No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Considering the societal relevance of the ICARP IV process and future Arctic research priorities and development towards IPY-5
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 August 2025
Abstract
The current state of Arctic research and its community continues to exhibit high levels of political polarization and fragmentation by establishing a number of questions regarding the societal relevance of the process and its results for the benefit of present and future generations. The ASSW2025 (Arctic Science Summit Week) conference devoted to the ICARP IV (International Conference on Arctic Research Planning) process took place in Boulder, Colorado (March 2025), and had special importance in this regard. The conference was a summary meeting of the Arctic research planning process for the next 10 years and set the foundation for the upcoming IPY-5 (International Polar Year). The Summit, attended by nearly 1200 international scientists and researchers, Indigenous Knowledge holders, and community members from across the Arctic and beyond, exhibited the lowest ever attendance of Russian Arctic scientists representing Russian science organizations. This group studies and advocates for almost half of the Arctic’s social and human capital (roughly 2.4 million people live in Arctic Russia). In order to preserve scientific discourse and guarantee the societal and environmental benefits of science for the fragile socio-ecological systems of polar regions and their delicate geopolitics, effective transition strategies and approaches should be taken into consideration where possible.
Information
- Type
- Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
AGU. (2025, February 18). Standing Together for Science: How to Support the Federal Scientific Workforce. https://fromtheprow.agu.org/standing-together-for-science-how-to-support-the-federal-scientific-workforce/.Google Scholar
Andreeva, S., Dodds, K., Douglas, N., Humrich, C., & Nawrath, T. (2024). New Arctic Realities: Between Conflicting Interests and Avenues for Cooperation. Berlin: Zentrum für Osteuropa und internationale Studien (Centre for East European and International Studies).Google Scholar
ASSW. (2025, March 26). Session 4.2. International Arctic science collaborations: ISIRA case study as IASC’s platform for dialogue. https://assw.info/sessions/sessions-assw-2025/4-2-international-arctic-science-collaborations-isira-case-study-as-iascs-platform-for-dialogue.Google Scholar
Barr, S., & Lüdecke, C. (Eds.). (2010). The History of the International Polar Years (IPYs): From Pole to Pole. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-12402-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barczewski, S. (2023). The heroic age of Antarctic exploration, 1890 to the present. In Howkins, A. & Roberts, P. (Eds.), The Cambridge History of the Polar Regions (pp. 229–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108555654.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRICS. (2025, June 2). Scientific Cooperation Among BRICS Countries Strengthens Oceanic and Polar Research. https://infobrics.org/en/post/46917.Google Scholar
Büntgen, U., & Rees, G. (2023). Global change research needs international collaboration. Science of the Total Environment, 902, 166054.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaffey, C. B., Bax, N., Krauzig, N., & Tougeron, K. (2024). A call to strengthen international collaboration to assess climate change effects in polar regions. PLOS Climate, 3, e0000495.10.1371/journal.pclm.0000495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICARP IV. (2025a, April 4). Statement from the Indigenous Participants of the ICARP IV Summit. https://icarp.iasc.info/news/statement-from-the-indigenous-participants-of-the-icarp-iv-summit.Google Scholar
ICARP IV. (2025b, March 28). ICARP IV Summit Statement: The ICARP IV Summit marked a critical moment to shape the future of Arctic research. https://icarp.iasc.info/news/the-icarp-iv-summit-marked-a-critical-moment-to-shape-the-future-of-arctic-research.Google Scholar
ICARP IV. (2023, June 27). Briefing workshop of ISIRA Group of IASC on ICARP process – International Conference on Arctic Research Planning IV. https://icarp.iasc.info/news/briefing-workshop-of-isira-group-of-iasc-on-icarp-process-international-conference-on-arctic-research-planning-iv.Google Scholar
ICARP IV. (n.d.a). Research Priority Team 4: Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy. https://icarp.iasc.info/engagement/research-priority-teams/research-priority-team-4.Google Scholar
ICARP IV. (n.d.b). Research Priority Team 5: Co-Production and Indigenous-led methodologies. https://icarp.iasc.info/engagement/research-priority-teams/research-priority-team-5.Google Scholar
IASC. (2022, March 7). IASC Statement on Ukraine. https://iasc.info/news/iasc-news/957-iasc-statement-on-ukraine.Google Scholar
IASC. (n.d.). International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic (ISIRA). https://iasc.info/our-work/isira.Google Scholar
INTERACT. (n.d.). Permits and regulations for Arctic fieldwork. https://eu-interact.org/accessing-the-arctic/arctic-fieldwork-permits-and-regulations/.Google Scholar
IPY-5. (2025). IPY-5 Concept Note. https://ipy5.info/media/zf0kdbkg/ipy-concept-note-rev2025-v4-4.pdf.Google Scholar
The Polar Initiative. (2024). Summaries of Polar Symposium: From Arctic to Antarctic. The Cold is Getting hot. https://www.thepolarinitiative.org/en/summaries-80.Google Scholar
Johansson, M., & Callaghan, T. V. (2025). The rise and fall of science diplomacy in the Arctic: The “INTERACT” experience. Polar Record, 61, E8.10.1017/S0032247425000014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnik, I., Allison, I., Bell, R., Cutler, P., Hik, D., Lopez-Martinez, J., et al. (2011). Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges: International Polar Year 2007–2008 – Summary by the IPY Joint Committee. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia: University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
López-Blanco, E., Topp-Jørgensen, E., & Christensen, T. R. (2024). Towards an increasingly biased view on Arctic change. Nature Climate Change, 14, 152–155.10.1038/s41558-023-01903-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordregio. (2019). Atlas of Population, Society and Economy in the Arctic. Stockholm, Sweden: Nordregio.Google Scholar
Rogne, O., Rachold, V., Hacquebord, L., & Corell, R. (2015). IASC after 25 Years: A Quarter of a Century of International Arctic Research Cooperation. Akureyri, Iceland: International Arctic Science Committee.Google Scholar
Rosstat. (2024). Regions of Russia. Socio-economic Indicators. Statistical Digest. Moscow, Russia: Rosstat. (in Russian)Google Scholar
Schuur, E. A. G., Pallandt, M., & Göckede, M. (2024). Russian collaboration loss risks permafrost carbon emissions network. Nature Climate Change, 14, 410–411.10.1038/s41558-024-02001-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, A., Bond, A., Franco, A. M. A., Baker, J., Gerrard, C., Danino, V., & Jones, K. (2023). Conceptualising social licence to operate. Resources Policy, 85, 103962.10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tammiksaar, E., Sukhova, N. G., & Lüdecke, C. (2010). The international polar year 1882–1883. In Barr, S. & Lüdecke, C. (Eds.), The History of the International Polar Years (IPYs): From Pole to Pole (pp. 15–30). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
The Royal Society. (2025, February 25). Science under threat. https://royalsociety.org/news/2025/02/science-under-threat/.Google Scholar
Zaika, Y. V., Ryabova, L. A., & Sergunin, A. A. (2023). Science Diplomacy in the Arctic: Platforms, Practices, New Challenges. Apatity: Publishing House of FRC KSC RAS. (in Russian)Google Scholar
Zaika, Y., & Lagutina, M. (2023). Arctic science diplomacy in new geopolitical conditions: from “soft” power to “hard” dialogue? Polar Record, 59, E23.10.1017/S0032247423000141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaika, Y. (2024). Omnia mea mecum porto: science diplomacy realm of the Russian Arctic. Paradigma: Journal of Economics and Management Research, 13, 1–10.Google Scholar