Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
DRAFT Minutes of the
10 IHD Scientific Committee Meeting
5 – 7 March 2003
Bonn, Germany
th
The meeting took place at the Hotel Königshof, Adenauer Allee 9, Bonn.
In attendance on 5 March:
Coleen Vogel (Chair), Mohamed Salih (Vice Chair)
SC members: Carl Folke, Gilberto Gallopin, Carlo Jäger, Tatiania Kluvankova-Oravska,
Xizhe Peng, P.S. Ramakrishnan, Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez
Ex Officio members: Gordon McBean (ICSU), Guy Brasseur (IGBP), Peter Lemke (WCRP),
Mike Brklacich (GECHS), Oran R. Young (IDGEC), Pier Vellinga (IT), Eric Lambin
(LUCC), Joao Morais (IGBP, Social Science Liaison Officer)
Other invited participants: Roland Fuchs (START), Leah Goldfarb (ICSU), Uno Svedin
(IGFA), Susanne Stoll-Kleemann (DIVERSITAS)
IHDP Secretariat: Barbara Göbel (Executive Director), Ike Holtmann, Sylvia Karlsson,
Gregor Laumann, Pooja Sawhney (International Science Project Co-ordinators), Elisabeth
Dyck (Information Officer), Lisa Jibikilayi (Administrative Assistant).
Excused: Bill Clark, Elinor Ostrom, Paul Vlek (The Chair, Vice Chair and Executive
Director held teleconferences with Elinor Ostrom on 3 March and with Bill Clark on 4 March
2003).
Wednesday, 5 March 2003
Welcome and Opening Remarks by the Chair
Coleen Vogel opened the meeting and welcomed new members of the SC (Tatiana
Kluvankova-Oravska, Roberto Sanchez and Paul Vlek). Coleen Vogel asked the SC for
approval to hold the Sub-Committees as a closed session, not open to Ex-Officio members
who do not belong to IHDP.
1
Adoption of Agenda and Procedure for the Meeting
Decision:
The Draft Agenda and schedule of work were adopted without amendment.
2
Minutes of the 9th SC-IHDP Meeting
Decision:
The revised and amended Draft Minutes of the 9th Scientific Committee Meeting (March
2002, Bonn) were adopted as presented.
1
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
3
AS OF 22 April 2003
Executive Director’s Introduction:
Visions and Strategies for IHDP’s Development, 2003-2005
Barbara Göbel stressed that the core projects have made great progress. She pointed, however,
at two important tasks for the future:
First, more integration between the core projects is needed. IHDP often only appears as a
loosely defined umbrella for the core projects. Instruments for linking the core projects in a
better way include the development of an IHDP mission statement and the systematic analysis
of IHDP’s overarching research questions (Vulnerability/Resilience, Thresholds/transition,
Governance, Learning/Adaptation). New projects (e.g., Urbanization) should only be
launched if they have a high integrative potential and a clear added value for ongoing research
activities. In order to consolidate IHDP’s “corporate identity” and enhance its visibility a
stocktaking and synthesis should be initiated. The Secretariat will make all necessary efforts
to assist in this respect.
Second, better linkages between the core projects and joint projects should be framed within
the Earth System Science Partnership. The joint projects of the ESSP have to build on the core
projects. The added value of the existing and the upcoming joint projects (e.g., Health) for the
core projects should be made more transparent. Barbara Göbel indicated that the Earth System
Science Partnership has no formal status and operates on a mutually agreed mechanism.
Governance is provided through the annual meeting of the Chairs and Directors of the GEC
programmes and by the Scientific Steering Committees of the individual programmes.
In addition to their research activities the core and the joint projects work on networking,
capacity building and the policy-making interface. The goal of the networking activities is to
establish scientific, institutional and political ties. Mechanisms for achieving this are the
organization of international meetings, workshops, and conferences, the development of
information tools as newsletters (e.g. UPDATE, AVISO), website and databases and the
support (e.g. Seed Grants) for the development of National Committees. IHDP efforts in
capacity building include the International Human Dimensions Workshops and the Young
Human Dimensions Researchers network. It will be important in the future to integrate these
activities more strongly into on-going research and define better the specific niche of IHDP in
capacity building. IHDP activities in the policy-making interface include interactions with
international bodies as IPCC, SBSTA, MA, UNFCCC, UNCCD, UNEP, etc. and activities on
science for sustainable development.
Strategic planning for the next years has to take into account that the time constraints and the
availability of researchers involved in IHDP. Similarly, the Secretariat and the IPOs have only
limited human and financial resources. Germany and the USA were the major funders of the
Secretariat in 2002. There are still too few national contributions. Concerning the 2003
budget, closer contacts will be established with IGFA and its Chair (Uno Svedin) to work on
ways to increase national contributions to the IHDP budget.
Outlook for the next three years:
1. Strengthen IHDP networks within the social sciences:
 Taking stock and beginning to synthesize
 Reaching out to other disciplines, paradigms and thematic areas of social science
around GEC.
 Foster North-South and South-South dialogue within the GEC research communities.
=> Develop a social science perspective on GEC;
2
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
2. Integrative research strategies,
 Reflection on the implications of interdisciplinary projects regarding:
- Methodology
- Theory
- Project structure
 Identify criteria for developing effective research designs for GEC
 Inter-connecting IHDP core projects with ESSP joint projects
=> Develop an IHDP perspective on ESSP
3. Translation (“Targeting a wider audience”)
 Engaging the next generation of GEC researchers
 Translating scientific knowledge in action-oriented knowledge
 Re-framing research insights into a “development context”
 Delivering user-group oriented publications; e.g. NGO’s, UN bodies, Funding
agencies
=> Develop an IHDP perspective on sustainable development
In the discussion that followed, several SC members commented on individual points of the
presentation, including the links between core and joint projects, strengthening relationships
with stakeholders and an assessment of IHDP’s contribution to the policy making community.
Barbara Göbel wants to initiate an internal and external assessment of IHDP’s activities. She
also pointed to the lack of clear criteria and procedures about the role of the Secretariat and
the IHDP umbrella, as this is not included in the Constitution
Vice Chair Mohamed Salih suggested cost sharing with universities and undertaking joint
activities with research institutions in the South. A workshop for policy-makers on HD should
be envisaged. He also saw a need for ‘self-reflection’ and undertaking an external evaluation,
which IHDP owes to its funders. If the Constitution does not provide sufficient guidance, it
should be revised to adapt to new realities. He also emphasised that IHDP needs a strategic
plan for the next 3-5 years. Further he pointed to the issue of IHDP governance, which needs
to be balanced in terms of gender and regions. He also recommended setting up a committee
on governance that would address the issue of freeing SC members to use 5-10% of their time
on IHDP matters.
The Chair summarised the discussion, pointing out that a stocktaking process would be
needed. This should be a two-phased process, i.e. an internal review of the core projects and
an external review. Care should be taken that the products of IHDP should match the needs of
the scientific and policy-making communities. The outcome of the ICSU review should also be
taken into account.
Decision:
The Chair, Vice Chair and Executive Director and one or two other members of the SC
(to be determined) will take action on the stock-taking process and decide how such
evaluations will be organised. A Strategic Plan will be developed.
4
Presentation and Discussion of IDGEC
Oran Young presented developments in the project on Institutional Dimensions on Global
Environmental Change (IDGEC) since the last SC meeting, pointing out that IDGEC is now
3
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
in its implementation phase. The IDGEC IPO has been relocated to the University of
California, where Oran Young had accepted a professorship. (Syma Ebbin, the project’s
Executive Officer, remains involved and is located in Connecticut). Three new members of
the IDGEC SSC were appointed (Taishi Sugiyama, Japan, Jyrki Luukannen, Finland, and
Arild Underdal, Norway).
The most significant contribution of IDGEC has been to set the scientific agenda on fit,
interplay and scale. IDGEC has been able to play a significant role in bringing these questions
into a position of prominence in the science community. The IDGEC project has been
involved in ESSP, due to his co-chairmanship of the Global Carbon Project (GCP) and also
because IDGEC is interested in the institutional dimensions of food and water. Making
progress in understanding coupled systems is important, but requires a lot of efforts and a
major and long-term commitment. Concerning future directions and integration, Oran Young
advocated ‘smart growth’. As the four core projects are reaching maturity, there is a need for
carefully husbanding resources and sustaining these projects. The core projects should be
integrated. During the past two years, much attention has been given to the joint projects,
which is very costly. He voiced concern about finite human and financial resources.
The following discussion focussed on ‘stickiness’ and mechanisms to overcome stickiness in
institutions. The question was also raised whether the reverse of stickiness was ‘fluidity’.
Oran Young pointed out that policy instruments are a major topic of IDGEC’s work. In many
cases institutions of management systems are fluid because they never got entrenched or
fixed. However there are situations where institutions seem to be highly entrenched and
unlikely to change, but only up to a threshold after which rapid and radical institutional
change occurs. This is an important issue, but it is not well understood.
5
Brief Report from IT
Pier Vellinga gave a report on the Industrial Transformation (IT) project. The big challenge of
IT remains how to relate income levels and changes in environmental quality. Core topics of
IT are Energy and Material Flows, Food, Cities (Transportation and Water), Information and
Communication, and Governance and Institutions. Pier Vellinga gave a short update on IT
research in these areas and their main research questions. The IT project started four years ago
and is now taking stock and deciding about future activities. Four new members from
different disciplines have accepted to join the SSC. The most recent issue of UPDATE
(1/2003) focuses on Industrial Transformation and gives an overview of the current situation.
Reports on workshops and activities during the last year are available on the IT website:
http://www.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/. Funding for the IT IPO is secured until the end of the
year; funding proposals for the next five years have been submitted.
The discussion began with a question about major IT findings that would be available in the
foreseeable future. Pier Vellinga considered the results of the project on Carbon Flows
between Russia and Europe particularly interesting, i.e. trading energy with Russia to reduce
carbon emissions in Europe would lead to an increased use of coal in Russia. Whether such a
strategy would help decreasing carbon emissions on a global scale is yet unclear. Concerning
a question on publications, the policy-making interface and capacity building, a publication
on carbon flows and four publications under the umbrella of IT are being prepared. Decisionmakers of WTO have been involved in the project on trading biomass; the project on carbon
flows gets substantial input from the big oil and gas companies in the Netherlands and
Russia. Capacity building is not really on the agenda for IT, apart from separate activities on
4
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
an individual, explorative and provisional basis. A literature database on Industrial
Transformation and related issues is being compiled.
Concerning links to other projects, IT tries to link technological features to environmental
problems to find solutions. Stronger links have been established with the GCP and IDGEC, in
co-operation with Oran Young. There would be quite an overlap with a new Urbanization
project, but this problem could be solved by an integrative approach. There is no particular
cooperation with LUCC and GECHS, even though the latter covers many areas, which are of
interest to IT research. IT has limited resources, which make it difficult to respond to all
requests. There is still a long way to go to form a community working on consumption and
production patterns under a common paradigm.
Recommendation:
The SC encouraged the Secretariat to consider ways how the information generated by
IT could be communicated to the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA), IPCC and other bodies.
6
Presentation and Discussion of LUCC
Eric Lambin reported about developments in the Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (LUCC)
project. LUCC has reached the phase of maturity with a variety of research activities. The task
of the project office is to keep track and provide a synthesis of the project results until the
termination of LUCC in 2005.
There are several research highlights:
 A special request by the Millennium Assessment to LUCC for mapping the hot spots
of rapid land-cover change at a global scale by a synthesis of different data sources.
The project includes the inventory of such data sources, the selection according to
common criteria and the integration into one map. The foci are among others
deforestation, exceptional fire events, urban change and cropland change. LUCC does
not generate the data itself but draws on existing databases. Many important areas,
however, are still under-measured. Regarding desertification, Eric Lambin referred to
the Dahlem paradigm, which includes considerations on the biophysical state of the
land in assessing desertification and the ability of human societies to retain the land
and reverse the process. The socio-economic aspects have not been very well
understood or covered by research so far.

A framework for a causative analysis of land change, including the analysis of causes
such as resource scarcity, changing opportunities, external policy intervention and
changes in social organisations in resource areas, was presented. It helps to identify
dominant pathways of land change in semi-arid regions towards desertification.

Development of multi-agent systems models of land-use and progress in scenario
building in this area.

A systems approach is dealing with the decoupling of deforestation and economic
growth. Key questions are: what are the drivers, dynamics and feedbacks in the system
and what are the social responses to land change? The Oslo Group (TOG) has
identified six key factors to understand human-environment systems: (i) history of the
system, (ii) controlling models of different actors, (iii) management strategies and
5
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
policies, (iv) organisations and scales, (v) system dynamics, and (vi) learning and
adaptation by actors.
During the discussion the point was raised whether LUCC could serve as a good model for
the study of human-environment interaction. LUCC researchers had double expertise and
economists and social scientists were also involved. Experience has shown the need for both
specialists and researchers with a broader experience.
Regarding a question on the map of hotspots in land-use change, Eric Lambin reported that
all the maps are based on older technology, but LUCC tries to keep up with developments and
integrate latest data. Some 8,000 case studies were identified at the beginning of the project.
LUCC includes only conservative, peer-reviewed studies that include a certain range of
variables.
7
Brief Report from GECHS
Mike Brklacich gave a short overview of recent developments in the Global Environmental
Change and Human Security (GECHS) project, presenting a revised definition of ‘human
security’. GECHS is now receiving funding from the private sector: Procter & Gamble are
sponsoring the project and the funds are mainly used to cover the salary of a new Executive
Officer, Maureen Woodrow. In summer of 2002, the IPO was relocated from Victoria to
Carleton University.
New funding for research allows new projects of GECHS, i.e. on environment and civil war
and the Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI), sponsored by ICSU. The GECHS
bulletin, AVISO, is in its second phase now. Issue 6 created much reactions from the policymaking community, and Mike Brklacich pointed out that IHDP has to remember to interact
with national policy makers, not only international ones. The IPO has also developed a high
school curriculum on climate change in the Ottawa area. From the 23 to the 25 August 2003,
GECHS will host a conference on Vulnerability in Coastal Zones, to be held on Change
Islands, off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, in cooperation with Ocean Management
Research, a national interdisciplinary network of researchers, policy makers and communities
interested in creating and sharing knowledge on ocean management and its practices in
Canada.
Mike Brklacich also reported about the SSC meeting held in Moscow in late 2002. The
GECHS SSC has two new members, Karen O’Brien (CICERO, Norway) and Kwasi NsiahGyabaah (Ghana).
The GECHS project is contributing to a number of ESSP activities. The project’s foundation
is now solid and GECHS is expanding. It is also working on increasing its funding, keeping in
mind the audiences it wants to address.
The discussion started with a question about the issue of globalisation and whether it is
possible to link GECHS and IT. Mike Brklacich confirmed that it is necessary to include
globalisation and that synthesis on these issues could be tracked across the projects. He also
emphasised that most of the active people with whom GECHS would like to collaborate are
over-committed and that it is difficult to get senior expertise.
6
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
It was then discussed to start a roster of experts from the projects and compile a research
inventory. The Chair pointed out that IHDP has to put more emphasis on ‘mining, what we
are doing’ and identifying the ‘nuggets’ of IHDP research.
Action:
Secretariat and core projects to collaborate on developing a roster of experts from IHDP
project networks.
Action:
Secretariat in collaboration with core projects to develop a research inventory to
identify scientific findings (“nuggets”) for being presented as major IHDP contributions
to the global environmental change research communities.
8
Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS)
Mike Brklacich (Vice-Chair, GECAFS Executive Committee) presented developments in the
GECAFS project since the last meeting of the IHDP-SC. He emphasised that the project
conception consciously tries to avoid duplications with the IHDP core projects. The GECAFS
research questions are designed to provide links to the GEC programmes IGBP, IHDP,
DIVERSITAS and WCRP, aiming at scientific outputs that have policy relevance.
GECAFS has developed rapidly during 2002, particularly the regional projects: (i) the IndoGangetic Plain food system and (ii) the Caribbean food system. Plans are underway for
research in Eastern Pacific Coastal Fisheries, and the Southern Africa food system.
Workshops involving regional scientists and policy-makers have identified GEC research
issues that are of interest both to regional policy-making and science agendas. Key steps have
been regional characterisation towards which GEC research can be developed, and the clear
identification of contemporary policy issues.
Regional research needs to be underpinned by an improved understanding of the nature of
vulnerability, especially in relation to food systems, and comprehensive scenarios within
which research is set. Research plans in both areas are now underway, and an initial work
programme for vulnerability research is already funded. A Scientific Advisory Committee
(SAC) has been established with representatives from science, research partners, sponsoring
programmes and the donor community. The SAC will meet annually.
The GECAFS International Project Office is well established at NERC-CEH Wallingford,
UK, with John Ingram as Executive Officer and Katie Dodsley as Administrative Assistant. It
is expected that a Science Officer will start working in April 2003. A Prospectus was
published, and a web site (www.gecafs.org) developed. Two workshops and some smaller
consultation meetings were held in each region. These have developed a set of GEC research
issues for each region, underlining two important points:
 GECAFS offers the opportunity to develop new GEC research agendas of interest to
both science and development, and to forge new, regional and international research
partnerships to address them.
 GECAFS must identify GEC research issues within the context of regional
development needs, and clearly demonstrate how GEC research can help address
current and near-term issues, as well as those of a longer-term nature.
The SC appreciated the project’s developments.
7
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
9
AS OF 22 April 2003
Global Water System Project (GWSP)
Carlo Jäger provided a short progress report on the Water project, now named “Global Water
System Project” (GWSP). The project has a website (www.gwsp.org) which includes all
available information. Much progress has been made since last year. A Scoping Team
developed a scoping document, which is being circulated in the research community. It is
important to create continuity in these activities. It is planned to establish an IPO in Bonn and
a number of workshops will be undertaken. Their purpose is to involve a considerable part of
the community, which is rather fragmented. Carlo Jäger stressed the importance that the
global water SYSTEM is addressed. The empirical evidence that humans affect the global
water system is strong, but the systems and the implications are not well known. There are
very serious health issues linked to water.
In the discussion it was pointed out that the human dimensions part of the project’s science
plan needs to be strengthened. There is a three-fold process, i.e. 1) the scientific part and the
task of the scoping team, 2) setting up an IPO, and 3) the transition period from the scoping
team to an IPO. Also, a niche for this project has to be found, as there is much research
underway on water. Some SC members saw the potentiality for considerable interaction with
the core projects.
Joint Projects should be policy relevant (e.g. for IPPC and SBSTA). Therefore it is important
to identify windows of opportunities to alert the policy community. For example, issues of
vulnerability and adaptation are of high policy relevance.
A concern was voiced that some of the joint projects’ research could also be done within core
projects. A response to this concern about the relationship between the core and joint projects
is to be open to all other research activities that occur in our organisation and manage this
complexity in a creative way. It was stressed that the joint projects, in spite of needing an
identity of their own, are based on the core projects’ research.
Recommendation:
Work on improving the transparency between core and joint projects, defining the
added value for both groups.
10
Global Carbon Project
Oran Young gave a Presentation on the Global Carbon Project (GCP). The 2nd SSC meeting
has been held in October 2002 in Tsukuba, Japan; the 3rd Meeting will take place in Banff,
Canada, in June 2003, back to back with the IGBP congress. The SSC includes a strong IHDP
representation from the South. The GCP has a project office in Canberra (its staff has mainly
a natural science background). A new IPO is about to be fully operational in Tskuba, Japan
(an Executive Officer is being hired who should have a strong Human Dimensions
background).
Several workshops and conference are planned and should result in a state-of-the-art synthesis
of the carbon cycle (to be published in late 2003). The implementation plan of the science
8
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
framework (including human dimensions) is almost ready and the core projects will be able to
give input during the next months. A draft is available on the GCP website
www.globalcarbonproject.org. The science framework defines three overarching science
themes: 1) Patterns and Variability 2) Mechanisms, Controls and Interactions and 3) Future
Dynamics. Theme 1 has a strong natural science orientation; Theme 2, which includes the
major GCP science, has a strong connection to human dimensions; and Theme 3 is about
forecasting and prediction but also about the opportunities for intentional interventions.
The major question for the future of the carbon cycle research is as follows: if we see carbon
sequestration as a viable way to react to the Kyoto protocol, how can we bring in the
knowledge about such as sequestration accountancy systems to assess sinks and emissions.
In the discussion it was pointed out that the progress of the joint projects is promising.
Especially GECAFS and the GCP are including the biophysical and human dimensions of
their respective areas. There are also opportunities for interaction with the core projects and
cross-cutting themes. The joint projects are moving ahead as a showcase of policy relevance
and make a good example how social sciences can initiate this process. They offer the
opportunity to become very well known by decision-makers in the respective fields.
The issue was raised again about the linkages between core and joint projects and any
overlaps. It was pointed out that the joint projects rely strongly on the work of the core
projects, especially in their initial phase. Co-operations and flexible co-ordination are
important.
Oran Young stressed that the core projects need to have activities in their own rights and not
a compilation of activities of other areas. However, the main task of IDGEC’s flagship
activity on carbon research is to include institutional questions of carbon management and
the vulnerability dimension into the GCP.
11
Update on IGFA
Uno Svedin (new Chair of IGFA) briefed the SC on current developments and major topics
within IGFA. He emphasised the importance of a dialogue between the scientific and funding
communities. IGFA acknowledges the issue of GEC as a major aspect of future world issues
for the next 10 to 15 years. Other issues relevant to IGFA are: Interplay of research themes,
the scientific North-South dialogue, new (private) funders and the terms of engaging with
them, national settings and political frameworks.
As challenges for the human dimensions research community he pointed to
 to probe further the macro-micro links in a globalized world,
 to find improved forms to integrate different sorts of knowledge,
 to learn how to live in partnership with the policy world without being absorbed,
 to widen the connectivity between science and a broader realm of stakeholders,
 to translate scientific findings into actions.
The SC asked for advice on cooperating with the EU 6th Framework Programme.
Uno Svedin recommended taking advantage of the sustainability theme that is included in the
Framework. IHDP should consider this as an opportunity to participate in forming the
European research agenda.
9
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Recommendation:
Secretariat should investigate opportunities of getting involved with EU 6th Framework
Programme.
The meeting was adjourned at 18:00 h.
12
Special Guest Lecture
At 18:30 h, Carl Folke gave a lecture on “Social Ecological Resilience for Complexity and
Change”. Guests from the local scientific and policy-making communities and representatives
from international organisations were present with the SC for this lecture.
10
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Thursday, March 6, 2003
The meeting was convened on Thursday, March 6 at 8:30 am. Participation as on Wednesday,
except for the departure of Uno Svedin. Mohamed Salih departed during mid-morning and
returned in the evening.
13
Update on ICSU and ISSC
ICSU
Gordon McBean (ICSU liaison for IHDP) gave a short presentation of behalf of ICSU.
ICSU’s Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) has commissioned Priority
Area Assessments (PAA) in 3 areas: Capacity building, Data and Information, and
Environment, starting with the one on the Environment and its relation to Sustainable
Development.
ICSU has an Advisory Committee on Environment (ACE) since about 1990, which advises
the ICSU Board on environmental matters. For the PAA on Environment and its relation to
Sustainable Development, the ACE was transformed and augmented; its members include
Bob Watson (Chairman), Lourdes Arizpe, Anne Buttimer, Angela Cropper, Partha Dasgupta,
Istvan Lang, Gordon McBean, James McCarthy, Uri Shamir, Crispin Tickell, and Shem
Wandiga. The assessment includes activities all ICSU unions, Interdisciplinary Bodies and
Joint Initiatives. ICSU’s National Members were also asked to participate by sending in
national environmental forsight studies. Two meetings were held to date, in November 2002
and in February 2003, with 2 days of presentations and 2 days of discussions for the latter
meeting. Two more meetings are planned for July 2003 to prepare a draft report, which would
then be circulated for review and comments, and October 2003, to finalise report for CSPR.
Gordon McBean reported on the Consortium on Science and Technology for Sustainable
Development, which consists of ICSU, the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) and
the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability (ISTS).
In the following discussion, the SC asked for clarification on the PAA process and on the
Consortium on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. Leah Goldfarb
explained that the aim of the PAA review is to learn more about ICSU’s environmental
research portfolio as an ensemble. The response to questionnaires from all bodies can be
reviewed at ICSU’s website www.icsu.org, username: forum, password: ICSUfora2003.
Concerning sponsorship, Leah Goldfarb pointed out that ICSU has a policy as a scientific
sponsor to contribute financially for 4-5 years to a program in order to get it up and running.
After that, scientific programmes should be financially self-sustaining; however ICSU’s
Interdisciplinary bodies, such as IHDP, can apply for grants.
The question was posed about ICSU’s new programme on sustainable development and the
implications this will have for IHDP, i.e. expectations regarding IHDP contributions and cooperation with ESSP. Leah Goldfarb explained that representatives from ICSU, TWAS and
ISTS met in November for a “pre-scoping meeting” and decided to form a Consortium. This
was also due to a resolution by the General Assembly, to create a new programme on
sustainable development. Another resolution stipulated to create a dialogue to stabilise core
funding for GEC projects through agencies, national committees, etc. (see ICSU website). The
terms of reference for the international planning group on activities of the Consortium were
approved by the Executive Boards of ICSU and ISTS. The decision by the Council of TWAS is
pending. The ad hoc advisory committee includes 15 members and is co-chaired by the North
11
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
and South. The terms of reference are complementary to the activities of the Earth System
Science Partnership; it was stressed that the Consortium does not want to jeopardise
activities of the GEC programmes.
The SC asks ICSU to provide clarification regarding the activities of the Consortium and
ICSU’s sponsorship to IHDP.
Decision:
The SC agreed that IHDP wants to engage in and contribute to the Consortium in a
scientific way and asked that this be conveyed to ICSU management.
ISSC
Coleen Vogel started with a report on the 50th anniversary conference of ISSC and the
General Assembly meeting, both held in Vienna, Austria, in December 2002. ISSC has new
leadership: Lourdes Arizpe is the new President and Ali Kazancigil has been appointed
Secretary General. She also informed the SC that ISSC wants IHDP to interact more with
their unions. ISSC proposes two themes for cooperation: 1) environmental policy processes,
and 2) institutions and perceptions in relation to environmental management. Coleen Vogel
emphasised that ISSC’s new leadership has a strong vision and that there is also new
leadership at UNESCO. IHDP should engage to get social scientists with a GEC research
focus in these groups and to incorporate other social scientists.
In the discussion, the SC members appreciated this opportunity and stated that efforts should
be made to improve the collaboration with ISSC. The co-operation on institutions is
particularly welcomed by IDGEC. It was proposed to form a working-group or subcommittee in order to explore what co-operation would be possible. Coleen Vogel asked the
SC for a mandate to work closely with ISSC and identify concrete opportunities. This was
granted.
Recommendation:
Establish close collaboration with ISSC and identify concrete opportunities for cooperation.
Action:
Set up a sub-committee or working group for co-operation with ISSC.
14
Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP)
IGBP
Guy Brasseur (Chair of IGBP) reported about the recent IGBP SC Meeting (Punta Arenas,
Chile, January 2003). In the transition from IGBP phase 1 to IGBP phase 2 the emphasis of
the Programme has shifted from the individual parts of the Earth System to the Earth System
as an integrated whole. The focus of IGBP research remains on biogeochemical cycles at the
regional and global levels. However, IGBP wants to work more across disciplines, putting
stronger emphasis on issues of societal concern. Building and strengthening the partnerships
with IHDP, DIVERSITAS and WCRP within the framework of the ESSP is a central part of
IGBP’s research strategy for the next decade. One step for strengthening the partnership with
IHDP may be a co-sponsorship of the new LAND Project.
12
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
These new directions in IGBP require a new structure, launched in January 2003. It consists
of three compartments (Land, Oceans, Atmosphere) and their interfaces that connect the
compartments:
 Land-Oceans  LOICZ II (Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone)
 Land-Atmosphere  ILEAPS (Integrated Land Ecosystem-Atmosphere Processes
Study)
 Oceans-Atmosphere  SOLAS (Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study)
As tools for integrating the scientific research within this new structure into ESSP IGBP lists
joint activities with WCRP such as SOLAS and OCEANS, the three Joint Projects with
IHDP, DIVERSITAS and WCRP, Integrated Regional Studies and so-called Fast Track
Studies.
The Fast Track Studies will be initiated by the IGBP-SC to address a specific scientific
question in a more integrated fashion. At their SC meeting in January, the SC members
identified four themes for the Fast Track Studies:
 Integrated Fire Study
 Global Nitrogen Cycle
 Global Carbon Cycle
 Contaminants in the Earth System
The Integrated Regional Studies are intended to become a joint activity of the ESSP. A
paper has been drafted by IGBP, for consideration by the ESSP. The paper is still under
consideration
The Earth System Atlas aims at reviewing and analysing existing data in order to develop a
tool that will serve as an interactive atlas. An editorial board of 15 to 30 people is foreseen.
Proposals will be submitted in the coming months to seek funding for this project. IGBP
emphasises that this project should be developed jointly with the ESSP partners. If funding is
secured work could begin in late 2003.
The IHDP-SC appreciated IGBP’s strong emphasis on strengthening the ESSP and
integrating human dimension issues. In the discussion the SC asked for clarification on the
planned structure and process of implementation for the LAND project. Guy Brasseur
explained that issues of research focus and collaboration with existing groups are under
discussion. At present a new writing team has been formed led by Sandra Lavorel. Dennis
Ojima, Lisa Graumlich, Emilio Moran, Eric Lambin and Louis Pitelka (GCTE Chair) have
been proposed as members of the writing team. A Science Plan/Implementation Strategy is
expected to be ready in 2004 for approval by the SCs of IGBP and IHDP.
Pending decision:
IHDP SC has to decide on its engagement in the LAND Project, LOICZ II, the Earth
System Atlas, and the Integrated Regional Studies.
WCRP
Peter Lemke (Chair of WCRP) informed the SC about programme developments during the
past year. The WCRP project on Oceans (WOCE) was closed in 2002. It was the biggest and
most successful Ocean project so far. Most of the project activities will continue within the
framework of CLIVAR. This year ACSYS will wind down, to be succeeded by CLICK. As
13
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
integrating activity for the ESSP, Peter Lemke pointed out the Predictability Assessment of
the Climate System, which could become an overarching project.
The SC acknowledged that WCRP’s engagement with ESSP differs from that of IGBP and
IHDP. The need for a climate observation system led to a discussion about data issues. The
SC recognized that the issues of data quality, confidentiality and accessibility would need to
be reconsidered.
DIVERSITAS
On behalf of DIVERSITAS, Susanne Stoll gave a brief overview of the programme’s
developments. The revised structure of DIVERSITAS consists of 3 core projects:
 Discovering biodiversity and predicting its changes
 Assessing impacts of biodiversity changes
 Developing the science of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
She stressed the need for input from the social sciences community, especially for project 3,
which deals with social drivers, sustainable use of biodiversity and decision-making
processes. DIVERSITAS seeks suggestions/nominations from IHDP of social scientists that
would engage in developing the science plan for core project 3.
At their SC meeting in January 2002, DIVERSITAS acknowledged the need to become a
stronger partner within ESSP. Two steps have been undertaken in order to strengthen its role
within ESSP:
 DIVERSITAS’ is actively involved in the design of the joint water project
 DIVERSITAS took the lead in exploring the theme of GEC and Health as a fourth
joint project of ESSP.
The IHDP-SC members acknowledged the opportunities for collaboration with DIVERSITAS.
Especially the issues of knowledge systems and traditional technologies were identified as
meaningful from an IHDP perspective. The strong links between research by LUCC and
DIVERSITAS’ focus on social drivers of biodiversity loss were recognized as an opportunity
for collaboration. The project leaders advised to avoid overlap of the projects’ contents.
Open Science Conference (Amsterdam II)
Barbara Göbel reported about discussions of the Chairs and Directors on convening a major
Open Science Conference. This should be an ESSP event and contribute to its consolidation
and development. There is support for holding the meeting in 2006. The location is still under
discussion. She raised the question whether IHDP or WCRP would be the main organisers of
this event.
The SC decided to defer a decision to Sub-Committee B on Scientific Projects and Activities,
which would meet in the afternoon of that day.
Science for Sustainable Development
Coleen Vogel reported on the IHDP/ESSP input to the WSSD. A workshop on science for
sustainable development was held in Paris in Feb 02, which resulted in two documents.
14
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Sylvia Karlsson gave a short background on the working documents pointing out that a long
and short version had been prepared. The shorter document was recently revised and
published in the IGBP and IHDP newsletters (Update 1/2003).
SC members commented on the need to find a working definition of ‘sustainable development’
and suggested to look at integrative perspectives of the concept and then explore possibilities
for ESSP initiatives. It was suggested that IHDP should translate the concept of SD into its
own terms. In order to achieve this, a workshop on this topic should be organised. It was
decided to have a more detailed discussion on this issue in Sub-Committee B in the afternoon.
15
START
Roland Fuchs, Director of START (Global Change System For Analysis, Research and
Training), gave a short overview of recent activities, with particular to capacity building.
START capacity building programme include fellowships, visiting scientists and young
scientist awards, with a total of over 200 awards to date. Capacity building in START’s
experience requires long term sustained effort and sufficient flexibility to address different
needs. Roland Fuchs emphasized the importance for capacity building of developing
partnerships especially with developing countries. Capacity building should be supply-driven,
i.e. taking into consideration the requirements of developing country parties and counterparts
instead of being demand-driven. He also referred to the START Decadal Plan for Capacity
Building, which involves partnership with IRS and TWAS.
START is reconstituting its regional coordinating committees and looks forward to a greater
involvement by the human dimensions community as it seeks nominations for committee
members.
With support of the Packard Foundation, there are 3 intensive training institutions or events
that have been held or planned on topics that are crosscutting:
 Advanced Institute on Climatic Variability and Food Security (8-26 July 2002, New
York);
 Advanced Institute on Urbanization, Emissions and the Global Carbon Cycle (4-22
August, 2003, Boulder), which has a strong human dimensions component with
Richard Rockwell as co-Director and which has been endorsed by the IT and Carbon
Project.
 Advanced Institute on Assessing Vulnerability to Global Change and Global
Environmental Risk, which includes topics such as the nature of vulnerability and
scale dependencies of vulnerabilities. [Roland Fuchs invited IHDP to take a strong
role in planning and execution of this institute.]
A Young Scientist Conference will be held in Trieste, Italy, in November 20003 organized by
START on behalf of the ESSP. The purpose of this conference is to recognize excellence in
(global change) research and to link young scientists with representatives of the core projects
of ESSP in order to engage young scientists in the international science programme. Selection
of participants will be difficult as there have been 640 accepted applications for 80 places.
Integrated regional study of Monsoon Asia: the process has been initiated; a preliminary
planning meeting will be held in March 2003. START would welcome greater involvement of
IHDP as the process unfolds and in the regional scoping studies that are expected to follow
for East, Southeast and South Asia in early 2004. Each scoping study will involve 20-25
15
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
participants. Outputs will include an assessment of state of knowledge in different topics and
identification of priority regional research needs. Roland Fuchs also gave examples of various
models that are being considered for this study including RIEMS (Regional Integrated
Environment Modelling System).
The Assessment of Impacts of and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and
Sectors (AIACC) project is now well launched and involves some 300 scientists from
developing countries.
Barbara Göbel emphasised that it was important to her that IHDP takes an active role in
START meetings and activities. Roland Fuchs suggested that more researchers from IHDP
working at a regional level should be identified and involved. It was proposed that START
should continue to cooperate closely with LUCC and IT and help bring together people with
different disciplinary backgrounds from different regions. The SC emphasised the importance
of continuing and strengthening its relationship with START. The relationship START – ESSP
was also discussed. IHDP and IGBP have, for example, several working groups on the crosscutting theme “vulnerability”; START also has several activities on this topic and so this is
another possible area of cooperation.
Recommendation:
To involve IHDP researchers from the Asian region in the integrated regional studies on
the Monsoon Asia; and to enhance co-operation between START and LUCC and IT.
16
International Human Dimensions Workshops (IHDW)
IHDW 2002
Roberto Sanchez, Chief Scientist of the IHDW 2002, reported about the International Human
Dimensions Workshop on “Human Dimensions of Urbanization and the Transition to
Sustainability” held in Bonn in June 2002.It was a successful event. The evaluation of the
participants revealed that it has strengthened considerably their interests in human dimensions
and encouraged them to find new areas of research. Roberto Sanchez emphasised the need to
maintain and engage young scientists in the area of human dimensions of GEC. A balance
between social and natural sciences is needed. (This should also be taken into account for the
next IHDW). Finding sources of funding for future workshops is another important issue.
IHDW 2004
Coleen Vogel pointed to the material in the briefing book (item 16) and explained that during
the Officers and Project Leaders meeting in Frankfurt, trade and environment interactions
were discussed as a possible topic. This theme needs further fine-tuning. She also addressed
issues of discussion for the next IHDW, i.e. improving the embedding of the workshop into
core project research activities, the involvement of both social and natural scientists, and the
institutional framing of the workshop.
In the discussion, it was recommended that the participants produce papers of the workshop
results and publish them in high-level journals. Currently the danger exist that their research
never gets published. Collaboration of the participants with researchers from other sciences
should also be addressed. It was felt that the theme of the next workshop requires more
discussion, which would take place in sub-committee B.
16
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Coleen Vogel summed up the discussion and stressed the need to have natural and social
scientists involved in future workshops. It was also important to encourage participants to
publish their results and consider a special journal issue or proceedings of the IHDW:
17
National Committees/Seed Grants
Barbara Göbel gave a short report on IHDP’s National Committees. The basic problem for
developing an IHDP strategy on National Committees are the huge differences between the
individual committees. She stressed the need to strengthen the human dimensions component
of the existing National Committees and the need to increase efforts to build up new ones.
Funding from ISSC/UNESCO for seed grants have been a problem recently.
In the discussion the need for feedback from National Committees was stressed; if they saw
the benefit of being part of IHDP, this might also attract more funding. Barbara Göbel
pointed out that it would be important to connect National Committees with national
universities, research institutions or research programmes, and asked SC members how to
proceed in the different scientific communities and countries. SC members pointed out that
many National Committees identified themselves with climate change and are natural science
oriented. In some cases, National Committees argue that they already contribute to IGBP (so
why should they contribute to IHDP?). It was also discussed whether ESSP as a partnership
should look for joint funding from National Committees.
Recommendation
Executive Director to set up procedures for addressing particularities of the research
communities in the different countries; get input from respective SC members of these
countries or regions.
18
Young Human Dimensions Researchers Network (YHDR)
Barbara Göbel gave a brief overview of the network and pointed out that she proposes to
earmark a small fund for travel grants for young scientist working in human dimensions
research.
19
Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions on Global Environmental
Change Research Community
Barbara Göbel started by clarifying that the Open Meeting was not purely an IHDP event;
IHDP is one of three international co-sponsors, together with IAI and CIESIN. The 5th OM
will take place at the McGill School of Environment, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (16-18
October 2003). The overall theme is “Taking Stock and Moving Forward”. The deadline for
submissions is 31st March 2003. All available information can be found on the OM website
(http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmeeting)
Many SC members expressed the importance of a strong IHDP presence at the OM.
Concerning funding the question was raised how IHDP should act pro-actively to create
opportunities for people of the IHDP networks to participate. Barbara Göbel explained that a
17
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
proposal had been submitted to APN and to the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research. . There was also an enquiry whether START would be able to provide funding.
Some discussions followed why the OM was not a specific IHDP event. It was felt that IHDP
was mature enough to take responsibility of an Open Meeting. Roberto Sanchez provided
some clarification on the history of the meeting and Oran Young explained that the Open
Meetings were organised already in the mid-1990s when IHDP did not yet exist. IHDP does
not have the authority to take over this meeting. However, some SC members felt that IHDP
should consider playing a major role in the 2005 Open Meeting and also in the ESSP 2006
conference. Constraints of both a human and financial nature were discussed. Some felt that
IHDP does not have the resources to play a protagonist role in both events.
Coleen Vogel summed up that it was a complex issue to decide where IHDP would invest time
and resources. Clarity could only be achieved after the break away meetings scheduled for
later that day. The Open Meeting and Open Science Conference should be addressed in SubCommittee B in the afternoon and then on the next day during the recommendations session.
20
Science for Sustainable Development
Coleen Vogel gave a short overview of the developments of the Initiative on Science and
Technology for Sustainable Development (ISTS). How does IHDP relate to the Initiative and
how does it position itself in the general issue of science for sustainable development?
There was a general consensus that IHDP has considerable interest in science for sustainable
development and that it deals with quite a number of relevant issues for IST already.
Therefore, it has been agreed to use these new developments to emphasise the IHDP science
agenda and to make efforts to explain IHDP’s role in contributing to science for sustainable
development.
The SC stressed that communication and transparency are important in establishing cooperation with the Consortium for Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. The
SC requests again clarification on the role of the Consortium. It was also agreed that having
an ESSP representative at the Consortium meetings would help to facilitate transparency.
Decision:
Two-phase approach:
1. Form an IHDP working group to identify IHDP’s perspective on Science for
Sustainable Development and its contributions to ISTS.
2. Send out the signal that IHDP is interested in wide collaboration and dialogue on
Science for Sustainable Development
21
Vulnerability
Mike Brklacich gave a short introduction on the Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative
(SAVI), which is supported by IHDP, ICSU, IGBP and the IGU Vulnerability Task Force.
The purpose of this initiative is a long-term research programme and network for the SA
region. The high potential of vulnerability as a cross-cutting theme of Global Environmental
Change research was stressed.
18
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
The SC agreed that priority setting proves difficult, given the different contexts that are
relevant for the vulnerability issue. The SC acknowledged the importance and potential of the
topic and will look into options for taking up the theme as an exercise for IHDP synthesis
activities.
22
Urbanization
Roberto Sanchez gave an account of the scoping activities on “Urbanization and Global
Environmental Change”. A scoping team met in Bonn in December 2002 and produced a
scoping report (copies were made available during the SC meeting).
Not only population growth but also economic growth is concentrated in urban areas. Urban
areas reflect the contradictions of our society and phenomena like poverty will soon become
urban in character. Urbanization, however, is neglected in vulnerability and assessment
studies. IHDP can therefore make a significant contribution to understand the relation
between GEC and urban areas, by providing an important building block and a nexus between
social and natural sciences on the level of cities. He outlined the need for interdisciplinary
approaches to understand triggers, drivers and feedbacks and advocated a strong effort to
build theoretical and methodological knowledge in this area.
After elaborating on the connections between Urbanization on the one hand and the IHDP
core projects as well as the ESSP joint projects on the other hand urbanization, Roberto
explained that this initiative has much potential for policy relevant research, especially
through co-operation with organisations like UNFCCC, ICSU, UNCHS, Metropolis, UCLG
(United Cities and Local Governments), ICLEI (International Council of Local Environmental
Initiatives), AUCC (American Union of Capital Cities), and similar bodies.
The SC acknowledged the engagement of Roberto Sanchez in leading the scoping activities on
urbanization. The discussion on Urbanization would be continued in the sub-committee on
scientific activities.
23
Health
Coleen Vogel gave a short presentation on Health activities, which is under consideration for
becoming the 4th joint project of the ESSP. An ESSP scoping meeting on Health and GEC
was recently held in Paris, It was organised by DIVERSITAS. A group of international
scholars, chaired by Anthony McMichael (Australia) and Ulisses Confalonieri (Brazil) was
invited to discuss the issue. Gregor Laumann represented the IHDP Secretariat and gave a
short assessment of the meeting. There was a good representation of the Human Dimensions
perspective. The topic seems to have an integrative potential for all ESSP programmes with
many interdisciplinary questions and approaches. A scoping report will be available prior to
the Chairs and Directors meeting in Paris in June.
The SC emphasised that it is important to ensure that there would be an added value to IHDP
of the Health initiative. The discussion on Health would be continued in the sub-committee on
scientific activities.
19
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
24
AS OF 22 April 2003
Work in Sub-Committees
For the Agenda Items 25, 26, 27 the group split up to work in sub-committees on the issues of
“Finances and Administration (Sub-Committee A), “Scientific Projects and Activities” (SubCommittee B). A working group on “SC Nominations” (Sub-Committee C) was anticipated
for the late afternoon but did not take place for reasons of delayed schedule. On Friday,
March 7 the sub-committees reported back to the group about their discussions and outcomes
(compare Agenda Item 29). For reasons of comprehensive reporting the discussions of the
sub-committees on Thursday, 6th, and the presentations and discussions in the respective
plenary session on Friday, 7th are merged for each committee in the following section.
25 / 31 Sub-Committee on Financial Issues and Administration:
Recommendations and Decisions
Participants: Gilberto Gallopin (Chair), Carlo Jäger, Xizhe Peng, P.S. Ramakrishnan, Barbara
Göbel, Elisabeth Dyck, Ike Holtmann
The discussion of the results on Friday, 7th took place in one session together with the
participants of the other Sub-Committee. In this session all relevant decisions were taken. The
results were presented in a plenary session.
IHDP Treasurer
Since the last SC meeting 2002, when Carlo Jäger resigned as Treasurer, no replacement has
been appointed to date.
Following a decision at the Officers and Project Leaders Meeting in Frankfurt in December
2002, Barbara Göbel had addressed Paul Vlek to ask him if he would accept this position.
Before making a decision, he requested clarification of the duties and obligations of the
Treasurer. Already the former treasurer, Peter de Janósi, have pointed in 1998 to the fact that
Article 30 of the Constitution is not all clear in that respect. The Article states: “Expenditures
shall be made upon the financial authority of the Treasurer of IHDP in conformity with the
recommendations of the IHDP Scientific Committee.” While the theory behind this Article is
clear, the practical meaning of it makes little sense. The Treasurer not being a full member of
IHDP, and not being necessarily in residence in Bonn cannot be responsible for authorizing
each and every expenditure. As the issue has not been clarified since then, Barbara Göbel
addressed ICSU (Thomas Rosswall) and ISSC (Ali Kazancigil) to ask for advice. Both
suggested the SC should make a written statement how the Article should be interpreted in
practice. Barbara Göbel pointed out that to date the signature authority for financial
transactions vis à vis the University of Bonn is only held by herself as Executive Director and
by Eckart Ehlers from the University of Bonn and Past Chair of the IHDP SC. The signature
authority is only given to members of the University. According to a Memorandum of
Understanding between ICSU, ISSC, and the University of Bonn from 1996 the University of
Bonn takes financial auditing responsibility for the Secretariat. Barbara Göbel has renewed
this Memorandum. The SC now needs to clarify the Article 30 of the Constitution in
accordance with the legal requirements of the University and then send a letter to ISSC and
ICSU.
20
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Recommendation:
The Committee members agreed to recommend the following wording concerning the
financial supervision and financial authority for the IHDP Secretariat budget:
“Expenditures shall be made under the financial supervision of the Treasurer and upon the
financial authority of the Executive Director and of Prof. Eckart Ehlers, first Chair of the
IHDP-SC, as required by the administration of the University of Bonn”.
Barbara Göbel then suggested the following responsibilities for the Treasurer:
Monitoring, advice on and control of financial matters, and presentation of the budget to the
SC for acceptance. She asked the Committee to decide what actions to take if Mr. Vlek does
not accept the position of Treasurer. The Committee voiced the opinion that no other
candidate should be chosen for the time being and expressed the hope that Mr. Vlek would
accept after clarification of these points.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee A results
Gilberto Gallopin gave a report on the discussions in Sub-Committee A. Paul Vlek was
nominated for the position of IHDP Treasurer. It was stressed that due to the Memorandum of
Understanding between ICSU, ISSC and the University of Bonn, the University has the
auditing responsibility for IHDP. Paul Vlek asked for clarification of the Treasurer’s
responsibilities. A formal acceptance of the Treasurer’s position is pending until a written
description of the Treasurer’s responsibilities is provided.
Action:
Executive Director to prepare a written description of Treasurer’s responsibilities.
Gilberto Gallopin presented the draft wording of a letter to be sent to ICSU and ISSC,
clarifying the financial responsibilities at the IHDP executive level.
Decision:
The SC agreed to the text.
IHDP Budget 2002-2003
Barbara Göbel presented the figures for the Income in 2002, pointing out that the carry-over
from 2001 is partly due to different budget years (i.e. US NSF funds). Also, the University of
Bonn provides in-kind contributions, such as rooms, cleaning services, etc. She also presented
a table with the Expenditures in 2002.
The budget situation for 2003 is stable, although not too prosperous if one takes into account
the widespread activities and related financial commitments of IHDP. The main contributions
come from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the US
National Science Foundation. Due to their critical budgetary situation the Science Ministry of
North Rhine-Westphalia was not able to provide funding for 2003. . A request has been
submitted to BMBF to provide additional funding to compensate for this lack of funds. Other
expected contributions come from ICSU and ISSC and also contributions from particular
countries.
What concerned Expenditures 2003 Barbara Göbel presented a detailed budget. In the budget
she also listed a number of financial obligations she had to take over from the past (i.e.,
21
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
contribution to LOICZ II). It was decided to leave a decision on how to handle these to the
discussions on the next day.
Barbara Göbel explained that she would like to allocate some funds for travelling grants for
young scholars and also funds for publications of core and joint projects. She plans to initiate
calls for proposals for these funds and also formalise grants for young scholars. She also
allocated funds for upcoming initiatives such as Urbanization and Health. There is a need for
some flexible funds. Barbara Göbel also reported that no official letter exists which requires a
reporting of funding given to core projects. She expects some guidance from the SC on these
issues.
What concerned the administrative re-organisation of the Secretariat Barbara Göbel explained
that in the future only one person in the Secretariat will handle all financial matters and that
there will be a more transparent link between budgeting and programmatic decision-making.
Barbara Göbel informed the Committee members that she would make a statement of how she
took over the Secretariat finances, to be signed by the Chair and the Chancellor of the
University.
Recommendation:
Approve the 2002 budget (income and expenditures).
Recommendation:
Accept the projected income for 2003 and the estimated expenditures for 2003 (however,
it would need to be slightly amended as discussed during this session.)
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee A results
Gilberto Gallopin gave a report on the discussions in Sub-Committee A. The Executive
Director presented the budget 2002 and the proposed budget for 2003.
Decision:
The SC approved the budget for 2002.
Decision:
The SC approved the proposed budget for 2003.
The Executive Director requested to allocate some funds in the 2003 budget for IHDP
publications and for a small travel grant for young researchers.
Decision:
The SC agreed to these requests.
Due to earlier commitments made in 2002 (by the past Executive Director), IHDP will have to
support LOICZ II in 2003 with 4.000 US$ and the development of the Health project with
10.000 US$. Barbara Göbel pointed out that there is a need for a discussion on procedures
for evolving initiatives/projects in terms of financial support.
Decision:
The SC gave the mandate to the Executive Director to fulfil commitments made in 2002
to LOICZ and the Health project.
22
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
The SC acknowledged the necessity of giving a positive signal to the University of Carleton by
contributing to Mike Brklacich’s teaching buyout in appreciation of the extensive in-kind
support of the University to GECHS. It was stressed that transparency on this issue is crucial.
Decision:
The SC gave the Executive Director the mandate to initiate a transfer of 5.000 US$ to
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Action:
Paul Vlek will draft a memo on this mandate for future extraordinary circumstances
that might ask for a similar action.
A financial contribution for the Chair of the IHDP-SC was discussed, in order to support her
work for IHDP.
Decision:
The SC agreed on financial support of about $ 4.000 for the Chair of the IHDP-SC for
hiring a student assistant to the Chair.
Decision:
In accordance with national and international auditing requirements the IHDP
Secretariat will establish a more formalized process on the annual IHDP contribution to
the core projects.
IGFA and National Contributions Scheme
Barbara Göbel stressed the need to enhance national contributions. One of the major donors,
Germany would like to see more countries to contribute to IHDP. This will play an important
role in their decision to extend their funding of the Secretariat beyond 2005. The search for
national contributions must be co-ordinated in a more systematic way. For this the regional
expertise of SC members is of great importance. A plan should be developed on a country-bycountry basis. National funding conditions and constraints for ESSP, IHDP and Global
Change research must be considered in this context. IGFA had recommended getting first
“rich” countries on board. However, also the symbolic value of some contributions (e.g., from
developing countries) has to be taken into consideration. . For the search of national
contributions it is fundamental to enhance IHDP’s visibility.
In the discussion, Committee members acknowledged the difficulty to get national funding
and made some proposals related to their own countries (Switzerland, India). They requested
to also include “in-kind” contributions of countries in IHDP’s financial reports.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee A results
Gilberto Gallopin gave a report on the discussions in Sub-Committee A. It was acknowledged
and agreed that the national contributions have to increase in number; this would give a
positive signal to IHDP’s main sponsors.
23
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Decision:
For a higher contribution from Switzerland, IHDP Chair should send a letter to the
appropriate Swiss authorities. (IHDP receives only 30% of the funds Switzerland provides
for IGBP)
Decision:
SC members will support the Executive Director in her efforts to secure national
contributions.
On Thursday, 6th, the Sub-Committee A adjourned at 18:00h.
26 / 32 Sub-Committee B on Scientific Projects and Activities:
Recommendations and Decisions
Participants on Thursday, 6th: Coleen Vogel (Chair), Mike Brklacich, Carl Folke, Sylvia
Karlsson, Tatiania Kluvankova-Oravska, Eric Lambin, Gregor Laumann, Pier Vellinga,
Roberto Sanchez, Oran Young
The presentation of the results and discussions on Friday, 7th, took place in a plenary session.
Core projects and joint projects: linkages, structural constraints, addressing the metaquestions
Sub-Committee B started with a discussion on the core and character of IHDP linked to its
mission statement. Issues of linkages, overlaps and theoretical commonalities between the
projects were brought up. It was agreed that the key challenge is to identify and describe these
commonalities. The best way to do this would be to develop highly visible synthesis papers
bringing in the specific, “unique” perspective of IHDP on Global Environmental Change. The
common position should not only deductively summarise the work of IHDP but also to feed
into theoretical and methodological developments and relate IHDP research to social theory in
general. It is necessary to identify similarities and differences to earlier types of theories,
develop new theoretical aspects and understand the implications of the experiences of the core
projects for the design of integrated research strategies.
The process to develop these could involve addressing one IHDP key research issue per year,
establish a writing team which collects input from all core projects and relevant SC members,
and then devote a significant amount of time at the following SC meeting on this paper. This
approach should contribute to a more scientific character of future SC meetings. In the longer
run it is seen as a way for IHDP to be an agenda setter and influence National Research
Councils.
It was agreed to propose the first topic to be addressed as “Human Drivers of Global
Environmental Change” including multiple scales (temporal and spatial) and dynamics. Other
topics to be covered later could be how humans influence, mitigate or respond to GEC and the
cross-cutting questions of IHDP (Vulnerability/Resilience, Thresholds/Transitions,
Governance, Learning/Adaptation). The Sub-Committee suggested that there should be a
short (two hour) meeting with all core projects SSC's during the Open Meeting in Montreal to
discuss a first draft of a paper on ‘human drivers’.
24
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Proposed action:
Chair and Secretariat to establish a writing process for a paper on Human Drivers of
GEC; discussions on a draft to take place at the Open Meeting in Montreal and the 2004
SC meeting.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
Coleen Vogel gave a summary of the discussions of the Sub-Committee. It was agreed that
during the next years, joint papers would be produced to discuss and synthesise the scientific
work of IHDP and provide a unique IHDP perspective on GEC. It was decided to address one
common issue per year on which there will be a common IHDP statement generated. The first
general question to be addressed is: Human Drivers of Global Environmental Change (with
contributions of all core projects, including considerations on temporal and spatial scales as
well as the dynamics of human drivers of change).
The point was made that a common position on these issues should not only deductively
summarise the work of IHDP but also feed into theory development and relate IHDP research
to social theory. It was regarded necessary to identify similarities and differences to earlier
types of theories, develop new theoretical and methodological aspects and understand the
implications of the experiences of the core projects for the integrated design of research
strategies. A first draft of the paper with input from the core projects will be available for
discussion at the Open Meeting in Montreal and refined until the next SC meeting for an indepth debate.
Decision:
Produce a synthesis of IHDP research on the ‘Human Drivers of GEC’ based on input
from the core projects. A first draft will be available for discussion at the OM in
Montreal (October 2003).
LOICZ II
The Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) project would like IHDP to
become a formal co-sponsor of the project, together with IGBP. The discussion centred on
two themes:
First, the process of developing LOICZ II and how human dimensions are included in it.
There was strong agreement that the LOICZ group has not sufficiently done this despite
having received proposals for IHDP participants and written comments from the IHDP
community.
Secondly, it was discussed what priority IHDP should give to engaging with LOICZ and what
criteria we have to establish those priorities. It was proposed to write a letter to LOICZ
expressing the concerns on the process and that IHDP wishes to contribute, if those concerns
are addressed. Further discussion and a decision were deferred to the Friday plenary.
Proposed Action:
Chair to write a letter to LOICZ explaining the concerns of IHDP and the desired
degree of integration.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
Coleen Vogel gave a summary of the discussions of the Sub-Committee. It was decided that
the SC sends a letter, which explains clearly the position of IHDP and asks that the HD be
25
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
given equal weight in their science plan. The basis of such a draft document will be an e-mail
session among the IPOs to ask what they see as part of a LOICZ human dimensions agenda.
Additionally, there must be representation of IHDP in the community and the SC before any
commitment is made. Therefore the IPOs are requested to suggest names to be involved in the
process. In general terms, there is a window of opportunity to work together but this does not
necessarily imply any long-term commitment.
Decision:
Send a letter to LOICZ explaining clearly the position of IHDP.
Action:
Initiate input from IPOs and send letter to LOICZ.
Urbanization
There was a general agreement on the integrative potential of the topic of urbanisation for the
other core projects and on the need to work on it. The main conclusion of the IHDP-SC was
that a new program on the human dimensions of global environmental change in urban areas
would represent for IHDP an unrivalled opportunity for addressing critical issues of
worldwide importance that have not received adequate attention so far. The topic of
Urbanisation was thought to have the potential to build more coherence into the IHDP core
projects and to have the greatest potential to develop into a new project among all the
upcoming initiatives. It was also pointed out that Urbanization could be an interesting
research area for many Central and Eastern European researchers to start co-operating with
IHDP. However, there was still a need for a better understanding about the final destination of
urbanization as an own core project, also from a theoretical point of view. A science plan
should have elements of exploring future sustainable pathways for cities.
The debate centered on the type of agenda for the urbanization initiative. A cross-cutting
project approach was considered logical but not feasible, thus, there was s strong support from
LUCC and GECHS for a new core project on urbanization. IDGEC expressed no opposition
to this initiative. IT expressed reservations about potential overlaps with their own research
agenda on cities. There was an agreement that a new project should be sensitive to these
potential overlaps and that the urbanization group should work with IT on this issue.
In general the Sub-Committee was positive for a development of a new core project but
recommended to give out clear marching orders for the urbanization group. The group should
be sensitive to the overlaps and the unique research core of the projects including the
wording, which should not interfere with the definitions of IT. The Urbanization working
group was tasked to summarise via a brief letter the key aspects of the proposed urbanization
science so that other core projects could comment on the document in a meaningful way.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
Coleen Vogel gave a summary of the discussions of the Sub-Committee. It was decided that
all core projects would comment on the urbanization document presented at the SC meeting.
These comments will be taken into consideration in the design of a science plan of the new
project and the implementation strategy, which avoids duplication.
Action:
Follow up on scoping activities to develop a science agenda and an implementation plan
complying with the recommend marching orders.
26
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
LAND
At the moment there are few social scientist prepared to devote time to the LAND process.
This is partly due to the fact that the process was managed in a less integrative way than it
could have been. The discussions at the LAND workshops, however, benefited from
substantial input from the LUCC community and other core projects. There has been a
learning process recently within the LAND Transition Team and promising changes in the
management structure.
The Sub-Committee recommended that IHDP would further contribute to the process and
send a letter explaining its views on the topic and encouraging the working group to continue
to refine and focus the “science” vision document. However, there will be no decision on the
endorsement of the project until the SC learns about further results.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
Coleen Vogel gave a summary of the discussions of the Sub-Committee and the
recommendation to send the letter was accepted.
Decision:
The SC decided to further contribute to the process of LAND. The Chair will send a
letter explaining clearly the position of IHDP and some of our concerns on progress to
date.
Action:
Chair to draw up a letter and send it to the chairs of the LAND Transition Team.
Health
The Sub-Committee concluded that IHDP could not take a stand on this issue right now
because the scoping report for a joint project on GEC and Health is not yet available.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
The SC saw the motion of the Sub-committee and the decision was postponed until the
scoping report is available. The document is expected to be available for circulation well
before the Chairs and Directors meeting and the SC members will be able to give there input.
Decision:
Defer a decision on IHDP involvement in a joint project to the Chairs and Directors
Meeting.
IHDW 2004
The Sub-Committee recommended that the topic will focus on Globalisation, Food systems
and Sustainability of Ecological and Social Systems and that a definitive title will be proposed
and circulated for comments to the IPOs.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
Coleen Vogel suggested that Gilberto Gallopin and Pier Vellinga (who had previously agreed
at the Officers and Project Leaders Meeting) take the assist in formulating the final title of the
workshop, however, the point was made that Pier was no longer present during this
27
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
discussion. A thorough discussion on the topic and content should take place via Email and a
title should be agreed upon within two months from the meeting. Further discussions by the
SC then concluded that the venue of the event should be in the South in 2004 and the
workshop should be linked to the local research community via universities and research
institutes.
Decision:
Theme of the IHDW 2004: Globalisation, food systems and sustainability of ecological
and social systems; venue: a country in the South, exact title to be decided.
Action:
Finalise title and aspects of the theme of the IHDW 2004 and circulate among IPOs for
comments (led by Gallopin and Vellinga); identify venue for next workshop.
Major Conferences
 Open Meeting on the Human Dimensions of GEC research community 2005
 Open Science Conference 2006
This item had been deferred to the Sub-Committee during an earlier session. The main part of
the discussion happened during the plenary session on Friday, 7th.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
There was an intensive discussion about how to divide our resources between the ESSP Open
Science Conference 2006 (so called “Amsterdam II”) and the Human Dimensions Open
Meeting 2005 (follow-up of Montreal). Both events were regarded to be important and
prestigious opportunities to promote the international acknowledgement of the IHDP. The
discussion centred on whether IHDP should try to develop the Open Meeting 2005 into an
own IHDP meeting, apart from keeping it under joint sponsorship or whether it should take
the lead in the organisation of the Open Science Conference in 2006.
It was suggested that IHDP should indicate interest in taking the lead in the organisation of
the 2006 Conference. However, IHDP would like to have a strong influence on its design and
content. It should be clear that the next conference does not necessarily have to be a
replication of Amsterdam I, which was a very large meeting. Its form could be significantly
changed. The SC agreed on this proposal. In view of the demands on the resources of the
Secretariat for the 2006 conference it was agreed that this was not feasible taking the lead for
the 2005 Open Meeting as well, even though it would be desirable. It was agreed that IHDP
should have a strong and senior presence in a joint scientific planning committee for the OM
2005 instead.
The point was made that in this case IHDP needs to overlook the long period between 03 and
the next large conference in 06 to be able to create and maintain a sense of where the IHDP
community is moving.
Decision:
Chair to indicate interest in the organisation of the Open Science Conference 2006
under the aforementioned conditions.
28
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Action:
Ensure a strong representation of IHDP in the planning committee for the Open
Meeting 2005.
General remarks on the standing and position of the IHDP:
There was a strong feeling that IHDP has been pretty much in performing in a responding
mode in the past, though it has to say a lot on its own and needs time to develop an own kind
of profile. It was agreed that even though there might be a lot of interesting questions posed
around IHDP, priorities have to be set at the moment. Therefore IHDP should try to reduce
the responsive activities and think more of its own core agenda to make some significant
contribution and produce significant results.
Discussion on Friday, 7th, following the presentation of Subcommittee B results
Coleen Vogel gave a summary of this discussion in the Sub-Committee. The notion was
supported that IHDP should be driven by its own agenda rather than constantly contributing
to agendas of others. Humans as drivers and as being driven by GEC should be central.
However, João Morais recommended that IHDP should invest within ESSP into a systemic
view where all relevant disciplines are brought together regardless of their different
constituencies and to seek possibilities for integration. PS Ramakrishnan made the suggestion
that the IHDP should focus on the relation between social systems and ecological systems
rather than on human-environment interactions.
Mohammed Salih advocated avoiding constantly mixing issues of operations with issues of
science and knowledge generation in the SC discussions. He saw in principle three levels of
interaction with ESSP:
 IHDP has an advocacy and activist role and wants to reach out
 IHDP has an integrative role at the methodological level
 IHDP has core concerns to bring into the discussion
i. Issues of scale
ii. Issues of social science theory
iii. Values and ethics (Production of ideas, Use of ideas, How to engage
the policy making community by influencing them or make them use our
theories).
Mohammed expressed the need to make a conscious decision where IHDP stands in this
scheme. He personally sees IHDP in the third field because he feels that the two dimensions
of “Humanism” and “Humanitarianism” are inherent to IHDP activities and that IHDP must
be aware of the fact and make clear that everything people are doing is socially constructed.
There was no final conclusion or decision on this part of the discussion.
The Sub-Committee B adjourned at 19:00 h on Thursday, 6th.
29
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Friday, 7 March 2003
The plenary session began at 8:30 am. Participation as on Thursday, except for the arrival of
Paul Vlek and the departure of Carlo Jäger, Pier Vellinga, Guy Brasseur and Roland Fuchs.
Coleen Vogel opened the session by proposing to change the agenda of the day. SC members
Tatiania Kluvankova-Oravska and Xizhe Peng had requested to be given time for short
presentations on IHDP related activities they are involved in and that are of interest to the
whole group.
Presentation: Capacity Building in the Central and Eastern European
Region
Tatiania Kluvankova-Oravska gave a brief overview of the situation, addressing networking
and some of the problems researchers in the region face. Networking is funding-oriented, and
particularly younger researchers are strongly catered to the EU. Institutional problems are due
to a varying research organisation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Priority is given to
issues of GEC in a mono- or multidisciplinary context and research on regional dimensions
rather than global ones. There is a structural lack of domestic funding, restricting for example
attendance of international meetings, which is only possibly through external funding. For the
future, Tatiania Kluvankova-Oravska identified several opportunities: those countries that will
be future EU members could collaborate with existing IHDP projects (e.g., IT); new research
networks are being formed, based on ‘western style’ institutions (also non-profit) and have a
high policy relevance. Thus collaboration and capacity building programmes for Eastern
Europe are needed, particularly for those countries that will not join the EU. What applies to
developing countries also applies to Eastern Europe countries.
The SC thanked Tatiania Kluvankova-Oravska for her report and acknowledged the
importance of IHDP getting engaged with research communities in Eastern European
countries.
Presentation: Population Environment Research Network (PERN)
Xizhe Peng gave a short overview of the activities of PERN. It is an Internet-based project,
which has 600 members, mostly demographers. The network is supported technically by
CIESIN in the USA. It is guided by a Steering Committee of which Peng is a member.
PERN’s main activities are a resource database, which is searchable for articles, and cyberseminars (the next one will be on Population and Tropical Forests); PERN also issues a biweekly newsletter electronically. The budget is mainly used to cover the salary of the Coordinator (Babette Wils). Xizhe Peng raised the question of how to improve cooperation with
IHDP. He pointed at supportive measures like endorsement procedures, intellectual input and
financial contribution. He also communicated PERN’s request for an IHDP nominee for
PERN SSC membership. The PERN SSC would appreciate a senior scientist from the African
region.
The SC acknowledged the need for strengthening IHDP’s and asked Peng to report this back
to the PERN SSC. Barbara Göbel pointed out that the Secretariat already assigned Ike
Holtmann to serve as the liaison for PERN. She is monitoring the project developments and
30
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
assisting the group with issues of networking. She will also join the PERN SSC meeting (to be
held May 3, 2003) via teleconfernce.
Action:
Ike Holtmann will coordinate with the SC members for nominating a senior IHDP
representative for the PERN Steering Committee and respond to the questions raised by
Mr. Peng.
30 IHDP Mission Statements and Communication Strategy
Coleen Vogel gave a brief presentation on IHDP’s communications activities, pointing out
that communications are a very important part of IHDP, particularly as IHDP goes through a
period of renewal and assessment. She referred to the Draft IHDP Communication Strategy
included in the briefing book and emphasised that communication activities should be
organised around clearly defined IHDP priorities, issues to be addressed and messages to be
conveyed. Target audiences include both the internal IHDP network and external audiences to
which we want to reach out. The draft strategy also includes an implementation plan,
including a plan on annual activities to be co-ordinated by the Secretariat in co-operation with
the IPOs. Co-operation by the SC is encouraged and necessary. She also informed the
participants about communications activities undertaken jointly by a team of communicators
of the ESSP, in which IHDP is a member. Elisabeth Dyck IHDP Information Officer)
reported about plans of the ESSP communication team to meet in parallel to the Chairs and
Directors meeting in Paris (2-4 June 2003) in order to develop a communications strategy for
the ESSP. A draft ESSP communication strategy is anticipated to be presented to the Chairs
and Directors at the end of their meeting. Coleen Vogel thanked Elisabeth Dyck for her
contribution to IHDP communications activities.
Action:
The Executive Committee will further develop the draft communications strategy.
Action:
The Executive Committee will revise the draft IHDP Mission Statement, taking into
account comments collected during the SC meeting, and will circulate it to SC members
for adoption.
31
Recommendations for Adoption from Sub-Committee A (Finances):
For reasons of comprehensive reporting the discussions of the sub-committees on Thursday,
6th, and the presentations and discussions in the respective plenary session on Friday, 7 th are
merged for each committee in the minutes of Thursday.
32
Recommendations for Adoption from Sub-Committee B (Research)
For reasons of comprehensive reporting the discussions of the sub-committees on Thursday,
6th, and the presentations and discussions in the respective plenary session on Friday, 7 th are
merged for each committee in the minutes of Thursday.
31
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
33 Session on Working Mechanism
This session was not scheduled in the agenda. It was included to present a proposal of the
Chair how to work on the major topics for the next year, which are “Taking stock and work
on a synthesis” and “Strengthen IHDP’s “corporate identity”. Coleen Vogel proposed a
working mechanism to accomplish the goals of these topics, which consists of setting up four
working groups on different topics.
Working group 1 Executive Committee – Governance and Strategic Planning
Working group 2
IHDP Identity and Human Dimensions Perspective on Global Environmental Change (“IHDP
core concerns”)
Working group 3
Sustainable Development and the use of IHDP research for policy making and training
Working group 4
Strengthening networks and creating synergies
a. Regional advisors
b. Capacity building
c. Fund raising
The working groups scheme was accepted. There was no final decision on the composition of
the working groups 2, 3 and 4 with most members requesting a draft review paper document
be compiled so that points of action and departure could be better defined before the
compilation of ad hoc working groups are created for the completion of a strategic plan. The
SC accepted that working group 1 (Executive Committee) would consist of Coleen Vogel
(Chair), Mohammed Salih (Vice-Chair), Roberto Sanchez (Vice-Chair) and Barbara Göbel
(Executive Director).
Decision:
In connection with setting up this committee, Roberto Sanchez was unanimously
appointed as second vice-chair and accepted the appointment.
This committee is supposed to develop a consistent strategy for IHDP for the next years and
implement the mechanisms to put the plan into action. The Executive Committee was given
the mandate to negotiate on a one-to-one basis to create a sustainable structure. The Executive
Committee will approach members of the SC during the next weeks. It was agreed that once a
draft review process paper outlining the operational structure for the strategy is compiled,
then all working groups would need a chairperson and a core group to liase with the
Executive Committee. The group will get in touch with other persons within the SC and the
core projects to accomplish the goals of the respective working group.
Decision:
The working mechanism and the composition of the Executive Committee were
accepted.
Action:
The Executive Committee will take care of composing the individual working groups.
A general discussion on strategy development and initiating a critical internal review process
of IHDP followed. There was a general consensus that a strategy should exceed the year 2005
32
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
and define both long-term goals and milestones to achieve these goals. A guiding principle
could be the question how we would like to be evaluated in ten years time. An internal review
process should be guided by criteria derived from the goals defined in the science plans. It
should not only inform whether funds are spent effectively to accomplish these goals but also
initiate a more general process of self-reflection.
It was discussed that funding agencies that substantially contribute to core projects would also
evaluate IHDP, regardless of the outcome of the internal review. The point was made that any
proposal for renewed funding is an evaluation of what has been accomplished so far and
whether activities are still on the cutting edged of science.
Coleen Vogel summarized that an internal review should result in IHDP being recognized as
one intellectual entity moving towards new concepts and new understandings (new
“nuggets”). She proposed that within the next 3 months, the Executive Committee would draft
a position paper on the review process, circulate it for comments and reach an agreement on a
framework.
Decision:
Undertake an internal review of IHDP’s core projects; the Executive Committee will
initiate and manage this process.
Action:
Executive Committee to draft position paper on the review process and circulate it for
comments.
34
Nominations to the Scientific Committee
In the teleconference held on March 4, William Clark made substantial contributions to the
main items to be discussed at the SC meeting. Additionally, he expressed his view to the chair
and vice chair that he felt it was important for a new chair to have the opportunity to nominate
new SC members, and therefore suggested that a new person be sought to replace him at the
end of his current term in December 2003.
The chair notified the SC that Elinor Ostrom was not able to attend an SC meeting for the
second time. According to the IHDP constitution this would formally require to discontinue
her term as member in the SC. However, in the teleconference on March 3, Elinor made
substantial contributions regarding the main issues to be discussed in the SC meeting. She
also expressed her commitment and willingness to further serve in the IHDP SC. The SC
acknowledged her unique role for the development of IHDP and decided unanimously not to
discontinue her term.
Xizhe Peng’s first term also ends in December 2003. He will inform the SC within the next
two months whether he will be able to accept a second term.
Decision:
Elinor Ostrom will remain a member of the IHDP SC.
33
Draft Minutes 10th IHDP SC
AS OF 22 April 2003
Action:
The Executive Director will provide a list of names of all those candidates who have
been approached over time and create a roster of potential members from the various
disciplines.
ICSU would like to receive a list of potential candidates and a rationale including the
proposed development of the SC in the nearer future.
35
Other Business
Decision:
Alexander Lopez was approved as a new member of the GECHS SSC.
Decision:
The next Officers and Project Leaders meeting will be held from 3-5 December 2003,
Decision:
The next SC meeting will be held from 22-24 March 2004.
For the next SC meeting it was proposed to consider another location than Bonn, preferably in
the South.
The IHDP SC Meeting ended at 14:00 h.
34