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?

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?

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:

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

2024/02/13 11:46:22 am CET

In general, the reason behind the creation of this expert panel is clear. However, the 'Scope' is not fully defined and appears somewhat general. I would suggest specifying the main scope, possibly dividing it into bullet points for clarity. Similarly, the 'Purpose' is a bit generic, and it is not clear to me how the process will be employed to achieve the defined scope. Providing more specific details or steps in the purpose statement would enhance clarity. On the other hand, the Social Benefit is rather clear

2024/02/16 10:04:26 pm CET

The work focuses on the establishment of an Expert Panel (EP) to bring together experts and stakeholders from various communities and to address Arctic permafrost in Arctic communities by compiling and sharing relevant information on permafrost conditions now and in the future and how it will affect Arctic communities well-being of Indigenous and local populations. The EP includes 10-12 people: an Indigenous co-chair, facilitators and other experts. Online workshop of phase 2 is planned in spring 2024, phase 3 in autumn 2024 and phase 4 in spring 2025.

While the presence of Indigenous co-chair and support for his participation (in the text) represent positive steps, the limited representation of the indigenous communities calls for a comprehensive funding plan to address this gap. By allocating resources towards meaningful engagement, capacity-building, participation facilitation, translation services, and ongoing support, the EP can foster a more inclusive and equitable decision-making process that truly values and incorporates the voices of the indigenous communities. Furthermore, the process of selecting an Indigenous co-chair should be considered to achieve the transparency and inclusivity. Through consultations, nominations where Indigenous communities have the opportunity to put forward their candidates.

Taking the Indigenous perspective into consideration, my recommendation is to obtain a list of potential observation stations located in the Arctic regions inhabited by Indigenous communities. By doing so, we can assess the potential advantages that may be relevant to specific Indigenous groups whose culture differs from other Indigenous communities. These distinctions may include practices like domesticating reindeer or caribou, as well as the gathering of wildlife habitats and vegetation. Additionally, it is crucial to examine how permafrost conditions impact sacred sites and sanctuaries, as they too may be affected. There is a lack of unified format and protocols for observations and data exchange with Indigenous communities related to permafrost and this gives less emphasis on collecting qualitative data, such as Indigenous knowledge and valuable insights into the impacts of permafrost changes on Indigenous peoples and their ways of life. The tools should include training and education programs to address specific skills related to permafrost data collection and analyses, project management and community planning.

This principle recognizes the importance of collaboration and integration with ongoing efforts in order to avoid duplication of work and maximize the effectiveness of the EP's outcomes. By aligning with existing planning approaches, the EP can leverage existing resources, knowledge and networks to enhance the development and implementation of observing and data systems in the Arctic. This diverse composition ensures that different perspectives and knowledge systems are included in the decision-making processes. In practical terms, this guiding principle encourages the EP to identify and engage with relevant initiatives, organizations and stakeholders that are already involved in addressing the theme or related issues. By collaborating and sharing information with these existing efforts, the EP can contribute to a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to Arctic observation and data systems. The EP plans to address systematic shortcomings in Arctic observing and data systems, emphasizing communication challenges and the inclusion of qualitative data. By focusing on these areas, the EP aims to enhance the governance and partnership development of observations and data systems. This includes improving the coordination, standardization and sharing of data among different stakeholders and projects.

Furthermore, the EP's communication and engagement plan involve consultations with leadership boards, zoom calls and written correspondence to ensure that the advice and comments of stakeholders are considered in the final deliverables. This approach promotes partnership development and collaboration, strengthening the governance of observations and data systems. Additionally, the EP aims to identify and utilize existing initiatives, networks, and platforms for knowledge exchange and collaboration. Here are some ways the EP can effectively: engage with existing networks and organizations that already have established relationships with remote Indigenous communities in the Arctic. This could include Indigenous organizations, community-based monitoring programs or regional entities that work closely with Indigenous communities. By partnering with these organizations, the EP can leverage existing channels of communication and trust. When sharing information, the EP should actively seek input and feedback from remote Indigenous communities. This can be done through community consultations, workshops or other participatory processes. By involving community members in the decision-making and information-sharing processes, the EP can ensure that the information is relevant, culturally appropriate, and responsive to the needs and perspectives of Indigenous communities. Recognizing the diverse communication preferences and access to technology in remote Indigenous communities, the EP should utilize a variety of communication channels to share information. This can include in-person meetings, community gatherings, printed materials in local languages, radio broadcasts, social media platforms and online platforms accessible in remote areas. The EP should create opportunities for dialogue and exchange of knowledge between the EP members and remote Indigenous communities. This can involve open discussions, Q&A sessions or virtual forums where community members can ask questions, share their perspectives and provide feedback on the EP's work.
Respect cultural protocols and traditional knowledge: When engaging with remote Indigenous communities, the EP should demonstrate respect for cultural protocols and traditional/Indigenous knowledge. This includes acknowledging and valuing Indigenous knowledge systems, incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into the EP's work, and ensuring that Indigenous voices and perspectives are represented and respected throughout the information-sharing process.

The plan to secure funding is not specified in the text and the communication and engagement plan with concrete actions would be crucial to have before moving to Phase II of the ROADS process. Overall, the proposed work recognizes the importance of complementing and integrating with existing efforts and strives to enhance the governance and partnership development of observations and data systems.

The proposed expert panel theme appears to have a balanced scope, focusing specifically on permafrost in Arctic communities while also considering the broader aspects of environmental, economic and cultural dimensions. It addresses the challenges and impacts of permafrost thawing and aims to integrate existing efforts and knowledge from various projects and Indigenous communities. However, without specific details about the objectives, activities or outcomes of the expert panel, it is challenging to assess whether the theme is too narrow or too broad. To provide more specific refinements, it would be helpful to clarify the specific goals and deliverables of the expert panel. This could include outlining the key research questions or topics that the panel aims to address, the methods and approaches to be utilized and the expected outcomes or recommendations. Additionally, ensuring that the panel's composition includes diverse expertise and perspectives from the Russian part of the Arctic, including Russian indigenous and local community representatives, can strengthen the relevance and effectiveness of the panel's work.

While the specific details of how it integrates with existing efforts are not provided, the intention is to connect expertise in "a pan-Arctic fashion" and incorporate knowledge from various projects and Indigenous communities. To assure cohesive governance, it is important to establish clear structures and mechanisms for data sharing, coordination, and collaboration among the various stakeholders involved. This may involve the development of common protocols, standards, and platforms for data exchange and management, as well as the establishment of governance frameworks that promote transparency and cooperation.

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

Highlighting the significance of the expert panel in terms of its potential contributions to the broader scientific community, policy development or decision-making processes would strengthen the description of its purpose. This could include discussing how the panel's findings and recommendations will be utilized and disseminated to maximize their impact.

The provided information does not specify whether the expert panel has clear plans in place for assessing societal benefit under their theme in phase II. Further details regarding the specific plans and methodologies for assessing societal benefit would be required to provide a comprehensive answer.

Assessing societal benefit typically involves evaluating how the proposed work contributes to the well-being and sustainable development of communities, particularly indigenous and local communities in the Arctic region. It may include evaluating the potential positive impacts on environmental protection, infrastructure planning, resource management, cultural preservation, and the integration of traditional knowledge.

To assess societal benefit, the expert panel could consider utilizing frameworks such as the International Arctic Observing Assessment Framework (IAOAF), Arctic Council working groups (SDWG) and other relevant Societal Benefit Assessment (SBA) frameworks. These frameworks provide guidance and methodologies for evaluating and quantifying the societal value and impact of scientific research and observation efforts. By incorporating a robust assessment of societal benefit into the panel's plans would be valuable in ensuring that their work is aligned with the needs and priorities of Arctic communities.

2024/02/21 6:24:24 pm CET

This project proposes to examine the impacts of changing permafrost dynamics across the circum-Arctic using an interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and transdisciplinary
approach. The project aims to provide the essential foci for permafrost information, observations, and management practices to support informed decision-making at local, regional and global levels.

Great inclusion of Indigenous and local expert(s) on the panel. As the project expands, including experts from Greenland and Russia would be relevant.

Perhaps a clearer outline of delivrables would be helpful. What will come out of the work?For ex., a platform to access quantitative and qualitative data on permafrost? Policy recommendations for built infratsrcture? Landscape management guide? Construction guide? Mititgation strategies for built infrastructures on thawing permafrost? A sharing circle to exchange on best practices for dealing with thawing permafrost?

Is the International Permafrost Association involved? PermafrostNet? Great work including the other initiatives! Well connected group.

Perhaps include government agencies that monitor permafrost to ensure that their data is including and interoperable? In Canada, there is often a disconnect by what is measured by academic scientistst and government scientisits/agencies. You also mention"The systematic shortcomings within Arctic observing and data systems are notably
compounded by communication challenges and the inclusion of qualitative data.". I believe there is also an issue with the interoperability of quantitative data.

Regional: Greenland;Regional: Canada;Regional: Central Arctic;with exception of Russia. Perhaps Scandinavian countries are not that well incoporated either.

They are using pre-established international meetings to gather experts and email and virtual meetings. Good idea.

2024/02/25 11:35:26 pm CET

"This thematic expert panel is proposed to be set up to help address the permafrost problem by bringing together experts and stakeholders from the various communities to share their knowledge and together identify the most impactful ways and formats of observing and managing Arctic permafrost for the maximum shared benefit and to obtain a more holistic, transdisciplinary understanding of the state of permafrost". This is a general concept and, in my opinion, is not clear the real aim.

It is foreseen the engagement of pan-arctic iIndigenous people, even from Russia. It could be more clear how this engagement will be achieved. The proponents base in existing EU projects.

This information is not clear in the document. I could antecipate the benefits for SAON partners.

The phase I process need some clarifications. iAnyway this is a very important panel and efforts should be made to move this proposal to phase II

2024/02/27 6:28:07 am CET

Europe and Canadian expert panel on permafrost in a broad sense including carbon, degradation, and infrastructure needs.

Has an Indigenous co-chair, but no other Indigenous EPs. Do not see a plan to deeply understand Indigenous community needs, even within the partnering Tuktoyaktuk.

It does leverage multiple projects and the ongoing work in Tuk. But I don't see a plan that will lead to improved governance and partnerships.

With your community partners maybe focus on infrastructure and drop the carbon, unless it is identified as something crucial by partners.

If the effort is rooted between Longyearbyen and Canada, there needs more Canadian expertise.

I assume based on the text that funding for the EP participation is set. But is there a lack of fundings to do workshops, in-person gatherings, and community engagement?

2024/02/27 4:20:53 pm CET

The initiative formulates the purpose as "sharing information on the ongoing changes in permafrost areas" with the societal benefits of "helping to sustain infrastructure and ecosystems, informing adaptation measures, respecting cultural diversity, managing natural resources, understanding potential health and safety hazards, and better understanding climate change as well as global environmental processes"

Contact is established with indigenous expertise from the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk in Northwest Territories in Canada, as well as local knowledge from Longyearbyen in Svalbard. The funding is less well described.

2024/02/27 4:25:44 pm CET

This work is proposing to focus on permafrost as it relates to infrastructure, human health, risks like landslides, subsistence, and ecosystem disturbance. It proposes to look across a range of Arctic areas, some already identified, to improve sharing of information, observations and management practices. Their work potentially could also serve the needs of global modelers looking to improve inventories of permafrost and public services related to permafrost, with an emphasis on the Arctic PASSION service that is in development.

This work has engaged an Indigenous co-chair, which is positive, and made strides to advance their engagement in the community of Tuk, both directly and with boundary spanning efforts on the EP like Nunataryuk and NRC. There has been some participation of Indigenous experts at Arctic Circle Assembly gatherings, but in general this project description and participant list hasn't yet obtained clear Indigenous leadership and input.

This group is looking at permafrost from a multi-faceted, interdisciplinary perspective and their engagement with their Indigenous partners and boundary spanning work moves that toward a holistic perspective that is certainly rooted in the region yet extends to potential benefits towards global systems. This is a strong aspect of their proposal.

There are some ways in which this is apparent, such as their partnership with Nunataryuk and Longyearben/SIOS that they are aligning and leveraging, but this must be inferred as it is not explicitly addressed. More specifics would improve the strength of the proposal.

My summary would be that this group has elicited a breadth of input about potential societal factors that are highly relevant for information sharing about observing and management practices, but that the overall effort remains vague on details. It would be useful to see more specifics related to plans for Indigenous engagement, either directly or through boundary spanners; to understand how they are planning to draw from existing efforts more explicitly and with examples i.e. Nunataryuk insights will contribute to social benefit analysis; Arctic PASSION pilot service will shape information sharing and monitoring gaps through XYZ. I think this is attainable with the present group of experts, but needs elaboration.

My main concern is that they have a great deal of breadth in their scope, but its not clear that they have all of the expertise they need to address the full scope.

This is not laid out as clearly as it could be. As mentioned before, having more detail on how project partners are working on this would greatly improve this effort. For example, there are major organizations like the International Permafrost Association and CALM networks that are not even mentioned. If these organizations are irrelevant to the matter, it might be worth noting why IPA and CALM have not been engaged or where their capabilities are not sufficient for the information sharing that is called for in the purpose section. It is not clear what type of monitoring or data sharing gaps specifically are impacting decision making.

This is not my sphere, but I am curious why some of the major Arctic efforts on this like IPA and CALM are not mentioned; also wondering if the Permafrost Carbon Network is relevant for its data resources and subject matter expertise, even though they focus on Carbon.

Summary from other comments - a stronger sense of what the observing gaps are that are constraining good management and decision making; a sense that the major efforts have been contacted or engaged at some level.

I'm aware that the group has tested out some mechanisms. Given that, I had expected them to have a more clearly defined plan for this. If they do have such a plan for their spring 2024 meeting, I'd recommend that they outline it more explicitly here.

The current group of experts is strong, but it feels like there are some gaps. Some gaps might just be that there needs to explicit ties made between the individuals and their ties to other efforts, like CALM.

I would make this answer a 4 if a clear plan for the societal benefit assessment was clearly laid out in a revision to the text.

2024/02/27 4:37:06 pm CET

The expert panel is formed to enhance the understanding of the impacts of changed/reduced permafrost and suggest adaptation strategies. The scope is broad, both geographically covering the whole Arctic and across disciplines and stakeholders. It builds partly on the Arctic Passion EU project. The scope is maybe too broad, in my opinion clearer objectives and deliverables should be given. The group seems very solid, but there is only one co-chair identified?

The scope, deliverables and outcomes should be further worked on and made to be more precise

Also here the plan needs to be further developed. The links to established existing scientific and governmental networks is a bit unclear. They're on the right way, but further information is needed.

Kind of unclear/vague understanding, The work is going to include virtual meetings, workshops associated with Arctic Circle Assembly, and Phase I has already been completed (but there is not much information about this Phase and what was completed, learned, discussed, etc), and that Phase II started with a workshop in Reykjavik at ACA 2023 but without a lot of explanation on what activities commenced there, tasks that were completed, etc. The group mentioned they are going to follow the IAOAF and bringing in other relevant SBA frameworks as identified by the Expert Panel. The information provided was general and I think that there could have been a bit more detail in the summary of the work thus far. There is room for the group to discuss more of the permafrost discipline - to inform the reader about the topic.

There is an Indigenous Co-Lead of the EP which is great to see, but general discussion of the engagement of Indigenous Peoples, communities, and knowledge from such existing diversity of these groups and individuals was lacking. I would love to see more specificity - I am not sure if there is more that the group could already draw from but I think the documentation as is forces the reader to draw some assumptions or conclusions about the level of involvement and engagement of Indigenous Peoples.

The documentation indicates the IAOAF will be completed, but I cannot tell from the text what the strength of the plan is to assess benefits across a meaningful range of SAON's partners.

I think that the group probably does have a commitment to complement the existing work and efforts in place, but it's not clear how improved governance and partnership development across systems will be achieved. Some guidance on this may be to build out the discussion on how the EP will ensure that different perspectives and knowledge systems are included in the decision-making processes; add additional details on the plan for engagement with relevant initiatives, organizations and stakeholders that are already involved in addressing related issues/topics under the theme.

I am not sure I fully agree with the statement above, but it may be that the documentation just does not accurately reflect the level of work in Phase I that has already been completed ,and the group mentions they are already in to Phase II so I'm not sure if there is willingness to go back and fill in some of the missing pieces for Phase I? It would be great to see more specificity in the future documentation about some of these things to show overall readiness and that impactful progress will be ensured.

The scope was quite broad and could benefit from some additional focusing and refining. As it is currently written, without specific details about the objectives, activities or outcomes of the EP, it is challenging to assess whether the theme is too narrow or too broad.

Again, more information would be useful here for evaluation. My sense is that it does complement and integrate with existing efforts, but how much and what that integration looks like is not clear in the writing. How is partnership development and cohesive governance of observing and data systems going to be approached by the team? There are some great comments from others on this question of the evaluation and I recommend the EP discuss those!

The EP documentation says pan-Arctic but the EP is composed of individuals from the western Arctic. They mention also the aim to integrate knowledge from communities in the Russian Arctic, but no information about if that has started, how that is planned, and if that is feasible/contingency for if it is not possible.

Permafrost Pathways Sue Natali (snatali@woodwellclimate.org), Brooke Woods (blwoods@alaska.edu) and Sheryl Musgrove (sheryl.musgrove@akijp.org); Protecting Our Ways of Life Working Group, Native Peoples Action - Laureli Ivanoff (laureli@nativepeoplesaction.org)

Purpose of the EP is certainly compelling, I think that it is probably more well-established than the section indicates and would benefit from more detail. I agree with the comment someone else made about, "Highlighting the significance of the EP in terms of its potential contributions to the broader scientific community, policy development or decision-making processes would strengthen the description of its purpose".

I would like to see some discussion of the societal relevance across diverse audiences/end users/impacted groups. There is a lack of overall specificity on how the EP has functioned thus far, and what has come out of the workshops and convenings thus far.

I think they probably do, but this could be clearly communicated in the documentation. The deliverables could be more clearly explained as well which could help with this section!

I think this is correct, but suggest reaching out to the names that people have provided in their reviews!

Again, this is probably true, but it's really hard to evaluate without the specifics in the documentation to review. I think that I would like to see the EP go back to Phase I work and fill in the gaps for the AP such that we have a clearer understanding of where they have been (what work has been completed, what that work looks like and was composed of). The timeline seems a bit ambitious, especially without more broad engagement which was indicated (Russian knowledge holders) and those recommendations received from the AP through this evaluation process.