A Framework for the International Polar Year, 2007-2008

The polar regions are integral components of the Earth system. As the heat sinks of the climate system they both respond to and drive changes elsewhere on the planet. Within them lie frontiers of knowledge as well as unique vantage points for science. Yet because of their remoteness and harsh nature, the poles remain insufficiently studied. With recent technological advances providing new scientific possibilities, and humankind‘s need for environmental knowledge and understanding ever increasing, the time is ripe for a coordinated international initiative to achieve a major advance in polar science. For this reason, the International Council for Science (ICSU) decided to take the lead in organizing an International Polar Year (IPY) in 2007-2008. They did so by establishing an IPY Planning Group (PG) charged with developing the IPY 2007-2008 science plan and implementation strategy. This report is the outcome of the PG‘s work. It is based on input from individuals, from over 40 governmental and nongovernmental organizations that have endorsed or expressed support for IPY 2007-2008, and from the 32 IPY National Committees or National Points of Contact established so far. It is also results from discussions and debate at over a dozen international meetings covering the gamut of science disciplines, from a series of "town" meetings, and from two Discussion Forums hosted by ICSU and attended by representatives of the IPY National Committees and a variety of interested polar organizations

Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges:International Polar Year 2007-2008. Summary by the IPY Joint Committee.

The International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008, co-sponsored by ICSU and WMO, became the largest coordinated research program in the Earth’s polar regions, following in the footsteps of its predecessor, the first and second International Polar Years in 1881-1883 and 1932-1933 and the International Geophysical Year 1957–1958. The summary "Understanding Earth's Polar Challenges: International Polar Year 2007-2008" captures the context, motivations, initiation, planning, implementation and the outcomes of the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008, as well as the lessons derived from this key undertaking

Understanding Earth's Polar Challenges: International Polar Year 2007-2008 - Summary by the IPY Joint Committee

The International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008, co-sponsored by ICSU and WMO, became the largest coordinated research program in the Earth’s polar regions, following in the footsteps of its predecessor, the first and second International Polar Years in 1881-1883 and 1932-1933 and the International Geophysical Year 1957–1958. An estimated 50,000 researchers, local observers, educators, students, and support personnel from more than 60 nations were involved in the 228 international IPY projects (170 in science, 1 in data management, and 57 in education and outreach) and related national efforts. IPY generated intensive research and observations in the Arctic and Antarctica over a two-year period, 1 March 2007–1 March 2009, with many activities continuing beyond that date. The summary "Understanding Earth's Polar Challenges: International Polar Year 2007-2008" captures the context, motivations, initiation, planning, implementation and the outcomes of the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008, as well as the lessons derived from this key undertaking

The Contributions of Community-Based Monitoring and Traditional Knowledge to Arctic Observing Networks: Reflections on the State of the Field

Community-based monitoring (CBM) in the Arctic is gaining increasing support from a wide range of interested parties, including community members, scientists, government agencies, and funders. Through CBM initiatives, Arctic residents conduct or are involved in ongoing observing and monitoring activities. Arctic Indigenous peoples have been observing the environment for millennia, and CBM often incorporates traditional knowledge, which may be used independently from or in partnership with conventional scientific monitoring methods. Drawing on insights from the first Arctic Observing Summit, we provide an overview of the state of CBM in the Arctic. The CBM approach to monitoring is centered on community needs and interests. It offers fine-grained, local-scale data that are readily accessible to community and municipal decision makers. In spite of these advantages, CBM initiatives remain little documented and are often unconnected to wider networks, with the result that many practitioners lack a clear sense of the field and how best to support its growth and development. CBM initiatives are implemented within legal and governance frameworks that vary significantly both within and among different national contexts. Further documentation of differences and similarities among Arctic communities in relation to observing needs, interests, and legal and institutional capacities will help assess how CBM can contribute to Arctic observing networks. While CBM holds significant potential to meet observing needs of communities, more investment and experimentation are needed to determine how observations and data generated through CBM approaches might effectively inform decision making beyond the community level.Dans l’Arctique, la surveillance communautaire (SC) reçoit un appui de plus en plus grand de la part de nombreuses parties intéressées, dont les membres de la communauté, les scientifiques, les organismes gouvernementaux et les bailleurs de fonds. Dans le cadre des initiatives de SC, des habitants de l’Arctique effectuent des tâches permanentes d’observation et de surveillance ou participent à de telles tâches. Les peuples indigènes de l’Arctique observent l’environnement depuis des millénaires. Souvent, la SC fait appel aux connaissances traditionnelles, connaissances qui peuvent être employées seules ou conjointement avec les méthodes classiques de surveillance scientifique. Nous nous sommes appuyés sur les connaissances dérivées du premier sommet d’observation de l’Arctique pour donner un aperçu de l’état de la SC dans l’Arctique. La méthode de SC est centrée sur les besoins et les intérêts de la communauté. Elle permet d’obtenir des données à grain fin à l’échelle locale, données qui sont facilement accessibles par la communauté et les preneurs de décisions municipaux. Malgré ces avantages, il existe peu de documentation au sujet des initiatives de SC et souvent, ces initiatives ne sont pas rattachées aux grands réseaux, ce qui fait que bien des intervenants ne comprennent pas clairement ce qui se passe sur le terrain et ne savent pas vraiment comment appuyer la croissance et le développement de la surveillance communautaire. Les initiatives de SC respectent les cadres de référence nécessaires en matière de droit et de gouvernance, et ceux-ci varient considérablement au sein des contextes nationaux. L’enrichissement de la documentation en ce qui a trait aux différences et aux similitudes qui existent entre les communautés de l’Arctique en matière de besoins d’observation, d’intérêts et de capacités juridiques et institutionnelles aidera à déterminer en quoi la SC pourra jouer un rôle au sein des réseaux d’observation de l’Arctique. Bien que la SC ait la possibilité de jouer un rôle important dans les besoins d’observation des communautés, il y a lieu de faire plus d’investissements et d’expériences pour déterminer comment les observations et les données découlant des méthodes de SC pourront favoriser la prise de décisions au-delà des communautés

Frozen Ground - The News Bulletin of the International Permafrost Association, No.33

Frozen Ground - The News Bulletin of the International Permafrost Association, No.3

Antarctic marine biodiversity challenged by global change: the CAML/SCAR-MarBIN benchmark

There is now undisputed evidence that climate change and modifications of the Earth system occurs, at faster rates in the polar regions. Among the many consequences we will be facing, the loss of biodiversity is probably of highest concern. CAML and SCAR-MarBIN are striving to provide the baseline information needed to assess the potential impact of climate change on Antarctic marine biodiversity. Through strong science plans, efficient data management and an unprecedented collaborative research effort within the IPY framework, CAML and SCAR-MarBIN intend to provide to scientists, environmental managers and decision-makers a sound benchmark against which future changes can reliably be assessed. This paper gives a brief description of the project’s synergies

Frozen Ground - The News Bulletin of the International Permafrost Association, No.32

Frozen Ground - The News Bulletin of the International Permafrost Association, No.3