1.2
IASC Regional Board
Odd Rogne
Reviewer: Robert Corell
However, in the ensuing IASC planning process, the
discussion on regional science needs (with some
governmental involvement) and more global science
thinking led to extensive discussions, and a series of
The roots of and the thinking behind an IASC Re-
meetings (listed in other parts of this history docu-
gional Board dates to the 1987 publication, “Inter-
ment). For some countries, having this intergovern-
national Communication and Coordination in Arctic
mental forum was a condition for agreeing to join in
Science. A proposal for action,”1 which was the first
the founding of IASC. The challenge was to find a
comprehensive working paper early in the IASC
solution that accommodated rather diverse views.
planning process, and one that influenced subsequent discussions on how IASC could be formed and
The need for an IASC Regional Board was substan-
what needs it could or should address.
tially diminished with the establishment of AEPS.
Still, some countries felt the need to have a division
The authors of this contribution envisaged the
of IASC that could keep an eye on IASC science dis-
need for:
cussions. The terms of reference for the IASC Regional Board, as given in the IASC Founding Articles,
“1. A non-governmental scientific committee pro-
are as follows:
visionally called the “International Arctic Science
Committee” to be established to promote interna-
“The Regional Board will consider general regional
tional cooperation in scientific research in arctic
problems and other questions that will affect the
areas.
common interests of arctic countries. Its member-
2. Representatives of governments of arctic na-
ship includes one representative from each of the
tions—countries with territories north of the boreal
eight arctic countries. The purpose of the Region-
forest zone—to discuss the feasibility of establish-
al Board is to ensure that the activities of IASC are
ing a mechanism for regular, structured intergov-
consistent with those interests.”
ernmental discussions and liaison in arctic science
matters. The discussions would deal with matters
In reality, members of the Regional Board were
of common interest, …..”.
science managers with some links to their governments. However, having lost its main mission
In other words, the authors called for a non-gov-
(assumed by AEPS), and left with a watchdog role
ernmental scientific committee and an intergovern-
created some frustration for the Regional Board.
mental forum. In the paper, this intergovernm