BipAG Briefing Note - Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

BRIEFING NOTE FOR BIPAG (19/2/2008)
<strong>BipAG</strong> has two main terms of reference.
ToR (1) is to advise the SCAR and IASC Executive <strong>Committee</strong>s on the development
of instruments such as workshops, programs and networks to address bipolar issues
(i.e. the first priority is to see how and where we could work, more closely together).
Under this ToR, SCAR and IASC have common interests in several fields of polar
science whose generic attributes transcend geography. Clearly these include glaciology,
ice cores, permafrost, oceanography, climate, paleoclimate, cold water biology, upper
atmosphere processes and so on. What workshops could/should we be pursuing to
advance the science in these areas.
We already collaborate closely through workshops, in particular
(i) High Latitude Climate Workshops - look under Reports on
http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/physicalscience/, and
(ii) Ice Sheet Modelling (look under ISMASS Expert Group on the same page).
The ice sheet modelling workshop described there takes place in July in St
Petersburg and is linked to our ability to forecast changing sea levels.
(iii) We have together with others submitted a grant proposal to ICSU for funds
for a summer school on ice sheet modelling for 2009, as a follow up to (ii)
above.
There seems to be some enthusiasm for
(iv) holding a joint workshop between SCAR's ACE programme (Antarctic
Climate Evolution) (already with a bipolar aspect through IPY project
BIPOMAC), and IASC's APEX (Arctic Paleoclimate and its Extremes)
programme. Do we take this forward? If so how?
In glaciology, ice sheet modelling is an area of ongoing collaboration. In addition,
(v) SCAR has a joint Memorandum of Understanding with WCRP regarding the
co-sponsorship of the Climate and Cryosphere programme (CliC); IASC is
about to join that co-sponsorship. This will help SCAR and IASC to provide
some steering for CliC.
(vi) SCAR and IASC have proposed a letter of agreement tying us to the new
International Association for Cryospheric Sciences (IACS) of the IUGG; the
issue will be decided by the April IACS Council. Where might that
development lead?

(vii) SCAR and WCRP co-authored a plan for a bipolar cryospheric observing
system (CryOS, which can be downloaded from
http://www.eohandbook.com/igosp/cryosphere.htm. We need a
recommendation that IASC be asked to work with SCAR and WCRP to
implement this system and monitor its performance.
(viii) SCAR is now a co-sponsor of the Integrated Partnership for Ice Core
Science (IPICS) (with PAGES); clearly, given that IPICS is working in both
Greenland and the Antarctic, there is an opportunity for IASC to also cosponsor
IPICS;
There may well be other opportunities for cross linkages in glaciology.
In terms of the upper atmosphere
(ix) SCAR has a Bipolar research programme on Interhemispheric Conjugacy
Effects in Solar Terrestrial and Aeronomy Research (ICESTAR)? Should
IASC arrange to join this in some way, and if so how?
In terms of permafrost
(x) SCAR has a Permafrost (PPE) Expert Group that is linked to the International
Permafrost Association (IPA); can we build a link to IASC through the
permafrost connection?
In terms of the oceans
(xi) Is there potential for a link between IASC and SCAR in the oceans? (note that
AOSB generally supports the suggested new <strong>Scientific</strong> Standing <strong>Committee</strong>
(SSC) structure of IASC and views itself as the SSC for the Marine System;
after a transition phase of about 18 months AOSB would become a part of
IASC). SCAR already has an oceans group jointly sponsored with SCOR. Is
there potential for a SCAR/SCOR/IASC-AOSB polar oceans group - or some
link (joint workshops) between the SCAR/SCOR group and IASC-AOSB?
In terms of biology
(xii) What potential links may exist in polar biology? SCAR has both terrestrial
and marine biology programmes, which come together within EBA (Evolution
and Biodiversity in the Antarctic). How, if at all, might these link up with
IASC's interests?

In terms of health and medicine
(xiii) SCAR has a human biology and medicine group looking mainly at the
health of scientists in extreme environments. Are there possible links to
IASC?
In terms of observing systems
(xiv) IASC is developing the Sustained Arctic Observing Network (SAON). In
this, it is further ahead than SCAR, which is trying to develop something
similar (Pan-Antarctic Observing System network - PAntOS), which is as yet
in its infancy and can learn from SAON. Indeed, it was by copying the
original AON model that we started PAntOS rolling.
To get a yet more comprehensive view of what SCAR is doing that may be of interest to
IASC, it may well prove useful to <strong>BipAG</strong> simply to browse the web pages of the three
SCAR Standing <strong>Scientific</strong> Groups to see what projects exist that might be the basis for
some links to IASC.
Life Sciences: http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/lifescience/
Physical Sciences: http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/physicalscience/
Geosciences: http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/geoscience/
In addition, much of what SCAR is trying to achieve is described in the SCAR Strategic
and Implementation Plans at http://www.scar.org/about/introduction/futureplans/. In
contrast, the science that IASC would like to achieve is described under the ICARP plans.
The second of <strong>BipAG</strong>'s Terms of Reference, <strong>BipAG</strong> (2) is to advise the SCAR and
IASC Executive <strong>Committee</strong>s on the development of mechanisms to nurture the IPY
2007/2008 legacy, with a special focus on the roles of IASC and SCAR.
The background here is the IPY. During the IGY, ICSU realised it needed some kind of
body to continue the international coordination that had been started so successfully in
Antarctica as part of the IGY, and it created SCAR to undertake that task - which we
have been doing for 50 years. Had there not been a cold war at the time, SCAR might
well have ended up as SCAAR (<strong>Scientific</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> for Arctic and Antarctic Research).
As it was, coordination amongst Arctic countries proved more difficult, so it was quite a
while before IASC was formed. Now IASC is affiliated to ICSU, and SCAR is part of
ICSU, and IASC and SCAR are binding themselves to IACS, which is also part of ICSU
(IUGG), and have bound themselves to WCRP (which is co-sponsored by ICSU, WMO
and IOC of UNESCO). So, all 4 of ICSU's polar elements are now tied together. In
addition, ICSU is co-sponsor of the IPY, and SCAR and IASC are part of the Steering
<strong>Committee</strong> for the IPY. This is now, therefore, the right time to be thinking about how

polar science is going to be coordinated and managed as an international scientific
enterprise after the IPY. Do we need a new structure or structures? If so, what? Should
there perhaps be a single umbrella polar organisation under which SCAR and IASC
continue? Should that organisation comprise a number of generic elements (cryosphere,
oceans, biology, etc) rather than discrete regional bodies - in which case we would not
need SCAR or IASC. Could the IPY-JC (Joint or Steering <strong>Committee</strong>) evolve into that
umbrella body? Or do we carry on as we are, bound together by memoranda of
understanding and letters of agreement.
Joern Thiede has suggested that the polar sciences do not have a high enough profile at
meetings like the ICSU General Assembly, because there is no polar body with a high
enough profile to be there in its own right. The polar sciences are in effect all represented
through other bodies (e.g. like IACS through IUGG). For that reason he feels we need a
Polar Science Union. However that might be difficult to get, given that it would
inevitably take away parts of what other unions currently feel they 'own' (i.e. the polar
dimensions of their own subject areas).
Chris Rapley has made the point that the polar sciences also suffer from low
representation when it comes to the activities of ICSU's big IGBP programme and, in
turn, within the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) that brings together IGBP,
WCRP, IHDP and DIVERSITAS. SCAR and IASC seem, as it were, 'frozen out' of
IGBP and ESSP. Whether or not that might be solved by a different structure remains to
be seen. How does <strong>BipAG</strong> think we can solve it.
The SCAR and IASC Executives recognise that we may in due course need a higher
powered joint committee than a short lived Action Group to consider these weighty
matters, but we have to start somewhere, and <strong>BipAG</strong> is it. Do we need a Standing
<strong>Committee</strong>?
Aside from considerations about structure, there are also considerations about other
aspects of the legacy - how should we be exchanging and managing data and information,
for instance. SCAR has its Joint <strong>Committee</strong> for Antarctic Data Management, which
brings together the managers of the Antarctic Data Centres. Does IASC need something
similar? Or should JCADM's remit be expanded to take on the Arctic? This is the time to
think the unthinkable. We (<strong>BipAG</strong>) can get good advice by talking to other global data
bodies, like IOC's IODE (International Ocean Data and Information Exchange
Programme).
How should we be developing the observing systems that we need to underpin the
science and the forecasting of change? Do we need a separate SAON and PAntoS, or
should they be combined? Should they be working to the same plan and the same
standards? How should they connect to the global observing programmes like GOOS,
GCOS, GTOS, the GEOSS and the new Group on Earth Observations (GEO)
headquartered at WMO in Geneva? What is or should be the link to the operational
agencies that will ultimately make and/or use the observations?

Then there is the question of nurturing the next generation of polar researchers - how
should that best be done by SCAR and IASC separately or together? What should our
relationship be to the new Association of Polar early Career Scientists (APECS), a
creature of the IPY? Currently we have agreed to co-sponsor their one-day meeting in St
Petersburg. Some kind of joint sponsorship is under consideration.
No doubt there are many other questions of building and maintaining a strong IPY legacy
- not least among them the issue of public engagement and outreach, which have not
heretofore featured prominently in SCAR or IASC's portfolio (perhaps rightly, perhaps
not).
That in turn raises the question of the extent to which either organisation should or could
be liaising with or working with the International Glaciological Society.
In addition there is the question of to what extent we could or should be writing or
stimulating the production of books or films on polar topics for the interested layman.
There is political support for building the IPY legacy, and especially for building
observing systems. It comes in the recent resolutions of both the Arctic Council and the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (for the latter see Resolution E on page
http://www.scar.org/treaty/).
Finally there is the question of trust by the scientific community in our various
organisations. SCAR has rebuilt a lot of trust following its major reorganisation in 2000.
IASC is just going through a very similar reorganisation, and it may take a while to build
trust to the same level. How do we build it quickly? Could the links to SCAR be helpful?
Timing and First Task
<strong>BipAG</strong> is created initially for 2 years to provide advice to IASC Council and the SCAR
Delegates. The Delegates meet in Moscow on July 14-16, so a paper will be needed for
that meeting, setting out <strong>BipAG</strong>'s initial ideas and plans. That paper will also go to the
IASC Council meeting in the fall in 2008. It would be anticipated that the next and final
paper would go to the SCAR Delegates and the IASC Council in 2010.
It would be useful if the initial paper could be drafted before we all get to St Petersburg,
so that at our <strong>BipAG</strong> meeting on the evening of July 6 we could finalise it ready for
delivery to the Delegates on the 14th.