International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

while additional 25 projects had indigenous partners
(Chapters 2.10 and 3.10) 3 . Many of these projects had a
substantial community-based monitoring component
(Chapters 3.10 and below – Fig. 5.4-3). Communitybased
monitoring (CBM), a term used mostly in North
America, is a complex research field that is becoming
an essential and often required component in academic
research and natural resource management (Gofman
et al., in press). CBM enables researchers to reach
beyond “Western” science by using the best available
knowledge, be it academic, indigenous, traditional or
local. Such holistic approach improves understanding of
ecological systems and how they interrelate with human
societies. Many IPY projects incorporated elements of
CBM or traditional knowledge (Chapter 3.10) in a similar
way ACIA did. Few, however, attempted to generate
statistical data and trends based on information
gathered solely from and by local residents. BSSN (IPY
no. 247) was one of such projects.
In general, IPY projects that claimed leadership
or participation by indigenous and other local
organizations and residents can be organized in
three groups: 1) Research led by academia focused on
indigenous communities (e.g. CAVIAR, no. 157; SIKU no.
166, Narwhal no. 164, ELOKA no. 187, NOMAD no. 408,
MODIL-NAO no. 46); 2) Research led by a partnership
of indigenous organizations and academia (EALÁT no.
399 – see Fig. 5.4-4); 3) Research led by an indigenous
organization and managing it as a project fiscal agent
(e.g. BSSN, no. 247, no. 186). The last two groups
represent a measurable increase in the involvement
of indigenous and local stakeholders in polar research
and management. This growth is a reflection of a
growing political influence, financial and human
capacities of indigenous and tribal governments,
corporations (in North America), legislative bodies,
and non-profit organizations in addition to the
opportunities presented by IPY 2007–2008.
For the first time, representatives of indigenous organizations
were invited to participate in the organizational
and management bodies of an IPY. Many national
committees included such representation: in Canada –
Duane Smith of ICC and Cindy Dickson of the Council
of Yukon First Nations, in Russia – Larisa Abryutina and
Rodion Sulyandziga of RAIPON, in Sweden – Susanne
Spik of Sirkas Same Village, and in the U.S – Richard
Glenn of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (source:
http://classic.ipy.org/national/committee.htm). Several
representatives of indigenous organizations served on
the IPY 2007–2009 subcommittees (Lene Kielsen Holm,
Fig. 5.4-2. BSSN
workshop
participants,
Anchorage, 2008.
Seated Left to Right:
Victoria Gofman (AIA),
Lyudmila Kulchitskya
(Kanchalan, Russia),
Arlene Gundersen
(Sand Point, Alaska),
Molly Chythlook
(Dillingham, Alaska),
Helen Chythlook
(Dillingham, Alaska)
Standing Left to
Right: Moses Kritz
(Togiak, Alaska), Iver
Campbell (Gambell,
Alaska), Marty
Waters (Anchorage,
Alaska), Ivan Vozhikov
(Nikolskoye, Russia),
Natalya Tatarenkova
(Nikolskoye, Russia),
Svetlana Petrosyan
(Tymlat, Russia), Jim
Gamble (AIA).
(Photo: Aleut International
Association)
l e g a C I e s 579