
where we as a community of researchers can contribute to a process not necessarily theanswers, but the process of framing questions that bring together dialogues among allies andadversaries to operate with continuity, peace, and stability going forward? That is theintention 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 your activities. Given the circumstances, we operate with
continuity from the present and the future, even with bumps in the road and Wiggles andvariability in terms of responses and dynamics, how do we create the continuity from thepresent 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 on that the fellowship that IASC sponsored, as far as giving young
people the opportunity to take a leadership role and to promote their ideas, moving forward,
I think has been important. The other thing I think has been important, and I think looking
back on the last 30 years that Ican see has been super effective is by sharing our expertise inthat I think some of the most productive researchers that we've had, those who have had thebest impact, the biggest impact have been those who have worked across international lines.
So, I know from all the collaborations that we've had with Japan over the years that thegreatest productivity has been from those who have spent time in other nations 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 pickedup 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 our greatest
strength and allowing these individuals to develop those capability in other laboratories andthen bring that information home or stay there and continue the collaborations that they
have from their home nation It's just a tremendous benefit to everyone And I think that's
something we should really continue 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 scienceshould 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 what's coming out of the trans disciplinary approach inresearch Combined with collaboration with, for instance, industry and so on. So, I think thetime is not there anymore Where you can sit in your laboratory and doing the experiments

that you think you should do without looking to the rest of the world and trying to put yourresearch 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 issomewhat destroyed but hopefully it will be up and going soon.
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 thecriteria for a scientist to be successful Is still scientific papers. I mean, if I'm going into ascientific career and if I apply for professorship, of course they only want to see peer reviewed
papers. So, there's nobody asking what did you do in terms of policy advice? What did you doin terms of communicating? And that's really a problem. I mean for a young PhD or a postdocof course I get responses when I asked 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 kind of work. It's not part of
my job. And I think there's something wrong in the system that we must think about, that thiskind 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 kindof work. But for young 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 emerged in the sense of bridging the data to evidence interface, recognizing thatdata is a component of research, and evidence for decisions involves actions with decision
makers, and bridging that across that data, evidence 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 mucha tremendous ordeal. It was really led by the German government, but it was an international
partnership which strongly included the Russian government and China and Japan and justmany other nations with the interest in Arctic research. And it produced important outcomes.
So, it was an expedition where the ship was frozen from the ice. But the studies that wereable 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 thesubsurface, the subsea dynamics of not just the major ocean currents, but also the subtle
eddies and what role they play in transferring heat. So important results come out of thatstudy. It was a tremendous international collaboration as follows, involving so many ice
breakers from so many countries and just the contributions of scientists from around theworld playing a huge role.

The success that came out of that gives us great hope to look forward into other majorinternational collaborations that could do something very similar. So right now, there isinternational cooperation on a program called T-MOSAiC, which is terrestrial MOSAiC, looking
at the same thing to try and make similar progress in a different regime. Again, tremendousinternational 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, those achievements 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 helpful. Volker or Anne, please.
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 are sort of forced in a good way to collaborate. And what comes out of it ismeta-analysis. That is important. And I think it makes impression also on public andpoliticians. But it is, of course, hard to take the steps forward to avoid further damage tohappen. 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 scientific knowledge
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 inorder to know what 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 wecan'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 thenlater 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, 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. What they see
is an approach of everyone struggling in spirit of humanity to try and improve the search
circumstances, recognizing we have ongoing challenges to address. With that, I would like totake this opportunity to personally thank you, Larry, Anne, Volker, for taking your time andparticipating in this opening plenary and now invite you to facilitate breakout sessions for the
next 45 minutes. Michelle and Ream, if you could transfer us into the various 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 hopefulobservations. Final question to address before we go into the breakout sessions, I would liketo ask how difficult it is, in your opinion, to reach common people when promoting informed
decision making about major issues, particularly because most of the time people are not
involved in science find it difficult to interpret scientific data. That's a question ofcommunication and I would say it's a question of how we as a community build common
interests across the board with each other cross boundaries of nations, across boundaries of
disciplines, cross boundaries of ages. How can we as a community be inclusive? So, questionof 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.
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 last30, 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 and we've changed that as far as ourapproach and we've taken these disciplinary studies to address the challenges 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 butwhat they're really concerned about is food security and how they're going to make theirmortgage 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 that must be those resolutions to those challenges
have 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
assessment and I think that report was so welcome communicated that it also changed the
public opinion on the arctic that 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,
cartoons and different things, interactive websites, and very different and modern ways ofcommunicating science. And I think that's the way to reach, let's say the person on the street
and not only other scientists or obviously makers. So, I think it very much 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 alsoneed to be places where that 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 then most 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 his 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 andcommunicating with the public. So, I thank you again, Larry, Anne, and Volker. Michelle andReima, if you could place us in our various breakout sessions and we will continue from that.
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 to invite 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 call so it was good to have asmaller group and we went into the questions and discussed both the communication ofscientific 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 must be a simple message that can be understood also withthose with science industry. We discussed also how decisions are made. Is it so that there isa straight line from the scientist to the decision maker? No, it is not. It's a lot of influence. It'san ecosystem of influence on the way and all from different organizations, those who
promote fake news, those who will lobby their own view into a decision maker. And even ina perfect democracy, we must look at what those influencers are to know that the message
we want the decision makers to take is still in a way that is based on knowledge. I think thatwas what is left from the discussion. The last question that I haven't addressed in thisbreakout session is the homework that everyone had to do to discuss the paper that wasprovided as homework. So, this has not been done. If this can be approached now, I'm morethan willing to participate in that discussion, but maybe some of the reporters 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 was in that session or not. Tero 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 and good 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 just general discussion, but I think we touched upon all of them, and I think we had avery 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. We started with a question, who are decision makers? Our scientist’s decision makers
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 isscientific getting facts. Without scientific getting facts, it doesn't make any sense tocommunicate 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 notcommunicating, translating science. And is there an influence that the media has on the
public, on the person on the street? Can signs 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 partof this political discussion or is there a danger to becoming an activist? Are you still a goodscientist if you are considered an activist? So, it's quite dangerous. But we in any case agree
that it's responsibility of scientists to make corrections in the context of science. If there's
something wrong, of course we as scientist set to take responsibility to correct things and in
the context of climate change.
Then we talked a bit more about decision makers. Decision makers 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 place on the globe where you can see climate change more obviously thanin the Arctic. So, from that point of view the Arctic plays a very important role in terms ofdecision making. We had a little discussion on non-Arctic countries what non-Arctic countries
view as important in terms of science in the Arctic. And of course, we agreed that one thing ischanges that happen in the Arctic and affect 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 non- Arctic countries are also very
interested in.
And then we discussed Indigenous and Western research, and we agreed that you cannot
distinguish between 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 termis Indigenous knowledge to get this knowledge into our science and to use it in terms ofmaking advice or giving advice to policy makers. Decision makers so that this Indigenous
knowledge is considerate. We talked a bit more about the role of media and of course themedia 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 wenoted that of course an important thing is to have a dialogue between scientists and policy
makers. Otherwise, you will not be able to identify the priorities that scientific decision makers
have. We need that dialogue. Scientists of course are responsible to answer questions tosociety and that requires that you know the questions, of course. Then we talked a bit thelast part here. Oh, yeah, we talked a bit about the human element. 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.
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 ascientist, you are normally not trained to do science communication and policy advice. And
Jenny highlighted that there are, of course, a couple of activities, APECS tests and others to
help people getting into that field and to better understand what it means to do science
communication. So, I think that was what we talked about. And Jenny or any other one of thegroups, 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 yourcomments. So, we had a 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 andeducational exchanges with the next generation as far as facilitating the next generation ofresearchers to work with communities and to advance the science and how important it is.
We also talked about how important it is, again, for researchers and scientists, but also policy
makers to spend time in other cultures, other communities, so that they have that
understanding of walking in their shoes and being able to understand where people arecoming from. Again, we talked much about APECS and significance of incorporating young
science estimate. 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 good understanding of where others are coming. From theirperspective, we can really avoid a lot of problems to begin with. Paul brought up a good point.
I thought that a great model that we should have for contract resolution is the Antarctic
Treaty and space Cooperation. The Antarctic Treaty is signed by a couple 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 weare to where we want to be? And so many of the other conflicts that we're in now are basedon 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 bebetter off. One of the challenges for conflict resolution is negotiating with side start withdifferent interests and so different perspectives.
The challenges again, how do we pull those all together? We did talk about the importanceof communications and informing at the local level. And it's not just providing science to the
local level, but also 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 wetalked about the value of bringing science into communities and how that can improve life inthose communities, but also, again, expand our own capabilities, capacity for doing sciencein communities and in the future. And with that, I think I'll stop and turn it back to Paul. Thankyou.
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, and Volker Rachold as the keynote presenters for the second webinar. And I
profoundly thank you for your contributions. And I thank you for your leadership and just in
general. And Larry, I wish you every success with the challenging decisions that are coming up.
And I guess as one among many congratulate you on your stewardship as President of theInternational Arctic Science Committee.
Next, we do have planned third webinar on the 24 March, and the webinar series has beendeveloped and implemented in the spirit of inclusion, recognizing the challenges that are
currently being faced. Andre Bruce Handoff is one of the keynote presenters who's been
involved in these throughout the first and the second webinar. Andre, very much appreciate
your collaboration. Certainly, welcome your contributions 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 the leadership 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. And again, I thank Volker, Anne, and Larry for yourimportant contributions today. Thank the audience and participants for your many important
observations as well, and to that on 4:30. Look my time at the end as on time. I wish everybody
good health and I look forward to next steps. Stay healthy. Thank you very much.