25 March 2025 | 13:30 - 15:30 (MDT)
Open Session - HYBRID
Room: UMC Fourth Floor - 415/417
Organisers: Michaela Louise Coote (University of Galway, Ireland); Charlotte Gehrke (Nord University, Norway); Christine Barnard (ArcticNet, Canada)
Zoom link to the Open Session (password-protected)
The password needed to connect to the session will be distributed the day prior to the start of the sessions to all registered conference participants. Further guidelines on how to participate virtually in the ASSW 2025 can be found on the ASSW 2025 website.
Session Description:
Research cooperation and science diplomacy have a long and dynamic history in the Arctic. For the most part, this cooperation has been based upon the need to work on shared challenges across various epistemological and practical divides. The focus in the Arctic has been on a variety of topics, from environmental protection to sovereignty, as well as human rights through the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) perspectives in decision-making processes. However, it is often difficult for all actors to agree on a path ahead making win-win scenarios difficult to achieve. Thus, research cooperation and science diplomacy help stake- and right-holders build methodologies and outcomes that meet shared goals. Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent condemnation of Russia's actions, there have been diverging approaches to Arctic research cooperation and science diplomacy across the Arctic states, institutions, and communities. Further, the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) in decision-making and awareness of the roles of IPs is constantly evolving. This means that Arctic research cooperation and diplomacy is in a state of normative transition and, as a result, it is important to reassess and articulate the aims and objectives of Arctic research cooperation and its role in diplomacy moving forward.
This session aims to inform the work of ICARP Research Priority Team 4: Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy (RPT4). It will build on and share insights from previous discussions and engagement – in particular, a community-inclusive scoping exercise undertaken by RTP4 at the Arctic Circle Assembly (ACA) to understand who the main actors and stakeholders are in Arctic research cooperation. This session aims to include and seek the input of a variety of actors such as youth, business, researchers, IPs, and other key stake- and right-holders to understand why Arctic research cooperation and diplomacy is important and for whom. In this session, RPT4 will present the results of the scoping exercise at the ACA and other engagements, encourage discussion to further articulate the current and future aims and objectives of Arctic research cooperation, and explore what additional information and/or discussions may be needed to further develop the finding and recommendations of ICARP IV.
Instructions for Speakers: Oral presentations in this session should be at most 10-minutes in length, with an additional 2 minutes for questions (unless more detailed instructions are provided by session conveners). See more detailed presenter instructions here.
Oral Presentations:
-
unfold_moreReshaping Arctic Governance: The Impact of Geopolitical Changes on the Arctic Council's Dynamics — Anna Ivanova
Anna Ivanova 1
1 Washington State UniversityFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
This paper aims to analyze the dynamics of the Arctic Council, focusing on the post-2015 period, which has been marked by significant geopolitical changes, particularly the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the following suspension of Russia's membership in the Arctic Council. This research builds on the work of Sebastian Knecht (2016), who has documented stakeholder participation in Arctic Council meetings from 1998 to 2015. This research aims to identify significant changes within the Arctic Council during this period by extending Knecht's findings to the present day.
-
unfold_moreThe Arctic at a Crossroads: Cooperation or Confrontation? — Marco Dordoni
Marco Dordini 1
1 Università per Stranieri di PerugiaFormat: Oral virtual
Abstract:
This article explores the growing divergence between the diplomatic narratives promoted by Arctic actors and the policies being implemented in practice. While NATO and Russia could theoretically pursue a cooperative path, their actions increasingly reflect a preference for confrontation. As a result, cooperation is now viewed as an increasingly unattainable aspiration rather than a realistic objective. One of the most significant consequences of this shift is the erosion of Arctic cooperation, which was previously supported by institutions such as the Arctic Council, EU-Barents cooperation initiatives, and international conferences. Until 2021, these forums served as key opportunities for collaboration. However, the Arctic Council now operates without the participation of its largest Arctic state, Russia, while the Barents Euro-Arctic Council has failed to achieve its foundational objective of fostering stable cooperation between the Russian Arctic and the European Arctic, particularly after Russia’s withdrawal in September 2023. Additionally, many conferences have become echo chambers, rarely featuring critical perspectives or opposition, further undermining their original purpose. On the other hand, Russia is beginning to redefine its role in the Arctic by positioning itself as a gateway for new actors, including the emerging BRICS+ bloc, signaling a shift in its Arctic strategy.
This paper argues that Russia’s exclusion from international forums constitutes a significant diplomatic and practical setback for all parties involved. The escalation of tensions and the mutual demonization in political narratives only deepen the divide. To address this dilemma, a shift toward cooperation-focused discourse and a strategy of desecuritization, rather than securitization, is essential. For instance, the Arctic Council has historically served as a vital platform for addressing shared regional challenges, but its effectiveness has been severely impacted by rising geopolitical tensions (Young, 2022). Similarly, the EU-Barents cooperation framework once demonstrated the potential for multilateral engagement in the Arctic but has been weakened by the absence of key stakeholders, including Russia (Heininen et al., 2021). The concept of desecuritization, as outlined by Buzan et al. (1998), offers a valuable framework for reframing Arctic issues as opportunities for collaboration rather than sources of conflict.
In conclusion, revitalizing cooperation in the Arctic will require rebuilding trust, reintegrating all relevant stakeholders, and fostering narratives centered on shared security and sustainability. Such efforts are critical to preventing the Arctic from becoming a stage for geopolitical competition and to preserving its role as a region of peace and collaborative progress.
-
unfold_moreArctic experts as political actors. Positions and perceptions of knowledge providers at the Arctic Council, from the beginnings to today: perspectives from the European Arctic, and from European Observers — Galadrielle Pommereau
Galadrielle Pommereau 1
1 University of IcelandFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to explain the processes of competition and cooperation in knowledge brokering, as experienced by knowledge providers at the Arctic Council’s knowledge-to-policy interface over the last 20 years. In simpler terms, it aims at mapping how different types of Arctic Council "experts" interact with each other in a policy-making context, and how they think about these interactions.
The study uses qualitative content analysis: interviews with Europe-based Arctic experts have been conducted to collect respondents’ experiences and perceptions of knowledge brokerage at the Council. A timeline of events was reconstructed and official documentation from the Council has also been reviewed, and the reported experiences are replaced in the context of the timeline. This creates a map of how the Arctic Council’s knowledge-to-policy interface “looked like” across time.
The aim is to take a step back from a case-study format towards a longitudinal approach, to look for broader patterns across working groups and across time. Mapping these interactions will allow to observe the power dynamics that exist in these processes, and as a result design a practical “toolbox” for experts: modelling which knowledge-to-policy interface settings favour cooperation and which favour competition for different types of experts. The diffusion of this toolbox to the participants and beyond is intended to allow for increased cooperation in times of strained resources. Moreover, mapping perceptions and interests of experts themselves should be a foundational step in planning both research and cooperation/science diplomacy agendas.
-
unfold_moreWhat Roles Can the Science Community Play in "A Fractcured North"? — Oran Young
Oran Young 1
1 Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa BarbaraFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
In their Introduction to a recent collection of essays entitled “A Fractured North,” Kasten, Krupnik, and Fondahl discuss “the impact of the [Ukraine] war on the field of Northern studies, … strategies to address its challenges, and … the paths through the fog of hostility it created.” Reflecting on these concerns, I address three distinct but related sets of issues pertaining to the roles of the science community in a period of deepening East-West tension culminating in the disruptive impacts of the Ukraine war. First, how can we continue to make progress in deepening our understanding of subjects like the role of the Arctic in the Earth’s climate system that require integrated analysis that is circumpolar in scope? Second, what role can the science community play in assessing the validity of controversial assertions made in discussions of Arctic policy? Third, and more broadly, how can the science community contribute to maintaining channels of communication during periods like the present characterized by a heightened prominence of ideological and often emotional perspectives in discussions of policy and the suppression of internal debate caused by pressures to rally support against outside enemies? The result is a multi-dimensional exploration of the roles of the science community as a non-governmental actor in a setting featuring increasingly severe conflict at the inter-governmental level.
-
unfold_moreBuilding a Sustainable Future: Indigneous Youth as Knowledge Translators, Boundary Spanners, and Science Diplomats — Heather Sauyaq Jean Gordon
Heather Sauyaq Jean Gordon 1
1 Iñupiaq, Tribal member of the Nome Eskimo Community; Owner/Principal Consultant, Sauyaq Solutions; Adjunct Associate Research Professor, American UniversityFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
This paper begins with explaining Indigenous Ways of Knowing, Knowledges, and Sciences, expertise, and evidence. It then examines the significance of Indigenous kinship perspectives offering a sustainable way to live inherent in many Indigenous cultures. It then explores colonial epistemicide, evolving knowledge pluralism, and how to co-produce knowledge to have the evidence needed for decision making. This builds to the transformative role of Indigenous youth in promoting epistemic justice by serving as knowledge translators, boundary spanners, and science diplomats able to braid knowledges and bridge ways of knowing for knowledge pluralism in evidence-based policy. These young leaders bridge power structures and cultural, epistemological, and disciplinary divides, fostering a more inclusive sustainability in the face of climate change. The author provides examples of boundary spanning, underscoring the importance of empowering Indigenous youth as key actors in creating a sustainable future, advocating for greater recognition and integration of Indigenous Knowledges and Sciences in policy and practice, promoting a path toward epistemic justice and a sustainable planet.
-
unfold_moreThe Oxford University Polar Forum Arctic Horizon Scan: research priorities for the next decade and lessons learnt — Marc Macias Fauria
Marc Macias Fauria 1; Sam Cornish 2
1 Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Oxford University Polar Forum, University of Oxford; 2 Oxford University Polar Forum, University of OxfordFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
In 2022, the Oxford University Polar Forum organised a horizon scanning exercise, aiming to identify Arctic research priorities for the next decade. First, a multilingual online survey ran for six months and invited contributions from researchers of all disciplines, people from local and Indigenous Arctic communities, policymakers, funders of research, and all other stakeholders. Next, >100 delegates distilled the online submissions into a categorised set of Arctic research priorities during a hybrid format workshop (in-situ and online) based in Oxford (United Kingdom), over 7-9th September 2022.
Here, we present results of this work and share insights from this experience under the light of emerging Arctic research cooperation. We reflect on the selection of the workshop delegates, made to ensure a diverse and representative group, which consisted of a sizeable number of delegates from Arctic Indigenous Peoples and showed a balanced participation across gender, age, career stage, and occupation. This generated dynamics that set the workshop towards new directions not anticipated by the organisers. Amongst them, the route to publication avoided traditional peer-review, requesting instead the participation of the Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council as reviewers.
The resulting document consists of ~60 priority research questions. Each priority is presented as a statement/question, followed by three sections: knowledge gaps, methodologies, and examples. A glossary defines and/or contextualises >300 terms to widen access and readership. The delegates agreed that co-production of knowledge with Indigenous Peoples and convergent research approaches should be the norm in addressing research priorities in the Arctic.
-
unfold_moreThe Impact of the Ukrainian Crisis on Russia's Arctic Strategy and Collaborative Arctic Research — Svetlana Vassiliouk
Svetlana Vassiliouk 1
1 Meiji UniversityFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
This presentation offers a comprehensive overview of recent developments in Russia’s Arctic strategy and examines prospects for Russia’s participation in collaborative research in the Arctic. Occupying more than half of the region’s coastline and nearly half of its population, Russia traditionally focused its Arctic strategy on infrastructure development, extraction of natural resources, and enhancing national security. Additionally, it established itself as a key regional player by jointly founding the Arctic Council (AC) in 1996 and becoming its chair-country in 2004-2006 and 2021-2023.
The presentation begins with an overview of key objectives and developments in Russia’s Arctic policy through a comparison of the geopolitical, security, and socioeconomic aspects in the 2020-2035 and 2013-2020 Arctic Strategies. For example, the 2020 Strategy promotes the use of the Northern Sea Route as Russia’s national unified transportation passage and advocates boosting Arctic cooperation with such “non-Arctic” states as Japan, China, India, and Turkey.
Furthermore, the presentation examines the impact of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis on Russia’s Arctic objectives, especially on its participation in the Arctic institutions and collaborative opportunities. After completing the AC chairmanship in May 2023, Russia became de-facto marginalized, resulting in its limited participation in regional governance and joint research projects and severely undermining scientific development and community advancement across the Arctic. By taking a long-term perspective, this presentation concludes by addressing prospects for Russia’s constructive engagement in the AC and other institutional formats, while stressing the critical importance of Russia’s continuing participation in joint Arctic research, particularly in the areas of ecological balance and climate change.
-
unfold_moreScience to diplomacy for a rule-based order in the Arctic — Kamrul Hossain
Kamrul Hossain 1
1 Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of LaplandFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
With its unique natural characteristics and global significance in supporting Earth’s systems, the Arctic has been crucial in translating science-based and evidence-based knowledge into a regulatory framework. Earth’s climate system and its continued decline, as evidenced by research-based findings, will bring harsh consequences for the Arctic and the planet as a whole. The Arctic’s interconnectedness with the rest of the world is crucial to understanding the global climate system and environmental regime and the reflection of change on actors and society at large. The promotion of science and science- and evidence-based knowledge has become vital in the political cooperation frameworks among the Arctic actors. The Arctic Council, for example, provides a structure to integrate science- and evidence-based knowledge, including Indigenous knowledge, hence engaging Indigenous peoples’ representation within its framework. Indigenous peoples’ knowledge encompasses changes in the Arctic’s natural environment based on long-term observations spanning generations. Against this background, the presentation will shed light on how knowledge production is formulated through science and evidence, where such knowledge translates into the policy arena and subsequently contributes to norms within the regulatory framework in the context of the Arctic.
-
unfold_moreArctic-2030 BANHER During Changing Geopolitical Times: First Experiences of Joint Nordic-Canadian/US Arctic Cooperation in Higher Education — Peter Haugseth
Peter Haugseth 1
1 UiT-The Arctic University of NorwayFormat: Oral in-person
Abstract:
The Arctic-2030 Barents Arctic Network on Higher Education (BANHER) program is a Nordic-Canada/US joint project onHigher Education and Research (BAHNER). The effort is an illustration of the “Western Turn” following in line with the new political priorities of the Nordic countries due to Russia’s War in Ukraine that put a hold on post- Cold War governanceand region building initiatives in the Arctic across Nordic-Russian borders from February 24, 2022. Similarly, the university network lead by UiT had to reorganize and went from prioritizing extensive teaching and research collaboration with Russian partners to collaborating with North American university institutions (Trent University, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Yukon university etc.). The ambition is building robust transatlantic partnership conducting social science more particularly on the circumpolar north - training its students anduniversity scholars by engaging in joint research projects andeducational activity contributing to new forms of know-how and expertise. By an interdisciplinary approach the urban northern communities and its complex Arctic reality (ontological plurality) are discussed by involving the participants in research-based teaching, establishing different experiential learning settings e.g., under the umbrella of BANHER’s core topic “Urban Arctic Places in times of Geopolitical Uncertainty.” The Nordic partner Iceland (Akureyri and Reykjavik) is a prioritized location for BANHER and the participants will engage in casework andintensified fieldwork during Arctic Circle Assembly, Reykjavik. In the following presentation I will draw on experiences from to Arctic-2030 BAHNER activities onIceland (Reykjavik and Akureyri) and Norway (Tromsø).
Poster Presentations (during Poster Exhibit and Session on Wednesday 26 March):
-
unfold_moreReshaping Arctic Scientific Research Cooperation: A Form of Collaboration that Transcends Geopolitical Divisions — Jinjie Liu
Jinjie Liu 1
1 Liaoning University, ChinaFormat: Poster virtual
Poster number: 285
Abstract:
The Russia-Ukraine War and its spillover effects have complicated international cooperation, and geopolitical issues have made scientific cooperation untenable, affecting important scientific research on the Arctic. The importance of scientific cooperation in the Arctic is growing, especially now that science is an important source of international competitiveness for all countries. As the eight Arctic states have been divided into Russia and the other seven after the Russia-Ukraine War, the non-Arctic states have continued to adjust their positions on the Arctic according to their own interests, and the work of non-state actors concerned with the Arctic has experienced a pause and resumption of cooperation. Three years after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War, what is the situation of scientific cooperation in the Arctic? Is it possible to find a form of Arctic scientific cooperation that transcends geopolitical divisions in the current situation? What mechanisms will govern Arctic scientific cooperation across geopolitical divisions? This paper analyzes the content, characteristics, and direction of current Arctic scientific cooperation based on the realities of Arctic scientific research and cooperation at different levels since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War. The paper aims to propose a form of Arctic scientific cooperation that transcends geopolitical divisions and to explore the feasibility and implementation path of this form.