 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
About
ICSU |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Updated
on 16/02/10 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disbanded Committees
Advisory Committees Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) The future of this committee is being considered as part of the CSPR Priority Area Assessement process and recommendations in this regard will be considered by the ICSU General Assembly in October 2005. In the meantime, as of 2004, this committee is in abeyance. Created in 1989, the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) advises the Executive Board (EB) on the status and development of activities related to the environment undertaken by ICSU—either alone or in partnership with others. The goal of ACE is to a) promote harmonious interaction amongst members of the ICSU family; b) provide a platform of discussion and information exchange among relevant ICSU bodies and various external partners; and c) to establish and maintain an interface with external partners (such as the United Nations), including those in social and engineering sciences and in industry. Chair : C. TICKELL, (United Kingdom) Members :
Contact
Committee on the Dissemination of Scientific Information (CDSI) The future of this committee is being considered as part of the CSPR Priority Area Assessement process and recommendations in this regard will be considered by the ICSU General Assembly in October 2005. In the meantime, as of 2004, this committee is in abeyance. The Committee on the Dissemination of Scientific Information (CDSI) is charged with advising the ICSU family about scientific publication, new developments in information technology, access to data and information, and pertinent legal issues. Archive of CDSI website Terms of Reference (Rule of Procedure 11.2 a) Chair : E. SANDEWALL, (Sweden) Members :
Ex officio :
Contact
AD Hoc Committees Mid-term Review of the ICSU Regional Office for
Africa The mandate to create the ICSU Regional Offices was given by the ICSU 27th General Assembly (2002), following recommendations from the Committee on Science and Technology in Developing Countries (COSTED) Review Panel. The Review Panel proposed to replace COSTED with four Regional Offices in and for developing countries and a Policy Committee on Developing Countries (PCDC). The African Regional Office was inaugurated in 2005, Asia and Pacific in 2006, and Latin America and the Caribbean in 2007. The Regional Offices are created by formal agreement between ICSU and the host institution/host country government. The ICSU Regional Office for Africa is hosted at the National Research Foundation (NRF), Pretoria, South Africa. The ICSU-NRF Agreement was signed for ten years starting 1 April 2005. According to this agreement a mid-term review should be conducted by ICSU and NRF as per the following declaration in Clause 4.2 of the Agreement: “at the end of a five (5) year period from the agreement Commencement Date, ICSU and NRF will review the sustainability and feasibility of the Regional Office and decide on its future existence”. To comply with the Agreement the ICSU Committee for Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) and NRF will jointly set up a Review Panel to conduct the review. The review process will comprise two meetings, one in Paris set up by ICSU Paris, and one site visit in Pretoria to be set up by the Evaluation Centre of the NRF.A Review Panel is jointly appointed by ICSU and the NRF, to review the ICSU Regional Office for Africa and make recommendations for the future. The Panel will comprise two members nominated by ICSU, two members nominated by the NRF and a Chair which will be jointly nominated by ICSU and the NRF. The duties of the Review Panel will be to:
The review process must be concluded by 1 October 2009 in order for NRF and ICSU to consider its recommendations and for NRF to consider the possibility for supporting the Regional Office for a second five-year plan in a timely manner. 1. Information gathering Immediately after the CSPR meeting (Feb, 2009) the ICSU Secretariat will start gathering information for the Review Panel. This information gathering will have four components:
The above information will be submitted to the Review Panel prior to their initial meeting. 2. Review Panel initial meeting The meeting will take place in Paris (June, 2009). The Panel will review the ToR and consider the collected information. During the meeting the Panel will identify key issues for follow-up at the site visit. Any additional information required should also be agreed as well as the agenda for the site visit. 3. Site visit The site visit will probably need three days. During the visit the Review Panel will interview the Regional Director, the Chair of the Regional Committee and other staff members. The Review Panel will also meet with key people at NRF and the Department of Science and Technology as well as any other persons that, in the view of the Panel, will provide valuable perspectives and information to assist the Panel in discharging its mandate. The Panel will have a full day meeting to discuss their findings and to agree on conclusions and recommendations and finalize a draft of the report. The draft report will be sent to ICSU, NRF, the Regional Committee Chair and the Regional Director for the restricted purpose of ascertaining the correctness of facts before the Panel finalizes the report. 4. Report submission The Review Panel will submit its report to CSPR and NRF before 1 October 2009.
Chair: Indira Nath (India), bio... Members:
Reviews of the International Geosphere-Biosphere
Programme (IGBP) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) 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.
Review of the Global Environmental Change Research Programmes in 2007–09 The four Global Environmental Change Research Programmes have been reviewed in the past:
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. 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.
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. Draft Timetable
IGBP Review Panel Chair: Sir John Lawton (UK) Members:
WCRP Review Panel Chair: D. James Baker (USA) Members:
Contact: Paul Cutler
Review of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) 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). In 2001 at the first Global Change Open Science Conference in Amsterdam the 1400 participants (from more than 100 countries) signed the Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change. The declaration called for strengthening the cooperation amongst the global environmental research programmes, for greater integration across disciplines, environment and development issues and the natural and social science. It also called for greater collaboration across national boundaries and for intensified efforts to enable the full involvement of scientists from developing countries. In response to the declaration, DIVERSITAS, IGBP, IHDP, and WCRP joined together to form the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). The ESSP brings together researchers from diverse fields, and from across the globe, to undertake an integrated study of the Earth System:
The interactions and feedbacks between the component parts of the Earth System exhibit multi-scale temporal and spatial variability. Understanding of the System's natural dynamics has advanced greatly in recent years, and now provides a sound basis for evaluating the effects and consequences of human-driven change. 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 2002-2003 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. A specific review of the Global Environmental Change Research Programmes is specifically called for in the Strategic Plan 2006-2011: “ICSU will conduct individual reviews of its global environmental change research programmes. Special attention will be given to the development of the Earth System Science Partnership, which brings together the four programmes to address issues that are integral to sustainable development. The links between this Partnership and other ICSU Interdisciplinary Bodies and Members will be considered as part of these reviews.” Review of the Global Environmental Change Research Programmes in 2007-2009 The four Global Environmental Change Research Programmes have been reviewed in the past:
ICSU will review DIVERSITAS, IGBP, WCRP and ESSP in the period 2007-2009 through the appointment of individual Review Panels. ICSU has suggested to the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research (IGFA) that reviews be conducted by the two organizations jointly. In addition, other co-sponsors must also be involved in the reviews for DIVERSITAS (IUBS, SCOPE and UNESCO) and WCRP (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 political interest is today primarily on other issues than reducing the scientific uncertainties in relation to global change processes. The interest within the policy community has, for example, shifted to the Millennium Development Goals and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The discussion currently centres on how research could help to alleviate 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. The International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research (IGFA) and ICSU have identified the need to more effectively bring the global change community together with the development community. Thus, a conference was organized in 2005 that brought the two communities together to discuss common interest and possibilities for increased collaboration. Reference is made to the presentation by Sara Farley at the IGFA Annual Meeting 2005 on “Rethinking Global Change & Development Research” and sessions during the ESSP Open Science Conference (November 2006). A major challenge for ESSP will be to try to build bridges between the global change and development communities. ICSU and IGFA will conduct a review of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP), through the appointment of a Review Panel, to address issues that are integral to sustainable development and to build the science structure necessary to investigate coupled human-environmental systems. The components of ESSP are Joint Projects (currently addressing food, water, health and carbon), Integrated Regional Studies (currently MAIRS) and the Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training (START). The review will focus on both internal and external interactions. The major questions to be considered by the review are given below. The overriding objective should be to evaluate the extent to which the character of ESSP adds value to its priority areas of research and 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 the ESSP that they could not get from participation in the individual Programmes (DIVERSITAS, IGBP, IHDP, WCRP)?”. Additional questions to be considered are listed below. In addressing 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 aspects
2. Policy relevance
3. Organization and Governance
4. Visibility and communication
5. Capacity Building
6. Resources
During the first meeting, the Panel will agree on the conduct of the review, the information necessary to perform the review and the division of work. The Panel should also decide on the balance between review of ESSP relative to its component parts. It may be necessary to design an interview/questionnaire process for collection of views of ESSP leadership, Joint Projects, Regional Studies and START as well as 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 ESSP. At its second meeting the Panel would review the collected material and prepare a first draft of its report. This draft would then be circulated to ESSP and its components and the four Programmes with the opportunity for them to provide factual corrections and comments. During a teleconference the Panel would review the comments received, 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). The final assessment report would be finalized at the Panel’s third and last meeting and shortly thereafter submitted to ICSU and IGFA. The Review Panel will be assisted by Dr. Leah Goldfarb, ICSU Science Officer, Environment and Sustainable Development. Chair: Louise Fresco (The Netherlands) Members:
Contact: Leah Goldfarb,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Follow-up Group One of the recommendations from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Partners Meeting in Kuala Lumpur in September 2004 was that ICSU and UNESCO should take the lead in addressing how the experiences from the MA could help identify needs for additional research that could fill some of the knowledge gaps identified by the Assessment. The need for such an analysis has also been stressed in the follow-up discussions in relation to the development of a proposal for a GEF Medium Size Grant. UNU has later agreed to join ICSU and UNESCO in this follow-up activity and it has been decided to move forward despite the uncertain fate of the GEF proposal. The MA involved a large number of scientists worldwide and through the assessment process it was realized that sufficient scientific knowledge was not always available both at the sub-global and global levels. There is a seamless link between research and assessments. The development of a science agenda will hopefully stimulate the science community to conduct additional research to address key issues in linking ecosystem services and human well-being. This is still a new area of research, which is hampered by universities and funding agencies often not structured in such a way as to stimulate research on the links between ecological and social systems. There are several initiatives, such as the Earth System Science Partnership (the four global change research programmes of ICSU and others), the Resilience Alliance, UNESCO-MAB, etc, that already exists and contribute substantially in engaging the international science community. In addition, ICSU with partners published a report on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development (ICSU-ISTS-TWAS, 2005) as a follow-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The development of a science agenda based on experiences from the MA should build on, and involve scientists from, the sub-global assessments. The initiative could also help stimulate the development of new sub-global assessments by engaging the science community in reflections over research needed to assess linked ecological-social systems. During the 2004 consultation, it was recommended that the following actions were especially urgent as follow-up to the MA:
ICSU, UNESCO and UNU will convene a Scoping Group of experts with relevant
natural and social science disciplinary competence representing experiences
from the MA as well as the relevant sub-global assessments to produce
a report on the priority research gaps that need to be filled in order
to improve any future global or-sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
The report will be transmitted to ICSU, UNESCO and UNU. If the report recommends further development of international and/or regional coordinated approaches, ICSU, UNESCO and UNU will engage the wider science community and other potential MA partners (e.g., IUCN, WRI, etc.) to consider appropriate mechanisms to develop a science and implementation plan, related time schedules, resource needs and possible partnerships, to address the identified research gaps. It is envisaged that the small group of experts will be convened soon and that a first meeting should be arranged in the latter part of 2006. It is anticipated that most developments will be conducted through electronic communication and conference calls. However, at least one more meeting will be convened to agree on the final report, which should be finished before mid-2007. Chair: Harold Mooney (USA) Members:
Ad hoc Strategic Committee on Information and Data
(SCID) The nature and use of scientific data and information, the conditions under which scientific data and information are produced, distributed, and managed, and the role of scientists and other actors in these processes have been changing rapidly in recent years. These changes are partly a result of the revolution in computational capacity and connectivity that together have expanded the quality and quantity of research data. They are also related to the emergence of new questions in scientific research that require different types of data. Taken together, these changes are providing scientists throughout the world with more and enhanced access to research data and information. The benefits of this include the growing involvement of scientists in international research projects and increased scientific and policy interest in global scale and comparative research activities. The Priority Area Assessment (PAA) on Scientific Data and Information (ICSU 2004) includes over 50 recommendations on future needs and priorities. It highlights the importance of professional data and information management and the need to build capacity in this area in all countries; the importance of coordination within the ICSU family and beyond, and the need to modernize or replace existing structures. Its overall conclusion is that there is a need for a new coordinated global approach to scientific data and information. It is recognized that such an approach will require considerable national and international investment but the potential returns in the longer-term are enormous. ICSU Strategy On the basis of the PAA recommendations, the ICSU Strategic Plan, 2006-2011 (pp41-42), includes the following goal: “To facilitate a new coordinated global approach to scientific
data and information that ensures equitable access to quality data and
information for research, education and informed decision-making.” A number of specific commitments with regards to the re-focusing of ICSU’s existing data and information services are made, including:
An ad hoc Strategic Committee on Information and Data (SCID) The proposed remit for SCID is to oversee the implementation of the key recommendations in the PAA report and in particular those that concern ICSU Interdisciplinary Bodies. A key conclusion of the PAA was that ICSU should foster greater communication, coordination, and collaboration within and across members of the ICSU community and with other partners on issues, practices and structures for scientific data management. A multi-stakeholder Scientific Data and Information Forum (SciDIF) was proposed as a mechanism to achieve this. However, since the publication of the PAA report a number of significant multi-stakeholder forums have already been established. These include the planning exercise for a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) and the launching of a Global Information Commons for Science Initiative, both of which have been supported by ICSU. The electronic Geophysical Year (eGY) is also acting as a focus for coordination and collaboration on data issues and the International Polar Year is having a federating effect on all those involved in data and information management as regards polar research. The need and potential structure, for SciDIF needs to be re-evaluated by the ad hoc Committee (SCID) in the light of these developments. Reform of WDC and FAGS The World Data Center system consists of over forty designated World Data Centers (WDCs), which collect, manage, and distribute a wide range of defined geophysical, solar and environmental data. The World Data Center programme was created during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958, and in 1968, ICSU established a Panel on World Data Centers to coordinate and monitor the activities of the centers. Financial support for specific WDCs is obtained from a variety of sources, usually national governments. FAGS was established in 1956 and includes 12 permanent data services, each operating under the authority of one or more of the three sponsoring unions: Astronomy, Geodesy and Geophysics and Radio Science. The services are maintained nationally and their role is to collect, analyze, interpret, and disseminate observations, information and data related to astronomy and geophysics. The services are independent, but ICSU and the union co-sponsors contribute to the overarching coordinating function which is performed by the Council of the Federation. The PAA on Data and Information, as well as an earlier PAA on The Environment and its Relation to Sustainable Development (ICSU, 2003), concluded that, whilst there are distinctions between the WDCs and FAGS, both networks need restructuring to meet the current and future needs of the international scientific community. For example, both the geographical and disciplinary spread of these networks is still principally dictated by the nature of the International Geophysical Year 50 years ago. CODATA CODATA was established as an ICSU interdisciplinary body in 1966. Its principal objectives are improvement of the quality and accessibility of scientific data, as well as the methods by which data are acquired, managed and analyzed; the facilitation of international cooperation on data issues; the promotion of awareness of data issues in the science and technology community; and consideration of data access and intellectual property issues. Its core funding (~€200,000 per annum) comes from member subscriptions. It has 23 national members and 15 international union members. A mixture of policy and operational activities are performed mainly by special task forces, which are established and/or renewed at biennial general conferences. It also organizes a number of ad hoc activities and was actively involved in the World Summit on the Information Society (Geneva, 2002, Tunis, 2005), which has led to the development of a Global Information Commons for Science Initiative (GICSI) . These activities are coordinated by an Executive Director based in Paris, who is supported in her direction by an Executive Board. The PAA on Data and Information observed that “the recent direction of CODATA is to be complemented for its energy and foresight”. However there was some concern as to the lack of future focus and strategy. It concluded that: “CODATA should develop a clear long-term strategy that focuses on key international data management and policy issues, giving special attention to the needs of developing countries.” Taking the report of the CSPR Assessment Panel on Scientific Data and Information as its starting point, and in the light of developments subsequent to that report:
The membership should include a number of independent data experts covering both the provider and user perspectives. It should include representatives of the following bodies/activities:
ICSU Planning Group on Natural and Human-Induced
Environmental Hazards and Disasters
Chair : Gordon McBean (Canada) Members:
Working Group to Review the Dues Structure Background and Terms of Reference Background In recent years a number of Members have begun to question the dues structure of ICSU and some have changed their payment categories. Such decisions have not necessarily been based on value for money assessments but rather have reflected other financial and policy considerations within the Member organizations. Such cases illustrate the vulnerability for ICSU of the current voluntary mechanism. However, it is also recognized that switching to an index-linked mechanism could result in a request for significant increases in subscriptions for some Members. Such a change would need to be carefully planned and could only be introduced after full consultation with Members. It was in this context that the Executive Board proposed to the 28th General Assembly that a review of ICSU’s dues structure be conducted over the next triennium, with a view to presenting a proposal to the next General Assembly for a revised structure. It was noted that such a review should include a full consultation with Members. Members unanimously supported the proposal and stressed the urgency of the review. The formal decision of the General Assembly was: “to request the EB to establish a Working Group, in full consultation with Members, to consider the member dues structure. The Working Group shall report back to the EB as soon as possible. The EB shall then submit the report and the EB`s recommendation to the Members for a vote by whatever means it determines to be expeditious” In the light of this decision, the following terms of reference for the review have been developed: Terms of Reference
Chair: Steve Thompson (New Zealand) Members:
ICSU ad hoc Scoping Group
on Human Health Human Health is a new priority area for ICSU as outlined in the Strategic Plan, 2006-2011. A large number of International Unions are working together to develop an initiative on Science for Health and Wellbeing. At the same time, a separate programme on Global Environmental Change and Health is being developed by the Earth Systems Science Partnership. ICSU has provided some funding to seed both of these initiatives. Human health is also a priority for the ICSU Regional Office for Africa and several Interdisciplinary Bodies are conducting health-related projects. In February 2006, the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review established an ad hoc Scoping Group to liaise with and advise on these various activities and help define ICSU’s future strategy in this area. Report of the CSPR ad hoc Scoping Group on Human Health
Background and Terms of Reference Background Since 2002, a number of Unions and Interdisciplinary Bodies have been developing an initiative on Science for Health and Wellbeing (SHWB). They submitted a successful grant application to ICSU for $50k to organize meetings and workshops to further advance this initiative in 2006. Whilst being impressed by the commitment from a large number of Unions, CSPR had some concerns about the scope of the proposal. As a condition of the funding award it was stipulated that the proposers should liaise with an ad hoc CSPR Scoping Group to help define a more specific integrated programme. In parallel to the Union led activity, the Earth Systems Science Partnership (ESSP) has been developing a new project on Global Environmental Change and Human Health (GEC-Human Health). This also has been partially supported by the ICSU grants programme with a grant in 2004 to carry out a rapid assessment of Biodiversity Health and the Environment. A draft science and implementation plan will be presented to the ESSP Chairs and Directors meeting in June 2006 (Munich) and it is anticipated that the final proposal for a GEC-Human Health project will be launched at the ESSP Open Science meeting in November 2006 (Beijing). Human Health is an identified priority in the ICSU Strategic Plan 2006-2011 with the overall goal (p32-33): “to ensure that health considerations are duly taken into account in the planning and execution of future activities by building on the relevant strengths of Scientific Unions and Interdisciplinary Bodies.” And the following specific action:
It is also stated elsewhere in the Strategic Plan (p50): “A recurrent theme in the assessment and review process has been the need for improved communication and coordination between the activities of the Interdisciplinary Bodies and the Scientific Unions. It is important that the wealth of expertise that exists within the Scientific Unions is used to the fullest extent and, vice versa, the programmes of the Interdisciplinary Bodies have uch to offer the Unions.” Several Unions and IBs have already been involved in the development of both programmes but given the strategic importance of this area to ICSU, it may be beneficial to either or both programmes to encourage further interaction. The establishment of a CSPR ad hoc Group on Human Health is the first limited step in defining a potential role for ICSU in a complex area which is considered to be a very high priority by many Members. Terms of Reference
In relation to its liaison roles, 1 and 2, the Group is not asked to explicitly review the scientific quality of these proposals but rather to assess and offer advice on strategic direction and/or links to other activities within the ICSU community. Modus operandi It is proposed that the Group will meet once, for two days, in the first half of 2006 to consider the status of the SHWB and GEC-Human Health proposals and agree on preliminary advice to these groups as necessary. Ideally, this meeting would be back to back with one of the proposed SHWB workshops or Executive Committee meetings. Subsequent interactions during 2006 could be largely electronic and via tele-conferencing. However, it is likely that the whole group will need to meet again early in 2007 to consider progress on SHWB and GEC-Human Health and agree on its final recommendations and report. End Product The product of the Group’s work should be a short report to be considered by CSPR and the EB in 2007 and made available to all ICSU Members thereafter.
Chair : Dai Rees (UK) Members:
Ad hoc Working Group for an International
Science Panel on Renewable Energy Working in partnership with the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, ICSU has convened an ad hoc working group to develop a proposal for an International Science Panel on Renewable Energy (ISPRE), which is envisioned as an international, interdisciplinary platform for promoting and coordinating R&D for renewable energy technologies. This working group will also be helping ICSU address the issue of renewable energy for the upcoming meetings of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.
Review Committee for the Grants Programme The 28th General Assembly in 2005 requested that a review of the ICSU grants programme be carried out by the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR). The terms of reference for this review were by CSPR in February 2006 and were subsequently sent to Members for input and additional nominations for the Review Committee.
Background and Terms of Reference Background The ICSU-UNESCO grants programme has been managed by the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) since 2000. [Prior to this, grants were awarded annually to ICSU Unions and Interdisciplinary Bodies (IBs) by the Executive Board on the basis of recommendations from the Committee on Finance and Fundraising]. CSPR’s first action was to introduce a competitive peer-review process for grants awarded in 2001. From 2002 onwards it has been further stipulated that proposals must be interdisciplinary (involving at least two eligible Unions and/or IBs) and address one or more of five defined priority areas:
These priorities were defined by CSPR and are in line with those laid
out in the ICSU-UNESCO Framework Agreement 2002-2007 but predate the development
of the ICSU Strategic Plan. The annual budget for the grant scheme up until 2005 was between €680k-800k, with this coming in approximately equal parts from ICSU’s own funds, UNESCO and the US State Department. There has been increasing financial pressure on all of these funding sources with the result that the programme had to be much reduced in 2005 and 2006. ICSU alone cannot sustain the programme at its previous level of funding. However, ICSU and UNESCO have initiated discussions in preparation for the third Framework Agreement 2008-2013. It is possible that the grants programme could become part of the development of the joint priority areas of ICSU and UNESCO. In the light of the funding situation, and as the competitive programme has now been running for six years, the Executive Board recommended to the 28th General Assembly of ICSU (Suzhou, October, 2005) that a review be carried out. This was endorsed by the General Assembly and the decision is reflected in two specific actions that are included in the ICSU Strategic Plan, 2006-2011 (Section 5.3.2 Seeding New Initiatives):
CSPR is entrusted with the review and reporting back to the Executive Board and Members. Given its previous role as a major sponsor of the programme, it is proposed that UNESCO be invited to provide input to the review.
Terms of Reference Taking account of the input from ICSU Member Unions and Interdisciplinary Bodies:
Modus Operandi, including consultation with Members and IBs It is proposed that the review committee be established after consultation with the Scientific Unions and IBs and that a single two-day meeting be convened in 2006. All ICSU Members and IBs and will be invited to provide written comments prior to the meeting in response to the questions listed in annex 1. UNESCO Natural Science Division will also be invited to provide input. At its meeting, the review committee will consider both the responses from Members and UNESCO and the necessary documentation to assess past performance as provided by the Secretariat. The main recommendations will be agreed at the meeting for inclusion in a brief report that will be finalized electronically.
End product The product of the committee’s work should be a short report to be considered by CSPR and the EB at their first meetings in 2007. UNESCO will be invited to participate in these discussions. The report will be made available to all ICSU Members thereafter. The report will provide important input to the preparation of the 2008-2013 UNESCO-ICSU Framework Agreement. It should also provide the basis for approaches to other potential co-sponsors for the programme.
Chair: John Marks (ex-CSPR) Members:
Priority Area Assessment (PAA) on Capacity Building
in Science The goal of the Priority Area Assessments (PAA) process is to strengthen ICSU’s overall capability in addressing priority scientific issues that are of emerging importance to science and society at large. The PAA is a mechanism to develop ICSU’s strategies for selected priority scientific areas. It is designed to help ICSU develop a programme structure reflecting its priorities; to ensure synergies in the activities of the ICSU family; and to enable an appropriate allocation of limited resources. In order to be effective, the PAA process must involve relevant members of the ICSU family – i.e. Union and National Members, interdisciplinary bodies, and joint initiatives. It should also consider ICSU’s priorities in the context of relevant activities outside of ICSU. The immediate outcome of a PAA is a report containing key recommendations that will be published and widely disseminated by ICSU. This report will form the basis for future actions by ICSU and ICSU members, including the development of new programmes, policy initiatives and definition of new priorities for the ICSU grants programme. Some of the recommendations may require the establishments of new partnerships with bodies outside the ICSU family or may be more appropriately taken forward by other organisations, in which case, the necessary dialogue(s) will be initiated. The results of the PAA will provide essential input for the development of an ICSU strategy to be presented at the 28th General Assembly in October 2005. 1 Other PAAs are also being initiated in the area of “Environment in Relation to Sustainable Development” and “Scientific Data and Information”.
Context for the PAA on Capacity Building in Science Scientific and technological capacity of individuals is increasingly called for as a basis of prudent private and public decision-making for our sustainable future. Abilities to create, synthesise and apply scientific and technological knowledge are crucial for peaceful development of the global society in the 21st century. However, securing high-quality human resources with strong scientific and technological talent is one of the major challenges to all societies of the world. Attracting young talent to science, improving the quality of science education, and enhancing public understanding of science are among others emerging priority issues of government of both developing and developed countries. In particular, there is a pressing need for capacity building in developing countries where poor education in general is an inexorable problem. However, the decreased attraction of science and engineering careers of youth in industrialised countries is also cause for concern. Capacity building in science does not only mean training of people,
but also has institutional and other implications. It should also concern
not only scientists or scientists to be but also other groups of individuals
in the society. Capacity building in science should be the continuous
efforts that lead to the establishment of a corps of qualified scientists
with supporting infrastructure including facilities and working conditions
that enables them to conduct research, education, training and advisory
work, particularly, in area of direct societal significance The responsibility for building and maintaining capacity lies squarely
on the shoulders of national governments but requires significantly enhanced
collaboration and partnerships with the private sector, the global development
assistance community and the S&T community. The United Nations, together
with their partner organisations, has been advocating the collective responsibility
of the global society for capacity building for sustainable development.
In the occasion of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD),
ICSU, representing the International Scientific and Technological Community
together with other partners, has successfully highlighted the importance
of capacity building in science for sustainable development Amongst many inter-governmental organisations, UNESCO will continue to be a major partner of ICSU in the area of capacity building in science. For example, the UNESCO Science Sector is initiating a brain-storming debate on strategies for strengthening international co-operation in basic science involving ICSU. The Education Sector organised the Higher Education Partners’ Meeting (WCHE +5) in June 2003 to review the progress and follow-up strategies to the World Conference on Higher Education (WCHE). WCHE+5 concluded that science and higher education policies must be integrated focussing on the role of universities both for higher education and scientific research. Such collaboration will be extremely useful in defining ICSU’s role in the capacity building in science in a broader context. The InterAcademy Council has initiated a project designed to produce a global strategy for improved access by all nations and peoples to the benefits of science and technology. The focus will be on human resources, research institutions, scientific cooperation and global communication. The final report will be issued to a wider audience including international organisations, in particular, appropriate UN agencies. A draft report will be made available for consultation in September 2003, which would serve as a part of background for this assessment. Recognising the importance of capacity building in science and the role of ICSU therein, the 27th General Assembly (GA) of ICSU encouraged the ICSU family members to intensify efforts in effecting partnerships within and beyond the ICSU family to strengthen capacity building, especially for developing countries, and to broaden outreach to teachers and young scientists. In this connection, the GA also decided to continue the mandate of the Committee on Capacity Building in Science (CCBS) only for one year. The GA also decided to dissolve the Committee on Science and Technology in Developing Countries (COSTED), and to set up a Policy Committee on Developing Countries and four ICSU Regional Offices for developing countries. The PAA on Capacity Building in Science is expected to develop strategies for bringing synergies to a wide range of capacity building activities of the ICSU family, and provide inputs to future discussions on the future course of the CCBS. 2 Working definition of “Capacity Building” developed by the ICSU Advisory Group on the Possible Role of ICSU in the Areas of Capacity Building in Science and of Science Education in 1992. The group was called partially as a follow-up to UNCED. Based on the recommendation of the group, the 24th General Assembly in 1993 established the Committee on Capacity Building in Science (CCBS) replacing the Committee on Teaching of Science. 3 ICSU 2002. ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development No.5: Science Education and Capacity Building for Sustainable Development.
Scope of the PAA on Capacity Building The scope of the PAA should cover a wide range of capacity building activities carried out by the ICSU Unions and National Members and Interdisciplinary Bodies, to provide an overall picture of those activities and propose action to strengthen synergies among them. The PAA should also take into account relevant efforts made by outside organisations and identify value-added role of ICSU and ways to develop partnership with other organisations, not only in the science sector but also other sectors such as education and development aids sectors, to complement each other.
Major ICSU Activities in relation to Capacity Building A one-day special session was held on the occasion of Unions Presidents Meeting in February 2001, inviting representatives of the ICSU Interdisciplinary Bodies, to exchange information on their major capacity building activities. As illustrated later also by a draft compendium on capacity building. a wide range of capacity building activities are being carried out by the ICSU family – ICSU Unions Members, National Members, and Interdisciplinary Bodies. In particular, many of the Scientific Unions are actively engaged in a wide variety of educational activities in respective disciplines. Following are the only selected examples of capacity building activities of the ICSU family. The Committee on Capacity Building in Science (CCBS) was created in 1993 with the mandate covering the following three areas: i) primary school education in science and mathematics, ii) the public understanding of science, and iii) the isolation of scientists. Over the past few years, CCBS has been focused on science and mathematics education at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels mainly thorough the organisation of international conferences to exchange best practices on curriculum development, hands-on science education programmes and other ways to ensure quality of science and mathematics education. These conferences contributed to connecting the science and education communities, in particular, in the host country of the conference. For example, the CCBS Conference held in China in 2000 has also served as an opportunity to launch reform efforts in primary school efforts in primary science. In addition, the CCBS, in association with IAP, is developing a functional website liking relevant homepages of organisations/programmes. The 27th GA decided to continue the mandate of CCBS only for one year (till the end of 2003). The Committee on Science and Technology in Developing Countries (COSTED) was established in 1966 and for over decades has carried out a range of projects to facilitate participation of developing countries’ scientists and to strengthen the scientific and technological capacity of developing countries through the work of its Central Secretariat in India and seven regional secretariats. An in-depth review of COSTED was carried out in 2001-2002 and based on recommendation from this review, the 27th GA decided to replace the seven regional secretariats by four ICSU Regional Offices in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Caribbean, and Arab Region. ICSU/TWAS/UNESCO Short-Term Fellowship Programme in the Basic Science, originated in 1990, aims at promoting capacity-building through international cooperation in the basic sciences. Specifically it is enabling scientists, particularly young scientists, form developing countries and Central and Eastern Europe, to carry out short-term studies in well-established scientific centres. The ICSU Executive Board recently reviewed the programmes and suggested that they should focus more on the least developed countries. ICSU’s longer-term role in this programme should be considered in the context of the PAA. Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training (START), is a programme of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP), established in 1992, developed a system of regional networks of collaborating scientists and institutions on global change issues. Its objective is to build indigenous capacity, especially in developing countries, to address scientific and policy aspects of global change by strengthening and connecting existing institutions, training scientists and providing them with improved access to data and research results. International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP), a programme of the Committee on Dissemination of Scientific Information (CDSI), was established in 1992 in cooperation with UNESCO and TWAS. It is a cooperative network of partners whose aim is to enhance worldwide access to scientific information, and to improve its flow within between countries, especially those with less developed systems of publication and dissemination. There are many other ICSU subsidiary bodies that have capacity building activities focusing on research capacity building in specific areas in developing 4 ICSU. 2001. ICSU Compendium of Capacity Building Activities (draft)
The Panel will:
A minimum of two physical meetings of the Panel might be expected in addition to “virtual” discussions via e-mail and telephone. Input from the relevant members of the ICSU family will need to be solicited and analysed; it may be desirable to conduct ‘face to face’ interviews with representatives of key bodies. The Panel will be asked to prepare a report to the ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR), which will include an overarching mission statement and strategic framework for ICSU and recommendations on roles of new and/or existing interdisciplinary bodies and joint initiatives in the area. This report will be
ICSU will provide financial resources to carry out the review, including travel and accommodation costs for the Panel members to participate in the necessary meetings. The ICSU Secretariat will provide administrative support to the Panel, including assistance with communication among the members and organisations of meetings. The final report will be the responsibility of the Panel, although the ICSU secretariat will assist in its preparation as necessary.
Membership of ad hoc panel for PAA on Capacity Building in Science Chair: Jorge E. Allende [Santiago, Chile] Members:
Scoping Group Natural and Human-Induced Hazards At its meeting in April 2005, the Executive Board gave the go-ahead for a scoping study on hazards. The aim is to take a broad proposal to the October 2005 General Assembly identifying a niche in the hazards field where ICSU can use its unique attributes to make an impact on both research and public policy, probably through a substantial programme lasting some years. Subject to GA approval, a Planning Committee will then set out the details of the programme and propose how it might be implemented. Membership Chair : Gordon McBean (Canada) Members:
Observer: (invited by the Chair)
Ad hoc Advisory Group
on Consortium for Science and Technology for Sustainable Development ICSU, together with the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability (ISTS) and the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), has formed an Ad hoc Advisory Group for the Consortium on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development to help formulate goals, an integrated agenda for research and development, capacity building, and linking research to action. The Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability (ISTS); the International Council for Science (ICSU); and the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) have decided to establish a Consortium for Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. The idea for a Consortium developed during discussions at the Mexico City Synthesis Workshop, May 20 – 23, 2002 (ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development No. 9, 2002) and was discussed further at an informal meeting in Paris in November 2002. The initial members of the Consortium are the organisers of the May 2002 Mexico City Synthesis Workshop on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development (see Annex ). Other organizations may join at a later date. The underlying purpose of the Consortium will be to promote and strengthen efforts around the world to enhance the contribution of science and technology to sustainable development. To this end, the Consortium will take into account whenever possible ongoing and planned efforts of numerous individuals, groups and institutions worldwide currently engaged in science and technology for sustainable development. The Consortium partners have agreed that a widely inclusive Ad hoc Advisory Group should be formed to help formulate goals, an integrated agenda for research and development, capacity building, and linking research to action, an implementation plan, and the structure of the Consortium, and expand its intellectual, societal and institutional scope.
Mandate The Advisory Group established by the Consortium founders is asked to recommend:
Guidelines In fulfilling its mandate, the Advisory Group is asked to take into account the following guidelines:
Chairs:
Members:
Ex Officio Members:
Background 2 Sustainability concerns have occupied a place on the global agenda since at least the 1980s, with publication of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) World Conservation Strategy and the Brundtland Commission’s report Our Common Future. The prominence of that place has been rising, however. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reflected a growing consensus when he wrote in his Millennium Report to the General Assembly that “Freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the freedom of future generations to sustain their lives on this planet” are the three grand challenges facing the international community at the dawn of the 21st century. Science and technology are increasingly recognized to be central to both the origins of Secretary-General Annan’s three challenges, and to the prospects for successfully dealing with them. Despite the importance of achieving sustainability, and the centrality of science and technology to strategies for doing so, a great imbalance exists in the resources and attention devoted to harnessing science and technology in the service of the goal of sustainable development. Efforts to harness science and technology (S&T) for sustainability have largely had to draw on research and development (R&D) systems built for other purposes – begging monitoring data from the world’s military establishment, piggy-backing on the already over-extended international agricultural research system, and borrowing insights gained from basic research programs on global environmental change. With a few important but relatively small and under-funded exceptions, efforts to “sustain the lives of future generations on this planet” still lack dedicated, solution-driven R&D systems of anything like the scale or maturity of those devoted to security and development per se. Calls for strengthening S&T programs targeted on sustainable development were increasingly heard during the 1990s following the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio. Many of the earliest and most thoughtful contributions to this discourse came from the developing world through the work of individual scholars and of institutions such as the Third World Network of Scientific Organizations (TWNSO), the Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), the Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI), and the South Center. A further regional perspective was provided by the African Academy’s Millennial Perspective on Science, Technology and Development. European thinking of the late 1990s was exemplified in Schellnhuber and Wenzel’s Earth Systems Analysis: Integrating Science for Sustainability, the European Union’s Fifth Framework Programme, and a special issue on “Sustainability Science” published by the International Journal of Sustainable Development. A number of national academies of science or other advisory bodies – including those of Brazil, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States also addressed the links between sustainability and global change. With the turn of the Millennium, discussions on science, technology and sustainability intensified significantly. On the political side, impetus was provided by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in August 2002. In the policy arena, international environmental assessments were increasingly called on to address sustainability issues. On the scientific side, national and international stock-taking on the first decade of global environmental change research and planning for the decade ahead provided additional opportunities for rethinking the relationships among science, technology and sustainability. In response to this increased attention, during the two-year period leading up to the World Summit organizations representing the international scientific and technology communities conducted more than a dozen fact-finding studies, discussions, conferences, and workshops that addressed the question “How can science and technology contribute more effectively to achieving society’s goals of sustainable development?” These “consultations” reflected a wide range of perspectives. The InterAcademy Panel (IAP) of the World’s Scientific Academies led the way with a May 2000 symposium on the contributions that science and technology could make to a transition toward sustainability. The Global Change Research Programmes – IGBP, IHDP, WCRP, and DIVERSITAS – made sustainability a focus of their forward-planning efforts at a major Open Science Conference in Amsterdam (July 2001) and a smaller follow-up meeting in Paris (February 2002). The International Council for Science (ICSU) was invited, along with the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO), by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to serve as the official representative of the scientific and technological community during the preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). In this capacity ICSU brought together the IAP, the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), and a number of other international scientific organizations in a survey of progress made and lessons learned in efforts to apply science and technology to sustainability since the 1992 Rio Conference. The Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability (ISTS) – an ad-hoc, international group of scholars working on problems of environment and development – organized a series of global and regional workshops to assess what on-the-ground efforts to promote human well-being while protecting the earth’s life support systems most need from science and technology in different parts of the world. Finally, ISTS, TWAS, and ICSU jointly organized a pair of workshops on institutions to harness science to sustainable development (Trieste, February 2002; Cambridge, April 2002) and a synthesis workshop in Mexico City (May 2002) that brought leaders of these various efforts together to produce a consensus statement on science, technology and sustainable development that was used in the World Summit preparatory process. After the WSSD, ICSU held its General Assembly in September 2002 and passed a resolution to set up, in collaboration with other interested partners, a program on Science for Sustainable Development. The TWAS General Assembly in October 2002 emphasised again the important role of science and technology in sustainable development and the TWAS contributions to the evolving agenda. The Steering Group of ISTS met in November 2002 and agreed that the Initiative should seek further funding to continue its aims of developing the research and development agenda on science and technology for sustainable development, to enhance linkages between knowledge and action and to strengthen infrastructure and capacity for conducting and applying science and technology for sustainable development. A small, informal meeting of the sponsors of the Mexico City Synthesis Workshop was held in Paris (14-15 November), chaired by Prof. Jane Lubchenco, President of ICSU. The participants agreed that further efforts to develop and implement the action agenda shaped at Mexico City were still needed in the wake of the WSSD, and that great opportunities exist for pursuing that work through an expanded consortium, incorporating other groups from the science, engineering and development communities. The Paris group agreed to explore the prospects for bringing together a broadly representative planning group to carry forward such a program.
Footnotes 1 The Consortium activities should be complementary to ongoing activities of the Consortium Partners and other activities looking at the human-environment system from the perspective of sustainable development, e.g., the Earth System Science Partnership of ICSU and its partners, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the Resilience Alliance, relevant Type II Partnerships from WSSD, numerous programmes identifies during the Mexico City Workshop and other planned or ongoing initiatives related to harnessing science and technology for sustainable development. The planning and implementation phases should also include as much as possible participation from the wide range of initiatives that are based locally and work on the implementation of sustainability transitions world-wide. 2 For references in this section, please see the Background paper for the Mexico City Workshop, published in the ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable Development and also available on http://sustainabilityscience.org
ICSU International Polar Year 2007/8 Planning Group Planning Group on the International Polar Year (IPY) In response to the considerable interest from many polar and global research bodies, the Executive Board (EB) of ICSU established an International Planning Group in February 2003 to develop the concept of an International Polar Year (IPY) in 2007-08. The Board has now approved an IPY programme in 2007-08 providing a major opportunity to intensify and enhance Polar Regions research. As with previous Polar Years, and the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), this IPY has the potential to capture the public’s imagination and increase awareness of the crucial role of the Polar Regions. IPY 2007-8 is envisioned to be an intense campaign of coordinated polar observations and analysis; it will be bipolar in focus, multidisciplinary in scope, and truly international in participation. Its activities will hopefully attract and develop the next generation of polar scientists. The scientific goal is to increase understanding of the role of Polar Regions in planetary processes and to explore polar environments. It will also address the human dimension associated with the rapid changes now occurring in these regions. A key objective will be the exploitation of opportunities afforded by new Information Technologies to achieve previously unprecedented participation in IPY science. Terms of Reference of the ICSU IPY 2007/8 Planning Group (i) To gather, summarise and make widely available information on existing ideas for an IPY serving as a clearinghouse for ideas; (ii) To stimulate, encourage and organise debate amongst a wide range of interested parties on the objectives and possible content of an IPY; (iii) To formulate a set of objectives for an IPY; (iv) To develop an initial high level Science Plan for an IPY which engages younger scientists throughout the planning process; (v) To develop a specific set of objects targeted at formal and informal education as well as the general public in the next IPY; (vi) To develop a proposed mechanism for the design, development, guidance, and oversight of an IPY; (vii) To present a draft plan to the ICSU EB at their February 2004 meeting; and (vii) To report to the ICSU 28th General Assembly in 2005 a plan for
an IPY in 2007/8 for final endorsement.
Chair :C. Rapley, (United Kingdom) Members:
Priority Area Assessment Panel on Data and Information The PAA will help define ICSU’s role and future strategy in addressing the emerging issues surrounding science in the Information Society. The immediate outcome of the PAA will be a report and key recommendations that will be published and widely disseminated. This report will form the basis for future actions by ICSU and ICSU family members and partners, including the development of new research projects or programmes, the development of policy initiatives and definition of new priorities for the ICSU grants programme.
Working Group on Energy and Sustainable Societies
Review on Roles and Responsibilities of Science
and Society Given the changing demands with regard to ethics and science, the Executive Board made a proposal to the 27th General Assembly of ICSU, in September 2002, that an ad hoc committee be established to carry out a broad strategic review to 1) define potential priority areas where action from ICSU is required and 2) define appropriate mechanisms and structures to address these priorities effectively. This proposal was approved by the ICSU members.
Chair : B. Gustafsson,
(Sweden) Members:
Working Group on Basic Sciences At a meeting of the ICSU Unions in February 2001, several Unions agreed
to work together to produce a position statement on the value of basic
sciences. In February 2003, the ICSU Executive Board approved a proposal
to bring together the work that was subsequently done by several Unions
and establish an ad hoc working group to develop an ICSU statement aimed
at policy-makers.
Chair :J. A. de la Penã, Mexico [Mathematics] Members:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ida.liu.se
