International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

Two other main topics raised were how to involve
young scientists and establish a legacy of the next
generation of polar researchers, and whether there were
opportunities to involve commercial organizations in IPY.
The fourth and final meeting of the IPY Planning
Group (PG-4) was held at ICSU headquarters in Paris on
15–16 September 2004 18 (Fig. 1.3-9). Rapley reported
on the search for the members of the ICSU/WMO Joint
Committee (JC) and on defining the criteria for its
membership (including the selection of the two Co-
Chairs) 19 . Invitations for the hosting of an International
Programme Office (IPO) in 2005–2009 had been
distributed and three proposals were received from
U.K., Finland and India, though only U.K. and Finland
were eventually considered. It was agreed for ICSU
and WMO to announce a new call for “Expressions
of Intent” (EoI) for future IPY projects on 1 October
2004, using the text provided by the PG (Chapter 1.5).
These were supposed to replace the largely informal
submission of ideas for IPY activities that had occurred
up till now with a standard pro-forma and a follow-up
evaluation.
Data Management and Education and Outreach
policies for IPY were discussed as a part of the overall
organizational framework to move IPY forward to
implementation. The inclusion of the AC and ATCM
in the JC was considered and, while there were some
concerns about “politicizing” IPY, the consensus was
that both entities should be involved. It was also
reported at the meeting that the UN Resolution on
IPY was on track to be presented at the October 2004
meeting of the UN General Assembly, promoted by
China, though eventually it did not happen.
In relation to the Expressions of Intent, it was agreed
that neither the PG nor the future JC should be viewed
as peer review ‘vetting’ bodies, and that the scientific
quality of the IPY proposals should be assessed
through already established evaluation procedures
at each funding agency. Instead, the JC would match
proposals against IPY-specific criteria. Specifically, the
future JC would be expected to develop a standard
template and a set of mandatory criteria that each
IPY project must demonstrate (e.g. it should be
international, occur during the Polar Year, have plans
for project management and data management,
etc.). It was agreed that as the PG would cease to
exist by October 2004, the IPO would oversee the
EoI submission process during the transitional period
between PG and JC. A process and timetable was
developed by which proposals should be submitted
and selected for endorsement as part of IPY. Initial EoIs
would be required by 14 January 2005.
The remainder of the PG meeting was devoted to
working through the draft ‘IPY Framework’ document
(the expanded version of the Outline Science Plan) that
was substantially revised in two intensive days before
PG-4 concluded. A number of issues were identified
that could not be addressed by the PG and so were set
aside for later consideration by the JC in 2005. These
included management topics such as establishment
of the IPY Subcommittees on Data, Observations, and
Education and Outreach, issues such as the IPY logo
(Box 3) and IPY commemorative stamps.
PG Completes Its Work: October 2004
The ICSU Planning Group completed its task
in October 2004 by producing a major document
summarizing its vision of the future Polar Year and the
results of the planning process. 20 It was posted online
by 1 November 2004 and soon became available as a
slim volume of 38 pages published by ICSU (Rapley, et
al., 2004). Entitled “A Framework for the International
Polar Year 2007–2008” (Fig. 1.3-21), the document
outlined the PG’s Science and Implementation
recommendations. It also included recommendations
for addressing the important education, outreach
and communication issues, and considered the
critical issue of data management in IPY projects.
The document, which had been developed in close
consultation with the international polar science
community, provided a definitive statement of how
the IPY planning process had progressed and where
it then stood. The document also outlined the PG’s
vision of how that process should proceed now that
responsibility was being passed to the JC.
On 20 November 2004, the ICSU Executive Board at
its meeting in Trieste, Italy approved the IPY Framework
Document and expressed its deep appreciation to the
members of the PG. Rapley gave the final overview of
the PG activities to the ICSU Board (Fig. 1.3-22) that
responded with a round of applause. The ICSU Board
viewed the IPY planning process and the PG report as
a benchmark of good practice.
With the Outline Science Plan for IPY now
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 61