WEBINAR 1: WHAT IS ARCTIC SCIENCE?
MONDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2022
TRANSCRIPT (RECORDING AVAILABLE ON THE UNITAR WEBSITE)
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 00:02
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, starting todaywith 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
the opportunity 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 in Tokyo in May 2021 by Japan and Iceland.
I especially thank Dr. Jenny Baeseman as well as Prof. Akiho Shibata at the Polar Cooperation
Research Center, Kobe University, for their fundamental contributions to implement thisproject.
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 the Multilateral 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 and creativity 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 many time zones, with deep appreciation for sharing your insights to help enhanceinternational scientific cooperation “for the benefit of all on Earth across generations.”
The goal of this holistic (international, interdisciplinary and inclusive) project is to help
enhance international scientific cooperation with transdisciplinary integration of internationallaw, ministries of nations, Indigenous peoples and science inclusively.
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 globally-interconnected civilization.
Research and action contributions to produce informed decisions that operate short-to-longterm 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 theArctic Science Ministerial (ASM) process 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 inGermany with Finland and the European Commission as co-hosts in 2018; ASM3 in 2021 withJapan 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 whowill introduce expert insights, addressing a set of questions, designed to build common
interests. I will facilitate the panel dialogue among these experts, providing opportunity forthe 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 theopportunity to interact with these experts, who will further facilitate dialogues with yourinclusive input about addressing these questions. I will explain details of these breakout
sessions at the end of this panel, which will address:
What is Arctic science?
❖ How do natural sciences, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge ‘fit together’ andenhance each 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 and current member of the European Polar Board.
➢ Prof. Andrey Petrov – Associate Professor, University of Northern Iowa, US; Former
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.
The three breakout sessions for each webinar (which will be unrecorded) will involve initial
discussions (30 minutes) 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
with leadership from the scholar-rapporteurs. The syntheses from the three webinars will befurther distilled with your input into a Science Diplomacy Action publication (as previously),
capturing insights from the webinar series that will help to enhance international scientificcooperation 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 thiswebinar for the opportunity to share my thoughts and experience on Arctic science and I
welcome everyone in my capacity as the special envoy of the Russian chairmanship, in fact,of the Council on Indigenous and Regional 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 and make people live better, so that nature also remains resilient. Indigenous
peoples are originally the first searchers, because indigenous knowledge is tested knowledge,
it is working knowledge. It is in our peoples’ nature to survive and thrive in some of the mostinhospitable 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. Scienceand 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 the processes of this change, and ensure a sustainable development, in
accordance with our 2030 Agenda. Therefore, in my opinion, it is necessary to talk about thecorporate action of knowledge. When scientific knowledge is combined with traditional
knowledge, we can obtain something new. It seems to me strange to divide knowledge into
natural scientists and social scientists from the point of view of indigenous peoples.
For example, it would be difficult for me to imagine that my uncle, when he was goingreindeer hunting would say: “Oh well, we need to think about natural scientists here”.
So what is Arctic science in Russia? We have a long experience in the development of the socalled northern studies and one of the brightest representatives of indigenous people. He wasan outstanding scientist and first head of the world's only institute for Indigenous Peoples on
the Siberian branch of the National Academy of Sciences, and he used to talk about the
introspective approach to research. This is when indigenous knowledge holders do scienceand combine scientific knowledge with indigenous thought. By that time, at this institute ofindigenous peoples in Yakuts, 80% of the research staff were representatives of Indigenous
Peoples. And thanks to this, the institute conducted a large number of new studies andreceived new scientific results which were acknowledged by many scientists in the world.

Today we are observing an explosion of scientific 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 inany process of scientific research. Indigenous communities today are unfortunately not
immune from this kind of researchers. There is no protection of the rights of indigenous
people. The process of co-production of knowledge should be fair and equitable forindigenous peoples and scientists. It is necessary to create and support institutions ofindigenous peoples, including educational and scientific ones.
I often say that an unfair situation is building up in our science arena when competition for
scientific funding becomes practically impossible for indigenous peoples, given that the few andsmall educational and scientific institutions 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,especially trans boundary institutions, which are very important from the point of view ofinternational cooperation in science and the co-production of nodes. International
cooperation in science in the Arctic is certainly needed. And I firmly think that we need evenmore cooperation in Arctic nowadays. I have been involved in international cooperation
regarding Indigenous Peoples for more than 30 years. When I was working in the associationof World Reindeer Herders, the first festival in Tromso was held 30 years ago in 1983. Since
then, we have managed to establish cooperation between Reindeer Herders, scientists,
governments, and businesses, which has evolved into a big movement. We believe that it isimperative to invest in young people in order to increasingly involve them in research, andalso the research of traditional knowledge and science.
Now, together with the Federal Agency for nationalities in Russia, GMO, the National Center
for Reindeer Husbandry, and others, we wish to create a training course on traditional
knowledge. Traditional knowledge has been used in the Arctic Council on diplomacy for
decades. We see that archetypes are now developing, for example, religious people, Serbianparticipants of that council, develop the tradition of traditional knowledge principles. There isa lot of work and movement inside the Arctic Council, which I think it would also be very usefulfor science in general.
I believe that with international cooperation in the field of science and co-production ofknowledge, we can conduct the comparative analysis and exchange best practices. Again,
when we combine these two, two plus two is five, we can achieve optimal results. In
conclusion, I would like to underline that stability and cooperation are based on respect foreach 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 your observations as well please. Thank you for that.
Dr. Kirsi Latola – 17:04
Thanks for inviting me here. It's not easy to follow you Mikhail because you put it so nicely. I
would like to give three points on openness, and openness and inclusiveness with the valuesof the University of the Arctic that I work with, as Paul mentioned. And first I would like to callfor 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 westernknowledge and Western science is often understood as physical hard sciences, experiences
to the Arctic and so on. Sometimes, it's also thought that this type of research and science is astandalone science. So, it's kind of done completely on its own. But, is that actually the case?
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 also, how the
research benefits the peoples who live in the region?
If you think about climate change, it is their home life and they are directly affected by climatechange.
Secondly, I wanted to point out something that I quite recently heard from my colleagues inInternational Central Reindeer Husbandry, because they pointed out that in second icon in
2005, it was a starting point of a new era, because it stated that for future activities andimplementation and I quote now, “the key issue is the ownership and active participation ofother indigenous peoples in research activities, and it should be reflected in future programsand the implementation of science plans for each of the four focal points”. In this hypothesis
science plan, scientists, unconscious indigenous persons and communities should be given theopportunity to propose specific research plans that break new ground. That was 17 years ago,and since then, we have had ICARP in 2015. We have, as Paul mentioned in his opening
statement, three Arctic science Ministerial meetings and statements. We have had otherpolitical statements, including the European Union's Arctic policy, where they stated theimportance of inclusion of indigenous traditional knowledge using the participatory researchmethod, 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 thecorporate as research, but as Mikhail has said it has also caused a kind of a negative effectthat the ethical guidelines and all these good 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 eachother, both locally and globally. As we have 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 are often thought to be less important, and they are less funded. We know that if you
look at the statistics, for example, in Europe, the most research funding has gone into thenatural sciences an add on also societies. 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.
We need actors to cooperate across different disciplines.
We need to cooperate across the players via the research and educational organizations,public bodies, 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. Those who live in the Arctic, weknow our lands. We know what is going on here. We know what the issues are, and we dohave a competence. We do have a highly ranked number of scientists and researchers and we
do welcome a cooperation because we know that that is the key to the success to have areally full cooperation.
Thank you.
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 aswell, Henry, please.
Mr. Henry Burgess - 23:11
Oh, 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 for this opportunity. My name is Henry Burgess, as Paul said I work at
the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, 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 toresearchers across the rest of the world with a view to kind of increasing scientific cooperationand coordination wherever possible.
The particular point I wanted to share 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 sciencebackground. 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, andthen 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 ofenvironmental 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, thatsense of kind of rapid change in the Arctic, the way that the Arctic is important for itself andfor 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 that narrative

is very strong. Whenever I speak to policy and decision makers in the UK or more broadly,
they get that message essentially that that hits home. All of us have kind of worked very hardon that message over decades. 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 as powerful as
possible. And it's partly because this is a court of international effort. The way that science isfunded in all our different countries is completely different from some it's very directed fromthe 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, itcomes from a science idea. Someone's kind of sitting on their own or working with colleagues
to create a kind of an idea that then becomes a funded program on a project. Nowadays, wehave all kinds of different ways of sharing 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'rein the right place when it comes to how science responds and particularly how science
responds in connection with indigenous and local communities. What are their responses tothat? The first response is the state of Arctic science report, which comes from theInternational Arctic science committee. The first one of those was produced in 2020. The
second one was last year. And this is not about the science itself in the Arctic. It's not about
how the Arctic is changing. It's about the state of the science century. It's where the gaps are,where we can cooperate, where is the beginning of knowledge in some particular areas, andthat is going to be a huge priority in the future. And so that's something that we can focus onin the future. That’s something that I think the international Arctic science committee has
been a particular kind of a really 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 side's communities
in the right place. Are we asking the right questions in order to respond to that change? I will
put a link in the chat shortly to the state of Arctic science report. 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.
Because of 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 indifferent places. We don't have anything like the coverage and the depth of knowledge aboutthat change yet. And of course, all of that happens because government states are keen tounderstand that change and to fund it fundamentally.
The Arctic science founders forum should bring together the key nations who have an interestin working together and in funding the understanding of change in the Arctic. The
organization is very young. It's essentially only a couple of years old. And we're still working
towards our Terms of Reference in our first meetings and kind of making something obvious,
but I hope in the next year or two, as we build up to the next Arctic science ministerial meeting,this forum will be a really good place to think about some of these really big questions,because we're increasingly seeing that the biggest questions in the Arctic need the biggest
responses in terms of international coordination.

The third response I wanted to mention just quickly, is a specific response. The UK andpartners in Canada have undertaken thinking about how we can respectfully engage between
traditional western science, if I can use that term, and indigenous and other local knowledge.
This is a new Arctic research program and got UK Arctic research program and it will run from2021 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, anddelivered, and the data will be owned by all the different partners in the program. So rightfrom the very start, this has not been about teams in Canada and the UK deciding we want towork on your opinion and get the final for Canada. And here's what we'll do. It's actually a bit
about how we can combine teams research from anywhere, Canadian research teams, UK
research teams, all together and work together to support those principles of selfdetermination and research which are very important in the communities of the North andI'm hoping 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 and organizations have their red lines. And working together in this way has beendifficult for us but it's been intensely rewarding. We are now at the stage having signed amemorandum of understanding with all the different partners in Canada and it didn't get ayear or so ago. We have the applications, and we're 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 thatdata 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 madea 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 subsequent discussions. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 32:15
Thank you very much Henry for your helpful observations. The last keynote presenter today
is Professor Andre Petrov from the International Arctic Social Science Association and Iowa.
Prof. Andrey Petrov - 32:30
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I'll try to be short and concise. I have a
few points to deliver. I am the former president of the International Social Science Association,
which of course brings together about 700 social scientists across the Arctic and beyond. I'dlike to begin by reminding 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 isvery important to recognize the diversity of the Arctic sciences family. At the same time, wemust remember that Arctic research is incredibly and increasingly international, theUniversity of the Arctic has done a study a few years ago, comparing generally research acrossthe 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 sametime, most of the Arctic researchers are keen on international cooperation. About 90% ofArctic researchers in one way or another are interested in pursuing international cooperation

when there's access to it, and data being in the field of sharing knowledge with each other orworking with communities across the Arctic. Therefore, it's very important that these points,of course, keep on being highly considered.
Paul mentioned that the Arctic science cooperation agreement is an interesting instrument
that's been developed with the cooperation of the science community, and it mentions someof the organizations that are involved here. Specifically, he asked, who can be one of the leading
forces and implementing 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 forgenerating support from the funding 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 have beenchanging quite rapidly. As well, in terms of their methodological, even epistemologicalunderpinnings from a very disciplinary science perspective that science organizations had years
ago. We dominated heavily by nature of sciences, and really not embedded with Arctic
communities. We need to quickly sign that as an interim term discovery, in which different
science disciplines are working together and most importantly, which different knowledge
systems are acknowledged.
That is the future Arctic science that we would like to have. We are still experiencing apandemic and in terms of Arctic research, we could deem this event as a strategic pause. Thispause gave us an opportunity to reflect on our work as scientists. Arctic communities werealso 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 reflect on these things. In
a recent paper, approximately written a year ago, 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 coproduction. The third is focusing on the next
generation. And the fourth is emphasizing global nature of Arctic research.
Regarding the local turn, is really a turn to localization and decolonization of Arctic researchenterprises, which can increasingly foster the role of indigenous local communities, as weknow that that is really important. We knew this before the COVID-19 outbreak, but the actual
situation demonstrated us the need to double, tripled those efforts. We are representing theinvestment in local infrastructure and connectivity management with Arctic residents.
Scientists and researchers who would conduct research in the Arctic must all shift to aparadigm where we prioritize locals, as I would have early career student first, and now we're
finding principles. It is important to focus on community driven research, not just computer
based, but also increase the role of citizens’ science, which are important elements. At thesame time, we must remember that the resilient Arctic science we can build should be basedon a fruitful global coalition and meaningful collaboration of scientists, local and indigenous
rights, as well as knowledge holders, policymakers, science advocates, citizen scientists,industry partners, research and financing institutions and many others. Just one group by
itself cannot do it and even the Arctic Council just acting alone can't deliver it.
It is an international corporation that is at the forefront of this effort. And that would be ofcourse, a part of the process is taking place right now. As an example, the preparation for theinternational conference or the research planning in Denver in 2025, and the International
Polar Year 2030 to 33, which we truly hope they can be duly held. These efforts also contributeas a force, as a decolonization of Arctic research enterprise. This depicts a part that
contributes to co-production knowledge, of course from multiple dimensions, 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. It means co-identifying research needs, co-creating
research ideas, co-designing research questions called defining research objectives, codeveloping research programs for authoring results 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 andrespect indigenous knowledge and other knowledge systems but, first of all, in the Arctic,
conduct the indigenous knowledge support needed to identify indigenous peoples’ research
priorities and act upon their own. I think it's very important for us to keep that in mind, notjust the priorities that science community is bringing, but also the ownership that indigenous
communities have earlier o, enabling and encouraging development for an equitable
relationship, and understanding between indigenous peoples and researchers, and very
importantly, focusing on reciprocity and researchers. This should be a mutually enrichingprocess which can support capacity building, and communities, both in our Arctic partner
communities and in the science community itself, by expanding an understanding of the roleand the opportunities that this co-production and collaboration can bring us. I think we are ina very interesting 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 and sharing bestpractices.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 42:09
Excellent message. Indeed, Andre, might I request you to put the reference for the paper you
were speaking with those four points into the chat? I think that will be helpful and instructive.
We have now about 20 minutes there for a dialogue among the panelists. And rather thanbeing presumptuous and asking questions myself, do any of the four panelists have questions
for each other that you would like to raise? Andre, Henry, Mikhail and Kirsi, any question thatyou would like to raise? Otherwise, let me start with an observation that Mikhail made about
how strange it feels to divide knowledge systems, from the perspective of indigenous
communities and as researchers. We should embrace all of these different components fromnatural 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 to in concert to consider
societal relevant approaches. I would just put that out there as a question, do any of the fourof 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 nonIndigenous person, it's not easy to understand what indigenous knowledge outside thedifferent 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 researchersand 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
thorough, what is editor's choice because it, of course, depends on the communities 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, forresearchers who are not indigenous, it's often quite difficult to understand. The system and as
I said, for example, in our region, our scientists who were indigenous he proposed thisintrospective approach. When indigenous representatives’ holders of this knowledge wereeducated as researchers, they started to combine knowledge and got something new. And as
I said, we got very good results after this.
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 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 and listen and that's really the first step that we all need toundertake.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman – 47:00
In this consideration of knowledge systems of science and thinking how they originated in thefirst instance and why we have natural sciences, social sciences, indigenous knowledge, andobservation, it aimed to establish additional discussions. Each of these knowledge systems
emerged to help with decisions that would 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 of decision-making. Is it
appropriate to think of science in a sense as a study of change? That all of these knowledge
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, it sort of aims to challenge
each other professionally and 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 sense of 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 with how we can combine those two ways. Because
sometimes it is more important to understand, to comprehend a conflict rather than anagreement in a situation where western scientists think about change 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 anappropriate and effective language for our lab. Both communities need to define a way ofcommunicating and agreeing with each other in a meaningful 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 the sense that it is designed around questions when ultimately, if we're successful,to reveal questions of common concern. Arguably, the questions are more critical in theprocess than the answers. And indeed, in terms of this evolution that Andre had mentioned
going from disciplinary to interdisciplinary to trans disciplinary, it's the design of questions
among stakeholders, rights holders and actors together, this CO design that becomes
important. Mikhail, Kirsi or Andre, do you have additional observations based on the notionthat science and systems knowledge systems originated to assist in decision-making?
Prof. Andrey Petrov - 51:21
I can quickly say, in addition to what Paul mentioned, we also talk about emerging fromconvergence research, which actually turns into disciplinary research. That is focused on
addressing critical, specific challenges, in our case in the Arctic for Arctic communities. That's
really, again the future of Arctic science and 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 co-production 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 thecritical questions. There has 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 beencausing 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
the importance 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 theseprocesses 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
scientific knowledge, it would best to enhance decision-making.

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 acommitment. 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 Uganda, the northern part of Canada, then you will be
experiencing this environmental social change firsthand. And the things that are happening to
you and around you are of kind of 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, thethemes for what the program would cover, that has to start off by responding to the concernsof the local community and those are in lots of cases. It is also important that 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 fromthe local organization. You had to have that engagement in the program and they will befunded through the program. So if you're a Canadian and a UK researcher and you had abrilliant idea, that's not enough, you have to have the agreement of the local community totake part in your project and only then, it will be funded through the project. Following that,
there is not just the typical Western peer review process that we all know about, but there isalso 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, sharethe data, and publish together, and therefore, the credit of the work would be extended toboth ends as well. And then ideally, of course, there is a legacy that's left, our project is ourprogram 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 workon 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 you started that? It is always said that you have to have this trust. So on the
Canadian side, the partners are Polar Knowledge Canada, the National Research Council,
Parks Canada, and the funding councils in Quebec. Together with ITK 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 alreadyto 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, do you are the other threegroups, and together you got 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 the idea first, and then come to it kind of later on for 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 other places. As I said, it is challenging for them to compete withprominent universities for funding, when there is quite a large pipeline of funding for researchin the Arctic, usually from more renowned universities or consortium States. Those remote andsmaller institutions never get support to deliver their research and development 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 toparticipate 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, andfrom 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 andobservations. Let me just 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.
Therefore, Clara will push a button and we will all disappear into the breakout sessions. The
general framework is that we'll have about half an hour in the breakout sessions to address
the questions for this webinar. Then we will reconvene for about a 15-minute debrief fromeach of the three breakout sessions and go back into a breakout session again for theremainder. Up until 15 minutes before the end. And then a final debrief. The objective foreach 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 in parallel with the formal national funding agencies is very important, andperhaps something that can be formalized more broadly. In terms of national responses, I
think that would certainly send a clear and compelling signal of co-production in terms ofshared review so that was a very important insight that he shared 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 manythoughtful questions in the chat. I encourage you all to make a copy of the chat to look at thequestions. We will produce 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 firsthalf-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 thethree breakout sessions to share observations. So roughly five minutes for each breakout
session. And starting with breakout session number one, I would like to call on either thefacilitator, 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 thevalue of transdisciplinary research and making sure that that was appropriately respected.
There was then a discussion 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 and that works against realprojects that have co- development. So mainly, we discussed how we could get over 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, butthere 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.
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 looked
through some examples of how that might work.
I think we focused attention on making sure that both parties had equal stakes financially andin governance terms in the outcomes of that, although we recognize that it is very, very
difficult, particularly when it comes down to disagreements on the data about wildlife andmammals in particular.
We touched on the issue of how indigenous communities should be involved in Arctic sciencethat doesn't relate directly to their life experiences. So, we were talking there about thefunding of icebreakers and satellites, as well as aircraft. So, things that don't relate to the daily
lived experience of communities and whether there was a role for indigenous involvement inthose decisions.
We acknowledge that there's no day-to-day engagement in the reality of what happens in thecentral 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 are just beginning to get into some of that discussion. We also talked
about learning from other indigenous communities across the world, in the Amazon or
Canada, in Asia, and elsewhere, about their experience and their example of how you resolve
some of these complexities and move forward.
Then we talk a little bit about funding and how we could be creative in funding new programs
and projects, 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 from the 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 havemisrepresented or that 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 acomment. Henry, we did an analysis of the five binding agreements that entered into force in2009. And curiously, the central Arctic Ocean High Seas fishery agreement includes the term
indigenous more than the search and rescue agreement, more than the pollution preparedness
and agreement, more than the polar code, and more 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
Andre is incredibly eloquent and trying to do my best and if anyone from this session has otherthoughts or additions to what I'm about to say please, go ahead just when I finished.
Prof. Andrey Petrov – 01:13:48
There has been a very intense discussion and some of the topics are similar to what we weretalking 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, but also for an understandingthat no knowledge system, no matter how long term and elaborate it is, is not perfect. is also
an important, important kind of prerequisite for success. And there is a corporate active
process. There is a need for different knowledge systems to work together to attain theknowledge 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 is somewhat different or special in the way that this co-productive work is being
conducted or in general, what do we bring, a global society, a global science community inthat experience. Another context is the Arctic Council which has been on for many years now,

which recognizes and generalizes efforts to elevate indigenous knowledge and its own work.
And that's, of course, the representation of Berman participants as one of the ways in whichin those discussions in the Arctic Council, the indigenous knowledge could be brought up andcould be placed on a relatively similar footing as other knowledge systems of scientificknowledge system, or Western science. It was discussed that same designed ministries haveanyways different structures and different ways in which that is done and the full for a varietyof 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 sokind of how this complex system could work. To further highlight and elevate indigenous
knowledge. I think they've been quite a bit of effort made.
Another interesting thought that I actually didn't think of before, was about time. Bothknowledge systems, whether of course in a digital system that I developed throughout
millennia, and on the side soldiers 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 work across thedifferent timeframes? That is, I think, an important question 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 with immediate risks. And at the other end of the scale, it's at asustainability timescale, trying to balance environmental, 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 justalways also be incorporated into decision-making processes.
We all agreed that the most important thing is to begin with no fundamental disease about
the need for respect and trust between researchers and indigenous formulas. Because
sometimes it is difficult to understand each other’s different understandings of what science
is working. So, we agreed that the spectrum test was very important. Then we also werediscussing what could be the possible models or problems which could incorporate storage
into research and into risk making process. We also discussed dual model for validation ofdifferent ways of knowledge.

And also, some participants were asking about, for example, different events like Arctic
resilience Forum, which could be also useful for the discussion on multidisciplinary ways ofunderstanding different types of knowledge andWe were also thinking about how we could provide funding opportunities to small
institutions, and indigenous peoples. And again, we had some discussion about what different
programs there are to support research and use people for solutions. Of course, I said that it'sdifficult for many small and remote institutions to be supported because they have limitedaccess to 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 weakness between the
Arctic States and non- Arctic States. It was also said that there are similarities between otherindigenous peoples but that they face just the same challenges with regards to the use of
their knowledge. Another question was, how to use traditional knowledge, andunderstanding of climate change, which is also a global challenge. There are many similarities
in this regard, and of course the Arctic is very special.
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 is that 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 return to 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 thefloor 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 whocome from a different background in the Arctic countries and the Arctic context, we are very
often facing the same faces in these webinars, and we are here to say we know what eachother is going to say. What I realized in this webinar is that we can certainly learn from eachother from Asian Pacific and other countries, and we should kind of use that opportunity andmaybe even often connect to the other parts of the world. Because the issue of climatechange, for example, is exactly the same and it's an issue with how it works with the small
universities or small colleges. So, there's a lot for us to learn from the others. And I think that'sthat has been really good. So that's maybe also my conclusion. Paul, if I may, but I think thatthat was what I was sustaining. 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 have experience of working with small island developing states, in the Asia Pacific and
the Caribbean and beyond, and some really extreme experiences of using the Green Climate
funds and transboundary funding. And we have experience of putting together programs andprojects between different universities over several years.
There is definitely a potential to share some of that learning more broadly at venues like theArctic Circle assembly, where it's happened, I think in the past but you know, potentially doingthat again in the future. It was also an interesting point that was made about non-Arctic
indigenous groups looking with envy a little bit towards the north and thinking about how
well integrated and how well connected some Arctic indigenous communities are fordecision-making 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 some of the issues that we're going to be dealing with in the Arctic as well, forexample, kind of shipping and access to shipping straights and sort of international waters andnational 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 whohave a kind of a specific niche interest, a higher profile than they would normally have in a muchbigger group. So you can find even as a small institution, you can find your niche in one of thosethematic networks and have a role in helping to set the priorities and potentially have somefunding through that route.
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 bysaying that the time of action is now, and the burden is upon us to do stuff to pull off the workand make sure that what we talk about is implementable. I mean, they don't want us to missthe importance of the moment and actually, maybe the fact that this webinar did actuallycontribute to larger processes like international conference obligations planning, which reallyis the process that will lead us to have priorities and Arctic research, including priorities aroundco-production in the next 10 years. That will lead us to the International Polar Year. There aresmall deals and then the large things we could do. I mean, in our second 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 tofunding, whether it's a small funding process or big funding. I think the idea is that we needto incorporate mechanisms in both very large-scale elements and then create small-scale
opportunities as well. Another thought was that the Arctic's science community is working inmany ways. There are not only major needs and certainties about climate and otherenvironmental change aspects but also work with businesses to develop economic
opportunities in a private-public partnership, but we are also part of the discussion, and we
don't need to forget about it. Our collective future planning is also changing. Again, it's notjust the funding agencies and ministries, there's also the society and business and 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 and ways of life, and we need to unite forces now into building this resilience for
Arctic science that would address the needs of the communities while of course providing uswith fundamental knowledge that will help us change the world. Thank you.
Prof. Paul Arthur Berkman - 1:32:47
Thank you Andre. 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 andin general, for enhancing scientific cooperation in the Arctic, we have, as the previous speakersaid, 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 challenges and it became, for one side more difficult tocooperate, 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 wealready have on how to conduct research on the Arctic. As Andrey said, there are alreadycertain mechanisms and we just need to maybe think about modifying them to meet theneeds of these communities and make science more sustainable, as we spoke aboutsustainable development in the Arctic. We also need that science, which is dealing with thedevelopment of the indigenous communities in the Arctic, becomes increasingly sustainable.
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 decision making so much of the discussion today is about roll up therole of science and indigenous knowledge with regard to decision making? That will be thefocus of the second webinar, dealing with how are the decisions on what priorities are to beaddressed, and made? Who are the decision-makers again, the questions that came up in thediscussion today and what evidence is needed, and how is that evidence defined?
The next webinar will involve 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 WhiteHouse, and then president of the International Arctic 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 theInternational 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 thankMikhail, Kirsi, Henry, and Andrey for your excellent contributions. I'd like to thank the scholars
for their excellent job and reporting. I'd like to thank you UNITAR for their facilitation of thiswebinar 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 fromtoday's dialogues. I look forward to the next steps and I wish everybody well.