Environment and Its Relation To Sustainable Development: Report of The CSPR Assessment Panel

strengthening international science for the benefit of society
Environment and its relation

to sustainable development
Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel
About ICSU
Founded in 1931, the International Council for Science (ICSU) is a non-
governmental organization representing a global membership that includes
both national scientific bodies (101 members) and international scientific
unions (27 members).
Through this international network, ICSU coordinates interdisciplinary

research to address major issues of relevance to both science and society.
In addition, the Council actively advocates for freedom in the conduct of
science, promotes equitable access to scientific data and information, and
facilitates science education and capacity building.
The Council acts as a focus for the exchange of ideas, the communication of
scientific information and the development of scientific standards. ICSU’s
members organize scientific conferences, congresses and symposia all around
the world—in excess of 600 per year—and also produce a wide range of
newsletters, handbooks, learned journals and proceedings.
ICSU also helps create international and regional networks of scientists with
similar interests and maintains close working relationships with a number of
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, especially UNESCO
and the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS).
Because of its broad contact with thousands of scientists worldwide, ICSU is

increasingly called upon to speak on behalf of the global scientific community
and to act as an advisor in matters ranging from ethics to the environment.
CSPR
The Committee on Scientific Planning and Review was established in 1998, to
coordinate the development of proposals for major new scientific initiatives
by ICSU and to advise the Executive Board on priorities for such initiatives.
The Committee also reviews the activities carried out by ICSU’s
Interdisciplinary Bodies, advises the Executive Board on the future course
of these activities, and oversees the ICSU Grants Programme. The CSPR’s
terms of reference can be found under Rule of Procedure 11.1a) at:
www.icsu.org – infocentre/ICSU central.
Environment and its relation
to sustainable development
Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel
by
Robert Watson (Chairman), Anne Buttimer, Angela Cropper, Istvan Lang,
Gordon McBean, James McCarthy, Uri Shamir, Crispin Tickell, Shem Wandiga
December 2003
Suggested Citation:
International Council for Science. 2003. ICSU
Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel on Environment
and its Relation to Sustainable Development
64pp
© ICSU 2003
ISBN 0-930357-59-0
Cover Images
From top to bottom
• King Penguins
© Photodisc
• Breaking Waves
© Photodisc
• Rainforest Scene
© Digital Vision
• Young girls collecting water from holes dug
in the ground, Udaipur, India
© Digital Vision
Designed and produced by

Origin ID – www.originid.net
Printed in France
Printed on recycled paper
Environment and its relation to sustainable development
Table of contents
ICSU Priority Area Assessment on Environment and
its Relation to Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
1.1 Development of a strategy for ICSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
1.2 Evolution of ICSU’s environment portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
1.3 Approach of the PAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
2 Key Environmental Challenges for the Scientific Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

2.1 Key issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
2.2 Challenges for the scientific community and for ICSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
2.2.1 Conceptual/analytical challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
2.2.2 Challenges of capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
2.2.3 Practical challenges of influencing policy-makers
and communicating with the public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
2.2.3.1 Integrated conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
2.2.3.2 Importance of scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
2.2.3.3 Importance of recognizing various epistemologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
3 ICSU’s Mission and Role in the Area of Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
4 The Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
5 Analysis of ICSU Current Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
5.2 Assessments bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
5.2.1 Scientific Committee On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) . . . . . . . . . .23
5.2.2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
5.3 Thematic organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
5.3.1 Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
5.3.2 Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
5.3.3 Committee On SPAce Research (COSPAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
5.3.4 Committee on Disaster Reduction (CDR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
5.3.5 Scientific Committee on the Lithosphere (SCL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
5.3.6 Scientific Committee On Solar-TErrestrial Physics (SCOSTEP) . . . . . . . . . . . .27
5.4 Global Environmental Change Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
5.4.1 International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
5.4.2 International Human Dimensions Programme on
Global Environmental Change (IHDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
5.4.3 World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
5.4.4 DIVERSITAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
5.4.5 Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
5.4.5.1 Global Carbon Project (GCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
5.4.5.2 Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) . . . . . . . .31
5.4.5.3 Global Water System Project (GWSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
5.4.5.4 Global Environmental Change and Human Health (GECHH) . . . . . . . .32
5.4.6 Funding of Global Environmental Change Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 3

5.5 Monitoring/observations, data/information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

5.5.1 Global Observing Systems (GOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
5.5.1.1 Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
5.5.1.2 Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
5.5.1.3 Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
5.5.2 Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
5.5.3 Global Observing Systems: Analysis and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
5.5.4 Panel on World Data Centres (WDC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
5.5.5 Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical
Data Analysis Services (FAGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
5.6 International Scientific Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
5.6.1 Retrospect and prospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
5.6.2 The role of the Unions within ICSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
5.6.3 Core issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
5.7 National Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
5.8 Collaboration within ICSU and with external bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
5.9 Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
5.9.1 Capacity building for research on environment
and sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
5.9.2 Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training (START) . . . . . . . .44
6 Areas of Emphasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

6.1 Areas currently covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
6.2 Emerging issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
6.3 New priority areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
6.3.1 Environment and human health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
6.3.2 Natural and human-induced hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
6.3.3 Human security – Environmental refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
6.3.4 Transgenic crops and their implications for the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Annex 1: Article 12 of ICSU’s Rules of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Annex 2: Members of the CSPR Priority Assessment Panel
on Environment and its Relation to Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Annex 3: Background Information and Terms of Reference for the
ICSU Panel on Priority Area Assessment on Environment
and its Relation to Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Annex 4: Questionnaire sent to ICSU IBs and Scientific Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Annex 5: Project Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Annex 6 : List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
4 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU Priority Area Assessment on Environment
and its Relation to Sustainable Development
ICSU has identified the environment and its relation to and then to focus the assessment on the environmental
sustainable development as a priority area in developing its activities of the relevant IBs and Joint Initiatives (JIs; in the
strategic plan for the coming years. In this regard, a Panel was future jointly referred to as IBs), while leaving a more detailed
appointed by the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review analysis of the areas of Data and Information and Capacity
(CSPR) to perform a Priority Area Assessment (PAA); this Building to subsequent PAAs. The conclusions and
strategic approach replaces the previous statutory requirements recommendations from this analysis of the IBs have been
of the six-year periodic reviews of individual ICSU primarily considered within the larger framework of the
Interdisciplinary Bodies (IBs). The approach of the Panel was to activities of ICSU’s National and Union Members and
first develop a mission statement and theoretical framework, partner organizations.

Executive Summary
The Earth’s environment is changing due to human Develop mechanisms to ensure that results from policy-
activities, and is undermining sustainable development. relevant research benefits the governmental and private
There is little doubt that the Earth's environment is changing on sectors as well as civil society;
all scales from local (e.g. air, soil, and water pollution), to Catalyze new types of effective
regional (e.g. acid deposition and land degradation) to global
collaborations/partnerships within the ICSU family and
(e.g. climate change and loss of biodiversity). These changes are
with others; and
to a large measure due to human activities, and undermine
efforts to alleviate poverty and adversely affect water resources, Promote the synthesis and communication of the policy-
human health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and ecosystems. relevant work conducted by ICSU’s Scientific Unions,
Worse, future projected changes in the environment are likely National Members, and IBs.
to have even more severe consequences for sustainable
The Panel commends ICSU’s efforts to support
development.
international and interdisciplinary collaboration in
The Panel notes that the role of ICSU is to strengthen environmental research. Over the past few decades the
international science for the benefit of society.Within this scientific community has made remarkable progress in
overarching mission, ICSU’s objectives with respect to advancing scientific understanding of environmental problems
environment and its relation to sustainable development through international collaboration, including through the
should be the following: numerous scientific activities launched and sponsored by ICSU.
The results of these research programmes, complemented by a
Identify emerging issues, including potential problems
number of international assessments, have been essential for
and solutions, where scientific knowledge and research
the development of multinational regional and global
can make a difference;
environmental agreements, e.g. the Convention on Long-range
Catalyze and coordinate scientific research in the Transboundary Air Pollution, the Vienna Convention for the
domain of the environment that: Protection of the Ozone Layer, and the United Nations (UN)
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- expands understanding of the interactions between
biogeochemical and physical processes and their social Many of ICSU’s current activities are policy relevant and
causes and impacts, and salient to sustainable development. However, ICSU must
- underpins environmental protection and conservation, increase its efforts to ensure that the results are
and addresses the need for economic and social communicated more effectively. The Panel recommends that
development; ICSU Union and National Members, as well as individual
scientists, become more active in explaining the current state of
Contribute to the development of monitoring activities scientific information to policy-makers, including both robust
that are essential for documenting the state of the global findings and key uncertainties, and in turn, are responsive to the
system and its components; information needs of the policy communities.
Ensure that the social sciences are fully integrated into
The Panel endorses an expanded focus on the
ICSU’s programmes as appropriate;
environmental programmes emphasizing the integration of
Stimulate collaboration with stakeholders in developing the environmental, social, and economic pillars of
research agendas and communicating results from sustainable development. The information needed by
research of relevance to the development of appropriate decision-makers requires continuing research and an evolution
policies; in scientific understanding. In order to inform decision-makers
Contribute to environmental assessments; and influence the institutional, technological, and behavioural
responses to environmental-development issues, scientific

research must become increasingly policy relevant; The Panel recommends that some ICSU entity is
participatory; address a variety of geographic scales; integrate designated with responsibility for providing ICSU with
various epistemologies; and be holistic and systemic. This advice as needed on the status and development of ICSU
requires integrating the natural, social, technological and health activities relating to the environment;
science domains so that the relationships among driving forces,
Members of this entity must have: 1) extensive
changes in the environment, and poverty alleviation and human
knowledge of ICSU and non-ICSU environmental
well- being can be better understood.
activities; 2) experience with the application of
The Panel encourages the development of new knowledge from the environmental sciences to
multidisciplinary projects that fully incorporate the social sustainable development; and 3) understanding of the
science dimensions. The social sciences, including economics mechanisms that connect environmental scientific
and the humanities, are essential components in addressing knowledge to policy processes; and
environmental problems in a holistic way. However, the Panel is ICSU could obtain the required advice by either merging
disappointed in the weak interactions with the International the roles of ACE and the CSPR, or reconstituting ACE with
Social Science Council (ISSC). If the ISSC is unable to take a an increased emphasis on social, technological and health
stronger responsibility for programme development, then the sciences, and revised terms of reference (ToR). If the
Panel recommends that ICSU make alternative arrangements. former option is chosen, the skills and experience mix of
the CSPR members would need to be broadened.
The conceptual framework of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA) provides a useful and timely model
ANALYSIS OF ICSU’S CURRENT ACTIVITIES
within which ICSU’s environmental programmes might be
considered. The MA conceptual framework links the direct and The Panel stresses the importance of the complementary
indirect human-induced drivers of change (e.g. demographic, nature of assessment bodies, thematic organizations,
economic, socio-political, technological, behavioural, and land- global environmental change programmes, monitoring,
use) and natural drivers of change (e.g. solar activity and observation and data systems, as well as the dissemination
volcanic eruptions) to changes in the environment (e.g. climate and communication of scientific information.
change, air pollution, and degradation of ecosystems and their The Panel recommends that ICSU use this ensemble structure
services) to human well-being and poverty alleviation (e.g. to elaborate its environmental portfolio.
health and environmental, cultural, and economic security).
The Panel agrees with the ICSU Executive Board that ad-hoc
groups, with finite lifetimes, should address specific issues
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE
and the establishment of new IBs should be restricted.
ENVIRONMENT (ACE)
The Panel recommends that IBs establish an independent
ACE has helped to ensure that environmental issues have assessment of their programmes/projects early in their
remained high on the ICSU agenda, but an evolution in development. Depending on their nature, the Panel
ICSU’s governance structure suggests that a careful re- recommends that certain ICSU activities be designed with a
examination of the role of ACE is required. sunset clause.
In recent years questions have been raised about the form, The Panel recognizes that there is an urgent need for
function, and effectiveness of ACE and its relationship with the increased information exchanges within the ICSU family.
CSPR. The following are the findings and recommendations of Successful collaborative efforts result only when it is recognized
the Panel: that there is a shared responsibility across the ICSU family for
The Panel unanimously acknowledges that there is a need developing linkages and coordinating activities.
for a continued, strong focus on environmental issues
within ICSU’s activities;

ASSESSMENT BODIES AND ACTIVITIES The Panel recommends that SCOR continue in its efforts
ICSU’s assessment activities provide an essential bridge to enhance the development of international science
between the scientific and policy communities: within the oceanographic community, and to bring the
strongest possible representation into ongoing and future
The Scientific Committee on Problems of the projects of the Global Environmental Change (GEC)
Environment (SCOPE) plays a critical role in identifying programmes and the relevant Global Observing Systems
and assessing the importance of emerging regional and (GOS);
global environmental issues, and is central to stimulating
The importance of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
new scientific programmes and providing an important
link between the scientific and policy communities. The Research (SCAR) has increased over the years with the
major challenges for SCOPE are to be more focused (i.e. greater understanding of the pivotal role of the Antarctic
fewer studies), innovative (i.e. looking over the horizon for in the Earth system. While there have been some concerns
issues that are not already well-established on the raised about the efficacy of this committee, the Panel
scientific and political agenda), balanced (i.e. between realizes that a process of change is in place. SCAR is
regional and global studies), scientifically challenging and encouraged to focus primarily on promoting strong
policy relevant, and feed more into the planning of other Antarctic science while retaining its role in relation to the
ICSU activities; Antarctic Treaty. The Panel notes the relatively weak
interaction with the rest of the ICSU family and
The Panel commends ICSU’s sponsorship of the MA, which recommends that SCAR interact more efficiently with
has adopted an innovative multidisciplinary and multi- other IBs and Unions in order to further strengthen
scaled approach to ecosystem assessments; and Antarctic science;
Scientists involved in ICSU’s activities, and operating in While the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR)
their personal capacity, should whenever possible, scientific assemblies are major events for the space
participate in national and international assessments (e.g. community, the impact of COSPAR on the development
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the of Earth System Science is weak, especially the GEC
MA) to ensure that the results from ICSU’s research programmes. Furthermore, COSPAR does not appear to
activities are used to inform the policy process. The Panel play any significant role in the international efforts to
recommends that ICSU offer advice to assessment bodies develop the GOS. The Panel recommends that relevant
as new international assessment activities are planned, COSPAR commissions develop plans that clearly articulate
and ensure that relevant scientists are nominated as lead the added benefit of COSPAR to the wider ICSU
authors and peer-reviewers of the assessments. environmental science community;
The Committee on Disaster Reduction (CDR) was
THEMATIC ORGANIZATIONS
established to coordinate research and applications to
The range of ICSU thematic organizations is as varied as
reduce the impacts of natural hazards and related
the scientific domains covered. In most cases, these
environmental and technological hazards. However, there
organizations should increase their level of collaboration
is little interaction between the CDR and the GEC
with the other IBs and ICSU members to ensure
programmes, although the increase in the strength and
their relevance:
frequency of natural disasters is clearly associated with a
The Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) changing global climate. The Panel recommends that the
has demonstrated flexibility in its focus as ocean science current CDR committee be disbanded and that ICSU
has evolved, and the success of future ICSU projects and initiate a planning process involving all relevant Unions
activities related to the ocean would be diminished and IBs to develop a new programme that focuses on
without the scientific integrity and experience of SCOR. predicting and reducing the impacts of natural and
human-induced hazards;

The Scientific Committee on the Lithosphere (SCL) IGBP is to improve the understanding of biogeochemical
operates the International Lithosphere Programme (ILP) processes in order to develop transient ecological models
that seeks to elucidate the nature, dynamics, origin, and of sufficient complexity to capture the dominant
evolution of the lithosphere, with special attention to the processes of core elemental cycles that can be coupled to
continents and their margins, and to examine the transient global change models (e.g. climate change);
implications for society. The Panel notes that, while the
The Panel commends the progress made through the
SCL/ILP was for many years very active and regularly
WCRP in establishing the physical basis for understanding
produced highly relevant and valuable output, recently the
and predicting El Niño events, and the improved
level of activity seems to have declined and SCL does not
understanding and predictability of natural climate
appear to be collaborating with any of the other IBs. The
variability and human-induced climate change at the
Panel recommends that the International Union of
regional and global scales. One of the major challenges for
Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) and the International
the WCRP is to develop improved transient, fully coupled
Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) take responsibility for
atmosphere-ocean-land general circulation models that
the SCL, rather than have it exist as an independent
incorporate biogeochemical feedbacks;
ICSU IB.
The Panel endorses the need for a vibrant, interdisciplinary
The Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
IHDP that addresses the coupled human-natural system in
(SCOSTEP) was established to promote international
the context of global environmental change, and
interdisciplinary programmes in solar-terrestrial physics.
recognizes its essential role in the Earth System Science
However, its programmes have limited importance in
Partnership (ESSP). The most visible success to date has
understanding issues of environmental concern. The Panel
been the Land Use and Cover Change (LUCC) project. The
recommends that SCOSTEP address the effect of natural
Panel encourages IHDP to broaden its range of social
solar variability on climate, and thus encourages the
science disciplines, especially economics, and establish
new Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System
stronger links with appropriate ISSC activities and
(CAWSES) initiative.
commissions. If ISSC is unable to take a stronger
responsibility for programme development then the Panel
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
recommends that ICSU consider an alternative
CHANGE PROGRAMMES
arrangement; and.
The four GEC programmes, i.e. the International
DIVERSITAS has developed a focussed and scientifically
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the World Climate
Research Programme (WCRP), the International Human challenging science plan that calls for the establishment of
Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change three core projects. The Panel recommends that
(IHDP), and DIVERSITAS have, to different degrees, made DIVERSITAS set appropriate priorities to make best use of
excellent progress and are producing knowledge that is available resources. The Panel notes the complex structure
policy relevant. In addition, the coordination and with five sponsoring organizations and recommends that
collaboration among the GEC programmes has successfully SCOPE, the International Union of Biological Sciences
evolved over time: (IUBS) and the International Union of Microbiological
Societies (IUMS) continue to support DIVERSITAS through
The Panel applauds the IGBP for success with its collaborative activities without being formal sponsors. The
interdisciplinary core projects that have improved the Panel also recommends that ICSU become the sole
understanding of Earth system processes, and especially sponsor of DIVERSITAS unless the United Nations
how human activities are affecting the Earth at regional Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
and global scales. The Panel endorses the planned holistic (UNESCO) takes concrete steps for providing substantive
programme structure and planned core projects on ocean, support for this programme.
land, atmosphere interactions. A primary challenge for the

The development of the ESSP is an important new To further promote international and interdisciplinary
development, and the joint projects under ESSP are research more resources are required through national
expected to provide significant results of high relevance funding mechanisms, especially for the full participation of
to the science for sustainable development. However, it is social scientists:
important to recognize that the science underpinning these
The estimated annual research budget, as estimated by
joint ESSP programmes will come primarily from research
the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global
conducted within the programmes of IGBP, WCRP, IHDP, and
Change Research (IGFA) for the GEC research
DIVERSITAS. The Panel notes that by adopting projects such as
programmes, is about US$2 bn, excluding funding for
those proposed for ESSP, the GEC programmes raise high
satellite programmes; this is primarily through national
expectations. Prospects for success with the type of synthesis
contributions. The Panel recommends that support for
and integration required among hitherto separate research
programme/core project planning and coordination
programmes is largely untested. The Panel recommends that
should be increased from about 0.5% to 1% of the total
ICSU be especially watchful during early formative stages of the
research budget;
ESSP projects to ensure that disciplinary fragmentation does
not confound well-laid plans for the achievement of this Given the important role that IGFA plays in providing a
integration. platform for communication between the GEC
programmes and several key funding agencies, the Panel
Given the centrality of the carbon cycle to the climate
urges IGFA to broaden its membership and disciplinary
debate, the Panel endorses the Global Carbon Project,
representation consistent with the breadth of ICSU
which is highly policy relevant and timely;
activities;
With regard to the Global Environmental Change and
The Panel notes that ICSU National Members and
Food Systems project, the Panel questions 1) whether the
National Committees provide essential support for the
approach of focusing only on regional case studies is
GEC programmes and recommends the establishment of
appropriate or whether there should also be a series of
national focal points where they do not exist. In the future
more generic studies of the response of different
GEC National Committees should be formed to
agricultural crops to environmental changes and the
encompass IGBP, WCRP, IHDP and DIVERSITAS;
development of improved crop traits and 2) whether the
most important regional case studies were chosen. The National Members should take due note of the
Panel recommends that the initiative needs a “science importance of including social, technological and health
plan” or at least a “framework” with well-defined criteria sciences in research on environment and its relationship
for the selection of case studies; to sustainable development; and
The Global Water System Project is still in a formative The Panel recognizes the importance of mobilizing funds
stage. The Panel recommends that the project link with to support research and capacity building in developing
existing water research programmes within ICSU and countries, especially Africa.
other international programmes to increase synergies and
avoid duplication, and that ICSU track the cooperative MONITORING/OBSERVATIONS,
development of this initiative; and DATA AND INFORMATION

Global observations are critically important in support of
There is not enough information available in the draft
policy relevant science, but the Panel concludes that the
documentation to critically evaluate the initial plans of
current GOS and the Integrated Global Observing Strategy
the Global Environmental Change and Human Health
Partnership (IGOS-P) are not adequately addressing the
project. However, the overarching questions being
needs of the scientific communities:
considered are very appropriate and the Panel endorses
the need for such a project.

The Panel would like to see a greater demonstration of the environmental data are freely available in a timely manner
value of the GOS to the GEC programmes: to the global science community. ICSU should review the
WDC plan for future activities and be prepared to monitor
- The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) has been a
its implementation; and
successful convenor of discussions on the topic of future
ocean observations. From the point of view of ICSU The value-added nature of ICSU sponsorship of the
sponsorship, however, linkages with the marine global change Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Data Analysis
projects have been weak. Services (FAGS) is questioned, and the International
Astronomical Union (IAU), IUGG, and Union Radio
- The Panel notes that there has been a general decrease in
Scientifique Internationale (URSI) should take
capacity and coverage of the climate observing capabilities
responsibility for its future. FAGS should no longer be an
worldwide over the past decade. While it is difficult to assess
ICSU IB.
how the efforts of the Global Climate Observing System
(GCOS) have mitigated this decline, the recently prepared
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC UNIONS
“adequacy reports” have identified the issues.
The Panel recognizes the important role of the Unions in
- The emphasis of the Global Terrestrial Observing System
generating knowledge, organizing scientific meetings, and
(GTOS) should be on the development of the terrestrial
promoting inter-Union collaborative activities, which are
component of the GOS, rather than on the collection of
key to identifying environmental problems and
regional and sub-regional data sets;
contributing to solutions for addressing them:
The Panel recommends that there should be better integration The Panel notes that many Unions have significant
and collaboration among the GOS, and that GOS and IGOS set activities of high relevance to environment and its
their priorities based on the global requirements of the science relationship to sustainable development;
community, especially the GEC programmes, as well as the
Unions should be encouraged to continue their attention
policy community. Many ICSU IBs have been involved in
to these issues and to examine, coordinate, and integrate
defining IGOS themes. The Panel notes, however, that there is
their activities with the IBs, which they have collectively
no ICSU research body with ocean expertise listed with
established together with the National Members. The IBs
membership on the ocean theme;
should be encouraged to integrate Union activities into
ICSU should strengthen its involvement in the three GOS their work to avoid duplication of effort; and
and IGOS-P to ensure that the ICSU science community
Unions should take note of the importance of the social
has a significant impact on the development of the
sciences in developing policy relevant research. Unions,
themes to build better connections with the ESSP;
which belong to both ISSC and ICSU, should work to
facilitate more effective collaboration around specific
There is a need to strengthen the public domain and to
problem areas.
ensure full, open and equitable access to scientific data for
research and education;
NATIONAL MEMBERS
The Panel recommends that the Panel on World Data National members are vital to the success of
Centres (WDC) prepare a vision statement and strategy ICSU activities:
document for its future development and interactions
The Panel notes that most research associated with
with the ICSU family, including the GEC programmes,
the GOS and the Unions. The strategy and resulting coordinated international programmes is primarily funded
implementation plan should aim to ensure that at the national level.

National funding bodies are encouraged to develop their recognizes that current university structures are generally
national programmes with a view to contributing to a hindrance for the development of trans-disciplinary
relevant international programmes and to enabling their curricula, and urges ICSU to work with the International
national scientists to reap the benefit from involvement in Association of Universities (IAU) to address this issue;
international research endeavours.
recognizes that scientists in both developed and
National members should provide links to relevant developing countries need disciplinary expertise, but also
national policy-makers and ensure that results from recommends they are provided with opportunities for
international programmes are made available at the research training across disciplines as well as spatial and
national level. temporal scales;
National members should be strong advocates for recognizes that bridging the communication gap between
encouraging the teaching of interdisciplinary approaches scientists and policy-makers is a joint learning experience,
to environmental research. and recommends that ICSU consider the best way to
address the need for training courses for scientists and
COLLABORATIVE LINKS policy-makers.
Research collaboration within the ICSU family and with

The Panel commends the capacity building efforts of the
other organizations on questions related to environment
Unions and the IBs, and recommends a continued emphasis
and its relation to sustainable development is critical.
in this area:
The Panel notes extensive cooperation among GEC
The Global Change System for Analysis, Research and
programmes, but their links to other IBs, with the
Training (START) is an excellent example of an initiative
exception of SCOPE, is limited;
that addresses the need for involvement of scientists from
Collaboration between IBs and Unions is weak and while developing countries in the GEC programmes and fosters
some Unions claim joint activities with IBs, these are not the development of capacity building through regional
always acknowledged by the latter; priority setting.
The Panel strongly encourages IBs and Unions to improve
information exchange and collaborate more closely to POSSIBLE NEW HIGH PRIORITY AREAS
avoid duplication and create strategic partnerships; and The Panel recommends that ICSU develop programmes in
each of the following four areas that are widely recognized
The Panel notes the many collaborative links with
as important and consistent with its overall mission, and
UNESCO, the UN Specialized Agency responsible
that each programme include components of
for science.
understanding the vulnerability of systems to multiple
stresses and developing plausible future scenarios:
CAPACITY BUILDING
Environment and human health. Human health is a key
Capacity building, both individual and institutional, is a
determinant of human well-being. The environment is
central component in any effort to address the
responsible for about 20% of the global disease burden
environment and its relationship to sustainable
(e.g. millions of people die annually in developing
development. This can be achieved through formal education,
countries, especially children, from in-door air pollution,
improved communication between the scientific community
water pollution and vector-borne diseases), comparable to
and decision-makers, and improved use of scientific information
that of malnutrition. The Panel believes that there is an
in policy formulation. The Panel:
urgent need for an ICSU programme in this area and is
recommends that science and technology be a routine encouraged by the current initiatives of the IUBS inter-
component of primary and secondary education; Union collaborative endeavours and the ESSP to develop

an integrated programme to address environment and environmental refugees are a priority area for research.
human health issues. Collaboration should be sought with The Panel recommends that ICSU initiate, in collaboration
other organizations, particularly the World Health with partners, a planning process for a project that
Organization (WHO). identifies the scientific issues associated with these inter-
relationships.
Natural and human-induced hazards. These are very
costly to society, both economically and in terms of lives Transgenic crops and their implications for the
lost and human well-being. Human populations are environment. The Panel recognizes that there is
becoming increasingly vulnerable to such hazards. As significant controversy and uncertainties surrounding the
noted earlier, the Panel recommends that the current CDR environmental and other implications in both the
committee be disbanded and that ICSU involve all scientific and policy communities. The Panel recommends
relevant Unions and IBs in developing a new programme that ICSU pay attention to this issue and consider how it
in this very important area. could contribute to sound policy through promoting
relevant science and communicating results from
Human security – environmental refugees. The inter-
scientific research in this area.
relationships between demographic changes, including
population increase, environmental degradation, and

1. Introduction
1.1 DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGY FOR ICSU cover the coming 5-10 years. The CSPR was charged
with developing a process that will result in a strategy
Founded in 1931, the International Council for Science
for discussion at the 28th General Assembly in 2005.
(ICSU) is a non-governmental organization representing
Components of this process include:
a global membership that includes both National
Members (101 members) and International Scientific Identification of emerging issues;
Unions (27 members). In order to strengthen Priority Area Assessments (PAAs);

international science for the benefit of society, ICSU
Strengthening ICSU role in, and for developing
mobilizes the knowledge and resources of the
international science community to: countries;
Identify and address major issues of importance to Development of specific initiatives such as science
science and society; and technology for sustainable development, and

energy and sustainable societies.
Facilitate interaction among scientists across all
disciplines and from all countries; Section 12.1 of the ICSU Rules of Procedure (Annex 1)
specifies that “Individually, or in the context of broader
Promote the participation of all scientists—regardless
policy reviews, IBs will be reviewed by the ICSU
of race, citizenship, language, political stance, or Committee on Scientific Planning and Review for every
gender—in the international scientific endeavour; and second General Assembly of ICSU”. In response to this
Provide independent, authoritative advice to stimulate requirement, the CSPR has initiated strategic
constructive dialogue between the scientific assessments of ICSU's activities in selected "Priority
community and governments, civil society, and the Areas". The PAAs are designed to help ICSU develop a
private sector. clear strategy for taking forward priority areas with full
participation of the ICSU family – i.e. the Unions and
Over the years, the ICSU General Assembly, comprised of
National Members as well as the IBs. The process should
National and Union Members, has decided to address
in itself increase synergies and coordination among
interdisciplinary and international issues through the
activities of these bodies.
establishment of Scientific Interdisciplinary Bodies (IBs).
In some instances, Joint Initiatives (JIs) have been Three priority areas were initially identified: Environment
established in collaboration with partners outside of and its Relation to Sustainable Development, Scientific
ICSU. Such bodies (hereafter jointly referred to as IBs) Data and Information, and Capacity Building. The CSPR
focus on specific areas that are of interest to many or all has appointed an ad hoc Panel for each PAA.
ICSU Members that require multidisciplinary and Membership of the PAA for environment and its relation
international approaches wider than that which can be to sustainable development is given in Annex 2 and the
covered by the single disciplinary Scientific Unions or Background Information and ToR in Annex 3.
National Member.
1.2 EVOLUTION OF ICSU’S ENVIRONMENT
In 1995-96, an independent Panel of experts was invited
PORTFOLIO
to conduct an assessment of ICSU. According to the
Panel report1, “ICSU and its members need to formulate International activity in the environmental area has a
an innovative process for determining future directions long history, including the First International Polar Year
and for identifying new initiatives”. As a consequence, in 1882, the ICSU-sponsored International Geophysical
the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) Year in 1957-1958, and the Global Atmospheric
was established to advise the Executive Board and the Research Programme (GARP) in 1967-1980. In 1969,
General Assembly of ICSU. At the 27th General Assembly ICSU established the Scientific Committee on Problems
in 2002, it was decided to develop a strategic plan to of the Environment (SCOPE) to address environmental

issues – either global or shared by several nations – in promote research that integrates the three pillars of
urgent need of interdisciplinary synthesis, assessment sustainable development. The Scientific and
and evaluation of information on natural and human- Technological community examined these challenges in
made environmental changes and their effect on people. publications prepared for the World Summit on
The first SCOPE Report was commissioned by the Sustainable Development (WSSD).2
Secretary-General of the 1972 UN Conference on the
Over the past few decades, the scientific community has
Human Environment.
made remarkable progress in advancing scientific
In 1979, ICSU co-sponsored the first World Climate understanding of environmental problems through
Conference, which led to the establishment in 1980 of international collaboration. ICSU has often taken the
the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) by lead and the results of these research programmes,
ICSU, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), complemented by a number of international
and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission assessments, have been essential for the development of
(IOC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and multinational environmental agreements such as the
Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Based on the studies Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution,
of SCOPE in the 1970s and early 1980s, ICSU initiated the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
the planning of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Layer, the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Programme (IGBP) in 1986. In addition to IGBP and Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biodiversity
WCRP, which are Global Environmental Change (GEC) (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat
programmes, ICSU also co-sponsors the International Desertification (UNCCD) and the UN’s Forest Principles.
Human Dimensions Programme on Global
The Global Change System for Analysis, Research and
Environmental Change (IHDP), established in 1996 in
Training (START), which is jointly sponsored by WCRP,
collaboration with the International Social Science
IGBP, and IHDP, supports regional networks of
Council (ISSC), and DIVERSITAS, initially established in
researchers and institutions engaged in collaborative
1991 by the International Union of Biological Sciences
research on global change issues. One of the goals of
(IUBS), SCOPE, and UNESCO. These four GEC
START is to strengthen indigenous capacity and to
programmes are currently coming together under the
address scientific and policy aspects of environmental
banner of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP)
changes in the regions.
that promotes international and interdisciplinary
research in special focal areas (carbon, food, and water). In addition to the GEC programmes, other important
The GEC programmes and their joint ESSP projects form activities in the environmental area that also contribute
the core research programmes of ICSU in the to the elucidation of the Earth system processes, are
environmental sector. carried out by ICSU IBs, such as the Scientific Committee
on Oceanic Research (SCOR) and the Scientific
Since the UN Conference on Environment and
Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR).
Development (UNCED,1992), the UN has expanded its
focus from the environment to embrace sustainable ICSU also sponsors three Global Observing Systems
development issues, emphasising the integration of the (GOS): the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS),
environmental, social and economic pillars of sustainable the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), and the
development, as demonstrated by the World Summit on Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS), in
Sustainable Development (WSSD, Johannesburg 2002). collaboration with partner organizations such as the
ICSU and the World Federation of Engineering WMO, IOC, UNESCO, the Food and Agricultural
Organizations (WFEO) were invited by the UN to Organization (FAO), and the United Nations
represent the Scientific and Technological community at Environment Programme (UNEP). The goal of the GOS is
WSSD. One of the challenges, highlighted by ICSU, is to improved monitoring of the global Earth system. The
1
Final Report. ICSU Assessment Panel, October 1996.
2
ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development, No. 1-11, 2002-2003.

GOS are among 14 partner organizations of the meet the goals of the PAA. Initially, the Panel was asked
Integrated Global Observation Strategy (IGOS) that by the CSPR to perform an assessment of ICSU
seeks to unite the major satellite and surface-based environmental activities. However, at its first meeting in
systems for global environmental observations of the November 2002, a strong consensus emerged to enlarge
atmosphere, oceans, and land. The Panel on World Data the scope of the PAA to consider ICSU environmental
Centres (WDC) and the Federation of Astronomical and activities and their relation to sustainable development;
Geophysical Data Analysis Services (FAGS) also provide this was agreed to by the CSPR.
services for collection, validation and distribution of
It should be noted that ICSU, in collaboration with the
scientific data of environmental relevance. The
Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability
Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) is facilitating
(ISTS) and the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS),
international exchange of information on scientific
has established a Consortium for Science and
research related to global environment monitoring from
Technology for Sustainable Development and appointed
space.
an ad hoc Advisory Group for the purpose of defining an
Important activities of high relevance to the agenda for the Consortium. The Advisory Group started
environmental sciences are also undertaken by ICSU its work concurrent to this Assessment, and it is hoped
Scientific Union Members. Some of the Unions are that this Group can make use of some of the
major sponsors of the above-mentioned ICSU observations and recommendations in this report.
programmes. The PAA has taken due note of the
A mission statement to guide its work for this
environmental activities of the Scientific Unions and
Assessment (Section 3) was drafted by the Panel.
evaluated the effectiveness of the collaboration between
Feedback from the IBs and all Unions on this statement
Unions and IBs. It should be noted that many
was sought by the Panel, and the responses were
environmental problems were first detected by basic
incorporated in the final version.
single-disciplinary research, and thus the Unions have
not only provided an early warning system for emerging The most extensive consultation, which began with a
problems; they have also assumed leading roles in their web-based questionnaire (Annex 4), focused on the
analysis. environmental activities of the IBs. A similar
questionnaire was also sent to all Unions. Participation
National Members have also been very supportive of
among the IBs and Union members was 100% and
ICSU initiatives and programmes. Many IBs and Unions
about 50%, respectively. A two-day meeting was
have national membership, and effective linkage
organized by the Panel at which each IB involved in
between the national and international levels is crucial
environmental activities was represented. This marked a
for the success of ICSU.
first for ICSU by bringing together representatives from
all its environmental IBs to engage in discussion.
1.3 APPROACH OF THE PAA
Union Members were consulted via a web-based
The scope of this Assessment covers all IBs in so far as
questionnaire (Annex 4) and specifically invited to
their programmes concern environmental issues. General
suggest how they could better interact with IBs. To
data and capacity building issues will be the purview of
complete the Assessment process, a draft report was
subsequent PAAs.
circulated to the ICSU family for comments.
The Panel worked in close collaboration with the ICSU
While the primary audience of this report is the CSPR
family throughout the preparation of this report. While
and the Executive Board, it is also intended for the larger
the ToR guided its work and the CSPR made suggestions
ICSU family and for those interested in international
during the Assessment process, the Panel had the
science, in particular specialists in fields concerning
autonomy to determine the best approach to be used to
environment and sustainable development.

2. Key environmental challenges
for the scientific community
2.1 KEY ISSUES 2.2 CHALLENGES FOR THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY AND FOR ICSU
There is little doubt that the Earth's environment is
changing on all scales from local to global, in large Such changes in the environment and their implications
measure due to human activities. The climate is warming for humanity pose unprecedented challenges for science;
at a rate faster than that at any time during the last treating them within the framework of sustainable
10,000 years, biodiversity is being lost at an development adds further complexity. Four distinct
unprecedented rate, fisheries are in decline in most of clusters of challenge are indicated. Firstly, there are
the world’s oceans, air pollution is an increasing problem conceptual/analytical challenges of integrating insights
in many of the major cities in the world, large numbers from social (including economics and humanities) and
of people live in water stressed areas, and extensive natural sciences. Secondly, there are practical concerns
areas of land are being degraded. Much of this about how best to interact with those who are
environmental degradation is due to the unsustainable concerned with promoting sustainable development.
production and use of energy, water, food, and other Thirdly, there are challenges of promoting capacity
biological resources, and is already undermining efforts building for integrated science as well as for influencing
to alleviate poverty and stimulate sustainable policy. Overriding these is a fourth challenge, arguably
development. Worse still, the future projected changes in the most essential, i.e. ongoing assessments and critical
the environment are likely to have even more severe reflections on states of knowledge about environment
consequences for sustainable development. and sustainable development. All of these require
conscious attention within the ICSU environment
Two examples of projected changes in the environment
programme.
that will undermine sustainable development are
climate change and loss of biodiversity. The Earth’s
2.2.1 Conceptual/analytical challenges
climate is projected to warm by between 1.4 and 5.80C
over the next 100 years. These higher temperatures will Scientific analyses of the environment have pursued
be accompanied by changes in precipitation patterns, increasingly more specialized lines of enquiry into
including an increase in heavy precipitation events, distinct aspects of environment, e.g. atmosphere,
increases in sea level, and an increased incidence of lithosphere, biosphere, anthroposphere, and even
extreme weather events, such as heat waves. noosphere. While disciplinary specialization has yielded
Furthermore, projected changes in climate will, in many better results within particular areas of knowledge, the
parts of the world, adversely affect water resources, goals of reaching integrated understandings of
human health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and environment, and of human interactions with it, have
ecological systems. Biodiversity, and the goods and become more challenging. Several distinct types of
services provided by ecosystems, are being degraded research cultures have thus emerged within and among
because of conversion and fragmentation of ecosystems, researchers in the natural and social sciences during the
introduction of exotic species, and air and water twentieth century. Prospects for mutual understanding
pollution, in addition to the emerging threat of human- and collaboration among scientists therefore remain
induced climate change. Ecosystem degradation can difficult but vital. Today, harmonization of social,
adversely affect: 1) the provisioning of food, fibre, and economic, and ecological values constitutes a common
other goods; 2) the regulating services that control the challenge.
quality of air and water, the likelihood of floods and
climate change, and the spread of infectious diseases;
and 3) cultural services, which bear on the quality of life
and human well-being.

2.2.2 Challenges of capacity controversy. Ownership and participation by experts in

their individual capacity in the scoping, preparation, and
Today, considerable work in capacity building is found in
peer-review is essential. Geographical representation and
all activities of the IBs, Scientific Unions, and National
intellectual balance among the experts are critical to
Members. This was confirmed by the Panel through a
ownership and to address these complex issues.
questionnaire, responses to which are analysed in
Ownership by all interested parties requires the
Section 6 of this report. The Panel recommends that
assessment to be conducted in an open, transparent,
priority be given to the continuation of capacity building
representative, and legitimate process, with well-defined
activities, recognizing that scientists in both developed
principles and procedures.
and developing countries need opportunities for training
in dialogue across disciplinary boundaries and In addition to the above general guidelines, the Panel
geographical contexts, as outlined in Section 5.9 of emphasizes the importance of integrated scientific
this report. assessments, such as those of the MA of which ICSU
is a sponsor.
2.2.3 Practical challenges of influencing policy-
makers and communicating with the public 2.2.3.1 Integrated conceptual framework
Scientists should play a major role in explaining scientific Identification of needs and design of related scientific
information, including what is known and indicating initiatives for the environment in the context of
what is not known, and enter into public dialogue as sustainable development require a conceptual
appropriate. To transpose the results of scientific framework which illuminates the relationship among the
research into policy-relevant guidelines requires careful three pillars of sustainable development, as well as the
attention to cultural context. The communication cyclical relationship between human impacts on the
strategy developed by the scientific community for the environment and consequences for human well-being
WSSD serves as a good example of communicating with over time. The Panel considers that the approach of the
a wide range of interested parties. MA provides a useful and relevant framework for
illustrating how ICSU’s environmental activities might
International policy formulation has benefited from
strengthen science for the benefit of society (see Figure
integrated assessments such as the Intergovernmental
1). This framework helps to illuminate the following
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Millennium
challenges inherent in ICSU’s environment programme
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and the Global
in the context of sustainable development:
International Waters Assessment (GIWA), and the UNEP
Global Environment Outlook project. ICSU should Scientific research must become increasingly
become more closely identified with, and involved in systemic, including consideration of forces that affect
supporting, assessments that integrate the various the environment, impacts on human well-being, and
relevant domains of scientific knowledge, and present feedbacks over time and space through institutional,
them in ways that could underpin the policy process. economic, technological, and behavioural responses.
ICSU has an important role in ensuring that relevant This requires conscious efforts to integrate across the
scientists are nominated as lead authors and peer- physical, chemical and biological disciplines and across
reviewers for international assessment processes, and the natural and social sciences.
that the latest scientific findings from ICSU programmes
Given environmental and human interactions (climate
and projects are made available to them.
with forests, forests with water, water with human
Such assessments need to be policy relevant, but not well-being, etc.), environmental science needs to be
policy prescriptive, encompassing risk assessment, comprehensive in relation to issues of vulnerability,
identifying areas of certainty, uncertainty, and resilience, and sustainability.

GLOBAL
REGIONAL
LOCAL
INDIRECT DRIVERS OF CHANGE

HUMAN WELL-BEING AND Demographic
POVERTY REDUCTION Economic (e.g., globalization, trade,
market, and policy framework)
Material minimum for a good life
Sociopolitical (e.g., governance,
Health
institutional, and legal framework)
Good social relations
Science and technology
Security
Cultural and religious (e.g., choices
Freedom and choice
about what and how much to consume)
DIRECT DRIVERS OF CHANGE

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Changes in local land use and land cover
Provisioning (e.g., food, water) Species introductions or removals
Regulating (e.g., climate, water, Technology adaptation and use
disease regulation) External inputs (e.g., fertilizer use,
Cultural (e.g., spiritual, aesthetic) pest control, irrigation)
Supporting (e.g., primary Harvest and resource consumption
production, soil formation) Climate change
Natural physical and biological drivers
(e.g., volcanoes, evolution) uninfluenced
LIFE ON EARTH: BIODIVERSITY by people
SH
HORT TERM
LONG TERM
strategies and interventions

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA, 2002. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 245 pp.).

All societies depend on the provisioning, regulating, relationship between environment and human well-
supporting, and cultural services of the Earth’s being at various geographical and temporal scales in
environment. Yet, this relationship is not understood order to contribute to appropriate responses. For some
with confidence. ICSU’s environmental programme global concerns it is necessary to design multi-scale
might be oriented to: research activities to clarify the local-to-global
continuum. Equally, national and local scale assessments
explain at different time and spatial scales, causality
are needed to complement global assessments in order
between driving forces, environmental changes, and
to ensure that the information is at the appropriate scale
consequences for development and human well-
for policy formulation. This is especially so for analysing
being;
the impacts of regional and global environmental
identify and forecast critical thresholds in changes.
environmental change processes so that irreversible
The Panel recommends that ICSU should ensure that its
changes might be avoided.
environment programme reflects issues of scale by:
People are vulnerable to natural environmental
focusing attention on those people and places where
phenomena over which they have no control. However,
there is a marked deprivation of well-being;
the degree of vulnerability varies among different
groups, even at the same geographical scale, according focusing attention on those resources that are under
to income level, health status, quality of shelter, etc., and serious threat of decline; and
is reflected in varying impacts on food security,
analysing local-to-global linkages.
economic losses, physical and social disruption, and loss
of shelter and cultural services. ICSU’s environment By developing better integrated frameworks of enquiry,
programme should consider: and more sophisticated methods of observation and
monitoring, the international scientific community has
assessing levels and trends in vulnerability of different
sought to study environmental issues at all geographical
groups; and
scales from local to global. Among the fruits of these
developing indicators and measuring impacts of developments is a commitment to place-based research
environmental change on human well-being. that does not only integrate insights from both natural
and social scientists, but also actively involves people on
2.2.3.2 Importance of scale the ground.
In addressing the three pillars of sustainable

2.2.3.3 Importance of recognizing various epistemologies
development - economic, social and ecological - issues
of scale are central. For each of these domains there are Activities at various scales would also facilitate direct
many optimal scales in space, time and function. The participation of interest groups and other people on the
minimum thresholds of size and capacity required for ground who are connected to the issues being studied.
efficiency in economic systems may be quite different Such participation would make it possible for ICSU to
from the minimum requirements of population and draw upon and integrate various ways of knowing by
income levels needed for viable social communities. indigenous and local communities, and to consider
Associated with each spatial setting are multiple environment-sustainable development linkages in a
timescales - mostly invisible - and usually ignored. given cultural context. Integrated assessments should
Each of the major pillars of sustainable development has seek to:
its own characteristics in time, and choices made in one
advance methodology for integrating epistemologies;
region bear implications for other regions at scales
and
ranging from local to global.
secure inputs from various groups that hold both
It is necessary to have better understanding of the
academic and traditional knowledge.

3. ICSU’s Mission and Role in the Area of Environment
ICSU’s mission is to strengthen international science for Ensure that the social sciences are fully integrated
the benefit of society. The Panel was asked to develop a into ICSU’s programmes as appropriate;
mission statement for ICSU’s environmental activities;
Stimulate collaboration with stakeholders in
this was the first task undertaken by the Panel. Its
developing research agendas and communicating
recommendation is as follows:
results from research of relevance to the development
Identify emerging issues, including potential problems of appropriate policies;
and solutions, where scientific knowledge and
Contribute to environmental assessments;
research can make a difference;
Develop mechanisms to ensure that results from
Catalyze and coordinate scientific research in the
policy-relevant research benefits the governmental
domain of the environment that:
and private sectors as well as civil society;
- expands understanding of the interactions between
Catalyze new types of effective collaborations/
biogeochemical and physical processes and their
partnerships within the ICSU family and with others;
social causes and impacts, and
and
- underpins environmental protection and
Promote the synthesis and communication of the
conservation, and addresses the need for economic
policy-relevant work conducted by ICSU’s Scientific
and social development;
Unions, National Members and IBs.
Contribute to the development of monitoring
activities that are essential for documenting the state
of the global system and its components;

4. The Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE)

Historically, ICSU has had a very strong environmental years questions have been raised about the form,
portfolio (e.g. 16 of its 18 IBs have environmental foci), function, and effectiveness of ACE and its relationship
particularly in the natural sciences. Moreover, in the past with the CSPR. There are two broad possibilities in
15 years, ICSU has diversified its base by co-sponsoring addressing these questions. One is to merge the roles of
programmes with social science components such as ACE and the CSPR. This would require broadening the
IHDP, DIVERSITAS, and the MA. membership of the CSPR to include members with the
necessary skills and experience. The other is to re-
ICSU has earned recognition for its work on
constitute a new ACE with provision for more emphasis
environmental aspects of its mission ranging from the
on the social and health sciences. Whichever option is
International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957-58 to the
adopted, members of such an entity should have: 1)
SCOPE assessments launched in the 1970s to the GEC
extensive knowledge of ICSU’s environmental activities
programmes that began in the 1980s. With the
and their interactions with the research programmes of
emergence of the latter, it became apparent that the
bodies outside ICSU; 2) experience with the application
ICSU Executive Board could benefit from additional
of the knowledge from environmental science to
expert advice in addressing some of the problems that
sustainable development; and 3) understanding of the
the environmental IBs were experiencing. Thus, in 1989,
linkages that connect environmental scientific
the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) was
knowledge to the policy process.
established to advise the Executive Board on the
environmental activities undertaken by ICSU itself or in The following responsibilities need to be covered, and
partnerships with other organizations. should be specified in the amended ToR for such an
entity:
ACE was specifically configured to have membership
with a broad range of experience from interdisciplinary provide the Executive Board with advice on the status
and international environmental science programmes. It and development of activities relating to the
was asked to assist the Executive Board in promoting environment undertaken by ICSU IBs alone or in
harmonious interaction among members of the ICSU partnership with others;
family by providing a platform for discussion and
promote harmonious interaction on environmental
exchange of information among relevant ICSU bodies
issues among members of the ICSU family;
and their external partners, and by setting up and
maintaining an interface with external partners, such as provide a platform for discussion and exchange of
UN bodies, and other international organizations information among relevant ICSU bodies and their
including those in the social and technological sciences external partners; and
and industry. set up and provide a means for discussion with
The advice of ACE helped ICSU to play a significant role external partners, such as UN bodies, and other
in preparation for, and following the 1992 UNCED in Rio international organizations, including those in the
de Janeiro, Brazil, and WSSD, held ten years later in social and technological sciences, and business and
Johannesburg, South Africa. industry.
Since the creation of ACE, significant changes have

occurred in the governance structure of ICSU (e.g. the
establishment of the CSPR in 1998). Thus, in recent

5. Analysis of ICSU Current Activities
5.1 INTRODUCTION identification of a number of key emerging issues, e.g.
SCOPE studies laid the foundation for the formation of
In place of the previous statutory requirements
the IPCC. Studies have also been among the first to
(Annex 1) of six-year periodic reviews of individual IBs,
explore the importance of biodiversity in ecosystem
the CSPR initiated strategic assessment of ICSU's
functioning and the consequences of biodiversity for
activities through the PAAs. For this Assessment, the IBs
ecosystem goods and services; how alterations in the
were divided into four categories: assessment bodies,
carbon cycle interact with the climate system, and how
thematic organizations, GEC programmes and
the nitrogen and carbon cycles are interlinked with
monitoring/observation and data/information
biodiversity and land-use changes; and an assessment of
organizations. Each of these IBs is assessed in the
methodologies to assess chemical risks to ecosystems
context of the PAA mission statement and framework,
and human health.
and the following questions guided the assessment:
The major challenge for SCOPE is to prioritize its
When and why was this organization established?
activities among the numerous topics to be explored,
What have been its successes and failures? and to find the appropriate balance between regional
versus global, and between scientifically interesting
What does the Panel recommend for this
versus policy relevant emerging environmental issues.
organization?
During the last five years, SCOPE has placed greater
What does the Panel recommend for ICSU? focus on issues that have regional significance as well as
The analysis of the IBs is followed by a discussion of the global implications in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The
Union activities, National Members, an analysis of Panel encourages continuation of these types of studies
collaborations among the bodies, and an overview of and recognizes that the audiences for studies include
capacity building efforts. both policy-makers and the science community. SCOPE
can be particularly helpful to both these audiences by
5.2 ASSESSMENTS BODIES identifying issues well before comprehensive
international assessments are authorized by
5.2.1 Scientific Committee On Problems of the international Conventions or UN agencies. The Panel was
Environment (SCOPE) pleased to note the recent decision to reduce the
number of projects, since recent projects have not been
SCOPE was established in 1969 to identify and critically particularly innovative or addressed “over the horizon”
assess the importance of emerging global or regional issues. SCOPE studies need to contribute more to the
environmental issues, emphasizing those that need an planning of other ICSU activities, and when policy
interdisciplinary perspective. SCOPE has a wide range of relevant, to include the environmental, economic and
partnerships, both within and outside of ICSU. Its social dimensions as appropriate.
projects range from studies of biodiversity and
ecosystems, alien invasive species, biogeochemical 5.2.2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
cycles including the impact of human activities (carbon,
nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, and silicon), chemicals The specific proposal for the MA arose from the ‘Pilot
and ecosystems, and human health and the Analysis of Global Ecosystems’ produced in 2000 by the
environment. World Resources Institute in collaboration with UNEP,
and the World Bank. The MA is a four-year project that
Most studies deal with environmental issues that are was launched by the UN Secretary-General in June
directly relevant to sustainable development. Major 2001. ICSU is one of the international sponsors and is
outcomes during the last decade include the represented on the Executive Board.

The MA was designed to provide decision-makers with 5.3 THEMATIC ORGANIZATIONS

the latest scientific knowledge about the relationship
between ecosystem change and human well-being, and 5.3.1 Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research
to build capacity of scientists to conduct integrated (SCOR)
ecosystem assessments. Among the primary target
SCOR was founded in 1957 to further international
audiences of the assessment are the ecosystem-related
scientific activity in all branches of oceanic research. It
conventions (Convention on Biological Diversity -CBD,
was one of the first IBs of ICSU, and every
Convention to Combat Desertification -CCD, Ramsar
oceanographer is familiar with at least some of SCOR’s
Convention on Wetlands, and Convention on Migratory
impressive list of accomplishments. This organization has
Species), national governments, civil society and private
a rich history of successes with working groups that have
sector. Through its conceptual framework (Fig.1), the MA
vetted methods of sample collection and analysis, and
will bring attention to the linkages between humans and
brainstormed topics for future research. Well known is
ecosystems, encompassing the entire range of
the reputation of SCOR for its extensive outreach to
ecosystem services. It is a multi-scale assessment,
scientists, laboratories, and research organizations in the
consisting of interlinked assessments at local, watershed,
developing world. Over the last 45 years, many
national, regional, and global scales. The major focus is
developed country oceanographers made their first
on: 1) the current condition and historical trends in
contacts with developing country scientists through
ecosystems and their contribution to human well-being;
SCOR meetings and reports. Prior to its first major
2) response options for conserving ecosystems; and 3)
programmatic accomplishment - the Indian Ocean
future scenarios for change in ecosystems and human
Expedition in the early 1960s - major oceanographic
well-being.
expeditions were largely the works of individual nations
A major outcome will be to facilitate integration of or individual laboratories. SCOR, more than any other
environment and sustainable development perspectives organization, is responsible for the widespread
into mainstream development planning. One challenge international cooperation that is characteristic of
the MA faces is to ensure that its findings will be used by modern ocean science.
decision-makers and other stakeholders at all levels. The
In view of the successes of the GEC programmes (e.g.
MA is already establishing a firm foundation for
IGBP and WCRP) in the 1990s, the advent of the Internet
adoption of its findings through extensive engagement
and virtual meetings, one could ask “does SCOR still
and outreach activities with stakeholders at all levels. For
have a role to play?” SCOR sponsorship remains still the
example, through the ecosystem-related conventions, it
best way to bring oceanographers of all disciplines to the
has been endorsed by the governments of more than
table. The development of ocean projects within the GEC
180 countries.
programmes was considerably facilitated by the work of
An innovative approach is the multi-scale assessment SCOR. The roots of the international underpinnings of
with regional and sub-regional components. The MA Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere (TOGA), World
should consider how these sub-global projects could be Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), Joint Global
continued beyond the termination of the global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS), and Global Ocean Ecosystem
assessment in early 2005. The methodologies used in Dynamics (GLOBEC) can be traced to SCOR initiatives.
these projects are highly relevant to address science and Similarly, SCOR is currently a partner in the
technology for sustainable development. The Panel development of potential new projects like Global
suggests that a more long-term organizational structure Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
be found for the existing and new sub-global (GEOHAB), Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study
assessments. (SOLAS), and Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and
Ecosystem Research (IMBER).

In conclusion, SCOR has demonstrated flexibility in its including space weather and Sun-Earth interactions.
focus as ocean science has evolved, and the success of Antarctic science therefore has global relevance, whether
future ICSU projects and activities related to the ocean in tracking the history of the atmosphere through ice-
would be significantly diminished without the scientific core analysis over the last half-million years, in
integrity and experience of SCOR. Ocean science is determining levels of pollution (e.g. heavy metals,
inherently global, and SCOR is the instrument by which organic compounds) and their impacts, and ultimately in
good local ideas in this field become global. Also in this exploring life forms in subglacial Lake Vostok.
regard, the Panel finds the successes of SCOR in capacity
With the establishment of a new structure within SCAR,
building to be highly meritorious.
three Standing Science Committees have been set up to
SCOR should continue in its efforts to enhance the cover physical sciences, life sciences, and geosciences.
development of international science within the There will also be an Executive Director, to help drive
oceanographic community, and to bring the strongest SCAR science forward in ways not always possible in the
possible representation into ongoing and future projects past. These reforms should lead to better cooperation
of the GEC programmes. The Panel encourages SCOR to with other groups and institutions, particularly those
explore prospects for joint capacity building initiatives within the ICSU family.
with START.
While some concerns have been raised about the
efficacy of SCAR, the Panel realizes that a process of
5.3.2 Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
change is in place. SCAR is encouraged to focus primarily
(SCAR)
on promoting strong Antarctic science while retaining its
SCAR was established in1958, in the wake of the IGY of role in relation to the Antarctic Treaty. The Panel noted
1957-58, which included a major Antarctic component. relatively weak interactions between SCAR and the rest
The Panel notes that ICSU has recently appointed an ad of the ICSU family, and SCAR should endeavour to work
hoc Planning Group for the 4th International Polar Year, more closely with other IBs and Unions.
which is to be held in 2007-08, and that other
“International Year” activities will also have Antarctic 5.3.3 Committee On SPAce Research (COSPAR)
components.
COSPAR was established in 1958 as an IB concerned
The primary role of SCAR is to coordinate national with the advancement of scientific investigations carried
research programmes in the Antarctic, identify out with space vehicles, rockets, and balloons. The
international strategic priorities, and provide COSPAR Scientific Assemblies are important in bringing
independent scientific advice to the Antarctic Treaty together the space science community. In its first
system. It has 26 full and four associate member submission to the PAA, COSPAR indicated that three
countries, and works with a wide variety of partner primary results presented by scientists at the 35th
organizations, both within and outside of ICSU, ranging Scientific Assembly, were contributions to: 1) forecasting
from such bodies as the Commission for the of extreme weather events and the creation of an
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources integrated global atmosphere observing system; 2) El
(CCAMLR) to the WMO and UNEP. SCAR’s remit covers Niño prediction and the creation of a tropical Pacific
issues of climate change, biodiversity, data and Ocean and global atmosphere observing system; and 3)
information systems, pollution, and all impacts of observations of trends in global concentrations of
human activity in the Antarctic. greenhouse gases. COSPAR considers the major
challenge in relation to this PAA to be efforts for an
The importance of SCAR has increased over the years
increased integration of atmosphere, land, and ocean
with greater understanding of the pivotal role of the
sciences from an experimental and modelling point of
Antarctic in the Earth system and its numerous
view.
connections with other physical and biological elements

While COSPAR Scientific Assemblies are major events although the increase in the strength and frequency of
for the space community, COSPAR has not been a major natural disasters, for example, floods, droughts and
player in space-based aspects of ICSU’s GEC severe storms, is clearly associated with a changing
programmes, and it does not appear to be involved in global climate. In addition, the IHDP project on Global
the development of the GOS. Since much of the present Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS)
and future of global environmental research involves and the IGBP-IHDP Land-Use Cover and Change (LUCC)
remote sensing, the relevant COSPAR commissions are also concerned with natural hazards.
should develop plans that clearly articulate how
With the emergence of science for sustainable
COSPAR could contribute more to ICSU activities in
development, including management of risks, it is
environmental science and the added benefit of COSPAR
essential that the mitigation of, and adaptation to,
to the wider environmental science community. In
natural hazards be part of the research agenda, with links
looking to future needs in this area, the Earth sciences
between the natural, technological, social and health
will be well served by enhanced complementarity and
sciences, and civil defence (emergency management
prioritization of Earth remote sensing missions. To this
organizations), and the private sector (especially
end, COSPAR should especially consider how it could
insurance companies). Coordination and integration of
contribute to the development of a truly integrated
the various initiatives on hazards and their mitigation
Earth Observation System.
should be considered. The Panel concluded that the
existing CDR was insufficiently active, and that it is
5.3.4 Committee on Disaster Reduction (CDR)
important for this high priority area to have a new start.
CDR was created in 1999 as successor to the Special Furthermore, the Panel concluded that ICSU’s
Committee for the International Decade for Natural environmental science activities would be strengthened
Disaster Reduction (SC-IDNDR). CDR was established to with the addition of a research programme on natural
coordinate research and applications to reduce the and human-caused hazards that focuses both on abrupt
impacts of natural hazards and related environmental hazards (e.g. wind storms, floods, droughts, fires,
and technological hazards. CDR indicated no interaction earthquakes) and on prevention strategies to reduce
with other ICSU bodies (see Fig. 2, section 5.8), although their impacts. This should be done in collaboration with
it has collaborated with the International Union of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) to prepare a position (ISDR).
paper on “Safer Sustainable Communities: Making Better
The current CDR committee should be disbanded and
Decisions about Risk” (April 2002). The CDR sees its
ICSU should initiate a planning process involving all
customers as the UN system (i.e. WMO, UNESCO, and
relevant Unions and IBs to plan for a new programme in
UNEP) and other international and regional agencies.
this very important area.
Environment-human interactions are often considered in
a unidirectional manner, i.e. the impacts of humans on 5.3.5 Scientific Committee on the Lithosphere (SCL)
the natural environment (e.g. land-use changes,
SCL was established in 1980, as an IUGG-IUGS Inter-
urbanization, and emission of greenhouse gases).
Union committee. In 1999, SCL was established as an
However, changes in the natural environment also have
ICSU IB. It was established to undertake an international
many impacts on humans whose activities in turn
programme of interdisciplinary research for an improved
continue to intensify the stressors on the environment
understanding of the Earth, especially those aspects on
and sustainable development. The increasing
which human well-being depends.
vulnerability of human populations to natural disasters is
of great concern globally. Nevertheless, there is little SCL operates the International Lithosphere Programme
interaction between the CDR and the GEC programmes (ILP), which seeks to elucidate the nature, dynamics,

origin, and evolution of the lithosphere, with special evolved during the past decade with the other GEC
attention to the continents and their margins, and their programmes, culminating in the recently initiated ESSP.
interactions with society. It has established international, IGBP core projects range from understanding paleo-
multidisciplinary working groups and coordinating climatic changes; terrestrial and oceanic ecosystem
committees, and encourages active participation of dynamics, including the impact of elevated carbon
scientists from developing countries. SCL has many dioxide on terrestrial systems; the exchange of gases
national committees that participate actively in between terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems (including
ILP projects. coastal zones) and the atmosphere; and biospheric
aspects of the hydrological cycle, to modelling
The Panel notes that SCL/ILP has for many years been
atmospheric, terrestrial and oceanic processes,
very active and regularly produced highly relevant and
emphasizing biogeochemical processes. The Panel
valuable outputs. Recently, however, the level of activity
commends the IGBP for its first two decades of acting as
seems to have declined. IUGG and IUGS, the Unions that
an integrating framework among the physical, chemical,
proposed its establishment, have requested that SCL
and biological science communities.
conduct a self-evaluation; this process is ongoing. While
the study of the lithosphere is a very interesting Major outcomes during the last decade include an
scientific domain, SCL should be under the responsibility improved understanding of the important role that
of IUGS and IUGG. biology plays in controlling the Earth’s environment and
the strong interactions among biological, physical, and
5.3.6 Scientific Committee On Solar-TErrestrial chemical processes; that the Earth system is
Physics (SCOSTEP) characterized by critical thresholds and abrupt changes
that can be inadvertently triggered by human activities;
SCOSTEP was established in 1966 to promote
and that the Earth system has recently moved well
international interdisciplinary programmes in solar-
outside of the range of natural variability, with the
terrestrial physics. While the overall scientific work of
magnitude and rates of change being unprecedented.
SCOSTEP is excellent, its programmes have limited
importance in understanding issues of environmental The improved understanding of Earth system processes
concern. It currently cooperates with WCRP, to study in gained from IGBP core projects is critically important in
part, how the Earth’s climate is influenced by solar- understanding how human activities are affecting the
terrestrial processes (e.g. changes in solar output) and Earth at regional and global scales, thus contributing to
changes in the composition and dynamics of the upper the issue of sustainable development. The IGBP core
atmosphere (i.e. above 50 km). The Panel notes the new projects that explicitly include a strong social science
SCOSTEP initiative on Climate and Weather of the Sun- component, e.g. LUCC and new ESSP projects, are the
Earth System (CAWSES) whose purposes is to address most relevant to understanding the impact of human
the role of natural solar variability on climate. activities and thus identifying potential policies and
practices to reduce these impacts.
5.4 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
One of the challenges for IGBP is to improve our
PROGRAMMES
understanding of biogeochemical processes in order to
develop transient ecological models of sufficient
5.4.1 International Geosphere-Biosphere
complexity to capture the dominant processes of the
Programme (IGBP)
core elemental cycles that can be coupled to transient
IGBP was established in 1986 to understand the global change models (e.g. to address simultaneous
interactive physical, chemical and biological processes changes in regional air quality and climate). This is in
that regulate the Earth systems and how they are order to understand the interactions, feedbacks, and
influenced by human actions. Strong partnerships have thresholds within the Earth system. Also required is an

increased emphasis on understanding the impact of contribution both to the synergy of ICSU programmes in
regional and global environmental changes on both global environmental change and to their potential for
managed and unmanaged ecosystems. substantive input to policy-making processes.
The new structure of IGBP, which is centred on the three The Panel acknowledges the difficulty of integrating the
major Earth system compartments - ocean, land and natural and social dimensions in environmental science,
atmosphere- and the interactions among them, would but suggests that IHDP has a great responsibility in
appear at first sight to be a step backwards in the quest providing leadership in this regard. It encourages IHDP to
for integration. However, the planned core projects have strengthen the involvement of economists in its
all been designed to increase sub-system understanding projects. For this purpose, IHDP would benefit from a
that is needed for larger- scale integration of ecosystem more active and effective ISSC.
and biogeochemical processes. A major challenge is to
The Panel notes the various attempts to develop the
ensure inclusion of the human dimension when
ISSC, that a well-functioning ISSC is critical to the
appropriate, especially in the proposed new land project
success of many of the ICSU programmes, and that to
date this relationship is not fully satisfactory. However,
5.4.2 International Human Dimensions Programme
the Panel is encouraged that the ISSC appears to now
on Global Environmental Change (IHDP)
be getting on track, and recommends that ICSU take a
IHDP, established in 1996 with ISSC and ICSU as co- pro-active approach to further develop ISSC and achieve
sponsors, is an interdisciplinary research programme a close integrative working relationship within its
addressing the coupled human-natural system in the programmes.
context of global environmental change. The lack of a
human dimension in ICSU’s GEC programmes was of 5.4.3 World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)
considerable concern 15 years ago. It was anticipated
WCRP was established in 1980 under the sponsorship of
that the IHDP would be a complementary social science
ICSU, WMO, and IOC to understand and provide the
endeavour to the natural science projects.
basis for prediction of the Earth’s physical climate
IHDP’s most visible success to date is the LUCC project system. Strong partnerships have slowly evolved during
undertaken jointly with IGBP. Its design is a good the last decade with the IGBP, IHDP, and DIVERSITAS,
example of an approach to integrating the natural and culminating in ESSP. Other partnerships include the
social sciences. Other core projects are Institutional three GOS (GCOS, GTOS, and GOOS). WCRP aims to
Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC), understand climate variability and predictability, and
GECHS, and Industrial Transformation (IT). human-induced climate change, regionally and globally,
by studying physical and dynamical processes in the
The presentation of the IHDP programme in the
atmosphere-ocean-land surface-cryosphere system at a
questionnaire reveals a range of elements that indicates
wide range of temporal scales, i.e. seasonal-interannual-
its multi-disciplinary purpose and intent. But it is not
decadal-centennial. This is accomplished by studying
possible from the documentation or discussion to date
global ocean circulation, global hydrological and energy
to judge the extent to which these activities are
budgets, cryosphere (including Arctic sea ice) and
integrating the biophysical and the socio-economic
stratospheric processes, as well as developing
issues, or their orientation to enable decision-makers to
comprehensive global models of the full climate system.
operate at the nexus of environment and development
issues. Major outcomes during the last decade include
establishing the physical basis for understanding and
The emergence of the ESSP is a step in the right
predicting El Niño events, as well as improved climate
direction in unifying existing GEC programmes. The
models through improved understanding of key climate
participation of IHDP in the ESSP is a welcome

processes, comprehensive field measurements, and the scientific basis for the conservation and sustainable use
development of regional and global observational of biodiversity.
climatic data sets.
A science plan was published in 2002, and calls for the
The improved understanding and predictability of establishment of three core projects:
natural climate variability and human-induced climate
discovering biodiversity and predicting its changes;
change at the regional and global scales, gained from
WCRP, is central to the issue of sustainable development assessing impacts of biodiversity changes
given the sensitivity of socio-economic sectors (e.g. developing the science of the conservation and
water resources and agriculture), ecological systems, and sustainable use of biodiversity.
human health to weather and climate. The WCRP
contribution to the recently initiated ESSP projects will In addition to these three thematic core projects, cross-
be even more directly relevant to understanding the cutting initiatives are being created around particular
impact of natural climate variability and human topics or ecosystems. Two such networks already exist:
activities on issues central to poverty alleviation and Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) and Global
development, and thus to identifying potential policies Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA). A new cross-
and practices to reduce adverse effects. cutting network “greening agriculture” is under
preparation. The Panel also notes the success of the
Major challenges for the WCRP include reducing the International Biodiversity Observation Year (IBOY, 2001-
uncertainty in the climate sensitivity factor (i.e. the 2002), an initiative of DIVERSITAS.
projected change in temperature at equilibrium when
the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is DIVERSITAS is stimulating the establishment of national
doubled), and improving the predictability of natural committees. It has attracted leading scientists to
climate variability and human-induced climate change, develop a science plan, an implementation plan, and
including extreme events, at the local and regional planning groups for the core projects. There is renewed
scales. This will require an improved understanding of vigour in planning and coordination, which should be
radiative, dynamical, and physical processes in order to strengthened by establishing strong links with national
develop improved transient fully coupled atmosphere- biodiversity programmes.
ocean-land general circulation models that incorporate DIVERSITAS has been a full programme of ESSP since its
biogeochemical feedbacks. It is also important to be able establishment, and is currently involved in the
to identify thresholds and non-linearities in the system. development of the Global Water System Project
(GWSP) activities and leading, on behalf of ESSP, the
5.4.4 DIVERSITAS exploration phase of the fourth joint project on global
The roots of DIVERSITAS date back to 1991, when it was environmental change and human health. In 1997,
launched by UNESCO, IUBS, and SCOPE. In 2001, the DIVERSITAS signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with
five sponsors of DIVERSITAS, which now include ICSU the Secretariat of the CBD. Scientists involved in
and the International Union of Microbiological Societies DIVERSITAS have been requested to contribute to the
(IUMS), asked the scientific community to organize an work of this Convention and its Subsidiary Body for
integrative programme dedicated to the science of Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA).
biodiversity, building up on the earlier activities carried The Plan of Implementation of WSSD includes several
out during the first phase of DIVERSITAS (1991-1998). recommendations for the conservation of the Earth’s
The overall goals of DIVERSITAS are to: 1) promote biological diversity, and the DIVERSITAS science plan is
integrative biodiversity science, linking biological, consistent with WSSD expectations regarding
ecological, and social disciplines in an effort to produce biodiversity protection. The DIVERSITAS programme
new, socially-relevant knowledge; and 2) provide a

meets the demands of the most relevant international Thus, water, health and agriculture are considered by
documents in relation to the conservation of natural ESSP, while energy is the topic of a separate ICSU task
diversity. The organization and management of the force review and biodiversity is covered by DIVERSITAS.
programme are progressing well, and the visibility of In addition, these initiatives also address areas, where
DIVERSITAS has increased over time. ICSU has recently terminated IBs (Committee on
Science for Food Security, CSFS, and Scientific
It is important that DIVERSITAS remains mindful of the
Committee on Water Research, SCOWAR, were both
need to stay focused in order to use the limited
closed down by the 27th General Assembly in 2002).
resources effectively. The Panel notes the complex
structure with five sponsoring organizations. As SCOPE,
5.4.5.1 Global Carbon Project (GCP)
IUBS, and IUMS are ICSU bodies, they should support
DIVERSITAS through collaborative activities without Over the past decade research under the auspices of
being formal sponsors. The Panel also notes the weak four IGBP Projects - Global Change and Terrestrial
involvement of UNESCO in the development of Ecosystems (GCTE), International Global Atmospheric
DIVERSITAS. UNESCO should consider concrete steps for Chemistry (IGAC), Past Global Changes (PAGES), and
providing substantive inputs to the further development JGOFS - have contributed substantially to understanding
of DIVERSITAS. If this does not materialize, the Panel of the past, present, and future of the carbon cycle. The
suggests that ICSU remain the sole sponsor of successes of these projects along with contributions
DIVERSITAS. from other projects under the auspices of WCRP
(especially WOCE) and IHDP (especially the joint IHDP-
5.4.5 Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) IGBP project LUCC), have demonstrated the potential for
important new understanding from focused integrated
In recognition of the growing need for collaborations, in
research on the global carbon cycle. Such an effort is
2001 the four GEC programmes (IGBP, IHDP, WCRP, and
now being proposed as the Global Carbon Project (GCP).
DIVERSITAS) established the ESSP for the integrated
study of the Earth system, the changes that are The development of new foci on spatial and temporal
occurring to it, and the implications of these changes for distributions of major sinks and fluxes for carbon,
global sustainability. ESSP activities currently include feedbacks in the dynamics of the human-environment
three joint projects that are at different stages of aspects of the carbon cycle, and scenarios for future
development, and a possible fourth joint project that is behaviour of this system are all suitable and timely
currently being scoped. The ESSP partnership has also research activities. Questions that form the research
initiated for Integrated Regional Studies and it includes elements of this endeavour are only partly new, but
also START. without the underpinning provided by the last decade of
research, none of the objectives of this new project
The science that is performed under ESSP is anchored in
would be realistic.
the projects of the four sponsoring GEC programmes
that have activities relating to the environment that do Improved understanding of how future human activities
not come under ESSP. The following relates only to those relating to land use and energy production will affect
activities that come under the joint ESSP framework. climate has to be a central objective of research at the
interface of environment and sustainable development.
The Panel has considered the individual ESSP initiatives,
Any new activity in this area will also have future
as it considers these initiatives to be of special
sustainability and policy relevance. In all likelihood,
importance in addressing environment in relation to
accords will soon come into force that will alter national
sustainable development. Thus, of the four currently
and international policies relating to the carbon base of
planned projects, three address the WEHAB (Water,
residential, industrial, and transportation energy
Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity) priorities.
requirements. The IPCC response to a request of the

UNFCCC to examine opportunities and limitations The major challenge of the GECAFS project will be to
related to terrestrial ecosystem carbon sequestration fully integrate the physical, biological, and social science
(IPCC Special Report on Land-Use Change and Forestry) aspects of its projects, ensuring that they are fully
is an excellent example of the convergence of current participatory, involving all relevant decision-makers in
carbon cycle science and policy. The high likelihood that planning and implementation. An accurate assessment
markets will soon emerge for carbon emission credits of plausible futures based on a realistic assessment of
points to the urgency of better understanding of the future changes in direct and indirect drivers of
near-surface and deep terrestrial and ocean potential for environmental change will be critical to the success of
enhanced carbon sequestration. this project, as will ensuring that the emphasis is not on
production alone but on “field to fork”, integrating the
By adopting projects such as those proposed for ESSP,
food chain.
the GEC programmes raise high expectations. The type
of synthesis and integration required among hitherto GECAFS should consider linkages with WMO through
mainly separate research programmes is largely Climate Prediction and Agriculture (CLIMAG), a joint
untested. ICSU should be especially watchful during programme of WCRP, IGBP, IHDP and START.
early formative stages of the GCP to ensure that
disciplinary fragmentation does not confound well-laid 5.4.5.3 Global Water System Project (GWSP)
plans for the execution of this research project.
GWSP is still in its formative stage, and its project
structure is not yet finalized. The following evaluation is
5.4.5.2 Global Environmental Change
based on draft documents, the last of which is “Global
and Food Systems (GECAFS)
Water System Project of the Global Environmental
The goal of the GECAFS programme is to assess how Change Programmes”, dated September 2003. It states
global environmental changes will affect food provision that “An overarching scientific question guides GWSP:
and vulnerability in different regions and among How are human actions changing the global water
different social groups, provide the scientific system and what are the environmental and socio-
understanding needed to determine strategies to adapt, economic feedbacks arising from the anthropogenic
and evaluate the environmental and socio-economic changes in the global water system.”
consequences of different adaptation strategies. Initially,
The proposed project plan envisages five cross-cutting
there will be four regionally-based projects in the Indo-
activities: 1) building a data base (years 1-2); 2) methods
Gangetic Plain, Caribbean, Southern Africa, and Eastern
for bridging gaps between biogeophysical, biological, and
Pacific Coastal Fisheries.
social dimensions and approaches to global water
The two basic questions are: 1) whether the approach of science - a joint lexicon of terminology (full project
focusing only on regional case studies is appropriate or duration); 3) scaling from region-to-globe and globe-to-
whether it should be combined with a series of more region (full project duration); 4) integrative GWSP
generic studies of the response of different agricultural models, process-based understanding to quantify and
crops to environmental changes and the development of state future feedbacks to the Earth system (years 3-10);
improved crop traits (e.g. temperature, drought, pest, and 5) informing policy and management (years 5-10).
and salinity resistant), and 2) whether the most
The Panel views this “linear” progression of activities to
appropriate regional case studies were chosen. The
be inappropriate. A modelling structure for which the
initiative needs a science plan or at least a framework
data are assembled must be designed before, and
with well-defined criteria for the selection of the case
adjusted during, the data collection phase. Models to
studies; the criteria should be broader than who is willing
test possible responses should be planned at the same
to fund them.
time, even if they are to be implemented at a later stage,
after experience has been gained. A GWSP meeting was

held in New Hampshire in October 2003, but at the time 5.4.6 Funding of Global Environmental Change
of this writing there was still no additional information Programmes
on whether the parent bodies are in agreement on how
Understanding both natural and social processes
to proceed.
requires an international scientific research effort of
The Panel is concerned that there is no indication of how unprecedented collaboration and interdisciplinarity. In
GWSP depends on and links with ongoing water research response to this challenge, the international scientific
conducted within the ICSU family and by others. The community has developed an approach, based on adding
Panel urges GWSP to collaborate with ongoing water value to existing national and regional research through
efforts of major and global impact, such as UNESCO’s a suite of integration activities. The key element in this
International Hydrological Programme (IHP), especially approach is the small amount of funding, sometime
Hydrology for the Environment, Life, and Policy (HELP) called "glue money", required to maintain an adequate
and the World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP), coordinating infrastructure and to initiate and
with Union programmes, such as Prediction in Ungaged implement the integration activities. Three types of
Basins (PUBs) of the International Association of structure are involved in scientific integration: 1) the
Hydrological Sciences (IAHS), and with the Global central offices and secretariats of the four GEC
Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) of WCRP, programmes; 2) their respective International Project
to promote and strengthen linkages with these Offices (IPOs); and 3) important but small-scale
programmes and to avoid duplication of effort. ICSU integrating activities conducted under the umbrella of
should closely track the development and execution of the programmes.
the GWSP programmes and projects to ensure that this
Examples of integrating activities include defining
recommendation is followed.
common experimental protocols, data standardization,
model inter-comparison, and synthesis and integration
5.4.5.4 Global Environmental Change and Human Health
of results. Without the aid of an international
(GECHH)
framework, national, bilateral, and regional efforts
This initiative is only in the early stages of planning. The cannot be meshed in a coherent way to give
major goals of the GECHH initiative are to assess past, understanding at the global scale (e.g. global carbon
current, and future health impacts of global cycle). An effective international programme can also
environmental change; elucidate the particular health- help provide an unbiased, common base of knowledge
related upstream drivers of global environmental on which all can agree, and on the basis of which various
change; harmonize mitigation and adaptation; and policy options can be evaluated and debated.
develop and use new methodologies to explore the
The efficiency of the GEC programmes is based on:
tension between particular pathways of economic
development, environmental change, and human health. Focusing on value adding – 1) priority setting, and
The potential activities include promoting scientific development of a coherent research agenda; 2)
knowledge on global environmental change and health; efficient allocation of scarce scientific resources; 3)
promoting collection of data for scientific and scientific network building; 4) common
surveillance purposes; capacity building; and developing methodologies and experimental protocols; 5) model
links with policy fora. inter-comparisons and validation with common
datasets; 6) synthesis papers and executive summaries
While there is not enough information available in the
for the policy and resource management sectors; and
draft documentation to critically evaluate the initial
plans, the overarching questions being considered are Being resource-efficient by building on the large body
very appropriate. The Panel strongly endorses the need of global change research conducted at national and
for such a project, and recommends that it be linked regional levels. Development of mutually agreed
with WHO. synergistic research agendas and priorities among

countries greatly enhances the interaction of national 5.5 MONITORING/OBSERVATIONS,
researchers and projects with the broader DATA/INFORMATION
international community.
Overall, current funding of global change research

5.5.1 Global Observing Systems (GOS)
programme planning and coordination amounts to only ICSU is a sponsor of the three GOS: the Global Climate
0.5% of the total research budget (the global level of Observing System (GCOS); the Global Ocean Observing
funding for global change research has remained stable System (GOOS); the Global Terrestrial Observing System
around US$2bn3). Based on estimates by the GEC (GTOS); and a partner of the Integrated Global
programmes, there is a significant gap between the Observing Strategy (IGOS). In each case ICSU is but
current and required funding for integrative activities; one of several partners of which the others are
this gap has increased between 1999 and 2003. Even intergovernmental organizations. In the following,
this small amount is insecure and difficult to obtain. a brief description of each observing system is given
Much of the success achieved in the past is attributable and a common section follows on analysis, conclusions,
to the work of a few persons on both sides (funding and recommendations.
agencies/IGFA and programmes). There is not yet the
long-term, stable, institutionally-based support for the 5.5.1.1 Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS)
integrative functions of the central offices and IPOs that
GOOS was established in 1991, with sponsorship by IOC
would be required. This is also the most difficult to
(UNESCO), WMO, UNEP, and ICSU. The GOOS
obtain through existing funding mechanisms. The lack of
Secretariat is located in IOC. GOOS is meant to address
stable funding is leading to diversion of scarce staff time
the need for a global network of systematic and
from scientific integration to fund-raising, an inability to
sustained observations that will meet the needs of a
plan appropriately, and loss of morale within the
wide user community, including the scientific research
international programmes.
community. GOOS is not operational but quasi-
IGFA has provided an important platform for dialogue operational and serves a dual purpose, meeting the
between the GEC programmes and some important needs of both the operational and the research
funding agencies. Although not a funding mechanism, community. Most of its programmatic focus to date
IGFA has ensured continued interest among the funding seems to be aligned with various UN projects. GOOS is
agencies and also helped secure funding for DIVERSITAS now being designed through two panels, the Ocean
during a critical period of its development. IGFA has Observations Panel for Climate (OOPC), which is jointly
recently expanded its interest through, for example, sponsored by GOOS, GCOS, and the WCRP, and the
participation in IGOS-P and the Earth Observation Coastal Ocean Observations Panel (COOP), which is
Summit (EOS)/ Group on Earth Observations GEO. jointly sponsored by GOOS, FAO, UNEP, and IGBP.
The climate panel of GOOS (OOPC) is the ocean panel
IGFA is still an informal network and if it wishes to
of GCOS.
become a more active player in the policy arena, its
legitimacy as a body needs to be ascertained. IGFA can Although GOOS has been a successful convener of
play an increasingly important role if it expands its discussions about future ocean observations, from the
membership to include consistent participation in its point of view of ICSU sponsorship, linkages with the
efforts of a larger number of national funding agencies. marine global change projects have been weak. Home
In addition, such agencies must represent more than the pages for WOCE, JGOFS, GLOBEC, and the Land-Ocean
natural sciences in general, and geosciences in particular. Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) indicate no
The involvement of bodies funding relevant social more than courtesy affiliation, at best, with GOOS.
sciences research is highly recommended.
3
IGFA Resource Assessment 1995.

5.5.1.2 Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Translation of global terrestrial observations into the
final products that most countries and sponsors require
GCOS was established in 1992, with sponsorship by
is still inadequate. Products of GTOS such as the
WMO, IOC, UNEP, and ICSU. The GCOS Secretariat is
"Dynamic Maps" on South African agricultural patterns
located in WMO. GCOS’s main goal is “to assist in
are difficult to access via software that is generally
ensuring availability and quality of climate observations
available, especially in developing countries. GTOS
for a range of users”. GCOS prepared two Adequacy
envisages its future role as a key contributor to
Reports (in 1998 and 2003), in response to UNFCCC
advancing knowledge about global changes and their
decision to assess how well current and planned
effects on terrestrial ecosystems.
observing systems meet scientific requirements,
observing principles, and UNFCCC needs. GCOS also It appears that in many instances, GTOS focuses on the
initiated a capacity-building Regional Workshop collection of regional and sub-regional data sets,
Programme in mid-2000 and completed five regional although its emphasis should be on the development of
workshops, with Regional Action Plans now being a terrestrial component of the GOS. It is important that
prepared. GCOS recognizes that the UNFCCC has now FAO put GTOS higher on its agenda in order to be a
become a major driver for improving the GOS, but credible major sponsor and host of the Secretariat.
stresses the importance of the observing needs of the
GEC programmes. 5.5.2 Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS)
Within WMO, GCOS has close working relationship with IGOS is a partnership of 14 agencies (IGOS-P), including
the Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW), World Weather ICSU, WCRP, IGBP, and the three GOS. IGOS has been
Watch (WWW), Hydrology and Water Resources (HWR). developing plans for focused observing systems in
GCOS partners within ICSU include WCRP, and IGBP. For thematic areas (including water, carbon, geohazards,
example, GCOS works in partnership with IGBP, with etc.). The science community, but not necessarily the
IGOS on the carbon and water cycles, and collaborates ESSP community, has been important partners in
with IGBP’s IGAC Core Project and WCRP Stratospheric determining the IGOS Themes.
Processes and their Role in Climate project (SPARC). It
The EOS (July 2003) was an important initiative by the
would be of benefit if IGBP would co-sponsor the
political community towards implementation of a
Terrestrial Observing Panel for Climate of GTOS and
Global Observing System or Systems. The purpose of the
GCOS.
EOS is to identify a group of countries committed to
Based on the Adequacy Reports and other analyses, developing and maintaining an IGOS that is
there has been a significant general decrease in capacity international, comprehensive, and sustainable. The
and coverage of the global climate observing systems summit established an ad hoc GEO, of which ICSU is an
over the past decade. It is difficult to assess how the institutional member, to prepare a 10-year
efforts of GCOS have mitigated this decline. implementation plan for presentation at a ministerial
meeting in late 2004/early 2005. At present, it is not
5.5.1.3 Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) possible to ascertain how successful this strategy will be.
It is important that the activities build on past
GTOS was established in 1996, with sponsorship by FAO,
achievements of GOS and IGOS-P and do not duplicate
UNEP, UNESCO, WMO, and ICSU. The GTOS Secretariat
what has already been done.
is located in FAO. GTOS was mandated to provide
appropriate data for scientists and policy-makers on
5.5.3 Global Observing Systems: Analysis and
issues of sustainable development and terrestrial
Conclusions
ecosystems. Progress has varied on its five original foci:
land quality, freshwater resources, biodiversity, climate The Panel notes the separation of the agendas of the
change, and pollution and toxicity. observing systems and the GEC programmes. To some

degree, the sketchy nature of these relationships is due work sufficiently closely with the GEC programmes to
to the fact that the GEC programmes were well ensure that GOS plans are on the right track.
underway with considerable momentum while GCOS,
GOS and IGOS should set their priorities based on the
GTOS, and GOOS were developing their missions. The
global requirements of the science community,
Panel considers that the value of the GOS to the GEC
especially of the GEC programmes, as well as the policy
programmes has not been demonstrated. The lack of
community. ICSU should strengthen its involvement in
reciprocity in the collaboration matrix (Fig. 2) is
IGOS-P to ensure that the science community has a
remarkable.
concrete impact on the development of the themes and
The relationship between the GOS, the IGOS Themes, its involvement in the three GOS and IGOS to build
and the science community, especially ESSP, needs to be better connections with the ESSP.
clarified and strong collaborative ties must be developed.
For example, the Panel noted that none of IGBP, WCRP, 5.5.4 Panel on World Data Centres (WDC)
or SCOR is a sponsor of the ocean theme of IGOS. In
The Panel on WDC (Geophysical, Solar, and
consideration of the terrestrial observations, critical
Environmental) was established in 1968 to advise ICSU
reflection on progress to date reveals the persisting
on the management of the World Data Centres and to
tensions between two major "observation" agendas, i.e.
carry out related activities. Today the Panel oversees
those of atmospheric and marine scientists on the one
about 40 World Data Centres, which are maintained by
hand, and those of terrestrial scientists on the other.
their host countries and are responsible for collecting,
The sponsorship of the GOS is three UN agencies (four archiving, and distributing a wide range of data.
for GTOS) plus ICSU. The difficulties in dialogue among
It is unclear how the set of WDC relates to an
these parties and the GEC programmes may reflect that
overarching strategy for development and
the operational nature of the GOS missions is more
implementation of an archive and retrieval system for
consistent with the modus operandi of their UN
globally relevant international scientific data sets.
sponsors. In addition, there is a need for a strong bridge
Furthermore, the strategy for the deposition of GOS
to the scientific activities of ICSU in order to fulfil the
data (how much, when, with what standards, etc.) in the
GOS missions.
WDC is not clear. There is no evidence of strong links
Each of the IGOS Themes will have a socio-economic between the WDC and the ICSU Unions and IBs. The
component, and the Panel noted that ICSU has been relationship between the WDC and FAGS (see section
charged with convening a group of experts that can 5.5.8) is also unclear and there is concern about possible
address the generic issues related to spatially- duplication of effort. The commercialization of data is a
referenced, global socio-economic data sets. In this threat to an open data exchange system. The Panel
regard, IHDP should apply for membership in IGOS-P. notes that the WDC could, if properly managed, become
the depository for GOS data. The assessment by the
Close working relations between the GOS and the GEC
Panel of the WDC in this report is limited to their
programmes will provide the best forward-looking
contribution to environmental science.
judgment on what variables should be monitored and
how to best develop new efficiencies in methods of The WDC Panel should prepare a vision and strategy for
global atmospheric, ocean, and terrestrial observations, its future through working with the GEC programmes,
and data analysis, synthesis, and distribution. Generally, the Scientific Unions, and the GOS. The strategy and
much good could come of closer interaction among the resulting plan should ensure that their data are freely
ICSU GEC programmes and GOOS, GCOS, and GTOS. available in a timely manner to the global science
The onus should be on the observing programmes to community. ICSU should analyse the WDC strategy to
guide its further involvement.

5.5.5 Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical With few exceptions, such as the International Union of
Data Analysis Services (FAGS) Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) and
the International Geographical Union (IGU), Unions did
FAGS was established in 1956 and now has 12
not initially regard interactions between humanity and
permanent Services. The cost of data services is
planet Earth as the primary focus of their science. With
considerable, given that they manage extensive data
time, however, this has changed. Many of the current
collection, analysis, and storage systems, and require a
Unions, their Associations and Working Groups
large staff. FAGS provides an advisory function and
(henceforth simply referred to as “Unions”) now direct
a link with the Scientific Unions. The ICSU umbrella
more specific attention to issues of the environment and
strengthens the position of the data services with the
its relation to sustainable development, acknowledging
national and international programmes, and helps to
their responsibility to convey relevant scientific findings
justify the expense. The assessment of FAGS in this
to decision-making processes. Issues such as
report is limited to their contribution to environmental
stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, negative
science.
effects of biomass burning, water pollution, natural
While the rich historical data record is a major hazards, and ways of coping with risk were addressed.
accomplishment of FAGS, it is seen as being Much of this harvest has benefited the IBs.
disconnected from the environmental science
The Panel’s assessment relies on the responses from the
community. Today, FAGS finds itself in a relatively weak
Unions to a questionnaire (Annex 4). Among responses
position, as there is doubt whether it is fulfilling the role
received, none of the listed topics ("keywords"; see
for which it was designed. It has been suggested that
section 6) were neglected, and additional topics were
FAGS is an unnecessary middle layer between the
mentioned, such as human settlements and megacities,
scientific associations and the data services. The
coasts, fresh water supply, food safety, non-renewable
International Association of Geodesy (IAG) within IUGG
raw materials, soils and monitoring. When asked about
has already taken several steps in addressing this, and in
their primary results/outcomes, some specified
certain cases has assumed the role originally assigned to
analytical/methodological advances such as weather and
FAGS. The value-added nature of ICSU sponsorship of
climate models, geoindicators, analyses of biophysical
FAGS is questioned and IAU, IUGG, and Union Radio
processes, integrated place-based comparative case
Scientifique Internationale (URSI) should take
studies, and interactions of social and natural systems.
responsibility for its future. Thus, FAGS should no
Others pointed to substantive domains such as tropical
longer be an ICSU IB.
biomes, medical geology, green chemistry, and
hazardous effects of chemicals. Still others highlighted
5.6 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC UNIONS
practical outcomes, such as the development of early
warning systems, natural disaster prevention/mitigation,
5.6.1 Retrospect and prospect
and natural elements that may be deficient or
The IBs that have been reviewed by the Panel were overabundant in particular places. Only some of these
created by the ICSU General Assembly, namely by the topics have been transformed into IB programmes.
National Members and Scientific Unions. At the time
The Unions collaborate with not only other Unions, but
when many of these Unions were established, issues
also with international and regional professional
of environment were not yet on the horizon, and their
associations and international agencies and
agenda was primarily scientific. Yet, in many cases,
programmes, such as UNESCO, UNEP, and other UN
there was an implicit aim to provide society with
agencies. They are a fertile ground for germination of
the knowledge needed for the improvement of
scientific ideas and approaches, through seed projects,
human existence.
workshops and scientific meetings which emphasize
inter-disciplinary collaboration. They also help to provide

resources to science and scientists in those parts of the 2003) that fleshed out a research programme around
world where local conditions do not permit the the general theme of "Science for health and well-
development of scientific capacity or do not allow full being". Three specific lines of enquiry, each with
expression of the existing scientific cadre in national and specific Union leads, are currently underway: 1) "Living
international research, thereby making a major environments" (led by IGU); 2) “Connections between
contribution to capacity building. water and health" (led by IUGG and the International
Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,
5.6.2 The role of the Unions within ICSU ISPRS), and 3) “Impacts of technology on health and
well-being”, led by the International Union of
ICSU should aim to achieve a better orchestration of
Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and the International
scientific effort among the Union programmes and
Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS).
those of the IBs, avoiding unnecessary duplication. It is
recognized that a major IB requires staff and resources Other inter-Union encounters are currently planned.
beyond that which the Unions can normally mobilize. A Following the highly successful "Year of the Mountains",
balanced approach between using existing structures led by IGU, there are now plans among the geo-unions
and creating new ones, with some of the new activities (IGU, IUGS, IUGG, and the International Union of Soil
organized, initially at least, as inter-Union collaborative Sciences - IUSS) for an International Year of Planet Earth
proposals, is therefore called for. (2006). In addition, IUGG has taken the lead to plan for
an IGY +50. ICSU is coordinating these activities,
Indeed, ICSU is seen by many Unions as a means of
together with the Fourth International Polar Year, to all
strengthening each of them while also affording a
coincide in 2007/2008, with the objective of creating a
potential voice for policy implications of science
similar international attention as did the successful IGY
globally. ICSU has also already demonstrated its
in 1957.
potential role as "host" for inter-Union encounters, as
"harvester" of Union research results, and an important On ICSU itself, Union respondents emphasized the role
source of financial support for Union activities. One of the grants programme and the authority that ICSU
valuable outcome of inter-Union encounters, such as affords, for example, in the support that its "stamp"
ICSU has facilitated on a few occasions since 2000, was offers in applications for external funding. Many Unions
the opportunity for Union Presidents and Secretaries also welcomed ICSU’s role in expressing a universal voice
General to meet and exchange views on potential on policy issues, such as pollution, climate change, and
collaboration. Some of the recent developments include: ozone depletion. All Unions expressed gratitude for the
positive help received from ICSU in the past, and offered
A discussion during the Unions meeting at ICSU
views on ways in which they could contribute in the
(February 2001) led to a very fruitful "scoping
future. There were complaints, however, about ICSU
workshop" on food security that contributed
procedures that were perceived by some as excessively
important insights for the GECAFS project that is
bureaucratic.
now part of ESSP;
A meeting of Union representatives during the ICSU 5.6.3 Core issues
General Assembly (September 2002) allowed newly-
Several core concerns emerge from this consultation
elected Union executive members to share views on
with ICSU’s member Scientific Unions. First, a
ways in which inter-Union collaboration could be
philosophical issue arises with respect to relationships
fostered; and
between the descriptive/explanatory aims of
Following upon this, an IUBS initiative assembled functionally-specialized scientific research on the one
representatives of 12 Unions to explore themes hand, and the "policy relevant" implications of results
around which inter-Union collaboration could be from such research within the sectorally-specialized
developed. This was followed by a meeting (February domains of policy formulation on the other. However,

some Unions have grappled with these issues and have developed countries. There is virtually no explicit
come forward with suggestions about science and acknowledgement of the new knowledge and alternative
contextually-appropriate policy implications. technologies - on environment and sustainable
development - that could be acquired, nurtured or
A second issue regarding cooperation between the
developed through partnering with colleagues in
natural and social/human sciences arises. This touches
developing countries. It is hoped that the ICSU Regional
upon the relationships between ICSU and ISSC, a
Offices will help to re-orient thinking to promote
relationship that has apparently been less than
this approach.
satisfactory in the past. Since issues of environment and
sustainable development have now become a priority Finally, despite several decades of specialized scientific
within ISSC, possibilities for more mutually beneficial research, generous national funding for environmental
interactions could be explored. One suggestion is that research, and improved efficacy of electronic media in
the three international Scientific Unions - IUAES, IGU, reporting both environmental conditions and scientific
the and IUPsyS - which are members of both umbrella results, environmental problems have increased in
organizations, might be encouraged to facilitate such intensity, and global inequalities have increased.
efforts. Attitudes toward this interdisciplinary dialogue It would be a worthwhile objective for ICSU to
vary. To transcend such impasses may involve more than uncover some of the sources of such contradictions,
epistemological argument; it may also be facilitated by as it seeks to provide a forum for debate/dialogue over
fresh approaches to empirical enquiry into issues of science and public policy.
sustainable development.
5.7 NATIONAL MEMBERS
A third major issue concerns scale in problem definition
and research approach. The value of conducting case Science is increasingly an international endeavour. In
studies within specific places, and then tracing the wider areas such as environmental studies, the coordination of
resonances of locally-based events and processes to mutually agreed synergistic research agendas and
wider horizons should be recognized. Expansion from priorities among countries greatly enhances the
local through regional to global scales expresses itself in interaction of national researchers and projects within
two ways: 1) Local problems that are duplicated in many the broader international community. ICSU interacts
locations, e.g. water shortage and contamination, solid with national scientific institutions and scientists
waste, and congestion in transportation systems; and 2) through its 73 National Scientific Members, 15 National
Problems at the global scale that are created by local Scientific Associates, and 13 National Scientific
behaviour around the world, e.g. use of Observers. These national institutions are usually the
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that deplete stratospheric principal scientific academy or the main research
ozone, air pollution in one location that carries to other council. To promote integrative approaches to science,
locations, HIV/AIDS (Human Immunodeficiency Virus / the Panel considers that there are substantial benefits to
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), and SARS be gained by National Members encouraging the
(Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). Environmental teaching of interdisciplinary approaches to research. In
changes such as water, land and air quality, land slides, addition to scientific encouragement, the Panel
floods and droughts, are viewed first at the local and recognizes that the financial support for coordinated
regional scales and later at the global scale (e.g. ozone international programmes is made possible by
depletion, climate change). People respond to local contributions from primarily national funding sources.
issues more readily than they do to global ones. The Panel also encourages national funding bodies to
develop their national programmes with a view to
A fourth issue relates to science and scientists in less
contributing to relevant international programmes and
developed countries. Capacity building is often
to enabling their national scientists to reap the benefits
construed as transfer of currently practised scientific and
from involvement in international research endeavours.
technological knowledge from developed to less

To build upon their scientific and financial investments, Although the responses to the questions are interesting,
the Panel suggests that National Members should one should not draw any far-reaching conclusions, as
provide links to relevant national policy-makers and each question might have been interpreted differently
ensure that results from international programmes are by the various respondents.
made available at the national level.
Collaboration between ICSU’s IBs and Unions seems to
be very weak (Figure 3). The two IBs (SCOPE and
5.8 COLLABORATION WITHIN ICSU AND WITH
COSPAR) quoting the greatest number of Unions
EXTERNAL BODIES
mentioned only five each. In addition, SCOPE was
Cooperation within the ICSU family and with other mentioned by four Unions, and COSPAR by three. More
organizations is critical to ensuring that projects do than half of the IBs (11) did not claim to work with any
not duplicate efforts and that scientific progress and of the Unions.
capacity of each organization is optimally used by the
From the perspective of the Unions, IUGG collaborates
rest of the scientific community. The questionnaire
with six IBs and IGU with three. However, IGU is a
circulated by the PAA included the question “Which
special case - it claims to work with an additional nine
are your major partner organizations within and outside
IBs, but IGU was not mutually listed as a partner by
of ICSU?”
these IBs. Many Unions have only limited activities in
For the responses on collaboration among the IBs (Fig. the environmental field, and thus did not respond to the
2), only about a quarter of potential collaborative links questionnaire. Except for IAU (three partners) and IUMS
were identified, with the GEC programmes showing the (one), the thirteen non-responding Unions were not
greatest number of acknowledged collaborations among mentioned as partners by any IB.
the IBs. The establishment of the ESSP by the four
Many bodies external to ICSU have major activities of
programmes will result in even more intensified
relevance to the ICSU environment portfolio. Figure 4
collaboration in the future.
shows those bodies that the IBs mentioned as partners.
SCOPE has strong collaborative links, which is to be It is natural that assessment bodies such as the MA have
expected due to its mandate. It should be noted that many partners outside ICSU, and the same goes for the
there seems to be good collaboration between SCOPE GEC programmes (Group 3 of Fig. 4). The observational
and the ESSP partners, which is an excellent programmes (group 4) also have many partners, and
development. In the early stages of some GEC ICSU is only one of several sponsors of these
programmes, there was concern that there would be programmes. The thematic IBs have considerably fewer
competition, overlap, and duplication. The external partners and WDC, which should serve the
complementary and important role of SCOPE has wider science community, only cites one body with
evidently been realized by the GEC programmes. SCOR which it collaborates.
is another body with several strong partnerships, while
The organization with which there is most collaboration
CDR and SCL have not mentioned any collaboration and
is UNESCO, which is to be expected as it is the UN
they are not mentioned by any of the other bodies.
Specialized Agency responsible for science, and since
FAGS is only mentioned by WDC, but it does not list
ICSU and UNESCO have a very special relationship.
partnership with any of the IBs.
UNEP is also a key partner as responsible for
The mandate of WDC is to oversee a system of centres environment within the UN system. In addition,
that collect, archive, and distribute a wide range of data. UNFCCC, WMO, IPCC, and IOC (which is a component
It is noteworthy that whereas WDC mentioned of UNESCO) are also involved in many collaborative
collaboration with six other IBs, none of them partnerships with ICSU IBs.
acknowledged collaboration with the WDC. This includes
all three GOS (GCOS, GOOS, and GTOS), as none of
them mentioned WDC.

DIVERSITAS
Full Collab.
SCOSTEP
COSPAR
Cited by
SCOPE
GOOS
START
WCRP
GCOS
GTOS
SCOR
SCAR
WDC
FAGS
IGOS
IHDP
Cites
IGBP
ESSP
CDR
SCL
MA
MA 1 4 0
1
SCOPE 5 2 1
CDR 0 0 0
COSPAR 1 1 1
FAGS 0 1 0
2 SCAR 2 1 1
SCL 0 0 0
SCOR 4 3 0
SCOSTEP 1 0 2
WDC 0 1 6
DIVERSITAS 6 0 1
ESSP 5 0 2
IGBP 9 5 0
3
IHDP 6 0 1
START 6 0 3
WCRP 10 1 3
GCOS 2 1 3
4 GOOS
2 3 1
GTOS 0 5 2
IGOS 4 0 1
B B B
'Full Collaboration'
A A A cites B A A is cited by B
A and B cite each other as partners
Figure 2. Collaboration among IBs as stated in the responses to the PAA questionnaire.

Full Collab.
Cited by
IUPHAR
IUPESM
IUFoST
Unions
IUPsyS
IUBMB
IUTAM
IUTOX
IUHPS
IUPAC
IUPAB
IUPAP
IUAES
ISPRS
IUGG
IUMS
IUNS
IUGS
IBRO
Cites
URSI
IUBS
IUPS
IUSS
IUCr
IMU
IUIS
IGU
IAU
Int Bodies
MA 0 0 0
1
SCOPE 4 1 1
CDR 0 1 0
COSPAR 2 1 2
FAGS 1 0 1
2 SCAR 0 3 0
SCL 1 0 1
SCOR 2 2 0
SCOSTEP 2 0 1
WDC 0 0 0
DIVERSITAS 1 2 0
ESSP 0 1 0
IGBP 0 4 0
3
IHDP 1 0 0
START 1 0 1
WCRP 0 2 0
GCOS 0 1 0
4 GOOS 0 1 0
GTOS 0 1 0
IGOS 0 1 0
Full Collab. 0 3 0 0 2 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
These Unions dis not answer the
Cited by 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1
PAA Questionnaire
Cites 0 9 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
B B
'Full Collaboration' TICK: IB cites a non-responding union
A A and B cite each other as partners A (A cites B, no data from B)
B B
A cites B (reading horizontally) A is cited by B (reading horizontally)
A B is cited by A (reading vertically) A B cites A (reading vertically)
Figure 3. Collaboration between IBs and Scientific Unions as stated in the responses to the PAA questionnaire. Please note that the
matrix should be read by rows for IBs and by columns for Unions, as indicated by the summary of totals. The non-shaded areas
represent Unions not having responded to the questionnaire.

UNFCCC/SBSTA
CBD/SBSTTA
UNESCO
UNCCD
TOTAL
TWAS
WMO
UNEP
WHO
CEOS
IUCN
IPCC
APN
FAO
IOC
UN
IFS
IAI
MA X X X X X X X X X X 10
1
SCOPE X X X X X 5
CDR X X 2
COSPAR X X X X 4
FAGS X 1
2 SCAR X X X 3
SCL 0
SCOR X X X X 4
SCOSTEP X X 2
WDC X 1
DIVERSITAS X X X X X X X 7
ESSP X X 2
START X X X X X X X X 8
3
IGBP X X X X X X X X 8
IHDP X X X X X X 6
WCRP X X X X X X X X X 9
GTOS X X X X X X 6
X X X X X X X 7
4 GCOS
GOOS X X X X X X 6
IGOS X X X X X X X X 8
TOTAL 5 8 5 10 12 2 9 2 8 2 9 3 5 5 6 5 3 99
Figure 4. Summary of IBs partnerships with organizations outside ICSU. Only those organizations quoted at least twice are
included (for explanations, see list of acronyms). Organizations which are primarily funding bodies have not been included.

5.9 CAPACITY BUILDING governance structures have seen their expensively
trained citizens leave for better prospects in
5.9.1 Capacity building for research on environment industrialized countries. To reduce the exodus of trained
and sustainable development people, training in developing countries should be
conducted in local universities (where possible) with
Capacity building, both individual and institutional,
opportunities for short-term visits to advanced
is a central component in any effort to address the
countries. Trained people need support with acquiring
science of environment and its relation to sustainable
research equipment, purchase of information and
development. It is necessary to educate a new
communication facilities, research proposal writing,
generation of scientists who can contribute to the
training in the peer-review process and publication of
understanding of the causes of environmental problems,
research results in peer-reviewed journals, as well as
and who can outline pathways to their solution. It is
dissemination of research results to society.
also essential to train researchers who are competent
and confident in addressing environmental issues In order to further strengthen human resources
using approaches that integrate the natural and development, the Panel recommends that outreach
social sciences. and curriculum material for primary and secondary
education should be in local languages. National
Capacity building is currently carried out by the ICSU
Members have a special role to play in this regard.
family in three main areas: training programmes,
institution and infrastructure strengthening, and Four areas of capacity building requiring concerted
cooperation and exchange of people. Specific activities efforts in the next decade have been identified. The first,
include promotion of science and mathematics at which is of high priority, is formal education, which
primary level. Other areas include improvement of includes curriculum change to lower the barrier to
public awareness and understanding of science and collaboration between natural and social sciences. Young
science policy, grants for laboratory equipment, and scientists must have the opportunity to obtain training
specialized staff training at their local institutions. in working across disciplines and geographical scales.
Travel grants for participation at conferences and
The second area relates to improvement of the policy-
workshops have been widely used as a vehicle for
making process. In many developing countries, most
exchange of scientists.
research topics are donor-driven and fall within the
In the environmental area, there is need for formal applied science fields, with little fundamental research.
training at all levels, with more emphasis at master’s Linkages between scientists and policy-makers are weak
and doctorate levels, of young people who can then everywhere, and communication of scientific research
undertake national, regional, and global research. In results to policy-makers is always difficult. Bridging the
doing so more emphasis should be placed on communication gap between scientists and policy-
multidisciplinary research. In order to do this it is makers is a joint learning experience that requires new
necessary to change the conservative nature of initiatives. ICSU should consider the best way to address
universities that tend to fragment environmental issues the need for training courses for scientists and policy-
into traditional disciplinary approaches through its makers in this respect.
departments and faculties/schools. Considerable
The third area of capacity building relates to the
capacity building activities are carried out by the four
application of research results to develop national
GEC programmes through their international networks.
policies and in socio-economic planning and
These efforts have had mixed outcomes in different development projects. Improving human living
places. Countries with strong science-based institutions conditions remains a primary objective of all UN
and stable governance structures have benefited programmes, and ICSU is equally committed to
enormously, while countries with weak science and poor this goal.

The fourth area of capacity building is related to Global Change Research (APN), the Inter-American
changing attitudes of different scientists and scientific Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), and the
communities. Active participation of social, technological, European Network for Research in Global Change
and health scientists in programmes and projects (ENRICH). Despite this noble beginning, ENRICH, which
generally need to be increased. was started by the European Union to assist the African
region, has not taken off. Furthermore, there has been
5.9.2 Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research infrequent interaction between START and IAI. On the
and Training (START) other hand, interaction between START and APN has been
very fruitful.
The GEC programmes have, from their establishment,
ranked capacity building activities high on their agendas. START has been able to obtain some research funds to
START was established by IGBP in 1992 to support and support global environmental change research in Africa.
foster regional networks and collaboration among Unlike other regions, Africa has had difficulties in
scientists and institutions in developing countries. To this attracting funds for global change research. In addition,
end, START has achieved its objectives in establishing coordination between policy-makers and individual
infrastructure and cooperation in regional research research activities undertaken in Africa has been weak.
development and mobilizing resources for capacity Furthermore, the weak resource base in Africa has made
building. Within ESSP, it does this directly with regional long-term research planning and execution in that
centres and with its co-sponsoring programmes: IGBP, continent problematic. The character of environmental
WCRP and IHDP. It has also cooperated with many other research must depend on local circumstances.
organizations within the ICSU family. Outside the ICSU
family, primary partners are the Asia-Pacific Network for

6. Areas of Emphasis
6.1 AREAS CURRENTLY COVERED can be considered as addressing very broad mandates
(more than 80% of the keywords selected by ESSP, MA,
All IBs and Union Members were asked to identify, by
COSPAR, IHDP, IGBP, IGU, and IUBS; Figure 5), while
defined keywords (Table 1), which area they address in
GOOS, the International Mathematical Union (IMU), and
the current or planned activities. The choice of keywords
the International Union of Food Science and Technology
reflected priorities in the UN Millennium Development
(IUFoST) considered less than 20% of the keywords
Goals as well as discussions held during WSSD. Although
to be relevant to their ongoing or planned activities.
the choice was somewhat arbitrary, it was considered
Overall, ICSU bodies address topics that are central to
important to collect information on how various bodies
environment and its relation to sustainable development.
relate to major priority areas to identify potential
However, very large domains such as energy, technology,
overlaps as well as areas where additional initiatives may
and health were low on the list. This probably reflects the
be warranted.
imbalance in the scientific domains covered by ICSU
Capacity building and climate change were the most Scientific Unions with very little coverage of, for example,
highly ranked areas while energy and poverty alleviation technological and health sciences.
the lowest by both IBs and Unions (Table 1). Some bodies
6.2 EMERGING ISSUES
Table 1 One of ICSU’s priorities is “to identify and address major
Ranking of the keywords by percentage of respondents. issues of importance to science and society”. The process
of identifying such emerging issues is an important
Rank Keyword IBs Unions Total component in the development of a strategy for ICSU. In
this regard, the CSPR commissioned a study of national
1 Capacity building 85 92 91
foresight studies4 by the Science and Technology Policy
2 Climate change 85 77 82 Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex, United
3 Data and information 75 69 76
Kingdom (UK). Subsequently, National Members were
invited by the PAA Panel to submit any additional
4 Water 75 62 70 national foresight studies in relation to the environment
5 Biodiversity 70 46 61 not included in the results of the CSPR study.
6 Agriculture and food security 65 46 58 The SPRU report identified key scientific areas in which
ICSU could play a central role. In a list of 28 key scientific
7 Natural disasters 55 38 52
areas, environment and sustainable use of natural
8 Chemical pollution 45 54 48 resources was the most important cluster; it included 12
of the 28 key scientific areas and related to three more
9 Health 45 46 45
from other clusters. The areas relating to environment
10 Technology 40 46 45 and sustainable development were: biodiversity; resource
management; soil science; bioremediation; air pollution;
11 Energy 40 38 39
water recycling; water use saving/efficiency technologies;
12 Poverty alleviation 25 38 30 carbon sequestration; recycling; risk and disasters; and
weather and climate modelling, simulation and long-
range forecasting. Other areas highly relevant to the
environment were: new/renewable, clean energy sources;
environmental sensors; and genetic modification of
food/crops.
4
ICSU, 2002. Identification of Key Emerging Issues in Science and Society:
an International Perspective on National Foresight Studies. 28 pp.

natural disasters
No. of keywords
climate change
agriculture &
food security
keywords
information
biodiversity
technology
alleviation
chemical
polution
capacity
building
poverty
data &
energy
health
water
Acronyms
CDR X X X X 4
COSPAR X X X X X X X X X X X 11
DIVERSITAS X X X X X 5
ESSP X X X X X X X X X X X X 12
FAGS X X X X X X X 7
GCOS X X X X X X X X 8
GOOS X X 2
GTOS X X X X X X X X 8
IGBP X X X X X X X X X X 10
IGOS X X X X X X X X X 9
IBs
IHDP X X X X X X X X X X X 11
MA X X X X X X X X X X X X 12
SCAR X X X X 4
SCL X X X X 4
SCOPE X X X X X X 6
SCOR X X X X X X 6
SCOSTEP X X X X 4
START X X X X X X X X X 9
WCRP X X X X X 5
WDC X X X X X X X X 8
IBRO X X X 3
IGU X X X X X X X X X X X 11
IMU X X 2
ISPRS X X X X X X X X 8
IUBS X X X X X X X X X X 10
Unions
IUFoST X 1
IUGG X X X X X X X 7
IUGS X X X X X X X 7
IUSS X X X X X X X X X 9
IUPAC X X X X X X X X 8
IUPAP X X X X X 5
IUTAM X X X X X X X X 8
IUTOX X X X X X X 6
% Tot. Resps 30 70 39 45 58 61 82 76 91 45 48 52
% IBs resp 25 75 40 45 65 70 85 75 85 40 45 55
% Unions resp 38 62 38 46 46 46 77 69 92 46 54 38
Figure 5. Environmental keywords selected by IBs and Unions in response to the PAA questionnaire.

The SPRU report was sent to National and Union 6.3 NEW PRIORITY AREAS
members and IBs who were all asked to comment on the
Based on considerations regarding current and planned
areas identified in the report and to identify major
activities, the Panel suggests that ICSU should consider
emerging issues in which they think ICSU could play a
initiating suitable planning processes for new initiatives
role. An initial analysis of the responses indicates that the
in the following priority areas:
ICSU family generally agrees with the list of issues
identified in the SPRU report. However, some additional Environment and human health;
issues of relevance to environmental issues were

Natural and man-made hazards; and
identified and these are discussed below with the
Panel’s comments: Human security (e.g. environmental refugees)
Two areas, energy and biotechnology, genomics and Transgenic crops and their implications for the
proteomics are very broad and are not addressed environment.

within this report. Energy and sustainable societies In development programmes in each of these priority
is currently being considered by another ad hoc areas, it is essential that two important approaches be
committee. included:
Contributions to sustainable development, global
Understanding of vulnerability/resilience to multiple
change science and monitoring, and strengthened stressors; and
involvement of social science are key elements of all
Scenario building.
the activities discussed in this report.
Land-use and the environment is a focus of the LUCC Increasing evidence that many aspects of Earth’s natural
project of IGBP and IHDP systems and our social and economic systems have been
perturbed by changes in climate over the past several
Water is the focus of the GWSP of the ESSP.
decades has stimulated new interest in assessing the
Environment and Health would be a main thrusts of a vulnerability of key components of these systems5.
proposed new priority area - Environment and human Vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system
health- described below. or component thereof is likely to experience harm due to
exposure to a hazard, as either a perturbation or an
Natural and man-made hazards is the thrust of a
altered stress/stressor.
proposed new priority, described below.
Vulnerability analysis expands upon well-established
Demography would be a thrust of a proposed new
practices in the risk-hazard field, largely by considering
priority area - Human security (e.g. environmental
the degree to which the system is resilient or has the
refugees), described below.
capacity to adapt in response to the perturbation or
As scientific research and knowledge development is stress. This is a particularly important distinction when
crucial for addressing environmental issues, it is clear considering the vulnerability of coupled human-
that ICSU must continue to develop its environmental environment systems. Actions taken by humans can
portfolio. Many of the priority areas are already covered intentionally or unintentionally attenuate or amplify
by major ICSU initiatives (i.e. global change research), the impacts of the hazard.
whereas others (e.g. natural and man-made hazards) are
Thus, while it is possible to conduct an analysis of
partially covered by existing initiatives, but the Panel
vulnerability to a single stressor, e.g. climate change, the
considers an increased effort to be warranted.
applicability of such analyses is inevitably constrained
5
ICSU 2002. ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development:
Resilience and Sustainable Development No. 3. 37 pp.

unless the likely effects of other key stressors are also range of scales from local to national, continental and
included. For example, patterns of some emerging and global. In each case, the power of the decision-maker
resurgent infectious diseases are plausibly linked to (from the consumer to producer and local and national
regional and sub-regional climate changes that provide governments) to influence their future can be evaluated.
more favourable conditions for specific pathogens and The scenarios can also be used to assess the influence of
vectors. However, the resilience of humans to this stress national policies at the local level and the influence of
can vary dramatically on the two sides of a political local actions nationally.
boundary because two different governments have
invested differently in public health measures and 6.3.1 Environment and human health
community design and development that either prevent
Promoting human health and well-being, which is highly
the infection or deal effectively with its consequences.
relevant to ICSU’s mission of “strengthening
Similarly, with exceptional heat waves, the number of
international science for the benefit of society”, has
human deaths will be closely coupled with resilience and
been identified as a priority for future ICSU initiatives.
adaptive capacity of medical and public health response
Public health experts are increasingly coming to
systems within a specific societal and cultural context.
understand how human health can be influenced by
Since the mid-1990s there has been an evolving use of local environmental conditions and socio-economic
qualitative and quantitative exploratory and circumstances, as well as social, institutional,
anticipatory scenarios to assess the status of the technological, and behavioural adaptations. Human
environment, regionally and globally. Exploratory health problems fall disproportionately upon developing
scenarios are descriptive and explore plausible futures countries, and upon the poorest sectors within all
using a self-consistent set of demographic, economic, societies, thereby exacerbating existing social and
socio-political, scientific and technological, cultural and economic inequities. Many of the most exciting new
religious, and biophysical drivers. Anticipatory scenarios insights related to human health are taking place at the
start with a vision of the future and work backwards in interface between the ‘traditional’ medical/health
time to evaluate how desirable futures might be sciences and other fields such as climatology, ecology,
achieved and undesirable futures avoided. Scenario and social sciences.
analysis has been an important tool in several regional
Human health lies at the nexus of many topics with
and international environmental and sustainability
which ICSU is concerned (e.g. climate change, water,
assessments. They have been used to assess future
energy, capacity building, vulnerability, and extreme
changes in the demand for energy, food and water, trace
natural events). Currently, there are two initiatives (one
gas emissions, and the status of ecological systems and
from ESSP and one from ICSU Unions) within the ICSU
their goods and services. The policy community and the
family that directly address the issue of human health
private sector have found this tool to play an invaluable
and well-being.
role in public and private sector decision-making.
Increasingly, human health concerns are taking on global
The proposed ICSU projects could be designed to include
dimensions (e.g. SARS, HIV/AIDS), and thus international
a component on scenario building, to develop a range of
partnerships (e.g. with organizations such WHO and
plausible storylines, quantitatively evaluate the direct
Inter Academy Medical Panel -IAMP) are critical for
and indirect drivers of environmental change with and
addressing such concerns. At present, there is no
without nationally and internationally coordinated
coherent, long-term global research initiative focused on
policy interventions, and use a range of “models” to
understanding the full array of environmental and social
assess the future range of a number of environmental
factors that impinge upon human health and well-being.
parameters and the resulting implications for sustainable
ICSU, with its disciplinary-based International Unions, its
development. These scenarios could be developed at a
101 multi-disciplinary National Members, and its proven

ability to collaborate with a wide array of other only an ICSU-led programme, with the participation of
international scientific bodies, is uniquely positioned to international and national partners, can achieve. An
catalyze and sponsor new international initiatives on ICSU-led Natural and Human-induced Hazards
this critically important topic of environment and Programme would have coordinated research in at least
human health. the following areas: critical infrastructure; population
health; hazards assessment; public policy; and
6.3.2 Natural and human-induced hazards international development. An integrated risk
management approach would examine the intersection
Natural disasters are already a serious threat around the
of vulnerabilities and hazards.
world, and result in large losses of human lives and
economic assets. The Munich Re 20026 review stated The planning would consider the past achievements of
that in 2002, 11,000 lives were lost through natural CDR and the SC-IDNDR. The Panel recommends that
catastrophes and economic losses totalled $US55bn, an ICSU develop this programme by building on the basis of
increase from 2000 but below the record $US100bn in the disciplinary expertise of the Unions (such as IUGG
1999. Windstorms and floods accounted for over two- and IUGS), the subject areas of the GEC programmes,
thirds of the 700 events. A single sudden earthquake with additional components on population health and
may cause over 1,000 deaths or injuries, resulting in critical infrastructure (through appropriate partners).
wide-ranging impacts on society. In addition, millions of The programme would be integrated through a scientific
people are injured or displaced each year because of committee and a small number of integrating, trans-
natural disasters, and property damage has been disciplinary projects. In this way, ICSU would build upon
doubling about every seven years over the past 40 years. existing expertise and projects and have a programme
Concern about natural disasters, which is the focus of that is more effectively and efficiently implemented. It is
programmes such as the United Nation ISDR and the further recommended that a planning workshop be held
World Bank Disaster Management Facility, is now early in 2004 to move forward on this issue.
coupled with heightened awareness of society’s
vulnerability to terrorism and other anthropogenic 6.3.3 Human security – Environmental refugees
hazards. Though hazards will continue to exist, it is the
A prime source of pressure on the Earth’s environment is
vulnerability established often through people’s choices
human population increase and demographic
that turns hazards into disasters. In addition, the
movements, especially the migration of people in
changing global climate adds major complexities.
uncontrolled circumstances. Increased human migration
Globally, there is exceptional knowledge and research
could occur both within countries and across frontiers.
excellence on: the analysis and design of infrastructure
Such migrants or refugees fall into three broad
and public health systems; mitigation and adaptive
categories: political refugees, economic migrants, and
management; severe weather, earthquakes and other
environmental refugees. It could be forecasted with very
hazardous events; and public policy questions on the
high level of probability that the total number of
management of risk and interactions among different
environmental refugees will increase both in relative and
levels of government. However, in a field that is highly
absolute quantity. This demographic process is
interdisciplinary, much of the research is conducted
associated with the more serious problems of resource
along single-disciplinary lines. Hazards have been
depletion, pollution of land, sea and air, water shortages,
considered independently and much of the analysis has
desertification, climate change (including sea level rise)
had a retrospective, rather than futuristic view.
increasing number of natural hazards, and destruction of
It is essential that this excellence be brought together biodiversity. Around 40 small-island countries could be
with a shared vision and an integrated approach that in danger due to sea level rise. Nearly one third of the
6
Munich re Group 2002. Topics Natural Catastrophes. 52 pp.

total world’s population live in coastal areas (not more 6.3.4 Transgenic crops and their implications for the
then 100 km from the sea or oceans). In many inland environment
countries the desertification process and drought, and in
The role of science and new genetic technologies in food
the arid zones, the shortage of water very often causes
production is an area of considerable controversy and
extreme difficulties for living. Environmental
concern to many people across the world. It is an area in
vulnerability is increasing in many countries of the
which there are strongly conflicting views and opinions,
world. Appearance of large numbers of environmental
in which scientific progress and individual morals and
refugees could be one of the biggest problems for
beliefs are often opposed, and in which the science itself
governments in the 21st century.
is sometimes uncertain and open to interpretation.
ICSU should initiate a new and comprehensive project However, food security is also one of the major
on environmental refugees, elaborating the scientific challenges facing humanity (e.g., 850 million people lack
issues, and natural and human causes, possible access to sufficient nutritious food at affordable prices).
consequences, prevention and adaptive management, There is potential for using gene technology for
limits and possibilities of the local population’s improving crop traits such as temperature tolerance,
resilience, etc. But ICSU alone could not cope with this drought and pest resistance, and enhanced yields and
task, and needs partners for such a project, especially the improved nutritional value. In 2003 ICSU released New
ISSC, UNESCO, and other relevant UN agencies. Inside Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries
the ICSU family are also potential partners such as IGU, - Societal Dilemmas, which synthesised more than 50
IGBP, IHDP (particularly its Global Environmental science-based reviews. This report was prepared by
Change and Human Security core project), SCOPE, and Gabrielle Persley, who is an acknowledged expert in this
others. The Panel recommends the creation of a Task area, analysed the risks and benefits of applying new
Force that would undertake an analysis of the scientific genetic discoveries to food and agriculture.
aspects of the problem, with all its social implications,
The Panel recognizes that there is significant controversy
and make recommendations for action.
and uncertainties surrounding the environmental and
human health implications in both the scientific and
policy communities. The Panel recommends that ICSU
pay urgent attention to this issue and consider how it
could contribute to sound policy relevant science in
this area.

7. Acknowledgements
The Panel gratefully acknowledges the participation of input and attention to this review. The Panel invited
Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta and Professor Lourdes representatives from the IBs that were assessed in this
Arizpe. Both of them were initial members of the Panel Report to its meeting in February 2003, and wish to
and added considerable insight to the final report extend particular thanks for their informative
through their participation in the second meeting of the presentations and their participation in a fruitful
PAA. However, due to conflicting engagements, they discussion of ICSU environmental portfolio.
were not able to review the final report, and thus, are not
Finally, the Panel expresses their appreciation to Sherry
listed as members of the Panel.
Heileman for her participation to the meetings and her
Also, the Panel would like to thank the entire ICSU professional editing of this report.
family (i.e. IBs, National and Union members) for its

Annexes
ANNEX 1: 12.5. Interdisciplinary Bodies shall have the obligation to
Article 12 of ICSU’s Rules of Procedure submit to the Officers of ICSU, and to their own
adherents, the agenda of all meetings and subsequently
12. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR SCIENTIFIC
a full and proper record of their proceedings.
INTERDISCIPLINARY BODIES
12.6. Each Interdisciplinary Body shall ensure the
12.1. By virtue of Article 18. e) of the Statutes of ICSU,
maintenance of an ongoing record of its activities and of
Scientific Committees and Programmes may be created
projects it has launched, and, where appropriate, of their
by the General Assembly to facilitate the planning and
scientific results.
coordination of interdisciplinary scientific research and
related activities on an international basis, such as 12.7. Each Interdisciplinary Body shall submit to ICSU an
necessitates the cooperation of two or more Members.* annual report on its work, the budget for the ensuing
These Bodies are set up for a specified period, renewable year and the audited financial statement for the
by decision of the General Assembly. preceding year. If the body is in arrears financially, the
budget for the new year has to be approved by the
12.2. a) A Scientific Committee shall normally focus on a
Treasurer of ICSU.
well-defined interdisciplinary theme.
12.8. Interdisciplinary Bodies must acquire, in addition to
b) A Programme shall normally focus on a set of
basic funding, adequate funds for planning and
interlinking interdisciplinary themes undertaken by
administration.
ICSU alone or in partnership with others.
12.9 Individually, or in the context of broader policy reviews,
12.3. Each Interdisciplinary Body shall function under a
Scientific Interdisciplinary Bodies will be reviewed by the
constitution, approved by the Executive Board, which is
ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review for
appropriate to its specific task.
every second General Assembly of ICSU.
12.4. The adherents to an Interdisciplinary Body may be
Members and Associates of ICSU, other ICSU
interdisciplinary Bodies or other appropriate regional or
international scientific or technological organizations.
*
Bodies which were formerly referred to as Inter-Union Commissions may
become Scientific Committees.

ANNEX 2: Gordon McBean
Members of the CSPR Priority Assessment Panel on Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
Environment and its Relation to Sustainable The University of Western Ontario
Development 1389 Western Road
London, ON N6A 5B, Canada
Robert Watson, Chairman
Tel.: (1 519) 661 4274
Senior Advisor for Environment
Fax: (1 519) 661 4273
Environment Dept.,
E-mail: [email protected]
World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20433, USA James McCarthy
Tel.: (1 202) 473-6965 Museum of Comparative Zoology
Fax: (1 202) 477-0565 Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street
E-mail: [email protected] Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
Tel.: (1 617) 495 2330
Anne Buttimer
Fax: (1 617) 495 0506
Department of Geography
E-mail : [email protected]
University College Dublin
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Uri Shamir
Tel.: (353 1) 706 8174 Water Res. Institute Technion
Fax: (353 1) 269 5597 Israel Institute of Technology
E-mail: [email protected] Haifa 32000, Israel
Tel.: (972 4) 829 2239
Angela Cropper
Fax: (972 4) 822 4246
2, Mt. Anne Drive
Second Avenue Cascade
Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago Sir Crispin Tickell
Tel.: (1 868) 625 4071 Ablington Old Barn
Fax: (1 868) 625 2531 Ablington, Cirencester
E-mail: [email protected] Glos. GL7 5NU, UK
Tel.: (44 1285) 740569
Istvan Lang
Fax: (44 1285) 740671
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Home tel: (44 1285) 740566
Roosevelt tér 9, 1051 Budapest, Hungary
E-mail : [email protected]
Tel.: (36 1) 269 26 56
Fax: (36 1) 269 26 55 Shem Wandiga
E-mail : [email protected] Kenya National Academy of Sciences
PO Box 39450, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel. : (254 2) 311714
Fax : (254 2) 311715

ANNEX 3: Development (UNCED, Rio de Janeiro 1992) and the

Background Information and Terms of Reference for World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD,
the ICSU Panel on Priority Area Assessment on Johannesburg 2002). For the WSSD, the UN invited ICSU
Environment and its Relation to Sustainable and WFEO (who subsequently invited TWAS, ISSC, IAP)
Development to represent the Scientific and Technological community.
The challenge is now to develop research that integrates
Introduction the environmental, social and economic pillars of
The goal of the Priority Area Assessments (PAA) process sustainable development.
is to strengthen ICSU’s overall capability in addressing Over the past few decades, the scientific community has
priority scientific issues that are of emerging importance made remarkable progress in advancing scientific
to science and society at large. The PAA is a mechanism understanding of environmental problems through
to develop ICSU’s strategies for selected priority international collaboration. ICSU has often taken the
scientific areas. It is designed to help ICSU develop a lead and collaborated with other intergovernmental
programme structure reflecting its priorities; to ensure (UNESCO, WMO, UNEP) and non-governmental (IUCN,
synergies in the activities of the ICSU family; and to WWF, etc.) organizations in the establishment of these
enable an appropriate allocation of limited resources. In programmes. International environmental research
order to be effective, the PAA process must involve efforts/programmes have traditionally focused on global
relevant members of the ICSU family – i.e. Union and problems and the results of such research,
National Members, interdisciplinary Bodies, and joint complemented by a number of international
initiatives. It should also consider ICSU’s priorities in the assessments, have been essential for the development of
context of relevant activities outside of ICSU. international agreements such as the Montreal Protocol
The immediate outcome of a PAA is a report containing (and its subsequent Amendments), the Framework
key recommendations that will be published and widely Convention on Climate Change, the Conventions on
disseminated by ICSU. This report will form the basis for Biodiversity and Desertification and the UN’s Forest
future actions by ICSU and ICSU members, including the Principles.
development of new programmes, policy initiatives and However, many other problems have been identified at
definition of new priorities for the ICSU grants the local and regional scale (e.g. air, soil and water
programme. Some of the recommendations may require pollution) and in some cases regional environmental
the establishments of new partnerships with Bodies agreements (e.g. for acid rain) have been achieved. These
outside the ICSU family or may be more appropriately problems, which have immediate impacts at the local
taken forward by other organizations, in which case, the and regional level, are often also a shared concern of the
necessary dialogue(s) will be initiated. global community. Given the proven and vital
importance of scientific expertise at these varying scales
Context for the PAA on Environment of expertise, it is therefore necessary to further
On the international scene, the environment has been in strengthen international research.
focus since the first UN Conference on the Human The UNEP Global Environment Outlook (GEO-3), which
Environment in 1972 in Stockholm. As a result, the was published in preparation for the WSSD, emphasizes
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was that the next 30 years will be as crucial as the past 30
established, which further testifies to the importance of for shaping the future of the environment. It is now
the environmental area. Over the past three decades the necessary to take stock of ICSU’s activities in the area of
UN has expanded its view from the environment to also the environment to assess how it is suited to address
embrace developmental and sustainable development emerging problems and to provide the basis of good
issues with the Conference on Environment and science for good governance.

Major ICSU Activities in relation to committees, such as SCOR, SCAR, SCOSTEP, IGCP, CDR
Environment and SCL.
SCOPE, since its establishment in 1969, has provided ICSU Scientific Union Members also carry out important
synthesis, assessments and evaluation of information on activities with high relevance to the environmental
natural and anthropogenic environmental changes and sciences. Some of the Unions are major sponsors of the
the effects of these changes on society. SCOPE above mentioned ICSU programmes. It is necessary that
championed the study of human impact on the global the PAA take due note of the environmental activities of
biogeochemical cycles. These studies later led to the the Scientific Unions and how effective the collaboration
realisation that humans were affecting the global is between Unions and Interdisciplinary programmes. It
environment and, in particular, the climate system and should be noted that many environmental problems
its subsequent impact on ecosystems. SCOPE (together have first been detected by basic disciplinary research,
with WHO) has also led in the development of and the Unions may thus provide an early warning
ecotoxicology, which studies biological invasions as a system for emerging problems.
threat to ecosystems.
National Members have been extremely supportive of
Based on the studies of SCOPE in the 1970s and early ICSU initiatives and programmes. Any recommendations
1980s ICSU started the planning of the International from this PAA should also take into account on-going
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP). In addition, National efforts.
ICSU also co-sponsors the World Climate Research
ICSU also sponsors three Global Observing Systems
Programme (WCRP, together with WMO and IOC), the
(GOS), GOOS, GCOS and GTOS, in collaboration with
International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP,
partner organizations such as the WMO, IOC-UNESCO,
together with ISSC) and DIVERSITAS (together with
UNESCO, FAO and UNEP. The goal of the GOS is better
UNESCO, IUMS, IUBS and SCOPE). The four Global
monitoring of the earth system as a whole. The GOS are
Environmental Change Programmes – WCRP
among 14 partnership organizations of the Integrated
(established 1980), IGBP (1986), DIVERSITAS (1991) and
Global Observation Strategy (IGOS), which seeks to
IHDP (1996) – are currently coming together under the
unite the major satellite and surface-based systems for
banner of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP).
global environmental observations of the atmosphere,
ESSP and its joint projects form the core research
oceans and land. WDC and FAGS also provide services
programmes of ICSU in the environmental sector; it
concerning collection, validation and distribution of
promotes international and interdisciplinary research in
scientific data of environmental relevance. COSPAR is
special focused areas (carbon, food, water). This is often
facilitating international exchange of information on
done in cooperation with international partner
scientific research related to global environment
organizations.
monitoring from space.
START, which is jointly sponsored by WCRP, IGBP, IHDP
and DIVERSITAS, supports regional networks of Scope of the PAA on Environment
researchers and institutions engaged in collaborative
To have an overview of ICSU activities in the
research on global change issues in order to strengthen
environment sector as a whole, the scope of this
indigenous capacity and to address scientific and policy
assessment should cover all the interdisciplinary Bodies
aspects of environmental changes.
and joint initiatives mentioned in the previous section
In addition to the Global Change Programmes, other (partially when only a part of their programme concerns
important activities in the environmental area, which environmental research). The assessment of WDC and
also contribute to the elucidation of earth system FAGS should be limited to their contribution to
processes, are carried out by ICSU interdisciplinary environmental research and relationship with the GOS.

Data management and policy issues should be primarily As a follow-up to the WSSD, the 27th General Assembly
the purview of the PAA on Data and Information, which of ICSU decided to initiate discussions of the
will take place in parallel to this assessment. Likewise, development of a science plan for sustainable
START will be examined in terms of its inter-linkages and development. After extensive consultations during the
collaboration with ESSP as part of this Assessment, but a next few months, the ICSU Executive Board, at its
review of its activities in capacity building should meeting in early February 2003 is expected to establish
primarily be left to the PAA on Capacity Building. an ad hoc planning committee in consultation with
appropriate partners for a new programme on science
One of the major goals of the PAA on Environment is to
(and technology) for sustainable development. Planning
review the environmental activities in the ICSU family
will focus on place-based research using participatory
and to address whether further collaborations could be
approaches and how such studies should be integrated
stimulated. In particular, strengthening linkages of ICSU
at the local and regional level. Any new programme
environment programmes with other ICSU Bodies, the
would thus be complementary to the ESSP, which is
international scientific Unions and National Members,
currently strengthening its focus on the links from the
should be explored. The links to other partners, such as
global to the regional level while in many cases building
UNESCO, should also be considered.
on local studies and how local processes affect the
The success of ESSP, as well as START, is dependent on global system. The PAA should address how the current
the funding of scientific projects and secretariats. The ICSU activities are relevant to sustainable development
Assessment should take note of resolution # 10 from taking note of the fact that it should not concern itself
the recent ICSU General Assembly: “ICSU should assist with the planning of any new programmes, which will be
ESSP and START by taking appropriate action to create a left to the new ad hoc committee. It is expected that the
dialogue between the ICSU National Members, the results of this PAA will provide valuable input to the new
funding Bodies responsible for the contributions to the planning process.
ESSP and START programmes, and the broader global
The General Assembly also closed two ICSU
change funding community in order to provide long-
interdisciplinary Bodies, the Scientific Committee on
term, stable, core funding”.
Water Research (SCOWAR) and the Committee on
Assessments are of vital importance in linking scientific Science for Food Security (CSFS), which were working
research to policy development. Within ICSU, SCOPE has specifically on water and food issues. It is important to
a long track-record of synthesizing scientific results and note the necessity for ICSU to develop innovative and
making assessment in key priority areas. In many cases, integrative approaches to these two high-priority
there are also links between the ICSU programmes and scientific issues.
the international assessments on climate, biodiversity,
water resources, state of the world’s ecosystems, etc. The Assessment Process
This PAA should consider whether ICSU has played and
The ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review
should play an important role in the establishment and
(CSPR) is responsible for all Priority Area Assessments
conduct of such assessments and in facilitating the
and will appoint an ad hoc PAA Panel for each major
communication of these results to decision makers. As
priority scientific area. Membership of the PAA for the
ICSU has identified more policy- relevant science as a
environment area is given in Annex 1.
priority, the role of assessments should be evaluated in
this context.

Terms of Reference Review the contributions of the ICSU Scientific Unions
to the environment programmes and propose, if
The Panel will:
necessary, modalities for strengthening interaction
Define an overarching "mission" and the role of ICSU between interdisciplinary Bodies, joint initiatives and
in the area of the environment taking note of its Scientific Unions in the area of the environment; and
relationship to sustainable development and taking
Consider in view of the establishment of CSPR’s for
into account relevant activities outside of ICSU;
overall strategic planning and review of the ICSU
Propose a strategic framework for ICSU to take this programme, consider the potential future role of the
area forward for the next 5-10 years; Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE).
Examine current activities within the ICSU family,
identify gaps, overlaps and synergies among existing

Work plan
activities and possibly propose new responsibilities for The Panel will prepare a report to the CSPR, which will
individual Bodies; include an overarching mission statement and strategic
Propose modalities for promoting collaboration and
framework for ICSU and recommendations on roles of
new and/or existing interdisciplinary Bodies and joint
coordination within the ICSU family and when
initiatives in the area. This report will be published.
necessary and propose potential partnerships with
Bodies outside ICSU;
Resources
Examine and propose, if appropriate, changes either in
ICSU will provide financial resources to carry out the
the future direction of individual Bodies and/or their
review, including travel and accommodation costs for
activities, including relationships with other
the Panel members to participate in the necessary
Bodies/organizations.
meetings. The ICSU Secretariat will provide
An additional ToR for this specific review on the administrative support to the Panel, including assistance
environment: with communication among the members and
Identify potential inputs from the ICSU environment organizations of meetings. The final report will be the
programmes to a science plan for a possible responsibility of the Panel, although the ICSU secretariat
programme on science for sustainable development, will assist in its preparation as necessary.
the planning of which may be initiated during the
course of this assessment;

ANNEX 4: Question 6:
Questionnaire sent to ICSU IBs and Which are your major partner organizations within and
Scientific Unions outside of ICSU?
(Two slightly different questionnaires were posted for Question 7:
IBs versus Scientific Unions (see the notes in questions How does your association with ICSU help and/or hinder
8, 9 and 13.) your organization?
Question 1: Question 8(For ICSU bodies):
What keywords apply to your scientific activities? With which countries do you have scientific
collaboration? For Unions: Do you wish to explore the
Poverty alleviation Climate change possibility of collaborating with ICSU’s Joint
Initiatives/IBs? If so, why?
Water Data and information
Question 9 (For ICSU bodies):
Energy Capacity building What are the major funding sources for your
Health Technology organization/projects? Please differentiate between
direct and ‘in-kind’ funding.
Agriculture & food security Chemical pollution
Question 10:
Biodiversity Natural disasters
What do you see as the major environmental issues
Other Other that ICSU should address over the coming 5-10 years?
Question 11:
Question 2: Do you have any specific recommendations on how
Describe your three primary results/key outcomes and ICSU can improve its performance in the environment
actions taken to achieve them? (For research GEC area?
programmes and ESSP, relevant information should be Question 12:
provided for all major projects) Do you have specific changes to suggest for the
Question 3: Mission statement? If so, please enter them below.
What are new directions/emerging issues of your Question 13 (only for Unions):
organization / Union? Does your Union see areas where collaboration between
Question 4: specific Unions, Joint Initiatives and IBs would lead to
What are your policy relevant “deliverables”? mutually beneficial interactions? Please specify the
(e.g. contributions to scientific assessments, organization(s), and the particular area(s) of possible
international agreements, etc.) collaboration.
Question 5:
Do you address sustainable development?
If so, describe how.

ANNEX 5:
Project Timeline
Date Event Action/Notes

9-10 November 2002 1st PAA Meeting ToR reviewed, mission statement drafted and
strategy discussed. Online Questionnaire sent out
(Unions and IBs)
19 November 2002 IBs notified of the PAA process IBs asked to comment on mission statement and
informed of February meeting
3 December 2002 Unions and National Members notified Members Asked to comment on mission statement
11 December 2002 First Panel Teleconference Questionnaire, report outline and February
meeting agenda discussed
16 December 2002 Invites to IBs for the Feb.
meeting and questions for the online forum sent out
14 January 2003 Online password-protected questionnaire activated Questions for IBs and Unions posted
5-6 February 5th CSPR Meeting Anne Buttimer gave a PAA update
10 February 2003 Deadline for online responses Given a first deadline: 31 December 2002
14 February 2003 Second Panel Teleconference
21-24 February 2003 2nd PAA Meeting Analysis of questionnaire (presentations from
IBs and outline drafted); Panel members all
assigned writing tasks
11 April 2003 Unions invited again to respond Given a second deadline: 25 May 2003
6 June 2003 GECs questioned about “glue money” Responses received in mid-July
9-10 June 2003 6th CSPR meeting Anne Buttimer gave a PAA update
20 June 2003 Deadline for Panel for report submissions N.B. Conclusions had not yet been discussed
28-30 July 2003 3rd PAA Meeting Draft conclusions prepared
05 September 2003 Report circulated to IBs, Union and
National Members for comments
30 September 2003 Deadline for comments on report
14 October 2003 Report and consolidated list of
comments sent to Panel
22-24 October 2003 4th PAA Meeting Review of the Comments and drafting of the
Executive Summary. Remaining modifications
assigned to Panel Members
3-10 November 2003 Draft report assembled by secretariat and Draft sent to Panel on 10 November 2003.
editorial revision carried by science writer.
17 November 2003 Comments on draft received at secretariat. Penultimate report sent to Panel
Penultimate report prepared. on 17 November 2003
18 November 2003 Third Teleconference Report modified and then Panel agreed to send
the Final report to CSPR
21 November 2003 Final report made available to CSPR
through ICSU website.
3-4 December 2003 7th CSPR meeting Report sent for publication and CPRP’s
recommendations forwarded to the ICSU
Executive Board

ANNEX 6 : GECHH Global Environmental Change and Human Health

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations GECHS Global Environmental Change and Human
ACE Advisory Committee on the Environment Security
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome GEO Group on Earth Observations
APN Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research GEOHAB Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful
CAWSES Climate and Weather of the Sun Earth System Algal Blooms
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity GEWEX Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment
CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic GISP Global Invasive Species Programme
Marine Living Resources GIWA Global International Waters Assessment
CCD Convention to Combat Desertification GLOBEC Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics
CDR Committee on Disaster Reduction GMBA Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment
CEOS Committee on Earth Observation Satellites GOOS Global Ocean Observing System
CFC chlorofluorocarbons GOS Global Observing Systems (GCOS, GOOS, GTOS)
CLIMAG Climate Prediction and Agriculture GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Programme
CLIVAR Climate Variability and Predictability project GTOS Global Terrestrial Observing System
COOP Coastal Ocean Observations Panel GWSP Global Water System Project
COSPAR Committee on Space Research HELP Hydrology for the Environment, Life and Policy
CSFS Committee on Science for Food Security HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
CSPR Committee on Scientific Planning and Review HWR Hydrology and Water Resources programme
DIVERSITAS an international programme of biodiversity IAG International Association of Geodesy
science IAHS International Association of Hydrological Sciences
EMI Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative IAI Inter-American Institute for Global Change
ENRICH European Network for Research in Global Change Research
EOS Earth Observation Summit IAMP InterAcademy Medical Panel
ESSP Earth System Science Partnership IAP InterAcademy Panel on International Issues
FAGS Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Data IAU International Astronomical Union
Analysis Services IBOY International Biodiversity Observation Year
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization IBRO International Brain Research Organization
GARP Global Atmospheric Research Programme IBs Interdisciplinary Bodies
GAW Global Atmosphere Watch ICSU International Council for Science
GCOS Global Climate Observing System IDGEC Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental
GCP Global Carbon Project Change
GCTE Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems IDNDR International Decade for Natural Disaster
GEC Global Environmental Change Reduction
GECAFS Global Environmental Change and Food Systems IFS International Foundation for Science

IGAC International Global Atmospheric Chemistry IUHPS International Union of History and Philosophy of
project Science
IGBP International Geosphere Biosphere Programme IUMS International Union of Microbiological Societies
IGCP International Geoscience Programme (formally, IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
International Geological Correlation Programme) IUPAP International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
IGFA International Group of Funding Agencies IUPS International Union of Physiological Sciences
IGOS Integrated Global Observing Strategy IUPsyS International Union of Psychological Sciences
IGOS-P Integrated Global Observing Strategy Partnership IUSS International Union of Soil Sciences
IGS International GPS Service for Geodynamics IUTAM International Union of Theoretical and Applied
IGU International Geographical Union Mechanics
IGY International Geophysical Year IUTOX International Union of Toxicology
IHDP International Human Dimensions Programme on JGOFS Joint Global Ocean Flux Study
Global Environmental Change JI Joint Initiatives
IHP International Hydrological Programme LOICZ Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone
ILP International Lithosphere Programme LUCC Land Use Cover and Change
IMBER Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Ecosystem Research
OOPC Observations Panel for Climate
IMU International Mathematical Union
PAA Priority Area Assessment
IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
PAGES Past Global Changes
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
PUB Prediction in Ungaged Basins
IPO International Project Offices
SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
SBSTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological
ISPRS International Society for Photogrammetry and Advice of the UNFCCC
Remote Sensing
SBSTTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific Technical and
ISSC International Social Science Council Technological Advice of the UN CBD or CCD
ISTS Initiative on Science and Technology for SCAR Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Sustainability
SCL Scientific Committee on the Lithosphere
IT Industrial Transformation
SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems of the
IUAES International Union of Anthropological and Environment
Ethnological Sciences
SCOR Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research
IUBS International Union of Biological Sciences
SCOSTEP Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
IUCN World Conservation Union
SCOWAR Scientific Committee on Water Research
IUFoST International Union of Food Science and
SOLAS Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study
Technology
SPARC Stratospheric Processes And their Role in Climate
IUGG International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research
IUGS International Union of Geological Sciences

START SysTem for Analysis Research and Training URSI Union Radio Scientifique Internationale
TOGA Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere WCRP World Climate Research Programme
ToR Terms of Reference WDC World Data Centres
TWAS Third World Academy of Sciences WFEO World Federation of Engineering Organizations
UN United Nations WHO World Health Organization
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat WMO World Meteorological Organization
Desertification WOCE World Ocean Circulation Experiment
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
Development
WWAP World Water Assessment Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
WWF World Wide Fund For Nature
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
WWW World Weather Watch
Organization
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change

63
64
ICSU Series on Science for
Sustainable Development
1 Report of the Scientific and Technological
Community to the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, 20pp. 2002
2 Energy and Transport, 20pp. 2002
3 Resilience and Sustainable Development, 37pp. 2002
4 Science, Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable

Development, 24pp. 2002
5 Science Education and Capacity Building for

Sustainable Development, 32pp. 2002
6 Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture, 44pp.

2002
7 Global Environmental Change and Food Provision:

A new Role for Science 20pp. 2002
8 Making science for Sustainable Development More

Policy Relevant: New Tools for Analysis, 28pp. 2002
9 Science and Technology for Sustainable

Development, Consensus Report and Background
Document, Mexico City, Synthesis Conference,
May 20-23, 2002 30pp. 2002
10 Biodiversity, Science and Sustainable Development,

20pp. 2002
11 Science and Technology at the World Summit on

Sustainable Development, 26 August to 4 September
2002, Johannesburg, South Africa, 76pp. 2003
Report of ICSU’s CSPR Panel for Review of

Committee on Science and Technology in Developing
Countries (COSTED), 39pp, 2002
New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific

Discoveries – Societal Dilemmas, 56pp, 2003
ICSU Mission Statement
In order to strengthen international science for the benefit of society, ICSU

mobilizes the knowledge and resources of the international science community to:
• Identify and address major issues of importance to science and society.
• Facilitate interaction amongst scientists across all disciplines and from all
countries.
• Promote the participation of all scientists–regardless of race,
citizenship, language, political stance, or gender–in the international scientific
endeavour.
• Provide independent, authoritative advice to stimulate constructive
dialogue between the scientific community and governments, civil
society, and the private sector.
51, boulevard de Montmorency

75016 Paris, France
Tel: +33 (0) 1 45 25 03 29
Fax: +33 (0) 1 42 88 94 31
Email: [email protected]
www.icsu.org

Environment and Its Relation To Sustainable Development: Report of The CSPR Assessment Panel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment and Its Relation To Sustainable Development: Report of The CSPR Assessment Panel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment and Its Relation To Sustainable Development: Report of The CSPR Assessment Panel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

strengthening international science for the benefit of society

Environment and its relation

Through this international network, ICSU coordinates interdisciplinary

Because of its broad contact with thousands of scientists worldwide, ICSU is

Designed and produced by

2 Key Environmental Challenges for the Scientific Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

3 ICSU’s Mission and Role in the Area of Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

4 The Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

5 Analysis of ICSU Current Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 3

5.5 Monitoring/observations, data/information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

6 Areas of Emphasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

4 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 5

6 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 7

8 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 9

10 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 11

Research collaboration within the ICSU family and with

12 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 13

Unions (27 members). In order to strengthen Priority Area Assessments (PAAs);

science and society; and technology for sustainable development, and

14 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 15

16 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 17

2.2.2 Challenges of capacity controversy. Ownership and participation by experts in

18 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

INDIRECT DRIVERS OF CHANGE

DIRECT DRIVERS OF CHANGE

strategies and interventions

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 19

In addressing the three pillars of sustainable

20 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 21

4. The Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE)

Since the creation of ACE, significant changes have

22 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 23

The MA was designed to provide decision-makers with 5.3 THEMATIC ORGANIZATIONS

24 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 25

26 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 27

28 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 29

30 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 31

32 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

Overall, current funding of global change research

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 33

34 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 35

36 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel

ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel 37

38 ICSU — Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel