IASC had been managing two major projects on cli-
also had an advisory function for project leaders.
mate impact studies (as an important part of the
At their annual meeting, IASC Council approved the
IASC science agenda). Members had also been dis-
projects. Council members also had the important
cussing assessments as a tool to identify important
task of informing their national scientific commu-
gaps in the science agenda. Two working groups
nities, encouraging national participation, and stim-
of AEPS—the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
ulating their communities to suggest project ideas.
Programme (AMAP), and the Conservation of Arc-
This system was based on well-organized national
tic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)—started to use assess-
committees appointing active Council members
ments for their own needs, so IASC invited them to
that took their two-way reporting task seriously. As
participate in a joint venture—ACIA—which engaged
in all international cooperation, those who engage
many scientists, and became a success story (see
will profit and those who only attend will not.
Chapter 2.5).
In the beginning, the IASC science agenda was
Reference
1
Roots, E.F., O. Rogne, and J. Taagholt. (1987). Internation-
al Communication and Co-ordination in Arctic Science—A
Proposal for Action. Ottawa, Oslo, Copenhagen, 21p. (see
Historical Document #4 at http://iasc25.iasc.info/)
developed and based on four themes:
- Impacts of global changes on the Arctic region
and its peoples
- Arctic processes of relevance to global systems
- Natural processes within the Arctic, and
- Sustainable development in the Arctic.
1.3
It was also agreed (1994), that it would be useful
to convene an international planning conference
bringing together arctic scientists to develop these
From Project Groups to Working Groups
Odd Rogne and Volker Rachold
Reviewer: Kristjan Kristjansson
themes further. The first International Conference
for Arctic Research Planning (ICARP) was held in
1995. It was quite successful, and laid the foundation for many of the inaugural IASC projects or
Initially, IASC was designed with a Working Group
those to be implemented over the next few years
(WG) concept and some strong ideas about multi-dis-
(see further details in Chapter 2.3).
ciplinary groups. However, in practice it was too ambitious. The first and immediate challenge was to
Most of these early projects were quite successful,
develop east-west cooperation as there had been
and each year new projects emerged. IASC became
very limited contact between the scientific commu-
a ‘market place’ for testing new ideas that scientists
nities in the two blocks during the cold war. Second,
could suggest to the organization either through
scientists preferred to interact with colleagues in
their national committees or directly. The ideas
their own discipline; and third there was a language
were screened by the IASC Executive Committee
barrier that had to be overcome.
and circulated to all Council members for consultations in the national committees. Members gave ad-
For a new organization, there was also a need to
vice and comments during this process, and project
demonstrate tangible outcomes within a reason-
ideas could be developed into an attractive propos-
able period of time; hence the project concept was
al. (A list of IASC Projects is given in Appendix 6.3).
adopted. For international projects, what is needed is a simple and easily understood organization
with clear goals, main objectives and a timeline, and
operation expanded in the Arctic, there was a need
progress reports. Internally, project proposals were
to renew the IASC project portfolio. A Second ICARP
discussed by the IASC Executive Committee that
28
As Arctic changes became more apparent, and as co-
was agreed to in 2003, and took place in 2005 (see
01 Development of IASC