1
Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
Scientific Steering Committee
Second Session – 16 to 18 June 2000
Oslo, Norway
This document constitutes the report of the second session of the
Scientific Steering Committee of the IHDP Project on the Institutional
Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (hereafter IDGEC SSC 2).
Attendance: SSC members present: Alf Håkon Hoel (Norway), Jill
Jåger (ex officio as IHDP executive director), Leslie King (Canada), Paul
Mathieu (Belgium), Suparb Pas-ong (Thailand), Peter Sand (Germany),
Merrilyn Wasson (Australia), Yoshiki Yamagata (Japan), and Oran Young
(United States/chair). SSC members unable to attend: Elena Andreeva
(Russia) and Russell Reichelt (Australia). Other participants: Ike Holtmann
(IHDP liaison to IDGEC), Ed Miles (guest of the IDGEC SSC), Arild Underdal
(IHDP SC chair), and Virginia Walsh (IDGEC IPO director).
Topics covered: IDGEC SSC 2 focused on programmatic activities
and, in the first instance, on issues relating to the IDGEC implementation
strategy. Other agenda items dealt with reporting procedures for IDGEC and
with a variety of matters pertaining to the organization and management of
the project. The following sections summarize the discussion pertaining to
these issues, concluding in each case with a brief statement of actions taken.
Programmatic Activities
The major accomplishment of SSC 1 was the articulation of an IDGEC
implementation strategy featuring the following major elements: (1) flagship
activities, (2) partnerships, and (3) an IDGEC Network. The first and most
substantial order of business at SSC 2, then, was to review and adjust this
implementation strategy on the basis of the experience of the last year.
Existing Flagship Activities. All the flagship activities – the Carbon
Management Research Activity (CMRA), the Performance of Exclusive
Economic Zones (PEEZ), and the Political Economy of Tropical and Boreal
Forests (PEF) – have made good progress. Each has produced a substantial
scoping report that can serve as a roadmap for the conduct of focused
research. The CMRA has held a follow-on workshop designed to begin the
process of launching actual research projects. Similar workshops for the other
flagship activities will take place during the coming year.
2
The discussion at SSC 2 yielded several general conclusions as well as
more specific advice to the individual flagship teams. The overwhelming
priority for each flagship activity during the coming year must be to initiate
substantive research addressing the priority concerns of the flagship and
linked explicitly to the basic IDGEC science questions pertaining to causality,
performance, and design. In this connection, it is sensible in each case to forge
partnerships both with ongoing research programs in the IDGEC priority
regions and with major research establishments operating in the parallel
universes. One way to pursue this goal may be for each flagship activity to
establish an advisory board including representatives from major players in
the relevant field. In addition, it is essential for the flagship activities to avoid
becoming inbred in a manner that could lead to a lack of attention to
interlinkages and crosscutting issues of concern to all these activities and to
IDGEC as a whole. One way to ensure that these linkages are not overlooked
is to designate specific members of the SSC itself to serve as
facilitators/coordinators. In this connection, it may be helpful to consult with
others who deal with similar integrative endeavors (e.g. those at UNEP
responsible for the publication of Synergies). Another useful procedure will be
to organize workshops on topics that are of interest to all the flagship
activities (e.g. the relative importance of institutional versus biophysical
drivers in accounting for variance in natural systems).
The main advice to CMRA is to avoid becoming bogged down in the
minutiae of the FCCC/Kyoto Protocol system. A suitable approach might be
to focus on (1) the institutional determinants of net greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions on a scale of decades to centuries and (2) the institutional
determinants of the social impacts of a range of ongoing or anticipated
climate change events (e.g. El Nino events, forest fires, or the decline of corals
and mangroves in Southeast Asia and changes in the behavior of sea ice and
permafrost and shifts in species in the Circumpolar North). This would allow
for a focused consideration of issues relating to carbon sequestration, whether
or not such a system is mandated by the climate change regime as well as for
a discussion of the roles of various institutions in efforts to adapt to climate
change. Because carbon management is a global concern, it is essential for
CMRA to maintain a proper balance between northern and southern
perspectives in dealing with all aspects of this subject.
With regard to PEEZ, the main suggestion is to find ways to link the
retrospective orientation of the scoping report with an effort to look at
emerging issues of marine/ocean governance, including a range of concerns
pertaining to the coastal zone (e.g. land-based pollution, coral reefs,
recreational activities). The basic idea here is to use the findings of research
pertaining to the consequences of the introduction of EEZs during the 1970s1980s as a basis both for drawing lessons regarding the effects/effectiveness
3
of institutions and for strengthening our ability to come to terms with current
issues pertaining to ocean governance. In this way, PEEZ can supplement its
initial concern with matters of causality and performance with an enhanced
interest in matters of design.
The advice to the flagship activity on the Political Economy of Boreal
and Tropical Forests (PEF) centers first on matters of scope (e.g. FennoScandia and Finland in particular should not be ignored) and on the
identification of key partners, including private sector organizations like the
Forest Stewardship Council. In addition, PEF needs to focus attention on the
idea of institutional landscapes encompassing interactive arrangements
operating at a variety of levels from the international realm (e.g. the ITTA)
through the regional scale (e.g. the Central American Convention on Forests)
and the national scale (e.g. the national forest management systems of
countries like Brazil and Indonesia) to the local level (e.g. traditional forestry
practices).
New Research Themes. The research programs associated with the
existing flagship activities are ambitious and still at an early stage in their
development. IDGEC’s highest priority must therefore by given to efforts to
move these activities toward the initiation of substantive research that is
likely to add to our ability to answer the project’s principal science questions.
That said, however, it is also important for IDGEC to remain open to
new themes and to new initiatives. One way to deal with this need is to
ensure appropriate IDGEC representation in activities organized by others
that deal with matters involving important institutional dimensions. A
particularly striking case in point involves the crosscutting themes that are
emerging as vehicles for strengthening cooperation among IGBP, IHDP, and
WCRP. The crosscutting theme on the carbon cycle is of direct and immediate
interest to IDGEC; efforts are already well underway to define an IDGEC role
in this area. The other crosscutting themes – food and fibre and water or the
hydrological cycle – offer good illustrations of the need to remain receptive to
new themes. Both food and fibre and water encompass issue areas in which
institutions loom large as determinants of outcomes, and researchers working
on institutions have much to contribute to research on these matters. Under
the circumstances, IDGEC must make a concerted effort to contribute to the
collaborative research initiatives dealing with food and fibre and water, even
though they do not link directly to the existing flagship activities.
Partnerships. It is abundantly clear that IDGEC must operate in large
measure by establishing and strengthening partnerships with other programs
and organizations. IDGEC is not a funding agency in its own right; it does not
have and cannot expect to have control over large quantities of resources that
4
can be used to fund flagship activities or other IDGEC initiatives. The
essential task, then, is to mobilize a range of actors possessing compatible
interests and complementary resources in the interests of adding to our
understanding of issues pertaining to causality, performance, and design.
The challenge, in this connection, stems from the fact that the range of
potential partners is immense and the cost of identifying appropriate partners
and developing cooperative relationships with them is far from trivial. As a
result, the discussion at SSC 2 focused on the need to develop a navigation
map to help in the identification of suitable partners and to devise rules of
engagement to facilitate the establishment of mutually beneficial
relationships.
Proceeding in this fashion, the SSC articulated a number of helpful
guidelines that can be summarized as follows:
• consider the full landscape of potential partners including other
IHDP projects (e.g. LUCC, IT), other global change programs (e.g. IGBP),
national global change committees, parallel universes in the research
community, policy organizations (e.g. the UNFCCC Secretariat), and private
sector organizations (e.g. the Forest Stewardship Council),
• do not engage with partners unless IDGEC has something specific to
obtain from them and something specific to offer to them,
• identify organizations that are likely to provide needed perspectives
or contacts to relevant communities (e.g. the South Center in the case of
carbon management, the International Coral Reef Initiative in the case of
ocean governance, the European Forest Institute and the International Union
of Forestry Research Organizations in the case of forests),
• make a concerted effort to explore common interests with those in
the parallel universes actually engaged in research on matters of common
concern (e.g. IGES in the case of carbon and forests, CRC Reefs in the case of
marine issues, CIPEC in the case of forests),
• look for partners that have access to younger researchers (e.g.
postdoctoral fellows and even predoctoral fellows) who may find IDGEC’s
scientific program particularly attractive as a source of conceptual/analytic
guidance and IDGEC’s Network appealing as a means of making contact with
interesting colleagues,
5
• test the potential of prospective partnerships through simple
procedures like asking key individuals to serve as reviewers for scoping
reports or other IDGEC documents,
• respond to specific requests for cooperation or assistance from other
groups wherever possible (e.g. the requests of IGBP regarding research on the
carbon cycle).
Clearly, this initial list can and should be developed further over time.
The essential point is that the navigation map and rules of engagement we
formulate must facilitate the development of strong links to key partners,
while simultaneously offering guidance regarding the identification of
promising partners in the vast array of potential links.
IDGEC’s Network. The IDGEC Network is a constellation of
individuals who have indicated an interest in the work of the project and who
may well become actively engaged in IDGEC research activities during the
life of the project. Currently, the Network encompasses almost 200
individuals, and it is growing all the time. The IPO has initiated the
publication of a newsletter, IDGEC News, as a means of communicating with
members of the Network. The first issue of the newsletter appeared in May;
two issues per years are envisioned in the future.
This is a good beginning. But more can (and will) be done both to
augment the Network’s membership and in to engage Network members in
the work of the project. The membership is currently skewed toward North
America. Several substantive areas (e.g. environmental history,
environmental ethics) are underrepresented or even unrepresented. No
systematic effort has been made to identify clusters of interested people in
IDGEC’s priority regions (Southeast Asia and the Circumpolar North). There
is a need to draw in more doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows who are
likely to carry out IDGEC research. SSC members made numerous specific
suggestions for expanding the Network’s membership, and the IPO will
follow up on these suggestions.
IDGEC News is an excellent beginning. But it can be strengthened
through the inclusion of notes on research highlights pertaining to the
institutional dimensions of global environmental change as well as annotated
lists of important publications. Every effort should be made to organize
IDGEC workshops/panels at relevant meetings of professional associations
and at the biennial open meetings of the human dimensions science
community. Planning for the next open meeting, scheduled to take place in
Brazil in October 2001 should begin as soon as possible. There are possibilities
6
as well of adding interactive features to the IDGEC website as a means of
enhancing contact with the members of the Network.
Collaboration and Endorsement. As IDGEC grows, issues pertaining
to links with other research activities are becoming increasingly prominent.
The discussion of this topic made it clear that there is a need to differentiate
among major types of links. At this stage, two types of links seem particularly
important: (1) requests for IDGEC endorsement of workshops, conferences, or
other specific initiatives that are not IDGEC activities as such and (2) longerterm associations with organizations that may be in a position to make
significant contributions to the IDGEC research program.
With regard to the matter of endorsements, the SSC agreed to adopt, at
least initially, a simple procedure modeled on the procedure that LUCC has
devised. This means that requests for endorsements will be handled by the
SSC chair and the IPO director who will seek advice from individual SSC
members as needed and report their decisions to the SSC. An initial case in
point is the proposal for a workshop on “Institutional Interplay” to be held at
Potsdam University in late 2000 or sometime during 2001.
Proposals for longer-term associations, by contrast, should be
discussed - electronically if need be - by the SSC as a whole before
commitments are made. Typically, such associations will involve
arrangements that can contribute to the launching of substantive research
relating to the concerns of at least one of the flagship activities. Examples
might include an association with IGES regarding carbon management, an
association with the International Coral Reefs Initiative (ICRI) regarding
marine issues, or an association with LOICZ regarding coastal zone issues.
The IPO will circulate information on proposed associations of this sort with a
request for reactions within a specified time. Failure to respond will be taken
as an indication of acquiescence.
Action Items on Programmatic Activities. Specific SSC actions
relating to IDGEC programmatic activities can be summarized as follows:
• the SSC approved the basic structure and content of the IDGEC
implementation strategy, subject to the recommendations spelled out in the
preceding sections,
• King and Wasson agreed to take responsibility for monitoring
linkages among the flagship activities to ensure that all work carried out
under the auspices of the project is directed toward generating answers to
the main IDGEC science questions,
7
• while the launching of substantive research under the three
flagship activities must take precedence over other initiatives, IDGEC
should remain open to the articulation of new themes and should seek to
play a constructive role in collaborative efforts dealing with crosscutting
themes like food and fibre and water,
• requests for IDGEC endorsement of specific initiatives (e.g.
workshops, conferences) will be handled by the SSC chair and the IPO
director who will seek advice from other SSC members as needed,
• proposals for longer-term associations leading to collaborative
research efforts will be subject to discuss by the SSC as a whole.
Reporting Procedures
The SSC discussed three distinct types of reporting on project activities:
(1) formal biennial reports to the IHDP SC, (2) oral reports on the part of the
SSC chair to IHDP officers, SC members, and leaders of other IHDP projects,
and (3) reports on the work of the project to members of the IDGEC Network.
The IHDP SC has recently adopted guidelines relating to formal
reports on the part of individual projects. Projects should make initial reports
approximately two years after the formal establishment of an SSC to guide the
implementation stage. These reports should be relatively short (10-15 pages is
a reasonable target), subject to regular updating, and focused on the
performance of the implementation strategy. The primary purpose of these
reports is to document progress toward the development of answers to the
main science questions articulated in the Science Plan. Over time, they should
provide a record of the scientific accomplishments of the project. IDGEC
should be prepared to submit an initial report to the IHDP SC sometime
around the middle of 2001.
There has been an understandable tendency in the past for oral reports
to focus on planning efforts and organizational matters. Of course, some
attention to such matters will always be necessary. But there is consensus that
the focus of such reports should now shift toward an emphasis on research
highlights. In the first instance, this means reporting on the work of the
IDGEC flagship activities. But there is every reason to incorporate into these
reports highlights from research conducted by members of the larger
community interested in the institutional dimensions of global environmental
change.
Much the same goes for reports to members of the IDGEC Network.
An attractive procedure, in this context, is to make use of IDGEC News as a
8
vehicle for communicating information about research highlights as well as
about publications and funding sources of interest to the IDGEC community.
Actions items on reporting procedures. Specific SSC actions on
reporting procedures can be summarized as follows:
• the SSC chair and the IPO director will take the lead in organizing
the preparation of a biennial report on the IDGEC implementation strategy
to the IHDP SC with the objective of finalizing the text of this report at
IDGEC SSC 3,
• representatives of IDGEC will emphasize research highlights in
oral reports to IHDP officers and SC members and to other interested
bodies,
• the IPO will seek to include research highlights in future issues of
IDGEC News.
Organization and Management
The SSC discussed and made decisions about a range of organizational
matters including: (1) SSC roles and membership, (2) IPO organization, (3) the
interface with Bonn, and (4) the time and place of IDGEC SSC 3.
SSC roles and membership. As IDGEC expands, the roles of
individual SSC members become increasingly critical. In this connection,
individual members need to be ready and willing not only to help with
internal matters (e.g. leading flagship activities, ensuring integration among
distinct IDGEC efforts) but also to represent IDGEC in various external
settings (e.g. IGBP events, planning meetings dealing with crosscutting
themes like food and fibre).
This makes it all the more important to ensure that the SSC is operating
at full strength. After some discussion, the SSC decided to recommend for
IHDP SC approval a slate of 3-4 additional members to fill the vacancy left by
the resignation of Thrainn Eggertsson, to add strength in the area of the social
practice perspective on institutions, and to enhance the voice of the South on
the committee. The SSC endorsed the candidacy of Scott Barrett, an
environmental economist, as a replacement for Thrainn Eggertsson. Other
potential members of the slate include: Angela Cropper from Barbados, James
Murombedze from Zimbabwe, Madiodio Niasse from Senegal, and Agus Sari
from Indonesia. Individual members of the SSC will make contact with these
persons to explore their interest in joining the IDGEC SSC.
9
Although it was not on the formal agenda, a number of informal
conversations about the idea of appointing a vice chair for the IDGEC SSC
occurred during the course of the meeting. Given the far-flung character of
IDGEC’s activities and the pressures on the chair, this idea seems worthy of
serious consideration. The chair will seek advice from a number of quarters
regarding this matter and report back to the SSC on his findings.
IPO organization. The IPO is up and running at Dartmouth. Virginia
Walsh has done an outstanding job as IPO director, and the staff working
under her supervision has proven effective.
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has indicated that it will
fund the IPO for an additional 36 months. NSF funds will be sufficient to
ensure the continuation of the basic functions of the IPO. At the same time,
NSF funding constitutes the minimum needed to mount an effective IPO
operation. There are no restrictions on the pursuit of supplemental or
matching funds to strengthen the IPO at Dartmouth or to handle certain
IDGEC functions at other locations. SSC members will explore prospects for
additional funding for such purposes.
Because Virginia has a tenure track appointment at Rutgers, it may be
difficult for her to continue as director of the IPO. The chair of the SSC will
make every effort to find a way for Virginia to continue in this role. Should
this effort fail, the chair will consult with the SSC and with appropriate IHDP
officers and staff about a suitable alternative.
Interface with Bonn. Relations between the IDGEC IPO and the IHDP
staff in Bonn have been developing nicely. Because this is a new endeavor, we
are learning as we go along. But all indications are positive.
One area where Bonn could be particularly helpful involves
identifying - and obtaining details relating to - European funding sources (e.g.
DG XII, the ESF) that might support IDGEC activities. This is particularly true
so long as the IPO is located in North America and staffed by individuals who
are most familiar with the North American funding culture.
IDGEC SSC 3. After some discussion, the SSC decided that IDGEC
SSC 3 should take place from 5-8 July 2001 at Dartmouth. Like SSC 2, the
actual meeting would start on Friday morning and run through noon on
Sunday. This means participants will need to reach Dartmouth sometime on
Thursday, 5 July with departure scheduled for the afternoon of Sunday, 8
July.
10
The timing of this meeting is intended to allow a number of IDGEC
SSC members to proceed from SSC 3 to the IGBP Open Science Congress
scheduled to take place in Amsterdam from 10 to 12 July 2001. The plan is to
authorize these individuals to participate in the Amsterdam meeting with
concrete proposals for collaboration between IDGEC activities and IGBP
endeavors over the next five years.
Action items on organizational matters. Specific SSC actions on
organizational matters can be summarized as follows:
• the SSC will recommend a slate of 3-4 additional members to the
IHDP SC for approval by late summer or early fall,
• the SSC approved the current organization of the IPO and will
investigate ways to augment the support made available by NSF for IDGEC
operations,
•
the SSC endorsed the current division of labor between
Dartmouth and Bonn and expressed the hope that Bonn can help to explore
possible European funding sources,
• the SSC decided to hold SSC 3 at Dartmouth from 5 to 8 July 2001.