News & Notices

Organizations & People

Standing Committees

Divisions

Projects

Reports

Publications

Symposia

AMP

Links of Interest

Search the Site

Home Page

 

Vice President's critical Assessment - 1999

> Introduction
> Chemical Industry
> National Adhering Organizations (NAOs)
> Standing Committees
> UN Agencies
> Conclusions
> Recommendations

---

UN Agencies
There are several successful collaborative projects with various parts of the UN.

For example, the International Chemistry Council (ICC) set up by the President of IUPAC and the Director General of UNESCO in 1996. This has a distinguished membership, including Nobel Laureates, and meets once a year, together with its Executive Committee. An IUPAC nominee (at present Prof. A. Fischli) chairs both these bodies.

The ICC terms of reference include both the mission and goals of IUPAC and UNESCO and speak of the need for cooperation and coordination. In addition, emphasis is laid on the mutual desire to help developing countries. The terms of reference also cover the need to liase with and partner bodies such as UNIDO, WHO, OECD, ICSU international and national foundations, academies of science, chemical societies, networks, etc. Mention is also made of the need to promote cooperation between science and industry, environmentally sustainable development, and the improvement of the public awareness of science and the benefits that it brings to society.

This is an excellent arrangement with UNESCO and reflects great credit on those who worked hard to put it in place. However it suffers from the old problem viz., there are plenty of ideas for projects, but nothing like enough money.

While the ICC process is the main policy forming vehicle with the UN Agencies, there are other links with various UN bodies which operate at the practical science level within the various Commissions, by far the most in number being in Division VII (Chemistry and Human Health). One is bound to observe that in the new task group system it will be important that these valuable links are not lost.

Conclusions

1. I am extremely grateful to all the Division Presidents, Chairmen of the Standing Committees, Union Officers and many other people for the time and trouble they have given so generously when I have asked for their views. From all these contacts I have been convinced that the Union is ready, and indeed enthusiastic, to take up the challenge posed by our new Strategy and the decision to change the way that the Divisions will carry out their important work.
   
   
2. However, there is a significant gap in the understanding of the process whereby the Standing Committees will ensure that their activities fit in with the Strategy. Much of their effectiveness in the "new" IUPAC will depend on good cooperation with other Committees and the Divisions. At present, all the Division presidents sit in the Bureau by right, but only three Committee Chairmen do (two of them ex officio).
   
   
3. If some of the proposed projects come into being, e.g. an enhanced relationship with industry, education for the developing world, then the way that these new situations are managed and the parts to be played by COCI and CTC need to be defined.
   
   
4. The particular point made in 3 above is only part of the general conclusion that the success of the "new" IUPAC will depend critically on very effective communication and cooperation between all the Divisions and Committees.
   
   
5. Further work is needed by "Task Forces" to generate options, with recommendations for any groups and processes to enable the Union to complete its new, dynamic image.

Recommendations

1. There should be a Working Party established, chaired by the Vice President, to formulate recommendations regarding the future role of IUPAC with regard to the global chemical industry and also to study the role of COCI. This Working Party should obviously include representatives of COCI and would benefit from input from the Trade Associations. If possible, the Working Party should give at least a preliminary report to the Executive Committee at its meeting in April 2000.
   
   
2. IUPAC should lead a project to establish a World Chemistry Leadership Conference, aimed at including National and Regional Chemical Society Presidents, leaders of Industry (ideally those in the Presidency of the important trade associations). These meetings should aim at agreeing actions and outcomes with IUPAC coordinating the arrangements and agenda (in consultation with the Chemical Societies and Trade Associations).
   
   One meeting to be held at the time of the IUPAC General Assembly and, in the intervening year, say at the time and place of the ICCA meeting.
   
   The Chemical Society Presidents should be asked for their comments on this proposal at their meeting with IUPAC in Berlin in August 1999.
   
   
3. It should be recognized that CHEMRAWN, COCI, and CTC have different mandates from the other Standing Committees and this should be recognized by changing their designation to "Operational Committees". Further, to enable the best chance of cross-functional operation, all three Chairmen of the "Operational Committees" should have a place on the Bureau.
   
   
4. The remit of the CTC should be broadened to encompass the whole field of chemistry education with a change of name to "Committee on Chemistry Education". The CTC should be invited to discuss this proposal at its Berlin meeting and the Vice President is willing to attend that meeting for the Discussion of this issue, if the Committee so wishes.
   
   
5. The forthcoming meeting of the International Chemistry Council, which takes place immediately after the IUPAC General Assembly in Berlin, should be used to raise the question of a broader policy involvement with a wider range of UN Agencies, and also to seek the help of our UNESCO colleagues in establishing appropriate contacts in those other Agencies with a view to a meeting involving them (plus UNESCO) with IUPAC to discuss the best way forward.

Dr. A. Hayes