4.5. Tools for Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy: Prospects for the 5th International Polar Year

26 March 2025 | 8:30 - 10:00 (MDT)

Open Session - HYBRID

Room:  Glen Miller Ballroom - UMC 208

Organisers:  Zia Madani (UArctic Thematic Network on Science Diplomacy; and University of Tsukuba, Japan); Hajime Kimura (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Japan); Jihoon Jeong (Korean Polar Research Institute, Republic of Korea)

Session Description:

This session, within the context of Arctic Research Planning for the Next Decade, including the Fourth International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP-IV) Summit, seeks to identify the means, frameworks, and mechanisms available that can be utilized to facilitate effective Arctic research cooperation and science diplomacy among Arctic and non-Arctic actors (e.g. governments, rightsholders, researchers, NGOs, etc.). Given the current geopolitical challenges, rapid climate and Earth system changes, evolving dynamics of Arctic governance, and existing barriers to cooperation, this session will explore innovative solutions and strategies.

Convened by a sub-theme group of the Research Priority Team (RPT)-4 on Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy, this session will also look beyond the status quo to the opportunities provided by the 5th International Polar Year (IPY) in 2032-2033, emphasizing its global relevance and transdisciplinary dimensions. IPY-5 is an opportunity to enhance international Arctic cooperation, particularly in the scope of pan-Arctic scientific endeavors.

Our panel aims to identify “tools” that can enhance research cooperation and sustain the diplomatic role of research in maintaining the Arctic region as a peaceful and collaborative space. We invite Indigenous knowledge holders, researchers from various disciplines, policymakers, early career researchers (ECRs), and other interested individuals to join us for a productive discussion. The goal is to pave the way for a collaborative and respectful approach to Arctic research and science diplomacy, looking at Arctic policies of the Arctic states and Non-Arctic states as well as Indigenous perspectives, ensuring that the rights of all stakeholders are upheld in this unique and rapidly changing environment.

Presenters in this session will reflect on the following questions:

• What are the barriers to Arctic research cooperation and science diplomacy, as well as potential enabling factors for Arctic research cooperation and diplomacy today?
• What kinds of existing “tools” effectively enhance international scientific cooperation in the Arctic, how well are they functioning, and how can they be best utilized?
• What diplomatic “tools” are available to enhance research cooperation and prevent conflicts in the Arctic?
• What legal frameworks harmonize national interests and sovereignty with science cooperation across borders, contributing to a more sustainable Arctic?
• How might we best leverage IPY 5 to advance research cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic?

Instructions for Speakers:  Oral presentations in this session should be at most 8-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_moreEnhanced research funding for international scientific cooperation in the Arctic — Tetsuo Sueyoshi 

  Tetsuo Sueyoshi ¹; Jihoon Jeong ²; David Velazquez Martinez ³; Jon L. Fuglestad ⁴; Egill _ór Níelsson ⁵; Jenny Baeseman ⁶; Elena Adasheva ⁷; Matthew Druckenmiller ⁸; Monika Kusiak ⁹; Liza Mack ¹⁰; Margit Hildegard Simon ¹¹; Malgorzata Smieszek-Rice ^{12
  1} National Institute of Polar Research; ² Korea Polar Research Institute; ³ Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; ⁴ The Research Council of Norway; ⁵ The Icelandic Centre for Research - Rannís; ⁶ Baeseman Consulting & Services; ⁷ Yale University; ⁸ University of Colorado Boulder; ⁹ Institute of Geophysics Polish Academy of Sciences; ¹⁰ Aleut International Association; ¹¹ NORCE; ¹² UIT The Arctic University of Norway

  Format: Oral in-person

  Abstract:

  Rapid warming in the Arctic has led to a variety of increased and accelerated research needs in the Arctic. These include large-scale multi-national and interdisciplinary efforts such as MOSAiC, research at spatial scales beyond national borders, and long-term monitoring, which often do not fit well with traditional national funding. Based on discussions in the funding sub-theme established during RPT4, this presentation will summarize current funding challenges and researchers' expectations. We will explore the potential role of a group of funding agencies in the decadal research planning of ICARP IV and, in particular, the possibility of the impact of such a new funding scheme on the activities of the next IPY (2032-2033).

  A key issue is how to create a mechanism where several countries can share an Arctic research agenda, i.e. research priorities, and fund it as an international collaboration. As financial and human resources are limited for all countries, it is essential for the Arctic community to find a way to use our resources effectively. In addition to making full use of existing multilateral funding schemes, the newly established Arctic Science Funders Forum (ASFF), which is an outcome of the Arctic Science Ministerial (ASM), is expected to provide a forum for discussing future directions for international funding cooperation.

• unfold_moreTechnology Assessment: A Tool to Better Integrate Arctic Stakeholder Perspectives into Federal Policymaking — Kate Shlepr 

  Kate Shlepr ^{1 
  1} Government Accountability Office - Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics

  Format: Oral in-person

  Abstract:

  Though federal policymakers play a prominent role in shaping a nation’s Arctic policies, they often lack personal ties to the Arctic. This can create a divide between national priorities and the priorities of people who live and work in the Arctic. Tools that integrate diverse stakeholder perspectives to communicate policy options to federal policymakers could help bridge this divide. A technology assessment (TA) is one such tool.

  A TA is a written assessment of the known and foreseen impacts of an emerging technology. By design, TAs provide policymakers and the public with salient information via fact-based, non-partisan, non-ideological analysis. This is ensured several ways:

  • Multidisciplinary: When feasible, TAs are developed by multidisciplinary teams of analysts. This design allows analysts to highlight the interconnectedness of homeland security, economic, environmental, human health, and social issues
  • Diverse stakeholder engagement: TA methodologies require analysts to systematically seek and incorporate views of stakeholders from a range of sectors (e.g., NGOs, government, industry) and scales (i.e., national to local).
  • Quality assurance: Public disclosure, expert review, and other aspects of methodologies help ensure that TAs are credible, objective, and reliable.

  This talk will provide an overview of the Arctic work produced by the Government Accountability Office, which advises the U.S. Congress. It will also make a case for TAs as an effective tool for broadening dialogue in existing policymaking frameworks in Arctic and Non-Arctic states.

• unfold_moreUniversities as a tool of Russia’s Arctic science diplomacy — Alexander Sergunin 

  Alexander Sergunin ^{1 
  1} St. Petersburg State University

  Format: Oral virtual

  Abstract:

  This study examines the role of Russian universities in Arctic science diplomacy (ASD), including Russia’s planned participation in the 5th International Polar Year. It based on the assumption that, in the current geopolitical conditions, Russian universities are significant ASD actors which perform a number of important functions for the organization of international scientific cooperation with foreign countries and making a positive image of Russia in the world. The paper uses a systemic approach to identify Russian universities’ contribution to the ASD development through various mechanisms: joint research projects and publications with foreign partners; the organization of international events on the Arctic issues and participation of Russian scholars in prestigious international conferences; joint polar expeditions, and participation of Russian scientists in international Arctic scientific organizations/associations, etc. The university ASD is exemplified by the Russian leading universities – St. Petersburg State University, Moscow State University, Northern (Arctic) Federal University, etc. The study demonstrates that maintaining a dialogue on an ongoing basis within the framework of research and educational activities of universities can contribute to the systematic establishment of cooperation in other areas of international relations, the search for innovative solutions for the benefit of the development of the entire Arctic region.

• unfold_moreImpacts of the MOSAiC Expedition on career development and international collaboration among early career Arctic researchers — David Clemens-Sewall 

  Emelia Chamberlain ¹; David Clemens-Sewall ²; Luisa von Albedyll ³; Elise Droste ^{3
  1} Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; ² NOAA PSL; ³ Alfred Wegener Institute

  Format: Oral in-person

  Abstract:

  The long-lasting impact of the 2019/2020 Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) Expedition goes far beyond the initial field effort and published data-sets produced. Broadly, MOSAiC aimed to improve model estimates of the many interconnected processes embedded within the coupled central Arctic Ocean atmosphere-ice-ocean-biogeochemical-ecological system. Besides pushing the limits of knowledge and logistics, MOSAiC provided a unique chance to educate a new generation of polar scientists amid intense international and interdisciplinary collaboration. Many students, post-docs, and techs have been hired over the last 6 years to contribute to the MOSAiC science objectives and many more took part in this work in addition to their primary research. Whether involved in the field, laboratory, or computer components of MOSAiC, growing as a scientist within such a large scientific consortium provides many benefits and unique challenges. Here we present the results of a qualitative survey assessment of the MOSAiC Early Career Researcher (ECR) experience, specifically highlighting career development and international collaboration from first joining the MOSAiC community to the present. The goal of this activity is to share in aggregate with the scientific community and decision makers how large, international projects like MOSAiC contribute to ECR career development and where greater support is needed for a sustainable development of the Arctic/polar research community. Outcomes of this initiative will feed into effectively creating opportunities for ECRs provided by the IPY to enhance international polar collaborations in transdisciplinary fields.

• unfold_moreEnhancing Arctic research cooperation and diplomacy through legal frameworks: lessons from the recent ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change and international law — Zia MADANI 

  Zia MADANI ^{1 
  1} University of Tsukuba

  Format: Oral in-person

  Abstract:

  This paper explores the potential of legal frameworks to enhance Arctic research cooperation and diplomacy in light of the recent advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) submitted by the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS) on Climate Change and International Law. This advisory opinion which constitutes a breakthrough in the realm of international law as relates to the planetary climate change reinforces the legal principles of state responsibility and the obligation to prevent environmental harm, setting a precedent for stronger international cooperation and accountability in addressing global climate challenges. While barriers such as geopolitical tensions, national sovereignty issues, and funding constraints continue to challenge Arctic research collaboration, existing tools like the Arctic Council and the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation (2017) present significant opportunities for progress. Incorporating the lessons from the ITLOS Advisory Opinion, this paper emphasizes the need to align Arctic research efforts with global climate justice objectives, including state responsibility, sustainable development, and intergenerational equity. We will examine how these principles reinforce the legal basis for Arctic research cooperation and propose strategies to optimize existing diplomatic tools for fostering collaboration and preventing conflicts. Additionally, this paper will examine how legal frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) can harmonize national intersts with cross-border scientific endeavors and global interests, contributing to a more sustainable Arctic while addressing transboundary climate issues that impact the Arctic and beyond.

• unfold_moreThe CAOFA as a Took for Arctic Research Cooperation — Osamu Inagaki 

  Osamu Inagaki ^{1 
  1} Kobe University

  Format: Oral in-person

  Abstract:

  Ukraine war severely deteriorated the tools for Arctic research cooperartion. The war tentatively suspended the work of the Arctic Council. Also, the review meeting under 2017 Arctic Scientific Cooperation Agreement has not been held since the war began. Are there any tools for Arctic research cooperation that are still alive? Against this background, this paper hightlists the significance of the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA) as a tool for Arctic research cooperation. At first glance, the CAOFA appears to be just a fisheries agreement and irrelevant to the Arctic research cooperation. However, it is not the case. First, the CAOFA's scope is beyond just fisheries management as its objective clause refers to "safeguard[ing] healthy marine ecosystems"(Article 2). Second, the CAOFA is quite science-oriented, as it requires the Parties to "facilitate cooperation in scientific activities" (Article 4(1)) and to establish "a Joint Program of Scientific Research and Monitoring with the aim of improving their understanding of the ecosystems of the Agreement Area" taking into account indigenous knowledge (Article 4(2) and (4)). Thirdly, more importantly, compared to other tools such as the Arctic Council, the CAOFA has functioned properly in cooperation with Russia destpite continuing Ukraine war. So far, three meetings of the parties (MOP) and two meetings of scientific coordinationg group (SCG) have been held under the agreement. This paper explores in what sense and to what extent the CAOFA has contributed to Arctic research coopeation by examining the outcome documents of the MOPs and SCGs. This paper will finally argue that the CAOFA is a viable tool for Arctic research cooperation given the current difficulties caused by Ukraine war.

• unfold_moreBarriers to Arctic Research Cooperation and Science diplomacy: The Role of the IPY-5 — Onur Limon 

  Onur Limon ^{1 
  1} Gumushane University

  Format: Oral virtual

  Abstract:

  This study examines the barriers to Arctic research collaboration and science diplomacy, focusing on the role of the upcoming 5th International Polar Year (IPY-5). The main barriers include geopolitical tensions, in particular the strained relations between NATO member states and Russia, as well as the growing involvement of non-Arctic countries such as China. These geopolitical dynamics hinder cooperation and trust between the parties involved. In addition, logistical and financial constraints disproportionately impact smaller nations and limit their participation in Arctic research. Differences in environmental regulations and data sharing standards further hinder cross-border initiatives, leading to inefficiencies and delays.

  However, shared environmental concerns, particularly with regard to climate change, provide a unique opportunity for collaboration. IPY-5 can serve as a neutral platform to facilitate dialog and rebuild trust among Arctic nations, including Russia. By emphasizing collaborative research initiatives that involve indigenous communities, IPY-5 can promote sustainable and inclusive research practices.

  To effectively utilize IPY-5, it is important to focus on collaborative projects that incorporate indigenous knowledge and leverage technological advances, such as satellite data. By removing existing barriers and promoting enabling factors — such as shared environmental goals and innovative research frameworks — IPY-5 can significantly improve research collaboration and science diplomacy in the Arctic. In this way, it can pave the way for a more collaborative and resilient Arctic research environment.