Russia’s war in Ukraine is putting critical Arctic research on ice

Read transcribed audio

The Arctic is warming four times faster than anywhere else in the world, making it a significant area of research for climate and environment researchers. 

The region brings together scientists from all over the world to study topics ranging from polar bears to permafrost, making it a model of international cooperation.

But, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the international scientific community lost access to over half of the Arctic — the massive portion of the polar region that lies in Russia. The lack of access to that territory has also meant a loss of critical climate research.

“There are many sanctions that have been imposed by many countries against Russia, and particularly against Russian institutions,” said Chris Burn, president of the International Permafrost Association. “And so it’s very difficult for institutional cooperation to take place.”

Projects that were in planning stages between Russian scientists and others have either been put on hold, or continued without Russian involvement. Russian scientists are likely continuing their own research, said Burn, but have to do it alone.

This pause on co-operation has suspended joint permafrost and carbon projects between Russia and the U.S. Many of these projects, which were originally aimed for the Russian Arctic, have been rerouted to Alaska and northern Canada.

Thawing permafrost releases carbon into atmosphere

Permafrost is a layer of ground that remains frozen year-round, and contains large amounts of carbon in its solid soil.

However, the world’s warming climate is slowly thawing some of this frozen ground. When it thaws, it will slowly release the carbon it holds into the atmosphere and add to annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Burn said Canada’s Arctic alone isn’t large enough to provide a comprehensive understanding of the permafrost environment — or how quickly carbon currently stored in the permafrost will become a source of atmospheric emissions. 

“I think the impact [of this loss of collaboration] will come within the next two to three years, because this is a relatively fast moving field,” Burn, who is also the Chancellor’s professor of geography at Carleton University, told The Current’s Matt Galloway.

WATCH | What melting permafrost means for climate change:

According to the permafrost expert, ideas that were state of the art four years ago have been completely revised today.

The “principal problem,” Burn said, is just how large the Arctic is; researchers need to gather samples from several areas and estimate the amounts of carbon trapped in each area.

These samples then help scientists predict how quickly that carbon will be released — information that’s key to managing the global carbon atmospheric problem, according to Burn.

“Because [the permafrost region] is such a large area, a very small adjustment in the way that we understand the world can have a substantial impact,” said Burn.

Russian territory holds about 11 million square kilometres of permafrost, according to UNESCO. That’s nearly half of all permafrost on the Earth’s northern hemisphere, according to National Geographic.

When the world’s permafrost begins to thaw, some scientists estimate it will become the world’s third largest source of carbon emissions, following China and the United States.

This is why Burn said it’s so important these calibrations are as precise as possible.

“The question of how much carbon will come out of the ground need[s] to be calibrated very carefully to the range of terrain conditions that we find in Russia, and we simply can’t do that at the moment.”

Arctic Council relations put on hold

Diplomatic relationships have also broken down between Russia and the other seven states that make up the Arctic Council — an intergovernmental forum established to enhance cooperation and collaboration between the states.

In addition to Russia, Canada and the United States, the council includes Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden.

“The Arctic institutions used to be working relatively well, and the Arctic was not really an area of conflict,” said Evan Bloom, a former U.S. diplomat who helped establish the council in the mid-1990s.

But because of Russia’s recent invasion, “the Arctic Council isn’t really functioning anymore,” he said.

The seven other Arctic states paused all participation in the Council and its subsidiary bodies in a joint statement issued March 3, 2022. 

The “Arctic 7” later announced they were resuming work on a limited basis, but only on projects that do not involve Russian participation – a move that has been criticized by Russia. 

According to local Russian media, Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, said decisions made without Russia’s participation will be “deprived of legitimacy.”

Bloom also believes moving ahead without Russia’s involvement isn’t an effective long-term solution, and hopes there will be a return to normal diplomacy in the near future.

Norway is taking over chairmanship of the Arctic Council on May 11, and will play an important yet difficult role in making this happen, according to Bloom.

“They have to find a way of having Russia acquiesce in the continuing work in the council, but not to make concessions to Russia politically that would make it seem as if they’re being rewarded for their invasion in Ukraine,” Bloom said. “And that’s a very difficult task.”

It’s going to be a difficult task on the scientific level as well, said Burn, which is why the permafrost researcher thinks it is important that the scientific community itself doesn’t make the situation any worse. 

Many scientists, he said, are trying to maintain “person-to-person” relationships with their Russian colleagues, many of whom don’t support the war in Ukraine.

“We know at some point this situation is going to come to an end, and at that point it will be very important to reestablish our connections and our work together,” said Burn.

“We need to assure [our Russian colleagues] that on a scientific level, we are all working on the same problem, because ultimately, climate change is one of the existential problems of the 21st century.