International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

1.7 National IPY Secretariats
Lead Authors:
Odd Rogne and David Hik
Reviewers:
Ian Allison and Jerónimo López-Martínez
The initial planning for IPY 2007-2008 was undertaken
by the IPY Planning Group (Chapter
1.4), and the oversight and coordination
roles were taken on by the IPY Joint Committee
(Chapter 1.5) and the International Program
Office (Chapter 1.6). However, responsibility for the
implementation of IPY was largely delegated to the
IPY National IPY Committees (Appendix 7), national
funding bodies and polar programs, and their various
Secretariats and program coordinators. The role and
responsibilities of National Committees were defined
early in the IPY planning process (Rapley et al., 2004)
and established the linkages between the National
Committees and the Joint Committee necessary for
the success of IPY (Box 1).
The activities of IPY National Committees and
Secretariats were comprehensive and diverse, and
were well documented on their various websites
during the operational period of IPY 2007-2008.
However most of this information is unfortunately
no longer available, and this loss occurred very
rapidly after March 2009. However, many IPY National
Committees and Secretariats have reported on their
activities to the national bodies that mandated and
funded their activities. Copies of these final reports will
eventually be available through the IPY Publications
Database and various other IPY Archives (Chapter 4.2).
In the years leading up to IPY 2007-2008, most
countries developed implementation strategies at
national level that consisted of several core activities
including promotion, funding and support for logistics
in polar research.
Promotion
Promotion activities included selling the idea of an
International Polar Year at a political level, to funding
PA R T O N E : PL A N N I N G A N D I M PLEMEN T I N G I PY 20 07–20 0 8
agencies, to the science community and to the general
public. In the Arctic countries, efforts were also
undertaken to promote IPY among northern residents
and in the Indigenous communities. This promotion
of IPY 2007–2008 was an important initial task,
undertaken by many individuals and national polar
organizations. Similarly, the ongoing communication
of IPY activities required a coordinated effort involving
many national and international partners (Chapter 4.1).
Many national programs also developed their own IPY
logos and outreach materials to promote IPY within
their national networks (Appendix 10).
Funding
Funding solutions varied from country to country. In
some countries, national bodies succeeded in securing
additional new money for implementing IPY both for
research projects and logistics. In other countries, IPY
projects had to compete for regular research funding.
Many national committees established a procedure
for encouraging the submission of IPY proposals to the
Joint Committee, and then subsequently to determine
funding from various national programs.
Since the implementation of IPY activities
depended on international cooperation among
scientists from several countries as members of an
international project team, high priority was placed
upon coordination of funding and logistics. The
coordination of funding opportunities and logistics
was a difficult puzzle to solve and was not entirely
successful, mainly because some scientists did not
succeed with their national funding while others did.
Several efforts were made by IPY organizers to raise
awareness about the need to find ways to align national
funding opportunities, but in many cases there was
P l a n n I n g a n d I m P l e m e n t I n g I P Y 2 0 0 7–2 0 0 8 127