Documents

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP05: Agenda of the Chief Officers Meeting

SCAR COs Meeting, Edinburgh, UK, 16^th July 2011

Location: 18 Holyrood Park Rd Edinburgh, EH16 5AY (ISAES Conference site)

Chair: K Conlan

Rapporteur: R Badhe

Attendees: Kathy Conlan (LS), Alessandro Capra (GS), Takashi Yamanouchi (PS), Kevin Hughes (SCATS), Taco de Bruin (SCADM), Adrian Fox (SCAGI), Mike Sparrow (SCAR), Renuka Badhe (SCAR), Mahlon “Chuck” Kennicutt II (SCAR)

Aims: The COs meeting is intended to allow the COs to discuss items of interest/concern in advance of the EXCOM meeting, not to repeat the entire EXCOM agenda.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP06: Report of the 4th SCAR Cross-linkages Meeting

Executive Summary

Title: SCAR 4^th Cross Linkages Meeting

Authors: M Sparrow

Introduction/ Background: This is the 4^th Cross linkages meeting. A major focus was the next generation of SRPs.

Important Issues or Factors: Aims were (i) to discuss current activities, in particular the new PPGs from a cross cutting perspective (ii) to concentrate on new ideas that cross cut programmes and disciplines (iii) to identify emerging issues and new frontiers on the horizon that are interdisciplinary.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  Various (see Appendix 2)

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  Increased efficiency and a more strategic approach to interdisciplinary interactions, in particular with the next generation of SRPs.

Partners: All SCAR groups plus IASC, IACS, WCRP, IGBP, COMNAP etc.

Budget Implications: Funds for meeting every 2 years or so (~$12,000)

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP07: Report of SSG Geosciences

Executive Summary

Title: SCAR Standing Scientific Group on Geosciences (SSG GS) Report

Authors: A.Capra, P.O’Brien, M.J.Hambrey

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: WP6,WP11,WP 18

Important Issues or Factors:

Discussions on new proposals that should arise from ISAES 2011.
Development of SERCE PPG.
SCAR endorsement to transform the GWSWF Action Group into an Expert Group with revised Terms of Reference (ToRs). However, discussion arose that the new ToRs overlapped with those of the ICESTAR Expert Group and that the two groups should discuss the best way forward. One idea is to merge both the group into a single Expert Group.’

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:

That SERCE PPG should become SRP That GWSWF become EG

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP08: Report of SSG Life Sciences

Executive Summary

Title: SSG-Life Sciences
Authors: K. Conlan (chief officer), M. Hindell, G. Hosie, I. Grant, M. Sparrow
Relevant URLs or references to other reports: http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/lifescience/ Introduction/ Background: Important Issues or Factors: see following
Partners: Various, including CCAMLR, ACAP, SCOR, WCRP…

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP09: Report of the SCAR Standing Scientific Group on Physical Sciences (SSG-PS)

Executive Summary

Title: SCAR Standing Scientific Group on Physical Sciences (SSG/PS), Report to the Executive Committee, SCAR EXCOM 2011, 18 July 2011

Authors: T. Yamanouchi, M. Candidi, T. van Ommen

Relevant URLs or references to other reports:

Antarctica and the Global Climate System (AGCS) (WP12)

Astronomy and Astrophysics from Antarctica (AAA) (WP14)

Past and Future Change of the Antarctic Environment (PACE) (WP17)

Important Issues or Factors: (what do EXCOM need to be aware of)

One of the current SRPs, AGCS is coming to its final stage and seeking a transition to a new program planning group, PACE.  ICESTAR, after achieving the major objectives, terminated as an SRP at the SCAR XXXI, and reformed as a new Expert Group.  The AAA started as a new SRP from SCAR XXXI.

New Action Groups were started.  Antarctic Clouds and Aerosols Action Group (ACA) started its activities, and is hoped to hold the first meeting during IUGG 2011 in Melbourne this summer.  SCAR Ocean Acidification Action Group (SO Acid) was approved at SCAR XXXI, and an initial core membership was proposed.

There have been some discussions about where IPICS (International Partnership in Ice Core Sciences) Expert Group belonged – it is currently under PS, but since it is related to the work of ACE there are obvious connections to GS. Co-sponsorship of IPICS by GS as well as PS could be discussed at a later date depending on how future interactions with IPICS proceed.

Proposal came up seeking the SCAR endorsement to transform the GWSWF Action Group into an Expert Group with revised Terms of Reference (ToRs).  However, discussion arose that the new ToRs overlapped with those of the ICESTAR Expert Group and that the two groups should discuss the best way forward.  One idea is to merge both the group into a single Expert Group.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP10: Strategic Considerations for SCAR Standing Scientific Groups

Executive Summary

Title: Strategic Considerations for SCAR Standing Scientific Groups

Author: M Kennicutt

Introduction: Standing Scientific Groups (SSGs) are SCAR’s most direct connection to the intellectual capacity and scientific expertise needed to realize SCAR’s mission in Antarctic science and policy advice.  The SSGs only convene once every two years. To this end, it is essential that the SSGs be engaged in all aspects of SCAR and that mechanisms be put in place to capitalize on opportunities to consult with and receive advice from the scientific communities that SCAR serves.   It is vital that the Delegates receive useful and informative advice and recommendations to assist in setting priorities and allocating resources. The SSGs are the “brain trust” that fuels all that SCAR does as an organization.

Important Issues or Factors: Incorporating specific agenda items into the SSG biennial meeting agendas will improve communication between the SSGs and the Delegates and enhance their advisory role. Improving how SSG budgets are developed will allow more timely management of SCAR’s limited assets.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  Enhancements in SSGs procedures are proposed for adoption prior to the 2012 biennial meetings:

1. SSG COs will submit draft meeting reports two months in advance of the biennial business meetings.
2. SSG COs will submit draft budget requests two months in advance of the biennial business meetings.
3. SSG biennial meetings will be used to refine and update the meeting report and agree on final budget requests.
4. SSGs will be asked to set aside time to discuss new frontiers and emerging issues during biennial meetings to provide input to the broader “Horizon Scanning” activities being initiated by SCAR.
5. SSGs will be asked to take a more active role in monitoring the progress of and identifying new Scientific Research Programs by adding an agenda item on this issue at their biennial meetings. Specific recommendations as to acceptability, performance, and prioritization of proposed SRPs are to be provided to the Delegates meeting.
6. SSGs are to conduct biennial review s of all subsidiary groups to assess performance and make recommendations about improvements, continuation, or cessation of groups recognizing that limited resources may entail the end of one activity before another can be approved.

Expected Benefits: Enhanced strategic advice and recommendations from the SSGs will improve Delegate decision-making while facilitating optimal allocation of resources. Improved communication of scientific priorities will assure that SCAR anticipates new directions and emerging issues. Under-spending of allocated funds will decrease resulting in more efficient and timely re-allocation of resources.

Budget Implications: No news funds are requested.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP11: Report on Antarctic Climate Evolution (ACE)

Executive Summary

Title: Antarctic Climate Evolution (ACE)

Authors: C. Escutia and R. DeConto

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: (obsolete link removed)

Introduction/ Background: The SCAR Antarctic Climate Evolution (ACE) Programme represents the interests of a large land and marine geoscience research community focusing in deciphering the record of the onset and the response of the Antarctic ice sheets to past climate changes across a range of timescales. ACE coordinates the integration between geophysical and geological records of past ice sheet behavior and coupled climate, ocean, and ice sheet models.

Important Issues or Factors: The present Antarctic ice sheet has existed for approximately 34 million years. Understanding the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to climatic forcing is essential because changes in the ice sheet can have major impacts on global sea level and can impact the entire climate system through a wide range of physical and chemical feedbacks. ACE continues to be very active in its primary coordination role, catalyzing interactions amongst geologists, geophysicists, modelers and other polar scientists from the climate, ocean and ice coring communities. During the 1^st ACE Symposium (Granada, 2009) new subcommittees with a processes-oriented focus were developed to address gaps in our knowledge about the role of Antarctic ice sheets in the global climate system. ACE subcommittees synthesize the state of the art of our knowledge and define the future questions and challenges that are critical for providing science-based advise to major scientific programs (i.e., IODP, ERICON-AB) and policy makers (i.e., IPCC). To address some of these outstanding questions ACE is coordinating the submission of a series of drilling proposals (ANDRILL and IODP) in key areas around Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. In this last 2 years of the programme, ACE is playing an active and central role in the development of a proposal to SCAR for a new SRP to succeed ACE. In addition, and as it has been done in the past, ACE will continue to be active in proposing dedicated sessions and workshops in all international meetings, including 2011 ISAES and the 2012 SCAR OSC, and in the publishing of its results in high impact journals.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: Support for ACE plans for the remaining life of the Programme and input from EXCOM on ACE plans based on the new SCAR Strategic Plan.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: Significant publication output (both in content and numbers). Publications and science relevant to “Big- science” programmes and policy makers, enhancement of SCAR profile.

Partners: IPICS; PAGES of the IGBP; IASC on APEX; ANDRILL, SHALDRIL, IODP and ERICON-AB.

Budget Implications: Request for confirmation of SCAR science programme funding at current level for planned remainder of the Programme’s operation to 2013.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP12: Report on Antarctica in the Global Climate System (AGCS)

Executive Summary

Title: Antarctica in the Global Climate System (AGCS)

Authors: AGCS Steering Committee

Relevant URLs or references to other reports:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/SCAR_ssg_ps/AGCS.htm – AGCS web site

Introduction/ Background: AGCS is a cross-disciplinary science programme that focuses on the atmospheric, oceanic and cryospheric linkages between the Antarctic and the rest of the Earth system. It uses a very wide range of observations from the Antarctic continent and the Southern Ocean to investigate natural climate variability and possible anthropogenic signatures of change. The in situ meteorological and oceanic observations provide high quality data for recent decades, but these are supplements with proxy data from deep and shallow ice cores that extend the records back into the pre-instrumental period. The programme also uses a range of satellite data and the output of climate and numerical weather prediction models to investigate the mechanisms of change and how climate signals are transferred to and from mid-latitudes and the tropics to the Antarctic. Our focus is on climate change over roughly the last 10,000 years, although we work closely with the ACE programme, which is looking deeper into the past.

Important Issues or Factors: AGCS has produced several important scientific highlights in the last two years (see this document), ranging from the evaluation of the causes of the growth in Antarctic sea ice observed during the past three decades to the identification of a causal link between the changing winds over the Southern Ocean and the warming of the Antarctic Bottom Water renewing the deep layers of the global ocean. Possibly AGCS’s most significant achievement in this period has been its leading of a major review on Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE), synthesizing knowledge on past, present and possible future changes in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean and their impact on the biota. The ACCE report was published in October 2009 and formally launched at a press conference in London on November 30. Copies are available at (obsolete link removed). AGCS led the preparation of a brief update on the ACCE report in 2010. This will be a regular feature, with the update being presented to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative meeting.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: We ask the Delegates to continue supporting AGCS for a further year so that the programme may carry its current activities in support of international Antarctic climate science to a successful conclusion and identify the scope and priorities of the next SCAR climate-focussed research programme.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: The completion of significant advances in the study of a range of aspects of the Antarctic coupled climate system (detailed in this document) is expected from present progress. AGCS is centrally engaged in the design and implementation of the Southern Ocean Observing System, the coordination of international activities and workshops targeted at Antarctic climate science, the development of key Antarctic data sets and portals, and the planning of the next SCAR climate-focussed research programme. The success of these activities will be greatly facilitated by the requested support.

Partners: AGCS will continue to work (often in a leading role) with the SSGs and several other SRPs, the SCAR Oceanography Expert Group and the CLIVAR / CliC / SCAR Southern Ocean Implementation Panel, amongst others, to ensure that the above activities are carried out to a successful conclusion. AGCS will continue to support the development of the next generation of Antarctic scientists via its close association with APECS.

Budget Implications: Continued support at the current level is requested.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP13: Report of SCAR SRP Evolution and Biodiversity in the Antarctic (EBA)

Executive Summary

Title: SCAR SRP ‘Evolution and Biodiversity in the Antarctic’
Authors: P. Convey, G. di Prisco (EBA Co-Chairs), M. Rajanahally, J. Xavier (EBA co-Secretaries) Relevant URLs or references to other reports: www.eba.aq

Introduction/ Background: EBA is one of five current approved Science Research Programmes of SCAR, and the only one representing the interests of the very large and diverse biological sciences research community with interests in Antarctica. The Programme has a planned lifetime of 2005- 2013. Work under the auspices of EBA is divided into five ‘workpackages’, each working in both the marine and terrestrial environments of Antarctica.

Important Issues or Factors: Since the Programme’s last Report to Delegates in 2010, and building on the very positive review of EBA science and outputs carried out by SCAR in 2008/9, the programme has continued to be very active in its primary coordination role, catalyzing interactions amongst the SCAR biological community.

EBA is now in its final 2-3 year period. Major delivery aims in this period are (1) for each component workpackage to organize a themed conference session/workshop with planned/defined synthesis output, documenting the ‘state of the art’ and major future challenges in their respective fields; (2) to propose an EBA ‘mini-symposium at the 2012 SCAR OSC, where single overview presentations of progress under each workpackage, and for the programme overall, will be presented by package and programme leaders, ideally to be accompanied by an appropriate publication output; (3) to play an active and central role in the development of proposals to SCAR for successor SCAR biological and cross-disciplinary research programmes.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: (1) to note and approve of EBA actions and progress to date; (2) to confirm support for EBA’s outline plans for the remaining life of the programme [1 provides an indication that Delegates recognise that EBA is delivering to SCAR as planned, 2 provides programme approval and security for its remaining life, and maximizes the opportunity of achieving the higher level syntheses and outputs that are the intended product of the programme, and provide the ‘added value’]

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: Significant continued publication output (both content and numbers), outreach delivery, advice to stakeholders, enhancement of SCAR profile.

Partners: Various outputs involve interactions with CEP, COMNAP, SCAR Expert and Action Groups

Budget Implications: Request for confirmation of SCAR science programme funding at current level for planned remainder of the Programme’s operation to 2013

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP14: Report on Astronomy and Astrophysics from Antarctica (AAA)

Executive Summary

Title: Report on Astronomy and Astrophysics from Antarctica (AAA)

Authors: John Storey (Chief Officer), with input from the Working Group Chairs

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: The AAA SRP web site is at:

http://www.astronomy.scar.org/

Introduction/ Background: The Astronomy and Astrophysics from Antarctica (AAA) SRP was launched in 2010 in recognition of the rapidly growing level of international activity in Antarctic astronomy, and the desirability of improved cooperation and coordination in this field.

Important Issues or Factors: AAA will hold its kick-off meeting in Sydney in 2011, June 28 – July 1.  There have been two changes to the Steering Committee, which now has the following members:

Lyu Abe – (France) – replacing Nicolas Epchtein

Philip Anderson – (United Kingdom)

Michael Burton – (Australia)

Xiangqun Cui – (China)

Takashi Ichikawa – (Japan)

Albrecht Karle – (USA)

James Lloyd – (USA)

Silvia Masi – (Italy)

John Storey – (Australia) – Chief Officer

Hongyan Zhou – (China) – replacing Lifan Wang

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  None is requested at this stage.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  NA

Partners: No formal partners, although the IAU is now a Union Member of SCAR.

Budget Implications: Continuing funding is requested at the approved level.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP15: Report on the PPG State of the Antarctic Ecosystem (AntECO)

Executive Summary

Title:  AntEco: State of the Antarctic Ecosystem

Authors: D. Cowan, J. Strugnell, B. Danis, M. Hindell, K. Conlan

Introduction/ Background: Important Issues or Factors: The PPG has been subdivided into four groups concerned with (1) Biodiversity, contemporary biogeography, colonization (leader Don Cowan); (2) Palaeo reconstruction and evolution (leader Jan Strugnell); (3) Conservation and management, including invasions, interaction with CEP, SCATS, etc. (leader Mark Hindell); (4) Data management (leader Bruno Danis).  Groups 1 and 2 have developed and circulated drafts and are now building in detail.  Cross linkages with PACE and SERCE are also being developed.  A workshop is planned for Nov. 2011 with Feb. 2011 planned for presentation to and discussion with PACE and SERCE PPGs. 

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  EXCOM are asked to note progress.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  A new, high profile and highly relevant SRP.

Partners: Other SRPs, CoML, ANTABIF, MarBIN, SOOS etc.

Budget Implications: no additional funds requested at this stage

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP16: Report on PPG Antarctic Ecosystems: Adaptations, Thresholds and Resilience (AntETR)

Executive Summary

Title: AntETR: Antarctic Ecosystem Thresholds and Resilience

Authors: J. Gutt, K. Conlan

Introduction/ Background: Important Issues or Factors: see following

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  EXCOM are asked to note progress

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  A new high profile and relevant SRP

Partners: AntECO and other new SRPs.

Budget Implications: no additional funds requested at this stage

Program Summary

Antarctica is changing, and parts of it are changing very rapidly. Pressures on the Antarctic environment result mainly from global climate change, invasive species, human impacts, and extreme events. These stresses may be convergent, and their interactions can lead to threshold changes in communities, populations and individual organisms. AntETR will examine the current biological processes in Antarctic ecosystems, to define their tolerance limits as well as thresholds and thereby determine resistance and resilience to change. Such ecosystem processes depend on a cascade of organismal responses from the genomic through cellular to physiological. Recent studies have shown that microevolutionary adaptation to the polar environment may constrain an organism’s ability to respond to environmental change. The extreme environment and marked difference in community complexity between the polar regions and much of the rest of the planet may mean that consequences of stress for ecosystem function and services, and their resistance and resilience, will differ from elsewhere. Polar ecosystem processes are therefore key to informing wider ecological debate about the nature of stability and change in ecosystems.

The main goal of AntETR is to define and facilitate the science required to determine the resistance, resilience and vulnerability to change of Antarctic biological systems. In particular, the science needs to determine the likelihood of cataclysmic shifts or “tipping points” in Antarctic ecosystems: How close to the cliff are we? Three key questions have been identified:

1. What are the genetic underpinnings to the life history, phenotypic plasticity and physiological adaptations of polar organisms that determine their resilience and resistance to ongoing and future change?
2. How do species traits impact on community interactions and stability and in turn influence nutrient cycles, energy transfer and productivity? Will invasive species have catastrophic impacts on these community interactions, and thus on ecosystem processes?
3. What are the likely consequences of a changing environment for ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services provided by the Antarctic biosphere? How do changing biogeochemical cycles interact with and influence biological systems in Antarctica?

In addition, AntETR will recommend tools to understand organismal physiology, systems biology and the drivers of productivity in the context of stress. Addressing these questions will encourage new capacity in the Antarctic community and combine bottom-up and top-down application of advanced approaches in situ, in the laboratory (e.g. ‘omics’ approaches) and in silico (e.g. process modelling and advanced database mining) to provide an integrative view of the vulnerability of the Antarctic biota. We will exploit the full range of Antarctic ecosystems from continental to sub-Antarctic, including marine, liminic and terrestrtial habitats and in a manner that facilitates a bipolar approach.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP17: Report on PPG Past and Future Change of the Antarctic Environment (PACE)

Executive Summary

Title: Current Status of Planning of the SCAR Programme on Past and Future Change of the Antarctic Environment (PACE)

Author: J Turner

Introduction/ Background:  The PACE PPG plans to submit their proposal in time for the Delegates’ meeting in 2012.

Important Issues or Factors: (what do EXCOM need to be aware of)

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  EXCOM are asked to approve progress with planning and to make recommendations/suggestions as appropriate.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  A new SRP on the climate system

Partners: IPCC, other SCAR SRPs and PPGs, ACCE Expert group etc.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP18: Report of PPG Solid Earth Responses and influences on Cryospheric Evolution (SERCE)

Executive Summary

Title: Solid Earth response and Cryosphere Evolution (SERCE) Authors: Terry Wilson, A.Capra

Important Issues or Factors: verify at ISAES 2011 the scientific interdisciplinary collaboration io order to become a SRP

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: EXCOM has to evaluate the feasability of SERCE as SRP

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: a new SRP on interdisciplinary approach for geological, geodetical and galciological study of erath and ice interactions in polar regions

Partners: POLENET,ICEMASS, GOOS, SSG PS

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP19: Report on SCAR Social Sciences and Humanities

Executive Summary

Title: SCAR Social Sciences and Humanities

Authors: SCAR Action Group on the Human Element (AGHE): Toni Meloni (Italy, chair), Daniela Liggett (NZ, SCAR Social Sciences co-chair), Cornelia Lüdecke (Germany, SCAR History Group), Peter Suedfeld (Canada, invited expert), Bryan Lintott (UK, invited expert), Veronica del Valle (Argentina, invited expert), Mike Sparrow (SCAR Executive Director) and Renuka Badhe (SCAR Executive Officer).

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: (updated links)

SCAR History Group website: https://www.scar.org/science/historygroup/history-eg/

SCAR Social Sciences website: https://www.scar.org/science/hasseg/social-sciences/

AGHE meeting website: (link obsolete)

Introduction/Background: In recent years a community has developed with interests in the social sciences and the history of Antarctica. To date these initiatives have been approved on a case-by-case basis. As agreed by the SCAR Delegates in 2010, SCAR held a meeting to assess its activities in this area.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  

1. The AGHE recommends continuation of the Social Sciences Action Group up to and including 2012, with an agreed set of Terms of Reference (ToR). Several specific recommendations are included in this paper.
2. The AGHE recommends that the SCAR History Group become an Expert Group, with defined Terms of Reference. Depending on other financial constraints an increase in the History group’s budget of up to $5000 should be considered. Additional recommendations are included in this paper.
3. It is recommended that the Social and History groups be grouped under the umbrella “Social Sciences and Humanities”

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  The Social Sciences and Humanities are always likely to be a relatively small part of SCAR’s portfolio. However, as recognized by ICSU, the complexity of the problems and questions that science, including Antarctic Science, attempts to find answers to warrants an interdisciplinary approach to enquiry. Inclusion of the Social Sciences and Humanities will provide added value to current “natural science” programmes.

Partners: IASC, International Arctic Social Sciences Association, International Social Science Council etc.

Budget Implications: $3000 per year for the Social Sciences AG; $3-5000 per year for the History Expert Group (request for additional $2,000 a year cf with current budgets for 2011 and 2012).

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP20: Report on SCADM 2010 – 2011

Executive Summary

Title: SCADM Progress Report 2010 – 2011

Authors: T.F. de Bruin – SCADM Acting Chief Officer

Introduction/ Background: See below

Important Issues or Factors: See section on SCAR DIMS Implementation Plan and section on AMD

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: See question on international funding for SCAR activities.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: More and quicker results in the execution of the DIMS Implementation Plan

Partners: SCADM members

Budget Implications: Continuation of the fee for GCMD for hosting and maintaining the Antarctic Master Directory, given the excellent work done by the GCMD.
Provide funding for (some) SCADM members to attend relevant meetings.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP21: Report on the SCAR Standing Committee on Antarctic Geographic Information (SC-AGI)

Executive Summary

Title: Report to SCAR EXCOM – July 2011: SCAR Standing Committee on Antarctic Geographic Information (SCAGI)

Authors: Adrian Fox and Roberto Cervellati, SCAGI Deputy Chief Officers

Introduction/ Background: All work in Antarctica relies on a consistent geographic framework, and the main function of the Standing Committee on Antarctic Geographic Information (SCAGI) is to manage and improve the geographic framework not only for Antarctic scientific research but also for other activities including operations, environmental management and tourism. SCAGI continues to deliver a range of Geographic Information products through its various projects. These products include the SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica; Antarctic Digital Database, Map Catalogue and Feature Catalogue. SCAGI integrates topographic and names information received from national Antarctic programs into the ADD and Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. In keeping with Article III.1.c of the Treaty that Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and be freely available, SCAGI promotes an open standards approach to support free and unrestricted data access and contributes to developing the specifications for this.

Important Issues or Factors:

Most of the effort in SCAGI comes from a few committed members, this is not sustainable in the long term. It is highlighted by the difficulty in recruiting a new Chief Officer and the lack of engagement by South American countries, despite the 2010 SCAGI meeting being in Buenos Aires.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:

Delegates should ensure that they are familiar with the work that SCAGI does and encourage their national representatives to become involved with and contribute data to SCAGI products. Delegates should ensure that retiring national representatives are replaced with a successor national representative.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:

Wider engagement by the Antarctic community would help SCAGI to continue to develop, and deliver effectively, reliable relevant Geographic Information Services to the Antarctic science and operations communities. Maintaining the position of SCAR as the source of geographic Information Services such as the ADD and CGA supports the SCAR Strategic Plan objective of an international leadership role for SCAR.

Partners: SCADM, SCAR member countries, other organizations with an interest in Antarctic geographic Information such as COMNAP, Antarctic Treaty System, IHO, NASA, Google.

Budget Implications:

For the SCAR CGA and SCAR ADD to be improved, either SCAGI members must take on the necessary work or the work is outsourced. Continuation of $4k a year allocation is requested.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP22: Report from the SCAR Delegation to XXXIV ATCM in Buenos Aires June 20-July 1, 2011

Executive Summary

Title: Report from the SCAR Delegation to XXXIV ATCM in Buenos Aires June 20-July 1, 2011

Authors: M. Sparrow, M.C. Kennicutt II, S. Chown, R. Badhe, K Hughes

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: www.ats.aq

Introduction/ Background: This report summarises the SCAR contribution to the CEP and ATCM meetings held in Argentina in 2011.

Important Issues or Factors:

SCAR’s contributions to the XXXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) were positively received. SCAR provided two Working Papers (WPs) and nine Information Papers (IPs). Many of these were joint with other Observers (COMNAP) and Parties (Australia).

The Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE) report and updates formed a major part of the ongoing discussions of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) and the ATCM. Two Parties (UK and Norway) and one Observer (ASOC) have committed to providing funds to communicate SCAR’s climate related activities.

Many parties were interested in progress with the Southern Ocean Observing System (which was presented both at CEP and at the ATCM). The subject of marine acoustics came to the fore again and SCAR agreed to provide a literature update to its last report to inform parties.

The spread of non-native species is still a major topic of discussion in the CEP. SCAR provided several papers on this subject and agreed to moderate an Intersessional Contact Group.

In response to a request from the CEP in relation to environmental issues related to the practicality of repair or remediation of environmental damage, SCAR iterated that it would be happy to provide advice to the CEP on this topic if specific scientific questions were raised.

SCAR presented two new Codes of Conduct on the Exploration and Research of Subglacial Aquatic Environments and for the Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes in Antarctica.

The SCAR Lecture this year on “Detecting the Imprint of Humans on Antarctica: A Case Study” was based around the long-term environmental monitoring programme at McMurdo station. The lecture was well received, with many questions from the audience.

Meetings with CCAMLR, COMNAP and other Parties were held in the margins of the meeting, helping to improve and cement our working relationship with partner organisations.

Budget Implications: Funds are budgeted so the SCAR Delegation can attend the CEP/ATCM meetings. SCAR’s work with the Antarctic Treaty System has also to be funded through SC-ATS.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP23: Capacity Building, Education and Training (CBET) Plans

Executive Summary

Title: CBET activities
Authors: R Badhe, R Ravindra
Relevant URLs or references to other reports:

https://www.scar.org/capacity-building/capacity-building/ (updated)

www.museprize.org

Introduction/ Background: SCAR is committed to developing scientific capacity in all SCAR Members, assisting students, early career scientists, underrepresented groups, and emerging Antarctic programs to participate in Antarctic research. SCAR promotes and facilitates the incorporation of Antarctic science into all levels of education.

Important Issues or Factors: The CBET committee has been active and working on CBET and related issues. It is proposed a Visiting Professor scheme will be launched in 2011/12.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: Continued support of both SCAR and national CBET activities is encouraged by all SCAR members.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: Increased Capacity in SCAR Member countries and early career scientists and students.

Partners: Association of Early Career Scientists, ICSU, COMNAP, International Arctic Science Committee, International Polar Foundation, and others.

Budget Implications: The budgeted amount is supplemented with voluntary contributions. The initial allocations were:

SCAR has been successful in obtaining external grants to support CBET activities, for example, in 2010, 30,000 Euros from ICSU “Education and Outreach Lessons from IPY” with APECS, IASC and IPY office; $30,000 in travel grants from the Tinker Foundation to help Latin American scientists attend the Oslo 2010 IPY Conference, and management of the Martha T. Muse Prize for Science and Policy in Antarctica.

SCAR EXCOM 2011 WP24: The SCAR and COMNAP Fellowship Scheme

Executive Summary

Title: The SCAR and COMNAP Fellowship Scheme
Authors: R Badhe
Relevant URLs or references to other reports:https://www.scar.org/capacity-building/fellowships-awards/ (updated)

Introduction/ Background: Applications were received from more than 40 candidates, representing a total of 20 countries. The selection committee consisted of SSG/SRP Officers (or their representatives), members of the CBET group, representative of COMNAP, representative of APECS.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: EXCOM are asked to approve the selection of the 2010 fellowships, based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: The Fellowship program is one of the key capacity building activity that SCAR undertakes

Partners: This was a joint effort with COMNAP. Further partnership is being explored with CCAMLR for 2012.

Budget Implications: Total budget for SCAR Fellowships is $30,000, increase sought to 35,580 (4000 out of this will come from India’s contribution to CBET activities)