Search

This report gives an overview of the activities, results and impacts of INTAROS Work Package 6 (WP6). The aim of WP6 is to demonstrate how an integrated observation system can be of specific benefit for society at local, regional or pan-Arctic scale. Through WP6 we show the capability of an enhanced Arctic Observation System towards advancing the economic role of the Arctic by providing support for better-documented processes and better-informed decisions within key sectors such as shipping, petroleum, fishing, and tourism. Further, WP6 demonstrates how the Arctic Observation system may be applied to further develop the accuracy of climate models, improve the understanding of biogeochemical cycles and ecosystem functioning, enhance fisheries and environmental management, increase the level of preparedness towards natural hazards, and develop better management and decision making concepts for selected local communities. Through WP6 INTAROS demonstrates enhanced data search and retrieval, assimilation into models, validation of estimated and projected climate parameters, scientific analysis, decision-support and policy-making. Following a general introduction to INTAROS WP6, eight chapters summarize, for each topic covered, the main activities and results, data and models used, stakeholder/user benefits, and further development and exploitation of results. The topics span broadly and target very different end-user groups but they all share the same overall challenge: how to synthesize data across time and space from different sources, formats and scientific disciplines into aggregated synoptic data products that are relevant for end-users. The following topics are addressed: Improving skill of model predictions in the Arctic, Applying observations and models for environmental and fisheries management, Ice-ocean statistics, Remote sensing applications, Natural hazards in the Arctic, Greenhouse gas exchange in the Arctic, Case studies of community-based observing systems and Benefits of ocean observing for blue growth in the Arctic. The report then describes concrete showcases, software applications. Selected main results across WP6 are then presented, before the report ends with conclusions and perspectives.

Climate warming in the Arctic Region opens up for new or changes and expansion of existing maritime business activities. The future business development perspectives for three important components of the Arctic Blue Economy –maritime transport via the Arctic Ocean, cruise industry in the Svalbard area and fishery in the Barents Sea has been analyzed. The maritime transport and cruise industry will potentially increase substantially over the coming years due to retreat of Arctic sea ice.In 2020 and 2021 the Covid-19 pandemic had severe negative impact on the cruise industry, whereas in 2022 the cruise traffic in the Arctic has recovered and was at the same level as the peak year in 2019. Barents Sea fishery is among the most important in Europe and represent a significant economic value for the industry. However, climate change with associated ecosystem changes will have impact on the stock composition and distribution, and consequently on the commercial fisheries. Entering into operations in the harsh Arctic environment requires good knowledge and understanding of the physical environmental conditions to ensure a sound decision process on economy, efficiency, safety of ship, crew and cargo and protection of the vulnerable Arctic environment. Therefore, examples of basic statistical analysis of relevant parameters like sea ice, wind, waves, temperature and salinity has been performed to outline the trends in change of environmental condition of importance for maritime operations in the Arctic. Additionally, operational meteorological and oceanographic near real time products and services are important when actually operating in the area. Satellite observations and outputs from numerical models are essential data sources for generation of operational products and services; but the trustworthiness of the information’s from these two data sources depends critically on the availability of in situ observations of key variables for assimilation in the models and especially for validation of quality of the generated data products. Unfortunately, the availability of enough relevant and high-quality in situ observations of oceanographic and meteorological variables from the Arctic Region is far from satisfactory for this purpose. It is therefore crucial to design and implement a fit-for-purpose Arctic Observing System to ensure the availability of high-quality in situ data needed for assimilation into forecasting models. The in situ data are also needed for validation of modelling and remote sensing products used both for operational monitoring and in statistical trend analysis. In the perspective of increased maritime activity in the environmentally vulnerable Arctic Region it would be advisable to perform monitoring and analysis of environmental pressures similar to the one performed by European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and European Environmental Agency (EEA) for the European Seas (EMSA & EEA,2021).

The potential for growth of the Arctic Blue Economy is increasing due to climate change, fast technological development and strong demands from the global economy. Such development will however put severe stress on the vulnerable Arctic environment and there is a growing consciousness among nations surrounding the Arctic to ensure a responsible and sustainable development of Arctic Blue economy, which calls for a science-based management approach. Mandatory for such an approach is good knowledge and understanding of the Arctic Ocean environment and ecosystem,which demands a well-coordinated, integrated, sustained fit-for-purpose Arctic Ocean Observation System. The design of a proper Arctic Ocean Observation System is recommended to follow the concept outlined in the “Framework for Ocean Observations” (UNESCO, 2012). This will require a strong international coordination and governance structure responsible for dialog with users and stakeholders, sustained funding, maintenance of observation requirements (spatiotemporal resolution, quality, timeliness), technology development, free and open access to data. An important component of the design process is an assessment of the costs and value of the observing system i.e., justify that the benefit exceeds the costs. Costs are easier (although not unproblematic) to quantify than the benefits. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has in recent years, in cooperation with various ocean observing communities, started to establish ways to quantify the value of ocean observations and proposes some pragmatic approaches. It is therefore recommended that the management of the future Arctic Ocean Observation System works closely with experts from OECD on the establishment of a robust cost-benefit analysis methodology for the Arctic Ocean.

In the light of the COVID-19 restrictions on working and meeting conditions the INTAROS Stakeholder Task Team decided to concentrate stakeholder activities during the last two years of the project on: • Dialog meetings with relevant European Research Infrastructures • A survey among sensor and instrument manufacturers. • Meeting with representatives of national managing authorities. • Attending relevant virtual conferences, webinars and networking events wherever possible. Successful dialog meetings were performed with 12 European Research Infrastructures revealing a good insight in their Arctic engagement, strategies and priorities for in situ observation, data management, focus on best practices, technology development, cooperation and coordination among themselves, funding situation and willingness to engage in future Arctic Observing System. More than 100 sensor and instrument manufacturers were invited to respond to a web-based technology survey – disappointingly only 16 companies responded. The survey showed that there is a group of sensor and instrument manufacturers that have experience, capability and interest in participating in innovation of new technology in the harsh Arctic environment. The marine and maritime management authorities expressed great interest in gaining environmental data from the Arctic region. Especially time series and trends are of importance, but also data in support of reliable ecosystem modelling was highlighted. The INTAROS achievements have been broadly promoted by the consortium members at conferences, workshops, webinars etc. primarily via virtual technology whereby the personal contact and networking has been lost. Some relevant events have been postponed or cancelled, so the outreach activity has not been so high as in the early part of the project.

An overview of information, products and services requested by users representing primarily the private commercial sector has been collected via INTAROS user survey supplemented with results from similar surveys performed by other projects and organisations together with information obtained by INTAROS consortium members in dialog with relevant user at meetings, workshops and conferences. Most important products: • Pre-operational phase o Model projections on the long-term (years) development o Risk assessment associated with safe navigation, deployment and recovery of gear, seabed mining, hydrocarbon extraction etc o Statistics and analysis based on existing data • Operational Phase o Operational Services – real-time observations and/or short-term forecasts (5-10 days) o Ship routing o Risk assessment Information on sea Ice (concentration, ice edge, drift thickness) and iceberg are central in the required product portfolio; but the surveys additionally revealed requests for meteorological parameters (pressure, wind, temperature, visibility, precipitation, humidity, icing) and oceanographic parameters (temperature, currents and waves, salinity, oxygen and chlorophyll). The users have very strong demands to resolution in space and time, quality and timeliness of the products they receive: • a horizontal resolution of down to 100 m especially for special ice products was articulated. • Updating frequency for the information are generally requested to be less than one day preferably down to a few hours. • Quality shall regularly be documented and the inclusion of uncertainty information as an integral part of the product is desirable • For operational services it is important that every product update is available in near real-time. For other types of products up to a few days are regarded as timely delivery. • For model forecast the most important forecasting period is the next 2-3 days for operational purposes, while longer forecasting periods 7-10 days are valuable for more long-term planning purposes. Due to the limited communication facilities in the Arctic region the delivery of the requested products represents a special challenge. This overview is a valuable tool for service providers to plan the production line. The required resolution in time and space indicates that satellite observations and model simulations will be key components in the product generation. In situ observations are however indispensable for such a production line to secure the quality of products generated based on satellite observations and numerical models, but do also serve as a valuable source of information for product generation in itself. The design and establishment of a fit-for-purpose sustained Arctic Observation System is therefore of utmost importance.

This report presents a synthesis of the substantial assessment of Arctic observations within INTAROS.Since the assessed systems mainly belong to the European partners in the project, the assessment is unavoidably biased towards the European sector of the Arctic. The detailed results of the assessment can be found in previous deliverables (D2.1, D2.2, D2.4, D2.5, D2.7, D2.8 and D2.12). Also some higher-level recommendations for future improvements of Arctic observing are taken into account. The assessment addresses a substantial subset of Arctic observing systems, data collections and satellite products across scientific disciplines, also including some data repositories and a brief scientific gap analysis. In the assessment we analyzed sustainability, including funding, technical maturity and data handling for the entire chain from observation to users, including metadata procedures and availability of data. The gap analysis includes both technical characteristics, such as spatial and temporal coverage and resolution or accuracy, and a smaller set of scientific gap analyses where models and observations were used synergistically. Each characteristic of the observing systems were ranked from maturity 1 (lowest score) to maturity 6 (highest score) based on the results of the survey. In the synthesis wefirst ranked the systems according to general sustainability and then other characteristics were used. The range in maturity of sustainability varied from 1 to 6, and so did the other characteristics. A noteworthy result was that systems with high sustainability scores tended to score high also on other characteristics, such as data handling and technical maturity. Moreover, many systems with high maturity in sustainability, as well as in data handling and data availability, are supported by national or international monitoring or infrastructure programs. It is also noteworthy that several of these are mostly present at mid-latitudes, but poorly represented in the Arctic. For observations over Arctic land, the quality of some existing systems would benefit from being enhanced by new instruments or improved methods. As example, adequate observing of snow properties is problematic due to the high spatial variability of snow cover. While this also applies to hydrological observations, the situation improves as a result of large overarching international programmes. Observations of aerosols and some trace gases are also lacking in some specific regions. For the Arctic Ocean there is a lack of in-situ observing systems across all disciplines, which is connected to limited infrastructure provided by ships,icebreakers, and various types of autonomous observing platforms operating on sea ice with capacity to transfer data in near real-time.Subsurface observing systems such as bottom-anchored moorings and sea floor installations are robust and can operate autonomously over several year, but the data can only be delivered in delayed mode.In the atmosphere, icebreaker-based summer science expeditions provide the only reliable information on atmospheric vertical structure. While scientific expeditions likely provide the highest quality observations available for the Arctic Ocean region, the scores for almost all other aspects, sustainability as well as for data handling, in general and especially for atmospheric observations are among the lowest for vessel-based observations. Satellite observations provide the only possibility to obtain data with sufficient spatial and temporal coverage as well as resolution. Satellite data products have generally high score on data handling aspects, but for some data products the score on quality and uncertainty estimation is low. While retrieved temperature, and to a lesser extent, humidity at levels in the atmosphere is generally adequate for monitoring, satellite profiling of the atmosphere suffers from significant and seasonally varying biases and errors. Passive satellite sensing of clouds is also problematic; while some bulk products, such as cloud fraction, are useful during the sunlit season, more precise information, such as liquid water path, has high uncertainty as indicated by comparing different retrievals from the same set of sensors. In the dark season, when visible radiation channels vanish, most satellite cloud products are very unreliable. Regarding sea ice observations, there is significant uncertainty in the estimation of thickness and snow layer. There is also uncertainty in ice concentration in the summer season with melt-ponds on top of the ice. Traditionally, observation network assessments build on the network concept with a “comprehensive” level including all observations, a “baseline” level of an agreed subset of sustained observations, and a “reference” level, with observations adhering to specific calibrations and traceability criteria. An atmospheric example is the “comprehensive” global GCOS radiosounding network, and the “baseline” GUAN (GCOS Upper Air Network) and “reference” GRUAN (GCOS Reference Upper Air Network) networks. With the lack of in-situ observations and the logistical difficulties to deploy new stations, this concept does not work well in the marine part of the Arctic. In summary, we recommend to •Advance Arctic observing systems under national, international or regional programs that provide more sustainable funding than short-term research projects •Coordinate better between operational monitoring systems and research-funded observations, since both systems often use the same data and will have mutual benefit of collaboration •Improve the utilization of existing infrastructures on land and sea for more cost-effective collection of in situ data across multiple disciplines •Deploy more autonomous observing platforms in the sea ice areas for year-round operation and implement data collection from all types of ships operating in the Arctic ocean •Enhance the observing system on existing stations, including supersites, by use of new sensors and methods to validate satellite observations and support modelling and forecasting systems •Improve the exploitation of satellite data and coordinate better in situ and satellite observations for use in data assimilation, modelling and reanalyses •Clarify roles and responsibilities between data producers and managers and establish adequate funding mechanisms to support a functional data management system for multidisciplinary Arctic data., The reviewer's comments are not included in the present version, but are taken into account in the follow-up publications and in the Roadmap document (D1.10) developed during the final phase of the project.

The detailed analysis of phenomena and observation requirements for the Arctic region given in this report reveals the following conclusions: • The Arctic is a region very sensitive to environmental changes. There is a very close interrelation and delicate balance between the five thematic areas investigated(atmosphere, terrestrial, cryosphere, sea ice and ocean),especially in relation to solar energy and radiation budget and hydrological cycle. This has a great impact on physical, chemical and biological processes in the area. • Due to the hostile environment, there is a great lack of basic observations in the Arctic,that can support scientific understanding of key processes. Most of the existing data are collected via time limited research projects. This lack of process knowledge is reflected in big errors in forecasting models –operational as well as climate. • It is therefore crucial to establish a sustained Integrated Arctic Observing System,that in the short time frame can increase fundamental scientific understanding of the complex and sensitive Arctic environment and in a longer time frame can secure a robust basis for decision making to the benefit of the people living in the Arctic, the environment, the broader international society, and commercial activities. • It is foreseen that a future Arctic observation system will rely heavily on satellite observations supplemented by more traditional in-situ platforms. Especially the ocean will use several other platforms such as ships, profiling floats, gliders, moorings, AUVs etc. to monitor the interior of the Arctic Ocean. • In all countries around the Arctic, there are community based observing systems that represent a strong potential for further development. Existing activities shall form part of the natural basis for a future more intensive and integrated sustainable Arctic Observing System. • A stakeholder workshop was held in Brussel on 5 May, organised by EuroGOOS, where status and challenges regarding development of Arctic Observing Systems were discussed. In addition to technical and logistical challenges, there are also organisational barriers to building and operating a multidisciplinary observing system. These issues will be addressed in follow-up workshops.