Introduction
The scientific community in the Arctic is currently going through unprecedented changes in traditional forms and methods of collaboration, which affects the continuity of scientific knowledge and the comprehensive perspective of global socio-ecological processes. Different sustainability of cooperation ties maintained amid the geopolitical crisis are exemplified by the multilayer architecture of science cooperation. Although scientists’ individual relationships are resilient, they lack the institutional foundation in the form of financial, organizational, framed, structured, and historical grounds. These are essential for the (co-)production of authentic, trustworthy, reliable, and unbiased scientific knowledge.
International examples of cooperation continue to exist based on long-distance goals and human interests, but most of the inter-institutional ties have been discontinued with the majority of Russian scientific and educational institutions in the Western arena. For the approaching fifth International Polar Year 2032–2033 (IPY-5), the international polar science community has begun to prepare and adjust its science plans. The IPY is a historical process that began in the 1880s and progressed from the modes of geographic discovery and conquest to the present day. It started at times of polar discoveries when a large number of Arctic expeditions were undertaken by well-known polar explorers such as Carl Weyprecht, Mikhail Rykatcheff, Julius Payer, Roald Amundsen, and Fridtjof Nansen, – to name just a few. These included remarkable expeditions to reach the South Pole during the so-called Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration undertaken by the Belgian, UK, Swedish, German, French, Japanese, Norwegian, Australian, and New Zealand campaigns (Barczewski, Reference Barczewski, Howkins and Roberts2023) – all highlighted the IPY in its historic perspective. In 2007–2008, it widely adopted the approach of unity and cooperation, and the 2030s IPY period will further evolve its narratives in many contexts and implications.
The IPY is a large international effort that will commemorate its 150th anniversary in 2032–2033. Its geographical reach has expanded from 12 countries involved in IPY-1 to more than 60 involved in the most recent. The same expansion has happened to the frame, structure, and science program of IPY as a process (Krupnik et al., Reference Krupnik, Allison, Bell, Cutler, Hik and Lopez-Martinez2011). Not only have narratives changed over the course of this lengthy period, but economic, political, and technological systems have also evolved, opening up new avenues for scientific inquiry as a result of the ongoing changes to polar environments and ways of living.
An Austro-Hungarian naval officer, Arctic researcher, and geophysicist, Carl Weyprecht (1838–1881), and a German polar explorer, scientist, and hydrographer, Georg Neumeier (1826–1909), are rightfully regarded as the pioneers and inspiration behind the concept of an International Polar Year. Even though the first International Polar Year (1882–1883) only represented “small science” in terms of equipment, it was a significant milestone in international scientific cooperation and seemed to be a prerequisite for the planning of the second, larger-scale Polar Year, which took place in 1932–1933. Looking back to the Polar Year, Neumeier said, “This acting in combination of nations is suitable to consolidate peace among them and to arouse the competition on a field ennobling mankind” (Tammiksaar, Sukhova & Lüdecke, Reference Tammiksaar, Sukhova, Lüdecke, Barr and Lüdecke2010).
Comparison of the four previous IPYs (1882–1883, 1932–1933, 1957–1958, 2007–2008), largely described by a number of authors (Barr & Lüdecke, Reference Barr and Lüdecke2010; Krupnik et al., Reference Krupnik, Allison, Bell, Cutler, Hik and Lopez-Martinez2011; Tammiksaar, Sukhova, & Lüdecke, Reference Tammiksaar, Sukhova, Lüdecke, Barr and Lüdecke2010), and one upcoming IPY-5 reveals that, despite the actively changing operating environment affected by endogenous (internal, national) to exogenous (external, global) factors, all four previous and one upcoming IPY periods show exponential growth of their structural, geographical, financial, and scientific indicators. Over the course of the IPY history, there are several general features of the IPY process that have expanded and developed. One is the administrative and organizational environment, which involves various major institutional international and national players such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Science Council (ISC, previously known as ICSU – International Council for Science Unions), and local national organizations that comprise the national IPY committees. The source of financial resources to undertake IPY campaigns usually came from international organizations, national governments, and personal and philanthropic sponsorship. The geographical presence of IPY expanded from 12 countries in IPY-1 to over 60 in IPY-4, along with the program and planning expansion to the Arctic, Antarctic, and further to global areas within IPY-3/IGY (International Geophysical Year in 1957–1958). The development of research approaches and instrumentation has furthermore greatly influenced the technological capital of IPY. But the biggest driver of IPY progress has been the human capital, which marks the persistent involvement of the Arctic residents, Indigenous people, and the next generation of scientists, and the fostering of social sciences, humanities, and education.
Nearly 150 years later, IPY-5 in 2032–2033 is planned to further polar research and help to solve pressing global issues by concentrating on the effects of climate change in the Arctic, Antarctic, and beyond (including high-altitude mountain environments). In addition to fostering global cooperation and inclusivity, this concerted effort will bring together scientists, Indigenous knowledge holders, and international stakeholders to generate practical insights for mitigating and adapting to environmental changes (IPY-5 website: https://ipy5.info/).
In light of this, the international polar science community is preparing and organizing the key milestones and priorities for the next polar year. The process started in December 2022 with the publication and distribution of a joint statement from the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) titled Planning for the 5th International Polar Year (IPY) 2032–33. Since then, these two involved parties have made multiple attempts to consult their respective communities about the IPY planning process.
The initial frameworks for maintaining the administrative and organizational duties are currently under development. Representatives from SCAR, IASC, ISC, and WMO are among those on the IPY Executive Committee. International organizations participating in the overall process are represented on the IPY Planning Group. The IASC and SCAR Secretariats, with further assistance from the ISC and WMO, provided the temporary IPY Secretariat. This temporary office is currently located at the IASC Secretariat prior to the organization of a permanent international secretariat. The temporary IPY Secretariat is currently undertaking a communicative function in terms of organizing the preliminary structure of IPY and spreading the word about the upcoming international initiative at different meetings and conferences. A call for a host and funding for a dedicated IPY Secretariat will be issued later in 2025.
IASC uses its own procedure, the International Conference on Arctic Research Planning, or ICARP (ICARP website: https://icarp.iasc.info/), to address the priorities and requirements of Arctic research, whereas SCAR solicits community participation through consultations in various meetings and processes too.
ICARP as a process
IASC was founded in 1990, shortly after the end of the Cold War, when some prominent challenges of circum-Arctic cooperation arose and are still present today. One such challenge was the lack of communication and channels of cooperation between eastern and western scientists.
Back in the early 1990s, IASC became fully operational, and three developments highlighted the value of planning for the conduct of Arctic science. Those are (1) the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a spirit of regional cooperation in the Arctic; (2) the onset of the era of “big science” with research projects involving collaboration among larger groups of scientists and research institutes; and (3) the realization that the Arctic is a dynamic region subject to rapid and often non-linear changes in both biophysical and socioeconomic terms (Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord, & Corell, Reference Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord and Corell2015).
In this regard, the idea of organizing the first ICARP evolved, and in December 1995, ICARP I took place. More than 250 scientists, including 33 from Russia (13%), attended the week-long conference in Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. ICARP I put Arctic science on track to document key changes as they unfolded. In the final analysis, the value of ICARP I is reflected in the decision to repeat this exercise on a decadal scale (Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord, & Corell, Reference Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord and Corell2015).
It is worth noting that ICARP was formerly not directly linked to the IPY; yet, it evolved into a crucial science planning practice for the developing organization and the community at large.
Nevertheless, in 2003, the IASC Council decided to undertake preparations for a second ICARP to take place in 2005 – a decade after the first conference. In the spring of 2003, the IPY (2007–2008, IPY-4) was only a twinkle in the eye of a few Arctic scientists and was not yet even on the agenda of any major science organizations (Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord, & Corell, Reference Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord and Corell2015).
However, the results and strategies of ICARP II were crucial and contributed significantly to the IPY-4 process as well as the IASC reorganization process. ICARP II was planned to bring together the large Arctic community, including the representation from more than a dozen international Arctic organizations, Arctic Council programs, regional organizations, scientific associations, and others. Post-ICARP II actions included the follow-up workshop, which highlighted the next and very important step in science planning – the implementation of science plans. Thus, the Arctic funders and potential sponsoring organizations were involved in the discussions on science planning. Since then, ICARP has grown into a multi-organizational process that is more formal and involves self-reflective practices and community discussions.
Some of the phases that make up the 2022–2026 ICARP IV process include planning and preparation for the process, community consultations, identifying research gaps and priorities, and starting and carrying out the contribution to Arctic research planning for the IPY-5. In order to collegially examine the current state of Arctic science and the role the Arctic plays in global affairs and systems, it brings together Arctic academics, Indigenous Peoples, policymakers, residents, and stakeholders from all over the world.
The most pressing knowledge gaps, Arctic research priorities, and needs for the upcoming ten years will be examined during this process, and ways to meet these needs in order to go on with the next IPY will be reviewed. The 5th IPY is seen as a significant new stage in a 150-year-old process, building on the significant legacy of the 4th IPY. In order to protect the global environment, develop effective national and local strategies to mitigate and adapt to environmental changes, and accelerate progress towards achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, polar researchers, knowledge holders, rights holders, and stakeholders will have a critical opportunity to close outstanding major knowledge gaps through focused attention and globally coordinated action (IPY-5, 2025).
Many international Arctic and polar forums and meetings second the IPY legacies by discussing the promotion, engagement, and facilitation of joint efforts, for example, Arctic Frontiers, Arctic Circle, Arctic Science Summit Week, and ArcticNet, to name a few. They reflect on how to establish the most efficient and resource-effective international collaborations, how to secure equal participation for all stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples and local communities, and how to prioritize science to fill the most urgent knowledge gaps (The Polar Initiative, 2024). They also focus on advocating for collaborative long-term planning, addressing the fact that international collaboration and sustained planning are indispensable for pinpointing urgent knowledge gaps in polar research.
A further matter of discussion is the recent and current geopolitical landscape in which engagement with Russia and Russian polar researchers is at a minimum. The current ICARP IV process began in late 2021, shortly before the geopolitical shifts and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which caused a range of reactions in many areas, including research, and fundamentally changed the landscape. This kind of polycrisis forces the scientific community to combine lessons learned from the past and think about possible developments in the future. Since numerous authors have previously shared their thoughts, there is now no need to evaluate the gaps that could develop in the future as a result of ongoing geopolitical disputes or to describe the existing situation (Andreeva, Dodds, Douglas, Humrich, & Nawrath, Reference Andreeva, Dodds, Douglas, Humrich and Nawrath2024; Büntgen & Rees, Reference Büntgen and Rees2023; Gaffey, Bax, Krauzig, & Tougeron, Reference Gaffey, Bax, Krauzig and Tougeron2024; López-Blanco, Topp-Jørgensen, & Christensen, Reference López-Blanco, Topp-Jørgensen and Christensen2024; Johansson & Callaghan, Reference Johansson and Callaghan2025; Schuur, Pallandt, & Göckede, Reference Schuur, Pallandt and Göckede2024; Zaika & Lagutina, Reference Zaika and Lagutina2023; Zaika, Ryabova, & Sergunin, Reference Zaika, Ryabova and Sergunin2023; Zaika, Reference Zaika2024). However, since Russia is a key player in ensuring long-term monitoring of the Arctic system, there is a clear necessity for establishing an ethical and sustainable framework for interactions with Russia and the polar research conducted in the region (The Polar Initiative, 2024). However, there is still no (or minimum) Russian scientific community representation at such meetings. It contradicts the primary guiding principles of the continuing planning and preparatory processes, which include ensuring involvement, equal participation for all stakeholders, and prioritization of science – the groundwork of polar research and holistic Arctic dialogue. For instance, the ICARP IV process is defined as an inclusive procedure and is designed to facilitate a discussion of the priorities of Arctic research from a 10-year perspective among a community of over 250 researchers, 27 international and global organizations, and Arctic-related initiatives. When examining the country-based inclusion of this priority-making and planning process, which serves as the foundation for future budgetary distribution and decision-making for the Arctic region, the following figures are self-explanatory: 85% of participants come from 21 Western track countries (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Poland, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Iceland, Portugal, Denmark, Greenland, Ireland, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland), 13.5% from the South-East track (5 countries – India, China, Korea, Japan, and Turkey), and 1.5% from the formal Russian presence. Indigenous peoples account for approximately 5% of the total discussants (Zaika, Reference Zaika2024).
Given that there are about four million people living in the Arctic, 10% of whom are Indigenous peoples from numerous distinct communities, one could argue that such a process is socially relevant to the sustainable development of the region and its inhabitants. The majority of these individuals (around 2.4 million people) reside in Russia’s Arctic regions, as of the beginning of 2024, according to Rosstat (the country’s statistical agency) (Rosstat, 2024). Indigenous peoples make up more than 4% of this population (Nordregio, 2019). ICARP IV is expected to increase the number of Russian scientists participating in Arctic research and representing Russian scientific organizations by giving scientific findings a further social value.
Considering social relevance of ongoing processes
International processes, instruments, and organizations in the Arctic are not isolated entities, as the architecture of international cooperation in the region clearly reflects. Rather, they are closely linked by shared priorities, expertise, and regional affiliation, building upon and modifying each other’s agendas. A sort of credit of trust that has been built over the years of the organization’s existence in the international arena is this connection, which on the one hand creates a certain reputational and impactful relatedness to each other, and on the other hand performs the societal relevance and benefit to the wide range of Arctic stakeholders involved in the dialogue. In order to comprehend and create potential scenarios of future interaction, it is crucial to consider the established organizational connection of Arctic organizations as a factor dictating common approaches to further collaboration.
The public benefits from science for a sustainable future. International science organizations reflect and imply the communities’ and stakeholders’ ongoing acceptance, permission, and support while carrying out their objectives, tasks, and agendas. Discussion emerges around the possibility to evaluate the social relevance of ongoing processes and actions of international science organizations, possibly through concepts mostly related to the socially responsible business, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and/or Social License to Operate (SLO). These define the public acceptance of organizational impact on the related communities and stakeholders or society at large. Such public acceptance reflects the legitimacy, which represents whether stakeholders deem an organization’s plans, actions, and consequences acceptable (Stuart et al., Reference Stuart, Bond, Franco, Baker, Gerrard, Danino and Jones2023).
The people who are most impacted and engaged in a project or activity should be able to effectively influence it over its whole lifecycle and be integrated in the community dimension with the shared values. The perceptions, judgements, and beliefs of the stakeholders, which mostly relate to “trust,” are typically linked to SLO procedures when it comes to business and industries. During the most recent ASSW2025 and ICARP IV Summits, trust was mentioned as one of the most important systems of relations in the current political climate of uncertainty and instability.
ASSW2025 and ICARPIV summits
The ASSW conference itself took a very human-centric approach by introducing the Code of Conduct. Such practices of referring to the Code of Conduct have been introduced to various international scientific meetings recently. IASC has started to introduce the Code of Conduct to its meetings and conferences for the last 3–4 years. ASSW2025 included a large number of representatives from indigenous groups, despite the Russian research community’s nearly nonexistent participation in the ASSW and ICARP summits in Boulder, Colorado (USA). In addition to introducing participation concepts and rules, the Code of Conduct provides examples of acceptable and undesirable behavior from event attendees. The Code of Conduct serves as a reminder that everyone attending meetings is expected to act professionally, respectfully, and responsibly at all times.
The involvement of Indigenous peoples starts from the leading of the ICARP process as co-chairs towards the organization of sessions and specific Research Priority Team 5 (RPT5) – Co-Production and Indigenous-led methodologies (ICARP IV, n.d.b). The team addresses research priorities and their implementation regarding topics such as co-production of knowledge; empowerment; capacity sharing; creating space and opportunities for Indigenous institutions/scholars to lead research and develop collaborations; Indigenous leadership; bringing education, science, and Indigenous knowledge together; producers and users of knowledge; and indigenizing Arctic research. The Indigenous Pavilion was another significant component of the ICARP Conference. It operated over five of the nine official days of both forums and was packed with various sessions, exhibitions, movie screenings, discussions, get-togethers, performances, games, blessings, and singing, highlighting deep and diverse Indigenous cultures.
Earlier in November 2023, after the Arctic Circle Assembly 2023, the International Steering Committee of ICARP IV received a letter from the representatives of Indigenous people with suggestions on how the ICARP process can be further indigenized. One of the consensuses was the appointment of an ICARP IV co-chair to the International Steering Committee by Arctic Indigenous Peoples, as well as any and all ICARP bodies or processes wherein decisions are made that are crucial to the ICARP process. Such decisions have been implemented with the ICARP structure and also mark a different approach within the entire historical process of the ICARP itself, dialogue among all Arctic stakeholders, and the forthcoming IPY-5 in 2032–2033. The inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the planning and decision-making structures of such processes as ICARP is an important milestone that ensures the sustainability of the Arctic region and its population.
The official ICARP IV Summit Statement (ICARP IV, 2025b) was released independently on March 28, 2025, by the ICARP IV International Steering Committee and the ICARP IV Summit Local Organizing Committee. In addition, the closing ceremonies of the ASSW and ICARP IV Summits were also marked by the Statement from the Indigenous Participants (ICARP IV, 2025a). All the statements emphasize how vital and significant it is for the Arctic stakeholder community to convene for an ethical and transparent dialogue regarding the future and development of the Arctic.
The active engagement of Indigenous participants and the absence of the Russian scientific community are, at the same time, a triumph and a defeat for the Arctic research community going through the current time of political crisis. The main issues surrounding Arctic research have been raised during the ASSW and ICARP IV Summits in a variety of sessions and activities. The current high level of political polarization of science is characterized by two factors: the absence of the Russian scientific community (Russian scientists representing Russian science organizations and institutes) and broader political shifts in the US research community.
US researchers referred to the recent executive orders of the current Trump administration, which influenced budgets for science with cost-cutting measures. These include the termination of a significant portion of the federal workforce, which influences the work of different science-related agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Forest Service (AGU, 2025).
Such developments will have major consequences for science and societal progress and science relevance in polar regions, including the geographies of severe and delicate geopolitics, as well as areas of ambitious actions to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change. Scientific research and innovation advance our economic, social, and cultural well-being, provide health benefits, and are key to a sustainable, long-term future. However, we live in times of great geopolitical, technological, environmental, and demographic change, and the values that have driven science for the benefit of humanity are under threat (The Royal Society, 2025).
ISIRA group of IASC
Following the statements put in place within the Arctic Council and the International Science Council (ISC), which concerned the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the IASC also released its Statement on Ukraine at the beginning of March 2022 (IASC, 2022). Russian scientists’ participation in IASC bodies and structures, such as the ISIRA Advisory Group of IASC (ISIRA: https://iasc.info/our-work/isira), was put on hold. The International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic is known by its acronym, ISIRA. The group was founded in 1993 as a joint Russian-international project to support sustainable development and Arctic science in the Russian Arctic. Currently, it consists of 16 members (national delegates, chair, and secretary) from 12 different countries, including Russia, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The objectives of the group were 1) to initiate planning of multinational research programs that address specific key scientific problems in the Russian Arctic; 2) to provide a forum for linking ongoing or planned bilateral projects; 3) to facilitate improved scientific access to the Russian Arctic; and 4) to advise on funding and implementation of projects. ISIRA’s activities included 1) reporting on international science activities and initiatives in the Russian Arctic; 2) providing up-to-date information on policies, regulations, and logistics within the Russian Arctic; and 3) supporting Russian and international early-career scientists (IASC, n.d.).
Prior to 2022, ISIRA used the formal framework and agenda of Arctic Science Summit Weeks to host both closed and open meetings. Closed consultative meetings were the primary format of the group’s gatherings, which usually advised the IASC Council in terms of science updates and regulative procedures on the Russian Arctic. Over fifty people attended the group’s first-ever official open meeting, which was held at ASSW2014 in Helsinki, Finland. Starting in 2022 and in accordance with IASC directives, which are based on the Statement on Ukraine in March 2022 and the decisions of the local organizing committees of ASSW and the joint consensus decision of ISIRA group members, the group conducted informal meetings to assess the existing state of affairs and talk about potential avenues for future communication during the recent summits without agendas or minutes. Maintaining ISIRA, even in an informal capacity, was vital to ensure that IASC continues to fulfill its mission as an international scientific platform that offers every country and stakeholder the chance to participate in science planning processes.
Despite the high level of political and military tensions, at the end of 2023, ISIRA was able to organize an informational briefing about the ICARP IV process to reach the Russian research community (ICARP IV, 2023), even though it had low attendance. ISIRA also became an interesting case study within one of the Research Priority Teams of the ICARP IV process.
Research Priority Team 4: Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy (ICARP IV, n.d.a) aims to address research priorities and their implementation regarding the collaborations in Arctic science and among different stakeholders. Topics include effective international pan-Arctic cooperation in joint-funding and delivery of Arctic research outcomes; connecting and coordinating national and international funding agencies; utilising the role, contribution, and value of Arctic science at times of high geopolitical tension; pathways to effective research cooperation; research exchange programs; and collaborative observing amid geopolitical constraints.
As part of the activities of RPT4, ISIRA organized the session within the ICARP IV Summit – Session 4.2 – International Arctic science collaborations: ISIRA case study as IASC’s platform for dialogue (ASSW, 2025). During the session’s presentations and open discussion, participants were able to discuss the available possibilities of cooperation with Russian scientists. These possibilities differ from country to country as well as the possible solutions to maintain the research efforts and long-term standing cooperation examples. Available options discussed during the session suggest individual communication among researchers (peer-to-peer); research exchange through participation in conferences and other open science events; and co-authoring of papers and presentations (if permitted in peer countries).
Additionally, during the session, it was noted that the majority of operations in the Arctic are governed by national legislation pertaining to export control and personal data control. The most common rules, regulations, and permits are usually discussed within different groups and initiatives operating in the Arctic. For example, the INTERACT project (International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic) has developed an information platform that contains the relevant information of regulations in Arctic countries (INTERACT, n.d.). Numerous cooperation methods rely on the policies of local organizations and the foreign affairs department’s willingness or ability to collaborate. Since it is challenging to build new relationships and, consequently, include young scientists in cooperation, ongoing exchange with Russia is feasible on an individual basis (peer-to-peer) and based on long-standing mutual trust. Senior scientists constructed the majority of the collaboration channels in the Russia-West track, but they are deteriorating and challenging to renew. In Russian institutions, some of the earlier partnerships are either retained or replaced by the so-called “friendly countries” from past Soviet regions (Mongolia, Armenia, Belarus, and others), BRICS countries (such as Brazil, India, China, and South Africa), etc.
The following were proposed as potential remedies for the existing state of affairs: in-person meetings in the territory of other countries that are not directly involved in the conflict situation; international forums and organizations with a more global and/or international origin as venues for connections; other countries as third parties being included as collaborators and conductors between Russia and Western countries (proxy-collaboration model); and maintaining public interest and knowledge of current developments and the significance of an inclusive and comprehensive Arctic strategy. Unless the political situation becomes more or less certain, there will be no proper communication but only proxy models (indirectly with or through third countries as providers/mediators of collaboration) of such. Proxy collaborations are more used in AI (artificial intelligence), computational and technological research as well as data processing but also can be applied here as a potential model. There is a lot of uncertainty in future political developments not only in Russia but also in the US, for example, as mentioned above. Even though one can consider the proxy-cooperation strategy more or less reliable, there are a lot of concerns, risks, and challenges associated with it. Examples include political pressure, data security threats, ethical dilemmas, financial risks, limited direct communication, unpredictable political context, plagiarism and copyright infringement, problems with recognition of contributions, and many more subjects for a larger discussion.
Towards IPY-5
In March 2025, the IPY 2032–2033 Concept Note, which originally outlined the importance and brief history of IPY, was revised and approved. It presents now the objectives, anticipated framework, guiding principles, timelines, planning structure for the next IPY-5, and possible ways for interested stakeholders to get involved in the IPY planning process.
The 5th IPY, similar to previous ones, is envisioned as a coordinated international, multi-year activity with three distinct phases. The planning phase (currently ongoing, 2021–25) includes the conceptual discussions among several polar research and Indigenous peoples’ organizations. The second project phase (planned for 2026–33) will include the initiation and implementation of IPY initiatives culminating in 2032–33 in a two-year period of intensive polar fieldwork and analysis, modelling efforts, and process understanding studies, as well as education and outreach activities. The last, but not least, and probably most extensive period is the legacy phase (currently planned for 2034+ and even beyond the 2040s). This phase includes the years following the 5th IPY; the data collected will continue to be fully utilized and archived. This will involve analysis and synthesis activities, with a focus on knowledge transfer, reporting, and establishment of supporting frameworks for legacy outcomes. In addition, an evaluation of the impact of the 5th IPY will be undertaken at the start of the legacy phase (IPY-5, 2025).
Among the current related news is an open-ended call for international and regional organizations to join the IPY Planning Group, which was issued in July 2024. This call was directed specifically at regional or international organizations/unions/associations (scientific, Indigenous, educational, etc.), and a call for a host and funding for a dedicated IPY Secretariat will be issued later in 2025.
It is anticipated that many nations would compete for the chance to host the IPY International Secretariat. Since the majority of BRICS nations have interests in either the Arctic or Antarctic regions, or both, it could be an intriguing proposal to invite the BRICS Secretariat to participate in the IPY planning process or to provide information and viewpoints. As an association, BRICS already has a number of working groups and programs to address the concerns of climate change and polar research (BRICS, 2025), and by 2032–2033, this association will celebrate its 25-year anniversary, so inviting it to the table of IPY planning entities could be a useful addition to the global conversation.
International scientific cooperation’s dynamic ecosystem and structure are always prone to change as a result of both internal and external forces, but they also possess a certain resilience and a great deal of flexibility in how they make decisions in response to these influences. An outstanding illustration of this adaptability is the IPY program. The upcoming IPY will be a global effort with potentially the highest societal relevance and importance during periods of significant political and environmental change if open discussion tactics are put into place. This can be achieved primarily through the extensive dissemination of information about IPY, which is the task for the current Interim IPY Secretariat. It can also be facilitated by open invitations to different organizations, nations, and entities with interests in polar regions, such as BRICS associations and organizations of Asian and African geographical areas. They can be invited to provide their visions and comments on the existing processes and concepts and for active dialogue about the future of our polar regions and the global world.
In conclusion
Given the current political polarization of science, it is obvious that the scientific community will continue to be fragmented until the political situation is resolved and a new framework for international cooperation is established. Until then, divided nations will continue to carry their own knowledge, skills, and spiritual values within themselves. A methodical and effective transition out of the uncertain phase could be achieved by diversifying cooperation institutions, geographies, entities, and regions; introducing short-term dialogue practices through not-always-reliable proxy-cooperation strategies; and participating in multi-year global integration initiatives such as IPY. However, such a transition requires strong societal relevance and the use of science as a foundation for the sustainable development of fragile socio-ecological systems in polar regions. No matter the uncertainty with the scientific and political dialogue in the Arctic, the delicate, sustained geopolitics should be maintained and practiced in the region, where any harmful action can have long-term consequences for the generations of people who live there.
You have
Access
Introduction
The scientific community in the Arctic is currently going through unprecedented changes in traditional forms and methods of collaboration, which affects the continuity of scientific knowledge and the comprehensive perspective of global socio-ecological processes. Different sustainability of cooperation ties maintained amid the geopolitical crisis are exemplified by the multilayer architecture of science cooperation. Although scientists’ individual relationships are resilient, they lack the institutional foundation in the form of financial, organizational, framed, structured, and historical grounds. These are essential for the (co-)production of authentic, trustworthy, reliable, and unbiased scientific knowledge.
International examples of cooperation continue to exist based on long-distance goals and human interests, but most of the inter-institutional ties have been discontinued with the majority of Russian scientific and educational institutions in the Western arena. For the approaching fifth International Polar Year 2032–2033 (IPY-5), the international polar science community has begun to prepare and adjust its science plans. The IPY is a historical process that began in the 1880s and progressed from the modes of geographic discovery and conquest to the present day. It started at times of polar discoveries when a large number of Arctic expeditions were undertaken by well-known polar explorers such as Carl Weyprecht, Mikhail Rykatcheff, Julius Payer, Roald Amundsen, and Fridtjof Nansen, – to name just a few. These included remarkable expeditions to reach the South Pole during the so-called Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration undertaken by the Belgian, UK, Swedish, German, French, Japanese, Norwegian, Australian, and New Zealand campaigns (Barczewski, Reference Barczewski, Howkins and Roberts2023) – all highlighted the IPY in its historic perspective. In 2007–2008, it widely adopted the approach of unity and cooperation, and the 2030s IPY period will further evolve its narratives in many contexts and implications.
The IPY is a large international effort that will commemorate its 150th anniversary in 2032–2033. Its geographical reach has expanded from 12 countries involved in IPY-1 to more than 60 involved in the most recent. The same expansion has happened to the frame, structure, and science program of IPY as a process (Krupnik et al., Reference Krupnik, Allison, Bell, Cutler, Hik and Lopez-Martinez2011). Not only have narratives changed over the course of this lengthy period, but economic, political, and technological systems have also evolved, opening up new avenues for scientific inquiry as a result of the ongoing changes to polar environments and ways of living.
An Austro-Hungarian naval officer, Arctic researcher, and geophysicist, Carl Weyprecht (1838–1881), and a German polar explorer, scientist, and hydrographer, Georg Neumeier (1826–1909), are rightfully regarded as the pioneers and inspiration behind the concept of an International Polar Year. Even though the first International Polar Year (1882–1883) only represented “small science” in terms of equipment, it was a significant milestone in international scientific cooperation and seemed to be a prerequisite for the planning of the second, larger-scale Polar Year, which took place in 1932–1933. Looking back to the Polar Year, Neumeier said, “This acting in combination of nations is suitable to consolidate peace among them and to arouse the competition on a field ennobling mankind” (Tammiksaar, Sukhova & Lüdecke, Reference Tammiksaar, Sukhova, Lüdecke, Barr and Lüdecke2010).
Comparison of the four previous IPYs (1882–1883, 1932–1933, 1957–1958, 2007–2008), largely described by a number of authors (Barr & Lüdecke, Reference Barr and Lüdecke2010; Krupnik et al., Reference Krupnik, Allison, Bell, Cutler, Hik and Lopez-Martinez2011; Tammiksaar, Sukhova, & Lüdecke, Reference Tammiksaar, Sukhova, Lüdecke, Barr and Lüdecke2010), and one upcoming IPY-5 reveals that, despite the actively changing operating environment affected by endogenous (internal, national) to exogenous (external, global) factors, all four previous and one upcoming IPY periods show exponential growth of their structural, geographical, financial, and scientific indicators. Over the course of the IPY history, there are several general features of the IPY process that have expanded and developed. One is the administrative and organizational environment, which involves various major institutional international and national players such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Science Council (ISC, previously known as ICSU – International Council for Science Unions), and local national organizations that comprise the national IPY committees. The source of financial resources to undertake IPY campaigns usually came from international organizations, national governments, and personal and philanthropic sponsorship. The geographical presence of IPY expanded from 12 countries in IPY-1 to over 60 in IPY-4, along with the program and planning expansion to the Arctic, Antarctic, and further to global areas within IPY-3/IGY (International Geophysical Year in 1957–1958). The development of research approaches and instrumentation has furthermore greatly influenced the technological capital of IPY. But the biggest driver of IPY progress has been the human capital, which marks the persistent involvement of the Arctic residents, Indigenous people, and the next generation of scientists, and the fostering of social sciences, humanities, and education.
Nearly 150 years later, IPY-5 in 2032–2033 is planned to further polar research and help to solve pressing global issues by concentrating on the effects of climate change in the Arctic, Antarctic, and beyond (including high-altitude mountain environments). In addition to fostering global cooperation and inclusivity, this concerted effort will bring together scientists, Indigenous knowledge holders, and international stakeholders to generate practical insights for mitigating and adapting to environmental changes (IPY-5 website: https://ipy5.info/).
In light of this, the international polar science community is preparing and organizing the key milestones and priorities for the next polar year. The process started in December 2022 with the publication and distribution of a joint statement from the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) titled Planning for the 5th International Polar Year (IPY) 2032–33. Since then, these two involved parties have made multiple attempts to consult their respective communities about the IPY planning process.
The initial frameworks for maintaining the administrative and organizational duties are currently under development. Representatives from SCAR, IASC, ISC, and WMO are among those on the IPY Executive Committee. International organizations participating in the overall process are represented on the IPY Planning Group. The IASC and SCAR Secretariats, with further assistance from the ISC and WMO, provided the temporary IPY Secretariat. This temporary office is currently located at the IASC Secretariat prior to the organization of a permanent international secretariat. The temporary IPY Secretariat is currently undertaking a communicative function in terms of organizing the preliminary structure of IPY and spreading the word about the upcoming international initiative at different meetings and conferences. A call for a host and funding for a dedicated IPY Secretariat will be issued later in 2025.
IASC uses its own procedure, the International Conference on Arctic Research Planning, or ICARP (ICARP website: https://icarp.iasc.info/), to address the priorities and requirements of Arctic research, whereas SCAR solicits community participation through consultations in various meetings and processes too.
ICARP as a process
IASC was founded in 1990, shortly after the end of the Cold War, when some prominent challenges of circum-Arctic cooperation arose and are still present today. One such challenge was the lack of communication and channels of cooperation between eastern and western scientists.
Back in the early 1990s, IASC became fully operational, and three developments highlighted the value of planning for the conduct of Arctic science. Those are (1) the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a spirit of regional cooperation in the Arctic; (2) the onset of the era of “big science” with research projects involving collaboration among larger groups of scientists and research institutes; and (3) the realization that the Arctic is a dynamic region subject to rapid and often non-linear changes in both biophysical and socioeconomic terms (Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord, & Corell, Reference Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord and Corell2015).
In this regard, the idea of organizing the first ICARP evolved, and in December 1995, ICARP I took place. More than 250 scientists, including 33 from Russia (13%), attended the week-long conference in Hanover, New Hampshire, USA. ICARP I put Arctic science on track to document key changes as they unfolded. In the final analysis, the value of ICARP I is reflected in the decision to repeat this exercise on a decadal scale (Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord, & Corell, Reference Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord and Corell2015).
It is worth noting that ICARP was formerly not directly linked to the IPY; yet, it evolved into a crucial science planning practice for the developing organization and the community at large.
Nevertheless, in 2003, the IASC Council decided to undertake preparations for a second ICARP to take place in 2005 – a decade after the first conference. In the spring of 2003, the IPY (2007–2008, IPY-4) was only a twinkle in the eye of a few Arctic scientists and was not yet even on the agenda of any major science organizations (Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord, & Corell, Reference Rogne, Rachold, Hacquebord and Corell2015).
However, the results and strategies of ICARP II were crucial and contributed significantly to the IPY-4 process as well as the IASC reorganization process. ICARP II was planned to bring together the large Arctic community, including the representation from more than a dozen international Arctic organizations, Arctic Council programs, regional organizations, scientific associations, and others. Post-ICARP II actions included the follow-up workshop, which highlighted the next and very important step in science planning – the implementation of science plans. Thus, the Arctic funders and potential sponsoring organizations were involved in the discussions on science planning. Since then, ICARP has grown into a multi-organizational process that is more formal and involves self-reflective practices and community discussions.
Some of the phases that make up the 2022–2026 ICARP IV process include planning and preparation for the process, community consultations, identifying research gaps and priorities, and starting and carrying out the contribution to Arctic research planning for the IPY-5. In order to collegially examine the current state of Arctic science and the role the Arctic plays in global affairs and systems, it brings together Arctic academics, Indigenous Peoples, policymakers, residents, and stakeholders from all over the world.
The most pressing knowledge gaps, Arctic research priorities, and needs for the upcoming ten years will be examined during this process, and ways to meet these needs in order to go on with the next IPY will be reviewed. The 5th IPY is seen as a significant new stage in a 150-year-old process, building on the significant legacy of the 4th IPY. In order to protect the global environment, develop effective national and local strategies to mitigate and adapt to environmental changes, and accelerate progress towards achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, polar researchers, knowledge holders, rights holders, and stakeholders will have a critical opportunity to close outstanding major knowledge gaps through focused attention and globally coordinated action (IPY-5, 2025).
Many international Arctic and polar forums and meetings second the IPY legacies by discussing the promotion, engagement, and facilitation of joint efforts, for example, Arctic Frontiers, Arctic Circle, Arctic Science Summit Week, and ArcticNet, to name a few. They reflect on how to establish the most efficient and resource-effective international collaborations, how to secure equal participation for all stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples and local communities, and how to prioritize science to fill the most urgent knowledge gaps (The Polar Initiative, 2024). They also focus on advocating for collaborative long-term planning, addressing the fact that international collaboration and sustained planning are indispensable for pinpointing urgent knowledge gaps in polar research.
A further matter of discussion is the recent and current geopolitical landscape in which engagement with Russia and Russian polar researchers is at a minimum. The current ICARP IV process began in late 2021, shortly before the geopolitical shifts and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which caused a range of reactions in many areas, including research, and fundamentally changed the landscape. This kind of polycrisis forces the scientific community to combine lessons learned from the past and think about possible developments in the future. Since numerous authors have previously shared their thoughts, there is now no need to evaluate the gaps that could develop in the future as a result of ongoing geopolitical disputes or to describe the existing situation (Andreeva, Dodds, Douglas, Humrich, & Nawrath, Reference Andreeva, Dodds, Douglas, Humrich and Nawrath2024; Büntgen & Rees, Reference Büntgen and Rees2023; Gaffey, Bax, Krauzig, & Tougeron, Reference Gaffey, Bax, Krauzig and Tougeron2024; López-Blanco, Topp-Jørgensen, & Christensen, Reference López-Blanco, Topp-Jørgensen and Christensen2024; Johansson & Callaghan, Reference Johansson and Callaghan2025; Schuur, Pallandt, & Göckede, Reference Schuur, Pallandt and Göckede2024; Zaika & Lagutina, Reference Zaika and Lagutina2023; Zaika, Ryabova, & Sergunin, Reference Zaika, Ryabova and Sergunin2023; Zaika, Reference Zaika2024). However, since Russia is a key player in ensuring long-term monitoring of the Arctic system, there is a clear necessity for establishing an ethical and sustainable framework for interactions with Russia and the polar research conducted in the region (The Polar Initiative, 2024). However, there is still no (or minimum) Russian scientific community representation at such meetings. It contradicts the primary guiding principles of the continuing planning and preparatory processes, which include ensuring involvement, equal participation for all stakeholders, and prioritization of science – the groundwork of polar research and holistic Arctic dialogue. For instance, the ICARP IV process is defined as an inclusive procedure and is designed to facilitate a discussion of the priorities of Arctic research from a 10-year perspective among a community of over 250 researchers, 27 international and global organizations, and Arctic-related initiatives. When examining the country-based inclusion of this priority-making and planning process, which serves as the foundation for future budgetary distribution and decision-making for the Arctic region, the following figures are self-explanatory: 85% of participants come from 21 Western track countries (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Poland, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Iceland, Portugal, Denmark, Greenland, Ireland, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland), 13.5% from the South-East track (5 countries – India, China, Korea, Japan, and Turkey), and 1.5% from the formal Russian presence. Indigenous peoples account for approximately 5% of the total discussants (Zaika, Reference Zaika2024).
Given that there are about four million people living in the Arctic, 10% of whom are Indigenous peoples from numerous distinct communities, one could argue that such a process is socially relevant to the sustainable development of the region and its inhabitants. The majority of these individuals (around 2.4 million people) reside in Russia’s Arctic regions, as of the beginning of 2024, according to Rosstat (the country’s statistical agency) (Rosstat, 2024). Indigenous peoples make up more than 4% of this population (Nordregio, 2019). ICARP IV is expected to increase the number of Russian scientists participating in Arctic research and representing Russian scientific organizations by giving scientific findings a further social value.
Considering social relevance of ongoing processes
International processes, instruments, and organizations in the Arctic are not isolated entities, as the architecture of international cooperation in the region clearly reflects. Rather, they are closely linked by shared priorities, expertise, and regional affiliation, building upon and modifying each other’s agendas. A sort of credit of trust that has been built over the years of the organization’s existence in the international arena is this connection, which on the one hand creates a certain reputational and impactful relatedness to each other, and on the other hand performs the societal relevance and benefit to the wide range of Arctic stakeholders involved in the dialogue. In order to comprehend and create potential scenarios of future interaction, it is crucial to consider the established organizational connection of Arctic organizations as a factor dictating common approaches to further collaboration.
The public benefits from science for a sustainable future. International science organizations reflect and imply the communities’ and stakeholders’ ongoing acceptance, permission, and support while carrying out their objectives, tasks, and agendas. Discussion emerges around the possibility to evaluate the social relevance of ongoing processes and actions of international science organizations, possibly through concepts mostly related to the socially responsible business, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and/or Social License to Operate (SLO). These define the public acceptance of organizational impact on the related communities and stakeholders or society at large. Such public acceptance reflects the legitimacy, which represents whether stakeholders deem an organization’s plans, actions, and consequences acceptable (Stuart et al., Reference Stuart, Bond, Franco, Baker, Gerrard, Danino and Jones2023).
The people who are most impacted and engaged in a project or activity should be able to effectively influence it over its whole lifecycle and be integrated in the community dimension with the shared values. The perceptions, judgements, and beliefs of the stakeholders, which mostly relate to “trust,” are typically linked to SLO procedures when it comes to business and industries. During the most recent ASSW2025 and ICARP IV Summits, trust was mentioned as one of the most important systems of relations in the current political climate of uncertainty and instability.
ASSW2025 and ICARPIV summits
The ASSW conference itself took a very human-centric approach by introducing the Code of Conduct. Such practices of referring to the Code of Conduct have been introduced to various international scientific meetings recently. IASC has started to introduce the Code of Conduct to its meetings and conferences for the last 3–4 years. ASSW2025 included a large number of representatives from indigenous groups, despite the Russian research community’s nearly nonexistent participation in the ASSW and ICARP summits in Boulder, Colorado (USA). In addition to introducing participation concepts and rules, the Code of Conduct provides examples of acceptable and undesirable behavior from event attendees. The Code of Conduct serves as a reminder that everyone attending meetings is expected to act professionally, respectfully, and responsibly at all times.
The involvement of Indigenous peoples starts from the leading of the ICARP process as co-chairs towards the organization of sessions and specific Research Priority Team 5 (RPT5) – Co-Production and Indigenous-led methodologies (ICARP IV, n.d.b). The team addresses research priorities and their implementation regarding topics such as co-production of knowledge; empowerment; capacity sharing; creating space and opportunities for Indigenous institutions/scholars to lead research and develop collaborations; Indigenous leadership; bringing education, science, and Indigenous knowledge together; producers and users of knowledge; and indigenizing Arctic research. The Indigenous Pavilion was another significant component of the ICARP Conference. It operated over five of the nine official days of both forums and was packed with various sessions, exhibitions, movie screenings, discussions, get-togethers, performances, games, blessings, and singing, highlighting deep and diverse Indigenous cultures.
Earlier in November 2023, after the Arctic Circle Assembly 2023, the International Steering Committee of ICARP IV received a letter from the representatives of Indigenous people with suggestions on how the ICARP process can be further indigenized. One of the consensuses was the appointment of an ICARP IV co-chair to the International Steering Committee by Arctic Indigenous Peoples, as well as any and all ICARP bodies or processes wherein decisions are made that are crucial to the ICARP process. Such decisions have been implemented with the ICARP structure and also mark a different approach within the entire historical process of the ICARP itself, dialogue among all Arctic stakeholders, and the forthcoming IPY-5 in 2032–2033. The inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the planning and decision-making structures of such processes as ICARP is an important milestone that ensures the sustainability of the Arctic region and its population.
The official ICARP IV Summit Statement (ICARP IV, 2025b) was released independently on March 28, 2025, by the ICARP IV International Steering Committee and the ICARP IV Summit Local Organizing Committee. In addition, the closing ceremonies of the ASSW and ICARP IV Summits were also marked by the Statement from the Indigenous Participants (ICARP IV, 2025a). All the statements emphasize how vital and significant it is for the Arctic stakeholder community to convene for an ethical and transparent dialogue regarding the future and development of the Arctic.
The active engagement of Indigenous participants and the absence of the Russian scientific community are, at the same time, a triumph and a defeat for the Arctic research community going through the current time of political crisis. The main issues surrounding Arctic research have been raised during the ASSW and ICARP IV Summits in a variety of sessions and activities. The current high level of political polarization of science is characterized by two factors: the absence of the Russian scientific community (Russian scientists representing Russian science organizations and institutes) and broader political shifts in the US research community.
US researchers referred to the recent executive orders of the current Trump administration, which influenced budgets for science with cost-cutting measures. These include the termination of a significant portion of the federal workforce, which influences the work of different science-related agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Forest Service (AGU, 2025).
Such developments will have major consequences for science and societal progress and science relevance in polar regions, including the geographies of severe and delicate geopolitics, as well as areas of ambitious actions to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change. Scientific research and innovation advance our economic, social, and cultural well-being, provide health benefits, and are key to a sustainable, long-term future. However, we live in times of great geopolitical, technological, environmental, and demographic change, and the values that have driven science for the benefit of humanity are under threat (The Royal Society, 2025).
ISIRA group of IASC
Following the statements put in place within the Arctic Council and the International Science Council (ISC), which concerned the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the IASC also released its Statement on Ukraine at the beginning of March 2022 (IASC, 2022). Russian scientists’ participation in IASC bodies and structures, such as the ISIRA Advisory Group of IASC (ISIRA: https://iasc.info/our-work/isira), was put on hold. The International Science Initiative in the Russian Arctic is known by its acronym, ISIRA. The group was founded in 1993 as a joint Russian-international project to support sustainable development and Arctic science in the Russian Arctic. Currently, it consists of 16 members (national delegates, chair, and secretary) from 12 different countries, including Russia, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The objectives of the group were 1) to initiate planning of multinational research programs that address specific key scientific problems in the Russian Arctic; 2) to provide a forum for linking ongoing or planned bilateral projects; 3) to facilitate improved scientific access to the Russian Arctic; and 4) to advise on funding and implementation of projects. ISIRA’s activities included 1) reporting on international science activities and initiatives in the Russian Arctic; 2) providing up-to-date information on policies, regulations, and logistics within the Russian Arctic; and 3) supporting Russian and international early-career scientists (IASC, n.d.).
Prior to 2022, ISIRA used the formal framework and agenda of Arctic Science Summit Weeks to host both closed and open meetings. Closed consultative meetings were the primary format of the group’s gatherings, which usually advised the IASC Council in terms of science updates and regulative procedures on the Russian Arctic. Over fifty people attended the group’s first-ever official open meeting, which was held at ASSW2014 in Helsinki, Finland. Starting in 2022 and in accordance with IASC directives, which are based on the Statement on Ukraine in March 2022 and the decisions of the local organizing committees of ASSW and the joint consensus decision of ISIRA group members, the group conducted informal meetings to assess the existing state of affairs and talk about potential avenues for future communication during the recent summits without agendas or minutes. Maintaining ISIRA, even in an informal capacity, was vital to ensure that IASC continues to fulfill its mission as an international scientific platform that offers every country and stakeholder the chance to participate in science planning processes.
Despite the high level of political and military tensions, at the end of 2023, ISIRA was able to organize an informational briefing about the ICARP IV process to reach the Russian research community (ICARP IV, 2023), even though it had low attendance. ISIRA also became an interesting case study within one of the Research Priority Teams of the ICARP IV process.
Research Priority Team 4: Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy (ICARP IV, n.d.a) aims to address research priorities and their implementation regarding the collaborations in Arctic science and among different stakeholders. Topics include effective international pan-Arctic cooperation in joint-funding and delivery of Arctic research outcomes; connecting and coordinating national and international funding agencies; utilising the role, contribution, and value of Arctic science at times of high geopolitical tension; pathways to effective research cooperation; research exchange programs; and collaborative observing amid geopolitical constraints.
As part of the activities of RPT4, ISIRA organized the session within the ICARP IV Summit – Session 4.2 – International Arctic science collaborations: ISIRA case study as IASC’s platform for dialogue (ASSW, 2025). During the session’s presentations and open discussion, participants were able to discuss the available possibilities of cooperation with Russian scientists. These possibilities differ from country to country as well as the possible solutions to maintain the research efforts and long-term standing cooperation examples. Available options discussed during the session suggest individual communication among researchers (peer-to-peer); research exchange through participation in conferences and other open science events; and co-authoring of papers and presentations (if permitted in peer countries).
Additionally, during the session, it was noted that the majority of operations in the Arctic are governed by national legislation pertaining to export control and personal data control. The most common rules, regulations, and permits are usually discussed within different groups and initiatives operating in the Arctic. For example, the INTERACT project (International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic) has developed an information platform that contains the relevant information of regulations in Arctic countries (INTERACT, n.d.). Numerous cooperation methods rely on the policies of local organizations and the foreign affairs department’s willingness or ability to collaborate. Since it is challenging to build new relationships and, consequently, include young scientists in cooperation, ongoing exchange with Russia is feasible on an individual basis (peer-to-peer) and based on long-standing mutual trust. Senior scientists constructed the majority of the collaboration channels in the Russia-West track, but they are deteriorating and challenging to renew. In Russian institutions, some of the earlier partnerships are either retained or replaced by the so-called “friendly countries” from past Soviet regions (Mongolia, Armenia, Belarus, and others), BRICS countries (such as Brazil, India, China, and South Africa), etc.
The following were proposed as potential remedies for the existing state of affairs: in-person meetings in the territory of other countries that are not directly involved in the conflict situation; international forums and organizations with a more global and/or international origin as venues for connections; other countries as third parties being included as collaborators and conductors between Russia and Western countries (proxy-collaboration model); and maintaining public interest and knowledge of current developments and the significance of an inclusive and comprehensive Arctic strategy. Unless the political situation becomes more or less certain, there will be no proper communication but only proxy models (indirectly with or through third countries as providers/mediators of collaboration) of such. Proxy collaborations are more used in AI (artificial intelligence), computational and technological research as well as data processing but also can be applied here as a potential model. There is a lot of uncertainty in future political developments not only in Russia but also in the US, for example, as mentioned above. Even though one can consider the proxy-cooperation strategy more or less reliable, there are a lot of concerns, risks, and challenges associated with it. Examples include political pressure, data security threats, ethical dilemmas, financial risks, limited direct communication, unpredictable political context, plagiarism and copyright infringement, problems with recognition of contributions, and many more subjects for a larger discussion.
Towards IPY-5
In March 2025, the IPY 2032–2033 Concept Note, which originally outlined the importance and brief history of IPY, was revised and approved. It presents now the objectives, anticipated framework, guiding principles, timelines, planning structure for the next IPY-5, and possible ways for interested stakeholders to get involved in the IPY planning process.
The 5th IPY, similar to previous ones, is envisioned as a coordinated international, multi-year activity with three distinct phases. The planning phase (currently ongoing, 2021–25) includes the conceptual discussions among several polar research and Indigenous peoples’ organizations. The second project phase (planned for 2026–33) will include the initiation and implementation of IPY initiatives culminating in 2032–33 in a two-year period of intensive polar fieldwork and analysis, modelling efforts, and process understanding studies, as well as education and outreach activities. The last, but not least, and probably most extensive period is the legacy phase (currently planned for 2034+ and even beyond the 2040s). This phase includes the years following the 5th IPY; the data collected will continue to be fully utilized and archived. This will involve analysis and synthesis activities, with a focus on knowledge transfer, reporting, and establishment of supporting frameworks for legacy outcomes. In addition, an evaluation of the impact of the 5th IPY will be undertaken at the start of the legacy phase (IPY-5, 2025).
Among the current related news is an open-ended call for international and regional organizations to join the IPY Planning Group, which was issued in July 2024. This call was directed specifically at regional or international organizations/unions/associations (scientific, Indigenous, educational, etc.), and a call for a host and funding for a dedicated IPY Secretariat will be issued later in 2025.
It is anticipated that many nations would compete for the chance to host the IPY International Secretariat. Since the majority of BRICS nations have interests in either the Arctic or Antarctic regions, or both, it could be an intriguing proposal to invite the BRICS Secretariat to participate in the IPY planning process or to provide information and viewpoints. As an association, BRICS already has a number of working groups and programs to address the concerns of climate change and polar research (BRICS, 2025), and by 2032–2033, this association will celebrate its 25-year anniversary, so inviting it to the table of IPY planning entities could be a useful addition to the global conversation.
International scientific cooperation’s dynamic ecosystem and structure are always prone to change as a result of both internal and external forces, but they also possess a certain resilience and a great deal of flexibility in how they make decisions in response to these influences. An outstanding illustration of this adaptability is the IPY program. The upcoming IPY will be a global effort with potentially the highest societal relevance and importance during periods of significant political and environmental change if open discussion tactics are put into place. This can be achieved primarily through the extensive dissemination of information about IPY, which is the task for the current Interim IPY Secretariat. It can also be facilitated by open invitations to different organizations, nations, and entities with interests in polar regions, such as BRICS associations and organizations of Asian and African geographical areas. They can be invited to provide their visions and comments on the existing processes and concepts and for active dialogue about the future of our polar regions and the global world.
In conclusion
Given the current political polarization of science, it is obvious that the scientific community will continue to be fragmented until the political situation is resolved and a new framework for international cooperation is established. Until then, divided nations will continue to carry their own knowledge, skills, and spiritual values within themselves. A methodical and effective transition out of the uncertain phase could be achieved by diversifying cooperation institutions, geographies, entities, and regions; introducing short-term dialogue practices through not-always-reliable proxy-cooperation strategies; and participating in multi-year global integration initiatives such as IPY. However, such a transition requires strong societal relevance and the use of science as a foundation for the sustainable development of fragile socio-ecological systems in polar regions. No matter the uncertainty with the scientific and political dialogue in the Arctic, the delicate, sustained geopolitics should be maintained and practiced in the region, where any harmful action can have long-term consequences for the generations of people who live there.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Ethical standards
The author asserts that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.