Reviews of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)
Preamble | Review | Terms of Reference | Review Process | Membership

back to summary

Preamble

The International Council for Science (ICSU) is a sponsor of the four global environmental change programmes: the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP; together with WMO and IOC), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP; together with ISSC) and DIVERSITAS – An International Programme on Biodiversity Science (together with UNESCO, SCOPE and IUBS).

The Global Change Research Programmes are central to ICSU’s mission of strengthening international science for the benefit of society. ICSU with UN sponsors are also responsible for the Global Climate, Ocean and Terrestrial Monitoring Systems. The scientific research and the global monitoring efforts provide crucial information for assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA).

General reviews of the ICSU Global Environmental Change Research Programmes, as well as the global observing systems and all other relevant ICSU Interdisciplinary Bodies and Joint Initiatives, were conducted in 2002–03 within the Priority Area Assessment on “Environment in Relation to Sustainable Development” as a component of the development of an ICSU Strategic Plan 2006–2011.

The ICSU General Assembly in October 2005 approved the ICSU Strategic Plan 2006–2011, which calls for a review of the Global Environmental Change Research Programmes. The reviews of IGBP and WCRP will follow the review of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). All reviews are conducted jointly with the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research (IGFA) and, in the case of WCRP, with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO.

top of page

Review of the Global Environmental Change Research Programmes in 2007–09

The four Global Environmental Change Research Programmes have been reviewed in the past:

• DIVERSITAS; management review by IGFA in 2003;
• IGBP in 1987, 1991 and 1996;
• IHDP in 2005; and
• WCRP in 1995.

ICSU will review DIVERSITAS, IGBP, WCRP and ESSP in the period 2007–09 through the appointment of individual Review Panels. The reviews will be conducted jointly by ICSU and the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research (IGFA). In addition, other co-sponsors must also be involved in the reviews. In the case of DIVERSITAS, these are IUBS, SCOPE and UNESCO and for WCRP they are IOC/UNESCO and WMO.

The reviews should be both reflective and forward-looking. They should evaluate past performance of the Programmes, review operational structures and assess future plans. The reviews will thus help guide the scientific research, which is vital for advancing our understanding of the functioning of Planet Earth. Such understanding is essential if we are to predict future trends in the development of the Earth as a system.

Research findings underpin many international Assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and the planned biodiversity assessment (IMoSEB). Through such assessments, scientific research is supporting several global conventions such as the UN Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). Thus, global change research provides excellent examples of policy relevant science.

The WCRP has existed since 1980, IGBP since 1987, DIVERSITAS in its current form since 2002, and IHDP in its current form since 1996. During this period, the world has changed and careful decision making now requires more than mere reductions in scientific uncertainties related to the functioning of global environmental systems. Through mechanisms and forums such as the Millennium Development Goals and the World Summit on Sustainable Development, science now also needs to enlighten and assist policy efforts to simultaneously enhance environmental sustainability, social and economic development and the alleviation of poverty.

The Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) has taken on the challenge of truly integrating natural and social sciences around common research questions and educating a new generation of scientists to address complex issues outside of disciplinary research structures. In doing so, it is hoped that a new generation of scientists can be trained to tackle complex, multidisciplinary issues.

top of page

Terms of Reference

ICSU, in collaboration with the other sponsors and IGFA, will conduct individual reviews of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The links between the Programmes and other ICSU Interdisciplinary Bodies and Members will be considered as part of these reviews. For WCRP, special attention will be given to the interaction with other programmatic elements of WMO and IOC.

The review will focus on both internal and external interactions. The major questions to be considered by the Review Panel are given below. The overriding objective of these reviews is to evaluate the extent to which the international programmes adds value to their respective areas of research and to the national programmes that contribute to them.

The primary question that the review should answer is: “What do scientists, sponsors and the end-users get out of participating in and supporting these international programmes that they would not have gained if the international programmes did not exist?

The additional questions below are provided for guidance. In considering the questions, the review should go beyond providing simple “yes” or “no” answers and give the reasons for conclusions reached and, where appropriate, recommendations for improvement.

1. Scientific impact, balance and relevance

1.1    What are the indicators of success against which the Programme can be evaluated? What was accomplished as a result of the international Programme that would not have been achieved without its existence? What was achieved by the Programme in comparison with investment in a number of separate national efforts (i.e., the added value of international planning and coordination). Has the Programme helped build the scientific framework necessary to address global environmental change issues?

1.2    Has the Programme developed strategic scientific and implementations plans that address key issues perceived as priorities by the scientific community? Has the Programme augmented intrinsic scientific merit, including its effectiveness in integrating the best relevant disciplinary research?

1.3    Was the Programme a driving force in opening up new domains of science, providing opportunities for innovative research and enhancing inter/multidisciplinary research of high quality?

1.4    How well does the programme synthesize and integrate between its Core Projects and other Global Environmental Change Research Programmes and ESSP?

1.5    How well is the Programme integrated and ‘mapped’ with national climate and global environmental change programmes? Did the international Programme have an impact on national programmes, e.g., in terms of stimulation and supporting the creation of an international framework through which wide-ranging research goals and priorities could be set? For IGBP, is effective use made of input from the National Members?

1.6    Has the Programme fulfilled its original mandate and should a closing date be decided on? If not, should the Programme continue to focus on the original mandate or should this be changed? What should be the nature of any future Programme? If a change is proposed, suggest wording for a mission statement.

1.7   In view of the increasing collaboration between IGBP and WCRP, how can this be further strengthened?

2. Policy relevance

2.1    Has the Programme developed strategic plans that address key issues perceived as priorities by the policy communities? If so, how has the policy relevance been asserted?

2.2    Did the Programme, and its component parts, communicate and interact effectively with, and provide useful input to, international policy processes, e.g., international assessment activities (IPCC, MA, etc.) and the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (UNFCCC, CBD, CCD, etc.)?

2.3    Does the Programme have relevance for the Millennium Development Goals and Science for Sustainable Development? If so, has this potential been utilized?

3. Organization and governance

3.1   Has the governance structure been sufficient to ensure appropriate priority setting and efficient coordination for the overall Programme, Core Projects and cross cutting initiatives (as appropriate)? How effective was the scientific planning process and the guidance and coordination of its Core Projects?

3.2   Is the membership of the governing body of the Programme representative in terms of scientific expertise and geographical and gender balance?

3.3   Is the relative attention of the Programme between the Core Projects and the ESSP balanced?

3.4    Is the Secretariat organized in such a way as to optimize the use of personnel and financial resources? Are funds used in an optimal way in support of priority activities?

3.5   The ICSU Priority Area Assessment on Environment and its Relation to Sustainable Development recommended that ‘support for programme/core project planning and coordination should be increased from about 0.5 to per cent of the total research budget’. Does the Review Panel support this recommendation and if so, how can it be achieved?

3.6    What impediments can be addressed to increase the efficiency of the Programme? Are there other models that could be applied that could make the Programme more effective?

3.7   Is the hybrid model on a non-governmental/governmental Programme (WCRP) appropriate and are there ways to make better use of the distinctive features of the sponsors? For IGBP, would there be any merit with a governmental co-sponsor, such as UNEP or UNESCO?

3.8   How strong and effective are the links to regional inter-governmental networks (e.g., IAI, APN)?

4. Visibility and communication

4.1   Are the Programme’s visibility and communication efforts sufficient? Have target audiences been clearly identified?

5. Interaction with other bodies

5.1   Has the Programme developed appropriate links with other ICSU Interdisciplinary Bodies and how has the Programme benefited from the expertise within ICSU Scientific Unions and National Members? For, WCRP, how has it contributed to and benefited from other components of the World Climate Programme?

5.2   Are the links to the global observing systems (GCOS, GOOS, GTOS, IGOS-P, and the GEOSS process) adequate? How do these observing systems engage with and contribute to the research communities embodied in IGBP and WCRP?

6. Capacity Building

6.1   Has the Programme succeeded in involving the scientific communities in all parts of the world, including developing countries? Has it been able to attract the interest of young scientists and fostered a new generation of scientists collaborating in a truly interdisciplinary research environment?

6.2   Is START a valuable resource for the Programme in capacity building and have START activities substantially contributed to the advances of the Programme? How well did the Programme collaborate with other relevant global change research programmes that emphasize capacity building (e.g., IAI and APN)?

top of page

The review process

After appropriate consultations, the ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) and IGFA appointed Review Panels (for WCRP, agreement was also reached with WMO and IOC). It is envisioned that there would be, three meetings for each review in addition to telephone conferences, as needed. CSPR and IGFA representatives, as well as IOC and WMO representatives for WCRP, would also be expected to attend the Panel meetings. The IGBP and WCRP Panels should have at least one member in common and a joint meeting should be convened between the two Panels before the reports are finalized.

During the first meeting, the Panels would agree on the conduct of the review, the information necessary to perform the review and the division of work. The Panels should also decide on the balance between review of the Programme relative to the Projects. It may be necessary to design an interview/questionnaire process for collection of views of Programme leadership, Joint Projects and individual participating scientists. The policy relevance should be assessed through interviews/questionnaires with representatives of various international assessments, UN framework conventions, relevant UN organizations and others (e.g., ICSU bodies) with an interest in the results from the Programmes.

At its second meeting the Panel would review the material collected and prepare a first draft of the review. This draft would then be circulated to the relevant Programme(s). During a teleconference the Panel would review the comments, and decide how the report should be amended before circulating the second version of the report to a wider audience (i.e., including ICSU bodies and IGFA members plus relevant components of the IOC and WMO constituencies for WCRP).

The final assessment report would be edited at the Panel’s third and last meeting and shortly thereafter submitted to ICSU and IGFA, plus IOC and WMO for the WCRP review.
The Review Panels will be assisted by ICSU staff and persons identified from IGFA.

Draft Timetable

top of page

Membership

IGBP Review Panel

Chair: Sir John Lawton (UK)

Members:

• Dawn Conway (IGFA representative)
• Sulochana Gadgil (India) — also serving on the WCRP Review Panel
• Gilberto Gallopín (Argentina)
• Brian Hoskins (UK)
• Motoyoshi Ikeda (Japan)
• Margaret Leinen (USA)
• Isabelle Niang (Senegal)
• Henning Rodhe (Sweden)
• Coleen Vogel (South Africa)
• Anne Whyte (CSPR representative)

WCRP Review Panel

Chair: D. James Baker (USA)

Members:

• Keith Alverson (IOC representative)
• Catherine Cesarsky (CSPR representative)
• Dawn Conway (IGFA representative)
• Alfonse Dubi (Tanzania)
• Sulochana Gadgil (India)
• Tony Haymet (USA)
• Sylvie Joussaume (France)
• Hiroki Kondo (Japan)
• Antonio Divino Moura (Brasil)
• Ian Noble (USA)
• Qin Dahe (China)
• Neville Smith (Australia)
• Yan Hong (WMO representative)

Contact:

Paul Cutler
ICSU Science Officer
paul.cutlericsu.org