IASC 25 years - Page 76

ASSW proved immensely successful and has contin- question! IASC structures at the time did not easi- ued since that time. We also initiated the practice of ly address this question (Council being too general having two or three presentations at IASC meetings and projects being too specific). I suggested pos- by representatives—often the PIs or Coordinators— sible new structures and creating of two or three of IASC projects, once more to keep Council more Strategic Standing Committees to receive, consider closely in touch with the latest scientific develop- and evaluate ideas for new projects and to rec- ments. ommend new initiatives to Council. The Standing Committee would also review and monitor existing Later in 1999 I took some time to reflect on the projects, report to Council, and finally consider and/ important issues facing IASC, namely (1) engage- or respond to strategic issues. The principal criti- ment in policy dialogue, and (2) how to generate cism at the time was that the proposal introduced a successful IASC projects for the future. I prepared new layer into IASC and would increase the level of a paper for the Executive and later to the Council in administration and possibly cost. Council members 2000. The essence of my thinking at this time was were not convinced and the Executive was asked to two-fold: on the first matter I was convinced that revisit the concepts. attention had increasingly to be paid to the politi- In a follow-up paper, I proposed establishing a cal context of science. For a body such as IASC, this series of Oversight Groups, each under a Vice-Pres- would have a number organizational implications: ident, with membership from three to five Council a) following significant policy developments and members. The groups would meet during Council differences in individual member countries; b) track- to exam