The geopolitical winds currently blowing over the Arctic are unusually icy. To understand what is happening in the Arctic as a whole, we must also have data from the Russian Arctic.
By Janet Holmén //Editor Fram Forum
When Russia invaded Ukraine, many Western countries imposed wide-ranging sanctions. Russia was excluded from international forums and organisations. Meetings of the Arctic Council were put on strategic hold, even though Russia was chairing the Council at the time. In Norway, almost all collaboration at the institutional level ceased. Russia became an outsider – and the Arctic research community experienced profound cold that had nothing to do with the weather and everything to do with the geopolitical climate.
This issue of Fram Forum offers many interesting articles on an impressive range of topics, but you will scarcely find any mention of how research is affected by Russia’s isolation. Are scientists deliberately avoiding political issues? Perhaps.
The icy geopolitical climate poses what may be the greatest threat ever to the Arctic Council, so our Fram Centre friends at the secretariats of the Arctic Council and its working groups had to tackle political issues head on.
Somewhat counterintuitively, the strengths of the Arctic Council include that it does not deal with questions of security, and does not makepolicy decisions. Its recommendations are legally non-binding. This means that working group members can maintain their scientific integrity; they are not obliged to water down their conclusions to fit within what is politically acceptable back home. Bolstered by this integrity, they can ensure that those in power have access to the best available knowledge when making policy decisions.
Consensus-building within the Arctic Council working groups involves honest, face-to-face interactions between individual scientists. Over time, this builds trust and a sense of community. In the absence of such contacts, collaborative networks that have been years in the making run the risk of falling apart. This would be a major setback.
Work in the Arctic Council working groups gradually started up again in August 2023 for all Arctic states, including Russia. At first they operated only in writing – a cumbersome solution that did not enable the pace and efficiency the situation demanded, but an important step towards resuming working group activities. Then at the end of February 2024, consensus was reached among the eight Arctic States in consultation with the Indigenous Permanent Participant organisations, that the working groups could meet virtually in real time. In accordance with the strategic principle for ensuring scientific integrity, all these discussions focus purely on science. Strengthened trust and community feeling will hopefully follow.
A similar emphasis on solid, evidence-based knowledge may in part explain the apolitical nature of the articles in this issue of Fram Forum. Focusing strictly on science leaves a common ground that can support reconciliation in the future.
But how does Russia’s isolation affect Arctic research?
Russia comprises about half of the Arctic, both land and sea areas. It contains vast taiga forests, extensive wetlands, and nearly two-thirds of the permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere. Mighty rivers laden with silt and pollutants empty northward into the Arctic Ocean’s marginal seas. Temperatures are rising faster in Siberia than in most other regions. This warming will have a profound impact on terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as well as permafrost, which in turn can affect climate both in the Arctic and in the rest of the world.
Although Russia may be isolated politically and economically, the environment acknowledges no national boundaries. To understand what is happening in the Arctic as a whole, we must also have data from the Russian Arctic. Russia’s databases on permafrost and biodiversity are comprehensive, but difficult to access digitally, which means researchers need help from people who are on site and can compile the data by hand.
Remote sensing has been suggested as a way to circumvent the need for data from Russia. However, interpretation of satellite images requires intercomparison and calibration with data collected on the ground. In some scientific fields, remote sensing has advanced far enough that reasonable conclusions can be drawn based on satellite imagery. But other research disciplines rely heavily on fieldwork. Someone must go out and measure snow depth, carbon content in the soil, vegetation composition and biomass, and permafrost depth and temperature.
Our Russian colleagues are no doubt still measuring all these things, just as scientists at the Fram Centre and other institutions continue to collect data. The articles in this issue of Fram Forum bear witness to the diversity of the Fram Centre’s research interests. Imagine the breadth of knowledge we can help generate when all data are shared freely and scientists from all Arctic countries work together!
The geopolitical winds currently blowing over the Arctic are unusually icy. When faced with adversity, Fram Centre scientists often joke that they are accustomed to the cold. Let us hope they can persevere until geopolitical climate change brings warmth back to Arctic research.