Skip navigation


You are in:  Home » Publications » Reports » Report 13

SCAR Report No. 13, November 1996 

Appendix 5

SCAR Global Change Programme - an interpretation for the way ahead

The outcomes on SCAR-IGBP interactions from the Texel meeting, are the culmination of at least three years of effort from SCAR-GLOCHANT and more recently the SCAR Global Change Programme Office. They represent a significant advancement and a turning point for the administration of global change research in Antarctica and for the way in which SCAR needs to plan future research programmes. It is suggested that these outcomes represent the completion of Phase 1 of the GLOCHANT programme, which essentially was to develop external linkages and communications with the global programmes.

The SCAR Global Change Programme now includes aspects of SCAR programmes from within and without the GLOCHANT programme and from a number of SCAR working groups. This structure has evolved over the last few years, in addition to the activities of the GoS/GLOCHANT. Each of these groups represent evolving global change interests and will be asked to liaise directly with the relevant IGBP CPOs directly, in addition to liaising through the SCAR Global Change Programme Office. As a result of these developing linkages, there is a need for each of the SCAR programmes with a defined global change component to be represented on a SCAR Global Change Steering Group or Executive, which may evolve from the current GoS/GLOCHANT structure and composition. This is a key issue which must be resolved during the course of this meeting. I suggest that a SCAR Global Change Executive, which would primarily comprise ex officio chairpersons of the representative SCAR programmes with a substantial role in global change research, may be an appropriate solution. These persons would presently be drawn from GLOCHANT/PICE, GLOCHANT/ISMASS, CS-EASIZ, BIOTAS, GLOCHANT/ASPECT and ANTIME (when approved by the SCAR Executive or Delegates meetings).

This composition may be a more appropriate representation for the development of a START Regional Research Committee for the Antarctic. The START framework is based upon the START Standing Committee deferring the regional management responsibilities to the START Regional Research Committee, whilst it retains the direct relationship with the IGBP/WCRP/HDP Executive Committees. Under the proposed MOU on SCAR-START relationships, SCAR would be required to provide a committee to form the START Regional Research Committee for the Antarctic. The proposed structure of this committee would benefit from the inclusion of a nominated scientist from IGBP, WCRP and SCOR to ensure good communication and cooperation between the organisations. The proposed SCAR Global Change Executive may also need to include one or two (no more) additional people to represent key disciplines in which SCAR does not have a specific programme but maintains a clear interest.

As we are now entering Phase 2 of the SCAR Global Change Programme we need to collectively determine research priorities upon which we can develop COMNAP support and programme implementation within the national programmes. Do we need to limit the projects, and initially direct resources to complete science and implementation plans, on priority projects at this stage. Do we need to develop a comprehensive science plan for the SCAR Global Change Programme. Clearly defined outputs need to developed within the science plans. These preferred outputs include:

It is also hoped that this meeting can determine a well defined role for the programme office, and discuss the necessary resources to meet this role. The office is funded for another two years. What is the expected life span of the programme and how will its success be judged. The production of outputs or milestones is necessary if further funding is requested and campaigned for. These are the major questions which this group needs to answer during the next couple of days in Madison.

Dr Ian D. Goodwin

SCAR Global Change Programme Coordinator

3 April, 1996