27 March 2025 | 13:30 - 15:00 (MDT)
Open Session - HYBRID
Room: UMC Third Floor - 382
Organisers: Melina Kourantidou (University of Western Brittany/University of Southern Denmark, Denmark); Brooks Kaiser (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark)
Session Description:
Arctic Scenario analysis frequently categorizes outcomes into four quadrants – along two axes: governance, and resources and trade. Of the four categories, Arctic Saga, Arctic Race, Polar Preserve, and Polar Lows, the first three reflect outcomes that favor different Arctic scales of interests, while Polar Lows is considered undesirable by most if not all stakeholders and rightsholders as providing neither local stability and quality of life nor global extractive benefits. Who’s “in” and who’s “out” in Arctic planning is a longstanding issue affecting within the marine realm, for example, Svalbard’s identity, the Arctic Council structure and its Working Groups (ie CAFF, PAME), the Polar Silk Road, and the Central Arctic Ocean fisheries policy. The challenge also impacts research agendas. In this multidisciplinary session, we discuss how agenda-setting in Arctic research priorities and funding strategies can affect these outcomes, with a particular focus on the role of academic research driven by actors not directly living or working in Arctic states. We anticipate differences in impact from the natural sciences and social sciences that stem from (1) scale of engagement in Arctic communities and environmental changes from local to global; (2) experience and expectations for transdisciplinary research and/or Indigenous engagement and inclusion needs, including longer research timelines and more diverse research outlets and forms; and (3) funding structures that limit such diversity as well as cross-scale research, amongst other distinctions along disciplinary lines. We illustrate with some background analysis of research communities in non-Arctic states, e.g. France, S. Korea, Japan and the UK.
Instructions for Speakers: Oral presentations in this session should be at most 12-minutes in length, with an additional 3-5 minutes for questions (unless more detailed instructions are provided by session conveners). See more detailed presenter instructions here.
Oral Presentations:
-
unfold_moreJustice and Equity in Icelandic Small-Scale Fisheries — Catherine Chambers
Catherine Chambers 1
1 Stefansson Arctic Institute, IcelandFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
Fisheries policy is a key driver of change in Icelandic small-scale fisheries and fisheries-dependent coastal communities. Iceland has mostly focused on the ecological and the economical aspect of sustainable fisheries, overlooking other ecosystem services of ocean environments such as heritage, cultural value of food items, recreation, and education. This research uses the theories of justice and equity and methods of semi-structured interviews to explore and document the impacts of fisheries governance decisions on people’s livelihoods and well-being in fishing villages. Special focus on future youth and newcomers through intergenerational equity shows how taken-for-granted perceptions of the purpose and value of fisheries in Icelandic society create negative feedback loops. The findings also show that fisheries offer not only flexible use of ecosystem services and diverse employment but a sense of local fate control, belonging, cultural identity and pride in the community, which are all core aspects of Arctic human development. This research fills a critical research gap in the case of Icelandic fishing communities and the equity impacts of fisheries policies, with lessons applicable for other Arctic marine-dependent cultures and nations.
-
unfold_moreScale and Scope in Policy and Strategy for Conservation and Development in the Marine Arctic — Brooks Kaiser
Brooks Kaiser 1
1 University of Southern DenmarkFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
The Arctic region has at least three interacting scales of public activity and governance - local, regional, and global, that shape ongoing development forces. The availability of explicit Arctic policy and strategy documents across multiple scales provides a unique opportunity for better understanding of the tradeoffs and synergies in sustainable development efforts. The uses and meanings of language in Arctic policies differ in reflecting development priorities; content analysis of these policies identifies important differences and pathways across scales in achieving perceived goals from conservation and development of marine resources. The analysis here uncovers both strong and weak signals of conservation and development futures in the region. Potential conflicts are accentuated in the Arctic, where myriad interests range from Indigenous traditional livelihoods to mass cruise tourism, resource extraction for international markets, and lower cost global shipping. Results indicate how Arctic local interests in the marine space recognize an inherent inter-dimensionality to sustainable development that includes different values and interests across consumptive and non-consumptive uses of resources, and that this recognition is more clearly tied to policy than at other scales. As such, regional and global scale policies have less concrete discussion of the tradeoffs stemming from decisions regarding either resource extraction or resource conservation.
-
unfold_moreEmerging Questions, Challenges and Opportunities in Prioritizing Research for Arctic Marine Ecosystems: A Multiscale Perspective — Melina Kourantidou
Melina Kourantidou 1
1 University of Western Brittany / University of Southern DenmarkFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
This work explores the often-overlooked process of research prioritization in Arctic marine ecosystems, focusing on the roles of diverse stakeholders, including Arctic and non-Arctic actors, local communities, international organizations, and research institutions. While geopolitical interests have been widely studied, little attention is paid to how research agendas are set and their impacts on Arctic coastal communities. Acknowledging profound changes in Arctic marine systems, we examine the interconnectedness of climate change, ecosystem functions, and human livelihoods, stressing the need to address uncertainties, trade-offs, and threats. Drawing on insights from the interdisciplinary PROTECT workshop (Brest, France, April 2024), we highlight gaps in research agenda-setting, including the marginalization of Indigenous voices. While progress has been made in integrating Indigenous leadership, the true drivers behind funding and decision-making remain unclear. Are non-Arctic nations shaping research agendas for geopolitical gains, or genuinely addressing local community needs—and with what tools? This lack of clarity raises questions about who influences research priorities and how. We call for more co-designed, co-led research with Indigenous leaders, alongside interdisciplinary collaboration. Though challenging, such an approach is essential for Arctic marine conservation and the socio-economic well-being of Arctic coastal communities. We urge a shift from opportunistic, politically driven research prioritization to a more inclusive strategy that addresses both local needs and broader global challenges.
-
unfold_moreApplying ICES' Interdisciplinary Science and Policy Advice to Ecosystem-Based Management in the Arctic — Iñigo Martinez
Iñigo Martinez 1
1 ICES Secretariat Professional OfficerFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) is an intergovernmental organization composed of 20 member states, supported by a global network of over 5,000 scientists from nearly 60 countries. Through interdisciplinary collaboration, ICES advances scientific understanding of marine ecosystems and the services they provide, while generating evidence-based policy advice to support conservation, management, and sustainability goals.
How can ICES' experience in integrating science and policy for ecosystem-based management be applied to the Arctic?
This presentation will explore this question by examining ICES' Framework for Ecosystem-Informed Science and Advice, focusing on examples such as the Central Arctic Ocean Ecosystem Overviews and Arctic Cooperative Research Reports (CRRs). The talk will highlight how integrated science and policy advice can be used to enhance decision-making for the sustainable management of Arctic ecosystems