International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

Table 5.4-1:
UArctic Members
and Students’
Participation in IPY
Projects, by major
Arctic nation.
588
IPY 20 07–20 08
IPY 2007–2008 grassroots approach to define
key projects and research issues demonstrated an
impressive openness within the science community.
Governments and science organizations have also had
ample opportunity to influence the priorities of IPY.
People living in the Arctic, both indigenous as well
as other northerners and their leaders, were rarely
informed of the IPY process during its early formative
years, 2002–2004, and generally have not been
engaged to formulate its research priorities. It remains
a challenge for the Arctic science organizations,
including IASC and IASSA, as well as UArctic to ensure
that the science community will not monopolize the
right to define research agenda in the North for the
next IPY.
The biggest disappointment of this IPY may be
the lack of coordination between various funding
agencies. Even if there have been some well meant
attempts, the general picture is that funding is
nationally prioritized and is only modestly linked to
the implementation of projects across the national
borders. UArctic view, shared clearly by key actors
Number of
partners to
IPY projects
Number
of UArctic
members
among the
partners
UArctic
members (%)
such as the Nordic Council of Ministers, IASC and IASSA
is that this problem can best be addressed through a
concerted collaboration of the Ministries responsible
for the funding of science and education in the either
Arctic Countries.
Nevertheless, as we wait for the circumpolar
funding instruments to be in place for the next IPY,
we have also learned other lessons about the funding
instrument during this IPY. As funders tend to focus
the bulk of the funding on large programs and huge
projects it has become harder and harder for smaller
partners—and often the Higher Education Institutions
in the North are small—to find their place at the
table. The necessary step is the wish to be inclusive. If
diversity, balance in representation and inclusiveness
are seen as important aspects of quality, these
adjustments will also become obvious requirements
to future polar research as we plan for the post-IPY era
and for the future IPY.
UArctic
members part
of national
total higher
education
student mass
UArctic
members
relative
popularity as
IPY project
partner
Part of UArctic
members
in each
country that
do have IPY
participation
Canada 513 95 19 18.7 % 1.0 32 % 25 %
Denmark 235 16 7 3.7 % 1.8 75 % 100 %
Finland 101 47 47 34.2 % 1.4 40 % 50 %
Iceland 42 8 19 29.9 % 0.6 80 %
Norway 365 101 28 8.9 % 3.1 35 % 50 %
Russia 303 16 5 1.3 % 4.1 19 % 17 %
Sweden 191 85 45 22.3 % 2.0 100 %
U.S.A. 804 141 18 .009 % 194.9 38 % 0 %
International 36 9 25 50 % 100 %
Part of UArctic
members self
identify as
Indigenous
with IPY
participation
Number of IPY partners by country based on the IPY IPO database of almost 3800 partners in 172 IPY endorsed projects that have Arctic or bipolar
focus (Antarctic excluded) and partial or substantial funding. The popularity of UArctic members relative to all universities and colleges in the
country is estimated based on total number of university level students in the country (UNESCO, 2007 data) and the number of students as reported
by the UArctic members in the UArctic annual survey. The factor indicates that UArctic members are more active in IPY projects than average in
most of the Arctic eight countries. In spite of this, in most countries less than half of UArctic members have partnership in any IPY project. UArctic
members that self identify as Indigenous (often small organizations) seem to have same popularity as IPY partners as other members. It must be
noted that these statistics do not indicate anything about size of the engagement, only whether a researcher from an institution is listed as a partner
in the IPY project database.