Norge som havnasjon kontrollerer enorme havområder, fem ganger større enn landområdene våre.

– Her ligger grunnlaget for store deler av økonomien vår. Som nasjon har vi et fortrinn i å kunne manøvrere, operere, kontrollere, forvalte og forstå havet, sa AE-Bergens prosjektleder Ole Rasmus Øvretveit i sin innledning til debatten «Sikkerhet i havdypet – Trusler og konsekvenser» under Arendalsuka.

Øvretveit ledet to debatter knyttet til norsk havpolitikk under Arendalsuka, med Havbyen Bergen som arrangør. Først ut «Sikkerhet i havdypet – Trusler og konsekvenser», med et panel bestående av statssekretær for fiskeri- og havministeren Even Tronstad Sagebakken, stortingskandidat for Sosialistisk Venstreparti Marthe Hammer, førsteamanuensis og hovedlærer i etterretning Tom Rødseth, samt Nils Gunnar Kvamstø – Administrerende direktør, Havforskningsinstituttet.

Nordområdene ar flere utfordringer enn noen gang. Klimaendringer, tap av biologisk mangfold, endringer i økosystemene og et internasjonalt klima som går fra samarbeid til mer rå maktpolitikk. Få steder merker vi dette tydeligere enn i nord, sa Øvretveit i sin innledning.

Debatten tok tak i hvilke konsekvenser den reduserte utvekslingen av forskningsdata med russiske forskere kan ha for fiskeriforskning.    

– Vi har en redusert tilgang på forskningsdata fra Russland, og det kan gi risiko for redusert kunnskapsgrunnlag for fiskerivirksomheten. Vi ser ikke konsekvenser at dette det første årene, men på flere års sikt kan man risikere at denne usikkerheten gir effekter av typen fare for overfiske, sa Nils Gunnar Kvamstø fra Havforskningsinstituttet i debatten.

Krever helhetlig tilnærming

–  Det er også andre utfordringer. Forskere bør se på samlet effekt av den menneskelige aktiviteten i Nord-områdene og effekten av dette på økosystemene. Dette krever en større systemforståelse og en mer helhetlig tilnærming til utviklingen, sa Nils Gunnar Kvamstø fra Havforskningsinstituttet i debatten.

Tom Rødseth fra Forsvarets høgskole tok tak i spenningsfeltet mellom forskningsdeling og sikkerhetpolitikken.

– At forskere fra ulike nasjoner deler sine forskningsdata er med å gi økt kunnskap og på den måten positivt. Samtidig kan andre nasjoner ha andre interesser. Derfor må sikkerhetsaspektet være md i vurderingene, sa Rødseth i debatten.

Havbyen Bergens andre debatt om «Sikkerhet i havdypet» under Arendalsuka hadde undertittelen «løsninger og forretningsmuligheter». Her besto panelet av Kristina Sigurdsdottir Hansen, statssekretær for fiskeri- og havministeren, Camilla Sæthre, førsteamanuensis ved UiB og SFI Smart Ocean, Gisle Nondal, COO i GCE Ocean Technology og Rune Smistad, strategisk rådgiver i AquaCloud.

Diskusjonen tok utgangspunkt i hvordan forskningsmiljøer, oppstartsbedrifter, industrien og myndighetene kan samarbeide for å utvikle ny havteknologi og samtidig skape eksportmuligheter. – «Norge har både kompetansen, ressursene og historien til å ta en lederrolle – ikke bare politisk og militært, men også gjennom å utvikle et nytt marked for grønn, høyteknologisk næring,» het det i innledningen.

Deltakerne pekte på koblingen mellom sikkerhet og næringsutvikling, og på potensialet for Norge til å ta en mer offensiv internasjonal posisjon i utviklingen av undervannsteknologi. – «Hvis vi evner å koble industrien, forskningen og myndighetene tettere sammen, kan vi både styrke sikkerheten i havrommet og skape en ny arena for norsk eksport,» sa Camilla Sæthre. Gisle Nondal, pekte på muligheten for å skape en Norsk superklynge på hav og understreket at internasjonal posisjonering også krever tydeligere rammevilkår: – «Vi har miljøene og ideene, men uten riktige betingelser kan vi risikere at andre land tar ledelsen.». Rune Smistad på sin side pekte på at for et lite land er det viktig å samle seg på tvers av sektorer bak en felles plan.

‘One Health’ is an integrated approach to optimising the health of humans, animals and ecosystems. It is supported and promoted by major bodies like the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organization (WHO) and others.

Yet, many argue that One Health has evolved to focus heavily on human health, without paying enough attention to the vital connection it has with the environment and ecosystems, on which all life depends.

Our webinar, held on 17th July 2025, explored the questions: What is ‘One Health’, and what role does the sustainability of the environment and ecosystems play within it? How can we move One Health away from being so focused on humans and instead take a more balanced, truly interconnected approach that values all parts of the system—people, animals, and the environment? What real-world challenges stand in the way, and what could we do to overcome them?

Read more on the Academia Europaea Cardiff website and find link to the recording of the webinar.

Following an intensive scrutiny process, the Board have accepted the recommendation of an independent search group who proposed Professor Donald B. Dingwell MAE for an approval by the Academia Europaea members.

An E-ballot of all eligible members was held between 17 – 30 June 2025.

By a clear majority, Professor Donald B. Dingwell MAE is elected as the President of the Academia Europaea.

His term will officially start at the AGM of members on 14th October 2025. He will serve a term of three years and is then eligible to be re-elected for a second and final term of three years.

AE-Bergen project manager Ole Øvretveit participated in the Science Diplomacy Summit, hosted at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC, on April 14–15, 2025. The event brought together approximately 1400 participants from a wide range of countries and sectors, including academia, diplomacy, and Indigenous communities. Several nations, such as France, Poland, and Austria, were represented at a high diplomatic level, highlighting the global relevance of Arctic science and cooperation.

Øvretveit contributed to the session “Polar Diplomacy: Arctic & Antarctic ” with a talk titled “Towards a New Era of Arctic Exceptionalism.” His presentation reflected on the legacy and uncertain future of Arctic cooperation in the face of growing geopolitical tensions and environmental urgency. What has long been referred to as Arctic exceptionalism—the ability to maintain collaboration across political divides—now appears increasingly at risk. The region is becoming polarized between a “Western Arctic” and a “Russian Arctic,” the latter more closely aligned with BRICS and non-Western powers. Meanwhile, China’s rapidly growing research presence and intensified U.S. interest in Greenland are further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

These emerging fractures pose a serious threat to science-informed decision-making and coordinated sustainability efforts in the Arctic. Øvretveit emphasized that while Arctic collaboration has never been perfect, with enduring challenges around cross-border research, Indigenous inclusion, and balancing development with environmental protection, the region has nonetheless stood out globally for its ability to foster consensus among diverse actors. At the core of this cooperation has been the Arctic Council, which remains the most important institutional platform for peaceful and knowledge-based governance in the region.

Looking ahead to the Fifth International Polar Year in 2032–33, Øvretveit called for renewed ambition and long-term investment in inclusive, ethical Arctic research—anchored in Indigenous leadership and societal relevance — to ensure that the next era of Arctic cooperation is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable.

The recent SAPEA report “One Health governance in the EU” defines the “One Health”-concept as an integrated approach to optimize the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems, emphasizing their interdependence – how it’s all connected.  Nominated by Academia Europaea Bergen, parasitologist Lucy Robertson participated in the working group for the report.

In this interview, Lucy Robertson explains many aspects both of the “One Health”-concept and of how the SAPEA report can advance the One Health thinking. The report addresses governance, operationalization, and evaluation of One Health policies, offering evidence-based recommendations for implementation.

– What do you see as the most important gains in adopting a “One Health” approach for society?

– It is clear to me that use of a One Health approach is essential for not only tackling disease in people (both infectious and non-infectious), but to ensure that we have a planet that is liveable for future generations. The unescapable fact that changes we make to our environment affects animal and human health, means that the approach of only addressing problems when they arise, and not realising that even mitigation of an apparently urgent problem may result in negative consequences, is being increasingly recognised as non-sustainable.

– Instead of the “detect problem then deal with problem” chain of events, we have the means to collaborate and consider the more strategic “anticipate problem then avoid problem” approach. This can only be good for society.

– In what ways did your background as a researcher contribute to your interest in the «One Health» concept?

– I am a parasitologist, and parasites are one of the pathogen groups that are often associated with zoonotic (animal-to-human) transmission. After my PhD, which focussed largely on intestinal parasites in school children in Panama, I continued my career in parasitology in a general hospital in Scotland with particular focus on Cryptosporidium, a parasite that is zoonotic and often transmitted via contamination of the environment, such as water and food.

– Moving to Norway, I began working in the Norwegian Veterinary College, but on the same sort of topics, but this time with more focus on the animal side. So, for many years I have been very much aware of the importance of being aware that animals-humans-environment are best considered not in silos, but as a whole system, in which one part affects, and is affected by, the other parts. More parasites and more research later, this is still clearly the way to go. It is the basis of the One Health concept, and my research and outlook has been very much rooted in this since the 1990s (at least a decade before the “Manhattan Principles” were published). I think that many parasitologists (and others) would also consider that their work had been ground in One Health, long before it became a written concept.

– What are the origins of the «One Health» concept?

– This is not a “new” idea at all. The German physician, Rudolf Virchow (1812-1902), is considered the founder of social medicine and veterinary pathology. He described the life cycle of the parasite Trichinella spiralis and later discovered that cooking meat before consumption was an effective mean to prevent infection. His insights are clearly within the scope of One Health, without that term having been used. In 1964, Calvin Schwabe introduced the term “One Medicine” in his book on veterinary medicine and human health.

Read or download the report here.

– A meeting in the Rockefeller University in 2004 made concrete many of the One Health principles under which many had already been working without giving the concept a formal name. This meeting was largely generated by a series of outbreaks of different diseases (West Nile Virus, SARS, BSE (“mad cow disease”) that brought home that only be considering human health, domestic animal and wildlife health could a broader understanding of disease be achieved.

– Although the health of the environment was not mentioned directly here, many examples of, for example, climate change and biodiversity recognised the importance of the environment, the ecosystem in which we all live. Since then organisations such as FAO, WOAH, and WHO have collaborated, along with UNICEF, UNSCI, and the World Bank to provide strategic frameworks fin which the One Health concept can be applied at the ecosystem- animal-human interface.

– The first One Health congress was held in 2011 in Melbourne, Australia, and now it is a concept with which many are familiar. As with such concepts, the term is frequently misused, and many work within a One Health framework, without calling it that (just “business as usual”). It is on the shoulders of all these pioneers in One Health, with only a few mentioned here, that the SAPEA group began its work.

– The working group in this SAPEA report refined the definition of the One Health concept slightly. Can you take us through the process of working on the definition of “One Health”?

– The working group all were concerned with One Health, but all had different backgrounds and areas of expertise. We started from the One Health definition provided by the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP) in 2022. By going through it word by word and discussing how each of us understood it, we were able to pinpoint where we felt there were ambiguities. This was particularly regarding the word “environment” and “ecosystem”, whether they are in fact synonyms, or that one encompasses the other. We ended up by defining “environment” as being a component of an ecosystem, but neither an animal nor a person.

– In what ways does the One Health concept relate to pandemic prevention and preparedness?

– Pandemic prevention and preparedness is obviously an important example of the “anticipate problem then avoid problem” approach. Previously (and repeatedly) we have waited for the pandemic “problem” to arrive and then rushed around trying to arrive and mitigate its impact. By brining in a wide spectrum of relevant people to anticipate when, where, and how a pandemic “problem” might arise, we give ourselves the chance to avoid that problem even occurring or only occurring in a controllable way.

– However, I would like to emphasise that although pandemic awareness is high in the minds of many, not least due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic just a few years ago, there is more to One Health than pandemic awareness and prevention. This is an extreme example that frightens everyone, but there are many other One Health issues that may still make an impact on many although being of a more insidious, and less dramatic, nature.

–  The SAPEA report mentions that we might see a paradigm shift on the topic of “One Health”. Do you agree and if so, how is that expressed today?

– I agree that there is already a paradigm shift within the field of One Health, in that there is a lot more emphasis on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity  in many aspects of tackling problems. This effort to move away from “silo thinking” is of value. The concern is that this is only very superficial, and that some partners in any multidisciplinary project may be sidelined or their impact considered of less value due to entrenchment in values from specific specialist fields. However, I think that as positive outcomes become recognised as being, at least in part, due to a One Health perspective being used, there will be a shift towards a greater understanding of the importance of this approach.

– I think that the anthropocentric framing of One Health is going to be more difficult to overcome. We are all selfish, and it is very difficult for any of us not to feel that people are of greater value than all else. As it happens, in One Health, the costs and benefits of all within the ecosystem need consideration, and recognition of the interaction may enable us to see that all One Health issues will, of their very nature, consider human aspects too. Thus, it is not putting “trees before people” but realising that aspects of both impact and effect each other.

– Are there any of the recommendations in the SAPEA report “One Health governance in the European Union” you want to highlight?

– To encourage everyone to take the One Health approach seriously, it is important to prove the value. Thus, to me, even for One Health adherents, it is important that we are held up to scrutiny and formal monitoring and evaluation is included. Methods by which we can determine the contributions from different sectors in addressing problems from a One Health perspective are important. The “Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence” may sound very dull, but enables and promotes inclusion of expertise form diverse disciplines.

– Economic analyses also sound very dry, but demonstrating that a One Health approach is more profitable than a siloed approach is very simple to understand and is convincing, also for politicians. The report from SAPEA gives many concrete examples of this, which demonstrate how important it is to be able to provide such data so that the relevance and financial benefits from using a One Health approach to tackle different issues can be realised.