DUPLICATE!!

Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road • Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 Chronicles of the NSF Arctic Sciences Program Spring 2004, Volume 11 Number 1 ARCTIC International Meeting Explores Change in the Arctic Researchers from around the world presented and discussed evidence of rapid environmental change in the Arctic at the first Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Open Science Meeting (OSM), held 27–30 October 2003 in Seattle, Washington. Over 440 social and natural scientists, policy makers, and stakeholders from 18 countries explored the basic premise of SEARCH—that a complex of interrelated changes is occurring across arctic terrestrial, oceanic, atmospheric, and human systems. SEARCH is an interagency effort to understand the causes, connections, and consequences of recent arctic environmental changes, emphasizing their interactions with global climate change and potential impacts on the biosphere, including human social and economic well-being. Currently more than 40 projects are funded as SEARCH activities by U.S. agencies. Many more projects relevant to SEARCH objectives are supported through other programs. SEARCH is developing cooperative relationships with many of the pertinent arctic science programs sponsored by other nations and international groups (see International Plans, page 3). The SEARCH Open Science Meeting’s goals were to encourage scientists from a range of disciplines to • share evidence of environmental change in the Arctic, • identify results from individual research projects that could inform the overall SEARCH objectives, and • contribute to the SEARCH program either through linking their ongoing work to this program or through the design of new projects. The National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs (NSF-OPP) sponsored the OSM, with additional support from the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and the U.S. agencies in the SEARCH Interagency Working Group (IWG; see box page 2). All of the OSM sessions were enriched by the valuable participation of undergraduate and graduate students. A student scholarship program, sponsored by OPP, NASA, the Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program, the Alaska Native Science Commission, and ARCUS, provided full or partial funding of conference expenses for 45 students, and a student poster competition awarded winners sponsorship to attend a future scientific conference. The contributions of these young investigators were critical to the success of the SEARCH OSM. continued on next page Presentations and Discussions Organized around the broad themes of Changes and Impacts, Feedbacks, and Drivers and Causes, the OSM included over 280 oral and poster presentations. With input from a diverse international and interdisciplinary community, the meeting’s agenda included a variety of sessions, including • keynote talks, • concurrent science sessions with contributed papers, • panel discussions, and • poster sessions. Keynote talks, including a point–counterpoint session, provided a broad overview of the scientific and policy issues of arctic change. Two moderated panel discussions provided opportunities to examine key Data collected during several cruises in 1993–95 suggested that in the late 1980s, warm Atlantic water moved rapidly into the Arctic Ocean (right panel), a major change compared with its previous distribution (left panel). These observations were so startling and had such potentially important ramifications that they prompted members of the scientific community to begin organizing the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH; see box page 2). The model illustrated depicts the change in distribution of Atlantic water at 280–360 m below sea level. (Maslowski et al. 2000. Geophysical Research Letters 27 (22): 3743) 2 The Study of Environmental Arctic Change Open Science Meeting questions, to reflect on previous sessions, and to discuss issues such as the nature of interdisciplinary research, local and indigenous knowledge, and media communication and public perception of science. Eight parallel science sessions included over 75 contributed papers covering a large range of topics. Two poster sessions featuring nearly 200 posters offered informal opportunities for participants to share results and ideas on all aspects of environmental arctic change; topics included the documentation of observed changes, relevance of changes for arctic ecosystems and communities, larger global implications, and analytical issues such as techniques in data analysis and modeling. Open Science Meeting participants reported on a variety of investigations, including direct observations, proxy records, modeling studies, and community projects. Many of these studies provided evidence of widespread and potentially interrelated changes in a number of aspects of the arctic environment, including: • lower sea-level atmospheric pressure, • increased surface air temperatures, • increased soil temperatures, • thawing permafrost, • negative glacier mass balance, • growth responses in vegetation, • shifts in species composition of arctic and subarctic ecosystems, • decrease in sea ice, and • changing patterns in community subsistence activities. Presentations on climate modeling and paleoclimate studies examined patterns of variability of climate and environmental change. Investigations of spatial and temporal variability provided insight into the relative contributions of both natural and anthropogenic drivers of arctic environmental change. Several sessions focused on feedbacks —both within the Arctic and to the global system—as critical components in the development of a fundamental understanding of current changes and predictions of future change. Many of the feedbacks discussed, such as the snow/ice albedo feedback, have the potential to increase the pace of change. Presentations from arctic residents and human dimensions researchers underscored the immediate impacts environmental The Evolution of the SEARCH Effort Development of the SEARCH program began in the mid-1990s, as a number of scientists became concerned about the magnitude of the changes they were observing in arctic ocean and atmospheric conditions (figure page 1). Led by James Morison at the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center, the group circulated an open letter to the scientific community proposing a program to track and understand major changes in the arctic environment. By April 1997, 40 scientists from 25 institutions had signed the letter, which called for an international effort, initially called the “Study of Arctic Change,” to investigate those changes through measurement, data analysis, and modeling. The letter was endorsed by the NSF Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Ocean–Atmosphere–Ice Interactions Science Steering Committee. With support from the ARCSS Program, the University of Washington hosted an open workshop in November 1997 on the Study of Arctic Change. More than 70 scientists reported on recent ocean and atmospheric changes in the Arctic, corroborating earlier observations of change and suggesting a related suite of changes that were arctic-wide. As the effort developed, its name changed to the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH), and SEARCH advanced beyond sponsorship by the ARCSS Program to a broader initiative involving several federal agencies. At a 1999 workshop, 39 researchers began to draft the SEARCH Science Plan. Published in 2001, the Science Plan summarizes observed changes; presents the SEARCH hypotheses, objectives, and strategies; and recommends a broad multidisciplinary program aimed at understanding the interrelated arctic changes and their implications. As the science plan developed, SEARCH gained increasing recognition. In 1999, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) included SEARCH as “ready for immediate attention” in the U.S. Arctic Research Plan, and a SEARCH Interagency Working Group (IWG) chaired by NOAA was established and tasked. The IWG consists of the eight federal agencies responsible for scientific research in the Arctic that have agreed to work together on SEARCH: • Department of Agriculture • National Aeronautics and Space Administration • Department of Defense • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Department of Energy • National Science Foundation (current IWG chair) • Department of Interior • Smithsonian Institution In addition, collaborative arrangements were initiated with international research programs such as the Arctic Climate System Study (ACSYS), the Climate and Cryosphere Project (CLiC), and the Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) program. The international aspects of SEARCH continue to develop (see International Plans, page 3). The SEARCH Implementation Strategy, outlining science questions, program organization, and implementation activities and priorities, was published by the SEARCH SSC and IWG in October 2003 and widely circulated at the Open Science Meeting. At the North Pole, an international research team is collecting observations needed to document and understand arctic change. Every spring since 2000, the team has established a group of unmanned scientific platforms at the North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO), supported by NSF. Right, Kelly Falkner of Oregon State University and James Morison of the University of Washington drill through the sea ice with help from co-pilot Dave Hanberg during the NPEO airborne hydrographic surveys in May 2003. A winch is mounted on the floor of the Twin Otter, allowing the team to lower instruments and sample bottles through the ice. Morison is past chair of the SEARCH science steering committee and the NPEO’s principal investigator (see http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole). Photo by Jim Haffey. 3 The Study of Environmental Arctic Change Open Science Meeting 2004 SEARCH Science Steering Committee Bob Dickson Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science r.r[email protected] Jennifer Francis Rutgers University [email protected] Jackie Grebmeier University of Tennessee [email protected] Larry Hamilton University of New Hampshire [email protected] George Hunt University of California-Irvine [email protected] Konrad A. Hughen Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution [email protected] Dennis Lettenmaier University of Washington [email protected] Jim Maslanik University of Colorado [email protected] Dave McGuire University of Alaska Fairbanks [email protected] James Morison (Past Chair) University of Washington [email protected] Peter Rhines University of Washington [email protected] Peter Schlosser (Chair) Columbia University [email protected] Gus Shaver Marine Biological Laboratory [email protected] Konrad Steffen University of Colorado [email protected] John Walsh University of Alaska Fairbanks [email protected].edu changes are having on human communities in the context of other political, economic, social, and environmental forces of change. Several approaches to working with communities and incorporating residents’ contributions were presented as models to integrate social science and local knowledge into arctic change research. Connections and Collaboration The SEARCH OSM fostered connections between individual researchers, programs, and research initiatives across the Arctic through the 24 associated meetings held in conjunction with the OSM and through the informal discussions that occurred throughout the meeting. Representing a variety of topics, organizations, and disciplines, the associated meetings ranged from small impromptu gatherings to more formal town hall meetings. Several of these meetings are reported on in this issue of Witness the Arctic, including: • The Human Dimensions of the Arctic System (HARC) Patterns, Connections, and Methods Workshop (page 11), • The Bering Ecosystem Study (BEST) Town Meeting (page 30), • SEARCH’s role in International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008 (page 23), • the Second International Conference for Arctic Research Planning (ICARP II) Town Meeting (page 21), and • meetings on Arctic Geospatial Information Infrastructure (page 6). International Plans Approximately one-fifth of the participants at the OSM came from countries outside the U.S. In all, 18 countries, including all of the eight arctic nations, were represented. Several associated meetings, in addition to those listed above, had an international focus, including • a U.S.–China Panel on Polar Science, and • a meeting of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) Pacific Arctic Group. On the final day of the OSM, a halfday International Implementation Forum reviewed and discussed international efforts relevant to SEARCH. At the conclusion of this discussion, the Arctic Ocean Sciences Board (AOSB) and IASC offered to explore developing the international dimensions of SEARCH, including the possibility of establishing an international SEARCH science planning group. The SEARCH Science Steering Committee (see box this page) accepted this offer. Following the SEARCH OSM, Patrick Webber, president of IASC, and Tom Pyle, chair of AOSB, invited their respective bodies to nominate individuals to serve on an international planning group for SEARCH science. In March, IASC and AOSB named the 13-member interim science planning group of the International Study of Arctic Change (ISAC), chaired by Leif Anderson of Göteborg University in Sweden. The group met at the Arctic Science Summit Week in April (see page 20). As part of their charge developed by IASC and AOSB, the science planning group will develop an international science overview. The group expects to conclude their findings and report to IASC and AOSB by late summer 2004. More information will be made available through the IASC web site: www.iasc.no, or the AOSB web site: www.aosb.org. Public Awareness and Education Several members of the news media, including reporters from the New York Times, the Seattle Times, the Seattle PostIntelligencer, and Alaska Public Radio, attended the OSM. A press conference was held simultaneously in Seattle, in Washington, D.C., and streamed online. Media coverage of the conference resulted in a significant number of print, radio, television, and Internet stories, which are available through the ARCUS web site: www.arcus. org/SEARCH/OSM/media.html. Meeting proceedings are planned for publication in spring 2004. For more information on the SEARCH Open Science Meeting, including sponsors and organizers, agenda, participant list, video webcasts, abstracts, presentations, and student participation, see the ARCUS web site: www.arcus.org/SEARCH/search. html, or contact Helen Wiggins at ARCUS (907-474-1600; fax 907-474-1604; [email protected]). For more information on the SEARCH program, see the SEARCH project office web site: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/search, or contact Peter Schlosser at Columbia University (845-365-8707; fax 845-365-8155; [email protected]). 4 NSF News On February 11, Rita Colwell announced her resignation as director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), effective February 21. The third longest-serving director in NSF’s 54-year history, Colwell has been director of NSF since 1998. Her six-year term would have expired in August 2004. During her tenure at NSF, Colwell oversaw a major increase in support of environmental research through such initiatives as Biocomplexity in the Environment. Arden L. Bement, Jr., the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is acting as interim NSF director and has indicated that this is to be a short-term appointment. The process of identifying a permanent NSF director is already under way. Bement expects to return to NIST full time once a new NSF director is appointed. Before becoming director of NIST in 2001, Bement was professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University. He has held a variety of positions in academia, industry, and government, including senior positions with the Department of Defense. Bement has served on the National Science Board, the governing board of the NSF. After leaving NSF, Colwell became chairman of Canon U.S. Life Sciences, Inc. She also holds faculty appointments at the University of Maryland, College Park, and The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Cyberinfrastructure Plans Following on a number of workshops and reports on the future of instrumentation, data-handling, and computation capabilities, the heads of two NSF directorates organized special sessions on cyberinfrastructure at the AAAS Annual Meeting in Seattle in February 2004. Presenters described a future convergence of information and communication technologies into a national cyberinfrastructure. Margaret Leinen, head of NSF’s Geosciences directorate, and Peter Freeman, head of the NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate, co-organized the sessions in Seattle; the sessions were co-chaired by NSF Seeks New Director, Plans for Cyberinfrastructure the new CISE division director for Shared Cyberinfrastructure, Sangtae Kim. In February 2003, a report from the NSF Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure recommended that NSF establish and lead a large-scale, interagency, and internationally coordinated Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Program, with an estimated cost of $1 billion annually. Cyberinfrastructure has become a common theme throughout NSF, and every directorate has funded or is exploring cyberinfrastructurerelated projects. The NSF’s larger goal for a national cyberinfrastructure is to provide appropriate information technology and knowledge management resources for all science and engineering disciplines. To ensure that all science and engineering communities are prepared to inform the development of and effectively use the broad, evolving cyberinfrastructure, NSF plans to hold an open competition during FY 2004 that will ultimately support a comprehensive set of education, training, and outreach awards. For more information on the AAAS cyberinfrastructure sessions, see: http://php.aaas.org/meetings/MPE_ 01.php?detail=10060 and http://php.aaas. org/meetings/MPE_01.php?detail=10061. To download a copy of the cyberinfrastructure report, see: www.cise.nsf.gov/sci/ reports/toc.cfm. Arctic Sciences Section at NSF The Arctic Sciences Section of the NSF Office of Polar Programs includes four program areas, which are featured in the following pages: Arctic Research Support and Logistics (pages 5–7), Arctic System Science (ARCSS; pages 7–11), Arctic Natural Sciences (page 12), and Arctic Social Sciences (page 13). For more information about the Arctic Sciences Section, see the Office of Polar Programs web site: www.nsf.gov/od/opp. New Arctic Sciences Section Personnel In August 2003, William J. Wiseman, Jr., joined Jane Dionne as a program officer in the Arctic Natural Sciences program. Bill Wiseman is a physical oceanographer who studied coastal processes along the Alaska North Slope and in Svalbard in the 1970s (see Witness Spring 2002 member insert). He has recently been involved in interdisciplinary studies around large river mouths. He earned degrees in electrical engineering and oceanography from Johns Hopkins University and taught at the University of New Hampshire (1969–1971) and Louisiana State University (1971–2003). He holds emeritus status at LSU, where he served as chair of the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences (formerly the Department of Marine Sciences) from 1977–79, 1984–86, and 2002–03; chair of the Department of Geology and Geophysics from 1987–90; assistant director of the Coastal Studies Institute from 1992–95; and director of the Coastal Studies Institute from 1995–99. He also served as a rotator in the Physical Oceanography program at NSF from 2000–2002. Both Dionne and Wiseman hold permanent appointments at NSF. Wiseman can be contacted at 703-292-8029; fax 703-292-9082; [email protected]v. In October 2003, Dennis Conlon joined the Arctic Sciences Section on a two-year detail from the Office of Naval Research. Conlon is a physical oceanographer with experience in management of both science programs and classified ocean systems and sensors. He will focus on improving cyberand other infrastructure in the Arctic and will assist office-wide efforts in this area (see article this page). Conlon may be contacted at 703-292-4658; fax 703-292-9082; [email protected]v. 5 Arctic Research Support and Logistics In October 2003, ARCUS published Arctic Research Support and Logistics: Strategies and Recommendations for System-scale Studies in a Changing Environment, which updates Logistics Recommendations for an Improved U.S. Arctic Research Capability, published in 1997. Members of the Research Support and Logistics Working Group prepared the new report, using information provided by the broader arctic research community, gathered through survey responses, discussions at meetings and workshops, and review comments on a draft of the report. The research community identified environmental change as the most important arctic science priority for the next decade, requiring logistical and research support that enables large-scale, long-term observations and system-scale synthesis and modeling. The report outlines three broad New Logistics Report Available ing Laboratory. Copies are available by e-mailing [email protected], or as a PDF on the ARCUS web site: www. arcus.org/Logistics/logistics03.html. For more information, contact Alison York at ARCUS (907-474-1600; fax 907-4741604; [email protected]). VPR Unites Resources, Expertise to Support Researchers The Global Change Research Group (GCRG) at San Diego State University, led by Walt Oechel, has collected data on year-round CO2 flux from tundra ecosystems for almost two decades. In 2003, Oechel requested assistance from the NSF Arctic Research Logistics and Support Services (ARLSS) contractor, VECO Polar Resources (VPR), to place a new eddy covariance tower at Ivotuk, Alaska, in the remote foothills of the western Brooks Range. Funded by the NSF ARCSS Program (see pages 7–11), Oechel’s research objectives presented substantial logistical challenges, including requirements for autonomous power, de-icing, and data transfer. VECO Polar Resources is a business union of three separate companies: • VECO, • Polar Field Services, and • SRI International. Each of the three companies offers complementary resources and expertise, providing the capabilities needed for major projects such as Oechel’s, while allowing VPR itself to remain a small group. VECO, a multinational corporation based in Alaska, provides project management, engineering, procurement, construction, operations, and maintenance expertise to industry and the public sector (see www.veco.com). For Oechel’s project, VECO supplied heavy equipment, a project test site at Prudhoe Bay, and skilled labor. Polar Field Services, Inc. (PFS), the core of VPR, provides all of the direct science planning and support (see http:// polarfield.com). PFS has 11 employees with experience supporting researchers in the Arctic and the Antarctic. PFS planned and furnished much of the specific logistical support that Oechel’s project needed, including food, camping gear, land permits, and contracting a small armada of airplanes to move people and gear, as well as developing, contracting, and testing a unique diesel/battery power system. SRI International is an independent, nonprofit research institute, with expertise in communications and engineering technology. SRI has gained arctic experience through operating facilities in Greenland and the Canadian high Arctic (see www. sri.com). SRI project managers were key to developing the Ivotuk project’s de-icing capabilities and the communications system for data retrieval and system control (see http://transport.sri.com/ivotuk). SRI identified a satellite system capable of providing two-way, real-time Internet connectivity to meet the project’s needs for high rates of data transfer. A team of VECO technicians, PFS staff, GCRG personnel, and SRI staff tested the power, de-icing, and communication systems at Prudhoe Bay from midFebruary to mid-April 2003. To capture data during the spring melt season, VPR provisioned a two-person camp at Ivotuk to support a May 2003 deployment of the tower and completed installation of the power and data transfer systems in June of 2003. VPR will conduct scheduled maintenance of the power and data communications systems in future years. VPR is entering the fifth and final year of its Arctic Research Logistics and Support Services (ARLSS) contract. NSF will be accepting new bids for the contract in 2004. VPR expects to be an applicant. For more information, see the VPR web site: www.vecopolar.com, or contact Marin Kuizenga (907-455-4214; 907-455-4126; marin@polarfield.com). strategies to meet the current range of arctic research support and logistics needs: • supply critical components for development of a pan-arctic perspective; • support the basic infrastructure for safe and efficient research; and • maximize resources and cooperation. The report is intended to provide guidance to all federal agencies with interests in the Arctic, as well as to Congress, in developing and improving arctic research support. As a living document, the report will require future updates as research priorities change and logistics and research-support assets continue to improve. The NSF Office of Polar Programs sponsored the working group, co-chaired by Peter Schlosser of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Terry Tucker of Cold Regions Research and Engineer- 6 Arctic Research Support and Logistics Arctic Projects Demonstrate Power, Potential of GIS Arctic researchers are increasingly making use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as a research tool, building on the availability of geospatial data and revealing the need for improvements in geospatial information infrastructure (GII) for the Arctic. Geospatial information infrastructure or spatial data infrastructure (SDI) includes not only GIS data layers, but the hardware, software, data standards, networking and other essential components that make spatial data useful to groups of users. Encouraged by interest from the research community, the Arctic Research Support and Logistics (RSL) program sponsored the Arctic GIS Workshop in January 2001. Over 100 participants met to discuss applications and needs for GIS in arctic research (see Witness Winter 2000/2001). With the guidance of an organizing committee, the participants developed foundational recommendations and identified steps for implementing more integration, structure, and stability for arctic SDI. The group recommended both a top-down organized approach to continued SDI development in support of circumarctic research and, at the same time, growing regional or topical demonstration projects from the bottom up, resulting in geospatial data sets linked through arctic SDI. The recommendations from the 2001 workshop continue to drive NSF support of arctic GIS and SDI efforts, and groups of researchers, GIS experts, research support providers, and others have made advancements in arctic SDI. Three major avenues of development are: • regional or topical data nodes, • SDI to link nodes together and provide basic information to a wide audience, and • SDI for decision support applications in arctic logistics and planning. Examples of such efforts can be seen in • the Barrow Area Information Database Internet Map Server (BAID-IMS; see figure and http://ims.arcticscience.org), • the Circumpolar Arctic Geobotanical Atlas (see page 27 and www.geobotany. uaf.edu/arcticgeobot), and • online maps of projects supported by the Arctic Sciences Section at NSF (see www. vecopolar.com). An example screen shot from the Barrow Area Information Database Internet Map Server (BAID-IMS; http://ims.arcticscience.org). Internet map server projects such as the BAID-IMS allow anyone with Internet access the ability to view, query, and analyze geospatial data in a simple graphical interface. This type of on-line GIS resource represents one of the many applications possible through arctic spatial data infrastructure (SDI) development. These efforts and others like them are driven by small groups of researchers and spatial data experts working together on focused activities. Since the 2001 workshop, two additional meetings have discussed future directions of arctic SDI, both regionally and encompassing the circumpolar Arctic. A meeting of opportunity was held on 30 October 2003 in Seattle, Washington, in conjunction with the SEARCH Open Science Meeting (see page 1) to discuss and gather input on implementation plans for improvements in arctic SDI, building on the 2001 meeting. The following day, a group of researchers and SDI experts met to discuss SDI advances specifically for the North Slope of Alaska. Summaries and information from these two meetings are available on the Arctic GIS web site (www.arcus. org/gis). The Arctic GIS web site provides a platform for the exchange of information and ideas to encourage and catalyze further discussion and planning. The site includes: • information from meetings convened to discuss arctic GII, including workshop reports and summaries, presentations, and agendas; • annotated lists of relevant web sites; • an online discussion forum for exchanging information and ideas, including open-ended, user-defined discussion threads and an avenue for moderated thematic discussions; and • news and events. The web site and other ongoing efforts in arctic SDI are supported by the RSL program, which funds SDI projects with potentially broad benefits to research or research support under the general solicitation for the Arctic Sciences Section (www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?ods_ key=nsf03574). For more information, see the Arctic GIS web site: www.arcus.org/gis, or contact Helen Wiggins at ARCUS (907-474-1600; fax 907-474-1604; [email protected]) or Renée Crain at NSF (703-292-8029; fax 703-292-9082; [email protected]). 7 Plans for securing a multicapable research vessel for the Alaska region are moving forward. The National Science Foundation successfully presented the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) to the National Science Board, and as a result it was approved for inclusion in the Major Research Equipment (MRE) budget request for FY05 or beyond. With the preliminary design for the ARRV completed, NSF is supporting the preparation of the contract design. The design team from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the University of Alaska Fairbanks is working with The Glosten Associates of Seattle, with advice from a broad-based user committee. Plans call for completion of this phase by midsummer 2004. The ARRV is proposed to replace the R/V Alpha Helix, which was commissioned in 1966 (see Witness Autumn 2001). The new ship will have many capabilities— fisheries research, oceanographic research, and coring among them. Specifically designed for working in Alaskan waters, the ARRV will be able to support scientific research from the seasonal pack ice of the Arctic Ocean to the stormy open waters of the Gulf of Alaska. It will measure 72 m (236 feet) in length, displace more than 3,150 metric tons, and accommodate up to 28 investigators. A major feature is the ability to work within seasonal sea ice year round. The ARRV will be able to slice through first-year sea ice up to 0.75 m (2.5 feet) thick and will easily transit ice ridges up to 2.1 m (7 feet) thick. Officially, the ARRV is rated as a Polar Class 5 ship under criteria proposed by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). Powering the ship is an integrated diesel–electric power plant that generates AC power for the ship’s electrical needs and delivers 5,750 horsepower to the ship’s two ice-rated azimuthing Z-drive propellers. Each propeller is more than 2.4 m (8 feet) in diameter and is made of ice-rated stainless steel. A single 800-horsepower bow thruster gives the vessel the capability to maneuver in tight places or hold precise station in rough seas. The ship will be able to stay at sea for at least 45 days while spending 20–25% of the time in ice. For more information contact Vera Alexander at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (907-474-7210; fax 907-4747204; [email protected].edu). Arctic Research Support and Logistics Following the ARCSS All-Hands meeting in February 2002 (see Witness Spring 2002), the ARCSS Program began a transition from studies developed and overseen by disciplinary groups to an integrated research program directed more toward synthesis (see page 8). The following pages include information about the ARCSS synthesis process as well as the current status of several of the ongoing scientific initiatives supported by the ARCSS Program: • the Western Arctic Shelf-Basin Interactions (SBI; see page 10), • the Human Dimensions of the Arctic System (HARC; see page 11), and ARCSS Program Plans Move Forward for Alaska Region Research Vessel This view of the ARRV concept design shows the ice-capable hull form, retractable centerboard for transducers, and twin azimuthing propellers. Illustration by John Farmer, Farmer Marine Design Services. The Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Program began in 1989 as one of the 22 Global Change Research programs at NSF. An interdisciplinary program, ARCSS currently funds more than 120 projects. Most of its funding is directed to large integrated research projects that are proposed and implemented in response to science plans developed through community planning processes such as workshops, peer review of draft plans, and the work of science steering committees. The program as a whole is guided by the scientific community through the ARCSS Committee (see page 8). • Pan-Arctic Community-wide Hydrological Analysis and Monitoring Program (Arctic-CHAMP) and the allied Freshwater Initiative (see page 9). A new ARCSS solicitation for Study of the Northern Alaska Coastal System (SNACS; see page 10) will also contribute to the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH; see page 1). For more information about the ARCSS Program, see the NSF web site: www.nsf.gov/od/opp/arctic/system.htm, or contact Program Director Neil Swanberg (703-292-8029; fax 703-292-9081; [email protected]v). Arctic System Science Program Guided by Community 8 ARCSS Program whether, in fact, the Arctic is moving toward a new state. By the end of the week, participants reached near-unanimous agreement that the Arctic is likely moving outside the envelope of past experience— possibly toward a new state—and that we do not yet understand the implications for the Arctic, the global climate system, or human society. Participants also agreed that a state change could include major surprises and non-linearities, and that the implications could be wide-ranging and substantial for humans. An important product from the retreat is a paper (in preparation) describing the motivation for the synthesis approach, as well as new insights from discussions at the Big Sky gathering. Discussions centered on the interwoven complexity of recent arctic change, how this fabric of change is tied to the larger global system, how it will unfold in coming years, and what the implications for humans may be. Major questions raised at the retreat included: What are the primary drivers of the change? Which components of the system will experience the greatest impacts and what will they be? What are the dominant feedbacks among the key components, and will those feedbacks change if the Arctic shifts to a new state? Are we approaching a threshold in the climate system that may trigger an abrupt shift? Can we identify negative feedbacks that are strong enough to counteract observed changes during recent decades? Answers to these questions will not come from investigations targeting one component of the ecosphere. They require a broad, system-wide perspective, both pastand future-looking, that considers interactions among the ocean, atmosphere, biology, and human society. Results from the Big Sky retreat were presented in a keynote address to the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Open Science Meeting in October 2003 (see page 1) by Jonathan Overpeck on behalf of the ARCSS Committee and retreat participants. The presentation provided an overview of the ARCSS vision for synthesis and described the three main results from the retreat: (1) a contrast between the arctic system state of today and the possible future scenario of a seasonally ice-free state, (2) the current system-wide pattern of observed changes is a harbinger of a possible new system state, and positive feedbacks (and threshold responses) could accelerate state change in the future, and (3) the research community should look outside the arctic system for thermostats and reining mechanisms that could retard or reverse arctic change. The presentation ended with an outline of what the synthesis view could mean for society both within and outside the Arctic. ARCSS Program Integration and Coordination In concert with these scientific synthesis activities, in 2003 and early 2004 the ARCSS Committee and Neil Swanberg, the NSF program director, began the process of reorganizing the ARCSS Program with the overall goal of a more interdisciplinary, synthesis-based approach to understanding the arctic system through better integration of the many scientific disciplines contributing to ARCSS research. The ARCSS Committee (AC) met for four days in February 2004 to discuss the ARCSS science goals for the next several years and strategies for a more integrated management and coordination structure. The committee recommended that the ARCSS Program emphasize an overview that the AC believes to be achievable only through interdisciplinary collaboration and that the program lower the emphasis on independent component studies developed by disciplinary groups, thus continuing the trends of increasing central coordination and decreasing support of disciplinary activities. The details of how this concept will be realized are still being developed. Over the next six to nine months, however, many of the day-to-day coordination and management tasks now being handled by various ARCSS science management offices will be gathered in a new ARCSS Management Office. Centralized ARCSS coordination and management structures will not replace the Arctic System Synthesis Encourages Program Integration Is the arctic system moving to a new state outside the envelope of the natural glacial–interglacial cycle? This “Big Question” emerged from the week-long retreat of 25 scientists representing most of the scientific disciplines working in the NSF Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Program. The August 2003 retreat in Big Sky, Montana, was an important step in the program’s shift from component-oriented research to a primary emphasis on scientific synthesis. Begun in 1989, the ARCSS Program’s body of research now has matured sufficiently to begin assembling a true systems view of the Arctic. Participants at the February 2002 ARCSS All-Hands Workshop (see Witness Spring 2002) and the October 2002 ARCSS Committee meeting agreed that, with more than twelve years of research on various aspects of the arctic system, ARCSS is well-poised to undertake a focused synthesis. The fundamental goals of the ARCSS synthesis are to gain a more clear understanding of how the Arctic works as a system and as a component of the global system. The synthesis phase includes both a scientific synthesis and increasingly integrated implementation of the overall ARCSS Program. The process of synthesizing the community’s collective knowledge of the arctic system began at the All-Hands Workshop, with more than 300 ARCSS researchers participating, and continued with the Big Sky Retreat in August 2003. The retreat’s goal was to distill and integrate available knowledge into a more holistic perspective of the arctic system. Scientists from a variety of disciplines investigating many components of the arctic system attended, and for most it was a tremendous learning experience—an opportunity to discuss commonalities and linkages with researchers who rarely cross paths: marine biologists with permafrost experts, atmospheric modelers with soil scientists, oceanographers with sociologists. This amalgamation of knowledge led to the realization that arctic change is pervasive, widespread, and dramatic, and hence to the “Big Question.” Throughout the week, the participants worked together, each offering their own expertise and perspective, to determine continued on next page 9 and the implications of change for human society. For more information, see the ARCSS Committee web site: www.arcus.org/ ARCSS/ARCSS.html, or contact Dan Ferguson (907-474-1600; fax 907-4741604; [email protected]). The current members of the ARCSS Committee are: Jonathan Overpeck (chair), University of Arizona; Jennifer Francis, Rutgers University; Lawrence Hamilton, University of New Hampshire; Marika Holland, Nat’l Center for Atmospheric Research; Glen MacDonald, University of California; Craig Nicolson, University of Massachusetts; Don Perovich, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), New Hampshire; Mark Serreze, University of Colorado; Matthew Sturm, CRREL, Alaska; Charles Vörösmarty, University of New Hampshire, and John Weatherly, CRREL, New Hampshire. Neil Swanberg is the NSF ARCSS Program Director. ARCSS Program Arctic-CHAMP Coordinates Freshwater Initiative Projects both informally and, at times, with more direct involvement of the AC. The AC will work directly with the community groups that are shaping research ideas into implementation plans and will guide the further development of the plans that will serve as the basis for ARCSS Program announcements of opportunity. The AC will prioritize recommendations from various communities, identifying research needs from an arctic system perspective, and will oversee the development of ARCSS research from the first stages of recommendations developed at the community level to implementation, the generation of data sets, synthesis of results, communication to the scientific and other communities, and integration into an overall understanding of the Arctic, its role in the global system, community-level science development that has been the hallmark of ARCSS over the years. Much thought is being given to processes that will enable individual ARCSS researchers and networked research communities to work together to bring forward ideas for consideration for ARCSS Program implementation. Developing a centralized coordination and management structure is intended to create clear, direct pathways for coordination and planning within the ARCSS research community, as well as with the ARCSS Committee and the NSF ARCSS Program. The mechanisms through which the ARCSS Program will adopt research initiatives for implementation will include the emergence of key questions and identified priorities for research from the community, to study the sources, fates, and variations in the pan-arctic freshwater cycle. The FWI projects represent an ARCSS contribution to SEARCH that will: • explore decade-to-century variability of the arctic water cycle, and • link land dynamics to ocean water mass and circulation through the stocks and fluxes of freshwater. FWI synthesis projects focus on key components of the arctic freshwater cycle, including atmosphere, ocean, ice, snow, rivers, land, and modeling efforts. Meetings and Plans More than 45 people, including graduate students and technicians, attended a meeting of FWI investigators held in association with the SEARCH Open Science Meeting in Seattle in October 2003 (see page 1). The purpose of the meeting was to coordinate ongoing program activities and plan future integration efforts, and its minutes and agenda are available on the ArcticCHAMP web site (http://arcticchamp. sr.unh.edu/newsandnotes.shtml). The Arctic-CHAMP Science Steering Committee (SSC), co-chaired by Larry Hinzman at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Charles Vörösmarty at the University of New Hampshire, met in December 2004 at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. The 14 members of the SSC discussed: • the status of the interdisciplinary implementation plan, due to be completed in early 2004, • updates from the Science Management Office, and • future synthesis efforts and products. Ideas for future synthesis activities include a book focusing on the arctic freshwater cycle and a Freshwater Initiative Education Institute for undergraduate and graduate students interested in studying the arctic region. The Arctic-CHAMP SMO is planning for a Freshwater Initiative All-Hands meeting 4–7 May 2004 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. More information on the meeting is available on the Arctic-CHAMP web site. For more information, see the ArcticCHAMP web site: http://arcticchamp. sr.unh.edu, or contact SMO Executive Director Jonathan Pundsack (603-8620552; fax 603-862-0587; jonathan. [email protected]), Larry Hinzman (907-474-7331; fax 907-474-7979; ffl[email protected]), or Charles Vörösmarty (603-862-0850; fax 603-862-0587; [email protected]). With support from the ARCSS Program (see page 7), the Science Management Office (SMO) for the PanArctic Community-wide Hydrological Analysis and Monitoring Program (ArcticCHAMP) opened in June 2003. NSF established the Arctic-CHAMP program in 2001 (see Witness Spring 2003) to: • improve understanding of arctic hydrology and its linkages with closely related atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic processes and cycles, and • foster collaboration with the many relevant U.S. and international arctic research initiatives. The first Arctic-CHAMP projects, funded in 2002 under the title Arctic Freshwater Cycle: Land/Upper-Ocean Linkages (also known as the Freshwater Initiative [FWI]), link NSF contributions across three programs: • Arctic-CHAMP, • the Arctic/Sub-Arctic Ocean Fluxes (ASOF) Programme (see Witness Winter 2000/2001), and • the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH; see page 1). The 18 FWI projects, with four additional collaborative projects funded under other NSF programs, bring together atmospheric, terrestrial, and marine researchers 16 Capitol Updates On January 23, President Bush signed the omnibus appropriations bill that includes the FY 2004 NSF budget. The bill provides $5.6 billion for NSF, an increase of 3.9% or $208 million over FY 2003 and $97 million more than the president’s 2004 budget request. Although the 2002 NSF Authorization Act calls for a doubling of the NSF budget between FY 2002 and FY 2007 (see Witness Spring 2002), the FY 2004 appropriation falls $1 billion short of the authorized $6.6 billion funding level. The Research and Related Activities account receives $4.3 billion, 5.5% or $222 million more than FY 2003. The research directorates receive increases between 3% and 7.4%. The Office of Polar Programs receives $343 million, an increase of 7.4% or $24 million. Of this, the Arctic Research Program’s estimated budget of $44 million is a 14.6% increase over FY 2003. This increase consists largely of $5.8 million designated by the Senate “to support SEARCH [Study of Environmental Arctic Change] infrastructure needs, including research support for the Barrow Arctic Research Facility” (Senate Report 108-143). The Arctic Research Support and Logistics Program increases by 3.5% to $31.4 million. The relevant Conference Committee report (H.R. 108-401) directs NSF to “provide details on the funding levels for research and logistics within the U.S. Polar Research Programs in the FY 2004 operating plan.” NSF’s Education and Human Resources (EHR) programs receive $939 million, 0.4% above FY 2003, including $140 million for Math and Science Partnerships, $95 million for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), and $25 million for the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP). Started last year with a budget of $2 million, the STEP program seeks to increase the number of U.S. citizens or permanent residents earning undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Funding for the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account is $155 million in FY 2004, below the $202 million request, and funds five of seven requested projects, including the IceCube Neutrino Detector Observatory in Antarctica ($42 million) and construction on South Pole Station ($1.3 million). Congress declined to fund two MREFC projects: the High-Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform (HIAPER) and the National Ecological Observatories Network (NEON), a system of research facilities and instruments for integrated environmental observations (see Witness Spring 2000). The Major Research Instrumentation program within Integrative Activities receives $110 million, a $27 million increase. FY 2005 Budget Request In early February, the president submitted his FY 2005 budget request to Congress. The NSF request is $5.745 billion, a 3% overall increase above the FY 2004 budget. The 2005 request for the Research and Related Activities account increases by 4.7% to $4.452 billion. The budget request for Polar Programs is $350 million, an increase of 2.2% over FY 2004. The request for the Arctic Research Program is $44.9 million, a 2% increase, and the request for the Arctic Research Support and Logistics Program is $32.12 million, an increase of 2.3%. The 2005 NSF budget seeks funding for six major research facilities: • $12 million for NEON, • $40.85 million to outfit a new research vessel to support the international Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, • $30 million for the Rare Symmetry Violating Process project at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, • $49.67 million for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array in Chile, • $33.4 million for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, and • $47.35 million for Earthscope, a nationwide geological observatory network. The 2005 budget request also includes a 14.6% increase for the Long Term Ecological Research Program, to $18 million, and $363 million for Organizational Excellence, an NSF strategic goal that emphasizes the use of sound business practices in administration. NSB Calls for $19 Billion Budget According to a report from the National Science Board (NSB) released in February, the NSF budget must reach $19 billion to bring the federal investment in basic research and education to a level that will sustain future U.S. leadership in science and technology. The report responds to Section 22 of the 2002 NSF Authorization Act (see Witness Spring 2002), which directs the NSB to address and examine the budgetary and programmatic growth provided for by the act. That act authorizes increasing NSF funding to $9.8 billion by FY 2007. The NSB report identifies six priority recommendations for NSF investment if the authorized funding increase is appropriated: • improve the productivity of researchers and expand opportunities for students, primarily by increasing the size and duration of awards; • open new frontiers in research and education, including exploring novel research approaches and developing technologies; • build a diverse, competitive, and globally engaged U.S. science and engineering workforce; • increase the number and diversity of institutions that participate in NSFfunded activities; • provide scientists and engineers with advanced tools, facilities, and cyberinfrastructure (see page 4); and • maintain NSF’s excellence in management. The report also analyzes the full extent of the research and education needs that are not currently being met and determines that the NSF budget must be increased to nearly $19 billion to address them fully. The NSB is made up of 24 members appointed by the president to provide advice on U.S. science and technology issues to Congress and the president. For more information on the NSF FY 2004 and 2005 budgets, see the NSF Budget Division web site: www.nsf.gov/ bfa/bud. For more information on the NSB report, see the NSB web site: www. nsf.gov/nsb. Final 2004 NSF Budget Increases 3.9% 17 Education News At the American Geophysical Union meeting in December 2003, a special session titled Polar Attraction: Linking Polar Science with Education and Outreach explored the potential of using polar research to engage people in understanding and appreciating science. The session brought polar authors, journalists, and museum curators together with scientists, educators, and NSF program managers. Presentations focused on how to produce effective programs that engage different audiences: K–12, undergraduate, and the general public. Presenters recommended linking research with the broader themes of exploration, discovery, adventure, isolation, hardship, passion, self-reliance, and exotic landscapes and biota. For example, Mary Miller, of the San Francisco Exploratorium and “Live from Antarctica,” demonstrated how effective it can be to connect museum visitors with an adventure and the passions of scientists for their research. Robert Wharton, of the NSF Office of Polar Programs, presented a suite of options for funding and encouraged the polar scientific communities to look for additional avenues to bridge their research with education. Don Perovich, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, said, “Don’t just talk about things, find ways to get kids involved in doing them.” The poster session highlighted a number of other approaches to linking polar science with education and outreach and provided an opportunity for participants to discuss successes and failures and to brainstorm on future directions. NSF has funded a workshop planned for June 2004 called Bridging the Poles: Education Linked with Research to build on the information gained in this special session and in two previous workshops on similar topics (one on polar K–12 education in 1997, and one on arctic science education in 2000; see Witness Spring 1998 and Spring 2002). The objective of the new workshop is to develop a strategy that will • enable polar scientists to conduct meaningful education and outreach, and • help educators to include polar research in their classrooms. The workshop will define future directions for polar education, including needed infrastructure, that will also maximize the educational impact of the International Polar Year beginning in 2007 (see page 23). The goal is to build stronger partnerships between the arctic and Antarctic scientific communities, and between education and polar research, in order to engage the next generation of scientists, engineers, and leaders as well as to educate the general public about polar regions. For more information, contact Stephanie Pfirman (212-854-5120; spfi[email protected]) or Robin Bell ([email protected]). Polar Attraction: Linking Polar Science with Education A young student prepares for an arctic field experiment. Photo by Don Perovich. New Program Brings Teachers to Field Research In February 2004, ARCUS initiated a new program supporting research experiences for educators called Teachers and Researchers Exploring and Collaborating (TREC). Ten K–12 teachers were selected to join TREC, working closely with scientists on arctic field research projects. To begin their collaborations, the research teams and teachers participated in orientation “webinars” (web-based seminars) held in March. Each teacher will travel to a project’s field site to collaborate with investigators, integrating research and education and infusing inquiry-based science into classrooms and communities. Teachers will share their experiences through online journals and other information posted on the TREC web site, which also includes relevant curriculum resources and learning activities. This collaboration invigorates science teaching and learning and instills in young people an enthusiasm for science, inquiry, and working together to address questions important to their communities. TREC provides professional development for teachers who participate in field research projects as well as educators who connect through the Internet. TREC teachers participate in a collaborative learning community of educators and researchers through a reciprocal exchange of experience and knowledge between researchers and educators. TREC is an interim program, building on the valuable lessons of the Teachers Experiencing Antarctica and the Arctic (TEA) program, which was funded by the NSF Education and Human Resources Directorate and the Office of Polar Programs (OPP). Funding for TREC is provided by OPP, with logistical support from VECO Polar Resources (see page 5). For more information, see the TREC web site: www.arcus.org/trec, or contact Helen Wiggins at ARCUS (907-474-1600; fax 907-474-1604; [email protected]). 18 Education News Launched in June 2001, the University of the Arctic (UArctic) is a cooperating network of universities, colleges, and other organizations committed to higher education and research in the Arctic (see Witness Spring 2003). The nearly 60 UArctic members from across the circumpolar North share resources, facilities, and expertise to build postsecondary education programs that are relevant and accessible to northern students. UArctic programs promote the development of shared knowledge and understanding, access to education, and sustainable practices in the Arctic. UArctic initiatives currently underway include: • online undergraduate courses about the North for circumpolar students, • an online catalog of northern field courses, and • circumpolar Ph.D. networks in environmental and social sciences. As part of its efforts in improving access and mobility, UArctic developed north2north student mobility, a multilateral exchange program for students registered at any of 23 participating UArctic institutions (see box). Through an international network of national agencies, north2north supports exchanges for periods from 3–12 months. Course credits transfer from the host institution to the student’s home institution. North2north aims specifically to include: • undergraduate students, who are still developing their ideas about the Arctic; • students from smaller communities; and • indigenous students. The pilot phase of the program began in September 2002. Sixteen students participated in north2north in 2002–03, and more than 23 in 2003–04. Following completion of the two-year pilot phase, representatives of participating students, institutions, national agencies, and governments met in January 2004 to begin an internal evaluation of the program. The evaluation report will be released this spring. Also in January 2004, the first Canadian students joined north2north, beginning exchanges at UArctic institutions in Finland and Norway. About 50 students are expected to participate in 2004–05, the program’s first full year of operation. The Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS) recently agreed to serve as the U.S. national agency for the north2north program. More information, including eligibility, guidelines, and applications for the north2north program, is available on the UArctic web site (www. uarctic.org). Applications for north2north are due on 15 January each year. Funding sources UArctic’s funding strategy is based on a model of core funding shared among the eight arctic states, and this approach is showing some success, including: • Finland’s support for the UArctic International Secretariat since the network’s founding; • in December 2003, the Norwegian Parliament allocated €535,000 (about $643,000 USD) for UArctic activities, including north2north; and • in November 2003 Human Resources Development Canada announced $441,474 CDN (about $328,000 USD) designated to support Canadian students’ participation in north2north. U.S. and European Community (EC) UArctic institutions plan to seek support for north2north exchanges from the EC/US Cooperation Program in Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training, a joint program of the U.S. Department of Education and the EC Directorate General for Education and Culture. Other UArctic Exchange Programs North2north is one of UArctic’s emerging set of circumpolar mobility programs, which offer opportunities for students and faculty to gain first-hand experience of other northern regions and homelands. The mobility program for faculty, which is currently under development, will be known as the Northern Teaching Resources Exchange (northTREX). A Mobile Faculty Roster—a catalogue of scholars interested in shortor long-term teaching residencies on UArctic campuses—also facilitates the exchange of northern educators. The UArctic Council, which directs program development and delivery, will meet on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus 15–19 May 2004. The council includes representatives of all UArctic member institutions. For more information, see the UArctic web site: www.uarctic.org, or contact Kayt Sunwood at ARCUS (907-474-1600; fax 907-474-1604; [email protected]). UArctic’s north2north Student Mobility Program Grows Canada • Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario • Nunavut Arctic College, Arviat • Université Laval, Quebec City • University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George • University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon • Yukon College, Whitehorse Finland • Kemi-Tornio Polytechnic • Oulu Polytechnic • Rovaniemi Polytechnic • Saami Education Center, Inari • University of Lapland, Rovaniemi • University of Oulu Iceland • University of Akureyri Norway • Bodø Regional University • Finnmark University College, Alta • Saami University College, Kautokeino • The University College of Tromsø • University of Tromsø Russia • Murmansk Humanities Institute • Sakha State University, Yakutsk Sweden • Luleå University of Technology • Umeå University USA • University of Alaska Fairbanks Institutions Participating in UArctic’s north2north Mobility Program 19 from town to the UIC Science Center at the UIC–NARL Facility, which is several miles north of Barrow. ARCUS and BASC hope to begin remote videocasts of Schoolyard Saturday in 2004. Schoolyard Saturday sponsors field activities for students as well. Barrow High School students have an ongoing effort based in the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) that includes a year-round meteorological station and a growing-season climate change experiment modeled on one at Toolik Field Station. Recently some of the students and a science teacher visited Toolik on a familiarization tour. The students have produced a science poster and presented it at a national education meeting. BASC also organizes evening presentations by researchers, places local students with field research projects, takes scientists into schools across the North Slope, and works with village schools in Chukotka, Russia. BASC provides several NSF-related traveling exhibits to the UIC Science Center and coordinates collection of scientific materials there. Researchers planning to visit the North Slope are encouraged to contact BASC and participate in its educational and outreach activities. For more information, including previous speakers and topics, see the BASC web site: www.arcticscience.org, or contact BASC Executive Director Glenn Sheehan (907-852-4881; fax 907-8524882; [email protected]). Education News Since starting its Schoolyard Saturday program in April 2002, the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium (BASC) has organized more than 75 Saturday afternoon presentations for students and the public on the North Slope of Alaska. Aiming to make science accessible and relevant to students, the presentations focus on scientific issues of interest to the Barrow community and are usually given by an investigator with an active local research project. Each presenter is paired with a local teacher, who assists in the presentation if necessary and helps in advance to plan it on a level suitable for students. Sometimes the teacher’s job has added responsibilities, as when one student fainted during a seal dissection. About 20 educators have worked with Schoolyard Saturday presenters to date. Attendance has risen as the program has started to become a community institution; from November 2002–November 2003 recorded attendance was 1,277—about 28% of the Barrow population. Actual attendance is higher, since not everyone signs in at these informal events. Average attendance in 2003 has been 32 people, usually about one-third of them students. BASC Brings Science to Schoolyard Saturday Recent Schoolyard Saturday presenters and topics have included: • Klaus Meiners on mucus in marine habitats; • Kathy Turco on arctic acoustics; • Kathleen Crane on arctic exploration in the 21st century; • Ron Greeley on solar system exploration; • Geoff Carroll on musk ox reintroduction; • Ben Holt on sea ice thickness; and • Matthew Sturm and Jim Maslanik on ice and snow measurement from satellites. Local author and school board member Debbie Edwardson and translator Ida Olemaun, also a school board member, recently read the Iñupiaq and English versions of Debbie’s book Whale Snow. Schoolyard is part of BASC’s extensive efforts to bring scientists and the community together. Funding comes from the NSF Arctic Long-Term Ecological Research program, based at Toolik Field Station, and the NSF Cooperative Agreement with BASC. Hopson Middle School teacher Jill Exe serves as Schoolyard Saturday coordinator for BASC. BASC provides transportation for Schoolyard Saturday Klaus Meiners (Yale) takes a core sample of the ice on the Arctic Ocean as part of Christopher Krembs’ (University of Washington) ongoing project to study the impact of sea ice microbes on sea ice properties. Scotty Oyagak (BASC), and Isabel Edwardson (Barrow High School) look on. Photo by Leslie Pierce. Science for Alaska Lectures Draw Record Crowds For twelve years, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute has hosted the Science for Alaska free public lecture series, with additional financial support from the University of Alaska and the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation. A record-breaking 8,800 Alaskans attended the lectures in January through March 2003, and judging from the capacity crowds in early 2004, it appears that record is about to be broken. Lectures in 2004 include presentations on the aurora, bears, wolves, astronomy, earthquakes, and lightning and fire. The lecture series was designed to bring cuttingedge research to the general public. Lecturers travel to Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau to share their expertise. In addition to the education outreach effort, teachers attending the lecture series in Fairbanks and Anchorage can earn credit toward maintaining their teaching certificates through participation in a training workshop. This special course is designed to train educators in how to incorporate the research featured at the lectures effectively into classroom lessons and activities. This opportunity increases the skills of Alaska’s teachers and brings current scientific research to Alaska’s primary and secondary schools. For more information, see: www.scienceforalaska.com, or contact Amy Hartley at the UAF Geophysical Institute Public Information and Education Outreach Office (907-474-5823; fax 907-474-7344; [email protected]). 20 Education News International News The Center for Northern Studies, a 30-year-old, nonprofit institution in Vermont for research and education on all aspects of the far North, recently merged with Sterling College, a private, four-year, environmental college offering academic programs in northern studies, outdoor education and leadership, sustainable agriculture, and wildlands ecology and management. The newly established Center for Northern Studies at Sterling College will continue to: • offer study-away options to students from other colleges, • provide additional course options to current Sterling College students, and • attract students from international and indigenous communities of the North. In addition, the center will provide opportunities for educators and other community members to learn more about northern studies through: • a local lecture series, • access to a resource library specializing in the North, and • enrollment in courses and field-study programs. Mission The Center for Northern Studies at Sterling College integrates field research with educational programs addressing the ecosystems and people of arctic and subarctic environments and the challenges of sustainable interaction in a global society. The center’s educational philosophy is founded upon the belief that individuals who help in deciding the future of northern regions must bridge traditional disciplines. The center offers a personal academic experience that combines formal academic work in natural science, anthropology, political economy, law, and humanities with comprehensive fieldwork. Center for Northern Studies Merges with Sterling College The center campus, located close to Sterling College, includes the 350-acre Bear Swamp, an exceptional example of boreal forest and muskeg. This accessible site provides an ideal environment for investigation of regions that are geographically much farther north. Field-study programs to Iceland, Labrador, Newfoundland, and the Scottish Isles provide hands-on experience and immersion in northern culture. An excellent faculty with more than three decades of experience in northern research and education facilitate this unique and intensive opportunity to investigate the environment, peoples, and cultures of the circumpolar North. For more information, see the Center for Northern Studies at Sterling College web site: www.sterlingcollege.edu/cns, or contact Erik Hansen (800-648-3591; fax 802-586-2596; [email protected] or [email protected]). Iceland Hosts Arctic Science Summit Week 2004 The Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS) organized the 2004 Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW) in Reykjavik, Iceland, 21–28 April 2004, with support from the Icelandic Chairmanship of the Arctic Council, which has placed arctic research cooperation at the heart of its chairmanship program. The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) initiated ASSW, which now involves a number of other arctic science organizations (see box). Most of the ASSW events comprise the annual meetings of various circumarctic science organizations, bringing many representatives into one place at the same time and facilitating crosscutting contacts and cooperation. In addition, joint meetings, such as the Project Day and the Science Day, bring science issues of common interest to the agenda. The theme for the ASSW 2004 is Sustainable Development in the Arctic. The Project Day includes three topics of broad international interest: • Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA; see page 21); • Second International Conference for Arctic Research Planning (ICARP II; see page 21); and • International Polar Year 2007–2008 (IPY 2007–2008; see page 23). The overarching theme for the Science Day is Adaptation to Climate Change. Information on speakers and topics is available on the ASSW web site. Previous ASSWs have been held in: • Tromsø, Norway, • Cambridge, UK, • Iqaluit, Canada, • Groningen, Netherlands, and • Kiruna, Sweden. For more information, see the ASSW web site: www.congress.is/assw, or contact Kristjan Kristjansson (+354515 5800; fax: +354-552 9814; [email protected]). Organizations Participating in ASSW 2004 International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) European Science Foundation / European Polar Board (ESF/EPB) Forum of Arctic Research Operators (FARO) Arctic Ocean Science Board (AOSB) Nordic Polar Group (NPG) Ny-Ålesund Science Managers Committee (NySMAC) Northern Research Forum (NRF) International Permafrost Association (IPA) 21 International News ACIA Plans for Delivery, Discussions in 2004 Conference on Arctic Research Planning Set for 2005 discuss and formulate physical, biological, and social science projects and implementation strategies that can guide international cooperation over the next five to ten years to address: • problems, priorities, and concerns of those who live in or near the Arctic, • the linkages between arctic and global processes, and • issues concerning arctic natural resources and environmental quality. At present, 15 major arctic research user organizations have endorsed and are taking part in the ICARP II planning process. The ICARP II Steering Group held its first meeting in October 2003, in association with the SEARCH Open Science Meeting (see page 1). The Steering Group plans to form 10 thematic working groups to explore scientific issues and develop strategies for the future. The deliberations of these working groups will form the basis for the conference. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA; see Witness Winter 2000/2001), an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), commenced in 2000. The assessment will evaluate and synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and increased ultraviolet radiation and their consequences, including possible future impacts on: • the environment and its living resources, • human health, and • buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. The assessment is expected to provide useful and reliable information to the governments, organizations, and peoples of the Arctic on policy options to meet such changes. More than 250 scientists and six circumpolar indigenous organizations have participated in ACIA, which will produce: • a peer-reviewed scientific assessment, and • a synthesis/overview document summarizing results. These documents will be delivered to the ministers at the Arctic Council Ministerial Conference in Reykjavik, Iceland, in November 2004. Immediately preceding the Ministerial Conference, the background and scientific results of ACIA will be discussed at the ACIA International Scientific Symposium on 9–12 November 2004, also in Reykjavik. The symposium’s participants will include • scientists working on arctic and climate change issues, • local and regional administrators, managers, and decision-makers, • indigenous peoples’ organizations, and • representatives of industries and international and nongovernmental organizations with interests in the Arctic. The ACIA scientific assessment will be under consideration at the symposium. The scientific results and background, including indigenous peoples’ perspectives and observations, will be presented and discussed in an integrated circumpolar context. The assessment will also be discussed in the context of global, regional, and sub-regional environmental management and policy development. Identification of knowledge gaps and the need for new research and monitoring will be an important issue at the symposium. Presentations on topics not directly dealt with by the ACIA, but of relevance to climate change in the Arctic, are welcome. The symposium will be an important part of the process by which the ACIA will communicate its results and conclusions to arctic stakeholders and to politicians. A summary report from the discussions and presentations will be delivered to the ministers at their meeting in the week following the symposium. Abstracts were due 1 April 2004. For more information, see the ACIA web site: www.acia.uaf.edu, or contact Gunter Weller (907-474-7371; fax 907474-6722; [email protected]). In 1995, over 300 participants from 18 nations developed plans to tackle critical arctic science problems at the first International Conference for Arctic Research Planning (ICARP), held in Hanover, New Hampshire (see Witness Spring 1996). Ten international working groups drafted initial science plans for potential circumarctic research projects, which were discussed and reviewed at the conference. Since 1995, almost all of the plans have been implemented, contributing significantly to current understanding of the Arctic. The 200 participants at the 2003 Arctic Science Summit Week (see page 20) reached a broad consensus that the timing was right for a second ICARP to identify and address the science problems of today and the next decade. Scheduled for the fall of 2005 in Copenhagen, Denmark, ICARP II aims to bring together arctic residents, senior and young scholars, policy experts, and science and land managers to To generate themes reflecting the interests and needs of the arctic scientific and user communities, the Steering Group solicited proposals for themes from all of the ICARP II sponsors and encouraged them to extend this invitation as broadly as possible. Proposals were due by 15 December 2003. The Steering Group proposed a potential overarching theme for the conference: Understanding the Arctic System: Regional Sustainable Development and Global Connections. The Steering Group met in January 2004 to select working group themes and begin appointing members to the working groups. The working groups will operate throughout 2004 and into early 2005 and circulate the outcome of their deliberations well in advance of the conference. For more information, see the ICARP II web site: www.dpc.dk/Res&Log/ICARP, or contact Patrick Webber (517-355-1284; fax 517-432-2150; [email protected]). 22 The concept of a terrestrial Circumarctic Environmental Observatories Network (CEON; see Witness Winter 2000/2001) was first raised at the 2000 Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW; see page 20) at a meeting of the Forum of Arctic Research Operators (FARO; see Witness Spring/Autumn 1999 and www. faro-arctic.org). FARO members supported the CEON concept, advocating that CEON be developed to promote measurement of environmental observations and dissemination of these to arctic researchers, while encompassing and building on the strengths of existing stations and environmental observatory networks within the Arctic. Since 2000, the CEON concept has received increasing support, including endorsement from the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC; see www.iasc.no) as an initiative focused on facilitating ongoing and future long-term international research endeavors in the Arctic. To contact and collect feedback from potential CEON stakeholder and user groups, the CEON concept has been presented at meetings of various networks, research collaborations, and polar organizations in Europe, Russia, and the U.S. Presentations have focused on the necessity for the CEON initiative to meet the needs of the participating research community, science administrators, policy makers, industry, education, and indigenous communities while providing: • linkages among disciplines and existing networks, and • connectivity spanning regional to circumarctic and global scales. To prevent introduction of national, disciplinary, or institutional bias, presentations of the CEON concept have deliberately not mentioned or suggested specific measurements or processes that should or could be made or investigated. Instead, audiences have been asked to answer the following question: “What would you do if you had the opportunity to conduct standardized long-term, integrated measurements across multiple research stations and networks in the Arctic?” It is hoped that this “bottom-up” approach will facilitate the development and scope of CEON based on the experience, needs, and future directions of a broad range of potential CEON stakeholder and user groups. The rationale that has emerged for CEON includes the following issues: • Relative to other regions on the globe, the Arctic is experiencing dramatic changes in climate and patterns of human land use. Environmental and socioeconomic drivers associated with these changes originate both within and outside of the arctic system. • Change detection and predictive power of these changes are low and are limited and threatened by the loss of sustained environmental observation time series in northern high latitudes. • A circumarctic environmental observatories network that can provide adequate, diverse, and sustained time series observations has the potential to dramatically improve our understanding of the arctic system and how it may continue to respond to a variety of environmental and societal changes forecast for the region. • There is a well-established science infrastructure and a tremendous amount of research and monitoring in the Arctic. Generally, the broader international and multidisciplinary impacts of these efforts are not fully tapped due to limitations associated with research exposure, communication, data availability, and differences in technologies and sampling methods between sites. Reinforcing and improving the broader impacts of this existing and ongoing effort should be the primary starting point for CEON. In October 2003, an initial planning meeting for CEON was convened at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Financial support for this meeting was provided by: • the U.S. National Science Foundation, • the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Abisko Scientific Research Station, • the Scandinavian–North European Network of Terrestrial Field Bases (SCANNET, www.envicat.com/scannet/ Scannet), and • a grant to Abisko Scientific Research Station (www.ans.kiruna.se) from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (www.internat.environ.se/index.php3) for its participation in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA, www.acia. uaf.edu; see page 21). Many participants also generously provided whole or partial funding to support their attendance at this meeting. A total of 34 participants attended the meeting and represented all eight arctic nations and 11 of the 18 IASC member countries. Disciplinary interests of participants spanned science administration, ecology, climatology, biogeochemistry, remote sensing, policy and management, human and physical geography, and modeling. Interests of indigenous peoples of the North and traditional ecological knowledge were represented in several disciplines. Participants also represented a range of research sites, monitoring networks, research collaborations, and science-based programs and organizations, spanning local, circumarctic, and international scales. The October planning meeting has helped to focus the development of CEON and identify a central theme for its mission—to strengthen the capacity for emerging monitoring, research, and policy needs at high northern latitudes by making data available that are adequate and suitable for answering a series of well-defined key scientific questions and uncertainties. It is intended that a larger international CEON meeting will be convened in late 2004 to facilitate the formation of key working groups and conduct elections for seats of office. Feedback for the future development of CEON and the CEON web site, which hosts a new circumarctic online and interactive geographic information system/Internet map server, is welcomed. For more information, see the CEON web site: http://ceoninfo.org, or contact Craig Tweedie (517-355-1285; fax 517432-2150; [email protected]). CEON Initiative Gathers Support International News 23 Momentum is building for an International Polar Year in 2007–2008, timed to celebrate several international scientific anniversaries (see box). IPY 2007–2008 is envisioned as a campaign of coordinated polar observations and analyses that are bipolar in focus, multidisciplinary in scope, and international in participation. Its scientific program will incorporate elements of exploration, studies of polar processes, and activities to monitor and understand change and its human dimensions. Its goals include galvanizing new and innovative observations and research, building on and enhancing existing programs and initiatives, attracting and developing the next generation of polar scientists and science leaders, and creating an exciting range of education and outreach activities to engage the public. IPY 2007–2008 has received strong endorsements from the International Council for Science (ICSU), the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the Arctic Ocean Studies Board, the European Polar Board, the U.S. Polar Research Board (PRB; see page 15), the World Meteorological Organization, and other government and nongovernmental organizations. IPY planners have established an international structure to involve many nations in development of a coherent IPY strategy. In May 2003, the ICSU Executive Committee formed an IPY Planning Group, which met in July and December 2003. The IPY Planning Group invited all nations wishing to be involved to form a national committee to facilitate communication, to help define the overall science themes, and to steer their own national efforts. In the U.S., the PRB established the U.S. National Committee for IPY 2007– 2008, chaired by Mary Albert of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. This group is using an interactive web site, meetings, and other mechanisms to spread the word about IPY. The new web site (http://us-ipy.org) hosts a variety of information on IPY, including history, planning documents, announcements of opportunities, etc. The U.S. Committee is preparing a report that will lay out the case for IPY 2007–2008 and help focus U.S. activities, and a draft will be posted on the site for comment in mid-2004. At the international level, the ICSU IPY Planning Group delivered a preliminary progress report to ICSU in February 2004. Assuming ICSU approval, the planning group will oversee development of an IPY science plan through an open process, including sorting the many ideas generated to date into main themes so that the IPY effort can be coordinated. For more information, see the U.S. IPY web site: http://us-ipy.org, or contact Sheldon Drobot (202-334-1942; fax 202334-1477; [email protected]). Groups Plan for International Polar Year 2007–2008 A Brief History of the International Polar Years 2007–2008 will mark the 125th anniversary of the First International Polar Year (1882–1883), the 75th anniversary of the Second Polar Year (1932–1933), and the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (1957–1958). The IPYs and IGY were major initiatives that generated significant new insights into global processes and led to decades of invaluable polar research. The IGY resulted directly in the establishment of the Antarctic Treaty System. In spite of substantial investments in polar exploration and research over the years, both by individual nations and through international programs, the relative inaccessibility and challenging environments of these regions have left them less well explored and studied than other key regions of the planet. IPY 2007–2008 will focus attention on the importance of the Arctic and Antarctic in the Earth system and their many significant connections to issues of global climate, sea level, biogeochemical cycles, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems. 1882–1883: Karl Weyprecht, an officer with the Austro-Hungarian navy, inspired the First International Polar Year. Weyprecht argued that polar expeditions should include teams of scientists who could make observations on aurorae, geomagnetism, and meteorological conditions. Planning for the IPY, which was the first major international science collaboration, took seven years. Although Weyprecht died before the IPY, 11 countries participated in 15 polar expeditions (12 to the Arctic and 3 to the Antarctic), heralding a new age of scientific discovery. 1932–1933: The Second International Polar Year was proposed in 1928 at an international conference of meteorological service directors. Forty nations participated in arctic research from 1932–1933 (the 25th anniversary of the first IPY), largely in the fields of meteorology, magnetism, aurorae, and radio science. Due to the worldwide depression, however, the second IPY was smaller than originally envisioned. 1957–1958: What might have been the Third International Polar Year was expanded and named the International Geophysical Year (IGY). Proposed in 1952 by the International Council of Scientific Unions following a suggestion by National Academy of Sciences member Lloyd Berkner, the IGY included significant work in the Antarctic and some in the Arctic, as well as geophysical work around the globe. Sixty-seven nations conducted research during the IGY, including 12 nations that established and maintained 65 stations in Antarctica. International News Balfour Watson Currie (1902–1981) of the University of Saskatchewan measuring atmospheric potential gradient at Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut, Canada, during the second IPY (1932–1933). Photo courtesy of University of Saskatchewan Archives, Physics fonds, A-22. 24 International News In a major development for arctic science in Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided funding to transform the 98-m Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Sir John Franklin into a state-ofthe-art research icebreaker at a cost of $31 million (CDN). The CFI grant also covered equipment acquisition and a portion of the vessel’s first five years of operation. Re-christened Amundsen, the icebreaker began its first deployment in September 2003, supporting the ongoing Canadianled Arctic Shelf Exchange Study (CASES, 2002–2007). Funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, CASES’ goal is to understand and model the response of biogeochemical and ecological cycles to atmospheric, oceanic, and continental forcing of sea-ice cover variability on the Mackenzie Shelf. Researchers from 11 countries are taking turns as the ship over-winters in the Beaufort Sea (see www.cases.quebec-ocean.ulaval.ca). Within the framework of ArcticNet (see box), the Amundsen will support several other major programs in the Canadian sector of the Arctic Ocean over the next ten years. For example: The International Observatories of Arctic Canadian Seas will gather long-term physical, biological, and biogeochemical variables in the Arctic Basin (Mackenzie Shelf) and the Canadian outflow of the Arctic Ocean (North Water), starting in 2004–2005. Ice Information and Navigation in the NW Passage. The Northwest Passage could open to intercontinental navigation by 2015–2025. This project will build predictive ice dynamics and distribution models to develop strategies for decreasing the risk of marine disasters while maximizing the potential shipping season. Northern Regional Sensitivity to Climate Change focuses on a transect analysis of Canadian coastal environments from 55˚N (Kuujjuarapik) to 80˚N (Ellesmere Island) to determine the potential response of terrestrial northern ecosystems to warming. The research icebreaker will serve as a moving base, with access to coastal sites by launch and helicopter. Role of Ice in the Morphodynamics of Arctic Coasts will anticipate the response of the Arctic Coast to climateinduced changes in ice cover, wave generation, and storm surge. Climate Change and Public Health in the Canadian Arctic (2003–2008) will examine the influence of climate on human health and develop strategies for adapting to Canada Launches Research Icebreaker Amundsen The refurbished Amundsen includes features such as an internal moon pool, providing an opening to the sea from inside the ship, fully equipped wet and dry labs, a fast-launch davit, and an acoustic well. Photo by Gérald Darnis (CASES). Canada’s Arctic Research Efforts Gain Ground Canada’s northern research efforts have consistently dwindled over the past 20 years. The Task Force on Northern Research appointed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) released a report in 2000 that called for renewing the historic Canadian leadership in arctic science (Hutchinson et al., 2000, From Crisis to Opportunity: Rebuilding Canada’s Role in Northern Research). Canada has recently taken steps to increase its research efforts in the Arctic, including refurbishing an icebreaker for scientific work (see this page) and establishing a national Network of Centres of Excellence focused on the impacts of climate change in the marine and coastal Arctic. Launched in July 2003, ArcticNet connects 21 Canadian and 20 international universities, two industries, and 27 governmental and nongovernmental organizations in a crosssectoral network involving natural, social, and health scientists. ArcticNet’s goal is to develop knowledge needed to formulate impact assessments, national policies, and adaptation strategies to help Canada face the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of a warming Arctic and address the concerns of northerners, including the rate of change of the arctic environment; the reduction of human vulnerability to hazardous events; the adaptation of the public health system to change; the protection of key animal species; maritime transport in an ice-free Canadian Arctic; and the economic impacts of environmental change in the Arctic. The direct involvement of northern residents in the scientific process is a primary goal of the network, which is funded for $25.7 million (CDN) for four years. For more information, see the ArcticNet web site: www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca, or contact Martin Fortier (418-656-5233; fax 418-656-2339; mar[email protected]). its potential impacts in northern communities. The icebreaker will provide access to remote communities and facilities for interviews and examinations. For more information, see the Amundsen web site: www.amundsen.quebec-ocean. ulaval.ca, or contact Louis Fortier (418-6565646; fax 418-656-2339; louis.fortier@bio. ulaval.ca). 25 Bathymetric and topographic tints -5000 -4000-3000-2500-2000-1500-1000 -500 -200 -100 -50 -25 0-1050 100 200 300 400 500 600 700800 1000 (Meters) Canada Basin Barents Sea Chukchi Borderland Morris Jesup Rise Yermak Plateau A l p h a - M e n d e l e e v R i d g e L o m o n o s o v R i d g e G a k k e l R i d g e UN Law of the Sea May Alter Arctic Ocean Boundaries International Bathyspheric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (www.ngdc. noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/arctic/arctic.html), graphic depiction modified by Sue Mitchell. International News The boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zones in the Arctic Ocean may change in the next decade, as nations attempt to redefine their claims to sovereign rights for exploration and development of resources under the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Under Article 76 of UNCLOS, coastal states may choose from among several criteria—based variously on distance from the coastline, distance from selected isobaths or the foot of the continental slope, or even the ratio between sediment thickness and shortest distance from the foot of the continental slope—to project their jurisdiction beyond the usual 200 nautical miles seaward of the coast. This area, which may extend up to 150 miles beyond the 200-mile limit or even farther under some circumstances, is referred to as the juridical continental shelf, which may or may not correspond to the physiographic continental shelf. UNCLOS requires individual nations to submit any claims for extended jurisdiction to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), an elected body of 21 experts in geology, geophysics, or hydrography, within 10 years of the nation’s ratifying UNCLOS. The CLCS then reviews the submission and issues recommendations to the submitting state. If the submission is approved, the coastal nation can exert sovereign rights in the extended region, including jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of both the living and nonliving natural resources above and below the seabed; control over the placement and use of submarine cables, pipelines, and other structures; regulation over drilling; control and prevention of marine pollution; and regulation of marine scientific research. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by some of the largest continental shelves in the world, and these shelves are almost certain to contain many economically important deposits of petroleum and other minerals. Of the five nations bordering the Arctic Ocean, Canada, Norway, and Russia have ratified the UNCLOS. Denmark and the U.S. have not ratified the treaty and therefore cannot be elected to the CLCS. In December 2001, Russia presented a submission to the CLCS, seeking jurisdiction over a wide area of the central Arctic Ocean, including portions of the Lomonosov and Alpha-Mendeleev ridges and fringing deep seabed. Canada, Denmark, and the U.S. objected to this submission, questioning its supporting data. Earlier in 2001, a Canadian team reviewed the available public data on the bathymetry of the Arctic Ocean and drew noticeably different boundaries. In 2002, the CLCS recommended that Russia revise the central Arctic Ocean component of its submission and provide additional supporting data. In 2003, two conferences examined this complex issue: Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits; Reykjavik, June 25–27: Participants representing more than 40 nations and the UN focused on the intersection of science, law, and politics created by UNCLOS. A session examined current issues before the CLCS, including the Russian submission. Arthur Grantz, with the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences at Stanford University, presented evidence that the Yermak Plateau, Morris Jesup Borderlands, and Chukchi Borderlands are spurs projecting from the continental shelf and therefore should be considered part of the juridical continental shelves under Article 76. Grantz concluded, however, that the Gakkel, Lomonosov, and Alpha-Mendeleev ridges lack islands and are bathymetrically isolated from the circumarctic continents. They are therefore part of the ocean floor of the central Arctic Ocean, and thus not subject to claim under Article 76. More information on the meeting is available at http://virginia.edu/colp/ iceland1.pdf. Controversial Scientific Issues in the Context of UNCLOS Article 76 in the Arctic; St. Petersburg, 30 June–4 July: This conference, sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources, focused on the scientific underpinnings of Article 76 implementation in the Arctic. The 36 papers presented articulated a range of viewpoints and exposed significant differences of opinion between those who considered the Lomonosov and Mendeleev Ridges as natural prolongations of the Russian landmass and those who did not. Available data about the Arctic Ocean may be inadequate to resolve these issues definitively. Because of the limitations of current data sets and the ambiguous requirements of Article 76, the issue of the exact jurisdictional boundaries of the Arctic Ocean is likely to remain unresolved for some time. For more information, see the UNCLOS web site: www.un.org/depts/los, or contact Arthur Grantz (650-329-5709; fax 650-329-5134; [email protected]) or Ron Macnab (902-463-3963; fax 902-4630908; [email protected].ca). References Grantz, A. in press. Treatment of Ridges and Borderland under Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): The Example of the Arctic Ocean. Proceedings of the Conference on Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25–27 June 2003. Macnab, Ron. 2003. Delimiting the Juridical Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean: A Confluence of Law, Science, and Politics. Meridian (Canadian Polar Commission) Fall/Winter 2003, pp. 9–13. 32 Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 957 Anchorage, AK Arctic Research Consortium of the United States 3535 College Road Suite 101 Fairbanks, AK 99709 USA A Note From the ARCUS President Inside SEARCH 1 NSF News 4 Arctic Research Support & Logistics 5 ARCSS Program 7 Arctic Natural Sciences Program 12 Arctic Social Sciences Program 13 Arctic Social Sciences News 14 U.S. Arctic Research Commission 15 Polar Research Board 15 Capitol Updates 16 Education News 17 International News 20 Science News 28 Calendar and Publications 31 I am delighted to have this opportunity to add a few words about ARCUS to this issue of Witness the Arctic. I recently rejoined ARCUS as president after being off the board of directors for a few years. ARCUS has developed areas of impressive strength, among them the ability to host and lead research program planning efforts. An example is the recent SEARCH Open Science Meeting in Seattle in October 2003 (see page 1). Planning and coordinating this meeting required enormous effort from the ARCUS executive director and staff, but the investment should be worthwhile. The SEARCH program promises to address the most critical question facing arctic science—environmental change in all its manifestations, including the human impacts and potential societal adaptations. The breadth of the program is impressive, and it is important that it receive timely and adequate support. Broad scientific input and exchange is important to the evolution of the program. There are other recent notable arctic developments as well. Joint Russian/U.S. cruises are planned for the Chukchi Sea and further north, with support from the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the NOAA Arctic Program. The Census of Marine Life, a 10-year international program, is planning an arctic project. Also, further in the future, an International Polar Year (IPY) and International Heliophysical Year (IHY) is proposed for 2007, with the Polar Research Board of the National Research Council taking the lead in coordinating the planning. The arctic focus engendered by the IPY is already evident, with the emergence of many related programs and activities (see page 23). ARCUS will be involved in these activities in many ways, and I am excited about the contributions ARCUS will make to arctic science in the future. At the same time, as a membership organization, ARCUS must be aware of and address the needs and concerns of our 44 member institutions. We must ensure, with help from the representatives of those institutions, that their priorities move ahead in parallel with ARCUS work in program planning and management. To help ARCUS maintain both its organizational excellence and an appropriate balance among its responsibilities to its member institutions and to the wider arctic research community, the ARCUS board of directors is pursuing a strategic planning process. I will be reporting on the progress and recommendations of this planning effort at the ARCUS annual meeting in May 2004. —Vera Alexander