Click for next page ( 82


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 81
  4 Meeting the Challenges M t Southeast coastline of Greenland betwe 62.5 and 6 t G een 65.5 degrees no orth Photo cred Perry Spect dit: tor Studying emerging ques stions will requ a combin uire nation of new and traditional approaches s ools. The ques and to stions require information at spatial scale ranging from meters for process studie a es es to pan n-Arctic and beyond to link high-latitude change to la b k e arge-scale syst tems througho the out northe hemisphere. Understan ern nding interactions among ch hanging oceans, terrestrial systems, hydroologic processes, atmospher dynamics, and social an economic s ric nd systems will n necessitate a broad suite of meas d surements and observations obtained at regular time intervals and consistently d s, t over decades. d As detailed in this chapt standard te d ter, echniques tha work in oth regions often have at her deficiencies when applied to the Arctic. For example, remo a e otely sensed ddata suffers fro lack of om approopriate validation data and a need for cal libration to Ar rctic condition Social indicators often ns. lack specific releva ance to the Arcctic. Long-term observation networks o field-based m ns, of measu urements, and remote sensi technique are needed to understand and quantify the effects of d ing es d y a changing climate and also to innform and val lidate modelin efforts, which suffer from chronic ng m ages of approp shorta priate data wit which to de th evelop model parameters a to validate model l and e results s. The section of this chap describe in more detai l various ways research cap ns pter i pability can b be increa ased to help address the existing and emerging questio a ons. Many of these improve ements will PREPUBLICATION CO OPY  81

OCR for page 81
82  The Arcti ic in the Anthr ropocene: Em merging Resea arch Question ns  BOX 4.1 THE CASE FOR EN NHANCED CO OOPERATION The Departm ment of Defense is increasingly considering t Arctic as a s the security concer and recently rn, y highligghted the need for cooperation in the Arctic. The 2011 Fleet Arctic Operat n t tions Game Rep notes, “As port risk inccreased due to extreme climat conditions and increased o tic a operating and su upport distance there was a es, corresp ponding increa in the need for specialized information an capabilities. As this trend in ase nd ncreased, the require information and capabilitie became less available in the U.S. Navy and planners wer forced to look ed es e d re elsewh here for the cap pabilities neede to execute th mission task ed heir king. At the low end of the sca these could w ale, d be found inside DoD [Department of Defense], but eventually pla o t anners needed t rely on industry, to internaational partners or the whole of U.S. Govern s, nment. This furt ther reiterates th sustainabilit in Arctic hat ty operat tions is significa antly dependent on strong rela ationships with international, rregional and loc partners in cal govern nment and indu ustry. Mechanis that strengthen these ties s sms should be prior itized in future planning” (Gra ay et al., 2011) FIGUR This figure illustrates that re RE eliability and su ustainability are linked to spec e cialized informa ation and capabilities that are currently enable by strong rel c ed lationships. SO URCE: Gray et al. (2011). requir long-term planning, and all stem from the fundame re p entally collabo orative nature of Arctic resear rch. In keeping with the Co ommittee’s Staatement of Tas we do not suggest speci actions to sk, ific be tak ken, but instea raise key to ad opics for consideration by f funding agenc and other as they cies rs consid how best to address the questions dis der t e scussed in Ch hapter 3, as we as how bes to continue ell st e and im mprove the strrong record of Arctic resear described in Chapter 2. f rch ENHANCIN COOPERA NG ATION Effective Arctic research is internation and nation interdiscip nal nal, plinary and di isciplinary, applie and basic, private and public. Cooper ed ration betwee and among many individ en g duals, PREPUBLICATION CO OPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    83  institutions, businesses, agencies, and countries will help to maximize investments in research, synthesis, outreach, and infrastructure (Box 4.1). Interagency Since the Arctic Research Policy Act of 1984, an interagency Arctic Research Plan is developed every five years. The Arctic Research Plan for FY2013-2017, released in February 2013, outlines interagency federal initiatives to better understand and predict Arctic environmental change. Following up on this plan was the first ever U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region, released in May 2013, calling for each agency to develop a coordinated strategy or implementation plan. This alignment of effort within and between U.S. agencies, coordinated by IARPC, could have significant implications for the future of Arctic research if there is a concomitant investment in cross-agency sharing of research and infrastructure. The ongoing Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) program and the Arctic Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) competition run by NSF with cooperation from numerous other agencies are examples of what can be done when agencies decide to co-fund initiatives. Nonetheless, there is still a need for commitments to make the most of opportunities for joint studies across agencies. This is especially important when the missions of different agencies result in complementary work, for example in synthesizing findings from different research projects so those findings can be applied to meet the needs of various stakeholders. Some synthesis activities have taken place or are underway, but often as ad hoc efforts after the majority of research is done. Cooperation across levels of government is as important as interagency cooperation. This exists in some forms, such as the North Slope Science Initiative in Alaska, which involves the federal government, state government, and local (North Slope Borough) government and aims to increase collaboration on monitoring, inventory, and research related to development activities. More can be done, however, to coordinate data collection, share costs, and develop a common basis of understanding regarding key issues affecting the Arctic. International Looking beyond the United States, understanding the Arctic is inherently global in nature. The circumpolar North spans the eight nations that constitute the Arctic Council and draws interest from dozens of other countries. Furthermore, changes in the Arctic have global implications. Existing and emerging research questions are often multi-dimensional across international domains. Arctic research and our ability to act on our knowledge benefit from cooperation with those who share an interest in Arctic matters. One of the most influential developments in scientific discovery in recent decades is the internationalization of science. This is in part a result of the vast improvement in international communication. But it is at least equally a consequence of the nature of key scientific questions, which increasingly view the Earth as a system, within which understanding requires a global perspective. Trends in international scientific mobility (Van Noorden, 2012) document the increased national diversity of the scientific community, and emphasize the benefits of cross- fertilization of ideas and methodologies as we move toward a multicultural and interdisciplinary scientific world. Much Arctic research is undertaken by U.S. researchers outside of U.S. territories, and by researchers from non-Arctic countries. A variety of formal and informal arrangements exist by which researchers and agencies cooperate with their counterparts in other countries, including the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and its associated bodies, the Arctic Council and its working groups, the International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA), and the Association of PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
84  The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions  Polar Early Career Scholars (APECS). These collaborations help place findings from the U.S. Arctic in a wider context and provide a way to learn from experience elsewhere when it comes to applying science to management, regulation, and governance. The International Polar Year demonstrated the tremendous value in international cooperation for Arctic research (e.g., NRC, 2012a). Far more was accomplished collaboratively than could have been done by any one country, regardless of Arctic research expenditures. Research under the Arctic Council similarly illustrates what can be accomplished by working together. The scientific community is looking forward to the new Belmont Forum Arctic Collaborative Research Action (CRA) focused on Arctic observing and Arctic sustainability science. The new Scientific Cooperation Task Force (SCTF) of the Arctic Council, co-chaired by Russia, Sweden, and the United States, is a promising step in the right direction. The SCTF will report to ministers in 2015 on ways to improve scientific research cooperation among the eight Arctic States. There is a great deal of interest in cooperation among individual researchers, among agencies, and among countries engaged in Arctic research. But more could be done to collaboratively address existing and emerging Arctic research questions in a time of rapid change and rapidly expanding human presence. A potential method for fostering international collaboration beyond the level of individual researchers is to explore opportunities for U.S. projects (e.g., SEARCH) to work with international projects (e.g., ACCESS, ICE-ARC). The FY2013-2017 Arctic Research Plan recognizes this with references to the necessity for international partnerships to meet research goals, e.g., “Successful implementation of this five-year research plan will require close coordination among…international partners.” Improved collaboration is needed on both the funding of research that crosses borders (see Investing in Research section later in this chapter) and the logistics of doing international research. Arctic research frequently entails complex logistical arrangements, often international in scope, with long lead times to obtain permission to access remote field sites. But the necessity for international collaboration extends well beyond logistics. Access to the necessary analytical tools and remotely sensed imagery commonly requires international cooperation. Because of the geographically remote nature of much of the Arctic, specialized research platforms and instruments are often necessary to advance regional knowledge and understanding. These needs range from detailed in situ observations to satellite observations and from year-round manned field stations to research vessels. U.S. infrastructure in this regard is finite; international coordination of infrastructure and cost sharing is essential to take advantage of available observing platforms (e.g., ships, aircraft, fixed offshore platforms, coastal research stations). At present, individual projects have the responsibility to navigate these complex issues. A higher level effort to streamline this process would greatly facilitate research and the community is looking forward to the findings from the Arctic Council’s SCTF on this issue. Coordination that extends beyond national and international organizations to active participation with the private sector is more likely to result in beneficial new insights. The scientific community also needs to be assured that there are data repositories where data in support of published research can be permanently archived in a format accessible across the international community, and to the public at large (see Managing and Sharing Information later in this chapter). Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary cooperation leads to improved understanding of the complex interactions within and among the physical, biological, and social domains of the Arctic. Researchers often need time to learn to connect the theories, concepts, and language of one discipline to those of another, and for research teams to build a collective understanding of the phenomena they are studying. Interdisciplinary collaboration, however, is often difficult to initiate, and can be difficult to sustain without specific allocation of funding for such research. Yet it is in the connections between research domains that many emerging questions lay. Our ability to tackle these with vigor and success requires considering how interdisciplinary research is encouraged and supported, and what PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    85  can be done to foster greater efforts in this area. A more strategic approach, with suitable direction from IARPC, will allow us to reap more benefit from our Arctic research efforts and expenditures (see Funding Comprehensive Systems and Synthesis Research later in this chapter). Intersectoral Also of substantial importance is the question of intersectoral cooperation, including public-private partnerships. The private sector sponsors a great deal of Arctic research, often related to the prospects for, and the effects of, industrial activity. Too often, such research is questioned or dismissed amid perceptions of bias due to funding source, but it is shortsighted to ignore the data and findings that come from private sector research. Similarly, it is shortsighted for most of this research to be kept proprietary. Findings of commercial value, naturally, belong to those who paid for them. But data concerning basic conditions or research that helps illuminate particular processes or changes is valuable for all, and the greater dissemination and use of such data and research can also help provide quality control, reducing the likelihood and perception of bias. Some efforts have begun in this direction, and after evaluation, effective efforts could be promoted and emulated (see Partnerships with Industry later in this chapter). Cooperation through Social Media Looking ahead, we need to explore the use of social media as cooperative sources of information as well as cooperative tools to inform decision making. As recommended in the International Study of Arctic Change report, Responding to Arctic Environmental Change, we need “development of an interactive, widely accessible, stakeholder engagement tool that can be used to develop new research priorities and research questions” (Murray et al., 2012). Establishment of issue trackers helps identify concerns emerging from communities. Social networking can then help with collecting knowledge through restructuring expert attention to bring in needed expertise and collaborators for problem solving (e.g., Nielsen, 2011). Regarding responses, social networking can encourage contributions—including through crowdsourcing, fostering local experimentation, disseminating knowledge and best practices, and supporting implementation elsewhere—thus spreading innovation among communities, agencies, and industry. Through these cooperative processes, social media can foster grassroots approaches to proactive management of Arctic change. Might social media also help with the knotty problem of making scientific products more useful for stakeholders? The Sea Ice Outlook along with the Sea Ice for Walrus programs are powerful examples. The SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook (Figure 4.1) synthesizes and publicly posts community estimates of the current state and expected minimum of sea ice. The Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook is a weekly report on sea ice conditions for subsistence hunters, coastal communities, and other interested members of the public. The Canadian Polar Commission recently launched the Polar Knowledge App, intended to expand public access to polar information.16 In addition, some science blogs are interpreting scientific studies for a lay public and providing broader context. SUSTAINING LONG-TERM OBSERVATIONS Science depends on data. Individual projects generate data specific to their questions and hypotheses, but the interpretation of results usually relies on comparison of those results with data from longer periods or over larger areas, to place them in context. In many cases, this means data from long-term observations or monitoring—without which our ability to detect change, constrain models, and analyze the significance of research findings—is greatly diminished if not lost entirely. 16 http://www.polarcom.gc.ca/eng/content/polar-knowledge-app PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
86  The Arcti ic in the Anthr ropocene: Em merging Resea arch Question ns  FIGUR 4.1 The Sea Ice Outlook fro June 2013. The intent of th Outlook is to summarize all available data RE om T he o a rather than issue pred dictions. SOURCE: ARCUS Rationale for Long-Term Ob R L bservations A major ch hallenge facing society is to ascertain, co o omprehend, and forecast ra and ates patterns of change across the Arc that arise from physica biological, or human cau ctic al, uses. Society can adddress this challenge through an underst tanding of the resiliency an vulnerabilit of the Arctic e nd ty system Resiliency is the capacity of a system to withstand d m. y disturbances t its structure function, to e, and fe eedbacks (Folke et al., 2004 Walker et al., 2004) whi le vulnerabilit describes th extent to 4; a ty he which a system is harmed due to exposure or sensitivity to stressor(s) and its adaptive capacity to h h o d respon to the stres nd ssor (Turner et al., 2003). When designed to character t W d rize resiliency and y vulnerability, monitoring, the lon ng-term and sy ystematic meaasurement of appropriate s system ssential in me characteristics, is es eeting this societal challeng ge. When suitaably construct ted, monitorin systems ser a variety o purposes fo a variety of ng rve of or holders. On one hand, long stakeh g-term observa ations enable quantification of the natural variability, n over a range of tem mporal and spaatial scales, of complex “no f oisy” systems. Once the “no oise” is define and quantified, long-term observation enable dete ed m ns ection of gradu systematic changes. On ual, the ot ther hand, bec cause of the non-linear cha aracter of man systems, a c ny carefully-deve eloped monittoring scheme may detect abrupt and/or unanticipated changes (e.g detecting w e a d g., what we don’t t PREPUBLICATION CO OPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    87  know we don’t know). In this capacity, long-term observations serve as part of an early warning system (e.g., NRC, 2013), which then allows for a choice of responses. These responses will vary depending upon the nature of the change, but could include collecting focused measurements designed to better understand the emerging phenomenon, development or initiation of mitigating procedures if deemed feasible, or, in the event of a potential catastrophe, appropriate emergency responses. Long-term observations also provide the temporal-spatial context in which shorter- duration, hypothesis-driven, process studies can be undertaken. In this context it allows researchers to determine whether the processes under consideration occurred under typical or atypical conditions. This was, for example, a key ingredient of the U.S. GLOBEC program17 in which short- term process studies were embedded within the framework of a monitoring program. Monitoring is a synergistic component in modeling and hypothesis development. It provides data sets necessary for the evaluation and development of models and/or suggests investigations needed to improve model parameterizations and/or processes. Models provide an integrated approach to understanding system behavior and can be used to modify the monitoring program as necessary. Models also augment monitoring efforts by suggesting how unsampled system components may be evolving. Monitoring and model results both contribute to the construction of hypotheses on how the system or parts of it operate. Much of our recognition and understanding of the dramatic changes occurring in the Arctic has emerged from long-term observations. For example, routine measurements revealed the dramatic warming of the Arctic atmosphere and the accelerating decline in sea ice; both consistent with some of the earliest model predictions of climate response to greenhouse gas warming (Manabe and Stouffer, 1980). Another example is the systematic approach adopted by the Arctic and Bonanza Creek Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)18 programs conducted in the tundra and boreal forest biomes of Alaska, respectively. While independently initiated, these LTERs are established along a latitudinal and ecological gradient and each attempts to understand the resiliency and vulnerability of the respective biome to a warming climate. Both LTERs have been in existence for at least 25 years and involve myriad interdisciplinary process studies and modeling activities. Although different investigators are involved in each, there are consistent efforts to compare and contrast the results across biomes. One important result that has emerged from the integration of plot-scale long-term studies of vegetation dynamics, fire cycles, and their links to climate in the Bonanza Creek LTER (Van Cleve and Vierech, 1981; Van Cleve et al., 1983) and broader scale measurements of a series of wildfire- disturbed boreal forests of interior Alaska, is the likely shift in some Alaskan boreal forests from a spruce- to a broadleaf-dominated landscape due to increased burn severity (Figure 4.2). This transition to more high severity wildfires is occurring in conjunction with thawing of permafrost and the decomposition of previously frozen organic carbon in boreal forest soils. Through large-scale manipulation experiments at the Arctic LTER at Toolik Lake researchers have found that response to heating soil, shading, or altering soil moisture is slow, with responses delayed until 9 or 10 years post initiation of the treatment (Hobbie and Kling, 2014). These experiments are designed to explore future effects of continuing climate change, but at an accelerated rate. The LTER observations and experiments predict increased productivity and biomass of grasses and shrubs by the end of this century, and an eventual shift from tundra to boreal forest with great disruption of fish and wildlife habitats (Hobbie and Kling, 2014). Whole-ecosystem experiments conducted at the Arctic LTER near Toolik Lake, which have been continued for more than two decades, have provided great insight into aboveground production and biomass in moist tussock tundra. They have demonstrated that the vegetation response to marked climate warming is relatively small when compared to annual variation. Linking these longitudinal studies at the LTERs with shorter term, but broader scale studies offers opportunity to improve understanding of the changing Arctic and boreal landscape. 17 http://www.usglobec.org/ 18 http://www.lternet.edu/sites/bnz? PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
88  The Arcti ic in the Anthr ropocene: Em merging Resea arch Question ns  FIGUR 4.2 Conceptual model show RE wing the shift in resilience cyc from a conif n cle ferous-dominated (left) to a hardwwood-dominated system (right) triggered by an increase in fir severity. High organic matte thickness d n re h er following low severity fires in black spruce allows for the regenera y f ation of slow-g rowing woody plants, inhibits s hardwwood regeneratio and results in rapid reestab on, blishment of a t thick moss laye that insulates the soil and er s permit the return of permafrost. Hig severity fires remove thick o ts gh s organic layers a allow for th rapid and he establishment of hard dwoods, which store large amo ounts of C and N in aboveground biomass, a create and condittions (high litter quality and wa soils) that accelerate fores floor decomp r arm a st position rates. S SOURCE: Adapte from Johnsto et al. (2010 ed one 0). Coordinating Long-Term Obser rvation Efforts s As outlined above, the guiding principles behind a monitoring e d g effort seem loggical, but the design of a monitor n ring program in a system as complex and diverse as th Arctic is far from s d he obvious. A number of questions arise immedia r ately. What is the purpose of a particula monitoring s ar activit How is it integrated into other monito ty? o oring efforts, i including thos in other reg se gions and/or discip plines? Where should the lo ong-term observations occu How long should the pro ur? ogram contin nue? What are the specific variables to be measured, a what rate, a over what time and e v b at and t space scales should these be sam d mpled? What measurement techniques (including calibration and m algorithms used in interpreting th data) shoul be used? W should pe he ld Who erform the me easurements? Who should pay fo it? Who eva or aluates the util of the mea lity asurements? W interprets and Who s syntheesizes results? How do we ensure that th results of in e he ndividual effor are blended into a rts d coherrent picture of the emerging Arctic that is of use to stak f g s keholders and society? Alth d hough this comm mittee recogniz the impor zes rtance of these questions, it cannot provide definitive answers, and e t rather suggests that the following issues be considered. r g Involvement of northern communities is an importa component of monitori efforts in n s ant ing the Ar rctic. This includes not only the use of traditional know y wledge, but a also the involv vement of locaal reside in data co ents ollection (e.g., Huntington et al., 2011; A , e Alessa et al., 2 2013). We exp pect that a carefu developed approach th involves lo ully d hat ocal residents would provid numerous b de benefits (see Growing Human Capacity sectio Local invo C on). olvement can enhance cross-cultural communication n includ ding ideas abo research st out trategy and in nterpretation, provide an im mportant degre of ee ownership by local residents in the measurem t ments being ma ade, stimulate the involvem e ment of decision makers (D Danielsen et al., 2010) and schoolchildre within these communitie enhance s en e es, seasonnal coverage, and facilitate overall logist e tics. Successful monitoring programs addre linkages b ess between differ rent parts of a system (e.g., Alessa et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013). The Arcti spans a bro latitudinal range that en a ic oad l ncompasses a PREPUBLICATION CO OPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    89  number of physical, biological, and social systems. The acquisition of societal data—demographic, infrastructure, health, economic—is essential for many purposes. As such, there are many national and more localized efforts to collect such data, from national censuses to local surveys. The results of these programs are widely used in social science and other research, but they have drawbacks. Some, like the U.S. Census, are only carried out every ten years, providing only coarse temporal resolution. In other cases, different jurisdictions collect information on different aspects of a topic, such as subsistence harvest production versus participation in hunting and fishing. The indicators that are documented are usually chosen for purposes other than scientific research and rarely with the specific context of the Arctic in mind (e.g., AHDR, 2004; Baffrey and Huntington, 2010). The Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA19) has attempted to remedy this shortcoming by developing indicators of specific relevance to Arctic societies and their needs, but cannot gather all that is needed, leaving many gaps in our ability to connect societal trends with each other or with biophysical processes. The Arctic Social Indicators project, which follows up on the activities of the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR, 2004), offers ideas for indicators of Arctic human development. Other measures of societal factors include adaptive capacity indicators (ACIs), which could be further developed for the Arctic to allow systematic assessment of adapting to change and allow communities and decision makers to weigh trade-offs in adaptation investments (e.g., Fussel, 2009). Efforts such as these, while limited, can yield lessons about the challenges of collecting societal data. Monitoring efforts that address the physical and biological systems of the Arctic include observations of the atmosphere and cryosphere and their interactions with the boreal forests and the tundra biomes in the terrestrial realm and the broad continental shelves and sub-basins of the marine environment. Each evolves and processes energy and materials in distinctive ways, subject to external forcing. Each also communicates with other systems through energy and material exchanges along a variety of pathways. For example, the marine and terrestrial environments are linked to one another through species migrations, river systems, changing glacial landscapes, and ocean currents. Some of the results from the Bonanza Creek LTER illustrate how addressing linkages within a monitoring program could be considered. That research indicates an increase in carbon export into Arctic river networks as a result of the degradation of permafrost and fire disturbances (Kicklighter et al., 2013). It is also apparent that rivers are the primary pathway by which mercury is entering the Arctic Ocean (Fisher et al., 2012) and that riverine mercury concentrations are likely to increase due to an increase in soil disturbances (Fisher et al., 2012; Leitch et al., 2007). This has implications for the Arctic Ocean’s carbon and suspended sediment cycles, trace metal budgets and the Arctic trophic system. An appropriately designed Arctic monitoring system would include measurements of state variables and rates of critical processes within each system and energy and material fluxes along the pathways linking each to the other. Within the marine environment a similar ecological/latitudinal gradient monitoring approach is evolving in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas under the auspices of the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO)20 program (Grebmeier et al., 2010). The DBO program is an international effort involving Canadian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, and U.S. scientists collecting data and coordinated through the international Pacific Arctic Group21 and within the United States, through the IARPC DBO Interagency task team. As conceived, the DBO is a holistic approach to track and understand the effects of changing oceanographic and sea ice conditions on the marine ecosystem. Until recently, bio-physical sampling has occurred at several shelf biological hotspots from research vessels-of-opportunity that transit the region. The biological sampling, which samples water column and benthic organisms, seabirds, and marine mammals, to evaluate species composition, biomass, and the size and condition of key organisms, also includes standard physical oceanographic and nutrient measurements. The shipboard sampling is largely limited to the open 19 http://www.arcticlivingconditions.org/ 20 http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo/ 21 pag.arcticportal.org PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
90  The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions  water season but is supplemented by satellite measurements and data from oceanographic moorings (two of the DBO sites have biophysical mooring arrays and two sites have only physical mooring arrays). However, at present many of the moorings are of temporary duration as components of limited-duration process studies being undertaken in the region both nationally and internationally. Although the DBO program provides an emerging opportunity for assessing bio-physical changes over western Arctic shelves, a more concerted effort to coordinate and systematize the sampling over seasonal and interannual scales will be necessary. As a result of western Arctic DBO activities, the Norwegian government is proposing a similar DBO project in the marine waters surrounding Svalbard. The sampling strategy (duration, sampling rate, spatial extent, locations) of a particular monitoring effort will vary depending upon the process or variable of interest. There will be a need to measure key system attributes at multi-decadal time scales at relevant rates and obvious locations. Other monitoring efforts need to be adaptive, taking into consideration results that emerge from retrospective (including paleoclimatic) studies, models, and other observations. These may suggest a hypothesis-based observation approach, perhaps of shorter duration (3 to 5 years) with a specific focus. If the results are found to address a critical need, then the sampling may transition into a longer-term effort. An adaptive monitoring effort also allows for the findings of an intensive process study to adjust monitoring activities. Statistical approaches or data assimilation models can aid in devising optimal sampling strategies. However, it is almost certain that resources will be inadequate to execute an optimal sampling strategy for many relevant variables. Here again, data assimilation models might clarify the trade-offs in designing options for sub-optimal (from a statistical perspective) sampling designs. Periodic evaluation can be used to determine whether the monitoring efforts need to be modified, augmented, or suspended. The breadth and complexity of the Arctic system requires that long-term observations be a shared undertaking, involving international partners and coordinated efforts by government agencies, industry, communities, and scientists. We recognize the difficulties inherent in such coordination given the different mission of each potential partner. Nevertheless many or some of the core variables comprising a monitoring program will ideally meet disparate missions. One coordinating approach to consider is a national committee composed of various stakeholders and scientists. The committee’s charge would be to: 1) enhance coordination among monitoring activities at both the national and international level; 2) seek opportunities to increase sampling efficiencies and organize responses to “surprises”; 3) address the various needs of the diverse suite of stakeholders that benefit from long-term observations; 4) assist in prioritizing these needs among stakeholders; and 5) communicate monitoring activities and results to policy makers and stakeholders in a coherent manner. Such a committee could be organized by an existing entity like IARPC. MANAGING AND SHARING INFORMATION Just as science depends on data, scientific progress depends on access to data. As Arctic research expands, and as datasets grow rapidly in an era of information technology, keeping track of what has happened before is increasingly difficult. Current efforts to coordinate data management and access are commendable, but much remains to be done. Further progress is likely to depend upon concerted and coordinated efforts rather than reliance primarily on individual researchers or funding programs. Arctic science has a history of large and interdisciplinary programs, so there is some precedent for successful management of complex data sets. The need for interdisciplinary and intersectoral management is not limited to the Arctic, and there is an opportunity for the Arctic research community to become a leader in developing a culture of data management and sharing. Strategies for achieving the greater cooperation necessary for such a culture were addressed earlier PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    91  in this chapter, and specific suggestions for managing and sharing information are presented in this section. Preserving the Legacy of Research through Data Preservation and Dissemination We now understand the Arctic is a tightly coupled, integrated system, where changes in one component will reverberate through the system initiating a cascade of impacts in other components of the system (Roberts et al., 2010). Understanding and quantifying these system interconnections is only possible through simultaneous analyses of extensive and often numerous complex data sets from disparate sources. As scientific urgency drives our research endeavors to collect more observations at greater frequencies and increased numbers of sites, we are compelled to develop new techniques to analyze these massive data sets (Pundsack et al., 2013). Additionally, the realization of the value of well-documented data for application in new and different analyses places utmost priority upon data preservation, stewardship, and access by multiple stakeholders. This not only places great responsibility upon individual scientists and agencies, it elevates the collective responsibility of all engaged in Arctic research to strive to garner the greatest value from our investments in observations and monitoring. The recently published U.S. Arctic Research Plan (Executive Office of the President, 2013) has charged all agencies to “demonstrate new and updated cyberinfrastructure tools to enhance data integration and application and identify opportunities for sharing of technology and tools among interagency partners.” To meet these pressing needs for more efficient utilization of our data resources, it is imperative to establish interoperable data management system(s) that are adequate for academic needs and to assess progress against agency/collaboration goals. Developments in the field of informatics could yield important lessons for managing large amounts of data and creating interoperable systems. Our present system of data submission by researchers and curation by institutions often results in gaps in data awareness, distribution, and quality of metadata. An additional challenge for data management remains achieving interoperability of biophysical and socioeconomic data, as well as how to integrate traditional ecological knowledge. Integrating data management and quality control into network design aids in overcoming such deficiencies. Currently, tremendous amounts of work are required by researchers who compile data from various sources. Prescribed formats to be used by all agencies, with structured data submission, archiving, and delivery would greatly enhance efficiency of analyses by the broader community. One solution would be to create an interagency data management committee (possibly through IARPC) to coordinate structure and dissemination protocols. This committee could identify high-priority data sets and identify responsible agencies to support data collection. Additionally, advances in curation technology will make integration of diverse data sets easier and analysis of disparate data streams seamless. Creating a Culture of Data Preservation and Sharing Many advances in Arctic science have resulted from broad scale synthesis of relevant data streams. These advanced analyses have been possible due to technological advancements in computing power and search capabilities. However, we can foresee even greater advances on the horizon with the advent of data archiving and harvesting techniques. Data curation has long been recognized as an essential function of operational agencies, but has only recently been acknowledged as an individual responsibility of every investigator. Moving forward with every scientist accepting a commitment to preserve and share their data will greatly enhance our capabilities. To realize the utopian community of data sharing, it may be necessary to encourage data submission by requiring a portion of each grant be dedicated to data curation. Concurrently, we need to establish a robust method of documenting and crediting data sharing through a formal PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
108  The Arcti ic in the Anthr ropocene: Em merging Resea arch Question ns  FIGURE 4.6 This im mage illustrate the areas of interest for t he PCW miss es sion in the Arc ctic. SOURCE: dian Space Ag Canad gency. Models in Prediction Projection, and ReAnaly ses s n, Computatio onal approach to underst hes tanding the A Arctic system remain central to developin ng capac in underst city tanding mecha anisms, diagn nosing change ensuring saf field operat e, fe tions, and improoving climate change projec ctions. In all of these aspec the Arctic presents uniq challenges o cts, que s. For ex xample, large biases in simu ulations of the Arctic clima by global c e ate climate system models, m particularly at high elevations, ov ice sheets and in the m ver s, marginal sea-ic zone, illust ce trate the fact that modeling capa m ability in this region lags be r ehind that in lo ower latitudes Some of the challenges s. ese s can be ascribed to limitations in our observati ional capacity Some problems can be understood as y. biases originating fr s rom inadequa ately understo processes in lower latitu ood udes. Howeve in most er, respec we face a combination of sparse and noisy data w inadequat understand cts, d with te ding of Arctic processes for the puurposes of simmulation (Katts et al., 201 0). Further, th difficulties described sov he above in maintaining robust, con e ntinuous, high quality, distr h ributed observ vations increa ases our reliance on models of all kinds as tools for understanding th Arctic. s a he At present, the capability to reproduce observed A rctic amplifica y ation and project its effectss into th coming decades, continues to elude us. This is man he u nifest in the b biases in integrrative signals such as regional an temporal va a nd ariability on a range of scal in the atmo les osphere, sea i ice, ocean, and la (e.g., Notz et al., 2013; Stroeve et al., 2012). Spec and z ; cific challenge include the simulation o es e of critica processes, including for example the interaction bet al e tween liquid- and ice-phas se micro ophysics (Klein et al., 2009), precipitation amount and phase (de Bo et al., 2014 glacial me n n d oer 4), elt PREPUBLICATION CO OPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    109  (Irvine-Fynn et al., 2014), sea-ice albedo (Karlsson and Svensson, 2013) and soil freeze/thaw dynamics (Rawlins et al., 2013). These challenges present opportunities for detailed analysis of field observations in concert with targeted simulation (e.g., single column models, cloud resolving models, sea ice models, watershed models) that enhance our understanding of these key processes (e.g., Luo et al., 2008; Morrison et al., 2005). The benefits to climate model improvement arising from coordinated field programs (e.g., DOE ARM, the Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic [SHEBA] program) that include the measurement of key parameters for simulation cannot be overstated. Atmospheric reanalyses (e.g., Dee et al., 2011; Onogi et al., 2007; Saha et al., 2010) are an important tool for a range of Arctic research activities, including applications as diverse as detection of climate change to impacts assessment to component model development. However, in the context of both data scarcity and model bias, the ability of data assimilation techniques to provide a resource for these activities is limited. Even the current generation of reanalysis products reveal large inter-model differences, particularly in surface meteorology, clouds, and radiation (Jakobson et al., 2012). Quality operational weather forecasts are critical for safe operations in the Arctic. Generally these models are adapted from national operational weather prediction models of Arctic nations, but research has demonstrated that these models require substantial modification to reduce bias (e.g., Bromwich et al., 2009; Schroder et al., 2011). Enhancement of the reanalysis process (including specialized Arctic regional re-analyses) and operational weather prediction rely on the continuing improvement in understanding Arctic atmospheric processes and their interactions with other Arctic systems. The ongoing development of limited area climate system models in the Arctic represents a critical gap in our modeling infrastructure (Proshutinsky et al., 2008). These models allow the testing of our simulation understanding in a framework that has high spatial resolution, uses Arctic-specific physical representations, and ensures that lower-latitude biases are minimized. While this approach is one that enjoyed considerable advances in earlier decades (e.g., Dethloff et al., 1996; Lynch et al., 1995), development slowed until recently (e.g., Cassano et al., 2011; Dorn et al., 2009; Glisan et al., 2013). These models provide an important platform for testing approaches prior to implementation in global models, as well as providing additional infrastructure for impacts assessment, downscaling, and field campaign support. Partnerships with Industry Building the operational capacity necessary to address emerging research questions requires a mix of approaches, including partnering to leverage resources. With increased accessibility comes increased activity on the part of tourism, shipping, oil and gas, and other extractive industries. In many cases these industries operate extensive investigative and infrastructure development programs. Frequently, the information needs for industry have much in common with the needs of regulatory agencies and curiosity-driven science. When industry operates in remote locations it also tends to establish or create infrastructure to support safe operations, including housing, transportation, communications, and crisis response capabilities (e.g., search and rescue). Establishing partnerships with these organizations could allow for collection of information that would, in turn, facilitate robust decision-making and extend capacities for scientific investigations in the Arctic. There are many ways collaborations with industry can generate mutual benefits and synergies with the science community. At the most basic level, instrumentation of existing industry platforms (i.e., ships, platforms, and facilities) operating in the Arctic can allow for collection of data. Industry is often open to allowing investigators to utilize logistical assets provided the investigative work is consistent with the mission of these assets and can be conducted in full compliance with industry standards. The private sector is also beginning to lead funding for scientific investigation in the Arctic (see Investing in Research later in this chapter). While a portion of these funded studies is directly operated by, or on behalf of, industry, opportunities exist to co- PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
110  The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions  fund investigative efforts through matching funds or the inclusion of industry in such programs as the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP). Industry-funded science can also be a rich source of information that could be more effectively tapped by the scientific or regulatory communities. Recognition of the utility of scientific information as a business driver is increasing the extent and quality of industry investment and willingness to participate in greater public-private sector collaboration. While industry science may be focused on specific impacts-related questions or project-specific areas, data from these studies can inform a broad array of research inquiries. Measures that increase transparency and inclusion in the planning and implementation of industry studies, the peer review and validation of results and reports, and broad sharing and utilization of industry data, all increase the value of this science both to the scientific community and to industry itself. Examples of effective public-private collaboration on Arctic science are increasing. An excellent example of utilizing industry assets as observation platforms is the Smart Ocean Smart Industries program under the World Ocean Council (WOC). Through this program the WOC, which is an international, cross-sectoral industry leadership alliance, works with the scientific community to identify data needs and mechanisms through which these data may be collected either directly by vessel crews or through the deployment of instrumentation onto industry assets. NOAA also operates the Volunteer Observing Ship36 program for collecting a standard set of weather observations daily from more than 1,000 ships and platforms globally for incorporation in weather forecasting models. A 2010 agreement on data sharing between three international oil companies (Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Statoil) and NOAA has made the results of nearly $100 million investment in data on the U.S. Arctic offshore available to the agency and, more broadly, to the scientific community. Under this agreement, data from meteorology/oceanography observing buoys are served directly to the National Data Buoy Center and are utilized to improve forecasting in the Arctic. Data from integrated ecological studies and monitoring programs are made available through the Alaska Ocean Observing System.37 Investigators frequently establish ad hoc public-private collaborations by soliciting matching funds, or by combining privately-funded opportunities with publicly-funded initiatives. Such informal pooling of funding can increase the scope and utility of publicly funded projects by accommodating the utilization of a larger, more capable vessel or adding scientists to the program. Formal public-private collaborations are becoming more common as both communities find new strategies for co-planning investigative efforts and for co-funding research. GROWING HUMAN CAPACITY An essential element of ensuring that the nation has sufficient research capacity is an adequate supply of people with a unique combination of the necessary skills and knowledge. Arctic questions span many disciplines across the natural and social sciences and thus require some researchers who work at the intersections, crossing and connecting fields, and collaborating across international boundaries. Also, research capacity in the Arctic is particularly important because climate change and its impacts are occurring at an accelerated rate. Thus, our capacity to observe and conduct research to understand the observations, and develop appropriate response strategies, needs to keep apace. Building human research capacity includes both training of the next generation, as well as engagement and professional development of the existing community so that we are better prepared to address current and future challenges. 36 http://www.vos.noaa.gov 37 http://www.aoos.org/ PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    111  Human research capacity building was a major component of the IPY. The National Academy of Sciences study on Lessons and Legacies of the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 showed that there were measurable increases in the number of scientists conducting polar research (NRC, 2012a). This increase was not only attributed to the climate change-driven need for more polar researchers, but also IPY’s efforts that enabled international research teams to closely coordinate their activities. Two specific human capacity building activities deemed successful during IPY were the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) and the growth in student participation in the University of the Arctic. The APECS coordination office is currently funded by three Norwegian organizations. Other organizations that work with APECS formed to support early career scientists in specific disciplines including:  Permafrost Young Researcher Network (PYRN)  Young Earth Scientists (YES) Network  ArcticNet Student Association (ASA)  Young European Associated Researchers (YEAR)  Young Earth System Scientists (YESS)  World Association of Young Scientists (WAYS)  European Geography Association for students and young geographers EGEA Increased support and funding agency incentives for U.S. young scientists to engage in APECS’s activities would contribute to growing Arctic research capacity. The University of the Arctic has a range of programs distributed among and coordinated with member higher education institutions that enable building of Arctic human research capacity with important emphasis on the recruitment and involvement of Arctic peoples. As of 2013, the United States had the lowest student involvement in their northern engagement program. Supporting U.S. students (including recruits from northern communities) in the University of the Arctic has the potential to increase human capacity through their established and well-recognized programs. Another key aspect of human capacity building is training young scientists, particularly social scientists, in the linguistic and cultural competency skills to work across the Arctic. Training centers in other parts of the Arctic could serve as models for North America. Other IPY human capacity-building successes were related to funding agency incentives for researchers to incorporate northern community engagement in research and as public outreach. Some of these success stories included expansion from academic-based outreach to include informal education venues (e.g., museums, science fairs, online broadcasts). Continuing funding agency mechanisms that encourage these activities would provide young Arctic residents an opportunity to see research career opportunities directly linked to the future of their own communities. Community Engagement Arctic residents have played important roles in research for over a century, and their involvement continues to increase. From providing logistical support and safety in the field, to offering insights from generations of observations and experience, Arctic peoples have a great deal to offer. They also have a great deal to gain from sound scientific research, which can address many challenges of rapid environmental and social change in the region. Effective research partnerships have led to major advances in marine mammalogy (e.g., Noongwook et al., 2007; Thewissen et al., PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
112  The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions  2011) and meteorology (e.g., Weatherhead et al., 2010), the emergence of traditional knowledge as an important topic of study (e.g., Huntington, 2011), and an increase in the number of scientists and scholars who come from Arctic communities. Arctic researchers, similarly, are increasingly interested in making connections with Arctic residents to incorporate traditional knowledge and observations and also to share the results of their work (Figure 4.7). These trends are encouraging, and yet the Arctic research community has only begun to tap the potential for involving Arctic residents as well as citizen science practitioners who do not live in the Arctic but are still interested in Arctic topics. Arctic residents are alone in observing their environment throughout the entire year, year after year. Each has a lifetime of knowledge from their own observations as well as what has been passed down by older relatives, a chain that extends back countless generations in indigenous communities. Few of these contemporary and traditional observations and insights are recorded or made available to others, leaving many potential connections unrealized. The power of entraining large numbers of people in addressing research questions or data analyses (e.g., crowd sourcing) has yet to be applied to Arctic research to any substantial degree. There are promising developments in all these areas (e.g., Alessa et al., 2013), but the wider application of successful approaches has not yet occurred. Three areas are particularly ripe for further attention to increase meaningful engagement of Arctic communities. First, communities themselves need to determine how they want to be engaged. The research burden on Arctic residents can be high, for example being interviewed again and again in the course of different studies with similar objectives. The return of scientific information back to the communities is not always effective. And communities are not always involved in all phases of research, reducing the value of their participation as well as their ownership and/or partnership. At the same time, few individual research projects have the resources to address all aspects of community interest and opportunity, creating a need for other mechanisms to support community engagement on the community’s own terms. Second, the infrastructure to support community engagement is only now being developed on a larger scale than that of individual projects or, in a few cases, regions of the Arctic. Such infrastructure includes data management, to capture and make available the results of community efforts, as well as communication procedures that can help researchers connect with communities as they plan, conduct, and disseminate the results of their research. Ad hoc approaches have worked for some projects and individuals, but many opportunities have also been missed, especially for building beyond the activities of a single project. The same principle applies to enhancing the capacity of communities to engage in Arctic research. Various Alaska Native organizations have played important roles in this regard, but greater continuity of effort and connections among projects and practitioners can yield even better results. Third, there has simply been too little experience to date with the various approaches that have been and can be used, limiting the utility of an evaluation of what works and what doesn’t. More needs to be done, engaging more communities on more topics, to build up a better body of practice and experience, from which relevant lessons can be drawn. More experience will also help community aspirations and capacity grow and mature, likely creating greater demand for community engagement along with a greater sophistication in how to make use of research activities and results. INVESTING IN RESEARCH Research requires funding. Funding involves making decisions, which includes considering what is needed, what is likely to work, and what trade-offs are entailed. Most Arctic research funding in the United States comes from government agencies, ranging from studies intended to address the needs of regulatory and other decisions, to curiosity-driven research within broad areas of scientific interest. Additional research, typically addressing specific needs or goals, is funded by PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeti ing the Challe enges  11 13  FIGUR 4.7 Warren Matumeak (left) and Andy Mahoney (right) d iscussing sea ic conditions near Barrow RE M ) ce while examining a sa atellite image. SOURCE: Henry Huntington. y the pr rivate sector, including indu ustry as well as philanthrop groups. De a pic ecisions about what is t funded therefore oc ccur at many levels in many places. Non netheless, som general pat me tterns are evident, and society ability to address emerg y’s a ging research questions in t Arctic is closely tied to the the way research fu unding is orga anized. Evaluating the strengths and drawbacks of current f funding mech hanisms for Arrctic science i in the United States is beyond the scope of this report. Instead we draw att s s r d, tention to cert tain features o of resear funding an suggest a closer look at whether the c rch nd c current approa is optimal for ach addressing society’s needs. We focus our discussion in five areas: compr f rehensive systtems and synthe research, funding non-steady-state re esis esearch, stake eholder-initiat research, i ted international, and lo ong-term obse ervations. We consider coooperation amo countries, among agenc ong cies, across discip plines, and wit the private sector. th Comprehensive Sys stems and Syn nthesis Researc ch Research is often propos in respons to a reques for proposal and then ca s sed se st ls arried out over a three to five year time frame. Successful rese S earch may lea to subseque projects th build on ad ent hat the results from the initial projec but there is no guarantee of further fun e ct, e nding. Most p projects are propo osed and run independently only rarely with support f coordinati with relate initiatives. y, w for ion ed This system provide flexibility, in that funding streams are committed fo a relatively short period, es i g or and th researcher have the ab hat rs bility to pursue topics they d e deem importa and, often, to adjust their ant , resear as circums rch stances and preliminary fin ndings warrant At the same time, implem t. e mentation of full pr rograms, deep engagement with, and the ability to exp p e plore the wide connection or er ns ramifications of, a particular topi are often lim p ic mited within a five-year prooject. Similarl the ability ly, to cooordinate and cooperate acro projects may be curtaile by time as well as by the demands of c oss m ed s f produ ucing individual project resu and then the competiti ve aspects of seeking furthe funding. ults er PREPUBLICATION CO OPY 

OCR for page 81
114  The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions  These drawbacks are especially apparent when trying to grapple with a comprehensive view of the Arctic, encompassing its myriad components, each with its own complexity. The challenges of “systems” research and interdisciplinary collaborations are well known. How those challenges can be overcome is less apparent, but continuity, coordination and leadership are likely to play major roles. Other funding approaches are used in other countries, and some innovative approaches have been tried in the United States in recent years. For example, long-term projects under the leadership of scientists with strong records of accomplishment and collaboration have been funded elsewhere. The part of the Bering Sea Project (Wiese et al., 2012) that was funded by the North Pacific Research Board was organized as a single project with one principal investigator (PI), rather than as a collection of individual projects, in order to emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration and a high degree of integration of ecosystem understanding. Integrated and cross- disciplinary proposals could also be developed through the National Science Foundation’s new option for program managers to handle proposals through an “Ideas Lab” model38. A request for participation in the Ideas Lab is announced. Interested participants are invited to submit an application that outlines their ideas on a specific Ideas Lab topic. Selected participants will attend an interactive, multi-day program of collaborative discussion to construct new ideas and approaches. Sub-sets of teams will then submit full integrated proposals. Another way to integrate projects is to announce at the outset that the intent is to support a balanced suite and also support a coordinating office, as NSF did with the Climate Change Education Partnership program. Synthesis activities, similarly, are often challenging in that they lack the allure of new field research. In some cases, the rationale for investing in synthesis is not readily articulated before the synthesis activity has started, but only emerges from the interactions of those involved and the interpretation of the various streams of data and insight that are to be connected in the course of the synthesis. Some examples exist, such as efforts under the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP) in the 1970s and 1980s, synthesis workshops undertaken by NSF’s Arctic System Science Program (e.g., Overpeck et al., 2005), the NSF’s and the North Pacific Research Board’s Bering Sea Project (Wiese et al., 2012), NSF’s Arctic Freshwater Integration project,39 and recent efforts for U.S. Arctic waters (e.g., the Pacific Marine Arctic Regional Synthesis [PacMARS] and the Synthesis of Arctic Research [SOAR] programs), but these are the exceptions rather than the norm. Because of the funding structures and norms, there is currently an imbalance, with most research initiated by individuals and small groups, and few resources devoted towards larger-scale synthetic thinking and study. Other countries have different ways of handling synthesis research, including making large scale and longer term investments. Some invest in training of reviewers, so that they are better able to handle interdisciplinary and integrative proposals. The extent to which various approaches work and the trade-offs that they entail (e.g., opportunities for young researchers vs. continuation for established researchers) require careful evaluation to determine whether they do in fact produce a better comprehensive understanding of the research area in question, and at what cost. If so, then new funding approaches could be considered by U.S. agencies in light of their specific missions for Arctic research, to ensure the maximum benefit for society from its investment. Non-Steady-State Research Understanding an Arctic in transition may require greater risk on the part of funding agencies, and a greater acceptance of uncertainty on the part of reviewers to make headway against an uncertain future. Funding non-steady-state research will be necessary to better understand the dynamics of thresholds, resilience, and transformation in a rapidly changing Arctic. Obtaining funding for research into steady-state processes can sometimes be more straightforward than 38 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14033/nsf14033.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_179 39 http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2010/1/article/896 PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    115  funding non-steady-state research, as steady-state proposals can provide convincing evidence of feasibility. However, given the potential for nonlinear change, tipping points, and emergent properties, it is important to ensure that investigations of emerging, non-steady-state research questions are funded as well, even if that means greater willingness on behalf of the funding agencies to take risks. Alternative approaches to proposal review and decision-making could be utilized, along with locally-inspired social-ecological experiments. Social Sciences and Human Capacity In titling this report “The Arctic in the Anthropocene” the committee intended to draw attention to the central role of humans in the emerging research questions. There are pressing needs for both social science research as identified in Chapter 3, as well as recognition of the role people play in research infrastructure discussed earlier in this Chapter. Support for the social sciences, including economic, behavioral, and decision research, has lagged behind that of the natural sciences. As we attempt to prepare ourselves, our communities, and our country for a more rapidly changing future (IPCC, 2014), investments in social science are more critical than ever. Many of the questions we have identified in this report have at least some connection with the social sciences (Figure 3.18b). In addition to conducting the research, ultimately it is people who are central in enhancing cooperation and coordination, sustaining long-term observations, managing and sharing information, building and maintaining operational capacity, and providing the capacity to meet the challenges. The committee heard from many in the community who had stepped in to fill gaps, but were not supported to do so and were stretched thin in responding to multiple demands forced by the rapid pace of change. To do this, people have to be engaged, trained, re-trained and supported so that we have the requisite expertise, provide for follow-through in research infrastructure, operations, and administration, and can rapidly respond to new ideas and fresh perspectives. Stakeholder-Initiated Research Critical questions are emerging from stakeholders, including decision-makers and communities, which are not traditionally participants in federal research (thing we think we don’t know). There is not currently a consensus within the research community that this type of research is important, therefore it is less likely to rise to the top during proposal reviews and funding decisions—what we know we need to know will often take precedence over what we think we don’t know. An evaluation of how current funding mechanisms affect the ability of non-traditional research organizations to participate in Arctic research is needed (see also Intersectoral Cooperation and the section on Growing Human Capacity earlier in this chapter). Approaches used by other agencies, regions, and countries that are worth considering applying to the Arctic. International Funding Cooperation A major barrier to international collaboration is the nature of the present framework for funding basic research. International collaborations can by stymied by failure to obtain funding approval from agencies in more than one country. Most nations have a national funding organization that is constrained by unique rules and guidelines that rarely accommodate multinational proposals. This somewhat arbitrary limitation impedes true international collaboration. Peer review of proposals also lacks consistent guidelines internationally, and PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
116  The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions  proposal target dates are not synchronized. There are few official channels (e.g., Belmont Forum40) for program managers to communicate internationally to set common research goals. Removing these barriers to efficient international collaboration requires long-term, sustained commitments from national funding agencies, and the development of policies that serve the interests of both national funding agencies and the scientific community. An Arctic activity is forthcoming from the Belmont Forum, which is a welcome first step, but a long term sustained program supporting international collaboration would yield many additional benefits. Global leaders are beginning to recognize the importance of cooperation in the Arctic. For example, in August 2013, the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS reported that: “Japan believes there is a strong need to conduct continuous monitoring and research in the Arctic, in particular, in connection with global climate change,” Hakubun Shimomura [minister of education, culture, sports, science and technology] continued. “In view of the fact that Russia is a country to which the largest territory in the Arctic belongs, we consider cooperation with it as absolutely necessary. In particular, we need to work together in the sphere of creating monitoring stations in the Arctic, the use of the icebreaker fleet, exchange of experts and the general expansion of research in this sphere.” The minister said that a regular meeting of the Japanese-Russian Joint Commission on Scientific and Technological Cooperation will be held in Tokyo this September. “It will exactly discuss further prospects for the development of interaction and cooperation between the two countries in this part of the world…We plan to put forward a concrete proposal on Arctic research cooperation, in particular, with regard to cooperation in the sphere of observation and personnel exchange,” said the minister. Long-Term Observations Change can only be detected by observations over time. The precision by which change can be measured depends on the consistency, frequency, and breadth of those observations. At present, there are relatively few consistent, frequent, spatially extensive datasets for the Arctic. Instead, we have a smattering of ad hoc stations, incomplete time series, and varying methods. The Undetermined Arctic section in Chapter 3 addressed the rationale for better long-term observations. Here we address the implications for funding. Consistent, system-wide observations over time require sustained support. Long-term funding commitments, however, are rare. Furthermore, the payoff from long-term observations is typically time-delayed, making it easy to justify spending money on relatively short-term research efforts that produce results in a few years rather than over the course of decades. The result on the funding side is a patchwork of efforts that have little coordination and thus exhibit little synergy, in 40 The Belmont Forum was established to overcome some funding challenges by advancing international collaboration in research through joint announcement of targeted programs: “(1) strengthening engagement between the research funding agencies and the academic research community as represented by ICSU and (2) improving coordination of early phase engagement on GCR strategies and priorities in order to improve co-design, co-alignment, and co-funding of major research programs.” http://www.igfagcr.org/index.php/challenge “The Forum requires each Collaborative Research Action to address the Belmont Challenge: To deliver knowledge needed for action to avoid and adapt to detrimental environmental change including extreme hazardous events. Belmont further requires consideration of human and natural systems in each proposal, and a minimum of three nations involved in each project.” http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/news/clic-news/521-update-on-international-research-funding-from- the-belmont-forum PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81
Meeting the Challenges    117  that the monitoring of one component in one location does not readily lend itself to detecting the connections between that component and other parts of the system, or to evaluating the relationship among trends observed in different locations. Complicating matters in the Arctic is the fact that processes interconnect across national borders, requiring cooperative, long-term international observations. One alternative is the development of a coordinated program of long-term observations, designed not from individual interest or based on what proposal happened to get funding, but rather from a vision of understanding the system as a whole, and with a sustained commitment to funding. Such an approach is the idea behind the international Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) initiative and other efforts such as the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program. While meritorious, these efforts are still largely a collection of ad hoc efforts with funding dependent on those responsible for each separate component of the overall network. Our ability to detect change and to determine what new features of the Arctic system are emerging is thus compromised and will remain so until there is a lasting commitment to long-term observations. Because agency interests will always be focused on specific missions or mandates, we need to explore how to put in place a network backbone that provides continuity as well as disciplinary and regional breadth. This backbone would serve to explore promising scientific approaches and generate new findings while at the same time keeping track of key variables and indicators of change. Other activities, such as more focused agency programs would benefit because they could plug into this network. PREPUBLICATION COPY 

OCR for page 81