Activity Report:
Norwegian Polar Priorities from ICARP IV to the IPY Robbie Mallett EarthObservation Group, Department of Physics and Technology, UiT The Arctic University ofNorway Preparations are now underway for the fifth International Polar Year (IPY5;https://ipy5.net), which is due to take place in 2032/33. Simultaneously, the fourth InternationalConference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP IV) is in progress, with its summit scheduledfor March 2025. The ICARP IV process will set internationally-agreed research priorities to beaddressed over the next ten years, with IPY5 forming a central part of the effort. Norway willlikely play a major role in ICARP IV and IPY5. To coordinate and streamline its contributions, atwo-day national workshop was held on the 2nd and 3rd of December 2024 at UiT the ArcticUniversity of Norway. Convened by the authors in their capacity as cochairs of two ICARPresearch priority teams, the workshop included 50 participants representing organisationssuch as the Norwegian Polar Institute, the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, the ArcticMonitoring and Assessment Programme, the University Centre in Svalbard, the SvalbardIntegrated Arctic Earth Observing System, the Research Council of Norway, and theAssociation of Polar Early Career Scientists. The first day of the workshop focussed onengaging participants with the ICARP process, which remains open to input until the March2025 summit (when it will then enter a consultative phase). The seven ICARP ResearchPriority Teams were described and a recent meeting of cochairs at the International ArcticScience Committee’s secretariat was reported on. A group activity then solicited input fromparticipants about which research priorities are most acute for Norwegian researchers, andwhich gaps Norwegian researchers are best positioned to address. The four groups werebased loosely around the ICARP research priority teams, and presented theirrecommendations the following day. The group representing The Arctic in the Global Systemhighlighted research priorities including freshwater (supply and usage), resources and theirtransport (oil and gas, fisheries), and hazards (such as biohazard from thawing permafrost).The unifying concept of “disruptions” - singular disruptive events and their impact on culturaland physical systems - was mooted. War was presented as an example both from theperspective of how war might threaten then Arctic, but also how an Arctic war might threatenthe globe. The group representing Arctic Research and Diplomacy stressed that the IPY is anopportunity to take stock of the state of polar science. They questioned what robotics wouldand would not be able to achieve by 2032, and whether pan-Arctic instrument arrays would beinternationally consistent and compatible in terms of their hardware and data formats. Theuncertain priorities of the new US administration were a prominent part of the ensuingdiscussion. The Knowledge Sharing, Coproduction & Resilience began their reporting with areflection on taking coproduction seriously, and going beyond a performative buzzword -existing funding structures were identified as one barrier to this. Optimal timescales of fundingstructures were also discussed. The paradigm of “western science” as also interrogated, withlanguage being given as an example of something that is often conceptualised as a barrier toscience, but also presents opportunities for gaining new perspective on a research topic. Thefinal group (Observing, Reconstructing, and Predicting Future Climate Dynamics andEcosystem Responses) discussed the interconnected nature of observational and modellingefforts, also highlighting the role of remote sensing as a key transboundary tool. Theystressed Norway’s position to operate across the “terrestrial-coastal-marine continuum”, and the critical value of Svalbard as part of Norway’s offering to the fifth IPY effort. The challengeand value of ICARP’s “bottom-up” organisation was raised. All four groups stressed the needfor data standardisation and stewardship prior to the IPY, and the need to consider thesocietal relevance of all projects. The second day concluded with presentations by theResearch Council of Norway about their priorities for polar science, the status of Norwegianplanning and organisation towards the next International Polar Year, and details of the ArcticScience Funders forum. The workshop was closed with critical reflections from a panel aboutthe merits and challenges of both ICARP and the International Polar Year. The scientificinstitutions of Norway will likely not coalesce around a set of key research priorities before theMarch 2025 ICARP summit in Boulder. Some challenges to this involve communication andorganisation, but there is also a natural diversity in priorities between the institutions,stemming from the different environmental spheres and communities that each represents.The coordination workshop (and the ICARP process so far) has shown that a significant andmulti-year domestic effort may be required for the fifth IPY. It also appears that the demand forsocietal relevance and impact from the fifth IPY will be far larger than in previous years.
Main Organiser
- Robbie Mallett, Gosia Smieszek-Rice (UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway)
Type of Activity
- Workshop
Dates and Location
-
2 - 3 December 2024 in Tromsø, Norway