International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

454
IPY 20 07–20 08
monitoring produced impressive sets of local data
related to areas critical to the IPY science themes,
such as climate change, environmental preservation,
status of the Arctic land and waters, documentation of
indigenous knowledge, impacts of modern industrial
development in the polar regions and the like. Several
projects, such as CAVIAR, BSSN, EALÁT, CARMA and
others, invested substantial effort in developing
standard observational protocols and used the same or
close methodologies across large study areas. This has
allowed for new comparative analyses across a broad
sample of participating communities and regions.
Nevertheless, little coordination was achieved
among many IPY 2007–2008 efforts in communitybased
monitoring and the documentation of local
knowledge. There was hardly a common vision on
what particular aspects of polar environment and
change are more (or less) important to the common
understanding of natural, physical and social
developments at the Poles. Individual project teams
had several productive meetings during their planning
and implementation years and they shared information
broadly and freely. Nevertheless, there was no ‘acrossthe
board’ exchange and comparison of the goals and
needs of community-based monitoring projects in IPY
2007–2008 and no ‘multi-project’ meetings to develop
a common agenda, in the way it has been done for
oceanography, meteorology, satellite observations
and other more ‘matured’ science disciplines.
For these and other reasons, the field of communitybased
monitoring and local knowledge documentation
in IPY 2007–2008 was very much a ‘work in progress.’
One should acknowledge that the field had not even
developed until the late 1990s and that it has been
advanced to the polar research arena only by the time
when IPY 2007–2008 was being planned—via ACIA
Report (2005), the International Conference for Arctic
Research Planning (2005), the development of the
U.S. SEARCH (Study of Environmental Arctic Change)
program, the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit traditional
knowledge/values/way of thinking) movement in
Nunavut and across Arctic Canada (see www.gov.
nu.ca/hr/site/beliefsystem.htm) and a few summary
publications available by that time (McDonald et al.,
1997; Krupnik and Jolly, 2002; Helander and Mustonen,
2004; Oozeva et al., 2004; and others). Its status may
be thus compared to the original science plan for the
first IPY of 1882–1883 of three pillars (same time, same
methodologies, many nations – Chapter 1.1), of which
only two—same time and many nations—have been
implemented.
Of course, to reach maturity the field of communitybased
observations and monitoring does not have
to wait for its ‘second’ and ‘third’ IPY in the next 50 or
75 years. Several important publications based upon
the IPY projects reviewed in this chapter are already
published (Hovelsrud and Smith, 2010; Krupnik et al.,
2010) or will be produced shortly and the overall impact
of IPY 2007–2008 studies will increase manifold in the
coming years. In addition, many projects are laying
groundwork for rapid expansion of the field through
new funding to expand their scope of operation in
terms of time, community engagement and geographic
coverage during the post-IPY era and beyond (like
EALÁT, ELOKA, BSSN). Another line of action would be to
argue for a radical change of approach to communitybased
monitoring—from short-term research and
pilot projects funded via national science agencies or
scientific initiatives (like IPY 2007–2008) to permanent
activities, like SAON (Chapter 3.8), supported by regional
governments and major indigenous organizations. This
would naturally encourage local capacity building,
self-government and developing new formats
of community-based education and knowledge
preservation. Certain IPY projects, particularly EALÁT
and BSSN, are clearly moving in this direction (see more
in Chapter 5.4). Yet other IPY initiatives are increasingly
viewing themselves as precursors to the future ‘services’
for both indigenous and scientific communities to
emerge as the lasting legacy of the post-IPY era. Two
examples of this new strategy including ELOKA and
a new project called “Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook”
(SIWO) (Chapter 5.2). Similarly, SAON, the Sustained
Arctic Observing Networks initiative, has identified
community-based monitoring as a priority for future
Arctic research and monitoring activities (Chapter 3.8).
The field of indigenous and community-based
monitoring has emerged as one of the least
anticipated, yet most inspirational, outcomes of IPY
2007–2008. To achieve its full potential, it needs new
successful efforts, more resources and continuation of
its momentum into the post-IPY era.