International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

328
IPY 20 07–20 08
eral models. This is a very different process than the
one used in physical and natural sciences to ‘downscale’
global or regional scenarios of change and
our understanding of the complex interplay of many
factors in this process has been markedly enhanced
through IPY research. Again, the value and the impact
of the new information collected during IPY depend
upon the individual project teams making their data
widely accessible via post-IPY publication, dissemination
and cross-disciplinary teamwork.
Vantage Points. ‘Theme 5’ of the IPY science program
promoted the unique vantage point of the polar
regions and was originally tailored to feature
geomagnetic, space and atmosphere studies, that is,
geophysical research (Rapley et al., 2004). Nonetheless,
the very idea of the polar regions offering unique
insight in the broader global processes resonates with
the current discussions among polar social science
and humanities researchers. Polar regions indeed offer
a special vantage point due to the long established
tradition of community and human-environmental
studies, and because of the ‘amplification’ of many
societal phenomena at the local scale, much like in the
case of climate and broader environmental change.
During IPY and particularly under the ESF BOREAS
program, substantial efforts have been made to place
the circumpolar regions into the wider global context,
with the goal to ‘de-provincialize’ (‘de-exoticize’) Arctic
social science studies and to demonstrate how social
and environmental research at the poles can provide
new insights of, and be linked up with other parts
of the world (Heading North, 2008). Such broader
insights explored in IPY included the development of
policies in managing ‘common spaces’ (nos. 100, 342);
commercial resource exploitation of the economic
‘frontier’ zones (no.10); population exchange between
‘North’ and ‘South’ (no. 436); search for the broadly
applicable indicators of community well-being (no.
436); and gaps in our datasets to assess community
vulnerability to environmental change.
An internal ‘vantage point,’ particularly in the
Arctic, is the stock of knowledge about the polar
environment accumulated by local residents and,
especially, by indigenous people. That knowledge has
been generated independently of the advancement
of scholarly studies and is based upon different sets
of data and observations. Many social scientists and
indigenous experts believe that both vantage points
offered by the two ways of knowing, the academic
and the local/indigenous knowledge, are extremely
beneficial to our common understanding of the polar
regions and processes (nos. 162, 164, 166, 186, 187, 247,
399, etc.).
Conclusion: The Legacy of the Social
Sciences and Humanities in IPY
2007–2008
Being true newcomers in IPY 2007–2008, polar
social scientists and indigenous organizations
mobilized quickly and made substantial contributions
to its program. They also emerged much stronger—
scientifically, institutionally, and financially—as a
result of IPY (Chapter 5.4). This is evident from the
growing acceptance of indigenous, social science
and humanities issues by IPY sponsors, ICSU and
WMO, many polar umbrella organizations, such IASC
and SCAR, and from across-the-board expansion of
funding for social science research during 2005–2010.
The implementation of several IPY projects operated
primarily by Arctic indigenous organizations, such
as EALAT, BSSN and others is another success story
(Chapters 3.10, 5.4). Overall, all parties should be
pleased that they did not miss the IPY boat in 2004.
The IPY years also witnessed the growth of interest
among physical and natural scientists in the issues
related to polar residents, and in the methods of
social and human research. This transition becomes
especially apparent through the strong presence
of human and social science themes at all major
IPY-related events, like the two main IPY science
conferences in 2008 and 2010 (Fig. 2.10-12). 11 Many
national IPY committees, for the first time, added
social scientists and representatives of polar
indigenous organizations to their ranks (Chapter 5.4).
Today, we have many more partners sympathetic to
the indigenous, social and humanities topics than
at the beginning of the IPY planning in 2002–2003.
Several IPY ‘legacy initiatives,’ such as SAON (Chapter
3.8), CBMP (Chapter 3.9), SWIPA (Chapter 5.2) and the
proposed International Polar Decade (Chapter 5.6)
now view social science’s inclusion and indigenous
participation as a given. The lines of collaboration