ASSW2020 Scientific Summary Report by Rannís

SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY REPORT ASSW 2020

Akureyri - Iceland

ASSW2020 Scientific Summary Report

March 2021

Published by: The Northern Research Forum at the University of Akureyri Editor: Federica Scarpa Editorial Committee: Egill Níelsson, Gerlis Fugmann, Gunnar Gunnarsson,

Þorsteinn Gunnarsson For questions and inquiry, please contact: info@iasc.info Website: assw2020.is (until January 2022) Cover Photo: (c) Benjamin Hardman ISBN: 978-9935-24-953-1

This report has been published thanks to the support of the University of Akureyri and Rannís, the Icelandic Centre for Research

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

02/03

THANK YOU TO OUR ARCTIC SUPPORTERS & FRIENDS IN ICELAND The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the University of Akureyri and Rannís - The Icelandic Research Centre, organizers, and co-hosts of ASSW2020 would like to give special thanks to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources, and the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, the strong local and international Arctic community in Akureyri, and private companies for their financial, logistic, and scientific and knowledge support. Lindsay Elizabeth Arthur, Project Manager, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Sólrún Svandal, Specialist, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and Stefán Einarsson, Head of Division, Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources were the experts appointed by their respective Ministers to participate in the works of the Local Organizing Committee (LOC). Their experience and knowledgebased advice were crucial in outlining policyrelevant and scientific contents of ASSW, especially for Science for a Sustainable Arctic Symposium. The ASSW2020 would not have been possible without the strong support of the Town of Akureyri and its local and international Arctic community. The Town of Akureyri is very active in Arctic issues, including participating in the Northern Forum and the Arctic Mayors Forum. It has for more than two decades encouraged a strong and growing Arctic community in Akureyri. This dynamic and strong community is made of both local and international scientists, researchers, organizations, institutions, and private companies that have joined efforts in working on Arctic issues and conducting ambitious research.

As a consequence, numerous institutions and offices in the field of Arctic issues are located in Akureyri, which many refer to as the Arctic Centre of Iceland. The University of Akureyri leads the Arctic higher education in Iceland, offering inter alia, courses as the Polar Law Master course and collaborating in Arctic research activities through its Research Centre (RHA) and the Northern Research Forum. Also, located in Akureyri are leading Arctic institutes and organizations such as the Stefansson Arctic Institute, the Icelandic Arctic Cooperation Network, two of the Secretariats of the Arctic Council's working groups, namely CAFF and PAME, and last but not least, the Secretariat of International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). The organizers of ASSW2020 are extremely grateful to the Arctic community for their immense support at various levels.

Table of Contents

PREFACE, Larry Hinzman, IASC President

ARCTIC SCIENCE SUMMIT WEEK 2020

ASSW 2020 Local Organizing Committee

ASSW2020 Scientific Summary Report

SCIENCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ARCTIC Welcoming Remark and Keynote Speech

GUÐNI TH. JÓHANNESSON, President of Iceland

EYJÓLFUR GUÐMUNDSSON, Rector of University of Akureyri HALLGRÍMUR JÓNASSON, Rannís General Director

24 26

LARRY HINZMAN, IASC President

ÞORSTEINN GUNNARSSON introduces ÓLAFUR RAGNAR GRÍMSSON

Arctic Science Cooperation by ÓLAFUR RAGNAR GRÍMSSON, Chairman, Arctic Circle, President of Iceland 1996-2016 Panel Discussions INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COOPERATION IN THE ARCTIC by Sophie Haslett and Alevtina Evgrafova

MARINE LITTER & PLASTIC POLLUTION by Enooyaq Sudlovenick and Federica Scarpa

HUMAN HEALTH, WELL-BEING, WATER CYCLE & ECOSYSTEM by Sascha Schiøtt & Matthias Fuchs

CHANGES TO ARCTIC SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS by Clay Prater and Megan Sheremata

INFORMING ARCTIC MARINE DECISION-MAKING by Amanda Burson and Pauline Pic

DIMINISHING ICE COVER IN THE ARCTIC by Amanda Burson and Barbara Barzycka

WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE ARCTIC? by Sammie Buzzard and Yvette Gramlich

Closing Statement

Mr. GUÐLAUGUR ÞÓR ÞÓRÐARSON, Iceland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development Cooperation

BUSINESS /COMMUNITY MEETINGS IASC Working Groups

IASC Atmosphere Working Group

IASC Cryosphere Working Group

IASC Marine Working Group IASC Social and Human Working Group IASC Terrestrial Working Group

59 61 62

IASC Community Meetings

ARCTIC UNDERGROUND NETWORK MEETING by Rebecca hewitt and Michelle Mack EUROPEAN POLAR BOARD: 25 YEARS AT THE CONFLUENCE OF SCIENCE AND POLICY IN THE POLAR REGIONS by Renuka Badhe and Joseph E. Nolan

GENDER IN POLAR RESEARCH by Dina Abdel Fattah, Stephan Dudeck, Doris Friedrich, et. al.

INDIGENOUS OBSERVING MEETING by Victoria Qutuuq Buschman, Megan Sheremata, Tayana Arakchaa, and Stanislav Ksenofontov

ISIRA by Yulia Zaika

CHINESE R/V XUELONG 2'S MAIDEN VOYAGE INTO THE ARCTIC OCEAN FOR INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION ON GAKKEL RIDGE, by Jiabiao Li; Tao Zhang; Carmen Gaina; et. al.

INTERACT TA USER COMMUNITY MEETING by Margareta Johansson and Hannele Savela

THE SYNOPTIC ARCTIC SURVEY: AN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EFFORT By Jackie Grebmeier

T-MOSAIC REMOTE SENSING ACTION GROUP WORKSHOP by Gonçalo Vieira and Annett Bartsch

MODEL ARCTIC COUNCIL by Jonathan Wood, Brandon Boylan, and Sophie Goliber

ARCTIC OBSERVING SUMMIT OBSERVING FOR ACTION: SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC OUTCOMES OF THE 5TH ARCTIC OBSERVING SUMMIT by Allen Pope, Alice Bradley, Eva Kruemmel, et. al.

PREFACE, LARRY HINZMAN, IASC PRESIDENT

In many respects, 2020 was a year of appreciation of science and acknowledgment of the value that emerges through international collaborations as information is shared, understanding grows, and the wisdom of the group prevails in addressing the tremendous challenges confronting our nations. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic early in the year forced the transition of the annual Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW) from a large gathering of participants from around the world to a completely virtual meeting. The ASSW attendees quickly rearranged their schedules, presentation formats, and strategies to meet with colleagues. Although we initially grieved the lost opportunity to visit Akureyri, Iceland, and the chance to join personal discussions to share and gain insights, we quickly came to the realization that this virtual conference worked very well indeed! We must thank the local organizers for rapidly adapting and acknowledge those difficult decisions to abandon the well-laid plans and tremendous logistical efforts in preparing meeting rooms, excursions, and special events. And now, with clear hindsight, we recognize it was a prudent and correct decision. The health of our conference participants, their families, and their communities was better protected by enabling full participation in this important meeting from the comfort of home. And, it was undeniably a successful and meaningful meeting, contributing substantially to the advancement of Arctic science.

This annual gathering of scientists, concerned citizens, programme managers, Indigenous Peoples, industry, government agencies and policymakers is a unique opportunity to bring together diverse perspectives to develop a better understanding of the Arctic environment and its role in global policy. At a time when increased tourism, shipping, resource extraction and other commercial and military activities in the Arctic are creating opportunities and challenges for governing bodies, ASSW creates a confluence of ideas and partnerships. As information to make policy decisions is needed, the connection between research and policy often includes significant obstacles that may be resolved simply through communication. More than 650 people from 28 countries registered for more than 60 online meetings, ten panels, five keynotes, and two poster sessions. The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) chaired the summit and created the program, which was composed of various IASC working group meetings and other open and closed business meetings. Other events included joint meetings and workshops on gender in polar research, the synoptic Arctic survey, collaborations on Gakkel Ridge, and microbial activity in tundra soil. The primary benefit of the Summit is the opportunity to convene and coordinate multiple independent but related Arctic programs. ASSW2020 also played host to the Pacific Arctic Group, the Asian Forum of Polar Sciences, INTERACT, the Ny-Ålesund Science Managers Committee, the Forum of Arctic Research Operators, the International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic, the Arctic Funders Forum, the European Polar Board. ASSW2020 also featured meetings of the Arctic Observing Summit and Science for a Sustainable Arctic . These large meetings were held concurrently to promote communication and the translation of scientific understanding into policy. During the Science for a Sustainable Arctic symposium, participants explored how the research community, the people of the Arctic and policy makers can work together to respond to a rapidly changing Arctic. This important meeting began with the theme of “International Science Cooperation in the Arctic”. It was a wonderful opportunity to hear the visionary perspectives of those who are helping to guide our nations in addressing the challenges of a rapidly changing Arctic. Also included in the symposium were sessions on marine litter and plastic pollution, human health and well-being, changes to social-ecological systems, diminishing ice cover, and sessions on decision making and defining what must be considered in a sustainable Arctic. The outcome of this symposium was a clearer understanding of the current status of the interactions of Arctic people with their environment and the potential consequences of a rapidly changing system. The Arctic Observing Summit focused upon five themes: Design, Optimization and Implementation of the Observing System, Observing in Support of Adaptation and Mitigation, Observing in Support of Indigenous Food Security and Related Needs, Data Interoperability and Federated Search, and Arctic Observations in the context of Global Observing initiatives. The AOS conference statement encouraged four outcomes:

Use SAON’s Roadmap for Arctic Observing and Data Systems process to identify Essential Arctic Variables and prioritized Shared Arctic Variables, identified by their importance to multiple information user groups and applications, where Arctic Indigenous collaboration is critical for the success of the process and outcome. Enhance coordination of Arctic observations, including identification of gaps and integration with global observing systems, to better inform adaptation and policy responses. Expand Arctic Observing efforts to reflect holistic Indigenous worldviews by directing funding to local and regional activities; increase engagement of Indigenous expertise in international work. Work towards a broadly networked, collaborative, interoperable Arctic digital system based on a co-production model and ethical data principles (e.g., CARE). The primary outcome of the 2020 Arctic Science Summit Week, and the greatest justification to continue to host these annual gatherings, was enhanced international collaborations. Despite the obstacles created by the pandemic, Arctic scientists again demonstrated their enduring spirit to serve society by advancing our understanding, increasing our knowledge, reducing risks and making our world more sustainable. Even under the burden of working within a pandemic, the collaborative dialogues among individuals from many different nations and disciplines proved that sharing concerns, information, and understanding makes us all stronger.

01 15

ARCTIC SCIENCE SUMMIT WEEK 2020 ASSW2020 was hosted by the Icelandic Centre for Research (Rannís) and the University of Akureyri, and was an important part of the Icelandic Chairmanship of the Arctic Council. ASSW2020 was originally scheduled as an in-person meeting in Akureyri (Iceland) from 27 March to 2 April 2020. The first confirmed case of COVID-19 was discovered in Iceland at the end of February 2020. By the beginning of March, authorities started hinting at upcoming restrictions on gatherings and assemblies. Until then, ASSW2020 organizers had been planning an in-person event, with preliminary arrangements to allow for some remote participation. As the circumstances worsened both locally and globally, ASSW2020 was officially moved online on 10 March 2020. The scheduled dates of the event remained unchanged (27 March – 2 April). ASSW2020 included the following events: Science for a Sustainable Arctic: A one-day conference focusing on sustainability as well as marine issues in the Arctic, aimed at both scientists and policymakers. Recordings are available on Youtube. IASC Business and Community Meeting s: A three-day event where IASC leadership and Working Groups annually meet. Any Arctic research organization or team is welcomed and encouraged to schedule meetings and events during these days. 5th Arctic Observing Summit: A three-day biennial Summit gathering together the

Arctic observing community to exchange ideas and develop ways to collaborate, share resources, and improve Arctic observing. Theme of the 5th AOS is Observing for Action. Recordings are available on Youtube. In total, 650 attendees from 28 countries, including scientists, Indigenous leaders and knowledge holders, business and non-profit organizations and representatives from governments attended ASSSW2020. As ASSW2020 was one of the first conferences moved online due to the pandemic, the organizers gathered best practices and lesson learned and made it available in an open-source report: Moving a Conference from Iceland to Zoom Best Practices and Lessons Learned from Arctic Science Summit Week 2020 (available on assw2020.is)

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report Forewords - Larry Hinzman

ASSW 2020 Local Organizing Committee Þorsteinn Gunnarsson, Chair, The Icelandic Centre for Research, Icelandic representative in IASC Council and Chair of Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks

(SAON) Sólrún Svandal, Specialist, Ministry for Foreign Affairs Lindsay Elizabeth Arthur, Project Manager, Ministry of Education, Science and

Culture[FSR1] Stefán Einarsson, Head of Division, Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources Hulda Sif Hermannsdóttir , Assistant to the Mayor, Town of Akureyri Guðrún Rósa Þórsteinsdóttir, Director, RHA UNAK Allen Pope, (former) Executive Secretary, IASC Federica Scarpa, ASSW Conference Manager, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), Icelandic Arctic Cooperation Network (IACN)

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report Forewords - Larry Hinzman

ASSW2020 SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY REPORT The Arctic Science Summit Week is the most important annual gathering of Arctic research organization. It provides a venue for coordination, cooperation, and discussions on key Arctic issues, attracting scientists, students, policymakers and other professionals from all over the world. During ASSW, several Arctic-focused workshops take place, scientific proposals are discussed, and new ideas come to be. It is with this in mind that the convener and hosts of the Arctic Science Summit Week 2020, namely IASC, The University of Akureyri and Rannís, the Centre for Icelandic Research put forward the suggestion to compile a summary report that could keep a record of these discussions and present them to the Arctic community at large. The scope of this summary report is to gather and present the main discussions and outcomes of the Arctic Science Summit Week 2020. The structure closely follows the program of the ASSW2020, which started with the one-day science symposium „Science for a Sustainable Arctic, continued into the IASC Business and Community Meetings and concluded with the three-day conference Arctic Observing Summit: Observing for Action. The first section, Science for a Sustainable Arctic , gathers welcoming remarks, keynote speech, and closing statement given during the symposium. The section also features analysis authored by IASC Fellows of each panel discussion, including scientific highlights. Both speeches and panel discussions are available on YouTube. In the Business and Community Meetings an overview of the five IASC Working Groups' scientific works is presented. Working Groups Chairs have prepared these contributions with the assistance of their WG secretaries. The section summarizes selected meetings, addressing outcomes, ways forward, and knowledge gaps regarding a wide variety of topics ranging from gender issues, Russian Arctic and remote sensing, to name but a few. The editors included in this overview also a summary of the high-level experiential learning exercise Model Arctic Council (MAC), hosted by the University of Akureyri in cooperation with the UArctic Thematic Network that took place at ASSW2020. The report concludes with an overview of the Arctic Observing Summit (AOS) , a biennial event convened as part of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) initiative. The scope of AOS is to guide the design, coordination, and long-term operation of an international network of observing systems that improve our understanding of and respond to Arctic change. The theme of AOS 2020 is Observing for Action.

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report Forewords - Larry Hinzman

SCIENCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ARCTIC Opening Remarks & Keynote

SCIENCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ARCTIC Address by GUÐNI TH. JÓHANNESSON President of Iceland, 27 March 2020

Dear viewers, dear participants at this online conference, Science for a Sustainable Arctic. Naturally, I wish I were now welcoming you in person in Akureyri, the lovely town in the north of Iceland. Naturally, I wish we were about to begin an actual meeting of minds where we could discuss, face to face, how we can use science to protect, promote and strengthen a sustainable Arctic. This we cannot do – you all know why. Together we are all fighting a common foe, a foe that does not recognize boundaries or passports. We need to do everything we can to overcome this invisible enemy. We need to do it together. My thoughts are with those who have lost a loved one because of the corona-virus, and with those who now need treatment. Let us also send our good wishes to those who are, or have been, in quarantine in recent days and weeks, or are otherwise affected. But let us also continue with our lives, our careers, our research. This conference on science and sustainability will add to our understanding of the Arctic region, its ecosystem and its peoples. This conference will be a testimony to the importance of academics, scientists and specialists in so many fields. Dear friends: This sudden disruption of people’s lives, the rhythm of society and the running of states, has already had a drastic impact around the globe. Presumably, things will get worse in many areas before they get better.

But we will get through this. We will find a way to beat the virus. And how will that be done? Through science, through the effort of scientists to develop a vaccine and other remedies. The history of humankind contains ample cases of science beating illness and epidemics. We will continue that journey. We will conquer this virus and we will have countless conferences and meetings of minds. Yes, we will work together for a better future, in the Arctic and around the world. I wish you all a fruitful online conference.

Recording Available on Youtube (IASC Channel)

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

EYJÓLFUR GUÐMUNDSSON Rector of University of Akureyri

Dear participants of the Arctic Science Summit Week 2020 “Science for Sustainable Arctic” - Welcome to the North of Iceland! I welcome you to the University of Akureyri. These are most certainly unusual times, but we are northerners – people from the Arctic – we are used to change and aggressive environments so we will manage. I want to thank you all for being prepared to participate with us in this online environment of ASSW 2020. Though technology will surely help us in these strange and unusual times, I wish that I could have been able to greet you all in our modern Arctic campus – but that will simply wait for a better, virus-free time. Online communication and online education are actually one of the key elements of a sustainable Arctic in the future. The University of Akureyri has been developing its online programs for 20 years and this is one of the key reasons why we are able to host the conference in an online format. The University of Akureyri is the Arctic University of Iceland, with focus on governance and communities in the Arctic. We offer a Master's degree in Polar law and Polar studies, in English, which allows students to understand the many complex issues of governance in the Arctic. The university has also been active in various expert groups during the Icelandic Chairmanship of the Arctic Council and we will host the Model Arctic Council with students from all Arctic states and of course that will also be online. It was therefore very exciting for us to be able to host the ASSW 2020 in online format. Some of the main topics in the programme are on the ocean, its ice cover, and the marine environment in general. For Iceland, the ocean is our source for survival; it brings warmer currents from the South that make the island liveable under fairly mild conditions. Iceland is also situated where the warmer currents collide with the colder the currents from the Arctic. This brings us life and livelihood through very rich fishing grounds. The ASSW topics are of critical importance for Iceland and the question on

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

how this can be secured as sustainable Arctic is just as important for individual regions, nations and the Arctic as a whole. In these uncertain times it is most important that experts like yourselves come together to present and review the latest scientific information and knowledge so that we can assist governments in making informed decisions for the future sustainable Arctic – and so that we can all continue to live and thrive in the place we love so much, and we all call home: the cold but refreshing, ever-changing and vibrant Arctic. I would like to thank all of those that attended the conference. I would like to thank the government of Iceland for the generous support as well as the Town of Akureyri and our mayor Ásthildur Sturludóttir. I would like to thank her specifically for her significant role in building and strengthening the leadership of local communities in the Arctic through her work for the Arctic Mayor's Forum. We have also received support from our local community, including several companies and institutions. We thank them all for their generous support.

Recording Available on Youtube (IASC Channel)

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

HALLGRÍMUR JÓNASSON Rannís General Director

Dear Arctic friends, I am representing Rannís, The Icelandic Centre for Research. Rannís is hosting IASC in Akureyri and along with University of Akureyri hosting the ASSW 2020. It would have been a pleasure meeting you all in Akureyri, Iceland, but the circumstances do not allow, so the online meeting is the exercise we are facing. Rannís’s role is to strengthen research, innovation, education, and culture by supporting the Icelandic knowledge community through administration of competitive funds, promoting opportunities, and providing support for international cooperation. Rannís analyses and promotes the economic and social impact of research and provides professional assistance in the preparation and implementation of the public science and technology policy in Iceland. Why is Iceland interested in the Arctic?

Iceland is one of the Arctic countries, a member of the group of 8 Arctic states in the Arctic Council, which includes the five Nordic states and the US, Russia and Canada. Rannís has hosted the Secretariat of IASC since January 2017, in the Arctic town of Akureyri. The commitment is to support IASC in its mission to encourage and facilitate international consultation and cooperation in all aspects of Arctic research. Iceland also hosts in Akureyri the secretariats for CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna) and PAME (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment), the Arctic Council Working Groups. The official Icelandic policy is to develop an International Arctic Center in Akureyri in connection with the University of Akureyri. In the spring of 2019, Iceland started its two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council, emphasizing the importance of stability, sustainability, and cooperation in the area, and the intention to find ways to tackle its challenges, most notably climate change. What is it we are facing?

Climate change continues to ravage the planet and the Arctic region is warming up. Hundreds of billion tonnes of ice are melting off the Greenland glacier. The melting of freshwater is changing the makeup of the Arctic Ocean. Ocean acidification is

wreaking havoc on underwater ecosystems. Aside from the effect this has on the global ecosystem, melting ice and receding glaciers are revealing hitherto unreachable land and waters. In addition to new trading routes, Arctic resources such as fish stocks are changing with the climate. Fisheries is a major marine ecosystem in the Arctic. The biogeography of individual fish species, along with physico-chemical factors, including temperature, acidity, density, and nutrients that in turn affect the trophic structure of marine ecosystems influence the production potential of local waters and therefore fishery resources in the Artic. Iceland, a volcanic island in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, lies at the confluence of cold Arctic and warm ocean currents. Both the biota and society are highly dependent on marine resources. Glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Iceland are responding to climate change and at the same time impacting the North-Atlantic-ocean currents and sea level, with freshwater fluxes from the melting of the glaciers. However, the observed signals can be complex as shown by the large area to the South West of Iceland that has experienced cooling in the last century, in contrast with the almost universal global warming. Those familiar with this hypothesis called Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), it may represent an early warning signal of the potential crossing of a “tipping point” in the climate system. The proximity of regions with cooling and warming waters near Iceland provides an opportunity to investigate environmental changes over a wide range of fields. By mentioning this I hope to be able to express the importance and the economic consequences for Iceland and the Arctic area as a whole, therefore Iceland’s interest in strengthening and collaborate internationally on Arctic research. We need to understand the impacts of climate change not only on the marine ecosystems but on society and culture in the Arctic region. Finally, I wish you all the best with your work, living in extraordinary times with the COVID-19 virus. Our small IASC secretariat here in Akureyri with great help from all of you has shown remarkable flexibility by rearranging the program to an online meeting. I trust this will be a successful meeting.

Recording Available on Youtube (IASC Channel)

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

LARRY HINZMAN IASC President

Thank you for your continued dedication to growing, learning, and advancing Arctic science. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the first ever Arctic Science Summit Week hosted completely online. We were very excited to travel to Akureyri, Iceland to convene this ASSW, but we thank the organizers for their efforts to adapt this complex programme to on-line delivery. We are happy that this online format will enable greater participation from members of the Arctic Council Working Groups, the Senior Arctic Officials, IASC Affiliates, and hundreds of other polar scientists, policy makers, students, Indigenous Peoples and local stakeholders distributed around the world. IASC is very grateful to the organizing committee in Iceland, the University of Akureyri and RANNÍS for their remarkable investment of time and resources in conducting this important meeting under these trying conditions. The circumpolar Arctic is the contemporary home to many different Indigenous Peoples. As researchers and others who are working in, or reside in the Arctic we recognize these lands and waters as the mostly unceded traditional homelands of Indigenous Peoples. While Iceland does not have separate Indigenous and colonial ethnic groups, IASC has supported activities this past year around the world, including various places across the Arctic. Wherever you may be viewing this message, IASC honours and recognizes the place-based knowledge of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, and their ancestral and contemporary stewardship of their homelands. I welcome all ASSW participants to do the same. It is the responsibility of each of us to learn, know, and gain better understanding of the Indigenous Peoples and cultures with which we engage. For example, I am based at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and I acknowledge the Dena Nation upon whose traditional lands my university and the UAF Troth Yeddha' Campus is located. I have experienced the joy and sense of purpose that comes from knowing and working with the Indigenous People. I encourage everyone to seek greater under-

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

standing, to enhance engagement, partnerships, and co-production of knowledge with Indigenous Peoples. In so many ways, we are attempting to help our nations and our societies deal with a rapidly changing world.The changing climate is presenting tremendous complications to our northern ecosystems, while presenting some opportunities to commerce. But there are so many other drivers confounding our understanding and ability to project future scenarios. Globalization, nationalization, demographics, even education are changing lifestyles, changing perspectives, and changing values. The 2020 Pandemic will long be remembered as a major disruption to our lives, our economy and our outlook on the future. This year IASC celebrates our 30th anniversary. Our Founding Articles committed IASC to pursue a mission of encouraging and facilitating cooperation in all aspects of Arctic research, in all countries engaged in Arctic research and in all areas of the Arctic region. For 30 years, IASC has promoted and supported leading-edge interdisciplinary research in order to foster a greater scientific understanding of the Arctic region and its role in the earth's system. By working together, we have made great things happen.The next 30 years promise great challenges and opportunities for great achievements. It is unfortunate this meeting, “Science for a Sustainable Arctic”, is competing with a global pandemic, but in some sense, it could not have been better timed. More than ever, our scientific community must rise to address the challenges before us. We must rebuild the partnerships, the collaborations, the esprit de corps that makes international science thrive. We are almost certainly entering a new paradigm of working, communicating, and sharing ideas, resources and support for needed collaborations. In closing and in deference to our meeting hosts,I will leave you with the Icelandic phrase þetta reddast, which roughly translates to the idea that everything will work out all right in the end. This meeting is our opportunity to make sure it does all work out right in the end.

Recording Available on Youtube (IASC Channel)

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

ÞORSTEINN GUNNARSSON Introduces ÓLAFUR RAGNAR GRÍMSSON

I am both pleased and honoured to introduce Dr. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson to our audience. As most of you know Ólafur has a distinguished career both as an academic and a statesman. He was the first Icelander to earn a Ph.D. in Political Science and he was also the first Professor of Political Science at the University of Iceland. Ólafur served as the fifth president of Iceland from 1996-2016. Since the end of his presidency, Ólafur has been serving as Chairman of the Arctic Circle which is the largest network of international dialogue and cooperation on the future of the Arctic. The annual Arctic Circle Assembly is the largest annual international gathering on the Arctic, attended by more than 2000 participants from 60 countries. For many years, Ólafur has been a strong advocate of IASC and his support was instrumental when the IASC Secretariat was moved to Akureyri. From the beginning, IASC has been a proud partner of the Arctic Circle and IASC has organized and participated in various sessions and events on international Arctic Science cooperation during Arctic Circle assemblies and forums. Under Ólafur’s leadership, Arctic Circle has been serving Arctic scientists and Arctic science organization as an extremely important and useful venue for Arctic science and science policy. Both personally and on behalf of the ASSW organizers, I am most grateful to Ólafur to be with us here today in order to present his views on and vision for international science cooperation in the Arctic.

Arctic Science Cooperation By ÓLAFUR RAGNAR GRÍMSSON Chairman Arctic Circle, President of Iceland 1996-2016 The speech was delivered without notes

I am honoured to be able to join your discussion under somewhat strange circumstances. Let me try to summarize from my vantage point where the international cooperation on Arctic science is at the moment; where I see it standing and mention a few of the main challenges as we move into the new decade. It is worth remembering how incredible the transformation in the last half a decade or so has impacted Arctic cooperation. It was only in 2013 that the Arctic Council accepted China, Korea, Japan, India, Singapore and others as observer States. If anybody had predicted at the Kiruna meeting that within less than a decade they would all have become active players in Arctic science and Arctic cooperation I don't think anybody would have believed that scenario. In the same year, 2013, some of us got together and decided to establish the Arctic Circle, announced it at a National Press Club in Washington in May of the same year and declared that we would have the first Assembly six months later. Everybody thought we were crazy to do that with only six months preparation time, but such was the international demand for Arctic cooperation that in October 2013 more than thousand people came to Reykjavik for the first Assembly. It became from the very beginning the largest annual international gathering on the Arctic. Now we have every year over two thousand participants from 60 to 70 countries. Before the coronavirus stopped almost every kind of normal human communication on the planet we had just come back from India and Berlin, where we witnessed the growing international engagement in the Arctic.

The plans of the Arctic Circle for the next 16 months consisted of a Forum in Berlin on Arctic science, especially the MOSAiC expedition and in the end of August the Arctic Circle Forum

in Greenland; in Tokyo in November on Arctic science, as well as in the United Arab Emirates in the beginning of the next year, linking Arctic science to the need to research the Himalayan glaciers and the Third Pole. Preliminary discussions with the Government of France, supported by President Macron, on a Forum later in 2021 on what we called the Arctic Post-Paris. We now have, in addition to all the other Arctic meetings, gatherings, organizations, and platforms, an extraordinary network and engagement by all the leading countries in Asia and on the European continent in addition to the Arctic states. As my good friend Lassi Heininen called it, just about half a decade ago, the “Global Arctic.” Many people were surprised by that concept. It has now become our everyday reality as we go forward. Our plans were that Arctic science would have a big part at the Forum in Berlin. I was there on the 9th of March with the CEO of the Arctic Circle to decide on the structure with our German Ministerial hosts. As some of you know the Arctic Circle and the Icelandic universities were planning a two-day science meeting prior to the Arctic Circle Assembly in October. Then the combination of the Third Arctic Science Ministerial meeting and the Arctic Circle Forum in Tokyo. No year would have seen such prominent links of Arctic science meetings in addition to all the other meetings on Arctic science like ASSW and others. It demonstrates extraordinarily good news. Despite all the conflicts in the world, the tensions between leading States and others, we have managed to create an extensive, elaborate, productive, peaceful, balanced network of international cooperation in the Arctic. Perhaps inspired by what President Putin once said, that the Arctic is simply too big and too much of a challenge for any one country to be able to do alone all the research, science, and knowledge gathering on the Arctic. Let me conclude by mentioning three challenges that we need to speak about openly and systematically. First, an increasing geopolitical dimension entering the Arctic region. We are all aware of what happened in Finland and what has followed from the American Administration and the reaction by other States. We might be in an era where the politicization of the Arctic becomes a new element. We have openly and clearly expressed our determination despite the song-and-dance, as I sometimes call it, in the political scene with respect to the Arctic. We will continue in every area of Arctic science on the basis of what we have achieved so far. We cannot let the Ups and downs of the new politics of the Arctic have a slowing effect on Arctic science cooperation or other forms of Arctic cooperation. I am perfectly aware that is not easy. That is why we need to speak about it openly. The second challenge regards communication across language barriers. There is an enormous amount of Arctic research going on in Russia. Most of it is published in Russian. When one attempts to attend gatherings like the last one in St. Petersburg and one doesn't understand Russian, one loses 80 - 90 % of what is going on. Similarly, in the Asian countries the research that has been done by Korea, China,

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

Japan, and others; lot of it is published not in English but in their own languages. Somehow, we need to find an organized mechanism where we communicate globally almost every research being conducted in the Arctic. Maybe the Coronavirus has shown us some information technology means to actually do this, in real time and in a productive way. My final point is this. Despite what I said in the beginning that we have many existing gatherings like the Arctic Circle Assembly, we should be aware that it is not a given. For example, the upcoming Arctic Science Ministerial meeting, if I may say so, was an outcome of an idea I got in a taxi in Tokyo about two years ago and then proposed it to the Minister of Science in Japan and my own Ministers. There were not at that time any formalized plans either by my own country or Japan to actually do that. They took up the idea and now they are planning it in a splendid way. If we combine that with the second meeting in Berlin, we now have some kind of a formula, where the chair country of the Arctic Council cooperates with an observer State like Finland or Germany did before, and Iceland and Japan are doing now. I put it to our Russian friends: When they take over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council they should continue this, and select an observer State to host with Russia the fourth Arctic Science Ministerial meeting. But let me say again: it is not given. Therefore, we have to systematically speak about it in an open way and make clear that as we go forward there will be the Fourth Arctic Science Ministerial Meeting; there will be the Fifth Arctic Science Ministerial meeting, and so on. The practice was created by the Americans during the US chairmanship and we should thank them for that. The meeting in Germany came about because of the interest of the Finnish chairmanship. I have just described how the upcoming meeting in Tokyo came about. How do we institutionalize the Arctic Science Ministerial Meetings as we go forward? Let me conclude: We can celebrate an extraordinary level of international cooperation in the Arctic, but we should also be aware that there are challenges and barriers. We have to deal with those so they don't slow down the extraordinary pace of Arctic science cooperation.

Recording Available on Youtube (IASC Channel)

ASSW2020 Scientific Contents Report

SCIENCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ARCTIC Panel Sessions

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COOPERATION IN THE ARCTIC

barriers and to increase access for international researchers to areas, infrastructure and data in Arctic regions. The agreement has been ratified by all eight Arctic nation states and came into force on 23 May 2018.

SOPHIE HASLETT AND ALEVTINA EVGRAFOVA

In order for this to be successful, it is important for researchers to report barriers that are still being encountered. This can only be achieved if awareness is raised within Arctic research communities to ensure that researchers are aware of the need to report these issues. While only the eight Arctic nation states are party to the agreement, researchers from all nations are also encouraged to report obstacles. The issues can generally be raised by filling in an online form specific to the country in which research is being carried out. Given that the Arctic research community is already flourishing, in addition to encouraging international Arctic cooperation to continue, one of the key intended effects of this agreement is to send a signal that Arctic science and international collaboration is important.

Panelists: Ditte Nissen Lund, Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education: The Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation Lindsay Arthur (Icelandic Ministry of Science, Education, and Culture) & Hiroyuki Enomoto (National Institute of Polar Research, Japan): Updates on the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial Keynote: Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Former President of Iceland: International Science Cooperation in the Arctic Recording available on YouTube

Lindsay Elizabeth Arthur and Hiroyuki Enomoto: Updates on the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial The Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM) brings together 26 governments from around the world to discuss the most urgent issues in the Arctic science research. The 3rd ASM (ASM3) was planned to take place in Tokyo, Japan on 21-22 November 2020 [note: it has now been postponed to 8-9 May 2021]. The goal of this forum is to facilitate discussion between ministers on bigger-picture issues that require the international community to work together, as well as to engage directly with the latest Arctic research activities and priorities. One of the key intended outcomes of the ASM is to provide the opportunity for researchers to contribute to the policy-making process. As such, the board of the ASM comprises individuals nominated by various international Arctic science organisations.

The ASSW2020 panel “International Science Cooperation in the Arctic” focused on the importance of conducting research in interdisciplinary, international and open-dialogue settings. This enables the exchange between Arctic researchers as well as with international Arctic policymakers and other actors, hence, contributing towards the global Arctic. Ditte Nissen Lund: The Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation It can be difficult for researchers to gain access to Arctic locations, as well as datasets that may be necessary to carry out their work. Bureaucratic obstacles have been reported as one of the largest issues prohibiting access. The Agreement on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation, signed in 2017 in Fairbanks, Alaska, aims to minimise or eliminate

For ASM3, the intention is to engage directly with Arctic researchers at three Arctic science meetings that are being held throughout the year (listed below). White papers written as a result of these meetings will be presented to ministers during ASM3 and contribute towards a science summary, which will be released alongside a joint statement signed by ministers. The following science meetings are involved in this process:

politicization in the Arctic, geopolitical dimensions need to be openly and clearly determined. The new politics of the Arctic has a slowing down effect on Arctic cooperation, (ii) There is a challenge in communication across the language barrier. Many publications and datasets are in Russian or various Asian languages, which makes them inaccessible for international researchers. Mechanisms for how to internationalize publications and datasets need to be defined and implemented and high-tech solutions could assist in achieving this goal. Launching a common database in different languages would be an extraordinary move forward, and (iii) The Ministerial Meetings (ASMs) need to be continuous and solutions need to be found on how to institutionalize the ASM meetings in order to continue international cooperation.

The 6th International Symposium on Arctic Research (ISAR-6), 2-6 March 2020, Tokyo, Japan (moved online). Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW2020) and the Arctic Observing Summit 2020 (AOS2020), 27 March – 2 April 2020, Akureyri, Iceland (moved online). The 10th International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences (ICASS X), 15-20 June, Arkhangelsk, Russia (postponed to 2021).

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COOPERATION IN THE ARCTIC Highlights: 1. Arctic researchers are encouraged to speak openly and systematically about all sorts of obstacles, including bureaucratic issues and language barriers, which they face prior to and during research. The Agreement on Enhancing International Scientific Cooperation gives the opportunity to report these to the country in which research is being carried out. 2. Researchers are encouraged to contribute to the policy-making process via white papers that will be considered by ministers during the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial, 8-9 May 2021 3. Launching a common database in different languages would be a breakthrough for the Arctic scientific community and beyond.

Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Former President of Iceland: International Science Cooperation in the Arctic In the last half decade, the international cooperation in the Arctic has been transformed. The Arctic Council accepted several new Observer States in 2013 during the Kiruna Ministerial meeting and in the same year the Arctic Circle Assembly was established due to growing demands on Arctic international cooperation. In addition to all Arctic meetings, an extraordinary network and engagement across the globe has been shaping the Arctic towards the Global Arctic, e.g. MOSAiC expedition. The COVID-19 pandemic overall showed how communication can be organized across countries, though it is important to maintain human interaction, personal contacts, and friendships as they were previously in the Arctic community..

Scientific Summary Report prepared by Sophie Haslett, 2019 Atmosphere Working Group Fellow, and Alevtina Evgrafova, IASC Fellows Coordinator.

There are three remaining challenges that still need to be discussed openly and systematically: (i) In times of increasing

MARINE LITTER & PLASTIC POLLUTION

Plastic is a very good material; versatile, flexible and highly durable. It does not come as a surprise that plastics are extensively used worldwide to produce a vast array of products. However, it is exactly its main characteristic, namely its durability, that poses also major challenges to the marine environment. Plastics today are the major contributor of litter in the oceans; it is estimated that approximately 150 million tons of plastic waste are currently floating in the world oceans and 8 million more tons are added to this count every year.

ENOOYAQ SUDLOVENICK AND FEDERICA SCARPA

Moderator: Magnús Jóhannesson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iceland

In the recent past, scientific research and monitoring have been proactive and pivotal not only in bringing environmental issues to the attention of the public and policymakers but also in suggesting a scientific-based solution to address particularly challenging marine environmental issues, as for instance in the case of POPs and radioactive substances. Scientists have highlighted how these substances are particularly harmful for the marine environment, especially within the Arctic region, where they seem to accumulate in the biota even faster than lower latitudes. As result, policymakers have implemented scientific advice based on scientific monitoring and research, developing legally binding frameworks such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Minamata Convention on Mercury.

Panelists: Birgitta Stefánsdóttir, Environment Agency of Iceland Hrönn Ólína Jörundsdóttir, Matís Catherine Waller, University of Hull Soffía Guðmundsdóttir, Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)

Recording available on YouTube

Studies suggest that 150 million tons of plastic waste are currently floating in the world's oceans, accounting for approximately. 3/4 of all of marine litter. Understandably, plastic marine pollution has become a tangible and pressing environmental issue for citizens and policymakers, both pushing to find and implement meaningful solutions to tackle the issue. Unfortunately, scientific research is still in an early stage, with significant gaps, hampering the elaboration of meaningful solutions. While broader cooperation and dialogue with policymakers could foster a better understanding of the issue, In the Arctic, the novel “Desktop Study on Marine Litter, including Microplastics in the Arctic” conducted by the Protection of the Marine Environment Working Group (PAME) of the Arctic Council has helped to shred light on specific issues of marine plastic in the region.

Plastics in the marine Arctic environment, however, can be described as the first environmental problem where policymakers are ahead of scientific research. In the last few years, plastic marine pollution has become a tangible and pressing environmental issue for both citizens and policymakers, both pushing to find and implement meaningful solutions to tackle the issue. Policymakers have brought attention to the issue and posed questions to the scientific community, such as where plastics come from, how plastics affect humans, animals, health, food safety and the environment, or which are the effects on

the environment, or which are the effects on the ecosystems on the long term. Unfortunately, these questions remain today only partially answered, as scientific research on marine plastic pollution is only at its initial stage. At the same time, since several organizations and institutions are currently working on the issue, research must face challenges such as comparability and combination of data, due to a lack of standardized methodology.

An additional challenge for finding meaningful solutions to the marine plastic pollution is represented by the interface between science and policy, raising issues as how data and findings needs to be translated into policy-relevant action. There is a generalised tendency in governments to enact low term, low impact and low costs actions, which scope is usually to produce some kind of results withing the government mandate (usually 4-5 years).

An important contribution to the scientific understanding of plastics and marine pollution in the Arctic, is provided by the novel “Desktop Study on Marine Litter, including Microplastics in the Arctic” which is included in the 2017- 2019 Protection of the Marine Environment Working Group (PAME) Work Plan. This study is a literature review on the current knowledge on marine litter, aiming at improving our understanding of the status and impacts of marine litter, including microplastics, in the Arctic region. It focuses on the regional and global components of marine litter and microplastic, and how to better coordinate across different boundaries. Findings based on the analysis of existing coastal and seafloor litter data suggest that fisheries-related activities are the major source of plastic litter in the Arctic. Activities like aquaculture, passenger and goods shipping, oil and gas exploration activities constitute additional sea-based sources, while Russian rivers seem to be the major suppliers in regards of land-based contributors.The study also pinpoints major knowledge gaps regarding important aspects of Arctic plastic pollution, for instance: No observational data on river inputs into oceans are currently available Pattern on distribution/transportations of marine litter and microplastics Interaction of plastic with biota Studies and analysis are indeed being developed in trying to find a methodology for a comprehensive understanding, including origins of plastics, bacteria in plastic and toxicology.

Lack of scientific knowledge however should not hamper a discussion on possible solutions and actions to be undertaken. In fact, panelist agreed that there is no need to wait for scientific evidence for taking action and upstreaming solutions. Involving all citizens of the Arctic may represent an important way forward for acting. Since plastics are extremely challenging to be removed when they reach the marine environment, attention should be put on circular economy aspects, and promote awareness and a responsible use of plastic that avoid for example single use. Other solutions, as for instance the involvement of all Arctic inhabitants in activities as monitoring could be crucial for advancing the understanding of the issue. Therefore, activities already taking place such as cleaning beaches, should be coupled with monitoring activities and reporting, and passed on to institutions for analysis. This approach highlights the importance of transdisciplinary approach, where natural sciences and social science join forces to stimulate discussion and find holistic solutions. Plastics in the marine environment do not have a simple answer nor a simple solution, and collaboration must be a priority, with states, researchers and institutions working together towards common goals. At the same time, policy makers could support the science community by identifying where knowledge is needed and targeting key important research field as for example the effect of microplastic on juvenile cod.

Based on the finding of the study introduced above, the Icelandic Chairmanship to the Arctic Council has highlighted plastic pollution in the Arctic marine environment among its priorities. Among the extensive efforts taking place and planned, the Government of Iceland convened the International Symposium on Plastics in the Arctic and the Sub-Arctic Region in March 2021 (postponed from April 2020 due to the pandemic) which included a high-level political dialogue on marine issues.

MARINE LITTER & PLASTIC POLLUTION Highlights: 1. There are significant gaps in scientific knowledge regarding marine plastic pollution, 2. Plastic pollution research is novel, and there are no standard methodologies for research yet, which makes it difficult to compare datasets. The solution can come by collaboration between stakeholders, such as scientists, industry leaders, and policymakers 3. Upstream solutions. We do not need to wait for science to start acting now. We can start to remove plastic use upstream.

Scientific Summary Report prepared by Enooyaq Sudlovenick, Marine Working Group and Indigenous Fellow, and Federica Scarpa, IASC Communication Manager.

Climate change is posing severe threats to the environment, not only by rising temperatures, or more extreme weather conditions, but also by bringing changes for example, in precipitation patterns. In the northern high latitudes, for example, where freshwater ecosystems are characterized by low biodiversity and low-nutrient, even the smallest chemical, nutrient, or anthropogenic input may significantly alter ecosystems balances, causing species to shift toward southern or northern latitudes. Furthermore, thawing permafrost poses a risk not only to release additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere but might also release pathogens such as anthrax, that before were kept inactive. A documented case of infections with anthrax in the high Arctic has awakened the concern that other pathogens also could be revived by climate change where higher ground temperatures and exposure to the surface could lead to infections in different organisms. This could happen either through direct infection of herbivores eating the vegetation or by intake of infected meat or intake of water that has been contaminated through runoff from thawed permafrost layers. Invasion by new species was also discussed in relation to climate change, which could change the local ecosystems and have devastating results. In turn, these negative consequences are affecting people directly in the Arctic, and their physical and mental well-being.

HUMAN HEALTH, WELL-BEING, WATER CYCLE & ECOSYSTEM SASCHA SCHIØTT & MATTHIAS FUCHS

Moderator: Ásthildur Sturludóttir, Mayor of Akureyri Panelists: Arja Rautio, University of Oulu Jón Ólafsson, Marine and Freshwater Research Institute, Iceland Victoria Buschman, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Eydís Sveinbjarnardóttir, University of Akureyri

Recording available on YouTube

The scope of the panel discussion is to address how we can best support human health in the Arctic by combining indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge. Since human health is a complex and multidimensional issue; scientists and indigenous experts from different fields (e.g. ecology, biology, medicine, social sciences) were invited to discuss challenges, potential solutions and impacts of human health in remote Arctic communities. An interdisciplinary approach was considered more appropriate, as issues such as eg. a healthy environment, access to clean water, food security, and indigenous rights need to be included when addressing health care system in the Arctic. Health research must be conducted in a multidisciplinary way and in connection with research on the environment, wildlife and nature

Human health and wellbeing in the Arctic is closely intertwined with the overall wellbeing of the environment and its ecosystems. Air quality, fresh and clean water, viability of species affect human health as they enter the human body in form of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.

One of the main topic raised by the panel addressed how mental and physical health studies of the Indigenous population of the Arctic need to consider aspects such as future accessibility to Indigenous lands, its

resources and the availability of traditional food. Traditional food is central for the psychological and physical well-being of the Indigenous population, but this aspect has been too often ignored by Western heath care services. In fact in the past, Western health care advisors have not only ignored a holistic approach to Indigenous well-being, but have also violated basic needs and rights of Indigenous Peoples. An example is given by the widespread medical advice given to indigenous population to avoid a too high intake of marine mammals, central to many indigenous diets, due to the high content of heavy metals. This advice did not take into consideration well-being of indigenous people in a holistic way, in fact not understanding the positive effects that access to traditional food has on mental well-being of indigenous population. On top of this, imported food items are very expensive, and their availability is generally low, as opposed to traditional foods that are more available and provide food security in remote areas of the Arctic. In addition, this advice was later shown to be inappropriate as the selenium content in marine mammals is high and therefore this counteracts the negative effect of the high heavy metal content in marine mammals.

even further. Ideas, studies, and suggested solutions for tackling these issues are available or are being developed, BUT they often lack funding and capacity for implementation. Indigenous knowledge and Western knowledge should be considered in parallel, instead of trying to fit the indigenous knowledge into Western views. In addition, even when studies and ideas that include indigenous knowledge are planned, they often lack funding and lack capacity for implementation. There is an urgent need to raise awareness, secure funding, and improve the accessibility to health care services for Arctic communities. It is noteworthy that the panelists pointed to the One Arctic One Health project by the Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) as an important initiative to create a framework to address Arctic health challenges, as still health is often marginalized in Arctic discussions. HUMAN HEALTH, WELL-BEING, WATER CYCLE & ECOSYSTEM Highlights: 1. The Covid-19 pandemic is endangering remote Arctic communities and putting them at additional risk. Remote Indigenous communities, which already struggle with health issues and insufficient health infrastructure, are particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 infections. 2. Ideas, potential solutions and approaches developed in cooperation with Indigenous populations are available, but the lack of (financial) capacity and standardized procedures inhibit their implementation. 3. Remote Arctic communities need to be supported with better health and communication services in order to improve the underdeveloped health infrastructure.

A general lack of proper sanitation facilities, combined with several people living together in small homes, can facilitate a higher infectious rate for different diseases, as it is often the case in Arctic communities. For the same reasons, rural communities are more vulnerable during the present pandemic [COVID-19], which has also led to high anxiety levels in small communities. Communities do not have the necessary funding, capability, infrastructures, and power to combat the present pandemic and must deal with health-related issues that might make it more challenging to handle a local spread of the Covid-19. Therefore, there are (often structural) issues with human health that have been affecting Arctic communities already for a long time, before Covid-19 exposed these vulnerable communities

Scientific Summary Report prepared by Sascha Schiøtt, Marine Working Group and Indigenous Fellow, and Matthias Fuchs, Terrestrial Working Group Fellow.

monitoring of coastal ecosystems, and improved communication between scientists and indigenous knowledge holders. Indigenous People often live far from centralized governments, and so typically rely on researchers to share their perspectives.This puts researchers in a position of power with respect to Indigenous People in the Arctic. More equitable approaches to knowledge coproduction should create an avenue for the Indigenous Peoples to play a stronger role in research.

CHANGES TO ARCTIC SOCIALECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS CLAY PRATER AND MEGAN SHEREMATA

Moderator: Hugues Lantuit, Alfred Wagner Institute (Germany)

Influences on coastal policies Panelists: Tatiana Degai - Postdoctoral researcher, University of Northern Iowa Sunna Björk Ragnarsdóttir - Marine biologist, Icelandic Institute of Natural History Gunn-Britt Retter - Head, Arctic Environmental Unit of the Sàmi Council Megan Sheremata - PhD candidate, University of Toronto

As many Indigenous People live on the Arctic coast, their influence can make decision-making more complicated. However, organizations often do not regard indigenous perspectives in policy. Indigenous knowledge and rights are sometimes not taken seriously, although Indigenous People have been represented in research and policy in order to mitigate environmental change. More funding is needed to strengthen indigenous institutions and enable meaningful participation in knowledge co-production.

Recording available on YouTube

Despite making up a large part of the populated parts of the Arctic, coastal areas comprise a smaller focus of research than marine and continental regions. The purpose of this panel was to discuss international perspectives on current social-ecological processes impacting coastal communities and ecosystems, and on how scientific researchers and Indigenous knowledge holders can work together to create policy to mitigate future changes in these areas. Questions were posed to individual panelists by the moderator, and then by the audience.

Interdisciplinary collaboration often poses logistical challenges, but provides great opportunities for learning; from institutions, Indigenous researchers, and scientists. It is important that Indigenous researchers are given the opportunity to advise local research efforts. For example, scientists collect data, but need Indigenous knowledge to help coordinate research, give it context, and help interpret it. The key to living with climate change is flexibility (for example, a diversity in food sources builds resilience to climate change). Responding to changes that impact natural resources requires effective monitoring networks that are based on better communication between scientists, Indigenous knowledge holders, and policymakers. Indigenous communities require more consideration from bureaucracies and research, for meaningful

Ecosystems service assessment can benefit policy decision making, both locally and internationally, but links are not always apparent because of the complexity of coastal systems. Addressing this problem requires comprehensive and sustained

involvement. In addition funding for networks, that enable exchange among Indigenous knowledge holders and researchers, could benefit both groups. Indigenous research

knowledge

and

HUMAN HEALTH, WELL-BEING, WATER CYCLE & ECOSYSTEM Highlights: 1. Many policies do not reflect Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous rights, or the priorities of Indigenous Peoples. This impacts Indigenous Peoples’ access to environmental resources and to meaningfully shape environmental decisions. 2. Collaborations between the international research community and Indigenous knowledge holders should not be about integration or prioritizing one form of knowledge to conform to the other, but about giving space to both scientific and Indigenous ways of knowing. 3. Research methodologies involving Indigenous knowledge should emphasize accountability to communities and individuals. For example, as a complementary way of knowing the natural world, Indigenous knowledge should be interpreted by knowledge holders and communities in its proper context. Research support and funding for Indigenous scholars, Indigenous institutions, Indigenous knowledge networks, and capacity-building for Indigenous leadership in research and governance is needed.

scientific

There remains a persistent underappreciation of the value of Indigenous knowledge. International collaboration can reaffirm the importance of Indigenous knowledge to local communities and the wider research world. Indigenous Peoples understand that they need science to help them address rapid changes taking place in the Arctic. And while social scientists can serve as critical allies for promoting equitable research exchange between other scientists and Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous scientists can also promote these exchanges. Indigenous knowledge is not centrally organized because ownership belongs to the knowledge holder and the community, who should decide how to share it. It is a separate way of understanding that is complimentary to coproduction of new scientific knowledge,but it should not be in the form of a database where knowledge can be accessed as data without the proper context provided by Indigenous People. Research with knowledge holders should not be about integration, but about giving both scientific and Indigenous knowledge space. We should not try to force one form of knowledge to conform to the other.

Scientific Summary Report prepared by Clay Prater Terrestrial Working Group Fellow and Megan Sheremata Social and Human Working Group Fellow

Drivers of coastal ecological and sociological and how can international scientists best support local communities?

Major drivers are anthropogenic stress, climate change, and ultimately overconsumption. However, science-based policies designed to protect the environment have also negatively impacted communities by restricting access to environmental resources.

environmental planning is possible as EBM allows for a systematic structure with a fixed timeline. This allows for regular interactions between scientists, resource managers, conservation agencies, resource extraction agents, marine traffic, and importantly, local and Indigenous People. Thus the EBM should include stakeholders at the local, national, regional, and global levels. Ecosystem-based management essentially consists of a cyclical and everbuilding process of assessing the environmental status of a system, developing a management plan to either (I) maintain the environmental status through future development or (ii) Improve the environmental status to an identified benchmark. Once a management plan is implemented, continued monitoring of the system informs subsequent assessments and needed adjustments to policy and protocol. Because it is a constantly selfadjusting method, EBM is a useful tool for the management of an ever rapidly changing Arctic marine system.

INFORMING ARCTIC MARINE DECISIONMAKING AMANDA BURSON AND PAULINE PIC

Moderator: Tom Barry, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Panelists: Paula Kankaanpää, PAME Chair & IASC Vice-President; Jonathan Wood, Model Arctic Council Jiayu Bai, Ocean University of China

Recording available on YouTube

The panel aimed at discussing how to inform decision-making in the Arctic marine sector. Panelists covered three different perspectives: Paula Kankaanpää, chair of the PAME working group and VP of IASC, Jonathan Wood, from the Model Arctic Council, bringing a youth perspective, and Jiayu Bai from the Ocean University of China, bringing perspective from non-Arctic states. Overall, the panelists emphasized that Arctic issues are in reality global issues and must be treated with this understanding at the base. This is to say, that issues around marine pollution, biodiversity, transportation, and economic use are not restricted to the Arctic and Arctic states alone but influenced by activities and policy beyond the region.

A recurring topic, mentioned both by panelists in their introductory remarks and by the audience through the Q&A, focuses on the increasing importance of the Arctic on the global stage. As Paula Kankaanpää puts it, Arctic affairs are now global affairs which suggest that decision-making processes need to include non-Arctic actors. The Arctic faces major changes, and for Jiayu Bai such changes have to translate into changes in the governance of the region. Shipping issues, notably along the Northern Sea Route (NSR), were specially mentioned as they imply actors from outside the Arctic region. Decision-making processes thus rely on Arctic institutions, such as the Arctic Council, but not exclusively: The heavy fuel oil (HFO) ban for Arctic routes was for example discussed within the International Maritime Organization (IMO), an international organization with 174 member states. During the Model Arctic Council discussions, Jonathan Wood reported that the issue of marine plastics was discussed

In order to gain the information needed to inform decision-making regarding the Arctic marine environment, a systematic and ecosystem-wide approach is extremely important. To this end, ecosystem-based management (EBM) is utilized. Spatial and

and the suggestion was to coordinate regulation efforts both at the local scale with national governments, and at the international scale under the auspices of the United Nations. Regional actors remain predominant, but decision-making in the marine realm requires cooperation beyond regional actors..

cooperative efforts of both Arctic and nonArctic states and policy informed by science. The policy development must be continually monitored and re-evaluated through the EBM approach that allows for effective responses, informed by science, to the challenges presented in the ever-changing Arctic region.

As the Arctic becomes more global, it is an increasing issue, especially for Indigenous Peoples. In the current Arctic governance system, they have a special place in the Arctic Council with their status as Permanent Participants. Consensus, therefore, cannot be reached without their consent. Panelists, however, underlined that the increasing number of actors in the region could end-up bypassing the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. In large-scale institutions, Indigenous participants also do not have veto power, which can ultimately be a challenge and mean that their voice is less likely to be heard. Jonathan Wood also highlighted a lack of decision-making powers at the national level, meaning that the inclusion of Indigenous voices in discussions of the Model Arctic Council was even a challenge. Inclusion of an Indigenous perspective in decision-making processes was then mentioned as a priority, for both Arctic and non-Arctic actors. Jiayu Bai for example stated that China does consider the importance of Indigenous participants in its Arctic policy.

HUMAN HEALTH, WELL-BEING, WATER CYCLE & ECOSYSTEM Highlights: 1. Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is a systematic tool for the assessment, management, and monitoring to aid in Arctic marine decision-making. The cyclical nature of EBM allows for constant reassessment and adjustment as the needs and challenges within the Arctic marine system change. 2. Arctic and observer/non-Arctic states currently (and will increasingly) utilize the Arctic marine space for various economic purposes. It is critical that science informs and directs sustainable practices both now and in the future. 3. Indigenous views and knowledge are recognized as critical to Arctic marine policy and decision making but more work, involvement and power is needed.

Scientific summary report prepared by Amanda Burson, Marine Working Group Fellow, and Pauline Pic, Social and Human Working Group Fellow.

Ultimately, the future of the Arctic marine system will require a harmonization between Arctic working groups and (sometimes-external) stakeholders. The marine-specific working groups within the Arctic Council (e.g. PAME, CAFF etc), are tasked with informing much of the policy development pertaining to the Arctic marine ecosystem. To facilitate this they currently, and will continue to, have regular meetings to discuss the progress of Arctic marine management goals. This includes the targets laid out in the Arctic marine strategic plan. Ultimately, an environmentally sustainable Arctic requires

ice shapes global climate, weather conditions in mid-latitudes and influences sea level rise and ocean circulation. Changes in Arctic ice also have an undeniably strong impact on the environment, human communities and economies in the region. For example, extended periods of open, ice-free coastal waters increase the risk of coastal erosion and – similarly to meltwater and changes in glaciers’ extents and lagoons – are a threat to human infrastructure and settlements. Rapid changes in sea and land ice affect ecosystems and landscapes by for example migration of marine and land life. This has a strong impact on traditional and commercial fishery in the Arctic. Adaptation of fishery and quota management to climate change is even more challenging due to high variability of access to open waters on short-term and inter-annual scale and fluctuations of the location of key fish-stocks.

DIMINISHING ICE COVER IN THE ARCTIC AMANDA BURSON AND BARBARA BARZYCKA

Moderator: Jari Haapala, IASC CWG Vice-Chair Panelists: • Eydís L. Finnbogadóttir and Joaquin Belart, National Land Survey of Iceland • Anders Turesson, AMAP Chair • Huigen Yang, IASC Vice-President & Polar Research Institute of China • Hajo Eicken, Arctic Observing Summit & University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA

On the other hand, lack of sea ice opens new possibilities in marine transportation, whereas more meltwater from land ice may be an additional source of energy in hydropower plants (e.g. Iceland). This, however, raises questions of e.g. possible environmental hazard of marine transportation or adaptation of hydropower to potential future hydrological challenges. This dual nature of the state of Arctic ice ultimately leads to a re-emphasis on the importance of scientific monitoring and expeditious policy development.

Recording available on YouTube

The Arctic is the fastest-warming place in the world - the rise of annual average temperature is more than twice the global mean. Between 1971 and 2017 the annual average surface temperature in the Arctic rose by 2.7°C. This rapid warming affects cryospheric components, including sea ice and land ice masses. As an example, the volume of sea ice for the month of September has declined by 75% since 1979, whereas melting of the Arctic land ice contributed to 1/3 of global sea-level rise between 2004 and 2010 (with 1/3 from ocean’s thermal expansion and 1/3 of melting from Antarctica and other glaciers).

Monitoring and policy creation for the new and near-future state of the Arctic ice presents its own challenges. The rapid changes in Arctic ice extent often mean that policy development is effectively a step behind current conditions. This presents researchers with a monumental task of keeping monitoring efforts up to date and maintain efficient communication between policymakers at all levels. While continued traditional scientific monitoring and reporting on ice status is vital, an increase in the prevalence of Indigenous Peoples´

Although the inter-annual variability of sea ice extent in the Arctic is higher in the last few years, trends in sea and land ice loss are undeniably net negative. This trend is of global importance, as melting of sea and

Scientific Summary Report prepared by Amanda Burson Marine Working Group Fellow and Barbara Barzycka, Cryosphere Working Group Fellow.

perspectives on scientific investigation directions, decision making, monitoring and policy is critical. For example, coastal Arctic communities are adapting their use of the Arctic with the changes in access that reduced sea ice provides. How this will impact local community sustenance foraging and Indigenous People’s lifestyle is an important consideration for future policy Commercial transport routes across a summer Arctic ocean is rapidly building. Endeavors in this arena are predominantly led by non-Arctic states, but the potential impacts on Arctic communities and environments are large. Thus, scientifically led policy to ensure environmentally-sound use of the Arctic for shipping is paramount, both now and in future years. Finally, open access and ready sharing of data and data modeling platforms is of utmost importance in order to facilitate the cooperation and coordination between all of the stakeholders and to ultimately shorten the lag between research and policy development.

DIMINISHING ICE COVER IN THE ARCTIC Highlights: 1. Arctic ice, both land and sea based, is experiencing a net negative trend in volume and extent; thus changing the way the Arctic is used (by both Arctic states and non-Arctic states). 2. Continued monitoring and more rapid policy development are critical to keep up with the quickly changing environment; especially with regards to ensuring environmentally-sound and sustainable future use of the Arctic. Open access to Arctic data will make this effort much more feasible. 3. Increased involvement of Indigenous perspectives on scientific questioning, research development, decision-making and policy is critical and should be prioritized.

The sustainable Arctic is also a place where ecosystems are healthy, and humans are aware of how their economic and social welfare depends on their ecosystems. More research is needed to determine the effect of climate change on ecosystems and communicate this to policymakers. Cooperation between natural science, social science, and Indigenous knowledge enables us to address emerging issues. The language to communicate both research findings and indigenous knowledge should be such that everyone can follow (Indigenous People, stakeholders, policymakers).

WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE ARCTIC? SAMMIE BUZZARD ANDYVETTE GRAMLICH

Moderator: Rachael Lorna Johnstone, University of Akureyri Panelists: • Einar Gunnarsson, Senior Arctic Official Chair • Liza Mack, Aleut International Association • Andrey Petrov, IASC SHWG Chair & IASSA President • Alevtina Evgrafova, IASC Fellows Coordinator • Brynhildur Bjarnadóttir, University of Akureyri

During the discussion, the following topics were raised as key to a sustainable Arctic: Cooperation in the Arctic: The Arctic Council and Arctic Economic Council have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and in fall 2019 had their first joint meeting to identify how they can further cooperate and how to improve connectivity (including transport and telecommunications). Oil and gas: Making oil and gas sustainable provides an opportunity to engage with Indigenous communities. These resources provide an economic base for many Arctic regions but the benefits need to be shared and this needs to be done equitably, including indigenous communities. Gender equality: Achieving gender equality is thought to be the single most important thing we can do to improve human rights. It is also advantageous to give everyone the chance to reach their full potential. Arctic Council has been working on this issue, through the project on Gender Equality in the Arctic. It is important to consider that indigenous perspectives on gender may be different. For example, while a lot of work is being carried out on gender equality for women, it is key to ensure that young males in indigenous communities are involved in scientific research and education, and to make sure that they still have a place in the community.

Recording available on YouTube A sustainable Arctic follows the three pillars of sustainable development: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection, and provides a balance between these three. It must put Arctic inhabitants at the center as the first and most important goal, while ensuring the preservation of the environment and following policies informed by science. From an indigenous perspective, sustainability covers the importance of inhabitants being in a place that is theirs, and the longevity that they have been there. A sustainable Arctic promotes culture and provides the resources needed for people to stay in their communities, such as the ability to make a living wage and to have access to healthcare. This also allows Arctic residents to participate in the greater economy in a positive way. In a sustainable Arctic Indigenous People should also be given a voice in policy creation.

Education: Education can facilitate the next generation to be more focused on what sustainability is. There needs to be a lot of emphasis put into the school and educational systems towards a sustainable Arctic. However, in Indigenous communities there are challenges keeping educators in the community due to them being so spread out geographically. We have an opportunity to make sure that everyone has access to the same connectivity. Support for Indigenous youth and early career researchers (ECRs): More scholarships and online education are needed to support those from remote communities. The funding system currently makes it hard for Indigenous and early career researchers to get funding, Support for them needs to be embedded into funding agencies and universities. Decolonizing sustainable development: Indigenous groups are the specialists in their ecosystems, they know where the scientific emphasis should be. It is important to allow Indigenous researchers to use this knowledge to define their own research questions and make sure they are brought forward to their communities. However, it is also important to remember that Western institutions are colonial. Working on knowledge co-production can help with decolonization beyond the Arctic. Climate change: The Arctic Council is focusing significantly on climate change, but mostly adaptation and resilience rather than mitigation. The global effects of climate change are affecting the Arctic, but they are mostly happening due to influences from outside the Arctic. The Arctic will still be feeling these effects for at least 2-3 decades, even with the Paris Agreement. Technology: Meetings like the ASSW 2020 are showing how we don’t always need to travel, but online meetings cannot fully replace person to person interaction. Furthermore, not everyone has access to the technology to participate or feels comfortable using tools like social media.

Technology would be a barrier to the participation of indigenous communities.

WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE ARCTIC? Highlights: 1. The Arctic can be a model for the rest of the world for involvement of indigenous groups in policy and science, as well as decolonization. 2. Indigenous groups need to be in the center: they have best knowledge of ecosystems, but we need more support for indigenous scientists and early career researchers, and equal access to technology. 3. A transdisciplinary approach is needed to achieve a sustainable Arctic, with collaboration between natural, social science, economics and indigenous people.

Scientific Summary Report prepared by Sammie Buzzard, Cryosphere Working Group Fellow, and Yvette Gramlich, Atmosphere Working Group Fellow.

Closing Statement By GUÐLAUGUR ÞÓR ÞÓRÐARSON Iceland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Development Cooperation Ladies and gentlemen, It is a pleasure to be able to address you at this first online edition of the Arctic Science Summit Week. I had planned to be with you in Akureyri but we have all had to make sudden changes to our plans as we are coming to terms with the largest health threat in living memory. But scientists are true to their innovative nature and I must commend the organizers of the Arctic Science Summit Week for quickly coming up with this ambitious solution of turning it into an online event. Iceland currently holds the chairmanship of the Arctic Council. It is a responsibility that we relish as it is truly both an exciting and challenging time to serve as the chair. Political interest in the Arctic region is at a level never seen before – and not without reason. Our region is changing at a pace not experienced in modern times. This includes continuous, noticeable and fateful warming of the Arctic climate which has led to perceived opportunities as well as obvious challenges, which will have an impact within and far beyond the Arctic. The slogan of our Chairmanship of the Arctic Council – Together towards a sustainable Arctic – frames our shared responsibility very clearly. Success and results require the joined forces of science and policy, local to global, as echoed in the headline of today’s program: Science for a Sustainable Arctic. Under the overarching theme of sustainable development Iceland emphasizes strongly the importance of balancing all its three aspects: the environment, looking specifically at green energy solutions, the economy, with an emphasis on the Blue BioEconomy, and societal aspects, such as the engagement of Arctic youth, and gender equality. I sometimes say that the commodities of the Arctic Council are facts and science. It is then up to us in politics to make sure that all this knowledge will be used to inform

ASSW2020 . Scientific Contents Report

our policies and actions. I am pleased to say that there is widespread political support of basing sustainable development of the Arctic on science and facts. This is particularly important given the fact that there are some truly dark clouds on our horizon. We should all be very mindful of the fact that in order to steer our societies, businesses, and governments in the right direction, we must inevitably weather the storm. We need to inspire hope and engagement in our youth and in our societies at large. We must do it through inclusion and the building of resilience. And even though failure really isn’t an option, we must not let the fear of failure lead to inaction. Success is usually only achieved through trial and error, and trial again. And yes, error comes with a cost. The alternative is however worse and comes at an even greater cost. This is a lesson we have learned in Iceland time and time again. Allow me to share with you one example: Sustainable use of natural resources transformed Iceland within the span of less than a century from being one of the poorest countries in Europe into one of its most affluent. A century ago, brave Icelandic innovators pioneered the heating of Reykjavik households by using geothermal district heating. It was a difficult and costly decision for a poor, newly sovereign country. Today this decision continues to support Iceland’s efforts to reach its Paris climate agreement targets. Indeed, Iceland has agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and the Government aims for a carbonneutral Iceland by 2040. Ladies and gentlemen, As I conclude I would like to thank you for being online with us today. It would have been even better to have spent time with you in person in Akureyri. But as the proverb says, “No matter how long the winter, spring is sure to follow” and I look forward to a future opportunity to welcome you in person, to IASC’s current home in Akureyri, Iceland. Thank you for participating.

Recording available on YouTube (IASC Channel)

BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS Working Groups and Meetings

BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS IASC Working Groups

IASC ATMOSPHERE WORKING GROUP (AWG)

The scientific scope of the IASC Atmosphere Working Group (AWG) includes research towards understanding and prediction of Arctic change, its implications for the wider global climate system, and how Arctic atmospheric processes interact with ocean, ice and terrestrial systems. In addition, an increasingly active focus of the AWG concerns Arctic atmospheric processes in the context of societal impacts and feedbacks. Key recent science highlights from the AWG include: Development of a new activity on aerosolcloud interactions in the Arctic, coupling understanding of aerosol sources, remote and local Arctic pollution with understanding of clouds microphysics and boundary layer dynamics. Activities on developing new understanding of polar lows and Arctic extreme weather, and Arcticmid-latitude climate links. Development of activity around planning and scientific analysis of the MOSAiC expedition, particularly including crossdisciplinary links with understanding of ocean and ice processes.

The three main science pillars of the AWG were discussed. These are: the MOSAiC Arctic drift experiment, YOPP Year of Polar Prediction, and the PACES Arctic air pollution theme. These pillars have enabled active science developments, and establishment of cross-cutting links to other science areas and working groups. MOSAiC and YOPP have both established exciting and unprecedented experimental efforts designed to elucidate new understanding regarding interactions in the coupled Arctic system – in particular atmosphere-ice-ocean coupling. PACES and MOSAiC both have key components focussing on interactions between the Arctic system and atmospheric composition, with motivations in understanding Arctic atmospheric pollution and biogeochemistry respectively. These efforts also have the potential to improve understanding of Arctic climate through trace gas and aerosol forcing and potential mediation of important high latitude climate feedbacks. PACES has also led interdisciplinary efforts to link with social scientists, with initiatives focussing on air quality and health in the Arctic, and on Arctic urbanisation. Completed and proposed science activities supported by IASC were presented. One such activity on polar lows, which encompasses mesoscale high impact weather in the Arctic, continues to be supported, linking to the YOPP theme, incorporating ocean-ice interactions. Feedback from a long-standing activity on Arcticmid-latitude climate links was presented, which has brought together new research focussed on vertical layers and understanding of physical mechanisms, primary feedbacks, and constraints on impacts of Arctic climate from observed changes at mid-latitude. There were several discussions on Arctic aerosol, from the perspective of local Arctic air pollution and PACES activities. Planning is underway for a major new field experiment in Fairbanks, Alaska (the

ALPACA project), which is targeting winter air pollution events, including improvement in understanding of secondary aerosol production in cold, low sunlight conditions. PACES has also led a new initiative on aerosol-cloud interactions in the Arctic, focussed on bringing together scientific knowledge of Arctic cloud microphysics and on aerosol sources and processing. This theme potentially links across all three AWG pillars, since it is pertinent to pollution sources, physical and biogeochemical aspects of sea-ice-atmosphere coupling, and to key uncertainties in models and Arctic predictability. In terms of longer-term planning, it was recognised that both YOPP and MOSAiC (following the experiment itself) will move into analysis and consolidation phases. PACES is also now well established, with active working groups around climate and local pollution topics. The AWG aims to recognise this through further development of the Working Group Strategy and Workplan, to develop links between these areas, and identify where such links could benefit Arctic system understanding, and lead to novel developments or new community activities. Consolidation of activities into new priority areas will be discussed ahead of the ASSW 2021 meeting and a new plan adopted at that meeting. These priority areas will also link to other themes within the AWG, including reconstruction of Arctic paleoclimates, Arctic mid-latitude links, and aerosol-cloud interactions in the Arctic.

More info: https://iasc.info/working-groups/atmosphere Contacts: Chair, Stephen Arnold - S.Arnold@leeds.ac.uk Vice-Chair, Annette Rinke Annette.Rinke@awi.de Vice-Chair, G.W.K. (Kent) Moore gwk.moore@utoronto.ca

IASC CRYOSPHERE WORKING GROUP (CWG)

During the online CWG meeting at end of March 2020, one of the main issues raised concerned the COVID-19 pandemic, which at the time was starting to have an effect on the mobility of people, and worries were building up that restrictions that might prevent planned field work. Working Group members raised concerns that data, infrastructure, and instruments/installations may be lost due to travel restrictions during the spring season. This was addressed both as a collective problem as well as a problem for individual teams. Much data could be lost or not collected, meaning that the season could be missing from datasets in the future. Some scientists/national centres have a mandate to continue observations for monitoring, but not everyone. Within the WG there is a strong feeling that IASC could play a role in raising awareness among research councils and policy makers about the gravity of the situation. Lack of continuity in measurements and the gathering of data in the Arctic is a big concern and quantifying the cost of lost equipment when talking about this to policy makers would be useful.Members of the community, such as early career scientists and those on shortterm contracts, who are relying on this year’s

data for completing their thesis or project, are disproportionally affected by loss of data. Several suggestions were brought forward to mitigate the situation, such as rolling budget over to next year; coordinating a response among countries, research projects, and even the air national guard, to assist each other in getting data and instruments; piggybacking on bigger projects; and organizing a recovery mission in fall if possible. We could additionally use remote sensing data to patch up losses in field data, where possible, so communication between remote sensing scientists and field scientists could be established. Engaging local people, including tourist guides that are losing their income due to a lack of work, could be a viable mitigation measure for tasks such as changing batteries, maintaining stations, putting out stations, recovering instruments from melting sea ice etc., but care must be taken to remain considerate of the situation and be respectful of travel restrictions. The one yearlong MOSAiC expedition under the patronage of IASC was a highlight during winter-summer 20192020. The sea ice and snow community is strongly involved in measurements and evaluation of this unique expedition. Many new members have joined the CWG in the last two years, so we are seeing a transition in the group. During the ASSW2020 it was discussed that it would be good to start working on updating and revising the CWG work plan with a smaller group, producing a draft that could be reviewed in the coming year. The National Reports that fed the State of Arctic Science report got relatively positive feedback from the WG members. The gathering of the information helped them to engage with their national scientific community that they represent. Many recognized that the reports may and will be biased, but will evolve as the making of the report becomes a routine task. The CWG had a brief discussion that biennial

reporting might be enough, since not much changes from year-to-year, but the continuity of making annual reports is helpful and could then be used to broaden the content. Suggestions came that the focus could change from year to year to, for example, spring infrastructure, data management, research issues, international science cooperation or gaps in research and data.

More info: https://iasc.info/working-groups/cryosphere Contacts: Chair, Guðfinna (Tollý) Aðalgeirsdóttir gua@hi.is Vice-Chair, Jari Haapala - jari.haapala@fmi.fi Vice-Chair, Martin Schneebelischneebeli@slf.ch

ASSW2020 SCIENTIFIC CONTENTS REPORT

PAGE 1

IASC MARINE WORKING GROUP (MWG)

Understanding marine ecosystem change in the Arctic, and associated drivers, is a core focus of IASC MWG, along with international collaboration in science planning and associated research activities. Accordingly, coordinated field sampling and international data sharing were subject of discussion during the last MWG Meeting, with focus on initiatives aimed at improving observations in a pan-Arctic perspective, such as the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) and the Synoptic Arctic Survey (SAS). The Chair opened the ASSW meeting 2020 touching on activities of interest to the MWG carried out in 2019-2020 including the Action Group on Indigenous Involvement (AGII), the national reporting scheme and related State of the Arctic Science 2020 report, the Programme Advisory Committee for the Arctic Regional Workshop, representation of IASC at the last UN Decade of Ocean Research for Sustainable Development meeting and at the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) annual meeting. An update was provided on the state of implementation of the scientific activities

totally or partially supported by the MWG in 2019-20. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic some activities were postponed, namely the workshop Plastics in the Arctic, the Nunataryuk Summer-school, the Synoptic Arctic Survey workshop, and the crosscutting Coastal Arctic Science Teams (CoAST) Project (information on these activities can be found at iasc.info). The workshop Gender in Polar Research was not postponed, but moved to online only (note: see summary in this report). The state of each of the activities totally supported by the MWG, and performed as planned in 2019-20, was presented. The 5th Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) Data Meeting (Seattle, January 2223, 2020) was held to share data from the last ten years of the DBO time-series, and to coordinate sampling among the various countries participating in the programme. The possibility to expand the programme by including more coastal observing systems, the development of a truly panArctic DBO, modelling, and data access and management were also discussed. The Synoptic Arctic Survey (SAS) International Planning and Coordination Workshop (Woods Hole, May 15-16, 2019) was held for coordinated field sampling, international data sharing, education, post field-season data synthesis, public outreach, involvement of Indigenous communities, and identification of additional measurements or approaches that would contribute to accomplishing the goals of the SAS. Updates on cross-cutting activities partially supported by the MWG were provided. Specifically, overviews were presented on the: "Glacier-ocean interactions and their impact on Arctic marine ecosystems" a cross-cutting activity hosted in the Glacier-ocean interactions meeting (28-30 Jan 2020); MOSAiC Summer School (16 sep-28 Oct 2019) a 6-week long training on the Russian icebreaker Akademik Fedorov

in the Central Arctic; Biogeochemical Exchange Processes at Sea-Ice Interfaces (BEPSII) (16-18 Aug 2019) meeting aimed at drafting an extended outline for a BEPSII community paper highlighting ecologically and biologically significant components of the sea-ice ecosystem and what services the system provides to the human society; CATCH (Cryosphere and Atmospheric Chemistry) (7-8 Dec 2019) open science workshop to discuss research challenges and needs in multidisciplinary research on interaction between chemistry, biology and physics within the coupled cryosphere-atmosphere system; the Future of Arctic Fjord Systems Workshop (22-23 Jul 2019), a two-day workshop to facilitate knowledge exchange on the burning issues associated to the transition of the Arctic towards a more boreal regime.

sensitive Arctic environment and to what extent these changes may impact the climate in Europe. Another relevant topic, discussed at the MWG Meeting, was the involvement of Indigenous communities. Over the last 1015 years, collaborative environmental research has resulted in a growing number of community-based partnerships and dissemination of methodologies, contributing to transformative and systemic change in Arctic wildlife research and monitoring. Along the line, greater emphasis on collaborative methodologies should be considered at all stages, ultimately serving the information needs of Indigenous land-users and decisionmakers.

The Chair touched upon other activities of interest to the MWG in 2019-20 including:

More info: https://iasc.info/working-groups/marine

the state of implementation of the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries (CAOF) agreement and an update on the scientific mapping of the fish stocks in the CAO, the need for collection and analysis of primary data in the CAO was emphasized as a necessary prerequisite to evaluate the ecosystem vulnerability and support the ecosystem-based approach to management; the Working Group on Arctic Acoustic Environments of the International Quiet Ocean Experiment documenting the levels of sound in the ocean worldwide, including how it may be changing in the Arctic with the advent of climate change, and how the acoustic environment can be expected to change with increasing human activity; and German – Russian Cooperation in the Russian Arctic relying on a consortium of 10 research institutions and universities in Russia and Germany, and aiming to assess how climate change will affect the highly

Contacts: Chair, Heidi Kassens hkassens@geomar.de Vice-Chair, Karen Frey kfrey@clarku.edu Vice-Chair, Takashi Kikuchitakashik@jamstec.go.jp

within IASC Cross-Cutting activities. Many of the 2019-20 Cross-Cutting activities had a social, or human component; a trend that seems to be growing over time.

IASC SOCIAL AND HUMAN WORKING GROUP (SHWG)

The SHWG areas of focus bring important perspectives across the ICARP-3 research priorities as the human and social context crosscuts how we explore the role of the Arctic in the global system and approaches to observing and predicting future climate dynamics and ecosystem responses. The SHWG has a strategic plan that identifies scientific foci, including: Arctic residents and change. Histories perceptions and representations of the Arctic. Securities, governance, and law. Natural resource(s)/ use/ exploitation and development: past, present, future. Human health and well-being. During the online 2020 meeting, the Chair highlighted the multiple links of the SHWG with the IASC Action Group on Indigenous involvement. Both SHWG Fellows and other members were actively involved and contributed to the final report which was presented to the 2020 IASC Council Meeting. SHWG members expressed their hope that Indigenous voices will become more prominent within the working groups and the work of IASC. The Chair also highlighted the stronger role of the SHWG

The meeting then discussed the role of IASC, and the SHWG, in the implementation of the Arctic Science Agreement. SHWG welcomes efforts by IASC, IASSA and UArctic to promote the recently adopted Agreement on Science Cooperation in the Arctic. The nature of social sciences and humanities research requires frequent contact and communication with Arctic residents around the circumpolar region and necessitates continuous physical access to communities, individuals, archives, artefacts, and other human data sources. Even more importantly, international access and equal opportunity are critical for Indigenous knowledge holders and scholars to facilitate knowledge exchange, cultural vitality, and knowledge coproduction. Finally, COVID-19 called for a special comment, since the outbreak impacted social sciences somewhat disproportionally, in as much as it prevents social scientists from conducting fieldwork and working with people. It is important to send a message to funding agencies around the world that such projects are affected in many ways and that needs to be considered, both in work plans and funding plans. The pandemic may also affect research priorities.

More information: https://iasc.info/working-groups/socialhuman Contacts: Chair, Andrey Petrov andrey.petrov@uni.edu Vice-Chair, Susan Chatwood chatwood@ualberta.ca Vice-Chair, Halvor Dannevig hda@vestforsk.no

IASC TERRESTRIAL WORKING GROUP (TWG)

The discussion on possible updates to the 5-year plan envisioned (i) highlight the strategic aims of the IASC TWG, (ii) identify broad thematic areas of interest (while remaining receptive to new and emerging priorities), (iii) provide examples of the kinds of successful initiatives that have been supported recently, and (iv) suggest how best to develop projects for funding. Further on, at ASSW2020 the TWG discussed the activities and progress of groups that were funded by the IASC TWG: The Herbivory Network, the Arctic Vegetation Archive and the Arctic Underground.

During ASSW2020, TWG members discussed potential updates to the 5 years plans published in 2017. The aim of the plan was to articulate how the TWG will achieve IASC’s vision over 5 years, and to assist researchers in becoming involved in IASC activities. The plan articulates the broad scientific scope of the TWG and the parallel aims of (i) being strategic in terms of funding priorities, but (ii) maintaining the flexibility to support emerging excellent initiatives, which create both dynamic challenges as well as opportunities. The strategic aims of the TWG could be summarised as follows: To promote scientific excellence and capacity-building. The latter accords with the IASC emphasis on engagement by, and involvement with, Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and Arctic residents (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous). To support education, communication and outreach activities (e.g. through training programmes, webinars, workshops, newsletters, and social media) and to strengthen science-policy links. To foster dialogue between delegates and their national communities and stakeholders.

The primary purpose of the Arctic Vegetation Archive (AVA) is to gather a legacy of plot data that is in danger of being lost. Approximately 31 000 historical vegetation plot assessments across the Arctic have been identified for potential inclusion into AVA. The AVA and Arctic Vegetation Classification (AVC) are needed to support circumpolar activities of the International Arctic Science Committee’s Terrestrial Working Group (IASC TWG) and the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) of the Arctic Council. The AVA initiative is encouraging each Arctic nation to assemble its own archive with common protocols that will later allow the databases to be united into a single circumpolar AVA. The Arctic Underground Network brings together an interdisciplinary team of biologists and ecologists to synthesize what is known about root traits and rhizosphere processes in cold ecosystems tundra, boreal forest, and peatlands. At ASSW2020 the Arctic Underground held and introductory workshop guided by four scientific foci: 1) Synthesize mechanisms by examining the effects of soil warming experiments on root and rhizosphere processes. 2) Explore links between leaf and root traits for extrapolation and scaling of ecological processes in cold ecosystems. 3) Add cold soil roots and their symbionts to a “worldwide root

economic spectrum,” filling in a data gap in global plant traits databases and model parameters. 4) Integrate traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of plants and belowground properties into our understanding of Arctic ecosystem change and educate scientists on Indigenous perspectives. Researchers from ten countries participated and over half of our participants were early career scientists. Interactions between herbivores and plants are a fundamental component of Arctic ecosystems. These interactions can modulate the responses of tundra ecosystems to ongoing environmental changes; for example, through their impacts on the structure of vegetation, herbivores can influence patterns of snow cover and albedo, with large-scale consequences to the climate system. As well, many herbivores are important to the livelihoods of peoples in the Arctic. The Herbivory Network (HN; http://herbivory.lbhi.is) was initiated in 2014 with the support of IASC. HN has continued to develop as a growing international network of researchers investigating the role of herbivores in the tundra. The last five years of collaboration have been very fruitful and have resulted already in 6 scientific publications and 17 presentations at conferences and scientific meetings. But there is still a long way ahead! At ASSW2020 the TWG received a report on a HN workshop 19-24 September 2019 in Labytnangi, Yamal-Nenets Autonomous region, Russia. A total of 20 researchers (including 8 Early Career Scientists) from 8 countries participated in the meeting, which was organized as a series of parallel smaller hands-on workshop sessions. During the meeting we made substantial progress on some of the ongoing HN projects and new ideas for future collaboration projects were developed. Finally, during ASSW2020, TWG members had stimulating discussions about several potential proposal themes to be addressed: Arctic microbial ecology, tundra plant traits,

Indigenous prioritised research initiatives, working with INTERACT on data access, and connecting with One Health Network or Arctic Century initiatives.

More information: https://iasc.info/working-groups/terrestrial Contact: Chair, Prof. Josef Elster - jelster@prf.jcu.cz Vice Chair, Ulrike Herzschuh ulrike.herzschuh@awi.de Vice Chair, Vladimir Romanovsky veromanovsky@alaska.edu

BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS Community Meetings

ARCTIC UNDERGROUND NETWORK MEETING

below ground responses to climate warming at multiple spatial scales utilizing molecular to circumarctic analyses, 2. Explore links between leaf and root traits for extrapolation and scaling of ecological processes in cold ecosystems. This will inform unifying concepts that can be used for scaling and modelling ecosystem processes. 3. Add cold soil roots and their symbionts to a “worldwide root economic spectrum,” filling in a data gap in global plant traits databases and model parameters. 4. Integrate traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of plants and belowground properties into our understanding of Arctic ecosystem change and educate scientists on Indigenous perspectives.

BY REBECCA HEWITT (NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY) AND MICHELLE MACK (NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY)

Below ground ecosystem properties are one of the most important drivers of Arctic ecosystem response to climate change. At ASSW2020 we held the first meeting of the Arctic Underground Network. Our goal was to bring together an interdisciplinary team of biologists and ecologists to synthesize what is known about root traits and rhizosphere processes in cold ecosystems with soil profiles dominated by thick organic horizons - tundra, boreal forest, and peatlands. This network ranges from molecular biologists investigating rhizosphere processes, to plant ecologists and evolutionary biologists that use a trait framework to understand vegetation patterns and function, to ecosystem ecologists measuring the interplay between terrestrial ecosystems and the climate system, to ethnobotanists and social scientists interested in human uses of plants. Four goals served as the scientific foci for our meeting and provide the framework for our planned products: 1. Synthesize mechanisms by examining the effects of soil warming experiments on root and rhizosphere processes. This will address .

At our first meeting during ASSW2020 we introduced the four themes and garnered interest for working groups to address each theme. There was particularly strong interest in themes one and two and so working groups were formed to synthesize the state of knowledge and future research directions. We are working towards writing a perspectives piece to be submitted to New Phytologist as a Viewpoint article, which will provide a roadmap for future research.

EUROPEAN POLAR BOARD: 25 YEARS AT THE CONFLUENCE OF SCIENCE AND POLICY IN THE POLAR REGIONS

due to the world-leading expertise of their Members, which when collated enable a strong, internationally authoritative voice to be heard on pressing polar-related issues. Further, the unified voice of the European polar community can effectively draw attention to specific issues requiring a policy response. This multi-directional communication between research, policy and other stakeholders, which the EPB facilitates, is essential for successful science-policy interfacing. As one of the few organisations at an international level focused on both polar regions, the EPB facilitates cross-dissemination of information between the Antarctic and Arctic, including for operational best practices within the two regions’ differing governance structures. Knowledge sharing on both poles between EPB Members supports a holistic approach to globally significant polar issues.

BY: RENUKA BADHE (EUROPEAN POLAR BOARD) AND JOSEPH E. NOLAN (EUROPEANPOLAR BOARD)

The European Arctic and Antarctic research community has long been a leader in cooperation across national and disciplinary boundaries. Throughout its 25-year history, the EPB has supported Europe’s leadership on polar issues, working at the interface between research and policy across the widest variety of disciplines and issues, connecting and coordinating its Members as a cohesive European polar research community. The EPB is celebrating its 25th Anniversary, looking back at its successful history and looking ahead to the next 25 years at the confluence of science and policy in the polar regions. Founded as an Expert Board of the European Science Foundation in 1995, the EPB has been an independent entity since 2015. The EPB consists of 28 Member organisations from 20 European countries. Furthermore, the EPB works with a range of European and international partners, such as IASC, SCAR, APECS, EU-PolarNet, INTERACT, the EU Polar Cluster and ESA, as well as regional counterparts such as AFoPS and RAPAL.

EPB Vision and Mission

The EPB’s Vision is to be the strong collective voice of European research in the polar regions, providing independent policy advice at national and international levels. Strong – The EPB advances coordination and fosters greater collaboration in and for European research in the polar regions. The EPB works to be open and inclusive and supports capacity building. Independent – The EPB provides evidence-based, unbiased policy advice on issues affecting or affected by the polar regions through transparent processes, particularly in the context of European societal relevance.

The EPB’s Mission is to promote, coordinate and advance European research at high latitudes by providing a single collaborative platform for European polar researchers. Promote – The EPB strengthens connec-

Organisations such as the EPB are effective

tions with the worldwide polar research community and acts as a central organisation to bodies seeking collaboration with European polar organisations. Coordinate – The EPB provides a platform for greater European coordination and integration for logistics, infrastructures, and scientific cooperation in polar regions. Advance – The EPB identifies, highlights and supports strategic priority areas in research in high latitudes, especially in the context of European societal relevance. Supporting international cooperation in polar research

Organisations and structures such as the EPB promote coordination and facilitate international collaboration in polar research in two main ways. Firstly, EPB acts as a single contact point via which all 28 of its Members can be reached with opportunities or requests by external partners. Secondly, by coordinating internally and sharing knowledge, EPB Members are able to more effectively reach out to international partners collectively, in a proactive and enthusiastic manner. The EPB works with its Members to develop useful tools and initiatives to increase the efficacy of these outward-reaching efforts. With its aforementioned focus on the Arctic and Antarctic, the EPB is uniquely positioned as a force for coordination of the whole European polar research community. Furthermore, as a European organisation, the EPB is able to be impactful and focused on the specific issues of importance to the European community, with nuance and context that are not always possible in a global setting. How does it work? Much of the EPB’s work is completed through its Action Groups or via its participation in several projects. EPB Action Groups

The EPB has several Action Groups focused on areas such as infrastructure, international cooperation, policy advice and the environmental impacts of polar research and logistics. Delivered and upcoming products or activities from APB Action Groups include the European Polar Infrastructure Catalogue and Database, a synthesis report of best practices guidelines for minimising the environmental impact of Arctic and Antarctic fieldwork, and various discussion meetings with partner organisations around the world to advance international coordination with the European polar research community. Projects The EPB is a partner in various project consortia, funded by the European Commission and other agencies. These include EU-PolarNet 2, INTERACT III, SOCHIC and CHOICEe, a joint project between the EPB and the European Space Agency (ESA).

EPB Communications Activities

The EPB conducts a wide range of different communications activities, including holding panel discussion session and workshops at conferences, hosting a series of successful webinars, including the official webinar series of the 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial, and maintaining active online communications through its website, mailing list and social media including a YouTube channel featuring EPB Plenary member videos and webinar recordings. For further information on the EPB and its 25th Anniversary, please visit: www.europeanpolarboard.org

GENDER IN POLAR RESEARCH

the composition of researcher genders and gendered spaces. The specific topics ranged from participation of Soviet women in 1930s Arctic research, to current gender gaps in Icelandic ocean sciences today. The opportunity was provided to share stories and experiences that are often unspoken and dismissed in the polar research community as a whole. What emerged were both shortcomings of current practices and pathways to producing equitable and inclusive polar science.

BY: DINA ABDEL FATTAH (UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS), STEPHAN DUDECK (EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY IN ST. PETERSBURG), DORIS FRIEDRICH (UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA AND THE ARCTIC INSTITUTE), J. OTTO HABECK (UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG), GERTRUDE SAXINGER (AUSTRIAN POLAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE APRI), LAUREN THOMPSON (UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA), PETIA MANKOVA (ARCTIC UNIVERSITY OF NORWAY), MORGAN SEAG (UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE), CAROLYNN HARRIS (ASSOCIATION OF POLAR EARLY CAREER SCIENTISTS), GOSIA SMIESZEK (ARCTIC CENTRE, UNIVERSITY OF LAPLAND/WOMEN OF THE ARCTIC), SASHA LEIDMANN (RUTGERS UNIVERSITY), ALEXANDER E. THORNTON (PRIDE IN POLAR RESEARCH)

Summary of workshop main findings

On March 30 2020, IASC (iasc.info) and IASSA Working Group Gender in the Arctic (gender-arctic.jimdofree.com) hosted an online workshop on Gender in Polar Research, as part of the 2020 Arctic Science Summit Week. Over 85 participants from around the world joined this crossdisciplinary workshop, which brought together representatives from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities to discuss and reflect on the gendered nature of polar research. The Gender in Polar Research Workshop provided a space to build community amongst polar researchers. Presenters shared research and experiences based on three broad themes: (1) conducting research in ways that depart from the ubiquitous image of heroic masculinity, (2) disadvantages to career prospects and field research activities for women and LGBTIQ+ people, and (3) how research is shaped by

There is a need to not only address current and persistent problems related to gender in a polar context but also to reread the history of polar exploration and polar development from multiple gendered perspectives (Vladimirova and Habeck, 2018; Williamson et al., 2004). A focus on the social history of polar research in both national and transnational contexts is also warranted. Several historical studies examined and showcased the presence of women in the Arctic and Antarctic, demonstrating that many women and non-binary scientists/workers have been marginalized, excluded, and/or forgotten over time in these regions. Their contributions are continually obscured by narratives of “male heroism” often celebrated in the polar regions. More research on the contributions of different genders in the polar regions and the implications of the “male heterosexual polar hero/discoverer” trope is desirable and can help to change the culture of discrimination that still exists in many places. The situation of individuals who selfidentify as LGBTIQA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, or asexual/ally) was discussed in the overall context of gender-specific biases in polar research. A noteworthy shortcoming to gender research in the polar science community is continued reporting of

"male” versus “female” researchers, excluding the experiences of those with an identity outside of the pervasive gender binary. Some participants remarked how difficult they find the effects of “coming out” in their academic work environment, yet also in field research. Stereotypes about sexual and gender minorities still exert a strong influence when it comes to employing an openly lesbian, gay, queer, or gender non-conforming person for a PhD or a post-doc position in polar sciences in STEM disciplines but also in social sciences. Furthermore, the idea of field research as exceptional and “heroic”, but also critical stances towards colonial regimes and European gender norms have shaped socialscientific paradigms, e.g. in anthropological research (Kubica, 2007). This was illustrated by the example of ethnographic approaches to non-heteronormative gender roles among Indigenous communities in the circumpolar North. However, from within Indigenous and First-Nation communities, a few scholars and activists have recently emerged who explore how two-spirited (non-heteronormative) lifeways articulate with Indigenous cosmologies, social relations, and the community’s integrity (Bergman, 2014; Balestrery, 2012; Driskill, 2010). The statistics on gender in field research today show a clear and somewhat bleak picture, which can be extrapolated to polar field contexts. According to the influential 2014 Survey of Academic Field Experiences, 71% of women and 41% of men reported experiencing harassment during academic fieldwork. Among trainees, 86% of women and 75% of men reported experiencing assault (Clancy et al., 2014). Moreover, only 22% of respondents reported working at field sites with sexual harassment policies in place, pointing to an urgent need for more codes of conduct and reporting mechanisms for field research. These issues were quantified in a polar context by Nash and Nielsen, who presented the results of their study of women in Australian Antarctic fieldwork. 60% of women in their study had been sexually harassed in the field; however, most of those incidents of harassment went

unreported, indicating weaknesses in institutional reporting structures (Nash et al., 2019). Discrimination is also rampant in other scientific institutions, even in countries recognized internationally for making progress toward equality. Open discrimination in polar science disproportionately impacts those with intersecting identities of minoritized gender, sexuality, and/or ethnicity (Seag et al., 2019). Widespread adoption of clear guidelines for fieldwork conduct could positively impact the experience of all in the polar research community. For this reason, the APECS Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Project Group (apecs.is/career-resources/diversity-equityinclusion.html) is currently developing Inclusive Codes and guidelines for diversity, equity, and inclusion during fieldwork in polar regions. Importantly, the culture enabling discrimination needs to be addressed in addition to formal processes for reporting discrimination. One supportive and potentially culture-changing measure could be to acknowledge and honor the use of non-binary pronouns (e.g., they/them) or honorifics (e.g., Mx) in the interest of gender equity (see lgbt.uni.edu/pronouns for more information on pronouns). Representation and visibility of marginalized identities as working professionals in polar science is also vital to feelings of inclusion and may be addressed in part by wearing rainbow badges/pins at or hosting targeted social networking events during conferences. Beyond supporting, connecting, and raising the visibility of LGBTQIA+ members of our community through these initiatives, groups like Pride in Polar Research (PiPR) also produce resources intended to improve equity, diversity, and inclusion within polar research. One such resource is to provide practical advice to individuals and groups organizing workshops, conferences, fieldwork, etc., on how to be as inclusive and welcoming as possible, given the many different, often

intersectional barriers that members of the PiPR community face worldwide. An inclusive culture benefits the scientific community by attracting the best minds regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, appearance, ethnicity or other aspects of personal background and identity (Hoogensen, 2017). Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that diversity at large within research organizations is vital to innovative research outcomes and finding sustainable solutions to the complexities of present societal challenges due to climate change (Natcher et al., 2020). It is essential not just to attract researchers with underrepresented identities, but to build a community where every researcher can thrive. An inclusive culture also improves the effectiveness of formal non-discrimination processes, which are often hampered by the legitimate fear of retribution and retaliation felt by those who experience discrimination. Informal support networks and contact persons can contribute substantially to the safety and well-being of vulnerable persons. Call to action - areas for improvement and further development

The importance of broadening our knowledge and understanding of nonbinary genders as well as intersectionality was implied, if not explicitly named, in a number of presentations in the workshop. There is an ongoing need to address intersecting categories of identity and overlapping barriers (gender intersecting with sexuality, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, language, nationality, disability, career stage, etc.) in polar research. By broadening our focus beyond gender, we can ensure we are holistically addressing issues as well as providing realistic solutions. For the workplace, institutions should aim to introduce and bolster equity, inclusion, and bias training for all employees. Furthermore, implementing non-discrimination guidelines and

providing access to independent complaint procedures/contact persons is critical to ensure that rules and consequences for breaking those rules are understood and that robust mechanisms are in place to support victims of discrimination, harassment, and assault. From a research perspective, further emphasis and support needs to be placed on researching female and nonbinary persons in the polar regions. In addition, supporting the comprehensive collection of statistical data on discrimination is critical to understand the systematic mechanisms of discrimination, as well as illuminating potential solutions. Further recognition and nomination of women and nonbinary researchers for polar awards is also imperative, to help ensure the diverse group of individuals who represent polar research is acknowledged. Next steps

The Gender in Polar Research Workshop is slated to be a part of the 2021 Arctic Science Summit Week online (assw2021.pt). To stay up-to-date on research and discussions related to Gender in Polar Research, feel free to register for the IASSA Working Group Gender in the Arctic via genderarctic.jimdofree.com. Gender in Polar Research Poster available at: https://gender-arctic.jimdofree.com/

Reference list: Balestrery, Jean E. 2012. “Intersecting Discourses on Race and Sexuality: Compounded Colonization Among LGBTTQ American Indians/Alaska Natives.” Journal of Homosexuality 59(5): 633–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.673901. Bergman, Elfrida. 2014. Queering Sápmi: Indigenous Stories beyond the Norm. Umeå: Qub. Clancy, K. B. H., Nelson, R. G., Rutherford, J. N., & Hinde, K. 2014. Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees report harassment and assault. PLoS One, 9(7), e102172. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102172.

Driskill, Qwo-Li. 2010. “Doubleweaving Two-Spirit Critiques: Building Alliances between Native and Queer Studies.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16 (1–2): 69–92. Hoogensen Gjørv, Gunhild. 2017. “Finding Gender in the Arctic: A Call to Intersectionality and Diverse Methods.” In The Interconnected Arctic — UArctic Congress 2016, 293–303. Springer Polar Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57532-2_30. Kubica, Grazyna. 2007. “A Good Lady, Androgynous Angel, and Intrepid Woman: Maria Czaplicka in Feminist Profile.” Bryceson, Deborah Fahy; Judith Okely; Jonathan Webber. Identity and Networks: Fashioning Gender and Ethnicity Across Cultures. Berghahn Books, 146–163. Seag, M., Badhe, R., & Choudhry, I. 2019. Intersectionality and international polar research. Polar Record, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247419000585. Nash, M., Nielsen, H.E., Shaw, J., King, M., Lea, M.A. and Bax, N., 2019. “Antarctica just has this hero factor…”: Gendered barriers to Australian Antarctic research and remote fieldwork. PloS one, 14(1). 1–22. Natcher, D., Maria Bogdan, A., Lieverse, A., & Spiers, K. 2020. Gender and Arctic climate change science in Canada. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0407-6. Vladimirova, Vladislava, and J. Otto Habeck. 2018. “Introduction: Feminist Approaches and the Study of Gender in Arctic Social Sciences.” Polar Geography 41(3): 145–163. Williamson, Karla, Ann Lotherington, Lawrence Hamilton, Sarah Savage, Natalia Koukarenko, Marina Kalinina, Ingunn Limstrand, et al. 2004. “Gender Issues.” In Arctic Human Development Report. Stefansson Arctic Institute. https://scholars.unh.edu/soc_facpub/435.

INDIGENOUS OBSERVING MEETING

that brought us virtually to the Sakha homelands. We used the first half of the meeting to discuss priorities, challenges, and opportunities for Indigenous-led Arctic research, and the second half of the meeting to discuss the development of an Arctic Indigenous Peoples Research Summit to take control of a conference for ourselves.

BY: VICTORIA QUTUUQ BUSCHMAN (UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, US), MEGAN SHEREMATA (UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, CANADA), TAYANA ARAKCHAA (KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, STOKHOLM, SWEDEN), STANISLAV KSENOFONTOV (ARCTICENTER, UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA, US)

Collecting Voices and Contributions

Below is a condensed summary of some of the comments and considerations that attendees shared during the meeting. As these are not direct quotes, please do not quote or reference these comments in other documents. Many researchers fail to respect ethical guidelines for engagement with Indigenous communities or knowledge, even in countries where formal principles and protocols exist. Some countries could learn from guidelines and research review processes already established in other Arctic countries.

Forming Meeting

the

Arctic

Indigenous

Observing

The Indigenous Observing Meeting finally convened online at ASSW2020 after its initial inception in a small side meeting at ASSW2019 in Arkhangelsk, Russia. This kick-off meeting brought together Indigenous scholars, knowledge holders, community member, and research allies together to discuss current affairs, priorities, challenges, and opportunities for Indigenous-led research and highlight the contributions of Indigenous Peoples to Arctic research. The original plan was to convene over a three day period with presentations, round table discussions, and ceremonies, but these plans were affected by the outbreak of COVID-19. The meeting was forced into an online-only and the meeting organizers decided that an informal, open, and honest meeting would still be a valuable use of our time. We were joined by 46 members of the Arctic community to open the meeting with five minutes of Sakha khomus (mouth harp music)

The mechanism for reviewing research projects and engagement should stay in the hands of the Indigenous organizations and governments. Some researchers fail to bring anything back to the communities they work in – Indigenous communities serve them and their needs and researchers may give nothing in return. Many researchers do not know how to behave in relation to Indigenous communities. Indigenous values should be recognized by research communities. It is the researchers’ responsibility to know the communities they are working in. The co-production of knowledge is still not the norm, but there are values like trust and respect for Indigenous knowledge that can help researchers understand and approach the process. Indigenous scholars are needed in the sciences. Many allies in research in the environmental sciences put a lot of time into understanding concepts that are strongly tied to knowledge co-

production - learning about Indigenous rights, studying the nature of science in society, dealing with institutional funding constraints, copresenting and co-authoring with community collaborators, and reporting back to communities. This leaves little time for science and is time consuming. This illustrated why the inequities in education are critical to address. Developing an Arctic Research Summit

Indigenous

Peoples

Prior to this meeting, many Indigenous scholars, professionals, and community members voiced that an Indigenous-centered and -led conference format would be hugely beneficial to sharing research and organizing priorities, challenges, and opportunities in the Arctic in ‘nonconventional’ ways that could be based on Indigenous styles of sharing knowledge. Since spring 2019, the organizers of the Indigenous Observing Meeting has been exploring financial support for the creation of such a ‘summit’ to realize this concept. During this meeting, a central focal point of discussion revolved around identifying potential locations, themes, funding, and partnerships. During our initial meeting at ASSW2019 in Russia, attendees suggested Russia as a potential location for the summit as few Russia Indigenous scholars or knowledge holders are able to travel outside of Russia for these purposes and thus are disadvantaged in opportunities to participate across the circumpolar North. Others recommended locations in Canada or Iceland as alternatives. Work is still being done to secure opportunities for this research summit.

ISIRA

The ISIRA meeting at ASSW2020 has shown that rethinking of science foci and priorities of the group is needed. Thus, the group’s agenda for 2020 and 2021 will be mostly devoted to qualitative investigation and discussion on the gaps and research priorities currently existing in the field of the Arctic research both within the Russian Arctic and internationally. development of international cooperation in the Russian Arctic by implementation of join research and education projects of the Northern universities; expansion of marine expedition and research activities with the involvement of foreign scientists with the improved access; support development and activities of the international Arctic scientific laboratories in Russia; development (restoration) of the Arctic polar stations network in Russia with the better infrastructural possibilities; facilitation of joint international studies in Svalbard and Western sector of the Russian Arctic; continued development of scientific cooperation with Asian countries in Russian Arctic.

BY: YULIA ZAIKA (FEDERAL RESEARCH CENTRE KOLA SCIENCE CENTRE OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, RUSSIA)

In 2020 The International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic (ISIRA) Advisory Group of IASC took a challenge to lay the foundation for the upcoming Arctic Council Chairmanship of the Russian Federation. The background science idea behind the group is entirely connected to the concept of science diplomacy and analytics, and its activities are devoted to the support and facilitation of (inter)disciplinary research ideas on bilateral and multilateral basis in the area of the Russian Arctic. The group targets to monitor the existing changes within the research administration, infrastructure and logistics, and advise and assist on possible directions and solutions to overcome them. The current research on administrative trends have been analyzed and discussed during the latest meeting of ISIRA Group at ASSW2020. They are related to the AC’s chairmanship and the implementation of so-called "national projects" - a new format for the government's investment policy which includes the following processes and mechanisms: development of regional research centers in the territory of the Russian Arctic;

Apart the general working goals of the group, it also will be seeking to enrich its entire scope by implementing the inclusivity idea with the early-career scientists and indigenous groups visions and analysis. Capacity building and traditional knowledge are also two of the main aspects included in the upcoming Russian Chairmanship as well as in the newly published Arctic Strategy until 2035. Considering all the trends and current tasks of the group, it was agreed to keep focus within following strategic points for further development and certain rebranding of ISIRA Group: 1 – to seek the possible and best-practice mechanisms of active implementation of the legally binding Arctic Council Agreement on Enhancing International

Arctic Scientific Cooperation by advice and in consultation with the Russian and international research community; 2 – to ensure the support in the field of multidisciplinary research at the territory of the Russian Arctic by implementing group’s funding strategy and science interests; 3 – to monitor the international and national trends in common research interests. The ISIRA meeting at ASSW2020 has shown that rethinking of science foci and priorities of the group is needed. Thus, the group’s agenda for 2020 and 2021 will be mostly devoted to qualitative investigation and discussion on the gaps and research priorities currently existing in the field of the Arctic research both within the Russian Arctic and internationally.

meeting and participated in the discussion. The expedition “Joint Arctic Scientific Mid-ocean ridge Insight Expedition (JASMInE)” is planned aboard the Chinese R/V Xuelong 2 , but has been postponed to the summer of 2021 due to the pandemic.

CHINESE R/V XUELONG 2'S MAIDEN VOYAGE INTO THE ARCTIC OCEAN FOR INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION ON GAKKEL RIDGE BY:JIABIAO LI (SECOND INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, HANGZHOU CHINA),TAO ZHANG (DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES, CENTRE FOR EARTH EVOLUTION AND DYNAMICS, UNIVERSITY OF OSLO, OSLO, NORWAY),CARMEN GAINA (ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE FOR POLAR AND MARINE RESEARCH, BREMERHAVEN, GERMANY),VERA SCHLINDWEIN (ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE FOR POLAR AND MARINE RESEARCH, BREMERHAVEN, GERMANY), TIEGANG LI (FIRST INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, TSINGDAO, CHINA) RUJIAN WANG5 (TONGJI UNIVERSITY, SHANGHAI, CHINA)

As the slowest spreading ridge on this planet, the Gakkel Ridge represents the endmember of oceanic crust accretion, lithospheric structure, and hydrothermal activities. The purpose of the session was to discuss ways to improve the understanding of the lithospheric structures and hydrothermal vents along the Gakkel Ridge. The focus of the session was thus to discuss specific scientific objectives, methods, and cooperation in an international joint expedition. Significant progress was reached by the increased participation and the international science organizations that provided important content and discussions to the expedition. Approximately 40 experts on the Arctic ocean and mid-ocean ridge system from more than 10 countries attended the online

The first part of the session was an introduction to the R/V Xuelong 2. The R/V “Xuelong 2” is able to break ice up to 1.5 meters thick, which facilitates access to the high Arctic with tough ice conditions. The instruments, such as OBS, AUV, and deep-tow system are specially adapted to the condition of floating ice. Dr. Jiabiao Li, the principal investigator of the project, gave a brief introduction to the JASMInE project. He proposed that multidisciplinary surveys, including bathymetry, deep-tow magnetic, multichannel seismic, and OBS, will be conducted in one of the two regions (25°-45°E or 80°-90°E) along the Gakkel Ridge to provide insight into the mid-ocean ridge segmentation, lithospheric thickness, and thermal/rheology structure. The expedition will also conduct a multidisciplinary study of hydrothermal vents. After the online discussions via zoom and email, constructive comments and suggestions have been gathered and listed here: 1. The target area is selected on the boundary of magmatic and amagmatic zones, which could facilitate a comparative study between them. In addition to OBS, magnetic and petrologic studies will also play critical roles in the understanding of the new class crust. 2. Besides a profile along the axis of Gakkel Ridge, profiles across the axis will be helpful to investigate the anisotropy and evolution of the lithosphere. 3. The operation procedures under highly variable sea ice need to be refined, including OBS recovery, under-ice positioning of AUV and ROV, etc. 4. In order to design more targeted survey stations, it is necessary to thoroughly analyse the legacy data and samples, including multi-beam, multichannel seismic, and rocks. Mapping in unknown

areas is also significant to supplement the global database. 5. During the transits of the expedition, observations on oceanography and ecosystems will make full use of the precious ship time. It was concluded that it is a good start for this exciting cruise. An investigation on the lithospheric structure and hydrothermal vent along the Gakkel Ridge at the high Arctic is a long-awaited event. All participating scientists will work together to refine the survey plan. Highlights:

Joint Arctic scientific mid-ocean ridge insight expedition (JASMInE) will be conducted by the recently released Icebreaker Xuelong 2 The main purposes of JASMInE project are to understand the unique lithospheric structure and hydrothermal vents along the Gakkel Ridge The JASMInE project will take advantage of a few cutting-edge instruments, including AUV and ROV specially designed for the ice-covered Arctic Ocean.

presented. Three meeting include:

INTERACT TA USER COMMUNITY MEETING BY: MARGARETA JOHANSSON (LUND UNIVERSITY, SWEDEN),HANNELE SAVELA (UNIVERSITY OF OULU, FINLAND)

INTERACT is a circumarctic network of currently 89 terrestrial field bases in northern Europe, Russia, US, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Scotland as well as stations in northern alpine areas. The project, which is funded by the EU, has a main objective to build capacity for identifying, understanding, predicting and responding to diverse environmental changes throughout the wide environmental and land-use envelopes of the Arctic. INTERACT specifically seeks to build capacity for research and monitoring all over the Arctic, and is offering access to numerous research stations through the Transnational Access Programme. Since the start of INTERACT in 2011, INTERACT has supported over 1,000 scientists to do field work at research stations in all Arctic countries. At the INTERACT TA User Community Meeting at the Arctic Science Summit Week 2020, the concept, results and future plans of INTERACT Transnational (TA), Remote (RA), and Virtual Access (VA) were presented. In addition, examples of research stations offering TA and TA User Groups utilizing the different modalities of access were

highlights

from

the

INTERACT promotes excellent science; The TA supported by INTERACT has resulted in excellent science published in high-ranked scientific journals including the finding of a new bumble bee species (Bombus interacti) at Toolik Lake Research Station in Alaska and a new genus and species (Altainella calcarata gen. n. sp. n.) of Bathynellidaenew at the Aktru Research Station in Siberia. The research supported through INTERACT’s TA covers a wide range of topics in both natural and social science. Examples of research projects that have been funded are presented in two volumes of Stories of Arctic Science (2015; 2020) that are available on INTERACT’s web site: https://euinteract.org/publication/ Tools for TA Users; The INTERACT Station Managers’ Forum has developed a range of tools that can be used by the TA Users. These include 1) the INTERACT Station catalogue where all INTERACT stations are presented, usually referred to as a “travel catalogue for scientists” 2) The Research and Monitoring Report which provides an overview of science activities at the stations 3) INTERACT GIS, an online tool that can be used to explore INTERACT stations 4) INTERACT Fieldwork Planning Handbook that provides recommendations and guidelines for all aspects of fieldwork planning 5) INTERACT Practical Field Guide which is a handy field guide with safety recommendations and tools. All tools are available on INTERACT’s web site: eu-interact.org INTERACT’s adaptation to COVID-19 regulations; INTERACT had granted access for nearly 70 projects to do field work in summer 2020 but with the development of COVID-19, it was impossible to carry out the field work

as planned. INTERACT had three strategies how to solve this problem; postponement of the projects to later time in 2020, shifts from TA to RA (the staff at the research station did the work with online guidance from the scientist) and postponement of projects to 2021. Less than 20% of the planned visits could be carried out and 10% was transferred from TA to RA, resulting in around 70% of the projects being transferred from 2020 to 2021. A prolongation of INTERACT 2 by one year accommodated by the EU, enabled us to transfer the projects to 2021. The importance of Virtual Access (on-line access to research stations’ data) has increased when researchers cannot visit the field. INTERACT has therefore shifted focus during 2020 to prioritize making more data sets available from the Arctic and also to develop a new VA Single-Entry Point that will be launched at the Arctic Science Summit Week 2021.

where possible through comparison with historical data, and to quantify links between the adjacent shelves, slopes, and deep basins, objectives that are shared with the broader pan-Arctic effort of the composite SAS. The regional shelf-tobasin ship-based surveys of the SAS will facilitate a pan-Arctic understanding of essential ocean variables (EOVs) on a quasi-synoptic, spatially distributed basis in which no single nation bears the full burden of collecting the requisite data. An important legacy for these SAS activities will be future decadal assessments of the rapid and evolving Arctic Ocean system change. Further information on the SAS programme, science an implementation reports, and recent publications can be found at the international SAS website https://synopticarcticsurvey.w.uib.no/.

THE SYNOPTIC ARCTIC SURVEY: AN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BY: JACKIE GREBMEIER (CHESAPEAKE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, SOLOMONS, MARYLAND, USA)

The Central Arctic Ocean remains profoundly understudied, particularly carbon cycling, ecosystem alteration, and associated changes in atmosphere, ice and ocean physics that influence those biological and biogeochemical systems. The region is expected to experience marked changes over the next decades, driven by ongoing climate warming, yet our understanding of key processes is limited for this area. A virtual workshop was held during the 2020 Arctic Science Summit Week to discuss ongoing plans for the international Synoptic Arctic Survey (SAS) that seeks to quantify the present states of the physical, biological, and biogeochemical systems in the high Arctic. The SAS session provided an opportunity to discuss future activities by multiple countries that had both confirmed and pending cruises as part of the 2020-2022 SAS networked activities (Figure 1). The workshop began with an overview of the SAS programme, followed by presentations by country representatives that provided updates on currently planned national activities from Sweden, Canada, Japan, Korea, Norway, and the USA, along with a planned joint cruise by Switzerland, Russia and Germany. The key goals of the SAS are to establish the present state of the Arctic system, to document temporal changes

Highlights:

The Central Arctic Ocean is experiencing a decline in sea ice extent and duration with climate warming that can impact ecosystem structure The Synoptic Arctic Survey (SAS) is a ongoing multi-ship, international panArctic survey of key physical, biological, and biogeochemical measurements in the high Arctic SAS activities will facilitate an improved understanding of essential ocean variables on a quasi-synoptic, spatially distributed basis to track status and change in the system.

Survey the needs from INTERACT station operators that could be tackled by remote sensing observations to be provided within the scope of T-MOSAiC. Identify remote sensing data sets and products that can be used by local communities to improve adaptation to climate change.

T-MOSAIC REMOTE SENSING ACTION GROUP WORKSHOP BY: GONÇALO VIEIRA (UNIVERSITY OF LISBON) AND ANNETT BARTSCH (AUSTRIAN POLAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE)

Environmental changes in terrestrial ecosystems and coastal areas across the Arctic can only be fully addressed by using remote sensing observations and modelling. However, due to the multiscale complexity of the landscape, to limitations related to illumination and to atmospheric conditions, bridging the gap between field and satellite observations remains a major challenge. The Remote Sensing Action Group aims at shortening the path between field scientists and the remote sensing community, by increasing the availability of calibration and validation data at the circumpolar scale. The main objectives of the remote sensing action group are: Identifying the main gaps in Arctic remote sensing observations that can be addressed by multiscale approaches, from UAV to satellites. Promote the use and access to in situ observations to improve the quality of remote sensing-based models and validation. Initiate activities with the High Latitude Drone Network to develop complementing geomorphological and vegetation data collection protocols.

At ASSW2020 the T-MOSAiC Remote sensing action and the ESA CCI+ Permafrost project promoted a joint workshop under the overarching theme “High resolution observations in permafrost regions” aiming at reaching out to the wider IASC community. The workshop focussed on the action group’s activities, on projects linking field-based and satellite remote sensing, and at streamlining activities to be conducted in the framework of the T-MOSAiC programme. The meeting took place online and had 33 participants. The following communications have been presented: Status of CCI Permafrost (Annett Bartsch, b.geos). Introduction to T-MOSAIC Remote Sensing AG (Gonçalo Vieira, University of Lisbon). Monitoring coastal erosion and mapping Arctic settlements using drone and satellite imagery, Beaufort Sea Coast, Canada (Gonçalo Vieira, University of Lisbon). Observing coastal permafrost bluff erosion patterns and processes using UAV, airborne, and spaceborne imaging time series, Drew Point, Beaufort Sea Coast, Alaska (Benjamin Jones, University of Alaska - Fairbanks). High resolution satellite and drone imagery for mapping and monitoring of thaw lakes, Sub-Arctic Canada (Pedro Freitas, University of Lisbon). Drone observations for Palsa monitoring in Scandinavia (Timo Kumpula, University of Eastern Finland). The greening of the Arctic (Isla MyersSmith, University of Edinburgh).

Investigating the patterns and drivers of carbon fluxes in Arctic and Boreal regions (Jennifer Watts, Woods Hole Research Center). The participants emphasised on the importance of UAV for field data collection at very high resolution and as groundtruthing for validating satellite-derived products. The possibility of using different types of sensors, surveying under cloudy conditions and at specifically selected times are significant advantages of UAV systems. The transdisciplinary nature of the research that was presented allowed to cross-feed information among projects, especially on techniques for field data collection. As the use of UAV advances at very fast pace, a large amount of high-quality data is being collected, but currently no repository exists for such data. Following the Hilden Network experience, which developed protocols and is building a database for Arctic vegetation drone data, coastal erosion was identified as one of the key areas where advances can be achieved through improved data sharing. It was agreed that such an approach can be developed within T-MOSAiC. Following the high interest of the session and novel results presented, the participants agreed on organizing a new session in the end of April 2020, aiming at continuing the discussion and planning the activities of the action group.

MODEL ARCTIC COUNCIL BY: JONATHAN WOOD (MAC PARTICIPANT, UNIVERSITY OF AKUREYRI), BRANDON BOYLAN (UNIVERSITY OF FAIRBANKS, US), AND SOPHIE GOLIBER, (MAC PARTICIPANT, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS)

Twenty-seven students from universities in the circumpolar North and beyond participated in the fourth UArctic Model Arctic Council (MAC). Although organizers had been planning for months to hold the programme face-to-face in Akureyri, Iceland, they moved it online, owing to the coronavirus pandemic. Students and organizers videoconferenced through the Zoom platform. The programme opened on Friday, March 20, 2020 and continued Monday, March 23 through Thursday, March 26, 2020. The MAC is an experiential learning exercise, in which graduate and advanced undergraduate students from disciplines and universities across the Arctic region simulate the work of the Arctic Council. The MAC 2020 simulation focussed on environmental issues, including plastics and protected areas, and the work of two Arctic Council Working Groups—Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)—and the Senior Arctic Officials (SAOs). [More information: UNAK website] In this exercise, students represented a) delegates from the eight Member States

and six Permanent Participants to the Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group and b) Senior Arctic Officials (SAOs) and Permanent Participants at the SAO meetings. Two students represented Observers. The Arctic Council Member States include Canada, Finland, Iceland, the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States. The Permanent Participants represent various Indigenous communities throughout the circumpolar North and include the Aleut International Association (AIA), Arctic Athabascan Council (AAC), Gwich’in Council International (GCI), Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), and Saami Council. Although Permanent Participants cannot vote on proposals, they have full consultation rights. Rarely do Member States advance proposals without the approval of the Permanent Participants, and the Model Arctic Council reflected this practice. One of six Working Groups of the Arctic Council, PAME focuses on the protection and sustainable use of the Arctic’s marine environment. Each student role-played at least one delegate to the Arctic Council; some doubled up on roles. Jonathan Wood, a graduate student in the Polar Law Department at the University of Akureyri, chaired the PAME meetings, and Sophie Goliber, a Geological Sciences Ph.D. student at the University of Texas at Austin, chaired the SAO meetings. Participants in the simulated PAME meetings discussed and developed plans to address Arctic marine problems, specifically plastic pollution and endangerment to protected marine areas, before moving their recommendations to the SAOs and Permanent Participants at the SAO meetings for their feedback and guidance. Everyone endeavoured to ensure that Indigenous representatives had an equal voice in meetings and proposals. Ultimately, the students produced a final report, with the Arctic Council Ministers – the foreign ministers of the eight Arctic Council Member States – as their intended

audience. During the programme, students learned about various Arctic challenges, biodiversity and conservation in the Arctic, the functioning of the Arctic Council, the importance of Indigenous voices in Arctic governance, and how to navigate online diplomacy. Jonathan Wood reported on the programme to a virtual audience at the Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW). During the programme, the students also heard from high-profile guest speakers. Gunnar Rekvig, Nansen Professor in Arctic Studies at the University of Akureyri, lectured on the history of diplomacy between Sweden and Finland concerning the Åland Islands. Friðrik Jónsson, Iceland’s SAO, discussed the necessity of online diplomacy and social networking during emergencies, like the current coronavirus pandemic. In the debriefing session, Robert Gerber, Chief of the Economy, Energy, and Environmental Unit, and Oscar Avila, Public Affairs Office, at the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik, discussed the importance of the Arctic and congratulated the students on their work. The MAC itself was an experiment in online diplomacy for students, which was particularly apt given Friðrik Jónsson's (Iceland's SAO) lecture on online diplomacy being more of an addition rather than replacement; we were forced to do the former. I believe we would have made Jónsson proud given the flexibility and creativity the delegates used in crafting proposals. The Model Arctic Council was organized jointly by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and the University of Akureyri. Dr. Brandon Boylan, Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of Arctic & Northern Studies at UAF; Dr. Mary Ehrlander, Professor of History and CoDirector of Arctic & Northern Studies at UAF; Mike Letzring, an Interdisciplinary Studies Ph.D. candidate, housed in Arctic & Northern Studies at UAF; Rachael

Johnstone, Professor of Law at the University of Akureyri; and Gunnar Gunnarson, International Coordinator at the University of Akureyri, planned the event since spring 2019. The Model Arctic Council is a Thematic Network of the University of the Arctic (UArctic), led by UAF professors Brandon Boylan and Mary Ehrlander. To date, the UArctic MAC programme has taken place at UAF (spring 2016); Dartmouth College (summer 2017); the University of Lapland (Finland) (fall 2018); and University of Akureyri -online (spring 2020). The goal is to host a MAC in the country that is currently chairing the Arctic Council.

ARCTIC OBSERVING SUMMIT Observing for Action

OBSERVING FOR ACTION: SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC OUTCOMES OF THE 5TH ARCTIC OBSERVING

the circumstances brought on by the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), the Summit was transformed into an online forum, drawing over 350 participants from 28 countries, including more than 40 Indigenous experts and representatives of Indigenous Peoples and organizations. 2020 Summit Sub-themes: Based on recommendations and priorities identified at previous Summits, AOS 2020 was structured into five sub-themes, each addressed by a thematic working group: Sub-Theme 1: Design, Optimization and Implementation of the Observing System Sub-Theme 2: Observing in Support of Adaptation and Mitigation Sub-Theme 3: Observing in Support of Indigenous Food Security and Related Needs Sub-Theme 4: Data Interoperability and Federated Search Sub-Theme 5: Arctic Observations in the context of Global Observing initiatives

BY: ALLEN POPE (NATIONAL ICE AND SNOW DATA CENTRE, US), ALICE BRADLEY (WILLIAMS COLLEGE, USA), HAJO EICKEN (UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, USA), EVA KRUEMMEL (INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR COUNCIL, CANADA), FEDERICA SCARPA (INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC SCIENCE COMMITTEE, ICELAND)GERLIS FUGMANN (NTERNATIONAL ARCTIC SCIENCE COMMITTEE, ICELAND), JAN RENE LARSEN (ARCTIC MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM/SAON SECRETARIAT, NORWAY), LARRY HINZMAN, (UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, USA), MARIBETH MURRAY (UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, CANADA), PETER PULSIFER (CARLETON UNIVERSITY, CANADA), PETER SCHLOSSER (ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, USA), RAVI DARWIN SANKAR (UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, CANADA), RAYCHELLE ALUAQ DANIEL (PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, USA), ROBERTA PIRAZZINI (FINNISH METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE, FINLAND), ÞORSTEINN GUNNARSSON (THE ICELANDIC CENTRE FOR RESEARCH, ICELAND)

The Arctic Observing Summit (AOS) is a biennial event, convened as part of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) initiative, to guide the design, coordination, and long-term operation of an international network of observing systems that improves our understanding of and response to Arctic change. The 5th AOS (30 March - April 2, 2020) was set to take place in Akureyri, Iceland under the theme of “Observing for Action”. Given

In preparation for the Summit, community input in the form of white papers and short statements on these thematic areas were solicited. Fifty-five contributions were received and are posted on the AOS website. During the Summit, the thematic working groups evaluated and synthesized these statements, and other relevant information to report on the state of Arctic observing under each sub-theme, to identify linkages among themes, gaps, needs and priorities and to generate discussion around solutions, implementation, community engagement and international cooperation. Summaries of outcomes, and recommendations to contribute to the development of the SAON Roadmap for Arctic Observing and Data Systems (ROADS) and pathways forward from each working group follow. Working Group 1: Design, Implementation, and Optimization of Arctic observing systems The existing Arctic Observing system is a

mix of components, networks, and organisations each operating within their own topical, national, methodological, or circumstantial scopes. The Design, Implementation, and Optimization Working Group (WG1) conceptualized a unified, coordinated Arctic Observing System in which these operate in concert and considered strategies for integrating the plethora of existing initiatives, networks and observing activities across the Arctic. There was consensus that global networks are doing outstanding work and their efforts extended into the Arctic region would be an immensely valuable contribution to the ROADS process. However, delegates agreed that the effort of organizing observations is most valuable when there is a specific need for information sharing across sectors. Further, members proposed that Shared Arctic Variables be the standard around which the coordinated system is organized. This system must utilize standards applicable across sectors in order for observations to meet societal needs and provide benefits, and also have sufficient flexibility to be inclusive of the groups that have resources (including time, access, and ideas) to contribute. The ROADS process was recognized as an important and timely next step towards the ongoing implementation of an organized and collaborative Arctic Observing System. The working group recommended SAON convene broadly inclusive expert panels in order to begin development of a set of Shared Arctic Variables. Working Group 2: Observing in Support of Adaptation and Mitigation The ability to plan for, adapt to and mitigate change in the Arctic, as elsewhere, requires the sustained and iterative design and implementation of a pan-Arctic, internationally supported and maintained network of observing systems. Working Group 2 members agreed that while many elements of an Arctic Observing System of Systems (AOSS) are already in place, identified gaps need to filled in order to maximize benefits to society. Coordination and interoperability of people and systems

are necessary to ensure that data and information flowing from this AOSS is available, accessible and useable. The AOSS should support decision making across time and space, people and organizations, the development of policy options, real-world solutions to existing and emerging issues, and the implementation of toward strategic adaptation initiatives and mitigation efforts. Group members also agreed that the successful use of observing partnerships in aiding adaptation and mitigation efforts is linked to an inclusive participatory process that weaves Indigenous and local expertise with scientific knowledge. Indigenous knowledge holders and community-based observing/monitoring play an integral role in advancing the use of observing technologies to facilitate effective adaptation initiatives. There are also useful approaches (e.g., citizen science) to engage stakeholder groups. Working Group 3: Observing in Support of Indigenous Food Security and Related Needs A primary goal of the 2020 Summit was the development of a framework within which impactful Essential Arctic Variables (EAV) could be assessed jointly by different data users and observing network operators. Working Group 3 developed this framework through the lens of food security and based on several critical elements identified during their discussions. This perspective is critical for a successful ROADS process. Key outcomes and recommendations that emerged from the deliberations of WG3 include: Viewing food security through an Indigenous lens; Weaving human health and wellness into every aspect of the observing system; Supporting community-driven research and monitoring; and Focusing capacity building on Indigenous organizations, communities and researchers.

Working Group 4: Data Interoperability and Federated Search Data are an integral part of the observing system value chain. A system that makes well documented data accessible and useable in decision making contexts, and that does so in ethical and responsible ways is critical. Working Group 4 members stressed the need to move towards a co-production model to ensure that a fully developed Arctic Data system is established through focused, practical efforts sharpened by continued engagement with community members as well as with broader international initiatives. Participants agreed that all protocols must be considered including the ethical data principles that focus on Indigenous data sovereignty but also a recognition of local protocols (e.g., individual communities, national and regional). The need to empower the development of concrete applications which provide practical solutions aligned to the digital requirements of the Arctic observing community was stressed. As a foundation for all systems, this will prioritize creating a distributed, co-owned, sustainable and coherent system of digital resources which all partners can co-develop and leverage for their respective needs. Working Group 5: Arctic Observations in the context of Global Observing initiatives Although the Arctic is a hotspot of global change, the Arctic Observing System is still lacking the coverage and continuity required to obtain a full picture of the nature and pace of the changes seen across all domains. Working Group 5 members recommended that the SAON Roadmap for Arctic Observing and Data Systems employ the processes established by the global observing systems for identifying and defining the essential Arctic Variables wherever possible.

Summary: Sustained observations, including those from Indigenous observers and programs, enable improved tracking, understanding, and projecting of future trajectories of Arctic change. They are necessary to guide adaptation and mitigation responses from local to global scales. Overall recommendations and call to action from

the AOS 2020 include, among others, that a panArctic Observing System of Systems must be: Designed to reflect societal and scientific needs with design drawing on Essential and Shared Arctic Variables; Coordinated and where needed integrated with global observing systems; Relevant to people’s lives, decision making, and policy; Supported with a networked, collaborative, interoperable digital system that is based on co-production and ethical data principles.

AOS 2022 will be held during the 2022 Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW 2022) in Tromsø, Norway on 26 March - 1 April 2022. For more information on the AOS, please visit arcticobservingsummit.org. AOS 2020 Executive Organizing Committee: Peter Schlosser, Hajo Eicken, Thorsteinn Gunnarsson, Alice Bradley, Raychelle Aluaq Daniel, Gerlis Fugmann, Larry Hinzman, Eva Kruemmel, Jan Rene Larsen, Maribeth Murray, Roberta Pirazzini, Allen Pope, Peter Pulsifer, Ravi Darwin Sankar and Federica Scarpa.

Published by: