Documents

SCAR XXXI WP14: Report on Antarctica and 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

Rationale for the Programme: 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 increased growth in Antarctic sea ice that has occurred during the past three decades to the identification of climatic changes in the Antarctic water masses 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 https://www.scar.org/science/acce/acce-resources/ (updated link).

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: We ask the Delegates to continue supporting AGCS for a further two years so that the programme may carry its current activities in support of international Antarctic climate science to a successful conclusion.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: The accomplishment of key 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, and the development of key Antarctic data sets and portals. 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 XXXI WP15: Report on 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), S.Gordon (EBA Secretary)

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 2008, and also 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 entering 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 session 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 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 XXXI WP16: Report on Inter-hemispheric Conjugacy Effects in Solar-Terrestrial and Aeronomy Research (ICESTAR)

Executive Summary

Title: ICESTAR: Interhemispheric Conjugacy Effects in Solar-Terrestrial and Aeronomy Research

Authors:

• Co-Chair: Professor Allan Weatherwax, Siena College (U.S.A.)
• Co-Chair: Dr. Kirsti Kauristie, Finnish Meteorological Institute (Finland)
• We gratefully acknowledge contribution from the entire ICESTAR team.

Relevant URLs or references to other reports:  obsolete links removed

Introduction/ Background: 

Near-Earth space (geospace) is an integral part of the Earth system, providing the material link between the Sun and Earth, primarily through the polar-regions.  A primary goal of the ICESTAR Programme is to create an integrated, quantitative description of the upper atmosphere over Antarctica, and its coupling to the geospace environment.

Important Issues or Factors: ICESTAR will not propose for a second term as a Scientific Research Programme.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: 

At the completion on the programme in July 2010, ICESTAR will create an expert group to further develop the subject, building on the successes as a Scientific Research Programme.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:

ICESTAR scientists have published more than 200 papers in journals that include Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and the Journal of Geophysics Research.  Since the start of the program, ICESTAR further enhanced the SCAR profile by hosting and convening numerous scientific sessions at international conferences (e.g., American and European Geophysical Union Conferences, CEDAR, GEM).

ICESTAR has, or is in the process of, delivering a wide variety of products ranging from a better scientific understanding of the polar atmosphere to a data portal that will enable scientists to create a systems-view of the polar region. Specific current/future plans include the following:

• update and maintain ICESTAR website;
• publish in journals and conference proceedings;
• provide input to databases;
• develop and grow data portals;
• develop and quantify the role of seasonal differences in polar ionospheric conductance and the effects on magnetospheric, ionospheric, and thermospheric dynamics;
• constrain models based on conjugate remote sensing of inner magnetospheric dynamics; and
• characterize the basic state of the polar middle atmosphere.

Budget Implications:

The Scientific Research Programme ICESTAR will not be requesting funds during the next SCAR cycle. A small amount of funding will be requested to maintain the ICESTAR expert group.

SCAR XXXI WP17: Report on Subglacial Antarctic Lake Environments (SALE)

Executive Summary

Title: Scientific Research Program (SRP) – Subglacial Antarctic Lake Exploration (SALE)

Authors: J.C. Priscu and M. C. Kennicutt II

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: obsolete link

Introduction/ Background/Progress:  SCAR has a long history of involvement in the study and exploration of subglacial aquatic environments (SAE). A Subglacial Antarctic Lake Environment Group of Specialists (SALEGoS) was formed by SCAR in 2000.  SALEGoS served as a focus for community interests in what was an emerging scientific focus for Antarctic research. SALEGoS disbanded itself in 2004 in preparation for becoming one of SCAR’s first Scientific Research Programs. Subglacial Antarctic Lake Environments (SALE) became a SCAR SRP in 2004.SALE proposed and was formally recognized as an ICSU/WMO IPY Program as the SALE Unified Team for Exploration and Discovery (UNITED). The SALE program promoted, facilitated and championed international cooperation to better understand subglacial aquatic environments in Antarctica. SALE was highly successful in keeping SAE on the agenda of funding agencies, in the scientific press, and in the lay press. SALE was at the forefront of promulgating guiding principles for environmental stewardship of these unique settings. These efforts culminated in a Code of Conduct currently being considered by the Delegates. SALE sponsored numerous major international workshops and scientific sessions at meetings. SALE’s members are funded by national programs to conduct SALE science and SCAR funding allowed for yearly meetings.

Progress: The SALE website contains a history of the program’s activities and successes and an archive of all SALE materials generated over a 10- year period (http://www.sale.scar.org/).

Important Issues or Factors: SCAR SALE met in March 2010 in Baltimore, MD for the sixth time in the margins of an AGU Chapman Conference it co-sponsored. The Chapman conference summarized progress on Antarctic Subglacial Aquatic Environments (SAE) and promoted cooperation and partnerships, particularly among the three major SAE programs (Russia, UK, and USA).  At this meeting SALE members concluded that the groups Terms of Reference had been met and voted to disband SALE (see attached meeting report).  It was also agreed that SCAR should continue to play a leadership role in SAE exploration and research  as national programs entered a phase of lake entry and  sampling over the next few years

(Subglacial Lake Vostok -Russia, Subglacial Lake Ellsworth – UK, and WISSARD – US).  A group of SALE members agreed to form a SCAR Expert Group to assess the state of SAE science, consult with the community, provide a forum for those with SAE interests to interact, and develop plans for the next generation SCAR SAE programs. The details of this effort are provided in the ATHENA proposal.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  SALE strongly recommends that the Delegates approve the establishment of ATHENA to continue the long history of SCAR involvement in SAE study.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  SCAR will build on the successes of SALE and maintain its leadership role in subglacial aquatic environment research which will be a major focus for Antarctic science over the next decade.

Partners: COMNAP

Budget Implications:  SALE will end in 2010. The budget request for ATHENA is contained within their proposal.

SCAR XXXI WP18: Report on Astronomy and Astrophysics in Antarctica (AAA)

Executive Summary

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

Authors: John Storey, Chief Officer, AAA

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

https://www.scar.org/science/aaa/home/ (updated link)

Introduction/Background: The SCAR AAA SRP Planning Group was proposed at the Hobart XXIX SCAR in 2006.  Creation of the AAA SRP was approved at the Moscow XXX SCAR Delegates meeting in 2008, and AAA will hold its first formal meeting as a Scientific Research Program in August in Buenos Aires.  The AAA Planning Group held two meetings during 2009: in Frascati, Italy and in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Important Issues or Factors: This is the first year that AAA is a Scientific Research Program.  The Steering Committee has the same members as the SRP Planning Group, namely:

• Philip Anderson (United Kingdom)
• Michael Burton (Australia)
• Xiangqun Cui (China)
• Nicolas Epchtein (France)
• Takashi Ichikawa (Japan)
• Albrecht Karle (USA)
• James Lloyd (USA)
• Silvia Masi (Italy)
• John Storey (Australia) – Chief Officer
• Lifan Wang (China/USA)

The four Working Groups have now been established within AAA. They are:

• Working Group A: Site testing, validation and data archiving.
 Chair: Jon Lawrence, Vice-chair: Tony Travouillon
• Working Group B: Arctic site testing.
 Chair: Michael Andersen, Vice-chair: Eric Steinbring
• Working Group C: Science goals.
 Chair: Michael Burton, Vice-chair: Hans Zinnecker (TBC)
• Working Group D: Major new facilities.
 Chair: John Kovac, Vice-chair: Xuefei Gong

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: None.

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 XXXI WP19a: Report on Proposed PPG SERCE-POLENET

Executive Summary

(to be discussed and modified during SCAR Business Meetings)

Title:  SERCE-POLENET (Solid Earth response and Cryosphere Evolution) – (POLar Earth observing NETwork)

Authors: Terry Wilson, Mirko Sheinert, Mike Willis, Tom James, Alessandro Capra

Introduction/ Background:  The goal of the SERCE programme is to improve the understanding of the interaction between solid earth, cryosphere and climate as a contribution to sea level change.

It will require the study of processes (geodynamics, tectonics, ice mass change,..) and of geophysical models.  We have to identify and develop key disciplinary and interdisciplinary components of a science programme aimed at advancing understanding of the interactions between the solid earth and the cryosphere.  This includes glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) and ice mass change and the influence of solid earth parameters (heat flow, disposition of sediments) on ice sheet dynamics.

Observations will be the input for physical and geophysical modellers who will work on GIA, PGR models in order to furnish a good sea level change model between the integration of observations in Antarctica and global observation and /or models.

The considerable amount of data archived within the POLENET project is the base of the SERCE Programme.  GPS and seismic data are fundamental but other geophysical observations will also be used.

Important Issues or Factors:  SERCE-POLENET has the goal of improving understanding of the interaction between solid earth, cryosphere and climate as a contribution to sea level change.

Summarizing, GPS is used to measure rebound and with Seismology earth properties can be determined; those results improve “rebound” correction for spaceborne measurements of Ice Mass Change. This information is essential for sea level change predictions.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  Maintaining, and potentially augmenting, the remote autonomous POLENET infrastructure, as the International Polar Year (IPY) ends, that provides an international essential technological framework for Antarctic and Arctic science.

The sea level change prediction is an essential contribution to Antarctic science and global climate.

Fundamental for sea level change prediction is the Rebound estimation that should be studied principally through the knowledge of ice load history and geo-mechanical structure of the region.

Following a bi-polar approach, it is essential to extend the programme to the Arctic region.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:

• Extensive use of POLENET data infrastructure
• GIA model optimization
• Sea level change prediction

Partners: 

• SCAR SSG-GS AG and EG; SCAR SSG-PS
• European Polar Board
• International scientific institutions involved in space research in Antarctica: NASA, ESA, Canadian Space Agency.

Budget Implications:  US $10,000 for organising workshops and attending meetings; workshop with different WGs end of 2010 or 2011; joint meeting with Arctic researchers – IASC, SAON 

SCAR XXXI WP19b: Report on Proposed PPG AntETR

Executive Summary

(to be discussed and modified during SCAR Business Meetings)

Title: Antarctic Ecosystems: Adaptations, Thresholds and Resilience (AntETR)

Authors: Pete Convey, Dom Hodgson, Brent Sinclair, Kathleen Conlan on behalf of AntETR planning workshop group

Introduction/ Background: 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 that may lead to widespread challenges to and changes in organism and ecosystem function. AntETR will examine the current biological processes in Antarctic ecosystems, to define their tolerance limits and thereby determine resistance and resilience to change.

Important Issues or Factors: The 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?

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  To form a Programme Planning Group, AntETR

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: This program will facilitate engagement of Antarctic biologists across disciplines, nations and capacities, and will include interactions with CCAMLR and the SCAR Birds and Mammals Expert Group. We will contribute directly to the SC-ATS, allowing clear scientific information to be provided to CEP and the Antarctic Treaty system as a whole. The programme will integrate information from current projects and encourage new projects to identify stresses and their impacts on key biological processes. It will identify organism and ecosystem thresholds (vulnerability), their resilience to stress, and the implications of crossing biological thresholds. We will prioritise establishing links with physical scientists and modellers to inform predictions, and our focus on process will complement that of the proposed STATE programme, which addresses the origins and evolution of current large scale biological patterns.

Critical to the identification of tipping points will be the maintenance of long-term environmental data sets such as SOOS, with a key priority being the establishment of parallel observing systems in non-marine environments.

Partners: CCAMLR, EG BAMM, SCATS, CEP, SOOS etc.

Budget Implications: $5000 a year for two years

SCAR XXXI WP19c: Report on Proposed PPG State of the Antarctic Ecosystem (AntEco)

Executive Summary

(to be discussed and modified during SCAR Business Meetings)

Title: State of the Antarctic Ecosystem (AntEco)

Authors: Pete Convey, Dom Hodgson, Brent Sinclair, Kathleen Conlan on behalf of AntEco planning workshop group

Introduction/ Background: Biological diversity is the sum of all those organisms that dictate how ecosystems function, and underpins the life-support system of our planet.  This programme has been designed to focus on patterns of biodiversity across terrestrial, limnological, glacial and marine environments within the Antarctic, sub-Antarctic and Southern Ocean regions, to provide the scientific knowledge on biodiversity that can be also used for conservation and management.

Important Issues or Factors:  In essence we propose to explain what biodiversity is there, how it got there, why it is there, what threatens it, and also provide recommendations for its management and conservation. In particular to answer the following key scientific questions:

• How do we explain the origin, current distribution and abundance of biodiversity?
• How has Antarctic biodiversity responded to past change and what does this tell us about its capacity to respond to future change?
• What are the threats and what are the implications for the maintenance of biodiversity?

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  To form a Programme Planning Group, AntEco

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  

• A major deliverable will be a State of the Antarctic Ecosystem Report, analogous to the recent ACCE, but concentrating on biological aspects.
• There will be significant progress with database population and integration (e.g. MarBIN, RiSCC, ANTABIF), formulation of new databases (Terrestrial ‘CAML’ including ICEMATE, genetic and barcoding metadatabase) and GIS products (visualising bioregionalisation). Where possible these will be integrated with global databases such as GEO BON.
• The programme will provide recommendations towards the CEP’s 5-year plan e.g. prediction of distribution and biodiversity changes (vulnerable species and systems), ship-borne tourism, Marine Protected Areas, ASPAs, and CCAMLR.
• The creation of an Expert Group concerned with human impacts and invasive species in collaboration with the AntETR programme.
• Provide new data for glaciological and geological and other SCAR SRPs
• The creation of the Biological Material Repository
• The promotion of workshops on specific aspects of biodiversity and taxonomy

Partners: ACE, AGCS, SALE, EBA (and their successors), other Antarctic initiatives such as ACCE, CCAMLR, COML, ANTABIF, and inform stakeholders in the ATS and CEP. The programme is outward looking with targeted stakeholders including IPCC, SOOS, IPBES, ICED, and PAGES. 

Budget Implications: $5000 a year for two years

SCAR XXXI WP22: SCAR and IASC Partnership

Executive Summary

Title: SCAR and IASC Partnership

Authors: Colin Summerhayes, Mike Sparrow (for SCAR) and Volker Rachold (for IASC)

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: IP 08

Introduction/ Background: SCAR and IASC have had a formal partnership since Hobart (2006). This has led to close interactions between the Secretariats and Executive Committees and between certain of the science groups on both sides. It has underpinned the development of a progressively more bipolar approach to cryospheric and climate sciences, to the benefit of the two science communities. At this stage it is important to recognise that the two organisations will work together on certain aspects of the IPY legacy (see IP08).

Important Issues or Factors: Previously ICSU’s IGBP and ESSP programmes have not included inputs from SCAR and IASC and ICSU lacked a mechanism apart from the IPY for hearing the polar ‘voice’. However, closer cooperation with ICSU is improving this process. Currently ICSU provides the only avenue at present for polar science input from SCAR and IASC into the IPCC.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: Delegates are invited (i) to note the significant progress made over the past 4 years, (ii) to recommend continuance of this strong relationship, pointing to specific additional interactions for the future if these can be identified in addition to what is currently taking place, (iii) to cement the proposed joint sponsorship of ISMASS and possibly of IPICS, (iv) to encourage SCAR to work with IASC to ensure effective polar representation at ICSU General Assemblies, (v) to ensure to the extent possible that SCAR and IASC are invited to contribute to ICSU’s major cross-disciplinary programmes, and (vii) to ensure that the polar voice is heard at IPCC meetings.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: Development of a bipolar front in science, education and outreach focusing on areas where both organizations can most effectively benefit from a partnership approach will be beneficial to both SCAR and IASC.

Partners: IASC, but also ICSU and the ICSU unions

Budget Implications: Costs of attendance of Secretariat representative at annual IASC Council and ASSW meetings. Contribution to attendance of one or more SCAR representatives at relevant IPCC meetings. Continuance of BipAG.

SCAR XXXI WP23: Report of SC-ATS, Baltimore, 2009

Executive Summary

Title: Report from the SCAR Delegation to XXXII ATCM in BALTIMORE, USA, April 6-17, 2009

Authors: C.Summerhayes, M.C.Kennicutt II, S.Chown, M.Sparrow

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 Baltimore 2009

Important Issues or Factors:

The XXXII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) took place in Baltimore, MD, USA at the Baltimore Convention Centre from 6th to 17th April 2009. In parallel with the start of the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP) XII on April 6th, a joint session between the ATCPs and the Arctic Council was held at the US State Department in Washington. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and the President of the Arctic Council addressed the joint meeting. It featured the endorsement of a joint Ministerial Declaration on the International Polar Year 2007-2008 (IPY) (Appendix 1). The session was followed by an afternoon presentation on the science of IPY by US scientists at the US National Academy’s headquarters, in Washington, DC.

SCAR provided one Working Paper and nine Information Papers (one on behalf of the IPY International Project Office).

Partners: SCAR works closely with other Parties, Observers (e.g. COMNAP, CCAMLR) and Expert to the Treaty System.

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 XXXI WP24: Report of SC-ATS, Punta del Este, Uruguay, 2010

Executive Summary

Title: Report from the SCAR Delegation to XXXIII ATCM in Punta del Este, Uruguay, May 3-14th, 2010

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

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 Uruguay in 2010.

Important Issues or Factors:

SCAR’s contributions to the XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) were positively received. The Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE) report was seen as critical to the success of the Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts (ATME) on Climate Change and annual updates on climate change were welcomed as essential for the ongoing deliberations of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) and the ATCM. Many parties were interested in progress with the Southern Ocean Observing System (which was presented both at CEP and at the ATCM). SCAR will provide a final version of the plan for the XXXIV ATCM in Buenos Aires.

The introduction of the non-native species papers were lauded as setting the stage for future directions on this issue by the Parties.  There is a plan to develop a guide of best practices and it wall draw extensively on information provided by SCAR and the IPY Aliens project for directions.

The application of biodiversity data to the bioregionalization efforts by New Zealand was seen as a major development in moving toward a more regularized approach to selection of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and conservation in general.  The 2011 SCAR “a review of conservation practice for Antarctica in the 21st century” workshop was seen as an important next step in conservation efforts and participation by Parties was encouraged.

The Parities welcomed the SCAR contribution on bioprospecting. SCAR’s survey and literature review revealed the extent of current bioprospecting and the potential for future biotechnology based on Antarctic organisms.

Requests for follow-on work were moderate and SCAR’s advisory workload seems to be less demanding than in recent years. This development is welcomed as it allows SCAR to more closely align it work with CEP/ATCM needs and bring a balance between ATCM requests for advice and SCAR initiatives.  SCAR plans to utilize this opportunity to become increasingly proactive in advising the CEP on relevant issues in addition to responding to requests for advice.

Partners: SCAR works closely with other Parties, Observers (e.g. COMNAP, CCAMLR) and Expert to the Treaty System.

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 XXXI WP25: Report on Interactions with COMNAP

SCAR XXXI WP26: Report on SCAR Legal Status

Executive Summary

Title: Report on SCAR Legal Status

Author: C. Summerhayes

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: https://www.scar.org/about-us/governance/ (updated link)

Introduction/ Background: ICSU requires all its subsidiary bodies to have independent legal status. SCAR achieved this in 2008, by becoming incorporated as a UK Company Limited by Guarantee, and by becoming registered as a UK Charity. Delegates approved the change in principal in Hobart in 2006, appointing an ad hoc working group to address outstanding questions for the final approval of EXCOM. EXCOM approved in 2007 the changes recommended by the ad hoc group. The former Constitution was translated into the Articles of Association, and the former Rules of Procedure remained substantially unchanged, save that some of the wording of the former Rules was incorporated into the Articles and some of the wording of the former Constitution was incorporated into the Rules, so that the final documents are consistent with UK law. Additional legal language was added to the Articles to ensure that SCAR operates efficiently and effectively as a Company and Charity under UK law, but with no prejudice to the spirit or intent of the former Constitution and Rules of Procedure.

Important Issues or Factors: Although finalization of the change was welcomed by Delegates at St Petersburg in 2008, a group of delegations requested further clarification of several points. It was agreed that their concerns would be addressed intersessionally, which led to correspondence between the President and the Delegations that raised concerns, and to the publication of Notes from the President No 2 (19 August, 2008). These discussion concluded that at present there are no outstanding issues regarding the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Rules of Procedure. Delegates should note that with the agreement of the meeting of Delegates, Articles can be modified by means of a Special Resolution. At that time the President pledged to address any and all remaining issues and corresponded directly with parties involved.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: It is recommended that no further modification of the Articles of Association or Rules of Procedure be made at this time. Changes should take place when the issue is substantive rather than minor, and materially affects the way in which SCAR conducts its business. If such changes are to be made it is further recommended that unless they represent a matter of some urgency, changes be accumulated such that a number of changes (if required) can be made together at some regular interval to be determined by the Delegates. Delegates are asked to note the completion of the Rules of Procedure for Subsidiary Bodies (IP 13)

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: The Secretariat’s limited resources and time will be spent on matters of primary and pressing importance to the functioning of the organization.

Partners: (will this involve others both within and outside of SCAR?) Not applicable

Budget Implications: (are funds requested or other commitments by SCAR?) None

SCAR XXXI WP27: Report on the SCAR Standing Committee on Antarctic Geographic Information (SCAGI)

Title: SCAR Standing Committee on Antarctic Geographic Information (SCAGI)

Authors: H. Brolsma, A. Fox, R. Cervellati

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: (obsolete link), WP10 (SCADM report)

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, the SCAR Antarctic Digital Database, the SCAR King George Island GIS Database, the SCAR Map Catalogue and SCAR Feature Catalogue. SCAGI integrates topographic and names information received from national Antarctic programs into the SCAR ADD and SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. SCAR / SCAGI in keeping with Article III.1.c of the Treaty that Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available promotes an open standards approach to support free and unrestricted data access and develops the respective specifications.

Important Issues or Factors:  Too much work being done by too few SCAGI members – this is not sustainable.

Both the SCAR CGA and SCAR ADD need editing and metadata added for them to comply with the SCAR Data and Information Management System (DIMS)

SCAR Composite Gazetteer Antarctica:

1. Needs radical improvement before it can be used at large scales in software such as Google Earth. Requires input from all countries.
2. Suggestions and requests for improvement are either ignored, agreed to but not followed up on or there is an unwillingness to change anything.

SCAR Antarctic Digital Database:

1. SCAR ADD needs metadata to be added to it. This is not an onerous task.
2. Little geographical information is being received to keep it up to date and relevant. Requires input from all countries.

SCAR DIMS:

In enquiries to SCAGI members it appears little data is being shared or metadata being written so that data can be discovered.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification:  Delegates need to make themselves familiar with the work that SCAGI does and encourage their national representatives to become involved with and contribute data to SCAGI products.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes:  The SCAR Executive requested that SCAR products be promoted so that there would be a wider use and awareness of them within the SCAR community. If the actions suggested in SCAR DIMS were taken up by SCAGI members then users could have confidence in the SCAR CGA and SCAR ADD.

Partners: SCADM, SCAR member countries

Budget Implications:  For the SCAR CGA and SCAR ADD to be improved, it requires that, either SCAGI members take on the necessary work or the work is outsourced. Continuation of $4k a year allocation.

SCAR XXXI WP28: Report of SCAR History Group

Executive Summary

Title: Report of the SCAR History Action Group 2009-2010

Authors: Cornelia Lüdecke

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: http://www.scar.org/about/history/

Introduction/ Background:

In 2010 the SCAR History Action Group is organizing two meetings. Firstly, 15 oral papers and 11 posters have been submitted for the bipolar session on “History of polar exploration, cooperation, research and logistics“ during the IPY Oslo Science Conference (8-12 June 2010). One objective of this session is to broaden the scope of these history sessions to include historians of Arctic as well as Antarctic polar research. Secondly, for the SCAR OSC in Buenos Aires (3-6 August 2010) we have organized a 6^th workshop (session 49) on “History of Antarctica and scientific research”. During 2009, the SCAR History AG held a very successful 5^th workshop, on “History of International Spaces”, during the Antarctic Treaty Summit (ATS50) in Washington DC (December 3^rd, 2009) with twelve speakers representing six nations. In addition, two papers from the 4^th workshop, the history session at the XXX SCAR meeting (St. Petersburg, 2008), were published in Polar Record (2009), and the proceedings of the 2^nd SCAR history workshop (Santiago, 2006) were published by the Chilean Antarctic Institute (see http://www.inach.cl/InachWeb

Neo/Controls/Neochannels/Neo_CH6231/deploy/boletin%20historico.pdf).

The proceedings of the 3^rd history workshop (Columbus, Ohio, 2007) will be published as an electronic version by the Byrd Polar Research Institute in 2010.

Important Issues or Factors: The SCAR History AG is already well recognized in the Antarctic community as can be seen by the invitation to organize the 5^th workshop within the framework of the ATS 50, where the AG chair, Cornelia Lüdecke, was asked to give the historical paper during the first plenary session and to take part in the following panel discussion.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: We recommend that the Action Group be upgraded to an Expert Group, because the activities are ongoing rather than limited to a short time. A primary aim is to intensify collaboration with IGY veterans, senior polar experts, young scientists, and PhD students (APECS) in the field of history of polar research, and to include as many different nations as possible. Until now we had 59 presentations from participants representing 12 nations.

In the future we plan to include bipolar topics, because many polar researchers had their first polar experiences in the Arctic (e,g, Ross, Filchner).

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: Annual workshops and ensuing publications serve as public outreach for SCAR, for example as shown during the ATS 50.

Partners: Historians of Arctic research / members of IASC.

Budget Implications: $3000 for continuing as an AG; $5000 for continuing as an EG.

SCAR XXXI WP29: Report on SCAR Science Week

St. Petersburg, Russia 4-11 July 2008

Executive Summary

Title: Report on SCAR Science Week, St. Petersburg, Russia 4-11 July 2008

Authors: Russian LOC

Introduction/ Background: The XXX Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Meeting and the SCAR and International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) Open Science Conference “Polar Research – Arctic and Antarctic perspectives in the International Polar Year” were held in St. Petersburg, Russia between July 4th and July 11th 2008.

The 4-day conference in St. Petersburg in July 2008 was different from its predecessors in that it was jointly organized by SCAR and its Arctic counterpart, the IASC. IASC has the same responsibilities for the Arctic, and likewise represents a number of countries. It was also co sponsored by International Council for Science (ICSU) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

Important Issues or Factors: Delegates will be invited to comment on the results of the St Petersburg meeting, observing lessons learned that may apply to the organisation and implementation of XXXII SCAR.

SCAR XXXI WP30: Management of SCAR Open Science Conferences

Executive Summary

Title: Management of SCAR Open Science Conferences

Authors: Mike Sparrow, Chuck Kennicutt after consultation with SCAR VPs Ad Huiskes (Finance) and Toni Meloni (Administration)

Relevant URLs or references to other reports: www.scar.org; Guidelines for Organizers of Biennial SCAR Meetings (https://www.scar.org/events/scar-osc/ (updated link))

Introduction/ Background: Working Paper WP 29 at XXX SCAR in 2008 proposed standardization of the management of the SCAR Open Science Conferences (OSCs). At the request of the Delegates this proposal was re-evaluated and refined. At the EXCOM meeting in 2009 this proposal was reviewed and updated as WP23. A new and improved model for managing SCAR’s OSCs is provided.

Recommendations/Actions and Justification: The Secretariat, in consultation with an International Scientific Organizing Committee (ISOC), will manage the process of assembling the Science Program for the Open Science Conference. This ensures that abstract submission and handling is efficiently handled by a standardized process from Conference to Conference. The Local Organizing Committee (LOC) continues to assume responsibility for all local arrangements and financial aspects of the Conferences. Delegates are requested to approve Secretariat plans to partial, in-house management for SCAR OSCs by developing an on-line, automated system.

Expected Benefits/Outcomes: SCAR Open Science Conference management will be standardized increasing efficiency, reducing cost and minimizing the risk of failure.

Budget Implications: At this time no financial investment is required assuming that the current web site can adequately provide the on-line services proposed. If an investment in commercial software is necessary competitive bids would be procured at that time and alternatives assessed.

SCAR XXXI WP31: Capacity Building and Education Plan

Executive Summary

Title: Capacity Building and Education Plan

Authors: M.Sparrow, R.Ravindra, R.Badhe, C. Kennicutt

Relevant URLs or references to other reports

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

Report_27 (updated link)

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

Introduction/ Background: SCAR is committed to developing scientific capacity in all SCAR Members, assisting students, early career scientists, underrepresented groups, and emerging 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 is now active and working on CBET and related issues. It is proposed a Visiting Professor scheme will be launched in 2011. Various external grants (see below) have been solicited to support CBET activities.

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, International Arctic Science Committee, International Polar Foundation, ICSU, COMNAP and others.

Budget Implications:

Fellowships = $30,000 a year (supplemented with voluntary contributions)

SCAR Visiting Professor scheme = $4,000 a year

Early careers scientist support and general = $4,000 a year

CBET Committee funds: $2,000 a year

SCAR Secondment = $5,000 a year 

SCAR has been successful in obtaining external grants to support CBET activities, for example 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 XXXI WP33a: SCAR 2008 Financial Statement – Summary

SCAR XXXI WP33b: SCAR 2008 Financial Statement – Full