Summarize your understanding of the work being proposed under this Expert Panel Theme

Guiding Principle 1: This proposed work has addressed the equitable engagement of Indigenous peoples and has sufficient mechanisms in place to fund their participation in Phase II of work for this Expert Panel.

Describe how you see Guiding Principle 1 being followed in this effort. Please provide the Expert Panel group with any additional guidance needed to better follow this principle.

Guiding Principle 2: This proposed work will result in broadly shared benefits across a meaningful range of SAON's partners. The Expert Panel has strong plans in place to assess this benefit in Phase II of the ROADS process.

Describe how you see Guiding Principle 2 being followed in this effort. Please provide the Expert Panel group with any additional guidance needed to better follow this principle.

Guiding Principle 3: This proposed work has plans in place to complement and integrate with existing efforts and yield improved governance and partnership development of observations and data systems across these efforts.

Describe how you see Guiding Principle 3 being followed in this effort. Please provide the Expert Panel group with any additional guidance needed to better follow this principle.

This Expert Panel Theme reflects sufficient overall readiness to make impactful progress under SAON ROADS and should move to Phase II of the process.

Please provide additional comments on overall readiness for this Expert Panel to move to Phase II of the ROADS process:

The Expert Panel's thematic scope is of a reasonable breadth (ratings 4-6 = reasonable breadth) to make progress under the ROADS process.

If you found the thematic scope too broad or too narrow, what refinements would you recommend?

How does this thematic scope complement and integrate with existing efforts? Are these other efforts sufficiently engaged to assure good partnership development and cohesive governance of observing and data systems under this effort?

What is the geographic scope of the work being proposed? (Choose as many as apply)

Can you recommend any organizations or efforts in other regions that might be interested in engaging in this EP? If you know of any existing capabilities that they have to support this work, please indicate that.

The purpose of proposing this Expert Panel Theme under SAON-ROADS is compelling and well-established in this section:

If you disagreed with the above, what is missing from this description in terms of the purpose of this Expert Panel?

The societal relevance of this topic is compelling and well-established in this section

If you disagreed with the above, what is missing from this description in terms of societal relevance?

This Expert Panel has clear plans in place for assessing societal benefit under their theme in Phase II:

If the processes for establishing societal relevance are not well established, what would you recommend this group consider in Phase II of their work?

In addition to appropriate Indigenous engagement, an appropriate range of other experts have been engaged for Phase II of the ROADS process within this theme:

Please provide comments on further expertise that should be engaged under this effort.

The presented timelines realistic given the readiness of this effort

There is sufficient funding in place to complete Phase II of the SAON-ROADS process:

The following funding or in-kind opportunities (e.g. planned workshops or gatherings) would be well-aligned with this effort:

2023/04/04 10:38:31 AM EET

A wildfire SAV proposal is being worked out. The GCOS wildfire ECV would be good to be added to the proposal as an example of prior initiatives to be recognized.

One fully Saami and a educator of Saami youth are strong representatives for indigenous views.

The themes for variables are good and pave a way forward to investigate them further.

What should be considered as existing efforts. GCOS wildfire ECV is the one that seems to be the only one.

This questions relates to work in phase 2, so not really the time to answer this yet. Probably there is.

Agreeing because I am involved. Plans for phase 2 work, were not asked for in the concept document guidance.

Funding is there for the year 2023 and will be continued within Arctic Passion to 2025

2023/04/10 11:58:53 PM EET

To define SAV’s in the context of wildfire through 3 variable themes (ignition, soil moisture, prescribed burning)

I didn’t see a section that clearly outlined any funding strategies for the inclusions of indigenous representatives in the concept document- it mentioned participating organizations but not a specific strategy for “funding participation” for phase II

The concept document successfully outlines how the community will benefit from this work.

It is clearly outlined that this work will compliment existing efforts and build on partnerships through various avenues. Although it did not come across as a strategy for improved governance. Although the document fails to outline exactly how they intend by definitions these SAV’s improve/integrate in data systems. The document makes it seem like all the information is available to improve the systems so how does that tie into the SAV process? It document outlines why these variables are important — somewhat talked about in 3.2.3.1 but not for other proposed variables

Overall, the concept document does well in outlining why these variables are important. I believe the expert panel would be successful in moving to phase II. Small problems with the concept document are: I feel it could improve in the guiding principles area 1&3. Section 3.1.3 seems lacking; other than the definition it isn’t clear.

2023/04/11 2:40:06 AM EET

Testing microclimate model within an integrated fire management initiative that also is testing medium-range weather forecasts. It is working with Sami communities to understand the societal needs in regard to the broader initative.

It has demonstrated early engagement, but no funding description for continued engagement

Good to see the Indigenous engagement early, need to see the rest of the proposed panel, timetable, and funding.

Without the expert panel composition, it is hard to say if it is complementing existing Finnish fire management.

It would be good to a plan to future develop the societal benefit. Even if it is reviewing what is already written, identified, with Indigenous and local communities for feedback.

2023/04/11 3:26:14 PM EET

It seems that a lot of practical work is implemented by the Arctic Passion. We (Univ.Helsinki) is not a partner in this project. There is no clear communication flow visible on the interface / activites between Arctic Passion and SAON Expert Panel as not being a partner in the Arctic Passion.

The geopolitical situation is changing and an integrated Pan-Arctic approach may not be possible for years.

Regional: Nordic;Regional: Greenland;Regional: Russia;Regional: Canada;Regional: US/Alaska;Regional: Central Arctic

If we have the AASCO funding we certainly will find synergy the SAON ROADS approach.

2023/04/11 6:07:15 PM EET

The Expert panel is proposing a method to estimate wildfire indexes, as shared arctic variable, to forecast locations of wildfires with a high level of occurrence to allow regional preparedness. Multiple sources of information will be utilized for these forecasts including Indigenous knowledge. The information will be provided by way of an online service that will allow for inputs and refinements. The proposed expert panel will assist with identifying and applying Sustaining Arctic Variables for this forecast service. The initial region for application is within the northern hemisphere , on the Finnish Lapland within a Sami region and is tied to specific human activities. The information will provide improves wildfire response measures including education across human sectors.
The proposal itself is well developed and describes the societal significance of the kinds of wildfires, their causes, and effects on the landscape and population. Within the main SAV several smaller variables are also identified including ignition sites. The EP panel well describes the societal relevant reasons for this type of work.

The proposal identifies ways to incorporate the indigenous knowledge into the wildfire SAV, I did not see the mechanisms to fund the participation identified.

The proposal could benefit from better describing a broader range of SAON partners, it describes well the value for the regional residents and Sami people, and does tie in well with the UN decade.

Defining ways for communicating the results back to the Sami people, (at meetings, other materials?)

I'm not sure how best to suggest funding opps for this proposal (I realize that is not helpful).

2023/04/12 2:30:48 AM EET

I understand this work to be a modeling exercise to refine, ground truth and improve forecasting ability of wildfires on a seasonal basis that will be able to scale to the Arctic and be responsive to climate change.

The work is clearly seeking to address the SAV in ways that are relevant and centered on Sámi knowledge, needs, concerns, activities, etc. there are opportunities to strengthen GP 1 in the text by expanding the text where context for the SAV is provided (made comments in the document). Opportunity to incorporate meaningful Indigenous participation in the 'citizens' observations'?

There is a good start here, but the team did not incorporate deeply the range of SAON's partners. I think a following iteration could build out the language more fully to explain some of the bulleted sections and the information within the UN paragraphs that aligns the work with some of the UN goals.

This seems to be well thought out in terms of involvement of partners and partnership development. I would like to explore more about the citizen observations and local information and knowledge into the regular 'monitoring' piece of the SAV.

I greatly appreciate the authors' willingness to share this document with the group. It provides in depth information that is easy to digest and written well. I think some of the sections could be built out (certainly seems that this is the intent) and look forward to discussions on how to add information to address the necessary aspects to move this into Phase II.

I'm not sure I can fully evaluate this question... looking forward to discussion with others on this.

I would like to see the sections on SAON ROADS partners and broader benefits built out with a specific focus on how this could scale to other locations, network among existing or new efforts, etc.

I'm not sure that I can fully evaluate this, but it seems to initially engage a good range of expertise.

2023/04/12 2:32:14 PM EET

From the document the involvement of local or indigeneous communits can not be evaluated. Nor is there description of the funding.

The composition of expert panel and resources are missing, the involvement of local and indigenous communites is not described. Nor is the resources reserved for the work.

Regional: Nordic;The document is concentrated to Norther Finland, but can be extended to other regions

No clear timeline is presented. Workshops for SAV process are presented, but in Finnish (I can understand them)

2023/04/12 6:20:39 PM EET

This EP presents how three basic variables will be used to monitor Arctic wildfires and improve preparedness and adaptation to wildlife events.

Equitable engagement with Indigenous communities seems to have been fulfilled as these communties are highly involved in the project in terms of monitoring, preventive, and mitigation efforts. Their knowledge and terminology is integreated alongside western science.

Principle 2: clear how the SAVs will be meangingly to a wide range of partners. But for Phase 2 (Define and assess impactful Shared Arctic Variables (SAVs), how the SAVs' performance will be assessed, this is less clear. This assessment has been less explicitly defined. The SAVs are clear but exactly how "protection needs" and "soil moisture" will be determined/measured short and long term are less clear. Also, how will these measurements be assessed as "impactful"? This has to be made clearer with AP as well.

How interoperable will data be with other data systems, i.e., WMO? Are they using existing datasets and histrorical datasets which will be comparable? Will these findings be intersite comparable with other regions and countries?

I understand this is preliminary so it is great, but would require more information on variables that will be measured (interoperability, using existing systems), timeline (short or long term monitoring?), budget requirements and sustainability of funding, outreach activties and KM,

2023/04/17 5:13:32 PM EET

How can the information collected in the Arctic region be used in a meaningful way to prepare for, and further reduce the risk to, wildfire events? How can collaboratives be used as a mechanism for a public safety issue that spans international borders?

From my perspective, the work done here is an attempt to leverage limited resources (observational data) with the purpose of making a useable information product that serves multiple interests. Wildfire management personnel, local or community interests (i.e., reindeer herders), the academic and research community, international interests - the list goes on. Even with this in mind, I am left with the impression that wildfires are driven by a finite number of factors/variables that can be used in a meaningful way to reduce the risk of wildfire events in the Arctic region. The lessons learned in defining wildfires under the SAV framework have the potential to aid wildfire managers and community leaders around the globe, as well as aiding those involved with other proposed themes.

Using available information to create an FWI system in the Arctic region seems like a broadly shared benefit. Prompts focus to best-practice collaboratives (i.e. human dimension) to reducing wildfire risk, monitoring collaboratives and information sharing among local communities and multiple countries (i.e. drones) etc.

I think the shear number of members involved, and the domains they represent respectively, in proposed sav themes counts for a lot. BUT, case studies are definitely a strong way to capture benefits given how specific they may be to different rights-holders.

Information needs are scattered throughout the document and there seems to be a loose connection on how to make a useable product. Variables such as wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, precipitation, vegetation type and structure, topography, soil/vegetation moisture content etc. serve as the foundation, but contribute to various wildfire indices and fire behaviour rating systems that paint a broader picture.

Suggest adding a terminology section. Capture terminology specific to wildfire management.

Think its lacking the global aspect, given the ramifications associated with permafrost and international engagement

Localized observational assets that collect information relevant to known wildfire behaviour and risk models to create a broader picture of the wildfire environment in the Arctic region.

Representation from local wildfire management headquarters within the Arctic region, or close proximity (neighbouring countries).