International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

Petersburg, Russian Federation. Participants included
Kari Laine (Finland); Volker Rachold (IASC); Ragnar
Baldursson (Iceland); Odd Rogne (IPY IPO); Hajime Ito
(Japan); Jacek Jania (Poland); Sergey Priamikov (Russia,
chair and host).
This meeting provided an opportunity to visit the
EASO: the Eurasian IPY Sub-office. HAIS members
reviewed national status of IPY activities and Sergey
Priamikov presented what he saw as three vital
problems:
1. Access to data and exchange of information;
2. Development of a technical policy and strategy as
to marine investigations;
3. Determine which study/observing sites should be
given priority.
Other HAIS members reported their continuing
interest in IPY legacy, for example Finnish activities
related to education and young people; long-term
observations and monitoring, and policy legacies,
especially the Northern Dimension of EU. HAIS
members also discussed the proposed IPY Policy
Conference 2012 to be hosted by Canada and
suggested that Arctic Council and the ATCM should be
heavily involved in such a policy conference since they
were considered the logical choice for advancing IPY
legacies in the policy arena.
HAIS-5 (May 2008)
The meeting was held 26-27 May, 2008 at the
Jagellonian University, Rectorate in Krakow, Poland.
Participants included Kari Laine (Finland); Ragnar
Baldursson (Iceland); Odd Rogne (IPY IPO); Hajime Ito
(Japan); Olav Orheim (Norway); Jacek Jania, Alexander
Guterch, Piotr Glowacki, Wieslaw Ziaja (Poland, hosts);
Sergey Priamikov (Russia); Anders Clarhäll (Sweden);
Colin Summerhayes (SCAR).
At HAIS-5 there was considerable discussion about
how polar research is organized in various countries.
For example, Poland was considering centralizing
logistics and coordination by linking all 23 university
and academy groups together in the form of a Polish
Polar Research Network. Sweden had undertaken an
‘International Evaluation of the Swedish Polar Research
Organisation’. Iceland reported that all national
research institutes are to a large degree engaged
in polar research using the traditional research
organizations, and a group is working on ‘Icelandic
Arctic Policy’, which also will include research. Japan
reported that changes to a rather complicated polar
research organization were being discussed. Finland
reported good coordination between the National
Committee on Polar Research, which is a coordinating
body which also includes activities in IASC, SCAR and
IPY, and the main Arctic institutes at the University of
Oulu and University of Lapland. Russia was undergoing
a reorganization and the outcome was not yet known.
There was also discussion about IPY legacies
included a review of the Norwegian proposal on
‘Maximising the Legacy of IPY’, which would focus on
issues of potential interest to the policy community,
such as societal use of research results; observations
and data; accessibility; and circum-Arctic scientific
cooperation including coordinated funding. HAIS
members also requested IASC and SCAR to consider
ways in which multinational, bipolar research funding
could be obtained. They also urged compliance with
the IPY Data Policy to all IPY funded projects, and
noted the positive activities of the Association of Polar
Early Carrier Scientists (APECS).
HAIS-6 (January 2009)
The meeting was held 26 January 2009 at the British
Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, U.K. Participants included
David Hik (Canada); Kari Laine (Finland); Volker Rachold
(IASC); David Carlson, Odd Rogne, Nicola Munro,
Rhian Salmon (IPY IPO); Hajime Ito (Japan); Martijn Los
(Nethelands); Olav Orheim (Norway); Anders Clarhäll
(Sweden); Colin Summerhayesj (SCAR); Cynan Ellis-
Evans (U.K., chair and host).
HAIS members discussed efforts to secure funds to
continue the IPY IPO until the 2010 IPY conference in
Oslo, and supported the requests that had been sent
to the international polar science community. Olav
Orheim gave a status report about the Oslo Conference
and preliminary ideas about the 2012 IPY Conference in
Canada were discussed. HAIS members also discussed
opportunities to participate in the IPY celebrations
planned for February 2009. With respect to IPY legacy
issues, HAIS determined that the IPY International
Program Office was the logical body to secure more
documentation about IPY legacies, so historians will
know what was achieved during this IPY; that IASC and
SCAR should clarify which legacies they are interested
in, including science programs, observation programs,
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 8 131