Expert panel says new Arctic research plan needs more detail and stable funding

International community weighs in

An international expert panel has concluded that the Conservative government's plans for Arctic research need to be modified and receive adequate operational funding or risk jeopardizing its scientific program and the region's long-term value. The panel is critical of the lack of detail in the proposed Canadian Arctic Research Initiative (CARI) and recommends expanding the number of its themes from four to six (see chart next page).

It also urges the government to immediately begin implementing its Arctic research plan with one or more core programs to maintain momentum over the approximately 10 years between the end of International Polar Year activities and the completion of CARI research facilities. Compounding the challenge is the deteriorated state of Canada's Arctic research facilities, many of which have either been closed or require "urgent repairs and revitalization", the panel notes.

The International Expert Panel was convened by the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) to solicit an informed international perspective on CARI, which was unveiled in the 2007 Speech from the Throne.

The CCA was asked to assemble a group of international experts and produce a report in short order by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (DINA). Key to the panel's deliberations was a report stemming from an Arctic Science Visioning Workshop held in Ottawa last May. DINA is responsible for the proposed High Arctic Research Station included within CARI "as a signature deliverable of the (government's) Northern Strategy".

"It will be expensive and the existing infrastructure needs repair," says Dr Elizabeth Dowdeswell, panel chair and chair of the CCA's scientific advisory committee. "At this stage we need greater specificity and it will come from being clear about the objectives you can meet and which you can't."

CARI is vague on a number of key elements including the proposed research station and funding levels required to implement the overall strategy. A DINA spokesperson would only say that such details would be released in the coming months.

The panel report makes clear that CARI offers an opportunity to reverse the decline in Arctic research over the last few decades to the point where top-flight researchers avoid the Arctic "because of a lack of funding and low career prospects". It argues that continuity of funding is even more important than the absolute sums allocated to ensure that long-term research projects are not interrupted.

"To date, support for Canadian arctic research has tended to be largely project-oriented. CARI funding should represent a departure from past budgeting practices where, as most mature researchers can recall, flagship programs have been severely damaged because the initial promising support was eroded over time," states the report.

When the government announced the development of a northern strategy it concluded that a research station was a critical element of the strategy's research component. The expert panel disagrees, arguing that a two-hub model would best suit Canadian Arctic research until research infrastructure is further developed. The two-hub model would include a logistical hub in a central, accessible location and a scientific hub in an "attractive and scientifically interesting area". It notes that the hub and spoke model selected by other circumpolar nations is not an option for Canada in the near future.

"Such a model requires intermediate infrastructure— e.g., to connect the hubs via the spokes to other facilities — and funds will therefore need to be provided to support that intermediate infrastructure," states the report. "

"With the potential for many more billions from recoverable gas and light crude, Canada must rapidly develop a knowledge base to support responsible development. At the heart of this priority is the use of science to develop

frameworks that produce "win win" outcomes ."

— International Expert Panel on Science Priorities for Canadian Arctic Research

Perhaps the most significant change being recommended by the expert panel is the addition of two thematic priorities to those already identified by the government and visioning workshop. Both Observation and Monitoring and Technology are considered essential in the development of a complete program for CARI. "Observation, monitoring, data collection and storage, analysis, modelling, and prediction are core activities and are an integral part of Canada's capacity to conduct cutting-edge arctic research," states the report, adding that affordable wireless broadband is also important.

The panel also pushes for technology to be recognized as a thematic priority rather than a cross-cutting theme as all other themes are dependent upon successful technology development and deployment.

It cites precision instrument design, observation and data analysis and communications technologies underlying research platforms and information exchange as priority technology areas which can "pay large dividends in terms of research productivity".

quick turnaround

The CCA adopted a novel approach to assembling the international expert panel in order to meet the government's tight deadline. After lining up the panel's membership, it held two days of discussions in Helsinki Finland using the Visioning Workshop document as a starting point.

"We met in Helsinki and did the rest electronically. The panel members are anxious to use the report for their own governments and constituencies," says Dowdeswell. "This panel was different from the typical Council panels in a number of ways. We were reacting to a predetermined set of materials that were well aligned with Canada's challenges and opportunities. Usually we do an in-depth analysis of scientific knowledge but this was more of a strategic document ... We're learning that the questions put before us are not amenable to a one-size-fits-all process.. In this case, the sponsor wanted to quickly get the views of the international community."

R$