The Arctic Highlights Our Failure to Act in a Rapidly Changing World

Abstract

In this perspective on the future of the Arctic, we explore actions taken to mitigate warming and adapt to change since the Paris agreement on the temperature threshold that should not be exceeded in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system. Although 5 years may seem too short a time for implementation of major interventions, it actually is a considerable time span given the urgency at which we must act if we want to avoid crossing the 1.5 to <2 °C global warming threshold. Actions required include co-production of research exploring possible futures; supporting Indigenous rights holders’ and stakeholders’ discourse on desired futures; monitoring Arctic change; funding strategic, regional adaptation; and, deep decarbonization through transformation of the energy system coupled with negative carbon emissions. We are now in the decisive decade concerning the future we leave behind for the next generations. The Arctic’s future depends on global action, and in turn, the Arctic plays a critical role in the global future.

Full text



Citation: Schlosser, P.; Eicken, H.;
Metcalf, V.; Pfirman, S.; Murray, M.S.;
Edwards, C. The Arctic Highlights
Our Failure to Act in a Rapidly
Changing World. Sustainability 2022,
14, 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14031882
Academic Editor: Oran Young
Received: 19 October 2021
Accepted: 2 February 2022
Published: 7 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Perspective
The Arctic Highlights Our Failure to Act in a Rapidly
Changing World
Peter Schlosser 1, * , Hajo Eicken 2, Vera Metcalf 3, Stephanie Pfirman 4, Maribeth S. Murray 5
and Clea Edwards 1
1Global Futures Laboratory, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA; clea.edwards@asu.edu
2International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA;
heicken@alaska.edu
3Eskimo Walrus Commission, Nome, AK 99762, USA; vmetcalf@kawerak.org
4College of Global Futures, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA; spfirman@asu.edu
5Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada;
murraym@ucalgary.ca
*Correspondence: schlosser@asu.edu
Abstract:
In this perspective on the future of the Arctic, we explore actions taken to mitigate warming
and adapt to change since the Paris agreement on the temperature threshold that should not be
exceeded in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system. Although 5 years may
seem too short a time for implementation of major interventions, it actually is a considerable time span
given the urgency at which we must act if we want to avoid crossing the 1.5 to <2
◦
C global warming
threshold. Actions required include co-production of research exploring possible futures; supporting
Indigenous rights holders’ and stakeholders’ discourse on desired futures; monitoring Arctic change;
funding strategic, regional adaptation; and, deep decarbonization through transformation of the
energy system coupled with negative carbon emissions. We are now in the decisive decade concerning
the future we leave behind for the next generations. The Arctic’s future depends on global action,
and in turn, the Arctic plays a critical role in the global future.
Keywords:
Arctic; COVID-19; Indigenous rights; climate change; co-production; desired futures;
adaptation; mitigation; decarbonization; rapid change
1. Introduction
Through feedback and coupled processes, the Arctic system amplifies global change
signals including global warming. Arctic amplification increases temperature rise by a
factor of between 2 and 4 at the pan-Arctic scale [
1
]. In 2016, a workshop called ‘A 5C Arctic
in a 2C World’ was convened by the Columbia Climate Center to explore the implications
of projected temperature increases in an Arctic context [
2
]. The report from the workshop
identified a series of measures, couched in terms of recommendations to the First Arctic
Science Ministerial (ASM) [
3
], to inform and advance effective responses to a rapidly
changing Arctic. Five years later, where do we stand on some of these proposed actions?
Has progress been made; has the rate of change outpaced responses? Is it time to rethink
some of what was proposed?
As participants in the 2016 workshop, we briefly review the trajectory of the Arctic
system in a warming world and revisit the recommendations of the 2016 workshop report,
referred to in this contribution as the 5C Arctic report [
2
]. The contribution is not meant
to be comprehensive, in particular with respect to research updates, many of which are
reflected in recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports [
1
,
4
] and the
annual Arctic Report Cards [
5
,
6
]. Rather, we focus on the exploration of actions taken to
mitigate warming and adapt to change over the past 5 years. Although 5 years may seem
too short a time for the implementation of major interventions, it actually is a considerable
Sustainability 2022,14, 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031882 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 2 of 14
time span given the urgency at which we must act if we want to avoid crossing the 1.5 to
<2
◦
C global warming threshold set by the Paris Accord [
7
] and, more recently, the IPCC
Special Report SR15 (the ‘1.5 degree report’) [
8
]. According to model projections, in order
to avoid crossing this threshold, we need to reach net zero carbon emissions by the middle
of this century. This means that we have only a decade left to cut emissions by half, which
requires cutting emissions by ca. 7 to 8 percent each year starting now, i.e., in 2022.
Discussion of the root causes underlying the failure to address climate change at the
global or national scale is beyond the scope of this contribution. We acknowledge that
the rapidity of change outpaces timescales over which most societies are able to develop
consensus and commitment to action. Some of the discussions at COP 26 illustrate this
circumstance through the lens of the underlying value systems including equity and climate
justice. At the same time, there are indications that research, focused on understanding
how societies—through social learning and effective decision making—can address major
threats such as climate change, is starting to bear fruit. Below, we provide examples of such
progress on scales relevant to Arctic issues.
2. Materials and Methods
In this perspective, we first consider continuing rapid change throughout the Arctic
system including secular changes, abrupt changes, and shocks. We then explore the
question: are we on the right response trajectory at the required pace? Issues reviewed
include the co-production of research exploring possible futures, supporting rights holder
and stakeholder discourses on desired futures, the need to monitor Arctic change, and
funding strategic and regional adaptation—in contrast to the ad hoc adaptation and self-
adaptation that has mostly been the case thus far. We then address the fact that the Arctic’s
future depends on global action, and, in the inverse, that the Arctic plays a critical role in
the global future.
3. Results
3.1. Continuing Rapid Change throughout the Arctic System
3.1.1. Secular Changes
Since the 2016 workshop, we have seen continuing trends of the key pressure points
on the Arctic system. Cryospheric changes have resulted in major, compounding impacts
on ecosystems and environmental system services important to Arctic Indigenous Peoples
and humanity as a whole [
4
]. Specifically, summer sea ice reduction, likely unprecedented
over the past millennium, continues unabated [
4
]. Loss of sea ice is resulting in major
shifts with implications for food webs and marine living resources [
9
]. Winter sea ice
loss in the Bering Sea, tied to anthropogenic warming [
5
,
10
], has led to a northward shift
of fish stocks, with disruption of subsistence and commercial fisheries, compounded by
marine heatwaves [11].
At the same time, a consensus has emerged that sea ice loss is reversible with decreas-
ing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations [
12
]. Permafrost thaw and degradation,
on the other hand, are irreversible on decadal to centennial timescales and have reached
record levels, threatening the release of greenhouse gases from large reservoirs [
13
]. The in-
creased surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet has contributed significantly to accelerated
global sea level rise, with Greenland expected to continue as the single largest contributor
to global sea level rise in the coming decades [
14
]. Ice sheet loss mechanisms suggest a
greater vulnerability to ocean heat increases and surface melt than previously envisioned,
emphasizing the potential for greater uncertainty and underestimation of Greenland’s
contribution to sea level rise [1,4].
Terrestrial Arctic ecosystems are undergoing substantial changes, ranging from “green-
ing” of the land cover to the increasing importance of wildfires in landscape disturbance
and carbon loss [
15
,
16
]. These changes are stressing Arctic communities and societal dy-
namics, including challenges related to transportation, infrastructure, and food security.

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 3 of 14
For example, residents are facing the ongoing loss of biodiversity and decline in health and
populations of critical subsistence species both in marine and terrestrial environments.
These latter threats are tied to health and well-being, in particular through food
security. The Utqia
˙
gvik Declaration expressed this in the following way, “Inuit food
security is multi-faceted and reflective of interconnecting elements, such as language,
child development, mental and physical health, high cost of transportation, economic
development, and management. The Arctic’s living resources and the ability of our hunters
to harvest and process these resources are fundamental to food security and core to Inuit
identity, making the health and availability of Arctic wildlife of utmost concern” [
17
]. This
is fundamentally true for all Arctic Indigenous Peoples—hunters, herders or otherwise.
Reflecting on the 6th Assessment Report of the IPCC [
1
], Inuit Circumpolar Council
(ICC) Chair Dalee Sambo Dorough stated, “Inuit have moved beyond ‘if’ climate change
is real to action to protect Inuit Nunaat—our Inuit homeland—including the Arctic land,
sea ice and the Inuit way of life. Inuit have been calling for immediate action to contain
temperature rise to 1.5
◦
C, as even this increase will see the reduction in Arctic sea ice, snow
cover, and permafrost loss continue. Both the Policy Summary and the Technical Summary
note with high confidence that the rate change continues, with sea ice becoming younger,
thinner, and more dynamic (very high confidence). Such change has severe consequences
for our food security and multiple other aspects of our day to day lives” [18].
The current work indicates major changes in ecosystems, including the appearance
of novel contaminants [
19
] and invasive species [
20
]. Expanded shipping and fishing in
Arctic waters along with wind and ocean currents bringing and accumulating microplastics
result in Arctic communities having to deal with increased levels of debris, fishing gear,
and microplastics [21].
Concomitant with these changes, adaptation is occurring at both local and regional
scales. An example of a new adaptive strategy is vegetable farming [
22
], such as off-grid
containerized agriculture [
23
]. However, many such approaches and innovations are
fragmented, disconnected, and/or still in development stages and hence lose adaptive
significance and do not increase overall resilience (e.g., [
24
]). The lack of strategic adaptation
naturally leads to ad hoc self-adaptation of the Arctic system that has the potential to add
additional challenges to our capacity to respond to the multi-dimensional and highly
interconnected set of changes seen in the Arctic system.
3.1.2. Abrupt Changes and Shocks
Studying past changes manifested in paleo archives, such as ocean sediments or ice
cores, reveals that changes in complex systems—and, the Earth system is the ultimate
complex system—can occur relatively smoothly. However, they also demonstrate that
typically these complex systems also show rapid (abrupt) changes. During 2020 and 2021
we have been reminded by the rapid emergence of COVID-19 how quickly changes can
occur—in essence, as shocks to the system [25].
The COVID-19 pandemic created another unsettling stress on Arctic Indigenous
communities compounding the already significant challenges presented by the multiple
pressures they have experienced in recent decades [
26
]. Most communities responded with
great concern and established recommended social distancing protocols between house-
holds, with preliminary research suggesting that such measures were effective relative to
regions at lower latitudes [
27
]. Travel was restricted and involved extended quarantines.
As for so many people, this caused separation and a sense of isolation. However, Arctic
Indigenous people greatly depend on large, extended families for their social, cultural,
nutritional, and emotional well-being. Indigenous food security in small village communi-
ties that rely on communal harvests and sharing practices were altered because of social
distancing. Significant community gatherings for celebrating, honoring, and healing were
interrupted for over a year, which has caused unresolved public health concerns.
COVID-19 alerted us to how vulnerable our highly interconnected Earth system is
and how shocks to one part of it will ripple through the entire system, including all

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 4 of 14
environmental and societal components [
25
]. However, it also showed that society has
the capacity to react quickly and offer responses such as testing to diagnose the extent
of the impact and vaccination to control the pandemic. Additionally, we learned that
measures that are available to minimize adverse effects of particular pressure on our planet
or one of its subsystems are frequently not taken up by parts of local, regional, and global
communities. And, we learnedthat even when uptake is desired, solutions may not be
readily implemented due to wealth, infrastructure, and other disparities. In the end, it also
highlights that the deciding factor for how we master challenges to the Earth system is
not the availability of (technological) solutions, but our willingness to act. Additionally,
in many cases, we are too slow in our response, thereby increasing the challenges for the
present and future generations to thrive on a healthy planet.
3.2. Are We on the Right Response Trajectory at the Required Pace?
As highlighted in the 2019 IPCC Special Report on the Oceans and the Cryosphere [
4
],
governance systems at the pan-Arctic and global scales are challenged by the rapidity and
interconnectedness of changes, pushing existing response mechanisms to the brink and
straining the limited capacity at the level of Arctic communities and regions. However,
there has also been progress on several fronts. While since 2016 we saw several major
changes in the political and governance systems with slow or no tendency to action related
to the threats faced by global society around the world, we are noting a recent reversal
of some of these trends, initiatives, and legislation. Especially when it comes to climate
solutions, there is a significant set of actions that are under consideration or have been
moved forward.
3.2.1. Co-Production of Research Exploring Possible Futures
The 5C Arctic report recommended: “Enhance and support research in projecting
which future states of the Arctic are possible in principle, under which conditions they can
be reached, and which impact they would have” [
2
]. Some progress has been made in recent
years recognizing the role of different approaches and knowledge systems—in particular
Indigenous knowledge (IK) [
28
,
29
]—in describing the plausible range of future states of the
Arctic system and the impacts of changes of the present state, from the local to the global
scale. However, holistic approaches and mechanisms for bringing relevant knowledge to
bear on Arctic issues remain peripheral and under-resourced (see also Table 1).
Earth system models, as well as multi-sector dynamics or integrated assessment
models, hold significant promise but are currently not able to capture the full range of
plausible futures and associated outcomes in a rapidly changing Arctic. Key processes,
such as implications of permafrost degradation, are not yet fully captured, nor are societal
and geopolitical drivers of change. In the near term, this shortfall presents challenges
in meeting global and Arctic carbon policy and management goals, for example with
respect to the impact of underestimated permafrost carbon feedbacks [
30
]. In this context,
participatory scenarios may serve as a useful complement to models and have gained
prominence in identifying impacts and vulnerabilities in the Arctic [
31
,
32
]. Scenarios draw
on both quantitative and qualitative information and expertise, and hold great promise as
vehicles for mutual social learning and the formation of communities of practice. A major
hurdle that needs to be overcome is how to facilitate participation by Arctic rights holders
and a broader range of stakeholders.
Indigenous involvement in research and policy development must include greater
equity with the scientific and research sector. Funding should provide IK scholars with
an equitable level of participation and should provide support for IK as a system of
knowledge and learning. Some examples are Sea Ice and Walrus Outlook (SIWO) (https:
//www.arcus.org/siwo, accessed 2 September 2021), which is a collaboration of sea ice
observations related to walrus migration in spring, and the U.S. National Science Founda-
tion’s Navigating the New Arctic initiative and their efforts to recognize the value of proper
co-production of knowledge. In Canada, several compelling examples of Indigenous-led

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 5 of 14
monitoring, co-production and co-management have recently been compiled to illustrate
the breadth and efficacy of different approaches [
33
]. Another example is Sea-Ice Monitor-
ing and Real-Time Information for Coastal Environments (SmartICE). This is a partnership
among communities, academia, and governments that draws upon Inuit traditional knowl-
edge and state-of-the-art technology to support ice-information needs (https://smartice.org,
accessed 5 January 2022). Since its inception as a co-produced research project, SmartICE
has developed into a social enterprise with a business model grounded in Inuit values
including intergenerational teaching, community building, and meaningful employment
for Inuit youth. A final example of funding IK expertise and participation in climate change
research is Ikaa
˙
gvik Sikukun (https://www.ikaagviksikukun.org, accessed 7 January 2022)
in Kotzebue, Alaska. The stated goals include to “...address key questions concerning the
mechanisms and impacts of rapid changes taking place in the Arctic while ensuring that
our answers incorporate traditional ways of knowing and are relevant to local needs”. In
the words of ICC Chair Dalee Sambo Dorough, “There is a pressing need for large-scale
institutions to be responsive and adaptive to understand and address diverse issues across
scales. Such adaptation requires the involvement and use of Indigenous Knowledge to
inform research, observation and monitoring programs, as well as governance” [34].
Table 1.
ICC Priorities in Guiding Research in Inuit Nunaat as laid out in the Utqia
˙
gvik Declaration
2018 (reprinted with permission from Dalee Sambo-Dorough, ICC Chair, [35]).
The following actions are required to protect Inuit Nunaat and guide academic institutions,
governments, and researchers in the conduct of the Inuit Nunaat research:
•Enhance ICC’s work with Arctic research efforts, such as the Arctic Council’s Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Working Group, Sustained Arctic
Observing Network (SAON), International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the European
Union (EU), and during high-level ministerial processes to ensure our views and concerns
are addressed on how research in the Arctic should be conducted and to highlight how
ethical approaches for research in the Arctic advance Inuit self- determination in research;
•Urge ICC to promote the interconnectedness of drivers of change and the interrelated
impacts and implications on our health, economy and environment in high level political
discussions and decision-making at fora such as the Arctic Council, the EU and UN agencies
among other relevant international fora;
•Mandate ICC to participate actively in the operationalization of the United Nations “Local
Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform” to create a space to share best practices,
relevant climate change programs and policies, and build capacity for Indigenous Peoples to
engage in the UNFCCC process
Just as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) funding aims to
grow the next generation of scientists, engineers, and researchers for universities, govern-
ment agencies, and research institutions, IK should have equivalent initiatives to ensure
there is the next generation of IK experts and practitioners in all communities and regions.
This is critical for Indigenous communities’ full and proper partnership in the co-production
of knowledge projects in the Arctic into the future. The scientific/academic/governmental
knowledge production industry is firmly established and well-funded to perpetuate itself,
but even it must create large funding initiatives to support additional STEM education,
post-graduate internships, and postdoctoral opportunities to develop the next generation
of scholars, scientists, and researchers to continue their work.
Co-production approaches and adaptation strategies for Arctic Indigenous communi-
ties require a balanced approach with resources committed to support the continuity and
growth of IK, the Indigenous Peoples’ way of knowing and understanding (Table 1). In
broad terms, Indigenous education is comprehensive and involves extensive experiential
learning, language instruction, and study of cultural practices, beliefs, and spirituality. The
learning experience of IK sharing is a necessity for the well-being of Indigenous people,
families, and communities and is necessary to ensure that IK remains a critical partner and
contributor to humankind’s understanding of the Arctic.

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 6 of 14
3.2.2. Rights Holder and Stakeholder Discourse on Desired Futures
The 5C Arctic report recommended: “Design, initiate, and support a platform for a
broad stakeholder dialogue on which future state of the Arctic we should strive for, drawing
on existing local and regional platforms. The outcomes of the continuing dialogue have to
inform decision-making processes in the context of the evolving Arctic trajectory” [
2
]. It is
important to differentiate Indigenous communities and “local” communities, even though
the experiences and knowledge of both contexts have important roles in understanding and
responding to the challenges of the Arctic. Specifically, the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples recognizes “the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights
of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and
from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights
to their lands, territories and resources” [
35
]. This presents a distinctively different status
than “local communities”, which is the term generally used to describe the inhabitants of a
geographic area. This necessity of ensuring the sovereignty of Indigenous communities
to maintain connection to their land and waters and to conserve its resources, which
have sustained Arctic Indigenous Peoples for millennia, must be recognized. Therefore,
Arctic Indigenous People should be designated as “rights holders” instead of stakeholders.
Stakeholders for Arctic discussions include many different interest groups, industries,
and organizations.
The viewpoint from an Indigenous coauthor of this perspective (V.M.) ties in with the
acknowledgment by participants in the 2016 workshop that “There is no ‘one Arctic’”—a
point echoed by Young in 2021 [
36
] from a governance perspective. The need for a platform,
in the broadest sense, to support discourse on different desirable and achievable future
Arctic states is greater than ever. However, this question has already been answered by the
Arctic’s Indigenous Peoples. Any discourse about Arctic futures raises fundamental ethical
questions that remain as vexing as ever in light of competing interests and post-colonial
tensions [
34
]. Some might point to the Arctic Council as a consultative body or the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change and its various instruments to effect climate
justice as entities that could support discourse.
At the same time, the importance of rights holder perspectives and place-based solu-
tions has already been reflected on above with respect to community-driven adaptation and
change management. This calls for a multitude of conversations in a polycentric approach
to foster synergy and cross-Arctic communication and mutual support that is nevertheless
tied to a particular place.
As an Indigenous Peoples non-governmental organization, the ICC-International has
United Nations Consultative Status and is active in its role, including within the United
Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), which is the central United
Nations coordinating body for Indigenous Peoples. ICC-International is also a Permanent
Participant at the Arctic Council, one of six Indigenous Permanent Participants (the others
being the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Aleut International Association, the Gwich’in
Council International, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, and the
Saami Council). The ICC considers the UN and Arctic Council activities as fundamental to
its work as an international organization. Each provides a degree of involvement in areas
important to Inuit Nunaat, such as human rights and health, environment and climate
issues, and food security.
“There is a strong connection between our culture, environment, and our home-
land, which transcends national and political boundaries and connects us as one people.
We affirm our right to self-determination and through a unified voice and approach are
committed to advocate for, and protect the collective interests of, our membership at the
international level” [37] (p. 6).
The priority areas presented in the Utqia
˙
gvik Declaration [
17
] identify what is impor-
tant to Inuit in the Arctic of the future. Together they represent the understanding that “We
continue to rely on the land and ocean for nutrition, social, cultural, and spiritual well-being
as well as traditional healing across Inuit Nunaat” [
37
]. In the words of co-author Vera

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 7 of 14
Metcalf, “We are only as healthy as our world is—our homeland and waters, air, and all
those living with us”.
3.2.3. Monitoring Arctic Change
The 5C Arctic report recommended “Complete and sustain the emerging Arctic Ob-
serving System, augmented by early warning components and enhanced Arctic system
models to closely track key components of the changing Arctic” [
2
]. The importance of
networks of sustained observations of Arctic change has increased further since 2016,
driven by a combination of factors. The extent, pace, and effects of Arctic system change
are key drivers of response action to mitigate risks stemming from feedback processes
and adverse impacts from the local to the global scale. With accelerated and potentially
underestimated changes, in particular in the Arctic cryosphere (see above), anticipating
major transitions through observations and observation-informed models is increasingly
relevant. As articulated in the National Academy of Sciences “The Arctic in the Anthro-
pocene” report, monitoring is a critical alert system for “unknown unknowns” [
38
]. At the
same time, increasing human activities and potentially competing interests in the Arctic
have created an urgent need for observations that meet a range of societal information
needs. A series of recent reports have examined in more detail the societal (including
economic) benefits of Arctic observing activities in response to priorities defined by the
Arctic Observing Summits (AOS) and the ASM process [
39
,
40
]. Finally, observations will
be central to assessing the efficacy of any global scale action meant to stabilize and reduce
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
The SAON initiative has recently made significant progress towards the implemen-
tation of more concerted observing efforts. In this context, the focus on widely shared
benefits as a driver of the collaborative or coordinated deployment of observing assets
has gained traction and is embedded in SAON’s Roadmap for Arctic Observing and Data
Systems (ROADS) [41].
A remaining challenge is the lack of effective, internationally coordinated funding
support mechanisms for such work. One of three themes of the Second ASM was “Strength-
ening, Integrating and Sustaining Arctic Observations, Facilitating Access to Arctic Data,
and Sharing Arctic Research Infrastructure”, which has led to the creation of an Arctic Fun-
ders Forum [
42
]. Yet, major bureaucratic hurdles continue to impede effective transnational
funding capabilities and capacities—despite the positive outcomes achieved by the Belmont
Forum in accelerated international co-sponsorship of environmental research. Individual
countries are also challenged to coordinate internally so as to effectively contribute to
an internationally supported effort [
43
]. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that
the co-design and co-management of sustained observations and observing networks in
partnership with Arctic Indigenous Peoples has some ways to go. There remain significant
challenges in bridging knowledge systems and providing opportunities and resources,
although the needle is starting to move. In addition to community-driven observing ini-
tiatives and individual collaborations at the local scale [
44
,
45
], there is encouragement in
SAON ROADS calling for Indigenous-led Expert Panels to help identify and prioritize
observations with societal benefits in mind [
41
]. As another example, Canada and the
United Kingdom recently agreed to cooperatively fund the Canada–Inuit Nunangat–United
Kingdom Arctic Research Program, which is guided by the National Inuit Strategy on Re-
search [
46
] and requires full Inuit engagement in leadership, design, development and
execution. In the words of ICC Chair Dalee Sambo Dorough: “Our desire is that our
perception of the Arctic is well understood, that Indigenous knowledge is acknowledged
and utilized, that we seize opportunities for co-production of knowledge, and that we
create a shift of what observing priorities are—all these steps create opportunities for action.
Each of these points could trigger a change of how science is conducted in the Arctic by the
simple act of reaching out to our communities, the willingness to co-produce knowledge,
while respecting the value of Indigenous knowledge and the ethics related to utilizing it.
There are many opportunities throughout observation processes for real action” [47].

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 8 of 14
3.2.4. Supporting Adaptation to the Changing Arctic
The 5C Arctic report recommendations included “Expedite research on adaptation
of the Arctic to ongoing and expected environmental changes and provide resources
for implementation of science-based adaptation strategies” and “Ramp up technical and
financial support for Arctic societies needing strategic adaptation solutions—including
relocation and soft infrastructure support (building codes, zoning, and others)” [2].
Since the release of the 5C Arctic report, a series of key publications by the Arctic
Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) has provided a kind
of roadmap for broad-based adaptation action—with one important caveat. With three
regional foci—Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Region, Barents Region, and Baffin Bay-Davis
Strait Region—the Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA) effort examined
a broader range of options and approaches for adaptation measures [
32
]. Significantly,
the Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Report recognized the importance of developing a shared
vision for desired Arctic futures by Arctic rights holders and stakeholders ([
32
]; see also the
previous section), pointing to participatory scenario frameworks as a means to approach
such visions. However, despite all their strengths, the AACA activities and reports are po-
sitioned mostly within an academic/government agency framework with disproportionate
space given to a review of the magnitude and impacts of change, and little involvement
of Indigenous expertise in the drafting of the reports. This circumstance is reflected in
the Arctic Adaptation Exchange that emerged under the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit
(https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/arctic-adaptation-exchange, accessed 1 October 2021) as
a follow-on to AACA, which is well positioned but underutilized in an adaptation context.
A number of other actions taken at the national and international level may qualify
as adaptation measures or point in the direction of response. For example, the imple-
mentation of legally binding frameworks for search and rescue and spill response by the
Arctic Council—established as a consultative rather than an executive body—is notewor-
thy [
48
,
49
]. Ratification of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries
in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOFA) [
50
] in 2021 with all Arctic coastal states, China,
Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the European Union as signatories has sent an even
stronger message. Specifically, the CAOFA calls for and has set in motion international
scientific collaboration and monitoring to establish the state of marine living resources
in the central Arctic Ocean, with the potential to develop a joint, ecosystem-based man-
agement regime [
51
]. In a similar vein, the ASM has demonstrated potential as a forum
to advance internationally coordinated research responses to pressing Arctic issues. The
Third ASM, co-hosted by Iceland and Japan in 2021, drew science ministers and officials
from 27 countries, identifying priorities for international collaboration and helping build
momentum for the support of concerted action by both Arctic and non-Arctic states. The
guiding principles were transparency, inclusivity, and implementing a bottom-up approach
to science. ASM3 expanded the ASM process by “attempting to create a more formal
consultation process with the wider research community”, complemented by “updates
and new projects from participating countries, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, and
international organizations engaged in Arctic science and education” [
52
]. Efforts such
as the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) initiative, which is supported by
both Arctic Council member states and non-Arctic states through membership of SAON
co-sponsor International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), have shown promise as vehicles
for follow-through on ASM recommendations. However, challenges remain, such as devel-
oping instruments for joint, transnational funding of internationally coordinated response
action.
The designation of protected areas in light of rapid change can be a mechanism
to develop effective response strategies at the local and regional level. Canada’s recent
designation of the Last Sea Ice—Tuvaijuittuq Marine Protected Area in the High Arctic—or
the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area in the U.S. are examples of such action.
Although, many questions remain as to how to best steward and manage such reserves.
Different assessments have demonstrated that Indigenous, community-based management

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 9 of 14
and support activities, such as community-driven monitoring, are most effective in ensuring
adaptive and sustainable resource management in rapidly changing environments [
45
,
53
].
In the Arctic, increasing devolution of regulatory powers to the local, typically Indigenous-
managed scale is evident. Examples include regulatory and management authority granted
to the Nunatsiavut Government over terrestrial and marine resources in Labrador, Canada,
or the Piniakkanik Sumiiffinni Nalunaarsuineq (Pisuna) locally based monitoring system
that informs adaptive management approaches in Greenland [44].
However, finding an effective and equitable balance between local and broader in-
terests and perspectives remains a challenge. For example, there may be many different
levels of government involved in observing and monitoring various aspects of the Arctic
environment but little or no communication among those entities (federal, regional, local,
etc.) to ensure consistency in approach, to eliminate redundancies and fill critical gaps, and
to leverage resources including human capacity and Indigenous expertise. This disconnect
can hinder efforts to adapt to change, such as leading to a mismatch between regulatory
frameworks that may control access to critical resources—e.g., country food and observa-
tional information—which indicates a need for regulatory flexibility in a rapidly changing
environment. The problem is equally applicable from the local to international scales.
The activities of hunting, fishing, herding, gathering, and sharing, then preserving,
preparing, carving, sewing, and more must all be kept and supported as times of learning
IK to ensure our next generation of IK bearers is prepared to provide the unique way-
of-knowing to Arctic research and governance. This is where the Utqia
˙
gvik Declaration
priorities of Food Security, Education and Language, Indigenous Knowledge, Sustainable
Wildlife Management, and Environment are most directly aimed and where progress
toward Indigenous-led resource management will be critically important to the future of
the Arctic. The following from the Declaration illuminates this: “Food security is central to
Inuit identity and way of life; is characterized by a healthy environment and encompasses
access, availability, economics, physical and mental health, Inuit culture, decision-making
power and management, and education. Therefore, it will be promoted and endorsed in all
aspects of ICC’s work” ([17], preamble).
3.3. The Arctic’s Future Depends on Global Action
Arctic warming is mainly driven by actions taken outside the Arctic. One prime
example is the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide which is responsible for ca.
two-thirds of the greenhouse gas effect. It is emitted primarily in mid and low latitudes
but affects the globe as a whole due to the rapid mixing of the atmosphere on hemispheric
(less than one year) and global scales (several years). Since 2016, CO
2
concentrations in the
atmosphere have increased steadily at a rapid pace from about 402 ppm (parts per million)
(2016 January) to about 418 ppm (2022 January), thereby driving further global and regional
warming. These changes imposed onto the Arctic by drivers located in lower latitudes
amplify warming in the Arctic—now assumed to exceed 3–6
◦
C for a 1.5
◦
C rise in global
temperature. An analysis by Carbon Brief following COP26 estimates that current policies
concerning carbon emissions will lead to global warming between 2.6–2.7
◦
C by 2100 (with
an uncertainty range of 2 to 3.6
◦
C) [
54
]. On the other hand, if countries meet their long-
term carbon emission goals, the warming would be kept at about 1.9
◦
C. There are feedback
loops through which the amplified warming of the Arctic affects the lower latitudes, for
example through weather patterns influenced by the strength and geographical pattern of
the Arctic Vortex [1,55].
The 5C Arctic report recommended: “Deploy measures for deep decarbonization of
the global energy system and accelerate the upscaling and deployment of technologies for
negative carbon emissions. Unify the efforts for allocating resources to master this historic
challenge”. Decarbonization of the energy system and a reduction in carbon emissions
require an accelerated buildup of renewable energy production. According to the IEA, it
is possible to reach net zero carbon emission by 2050 if the right actions are taken now
and are sustained [
56
]. Most of the substitution for fossil fuels will come from solar and

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 10 of 14
wind energy. The report emphasizes that the pathway toward net zero carbon emissions is
narrow and requires the “massive deployment of all available clean energy technologies—
such as renewables, EVs, and energy efficient building retrofits—between now and 2030.
For solar power, it is equivalent to installing the world’s current largest solar park roughly
every day”. The number of ambitious goals by governments and the private sector is
growing steadily (e.g., Europe’s goal to cut emissions by 55 percent by 2030 to stay on
course for carbon neutrality in 2050 [
57
], China’s announcement to stop financing coal-fired
power plants abroad [
58
], Microsoft’s plan to be carbon negative by 2030 [
59
]), but in many
cases the pace of implementation still lags behind the stated goals.
In addition to the buildup of renewable energy sources, reaching net zero carbon emis-
sions by 2050 requires a substantial capacity for negative emissions. Negative emissions are
one of the major concerns laid out in the 2016 report. There are increasing efforts to upscale
negative emissions through nature-based and technological solutions. Examples of nature-
based solutions include reforestation (e.g., the American Forests Trillion Trees Movement),
the restoration and expansion of wetlands and peatlands, regenerative agriculture, and
marine ecosystem augmentation or restoration practices. Technological solutions include
mechanisms that extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including those developed
by the construction of CO
2
extraction units by at least four startups (Climeworks, Carbon
Engineering, Carbon Collect, and Global Thermostat.). Although those startups are still
in the process of scaling their technology to the next level of tons to hundreds of tons per
day, they principally can be scaled to the Gigaton level needed by mid-century to reach the
goals of the Paris agreement.
Overall, there is more global action towards the recommendations related to the
transformation of the energy system towards carbon neutrality by 2050 listed in the 2016
report. However, it is also clear that the pace towards implementation of the measures
outlined in this report has to be accelerated.
3.4. The Arctic Plays a Critical Role in the Global Future
In the past, the Arctic was frequently seen as a part of the Earth system that is largely
decoupled, being located ‘at the end of the world,’ but also playing a minor role in global
budgets such as heat and water transport. The Arctic system was thought to be mainly
driven by global processes without major feedback on lower latitudes. It is now clear that
there are powerful feedback loops from the Arctic to lower latitudes including impacts on
weather systems, freshwater budgets in critical areas of the world ocean, and impacts on the
global albedo and radiation balance. This recognition has led to improved integration of the
Arctic into Earth system models, and it is now also widely accepted that Arctic communities
and their knowledge systems have to be included in decision-making processes within the
Arctic and beyond its geographical borders.
This changing situation is well captured by Lisa Koperqualuk, ICC Canada Vice-
President (International), who stated “Inuit recognized early that safeguarding the Arctic
would protect the planet—however, these calls remain unheard. As an observer to the
IPCC, ICC advocated for the co-production of knowledge to guide the AR6, which would
include Indigenous Knowledge as an important knowledge source” [18].
4. Conclusions and Outlook
We see increasing activity in most of the areas addressed in the 2016 report ‘A 5C
Arctic in a 2C World’ [
2
]. It is also clear that the present pace of response to the challenges
facing the Arctic and its communities remains too slow. However, there is still hope that
humankind can turn the corner and implement the necessary steps to reach solutions to
the challenges caused by the ever-expanding human footprint on our planet. These are
solutions that include the Arctic with its amplified response to global drivers.
A key challenge is the fact that the rate and magnitude of change experienced by
Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic and other Arctic residents outpace changes at lower
latitudes. Yet, policy in many Arctic nations is made in locales and by policymakers far

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 11 of 14
removed from where the greatest impacts are felt. This reality, combined with a history
of colonization and focus on extractive resource development, complicates the translation
of lessons learned in the Arctic into national or global policy frameworks. This is also
reflected in the discourse around climate justice at COP 26 where a rift has expanded
between industrialized nations on the one hand, and developing countries and Indigenous
Peoples on the other. Part of the work in bridging this rift and supporting climate action
involves framing and communication of the issues highlighted in this perspective from an
Arctic into a global setting.
Strong Arctic voices can bring the major issues facing the Arctic to the attention of
those involved in the decision-making processes that will decide the trajectory of the Arctic
and indeed the planet. Although finding these voices is a challenge in itself, and clearly
there are many positions concerning which Arctic future is the most desirable, a consensus
has to be found concerning the future for which we should aim. For example, the voices
of the people of the low-lying island nations had a major impact on the definition of the
temperature targets during COP 21 that led to the Paris Agreement [7].
Unfortunately, at this critical time when it is so necessary for the voices of Arctic
Indigenous Peoples to be heard, the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on engagement with
government managers on policy, and with science on research, has limited Indigenous
participation even more. Since most boards, commissions, and workgroups, which are
primarily made up of individuals from different communities, postponed travel for face-to-
face meetings, engagement, full involvement, and collaboration did not happen. Virtual
meetings did not provide the same opportunity for effective participation, especially
since Internet-based communication remains too expensive, very slow, and unavailable
to most community members—a good illustration of Indigenous People’s ongoing dis-
parity in their ability to respond to crises or participate in solution development due to
insufficient infrastructure.
We are now in the decisive decade concerning the future we leave behind for the next
generations. Every year we fail to meet the milestones towards the targets that would
reroute our planet and the Arctic onto a sustainable track into the future will require
stronger, more concentrated, and more focused efforts in the years ahead. Additionally,
if we hedge the milestones for too many more years, the envisioned targets will be un-
reachable. The coming few years will give us a clear indication if we are moving towards a
future of hope or if we have missed the chance to preserve the ‘safe operating space for
humanity’ in the decades and centuries to come [60].
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization and methodology, P.S., S.P. and H.E.; writing—original
draft preparation, P.S., H.E., M.S.M., V.M. and S.P.; writing—review and editing, H.E., P.S. and
C.E.; project administration, C.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding:
Pfirman is partially funded by the National Science Foundation Award (1928235), ARC-
NAV: Arctic Robust Communities-Navigating Adaptation to Variability.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V.P., Zhai, A., Pirani, S.L., Connors, C., Péan, S., Berger, N., Caud, Y.,
Chen, L., Goldfarb, M.I., Gomis, M., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021.
2.
Schlosser, P.; Pfirman, S.L.; Pomerance, R.; Williams, M.; Ack, B.; Duffy, P.; Eicken, H.; Latif, M.; Murray, M.; Wallace, D. A
5 C Arctic in a 2 C World: Challenges and Recommendations for Immediate Action. 2016. Available online: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/308748753_A_5_C_Arctic_in_a_2_C_World (accessed on 30 September 2021).

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 12 of 14
3.
Joint Statement of Ministers: On the occasion of the first White House Arctic Science Ministerial. Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
Available online: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/28/joint-statement-ministers (accessed on
12 January 2022).
4.
IPCC. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate; Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-Delmotte,
V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., et al., Eds.; 2019. Avail-
able online: https://www.c40.org/news/c40-response-ipcc-oceans-ice/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxIHz1snl9QIVxKqWCh1N2
wHEEAAYASAAEgJwi_D_BwE (accessed on 12 January 2022).
5.
Richter-Menge, J.; Druckenmiller, M.L.; Jeffries, M. (Eds.) Arctic Report Card 2019; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card (accessed on 2 October
2021).
6.
Thoman, R.L.; Richter-Menge, J.; Druckenmiller, M.L. (Eds.) Arctic Report Card 2020; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
7.
UNFCC. The Paris Agreement. 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-
agreement (accessed on 2 October 2021).
8.
IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5
◦
C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5
◦
C above Pre-Industrial Levels and
Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change,
Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Masson-Delmotte, V.P., Zhai, H.-O., Pörtner, D., Roberts, J., Skea, P.R.,
Shukla, A., Pirani, W., Moufouma-Okia, C., Péan, R., Pidcock, S., et al., Eds.; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2018.
9.
Lewis, K.M.; van Dijken, G.L.; Arrigo, K.R. Changes in phytoplankton concentration now drive increased Arctic Ocean primary
production. Science 2020,369, 198–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Thoman, R.L.; Bhatt, U.S.; Bieniek, P.A.; Brettschneider, B.R.; Brubaker, M.; Danielson, S.L.; Labe, Z.; Lader, R.; Meier, W.N.;
Sheffield, G.; et al. The Record Low Bering Sea Ice Extent in 2018: Context, Impacts, and an Assessment of the Role of
Anthropogenic Climate Change. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2020,101, S53–S58. [CrossRef]
11.
Prewitt, J.; McFarland, H.R. (Eds.) Bering Science: Winter 2021 Bering Region Ocean Update, Issue 3 [Newsletter]; Alaska Ocean
Observing System: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2021.
12.
Notz, D.; Stroeve, J. The Trajectory Towards a Seasonally Ice-Free Arctic Ocean. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep.
2018
,4, 407–416.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Hugelius, G.; Loisel, J.; Chadburn, S.; Jackson, R.B.; Jones, M.; MacDonald, G.; Marushchak, M.; Olefeldt, D.; Packalen, M.;
Siewert, M.B.; et al. Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2020,117, 20438–20446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Slater, T.; Hogg, A.E.; Mottram, R. Ice-sheet losses track high-end sea-level rise projections. Nat. Clim. Chang.
2020
,10, 879–881.
[CrossRef]
15.
Myers-Smith, I.H.; Kerby, J.T.; Phoenix, G.K.; Bjerke, J.W.; Epstein, H.E.; Assmann, J.J.; John, C.; Andreu-Hayles, L.; Angers-
Blondin, S.; Beck, P.S.A.; et al. Complexity revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Chang.
2020
,10, 106–117.
[CrossRef]
16.
Lin, S.; Liu, Y.; Huang, X. Climate-induced Arctic-boreal peatland fire and carbon loss in the 21st century. Sci. Total Environ.
2021
,
796, 148924. [CrossRef]
17.
Utqia
˙
gvik Declaration. Inuit—The Arctic We Want. 2018. Available online: https://www.arctictoday.com/wp-content/uploads/
2018/07/2018-Utigavik-Declaration.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2021).
18.
Inuit Circumpolar Council [ICC]. Inuit Review the IPCC 6th Assessment Report on The Physical Science Basis and Prepare for
Crucial COP26 Talks in Glasgow. 2021. Available online: https://iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PR-IPCC-
6th-Assessment-pfd.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2021).
19.
Sonne, C.; Dietz, R.; Jenssen, B.M.; Lam, S.S.; Letcher, R.J. Emerging contaminants and biological effects in Arctic wildlife. Trends
Ecol. Evolution. 2021,36, 421–429. [CrossRef]
20.
Chan, F.T.; Stanislawczyk, K.; Sneekes, A.C.; Dvoretsky, A.; Gollasch, S.; Minchin, D.; David, M.; Jelmert, A.; Albretsen, J.; Bailey,
S.A. Climate change opens new frontiers for marine species in the Arctic: Current trends and future invasion risks. Glob. Chang.
Biol. 2019,25, 25–38. [CrossRef]
21.
PAME [Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment]. Desktop Study on Marine Litter Including Microplastics in the Arctic. 2019.
Available online: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/2389/Desktop%20Study%20on%20marine%
20litter.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2021).
22.
Friedrich, D. Vegetable Farms ‘Mushrooming’ Across the Arctic. High North News 3 January 2018. 2018. Available online:
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/vegetable-farms-mushrooming-across-arctic (accessed on 30 September 2021).
23.
Wilkinson, A.; Gerlach, C.; Karlsson, M.; Penn, H. Controlled environment agriculture and containerized food production in
northern North America. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2021,10, 127–142. [CrossRef]
24.
Olsen, J.; Nenasheva, M.; Hovelsrud, G.K. ‘Road of life’: Changing navigation seasons and the adaptation of island communities
in the Russian Arctic. Polar Geogr. 2021,44, 1–19. [CrossRef]
25.
Schlosser, P.; Laubichler, M.; Edwards, C.M.; Beschloss, S.; Berman, N.; van der Leeuw, S. COVID-19: The Ultimate Stress Test for
Our Global Futures. Medium 2020. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 13 of 14
26.
Arctic Council. The Impact of Covid-19 on Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic. 2020. Available online: https://arctic-council.org/
news/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-indigenous-peoples-in-the-arctic/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
27.
Petrov, A.N.; Welford, M.; Golosov, N.; DeGroote, J.; Devlin, M.; Degai, T.; Savelyev, A. Lessons on COVID-19 from Indigenous
and remote communities of the Arctic. Nat. Med. 2021,27, 1491–1492. [CrossRef]
28.
Inuit Circumpolar Council [ICC]; Lynge, A.; Stenbæk, M. Inuit Arctic Policy; Inuit Circumpolar Conference: Barrow, AK, USA,
2010.
29.
Arctic Council. Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Marine Activities Part 2 Report-Findings for
Policy Makers; Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group: Akureyri, Iceland, 2019.
30.
Natali, S.M.; Holdren, J.P.; Rogers, B.M.; Treharne, R.; Duffy, P.B.; Pomerance, R.; MacDonald, E. Permafrost carbon feedbacks
threaten global climate goals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021,118, e2100163188. [CrossRef]
31.
Flynn, M.; Ford, J.D.; Pearce, T.; Harper, S.L.; IHACC Research Team. Participatory scenario planning and climate change impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability research in the Arctic. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018,79, 45–53. [CrossRef]
32.
AMAP. Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Region; Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme (AMAP): Oslo, Norway, 2017; 255p.
33.
Johnson, N.; Pearce, T.; Breton-Honeyman, K.; Etiendem, D.; Loseto, L. Knowledge co-production and co-management of Arctic
wildlife. Arct. Sci. 2020,6, 124–126. [CrossRef]
34.
Inuit Circumpolar Council [ICC]. ICC Holds Workshops to Develop Circumpolar Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement
of Inuit Communities and Indigenous Knowledge. 2021. Available online: https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/news/icc-holds-
workshops-to-develop-circumpolar-protocols-for-equitable-and-ethical-engagement-of-inuit-communities-and-indigenous-
knowledge/ (accessed on 30 September 2021).
35.
United Nations General Assembly. United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. United Nations
2007
,12, 1–18.
36. Young, O.R. Arctic Futures–Future Arctics? Sustainability 2021,13, 9420. [CrossRef]
37.
Inuit Circumpolar Council [ICC]. Implementing the Utqia
˙
gvik Declaration 2018–2022. 2019. Available online: https://iccalaska.
org/wp-icc/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/InternationalStrategicPlan-9.18.19.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2021).
38.
National Research Council. The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions; The National Academies Press: Washington,
DC, USA, 2014. [CrossRef]
39.
Dobricic, S.; Ferrario, F.M.; Pozzoli, L.; Wilson, J.; Gambardella, A.; Tilche, A. Impact Assessment Study on Societal Benefits of Arctic
Observing Systems; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [CrossRef]
40.
Strahlendorff, M.; Veijola, K.; Gallo, J.; Vitale, V.; Hannele, S.; Smirnov, A.; Tanaka, H.; Sueyoshi, T.; Nitu, R.; Larsen, J.R. Value Tree
for Physical Atmosphere and Ocean Observations in the Arctic. Finnish Meteorological Institute. Report no. 9523360728. 2019.
Available online: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/300768/Value%20tree%20for%20physical%20atmosphere%
20and%20ocean%20observations%20in%20the%20Arctic.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2021).
41.
Starkweather, S. Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks’ (SAON) Roadmap for Arctic Observing and Data Systems (ROADS).
Arctic 2021.in review.
42.
Report of the 2nd Arctic Science Ministerial: Co-operation in Arctic Science–Challenges and Joint Actions. In Proceedings of the
2nd Arctic Science Ministerial, Berlin, Germany, 25–26 October 2018.
43.
Murray, M.S.; Loseto, L.; Sankar, R.; Pulsifer, P.; Dawson, J. Canadian Coordination in Support of Sustained Observations of
Arctic Change . Arct. Arct. Obs. Summit Spec. Issue 2021,in press.
44.
Tengö, M.; Austin, B.J.; Danielsen, F.; Fernández-Llamazares, Á. Creating Synergies between Citizen Science and Indigenous and
Local Knowledge. BioScience 2021,71, 503–518.
45.
Eicken, H.; Danielsen, F.; Sam, J.-M.; Fidel, M.; Johnson, N.; Poulsen, M.K.; Lee, O.A.; Spellman, K.V.; Iversen, L.; Pulsifer, P.;
et al. Connecting Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in Environmental Observing. BioScience
2021
,71, 467–483. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
46. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. National Inuit Strategy on Research. 2018. Available online: https://www.itk.ca/national-strategy-on-
research-launched/ (accessed on 30 September 2021).
47.
Sambo Dorough, D. Long-Term Observations Are an Inherent Process in Our Communities-Arctic Council Interview with Dalee
Sambo-Dorough/ICC Chair at 2020 Arctic Observing Summit. 2021. Available online: https://arctic-council.org/en/news/long-
term-observations-are-an-inherent-process-in-our-communities/ (accessed on 30 September 2021).
48.
Arctic Council. Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic; Arctic Council Secretariat:
Tromsø, Norway, 2011.
49.
Arctic Council. Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic; Arctic Council Secretariat:
Tromsø, Norway, 2013.
50.
Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean; Ilulissat, Greenland, 2018. Available online: https:
//ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/news/arctic-agreement-prevent-unregulated-fishing-enters- force-2021-06-25_en (accessed
on 18 October 2021).
51.
Snoeijs-Leijonmalm, P.; Flores, H.; Volckaert, F.; Niehoff, B.; Schaafsma, F.; Hjelm, J.; Hentati-Sundberg, J.; Niiranen, S.; Crépin,
A.S.; Österblom, H. Review of the research knowledge and gaps on fish populations, fisheries and linked ecosystems in the
Central Arctic Ocean (CAO). EFICA 2020. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022,14, 1882 14 of 14
52.
Ministry of Education Science and Culture. Knowledge for a Sustainable Arctic: 3rd Arctic Science Ministerial Report. 2021.
Available online: https://asm3.org/ (accessed on 2 October 2021).
53.
Danielsen, F.; Enghoff, M.; Poulsen, M.K.; Funder, M.; Jensen, P.M.; Burgess, N.D. The Concept, Practice, Application, and Results
of Locally Based Monitoring of the Environment. BioScience 2021,71, 484–502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54.
“Analysis: Do COP26 promises keep global warming below 2C?”. Available online: www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-do-cop26-
promises-keep-global-warming-below-2c (accessed on 12 November 2021).
55.
National Research Council. Arctic Matters: The Global Connection to Changes in the Arctic; The National Academies Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
56.
IEA. Net Zero by 2050; IEA: Paris, France, 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 (accessed on 12
January 2022).
57.
European Commission. 2030 Climate Target Plan. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-
action/2030_ctp_en (accessed on 12 January 2022).
58.
Sommer, L. Ahead of Climate Talks, China Vows to Stop Building Coal Power Plants Abroad. NPR, 21 September 2021. 2021.
Available online: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/21/1039486454/china-coal-power-climate-change (accessed on 18 October
2021).
59.
Smith, B. Microsoft Will Be Carbon Negative by 2030. 2020. Available online: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16
/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/ (accessed on 18 October 2021).
60.
Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; De Vries, W.; De Wit,
C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science
2015
,347, 1259855. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]