The article analyses the experience of international scientific cooperation in the Arctic in organising and conducting an academic Swedish–Russian Arc-of-Meridian expedition to the Spitsbergen archipelago in 1898–1901. This was one of the largest projects of its kind in history. The military and naval government agencies of the two countries were extremely interested in measuring the meridian arc near the Geographic North Pole. The fulfilment of this task made it possible to more accurately determine the shape of the Earth as a geoid. This was the significant and fundamental result of testing the hypothesis of the Newton–Huygens spheroid and was of applied importance. Funding for the expeditionary activities was carried out on a parity basis from the budgets of the two nations. The study of archival documents from the collections of the Russian Academy of Sciences Archives enabled an understanding of the unprecedented financial and physical costs of preparing and carrying out expeditionary work. Analysing inter-academic research of the late nineteenth – early twentieth centuries is valuable for understanding the potential interactions between the government and academic structures of international scientific cooperation in the Arctic during the modern era.

Science diplomacy can be defined as “the use of scientific collaborations between countries to address joint problems and to build constructive international partnerships for delivering effective scientific advice for policy making”. During the last 10 years, the Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR) has been active in finding ways to solve global Grand Challenges, particularly climate change and poor air quality in polluted megacities, and at the same time, better bridge research to international climate policy and science diplomacy processes. INAR has introduced Pan-Eurasian Experiment programme running since the year 2012 (www.atm.helsinki.fi/peex) to better address the scientific challenge to understand Atmosphere – Earth Surface – Biosphere interactions and feedbacks in the Northern Eurasian context. INAR has also launched a measurement concept called the Global Network of Stations Measuring Earth Surface and Atmosphere Interactions (GlobalSMEAR) and has hosted the European Centre of the International Eurasian Academy of Sciences since 2015. Most recently, INAR has coordinated the Arena for the gap analysis of the existing Arctic Science Co-Operations (AASCO), 2020–2021, to promote research with a holistic and integrated approach in understanding feedbacks and interactions globally and locally at the Arctic and outside the Arctic environments.

Science diplomacy has been instrumental in facilitating cooperation in the Arctic region, yet through the projection of vast hydrocarbon potential in the region, it has also served to undermine the major transformation necessary in Arctic decision-making towards the goals of climate governance. This article surveys the translation of science from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports (i.e. the CARA study and Factsheet 2008-3049) on Arctic oil and gas and its transformation into common knowledge within Arctic discourse through repetition by the agents in between and its subsequent adoption into Arctic policy documents. In this process, we interrogate the production of the science underpinning US science diplomacy and the influence of this science on international Arctic discourse and policy use science diplomacy. This paper contributes to the literature of science diplomacy in the Arctic by examining the contributions of the USGS to Arctic policy discourses and its impact on Arctic governance at the nexus of science diplomacy on climate and energy.

It has been argued that science diplomacy (SD) helps avoid or mitigate conflicts among stakeholders in the Arctic. Yet underlying some of these well-intended and sometimes successful initiatives is a one-sided understanding of SD. The most recent literature takes a more differentiated approach towards the means and ends of SD. It shows that international scientific interaction is shaped by the twofold logic of competition and collaboration. Instruments of SD can be meant to serve national interests, collective regional goals or global agendas. The present paper disentangles these confounding discourses of collaboration and competition based on a conceptually enhanced SD framework. It analyses Arctic strategies and two cases of Arctic SD, the Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation and research activities on Svalbard, to reveal the mechanisms of collaboration and competition in the sphere of international science in relation to security, environment and economy. By pointing out where and how science is currently being used in the Arctic, this article provides (a) a systematic overview of the state of SD in the region and (b) a tool for policy-makers and scientists to assess what impact different facets of SD have in Arctic politics.

The DIMA Network (Developing Innovative Multi-proxy Analyses – in Siberia and the Russian Far East (SRFE)) started from a small nucleus of palaeoenvironmental researchers in the UK and SRFE at a workshop in 2008 and currently includes researchers from over 25 institutions. The mutual interest in creating long-term records of environmental change was rekindled during workshops in Magadan (2018), Tomsk (2018) and Southampton (2019). These events were organised to connect researchers from the UK and SRFE with these aims: (1) provide training in new techniques and methods, (2) facilitate knowledge transfer about local sites and conditions, (3) stimulate large-scale collaborative projects across SRFE and (4) inspire a new generation of palaeoenvironmental researchers.

Dominant geopolitical narratives on the Arctic argue that the region is either edging towards conflict or international law is respected and peace is maintained through cooperation to address shared concerns. While both of these narratives are present in the Arctic states’ strategies, most of them tend to support collaborative efforts. Science diplomacy (SD) is a useful mechanism in this regard as it helps states overcome potential disagreements and can stimulate cooperation in other areas. Given the growing concerns about global risks, SD is more important now than ever before. In our study, we identify and focus on three indicators for potential SD in the Arctic strategies: i) scientific infrastructure; ii) membership in intergovernmental/interparliamentary and scientific/education organisations and networks and iii) specific areas of scientific cooperation. Considering the intensive scientific activity in the region, it is not surprising that the strategies discuss different forms of research and scientific cooperation, although none explicitly use the term “science diplomacy”. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals the Arctic states do apply the SD concept in their strategies and use three types of diplomacy – science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy or diplomacy for science – in the three indicators.

The vegetation at and beyond the northern edge of the world’s boreal forest plays an important though imperfectly understood role in the climate system. This is particularly true within Russia, where only a small proportion of the boreal land area has been studied in depth, and little is known about its recent evolution over time. We describe a long-term collaboration between institutions in Russia and the United Kingdom, aimed at developing a better understanding of high-latitude vegetation in Russia using remote sensing methods. The focus of the collaboration has varied over time; in its most recent form, it is concerned with the dynamics of the Russian boreal forest during the 21st century and its relation to climate change. We discuss the support framework within which it has been developed and reflect on its relationship to science diplomacy. We consider the factors that have contributed to the success of a decades-long international collaboration and make recommendations as to how such joint efforts can be encouraged in future.

Climate warming is occurring most rapidly in the Arctic, which is both a sentinel and a driver of further global change. Ecosystems and human societies are already affected by warming. Permafrost thaws and species are on the move, bringing pathogens and vectors to virgin areas. During a five-year project, the CLINF – a Nordic Center of Excellence, funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers, has worked with the One Health concept, integrating environmental data with human and animal disease data in predictive models and creating maps of dynamic processes affecting the spread of infectious diseases. It is shown that tularemia outbreaks can be predicted even at a regional level with a manageable level of uncertainty. To decrease uncertainty, rapid development of new and harmonised technologies and databases is needed from currently highly heterogeneous data sources. A major source of uncertainty for the future of contaminants and infectious diseases in the Arctic, however, is associated with which paths the majority of the globe chooses to follow in the future. Diplomacy is one of the most powerful tools Arctic nations have to influence these choices of other nations, supported by Arctic science and One Health approaches that recognise the interconnection between people, animals, plants and their shared environment at the local, regional, national and global levels as essential for achieving a sustainable development for both the Arctic and the globe.