AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHRYSTAL BALL ? ICSU´s EARTH SYSTEM VISIONING

1. AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHRYSTAL BALL ? ICSU´sEARTH SYSTEM VISIONING Kari Raivio Rector and Chancellor Emeritus University of Helsinki VicePresident, International Council of Science (ICSU)

2. GEC Research WCRP (established in 1980) climate IGBP (1987-) geosphere biosphere processes IHDP (1996-) human dimensions DIVERSITAS (2002-) biodiversity Earth System Science Partnership (2001)

3. Earth System Science Partnership: Towards transdisciplinary integrative science

4. Synthesis of the Reviews “The vision should provide a framework extending 10 years into the future and be consistent with the overall evolution of GEC research” -IGBP Review, recommendation 1 • On the future of the ESSP, the ESSP and the IGBP reviews differed on the way forward. • “There is a clear need for an internationally coordinated and holistic approach to Earth system science that integrates natural and social sciences from regional to the global scale. In principle, the ESSP should be able to assume this role.”(ESSP review) • “Further detailed examination of the role and need for ESSP is required” (IGBP review) • Common recommendations • Priority setting • Effectiveness • Integrated research framework “WCRP, in partnership with other global environmental change programmes, should develop a framework for future joint research operation” -WCRP Review, recommendation 10 “Under a flagship model, all GEC programmes share a common vision.” –ESSP Review p. 31

5. Decision of the 29th GA of ICSU (Maputo, October 2008) “to note that CSPR is planning to organize a consultation, including a high-level meeting, with relevant partners to outline options for an overall framework for global environmental change research and its policy relevance, once the reviews of IGBP and WCRP are completed.”

6. Visioning Sustainability Research Task team: Anne Whyte, Elinor Ostrom, Hans Joachim (John) Schellnhuber, Heide Hackmann, Johan Rockstrom (Chair), Kari Raivio, and Walt Reid (past Chair) Contact: Leah Goldfarb (leah.goldfarb@icsu.org)

7. Three Step Process Goal: to engage the scientific community to explore options and to propose implementation steps for a holistic strategy on the Earth system research. This strategy will both encourage scientific innovation and address policy needs.

8. http://www.icsu-visioning.org/

9. Overview • 7,227 “unique” visitors from 133 countries (unique = different IP addresses, excludes internet “bots”) • 1,016 registered users from 85 countries • 323 research questions posted

10. Sectors (self-declared)

11. Meeting to distil the research questions • Early career scientist meeting [29 Sept] • Visioning Earth system research meeting [30 Sept – 1 Oct, 2009] • Early career scientists & senior scientists • Science-policy experts • Funders • GEC programs • ICSU and ISSC • Discussion focused on the research priorities Outcome: “Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research: A Systems Approach to Research Priorities for the Decade”

12. Criteria for selection • Scientific importance • Relevance to decision-makers • Broad support • Global coordination • Leverage

13. Draft Grand Challenges • Challenge #1: Improve the usefulness of forecasts of future environmental conditions and their consequences for people. • Challenge #2: Develop the observation systems needed to manage global and regional environmental change. • Challenge #3: Determine how to anticipate, avoid and cope with dangerous global environmental change. • Challenge #4: Determine what institutional and behavioural changes can best ensure global sustainability. • Challenge #5: Develop and evaluate innovative technological and social responses to achieve global sustainability.

14. Challenge #3: Determine how to anticipate, avoid and cope with dangerous global environmental change. • 3.1. Which aspects of the coupled social‐environmental system pose significant risks of runaway dynamics? • 3.2. How can we identify, analyze and track our proximity to thresholds and discontinuities in coupled social‐environmental systems? When can thresholds not be determined? • 3.3. What strategies for avoidance, adaptation and transformation are effective for coping with abrupt changes, including massive cascading environmental shocks? • 3.4. How can the need to curb global environmental change be integrated with the demands ofother inter‐connected global policy challenges, particularly those related to poverty, conflict, justice and human security? • 3.5. How can improved scientific knowledge of the risks of global change and options for response most effectively catalyze and support appropriate actions by citizens and decision‐makers?

15. Expected Deliverables • • Validated models of human-environment systems at global to local scales. (Challenge #1 and #2) • • Prioritized needs for Earth system observations of physical, chemical, biological and social variables and the design features of a system for delivering that information. (Challenge #2) • • A framework for forecasting the likelihood, location, drivers, severity and risk of abrupt or non-linear changes associated with global environmental change. (Challenge #3) • • Designs for practices and institutions that can take effective action in response to signals of impending dangerous changes or can be resilient to those changes. (Challenge #3 and #4) • • Increased human and social capital to create and use the knowledge base for managing human-environment systems. (Challenge #4) • • Policies and practices that accelerate social and technological innovation relevant to the needs of managing global change. (Challenge #5) • • Models for exploring the costs, benefits and risks of alternative geo-engineering strategies. (Challenge #5)

16. Visit http://www.icsu-visioning.org/ from 21 December – 21 February to comment on the Research Priorities document and comment on future steps.

17. Institutional Framework for Global Sustainability Research - Meeting • Goal: to draft a proposal outlining the Institutional Framework to address the Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research. • Methodology: Propose several institutional framework models. Plus, specific examples of how to implement several priority research questions. • Approach: Consultative (Web survey; Discussion with funders, the GEC and wider ICSU community and beyond; Open Forum, Meeting) • Invitees: Co-Sponsors [ICSU, ISSC, IOC, IUBS, SCOPE, UNESCO, UNU, WMO + UNEP], Funders, GEC, institutional experts, …

18. Visioning Timetable

19. The Belmont Challenge(seven main funders) • Regional Environmental Change: Human Action and Adaptation • The following require regional and decadal prediction, advanced observing systems, and inclusion of social sciences. They involve synergy of multiple stressors, including extreme events. • Coastal zone • Water cycle & resources • Ecosystem services – food security • Most vulnerable societies (geographic areas), with low capacity and high societal impact

20. Belmont project • ICSU was commissioned to conduct an analysis of international research capability to respond to the Belmont Challenge. • Focus on • Solvability of problems • Infrastructure and personnel • ICSU represented in Belmont Group

21. Relationship between the visioning and Belmont Challenge • The two processes were independently designed. Visioning process - ICSU members • Belmont Challenge - funders • The two processes are complementary and provide support to each other. • Belmont project report will provide information to the Visioning, particularly the meeting in June. • IGFA to be reinvigorated (new chair)

22. ICSU’s role: the Global Change example US$ 2bn US$ 10m US$ 100k • 100% • 0.5% • 0.005% • Seeding and catalysis Research Planning and Coordination Initialization ICSU ICSU overview

23. EXPECTATIONS FROM WCRP • Keep up the good work !! • See the total picture of sustainability research • Have an open mind to institutional development • Participate actively in the process

25. Visit http://www.icsu-visioning.org/ from 21 December – 21 February to comment on the Research Priorities document and comment on future steps.

26. Challenge #1: Improve the usefulness of forecasts of future environmental conditions and their consequences for people. • 1.1. What significant environmental changes are likely to result from human actions, how would those changes affect human well‐being, and how are people likely to respond? • 1.2. What threats does global environmental change pose for vulnerable communities and groups and what responses could be most effective in reducing harm to those communities?

27. Challenge #2: Develop the observation systems needed to manage global and regional environmental change. • 2.1. What do we need to observe in coupled social‐environmental systems, and at what scales,in order to respond to, adapt to, and influence global change? • 2.2. What are the characteristics of an adequate system for observing and communicating thisinformation?

28. Challenge #3: Determine how to anticipate, avoid and cope with dangerous global environmental change. • 3.1. Which aspects of the coupled social‐environmental system pose significant risks of runaway dynamics? • 3.2. How can we identify, analyze and track our proximity to thresholds and discontinuities in coupled social‐environmental systems? When can thresholds not be determined? • 3.3. What strategies for avoidance, adaptation and transformation are effective for coping with abrupt changes, including massive cascading environmental shocks? • 3.4. How can the need to curb global environmental change be integrated with the demands ofother inter‐connected global policy challenges, particularly those related to poverty, conflict, justice and human security? • 3.5. How can improved scientific knowledge of the risks of global change and options for response most effectively catalyze and support appropriate actions by citizens and decision‐makers?

29. Challenge #4: Determine what institutional and behavioural changes can best ensure global sustainability. • 4.1. What institutional structures are effective in balancing the trade‐offs inherent in social environmental systems at local, regional and global scales and how can they be achieved? • 4.2. What changes in economic systems would contribute most to improving global sustainability and how could they be achieved? • 4.3. What changes in behaviour or lifestyle, if adopted by a particular society, would contribute most to improving global sustainability and how could they be achieved? • 4.4. How can institutional arrangements prioritize and direct resources to alleviate poverty and address social injustice under rapidly changing local environmental conditions and growingpressures on the global environment? • 4.5. How can effective, legitimate, accountable and just collective environmental solutions be mobilized?

30. Challenge #5: Develop and evaluate innovative technological and social responses to achieve global sustainability. • 5.1. What incentives are needed to strengthen national systems for science and technologyinnovation to respond to global environmental change and what good models exist? • 5.2. What incentives are needed to strengthen policy and institutional innovation to respond to global environmental change? • 5.3. How can global energy security be provided entirely by sources that are renewable andthat have neutral impacts on other aspects of global sustainability, and in what time frame? • 5.4. How can food production be increased to meet anticipated needs over the next halfcentury while dramatically reducing land‐use greenhouse gas emissions, protecting biodiversity, and maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services? • 5.5. What are the potentials and risks of technological strategies (e.g., geo‐engineering) toaddress global environmental change, and what local to global institutional arrangementswould be needed to oversee them, if implemented?