International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

too passive in their approach to coordinating
polar research. Their benign neglect has led to
the gradual deterioration of parts of the network
of meteorological stations in the Arctic. Better
baseline support for such monitoring would cost
little, but would make a huge difference to Arctic
researchers of all disciplines.” (Nature, 11 May
2006, Vol. 441, no. 7090)
The Broadening the Legacy approach attempted
to set the stage for political and policy discussions on
polar issues after IPY by creating a forum where science
and policy could converge in a broad, inclusive
dialogue that would operate at all levels of scale (international,
national, regional and local). Polar years
have set the precedent for international cooperation
in science and research; emphasized the need to make
sense of disparate data and methods of data management,
and ensure access for scientists, communities
and others; assisted policy-makers understand the impact
of research through mechanisms for translating
scientific data and creating science into policy communications;
and contributed to the development
and evolution of new institutional forms to ensure the
on-going investment and interest, the “glue” to sustain
international cooperation in polar research.
It is already apparent that IPY 2007–2008 has raised
some critical polar and global issues and created
momentum for political action and policy responses,
but the many outcomes may not be immediate. For
example, it was the scientific community in the 1960s
and 1970s that first focused international attention
on the threats imposed by global climate change.
Even though it took many years before international
governance and policy mechanisms were created to
enable national governments to seriously respond,
the mounting scientific evidence and the profile that
these scientific conferences provided was a major
contribution to raising the issue of climate change
internationally.
Evidence for Broadening the Legacy
As IPY 2007-2008 formally comes to a close, it is fair
to ask if there is evidence of sustained momentum
for the international cooperation, collaboration and
institution-building that will be necessary to support
IPY legacies in the future? So far, these responsibilities
seem to lay with the primary sponsors of IPY
(WMO and ICSU), the scientific organizations at the
forefront of polar research (SCAR and IASC), and the
political organizations in the Arctic (Arctic Council)
and Antarctic (the ATCM). These organizations
have recognized the need to provide institutional
commitment and solutions for sustaining polar
research, and discussions regarding the IPY legacy are
now an important agenda item within these bodies,
including the two polar science organizations, SCAR
and IASC (Fig. 5.6-1; Chapter 5.5). Importantly, IPY was
a catalyst for these organizations to initiate several
new international observing initiatives focused on
gathering and sharing information about change in
the polar regions (Part 3).
The conditions necessary to sustain IPY legacy
outcomes will also require engagement with other
international processes and partnership with the
wider global research and policy community, and with
other elements of civil society. Outside of the polar
regions there are some good examples of institutionbuilding
approaches for furthering the science – policy
nexus, including the Intergovernmental Science –
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service
(IPBES - www.ipbes.net). IPBES is not restricted to the
Arctic region, but its goal of providing “scientifically
sound, uniform and consistent framework for tackling
changes to biodiversity and ecosystem services” is
highly relevant. Similarly, the Global Earth Observation
System of Systems (GEOSS) program was launched as
a response to requests from the 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development and by the G8 (Group
of Eight) leading industrialized countries for greater
international collaboration to make better use of
Earth observations to support decision making (www.
earthobservations.org). To maximize the global impact
of IPY, these sorts of international programs and
approaches will have to be encouraged to participate
in the IPY Montreal Conference, “From Knowledge to
Action” in April 2012 (see below).
Observations about engaging society, policy
makers and governments in polar science may not
surprise many of the participants in IPY 2007-2008.
Indeed, there is increasing evidence of interest from
other groups in participating in the dialogue about
approaches for gathering and sharing knowledge
about the polar regions, models of openness,
interdisciplinarity and collaboration that IPY
l e g a C I e s 611