2.7
IASC and the International Polar Year
2007-2008
David Hik, Volker Rachold,
and Odd Rogne
Excerpt from: Krupnik, I., I. Allison, R. Bell, P.
Cutler, D. Hik, J. López-Martinez, V. Rachold,
E, Sarukhanian, and C. Summerhayes (2011)
Understanding Earth´s Polar Challenges:
International Polar Year 2007-2008—Summary report of the ICSU/WMO IPY Joint Committee. Rovaniemi and Edmonton: University
of the Arctic and CCI Press, 695p.
the development of ideas for IPY and noted that a
major project in the Arctic Ocean as a prospective
theme for IPY had been suggested.1 Nonetheless, it
was again agreed that a new IPY should be a major
multi-disciplinary initiative and that the push for a
new venture should come from many fields; hence
no actions were taken.
Throughout 2001 and 2002, major IASC activities
were focused on the development of the ACIA report2 and on the planning for ICARP II scheduled for
2005. At that stage, it was unlikely that a new IPY
would become a reality. The IPY concept was discussed by the IASC Executive Committee during
ASSW in April 2002, but, again, IASC did not take
any steps. Nonetheless, several developments in
The first informal e-mail correspondence about
the ACIA and ICARP II process in 2001–2002, such
the possibility of a new ‘International Polar Year’
as broadening the disciplinary scope of the two
between Odd Rogne (then Executive Secretary of
ventures and more active engagement of Arctic
IASC) and a few individual early champions started
indigenous people and social scientists, were later
in the late 1990s. A key correspondent was Leon-
instrumental to the IPY planning process.
ard Johnson (former division head at the U.S. Office
of Naval Research). During those early exchanges,
At its February 2003 meeting, the IASC Executive
Rogne argued that any initiative for a new IPY had
Committee was informed that a special meeting of
to be taken by international organizations and re-
the U.S. Polar Research Board in October 2002 had
quired a forward-looking science vision. The IASC
been devoted to the concept of a new IPY (2007–
Executive Committee was made aware of the cor-
2008) and that several other related activities were
respondence, but did not decide to take any further
taking place. The Executive Committee agreed that
action.
there was a need for inspiring ideas along the lines
of ‘grand scientific challenges.’ IASC Council and
The possibility of a new IPY was briefly discussed
Regional Board members were encouraged to put
during the ASSW in April 2001 by the European Po-
forward such ideas or proposals for IPY for further
lar Board (EPB) and FARO. The IASC Executive Com-
consideration by IASC.
mittee did not decide on any actions related to IPY,
but had agreed to test the idea within FARO. Overall,
In April 2003, Chris Rapley gave a presentation on
a new IPY was seen as a major logistical challenge
IPY planning by ICSU at the ASSW in Kiruna, Swe-
that would require complex, and perhaps painful,
den. This time, the attitude turned 180 degrees
re-allocation of funding. Nonetheless, IPY was also
and the debate revealed rising enthusiasm among
viewed as a tremendous opportunity, for which a
IASC members and strong support from the IASC
compelling science vision had to be developed.
Council. The IASC Executive Committee was tasked
to consider the role that IASC could play in further
An important step towards IPY planning was taken
at the symposium ‘Perspectives of Modern Polar
set aside to stimulate IPY planning. It was noted
Research,’ in Bad Dürkheim (Germany), 24-26 June
that the ICARP II multi-disciplinary approach to de-
2001, on which IASC was informed. In November
veloping long-term science plans would be benefi-
2001, the IASC Executive Committee discussed
55
00
development of IPY and certain seed funding was
cial to IPY. Consequently, some elements of ICARP
02 IASC Initiatives
06 Appendices