IASC 25 years - Page 57

Meeting of the ICSU/ WMO Joint Committee of the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007/2008 in conjunction with the IPY 2010 Conference in Oslo, Norway, June 2010. Photo: IASC Secretariat II Science Plans were directly translated into IPY reviewed the initial Outline Science Plan for IPY Projects. Chris Elfring, Director of the U.S. Polar Re- prepared by the ICSU Planning Group. It noted that search Board, was nominated to serve as the IASC the ‘Human Dimension’ component of the proposed point of contact for ICSU and its IPY Planning Group. science plan needed considerable improvement. Themes adopted for ICARP II were recommended as As SCAR had succeeded in promoting IPY to the possible input. Also, Council argued for a better bal- Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in ance in IPY between the two Polar Regions, since June 2003, it was logical for IASC to approach the the composition of the Planning Group was tilted Arctic Council for similar high-level governmental toward Antarctica. Political support for IPY was support. The proposal sent to the ATCM was slightly growing at both international (Arctic Cou ncil, ATCM) changed for the Arctic by adding “people living in the and national levels, thus it was important to expand Arctic” and “next generation of polar scientists.” At this political base for IPY 2007–2008. ‘Opening the its meeting in September 2003, the Arctic Council Arctic for Science’ was a prospective vision for the SAOs (Senior Arctic Officials) had agreed to support IPY mission advanced by IASC Council. Lastly, as na- IPY (see below). The IASC Executive Committee had tional IPY Committees had been established by that a considerable discussion about IPY at its Novem- time in several countries, the role of IASC and other ber 2003 meeting and agreed that a clear support- similar international organizations in IPY implemen- ive statement should be sent to the ICSU Planning tation should eventually increase.4 Group, together with information about actions taken by IASC. The Committee also summarized some At the IASC Executive Committee Meeting in No- of IASC´s concerns related to IPY—namely, that the vember 2004, it was agreed that the standing Planning Group had to clarify its coordinating role Executive Secretary should represent IASC on the in the process and that some of the ideas for IPY IPY Joint Committee. Subsequently, IASC represen- currently in circulation were merely upgrades of tatives took active part in all meetings of the Joint ongoing research. According to the Committee, the Committee and in the implementation of IPY during emerging vision for IPY was somewhat restricted 2005–2010. to traditional science thinking. “Create history—not repeat it” should be the slogan for IPY 2007–2008 planning, very much in line with the previous IPYs that were propelled by innovative thinking.3 Odd Rogne and Patrick Webber (then President of IASC) were mandated to take action to expand the IASC References 1 Johnson, L. (2001) Symposium Melds Past and Future Polar Research—Eos, Transactions. American Geophysical Union 82, No. 51. 2 ACIA (2005). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1042p. role in IPY. By early 2004, IPY became one of the key issues mittee Meeting, 10-11 Nov 2003, Oslo, Norway. on IASC´s agenda. The IASC Council, at its meet- 4 ing during the ASSW in Reykjavik in April 2004 56 00 3 ing, 22 April 2004, Reykjavik, Iceland. 02 IASC Initiatives 06 Appendices IASC (2003). IASC Internal Report of the Executive ComIADC (2004). IASC Internal Report of the Council Meet-