IUGG XXI Comptes Rendus	Top	Prev.	Next	End
Search:
Contents

SECOND MEETING OF COUNCIL
21st. G.A., Boulder, Colorado, USA, July 2-14, 1995
Friday, July 7

PARTICIPANTS:
NATIONAL DELEGATES AT COUNCIL

Algeria	S. Kahlouche	Ireland	P. Lynch
Australia	B. Kennett	Italy	C. Morelli
Austria	S.J. Bauer	Japan	S. Uyeda
Belgium	P. Paquet	Korea (South)	C.G. Baag
Brazil	D. Blitzkow	Netherlands	F.C. Zuidema
Canada	R. Langley	New Zealand	R.I. Walcott
Chile	E. Gillmore	Nigeria	R.O. Cooker
China	Liu Guangding	Poland	L.W. Baran
Croatia	K. Colic	Portugal	L. Mendes-Victor
Czech Rep.	J. Vanek	Russia	G.A. Sobolev
Denmark	C.C. Tscherning	Slovenija	B. Sket-Motnikar
Egypt	A. Ashour	South-Africa	R.J. Kleywegt
Estonia	R. Room	Spain	J.O. Cardus
Finland	J. Kakkuri	Sweden	O. Kulhanek
France	R. Schlich	Switzerland	H. Lang
Germany	R. Roth	Taipei	C.Y. Tsay
Great-Britain	M.J. Hamlin	Turkey	O. Ergunay
Hungary	J. Adam	U.S.A.	C. Harrison
Iceland	R. Stefansson	Zimbabwe	F. Podmore
India	V.K. Gaur

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

FINANCE COMMITTEE

NOMINATING COMMITTEE (during item 26 - elections).

The Illusion of Progress is short but exciting.
(Unkn).

H. Moritz opens the meeting at 9.00 a.m. 35 National Delegates are present. 31 are voting.

9.g Application of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) - cont'

Secretary General reads a letter from the Delegate of Netherlands requesting further information on the official situation of Yugoslavia within IUGG. He distributes then the documents related to the application of Yugoslavia. He explains that the membership of (old) Yugoslavia ceased de facto. President reads a letter on behalf of Croatia from Prof. K. Kolic. In his letter, after thanking the Council for the ratification of Croatia membership, he asks that Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) be evaluated in the same way.

South Korea Delegate expresses how detestable ethnic fights are. One needs international cooperation in terms of individual beings. State must be separated from the church. In the same way, politics must be separated from science. His view is that the application must be accepted by IUGG as soon as possible. Denmark points out that part of the report from the lawyer states that the membership cannot be accepted now. President emphasizes that the report indeed says that the application can be accepted and the membership declared later. France proposes to vote in making provision for accepting membership as soon as possible. Belgium seconds it. Germany says they would be ready to accept it as soon as embargo is lifted. Slovenia would like that no abbreviation be used; we should keep "Serbia and Montenegro". Netherlands asks about the scientific aspects and financial guarantees. President states that he has been given convincing arguments by Prof. Mihailovic (who submitted the application) that the annual fees will be paid.

President proposes to vote on accepting the application of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the membership being declared when the UN embargo is lifted.

VOTE:
22 yes (in favor), 7 no, 2 abs.

29. UK invitation for G.A. in 1999 - cont'; 27. Organization of future G.A.s - cont':

A document is provided by the Fin. Com. It is commented by the Fin. Com. President. He underlines that there was a feeling that the UK proposal introduced a difficult, and perhaps a dangerous precedent in some other cases of invitation and preparation of a General Assembly, and that the terms of the documents aim at avoiding financial problems in case the UK proposal was accepted. The Committee thinks that we could favorably consider the UK proposal but conditions are to be placed. Most important would be the establishment of an Oversight Committee, comprising 4 members, with the main responsibility to take actions to meet the budgetary requirements. President thinks that this is a very balanced proposal. On the next Council meeting, we will have a presentation from the UK Organizing Committee.

A discussion follows and runs on 3 major issues:

1) Change in the mode of organizing and operating the G. A.s:

Australia opposes and considers we should have a position on principle, aside from the specific case raised here for the next G.A. France seconds the proposal as it is felt that we are facing a major change here. Sharing the responsibility between IUGG and the inviting country is a very very important decision. It is likely that we will enter in an increasing number of difficulties. President states that this case should be exceptional and we should then stick back to our `usual' mode of operating. France states that a precedent would be made and it would be almost impossible to reverse the trend. Egypt thinks that the point raised by France is essential. Clarification is needed. Nigeria notes that the critical situation with the UK proposal gives opportunity to review the whole G.A. system. IUGG should have a list of countries ready to invite the G.A., not only the next one but also the next following ones in order to have a choice. President hopes that USA proposal in 1991 and UK present one are special cases in the sense that nobody else wanted to compete and that other invitations will now be forthcoming.

France considers that making an invitation is an honor for the country and sharing the responsibility for IUGG is a major step. France is not in favor to vote for it. Belgium supports this statement.

2) Related financial implications:

UK apologizes for both the late arrival and the caveats in the Royal Society letter. However, the present situation might be an opportunity to investigate about how to improve preparation and cost matters related to G.A.s. Treasurer thinks it is challenging for IUGG to look at the financial outcomes of a G.A. France asks about the cost of the present G.A. and related figures (number of registrants, ...). F. Spilhaus (AGU, 21st G.A. organizer) quotes a budget of $2.2 M, 4400 registrants as of today, and a projected loss of up to $500K. IAPSO defection and shortage of government money ($250K expected in vain) are the main causes for it. It was a mistake to agree to a fixed registration fee 4 years in advance. Constraints should be put upfront but some flexibility should be retained in order to be able to accomodate the real situation. Indeed, it appears today that $500 to $600 would have been the adequate level for the registration fees at Boulder.

Egypt considers that the Fin. Com. study document is independent from the issue of the duration of the next G.A. (cf. Denmark proposal below).

3) Duration of G.A., Structure and Contents of the scientific program:

Asked about its proposal (item 27) by the President, Denmark thinks the proposal from Fin. Com. is reasonable and should be accepted, and points out that the meeting duration could be decisive with respect to the financial requirements. Korea questions whether the 9 days constraint should be a maximum (Denmark proposal) or a minimum time frame. Fin. Com. answers that the proposed 9 days is not a definite number. It is a matter of attempting to come to a balance between effective cost and duration of next G.A.. UK is not in favor of less than 9 days. Algeria considers that the proposal to reduce the G.A. duration to 9 days and to increase the cost of the registration fees is not a good idea. A selection will be made and it is not in the spirit of IUGG G.A. which is to bring together geophysics and geodesy in all fields of research, at worldwide scale. Canada is in favor of shortening IUGG G.A.s and proposes that one reduces to 1 to 1.5 day the time allocated to Union Symposia in order to avoid some conflicts of attendance between Associations and Union. Australia recalls that science is the essence and the reason of our presence at G.A.s; reducing the meeting may be a necessity but should not be at the expense of science. Vice-President estimates that the opinion of Associations is very important at the present time. India says that, if the value of G.A.s is indeed recognized, the degrees of freedom controlling them should be in the hand of the Associations. IAMAS is of a similar opinion and thinks that the Council should not be too prescriptive. Scientific interests of the Associations should be well represented and they should have the opportunity to share at best the decisions and compromises in the scientific program. Egypt stresses that attendance to different events is the essence of the present G.A. and in case of duration shortening, the definition of the program should be reworked. IAGA mentions that, despite the considerable pruning done in the contents of their meetings, they have stil parallel sessions running. Japan points out a conflicting situation in the fact that the G.A. appears today to be too long and too dense, and that shortening them will make the problem even more difficult.

President proposes that any decision be postponed to the next Council meeting. Egypt asks to accept the document. It is not seconded.

Then, President asks to vote on accepting the document provisionally.

Vote by hand:
3 delegates for it. Motion is not carried.

President thanks UK for the invitation. The item will be discussed again at next meeting.

10. Countries in arrears of payment:

The Treasurer distributes the list of countries in arrears of payment and explains that, according to the IUGG statutes, countries which have not paid since 1986 are considered expelled.

Countries which have not paid since 1990 are in observer status if they have expressed the wish to continue membership.

Nigeria is very surprised to be considered in Observer Status: the National Delegate declares that the membership fees have been paid regularly, also since 1989, the year indicated as the last being paid; the Treasurer says he never received any payment.

Besides, the Nigerian Delegate received no information on this G.A.. It seems there is a technical problem with mailing which needs to be clarified between the Nigerian delegate and the Secretary General and Treasurer. Egypt recommends that we should be a little lenient in applying Statute 14. Otherwise, a large number of Developing Countries would disappear from the audience as observers; IUGG would turn into a northern union. Observer Status should be extended and the letter needed for that should be requested.

Secretary General and Treasurer confirm that this is how the Exec. Com. has applied this Statute. President says that a letter will be written to Countries in arrears to inform them of the options they have.

11. Review of the categories of Member Countries (By-law 11.g)

Treasurer distributes a table of the Member Countries ordered by category. Finance Committee will review the list and the categories.

14. Changes of Statutes and By-Laws in some Associations

. IAHS

After reviewing its statutes, IAHS came to the conclusion that the procedures for the elections had to be made very transparent, allowing people to contribute. A nominating panel was set up, chaired by M.J. Hamlin. Handouts describing how IAHS proceeds are available.

. IAVCEI

Several changes were introduced. The main one is a change about membership. The Status of Affiliates was created in order to increase the participation of scientists of some countries not necessarily members of IUGG. Affiliates pay a subscription fee independent from IUGG fees (this will increase the funds of the Association). Protections have been set up to prevent the Affiliates (who could be very numerous) to occupy a position in the Exec. Com. of IAVCEI, in order maintain the involvement of Developing Countries.

15. Problem with IAPSO

President explains this item is put here to let off steam. To prevent the repetition of such situation, a modification of By-Law 9 was proposed and accepted at the first Council meeting.

16. IUGG publications

a. The Chronicle; creation of an Editorial Board. The future.

Secretary General introduces the historical and the present backgrounds. Very weak input and response from the Associations have been experienced in the last years. However, the 75th anniversary of IUGG was the occasion for the Associations to publish their histories, which 5 of them did so far. An Editorial Board was set up last year in Boulder without any positive outcome. A questionnaire was sent to Adhering Bodies, National Committees and various groups. We received 20 answers, which was very meager but sufficient to reveal opinions.

Chronicle has improved (see issue No. 226). Despite this, it has little future in its present form. Consequently, the following proposal is made:

- to keep a real yearbook (with update of National Committees, addresses, yearly report to ICSU); it would be the regularly printed record of activities for IUGG involving Associations and Committees.

- to establish an electronic bulletin board with 2 levels: 1) administrative matters of the Union; 2) Section dedicated to the Associations which will be responsible for it. It would be on W3. The present drawback would be that many Developing Countries have no access to W3. Therefore, there should be an interim period during which a printed version of information and updates would have to be distributed worldwide.

USA asks if scientific articles publication was considered for the Chronicle. Secretary General replies it was indeed last year but turned down. Denmark would like the bulletin to bridge with similar boards of AGU and publications of National Societies.

Germany comments that the Chronicle in its present form is not much read. The future evolution proposed is quite appropriate. The Treasurer thinks that this project is cost effective, except that IUGG will have to pay for the mailing of printouts to some countries during an intermediate undefined period of time. Egypt says that the form of the proposed yearbook is close to the ICSU one but there is no need in IUGG for a yearly update. A lot of repetition will arise otherwise. Secretary General disagrees and states that many changes occur each year mostly in the composition of the National Committees and also within the Union itself.

Treasurer stresses that the tremendous piece of work achieved by P. Melchior has to be recognized and that he should be thanked by the Council. Congratulations are expressed by the Council delegates who applaud.

b. Contract with AGU for the publication of the Boulder Union's symposia

Secretary General informs that the contract has been signed. Thanks are expressed to AGU.

President underlines the valuable work achieved by the following Committees and Commissions:

17. International Lithosphere Programme (ILP) and Inter-Union Commission on the Lithosphere (ICL)

S. Gregersen (ICL representative) is asked to give an overview report. Exec. Com. decided that we will continue our support but financial funding will not exceed the minimum funding attributed to anyone of the Associations. K. Burke (ICL chairman) is replaced by A. Green; the new Secretary General will be J. Erzinger; T. Kato was appointed in the ICL Bureau. At a question of Netherlands, the Treasurer indicates that the financial support is not settled but it will be likely around $17,000 per year.

18. Inter-Association Committee on Mathematical Geophysics (CMG)

President introduces the results of this committee. CMG holds very successful symposia but is not very much paying attention to administrative matters. The next symposium will be in Santa Fe in June 96, in relation with the Santa Fe Institute on Complexity. One should let them work. Denmark considers that not enough information is stemming out from CMG. At a question of USA, Treasurer informs that IUGG only gives seed money, about $4000 a year.

19. Inter-Association Committee on the Study of the Earth Deep Interior (SEDI)

Secretary General describes briefly the history, structure, achievements of the group (e.g., core physics, geodynamo theory, petrology, high pressure physics). The present Chairman Le Mouël will likely be replaced by K. Lambeck. One notes that links with planetary sciences are weak at the moment but there is some expectation in this field. At a question of USA (as above), Treasurer informs that IUGG only gives seed money to SEDI, like for CMG, i.e. about $4000 a year.

Secretary General reports on items 20,21,22 and summarizes, going through the whole list:

20. Relations with ICSU (projects financed) and ICSU Scientific and Special Committees (renewal of Liaison Officers):

Secretary General recalls that three projects a year are currently financed by ICSU for a total amount of about $30K (a little more before 95, a little less now). The renewal of Liaison Officers is discussed:

a. FAGS (Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Data Analysis Services): O. Andersen, G. Balmino.

b. WDCs (World Data Centers): direct links with the Associations are being established (decisions in July 94).

c. CODATA (Committee on Data for Science and Technology)

Associations did not find a large interest in CODATA and it was decided to withdraw in 1994. Denmark is not happy with this decision. Secretary General restates that all 7 Associations were again asked two days before and confirmed they had no interest in CODATA.

d. COSPAR (Committee on Space Research): Janet Luhmann (IAGA, USA) recommended a posteriori by D. Williams (former Liaison Officer).

e. COWAR (Committee on Water Research) turned into SCOWAR; H. Colenbrander, proposed by IAHS confirmed a posteriori.

f. SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research): T. Hirasawa continues.

g. SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment) Canada will contact R.E. Munn.

h. SCOR (Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research): Denmark thinks IAPSO should play a major role in SCOR. IAMAS indicates that IAMAS and IAPSO Presidents are ex-officio members of SCOR and therefore can ensure the liaison. It is agreed.

i. SCOSTEP (Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics): D. Williams.

j. IGBP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme): C. Schuurmans (IAMAS, Netherlands) proposed a posteriori by Netherlands - to be confirmed.

k. CTS (Committee on the Teaching of Science): abolished by ICSU. Egypt informs that it was replaced by a Capacity Building Committee in ICSU; we are left without clear information. IUGG President will enquire about this new Committee.

l. WCRP (World Climate Research Programme): B.J. Hoskins (U.K.) - new appointment.

21. Relations with inter-governmental organisations

a. United Nations

Secretary General indicates that our representation was discussed by the Exec. Com., but that no clear conclusion emerged from it. President suggests to withdraw and Egypt suggests to limit our cooperation with U.N. to links with its cartographic office only (see below).

b. UNESCO

R. Adams will continue.

c. Cartographic Office of the United Nations

J. Kakkuri will continue.

d. WMO (World Meteorological Organization)

Next Secretary General of IAMAS.

e. IHO (International Hydrographic Organization)

LeProvost resigned; successor must be found.

USA suggests the new president of IAPSO be approached; the decision is delegated to the Bureau.

22. Relations with other organisations

a. PSA (Pacific Science Association)

Links cancelled.

b. IPGH (Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia)

W. Torge could replace J. Tanner (to be confirmed).

Ye Duzheng suggests that we appoint a representative on UNEP.

Vote by hand: majority approved.

UK proposes Golubev, Vice-President of IAHS. It is accepted.

24. Finances and budget, 25. Adjustment of the unit of subscription

A short comment is made by the Finance Com. Chairman. It is deemed more appropriate to discuss these items in detail at the next meeting.

General information is given at this stage: what would be the rate of increase of subscription ? In Vienna, it was proposed to adjust on the rate of inflation, but actually more abrupt changes were adopted. A 2.5 % rate could be chosen arbitrarily per year, or some official rate (e.g., OCDE). Fin. Com. expresses its thanks to the Secretary General for reducing the expenses. 50 % of the money entering the Union goes to the Associations. A small committee worked on fixing the right amount which should go to the Associations. A reserve for the G.A. ($100K) could be constituted by saving $25K per year.

France underlines that the budget has to be discussed with papers in hand and this should be systematic in the future. Presidents say it will be done. Egypt points out that it was not intended to give a finance report from the Fin. Com. at this second meeting of the Council. President agrees and postpones any further discussion.

26. Elections (37 Delegates are present, 34 are voting)

President introduces the Nominating Committee (see item 13). It was formed in March 1994 and started to work immediately. A circular letter was sent to all National Committees for IUGG and all officers in June 1994 soliciting nominations for all open positions in the Bureau and Finance Committee. The deadline for submitting nominations was March, 31st, 1995. The Committee worked by correspondence and finally at Boulder, 3 days ago. Secretary General was elected for 8 years in Vienna and is not standing for election. The resulting list of nominations and resumes were distributed to Council Delegates (the distribution has been made at best of the available possibilities on the campus to reach the people). It was also posted everywhere. There was an additional nomination for Bureau Member by the US National Committee. The Nominating Committee will not speak in favor of his designated candidates unless asked for. The same will apply for the list proposed by the US National Committee.

Egypt says that elections were never conducted with a discussion of the Council Delegates on the nominees. President asks the Council on how they want to proceed about the candidates. Denmark would like to know the Robert's rules about elections. Australia thinks it is not in the best interest of the Union to have an open discussion about the candidates.

President: according to his interpretation of Robert's rules, there should be no discussion on the candidates. He reads the ad'hoc rule. Belgium and France agree. J. Dooge is asked for advice due to his long diplomatic experience. He thinks that President asks the Council whether they want a discussion on the candidates or not. A vote by hand on this matter is decided.

Vote by hand:
Not in favor of a discussion: 19 / 34; in favor 13; 2 Abstentions.

Election takes place for each position at a time:

a. President
P. Wyllie is the sole candidate.

VOTE: 33 yes, 0 no, 1 abs.

P. WYLLIE IS ELECTED.

b. Vice-President
U. Shamir is the sole candidate.

VOTE: 30 yes, 2 no, 2 abs.

U. SHAMIR IS ELECTED.

c. Treasurer
S. Gregersen is the sole candidate.

VOTE: S. GREGERSEN: 33 yes, 0 no, 1 abs

S. GREGERSEN IS ELECTED.

d. Bureau Members
There are four candidates for three positions: J. Chen, A. Monin, S. Uyeda, K. Whaler. Each delegate is asked to vote in favor of up to 3 candidates.

VOTE:

CHEN:22yes.
MONIN:20yes.
UYEDA:25yes.
WHALER:19yes.

J.CHEN, A. MONIN, S. UYEDA are elected.

e. Finance Committee
There are five candidates for five positions.

VOTE:

ASHOUR:32yes.
TGAUR:33yes.
GROTEN:33yes.
HAMLIN:33yes.
SPILHAUS:33yes.

A. ASHOUR, V.K. GAUR, E. GROTEN, M. HAMLIN, F. SPILHAUS are elected.

30.(Moved up). Geophysics and geodesy in Developing Countries.

Egypt introduces the case at the Vienna meeting: the "IUGG Committee on Advice to Developing Countries in Geodesy and Geophysis" was abolished. Given the trend of the past years with respect to the "southern hemisphere" countries, Egypt asks for reinstating the committee. The motion is seconded by USA. A discussion takes place. Treasurer comments that IUGG has helped and is still wishing to help the Developing Countries but does not believe in the efficiency of a committee with no further specific scientific aim. Secretary General says that after the IUGG Committee was abolished, the Associations were asked to form their own Developing Countries Committees, but he did not keep track of what has been made to help Developing Countries within each Association. He supported the idea of having three Bureau Members, one of them being devoted to the help of Developing Countries, which should maximize IUGG support.

IAMAS supports the idea of having a Bureau Member treating specifically this matter. Algeria confirms that in IAG there is a Committee for Developing Countries. The issue is not a matter of money only, it is also related to administrative difficulties in these countries. IAG confirms. Associations have a better knowledge of what is happening in the field in a number of countries, than IUGG at its level. However, the Union has to establish a global policy. Regional meetings are a good approach to the problem. Denmark is not in favor of a Committee and thinks it is better to spend money on supporting schools for students from Developing Countries.

France is in line with Egypt's concern but not in favor of the creation of a committee. To have a better picture, the French Delegate asks how much was spent from IUGG resources to support Developing Countries' students attending this G.A. He also recommends to try to get the money from the governments of developed countries such as the inviting country in this case.

The Portuguese Delegate thinks we have to raise funds for the Developing Countries in order to increase the attendance and participation of their scientists to our meetings. Like France, Portugal would like to know how many people from developing and developed countries are being funded at Boulder. Treasurer and Secretary General inform that $55K were given, of which 60% went to the Developing Countries, but in addition the Associations funded directly many Developing Countries scientists.

USA says that one task of the Committee should be to organize regional meetings in places where Developing Countries may come easily, either in Africa or Asia. Support is given to the proposal for a Bureau member to be put in charge or the committee to be formed.

Secretary General reminds that 4 meetings in geodesy were organized in Africa, and a fifth one will be in 1996 or 97 and will be supported by IUGG. Ye Duzheng asks about the relationships between advanced countries and Developing Countries: do needs of developed countries from Developing Countries exist? Nigeria speaks of bilateral agreements set up for instance between France and Developing Countries but says that here we are debating on something different. IUGG has to take into account the Developing Countries where one is fighting for settling departments of geodesy or geophysics, and where nothing compares for instance with Russia which is a "developed developing" country. Besides, Nigeria does not believe in the efficiency of a Bureau Member alone. Secretary General disagrees.

Uyeda, speaking as new Bureau Member and Delegate of Japan, thinks that initiative coming from Associations or somewhere else is needed. Not a single person such as a Bureau Member is sufficient. Also, it is not clear why the previous committee did not work or was disbanded. Egypt reminds that the IUGG Committee started in the late sixties and was chaired by Ashour from 1971 until 1983; whatever little money was attributed to the Committee, it was used for publication of textbooks on geodesy, earthquakes, physical oceanography,... for the use of Developing Countries. No money was used for travelling. Between 1983 and 1991, the Committee was chaired by somebody else. Egypt is not asking for money but asks for appointing dedicated members within the Associations to take care of this problem under the umbrella of the Union, and does not believe that one Bureau Member is sufficient. The example is given of the IAGA Buenos Aires meeting in 1993 where among other participants, 22 from Argentina, 17 from Russia got grants to attend it but none from Developing Countries. Such situation must be avoided in the future and in a way controlled by a committee. Therefore, the proposed motion is, as said at the beginning, that the Union reinstates the Committee for Developing Countries, composed of appointed persons in the Associations, working under the guidance of a Bureau Member as Chairman.

Vote by hand:
21 yes, 5 no, 2 abs. (some delegates had left)

23. IDNDR (International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction)

Secretary General introduces the matter. The committee was formed at the beginning of the decade, following the U.N. declaration. Then, its prerogatives were transferred to the Exec. Com. in 1992. The work consisted in:

- defining actions in the framework of the Megacities Project (cf. article published in Chronicle No. 226),

- attending the mid-term U.N.-IDNDR meeting in Yokohama in 1994 (IUGG presented a poster),

- making the brochure on IDNDR distributed at this G.A.

The Council is then informed of an appeal by WMO to participate in studies to extend the use of GTS (Global Telecommunication System) for the purpose of hazards monitoring and population alert. This project has been discussed by the Exec. Com. here at Boulder. Opinions of the Associations diverge on how to respond to WMO and how to tackle the problem. The question will be put on the next Exec. Com. meeting agenda and/or transferred to the future Executive Committee.

President acknowledges the work of the Secretary General on this matter.

CLOSING AT 5:00 p.m.

IUGG XXI Comptes Rendus	Top	Prev.	Next	End
Search:
Contents