Both sessions were well-attended and spurred rich conversations on the future of education and professional research, how institutions can better support diverse initiatives and stakeholder groups, and what forms of collaboration and solidarity are needed to confront planetary challenges across a continuum of urgencies. Below, the summaries of the sessions highlight key takeaways that can inform the ICARP IV process.
Session 4.5: Tools for Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy: Prospects for the 5th International Polar Year
On March 26, 2025, as a joint effort by the UArctic Thematic Network on Science Diplomacy and ICARP-IV’s Research Priority Team Four (RPT-4) on Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy, Dr. Zia Madani had the privilege of co-convening and participating in Session 4.5, "Tools for Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy: Prospects for the 5th International Polar Year (IPY-5)," as part of the Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW) 2025 in Boulder, Colorado. This session, held in collaboration with colleagues from the Korea Polar Research Institute (KOPRI), and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), convened a diverse group of researchers, policymakers, early-career scientists, and stakeholders to explore innovative frameworks and strategies for enhancing Arctic research cooperation and sustaining science diplomacy. Aligned with the ICARP-IV RPT-4 on Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy, the session emphasized the transformative potential of IPY-5, slated for 2032-2033, as a global platform for pan-Arctic scientific endeavors.
The session opened with a dynamic discussion framed by the session proposal, which highlighted the urgency of addressing current geopolitical challenges, rapid climate changes, and barriers to cooperation in the Arctic. Eight abstracts were accepted for oral presentation, reflecting a rich diversity of perspectives. These presentations collectively tackled the session’s guiding questions, including barriers and paths to Arctic research cooperation, the integration of Indigenous knowledge, legal frameworks for collaboration, and best practices for data sharing. As a co-convenor and discussant, Dr. Zia Madani drew on interdisciplinary insights and emphasized the importance of inclusive approaches that respect Indigenous Knowledge systems, aligning with the session’s goal of ensuring stakeholder rights in a rapidly changing Arctic.
Key highlights included an analysis of geopolitical tensions, such as NATO-Russia relations and China’s growing role, proposing IPY-5 as a neutral platform for confidence building. The session explored funding challenges and the potential of the Arctic Science Funders Forum (ASFF)—established on 30 March 2020, as a multilateral, discussion platform, originating from the Arctic Science Ministerial, for funders to initiate and investigate new and enhanced collaborative scientific activities in the Arctic— to support IPY-5 activities, while also advocating for technology assessments to bridge policymaking with Arctic stakeholder needs. A technology assessment (TA), as a written assessment, is a tool which is of the known and foreseen impacts of an emerging technology aiming to provide policymakers and the public with salient information via fact-based, non-partisan, non-ideological analysis.
In addition, the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA) was highlighted as a resilient tool for research cooperation amid the Ukraine war, contrasting with the stalled Arctic Council. The discussants also examined other tools available in international law that can offer legal frameworks to align Arctic research with global climate justice.
The 90-minute session fostered robust dialogue. Participants identified actionable strategies, such as leveraging technological advances (e.g., satellite data), establishing multilateral funding mechanisms, and embedding Indigenous consent in research initiatives. The session underscored IPY-5’s potential to navigate maritime rights, prevent conflicts, and harmonize national interests with environmental goals under frameworks like UNCLOS. This session reaffirmed the Arctic as a collaborative, peaceful research space, setting a forward-looking agenda for IPY-5 to strengthen international cooperation and diplomacy amidst evolving challenges.
Photo: Hajime Kimura (JAMSTEC)
Session 4.7: Next-Generation Science Diplomats and the 5th International Polar Year
On March 26, the UArctic Thematic Network on Science Diplomacy’s Next-Generation Science Diplomats Committee hosted a timely panel at Arctic Science Summit Week in Boulder, Colorado to discuss issues of leadership, institutions, and the future of research in the buildup to the Fifth International Polar Year. Panelists included Dr. Jennifer Spence of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, Ms. Harmony Wayner of the International Arctic Research Center and Arctic Youth Network, Dr. Megan Schaberg of Colorado State University and the US Branch of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists, and Dr. Zia Madani of the University of Tsukuba and UArctic Thematic Network on Science Diplomacy. Both Drs. Spence and Madani were furthermore part of the International Conference on Arctic Research Planning’s Research Priority Team Four (ICARP-IV RPT-4) on Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy. The panel discussion was moderated by Mr. Nicholas Parlato of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
The conversation moved fluidly across topics, scales, and concerns. Panelists identified the resilience of international Arctic research as partly defined through the intergenerational processes by which leaders are mentored, encouraged, and valued. They recognized the importance of relationships within the academic and wider societal community of Arctic research, which includes Indigenous Peoples whose ways of being and knowing on the land constitute a profound and rigorous Indigenous science. Panelists suggested that hierarchies within prominent academic and research institutions threaten the kind of learning and exchange that emerges from spaces of community, and that strategically shifting arenas and creating new types of organizations can serve both scientific inquiry and commitments to fostering diverse communities. The courage to stand up for needed change, for actionable community-centered research, and for intellectual integrity emerged as major themes early in the conversation.
Given the evolving 5th International Polar Year (IPY-5) process, panelists pointed out that it is essential to reflect on achievements of past IPY and consider how those achievements can be leveraged for future initiatives. One of the significant outcomes of the fourth IPY (2007–2008) was the establishment of the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS), an organization dedicated to supporting and empowering the next generation of researchers and scientists in polar studies. APECS has played a crucial role in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, providing mentorship, and equipping next-generation science diplomats with the necessary skills to advance polar science and policy. Panelists averred that as we look ahead to the implementation of the fifth IPY in 2032–2033, it is both timely and strategic to explore ways to harness the potential of existing mechanisms in shaping the next generation of science diplomats. Strengthening the role of organizations such as APECS, the Arctic Youth Network, and PSECCO in this context can help bridge the gap between scientific research and policymaking, ensuring that emerging scientists are not only well-versed in their respective fields but are also equipped to navigate and contribute to international diplomatic efforts related to polar governance and sustainability. Panelists were of the opinion that supporting cohort-based learning and further elevating the activities of early-career organizations will be instrumental in addressing the pressing challenges facing polar regions and advancing the objectives of IPY-5.
The past thirty years of Arctic cooperation have witnessed major advancements not only in shared understandings of the Arctic environment, but in recognition of the profound value of Indigenous Knowledge, the centering of a sustainability agenda, and the fostering of planetary-scale responsibility. Recognizing the tension inherent to our political moment, the panelists shared thoughts on how to preserve such advancements made in Arctic science against institutional and political challenges. They identified needs at both institutional and individual levels to champion methods and models of research and build communities of practice that contribute to sustainable and ethical knowledge production. Strengthening the role of peers and Arctic communities in defining and validating research questions requires flexibility from research bodies, as Arctic science cannot persist in extractive research but must contribute intellectually and materially to resolving complex socio-environmental challenges in the region. The principles underlying proposed changes in funding structures, proposal processes, and institutional flexibility are to be found in many key spaces and documents, but ensuring that necessary organizational structures and resources are available to all actors, stakeholders, and rightsholders will prove a major challenge. Arctic research must expand its understanding of inclusivity by considering whose voices are heard and whose aren’t and whether science can advance in the absence of particular perspectives.