SAC IV

4th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Council for the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)

Beijing (China) - 22-27 October 1995

In 1995 China hosted major international meetings that made headlines around the world. These conferences assessed the foundation of knowledge and attitudes developed this century prior to entering the new millennium. Several made controversial headlines, but others went more smoothly. Among the latter was the 4th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Council for the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP).

This Council (SAC) is the highest body of IGBP. Its members are representatives of the scientific bodies that compose the nternational Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU, the parent organisation of the IGBP), and representatives of the 73 National IGBP Committees, with International scientific organisations invited as observers.

SAC meets every two to three years to assess the programme and guide its future, a future that depends on how global change research is perceived. The first SAC was held in Stockholm in 1988, less than two years after the IGBP was launched. At that time participants were sceptical that such an ambitious international programme could become a reality. When SAC II met in Paris in September 1990, the tone had changed. The science plan was published, the initial Core Projects covering the land, the oceans, the water cycle, the atmosphere and changes of the past were established, and the framework activities were well on the way to finding a suitable structure. The meeting that launched the START concept, the Global Change SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training, to develop today's regional research networks similar to MEDIAS, followed only three months later.

At SAC III in Ensenada, Mexico, in January 1993 the enthusiasm for the programme was palpable. START had become a reality, the Core Projects now had offices up and running, two more indispensable areas of study were being added (Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone-LOICZ, and Land-Use/Cover Change-LUCC). The Rio Conference on Environment and development in June 1992 and the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) plus the warm winter temperatures in the north - had convinced the public that the study of the biosphere and the influence of human actions on it was a key issue.

By the time of SAC IV in October 1995, the key conclusions of the IPCC report (approved in Rome in December 1995) had appeared on the World Wide Web, providing strong evidence regarding the effects of anthropogenic actions on climate. An additional confirmation of the importance of global change research was the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and Paul Crutzen for their work on the ozone layer. But this was not the only development - the political and economic climate too was different. The world economy no longer seemed able to fulfil expectations of 'better living for all' without serious damage, if indeed it could be done at all. And the role of science in achieving a sustainable decent life style for all was being put seriously into question.

The IGBP began to face the realities of a more questioning attitude to global change research in many countries, requiring evidence of its relevance and benefits. The first issue scientists must face is the difficult search for funding. Scientists are expected to justify in advance the likely returns on public investment in their work. Although purely economic returns are difficult to quantify and not necessarily relevant, the benefits to the public must be made clear. "The days of the ivory tower scientist are over", said Jean-Pierre Contzen (European Commission); this was echoed by Françoise Praderie (OECD) who said "science is no longer supported just for its beauty.".
Speakers from the floor iterated the need to prove the 'added value' of what science proposes, and the need to assure the best possible communication with governments and policy makers. As Hugh Morris (Canadian Global Change Programme) said of the policy and funding debate: "the issue is really a communication challenge".

There are, nonetheless, reassuring signs that scientists are finding funding and policy support. One is the excellence of the science and the wealth of the research results now being reported. The scientific symposium that occupied the first half of the SAC meeting was entitled Natural and Anthropogenic Changes: Impacts on Global Biogeochemical Cycles and subtitled Asian Change in the Context of Global Change. It consisted of both oral and poster presentations, and clearly demonstrated the riches of environmental material, records and intellectual talent available in the Asian region. The symposium organisers put together a programme which showed not only how regional changes in Asia both affect and are affected by more global changes, but also covered the whole gamut of research domains of IGBP (proceedings to be published in the IGBP Book Series, Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Funding and indifferent governments are not the only issues affecting global change research. New concerns to society are beginning to strongly impinge on the research agenda, for example global change and human health, as well as the whole question of the availability and quality of water forhuman use and its consumption both now and in the future. Whereas at the Scientific Symposium the opening speaker said "Food is first", by the end of the week this had changed to "Thirst is first".

SAC IV recommendations reflected these concerns, stating that "the Scientific Committee for the IGBP assess the importance of the following topics for the further evolution of the programme: (i) food security, in collaboration with other programmes already active in this field, (ii) large-scale changes in freshwater resources and freshwater ecology ...".

The demand remains that IGBP gives research results that may lead to direct action to ensure the preservation of the Earth's life-sustaining conditions. The IGBP is already addressing the relevant research areas, but there is increasing need to confront the problem more directly. The IGBP cannot do this alone. The issue involves not only biogeochemistry but also the physical and social sciences. The present trend of greater co-working and convergence between the three global change programmes - IGBP, the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and the International Human Dimensions Programme for Global Environmental Change (IHDP), both present at SAC IV - will become a vital part of the programme if future success is to be achieved, and the link between science and policy is to be assured.

The immediate future, and indeed the entry of the IGBP into the next millennium, will be affected by these issues present at SAC IV: communication with funders, policy makers and the