Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
FINAL Minutes of the
8 IHDP-Scientific Committee Meeting
Monday, March 26 – Wednesday, 28, 2001
Bonn, Germany
1
th
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The Scientific Committee met at the Hotel Königshof, Adenauer Allee, in Bonn.
In attendance on March 26: Arild Underdal (Chair), Carlo Jaeger (Treasurer), Eckart Ehlers
(past Chair), Mauricio Tolmasquim, P.S. Ramakrishnan, Elinor Ostrom, Mohamed Salih, Bill
Clark, Gilberto Gallopín, Kurt Pawlik, Will Steffen (Executive Director IGBP), Peter Lemke
(Chair WCRP), Pier Vellinga (Chair IT), Oran Young (Chair IDGEC), Mike Brklacich (Chair
GECHS), Eric Lambin (Chair LUCC), Jill Jäger (Executive Director IHDP), Ramine Shaw,
Sylvia Karlsson, Maarit Thiem, Debra Meyer-Wefering, Ike Holtmann (Intern. Science
Project Co-ordinators), Elisabeth Dyck (Information Officer) Laura Siklossy, Lisa Jibikilayi
(Administrative Assistants), Kerstin Schmidt-Verkerk (Research Assistant).
Excused: Anne Whyte (Vice-Chair), Berrien Moore III (Chair, IGBP), Hans Opschoor, Peter
Tyson, Joao Morais, Xizhe Peng, Rik Leemans, Gordon McBean (new ICSU representative);
Akilagpa Sawyerr stepped down Feb. 20, 2001.
21
22
23
24
25
26
I Welcome
27
28
29
30
31
II Agenda and Schedule of Work
32
33
34
35
III Minutes of the 6th Session SC-IHDP
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Arild Underdal opened the meeting at 9 a.m. on Monday by welcoming new members to the
SC (Clark, Salih) and to the Secretariat staff (Karlsson, Meyer-Wefering, Dyck). He
introduced the new procedures for the SC meeting (sub-committee resolutions for plenary
discussion, detailed project presentations to alternate every two years).
The Draft Agenda and Schedule of Work was adopted with amendments: a) It was agreed that
the meeting should convene at 8:30 a.m. on March 27 and b) It was agreed that the draft
document “Looking Forward” should be discussed on March 27 prior to the lunch break.
The revised Draft Minutes of the 7th Scientific Committee Meeting (March 2000 in Bonn)
were adopted as presented.
IV Executive Director’s Report
Jill Jäger summarised the detailed contents of the written Quarterly Reports 2000, which had
been sent at regular intervals by email to the SC. She emphasised that the work programme of
the Secretariat is guided by fundamental IHDP objectives, which are: 1) to co-ordinate and
support development of research agenda, including funding initiatives, 2) capacity building,
and 3) network development. Explicit challenges for the future are a) securing the future of
the Secretariat and the IPOs and b) strengthening the HD research community.
V
In-depth presentation of LUCC research by Eric Lambin (and
representing Rik Leemans)
At the beginning of his presentation Eric Lambin stated that land-use/cover change research
tends to be on global scale and disconnected. One of LUCC’s major objectives is to connect
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
1
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
and add value to these exercises. This is done by synthesis approaches that seek to come to
generalisation by a combination of literature reviews and newly initiated case studies. To
demonstrate the conceptual and methodological impact of this approach he chose to introduce
a case study he is involved in together with Kathy Homewoods on “Long term changes in
African Savanna Wildlife and land cover: pastoralists or politics?” This study evaluates
whether policies have led to changes in land-use and land-cover and therefore to decline in
wildlife numbers in the African Savanna in Kenya and Tanzania. As main conclusions of this
in-depth case study Lambin listed the following:
1 – the main problem is not the quantity of cultivation but its spatial location
2 – Drivers are markets and national land tenure policy
3 – Rapid land cover change and wildlife decline take place in Kenya
4 – Land-use strategies are driven by a mixture of spatial determinants and societal networks.
As another major LUCC activity Lambin presented the historic land cover database BIOME
300. The joint LUCC – PAGES initiative on a reconstruction of land cover over the last 300
years once more reflected the need for a concerted approach to issues of data standardisation
and validation.
Discussion:
The IHDP SC expressed great appreciation of the demonstrated example of ongoing LUCC
research. It became clear that land-use/cover changes are modified by a variety of humanenvironment interactions that may differ on very small spatial scales. To come to a global
generalisation for LUCC research a large number of in-depth studies will be necessary before
attempting to synthesise. This entails a whole range of methodological obstacles. The coupled
biophysical-social systems that LUCC research is dealing with cannot be tackled by singlevariables concepts.
Eric Lambin stressed to the IHDP SC that rather than worrying about macro-/micro-level
integration, it is the biophysical - social system integration that needs to be focused on. To
find the tools and to create the basis for operationalisation of the systemic concept is the key
challenge to the LUCC community at present. According to this main objective the LUCC
SSC redefined its priority questions for LUCC research at their last SSC meeting, held in
January 2001 in Wavre/Belgium:
Priority questions for land-use/cover change research in the next couple of years:
Focus 1: Land use dynamics - How to improve and generalise our understanding of
the drivers of land-use change?
Focus 2: Land-cover changes - How to better assess the rates of land-cover changes?
Focus 3: Integrated land-use change models - How to better represent our current
understanding of the processes of land-use change in
models?
The SC-IHDP identified the challenge of integration at three levels:
1 – Disciplinary
2 – Scale
3 – Time
Holtmann, Jäger, Lambin and Steffen met over a working lunch to discuss “Land” issues.
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
2
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
VI In-depth presentation of IDGEC by Oran Young
The project Chair gave an overview on current activities undertaken by IDGEC in the context
of collaboration with other GEC research actors and programmes as well as with funding
agencies.
The development of the three flagship activities has progressed well. For atmospheric systems
CMRA focuses, e.g., on institutional issues related to the administration of the climate regime
in its present form. A longer term issue relating to carbon management is the ability of the
regime to change and adapt over time (redesign). For the marine systems PEEZ looks at one
of the most significant distributional and institutional changes in history with over 100 coastal
countries with EEZ based regimes in operation. For terrestrial systems PEF looks at, e.g.,
global influences on local forest conditions and management practice. Cross-cutting themes
for all three flagships include knowledge (links with institutional systems) and compliance.
Scoping reports have been developed for all three projects and for the first two the first
workshops have been held (CMRA Tokyo 2000 and PEEZ Tromsö 2001). For effective
implementation Young stressed the approach to identify younger scholars (doctoral,
postdoctoral) to become involved. Some of the challenges at the current stage are to move
from planning to focused research, to mobilise funds and to sustain SSC interest and
commitment.
In its efforts to develop partnerships, Young cited the following accomplishments so far: The
GEC programmes cross-cutting themes of Carbon, Food, Water, the Amsterdam Open
Science Meeting, LUCC Focus 1 on case studies (considered a potential collaboration
partner), the German National Committee meeting on Global Environmental Institutions, the
Swiss national committee on “Landscapes and Habitats of the Alps” and the US national
committee on the “Global Carbon Cycle”. A memorandum of understanding for collaborative
relationship with Rutgers-Newark Centre for Global Change and Governance has been signed
and there have been discussions with the Harvard Global Environment Assessment program,
and the National Institute of Environmental Studies of Japan. With regard to policymakers,
discussions have taken place with UNFCCC and with United Nations’ East Timor
institutional consultants. For the future, Young stressed the interest in strengthening links
among IHDP projects, such as on the topic of governance.
In the activities to support the development of a network among interested researchers (via
website, newsletter, panels at conferences etc.) some challenges are the in-house capability to
update website in a timely fashion and limitations of the network database. Future directions
in this area are to search for new mechanisms to build and catalyse the network, explore
innovative communications technologies, seek funding for institutional mechanisms for preand post-graduate fellowship programs and expand the endorsement strategy.
Discussion
The aspect of cross-scale interaction was stressed as very relevant and also raised questions on
what levels are in focus in which geographical areas and what the efforts are to bring in new
groups of researchers from other regions. The SC discussed possibilities of how IDGEC might
want to communicate its highly complex scientific issues to the end-user level. It was felt that
it is important for IDGEC to be more explicit about the value added provided by the project.
This could include, for example, synthesising research results from outside our community so
that they become relevant for policymakers, translation, acting as a knowledge broker, and
bringing up new initiated projects with questions not asked previously or competing
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
3
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
146
147
148
propositions. The next funding phase was also a point of discussion in terms of the SC
stressing the need to prepare the extension proposals.
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
VII Brief overview of GECHS by Mike Brklacich
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
VII Brief overview of IT by Pier Vellinga
Mike Brklacich gave a short presentation on GECHS, its current stage and priorities for the
period 2001-2003. On implementation of research activities progress is being made towards
having two signature projects (Russia and Mekong). There is also a need to develop the
process for project approval. For the IPO a priority is to find better long-term funding and
consider relocation after July of 2002. The publications and communications strategy was
summarised, pointing out, e.g., the need to make GECHS SSC members give due credit to
their GECHS link when they publish. The SSC has a few vacancies at the moment and there
will be a renewal after mid 2002. They are considering a GECHS workshop in 2002 and then
possibly on an annual basis. GECHS is involved with the joint projects on water, carbon and
food systems.
Pier started with an overview of IT research methodology and a brief financial overview and
IPO report on staffing, etc. He reported that the SSC members have been appointed, and they
met for the first time in December 2000. The focus of the presentation was on the current
implementation phase of the project. This primarily consists of the development of a Terms
of Reference (TOR) Document for the endorsement of IT research projects. The TOR
document is now complete and available on the IT website. A number of projects are already
being considered for IT endorsement according to the TOR document. Pier outlined several
of these projects according to three of the five research themes already identified by the
project: Food, Cities and Energy (other two foci not represented due to lack of time were
Transformation Processes and Governance and Information and Communication). The goal is
to have some 15-20 major endorsed IT projects with input and guidance from the SSC, and
some 30-40 projects as „contributing“ to the IT research agenda. In an interesting aside, Pier
mentioned that the Science Plan has been translated into Chinese.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
VIII
At 6 p.m. Elinor Ostrom gave a lecture on “Human and Ecological Systems:
Interaction, Scale, and Polycentricity”, for which 10 guests joined the SC and staff: Ziegler
(BMBF), Karte (DFG), Kühr (DLR), Engel and Héritier (MPP), Röser (IGFA), Sachs (NRW),
Fritz (BMBF-IB), Lensu (LSE/ZEF), De Soysa (ZEF). The lecture was followed by a
reception and dinner for all.
____________________________________
Tuesday, March 27: The Chair opened the plenary at 8:30 a.m. In attendance were Underdal,
Jaeger, Ehlers, Pawlik (ISSC), Tolmasquim, Ostrom, Lemke, Gallopín, Steffen,
Ramakrishnan, Vellinga, Brklacich, Salih, Young, Clark, Jäger, Shaw, Holtmann, Thiem,
Siklossy, Karlsson, Dyck, Meyer-Wefering.
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
4
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
IX Joint Projects
1) Carbon
Oran Young, the designated IHDP representative on the joint carbon project writing team,
gave an overview of the state of art. He referred to the Executive Summary of the joint carbon
project document and pointed out that, although there are still adjustments to be done, the
basic plan is defined and all of the authors involved from the IGBP, IHDP and WCRP
communities are satisfied with what has been reached so far. Coming from a rather loose
coalition, the document has made its way to successfully reflect true integration. The reception
from IGBP and WCRP communities has been positive. A document that is complete in
substance is to be released at the OSM in Amsterdam, July 2001. Right after the OSM in
Amsterdam the Chairs and Directors Meeting will take place. It is anticipated to get approval
for a suggested management structure for the joint carbon project at that time.
Young requested the SC’s comments/action on the following discussion items:
 Statement from the SC on the developments so far
 Discussion and approval of the suggested management structure of 3 co-chairs and
additional nominees to support the co-chairs work.
 Issues of financial support for this joint project
Discussion
Although the SC judges this joint exercise as a promising approach towards real integration
across all three GEC programmes on a scientific theme of high relevance, it was felt that there
are still a number of conceptual gaps when it comes to human dimensions that need in-depth
review of a sub-committee.
2) Water
Jill Jäger gave a report of the statutes of the water cross-cutting project. The first scoping
meeting among the three GEC programmes was held in Paris in September 2000. Since then
there were informal meetings in Los Angeles and Chiang Mai. Jäger stressed that there is a lot
of interest in water in the IHDP projects (see Update 1/01) but there is need to work more on
developing an IHDP perspective, and for this the support of the SC is needed.
Discussion:
The reasons for the difficulty in getting this cross-cut theme off the ground were discussed,
and whether it was worth pursuing it. It was argued that the problems have both been in the
logistical aspect of bringing actors together, as well as the more difficult research questions
for this theme. It was suggested to make one last serious effort to get the project going, and at
the next SC meeting 2002 a decision will be made.
3) GECaFS
Mike Brklacich gave a comprehensive overview on the development within GECaFS over the
last year. To date, three planning workshops were held during which the guiding principles,
the goal, fundamental questions and the science themes were developed. Members of the
IHDP science community strongly participated in the planning process. At the same time
Brklacich stressed the uniqueness of the project among the GEC projects, because GECaFS
actively seeks collaboration with the donor and CG community to broaden the perspective and
framework. GECaFS is currently in the process of developing regional exemplar questions.
With the help of regional exemplar projects (Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America), the
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
5
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
scientific framework will be further refined and implemented.
In conclusion, Brklacich stated that IHDP had experienced a full and equal partnership
throughout the process. The scientists involved in the endeavour developed a truly integrative
framework and positioned vulnerability at its center. GECaFS will have to fall back on the 3
GEC programmes in order to develop comprehensive scenarios, which are not only geared
towards Climate Change.
Discussion:
The value of the project and its development were acknowledged. The discussion focussed on
the effects of Food Systems on Global Environmental Change, stressing that Food Systems
have a major impact on changes in the biophysical system. It was further stated that caution
should be paid to differences of time scales that are involved in the SEA exemplar project.
The SC members emphasised that an integrative project has to take the joint humanenvironment system as a focus and has to look at the vulnerability of the joint system. The
question was posed how the project is dealing with rapid changes that are happening due to
various driving forces and how those driving forces are being separated from impacts
resulting from GEC.
Decision:
The SC agreed that the planning process is proceeding well and that the IHDP will support its
further development.
Decision:
The SC adopted the following general procedures in regards to Joint Projects
1. The Joint Projects will be discussed during the SC meetings with regard to their scientific
development and the SC will be fully informed about progress and developments and will
be afforded the opportunity to discuss them.
2. Chairs and Directors: the Chairs and Directors Meeting will be the body to which the
projects will formally report.
3. Steering Committees: the Steering Committees of the 3 Joint Projects need not be
standardised. But it is envisaged that each project has a Steering Committee with members
from its 3 research communities. Small committees should be the goal.
Oran agreed to co-chair Carbon and Mike consented to co-chair GECaFS. In light of the
workload of these two people, this agreement might need to be revisited at some point in time.
X Global Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam
Will Steffen reported on the current status of preparations for the OSC, to be held in Amsterdam 10-13 July, 2001. He thanked all conference collaborators for their assistance and asked
SC attendees for support in promoting the conference to help make it a success.
As of 20 March, 180 abstracts and 320 registrations had been received. IGBP hopes for 1000
participants and 500 abstracts; a great success would be 1500 to 2000 participants. The
deadline for early registration is 30 April 2001.
IGBP has produced a range of “programme-neutral” promotional materials for the OSC:
 A-3 Poster
 conference flyer
 Program „At a glance“
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
6
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
In addition, some other promotional material has been produced, i.e. a special edition of the
IGBP Newsletter, focussing on topics covered by the OSC. The promotional material can be
requested through the IGBP Secretariat.
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
XI IGBP Restructure
337
338
339
Jill Jäger added that IHDP has been very involved in the conference preparations and in
setting up the programme. IHDP‘s new Information Officer, Elisabeth Dyck has already
contributed to the media working group, which is preparing a communications campaign.
Will explained that a single output is planned in the form of a book, based on the plenary
presentations (ca. 40). IGBP‘s Science Communicator, Susannah Elliot, has requested a
background paper (1500 words) from each Plenary Speaker. As some speakers have used their
material before, an idea is to produce a more „popular book“; with shorter contributions.
These papers will also be made available in the „Virtual Media Room“ on the Internet.
Will Steffen introduced the new timeline for the IGBP Phase II restructure as was agreed at
the last IGBP SC meeting:
Feb 2001 – Dec 02 Transition Phase
31 Dec 2002
IGBP terminates
1 Jan 2003
IGBP II launched
2008
Midterm Review
2012
Sunset
The conceptual background of this transition is “from focused sub-system science to
integrated Earth System Science”. The emphasis will be put on the interfaces of the subsystems based on projects like, e.g., LOICZ, SOLAS…. Will Steffen explicitly stressed
IGBP’s desire to implement this outlined transition in close partnership with IHDP and
WCRP.
The research approach for implementing IGBP Phase II
1 – Mission Statement
2 – Fundamental Functionality: Teleconnections, Feedbacks, Singularities, Switch and Choke
Points, Time Scales and Variability Regimes
3a – Devise actual research activities
3b – Bottom-up approach: formulate synthesising questions from existing projects
IGBP has stressed both the intellectual and organisational aspects of the partnership
with IHDP and WCRP. In terms of organisational partnership, IGBP has defined and
recommended two important elements: (I) direct contributions from key IHDP and
WCRP scientists in the planning process for IGBP Phase II, and (ii) the merger of
closely related core projects exeising in the progammes (e.g. LUCC and GCTE, IGAC
and SPARC, BAHC and GEWEX). However, IGBP also recognises that there are good
reasons for the partner programmesto maintain their core projects in an identifiable
form for specified times into the future, and that the goal of increased structural
integration across the programmes cannot be achieved as quickly as IGBP my like.
WCRP – JSC – added to the Draft Agenda
Peter Lemke provided an overview of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP),
detailing its origin, sponsors, objectives, infrastructure and scientific strategy. Six leading
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
7
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
research projects were described: TOGA, GEWEX, WOCE, SPARC, ACSYS to CliC, and
CLIVAR, and a schematic diagram of relevant international bodies was laid out. Emerging
challenges to the WCRP are to coordinate research on the prediction of regional climate
change; coordinate research on detection/attribution of anthropogenic climate change;
cooperate in the acquisition of a global change database; coordinate development of an
international climate modeling infrastructure; and cooperate in the development of coordinated studies linking climate change predictions, diagnoses, impacts, assessments and
responses. Priorities for the next decade, which were agreed upon at the WCRP-Conference
in Geneva 1997, include assessing the nature and predictability of seasonal to interdecadal
climate variations at global and regional scales; providing the scientific basis for operational
predictions; detecting climate change and attributing causes; and projecting the magnitude and
rate of human-induced change (as input for IPCC, UNFCCC, etc.). The long-range vision for
WCRP (to 2010) includes integrated assessments for management, policy and development;
climate impacts prediction; an operational climate prediction system; an operational climate
observing system; and earth systems models.
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
XII 2001 Open Meeting Rio de Janeiro
TOGA: Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere
GEWEX: Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment
WOCE: World Ocean Circulation Experiment
SPARC: Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate
ACSYS: Arctic Climate System Study (CliC)
CLIVAR: Climate Variability and Predictability
Jill gave a short update on the state-of-the-art of the planning process. CIESIN has assumed
responsibility for handling all incoming abstracts as well as setting up a homepage for the
Open Meeting. The deadline for the submission of abstracts was beginning of April (after a
short extension due to server problems): about 550 abstracts were submitted with a strong
representation from developing country scientists.
The Open Meeting in Rio is facing a crucial problem: lack of funding for the Meeting in
October. The proposals sent out to various Foundations received negative responses,
responses to proposals to the EU and NSF are still pending.
The costs of attracting people from developing countries and of bringing in young scholars,
which is a primary goal of the Open Meeting, far exceed expected income. The funding
shortage also affects the Planning Meeting, which was scheduled for May 2001 in Rio. The
Planning Meeting is essential to set up the agenda of the meeting and to meet with the local
organising committee.
Jill asked for input on the following points:
1) Shall IHDP raise its contribution for the Open Meeting (so far $ 20,000)
2) Advice on the funding strategy
3) Advice on the strategy for the Planning Meeting and the Open Meeting
Discussion
The discussion stressed the importance of this Open Meeting because it will be the first Open
Meeting held in the Southern Hemisphere. Cancelling or even postponing the meeting would
be devastating for the reputation of Human Dimensions Community.
It was suggested that it might be more appealing to apply for grants in a different package than
has been done so far, e.g. design a strategy where the Open Meeting becomes part of a bigger
project. The suggestion was made to approach the World Bank and Regional Development
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
8
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
389
390
391
392
Banks. At the same time the SC emphasised that very often proposals have a better chance of
being accepted if they come from the host country. Several members of the SC met over
breakfast to discuss the further approach for funding.
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
XIII IHDW-2000: Goals and Accomplishments, Future Prospects
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
XIV Status of the Secretariat
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
XV C Looking Forward: Priorities and Recommendations
Jill gave a short overview of IHDWs 1998 and 2000 and their successes. She explained the
funding situations for past workshops as well as need to secure better sources for future
workshops. Jill was asked to present IHDW as part of funding requests to Canadian agencies
during her funding trip with Mike Brklacich (GECHS) in Ottawa, April 9-11, 2001. Other
suggestions for funding sources were: START – should play a larger role if this is a joint
activity (Pier); and German foundations – Böll and Konrad-Adenauer (Eckart).
Jill Jäger reported on the staffing situation in 2001. The year is marked by outgoing staff (on
31 May: Shaw, Hamilton, Siklossy) and their replacements, and the addition (starting date
April 2) of a half-time Information Officer, Elisabeth Dyck. As of April 2, 2001, four
International Science Project Co-ordinators (Thiem, Meyer-Wefering, Karlsson, Holtmann)
will continue to liaise, network and promote the IHDP work programme on a full time basis.
Ike Holtmann will leave the Secretariat 30 September 2001 to devote time to her family. Lisa
Jibikilayi and a new Administrative Assistant (starting date mid/end May?) and two student
research assistants (Pommerening, Schmidt-Verkerk) complement the team under Jill Jäger.
In this context, Jäger reiterated the following facts: (1) 1 ½ positions are financed by the state
government of NorthRhine-Westfalia on a (calendar) annual basis. Neither the written
confirmation nor the funds have actually been received by the IHDP for 2001 – although these
positions are indeed filled (Thiem and Holtmann); (2) The Executive Director’s contract
terminates on March 31, 2002; (3) The funding for the Secretariat and all current contracts end
on October 31, 2002.
Jill Jäger stressed the fact that this is a “living document”, to be revised and updated according
to the decisions taken by the SC. The discussions highlighted the discrepancy between the
challenges facing the IHDP and the (under-) funding situation.
Key Questions:
1 – What would we like the IHDP agenda to look like in the near future considering the
developments of the other GEC programmes?
2 – What steps need to be taken to achieve that envisioned IHDP research agenda?
Discussion:
1 - IGBP Phase II and its implications for IHDP
2 – The IHDP “Looking Forward” Strategy
The SC discussed the possible benefit in setting a timeframe for IHDP’s scientific programme
(like IGBP did). It was felt that there are still gaps to be filled when it comes to the
conceptualisation of the southern perspective, knowledge as capital, and the human
dimensions as a “unit of analysis” within the IHDP scientific programme. The establishment
of procedures for energising these kind of cross-cutting issues was recommended. The SC
pointed to the need for cross-cutting methodological, data, and modelling issues that should
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
9
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
also be picked up on in the “Looking Forward” Document, which will be edited according to
the outcomes of the discussion in Agenda Item XV.
The “Geoscope” group (Ostrom, Jaeger, Jäger, Clark, Meyer-Wefering, Steffen) met over
lunch to discuss the complexities of Geoscope, the upcoming Earth Systems Atlas and other
data-gathering and dissemination exercises. Will described the ideas behind the Earth
Systems Atlas, to be developed in digital format and eventually made publicly available via
the web. The Atlas will compare past, present and future projections for earth system
changes. The National Geographic Society has shown interest in sponsoring and collaborating
on this project. Will intends to meet with NGS representatives in the near future.
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
XV Sub-committee A Financial Issues
The plenary was interrupted at 3:15 p.m. for work in the sub-committee groups. The subcommittees consisted of:
A (Financial Issues)
C. Jaeger, J. Jäger, Salih, Tolmasquim, Siklossy.
B (Organisational and Procedural Matters)
Shaw, Ehlers, Ramakrishnan, Pawlik, Underdal.
C (Scientific Projects and Activities)
Young, Vellinga, Brklacich, Clark, Ostrom, Lemke, Gallopín, Thiem, Karlsson, Holtmann,
Dyck, Meyer-Wefering
At 6:30 p.m. the Chair adjourned the meeting until Wednesday morning.
_______________________________________
On Wednesday, March 28 the meeting was convened by the Chair at 8:30 a.m. In attendance
were Underdal, Jaeger, Young, Brklacich, Vellinga, Salih, Tolmasquim, Ostrom, Clark,
Ramakrishnan, Lemke, Gallopín, Ehlers, and from the Secretariat Jäger, Shaw, Holtmann,
Thiem, Karlsson, Dyck, Siklossy. The Chair asked for the resolutions reached in the subcommittees.
Carlo Jaeger (Treasurer) presented four Tables with the 1) budget for 2001 vs expenditures
2000 2) income 2000 3) projected income 2001 and 4) figures on special operational
activities, i.e. overall funding mobilised by the IHDP.
The Budget for 2001 was approved unanimously by the SC.
The SC endorsed the drafting of an overall IHDP “income mobilised” table that should also
include IPO income. This document could be presented to future and current funders as an
indication of IHDP’s value and “prowess” within the research communities. The drafting of a
long-term (10 year) financial projection could also be helpful in approaching potential
funders.
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
10
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
The role of IHDP’s sponsors, ICSU and ISSC, was discussed in the context of funding. Due to
the principle of equity in their donations to IHDP, the volume of potential financial support
from ICSU is drastically restricted. SC members made it clear that potential donors will want
to know the level of support by IHDP’s own sponsors before making a commitment. The SC
urged further deliberation on this issue.
The rapidly approaching termination of secured financial support from the German
government (31 October 2002) prompted a discussion on the legal status of the IHDP. The SC
deliberated on various options, within and outside the university system.
The value of the IHDP as an organisation and the significance of human dimensions research
is indisputable in the global change community today. At this point in development, the
IHDP, IGBP and WCRP are mutually indispensable to each other. The SC urged the
Secretariat to use this bargaining power to establish the IHDP on equal financial footing with
its sister programs.
Decision
The SC issued a mandate to the IHDP Officers (Ehlers, Jaeger, Underdal) to
1) collaborate with Jill Jäger in pursuing negotiations with IHDP’s German sponsors
(BMBF, NRW, University of Bonn) on a viable structure for the Secretariat post October
2002
2) establish parity between IHDP and its GEC sister programs
3) secure a longer term financial base
4) negotiate a new contract with Jill Jäger for period April 1, 2002 until 31 October 2002.
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
XV Sub-committee B: Organisational and Procedural Matters
The committee advocated discontinuing the “office” of Project Liaison, an SC member who
was appointed to liaise with a specific IHDP science project.
The SC was asked to deliberate on the character of IHDP national committees and their status
as local branches of the IHDP or as official National Committees of the IHDP. The
implications include the use of the IHDP logo on documents and publications, etc.
The ISSC representative agreed to discard the SAC as an official body necessitating regular
convening. The sub-committee does not expect any objection to this from ICSU.
The IHDP Constitution makes provision for up to 17 Scientific Committee members. The
sub-committee presented a slate of four nominees to the SC and a slate of three nominees as
SC-Officers (Clark, Gallopín, Jaeger). However, the current tenuous financial situation of the
IHDP obviated a consideration of new members or new officers until guaranteed funding post
October 2002 is found. At the same time, the situation poses a problem for the current Chair
(Underdal) and Vice-Chair (Whyte). whose terms end on December 31, 2001. Under these
circumstances, no nominee would be able to accept a term as Officer. At the same time,
continuity is needed should funding be found, but especially if the Secretariat is closed down.
The SC assumes that they will have some degree of clarity about this by December 2001, and
at the latest by the next SC meeting end March 2002. For these reasons, the SC asked Underal
to extend his term by 6 months until 30 June 2002. A. Whyte will also be asked to prolong for
the same period.
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
11
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
Underdal accepted with reservations, pointing out that a potential increase in his workload
from January 2002 could make it hard for him to serve effectively the full extension of 6
months.
Three other members end their terms of office on December 31, 2001: Tolmasquim, Ehlers.
Opschoor. Gifts were presented to Tolmasquim and Opschoor (via M. Salih) together with
thanks for their contribution to the SC and the work of the IHDP.
Carlo Jaeger, Treasurer, whose first term ends December 31, 2001, was unanimously asked to
continue for a second term.
The SC unanimously asked Ehlers to continue in office as past-chair, whose prolongation in
office is pivotal to the future of the IHDP Secretariat because of his position within the
University system.
The SC will request ISSC and ICSU to approve these renewals.
Decisions
1. The SC agreed to discontinue the “office” of Project Liaison.
2. The SC agreed that the relationship to National Committees is informal. NCs are not
official affiliates of IHDP. NCs are associated with/working in collaboration
with/contributing to the research agenda of/in cooperation with IHDP. The IHDP logo can
be used by NCs only when the work of IHDP is explicitly referred to.
3. The SC asked the Chair and Executive Director to explore moving toward a structure
similar to IGBP under ICSU.
4. The SC agreed that an informal meeting of representatives of National Committees and
Programmes should be held at the Rio meeting in October.
5. The Executive Director will ask Anne Whyte whether she would be willing to serve as an
Officer for a further 6 months.
6. Providing that we have agreement from Anne Whyte, the Executive Director will
approach ICSU and ISSC on behalf of the SC and ask them (due to the exceptional
circumstances) to extend the terms of the Chair and Vice Chair for 6 months, the term of
the Past-Chair for one year. In addition, the request will be made to extend the term of
Carlo Jaeger and G. Gallopin for 3 years.
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
XV Sub-committee C: Scientific Projects and Priorities
Oran Young, Chair of Subcommittee C, summarised the extensive discussions in a few
overheads presenting four focal areas for IHDP.
Proposed structure for IHDP’s Science Programme:3 – 5 years perspective):
1 – Primary
focus / Conceptual Core: The coupled human-natural systems
- interactive dynamics of connected systems
- linkages, processes and emergent properties
 one or more pilot workshops to improve conceptual core
2 – Integrative/overarching Metaquestions
- Vulnerability / Resilience
- Thresholds / Transitions / Transition Management
- Governance / Steering
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
12
Final Minutes 8th SC-IHDP
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
-
Knowledge / Learning / Adoption / Empowerment
 complex spatial and temporal cross-scale interactions in each case!
To implement this structure:
- Regular symposium / workshop to report on and discuss new insights
- Link this event to with the annual IHDP SC meeting
3 – The Core Projects
…would remain the main vehicles for organising IHDP’s Science Programme.
Implications:
- The projects should make an effort to think about how to contribute to the
main focus and metaquestions of the IHDP Science Programme.
- Avoid proliferation of the core projects
- Consolidate IHDP Science Programme
4 – Collaboration with other GEC Programmes
Link collaboration explicitly to IHDP primary focus / metaquestions
Integrate with IHDP core projects --> link for value added result!
General Implications:
- Restructure the Looking Forward Document accordingly to the “new” IHDP
architecture
- Change the SC meeting format to put more emphasis on the science
- Reallocate resources and programme staff to meet revised goals
604
605
606
Decision:
Jäger will take these proposals beyond the summary format and rework the “Looking
Forward” document with 3-5 members of the SC, (at least one from the South), All other
members are encouraged to give input via email.
607
608
609
610
611
612
If the IHDP mandate is to be reconsidered in terms of placing more emphasis on the coupled
human-natural systems, this intention should be articulated at the GC OSC in Amsterdam in
July. The goals that the IHDP science programme aims to achieve need to be stated more
specifically. The Executive Director and the Information Officer should revise the IHDP
“glossy” brochure before the Amsterdam meeting.
created on March 29, 2001
updated on 25.07.16
13