ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
A1: Understanding the Arctic climate change and its global influences: Japan'scontributions and suggestions for the future
Main organizer(s)Kumiko Takata, and Hiroyuki Enomoto
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The interdisciplinary and comprehensive studies on climate changes in the Arctic and its
global influences are presented from all the related fields. The aim of this session is largely
associated to the ISAR-4 priorities, and is related to the research activities of the GRENE
Arctic Climate Change Research Project in Japan.
More than 100 participants joined the two oral slots, exhibiting discussion among scientist
from different fields. The number of posters, 24, was the largest one. In the 1st slot,changes and its mechanisms for sea-ice, ocean circulation, climate, atmospheric circulation,and ice-sheet were discussed on the basis of energy-water balances and cycles. In thesecond slot, changes and its mechanisms in the geochemical cycles, black carbon, and themarine and terrestrial ecosystems were shown by various measurements and models.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
The aim of this session is to present and discuss the interdisciplinary and comprehensive
studies on climate changes in the Arctic and its global influences, and is largely contributed
to the ISAR-4 priorities. GRENE Arctic climate change research project investigated climate
system and relation to various environments, and also suggested problems remained. These
approaches are main focus of ISAR-4 and substantial flat of the establishing scientific trial
for the coming decade, namely aims of ICARP III. Importance of changes in not only sea-ice
distribution but also its volume was shown, and its relations with ocean/atmosphericcirculation and its climate impacts were discussed. Besides, the mechanism of polar
amplification was proposed. Results of changes in geochemical cycles and ecosystems wereshown by various measurements and models, and future issues to understand its variations
and mechanisms were discussed.
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
A2: Paleoclimatic perspective on Atctic changes and polar amplification
Main organizer(s)Kenji Kawamura, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Masanobu Yamamoto
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The session began with introduction of the IASC-endorsed program “PAST Gateways” andthe Japanese “long-term plan for Arctic paleoenvironmental research” (a national
contribution to ICARP-III), followed by a series of scientific talks and posters on diverse
topics of past Arctic atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere, covering various periods andutilizing various materials and methods (ice cores, marine and terrestrial sediments,
geomorphology, historical documentation, ice sheet/climate models, etc). The periods
discussed in the presentations are the last century, the last millennium, the Holocene, thelast deglaciation, the last glacial and the last several glacial cycles. The session also
demonstrated the importance of gathering scientists who are tackling the issues fromdifferent continents (Eurasia, North America) and oceans (Atlantic, Pacific) to discuss
together towards full documentation and understanding of the past Arctic changes.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
Since the Arctic climate has been dynamically changing, research focuses should be put ontransitions between states and interactions between components.
Paleoenvironmental reconstructions in the Arctic remain important, especially on
Greenland and Arctic ice sheets, sea ice and related paleoclimatic parameters, withaccurate dating.
Multidisciplinary approaches are necessary, especially terrestrial/ocean/ice-core studies
and data-model comparisons, towards better understanding of processes and interactions.

1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions

Name of Session
A4: Geospace over and related to the Arctic region
Main organizer(s)Yasunobu Ogawa (NIPR)
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
Many phenomena in the near-earth space environment (Geospace) significantly affecthuman activities and social infrastructures in the Arctic regions. The Geospace (A4) session
and its side meeting were held as an international forum to discuss recent progress in thisarea and to advance the operation and development of essential research infrastructures.
Fifteen oral talks were presented to an audience of about 40 scientists. Fourteen posters
were presented in the associated poster session. An open side meeting was also held with
26 attendees, with short reports from each institution and short introductions to the poster
papers. Most of the attendees continued fruitful discussions on recent progress and further
collaborations in the following dinner party at a local restaurant. This was the first STP(Solar-Terrestrial Physics) session at ASSW/ISAR and it demonstrated how important suchsessions are for furthering our understanding of the relationship between the Geospaceand Arctic regions. Five young scientists received partial travel support by the
ROSMIC/VarSITI of SCOSTEP under ICSU, and presented their papers in the session.
Selected topics from the session presentations included:(1) High energy particles from space reaching the Arctic region along the earth's magnetic
fields are being studied through various observation and modeling techniques. Outstanding
results include an understanding of the significant changes of chemical species such as NOx
to low altitudes and a qualitative and quantitative estimation of the hazard presented bycosmic ray radiation to the crews of aircraft flying over the arctic regions.
(2) Corresponding to the increase of greenhouse gasses such as CO2, the atmosphere above
stratosphere is significantly cooled. The cooling trend of the upper atmosphere in the lastfew decades were quantitatively reported by both IS radar observations and modeling, andthe effect of CO2 increase has been discussed.

Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
The Arctic geospace is now known to be coupled to the global atmosphere throughatmospheric dynamical processes including circulation and waves. This session has
contributed to understanding of the global and vertical atmospheric coupling processes, in
relation to the recent changes in the Arctic. It should be emphasized that these geospaceresearches, such as ground-based/space-borne observations, theories and modeling, aremostly done by international cooperation and collaboration between Arctic and non-Arctic
countries.
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

2

List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
A5: The Climatic Threat from Arctic Offshore Methane
Main organizer(s)Peter Wadhams
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This session consisted of only four papers. The first, and keynote paper, by N.
Shakhova at al., on “Decadal progress in quantitative estimate of methane fluxes fromthe East Siberian Arctic Shelf” could not be given because of the illness of N. Shakhova.
P. Wadhams’ talk which followed , on “Evolving ice and ocean conditions in the East
Siberian and Laptev Seas relevant to methane emissions” was expanded somewhat tosurvey some of the material that would have been discussed by Shakhova.
New work was described in three areas, all very interesting. Y-G Kim (Korea) talked on“Gas hydrate stability zone associated with subsea permafrost thawing in the Canadian
Beaufort Sea inferred from marine heat flow measurements”. This dealt with heat flowmeaserements done from the research ship “Araon” in 2013-14, with the promise thatfurther work will be done in the East Siberian and Chukchi Seas throughout the 201620 period, which should be of great value in delineating available methane volumes andrates of release.
D. Sasano (Japan) talked on “Relationship between CH4 and CO2 in the surface
seawater in the western Arctic Ocean”. This dealt with work done from MV “Mirai” in
September-October 2012, in which the authors found that the partial pressure of
dissolved methane was always supersaturated in the Barrow Canyon area, indicating aseabed source of methane emissions.
H. Ma (Norway) talked on “Methanogenetic diversity and activity in the forehead ofAustre Lovenbreen and Midre Lovenbreen Glaciers”. These are two glaciers in
Svalbard, and in the frontal area there is a rich geochemistry relating to under-ice
processes and including methane release.

1

Provide a short summary of the activity

Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3

2

List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
A6: Climate and ecosystem vulnerability in the terrestrial northern high-latitude
Main organizer(s)Yoshihiro Iijima, Yongwon Kim, Tetsuya Hiyama, Yojiro Matsuura, and Kazuyoshi Saito
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The A06 session had 20 oral (2 cancelled) and 16 poster presentations. About half of thepresentations were contributed by Japanese participants and the other half by international
participants. The session could effectively exchange brand-new results on broad range ofterrestrial Arctic environmental issues along with four sub-session themes.
Main findings by each oral presentation are as follows:
A06-1: Terrestrial carbon source and evaluation: effectiveness airborne measurements incooperate with machine learning analyses for regional scaling of turbulent methane fluxes
in north slope Alaska (Serafimovich et al.). ICE-ARC Climate change impacts on Arctic andboreal terrestrial ecosystem to assess GPP and NEP output by C-cycle model (CESM) for
1982-2005 (Diel et al.). CAPEC Arctic Permafrost Environmental Change Monitoring since2011 showed preliminary results on CO2 exchange rates & CH4 budget at Council, AK (Parket al.). Water table heterogeneities (sub-grid scale) affect the system hydrology, changing
the water balance by stochastic generated polygon model in Tundra region (Aleina et al.).
A06-2: Supersite observation and iLEAPS: N fertilization and root cut experiment at boreal
forest plot in central Siberia showed significantly increase in root respiration rather than
microbial respiration (Morishita et al.). SOC accumulated by supply of lichen and moss litterat poor drainage, and local cryoturbation may be an importance of SOC in deeper soil at
Inuvik site (Fujii et al.). Local/mesoscale atmospheric processes (topo-climatic wind system)
significantly impact the surface energy balance at Alert & Eureka station of IASOA (Persson
et al.). Permafrost landscape of central Yakutia , Yedoma ice region, in particular, has rapid
response to recent climate changes and anthropogenic influence (Fedorov et al.). Storm
activity along Siberian coastal region affected recent increase in rainfall and snow in eastern
Siberia and enhanced permafrost warming and thawing (Iijima et al.).
A06-3: Changes in water and material cycling of permafrost ecosystems: The future
warming may decay surface permafrost, resulting in drier soil lower tree NPP in boreal(larch) forest in eastern Siberia simulated by SEIB-DGVM (Sato et al.).
Osawa et al.: Biomass development estimation was developed and applied at pan-arctic
boreal forests: different response in temperature was shown in NW Canada.
Macias-Faria & Forbes: Direct (cold-air advection) and indirect (atmospheric patternchange) effects of sea ice reduction on productivity at Circum-Arctic Tundra region.
Ichii et al.: Regional CO2 fluxes by site-obs. and remote sensing reproduced GPP and NEE in
Siberia, compared with GOSAT and model inter-comparison (AsiaMIP) outputs.
A06-4: Intercomparison in modelling and datasets for the terrestrial Arctic: GTMIP stage 1
had started to assess model performance on physical & biogeochemical processes and theobservation-based dataset are archived (Saito et al.). Process-based hydrological model
1

Provide a short summary of the activity

applied in local watershed in central Siberia and showed importance of organic layer
thickness and soil drainage conditions (Levedeva et al.). Shrub expansion in Alaska wassimulated by SimShrub dispersal model and appears to have been driven by clonial
reproduction or short-distance dispersal (Naito et al.). NIES TM simulation combining tower,
aircraft and GOSAT output to assess XCO2 distribution and forest fire effect in west Russia
can be captured by this methods (Belikov et al.). Climatic condition for intensive tundra fireassociated with sea ice reduction at northern Alaska in 2007 was simulated by WRF(Alexeev et al.).
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
The session could perform well-structured discussion on (1) atmospheric influence onterrestrial environmental changes, (2) permafrost and ecosystem changes in boreal andtundra regions, (3) in-situ and regional assessments on surface energy/water/carbon (bothCO2 and CH4) balances, and (4) land-surface physical and biogeochemical modeling. These
topics may have possible important inputs on ICARP III activity.

2

List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B2: Current and Future Observing Strategies for Understanding the Evolving Arctic Climate
and Ecological System
Main organizer(s)Gijs de Boer, Jacqueline Grebmeier, Are Olsen, Martin Raillard, Terry Callaghan, Leif
Anderson
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This session included a series of presentations on observing activities and strategies in
the Arctic region. These activities ranged from those currently in development (e.g.
MOSAiC, ecosystem monitoring from ice-tethered platforms, Pacific Arctic Climate
Ecosystem Observatory), established wide-ranging observing programs and networks (e.g.
IASOA, InterAct, Global Cryosphere Watch, Distributed Biological Observatory, Pacific Arctic
Group, Arctic Ocean Boundary Array), and some more localized efforts in specific locations(e.g. Svalbard Observing activities, SIZONET). In addition, there were presentations on
observational efforts that required some integrated observing platforms (e.g. radiosonde
impact on Arctic cyclone forecasting, tracking of water vapor isotopes over Alaska,
international joint ship operations).
In addition, we had two group discussions focused around Arctic observing. The main
discussion was held as a panel discussion (panelists: Matthew Shupe, Larry Hinzman, Koji
Shimada, Harald Loeng) on central challenges in Arctic observing. This discussion allowed
each of the panelists to provide brief introductory remarks, which were followed by a wideranging discussion with broad participation. The content of this discussion is the basis formany of the ICARP III contributions discussed in the next section. In addition, as a result ofsome last minute openings in the agenda*, we also had a brief discussion on the apparent
lack of contributions from observing efforts of the terrestrial biosphere. While several
possible reasons were discussed, including a less cohesive community relative to those of
the atmosphere and marine environment, it was also brought up that the small sample ofefforts highlighted in this session may not be representative of the community as a whole.
* Three presenters (B02-O05, B02-O17, B02-O18) were not present at the meeting
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
2Based mainly on the panel discussion, several ICARP III relevant topics were covered
within this session.
In terms of Arctic priorities over the next decade, some central points of the discussion
included:- Interdisciplinary research efforts in order to understand interactions between
different parts of the Arctic system- Understanding the changing Arctic environment and building understanding of
emerging features (i.e. spatial increase in first year ice zone)- Development of autonomous observing platforms in order to increase efficiency
with which grid-box scale variability can be obtained. In particular, it was noted that
autonomous measurement of the atmosphere seems to be behind that of the ocean
at the moment.
- Ensuring that collected datasets are used to their fullest extent by a variety of
stakeholders
Coordination of Arctic research agendas also came up in the discussion. Specific points
that were raised include:- The need to avoid duplication of effort and target the most needed scientific areas- Developing more permanent collaboration between groups and nations. Suchcollaboration should extend beyond the length of any individual effort or field
campaign and would ideally continue on regardless of political headwinds.
- The global reach of the Arctic requires that Arctic and non-Arctic nations alike spend
resources to understand this environment. How these efforts can most efficiently
be blended and how non-Arctic nations can best gain access to the Arctic was aquestion that was raised. This takes interagency and international coordination.
Given the current geopolitical interest, the point was raised that now may be a very
good time to pursue such coordination.
- A final point that was raised is that the short-term funding model under which mostscientists are operating is challenging for the development and maintenance ofmonitoring efforts.
Finally, in terms of informing stakeholders and building constructive relationships
between producers and users of knowledge a few additional points were raised:- It is not clear that all datasets and information are accessible to stakeholders outsideof the international research community. What is meant by this is that the productsof our observing efforts must not only be put in a data archive somewhere, but
through some mechanisms it is necessary to ensure that the data is in a format thatis relevant for the main users of the datasets
Additionally, it was brought up that the changing nature of the Arctic adds an element ofcomplexity for defining stakeholder needs, since these needs are changing quickly as well.
From a model improvement perspective, this dictates a need for early and frequentinteraction between the modeling and observational communities to ensure efficient
deployment of limited observational resources.



inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B3: Changing permafrost and its impacts on the physical, ecological, economic, and cultural
earth system
Main organizer(s)Ylva Sjöberg, Hiroki Takakura, Mamoru Ishikawa
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The session covered a wide range of topics related to changing permafrost, including
cultural, anthropological, engineering…
The traditional and technological land use in permafrost and the impact of climate change
were described, and the potentiality of interdisciplinary approach was discussed in the first
block of the panel. The different influences in rural of Yakutia (East Siberia) and urban(Russian Arctic) are clearly shown by interdisciplinary approach. While the impact of theconstruction in urban area and the adaptation are relatively seen ubiquitously in the
Russian Arctic, there are different types of impacts and measures in rural area according tovegetation and subsistence culture, which should be explored in further research.
The second block contained presentation of ongoing international permafrost community
initiatives (Permafrost Research Priorities, IPA projects, GTN-P) and concluded with a
discussion panel on future challenges for permafrost research. There was goodparticipation from the audience in the discussion and the topics included future leadership,
the broadening of permafrost research and inclusion of new research groups/fields,
innovative and new ideas and paths for permafrost research, and much more.
The session also included several presentations of original research on various
permafrost-related topics, most of which were presented in the third block and in theposter session.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge2Some future challenges for permafrost research were discussed during the session.
Permafrost research is becoming more inter/trans-disciplinary as permafrost areas arechanging and impacting other natural and social systems. Finding the best way of including
new fields of research in existing initiatives, such as PRP, and monitoring activities, such as
GTN-P is an important challenge for conducting efficient permafrost research.

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B5: Remote Sensing of the Arctic System
Main organizer(s)J. Cherry, K. Sugiura, M. Hori, W. Schoener
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This session included papers on the latest results in the field of satellite, airborne, tower
and upward-looking remote sensing of the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial
biology/phenology, snow and ice, and hydrology and permafrost. Presentations were madeby participants from Japan, U.S., Russian, Norway, China, Korea, Germany, and othercountries. Posters and talks included analysis of stand-alone remote sensing data,calibration and validation with in situ and other observations, comparison with model
output, and assimilation of remote sensing data in modeling systems. Highlights also
included use of new technology such as UAVs and low cost time-lapse camera systems.
Other technologies such as satellite algorithms are continuing to evolve and mature
through ongoing research.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
The topics of the sub-themes in the Remote Sensing program highlight areas where remotesensing research is particularly active for the Arctic: atmospheric science (including fire),
biology and phenology, snow and ice, and hydrology and permafrost.
Several possible priorities emerge:
1. Cloud-aerosol interactions and cloud-energy balance feedbacks in the context ofsynoptic dynamics are likely changing due to changing aerosol loading and climate
system feedbacks in the Arctic. One priority is to better estimate and calibrate cloudproperties and energy parameters for the atmosphere and understand theirinteractions with the whole climate system.
2. Algorithms for detecting ecosystem responses to climate change and variability
continue to evolve so that they are accurately representing change for Arctic
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge2ecosystems. Likewise, technology—hardware and software, particularly imaging—isevolving and a priority is to develop new quantitative methods of analyzing thesedata as appropriate, particularly comparison across various spatial scales.
3. Priorities for snow and sea ice research include continuing to refine algorithms for
ice thickness, snow water equivalent and fractional coverage, lead detection, ice
velocity, and characteristics based on regional and age-related differences.
Continuity between satellite sensors over time is important to establish; improved
validation datasets and multi-sensor/modeling systems will also be critical.
4. Interactions between snow, ice, and oceanic, atmospheric and terrestrial
geochemistry are an emerging and important field of study because of impacts on
the GHG, mercury, and ozone budgets.
5. For hydrology and permafrost, long-term change detection is possible between
satellites and historical airborne imagery, but the challenge is the effort involved inprocessing the imagery; the community could benefit from datasets of preprocessed historical imagery.
6. The hydrology community has used remote sensing for diagnostic studies ofcharacteristics and change on the land surface, but few efforts have used remotesensing to assimilate into or initialize prognostic models. This is an important areafor future growth.
7. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is a particularly important technology for remotesensing of cold regions and the research community should support ongoing
deployment of SAR missions, especially high resolution in time and space. Datashould also be as accessible as possible, including in near-real time for flooding
response.
Processes driving carbon balance, and whether high latitudes are sources or sinks, are still
uncertain and more observations and longer time series are needed. Results using remotesensing suggest that the boreal forest is a carbon sink and the tundra is a carbon source, butclimatic variables driving these processes may vary with time.

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B6: A Pan-Arctic Challenge: Predicting the Future of Marine Biota and Ecosystem
Connectivity Through Field Studies and Data Integration
Main organizer(s)Dieter Piepenburg, Lee Cooper, Sung-Ho Kang
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
Arctic marine systems are experiencing environmental change, including regional warming
and acidification, ice-shelf and sea-ice decline, and variable biological and ecosystem
response in response to shifts in ocean and atmospheric forcing. These changes havesignificant impacts on marine biota on variable time and space scales, with distinct
differences around the Arctic. Moreover, increasing human activities, such as
exploration/exploitation of resources, ship traffic and mass tourism, add further pressureson polar ecosystems. Substantial effects on marine biota from sea surface to seafloor are
expected, leading to shifts in all ecosystem functions and services (e.g., biodiversity, trophic
interactions, carbon and nutrient cycling). To understand and predict the profoundecological consequences of these environmental changes – and ultimately mitigate themthrough ecosystem-based management – there is a need to monitor and describe theecological status quo in terms of structural and functional properties not only on national(regional) but also international (pan-Arctic) scales, and to identify and analyze therelationships among environmental factors and ecological processes in time and space. To
address this challenge, close international research cooperation is required to combine dataand expertise in joint efforts to establish reliable, quality-controlled and geo-referenced
information systems integrating a wide range of data on Arctic marine biota (e.g., plankton,
benthos, fish, marine birds and mammals) with physical forcing aspects of the oceanatmosphere system. Development of coupled models that link species distributions toorganism energetics in the context of dynamic climate and oceanographic models would
allow analysis and scenario building. Ultimately, success with these approaches will provide
a more complete understanding of mechanisms connecting external drivers and ecologicalresponses on regional and pan-Arctic scales.
This multidisciplinary and international session included contributions on emerging
results from synthesis, field and modeling studies. These contributions demonstrated theimportance of key ocean-atmosphere interactions, including sea-ice dynamics, physical andbiogeochemical processes in the water column, and biological response throughout themarine food web. Data were presented on changes to external forcing that may promotemarine species shifts or evidence of major ecosystem response and/or reorganizations, aswell as reports on ongoing and/or planned international and trans-disciplinary collaborationin field activities and large-scale data integration. The session provided a state-of-the-art
evaluation of environmental status and trends in a pan-Arctic framework, including theconnectivity among physical forcing, biogeochemical cycling, biological response, andecosystem modeling.
1

Provide a short summary of the activity

Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
The session demonstrated the huge opportunities for international pan-Arctic field-studies
and data-integration efforts in advancing our knowledge and understanding of key
environmental processes influencing the distribution of marine species, communities andecosystem dynamics in the changing Arctic. Presentations to the session included
descriptions of observed changes in regional locations as well as across the Arctic andstrategies for evaluating pan-Arctic research challenges. In addition, new techniques were
presented for evaluating ocean acidification, genomic sequencing for characterizing
phytoplankton communities and other forward-looking approaches that will contribute tobetter understanding of Arctic environmental changes.
At the end of the session, an open discussion identified a number ofrecommendations for high priority for marine Arctic research for the next ten years tocome:- Case studies that take advantage of targeted geographical areas for time-series
monitoring. The Pacific Arctic Group (PAG) initiative, which includes the Distributed
Biological Observatory (DBO), was seen as a model that could be expanded to other parts of
the Arctic. Challenges remain, including the need for coordinated and consistent samplingand data-processing standardization/harmonization.
- Modeling activities that take advantage of archived data, including development ofpredictive scenarios- International efforts for resolving technical aspects pertaining to publicly accessible panArctic information systems- Development of appropriate ecosystem-based management measures and identificationof priority decision-making issues that are at the interface of science and environmental
management- Initiation of planning for a 'Synoptic Arctic Survey' that would be an "Arctic analogue" tothe 'Joint Global Ocean Flux Study' (JGOFS)
Moreover, the session participants also pinpointed a number of complexities thatremain to be resolved to foster the scientific progress, particularly pertaining to thecoordination of contributions to the identified ICARP III priorities, including the research
agendas of ‘non-Arctic-Council’ states.

2

List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B7:Atmosphere-Ocean-Ice interactions and aspects related to a seasonally ice free Arctic
Ocean.
Main organizer(s)Bert Rudels, Günther Heinemann, Thomas Spengler
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1(first day, part 2), by Günther Heinemann
The session addressed the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and atmosphere-sea ice-oceaninteractions. Experimental studies from recent field experiments were presented. Aircraft,ships and ocean gliders were used. In addition, results from CMIP5 models were shown forthe development of sea ice in the Alaskan Arctic during the 21st century.
Summary2 (second day)
The morning session addressed the Atlantic water circulation, its dynamics and its
interactions between the boundary current and the basin interior, and how that is affectedby the freshwater input, both as river runoff and net precipitation and by melting andfreezing sea ice. Changes in the Atlantic circulation observed from tracer measurements
and model work and likely related to changes in the atmospheric circulation pattern (AO+
and AO-) were presented. Different vertical mixing mechanisms in the deep basins and at
the continental slope as well as on the shelves were discussed.
The first afternoon session was devoted to freshwater, its sources and sinks, storage andredistribution in the different basins, and its phase changes between sea ice and liquid
freshwater present in the water column. Indications of transition to a seasonal ice coverand its possible effects on the circulation and mixing were also discussed.
The last afternoon session brought together presentations of the different forcing
mechanisms driving the Arctic Ocean circulation, and how to describe and quantify theobserved mixing and water mass transformations. Observations of the variability of theAtlantic inflow as well as of the seasonal variability of the exchanges through all thedifferent passages and their effects on the heat and freshwater budgets were presented.
Finally results of modelling efforts with a simplified box model as well as with acomprehensive climate model were shown.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III3 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities4

1

Provide a short summary of the activity
Provide a short summary of the activity
3
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report
4
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system2(3) research questions for the next decade:How can we better quantify air-sea-ocean interaction processes?
How can the representation of atmospheric boundary layer processes be improved inweather and climate models?
How will air-sea-ocean interaction processes change during climate change?
All of the presentations on the second day mainly addressed the question of research
priorities (1) for the next decade, showing the urgent questions and the lack of definite
answers. In many cases they also highlighted the need to coordinate different research
agendas (2). Practically no time was devoted to (3) and (4)facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B9: Arctic Governance, Sustainable Development of Local Communities and Non-Arctic
State’s Contribution
Main organizer(s)Shinichiro Tabata, Elena Conde, Rasmus Bertelsen
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
Various issues concerning Arctic governance and international politics were discussed.
Especially, the role of non-Arctic countries or observers to the Arctic Council, including
China, Japan and EU countries, attracted great attention. The autonomy / self-governanceof indigenous peoples was another topic of active discussion. In addition, natural resource
development and its influence on indigenous peoples’ lives was addressed, with particularemphasis on the importance of fiscal policies, taxes and subsidies.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
Key contributions and suggestions arising from the ensuing discussion included:-The role of non-Arctic countries and observers in the Arctic Council should be enhanced
and coordinated. We should pay more attention to the role of these countries in future
research.
-Cooperation among Asian countries in the Arctic should be pursued. Their policies should
be cooperative rather than competitive. The possibility of an integrated approach towards
the Arctic among these countries remains to be examined in greater detail.
-We should devote more attention to human factors, including fiscal policies, taxes andsubsidies, when we discuss natural resource development in the Arctic, especially in areas
where indigenous people live. Among natural resources, the case of mineral resource
development and its effect on local livelihood should become a central feature of future
research.
-Autonomy or self-governance of indigenous people should be an important focus of future
research. The comparison of various indigenous peoples in the Arctic seems to be a
promising direction.

1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B10: Ice mass loss in Greenland and Arctic glaciers under the influence of changing
atmosphere and the ocean
Main organizer(s)Shin Sugiyama, Ursula Schauer, Teruo Aoki, Nozomu Takeuchi, Camilla S. Andresen
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
Oral sessions took place on 28 and 29 April in Room 203 with ~50 people in the audience.
Six talks (15 minutes) were allocated to each of the four sessions entitled, "Dynamics of theGreenland ice sheet" (chaired by Shin Sugiyama), "Interaction of glaciers and the ocean"(Ursula Schauer), Arctic glaciers (Nozomu Takeuchi), and "Snow/ice impurities and surface
energy balance" (Teruo Aoki). On 29 and 30 April, nine posters were presented and actively
discussed at the foyer.
The talks and posters reported research results on the ice sheet, calving glaciers and ice
caps in Greenland; glaciers in Svalbard and other Arctic regions; and the ocean nearby theice sheet and glaciers. A number of presentations were made from recent Japaneseactivities in Greenland and Siberia. Several Polish researchers presented field data on iceocean interaction in Svalbard. Also presented are an international research project in thenortheast Greenland lead by Germany, and the summary of GROCE (Greenland ice sheet
and its interaction with the ocean) workshop held at AWI in December 2014.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3

1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
B11: Navigation and Fisheries in the Arctic: Prospects, Problems and International Policies
Main organizer(s)A. Ohmura, H. Huntington, K. Hedges
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The session B-11 was attended by 30-45 participants. The scope of the session is toencompass the developments in the Arctic, ranging from the climate changes to the societal
impacts, specifically navigation and fisheries within the Arctic. The themes of the 13
presented papers covered the present situations of the climate change and sea ice conditions,navigational requirements in sea ice, navigational support, present fisheries conditions,detected and projected changes in fisheries in the Arctic seas, changes in fisheries industry,change in ecology, and thoughts as to how to cope and adapt to the changes in progress in the
Arctic seas and their surroundings.
Especially new facts presented in this session are: the observed rate of the increase in
infrared radiation in the Arctic (4 Wm-2/decade), which is almost twice of the global mean
increase rate (2.5 Wm-2/decade); the potential menace by icebergs that are increasing in
number; proposal for ice condition forecasts of various temporal length ranging from 3
months to an hour; necessity for standardizing the qualification of ice navigators; available
communication safety techniques; migration of various species into the Arctic seas; newly
available fishing possibilities in the marginal seas; and the prospects for an international
agreement on fishing in the high-seas area of the central Arctic Ocean.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
The session evoked a considerable positive reaction among the participants, and wishes are
expressed to encourage organizing a session with a similar them in the next ICARP/ISAR.
An opinion was also expressed to narrow the sphere of the themes within a particular issue ofthe fisheries. Another opinion went that other activities, such as mining, gas/petroleum
exploitation, and marine transport can be included under the impacts. These points can be
discussed further in the future when the next ICARP/ISAR becomes keen to adopt these
themes in the conference.

1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C1:Sharing Arctic Data, Observations and Knowledge: Understanding the Global Systemthrough International Exchange
Main organizer(s)Peter L. Pulsifer, D.R. Fraser Taylor, Julie Friddell
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This session focused on the opportunities and challenges related to the sharing of Arctic
data, observations and knowledge. This diverse set of talks addressed many topics ranging
from data sharing norms and value propositions, policy, methods and technology,interoperability, establishing appropriate levels of standardization, education and training,
and the use of information technology in field work. A core theme throughout many of thetalks was the need to promote international data sharing through an ethically open data
model. The IASC Statement of Principles and Practices for Arctic Data Management wasreferenced as an important guiding document in this regard. The need to link metadata,
data and data systems while providing researchers and other users with the tools andmethods required to effectively access, navigate and use this integrated system is critical.
Making progress will require a multi-pronged effort that must engage all actors (scientists,
data managers, residents of the Arctic, funders, stakeholders, international programs andothers). Leveraging, maintaining and expanding existing resources will be important so thatnew resources can be applied to filling important gaps identified by the broader
community. Promoting the education and training of early career researchers is a particularpriority area so that data management is considered an integral part of methodologicaltraining and education.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
The topics and activities can contribute to all ICARP III priorities. Hey et al. (2009) andmany others have revealed how ‘data intensive science’ can reveal new patterns andrelationships not possible before the advent of networked and accessible, ‘big’ data,1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge2

information and knowledge systems. Leveraging this scientific methodology will continue
to support the achievement of Arctic science priorities. Linking data resources willcontribute to coordinating and advancing national and international research agendas.
Providing appropriate data access and visualization tools will support informing policy
makers and people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community. Similarly,
providing mediated and appropriately transformed data will provide a critical linkage
between data producers (e.g. scientists, traditional knowledge holders) and users (e.g.
policy makers, general public, students).

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C2: Arctic in Rapid Transition-future research directions from the perspective of early career
scientists
Main organizer(s)Makoto Sampei, Alexey Pavlov, Monika Kedra
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The C2 session, held on last day of the ASSW 2015, consisted of morning and afternoon
sessions. The session included 7 talks, 2 discussion sections and 6 posters. In total, 20-30
participants, including early-to-mid career scientists as well as senior researchers, attended
both morning and afternoon sessions.
During this session, both original research presentations as well as future research
directions from research networks (e.g. ART, PYRN) were presented. Based on thosepresentations, we had constructive discussion on future research directions from theperspective of early career scientists including recommendations from senior scientists.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
 It is necessary to establish the way how we can incorporate contributions of Earlyto-mid career scientists’ perspectives into future Arctic research planning (e.g. ICARPIII or IV).
 Call for a facilitation/development of schemes supporting projects led by mid-career
researchers
Need for interdisciplinary, cross-cutting research conducted in the Arctic.

1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C3: Emerging questions in Arctic Geoscience
Main organizer(s)Victoria Pease
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This session, a direct result of the IASC Geoscience Advisory Group recommendation for the
better integration of Arctic geosciences within IASC, highlighted the state-of-the-art of the
field(s) today and where it is going over the next 10 years. The diversity of sub-disciplines in
the geosciences were represented (see possible contributions below) and generally mirror thediversty at the Working Group level.

Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
Contributions to future ICARP III activities address science prorities for the next decade:Archeology.
 Circum-Artic integration between archeological research and the environmental andgeosciences - to better integrate how past human populations were adapting to longerterm climate change cycles over the last few millennia.
Geology.
 Integrated field programs - to correlate circum-Arctic orogens and fold belts, andunderstand their timing and formational mechanisms.
 Amerasia Basin drilling – to obtain basement samples in order to link submarine andon-shore geology.
Geophysics.
 Seismic monitoring – to correlate the effects of global warming and the melting of theGreenland ice sheet with glacial-retreat related earthquakes.
 Ocean drilling - to date multi-channel seismics (MCS) profiles and sample forpaleoceanography.
 More MCS - to establish relations between seafloor features as well as their internal
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge2

structure.
Obtain refraction data - to study the basement and deformational fabrics preserved
there.
Acquire dredging samples - to sample locations where basement is exposed beneaththe sedimentary cover.

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C4 : Co-design, co-production, co-communication – how to frame concerted researchfor sustainable development in times of change
Main organizer(s)Jörn Schmidt, Peter Skjöld, Grete Hovelsrud, Scot Nickels
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The session encompassed 6 presentations, which covered a wide range of different topics.
We heard that there was not much progress of science plan 11 from ICARP-II on how Arctic
science could best respond to the needs of Arctic peoples (Southcott). However the
momentum is still there and needs to be fed by concrete actions. One possible way forward
could be the establishment of a working group on traditional knowledge within theframework of IASSA and other scientific organizations (puju).
The difficulty in setting up a framework for communication between science and local
communities and the uptake of gained knowledge in local actions was showcased in an
example of Kolguev islands, Russia (Pristupa). The difficulties experienced here could also
be related to different perceptions of the environment and its changes. This was shown inan example of analysing the perception of environmental change from different stakeholder
groups in Northern Norway (Dannevig). These differences also relate to differences inperceived need for action.
In any case action sometimes need leadership and thus the question arises, whether
leadership skills are luck or can be trained (Lisowski). The latter can be done as shown, but
how to communicate information and knowledge in a way that it is easily accessible? One
way to do this could be through the help of games, which could facilitate implicit learning,
but also the communication with user groups and the wider public (Schmidt).
In Summary, the session showed that there is still a way to go for good governance of coproducing knowledge, but that the will is there, tools available and lessons already learned.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2








The session showed that there is a need for more guidance on how to engage on a
specific topic with local communities despite the presence of many ethicalguidelines (e.g. http://www.naho.ca/inuit/research-and-ethics/guidelines/) .
This relates specifically on how to incorporate traditional knowledge and scientificknowledge in a two-way approach to develop both in a way that local communities
can benefit in times of change.
Along these, there is also the need to inform decision makers and the wider publicalso outside the Arctic on issues related to Arctic communities to enhance thevisibility of these issues.
A dedicated working group on Traditional Knowledge Systems should be establishedunder IASC or IASSA
Communication is key and means of enhancing this, both between disciplines andbetween science and local communities is neededGames can be tools to convey science to the communities and reach out to thegeneral public to inform about Arctic issues

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C5:Advances in Transdisciplinary Arctic Research: Progress on Building Collaborative
Agendas for Research Supporting Solutions for Sustainability
Main organizer(s)Carolina Cavazos Guerra, Gail Fondahl, Maribeth S. Murray
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This two-part session aimed to assess our progress in building collaborative agendas inresearch across and for diverse communities. During the first part, papers with a focus on
research addressing socio-ecological processes and on the exchange of knowledge among
researchers and practitioners were presented. Emphasis was given to novel ways to
execute and disseminate research capitalizing on the different strengths, knowledge
systems and interests of engaged partners.
During the second part of the session, a moderated panel of experts, including an
indigenous scholar and an indigenous political leader offered observations on ways to movecollaborative research agendas and strategies forward in the Arctic.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3- Arctic ecosystems are strongly affected to warming climate: climate/vegetation,socio-cultural systems, economy and land allocation are all affected. This will affectindigenous culture and traditional activities (such as reindeer herding). Hence, cooperation among diverse stakeholders is necessary in order to sustain theenvironment and to harmonize ecological and socio-economic requirements.
- We need to co-design research approaches, within which questions are co-defined,
the findings co-produced, and recommendations co-implemented.
- It is important to open dialogue and engage local people for collaboration/feedback
early in the process to achieve sustainability, resilience, adaptation amonginterested parties, and to obtain a win-win result.
- Desirable and reasonable social and ecological management is a socio-politicalprocess, not a scientific decision. However, implementation is most effective when1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

-

-

-

local administrative/coordination bodies are engaged.
Learn from the past and from other world regions as the past and other regions may
offer possible lessons on how to engage and build creative solutions and newopportunities for sustainable development in the Arctic (knowledge
sharing/transfer).
Increasing community sustainability will require compiling more data related tosocial conditions, to tackle factors such as housing and food security. Data needs toinclude information on market systems, environmental change, intergenerational
well-being, and governance.
Take into account the voices and ideas from Early Career Researchers (ECR’s) in
Arctic research. In order to overcome challenges to fulfilling their career goals (e.g.
finding funding, available positions) and to keep their motivation for Arctic research
include more training opportunities, and foster networking opportunities to create
future collaborations including in international research communities. An additional
key element is to inform ECRs about a greater diversity in future career
opportunities.

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C6: Understanding Sustainability in the Arctic: From Patchwork to Framework
Main organizer(s)Andrey N. Petrov, Gail Fondahl and Peter Schweitzer
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
Session’s rationale: Sustainability science seeks to understand the character ofinteractions among society and nature. The science of sustainability is developing along
three interconnected pathways: scientific discussion of what sustainability (including
sustainable development) means; political discussion of the agenda for sustainable
development, from local to global scales; and promoting social learning of actual
nature-society interactions in order to guide humanity towards sustainability. Still
emergent, sustainability science is necessarily inter- and transdisciplinary andproblem-based, focused on governance of and interactions among systems of resources
and humans. Because ecological and social systems are constantly transforming,sustainability science addresses the dynamics of ever-evolving socio-ecologicalsystems. Despite advancement of Arctic research in recent years, our understanding of
the complex structures, functions and interactions within or among socio-ecologicalsystems across this region is still incomplete and we lack synthesis attempts.
Session‘s activities: C6 group of sessions at ASSW 2015 had the following two thematiccomponents: The first session reported on the IASC-sponsored workshop on
synthesizing the knowledge about sustainability in the Arctic and presented anddiscussed the ICARP III draft White Paper „Arctic Sustainability Research: Agenda
2014“ outlining critical research issues in sustainability science for the next text years
to come (Petrov, Fondahl and Schweitzer). The session also incorporated a formal
discussant (Graybill) and then an open forum to discuss the paper. Two additionalpresentations (by Loukacheva and Vlasova) followed the discussion, describing
different aspects of research planning and sustainability in the Arctic context. The
White paper will be revised based on feedback received and finalized for publishing in
the next few months.
The second session included individual single-authored and multi-authored papers.
Walker presented another white paper dealing with comparative research on Arctic
infrastructure. Graybill and Zaika emphasized the key role of urban places and spaces in
the Arctic and proposed ways of integrating urban research in Arctic sustainability
science agenda. Filippova focused on Indigenous settlements facing challenges to theirsustainable livelihoods because of climate change in Yakutia (Russia).
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
1

Provide a short summary of the activity

Priority 1: Identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade:1. Presentation and discussion of the ICARP III White Paper on Arctic Sustainability
Science (“Arctic Sustainability Research: Agenda 2015”). The paper was introduced by
key authors (Petrov, Fondahl and Schweitzer), evaluated by a formal discussant(Graybill) and discussed on the open forum (30 minutes). Revisions to the draft paper
will incorporate the feedback received at the ASSW, as well as other reviews; it will be
submitted or publication in2015. The ASSW 2015 statement includes wording thatemphasizes the importance of sustainability and sustainable development of Arctic
communities that directly stems from this C6 contribution.
2. Presentation of the white paper on Arctic infrastructure “Rapid Arctic Transitions due
to Infrastructure and Climate (RATIC)“ (Walker). The ASSW 2015 statement highlights
the necessity to study Arctic infrastructure, which stems from this C6 contribution.
3. Other papers suggested research agenda topics and science planning
Priority 2: Coordinate various Arctic research agendas:
1. Working papers were prepared by international interdisciplinary groups. The ICARPIII White Paper on Arctic Sustainability Science includes recommendations on
coordinating international Arctic research agendas
2. Vlasova reported on science coordination efforts and future priorities in theInternational Geographic Union Cold Regions Environments Commission
3. Sessions incorporated multiple voices from: various Arctic jurisdictions (USA,
Canada, Russia) and non-Arctic states (European Union); indigenous presenters;
representatives of different disciplines (human geography, anthropology, permafrost
science, law, and urban ecology).
Priority 3: Inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and theglobal community:
1. session participants included Arctic residents and indigenous scholars, as well as
representatives of non-Arctic states.
2. The ICARP III White Paper on Arctic Sustainability Science will be available topolicymakers and local residents via website

2

List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C7: The Arctic System: changes and effects with emphasis on freshwater ecosystems
Main organizer(s)Alexander M. Milner, Jón S. Ólafsson and Warwick F. Vincent
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
Our session contained 16 oral papers and seven posters covering freshwater environmentsin the Arctic including lakes, ponds, wetlands and rivers from physicochemical processes,
nutrient fluxes and biotic communities. The session was a contribution in conjunction with
the Freshwater Synthesis network project within ICARP III, and it highlighted the role ofArctic freshwater systems as important integrators of atmospheric and terrestrial
processes, and as conduits to the near-shore marine environments under a changing
climate.
A highlight of the session was the role of early career scientists, five of whose travel to themeeting was supported by IASC and who presented their research either orally or as aposter. These scientists directed the discussion by suggesting key research priorities for
input and discussion by session participants under following four themes: Physicochemical
properties of freshwater environments, Freshwater resources, Ecology and conservation,
and Northern communities. This input will be used to craft and refine the prorities which
will be circulated to the Arctic freshwater community for input and prioritization and used
to inform a paper to be submitted to the new journal Arctic Science before December 2015.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
 The number of contributions to the session indicated that freshwater should behighlighted as a separate science priority and not be included under the Terrestrial
Ecosystem as it has been in the last two ICARPs.

1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2











Need for multi-component numerical models to predict changes in freshwater
ecosystems under future climate scenarios and the ability to predict and understandnatural variability as distinct from that induced by climate change.
An improved understanding of the seasonal dynamics of northern freshwater
ecosystems, especially their under-ice limnology during winter.
Insights into nutrient fluxes from terrestrial areas to the marine ecosystems
including DOC and contaminants.
A better understanding of uncertainty in freshwater systems and the role of extreme
events under a changing climate.
Experimental approaches to address process understanding to be undertaken at aseries of circumpolar Arctic sites potentially using the INTERACT field station
network.
Accurate predictions of future changes in freshwater quantity and quality for water
resource managers in northern communities and also effects on infrastructure andhydrohazards.
Assemble databases of freshwater biodiversity and associated environmental
information covering large geographical areas throughout the Arctic that can bemined by interested parties and stakeholders in cooperation with the CAFF – CBMP
freshwater group.
Promote active participation of Early Career Researchers in international meetings
beyond attendance with the aim of creating knowledge–based interest among
future generations.

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C8: Circumpolar Arctic Coastal Communities Observatory Network (CACCON)
Main organizer(s)Donald Forbes, Paul Overduin, Joan Nymand Larsen
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This session launched CACCON with initial regional and community hubs in Russia(Chukotka), USA (Alaska), Canada (Nunavut & Nunatsiavut), Denmark (South Greenland),and Norway (Finnmark). The session involved a panel on the rationale and philosophy of
CACCON, physical and social science foundations, early-career perspectives, and pilot hubs
in Chukotka and Nunatsiavut. The room was packed and a lively discussion ensued.
CACCON is a pan-Arctic network of community-engaged, multi-faceted and integrativeknowledge incubators and hubs and has been nominated as the Arctic Engagement
Network for Future Earth Coasts. It addresses a gap identified in the State of the Arctic
Coast 2010 report (www.arcticcoasts.org). CACCON observatories will facilitate transdisciplinary research agendas with co-design and co-production of knowledge through local
and regional stakeholders, building capacity through sharing insights between stakeholder
peers across the circumpolar world to identify information needs and transformational
insights. The starting point will be existing coastal observational datasets or monitoring
programs in the biophysical and social sciences, as well as existing community-based
monitoring programs and compilations of local and traditional knowledge. Through acollaborative process involving end users, status and sustainability indicators will be
developed that are relevant for local, regional, and larger-scale decision-making. These
indicators will then define a core set of future community-based observations, providing abasis for policy development and planning, to be supplemented by efforts supporting
locally-identified priority issues.
Main contributions to ICARP III
 Arctic science priorities:
 co-designed, transdisciplinary research for sustainable solutions
 integrative analyses of sustainability challenges in Arctic coastal communities
 actionable, proactive, adaptation policies for Arctic coastal communities
 identifying and learning from ‘bright spots’ (or ‘dark spots’) of sustainability
 Sharing insights among existing community-based research and resilience programs
 Responding to community-based agendas and building resilience by growing local andregional knowledge-co-production and dissemination capacity Arctic Regional Engagement Network for Future Earth Coasts and IASC WGs

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C10: Consulting Arctic communities on research planning
Main organizer(s)Chris Southcott, University of the Arctic
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
The session, chaired by Kirsi Latola of the University of Oulu, was comprised of four
presentations on consulting Arctic communities on research planning. The first presenter,
Julie Bull, an Indigenous researcher from Labrador, Canada, discussed both the difficulties
and the importance of including Indigenous communities in research planning. She
discussed the approvals regime that currently exists in Canada and noted that while theconsultation process is often fraught with problems, a continued effort at consulting andcollaborating with Indigenous peoples is essential for research in the Arctic. Chris Southcottpresented the initial results of the University of the Arctic Community Consultation in
Research Planning project. This project, which grew out of Science Plan 11 of ICARP II,
discussed different methods that could be used to involve Arctic communities in planningresearch priorities. He presented the data from the project’s pilot questionnaire survey
which showed that IASC’s main research areas were all considered important by the regions
studied but that preference was given to social, health, and economic considerations alongwith natural resources.
Southcott was followed by Sharon Edmunds-Potvin representing the Inuit Circumpolar
Council. Her presentation noted the importance of the Inuit in the Arctic and the need andusefulness of greater involvement of Inuit in Arctic research. She noted that the
involvement of the Canadian Inuit in the ArcticNet project could be used as a model for
effective Indigenous involvement in research. A similar theme was stressed the next
presenter, Larisa Abriutina of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North.
She noted that, while the Indigenous communities in the Russian north did not what tocontrol research, it was extremely important that they be involved. In this regard she noted
RAIPON’s involvement in research with AMAP and the SLiCA project as models of successful
cooperation. She also discussed the importance of researchers sharing results with
communities once the research was completed.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
2

The session stressed the importance of involving Arctic peoples, especially Indigenous
communities, in deciding research priorities. In addition, once priorities have been
established, there is a need for these communities to be actively involved in the research
projects. Once projects are completed, researchers need to share the results of theirresearch with the people living in the Arctic.
Finding out how to involve Arctic communities in the deciding of priorities, the undertakingof research, as well as the sharing of knowledge, is not an easy task. It should be a research
priority for the next ten years. Various Indigenous organization in the Arctic do have bestcase examples that they would like to see followed by other projects. Realizing that
establishing partnerships with communities is not an easy task, one of the research
priorities for ICARP III should be to find out how best to involve Arctic peoples indetermining priorities, organizing and conducting research projects, and sharing the resultsof these projects with communities.
•
•
•
•

•

Arctic communities, and especially Indigenous peoples, need to be involved indeciding research priorities
Once priorities have been established, there is a need for these communities to be
actively involved in the research projects
Once projects are completed, researchers need to share the results of their researchwith the people living in the Arctic
Finding out how to best involve Arctic communities in the deciding of priorities, theundertaking of research, as well as the sharing of knowledge, should be a research
priority for the next ten years
Indigenous organizations have best case examples that can be used to guide thisresearch

ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C11 : Early Exploration and Exploitation and their Impact Today on Local Arctic
Societies
Main organizer(s)Peter Sköld, Umeå University, Sweden
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
Industrial heritage sites in the Arctic tell us much about the development ofindustries from the 16th century onwards but also about the ecological andgeopolitics consequences. They give information about the driving forces of theindustries, the industrial technology, the structure of the settlements, the control
over the resources and the impact on the local environments. The effect ofenvironmental change to the Arctic indigenous is comprehensive, which involves
economy, culture, education, health, diet and many other aspects. Inuit of northern
Canada are extensively affected when it comes to traditional economy, tourism
opportunities and the increasing activities of extractive industries.
The Arctic past has explanatory potential for the present as an area for a diachronicalunderstanding of the graduality between contact, confrontation, resistance and cooptation of native communities in Arctic Russia. In people's memory the borders
between these concepts and time periods are more fluent than we often assume
judging from historical evidence. We need to be aware of the various threats tocultural heritage around the Arctic and to find ways to encourage good management
and to develop methods that ensure that we do not lose too much of our history andlong-term understanding of the region. It is important to explore the realities ofpreserving, protecting and conveying the meaning of Arctic heritage sites in the faceof increasing impacts.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2

-

-

Arctic research within the humanities is important for a holistic and long-term
understanding of the development, in the past and in the future.
It is important to explore the realities of preserving, protecting and conveying themeaning of Arctic heritage sites in the face of increasing impacts.
Industrial heritage sites give information about the driving forces of the industries,
the industrial technology, the structure of the settlements, the control over the
resources and the impact on the local environments.
There is a great need to improve methods and theories aiming for trans-disciplinary
research initiatives in the Arctic.

ASSW2015 Conference Session Report
For ISAR-4 and ICARP III Sessions
Name of Session
C-Joint Session C4, C5, C10, C11
Main organizer(s)Jörn Schmidt, Peter Skjöld, Grete Hovelsrud, Scot Nickels, Chris Southcott, Carolina
Cavazos-Guerra, Gail Fondahl, Maribeth Murray
Participants: Malgorzata Smieszek, Rudy Riedlsperger, Sharon Edmunds-Potvin, CarlChristian Olsen
Short (1 or 2 Paragraph) Summary1
This joint session was meant to provide additional discussion on the topic of: How can we identify the main challenges in Arctic communities where research andscience can assist finding solutions?
 What kinds of information do Arctic communities need to address these challenges
and how should these information be conveyed?
 Are current funding models sufficiently flexible to enable the appropriate
partnerships between people in Arctic communities and the scientific researchcommunity
The session provided short summaries of the original sessions to provide the backgroundand than continued with statements from three panellists, Rudy Riedlsperger, Sharon
Edmunds-Potvin and Carl-Christian Olsen on the above topics based on their personal
background.
The main findings of this session are formulated below as possible contributions to ICARP
III. A long version of the minutes are available.
Main possible contributions to ISAR-4 and/or ICARP III2 in terms of the ISAR-4 and/or
ICARP III priorities3
 While advances have been made in working towards true collaboration between
communities and scientists, work needs to continue to ensure equitable relations inresearch. Research needed by communities to address key challenges (as definedby the communities) should receive priority attention, and communities should have
1

Provide a short summary of the activity
List a few key statements (findings, priorities, recommendations) that you would like to see reflected in theoverarching ASSW2015 Conference Statement and ISAR-4/ICARP III Report3
ISAR-4 priorities:
 detect and understand recent changes in the Arctic, with a specific focus on processes affecting the
global system
 facilitate scientific discussions and promote further national and international cooperation andcollaboration, in particular between Arctic and non-Arctic countries
ICARP III priorities: identify Arctic science priorities for the next decade coordinate various Arctic research agendas
 inform policy makers, people who live in or near the Arctic and the global community
 build constructive relationships between producers and users of knowledge
2








the opportunity to be involved in research at all stages. Best practices in communityscientist collaborations should be shared, and lessons distilled, with theunderstanding that communities differ, and each community-research partnershipwill have its own unique nature and requirements.
Research funding organizations need to enable community participation in research.
This includes providing initial funding for relationship (and trust-) building, andfunding for sharing the results of research in ways most useful to the community,
including in the local language where appropriate.
Large differences exist among Arctic communities and places; we need to examine
and understand more thoroughly the myriad ways in which social, environmental
and economic challenges manifest themselves differently among different Arctic
communities.
Research being done to specifically tackle issues of indigenous communities includes
often development aspects and thus funding should be coordinated between
research funding and development funding agencies.
Participation of indigenous people in conferences is highly welcome. However, it isnecessary to accommodate for potential language barriers. Thus facilitation oftranslation should be envisaged where possible. For the Arctic, often English-Russiantranslation could already be sufficient.