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-