Plugging Critical Gaps In The Understanding Of Arctic Marine Biodiversity And Climate Feedbacks
by Sabrina Heerema | Published: 30-Sep-22 | Last updated: 27-Sep-22 | Tags : | category:
Attended by 70 online participants and moderated by Björn Alfthan (GRID-Arendal), the webinar included a large number of insights into the current state of knowledge of Arctic marine biodiversity, feedback mechanisms to the global climate, and the main gaps existing within the current IPCC reports.
Click on the play button below to watch the video. For any further information or for journalists wishing to re-use information from the video, please contact ecotip@grida.no.
The Keynote reveals the IPCC currently says very little about the Arctic
Ocean
Katherine Richardson Christiansen (University of
Copenhagen), in her keynote presentation, pointed out that the IPCC report does not actually
say a lot about the Arctic Ocean. She noted the current “dogma” and one
repeated in the IPCC report that primary production (the rate at which carbon dioxide is converted
by marine microorganisms to organic material, through photosynthesis) will decrease due to climate change, however she
noted:
“IPCC is not even
confident in the direction of change in primary production”.
Katherine went on to explain why Global Circulation
Models (GCM) are so uncertain for predictions, because they lack a mechanistic
description of interactions. GCMs assume that increased stratification will
dampen vertical mixing, which in turn will decrease primary production. However,
Katherine pointed out that the current empirical data doesn’t support
intensification of stratification, noting instead that it is the depth of the
nitricline is the most important factor driving changes in primary productivity.
Talking about the biological pump, Katherine noted that given the huge diversity of phytoplankton organisms, a much better understanding of this group of organisms is needed to determine carbon flows and to improve GCMs.
Lightning talks highlight progress in the fields of key drivers, the
biological pump and marine tipping points, and adaptation in Arctic coastal
fisheries
In the first lightning talk of
the webinar, Robert Schleigel (Institut de la Mer de
Villefranche), a FACE-IT
data scientist/researcher, talked about what the primary drivers of change in
Arctic fjords are and how much is known about each driver.
Robert and his team have categorised fjord socio-economic
systems into 5 components: Cryosphere, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Social,
each of which has a few key drivers of change. The main drivers of cryospheric
change, for example, are sea ice, glacial mass balance, and glacial and river
discharge.
Robert and his team’s analysis pointed out that in fact
it was the physical drivers of change, which include seawater temperature,
salinity and light, which are comparatively the most studied.
Robert ended his intervention with a thought-provoking
message, emphasising that as the planet warms, the cryosphere will melt,
meaning one of the five main categories will be removed:
“If there isn’t a
cryosphere, is it still the Arctic?”
Marja Koski (DTU Aqua), coordinator of the ECOTIP project, gave a presentation
about the biological pump. The IPCC has low confidence and great uncertainty
about the status of biological pump. The latest IPCC report in fact only
mentions it five times. She explained that the efficiency of the biological
pump depends on 4 things: Aggregate production, active carbon transport,
aggregate sinking, and aggregate degradation. In her opinion, an incomplete
understanding of zooplankton processes and the community composition of
zooplankton is hampering advances in models of the biological pump. She ended
her talk by noting that the traits-based and Bayesian approaches being
undertaken in projects like ECOTIP are helping to fill existing knowledge gaps.
Brian Mackenzie (DTU Aqua) presented some of the latest findings from
his research, which focusses on tipping points and cascades in the Southeast of Greenland. The area of
study is one of the only to offer a long-term time series of sea ice
conditions, dating from 1820 onwards until present day. Brian and his
collaborators have found that as coastal sea ice has decreased – resulting in
an almost permanent absence over the last 10-20 years, both fish and marine
mammals communities are changing.
“This is unique in a 200 year period and extreme – there
has been no other such long event.”
He noted that cold adapted species, such as Narwhals and
walrus, are becoming rarer, with warm adapted species, including fin and
humpback whales, becoming more common. His team has also estimated that fin and
humpback whales consume 1 million tonnes of food/year, in this region, which is
resulting in impacts across the food web.
In the final lightning talk, Grete Hovelsrud (Nordland Research Institute) spoke about how Arctic fisheries are
having to evolve and adapt in a changing climate. She noted that 15 years ago, a
northward shift of commercial fish species was expected, and this has indeed
happened, including a change in species and an increase in abundance. Yet along with this change in fish species,
life in coastal fishing communities has also changed. She gave the example of Lofoten,
northern Norway, where the climate is no longer ideally suited for drying cod:
“Lofoten is no longer the ideal drying place, coastal
communities are doubly vulnerable to climate change.”
Reduced sea ice in Greenland has also had profound
effects on fishing for Greenland halibut. Traditionally a small-scale activity that
takes place by running a line down to the sea bottom through sea ice, this is
no longer viable due to the lack of sea ice. While local fishermen have adapted
by fishing by boat, there are also new and larger commercial actors moving in,
changing the governance regime.
“This is a Pandora’s box for Arctic governance, because reduced
sea increases human activities in the Arctic.”
Grete ended her talk by noting that projects like FACE-IT are identifying adaptive co-management strategies to address these emerging governance challenges.
Panel discussion: the science-policy interface is essential and active
The second half of the webinar was dedicated to a panel
discussion, moderated by Grete and including the following panellists: Larisa
Lorinczi (EU Commission), Marianne Kroglund (Norwegian Environment Agency) and
Dieter Piepenburg (Alfred Wegener Institute).
Grete opened by the panel by asking Dieter what the best avenues are for getting
research into the IPCC. Dieter laid out the key areas of engaging with the
IPCC, which include: publishing peer-reviewed papers, reviewing, being
nominated as a lead or contributing author. He also mentioned the issue of
“paper cut-off dates”, saying that the IPCC is aware of this time lag and the
relatively large number of years between the main assessments (7 years). He
noted the use of “Special Reports” which provide a quicker turnaround.
Larisa was asked about the new EU missions and to what extent these new initiatives draw on the
findings of the IPCC. Larisa started by explaining that the EU missions,
including Mission Ocean, is a tool to support the EU Green Deal. She emphasised
that the EU Missions are functioning at a higher technology readiness level
(TRL) – in other words, rolling out practical solutions and technologies - than
projects like ECOTIP and FACE-IT, which are functioning at lower TRLs and focus
on research. She emphasised the importance of all EU science projects to
develop high-impact scientific research that can feed into the IPCC process,
and other important processes, such as the Global joint assessment being
developed by the IPCC and IPBES – all global assessment processes followed
closely and used by the EU Commission. She finished her comments by noting the
importance of the EU Polar Cluster, and policy events in Brussels, as means to
get policy-relevant messages through to decision-makers.
Asked
about how the results of the IPCC are
integrated into Norway’s government and respective agencies, Marianne noted
the Norwegian Environment Agency is the focal point for the IPCC, following the
process from the scoping phases, through to reviewing and governmental
approval, to mainstreaming into Norway’s government. She emphasised the crucial
importance of assessments like the IPCC and other global assessments, noting
that it would be impossible to follow and make sense of all the individual
research taking place. Asked whether there was a gap between science and policy
making, she noted that some responsibility should be taken by the policy side,
making it clearer what their information needs are towards scientists. Asked
about the work of the Arctic Council and how this links to the IPCC, Marianne
noted that the Council’s work on climate change, published through peer-review
assessments under the AMAP working group, has been crucial to bring forward the
Arctic perspective in IPCC reports. She also highlighted a number of ongoing
projects under the Council, including the ongoing (but currently paused) joint
AMAP/CAFF project Climate change impacts on Arctic ecosystems and associated
climate feedbacks.
Björn closed the webinar by mentioning that the three EU Horizon 2020-funded projects funded under the same call on Arctic biodiversity (i.e. ECOTIP, FACE-IT and CHARTER) are planning a policy event in Brussels in early to mid 2023 to bring forward policy messages to relevant persons and functions within the EU Commission.