12 August 2010 102nd Meeting of Executive Board ICSU Secretariat Paris 9-10 April 2010 DECISIONS Present: Catherine Bréchignac (as of item 6), Congbin Fu, Bryan Henry, Maurizio Iaccarino, Dov Jaron, Reiko Kuroda, Yuan T. Lee, Goverdhan Mehta, Hans Ott, Bruce Overmier, Sergio Pastrana, Kari Raivio, Uri Shamir, Maurice Tchuente, Abdul Hamid Zakri, and Deliang Chen (ex officio) In attendance (Agenda items 1-9): Alice Abreu, Bruce McKellar, and Rocky Skeef Secretariat: Tish Bahmani Fard, Paul Cutler (Items 5), Gisbert Glaser (Item 6), Jacinta Legg, Mustapha Mokrane (Item 5), Howard Moore (Items 10-15), Patricia Ocampo-Thomason, and Carthage Smith 1. Welcome and Opening of the Meeting The Vice-President for Scientific Planning and Review chaired the meeting until the arrival of the President for item 6. The Directors of the Regional Offices for Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Chair of the Regional Committee for Asia and the Pacific attended the meeting on the Friday afternoon. 2. Adoption of the Agenda Decision To adopt Agenda. 3. Decisions of 101st Meeting of Executive Board and Matters Arising (not treated elsewhere) The Decisions of the 101st Meeting of the Board were approved by Members and posted on the ICSU website at the beginning of 2010. Other than the item below, there were no matters arising from the 101st Meeting of the Board which were not dealt with elsewhere.
2 3.1 Ad hoc Group on Weighted Voting The Terms of Reference and the membership of the Ad hoc Group on Weighted Voting were established at the last meeting of the Board and the Group would meet on 8 and 9 May. Decision To note the final membership of the Ad hoc Group on Weighted Voting. 4. Report of Meeting of Officers and Regional Directors and Chairs, Budapest, November 2009 The first meeting of the Officers of ICSU, Regional Committee Chairs, and Regional Directors took place in Budapest on 3 November 2009. The EB liaisons to the Regional Committees also participated in the meeting. The primary goals of this meeting were to provide a stronger link and platform for discussion between ICSU global (EB, CSPR, and Secretariat) and ICSU regional (Regional Offices and Regional Committees) to ensure integration of regional and global priorities in developing and implementing ICSU Strategic Plans, and to provide a platform for exchange of experiences among Regional Offices. One of the core items discussed was the ICSU overall strategic planning (2012-2017), reflecting on the roles of the Regional Offices. The importance of involving the Regional Offices from the outset of each of the planning activities was stressed. Questions about how the Regional Office input would be incorporated in the current timeline and how the Regional Offices would participate in the writing process were raised during the discussion. In addition, it was recognised that both the ICSU Members and the Regional Offices needed more time to reflect and consult during the planning process. Another important topic of discussion was the positioning of Regional Offices in ICSU s structures, and it was agreed that this should be examined in the light of recommendations from the Regional Office review panels once the three reviews were concluded. The meeting also reflected on the mechanisms for improving the coordination between regional and global priorities and on future strategies for global-regional coordination. Examples from Hazards and Disasters, Sustainable Energy, Biodiversity/Ecosystems and Science Education (including Mathematical Education) were presented and discussed. At the end of the meeting, participants agreed that the meeting had succeeded in providing stronger links among ICSU Officers and the Regional Offices and Committees. However, it was felt that a longer meeting was required to be able to look at more concrete proposals and plans, so it was agreed that the next meeting should last two days. In general participants agreed that this first meeting was a step in the right direction and should be continued. Decisions To note summary of Officers, Regional Directors and Chairs meeting; and to note that next Officers and Regional Directors and Chairs meeting will take two days and should take place this year, possibly in conjunction with the second EB meeting (October).
3 5. Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) and Matters Arising The CSPR met on 9-11 February 2010. The focus of the meeting was on developing a framework and potential content for an initial draft of the ICSU Strategic Plan 2012-2017. This draft, to be prepared by the Secretariat, would then be considered at the CSPR s meeting on 27-28 September before final amendments and circulation to ICSU Members for comment. Items not covered elsewhere on the EB agenda were the CSPR s discussion of ICSU s potential role in energy, ICSU s engagement in global observing systems, and the ICSU Grants Programme. On energy, the discussion focused on ICSU s potential niche in this area, the relationship of regional and global efforts, ongoing Union activities in this area, and the relationship between potential ICSU action on energy and the Earth system visioning process. On global observing systems, the CSPR took stock of the current engagement of ICSU and the relationships among the observing systems, ICSU-sponsored research programmes, and societal needs. The CSPR decided that a strategic review of ICSU s role in observing systems would be needed during the implementation of ICSU s second Strategic Plan, and that preparatory discussions on the scope of the review would be needed with cosponsors of these systems. On the Grants Programme, the CSPR awarded seven grants out of nine applications. Based on feedback from the previous EB meeting on the timing of the programme announcement, the CSPR decided to announce the 2011 programme in May 2010 rather than in September, as has been done for the previous two years thus creating more time for proposal development. The programme announcement would also emphasize meaningful engagement with Regional Offices during proposal development. 5.1 World Data System Scientific Committee (WDS-SC) The WDS-SC had met twice (October 2009 and March 2010). At its first meeting the WDS-SC identified several priorities including establishing the Constitution and Bylaws; defining the Mission Statement; and agreeing on the data policy, system architecture, and criteria for WDS membership. The Committee also discussed the role for WDS in addressing the data legacy challenges of the International Polar Year (IPY). At the second meeting the draft Constitution of the ICSU WDS was completed and approved and good progress made on the system architecture and criteria for WDS membership. Strong collaboration had also been established with the International Polar Year Data and Information Service (IPYDIS), as well as the Polar Information Commons initiative led by CODATA. Ensuring long-term adequate support for WDS-SC was identified in the report of the Ad hoc Strategic Committee on Information and data (SCID as critical to the viability of the system as a whole. The limited ICSU support (budget for two meetings per year for three years and administrative support from the ICSU secretariat) made it difficult to
4 realize the full potential of the WDS vision. The CSPR had recommended at its last meeting the establishment of an ICSU WDS International Programme Office to support the WDS-SC in building this new system. 5.2 Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 The majority of the items on the CSPR agenda related either indirectly or directly to the development of the 2 nd ICSU Strategic Plan, which had to be presented for approval to the General Assembly in 2011. Major ongoing activities, including the sustainability research visioning (originally termed the Earth system visioning) exercise, foresight and the review of science education would feed into the Strategic Plan, 2012-2017. One of the challenges for the CSPR was that it could not wait until these activities were completed before it started to draft the Plan. With this in mind, it considered and elaborated on an outline framework for the plan at its February meeting. This initial framework, which had not yet been amended to incorporate the many comments from the CSPR was provided for consideration by the Executive Board. The outline Framework took earlier discussions and inputs into full account. 5.3 Foresight Analysis The ICSU foresight analysis was overseen by the CSPR and implemented by the Secretariat under the guidance of a Foresight Task Team (see foresight.icsu.org). This analysis would inform the development and implementation of the next strategic plan. Three major consultation phases with Members were planned, with the final one linked to the 2011 General Assembly. The first of these consultations started in October 2009 and was due to end in April 2010. This was a multifaceted consultation, with an online component, sessions at ICSU-related meetings (including the Unions meeting and previous EB meeting), and a literature scan. The online component alone resulted in suggestions for more than 170 key drivers of international science over the next 20 years. These contributions had been distilled down to a draft set of key drivers. The second consultation phase, planned for October-December 2010, would seek structured feedback from ICSU Members on draft scenarios of the future of international science. Decisions To note CSPR 19 th Meeting Report; to note progress in establishing the ICSU World Data System; to approve the ICSU World Data System Constitution and Bylaws with revisions to Article IX Amendment of the Constitution; to accept the recommendation from CSPR to establish an ICSU WDS International Programme Office; to request the Secretariat to call for proposals from ICSU Members to host the ICSU WDS International Programme Office; to endorse the framework for the Strategic Plan as developed thus far; to ask CSPR and the Secretariat to develop a more complete draft of the Strategic Plan; and to note progress in the Foresight Analysis.
5 6. UN Conference on Sustainable Development 2012 (Rio+20) The UN General Assembly (GA), at its meeting on 23 December 2009, decided to organize, in 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development at the highest possible level, including Heads of State and Government or other representatives, and in this regard accepted the offer of the Government of Brazil to host the Conference in Rio de Janeiro 20 years after the city hosted the first such Conference hence Rio+20. The UN GA also decided that an intergovernmental preparatory committee would be established within the framework of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to carry out the preparations for the Conference. The first meeting of the preparatory committee will be held in 2010 for three days, immediately following the eighteenth session of CSD (New York, May 2010). ICSU had been invited by the CSD Secretariat to participate in the work of the preparatory committee as co-organizing partner, together with the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO), of the Scientific and Technological Community (STC) major group, one of nine major groups (non-state stakeholder groups) identified in Agenda 21 (Rio 1992). ICSU s involvement in previous world summits on this topic In 1992, for the first Earth Summit, officially entitled UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), ICSU was invited to act as principal scientific adviser to the dedicated secretariat tasked with the preparations of the Rio Conference. In addition, in November 1991, ICSU organized a large conference to define the Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21 st century (ASCEND 21). Moreover, Agenda 21, the formal action plan agreed at the Rio Conference included several chapters to which ICSU had provided substantive input. In 2001 the UN again formally invited ICSU to play a major role in ensuring a strong science input in both the preparatory process of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and at the Summit itself (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August to 4 September 2002). During the Johannesburg Summit, ICSU also led an official parallel forum on science, technology and innovation for sustainable development, at the behest of the South African Government and in collaboration with the UN. Ever since the WSSD, ICSU and WFEO had continued their role as co-organizing partners of the STC in the work of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) which was the global intergovernmental body in charge of reviewing progress and recommending policies and measures to accelerate the implementation of the Rio 1992 and Johannesburg 2002 outcomes. In 2001/2002, ICSU was able to draw on a project grant (US$ 250 000) from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation (USA) and other external funding from other Foundations. The project involved considerable extra work for the Secretariat staff. Using the external funds, a full-time senior project coordinator and a full-time young scientist were temporarily contracted. Any comparable ICSU input into Rio+20 would again require substantive additional financial and/or in-kind support.
6 Views and recommendation from CSPR At its 18 th meeting in September 2009, the CSPR was provided with detailed information on the substantive contribution made by ICSU to the WSSD and on the sizeable project grants that were secured from several Foundations to this end. CSPR-18 was supportive of a strong ICSU role as the voice of science again in 2012 and noted that the Rio+20 event will occur during the implementation of the next Strategic Plan. The Committee considered a two-pronged approach that included (1) encouraging National Members to get involved in the national Rio+20 delegations, and (2) having a focused international approach, with input from Union Members and IBs and with due involvement of the Regional Offices. CSPR19 s discussion emphasized the importance of an ICSU presence at the Rio+20 preparatory meetings. ICSU s unique role is as the non-governmental voice of science. A general focus might be how science can help on new and old unsolved problems, with a goal of ensuring that negotiations in Rio are underpinned effectively by the best science. The outcomes of the Earth system visioning process are a potential overarching theme for ICSU, and the CSPR raised specific topics including water, energy, and food production. It also indicated that ICSU might focus on high-impact ideas presented at a science forum, that early career scientists could be engaged in presentations, that national leaders could chair science sessions, etc. CSPR19 decided to explore options for developing a series of policy papers on key aspects of science for sustainable development during the preparatory phase of Rio+20; and to advise the Executive Board that additional resources would need to be identified if ICSU is to attach high priority to Rio+20. Decisions To note the views and advice from the CSPR; and to agree that ICSU should attach high priority to its participation in Rio+20 and take action to secure additional resources to this end. 7. Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) In August 2008, Thomas Rosswall wrote to all ICSU National Members asking for expressions of interest to host an International Programme Office for PECS (known at that time as ECHW) and IRDR. Only one formal response was received from China: Taipei, which proposed to host both the PECS and IRDR IPO s and eventually a full proposal was developed only to host the IRDR IPO. The Scientific Committee for PECS held its second meeting in Paris in January 2010. The meeting included productive discussions with the ICSU-sponsored global environmental change programmes and identification of areas of synergy and potential collaboration. The PECS work-plan timetable starts with the establishment in 2010 of the International Programme Office (IPO). A proposal for an IPO that had the support of the Scientific Committee and involved cooperative offices in Stockholm, Sweden, and Penang, Malaysia, had now been submitted for consideration by the EB.
7 Decisions To note the draft PECS work-plan; and to accept the proposal for a PECS IPO with cooperative offices in Sweden and Malaysia. 8. Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science (CFRS) 8.1 Report on CFRS Activities The Chair of the CFRS, Bengt Gustafsson, had been invited to attend for this item and made a brief presentation on the role and planned activities of the CFRS. At the previous Executive Board meeting concerns had been raised about some of the statements that had been produced by the CFRS and, in particular, the importance of remaining politically neutral was emphasised. This was communicated to the CFRS at its 7 th meeting in November. The Committee emphasised that many of the issues affecting the freedom of scientists were inherently political and it welcomed the opportunity to engage more fully with the Executive Board in addressing this issue. It also reaffirmed the importance that it attached to producing carefully considered statements as a mechanism for engaging the ICSU membership on essential issues. At the same time, the CFRS recognised that its own consensus on wording was always likely to be subject to individual interpretations. (See also discussion on ICSU position statements under Any Other Business.) 8.2 Statement on Polar Universality With the observance period for the International Polar Year having ended in March 2009 and the plans for a major IPY conference in Oslo in June 2010 (cosponsored by ICSU see ipy-osc.no), the EB at its 100 th meeting discussed the need to reiterate the universality principle with respect to the Polar Regions. A statement on Universality in the Polar Regions was subsequently developed and a draft had been approved by the CFRS. Approval by the Board was now sought so that this Statement could be publicized in the run up to the June 2010 IPY Open Science Conference. Decisions To endorse the planned activities of CFRS; to thank Bengt Gustafsson for attending the meeting; and to approve for release the ICSU Statement on Universality in the Polar Regions. 9. Regional Activities 9.1 Reports from Regional Offices The Regional Directors and Chair presented briefly the latest developments in each region.
8 Africa Following the decision of the 101 st EB meeting, the Executive Director and the NRF President agreed on a process for the transition of the ICSU Regional Office for Africa (ROA). In agreement with ICSU, the NRF appointed Rocky Skeef as the Acting Director of the Office, to maintain continuity in the operation of the office while the search for a new Director was ongoing. Rocky Skeef was currently an executive at South Africa s National Research Foundation (NRF), with 15 years management and leadership experience; he was a key member of the NRF Executive, driving the establishment and support for ROA, as well as development of ROA s first Business Plan and operation manual. He had participated in many of ROA s activities and had represented the NRF on the ICSU Regional Committee for Africa (ICSU RCA). He took up his appointment on 1 March 2010, following the departure of Sospeter Muhongo on 28 February. The search for the new ROA Director started in January. The vacancy announcement, with a deadline of 20 February, was widely distributed and 61 applications were received. A shortlist was being established by a selection committee consisting of two representatives from ICSU (ED and SG), and two from NRF (CEO and Director of the Human Resources Department). It was foreseen that interviews would take place in Pretoria before the end of April and that the new Director would be in place before the end of June. Taking into consideration the EB decisions on the Regional Committee for Africa, the NRF communication on the ICSU ROA finances and that the new Acting Director would need time to familiarize himself with the workings of the Office, it had been agreed that a meeting of the Regional Committee might not be necessary during 2010. In relation to the Committee membership, three of the members finished their second mandate at the end of 2009 and the other four members would finish their second mandate at the end of 2010. Thus the Board would need to consider replacements for all RCA members at its 103rd meeting in October 2010. Asia and the Pacific The Office continued to make progress with the regional priorities sustainable energy, hazards and disasters, and ecosystem change and society. The priority areas were central to discussions at the eighth meeting of the Regional Committee which took place in November 2009, hosted by the Science Council of Japan (SCJ). Reiko Kuroda represented the President of SCJ and other Council members participated as observers. The ninth meeting of the Committee was scheduled to take place in Kuala Lumpur at the end of April and would centre its discussions on the forthcoming review of the Regional Office. A symposium on Enhancing Science for the Benefit of Society was being organized after the meeting by ROAP in conjunction with the Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM).
9 Latin America and the Caribbean Several alternatives were being pursued for the implementation of the Science Plans of the four regional priorities sustainable energy, natural disasters, mathematics education, and biodiversity. At its seventh meeting the Regional Committee agreed to network with the Organization of American States (OAS) and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IADB) as part of the implementation process. A formal agreement between ICSU and OAS was being negotiated. The Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (ROLAC) participated in the 3rd ICSU Regional Consultation for Asia and Pacific, contributing to the dialogue between the three ICSU Regional Offices. The eighth meeting of RCLAC was scheduled to take place in Rio de Janeiro in May to coincide with the site visit of the Office Review Panel. The meeting would centre its discussion around the Review of the Office and its relocation to Mexico, and the Committee would meet with the Review Panel. The Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), a very important regional partner, approved the registration of ICSU as a Civil Society Organization; this registration will allow ICSU to participate in all OAS meetings, as well as in the Summit of the Americas. 9.3 Relocation of ICSU Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean Upon signature of the Agreement for the creation of the ICSU Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Brazil, through the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (ABC), had committed to supporting the Office for three years. After that it was agreed that the Office would move to Mexico. The ABC President, Jacob Palis, had ratified this commitment to the Mexican authorities and the end of September 2010 was set for the move of the Office to Mexico. Mexico had agreed to sign an agreement with ICSU for the creation of the RO in Mexico. The agreement would involve the Mexican Academy of Sciences (MAS), which would provide the space and equipment for the work of the Office, and the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT), which would provide the resources for the Office work (staff, travel and organization of meetings). A letter of intent signed by the President of MAS and the DG of CONACyT had been received. 9.4 Reports from the Regional Reviews The Brazilian Academy of Science (ABC) had accepted the CSPR proposal to have Michael Clegg, Alexandre Quintanilha and Teivo Teivainen as members of the Review Panel with Michael Clegg as Chair. All panel members had agreed to serve and the first meeting of the panel took take place in Paris in March. The site visit would be conducted in May and it was foreseen that the Panel report would be ready in June 2010. The draft ToR for the Review of the ICSU Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific had been presented to and discussed by the Regional Committee for Asia and the Pacific at
10 its most recent meeting in November 2009 and then submitted to the ASM Council meeting in December 2009 for ASM approval. CSPR19 had approved the final version. The CSPR also discussed the nominations received for the membership of the Review Panel and the final composition of the panel was being discussed with ASM. Decisions To note that Rocky Skeef has been appointed Acting Director of ROA; to note that the full membership of the RCA will need to be renewed in 2010; to thank the RCA members for their service; to note progress in the search for the new ROA Director; to note the activities of the 3 Regional Offices; to note the ICSU status as an OAS Civil Society Organization; to approve that the Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean be moved to Mexico; to agree to advertise for the position of Director of ROLAC; to note the final composition of the Review Panel for the ICSU Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean review; and to note the final ToR for the Review of the ICSU Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. 10. Follow-up to Unions Meeting Board Members attended the Unions meeting on 7-8 April. It was noted that on this occasion three out of the four clusters (BioUnions, GeoUnions, and Physical, Chemical and Mathematical Sciences Unions) had held meetings of their clusters immediately before the Unions meeting. In general it was felt that the meeting had been positive but certain recurring themes remained: importance of retaining the grants programme, need for information tutorials for newcomers to ICSU, need to find ways to improve the Unions engagement in ICSU programmes and Regional Offices, need for executive summaries of documents, need for more discussion time at the meeting and longer lunch and coffee breaks. Decision To note the concerns expressed by the Unions; and to ask the Secretariat to address these, as appropriate. 11. Environmental Activities 11.1 Earth System Visioning process The goal of this process was to engage the scientific community to explore options and propose steps to implement a holistic strategy for Earth system research. This strategy would both encourage scientific innovation and address policy needs. Background on the process can be found on the visioning website (http://www.icsu-visioning.org). A three-step process had been embarked upon. Briefly, Step 1 focused on the research priorities. The summary document coming out of this step was the draft Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research: A Systems Approach to Research Priorities for the Decade. This document was based on input to a month-and-a-half Internet consultation and a three-day workshop in 2009.
11 Step 2 will examine the institutional framework needed to support the identified Grand Challenges at meetings on 22-24 June 2010. Step 3 will explore transitioning from existing structures to new ones at a meeting in December 2010/early 2011. Between CSPR meetings, the visioning process was overseen by a Task Team consisting of J. Rockström (Chair), A. Whyte, H. Hackmann (observer), J. Schellnhuber, K. Raivio, and W. Reid (past Chair). E. Ostrom, a prominent social scientist who worked in this area, had recently joined the Task Team. As shown in a figure on the visioning website, stakeholder engagement was an important feature of the visioning process. Nearly 300 comments were collected online on the Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research, as well as input to the Institutional Support for Global Sustainability Research Meeting (22-24 June) from December - February. In addition, to the ICSU membership, other organizations involved were UNEP and the co-sponsors of the Global Environmental Change (GEC) programmes: IOC (co-sponsor of WCRP), ISSC (co-sponsor of IHDP), IUBS (cosponsor of DIVERSITAS), SCOPE (co-sponsor of DIVERSITAS), UNESCO (cosponsor of DIVERSITAS), UNU (co-sponsor of IHDP), WMO (co-sponsor of WCRP), and those involved in the initial web consultation. ICSU was the only co-sponsor of all the GEC programmes. At the Institutional Support Meeting in June 2010, there would be several possible institutional support scenarios presented for discussion. The goals of this meeting were: - To establish which institutions are interested in participating in the Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research. - To draft a proposal on the institutional support structure that can be presented to the relevant governing bodies. Before the invitation-only Institutional Support for Global Sustainability Research Meeting (23-24 June), there would be a one-day Open Forum (22 June) to allow for an open discussion on the institutional support before the invitation-only meeting. In addition to determining the institutional support, links to funders were being made. For the national funders, this was being done through the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research (IGFA) and the Belmont Forum. In April 2009, the EB decided to co-sponsor the Forum of Scientific Foundations, which would be held in 2011 and involve small and medium-sized foundations. In discussions with the Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'homme (FMSH) and ISSC, there had been an agreement to link this Forum with the visioning process. Decision To note that CSPR had endorsed the key elements of the Step 2 meeting (22-24 June) and had requested the Task Team to present to CSPR at its next meeting a proposal for an institutional framework to address global sustainability research, including potential partners.
12 11.2 Belmont Project The Belmont project was a fast moving project approved in 2009, with a first meeting being held in December. It focused on an analysis of the international research capability to respond to the challenge of delivering knowledge to support human action and adaptation to regional environmental change (the Belmont Challenge), and on the solvability of the Challenge and the infrastructure and personnel needed to address it. The Belmont project involved the following steps: 1) establishing a panel, 2) informing the Global Environmental Change Programme Directors/Chairs about the project, 3) discussing the structure of the report during the first meeting of the Panel in Paris, 4) analysing individual contributions from the Programmes and key individuals, 5) discussing and finalising the draft report during the Panel s second and last meeting in March in Paris, and 6) seeking review comments from some key individuals and organizations before the publication of the report in May 2010. Most of the panel members had submitted their inputs to the Chair and the report was being drafted. Relevant key programmes/organizations and key scientists had been contacted for inputs to support the analysis. The funding agencies, who initiated the Belmont project, invited the Executive Director to participate in the Second Meeting of the Belmont Forum of Global Change Research Funders in January 2010 in London. The meeting focused on the framework for meeting the Belmont Challenge in terms of future organization structure and enhanced cooperation among funders and between the funders and ICSU. The Executive Director reported on the design and progress of the Belmont project. It was decided that 1) the Belmont Forum (BF) would continue and act as an IGFA Council of Principals, 2) Timothy Killeen and Alan Thorpe would act as Co-Chairs of the BF, and 3) the ICSU Executive Director would become a full member of the BF. Decisions To note the progress of the Belmont project and ICSU s engagement in the Belmont Forum s activities; and to agree electronically on approval of the Belmont report when it had been finalized. 11.3 Appointment to Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) Scientific Committee (SC) ESSP had one empty seat on its Scientific Committee; this seat became available when Melissa Leach, who had been appointed by the EB at its last meeting, indicated that she was not available. Decision To appoint Kirsten Halsnaes to the ESSP SC for the period 1 January 2010-31 December 2012.
13 12. Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) The Board was given an update on the establishment of the IRDR and its International Programme Office. Following the decision of the Board at its 101 st Meeting and those of the governing mechanisms of the two IRDR co-sponsors, the International Social Science Council (ISSC) and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN- ISDR) to accept the offer made by the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) to host and finance the IPO for IRDR in Beijing, negotiations had continued with Chinese counterparts regarding the administrative conditions under which the IPO would operate at the host institute, the Center for Earth Observation and Digital Earth (CEODE) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). On 22 February 2010 in Beijing, a Letter of Cooperation recognizing the establishment of, and support to, the IPO was formally signed by all three IRDR co-sponsors, plus senior representatives of CAST, CAS and CEODE. Jane Rovins (USA) has been appointed to the post of IRDR Executive Director and would be taking up office in Beijing in late May 2010. A third meeting of the IRDR Scientific Committee was foreseen for 14-16 April 2010 in Paris. In addition to substantive programme matters, one important item to be discussed by the Committee was the establishment of a limited series of IRDR International Centres of Excellence each dealing with a defined part of the IRDR programme. It was recalled that the Board had decided, at its 101 st Meeting, to invite the Secretariat to negotiate with the Academy of Sciences located in Taipei regarding the possible establishment of one such centre, which might well serve as a model for others elsewhere in the world. Decisions To note progress in the establishment of the IRDR and its operational structure; and to agree that the Director-General of CEODE be an ex officio member of the IRDR Scientific Committee. 13. ICSU Response to Natural Catastrophes In the wake of the earthquake in Haiti, some EB members had suggested that ICSU should send a message of condolence to the government of Haiti but others felt that such messages without practical help were empty gestures. Other responses, such as the issuance of statements (as had been done by IUGG), were also discussed as were the actions of IRDR. Decision To ask the IRDR to advise ICSU when necessary on future action with regard to specific natural catastrophes.
14 14. Finance 14.1 Committee on Finance Meeting and Matters Arising The Committee on Finance (CF) met immediately prior to the Executive Board meeting and the Chair, Bryan Henry, reported to the Board. The CF had reviewed ICSU s budget and portfolio and examined in detail the accounts for 2009. Members of the CF had met with the ICSU Auditor, who had approved the accounts. The CF also considered the situation with regard to Members in arrears with their dues and in particular the question of Members who had been Observers for more than six years. It would be writing to those Members to ask what their plans to pay were and would make a recommendation on future action to the next meeting of the Executive Board. 14.2 Treasurer s Report and Audited Accounts The Treasurer, Hans Rudolf Ott, reported on the state of ICSU s finances since the last meeting. He reviewed the audited accounts for 2009 for the Board and pointed out that there was a positive net balance on operations of ~ 263k, which was higher than predicted and mainly due to receipt of a significant supplementary grant from the NSF towards the end of the year, and an under-spend on some project activities. This operating profit was complemented by a positive balance on other operations ( 122k), which was mainly due to cancellation of the provision for loss on the investment portfolio. In the event, the realised loss on the portfolio during 2009 was limited to ~ 215k, which was ~half of what had been provisioned. The overall net result for 2009 was a positive balance of ~ 385k. In light of the positive recommendation by the Auditor, he requested the Board s approval of the accounts. 14.3 Revised budget for 2010 The Treasurer reported that the provisional 2010 budget which had been approved by the 101 st Executive Board and the General Assembly in Maputo had a projected deficit of 71k. A revised budget, taking into account some income and activities that were delayed from 2009, had been considered by the CF and was now presented to the Executive Board for approval. Decisions To note the report from the Committee on Finance and the Treasurer s report; to close the accounts for 2009 and submit the audited accounts to the Members for approval via an ega; and to approve the revised budget for 2010 (Annex 1). 15. Applications for Admission as National Members The Board is empowered to admit new National Members when these applications are received in between sessions of the General Assembly. Two applications were in order. 15.1 Foundation of Science and Development, Angola An application for admission as a National Member from the Foundation of Science and Development of Angola was before the Executive Board. Following the General
15 Assembly in Maputo, the Scientific Research Association of Mozambique (AICIMO) had been working actively to encourage applications from other African Portuguese speaking countries and this was the first such application to be received. 15.2 Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzogovina (ANUBiH) At its 101 st Meeting, the Executive Board had decided to admit the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republic of Srpska as a National Member of ICSU. It did so after receiving clarification as to the status and territory served by the two science academies within the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). An application for membership was now before the Board from the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzogovina (ANUBiH), the learned society based in Sarajevo serving the needs of the scientific community of the other of the two Entities making up the Republic: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Copies of both Academies Statutes and signed statements of compliance by their respective Presidents were equally before the Board. The Board decided that the Foundation of Science and Development of Angola and the ANUBiH satisfied the requirements of Statute 8 and Rule of Procedure 8.3 of ICSU concerning National Members: 8. A National Scientific Member shall be a scientific academy, research council, scientific institution or association of such institutions. Institutions effectively representing the range of scientific activities in a definite territory may be accepted as National Scientific Members, provided they can be listed under a name that will avoid any misunderstanding about the territory represented, and have been in existence in some form for at least 4 years. Decision To admit the Foundation of Science and Development of Angola and the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzogovina (ANUBiH) as National Members of ICSU. 16. 30 th General Assembly 16.1 Draft Agenda Although the Statutes only call for the Agenda to be sent to Members three months in advance of the General Assembly, in practice this is always sent at least one year in advance in order to allow Members time to consult and send their inputs to the Agenda. The Executive Director outlined his thoughts on the Agenda, which it was envisaged would include more scientific presentations in the plenary sessions. There would also be a mini symposium, in conjunction with the CNR, on Monday, 26 September and a short presentation at the Opening Reception.
16 16.2 Appointment of Nominating Committee The Nominating Committee consists of the President and six other Members and is appointed by the Executive Board. Although the Statutes only stipulate that the Nominating Committee be appointed one year in advance of the General Assembly, it was preferable that this be done earlier in order that the call for nominations could be sent out in sufficient time to allow Members a reasonable consultation period. Two meetings of the Committee were usually foreseen, one after 26 March 2011, when nominations must be received in order for the Nominating Committee to be able to send its slate to Members by 26 May 2011 (Rule of Procedure 6.2), and one at the Assembly, when the Nominating Committee may amend the slates produced by the National and Scientific Unions fora if it deems these slates to be inadequate. In practice, this second meeting had not proved necessary and it was now proposed that this meeting take place by video link, if the President deemed a meeting necessary. Members of the Nominating Committee are not eligible for election. The EB was asked to propose persons for membership of this Committee. 16.3 Practical Arrangements The persons in the Secretariat responsible for the logistics of the Assembly had visited the CNR, and the FAO building where the Assembly would be held, in early February. The FAO Secretariat was modern and well-equipped and the arrangements proposed by the CNR fulfil all ICSU's requirements. One person at the CNR would be assigned to work with Mustapha Mokrane on a dedicated Assembly website and cooperation with the local organizers would remain close at all stages of the preparations. The CNR was negotiating with a number of hotels in order to obtain preferential rates. Decisions To agree to approve the Draft Agenda electronically after the meeting; to agree that each EB Member would send one suggestion for the Nominating Committee to the Executive Director; to authorize the President to decide on the final composition of the Nominating Committee; and to decide that a physical meeting of the NC at the GA is not necessary. 17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Over the preceding months some errors in the fourth IPCC report on climate change had been discovered and those errors had been seized on by some to discredit climate science. Some media reports also contributed to the confusion of the general public s understanding of the climate science, doubt in science and the scientists behind the IPCC assessment. More seriously, personal attacks against some key scientists were reported to ICSU. During its last meeting in February, the CSPR had a discussion on this and proposed to make a statement on the IPCC issue, in order to help restore the public trust/faith in climate science, and to provide a balanced and objective view on the science provided by many individual scientists.
17 The ideal timing to release such a statement was considered to be during UNEP s Governing Council s meeting in Bali the same month. Given the urgency of the issue and the limited time to prepare and release the statement in the UNEP meeting, the mechanism to make a fast decision by the Officers was invoked. Decision To note the ICSU statement about the IPCC. 18. Communication and Outreach 18.1 Communications and Publications Current activities Since the last Executive Board meeting several communication projects had been completed or were being carried out. These included ongoing communications projects (e.g. Annual Report), as well as projects that had been identified as being needed for the ICSU communication strategy, including the website upgrade, and a website and newsletter survey. Website upgrade The design for the new website had been developed and the structure was currently being built. A pre-production version of the site provided immediate feedback on updates and allowed for ongoing testing of the site functionality. The structure should be completed in June and the website was scheduled for launch in September. Website and newsletter survey A survey of the current website and Insight newsletter was carried out from 19 January to 12 February and received 348 responses. The feedback was generally positive and had provided useful information on how ICSU could improve its online communications. Communication with Members: Publications, consultations and the 30th General Assembly There had been many consultations with ICSU Members in recent months, with more opportunities arising over the coming 18 months, many of which were related to the development of the second ICSU Strategic Plan, 2012 2017. The consultations were a component of ICSU s broader communication with Members. Decision To note ongoing initiatives with regard to communications and publications. 18.2 Key Partners 18.2.1 InterAcademy Panel (IAP)/InterAcademy Council (IAC) The General Assembly of the InterAcademy Panel took place in January at the Royal Society in London. It was preceded by an IAP International Conference on Biodiversity and a meeting of the IAP Executive Committee. The decision of the ICSU Executive Board to invite IAP to participate in specific items of its meetings was communicated to the IAP Executive Committee. Disappointment was expressed that ICSU was not more
18 open in inviting IAP to the totality of its meetings. This issue was raised by the IAP Co-Chair and subsequently clarified from the floor during the IAP General Assembly. Several Board Members and the Deputy Executive Director attended all or some of this series of IAP meetings and gave their perspectives on relations with IAP. IAP had been formally invited to contribute by video conference to this item of the EB Agenda but had declined due to other commitments. The IAC Board and IAP Executive Committee held back to back meetings in Amsterdam in March. ICSU had been invited to attend as an observer but was unable to be represented due to prior commitments. A letter of apology was sent to the IAC and IAP Directors, emphasising the importance of continued good communication and collaboration between the various organizations. A major item of discussion at the IAC meeting was the review of IPCC. Decision To emphasise the importance of continued close communication and collaboration with IAC and IAP. 18.2.2 UNESCO The relationship between ICSU and UNESCO was formally embedded in a six year Framework Agreement, which currently extended from 2008-2013. Under this Agreement, funding had been set aside on a biennial basis for joint activities which were agreed in an annual workplan that was negotiated with UNESCO. Historically this funding (~$350k p.a) was used to supplement the ICSU grants programme and fund the activities of Unions and Interdisciplinary Bodies. However, in more recent years most of the funding had been used in a more targeted way for co-sponsored programmes, including DIVERSITAS, PECS and IRDR. In addition to central funding, a proportion (~40%) of the dedicated UNESCO funding for ICSU had been decentralised to the UNESCO Regional Offices to support collaboration with the ICSU Regional Offices. The total level of UNESCO funding that was originally expected for 2008 and 2009 was ~ 500k, with 60% being centralised and 40% in the regions. In the event, no funding was transferred in 2008 and only part of these funds was made available in 2009. In February, the Executive Director met with the Assistant Director-General for the Natural Sciences of UNESCO to discuss joint activities under the Framework Agreement for 2010 and 2011. It emerged in this meeting that there were no longer any identified funds set aside in the UNESCO budget for these joint activities. At both the regional and central level funds for joint activities would in future have to come out of the routine UNESCO operating and project budgets and access to these funds would entail negotiations at the level of the responsible budget holders Division Heads or equivalent. From an ICSU perspective this would make the process more complicated and uncertain and, for the overall amounts of funding involved, the effort required started to become disproportionate. Nevertheless, for 2010 it was envisaged that a single proposal be submitted to UNESCO for ~ 75k to support the 3 jointly sponsored programmes (see above).
19 Aside from the Framework Agreement and funding issues, the leadership at UNESCO was currently in transition and this was considered as a potential opportunity to strengthen the strategic relationship with what had historically been a very important intergovernmental partner for ICSU. Decisions To note that future funding from UNESCO under the Framework Agreement is uncertain; to affirm the importance of UNESCO as a key strategic partner and co-sponsor of joint initiatives; and, to agree that the President and Executive Director should meet with the new Director- General, Irena Bokova, as soon as this can be arranged. 18.3 Representation at Union and IBs Meetings Board Members were invited to review Unions and IB meetings in 2010 and express interest in representing ICSU at those meetings of ICSU s Scientific Unions and Interdisciplinary Bodies where representatives had not yet been designated. The Secretariat would then contact the Union/IB and inform them of ICSU representation at their meetings and request an opportunity for ICSU to address the meeting. Decision To agree on representation at Union/IB meetings (Annex 2). 18.4 Conference on Physics of Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) In January the ICSU ED had a meeting with the President of COSPAR, Roger-Maurice Bonnet, who wished to explore the possibility that ICSU sponsor the first Conference on Physics of the Community of the Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) in Mozambique. This type of request was usually forwarded to the Regional Office since ICSU did not normally sponsor disciplinary meetings according to a policy established previously. However, because the ROA was in a transition period and the meeting was to be held in Maputo, the EB was asked exceptionally to consider the request. At the 29th GA in 2008 in Maputo one of the resolutions adopted by the GA expressed ICSU's commitment to the development of science in the host country. The sponsorship of ICSU for the proposed conference was an excellent follow-up to the discussions and recommendations of the GA on this resolution. In light of this consideration, the ICSU ED had agreed to be involved in the preparation of the Conference as a member of the Scientific Committee. Decision To agree to an exceptional endorsement by ICSU for the first Conference on Physics of the Community of the Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) in Mozambique; and to contribute 2 000 to this Conference.