14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
Report
Final version of 23 May 2007
14th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
15 – 18 March 2007
Angra dos Reis, Brazil
Participants (Scientific Committee members):
Kate Brown, Geoff Dabelko (Vice-Chair), Roberto Guimaraes (Vice-Chair), Gernot
Klepper, Jose Moreira (IT SSC), Carlos Nobre (ex-officio and IGBP Chair), Karen
O’Brien, Jozef Pacyna, Anette Reenberg, Thomas Rosswall (ICSU, ex-officio),
Sander van der Leeuw (Treasurer), Hebe Vessuri (Vice-Chair), Coleen Vogel, Oran
Young (Chair)
Invited Participants (IHDP Core Project Officers and ESSP Representatives):
Joe Alcamo (GWSP), Ulisses Configlieri (GECHH), Shobhakar Dhakal (GCP),
Michail Fragkias (UGEC), Lydia Gates (GWSP), Ann Henderson-Sellers (WCRP
Executive Director), John Ingram (GECAFS), Hartwig Kremer (LOICZ), Tobias
Langanke (GLP), Fritz Penning de Fries (MAIRS), Kevin Noone (IGBP Executive
Director), Martin Rice (ESSP), Heike Schroeder (IDGEC)
IHDP Secretariat Staff:
Nina Mueller, Lis Mullin, Andreas Rechkemmer (IHDP Executive Director), Falk
Schmidt, Laura Siklossy, Douglas Williamson
Invited Participants (Observers):
Frank Biermann (Institute for Environmental Studies, IVM, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam), Manuel Cesario (University of Franca, Brazil), Jürgen Weichselgärtner
(LOICZ)
Apologies (Scientific Committee members):
John Church (WCRP Chair, ex-officio), Carl Folke, Roland Fuchs (ex-officio), Heide
Hackmann (ISSC, ex-officio), Tatiana Kluvankova, Michel Loreau (Diversitas Chair,
ex-officio), Roberto Sanchez, Leena Srivastava (as of 1 January 2007), Ernst-Ulrich
von Weizsäcker (as of 1 January 2007)
Table of Contents
Joint Session of the Scientific Committees of IHDP and IGBP
1 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
1
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
1
Welcome ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2
Project reports from jointly sponsored projects ........................................................................ 4
3
ESSP Joint Projects ...................................................................................................................... 5
4
Core Project Summary .................................................................................................................. 5
5
Brainstorm: IHDP-IGBP Collaboration ........................................................................................ 5
6
IHOPE (Integrated History and Future of People on Earth) ...................................................... 6
7
iLEAPS (Integrated Land Ecosystem-Atmosphere Processes Study) ..................................... 6
8
Brainstorm: Earth System Modelling .......................................................................................... 6
9
WCRP .............................................................................................................................................. 7
10
GCIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) ..................................... 7
11
ESSP (Earth System Science Partnership) Issues..................................................................... 7
12
Concluding Remarks, IHDP - IGBP .............................................................................................. 8
13
Report of the Executive Director ................................................................................................ 11
15
MoU with UNU and IHDP Constitution ...................................................................................... 15
16
Presentation of the draft Strategic Plan 2007 – 2015 followed by a chapter-by-chapter
review and a general discussion ............................................................................................... 16
17
Discussion on IHDP book series, publishes ............................................................................ 18
18
SC Subsidiary Bodies ................................................................................................................ 19
19
IHDP regional centers of excellence ......................................................................................... 19
20
Discussion on the 7th Open Meeting 2008 ................................................................................ 19
21
IHDP Core Project Presentations ............................................................................................... 21
19
Update on APN, IAI, MRI and PERN ........................................................................................... 24
20
New Scientific Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 24
21
SC Nominations and Ex-officio membership ........................................................................... 31
22
AOB (next SC meeting in 2008) .................................................................................................. 31
Summary of Decisions Made
Decision 1: IHDP and IGBP should begin scoping a joint activity on bio fuels.
Decision 2: IGBP and IHDP should begin planning a workshop on Integrated Earth
System modeling (cf. Decision 10).
Decision 3: Several suggestions were agreed upon regarding changes of the
wording of IHDP’s Constitution: removing the words “important” in 3.3, “normally” in
2 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
2
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
2.4 and 2.5, including ICSU and ISSC as members of the Executive Committee (3.2),
deleting the words “through the Executive Committee” in 4.3, and changing the
wording to say that the SC “governs” all matters of IHDP instead of “guides”.
Decision 4: IHDP SC agrees to approve the MoU with the stated reservations
regarding independence of the SC under the UNU Council
Decision 5: IHDP SC agrees to commission Sander, Kate and Gernot to draft the
above-mentioned sections, for inclusion in the text and subject to final approval by
the rest of the SC
Decision 6: The SC decided to delete the word “Systems Model” from the title of the
Cube figure, at the same time strengthening the text and terminology around
methodologies.
Decision 7: The term “capacity development” is state of the art, so we should use it,
but we don’t need to explain why it’s different from capacity building.
Decision 8: For section 3.4 and parts of 3.5 of the Strategic Plan – use only one title.
From 3.5 take it until the 2 bullet points and “IHDP has a variety of tools”… then also
delete 3.6 title.
Decision 9: In Section 4 of the Strategic Plan, the SC agreed upon the need to add a
short paragraph on making policy relevant proposals
Decision 10: Section 4.7 of the Strategic Plan needs a strong argument at the end,
what research is needed in order to do this kind of interaction, as well as what should
be supported (basic science, applied science, etc).
Decision 11: Section 5.1 of the Strategic Plan should look forward more than looking
back
Decision 12: IHDP should explore the option of launching a scientific book series
with MIT Press, making sure to get rights to the electronic documents/ PDF files.
Furthermore, UNU Press should be contacted to explore the possibility of a second
book series of a more practice-oriented nature.
Decision 13: SC agrees to proceed with exploring this committee and contacting
interested members (Secretariat)
Decision 14: The SC supports the suggestion of extending Karen O’Brien’s term as
GECHS chair for the synthesis process, up to 2 more years
Decision 15: IHDP will appoint a science planning group for the Integrated Risk
Management project, in consultation with the Chinese National Committee of IHDP
and also needs input from other key communities. The function is to take this from
broad, generic kinds of topics to something more focusable. It will then be circulated
to the rest of the SC for more comment.
Decision 16: The next stage of the process of for the Earth System Governance
project should go forward, with the scientific planning process determining the nature
of this proposal later on (core project of IHDP or cross-cutting theme)
Decision 17: The SC finds the Vulnerability-Adaptation-Resilience scheme an
attractive initiative, it enthusiastically requests the group to carry on and keep the rest
of the SC informed about progress and possible decisions to be made
Decision 18: The SC agrees to continue talks with Diversitas on a co-sponsored
project
Decision 19: The SC agrees to co-sponsor IHOPE but needs more research (such
as an IGBP-IHDP workshop on coupled earth-system science modelling) before
agreeing to sponsor AIMES.
Decision 20: the SC endorses the process of involvement in the GECHH process.
Decision 21: the SC endorses the nomination of new members Patricia Kmeri Mbote
and Liu Yanhua, to start 1 January 2008.
3 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
3
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
Decision 22: the SC decides to exceptionally hold its next meeting back to back to
the 7th Open Meeting in India in October 2008, with an ad hoc meeting to be held
before that date if deemed necessary. The meeting should be kept as short as
possible considering the busy schedule that week. The cycle will generally remain
every 12 months.
Joint Session of the Scientific Committees of IHDP and IGBP
Thursday, March 15th, 2007
Welcome
Carlos Nobre (Chair, SC-IGBP) and Oran Young (Chair, SC-IHDP) welcomed the
participants of both Scientific Committees to Brazil. Kevin Noone (Executive Director,
IGBP) and Andreas Rechkemmer (Executive Director, IHDP) also welcomed
participants and described their excitement for holding a first joint meeting.
Project reports from jointly sponsored projects
GLP (Global Land Project)
Annette Reenberg (Chair, GLP) described the developments in GLP, which is a new
project. Most of the developments are planning, rather than results as it is such a
new project. Established Sept 2006 with the IPO at the University of Copenhagen,
Denmark. Process of endorsement has been established (12 projects endorsed and
5 pending). There are 2 nodal offices (Japan and UK) with a possibility of a third in
China. The offices are expected to have a thematic focus. The project is extremely
broad and engages a large variety of communities, which creates challenges. GLP
are contacting the former GCTE and LUCC networks (ca. 2600 recipients) as well as
new scientists. A number of workshops are planned this year including data and
model integration; Danish land system science workshop; globalisation and land use.
Discussion
 Joint meeting with LOICZ was discussed last year with FAO/GTOS on landuse/cover. Has there been any progress? No.
 Thoughts/discussions on climate change and land-use driving desertification?
Yes, would like to develop this, particularly with respect to Africa.
 How to practically set priorities within the broad scope of the Science Plan?
This will be an issue for discussion at the next SSC meeting.
LOICZ (Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone)
Jozef Pacyna introduced developments in LOICZ over the past year. The IPO is now
settled in Germany and a new Senior Science Coordinator, Jurgen Weichselgartner,
has been appointed. LOICZ has developed a Business Plan for 2007-8. They have
multiple partnerships within and beyond ESSP. There are a number of corresponding
4 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
4
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
SSC members who act as ambassadors for LOICZ and work closely with the regional
nodes. Capacity building is also an important aspect of LOICZ. Three priority areas
have been identified for the coming years: linking social and ecological systems in
the coastal zone; assessing and predicting impacts on environmental change; linking
governance and science in coastal regions.
Discussion
 Pacyna was asked about typological tools eg. GDP, concentration. Bob
Buddemeier works on mapping these parameters.
 Are LOICZ thinking of accommodating the social perception of the threat of
sea level rise which is increased since the IPCC report was released? This is
included in LOICZ and there will be a meeting “Sea Level Rise – Do we
care?”.
START (Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training)
No oral report. A written report was presented in the papers.
MAIRS (Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study)
Frits Penning de Vries presented the Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study,
MAIRS. A science Plan has been published, an SSC formed, IPO established in
Beijing and MAIRS is accepted as the first ESSP IRS. A workshop was held on the
Mountain Zone with an outcome concluding that we need better modelling in the
mountainous regions. Crucial resource management issues are water, energy, food
security, biodiversity, air quality and disasters. MAIRS integrates research in 4 zones:
coastal, mountain, urban and semi-arid. Workshops for 2007: managing risks of
flooding in connection to urban zones; interaction land surface-atmosphere in semiarid zones; cryosphere and natural hazards in the mountain zone; anthropogenic
impacts on the Asian monsoon. Participation from core projects is welcome in these
workshops. A rolling workplan is regularly distributed to ESSP-partners. Can we find
common priorities in Hotspots and Vulnerability?
Discussion
 If you want to look into research hotspots and vulnerability you need to look
into the archaeological record. IHOPE are having an Asian workshop next
week in Japan, which is an obvious link.
 Palaeoenvironmental data needs to be investigated to aid realistic prognostic
models: this is a powerful link that needs to be made.
 AIMES/IHOPE have some ideas for working in Monsoon Asia and plan to link
to MAIRS.
ESSP Joint Projects
GWSP (Global Water System Project)
Joseph Alcamo described the status of the GWSP. The project has been initiated via
a number of Fast Track Activities eg. Assessment of Governance of Water, Digital
Water Atlas. Two offices have been established in Asia (Japan and China). Links to
core projects of ESSP: LOICZ, IDGEC, GEWEX. The GWSP medium-term strategy
has been developed with three global initiatives. There are also a number of
communication and capacity building activities.
Discussion
5 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
5
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report


What is the niche of GWSP with respect to ecology in the freshwater system?
It could be a very useful forum for understanding ecosystem goods and
services in the freshwater system.
Many developing ES models coming from GCM communities are thinking hard
about regional downscaling. It would be good to make linkages to these
communities.
GECHH (Global Environmental Change and Human Health)
Ulisses Confalonieri gave an overview of the status of the GECHH. The project is
primarily focussed on public health rather than the Earth System. Public health issues
range from biology to the social sciences. The Science Plan was launched in Beijing
in November 2006. A session was presented at the OSC in Beijing 2006.
Negotiations have taken place with IIASA for the establishment of an IPO.
Interactions so far have mostly been DIVERSITAS. An SSC needs to be established
this year. Links need to be strengthened with ESSP projects and programmes,
especially IHDP. Major challenges include the formation of an international network
of research centres on GEC & HH and the involvement of scientists from low-income
countries.
Discussion
 Martin Rice stressed that the WHO have been heavily involved in the planning
of the project.
 Curious to hear that there are no impacts back to GEC: eg. control of bird
species carrying bird flu. Impacts of population on aids has feedbacks to landuse.
 Human health is more than infectious diseases. This is true. Many, many
issues will not be addressed as there needs to be a focus. The focus is on
health issues that have an effect on the environment.
 Air Pollution is a major issue in Asia. It has huge effects on Environmental
issues. This is included in the Science Plan.
 Oran Young stated that the IHDP has not yet endorsed this project – not
because if its unimportance – but because they see opportunities to including
other issues in this project which are important and offer integrating topics
across ESSP. IHDP see a number of economic, cultural, social issues which
are important (heat waves, hurricanes affect the vulnerable). A few champions
have been identified within IHDP and the Task Force will meet in May to
develop this type of input to the project.
GCP (Global Carbon Project)
Shobhakar Dhakal, Executive Director of the Japan GCP Office, gave an update from
the GCP. The budget of the global annual CO2 in the atmosphere calculations
resulted in press coverage around the world. Regional carbon budgets are being
developed for different parts of the world. Hot spots such as the permafrost areas are
areas of study. Vulnerability of frozen carbon and methane hydrates are two new
topics. There have been a number of meetings on carbon regional management
issues and more are planned for this year. Bio energy and the Earth System is an
emerging activity which can be tackled with core projects of the programmes.
Workshop/assessment planned for 2007. Interaction within ESSP are with AIMES,
CLIC, IDGEC, UGEC, GLP, START, GECAFS, GWSP.
Discussion
6 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
6
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report



Can there be developments using the emissions scenarios of IPCC? There is
no current plan, although some SSC members are heavily involved in these
scenarios.
IPCC has until now created its own scenarios. Now they have decided to
consult over development of these scenarios (experts meeting Sept 07). ESSP
C&D decided to do something about giving input to this, but we are failing so
far. It is a tricky issue and needs to be tackled by ESSP. Another question is
whether land use will be prescribed in the scenarios too. Within ESSP we lack
an active economics community, but otherwise we are a useful umbrella/forum
for these discussions. C&D wrote to IPCC offering this, but IPCC have not yet
picked up on the offer.
IGBP would also like to participate in the bio fuels topic, although this is much
broader than carbon.
GECAFS (Global Environmental Change and Food Systems)
John Ingram updated the SC on developments in GECAFS. He introduced the
conceptual and methodological research and policy-relevant research at a regional
level. GECAFS research supports regional policy formulation by agenda setting,
building scenarios, assessing vulnerability, identifying adaptation and analysing
feedbacks. He described the GECAFS Southern Africa Science Plan which was
developed with networking help from the ICSU regional office. Ingram outlined some
issues on which he would like to develop better collaboration with the core projects.
There will be a GECAFS OSC in April 2008.
Discussion
 Are there needs to develop networks in Indonesia and China, large countries
in Asia? The priority is to start with some pilot projects which were outlined.
 There is the need to have a marine part of GECAFS. Yes, it is throughout the
science plan, developed in collaboration with the core projects. We also need
to understand the use of marine food eg. to feed terrestrial animals. GLOBEC
input to GECAFS is active and continually welcomed.
 Links with the water system and carbon/energy (eg. via bio fuels) must be
important too. Are these being considered? GECAFS are ready and expectant
for ESSP organisation to be in place to have a proper forum to discuss exactly
these issues.
 Malnourished people are more susceptible to disease. Is this being
considered. Yes, this is a strong link between GECAFS and GECHH.
Core Project Summary
Kevin Noone and Andreas Rechkemmer each gave a presentation describing the
projects of each programme and cross-cutting themes.
Brainstorm: IHDP-IGBP Collaboration
Kevin Noone introduced the topic with some provocative questions: What questions
does your community have that cannot be addressed without input and collaboration
with the other community? What would you most like to know about the other
community? What is your greatest stereotype of the other community? The meeting
broke into small groups to discuss these questions and report back to the plenary.
Discussion
7 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
7
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report













Stereotype: that the other community was stereotyping us! A glossary could
help us communicate.
Collaboration opportunities: scenarios; air pollution/population growth,
interaction of urbanisation/ megacities with human health and climate (IGAC,
UGEC, GECHH, LOICZ, DIVERSITAS); bio fuels: scenarios and
consequences (land-use, climate); aerosols/air quality and health; ozone and
health; land-use and development in the tropics.
Stereotypes: thought IHDP would be closer to the stakeholders.
We need the ability to have a rapid response on key issues: bring together
people quickly to address hot topics.
Communication to decision makers is to be reinforced. We need to work at a
regional/local scale for this rather than global.
IMBER tried to write a theme to involve the human dimension in their science
plan and tried to do this in collaboration with social scientists from IHDP, but
got no response.
We need to create mechanisms to make communication flow. Rechkemmer
proposed emailing project Executive Officers and Secretariat staff members
who will respond. Human relationships count. Rice proposed that IHDP
identify a Secretariat liaison person to IGBP. Martin Rice is happy to be cc.’d
as ESSP coordinator.
Oran Young suggested phrasing questions that cannot be answered without
input from both communities.
Big questions need to be framed in ordinary language. All of the big questions
(eg. posed by policymakers) need to be addressed by all communities.
What does IHDP need from PAGES: the results ie. what has happened to
climate in the past and what will happen in the future. What does PAGES need
from IHDP: what are the mechanisms to get societies to change. Science
Communication: how to get the information from the peer-reviewed literature
to the policymaker – IHDP study this.
Important to have people from both communities when setting agenda.
Important to understand processes and interactions at the science-policy
interface (IHDP study this).
How do we change human habits? Social scientists can help with this.
We need to improve on communication and responsiveness. We need to find
ways to bridge questions of methodology (modelling, scenario building,
operational measures). We must identify focused questions of strong interest
to both communities (eg. bio fuels). There is interest and communication
around the science-policy practice relationships.
IHOPE (Integrated History and Future of People on Earth)
Kathy Hibbard described the IHOPE Project which started in 2005 at a Dahlem
conference. A Research Plan has been drafted and a Secretariat is funded in
Stockholm. A first Asian IHOPE meeting will take place in Japan next week. Hibbard
described the development of the dataset of archaeological to climate data and the
evolution of the project.
Discussion
 Sander van der Leeuw has worked on a number of models for IHOPE at a
regional level which match well the Earth System Models. The data in the
IHOPE system contains a huge wealth of archaeological data which is the only
way to follow a civilisation over time.
8 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
8
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report





Humanity is very resilient to GEC. If you redefine crisis (to become the
incapacity of society to deal with GEC) you move towards multicausality of
crises rather than concluding single causes. Humanity may end up in a similar
crisis to previous civilisations in the future.
It seems that a lot of societal change in the past depends on how that society
is subsidised from elsewhere. However, if current society cannot depend on
subsidy from elsewhere, perhaps we cannot be compared with the past.
Energy and matter create flows within society. However, it is language,
knowledge, culture that keep a society together. Civilisations can disappear
when people move away.
We need to look at the modelling tools we have (from all sorts of
developments in different research fields as well as elsewhere) and see which
tools are best for addressing these questions.
IHOPE are in the process of identifying a further number of datasets.
iLEAPS (Integrated Land Ecosystem-Atmosphere Processes Study)
Pavel Kabat gave a short presentation on iLEAPS and potential interactions with the
IHDP community through the aerosol, clouds, aerosols precipitation project.
Brainstorm: Earth System Modelling
Kathy Hibbard presented some perspectives from AIMES on Earth System
Modelling. Joint activities have been ongoing with WGCM (WCRP) and a number of
other groups (IPCC, SPARC, IGAC). The idea is to turn the models on its head:
instead of using WG3 scenarios to derive climate change, take climate changes and
calculate emissions and therefore socio-economic scenarios. Another idea is Simple
Integrated Models – integrating socio-economics. Modelling ecosystem goods and
services is another form of integrated modelling being conducted within AIMES. A
long-system agenda is needed.
Discussion
 A new generation of models is required, rather than just tweaking existing
models in the different communities. How do we resolve this? We need to
come up with a new community which can be harvested from the visionaries in
the existing communities and new people from eg. the policy community.
 Not all topics or types of models can be forced into this. Perhaps bio fuels
however is suitable for this approach.
 We should get the communities together and talk about it and decide what we
can do and what we can’t. From the economic side, we are working in bottomup mode, working on a small scale. It will be very difficult to upscale this, but
we should talk about it.
 Maybe the name ESM should be reconsidered as in the different communities
this means different things.
 The MIT Global Forum model could be a useful prototype.
WCRP
Ann Henderson-Sellers gave a presentation on WCRP. IPCC is a big activity for
WCRP and there will be workshops this year with GCOS on developments following
AR4 and towards AR5. 2008 is WCRP’s crisis year: larger than ever need for climate
research but serious financial crisis. WCRP with GEO are going to archive the best
results from IPY. WCRP network survey 2006 results were shown: some of the
negative feedback could also relate to the other programmes. Merger with IGBP was
frequently suggested. Ann introduced the white paper written by Lemke and Steffen
9 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
9
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
(discussed in IGBP meeting agenda item 8), particularly the need for an ESSP
Secretariat. WCRP priorities 2008-2011 from strategic plan: abrupt climate change,
comprehensive observations, ability to predict and move into policy, higher resolution
models and more computing power/skill, seasonal climate predictions for agriculture
and health, access to observing systems, higher resolution models.
Discussion
 Nobre summarised the discussions at the IGBP-SC on the topic of WCRPIGBP merger.
GCIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)
John Ingram and Steve Running presented the outcomes of a meeting between the
CGIAR and ESSP scientists. GCIAR is a group of donor organisations and
agricultural centres (5 million USD annual budget). A meeting was held of 15 CGIAR
scientists (1 per centre), 15 GEC scientists (from across projects of the programmes
incl. reps from the SCs) and 8 others. It was funded 50:50 by ESSP and CGIAR. The
aims were to identify priority areas for active collaboration. The priority research
themes identified were: hotspots of vulnerability in food systems; food security vs. bio
energy vs. carbon credits; agro-ecosystem adaptation to climate change that improve
productivity and sustainability; managing tropical lands for reduced greenhouse gas
emissions and poverty alleviation; cross-scale stakeholder engagement; and crossscale policy analysis for mitigation and adaptation and agricultural development. If we
are serious about continuing this collaboration we need to find 50:50 support from
ESSP Secretariat and GCIAR.
ESSP (Earth System Science Partnership) Issues
ESSP Governance
It has been decided that there will be a Scientific Committee for ESSP. The C&D
have asked ICSU to appoint 4 members of that committee including the Chair (Rick
Leemans, Neth), which has been done in very close consultation with the
programmes. Other members include the Chairs and Directors of the 4 Programmes,
representatives of the Joint Projects, MAIRS and START. They meet for the first time
in October 2007.
ICSU Review of ESSP
Thomas Rosswall introduced the Terms of Reference for the review of ESSP, the
review panel (Chaired by Louise Fresco) presented in the papers. The Panel will
meet in April and October, in conjunction with the new ESSP SC which meets for the
first time in October. The review will be finalised early 2008. At the same time reviews
are being taken place of WCRP and IGBP. These reviews are to aid the development
of the programmes/partnership, but also to inform the funding agencies.
Discussion
 Adrian Fernandez is at this meeting to interview people about ESSP in relation
to the review.
ESSP Institute
Kevin Noone presented some preliminary ideas developed at the 2005 IGFA
(International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Environmental Change) meeting.
An Earth System Institute could provide a focus for the ESSP both from a scientific
and resource perspective. It could provide a complement to the current distributed
network organisation. Create an IIASA-like research institute for GEC. Potential
10 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
10
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
structure would include: an institute with permanent research staff from the areas of
the 4 programmes; a regular programme of visiting senior scientists and post-docs; a
physical location (associated with a major university) with support staff and
infrastructure; home for the ESSP Secretariat.
Discussion
 The USNSF started a similar national centre 10 years ago in Santa Barbara
which is extremely successful. It would be useful to talk to them about the
development as the original concept is similar to this (Steve Running). It is
focussed almost entirely on the natural sciences, but it is evolving to involve
the social scientists.
 There are other research institutions in the world with these goals in mind (eg.
PIK, Tyndall, Quest). What added value would the institute have? We could
physically go there to do our work.
Concluding Remarks
Andreas Rechkemmer and Oran Young made a few suggestions for concrete
areas of collaboration/communication:




IHDP has a visiting scientist from France (physicist by training but masters in
science communication). She will be responsible for communication with
ESSP, IGBP etc.
IHDP are already planning a meeting in Santa Barbara with a focus on energy.
Propose that it is done jointly and focus on bio fuels.
IGBP and IHDP should start a joint activity on GEC and vulnerability (perhaps
a Dahlem workshop)
A joint workshop should take place on Integrated ES modelling.
Carlos Nobre added that he believes that there is not too much of a language barrier.
The joint activities we have are proof of that. Some of the ideas emerging from this
joint session are excellent. IGBP are particularly interested in pursuing collaboration
on bio fuels. This is of particular interest to Brazil. We identify that
adaptation/mitigation is becoming crucial. We should pursue more concrete steps on
this.
Carlos Nobre thanked Kevin Noone and Andreas Rechkemmer to make this meeting
happen and to the logistic organisers, Jean Ometto, Sri Sahlin and Isabel Ávila.
Decision 2: IHDP and IGBP should begin scoping a joint activity on bio fuels.
Decision 2: IGBP and IHDP should begin planning a workshop on Integrated Earth
System modeling (cf. Decision 10).
ACTION 1: IGBP and IHDP Secretariats to develop joint activities/meetings on bio
fuels and Earth System modelling.
Friday, 16 March
11 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
11
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
The SC received the latest version of the Strategic Plan, in track changes mode in
order to review the progression of and reasoning behind the document. It was
explained that the idea for this Strategic Plan was brought up at the 13 th IHDP SC
meeting Norwich, and that it was discussed at length in a draft form at the Officers
and Project Leaders Meeting in Beijing, which also drafted the mission statement and
goals of the document, as well as by the rest of the SC in the months since then by
email. These edits were compiled in the IHDP Secretariat by Falk Schmidt, and
editing done by Douglas Williamson.
Significant discussion and input was given by the entire SC towards updating and
streamlining the Strategic Plan. After lengthy discussion in the large group, several
small groups or individuals drafted text to feed into the Strategic Plan. These
suggestions were built into the document (again in track changes mode) and were
promised to be circulated within approximately 2 weeks of the meeting in order to
meet final approval from the SC.
Report of the Executive Director
Andreas Rechkemmer (IHDP Executive Director) presented the past year’s activity
report and outlook. These documents were then handed out separately as print-outs
of a power point presentation and covered the following topics:
1) A list of decisions made at last year’s SC and worked on since then. These
included the development of IHDP’s strategic plan; an exploration of the UNUIHDP link ; the decision to highlight ESSP joint decisions (which led to the joint
meeting in Brazil); the decision to strengthen the IHDP Executive Committee;
a call for new scientific initiatives, new research themes, scouting workshops,
and outreach to new communities; increased publications and outreach
activities; a focus on the science-policy link (leading to the Berne workshop in
September) and the upcoming first Bonn Dialogue in April; and finally the SC
decision to support a UK National Committee, which was re-founded in
October
2) Two new SC members: Ernst von Weiszäcker and Leena Srivastava
3) The recommendations at the last SC meeting in Norwich helped IHDP move
towards a new institutional setup: an MOU between UNU, ISSC and ICSU is
now in place, and IHDP is now part of UNU at UN campus with other UN
offices in Bonn
4) A challenging funding situation still exists: BMBF did cut funds by 25% last
year, but the Secretariat is still functioning at its normal level thanks to the
move to UN and its tax advantages. In addition, there are negotiations being
undertake n with other players for funding, including China, India, Japan, UK,
and the EU
5) Several project accomplishments: GLP and UGEC are up and running,
GECHS and IT are starting to prepare for their synthesis, so new projects are
needed
12 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
12
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
6) IHDP has also been paving the way for new scientific endeavors and crosscutting themes, and is likely to join the GECHSS project, as well as a possible
connection to AIMES and iHOPE, a possible project with Diversitas on Human
Dimensions of Biodiversity, and is exploring engagement in the sustainable
development community
7) Finally, IHDP has been exploring links with the science-policy interface,
through its Berne workshop, Bonn Dialogue series, an upcoming Health
Conference, and others
8) The 7th IHDP Open Meeting is set to take place 9-12 October 2008 in New
Delhi India. TERI is the local host and Dr. RK Pachauri has agreed to be cochair of the scientific planning committee. Dr. Leena Srivastava is on the
international committee and also chair of the local planning committee. It is
expected that significant support from the Indian government can be won – to
this end, Andreas and are travelling to India in May to meet with local partners
and government.
9) Budget: Disregarding fund specifically for the 5th IHDW in Chiang Mai, IHDP’s
income in 2006 was around US $1.6 million. Expenditures for 2006 were
around $1.5 million, leaving $100,000 for a strategic backup. 2007 budget
expectations and income from core contributions are slightly higher than last
year, in spite of cuts from Germany.
Sander van der Leeuw is the new treasurer
It was further noted that financial management at UNU is better equipped for
IHDP’s kind of international work than was the case at the University of Bonn
The fundraising strategy includes plan to diversify and broaden funding, out
to other agencies in addition to national research agencies, as well as
regional/ intergovernmental institutions, foundations, and the private sector.
In addition, more possibilities will be explored to apply for longer-term project
funding such as through the EU
10) As part of the Strategic Plan exercise, IHDP is also looking at its capacity
development strategy, moving away from the term of capacity building. IHDP
would like to broaden its activities in this area, reaching out to the sustainable
development science community, including not just the global South but also
the EU and North America.
“Capacity Development”, as opposed to capacity building, purposely broadens
the notion to include networks in the global North, reaching out to new
audiences and targets, including the sustainable development science
community
11) The 5th IHDW took place from 13-26 October in Chiang Mai, Thailand, on the
topic of “Water, trade and development,” with IDGEC taking on the lead
scientific role for the workshop. The IHDW was successful in creating a few
13 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
13
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
new linkages that we hadn’t had before, as well as strengthening ties to APN
(which will be important for the next Open Meeting)
12) Seed grant initiative: 3 seed grants were given in 2006, each around $5,000
– for national workshops in Tanzania and Uganda, and an IHDP/ MRI side
event in Mendoza in August. A final $5,000 for 2007 will be given for a national
human dimensions workshop in Argentina in August.
13) 2006 was good year for IHDP regarding its national committees, as well as a
new structuring of the Secretariat to have several people be contact points for
key national committees such as UK, US, France, Norway and China instead
of one person handling all activities. This diversification of Secretariat
capabilities resulted in several personal meetings with national committees,
linked to funding talks in the UK, US, France, China and Norway
14) Science-practice interface: A consultant (Johanna Bernstein in Brussels)
was hired to review the relevant section in the Strategic Plan, Chapter 4, and
give advice to IHDP on its specific niche and processes it could tap into. After
Berne, there are plans to turn this Science-Policy dialogue into a series,
perhaps the next one focusing on energy (perhaps biofuels)
15) Along these lines, the Bonn Dialogues on Global Environmental Change is
a new series of expert roundtables combined with public panel discussions, in
cooperation with UNU-EHS and other relevant local partners. The first event
on “Climate change: control adapt or flee?” will take place on April 17th, and
more information can be found at www.bonn-dialogues.org
16) Communications and outreach:
A new format for the IHDP Update
newsletter as well as the IHDP website, perhaps with a member zone, is
being drafted.
IHDP has a new logo, as agreed upon by the Executive SC – this will be
circulated within the next few weeks.
Discussion on the report of the Executive Director



Concern was expressed that regarding IHDP’s new logo and website, the
ESSP common image still needed to be upheld. This was confirmed by the
Executive Director and it was mentioned that the current website suggestions
were in draft form only
As the power point presentation was difficult to see, print-outs were also made
for the SC members so they could look at them overnight and come back the
next day with questions
Questions were raised about the Bonn Dialogues and who sets the agenda for
them, as well as a request to inform the SC well in advance so that long-term
planning can be done. Furthermore, for the next Bonn Dialogue, if IPY is
involved, IHDP should consult with other players (ICSU). Finally, once the
Strategic Plan is set, it should guide such future efforts.
14 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
14
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report

Andreas Rechkemmer noted that this is very much a Bonn-placed event, and
that the Science-Policy Workshop is an idea stemming from Norwich, linked to
the Strategic Planning Process, which has now evolved into a series of
workshops. It was also noted that IHDP is one of three organizers and that the
potential themes have been brought up in a planning meeting context.
Unfortunately there wasn’t time to consult the SC for this first one, but in the
future this will certainly be different.

On the financial issue, a question was raised as to the BMBF grant for
100,000 in the budget, and also money allocated for knowledge and social
learning. These figures should be made more clear in future budgets.

Andreas Rechkemmer noted that the cross-cutting theme is a Siebenhühner
initiative and it’s his budget, but he would like to work with us. Also, the
100,000 included in the budget was earmarked for the move to Langer Eugen.

Regarding the IHDP UPDATE, in the future 3 are foreseen per year, as well as
3 e-zines. There was some confusion about calling this a “peer-reviewed”
journal, which is not, but a peer-reviewed book series and policy brief could
still be good tools. Another suggestion (LOICZ) was for an information digest,
geared toward different communities. Finally, it was noted that the UPDATE is
well established and is well positioned to produce useful knowledge and
findings, especially with the help of guest editors.
Saturday, 17th March
Chair: Roberto Guimaraes
Discussion on the UNU agreement

Some background and clarification of the agreement with UNU was also
requested by the SC, at which point the Chair explained that as of a year ago,
the association was not yet that clear and covered a wide range of options
from UNU acting as a mere “landlord” to IHDP becoming part of UNU. The
resulting agreement is something between those extremes.
Back at Norwich an ad hoc committee was formed, including representatives
from the SC, core projects and staff, as well as representatives from existing
sponsors. After the options were explored, in late September the group
recommended that UNU become a third sponsor and more than a landlord,
providing more substance, but not advocating a merger of the organizations.
Here it was very important that IHDP maintain its autonomy and independent
SC. Furthermore, lengthy discussions were help with BMBF and the
University of Bonn to make sure that IHDP wouldn’t be “punished” for this
move.

Several questions were raised on what exactly the trade-offs and
compromises were in negotiating with UNU, as well as whether the MoU was
already in force or not - i.e., if certain terms could still be negotiated
15 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
15
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report

Concern was also raised over the independence of the SC as stipulated on
page 2, point 6, whereby the SC would be under the UNU Council.

Oran Young noted that the MoU is not yet formally in force. The terms are firm,
the document will be signed. Thus, the Secretariat was already moved as well.
People became also a bit impatient with the negation process. Geoff’s
question is not easy to answer. We think we are better positioned now with the
agreement. So: it’s good, given the overall German situation (BMBF). The
MoU is a compromise, yes, but all major points of ours are in, i.e. we keep our
independence, operate under our own constitution.

Andreas Rechkemmer commented that we had an oral agreement after the
meeting in Bonn, June 2006. It was another step to get the written draft. We
kept our autonomy, both of the SC and financial autonomy. There are a few
details which are a bit problematic. We are quite happy now that UNU agreed
as well.

Thomas Rosswall also reminded the group that the MoU is an agreement
between the three sponsors, praising Oran’s work in this process ICSU and
ISSC had quite early a draft. We went back and forth on several issues, but
ultimately the independence was kept. We used an existing MoU with WCRP.
Yes, this is the best what we can get, and we should sign it now. ICSU and
ISSC will watch carefully.

It was also noted that trust is important on both sides: Hebe Vessuri, who is
also on UNU’s Council, mentioned that usually there is no interference of UNU
with the UNU centres - This is a fact, although the wording sometimes seems
a bit different. And: we have two other sponsors. I am optimistic.

Roberto Guimaraes reiterated while it is true that this is an agreement
between the sponsors, the SC committee was also very much involved as
well, which is very good. Yes, there is a heavy burden on trust.

It was also noted that the MoU has certain implications for IHDP’s constitution,
whereby Oran reminded the group that IHDP’s constitution can be modified by
the SC to reflect the new situation – this should also be agreed upon at the
same time as the MoU is agreed.

Concern was raised about UNU’s presence in the Executive Committee, and it
was agreed upon by the SC that the Executive Committee does not make
special decisions, it simply is a pragmatic tool to implement decisions of the
SC between meetings

Finally, concern was raised regarding section 4.2, whether the UN post would
require only UN bureaucrats to fill it, or would there be freedom to select good
“outside” scientists as well
Decision 3: Several suggestions were agreed upon regarding changes of the
wording of IHDP’s Constitution: removing the words “important” in 3.3, “normally” in
2.4 and 2.5, including ICSU and ISSC as members of the Executive Committee (3.2),
16 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
16
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
deleting the words “through the Executive Committee” in 4.3, and changing the
wording to say that the SC “governs” all matters of IHDP instead of “guides”.
Decision 4: IHDP SC agrees to approve the MoU with the stated reservations
regarding independence of the SC under the UNU Council
ACTION 2: IHDP SC members to hand in further suggestions, if any, to revise the
Constitution to the Secretariat for incorporation in the text
Draft Strategic Plan 2007 – 2015
Discussion and chapter-by-chapter review







It was noted that the process of deciding upon the general structure of the SP
is a long one – starting at the last SC meeting in Norwich, continued at Berne,
through the OPL in Beijing. That has resulted in the current draft divided in its
5 chapters. This document is meant to provide a framework to steer our work,
not prescribe it – which also has implications for new projects.
Special care should be taken to pay attention to emerging issues, with much
discussion surrounding this.
Regarding section 2.3, Sander suggested and drafted with Kate 5 questions
creating a mechanism to improve IHDP’s look at societal problems –
addressing the need to develop a truly social science perspective on major
issues, such as climate change. This would highlight the unique contribution of
IHDP, establishing a coherent theoretical framework beyond sectoral case
studies. Need also to address multiple timescales and cultural dynamics
Gernot Klepper also suggested and drafted a section on looking at the social
issues/ research questions and priorities of IHDP over the next 10 years
We need to make this a language understandable by outside readers,
particularly potential funders and other partners – they are eagerly awaiting
the results of this exercise.
The Strategic Plan is fairly generic, so we also need some kind of memo
saying what are our new scientific initiatives at various stages of development
Andreas Rechkemmer clarified that it is also foreseen in this draft to have an
Executive Summary, perhaps there is also room for a summary for decision
makers to make it more applicable/ relevant for them
Decision 5: IHDP SC agrees to commission Sander, Kate and Gernot to draft the
above-mentioned sections, for inclusion in the text and subject to final approval by
the rest of the SC
ACTION 3: IHDP Secretariat to draft an implementation strategy for the Scientific
Plan, delineating priorities and action plans in short (1-2 year) time frames, based on
and as a subset to the Strategic Plan text
Discussion: Mission Statement in the Strategic Plan
17 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
17
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
There followed a very in-depth, detailed discussion on the points listed in the Mission
Statement, including the creation of several new points and merging or editing of
others. This made the text more coherent and less repetitive, with the aim of making
this section attractive and understandable to outside readers and policy makers.
ACTION 4 IHDP Secretariat to gather all suggestions from the SC, make changes to
the text, and re-circulate among the SC members for final approval on the wording of
the Strategic Plan.
Discussion Strategic Plan (cont’d)



It was noted in the Strategic Plan that placing a new emphasis on the issues in
section 3, and especially on the science-policy interface, would have
implications for the budget and the staff as well. It’s an issue of reallocation of
resources. For this, additional resources must be found.
Kate Brown raised a further question about section 2.2, and the examples it
lists. Oran Young then noted that some revision must be needed here, since it
was intended as a means to connect their work with the GEC community. It’s
about a strong relationship with the overall social science. We have to interest
prominent social scientist in our agenda
Finally, the group discussed the usefulness of the “cube” figure, expressing
some concern that the methods are problematic and the logic of its three
dimensions would suggest that each project is or should be working on each
of the cross-cutting themes.
Decision 6: The SC decided to delete the word “Systems Model” from the title of the
Cube figure at the same time strengthening the text and terminology around
methodologies.
ACTION 5: Oran Young and/ or Kate Brown to provide a paragraph on connecting
the Global Environmental Change community with the rest of the social science
community for inclusion in the Strategic Plan
Chair: Geoff Dabelko
Discussion on Strategic Plan (cont’d), on a chapter-by-chapter basis
Decision 7: The term “capacity development” is state of the art, so we should use it,
but we don’t need to explain why it’s different from capacity building.
Decision 8: For section 3.4 and parts of 3.5 – use only one title. From 3.5 take it until
the 2 bullet points and “IHDP has a variety of tools”… then also delete 3.6 title.
Decision 9: in Section 4, we need to add a short paragraph on making policy
relevant proposals
ACTION 6: Gernot Klepper and/ or Geoff Dabelko to address the science-policy
interaction (not interface) in more detail, add other actors
18 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
18
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
Decision 10: Section 4.7 needs a strong argument at the end, what research is
needed in order to do this kind of interaction, as well as what should be supported
(basic science, applied science, etc).
Decision 11: Section 5.1 should not read like a history lesson, it should look forward
as a Strategic Plan
ACTION 7: This section to be re-written to be more forward-looking
Discussion on publications


While the general merit of books itself was debated, it was agreed that a book
series of high quality would be beneficial. Oran is currently negotiating with
MIT Press over an IDGEC synthesis series, and the same could be
considered with UNU press. Perhaps a joint series, or two series?
There was discussion surrounding the fact that MIT is academically better, but
UNU is reaching out to other communities – and open access is important.
Such books are important for synthesis volumes, but also for attracting young
scientists and are still necessary in many fields if you want to get tenure.
Decision 12: IHDP should explore MIT this time, making sure to get rights to the
electronic documents/ PDF files.
ACTION 8: The Executive Director should work out a concept note/ strategy for
future publications, including the idea of perhaps affiliating IHDP with a journal and
the concept of a policy brief
March 18, 2007
Chair: Hebe Vessuri
Discussion: Subsidiary bodies
Background (Andreas Rechkemmer): at Norwich we discussed the science-policy
interaction, also the idea of building this into our Strategic Plan as well as two
subsidiary committees. The idea is that we could invite a few eminent persons in
science as well as policy, such as Hal Mooney, Klaus Toepfer, Roger Kaspersson,
etc.
Decision 13: SC agrees to proceed with exploring this committee and contacting
interested members (Secretariat)
Discussion: centers of regional excellence
Background (Andreas Rechkemmer) regarding regional centers of excellence: many
organizations (ICSU, and also projects such as GLP or LOICZ) have regional nodes
or offices. This can be tricky because sometimes donors don’t like to see a
proliferation of organizational costs. However, we think IHDP should start thinking
about regional representation in the form of scientific hubs or centers of excellence
19 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
19
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
where IHDP science is already strongly represented. Combing a system of
excellence with a regional could be a good one, but we must have a special body for
this.



Heike Schroeder noted that another potential service could be to provide
textbooks or teaching materials for dissemination of IHDP findings, which
could be a good way to distribute and get the research out there
Some concern was raised that we have to explore this idea very carefully so
that we don’t compete with existing centers of excellence. Also, investing in
this kind of thing takes a lot of funds and manpower
We could look at existing examples and possibly tie into that
ACTION 9: The Executive Director/ Secretariat should work out a concept note/
strategy for IHDP centers of excellence, taking stock of current IHDP presence/
specialization at universities and how they might play a stronger regional role
Discussion: 7th Open Meeting, October 2008 in India
Background (Andreas Rechkemmer): In a few minutes we have at teleconference set
up with new SC member Leena Srivastava to discuss the next Open Meeting and
give us an update on OM planning. The last OM set a trend, a landmark for future
meetings, in Bonn. Lis will continue leading this effort, and Nina will also be involved,
as well as a student intern. We submitted a proposal to APN for two assistants to
help with capacity-building efforts, one in Bonn and on in Delhi. TERI is the local host
and organizer, and the IHDP Secretariat will be handling the organizational planning.
There will be 2 organizing committees, one local committee in India, and the other
interrnational scientific planning committee. This ISPC will meet for the first time in
Bonn at the end of June and will be co-chaired by Oran and RK Pachauri, including
representation from each of our core projects and a few other eminent people, for
example from the Wuppertal Institute, Tom Burns Iban Chabay, Sander and also
Kasperson have been invited. For all of our projects, even if they cannot attend
personally it would be important for them to be on the committee or as in past years,
delegate this task to a member of their SSC.
Comments:




Frank Biermann commented that we all enjoyed Bonn a lot, but there could be
better selection for the abstracts next time, leading to better quality and results
Coleen Vogel said that one of the tensions is that this community is very
bottom up and there is a huge pool out there, so we haven’t wanted to close
the door to the huge feeding mechanism from the outside, introducing new
ways of thinking. When we’re more internal we restrict this nurturing growth.
We should showcase IHDP, but also invite non-IHDP scientists
Heike Schroeder noted that at the Bonn OM, the projects had an open role,
what about for next OM? This helped strengthen the IHDP branding, but we
don’t want it to be IHDP dominated. What is the best balance?
Andreas Rechkemmer reminded the group that at the 12th SC meeting, we
made a decision that the OM is the IHDP meeting, with a stress on IHDP.
However, the rest is left up to the planning committee. There is expected to
20 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
20
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
certainly be a regional focus in Asia, and also on our cross cutting themes,
plus of course there should be a focus on our existing projects
Teleconference with Leena Srivastava:
Leena Srivastava commented that they have made local arrangements for October,
we are making hotel bookings done in 3 or 4 months, with a large range of options.
Andreas Rechkemmer noted that the dates are the 8th of October, an evening
opening ceremony, and then the conference from the 9-12th at the Habitat Centre in
New Delhi. The location is also reserved from 5th to 8th for pre-OM training
seminars.
Leena Srivastava informed the group that the largest auditorium has 500 seats. For
plenary and meetings, we could also have a link with other room there
Andreas mentioned that the dates for the ISPC are 22-24 of June in Bonn, and the
main themes will be drafted. We will also have electronic connection for those who
are interested in participating that way. In a few weeks, Lis and I will also meet you in
Delhi. Now to fundraising.
Leena Srivastava commented that we should be able to get the government of India
on board and maybe some funding for Asian participants, dinners and things. We
have also had preliminary discussions with the University of Japan, and they have
expressed an interest. We should return to them when we have more set.
Andreas Rechkemmer reiterated that the Indian government is a key player, once we
have oral consent then we can have trilateral MoU with TERI, Indian government,
and IHDP
Oran Young asked if we know some of the Indian committee members?
Leena responded that other members are currently are in TERI’s tech and
information sections and that she can forward a list of further suggestions. We should
also have ministers of finance technology and environment.
Oran requested whether there are University connections? For Outreach?
Leena responded that yes, we could invite university people who are doing IHDP
type work for outreach to other universities
Andreas noted that since we now have Sander as treasurer, we should put our heads
together for fundraising.
Discussion:

Lis reminded the group that in Bonn, the largest room we had seated 550,
which was big enough although we had over 1,000 people registered and
paid. There was also discussion that this OM should be interesting and
different.
21 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
21
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report

Hebe Vessuri noted that this time we should try to raise the quality

Shobhakar Dhakal mentioned that he has been to the Habitat Center, they
have everything there. We could also have a connection to the Tokyo
university and mitigation initiative. I will meet the relevant person next week
and mit initiative

Heike Schroeder noted that recognizing our three pillars, I see capacity
development at the next OM, but what about science-policy interaction, how
do we best involve policy makers? In Bali, some came, but we should start
thinking about this early, have a liaison on the committee

Hebe Vessuri suggested approaching DevNet for outreach efforts- they have
an office in the Habitat Center

Karen O’Brien noted that after the last meeting we had a book idea which and
fizzled out. We should think about this beforehand, what kinds of things are
going to be published out of it?

Jose Moreira wanted to know how will the OM be organized as to core
projects?

Andreas: There will be 4 ways to engage: 1) oral presentations and posters, 2)
plenaries like at the last OM showcasing our projects, 3) side event, for which
rooms will be available, and 4) pre -open meeting training workshops, this time
with START. IT has already expressed interest in doing one of the workshops
Core project presentations
IDGEC
Heike Schroeder presented the IDGEC Synthesis as a process that started two years
previously to make sure we cover all important things. It had 3 goals: 1) showcasing
our results, 2) exploring the policy relevance, and 3) identifying key themes for future
research in this field for new projects
In Bali, we focused on two geographical areas: the polar regions and Southeast Asia.
Pre conference workshops to strengthen collaboration. During the conference itself,
one day was dedicated to a synthesis of research from the science plan of IDGEC,
also asking respondents to respond to research, not only scientists but also
knowledge brokers. Then half a day for applied research activities, not only IDGEC
but also from a wider community. Then there was a half day of policy and learning,
co-chaired by the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia. The last day was dedicated
to next steps from institutional change to looking at new steps
Several outcomes came from the IDGEC main themes of fit, interplay and scale
(please see IDGEC slides).
Discussion
22 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
22
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report

Questions from Hebe Vessuri and Andreas Rechkemmer: what is the
publication strategy? Answer: we thought about a series, an IHDP series, but
making it happen might take longer than we would like, so that is not an option
now. With MIT we will have several volumes

Oran Young: one of these publications will come out as a UNU publication,
one of the other volumes may or may not be a UNU publication, but main
vehicle will be MIT press. They will make a mechanism to show these belong
to the same set of publications. The IDGEC project now needs to some to an
end- the money is out, a few final determinations are still following from the
Bali conference, but the basic continuing funding is finished. Heike is now off
to Oxford, and we will be making a proposal for how to carry this kind of
research forward

Falk Schmidt. The conference was a big success, and IDGEC attracted 6 of
the 9 IHDP projects

Oran noted that this was a tricky conference, 1 synthesis, people there by
invite, the 2 we wanted it to be open, so we called for sub missions, was very
successful, new people were interested in the major findings and also initiating
new things, lots if interest. A note of thanks and recognition to Heike, Oran,
Frank Biermann and Agus Sari
GECHS
Karen O’Brien passed out a page on future plans, with a highlight of activities for the
year . GECHS has existed since 1999. We haven’t always followed our science plan
but have developed into a strong network of human security people. In December we
got funding from Norwegian research council for adaptation to climate change.
Adaptation as a social process in Norway but also international.
Project objectives were describe (see slides)
Upcoming international workshop: Shifting the discourse to ethics and equity, June
21-23.
There is a larger question of where GECHS is going. Our current funding goes until
July 2008, if we extend and go through a synthesis process, the Norweigan research
council could probably be convinced to fund the synthesis. Do we follow the IDGEC
model for winding down? How does project fit into IHDP phase 2? And where does
IHDP see GECHS fitting in?
Discussion

Oran Young noted that the normal practice is to have a maximum of 2 terms of
6 years each, but in exceptional cases, we can adjust, I think we can see that
Karen should be extended for some time as chair

Karen O’Brien stated she could be interested for perhaps another 18 months,
we can see what the SSC of GECHS has to say
23 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
23
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
Decision 14: The SC supports the suggestion of extending Karen O’Brien’s term as
GECHS chair for the synthesis process, maybe 2 more years
IT
Jose Moreira presented an activity report on the Industrial Transformation project.
Metastudy in Asia, and 6 papers to be published. Other research has been done on
water use by region from 1995 – 2025, as well as energy use in emerging economies
(see slides for more details). Are also approaching our end phase and synthesis
process
Discussion

Andreas Rechkemmer: the Secretariat needs to start the planning process
now for IT’s synthesis process, and on IT’s side it would be good to think
beyond winding down - how do you want to develop the cross-cutting themes
of thresholds and transitions? It would be good to have a meeting in Delhi next
year to discuss this pre synthesis workshop
UGEC
Michail Fragkias presented on the Urbanization project.
Progress report, details on four key themes and activities presented on slides.
Discussion:


Andreas Rechkemmer: How can the Secretariat and the SC support the
UGEC project? Michail: we could increase number of activities, right now only
2 SSC members are committed so far to leading activities, plus we could have
some support from Bonn for a workshop in Bonn.
Coleen Vogel: How are your relations with Dan Severez and other members of
ASU? Michail: Most of my initial activity has been to meet everyone at ASU,
now involved in discussions with other faculty members; many will become
project associates or have other special roles. The SSC meeting is important
and it is soon – there we are going to discuss these chances for interactions.
The Dan Severez group is different and outside.
MRI ,PERN, APN and IAI
Andreas Rechkemmer: PERN has submitted a fact sheet, which you can find in your
briefing books. MRI has not submitted one, but we are working together for
submissions on a possible new initiative/ project in the Swiss mountains. APN and
IAI are key funders of IHDP, and Heike will represent IHDP at APN’s annual meeting
in Honolulu next week. IAI has been a bit difficult lately, and the next Open Meeting is
far from Latin America, but we are still hopeful for support
New Scientific Initiatives
24 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
24
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
Oran Young: A top priority for the afternoon is how to deal with new scientific
initiatives, drafting committee will have something to say about it.
We have a need to think creatively about new scientific initiatives. Two of our core
projects have been completed, the other two will also be moving there soon. We
have a couple of new ones and our portfolio needs to be restocked. It is timely to give
the cross cutting themes more substance. . Also other new scientific initiatives could
take different forms – one is similar to a core project and is related to risk
governance. Several other new initiatives are coming out of work in the last years,
such as governance. Then there’s something with a different character, which is the
Vulnerability-Resilience-Adaptation process which has produced some good content
over the past few years. Then some ideas came out of our joint meeting, for example
fast track initiatives like bio fuels
IHDP Integrated Risk Governance core science project:
Ye Qian presented on this project initiative, which came up during the ESSP OSC,
and was officially submitted by CNC-IHDP.
After suggestions made by Oran Young and others, it was approved by CNC –IHDP
advisory board, with a first draft sent out to experts from different countries for
feedback, from Australia, Britain, Japan, etc. An office could be provided at Office at
CNC-IHDP.
Key scientific issues are integrated risk management, mechanism, theory, model and
dynamics/ IRG model and simulation, information-sharing platform and technical
support system.
All existing projects can give input to this project, and this project could learn a lot
from existing ones/ get feedback.
The Chinese central government is paying great attention on emergency
management of public security (lesson learned with SARS), and prevention of
different risks and sustainable development were integrated closely in national 11th –
year plan. $300 million US research funding is going into it.
In June 2007, there will be an IHDP-IRG core science plan expert meeting in Beijing.
10 international experts recommended by IHDP and CNC IHDP members will meet
to revise the IHDP-IRG science plan.
December 2007 will see the 2nd international IHDP-IRG science plan expert meeting
in Beijing to finalize the Science Plan
In January 2008, we will submit the Science Plan to the IHDP Scientific Committee,
with the hopes of launching the project in February 2008.
Discussion

Coleen Vogel: what is the added value of this group/ project in terms of the
science of risk governance? Also is it possible to think of what reviewers there
25 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
25
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report










are of this project? It might be useful to focus down on a few key things, bring
external scientific perspective from wider community
Oran Young: various groups and communities are thinking about things like
this (ex Coleen), we could point you to some of the players/ groups who ought
to be informed and participating
Oran Young: the normal procedure would be first a review process, then the
meeting of the scientific planning group, with representatives from different
communities responsible for identifying scientific foci – one member of the SC
with knowledge would helpful for its international advisory capacity. So far
Roger Kasperson has had a look, but the document has not yet been formally
circulated for peer review
Sander van der Leeuw: a key component of IHDP projects is their international
scope, so that scope still needs some work in this case. It would be good to
identify some themes working in different parts of the world to compare how
risk is managed in different societies/ cultures
We need to do a pre-project study involving Chinese scientists and
international scholars. This could be a Chinese project in the end, but IHDP
could make a contribution to prepare the science plan
Oran Young: That may be a process entrusted to the scientific planning group
Andreas Rechkemmer: Let’s not lose track of the fact that we need new core
projects. But they need to be much more specific, there needs be an
international body, need to give it more time – this is an in depth, breadth
investment
Jozef Pacyna: We have an IPO dealing with this kind of work and we are also
interested in modelling IRG. LOICZ is very interested in working with group
Geoff Dabelko: I think we need to see this as a multi-step process. There is a
whole universe of projects out there - but we need to look at alternatives and
not just accept one sitting in front of us. We need to take some time, need to
be reminded that we need to think about and have opportunity to say that the
world is our oyster
Oran Young: Projects are ultimately community-driven, not SC-driven. If we
are negative, or unresponsive to serious groups that are coming forward with
ideas, I think that sends a terrible message. No one is suggesting we adopt
this document as a new IHDP core project. There is a process issue we need
to follow. We should say we received this proposal with interest, it has
significant potential, but a series of steps are required before we adopt this as
a core project or a process of any kind. EX IDGEC process was 3 years,
including a peer review of the draft scientific plan, but this long process was
ultimately a beneficial one.
Coleen Vogel is interested not in being a committee member, but in helping
with correspondence and making connections to others who are working on
similar topics
Decision 15: IHDP needs to appoint a science planning group in consultation with
the Chinese and needs input from other key communities. The function is to take this
from broad, generic kinds of topics to something more focusable. It will then be
circulated to the rest of the SC for more comment.
26 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
26
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
ACTION 10: The Executive Director/ Secretariat should identify a scientific planning
group to give input on the Integrated Risk Governance science plan, and circulate
comments to the rest of the SC.
Earth System Governance
Frank Biermann presented. IDGEC project is now over, but there is a strong interest
in continuing some of the research. This would not necessarily be an IDGEC 2, but
there is significant interest to support the case for continuing this research. The
synthesis conference had 200 participants, strong representation from ESSP and
other core projects.
This form of continuation must respond to 3 different changes since the conception of
the IDGEC project:
 The social science context has changed to include governance
 IDGEC has changed (we do have results!)
 The global change community has changed (IDGEC 2 needs to react to
changes in the research context, including the emergence of the ESSP
How can our communities respond to these kinds of changes?
Furthermore, the research must broaden from merely the work of institutions, to take
into account the entire governance issue - a process which brings together actors in
the public and private sphere to steer subparts of society by a variety of mechanisms
- including institutions, but also partnerships, networks etc
At the first ESSP conference in Amsterdam in 2001, it became clear that we need
strategies for Earth System management, an ethical framework for global
stewardship. But perhaps “management” is too technocratic, top-down an approach?
Is “governance” a better description? FCCC COP targets on global temp rise, sea
level rise, etc
Clearly, work needs to be done on integrated earth system analysis models. Earth
System analysis is overlapping with Earth System governance, and natural and
social sciences should be open to cooperation where possible, while the social
sciences still need to keep their disparate methods and traditions.
Several research questions guide this new effort: architecture, agency (beyond
state), adaptive governance (adaptiveness), accountability, and allocation.
We need to find a mechanism to link a governance project with the other IHDP core
projects and cross-cutting activities. Could focus as a nodal point, cross-cutting
activity of IHDP.
This initiative calls for an integrative steering group, science plan and international
project office (probably in Bonn).
The next Amsterdam Conference can serve partially as a follow-up to Bali: May 07,
“Earth System Governance: Theories and Strategies for Sustainability”. Also, we
27 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
27
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
recently received funding for four years of an EU Marie Curie Summer School on
“Earth System Governance”.
Timeline: We will continue discussions in May, planning to have a first draft of the
science plan in October, then launch in 2008.
Discussion

Roberto Guimaraes: we need to make a distinction between governance and
management - understanding what governance means for systems best
captures the human dimensions of global environmental change

Andreas Rechkemmer: I would urge you to add a 6th analytical focal theme on
arbitration (a legal dimension), paying attention to the legal notion of
governance and legal instruments. Secondly, I suggest engineering a broader
conceptualization around governance thought to connect to others - get some
other schools on board, such as Tom Burns, etc. Thirdly, I like the idea of a
core group and a mechanism on board to provide a matrix for projects to buy
into and apply their findings. And fourthly, it is a good idea to locate the IPO in
Bonn, but we need extra funding for it – we could perhaps ask DFG to help us
in providing a link between this project and rest of IHDP.

Lydia Gates: to use the GWSP example, we also follow an integrative
approach covering 1 small area of a big project already integrative in place,
recognizing the linkage of governance in all new 3 focus themes defined by
integrated study areas. We heavily rely in the future on support from IHDP to
feed into our project and other directions. So we appreciate follow-up and are
happy to assist in the process of securing the livelihood of joint projects.

Geoff Dabelko: I am encouraged by the management-governance discussion.
To take an example from the GECHS community, the human security term
turns off some who don’t do that – I understand why terms connect to a certain
audience, but so much of our responses have been multilateral agreements in
an international framework, so there is a bias towards that to exclusion of
others. How can we frame these sorts issues and have people participate?

Kate Brown: I think there is a compelling case for research in this area,
presently with coherent issues. My first point: this could get very big, too many
things in it. It will take more work to focus this effort, and it must be strategic
and selective. My second point reiterates Geoff’s, although talk about multiscale essentially global focus reflected in framing, makes it even bigger.
Thirdly: I like the suggestion for an integrative science plan, with a research
core linking to other programs and projects, but again I caution us to be
selective, look into areas of research, not just tacking governance on every
area – we must find the human dimensions component. Finally, I liked the idea
of starting with these concepts, the heart of the conceptual analysis. It gives a
strong quality of science at the heart of something like this. It’s an exciting
area with lots of potential.
28 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
28
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report

Karen O’Brien: I also support Geoff’s comments - how do we integrate this into
IHDP? I propose to consider this a core project rather than a core crosscutting theme

Shobhokar Dhakal: This was an interesting presentation, and I was lucky back
in Bali that I had a chance to hear some of this as well. From a GCP
perspective, I am happy to go back to our SSC and try to see if our committee
is happy to get involved – I sense that there would be a lot of interest.

Frank Biermann (answers to questions): regarding the science-policy
interface, I personally share Roberto’s perspective that the key of the program
should be science, understanding the system in a critical and scientific way.
Also to Gernot, having the IPO hosted in Bonn would ensure larger contact
with people from MEA, better linking. Regarding Andreas, all themes are
already inherently legal questions, we already have a lot of legal work implied
here. Although the “arbitration” theme would certainly be a way to get lawyers
stronger involved in the community, I am not sure if we need an extra bullet
point on this. Imp broaden communities, reach out more people working in
field not necessarily IHDP. We must be very selective, careful to focus on
particular IHDP/ ESSP projects most promising (3-4), focus and try do
research together. There is a role for some kind of clearinghouse function for
all projects, but again we must be selective. Our biggest fear is that the
governance group will become a clearing house where we just send a literary
list on experts (which is better done by Google). Also, the name of the project
is not as important as the fact that it is a “project” – in other words, it can be
core or cross-cutting, as long as it is not a network, alliance, coalition, etc. It
must have a strong social science core in order to engage academic,
intellectual and career development.
Finally, we would not have a big independent IPO but likely folded into Bonn. I
suggest the ED be entrusted with identifying a planning group (6-8) people
with a timetable and a bottom line of OM Delhi 2008 are attractive and
feasible.
Decision 16: The next stage of the process of for this project should go forward, with
the scientific planning process determining the nature of this proposal later on (core
project of IHDP or cross-cutting theme)
ACTION 11: The Executive Committee should help facilitate the setting up of a small
planning group (6-8 people) which can begin to respond to issues related to new
projects and prepare a plan to circulate back to the rest of the SC on how to proceed.
Vulnerability-Adaptation-Resilience
Sander van der Leeuw gave background information on the VAR of GEC, which
came out of a successful workshop held 2 years ago at ASU at the initiation of the
SC (Feb 05 Arizona, with Lin Ostrom and Marco Janssen) – Coleen could tell us
more about this. We had a paper coming out on the governance issue, and the idea
was that we could make this into a longer-term cross-cutting theme in the actual
Strategic Plan.
29 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
29
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
There’s been some negotiations in recent months about how to go about this:
between the new Mistra Center in Stockholm, Kate’s center in Norwich and our
center in ASU which could take the lead. We contacted the Resilience Alliance
(Sander, Kate and Carl Folke are also members of the RA), which draws on these 2
communities, and the purpose is to try and insert people either emerging from
existing core projects or drawn into them, taking a particular look at this perspective
to begin to build something more comparative from a theoretical point of view,
drawing on people from that perspective to improve and accelerate our thinking. In
the next 9 months, we plan to build up a database of interested people, make contact
with different core projects to get their ideas on how they fit in and where there’s a
need for something be done, then come back to the SC. Our other main activity is to
begin organizing a 1st workshop somewhere in 2008, bringing together people in core
projects with different people.
Discussion:

Kate Brown: I would also like to draw everyone’s attention to a big resilience
meeting in Stockholm in April 2008, and an earlier one in Corsica in autumn
2007.

Coleen Vogel: Thank you to everyone for following up on this, and thanks to
Sander for taking the lead to do this, we also need to draw in other IHDP
communities (for example, GECHS was not really involved in the last
process).

Oran Young: I agree that this was a successful venture, a spun up process,
with a workshop and publication, which is now able live to live on in a
constructive and creative way in the scientific agenda.

Sander van der Leeuw: A nice thing is the enthusiastic response from the
resilience people- they’ve been very supportive and enthusiastic – particularly
those self- identified and not only people thinking about VAR. Since Kate and
I are on both sides, it would be difficult to do this without their involvement.
Decision 17: The SC finds the Vulnerability-Adaptation-Resilience scheme an
attractive initiative, it enthusiastically requests to group to carry on and keep the rest
of the SC informed about progress and possible decisions to be made
Possible joint project with Diversitas, “Human Dimensions of Biodiversity”
Sander van der Leeuw gave some background on the next case. It didn’t really come
out of the IHDP community, but was a request from some prominent people in the
Diversitas group who wanted a closer relationship, and also had the involvement of
one vice-chair ASU – which led to this kind of proposal. Time is riper for this than it
has been for awhile. There have been some ups and downs about IHDP and
Diversitas participation in that project, but in July a new Chair came into Diversitas,
meaning a new chair behind this kind of approachment. With considerable caution
as to how to substantiate this coming together, I feel it is a timely moment because
ESSP needs to start exploring ways this could be done. Seems to be all we would
like is basically a mandate to go and talk to them.
30 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
30
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
Discussion:

Kate Brown: I would not want to discourage talking to them, but this is a pretty
broad subject, and so far the social science is not really well developed. There
should be specific areas identified where it is jointly beneficial.

Oran Young: the Strategic Plan could be helpful in making it more IHDP
compatible. Let’s talk to them, give them a positive signal. I’m happy to join in
as needed.
Decision 18: The SC agrees to continue talks with Diversitas on a co-sponsored
project
Decision 19: The SC agrees to co-sponsor IHOPE but needs more research (such
as an IGBP-IHDP workshop on coupled earth-system science modelling) before
agreeing to sponsor AIMES.
Global Environmental Change and Human Health
Manuel Cesario is prepared to take on leadership of this task force - he understands
the issues and problems with making a more comfortable relationship with IHDP, but
is very positive on the expected outcome. At the Sustainable Global Health
conference in Bonn in May, the task force with propose material to insert into GECHH
Science Plan and help IHDP in its preparations to be the 4th sponsoring organization
of this project.
Decision 20: the SC endorses the process of involvement in the GECHH process.
Climate change and energy
Climate change and energy are bullet points in the draft of the Strategic Plan.
Discussion:

Gernot Klepper: Let me make a process suggestion. These bullet points in the
Strategic Plan cover a number of issues of general interest to human society,
asking:
 What are problems?
 What can we contribute to analyse them?
 Do we want to engage in one or other of these activities?
 How do we join other groups outside IHDP?
All are covered by many different institutions/ organizations, not only by us. I propose
we start a process to end up with activities/ portfolio.

Sander van der Leeuw: We need to come up with a process to formalize,
identify for each of these 4 themes a person who is in one of those topics, part
of our community, who could kick start or point the direction in which we could
31 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
31
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
go, could set into motion of moving forward to come up with some more
mature and agreed plans.
ACTION 12: The Executive Committee/ Secretariat to find people, identify for each of
the four themes a person who is involved on one of these topics and part of our
community. These people should come back to the rest of the SC with 2-3 pages of
bullet points, discussing how to proceed.
Decision 21: the SC endorses the nomination of new members Patricia Kmeri Mbote
and Liu Yanhua, to start 1 January 2008.
ACTION 13: The Executive Committee to send out further nominations of SC
members in the next 6-8 weeks
AOB
Next SC meeting in 2008
Sander van der Leeuw gave a presentation on the issue of when the next SC
meeting should be held. There is a certain logic to having 1 SC meeting per year, this
is in our constitution and it is also practice of ICSU/ ISSC and also other programs.
Traditionally we have had 1 SC meeting in March, and 1 Officers and Project Leaders
(OPL) meeting at the end of the year, usually November or December. But BMBF cut
funds this year for SC meetings (25% this year), plus no funds for OPL meetings.
Money resources are one thing, but time is another. As an exception, we suggest
holding the next SC in October preceding the Open Meeting. This makes in order to
ensure that everyone can attend, plus we use remaining funds to have the OPL at
the beginning of 2008.
Discussion:

Jozef Pacyna: I support this idea, but can we survive staying a bit longer at
this conference?

Sander van der Leeuw: I suggest fixing an SC meeting at the OM in New
Delhi, and if there is a major need for an earlier meeting and we have the
finances then we could do that, but we should definitely aim at least for
October. I don’t like the idea personally either. In fact, we need eventually to
do a lot of this by video.

Andreas Rechkemmer: I think we should meet before the Open Meeting - we
already have booked rooms and also pre-OM training seminars, so people will
be spent. If we do it afterwards, it could turn into like it was in China in
November.

Geoff Dabelko: If we are not doing something like we did with the UK
community or like now with IGBP, do we need 3 or 2 days? I would like to ask
32 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
32
14th IHDP SC Meeting, 15-18 March 2007, Report
the Secretariat to be mindful of keeping the time down, and task them with
keeping it lean.
Decision 22: the SC decides to exceptionally hold its next meeting for 2 days in
October 2008, with an ad hoc meeting to be held before that date if deemed
necessary. The cycle will generally remain, every 12 months.
33 of 33 D:\99025708.doc
33