• Arctic sea ice is naturally exported out of the Arctic area due to ocean circulation patterns. In this proposal, icebergs in the Arctic would be moved from areas with southward transport to areas with northward transport, preventing export. Most studies on iceberg relocation have focused on relocating icebergs for the purpose of importing freshwater to areas with diminishing freshwater supplies (e.g., Condron 2023) and there are no studies to date examining iceberg relocation as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Reducing freshwater export could help maintain/restore global thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, AMOC) – similar to, but likely to a lesser extent than, blocking sea-ice export.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Prevent ice export, icebergs could also be strategically placed in areas that lock them in place and promote additional ice growth.

• Unknown

• Sea surface

• Targeted areas within the Arctic Ocean, likely Fram Strait. (It would almost certainly be too complicated and economically and energetically prohibitive to do it anywhere else.)

• Unknown

• Arctic sea ice is naturally exported out of the Arctic area due to ocean circulation patterns. In this proposal, icebergs in the Arctic would be moved from areas with southward transport to areas with northward transport, preventing export. Most studies on iceberg relocation have focused on relocating icebergs for the purpose of importing freshwater to areas with diminishing freshwater supplies (e.g., Condron 2023) and there are no studies to date examining iceberg relocation as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Reducing freshwater export could help maintain/restore global thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, AMOC) – similar to, but likely to a lesser extent than, blocking sea-ice export.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Prevent ice export, icebergs could also be strategically placed in areas that lock them in place and promote additional ice growth.

• Unknown

• Sea surface

• Targeted areas within the Arctic Ocean, likely Fram Strait. (It would almost certainly be too complicated and economically and energetically prohibitive to do it anywhere else.)

• Unknown

• Arctic sea ice is naturally exported out of the Arctic area due to ocean circulation patterns. In this proposal, icebergs in the Arctic would be moved from areas with southward transport to areas with northward transport, preventing export. Most studies on iceberg relocation have focused on relocating icebergs for the purpose of importing freshwater to areas with diminishing freshwater supplies (e.g., Condron 2023) and there are no studies to date examining iceberg relocation as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Reducing freshwater export could help maintain/restore global thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, AMOC) – similar to, but likely to a lesser extent than, blocking sea-ice export.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Prevent ice export, icebergs could also be strategically placed in areas that lock them in place and promote additional ice growth

• Unknown

• Sea surface

• Targeted areas within the Arctic Ocean, likely Fram Strait. (It would almost certainly be too complicated and economically and energetically prohibitive to do it anywhere else.)

• Unknown

• Arctic sea ice is naturally exported out of the Arctic area due to ocean circulation patterns. In this proposal, icebergs in the Arctic would be moved from areas with southward transport to areas with northward transport, preventing export. Most studies on iceberg relocation have focused on relocating icebergs for the purpose of importing freshwater to areas with diminishing freshwater supplies (e.g., Condron 2023) and there are no studies to date examining iceberg relocation as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Reducing freshwater export could help maintain/restore global thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, AMOC) – similar to, but likely to a lesser extent than, blocking sea-ice export.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Prevent ice export, icebergs could also be strategically placed in areas that lock them in place and promote additional ice growth

• Unknown

• Sea surface

• Targeted areas within the Arctic Ocean, likely Fram Strait. (It would almost certainly be too complicated and economically and energetically prohibitive to do it anywhere else.)

• Unknown

• Arctic sea ice is naturally exported out of the Arctic area due to ocean circulation patterns. In this proposal, icebergs in the Arctic would be moved from areas with southward transport to areas with northward transport, preventing export. Most studies on iceberg relocation have focused on relocating icebergs for the purpose of importing freshwater to areas with diminishing freshwater supplies (e.g., Condron 2023) and there are no studies to date examining iceberg relocation as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Reducing freshwater export could help maintain/restore global thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, AMOC) – similar to, but likely to a lesser extent than, blocking sea-ice export.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Prevent ice export, icebergs could also be strategically placed in areas that lock them in place and promote additional ice growth

• Unknown

• Sea surface

• Targeted areas within the Arctic Ocean, likely Fram Strait. (It would almost certainly be too complicated and economically and energetically prohibitive to do it anywhere else.)

• Unknown

• Arctic sea ice is naturally exported out of the Arctic area due to ocean circulation patterns. In this proposal, icebergs in the Arctic would be moved from areas with southward transport to areas with northward transport, preventing export. Most studies on iceberg relocating have focused on relocating icebergs for the purpose of importing freshwater to areas with diminishing freshwater supplies (e.g., Condron 2023) and there are no studies to date examining relocating icebergs as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Reducing freshwater export could help maintain/restore global thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, AMOC) – similar to, but likely to a lesser extent than, blocking sea-ice export.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Prevent ice export, icebergs could also be strategically placed in areas that lock them in place and promote additional ice growth

• Unknown

• Sea surface

• Targeted areas within the Arctic Ocean, likely Fram Strait. (It would almost certainly be too complicated and economically and energetically prohibitive to do it anywhere else.)

• Unknown

• Arctic sea ice is naturally exported out of the Arctic area due to ocean circulation patterns. In this proposal, icebergs in the Arctic would be moved from areas with southward transport to areas with northward transport, preventing export. Most studies on iceberg towing have focused on towing icebergs for the purpose of importing freshwater to areas with diminishing freshwater supplies (e.g., Condron 2023) and there are no studies to date examining towing icebergs as an approach to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Reducing freshwater export could help maintain/restore global thermohaline circulation (i.e., the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, AMOC) – similar to, but likely to a lesser extent than, blocking sea-ice export.
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Prevent ice export, icebergs could also be strategically placed in areas that lock them in place and promote additional ice growth

• Unknown

• Sea surface

• Targeted areas within the Arctic Ocean, likely Fram Strait. (It would almost certainly be too complicated and economically and energetically prohibitive to do it anywhere else.)

• Unknown

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Redistributing ice would potentially increase albedo in some areas but would decrease it in other areas.
  • If iceberg redistribution stimulates growth of new ice, could increase albedo.

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Direct, by preventing some ice export and promoting new ice growth.
• New or old ice?
  • Potentially both.
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown
  • Likely low feasibility. This approach would likely only be feasible in areas where southward and northward flowing currents are located in close proximity to each other, e.g., Fram Strait.

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

Cost

• Unknown
  • Would depend on how many and what relocation vessels are used, cost of fuel for vessels, distance of relocating, and crew salaries (Condron 2023).

• Unknown
  • Would depend on the distance of relocation and how many and what relocation vessels are used.
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions near sea ice.

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Redistributing ice would potentially increase albedo in some areas but would decrease it in other areas.
  • If iceberg redistribution stimulates growth of new ice, could increase albedo.

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Direct, by preventing some ice export and promoting new ice growth
• New or old ice?
  • Potentially both
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown
  • Likely low feasibility. This approach would likely only be feasible in areas where southward and northward flowing currents are located in close proximity to each other, e.g., Fram Strait.

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

Cost

• Unknown
  • Would depend on how many and what relocation vessels are used, cost of fuel for vessels, distance of relocating, and crew salaries (Condron 2023).

• Unknown
  • Would depend on the distance of relocation and how many and what relocation vessels are used.
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions near sea ice.

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Redistributing ice would potentially increase albedo in some areas but would decrease it in other areas.
  • If iceberg redistribution stimulates growth of new ice, could increase albedo

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Direct, by preventing some ice export and promoting new ice growth
• New or old ice?
  • Potentially both
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown
  • Likely low feasibility. This approach would likely only be feasible in areas where southward and northward flowing currents are located in close proximity to each other, e.g., Fram Strait.

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

Cost

• Unknown
  • Would depend on how many and what relocation vessels are used, cost of fuel for vessels, distance of relocating, and crew salaries (Condron 2023).

• Unknown
  • Would depend on the distance of relocation and how many and what relocation vessels are used.
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions near sea ice.

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Redistributing ice would potentially increase albedo in some areas but would decrease it in other areas.
  • If iceberg redistribution stimulates growth of new ice, could increase albedo

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Direct, by preventing some ice export and promoting new ice growth
• New or old ice?
  • Potentially both
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown
  • Likely low feasibility. This approach would likely only be feasible in areas where south and northward flowing currents are located in close proximity to each other, e.g., Fram Strait.

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

Cost

• Unknown
  • Would depend on how many and what relocation vessels are used, cost of fuel for vessels, distance of relocating, and crew salaries (Condron 2023).

• Unknown
  • Would depend on the distance of relocation, how many and what relocation vessels are used.
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions near sea ice.

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Redistributing ice would potentially increase albedo in some areas but would decrease it in other areas.
  • If iceberg redistribution stimulates growth of new ice, could increase albedo

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Direct, by preventing some ice export and promoting new ice growth
• New or old ice?
  • Potentially both
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown
  • Likely low feasibility. This approach would likely only be feasible in areas where south and northward flowing currents are located in close proximity to each other, e.g., Fram Strait.

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

Cost

• Unknown
  • Would depend on how many and what relocation vessels are used, cost of fuel for vessels, distance of relocating, and crew salaries (Condron 2023).

• Unknown
  • Would depend on the distance of relocating, how many and what relocation vessels are used.
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions near sea ice.

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Redistributing ice would potentially increase albedo in some areas but would decrease it in other areas.
  • If iceberg redistribution stimulates growth of new ice, could increase albedo

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Direct, by preventing some ice export and promoting new ice growth
• New or old ice?
  • Potentially both
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown
  • Likely low feasibility. This approach would likely only be feasible in areas where south and northward flowing currents are located in close proximity to each other, e.g., Fram Strait.

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

Cost

• Unknown
  • Would depend on how many and what towing vessels are used, cost of fuel for vessels, distance of relocating, and crew salaries (Condron 2023).

• Unknown
  • Would depend on the distance of relocating, how many and what towing vessels are used.
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions near sea ice.

Impact on

• Unknown
  • Redistributing ice would potentially increase albedo in some areas but would decrease it in other areas.
  • If iceberg redistribution stimulates growth of new ice, could increase albedo

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Global
  • Unknown
• Arctic region
  • Unknown

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Direct, by preventing some ice export and promoting new ice growth
• New or old ice?
  • Potentially both
• Impact on sea ice
  • Unknown

Scalability

• Unknown
  • Likely low feasibility. This approach would likely only be feasible in areas where south and northward flowing currents are located in close proximity to each other, e.g., Fram Strait.

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

• Unknown

Cost

• Unknown
  • Would depend on how many and what towing vessels are used, cost of fuel for vessels, distance of towing, and crew salaries (Condron 2023).

• Unknown
  • Would depend on the distance of towing, how many and what towing vessels are used.
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions near sea ice.

• 3 – Icebergs are currently relocated short distances when in the way of oil and gas infrastructure. There have been some feasibility and conceptual studies for relocating icebergs for drinking water, but no research studies to date specifically on relocating icebergs to prevent loss of sea ice.
• Summary of existing literature and studies:
  • Currently, icebergs are relocated short distances around Newfoundland, Canada, to avoid collisions with oil and gas infrastructure (Condron 2023).
  • Icebergs are also harvested for cosmetics, drinking water, and vodka production in Canada. The businesses are mostly breaking off pieces from icebergs, not relocating entire icebergs.
  • Other theoretical and modeling studies have looked into relocating icebergs long distances to areas with freshwater scarcity (reviewed in Condron 2023).

• Potentially feasible. Relocation capabilities exist, would need to develop grounding technology if needed. This is being explored for glaciers and icebergs near glaciers (Lockley et al. 2020).

• 3 – Icebergs are currently relocated short distances when in the way of oil and gas infrastructure. There have been some feasibility and conceptual studies for relocating icebergs for drinking water, but no research studies to date specifically on relocating icebergs to prevent loss of sea ice.
• Summary of existing literature and studies:
  • Currently, icebergs are relocated short distances around Newfoundland, Canada, to avoid collisions with oil and gas infrastructure (Condron 2023).
  • Icebergs are also harvested for cosmetics, drinking water and vodka production in Canada. The businesses are mostly breaking off pieces from icebergs, not relocating entire icebergs.
  • Other theoretical and modeling studies have looked into relocating icebergs long distances to areas with freshwater scarcity (reviewed in Condron 2023).

• Potentially feasible. Relocation capabilities exist, would need to develop grounding technology if needed. This is being explored for glaciers and icebergs near glaciers (Lockley et al. 2020).

• • 3 – Icebergs are currently relocated short distances when in the way of oil and gas infrastructure. There have been some feasibility and conceptual studies for relocating icebergs for drinking water, but no research studies to date specifically on relocating icebergs to prevent loss of sea ice.
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Currently, icebergs are relocated short distances around Newfoundland, Canada, to avoid collisions with oil and gas infrastructure (Condron 2023).
    • Icebergs are also harvested for cosmetics, drinking water and vodka production in Canada. The businesses are mostly breaking off pieces from icebergs, not relocating entire icebergs.
    • Other theoretical and modeling studies have looked into relocating icebergs long distances to areas with freshwater scarcity (reviewed in Condron 2023).

• • Potentially feasible. Relocation capabilities exist, would need to develop grounding technology if needed. This is being explored for glaciers and icebergs near glaciers (Lockley et al. 2020).

• TRL
  • 3 – Icebergs are currently relocated short distances when in the way of oil and gas infrastructure. There have been some feasibility and conceptual studies for relocating icebergs for drinking water, but no research studies to date specifically on relocating icebergs to prevent loss of sea ice.
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Currently, icebergs are relocated short distances around Newfoundland, Canada, to avoid collisions with oil and gas infrastructure (Condron 2023).
    • Icebergs are also harvested for cosmetics, drinking water and vodka production in Canada. The businesses are mostly breaking off pieces from icebergs, not relocating entire icebergs.
    • Other theoretical and modeling studies have looked into relocating icebergs long distances to areas with freshwater scarcity (reviewed in Condron 2023).
• Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Potentially feasible. Relocation capabilities exist, would need to develop grounding technology if needed. This is being explored for glaciers and icebergs near glaciers (Lockley et al. 2020).

• TRL
  • 3 – Icebergs are currently towed short distances when in the way of oil and gas infrastructure. There have been some feasibility and conceptual studies for towing icebergs for drinking water, but no research studies to date specifically on towing icebergs to prevent loss of sea ice.
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Currently, icebergs are towed short distances around Newfoundland, Canada, to avoid collisions with oil and gas infrastructure (Condron 2023).
    • Icebergs also harvested for cosmetics, drinking water and vodka production in Canada. The businesses are mostly breaking off pieces from icebergs, not towing entire icebergs.
    • Other theoretical and modeling studies have looked into towing icebergs long distances to areas with freshwater scarcity (reviewed in Condron 2023).
• Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Potentially feasible. Towing capabilities exist, would need to develop grounding technology if needed. This is being explored for glaciers and icebergs near glaciers (Lockley et al. 2020).

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions and other pollutants near sea ice.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Icebergs are important to polar ecosystems as they transport nutrients and minerals between areas, influence local oceanographic patterns like upwelling, and generally have increased productivity around their margins compared to nearby open ocean areas (reviewed in Smith et al. 2013). The intentional movement of icebergs may disrupt productivity patterns.
  • Iceberg scour in shallow areas could disturb benthic communities (Gutt et al. 1996).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • Ice management could help tourism access in areas where ice is relocated.
• Risks
  • Icebergs, and ice in general, are important cultural landscapes (Huntington et al. 2019). The movement of icebergs may disrupt these important cultural and environmental connections.
  • There is growing tourism industry around seeing icebergs. Moving them from areas could harm that industry.

Ease of reversibility

• Easy
  • If stopped relocating icebergs, they would continue along their usual path via ocean currents. If an iceberg needed to be removed, that would depend on whether or not it had stabilized in an area (did it ground) and if it could be moved away.

Risk of termination shock

• Low
  • Without intervening with ice pathways, ice would return to its previous pathways quickly. For icebergs that have been moved and integrated into the sea ice, breakup would depend on how long melt is occurring.

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions and other pollutants near sea ice.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Icebergs are important to polar ecosystems as they transport nutrients and minerals between areas, influence local oceanographic patterns like upwelling, and generally have increased productivity around their margins compared to nearby open ocean areas (reviewed in Smith et al. 2013). The intentional movement of icebergs may disrupt productivity patterns.
  • Iceberg scour in shallow areas could disturb benthic communities (Gutt et al. 1996).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • Ice management could help tourism access in areas where ice is relocated.
• Risks
  • Icebergs, and ice in general, are important cultural landscapes (Huntington et al. 2019). The movement of icebergs may disrupt these important cultural and environmental connections.
  • There is growing tourism industry around seeing icebergs. Moving them from areas could harm that industry.

Ease of reversibility

• Easy
  • If stopped relocating icebergs, they would continue along their usual path via ocean currents. If an iceberg needed to be removed, that would depend on whether or not it had stabilized in an area (did it ground) and if it could be moved away.

Risk of termination shock

• Low
  • Without intervening with ice pathways, ice would return to its previous pathways quickly. For icebergs that have been moved and integrated into the sea ice, breakup would depend on how long melt is occurring.

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions and other pollutants near sea ice.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Icebergs are important to polar ecosystems as they transport nutrients and minerals between areas, influence local oceanographic patterns like upwelling, and generally have increased productivity around their margins compared to nearby open ocean areas (reviewed in Smith et al. 2013). The intentional movement of icebergs may disrupt productivity patterns.
  • Iceberg scour in shallow areas could disturb benthic communities (Gutt et al. 1996).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • Ice management could help tourism access in areas where ice is relocated.
• Risks
  • Icebergs, and ice in general, are important cultural landscapes (Huntington et al. 2019). The movement of icebergs may disrupt these important cultural and environmental connections.
  • There is growing tourism industry around seeing icebergs. Moving them from areas could harm that industry.

Ease of reversibility

• Easily reversible. If stopped relocating icebergs, they would continue along their usual path via ocean currents. If an iceberg needed to be removed, that would depend on whether or not it had stabilized in an area (did it ground) and if it could be moved away.

Risk of termination shock

• Without intervening with ice pathways, ice would return to its previous pathways quickly. For icebergs that have been moved and integrated into the sea ice, breakup would depend on how long melt is occurring.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions and other pollutants near sea ice.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Icebergs are important to polar ecosystems as they transport nutrients and minerals between areas, influence local oceanographic patterns like upwelling, and generally have increased productivity around their margins compared to nearby open ocean areas (reviewed in Smith et al. 2013). The intentional movement of icebergs may disrupt productivity patterns.
  • Iceberg scour in shallow areas could disturb benthic communities (Gutt et al. 1996).

• Co-benefits
  • Ice management could help tourism access in areas where ice is relocated.
• Risks
  • Icebergs, and ice in general, are important cultural landscapes (Huntington et al. 2019). The movement of icebergs may disrupt these important cultural and environmental connections.
  • There is growing tourism industry around seeing icebergs. Moving them from areas could harm that industry.

• Easily reversible. If stopped relocating icebergs, they would continue along their usual path via ocean currents. If an iceberg needed to be removed, that would depend on whether or not it had stabilized in an area (did it ground) and if it could be moved away.

• Without intervening with ice pathways, ice would return to its previous pathways quickly. For icebergs that have been moved and integrated into the sea ice, breakup would depend on how long melt is occurring.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions and other pollutants near sea ice.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Icebergs are important to polar ecosystems as they transport nutrients and minerals between areas, influence local oceanographic patterns like upwelling, and generally have increased productivity around their margins compared to nearby open ocean areas (reviewed in Smith et al. 2013). The intentional movement of icebergs may disrupt productivity patterns.
  • Iceberg scour in shallow areas could disturb benthic communities (Gutt et al. 1996)

• Co-benefits
  • Ice management could help tourism access in areas where ice is relocated.
• Risks
  • Icebergs, and ice in general, are important cultural landscapes (Huntington et al. 2019). The movement of icebergs may disrupt these important cultural and environmental connections.
  • There is growing tourism industry around seeing icebergs. Moving them from areas could harm that industry.

• Easily reversible. If stopped relocating icebergs, they would continue along their usual path via ocean currents. If an iceberg needed to be removed, that would depend on whether or not it had stabilized in an area (did it ground) and if it could be moved away.

• Without intervening with ice pathways, ice would return to its previous pathways quickly. For icebergs that have been moved and integrated into the sea ice, breakup would depend on how long melt is occurring.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Since this technique uses vessels, there is a danger of increased black carbon emissions and other pollutants near sea ice.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Unknown

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Icebergs are important to polar ecosystems as they transport nutrients and minerals between areas, influence local oceanographic patterns like upwelling, and generally have increased productivity around their margins compared to nearby open ocean areas (reviewed in Smith et al. 2013). The intentional movement of icebergs may disrupt productivity patterns.
  • Iceberg scour in shallow areas could disturb benthic communities (Gutt et al. 1996)

• Co-benefits
  • Ice management could help tourism access in areas where ice is towed.
• Risks
  • Icebergs, and ice in general, are important cultural landscapes (Huntington et al. 2019). The movement of icebergs may disrupt these important cultural and environmental connections.
  • There is growing tourism industry around seeing icebergs. Moving them from areas could harm that industry.

• Easily reversible. If stopped towing icebergs, they would continue along their usual path via ocean currents. If an iceberg needed to be removed, that would depend on whether or not it had stabilized in an area (did it ground) and if it could be towed away.

• Without intervening with ice pathways, ice would return to its previous pathways quickly. For icebergs that have been moved and integrated into the sea ice, breakup would depend on how long melt is occurring.

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, they are seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022).
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern them (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance of a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established.
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, they are seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022).
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance of a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established.
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022).
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance of a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established.
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022).
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance of a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established.
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022)
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022)
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022)
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022)
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022)
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022)
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.

• Distributive Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022)
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022)
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.

• Distributive Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability - Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022)
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022)
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.

• Distributive Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • Relocating icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability - Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Relocating Icebergs:
  • Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • For all Ice Management approaches, research and testing could be done within national jurisdiction (territorial seas or Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); note that different legal rules apply to territorial seas and EEZs). Scalability may require deployment to additional areas within international waters.  See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Towing Icebergs:
  • Both national and international
    • Icebergs could be found in international and national waters.
      • When icebergs are within territorial boundaries, seen as belonging to that territory (Argentina mandated that glaciers are public property in Ley de Protección de Glaciares 2010; Wood-Donnelly 2022)
      • Jurisdiction is complicated because icebergs are a ‘fugacious’ (ephemeral) resource and also lack legal status (Wood-Donnelly 2022). UNCLOS does not provide guidance on migratory or fugacious resources such as icebergs (Wood-Donnelly 2022).

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
      • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
      • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
        • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
      • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
        • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
      • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
        • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
        • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
      • The 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
      • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). If the objective of the approach is to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, rather than altering global temperatures, the Arctic parties have the primary interest (Bodansky and Hunt 2020). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
      • See Argüello and Johansson (2022) for further details of governance related to ice management.
• Specific to Towing Icebergs:
  • Icebergs lack international legal status, which makes it difficult to govern (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For details on legal frameworks around ice, see Wood-Donnelly (2022). Iceberg harvesting is currently unregulated (Wood-Donnelly 2022), and there is currently an industry around harvesting icebergs in Canada that originated in Greenland.
  • “Rule of capture” is the principle that currently applies, leading to ‘first come, first served’ approach (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
  • UNCLOS 1982 does not address ice specifically but discusses Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and sovereignty over natural resources and sharing of fugacious resources (Wood-Donnelly 2022). For example, Article 56 establishes “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living.”
  • An example of governance a different fugacious resource (fur seals) that may provide an example is in the Arctic is the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention 1911, an international agreement around hunting of fur seals (Wood-Donnelly 2022)
  • Wood-Donnelly 2022 proposes iceberg harvesting as something to be decided within the Arctic Council and a regulatory system be established
    • If governance on icebergs is to be decided by the Arctic Council, it would be challenging to do so given that the Arctic Council is currently not fully functional without Russian participation.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.

• Distributive Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Towing Icebergs:
    • Towing icebergs would move an iceberg from one location to another, redistributing the ice resource, and thereby redistributing the potential costs and benefits of icebergs. It may be important to consider the trajectory of icebergs without intervention – where is the likely final destination of the iceberg on its current trajectory – in determining the potential impacts of intervention. The lack of framework for the legal status of ice makes rights of coastal communities difficult to protect (Wood-Donnelly 2022).
• Procedural Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk. Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Towing Icebergs:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative Justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
    • If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Towing Icebergs:
    • No additional information.

• Unknown

• Applicable to all approaches within Ice Management:
  • The principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability - Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Towing Icebergs:
  • Unknown