17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
17th IHDP SC meeting
UNU-IHDP Langer Eugen, Bonn, Germany
23-24 September 2010
Report
Participants:
SC Members
Oran Young (Chair), Roberto Guimarães, Ilan Chabay, Gernot Klepper, Balgis Osman-Elasha, Kate Brown,
Elena Nikitina, Germán Palacio;
Ex-Officio Members
Frank Biermann, Alice Newton, Anette Reenberg, Frans Berkhout, Rik Leemans, Harold Mooney, Heide
Hackmann, Deliang Chen
Project and ESSP Partner Programmes representatives
Ruben Zondervan, Hartwig Kremer, Juergen Weichselgartner, Tobias Langanke, Anna Wieczorek, Sander van der
Leeuw, Carlo Jaeger, Qian Ye, Elke Henning, Janos Bogardi, Eva Flinkerbusch;
Ada Ignaciuk, Anne Larigauderie, Sybil Seitzinger, Joao Morais, Eckart Ehlers;
Gisbert Glaser, Reza Ardakanian
Not present
Geoff Dabelko, Patricia Kameri-Mbote, Karen Seto, Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez, Antonio Bursalacchi, Karen
O’Brian, Konrad Osterwalder
Guest
Rocio Lichte (UNFCCC)
Secretariat
Anantha Duraiappah, Falk Schmidt, Deborah Rogers, Pablo Munoz, Ellen Pfeiffer, Barbara Solich, Arun Ragav
Prepared by:
IHDP Secretariat
UN Campus, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10
D-53113 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49-228-8150600
Fax: +49-228-8150620
1
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
1
Opening Session and Introductory Remarks by the Chair
Oran Young highlighted at the beginning the “transitional character” of this particular SC meeting, which was
followed by a tour de table. The agenda was adopted based on the request that sufficient time be allocated for
the final agenda item, including the discussion about the selection process for a new Chair of the IHDP SC. The
minutes of the 16th IHDP SC were further adopted.
Oran Young said he would step down as Chair after the meeting, with five more SC members rotating off and
five new members starting their term in 2011. He again welcomed Anantha Duraiappah as IHDP’s new
Executive Director. He further mentioned that the IHDP task force on governance and communication had
completed its work since the previous SC meeting, and that in the meantime, a new IHDP constitution had
been developed and was/is awaiting final approval from the sponsor’s Executive Committees. He continued
that the wider landscape provides great opportunities for a new era of human dimensions research, e.g. within
the context of the ICSU Visioning Process or the Belmont Challenge and the organization of the IGBP initiated
Open Science Conference 2012, which is increasingly becoming a joint activity of all Programmes.
Oran Young continued identifying the major issues of the 17th IHDP SC meeting. Firstly, that several established
IHDP projects had and would come to an end (GECHS, IT) and that new projects would be added to IHDP’s
project portfolio (IHOPE, IRG-Project, KLSC [advanced planning stage]). Secondly, that the Secretariat had
developed an Implementation Plan 2011-2013 as a coherent framework for implementing the IHDP Strategic
Plan 2007-2015. And thirdly, that this SC meeting was to discuss and explore the opportunities and challenges
of broader developments, such as the ICSU Visioning Process and/or the Belmont Challenge.
2
Report of the Executive Director
Anantha Duraiappah presented highlights from the past 18 months, i.e. since the 16th SC meeting, such as the
synthesis conference of the GECHS project, IHDP’s presence at the 1st World Social Science Forum in May
2009 in Bergen, Norway, and several other project highlights. A better integration of the projects into future SC
meetings was proposed, further suggesting that they be allocated a full day for debates/discussions. This was
well received by all.
Concerning the budget, a full Programme budget was presented, which included core support for the
Programme/Secretariat and the budgets of IHDP’s core and joint projects. This met a request from the funding
agencies; however, this first version of an “aggregated” budget will be refined in the coming years. Concerning
the income of IHDP, it was said that more “project-based” funding would be strategically targeted in the future
and with the support of the Packard Foundation and from UNEP for two projects (IPBES, Inclusive Wealth
Report), two substantial grants have already been received in 2010. Candidates for future projects could take
the form of “rapid responses”, e.g. on state-of-the-art knowledge on the food crisis. Working on such “hot
topics” may be turned into an “IHDP Series”.
The Strategic Programme 2011-2013, which is meant to implement the IHDP Strategic Plan 2007-2015 in the
coming years, was also presented. It lays out the challenges, such as the need to reach out to the broader social
science community or the need to increase the policy relevance of IHDP research, and/or how IHDP research
findings are presented. It further builds on current opportunities, such as the ICSU Visioning Process and its
“Grand Challenges” or the Belmont Challenge, an initiative from the funding agencies. Based on this, it develops
a “logical framework” in order to move into a results-based mode of implementation. Core aspects reflect the
2
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
IHDP Strategic Plan 2007-2015: cutting-edge science, capacity development, policy relevance, communication
and outreach, as well as resource mobilization. Overall, a Secretariat core budget of US$ 1,2 Mill. is targeted,
complemented by US$ 500 Mill. project-related funding per year. Organizational units in the Secretariat will be:
a) Executive Office, b) Science Management, and c) Communication.
The current version of the Implementation Plan 2011-2013 provides the basis for the Secretariat’s work,
however, it should be seen as a document that is flexible enough to accommodate new opportunities in a
strategic manner. This plan was well-received by the SC and the Secretariat was encouraged to function as a
pro-active “broker” between the “producers” and the “users” of IHDP’s research. It was also said that linkages
with Universities should be explored as well. The new emphasis on IHDP’s National Committees was
recognized, as well as the emphasis on improved communication between the Secretariat and the SC/projects,
e.g. using regular tele-/web conferences.
3
Reports of the Sponsors
Reza Ardakanian welcomed the IHDP Scientific Committee on behalf of UNU. He thanked those involved in the
production of the report concerning IHDP’s task force on governance and communication, and further
reaffirmed UNU’s commitment to sponsoring IHDP and hosting its Secretariat, which is implemented via the
UNU Vice Rectorate in Europe (UNU-VIE). He briefly introduced the UNU in Bonn, which includes the UNWDPC, another Programme that is hosted by UNU. The new host agreement between UNU and the IHDP
Secretariat is currently under preparation.
Heide Hackmann commented on the positive change in the SC meeting agenda to provide more time to talk
about scientific activities within IHDP. She highlighted the 1st World Social Science Forum 2009 and informed
IHDP that concrete ideas and offers are in place already for a second and third Forum. The World Social Science
Report was launched in 2010 and ideas were developed for activities to strengthen capacities in social science
research, which is advised by the Committee on Developing and Transition Economies (CoDATE) and was
partly done in collaboration with IHDP since the 16th IHDP SC meeting. Finally, ISSC increasingly assumed an
active role both in the ICSU Visioning Process and the Belmont Challenge discussions, working together with
IHDP to strengthen the social sciences in GEC research and to reach out to the wider social sciences to achieve
this purpose.
Deliang Chen commented on the positive developments since Anantha Duraiappah took over the position of
Executive Director. He highlighted the need to better integrate the social sciences into GEC research and the
many opportunities, but also challenges that this poses. This is a key component for strengthened integrative
GEC research and IHDP is indeed well positioned to take a lead in this respect. He concluded by thanking Oran
Young for his role as IHDP’s Chair and he expressed the wish to receive continued support for the GEC
community from Oran within his future capacities.
4
ICSU Visioning Process and Belmont Challenge
Gernot Klepper led into the discussion about the ICSU Visioning Process and the Belmont Challenge by
introducing the 5 Grand Challenges (ICSU) and the topics of the Belmont Challenge, as well as a report that was
commissioned by ICSU on “What does it take to meet the Belmont Challenge?” A draft GEC “project matrix”,
compiled by the German National Committee on GEC research (NKGCF), was very well received by the SC and
it was suggested to update and improve this matrix. One of the findings of such a “project mapping” is that
many projects run out within the coming years, which may create a window of opportunity for stronger
3
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
integration from the outset in the future as new projects are being developed.
The discussion focused on the differences between the ICSU Visioning and Belmont Challenges and a common
understanding emerged that the ICSU “Grand Challenges” are framed in a way that better enables the
incorporation of the social sciences; better as relative to the framing of the ICSU commissioned report on the
Belmont Challenge. It was further discussed that the “science-driven” visioning process and the “funding
agencies driven” Belmont Challenge have several differences and very practical challenges, which includes,
inter alia, the big challenge of establishing multi-national funding schemes that may or may not be necessary to
provide the funding base for a successful implementation of the visions put forward both by the ICSU Visioning
and the Belmont Challenge. It further includes the regional thematic focus of Belmont vs. the multi-level wider
focus of the ICSU Visioning and it was said that the overarching goal of the ICSU Visioning Process can be seen
in improving the integration of GEC research approaches and, possibly, structures. Finally, the more generic
nature of the visioning process and the more demand-driven approach of Belmont don’t have to be mutually
exclusive but could provide an interesting framework for fulfilling these two expectations directed at current
GEC research simultaneously.
The suggestion was made, and already practiced by LOICZ, to match the Grand Challenges and project science
plans to discover overlaps, gaps and new ways of how to approach current research questions of existing
projects under the framework of the ICSU Visioning Process. It was also said the IHDP projects, praticularly, but
not only those jointly implemented with IGBP, are very much framed like the “Grand Challenges” and hence,
present role models to learn from. Concerns were raised that the Belmont Challenge and/or the ICSU
commissioned report, put forward largely by natural science research funding agencies, exclude the social
sciences. At the same time, however, it was noted that both the ICSU and the Belmont process are becoming
more and more intertwined or follow a path of co-evolution. It was also said that the need to integrate social
science more strongly into the Belmont Challenge is recognized and a workshop (envisaged, suggested) coorganized by ISSC and IHDP on the role of social science under the Belmont framing in 2011 may provide
guidance on this and should be implemented as soon as possible. It was also said, finally, that these discussions
present a déjà vu to those actively involved in the human dimensions for many years and it was recommended
to choose a limited set of concrete studies and start to implement the Visioning/Belmont frameworks.
It was concluded that IHDP should take advantage of this opportunity and should contribute core social science
research, as for example, addressed by Grand Challenges 4 & 5, and engage in fully integrative research. Beyond
such obvious overlaps with the IHDP agenda, it was emphasized that the social sciences should pro-actively
frame concrete research inspired by the two overarching frameworks from ICSU and Belmont. It was
suggested that the ICSU “Grand Challenges” could be used for an IHDP-wide synthesis, something that has not
be done so far, but may be very interesting and timely. A “mapping exercise” of the “Grand Challenges” and the
“Belmont Challenge” vis-à-vis the existing projects should be conducted, which could provide some indication
about existing gaps, and possibly, overlaps. The Packard Initiative should be a major vehicle in this respect, as it
can help to identify those gaps and to provide strategic guidance for the way ahead. For some of the challenges,
the institutional structure of current GEC research may need to be changed and new partners may have to be
involved. However, the SC did not go into intense discussions about structural implications for GEC research
but wants to be kept informed as things unfold and get involved in the discussions as appropriate, for example,
in the planned SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) related to the visioning process.
5
Partner Programmes and ESSP
Apart from ongoing activities of ESSP joint projects, such as the GCP work on the carbon budget or the GECAFS
synthesis book (for more information see briefing material provided), the involvement of GEC Programmes
and ESSP in the “Research Dialogue” of UNFCCC SBSTA was particularly highlighted. This annual activity is
becoming a “real” Dialogue and it is planned to convene in 2011, in addition to the actual Dialogue at SBSTA (a
4
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
workshop between UNFCCC and GEC Programmes/ESSP), which would provide a more interactive format for
exchange. Links to UNEP were mentioned as well, for example, the GEO-5 process and the potential role for the
Programmes and ESSP to get involved in its review. Finally, the “PROVIA” initiative of UNEP was mentioned,
which presents/targets a coordinated effort on climate change vulnerability, impacts, adaptation. It was said
that a paper for the COSUST journal is under preparation, highlighting main findings of GEC research under
ESSP so far.
START, represented by Eckart Ehlers, reminded the SC of its “cross-cutting” nature and focus on capacity
building within GEC research. It also encouraged linking the IRG-Project under IHDP with the ICSU IRDR
initiative (Integrated Research on Disaster Risk) and underlined the need to turn the debates related to the
ICSU Visioning and the Belmont Challenges into concrete research activities.
IGBP briefly presented its new Magazine, which found a well received format to present GEC research to a
wider community. The overall integrative nature of IGBP Earth System Science was highlighted, which has
resulted in several joint activities, among which is now IHOPE, as a third IGBP-IHDP joint project. Also, the
Open Science Conference 2012 “Planet Under Pressure: new science, new solutions” was transformed into a
joint activity of all GEC Programmes and ESSP and will be, as a major event of the GEC community, an
opportunity also in the context of the ICSU Visioning and the Belmont Challenge.
DIVERSITAS introduced its new Science Plan that provides several entry points for substantive interactions with
IHDP, for example, related to analysis of socio-economic impacts or related to effective management of
biodiversity and ecosystem services for human well-being. In addition to its new science questions, the
Programme focuses on observations, assessments and the science-policy interface, for example through
IPBES. During the discussion, the “shift” of DIVERSITAS toward socio-economic research was noted and it was
proposed to explore the opportunities for a joint project/activity, for example on ecosystem services and
human well-being, possibly also together with IGBP.
6
IHDP Science: Present and Future
Present
The Industrial Transformation project (IHDP-IT) is coming to an end early 2011 and reflected on major
findings (again, this and other project’s interventions, were largely captured by the information material
provided for the SC meeting). The project started to a large degree as a “community building effort” and
developed a research framework for understanding transition processes in socio-technological regimes. This
framework was, during IHDP-IT’s second half, “applied” with a focus on Asia, work that has been published in
the form of special issues recently. Findings will be highlighted at the IT synthesis event, January 2011, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. A synthesis book is underway.
In addition to IHDP-IT, some reflections on “lessons learned” from 10 years of research under the IHDP auspices
were presented. It was said that such long-term international research projects add value by setting the
research agenda, pioneer within a given topic, build a community and involve multiple disciplines. They further
offer access to a global network. At the same time, IHDP as a Programme, has to respond to this special
character of its initiatives and has, inter alia, to offer the right mixture of authority and autonomy, some
“legitimacy” under the “IHDP label”, core support (for example for important networking activities such as SSC
meetings), and a platform for science and science-policy interaction.
In the subsequent discussion to this and also other projects’ presentations, the following expected
contributions from the Programme and its Secretariat were repeated and/or emphasized as candidates for
5
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
improving human dimensions research within IHDP:
a) providing a platform for exchange, including the exchange between science and policy,
b) providing core funds for networking activities,
c) a stronger role of the Secretariat related to capacity building and science-policy activities, for example,
helping improve the presentation of policy relevant project findings by setting up an IHDP summary for
decision makers and policy briefs series,
d) fostering and enabling cross-project interactions (incl. projects of other GEC programmes) in order to
highlight key human dimensions research topics, and
e) establishing and supporting publication and dissemination channels. It was also said
(f) that the right composition of project SSC’s is a particularly challenging task that has to be addressed
continuously in an open and constructive manner, which includes issues related to “balances” as well as
thematic fit of members and their level of activity, willing to contribute to the project’s success.
In a sequence of core project reports, GLP presented its major findings of the past years. GLP is about to
complete the first phase of the project, which took a somewhat “opportunistic” approach in order to start
implementing the project’s broad science plan. It included, among others, work on coupled modeling, topics
such as vegetation dynamics in global drylands or linkages between globalization and land-use changes. The
results of this phase will be presented at the GLP Open Science Conference 2010, Arizona, USA, just a couple of
days after the 17th IHDP SC meeting. For the years to come, and building upon work done so far, the projects
intends to shift the implementation of its science plan from “endorsed projects” to funded activities relevant for
core parts of the GLP science agenda and several proposals have been submitted, some successfully so.
However, it was also said that these strategic next steps are going to build on a rich portfolio of activities
undertaken so far. Concerning policy impact, the Secretariat was asked to think about support mechanisms for
projects in order to extract and present policy relevant research findings more effectively.
LOICZ highlighted the successful completion of the 3 Priority Topics of the first half of the project’s life-cycle.
Comprehensive activities concerning capacity development and substantial improvements of the LOICZ
website over the past few years were highlighted and special emphasis was given to the website, which is very
well received by the community and hence, presents a “service” for the coastal research community. A recent
Congress on Storm Surges was held successfully in Hamburg, Germany, and it is planned to conduct a series of
conferences on this topic every third year. The LOICZ hosting organization (GKSS) requested an external midterm review and its result documents the success and innovative approaches LOICZ has been taking over the
past five years. One of the major steps for the coming years is to conduct new research on four coastal
“hotspots” (river-mouths, Coastal Mega-Cities, the Arctic and Small Island States) with the intent to further
integrate disciplined and scientists into LOICZ Science, e.g. as a fully integrated approach along the lines of the
ICSU Visioning Process. In addition, LOICZ involvement in various policy processes, such as GEF projects, were
mentioned and the LOICZ Open Science Conference in 2011, together with the overall GEC Open Science
Conference in 2012, will present landmark events for the further development of the projects. It was added that
LOICZ successfully implemented a restructuring of its science agenda as well as its SSC, as it was critically
discussed at the IHDP SC in 2008, New Delhi.
ESG presented an impressive list of networking activities, which is of particular importance as this project is
still rather new. A new location for its IPO was found (Lund, Sweden) and ESG thanked the IHDP Secretariat for
hosting its IPO/Executive Officer for the interim period. As next steps, a series of Open Science Conferences is
under preparation, with a very successful official launch conference in December 2009, Amsterdam/Volendam,
Netherlands. Furthermore, an ESG book series was launched with MIT Press and four special issues are
published/in preparation (e.g. on the overall scope or ESG as well as specific themes such as transparency or
agency) and a series of capacity building events are implemented. As it is the case for all projects, the ICSU
Visioning “Grand Challenges” resonate well with the ESG research agenda, particularly Challenge No. 4, which
6
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
showcases in concrete terms that these “Challenges” should be implemented as a “two-way street” between the
ICSU Vision and the research of GEC projects. Finally, a huge demand for ESG research (findings) coming from
policy processes was mentioned, including, among others, the international policy process on International
Environmental Governance (IEG).
IHOPE, for the first time after its approval as a joint project of IGBP and IHDP, presented a project report at the
IHDP SC meeting. The central role of modeling and complex systems theory was highlighted and the long-term
timeframe (about 10,000 years) of analysis was introduced once more as laid out in the Science Plan. In doing
so, the project is highly interdisciplinary and includes, for example, ecologists, economists but also archeologists
or historians. A set of regional case studies has been selected (Australia, North America as well as Latin
America, and Europe as well as plans for Asia and the Pacific) to study, for example, the responses of different
societies to similar driving forces challenging their respective coping capacity. The role and/or trajectories of
unintended consequences of societal interventions emerge as a particularly interesting research topic and the
general challenge of the project is to understand ways and means how lessons from the past can become useful
lessons for the future.
Future
IRG-Project presented its Science Plan as submitted to the SC for approval, including a document that lists
comments from the external review process and IRG-Project’s reaction to these comments. The major focus of
the project on “entry and exit transitions” of risks was highlighted and the central role of multi-agent models,
applied at a number of case studies, will present an important feature of the project’s implementation. KLSC,
ICSU IRDR or the International Disaster and Risk Conference (IDRC) were mentioned as examples of already
existing collaboration. It was said that the specific focus to shed new light on “transitions” in overall disaster
risk research has been supported as an important research focus from many partners.
In the discussion it was noted that the initiative “came a long way” since the New Delhi SC meeting in 2008,
which is reflected in the final science plan. One request was that IRG-Project and ICSU IRDR to collaborate from
the beginning and it was said the very broad science agenda of IRDR and the focused social science agenda of
IRG-Project are complementary, with some debate about the level of “integration” targeted by ICSU IRDR and
best ways of interaction between the two initiatives. After the discussion, the IHDP SC approved the IRGProject Science Plan and hence a new IHDP core project with two requests: a) to continuously seek
collaboration, as appropriate, with ICSU IRDR and b) to submit, as soon as possible, candidates for SSC
membership to the IHDP SC for approval, based on common criteria such as disciplinary, gender and regional
balance. This is the necessary next step to start implementing the project.
KLSC presented its improved Science Plan and sought advice on next steps. The general “tension” for the
initiative was introduced to set-up KLSC thematically as a cross-cutting initiative of IHDP, as its research agenda
is indeed relevant for and partly implemented by all IHDP projects, while implementing it in practical terms
along the lines of a core project. The planned research agenda was presented focusing on the interface of
knowledge, learning and societal change, instead of focusing on these three topics separately. Furthermore,
KLCS’s envisaged activities in capacity building and science-policy interaction were presented to the SC. Initial
ideas on institutional partners were mentioned that could become hosts of an IPO or other organizational units
of the project and some initial collaborations and research projects are already inspired by the KLSC
framework.
During the discussion, the “mission-driven” and/or “normative” nature of KLSC was addressed that
may need clarification on how this relates to the core research questions of the initiative. There was still an
overall question whether KLSC can present its “case” even clearer, including its methods to be used. Overall, it
was concluded that the organizational form of a core project should be pursued, which should not necessarily
run counter to the cross-cutting nature of the research envisaged. While the research questions may still need
more focus, the project should aim at establishing itself as “dynamic and forward looking” including “visions or
7
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
narratives for the future” that are inspired by the KLSC research agenda. Finally, a broad consensus existed
that KLSC is actually relevant for all GEC Programmes and KLSC is very well-placed with the ICSU/Belmont
Challenges. In fact, it addresses a “big white spot” in GEC research and it may present generic research on as
well as a “real” contribution to the challenges of science-policy interactions. The SC concluded that the
Scientific Planning Committee (SPC) of KLSC may wish to take these views into account, resubmit a revised
version of the science plan to IHDP Secretariat that will forward it to external review. Once the comments of
the external review panel are received and taken into account by the SPC of KLSC, the science plan can be
resubmitted for final approval by the IHDP SC. Depending on how quickly things unfold, this process could be
completed within the next few months, i.e. early 2011. In case the external review poses many substantial
questions, final approval may need to happen at the next SC meeting of IHDP in order to ensure substantive
consultations. If this is not the case, i.e. if the external review proposes rather “marginal” changes to the draft
science plan, approval may be done electronically, in order to keep the momentum and move ahead quickly.
One additional comment was that both the review panel and the future SSC of KLSC should include (more)
scholars from the “Global South”.
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford, joined the meeting by telephone and presented the Millennium Assessment of Human
Behaviour (MAHB) that is meant to address, at its core, the challenge why ever increasing information on
drivers and consequences of GEC does not (necessarily) lead to behavioural changes. In order to do so, theories
of cultural evolution and the social sciences in general have to be included in the research assessment process
more prominently. It was said that it remains a major effort to mobilize a community to implement this
challenge and IHDP and its Secretariat was asked to think about options for collaboration, including, possibly,
to host of an IPO for the initiative, creating and maintaining a website, or supporting general community
mobilization. It was said that the initiative needs to be up-scaled and has to go beyond Stanford in order to
achieve broader visibility and support.
During the discussion, the “normative nature” of the initiative was addressed that needs further thinking, e.g.
related to its “mission statement”. It was also discussed whether this could, in principle, become a core project
of IHDP (most likely not) or a Secretariat activity. Its relationship to KLSC was addressed, which needs
clarification. It was also said that ISSC, that plans to issue the next World Social Science Report on GEC issues,
may get involved and will collaborate with IHDP and MAHB. There were “words of caution” related to the
natural sciences framing of MAHB and the well-known concern that the social sciences are asked to join in as a
second step, instead of shaping the agenda from the beginning. A social science framing may, inter alia, shed
different light on “problematic assumptions” of the current activity such as mono-causal views on GEC and
population growth. Finally, resource implications, both time and financially, have to be carefully assessed, if
IHDP plans to become active on this. The Secretariat was requested to prepare a strategy on a possible
engagement of IHDP in MAHB, including opportunities and threats, pros and cons associated with this
initiative, and to report back to the IHDP SC. It was finally said, that such an initiative should be seen within the
ICSU/Belmont context as well.
Finally, some ideas were presented that go beyond the current slate of existing and planned/ already proposed
activities. Geo-/climate engineering, as well as research on the nexus of food/land/energy/biodiversity, were
mentioned as topics for future work. These topics, which are of great societal relevance, have to be addressed in
an integrative manner and could present a new way of doing GEC research informed both by ICSU and
Belmont (Further topics not well addressed yet: demographic challenges and macro-economics.) Since the
ICSU challenges in particular are very generic and since Belmont may still need a stronger social science
framing, such concrete topics could present concrete cases how to implement these Challenges. In addition,
work on scenarios, for example in the context of IPBES, or research based on experimental behavioral
economics, were mentioned as further candidates for future work/exploration.
Finally, the idea was raised to (re-) establish the IHDP science-policy Dialogues, an option that should be
explored and the Secretariat, supported by SC members as well as projects, should present a strategic
approach on this to the SC. The projects were invited to present their views on future work as well as existing
8
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
gaps, which would provide, together with the above mentioned “mapping exercise” of current initiatives, a
basis for strategic new research priorities. It was concluded that the discussion forum should be
continued/used and SC members and observers should engage more strongly. How to pro-actively frame the
ICSU and Belmont Challenges by social science research questions could be a first candidate for such an
electronic discussion. It was recommended that the Secretariat prepares this and will circulate a note on such a
discussion forum (which could also be used as input for the planned ISSC/IHDP workshop in response to
social sciences needs for the Belmont Challenge.)
7
Capacity Development, National Committees, Publications
ISSC presented its plans for a World Social Science Fellows Programme that is currently developed by ISSC,
partly together with IHDP and CROP. Its overall goal (building a new generation of world social science leaders)
expected outcomes (increased social science capacity around the globe, including interdisciplinary approaches
and in science-policy interaction), outcomes (e.g. World Social Science Seminars, links to the World Social
Science Forums) and Funding Challenges were introduced. It was offered that this series of seminars could
start in collaboration with IHDP and CROP. START is a further candidate for future collaboration. During the
discussion, several opportunities were highlighted, such as interactions with “summer schools” of core projects
or the “Erausmus Mundus Programme” as it is implemented by LOICZ. It was also said that such an activity
could bridge the gap between human dimensions research on GEC and “mainstream social sciences” and it was
suggested to pay special attention to issues associated with “scale”, both related to balances that need to be
achieved by such a global activity with several “local realities” but also as a topic of social science research itself.
It was emphasized that lessons learned from the IHDW should be used for this World Social Science Fellows
Programme and it the Secretariat was asked to develop a strategy how this related to IHDP’s work on capacity
development, including its IHDWs.
Concerning National Committees, a revised NC strategy was discussed (as presented in the briefing
documents), including the idea to revise the ToR. In this respect, it was recommended to draft/revise the ToRs
(or some sort of guidelines) in a way that takes the “two way relationship” between IHDP and the NCs into
account, i.e. specifies “rights and obligations” for both sides. However, this may have to be done to a large extent
on a case-by-case as soon as it goes beyond some very general guidelines. In general, it was suggested to think
about shifting from IHDP or strictly human dimensions committees to Global Change NCs.
A proposal from Earthscan was discussed that aims at transforming the current IHDP Update Magazine into a
peer-reviewed journal. However, discussion on this was critical and it was concluded not to pursue this idea. A
recent survey carried out by the Secretariat with some 250 responses (from all over the world) did not result
in a votum in favor of a journal, but rather to continue with the current Update Magazine. Hence, in addition to
some contractual arrangements with Earthscan that would need further negotiations, quite some “nontechnical” concerns were raised. As the bottom line it was said that while high-quality scientific articles will
continue to be submitted to established journals such as “Global Environmental Change”, the IHDP Update
Magazine would and should continue to provide a publication channel for papers and contributions as
submitted currently, such as project reports and articles that should be disseminated rather quickly (compared
to journal articles).
8
Science-Policy Processes
Rocio Lichte (SBSTA of UNFCCC) participated in this segment and introduced the “Research Dialogue” of
SBSTA on emerging scientific findings on climate change. These Dialogues are running since SBSTA 26 (May
9
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
2007) and are very well received. For next year, it is planned to complement the Research Dialogue with a
workshop of two days to allow more time for substantive interaction. The following topics, among others, were
requested by member states: the 2 degree target vs. 1.5 degrees; socio-economic aspects of adaptation and of
low emission economies; co-benefits of mitigation; and vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts. It was concluded that
the Secretariat will work together with UNFCCC, as well as ESSP, to arrange for the workshop and will get in
touch with the projects as soon as the agenda for the workshop is shaping up.
IPBES was introduced and the opportunities for social sciences in this regard. IHDP, together with DIVERSITAS,
is already well positioned within this policy process. Since IPBES is just starting, there are options to frame the
agenda in light of social science research and it was recommended to form a team of the SC to work together
with the Secretariat on options for IHDP’s engagement in IPBES.
As a third opportunity, the Inclusive Wealth Report, is currently developed by the World Bank, UNEP, and IHDP
and will be implemented as a Secretariat activity. Currently, a “proto-type” report is being produced and a database built, making use and complementing an existing data-base of the World Bank. A first phase of the project
will last for 2 years. Authors who will contribute to this report will be compensated and the Secretariat will
contact and involve the SC and the projects as soon as possible. The Secretariat was asked to provide further
information, including updates on the progress, opportunities and threats for IHDP, to the SC in the coming
months.
Finally, the Rio+20 Process was discussed. While serious concerns about the overall process were raised –
which are not in the hands of IHDP – it was also said that the topics “Green Economy” and “Institutional
Framework for Sustainable Development” represent topics that are at the core of the IHDP research agenda or
can be informed by it. Again, IHDP should take a “critical stance” on these topics, especially on “Green
Economy” and should choose its contributions strategically. While the earlier idea to host a medium-size
science-policy conference in fall 2011 may not succeed, several upcoming IHDP conferences and meetings in
2011 could provide a platform for this. The “Colorado Conference on ESG”, May 2011, is one example and the
IHDP-IT synthesis conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, January 2011, is another one. The Secretariat will
collaborate with the SC and the projects, particularly ESG and IHDP-IT, and will liaise with ICSU, the official
contact point for Science in this policy process. Well targeted input for the 2nd Preparatory Committee meeting,
March 2011, should be prepared, if the process should be “influenced”. ICSU may be able to provide financial
support for IHDP’s work on the Rio+20 process, something to be explored by the Secretariat.
9
Wrap up and Organizational matters
The Strategic Programme on Implementation Plan 2011-2013 as prepared by the Secretariat was endorsed,
however, it was also stated that this document is a “living document” and SC and projects input will be taken
into account, if this strengthens this Plan in providing strategic guidance for the Programme and its Secretariat.
The idea was raised and strongly supported to establish an “IHDP Fellows” scheme that would reach out to the
broader social sciences community.
The SC and the projects were requested to develop ideas for new initiatives in the light of the discussions about
the ICSU and Belmont Challenges using a “mapping exercise” of current projects as a vehicle and starting point
in this respect. The projects were also encouraged to frame truly “integrative research questions” that could
cover the whole scope of the project well, as done by LOICZ already. The IHDP online discussion forum will be
used for this too.
As Oran Young stepped down as Chair of the IHDP SC with immediate effect after this SC meeting, the selection
process for the new Chair was discussed, requesting a transparent and effective nomination and selection
process. In addition, even after the five new SC members will be on board beginning January 2011, up to six
more SC members can be selected and put forward for sponsor approval in 2011.
10
17th IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting
Bonn (Germany), 23-24 September 2010
Some discussion on who should function as the interim chair of the IHDP SC took place. The procedure of the
old, as well as new IHDP constitution (not yet in force), requests that the vice-chair will step in during the
absence of a chair. Hence, Roberto Guimarães will act as chair until the end of 2010, when he will rotate off
from the IHDP SC. Another SC member was approached to become Vice-Chair and subsequently interim chair
as of January 2011, until the new chair is appointed. However, no clear-cut conclusion was reached during the
discussion and hence has to be decided later on. The Secretariat was requested to prepare the necessary steps;
a) facilitate the process to reach a conclusion on who will become Vice-Chair and subsequently interim chair
in case the new chair is not appointed as of January 2011, and b) launch the “call for nominations” for the
IHDP chair and to keep the IHDP SC updated.
11