I. INTRODUCTION

The International Social Science Council (ISSC) held its 
first Scientific Symposium on the Human Dimensions of 
Global Environmental Change at the Centre de Cultura "Sa 
Nostra," Palma de Mallorca, Spain, on November 26 and 
27, 1990.  The more than 70 participants included both 
social and natural scientists, among them 
representatives of a wide range of intergovernmental, 
governmental, and non-governmental organizations, and 
the majority of ISSC's member associations.  A list of 
participants is appended at the end of this report.  The 
symposium was chaired by Dr. Harold K. Jacobson, 
chairman of the ISSC's Standing Committee on the Human 
Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (HDGEC).


II. OPENING

       The symposium was opened by Sr. Ramon Aguilo, the 
Mayor of Palma de Mallorca, who welcomed the 
participants.  Prof. Candido Mendes de Almeida, 
President of the ISSC, then addressed the participants, 
noting that the Symposium was an historic event, as the 
first scientific meeting to immediately precede a 
General Assembly of the ISSC.  He noted that the issues 
addressed by the symposium are of great significance for 
the Earth's population, and necessitate close 
cooperation and collaboration between many organizations 
and programmes.  In particular, these include the 
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and 
its International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), 
and the many organizations working toward the United 
Nations Conference on Environment and Development 
(UNCED) which will be held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.


III. KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

III.A. The Human Dimensions of Global Environmental 
Change: A Challenge for the Social Sciences. Dr. Roberta 
Balstad Miller, Division of Social and Economic Science, 
National Science Foundation, Washington D.C.

     This is a time of rapid changes in the social 
sciences.  Such changes include the growing use of 
computers, a widening in the focus of research from 
national and smaller scales to the global, and 
increasing efforts toward research on HDGEC, 
particularly since the first conference on these issues, 
held in Tokyo in 1988.  National, regional, and 
international research programmes on global 
environmental change are being developed by natural 
scientists, and social scientists are deeply involved in 
many of these activities.  One of the major 
international programmes is the IGBP.  The 2nd 
Scientific Advisory Council of the IGBP, meeting in 
September 1990, decided that the natural and social 
sciences should collaborate in research on land use.

     The prospect of such interdisciplinary work is not 
new for the social sciences, which have a rich, varied 
tradition of research on environmental change stretching 
back over a century.  In addition, new research 
methodologies, such as geographic information systems 
(GIS) provide new tools which will be invaluable for 
such research.  However, barriers to such research 
remain, particularly inadequate communication between 
scientists from different disciplines, the frequent 
isolation of interdisciplinary groups, and problems with 
mobilizing scientists to work on new topics.

       Following this introduction, Dr. Miller 
considered three questions - or challenges and issues 
for discussion.

1) Why should social scientists consider global 
environmental change (GEC) rather than other topics?

       Human processes are widely acknowledged to play a 
central and critical role in GEC.  Consequently, 
research is needed to assess how human activities have 
major cumulative effects on the environment through both 
direct and indirect interactions.  Another vital area of 
research is to assess the consequent social, political, 
and economic impacts on societies and individuals, even 
though future trends are very undefined.  Such research 
has to be conducted by responsible social scientists in 
order to avoid "media hype" and to provide information 
for the development of policies, such as those recently 
discussed at the 2nd World Climate Conference.

       Significant dangers derive both from rapidly 
rising expectations for the information that social 
scientists could provide and from the desire of 
different groups for specific (and often competing) 
information, much of which will be hard to provide.  
Consequently, social scientists should be realistic and 
develop cross-national consensus.  They should resist 
pressures for quick results and be aware of the risks of 
concentrating on policy research.  For many reasons, 
including changes in the scenarios provided by natural 
scientists, social science research relating to GEC 
should develop slowly.  The major value of such research 
will be to contribute to the understanding of the long-
term phenomena underlying GEC.

2) How can social scientists link their research on GEC 
to other ongoing research initiatives and programmes?

       GEC is a central scientific and policy issue, for 
which new sources of funding for research are becoming 
available.  These provide opportunities to unite 
previously disparate strands within the social sciences 
and further their evolution, and for social scientists 
to link their professional work to citizens' concerns.  
Linkages to the natural sciences are also vital, as 
human activities activate or exacerbate most aspects of 
GEC.  Yet, as shown by the reports of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), while 
our current knowledge of the physical manifestations of 
GEC is considerable, comparatively little is known about 
its anthropogenic causes.  In particular, more 
information is needed about changing patterns of 
population, land use, and food production.

       Social science models and research have potential 
for decreasing uncertainty about the magnitudes of such 
variables, yet they may lead to increasing uncertainty 
about the likely paths of GEC.  Thus, as the complexity 
of societal systems is introduced to considerations of 
GEC, unease within the natural science community tends 
to increase, often leading to reductionism.  It is 
important to combat this, recognizing that incomplete 
models of GEC have value - but they must include the 
human dimensions.  To strengthen the value of these 
models, they must include societal phenomena, which must 
be monitored carefully, so as to minimize political 
influences on the reporting of data and the control of 
statistics.  Finally, as people do not always act with a 
long-term perspective, research linking the causes and 
consequences of GEC is essential; social scientists must 
insist on the educability of human beings.

3) How will the study of GEC by social scientists 
contribute to the social sciences?

       The social sciences have already gained from 
discourse about HDGEC.  The research agenda has been 
enriched through new approaches and the consideration of 
new topics.  Yet the social sciences need to evolve 
further, addressing the inadequacy of existing social 
theories.  These need to consider longer time periods, 
interactions at all times and scales, and be cross-
nationally comparable.  New methodologies and further 
integration are required.

       This evolution requires improved institutional 
resources at all levels.  As resources for research 
increase, it becomes increasingly important to plan how 
to use them most effectively.  Experience from past 
international programmes suggests that the most 
successful have set early research goals, and have been 
coordinated by individuals with strong scientific, 
rather than political, credentials.  The critical issues 
for the future are how to transform interest in GEC into 
productive research at all scales and with natural 
scientists; and how to sustain the development of this 
research.


III.B. Cooperation between Natural and Social Sciences: 
Imperatives, Realities, and Opportunities. Dr. J.W.M. La 
Riviere, International Council of Scientific Unions, 
Paris.

The past progress of science has been driven both by 
curiosity and by available resources.  Current concerns 
about the future of the Earth, such as those considered 
in terms of global environmental security, will lead to 
new modes of international scientific research.   A 
range of programmes is likely at both international and 
national levels, involving industry and non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs) as well as scientific 
organizations.

       At the interface between science and government, 
there are problems of communication because of different 
time scales; for instance, scientists often have the 
perception that governments "want results yesterday" in 
order to start developing policies.  The process of the 
IPCC is an example.  One outcome of this process is the 
scientific community's recognition of the many gaps in 
current understanding of the workings of the Earth 
system.  One implication is the need for further 
research by scientists from many disciplines and for 
increased monitoring of environmental parameters at a 
global scale, in order to improve predictions and design 
and implement policy responses.  At the same time, 
governments assume that basic research on the Earth 
system will take care of itself; they are most 
interested in potential impacts and policy options 
relating to GEC.

       The need for interdisciplinary research on 
environmental issues has been recognized for some time, 
for instance by the formation of ICSU's Scientific 
Committee for Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) in 
1972.  Yet the involvement of social scientists within 
this programme has been limited.  During 1990, many 
meetings have called for cooperation between the natural 
and social sciences.  It is vital to assess how many of 
these calls have been driven by political goals, and how 
valuable such cooperation might be.  Cooperation and 
interdisciplinarity are important goals in themselves; 
yet some issues can be best considered within one 
discipline.  It is important to assess which issues are 
being least considered, which are most amenable to 
interdisciplinary cooperation, what obstacles exist, and 
what can be learned from past experience.

       One constraint to cooperation in research on GEC 
is that the natural and social science communities do 
not have equivalent manpower or resources, even in 
countries which stress the importance of social science 
in relation to GEC.  In the assessment of changes in the 
physical environment, social scientists should provide 
expert assistance to natural scientists.  Conversely, 
natural scientists can provide expert assistance to 
social scientists with respect to policy options.  
Natural and social scientists should cooperate closely 
in the assessment of potential impacts.

       When assessing obstacles to cooperation between 
natural and social scientists, it is important to 
recognize that we are captives of the increasingly 
specialized history of science.  Not only are there 
barriers to communication between disciplines, and 
incompatible or misunderstood methodologies, but natural 
scientists often make unwarranted generalizations about 
the `social sciences' as a whole.  Some social sciences 
have a high affinity to natural sciences (e.g., 
anthropology, demography, geography, history, and the 
descriptive areas of economics and sociology).  Others 
have a medium affinity (e.g., the administrative, legal 
and political sciences, and psychology), while some have 
a low affinity (e.g., business administration, peace 
research, and parts of economics and sociology).

       In spite of the obstacles to research involving 
both natural and social scientists, there have been some 
successes.  These include the SCOPE assessment projects 
(on environmental impacts, risks, climate impacts, and 
the greenhouse effect), which involved teams of 
scientists of whom between one-third and one-half were 
from social science disciplines.  The initial stage of 
these projects was the preparation of draft reports.  
These were then discussed, distilled, and sent for 
outside review before publication.  The report of the 
IPCC on policy options was also prepared collectively 
over a two-year period, involving scientists from many 
disciplines, with government support and peer review.  
Other projects, such as those on water supplies and 
sanitation in developing countries, have involved 
engineers as well as natural and social scientists.

       Increased cooperation between the natural and 
social sciences requires the avoidance of barriers to 
communication.  One approach may be to provide direct 
links between the ICSU and ISSC secretariats in Paris, 
so that appropriate people can be quickly identified for 
cooperative work.  Cooperation must be built on the 
understanding that there is a wide spectrum of 
scientific activity, from the collection of data to the 
construction of general laws.  Data collection is vital, 
and will require global monitoring systems and the 
development of new methods of data analysis by both 
natural and social scientists in order to assess and 
model trends.  Equally, understanding of the components 
of GEC may require the collection of new types of global 
data.  Yet data collection is handled by many 
organizations, and there is no agreement on which should 
be responsible for the various activities or on how they 
should be linked.  Another issue is whether economics 
can evolve to incorporate environmental problems, the 
use of resources, and intergenerational issues, or 
whether new economic theory has to be developed.  It 
will be inadequate to merely recast measures of gross 
national product (GNP).

       There are a number of possibilities for linking 
ICSU and ISSC activities.  These include: 1) programmes 
on land use, especially in coastal zones; 2) the World 
Climate Programme, particularly the World Climate Impact 
Studies Programme; 3) a SCOPE project on the use of 
scientific data for sustainable development, currently 
in preparation; 4) the 1992 UN Conference on Environment 
and Development (UNCED); ICSU will organize a 
preliminary scientific conference in 1991, and will be 
the principal scientific advisor; and 5) ASCENT 21, 
which is defining the priorities of the scientific 
community for the next 10-20 years, building on the 
experience of the 1990 Bergen meeting.  Topics with 
potential for cooperative research include coastal 
zones, the new industrial metabolism, environmental 
ethics, `retrofitting' the UN system to deal with the 
challenge of GEC, environmental education, food and 
water security, and conventions relating to GEC and 
instruments to implement these.


III.C. Discussion

Following Dr. La Riviere's address, the keynote speakers 
responded to comments and questions from participants.

       Dr. Grossman asked how cooperation could be 
ensured in interdisciplinary research involving natural 
and social scientists.  Dr. La Riviere pointed to the 
successes of the SCOPE impact assessment studies, which 
involved scientists from a wide range of disciplines, 
who could provide valuable inputs and had clear 
objectives.  Dr. Miller suggested that problem 
definition was the primary stage of research, taking 
precedence over and driving the choice of methodologies 
and activities.  In addition, education to bridge gaps 
between natural and social scientists was essential.

       Dr. Szell noted that GEC is being used as a 
natural science concept, but that there are a number of 
vested interests in development (economic, cultural, 
religious, political, etc.) linked to such change.  
Issues to be resolved are how and why to invest in the 
social sciences, and how to break down barriers to 
communication, many of which are psychological.  In 
addition, what lessons can be learned from past 
cooperation of natural and social scientists in the 
military arena, and how could their skills be 
reoriented?  Dr. Miller noted that vested interests are 
a very important factor in research on GEC.  Natural 
science research programmes already exist, and absorb 
considerable funds.  While funding for social science 
research is increasing, social scientists must develop 
worthwhile projects before asking for funding.  Dr. La 
Riviere stressed that the removal of psychological 
barriers requires that scientists from different 
disciplines actively work together; education alone will 
not work.

       Dr. von Droste noted that the UN Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), with its 
experience in education and communication, could also 
provide links between different scientific communities.  
UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme involves 
natural and social scientists, and has had some 
successes in cooperation, particularly in projects on 
urban ecology and land use change.  There is now an 
opportunity to assess the reasons for success and 
failure in the social science components of MAB and, 
building on this experience, to further involve social 
scientists.  MAB and SCOPE are complementary, although 
social scientists have often been inadequately involved 
in both.

       Dr. Alker proposed that it was important to 
review the sociology of science and how scientists do 
science in order to contribute to methodological 
evolution.  He suggested that it might be possible to 
rank projects according to their political input.  Dr. 
La Riviere doubted that research on scientific behaviour 
would lead to increased cooperation.

       Dr. Simonis asked how optimistic one could be 
about the present involvement of social scientists in 
GEC research.  He noted that they show scant interest in 
the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), where very little 
of the funding for GEC research is allocated to the 
social sciences.  Further, natural scientists are 
generally more internationally-oriented that social 
scientists.  He also questioned how the outputs of 
interdisciplinary cooperation should be used, and stated 
that the dissemination of research outputs is critical.  
He noted a valuable example provided by a recently 
completed exercise involving politicians as well as 
scientists in the FRG.  Dr. Miller responded that she 
had perhaps overstated the present development of the 
social sciences in relation to GEC.  However, research 
agendas have been developed, and will act as starting 
points for the concrete research projects which must be 
begin soon.  As experience grows, some topics may be 
removed from future agendas.  Dr. La Riviere defined the 
development of cooperation as a joint experiment between 
natural and social scientists.  He argued that the role 
of scientists is to undertake research and present the 
results to colleagues and donors, and then to science 
writers.  It is not the responsibility of scientists to 
be science writers.

       Dr. Boulding suggested that geographers can help 
in developing collaboration, as they have uniquely 
valuable experience for use by other disciplines.  
However, Dr. Fuchs noted that a relatively small pool of 
geographers is qualified to do research on GEC.  Such 
expertise is not easily acquired, and senior social 
scientists do not have time for such work.  
Consequently, it is essential to identify young 
scientists and to develop training programmes, 
particularly in developing countries.

       Dr. Perelet noted that a research orientation on 
`human investment and resource use' is being developed 
within the MAB programme.  This recognizes a convergence 
of methodology in the natural and social sciences.  Both 
are confronted with complex, uncertain issues which 
require the definition of risks and probabilities.  In 
addition, questions of environmental security, ethics, 
and economics need to be widely considered, particularly 
in relation to sustainable development.  Dr. La Riviere 
did not agree that convergence was occurring.  Natural 
scientists have only recently started to look at topics 
involving uncertainty, in response to external demands.  
Many areas of uncertainty have not been studied; the 
focus should initially be on topics of political 
interest.  He agreed that environmental ethics (e.g., in 
relation to the export of pollutants and polluting 
industries) is an important topic.  Dr. Miller suggested 
that all scientists - not only social scientists - must 
consider environmental ethics.

       Dr. Rayner stated that research must be defined 
by the problems to be addressed, but that different 
disciplines may define the same problem in different 
ways.  Institutional organization is a critical issue 
(e.g., universities vs. government, non-governmental, or 
industrial organizations).  The structure of 
universities militates against interdisciplinary work.  
It is important to overcome obstacles to such work and 
to link `academic' and `non-academic' scientists.  Dr. 
Miller agreed that there are real difficulties in 
framing problems; new topics must be approached in new 
ways.  Some of the structural difficulties are related 
to the availability of resources.  Once support 
increases, funds can be redirected to meet long-term 
needs.  Dr. La Riviere noted that a number of groups for 
GEC research are being formed.  He suggested that these 
should be collaborative efforts between specialists, not 
generalists, though the latter are needed to lead such 
groups.

       Dr. Gutman noted that social scientists are being 
pushed forward by the demands of the public and 
politicians with respect to the interdisciplinary 
questions of GEC.  Policy issues are a valid topic for 
research, which should include both social and natural 
scientists.  However, there is no mention of policy in 
the ISSC's Framework for Research on HDGEC, or of how 
this work might link to UNCED.  Dr. La Riviere answered 
that scientists must resist demands for rapid response.  
Scientific issues must be studied dispassionately, 
without judgement.  Dr. Miller argued that research 
should not be focused on short-term policy needs, which 
will change over the life of a research programme.  
Long-term structures (people, research infrastructure, 
institutions) will be needed to provide the basic 
understanding required to respond to policy imperatives 
relating to GEC.


IV. THE ISSC FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH AND
1991-1992 WORK PROGRAMME ON
THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE.

The afternoon session began with Dr. Harold Jacobson's 
presentation of two documents prepared by the ISSC's 
Standing Committee on HDGEC (the HDGEC Committee): the 
Framework for Research and the 1991-1992 Work Programme.  
Dr. Jacobson noted that the Framework has been published 
by ISSC and UNESCO as a booklet, and cannot be amended, 
although the relative importance of its goals will 
evolve as research proceeds.  In contrast, the Work 
Programme could be modified in the light of discussions 
during the symposium and subsequently.

       In preparing these documents, the HDGEC Committee 
made a number of assumptions.  First, GEC consists of 
observable phenomena.  Second, for the first time in the 
history of the Earth system, people are a greater factor 
in GEC than natural forces.  Third, the pace and scale 
of GEC are unprecedented.  Fourth, regardless of 
political action, GEC will continue as a result of past 
actions and because of inevitable future actions.  
Fifth, mitigation and adaptation will be necessary in 
the forseeable future.  Sixth, the social sciences can 
contribute to the understanding of GEC.

       The ISSC is in a unique position to contribute to 
such understanding, because its member organizations 
provide a comprehensive coverage of HDGEC (though ISSC 
does not include organizations specifically concerned 
with history or statistics).  ISSC is the counterpart to 
ICSU for providing scientific expertise in relation to 
GEC.  The first action within ISSC relative to GEC was 
the formation of an ad hoc committee at the 16th General 
Assembly in 1986.  The HDGEC Committee, including 
scientists from a wide variety of disciplines and parts 
of the world, was formed at the 17th General Assembly in 
1988.  Its activities have been supported by social 
science funding agencies from a number of countries.  
The advice of member organizations was incorporated as 
much as possible in the preparation of the Framework, on 
which work started in mid-1989.  The work programme has 
been developed over a shorter period, starting in Madrid 
in April 1990 and continuing at a meeting in the USA in 
October 1990, funded by the Consortium for International 
Earth Sciences Information Network (CIESIN).

       The Framework is a statement of what the HDGEC 
Committee believes should and can be done for research 
on GEC.  Like the document prepared in 1986 by ICSU to 
define `global change' for the developing IGBP, it is a 
preliminary step toward defining what the ISSC could do, 
providing guidance and orientation to researchers, 
funding agencies, and ISSC member organizations.  
Recognizing that most research on HDGEC will be done by 
groups and individuals, ISSC's role is to assist in 
coordination and to undertake tasks where a comparative 
advantage exists at the international level, such as the 
standardization of data collection and the fostering of 
interdisciplinary research.  While the Framework is not 
an inventory of possible research topics and does not 
tell ISSC member organizations what to do in relation to 
HDGEC, it is hoped that their activities will overlap 
significantly with the topics of research outlined in 
the document.  A critical need is the preparation of 
state-of-knowledge reviews on these topics by working 
groups.

       Two types of GEC can be defined: those that occur 
throughout an entire Earth system and those that include 
phenomena occurring at many locations around the globe.  
The human dimensions of GEC include people both as 
causal agents in, and as affected by, the two types of 
GEC.  However, the proposed research programme 
emphasizes anthropogenic causes of change because the 
processes of GEC must be understood before decisions can 
be taken to change them.  The many societal processes 
involved in GEC require study by social scientists, who 
will often need information from natural scientists.  In 
turn, natural scientists must be provided information 
about the findings of the resulting social science 
research.

       The Framework defines seven research topics.  The 
first three should be undertaken solely by social 
scientists.  All are important interdisciplinary areas 
of research.  While many of these have been studied 
within individual social sciences, integration is 
needed.  The second three topics address the proximate 
forcing factors of GEC.  In order to achieve the desired 
goals, research on these topics must be undertaken in 
close collaboration with natural scientists.  The 
seventh topic, on environmental security and sustainable 
development, is normative.  The two issues within the 
topic have been combined because research on them will 
be assisted by review of results from research within 
the first six topics.  This final topic will consider 
subjects such as the evaluation of costs and benefits of 
specific actions, the impacts of conflicts, and ethical 
issues.  In addition to the seven topics, the Framework 
includes a section on methodologies and data because of 
the significant evolution on the social sciences with 
which the programme is associated.

       The 1991-1992 Work Programme is very ambitious.  
The HDGEC Committee made an early decision to 
concentrate on data, beginning with the identification 
of available data.  Funding has been made available for 
much of this work.  Funding is also available for the 
working group on land cover and land use, which will be 
conducted in conjunction with the IGBP.  There is a 
strong tradition of work on this subject within the 
social sciences, though the value of this experience to 
the natural sciences remains to be defined.  The design 
and development of research on the other six topics 
defined in the Framework will be based on literature 
searches and reviews.


IV.A. Discussion

Dr. Jacobson's presentation was followed by a discussion 
about the Framework for Research and the 1991-1992 Work 
Programme.

       Dr. Redclift commented that new approaches to the 
environment and social theory (e.g., Capra, Illich, 
Lovelock, Schumacher) have been developing over the past 
two decades.  These consider the relationships of 
culture and power to the environment, and are not 
conventional approaches to social science.  They should 
be considered in the development of the ISSC's 
activities.  The ISSC should also reflect on the fact 
that public realization of GEC is leading action in the 
social sciences.  In particular, the Work Programme 
marginalizes concerns about links between knowledge, 
consciousness, and political activity.  Dr. Jacobson 
agreed that social scientists are behind the times in 
the recognition of vital issues.  However, care must be 
taken to act judiciously and avoid the emphases of 
`scientific popularizers.'  The HDGEC Committee decided 
to exclude `green' references from the Work Programme 
because of limitations in time and resources.  However, 
topics one through three of the Framework do include 
consideration of public consciousness and political 
movements.  These issues will be addressed after the 
working groups on data have completed their essential 
tasks.  These issues will first be considered in 
relation to land use, by assessing how this is affected 
by, and affects, cultural actions.

       Dr. Trent identified two major gaps in the 
proposed research.  First, it should bring people from 
many disciplines to consider HDGEC.  Concrete steps to 
do this must be identified, particularly in regard to 
the transfer of knowledge and the provision of research 
assistance to developing countries.  Second, there is a 
need for the cumulation, digestion, and communication of 
the political implications of the research.  Research 
can be policy-related without being policy-relevant.  
The policy-relevant findings of the research will have 
to be communicated.  Dr. Clarke commented that many 
popularizers of science are excessively simplistic.  The 
outputs of ISSC's HDGEC programme will be important.  
Like most international organizations, it is a challenge 
for the ISSC to publish the results of its activities.  
For instance, the Framework may have a limited 
circulation even in the scientific community.

       Dr. Yohe commented that the proposed research 
focuses on the forcing factors of GEC.  While much work 
has been and is being done on these, little has been 
done in relation to adaptation and response to GEC, 
which will mainly be at local to regional scales.  It is 
necessary to weigh the costs and opportunities linked to 
uncertainty and responses to the evolving climate over 
the next two decades, in particular 1) how can regional-
scale scenarios of climate change be used, and 2) what 
will be the biological and physical impacts of climate 
change on individuals and institutions, how will these 
impacts affect responses, and how will these responses 
affect forcing functions?  In addition, natural, social, 
and policy scientists from developing countries must be 
involved in research on GEC.  The regional centres 
proposed at the 2nd World Climate Conference should be 
used for this purpose, and the ISSC should be involved 
in their development.

       Dr. Szell stated that the function of the Work 
Programme needs to be clearly stated.  Once this has 
been done, clear criteria for assessment must be 
defined.  The Work Programme is not policy-oriented, in 
contrast to much of the work being done by natural 
scientists, who provide their results to political 
decision-makers.  Energy and alternative behaviours and 
sources would provide a focus for socially-oriented 
research.  Dr. Jacobson answered that research on energy 
would be challenging, but could be dangerous.  An 
important issue would be to define the topic in terms 
involving both natural and social scientists.  Could 
ICSU work together with ISSC on this?

       Dr. Godard identified three issues missing from 
the Framework.  First, technology.  Most issues of GEC 
are related to technological innovation.  Research could 
consider possible future actions and states of 
technology, and the orientation of technological 
innovation to anticipate potential GEC.  He noted that 
economic work is being done in this regard.  Second, the 
science/decision-making interface.  Research should be 
done on topics with uncertain futures, especially 
transportation, which is closely linked to climate 
change, with few possibilities for energy substitution 
and the greatest difficulty in reducing emissions.  
Third, alternative economic evaluation approaches.  
Traditional approaches, such as cost-benefit analysis, 
are often not appropriate.  Dr. Roqueplo commented that 
an important issue for the whole research agenda was the 
credibility of the scientific community.  Will their 
actions and statements be credible even without proof of 
GEC?

       Dr. Fuchs wondered why such a high priority had 
been placed on data in the Work Programme, and how it 
was conceptually related to the IGBP.  Data gathering is 
an expensive activity, and should be driven by the 
questions that need to be answered.  These questions 
have not yet been defined.

       Dr. Alker identified a need for the activities of 
the working groups to be monitored.  He suggested that 
each include an historian or anthropologist, and also a 
`green' citizen to ensure that the issues are current in 
conceptual terms.  Dr. Jacobson noted that this had been 
done in the ISSC's project on ecological disorder in 
Amazonia.

       Dr. von Droste suggested that one of the MAB 
research orientations, on human response to 
environmental stress, was complementary to the proposed 
ISSC research on HDGEC.  Sub-areas within this 
orientation consider harsh environments, technological 
change and the environment, environmental hazards, 
displacements and migrations of human populations, and 
changes in resource allocation.


V. THE LAND USE/LAND COVER ELEMENT
OF THE 1991-1992 WORK PROGRAMME.

The session was introduced by Dr. Leszek Kosinski, a 
member of the HDGEC Committee.  He noted that GEC is 
often regarded as a crisis affecting many economic 
sectors and resources.  A particular focus of public and 
media attention is land use (e.g., deforestation, 
desertification).  There is considerable experience 
within the social sciences in regard to data and 
concepts that might be useful for the working group's 
activities and that has to be distilled.  While this 
element of the Work Programme will be conducted in 
conjunction with the IGBP, research on land use was not 
originally included within the IGBP.  The ISSC and ICSU 
should explore the possibility of cooperating on other 
topics.


V.A. Micro-level approaches to land use and land cover.  
Dr. Lourdes Arizpe, Centro de Investigaciones 
Multidisciplinarias, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de 
Mexico.

A primary goal of the working group will be to link two 
approaches to the land.  Land cover is studied by 
natural scientists as part of the physical/biological 
Earth system, while land use is investigated by social 
scientists as part of the human system.  Until the mid-
18th century, the impacts of human settlement were 
limited.  With the rise of urbanization and 
industrialization, patterns of land use changed.  Over 
the past 50 years, there have been more changes in land 
use, both quantitative and qualitative, than in previous 
human history.  Consequently, an historical perspective 
is critical.

       Human processes, driven by micro-forces, are 
closely linked to land use at all levels, whether one 
considers shifts to the production of cash crops, 
deforestation, urbanization, or other processes.  A 
critical need is to identify the most fundamental of 
these forces through the development of a framework for 
understanding these phenomena, rather than to compile 
more inventories of issues.  When research on land use 
is conceptualized by scientists, they must recognize 
that they are part of the field of research, which can 
be bounded in two directions.  The upper bound is the 
future of humanity; conditions must be set to ensure 
this. The lower bound is that human beings must be able 
to make a living and feed themselves.

       In regard to cooperation and negotiation on land 
use, one must always ask: for whom and by whom?  
Research must consider the potential for conflict when 
people are told that they will lose control over what 
they already have; for example, will people in the 
Mexican rainforest guard their trees with guns?  There 
is no time to collect data which cannot be used, or to 
build models which are not policy-relevant and cannot be 
used to understand the micro-processes which, when 
aggregated, lead to the macro-processes of GEC.  In 
turn, local phenomena are affected by GEC.  People will 
only change their activities to limit GEC or respond to 
its effects if they are willing to do so.

       Conceptual models of land use and GEC describe a 
reality that results from cumulative interactions 
between all levels from the local to the global.  
Research should concentrate on the relationships between 
the components of systems, rather than the components 
themselves.  Since human actions relating to the use of 
land in specific situations derive from decisions which 
take many factors into account, the analysis of 
individual factors is not useful.  Experience from case 
studies by social scientists shows the critical need to 
identify the components of local processes driving land 
use and how these relate to macro-forces.  Comparative 
case studies are necessary to identify the critical 
factors, how widely applicable they are, and which might 
be influenced to redirect activities toward sustainable 
development.  This research should consider beliefs, 
attitudes, and perceptions to assess the dynamics of key 
relationships.  Changes in any of these factors are 
likely to influence outcomes.

       Dr. Arizpe identified six principal micro-forces 
which need further assessment.  All of these are linked 
to macro-forces.  Comparable data on these micro-forces, 
or processes, must be collected world-wide.  This work 
should be started expeditiously.

       1) Human migrations.  These have been significant 
in the 20th century, and have included rural out-
migration to urban areas, flows of refugees, and 
international migration.  One consequence is the loss of 
agricultural land to expanding cities.  Another, now 
particularly evident in the tropics, is deforestation as 
rural populations move to forest areas.  Vital issues 
for research are: why do people migrate; who are they; 
who stays behind?  A critical factor in relation to land 
use is that the youngest and most able are often the 
emigrants.

       2) Monetarization of rural economies.  This has 
influenced most societies.  Social upheavals due to 
environmental change are not a new phenomenon in rural 
societies; most have experience and institutions 
necessary to preserve and redistribute resources.  A new 
factor is introduced when land begins to acquire 
monetary value.  As land becomes linked to monetary 
markets, extremes of distribution become less avoidable.  
One issue for research is how institutions regulate 
access to land, and whether governments can ensure more 
equitable access.

       3) Population growth.  This is likely to vary in 
response to other elements of land use.  One area for 
research is the relationships of fertility to poverty, 
and how these are related to land and crop prices.  The 
inter-relationships of these components must be 
understood if they are to be changed.

       4) Land tenure.  The control of land is a 
critical factor in environmental change, especially in 
regions where much land is in few hands, leading to 
overcultivation and deforestation.  Inheritance patterns 
also affect the use, sale, and protection of land.  Folk 
law and legal institutions need to be assessed in 
relation to these issues; field research will be vital.

       5) Gender.  Women are generally not included in 
agrarian reform, and their traditional activities are 
typically ignored in, or undermined by, development 
activities.  The emigration of men exacerbates these 
problems.  An important topic for assessment is the 
positive feedbacks which are linked to discrimination 
against women, particularly where patterns of 
inheritance lead to migration to marginal lands.

       6) High-technology agriculture.  This may have 
the greatest influence on future patterns of land use.  
A key factor is the introduction of hybrid seeds, which 
require expensive chemical fertilisers and pesticides 
together with advisory services.  The introduction of 
new crops tends to lead to loss of local power and the 
growth of an elite of large-scale producers.  Small 
landowners also tend to lose control of resources unless 
their rights are protected.  Better understanding of the 
possibilities of new activities needs to be provided by 
economists and those who do research on administration 
and public opinion.
V.B. Macro approaches to land use and land cover.  Dr. 
Billie Lee Turner II, Clark University.

A number of committees in the USA are developing 
research programmes on HDGEC.  They agree that social 
and natural scientists must work together on these 
topics and that the trajectory of research must be 
carefully directed because social scientists tend to use 
data selectively and to discuss what ought to be, rather 
than what is.  The original focus of GEC was on change 
in global systems and the biogeochemical flows within 
and between them.  From a social science perspective, 
this implied a need to concentrate research on 
industrial metabolism.  Further consideration of GEC led 
to a realization that GEC also includes cumulative 
changes that, when aggregated at a sufficient scale, can 
effect systemic change.

       Many natural scientists regard land use and land 
cover as equivalent, yet to social scientists they are 
rather different.  Thus, a crucial issue is how to 
separate them in order to undertake research.  
Agricultural activities, like the combustion of fossil 
fuels and industrial activities, are proximate causes of 
GEC.  These end products of human activities are of 
comparatively little interest to social scientists, who 
emphasize the underlying driving forces and the effects 
of mitigating forces.  All of these interact with each 
other.

       Two examples of such interactions are provided by 
the issues of deforestation in China and the growth of 
the Aral Sea.  In China, increasing population density 
is associated with a move to market agriculture.  This 
is linked to local political leaders and enforcement 
agencies losing control over agriculture.  In the Aral 
Sea basin, increased irrigation from the tributary 
rivers has led to a lower sea level.  As a result, the 
Sea has become more saline, and salt flats are exposed.  
The salt becomes airborne and is deposited into the 
rivers, whose salinity increases.  As the water quality 
declines, crop yields decrease and human health is 
affected.  Identifiable causes in this series of 
positive feedbacks include central planning, corruption, 
inefficient technology, and increasing human 
populations.

       At the global level, a number of aggregate 
driving forces can be identified: population, 
technological capacity, economic development, and socio-
political organization.  These interact with each other, 
with a range of lower-level forces, and with human 
behaviour.  It is generally assumed that the best data 
on these forces is available for population, though this 
assumption is questioned by many demographers.  
Technology can be a mitigative, as well as a driving 
force.  Increased economic development is assumed to be 
linked to increased per capita income.  In this process, 
consumers are divorced from sources of production, and 
advertising often gives the environment a mythological 
value.

       Global data are required to assess global-scale 
changes in the surface characteristics (land-cover) and 
the productivity of vegetation over time.  To link these 
remotely-sensed data to land use, detailed ground-level 
research (ground-truthing) is essential.  As our ability 
to collect remotely-sensed data is likely to remain 
greater than our ability to collect relevant social 
science data, the definition of scales and units for 
data collection will be critical.  Not all types of data 
are comparable, and it will not be possible to collect 
complementary data sets across the globe.

       The US committees for the study of land use and 
GEC have prepared a conceptual framework for this 
research.  One of the priority areas for research 
concerns the institutional forces driving land use 
change, such as property rights and tenure, distribution 
and exchange systems, and political structure.  Social 
scientists are well-equipped to consider these topics.  
However, an important issue is what should research 
focus on or, conversely, ignore?  Studies must be done 
at many scales, and aggregated at the global scale to 
determine links to global changes.  The best approach to 
such work is probably to undertake and link comparative 
regional studies based on agreed protocols, in view of 
the problems of compiling and using global data-sets.


V.C. Discussion.

Dr. Manshard noted two IGBP projects on land use in 
which social scientists had participated.  Cooperation 
failed in one, on the hydrological cycle, and succeeded 
in the other, on atmospheric chemistry and fire ecology.  
One reason for this success was that the project was 
presented in a way that attracted scientists to 
participate.  The topic of fire in ecological systems 
used by human populations is linked to climate change, 
desertification, and deforestation, and might be 
appropriate for case studies.

       Dr. Clarke stated that scale linkage is a 
critical problem in social science.  The reasons for the 
occurrence of phenomena, and their consequences, vary at 
all levels.  Data are not available at all levels of 
aggregation.  In regard to national-level data, one must 
remember that states vary greatly in both area and 
population.  Population data are merely low-quality 
aggregates, with the error in national data typically 
being +/- five percent or worse.  Over time, the 
parameters collected often change.  While this provides 
important new information, such changes interfere with 
the collection and use of data.

       Dr. von Droste reminded participants that, as 
well as micro- and macro-scale approaches, meso-scale 
approaches exist, with different priorities in each 
region of the world.  A MAB programme on land use is 
currently being undertaken by interdisciplinary teams in 
11 European countries.  The programme is overseen by a 
scientific advisory board, and includes research on 
environmental impacts, historical experience, and 
scenarios.  Recommendations will be made for future 
patterns of rural land use.  The framework presented by 
Dr. Turner might be appropriate for evaluating the 
programme, and other regional studies could be developed 
as cooperative ISSC-MAB ventures.  The Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO) and IGBP could also be 
interested in producing maps of land use change for the 
world, deriving initially from existing maps at various 
scales and based on various methodologies.  Protocols 
for data collection would be needed for all such 
projects.  Dr. Turner agreed that the framework shown in 
his presentation was appropriate for meso- as well as 
macro-scale research, and that there should be links 
between MAB and the ISSC working group.

       Dr. Roqueplo noted a lack of experience in the 
social sciences for pulling data and models together.  
Dr. Turner suggested that attempts with regard to 
population data sets had been successful.  However, 
there was always a problem of scientific authority.  Dr. 
Jacobson noted that multiple models have been developed 
for many subjects, but that these often have common 
needs for data, which must be compiled in ways suitable 
for its use in each model.

       Dr. Szell asked why economics had not been 
considered as a macro-force in Dr. Turner's framework, 
and where it should fit.  Dr. Turner replied that levels 
of economic development and exchange systems (including 
all forms of exchange, not only the market system 
dominant in many regions) are both economic issues.

       Dr. Gutman asked for clarification of the ISSC's 
plans for research on land use, and also how local case 
studies would be compared.  Dr. Jacobson answered that 
the joint ISSC/IGBP core project is presently being 
defined by a scientific committee which will coordinate 
research and undertake some of it.  Dr. Arizpe made a 
request for proposals for studies.  She noted the long 
tradition of, and wide range of approaches for, 
comparative case studies in anthropology and ethnology.

       Dr. Massini noted that neither presentation 
discussed probabilistic models and searches for 
alternative futures; both important in analysis for the 
long term.  Also, while every micro- and macro-force has 
different temporal dimensions (e.g., land tenure vs. the 
impacts of biotechnology), these were not emphasized.  
Dr. Arizpe noted that the recent Mexico City workshop on 
micro- and macro-approaches to HDGEC considered the 
comparative values of predictive and probabilistic 
models.  It is not possible to use prediction to 
extrapolate from current trends; probabilistic 
approaches are needed, and alternative scenarios must be 
considered.  She agreed that temporal variations are 
critical at every level of policy-making.

       Dr. Byers noted that the Framework for Research 
focuses on the forcing functions of GEC, placing little 
emphasis on potential impacts.  He suggested the ISSC's 
programme on HDGEC should consider societal responses 
to, and potential conflict resulting from, GEC.  
Bidirectionality often occurs between societal processes 
and changes in the use of land and its degradation.  For 
instance, how might lessons learned from the ISSC's 
project in Brazil, where land use change in the south 
has led to conflicts and changes in land use in 
Amazonia, be applied to research on HDGEC?  Dr. Arizpe 
suggested that such experience would be considered in 
the development of the working group's programme and 
could provide guidelines for research approaches, but 
not solutions.  Dr. Kosinski identified the value of the 
Brazilian project in providing a forum for the exchange 
of views between all types of actors.  Dr. Turner 
commented that responses to GEC were not being ignored 
in the definition of ISSC activities.  However, the 
working group had to be circumspect in defining its 
research agenda.  One constraint was that the IGBP 
participants will probably wish to emphasize driving 
forces.

       Dr. Simonis wondered who would benefit from the 
research conducted within Dr. Turner's framework.  There 
are cycles of interest in particular issues, and topics 
become redefined (e.g., the change in emphasis from 
energy consumption to energy saving and efficiency).  
Each of these changes has the potential for involving 
new actors.  With regard to the presentations, neither 
mentioned two critical areas of land use on which 
research should focus: urbanization and transportation.  
Dr. Turner replied that this was a definitional problem.  
Urbanization was included as a topic under human 
settlements, emphasizing changes in physical space, 
rather than changes in consumption and behaviour.  
Transportation is one of the topics considered in terms 
of infrastructure.  Dr. Arizpe agreed that urbanization 
is a major issue.  With respect to planning research on 
land use, a critical question is whether it should be 
primarily descriptive, or whether it should have a 
underlying objective in relation to possible reposnses 
to GEC.  There are three possibilities: 1) to prevent 
further change, which would have major implications for 
GEC; 2) to rationalize land use to limit its effects on 
GEC; and 3) to adapt to change.  Dr. Arizpe personally 
favoured minimal changes in land use, with adaptation to 
changes that do occur, but cautioned that expectations 
for adaptation are rising.


VI. DATA AND METHODS FOR THE STUDY OF THE
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE.

The session was opened by Dr. Kurt Pawlik, a member of 
the ISSC HDGEC Committee.  He noted a number of topics 
that should be considered in the development of the data 
and methods elements of the Work Programme.  Heuristics 
for data must be defined, stating which data are to be 
collected and for what purpose.  These will differ 
between disciplines, necessitating inter-disciplinary 
communication.  Consideration will have to be given to 
the inter-relationships of variables considered by the 
working groups, especially because comparable variables 
will have to be standardized in different ways.  Chosen 
variables should be appropriate for representing and 
measuring processes of change and refer to various 
spatial and temporal scales of analysis.  The collection 
and archiving of data must allow easy cross-referencing 
across disciplines, space, and time.  A master list of 
variables will have to be compiled in order to identify 
gaps.  While cause and effect relationships are of 
interest in defining responses to change, they are hard 
to investigate.  Data collection may therefore have to 
be related to the method of analysis.  Also, data 
collection is closely linked to model development - it 
is likely that new models will evolve during the HDGEC 
work.


VI.A. An introduction to Geographic Information Systems.  
Dr. David Rhind, Birkbeck College, London.

Commercial geographic information systems (GIS) were 
first developed in the early 1970s, and have been 
commercially available since 1983.  About 70-80 systems 
are now available, each with similar technologies but 
different advantages.  The rapid growth of the 
technology and use of GIS has been made possible by 
rapid evolution in the technology of computers and by 
decreases in their costs.  Until recently, costs 
decreased by an order of magnitude every six years.  The 
relative cost of GIS processing is now being halved 
every two years.  The consequences of these developments 
are that more data are available for use in GIS, and 
that they are more easily compiled.  The budget for GIS 
is rising rapidly, a trend that is forecast to continue.  
In Europe, the greatest investment in GIS is by 
utilities, followed by local government, environmental 
monitoring agencies, and mapping agencies.

       GIS is not a `perfect' technology.  It can be 
used to answer generic questions, such as `what is at a 
particular place?' (inventory and monitoring); `where is 
something true/not true?' (inventory over space); `what 
has changed since...?' (inventory); `what spatial 
patterns exist?' (spatial analysis); and `what if...?' 
(modelling).  While the primary use of GIS to date has 
been for inventory, the emphasis is now changing toward 
monitoring, spatial analysis, and modelling.

       The core of a GIS is the linkages between types 
of data.  Methodologies of combining data are not 
trivial; considerable problems result from the non-
coincidence of boundaries due to different reasons for 
the initial collection of data and varying methodologies 
and definitions.  Many data are not suitable for 
incorporation in GIS because of such problems and, even 
if data are computer-accessible, they are hard to link.  
However, when data are in an appropriate form, useful 
outputs can be produced with major savings of time.  The 
methodology of data collection also greatly influences 
the possible outputs, and disaggregated original data 
should be archived for possible re-analysis.  Also, 
remote sensing data should not be included in a GIS 
without reference to data collected on the ground for 
validation and checking.

       Two issues relating to the use of GIS for the 
study of GEC should be noted.  First, though the 
technology of linking data is approximately the same at 
all spatial scales, it is generally easier to link data 
at the national and larger scales than data at sub-
national scales.  Second, though the technology of GIS 
is ubiquitous and allows many applications, everyone 
comes to the use of this technology with his or her own 
terminology and understanding.

       A number of general problems exist for the use of 
GIS.  Both data and requirements for them are at many 
varied temporal and spatial scales.  Links between 
different systems tend to be very complicated.  Many 
methodological developments are necessary, particularly 
regarding the research and analytical aspects of using 
GIS.  Important statistical issues have to be resolved, 
especially in relation to the interpretation of very 
different relationships between variables depending on 
the level of aggregation.  This means that many 
different outputs can be created from their same value; 
the issue is which are more accurate and appropriate.

       Environmental data have been used in GIS far more 
than social science data.  The latter tend to be much 
poorer surrogates for topics of interest, are not 
amenable to measurement via remote sensing, and are 
often `soft' (i.e., descriptive text).  Also, many 
social science data are areally aggregated by 
approximation, so that results derive from the chosen 
methodology.  Problems of harmonization between data 
sets collected at the national scale remain important 
(though these are now being addressed in Europe).  There 
is also little theory underlying the handling of social 
science data in GIS, so that there are few statistical 
means of assessing their value.  Finally, because of the 
time required for data collection, compilation, and 
analysis, once data bases for specific policy issues 
have been built, the issues are probably no longer of 
interest.

       There are many potential uses of GIS in the ISSC 
HDGEC programme, especially in the areas of assembling 
data, finding inter-relationships, and education.  The 
scientific community must be able to explain their 
concepts and findings not only to other scientists but 
also to a wider public.  The ISSC programme must 
consider the crucial issue of access to data.  Within 
nations, many data are viewed as the property of 
individuals or organizations.  This issue must be 
resolved, respecting that those involved in the 
programme are responsible not just to themselves but to 
the world.


VI.B. The Global Resource Information Database (GRID) of 
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).  Dr. 
Ronald Witt, UNEP, Geneva.

The Global Resource Information Database (GRID) is a 
project within UNEP's Global Environmental Monitoring 
System.  Its mission is to provide timely, reliable, and 
easily accessible information and to bridge gaps between 
scientific understanding and resource management.  
Objectives include the development of hardware, 
software, and data sets, to be distributed throughout an 
international network of `nodes.'  Regional nodes have 
been established on four continents, and national nodes 
are planned.

       GRID employs about twenty professional and five 
administrative staff.  GRID's hardware is centred on 
powerful computers which allow the input of many types 
of data and media.  Many of the software programs, which 
are continuously updated, are used for image processing 
and the compilation of geo-referenced data.  The global 
database includes over 20 variables and over 800 data 
sets, which can be distributed in many formats in a 
variety of media.

       GRID's activities include: 1) acquiring, storing, 
and distributing data in computer-accessible forms; 2) 
developing and updating global data sets; 3) developing 
meta-databases, in which data are catalogued and linked; 
4) undertaking international and national case studies 
and training courses in conjunction with many UN, 
government, and non-governmental organizations.  
Requests for data files have been increasing rapidly as 
knowledge of GRID's activities grows and more data 
become available.


VI.C. The Consortium for International Earth Science 
Information Network (CIESIN).  Dr. Jack Lousma and Dr. 
Samuel Barnes, CIESIN, USA.

The Consortium for International Earth Science 
Information Network (CIESIN) is a collaborative effort 
between organizations working toward mutual goals and 
seeking connections with nations at all stages of 
development.  CIESIN defines Earth Science as including 
both natural and social sciences.  CIESIN's objective is 
to increase understanding of HDGEC by: developing the 
capability to use information derived from remote 
sensing and relevant to HDGEC in many countries; 
facilitating access to, and the use of, this 
information; and transferring knowledge of GEC to the 
general population.

       The US Congress has set a number of goals for 
CIESIN with respect to improving the coordination of 
resources within the US Global Change Research 
Programme.  The US National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) has also assigned CIESIN a number 
of tasks in regard to establishing a data center, to be 
affiliated with the national system of distributed 
archive centres serving the Earth Observing System (EOS) 
programme.  CIESIN is concerned with a vast and very 
diverse range of data on GEC, and is charged with 
facilitating the access and use of these data for policy 
makers and applied users throughout the international 
community, and developing links to other satellite 
programmes.

       CIESIN started its activities in April 1990 with 
an `issues identification panel' which identified 
significant issues of GEC to be addressed over the next 
decade, together with their social and political 
context.  In July 1990, an interdisciplinary task force 
assessed some of these issues from a societal 
perspective.  A `knowledge transfer symposium' in 
October 1990 identified techniques for transferring 
information on GEC to the public, and for assessing the 
success of such activities.

       In the near future, CIESIN will develop 
techniques for integrating information from the physical 
and human (i.e., social and health) sciences.  These 
will be refined through nine pilot projects involving 
interdisciplinary research groups for collaborative 
international research on HDGEC.  Projects on the 
following subjects are under development: ozone 
depletion and human health; human dimensions of 
deforestation; management of industrial-related 
environmental degradation; land use information in the 
local decision process; and coastal marine population-
environmental interactions.

       Research on the availability, suitability, 
utility, and possibilities for the linkage of data sets 
will be undertaken in cooperation with the ISSC.  The 
ISSC working groups to be supported by CIESIN will 
consider survey, economic, and demographic data.  These 
groups will evaluate what types of data are available, 
what their value is, and how they might be used.  
Finally, one of CIESIN's major concerns is to assess how 
social scientists might use remotely-sensed information 
in combination with data collected on the ground.  All 
of CIESIN's activities will require the resolution of 
problems of interdisciplinary and international 
communication.  It is hoped that this will begin in the 
pilot projects, in which assessments of limitations and 
possibilities for communication and cooperation will be 
undertaken.


VI.D. The IGBP Programme for Data and Information 
Systems (IGBP-DIS).  Dr. Ichtiaque Rasool, IGBP, Paris.

Future changes in the Earth's systems will be hard to 
measure or verify.  The objective of the IGBP is to 
identify and use the data which are appropriate for 
predicting these changes.  IGBP activities currently 
consider three major processes and cycles: 1) the 
hydrological cycle, especially the processes of 
transpiration and evapotranspiration and the role of 
vegetation in these; 2) the carbon cycle, especially the 
changing rate of different exchanges between industrial 
emissions, the oceans, and the atmosphere; and 3) 
climate change and how it may affect the climate system, 
concentrating on interactions between the biophysics and 
biochemistry of ecosystems and the climate system.  In 
all of these areas of study, there is a need to 
deconvolve cause and effect and consider time scales 
from seconds to decades.  It is realized that the best 
accuracy of any data set is likely to be only +/- one to 
two percent.

       The IGBP Data and Information System (IGBP-DIS) 
is based in Paris and is jointly sponsored by France and 
the USA.  Its role is to facilitate and promote the 
production of data sets necessary for research on GEC 
and assess their quality.  These data sets will be used 
in IGBP core projects aimed at increasing understanding 
of, and hopefully predicting, GEC.  Both space- and 
field-based data, at temporal scales of seconds to 
decades, are included.

       Two types of data sets are included in IGBP-DIS.  
The first relate to global, long-term driving forces, 
which are important if annual changes of one to two 
percent take place.  These include both external forces 
(e.g., solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols) and internal 
forces (e.g., emissions of trace gases from industry, 
agriculture, and vegetation).  The status of each of 
these has been assessed.  The second relate to symptoms 
or `vital signs' of GEC.  These include: global surface, 
tropospheric, and stratospheric temperature; 
concentrations of total ozone and upper tropospheric 
water vapour; cloud cover and height; interannual 
interactive air-sea fluctuations (El Ni–o); heat 
transport and storage of oceans and atmosphere; oceanic 
uptake of carbon dioxide; sea ice extent; rainfall; sea 
level; soils; and the state of the terrestrial and 
oceanic biosphere.

       Within the IGBP scheme for data management, 
managerial and policy aspects have priority.  The first 
activities are: 1) to identify data sets and make them 
available; 2) to conduct pilot studies for developing 
methods for constructing globally consistent data sets; 
and 3) to develop directories to facilitate access to 
data.  In 1991, IGBP-DIS will be linked to other data 
centres and programmes by the IGBP Global Environment 
Data Directory, which will use electronic mail to 
provide information about the location of various types 
of environmental data.

       While reasonable information about the oceans is 
available from past and ongoing programmes and 
satellites, the coverage of terrestrial data is much 
less developed.  The IGBP programme on land cover is 
very wide.  Research on the hydrological cycle will 
concentrate on the critical role of vegetation as the 
major supplier of water to the atmosphere.  Research on 
the carbon cycle will address the major gaps in 
knowledge with regard to the interactions of vegetation, 
and to industrial emissions.

       Pilot studies on land cover will develop 
methodologies to monitor land cover in various 
environments.  These methodologies will later be 
expanded to the global scale and will have to address 1) 
disagreements between existing maps of vegetation on the 
definitions and boundaries of classes of vegetation at 
different scales and, 2) problems with calibrating and 
correcting the outputs of satellite sensors.  The 
studies are initially aiming at providing information at 
a resolution of 8 km, and in the mid-term of 1 km.  The 
first pilot projects have considered land cover in the 
1980s in West Africa and Amazonia.  Research in Amazonia 
has shown that different sensors provide varying 
estimates of deforestation.  High-resolution sensors, 
such as those on the Franch SPOT satellite can be used 
to distinguish between sources of deforestation and 
increase the accuracy of these estimates.


VI.E. Discussion.

Dr. Clarke noted that the poorest maps were those 
representing distributions of population within national 
boundaries.  Current methods of data collection are 
deeply rooted within each nation-state, making it almost 
impossible to make global comparisons.  ISSC must face 
the challenge of rectifying the problems of using 
nationally-aggregated data for international research.

       Dr. Alker commented that the most-frequently 
studied social science unit of relevance to natural 
science research is `way of life.'  It will be a 
challenge to reconcile different philosophies for 
measuring these and their impacts and relationships with 
the environment, and to assess how these might change.  
There is much appropriate experience within the social 
and historical sciences.

       Dr. Rhind suggested that the IGBP's stated need 
for quality control of data sets was a fallacy; such 
control is necessary only when looking for small changes 
and must, in any case, be an ongoing process.  The 
usefulness of a data set is often discovered when it is 
linked to other data sets.  He asked if IGBP data sets 
would be `stamped' in terms of their perceived quality.  
Dr. Rasool agreed that they would not be.

       Dr. Grossman proposed that data must be used in 
top-down as well as bottom-up approaches, and that there 
should be connections in both directions.  He cited the 
example of the MAB project in Berchtesgaden (Germany), 
with a highest level of strategic changes, a middle 
level of dynamic and regional connections, and a lowest 
level of detailed information.  Dr. Rhind agreed that 
most information is used in a bottom-up mode, but that 
GIS had been used at all levels up to strategic 
management and planning.

       Dr. Tanenbaum commented that GIS was an 
impressive technology, but that it must be used for more 
than merely monitoring environmental change, and that 
national boundaries are important.  He wondered how the 
technology and use of GIS would be controlled.  Dr. 
Rasool answered that national concerns about providing 
data are an impediment to research on GEC.  For 
instance, some countries are not willing to provide 
information about cloud cover and rainfall.  
Declassified military data may provide desirable 
information, but its use is limited if the method of 
data collection is unknown.  Dr. Jacobson noted that 
principles for access to data will be considered by the 
ISSC working group on data information systems.  
However, the critical issue is the enforcement of such 
principles.

       Dr. Grossman suggested that valid scientific 
forecasts of the results of specific actions in complex 
systems must consider human (especially psychological) 
factors.  Experience shows that assessments of cause and 
effect must include strategic considerations; often, 
indirect logic with general guidelines is the 
appropriate approach.  As a result of the synergistic 
nature and apparent irrationality of human actions, 
environmental processes are only partially predictable.  
Consequently, more social scientists need to be involved 
in studies of GEC; they should demand to be involved.

       Dr. Arizpe asked who is compiling the global 
databases, maps, and remote sensing imagery mentioned in 
the presentations, and for what purposes?  She noted 
that, while the databases would enable impending 
disasters to be monitored, it was also essential to 
determine the reasons which people cause environmental 
change (e.g., tropical deforestation), and why.  
However, few cultural factors had been mentioned, and 
many social science data are not amenable to storage and 
analysis in geo-referenced computer databases.

       Dr. Pawlik commented that few global data 
consider how human behaviours contribute or react to 
environmental conditions and change.  Global warming may 
be discerned by scientific measurement, but the speed of 
human reactions is too slow to perceive it.  
Consequently, cognitive psychologists must be involved 
in HDGEC research.

       Dr. Szell stated that the relevance of data must 
be identified.  Would data on military land uses be 
included in the developing databases?  Economic data on 
many topics are often impossible to obtain from 
industry.  Dr. Rhind agreed that a fundamental role of 
ICSU and ISSC is to obtain the release of data from 
national governments and industry and that, as 
international organizations, they have the legitimacy to 
do so.  Within the international community, the 
distribution is data is becoming easier, though cost is 
an issue.  Dr. Rasool commented that one way to ensure 
cooperation is to involve local scientists from each 
country where work is being done.


VII. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES ON THE
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

The session was introduced by Dr. Harold Jacobson, who 
noted that many more funds for research on HDGEC will be 
available at the national level than for international 
programmes.  One major reason for this disparity is the 
lack of accountability of international programmes.  In 
addition, as most responses to GEC will be at national 
and smaller scales, work must be done at these scales to 
consider local contexts.  The ISSC must be able to 
facilitate and link national programmes.

       The session began with a lunchtime address by Dr. 
Oran Young.  This was followed by short presentations on 
nine national and regional programmes.


VII. A. The US National Academy of Sciences' Committee 
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change.  Dr. Oran 
Young, Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College, 
New Hampshire, USA.

The US National Academy of Sciences' Committee on the 
Human Dimensions of Global Change (NAS HDGC Committee) 
has spent 15 months preparing a a conceptual framework 
and a research plan for the study of HDGEC.  The 
resulting report is being reviewed, and will be released 
in 1991.  It covers two principal topics: the 
identification of appropriate levels of analysis for 
useful comparative research; and the integration of 
research on human and environmental systems.

       The US Global Change Research Program has been 
reviewed by another committee of the NAS, which 
concluded that the most critically underfunded element 
of the program is that on human interactions, which now 
receives 1.5% of the total budget.  The NAS HDGC 
Committee based its report on the assumption that the 
proportion of funding would increase to 5% (c. $50 
million/year), with three emphases: 1) increased 
opportunities for investigator-initiated research; 2) 
the initiation of a new programme on HDGEC; and 3) the 
creation of national centres of interdisciplinary 
research on HDGEC.

       The topics for investigator-initiated research 
cannot be dictated.  However, evaluation criteria can be 
defined.  Research projects should consider not only 
social driving forces of GEC and their interactions with 
GEC, but also impacts and responses to GEC.  They should 
address appropriately large time and space (especially 
national and larger) scales.  They should be theory-, 
rather than data-driven, considering pertinent questions 
before amassing data.  Finally, there should be a 
balance between basic and applied research; applied 
research should identify `decision variables' amenable 
to human initiative.  The new programme on HDGEC should 
focus on a group of well-defined priority topics, which 
should consider both sources of, and responses to, GEC.  
Potential topics include: the energy intensity of 
different societies; land use and food production; the 
valuation of GEC; decision-making in relation to GEC; 
social conflict; and international cooperation.  The 
range of topics should be regularly reviewed, and 
redefined if necessary.  It will be essential to define 
a process to do this.  The institutional design of the 
national centres should build on past successes of 
interdisciplinary groups on topics such as population, 
conflict analysis, and international studies.  There 
should be at least five centres, each with a critical 
mass of scientists from different backgrounds, working 
as an interdisciplinary team.

       In regard to levels of analysis for the 
orchestration of meaningful studies, the most fruitful 
appears to be the national and larger level.  This would 
allow comparative research on topics such as: 1) why do 
social systems which are apparently similar in many 
aspects achieve very different results; 2) why do the 
energy intensities of advanced industrial societies 
vary; and 3) why do very different societies achieve 
similar results?  The many conceptual categories defined 
by different social sciences may be barriers to 
understanding.  A critical issue will be to identify the 
key variables if they aren't those traditionally 
investigated by social scientists.  One important 
variable in GEC is human population.  Yet population 
alone provides little explanatory power; its importance 
is in its interactions with other forces (e.g., 
technology, lifestyle).  Vital areas for research, 
therefore, include the forces leading to population 
growth and decline.

       International research on HDGEC should be 
comparative, with coordination between national 
programmes in different countries in order to define 
comparable methodologies, variables, data sets, research 
priorities, etc.  Such a consortium of national 
programmes could be coordinated by ISSC.  There is also 
a logically overwhelming case for the coordination of 
social and natural science research, but this has rarely 
been successful, for a number of reasons.  First, an 
unwillingness or inability to do the obvious, i.e., 
interdisciplinary integration in research on 
interdisciplinary subjects.  Second, the barriers to 
communication: languages, epistemologies, organizational 
structures.  Third, the treatment of human and earth 
systems as empirically different systems of discourse.  
Social scientists have accepted this distinction in 
order to retain their belief in free will, while natural 
scientists have concurred so as to avoid the `messiness' 
of human systems.  However, human and earth systems are 
highly interactive; cooperative research is needed to 
focus on the critical feedback loops.  Past attempts to 
do this have tended to be reductionist, but this 
approach is now being recognized as a barrier to deeper 
understanding, particularly by natural scientists as 
they develop theories such as those relating to chaos 
and common systems.  Natural and social scientists are 
coming to realize that they face similar problems; 
perhaps social scientists will begin to provide insights 
for natural science.

       The institutional barriers to communication and 
cooperation are rooted in the structure of disciplines, 
which function to maintain conservatism.  This function 
may be recapitulated at the higher levels of ICSU and 
ISSC, further limiting possibilities for 
interdisciplinarity and helping to perpetuate the 
second-class status of the social sciences.  Yet 
existing structures and language communities are not 
immutable.  While they may appear so from the 
perspective of university scientists, existing 
structures are the product of a series of developments 
during the industrial revolution of the 19th century.  
Science may be approaching an historical watershed which 
will permit changes in patterns of behaviour.  It would 
be a great pity if this opportunity were missed because 
new developments are only allowed to take place at the 
margins of existing institutions.  The world is 
evidently in a state of flux; but one should remember 
that the recent societal, political, and economic 
changes were predicted by few social scientists.


VII.B. Canada: Dr. John Trent, University of Ottawa.

The Canadian programme is in its preparatory stages.  
Studies have been completed on the availability of 
resources in Canada.  The national Global Change (IGBP) 
Committee is chaired by a social scientist, and has sub-
chairs from the natural and social sciences.  Six 
committees have been active, considering: risk 
assessment, perceptions, values, and culture; 
environmental security; energy (linked to science and 
technology policy); critical zones (linked to land use); 
institutions and sustainable devlopment; and applied 
ethics.  To date, their considerations have been limited 
to basic research, though the need for mobilization 
toward policy-relevant research is recognized.  In the 
near future, a joint funding programme for HDGEC will be 
created by the two national research councils.  The 
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will 
also create a strategic research programme.


VII.C. France: Dr. Philippe Roqueplo, Ecole des Hautes 
Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris.

The Minister of the Environment has established a team 
of scientists to consider GEC.  Three of these are 
social scientists, who have been asked to identify 
existing relevant expertise.  Some work has been done on 
the strategies of actors, the implications of responses, 
ethics, the credibility of scientific expertise, and 
international approaches.  The  development of a 
programme of both short- and long-term studies is 
needed.  Topics which should be considered in this 
programme and by the ISSC include: the importance of the 
`north-south' problematique; definitions of `global' in 
social science; relationships of demography and economic 
development; and the development of theories based on 
generalization from case studies.


VII.D. Council of Latin American Social Science 
Organizations: Dr. Pablo Gutman, Centro de Estudios 
Urbanos y Regionales, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The Council of Latin American Social Science 
Organizations includes 120 institutions in 22 countries.  
In 1988, a working group on environment and development 
was started by a consortium of 25 institutions with long 
experience in such issues.  More recently, a regional 
agenda on HDGEC has been developed by natural and social 
scientists from ten countries.  This recognizes that the 
abilities and ingenuity of the social sciences must be 
brought to bear on environmental concerns in three main 
fields of interest.  First, research on sustainability 
in rural and urban areas must be based on the definition 
of a meaningful concept and understanding of how to 
measure it.  Second, research on poverty and the 
environment must address current problems before long-
term environmental issues.  Intra-generational equity 
and interactions between poverty and the environment are 
growing issues that must be solved globally.  Third, 
research on Latin America within the international arena 
must address the increasing number of environmental 
problems linked to international policies and the 
resulting policy conflicts between nations.  This work 
should involve both insightful social scientists and 
policy-makers.  Important issues to be considered are: 
how to deal with international negotiation; how to link 
to UNCED; and how to make choices and decisions.  Social 
scientists must be able to identify and explain options 
and their potential outcomes.


VII.E. Federal Republic of Germany: Dr. Walter Manshard, 
University of Freiburg.

The German IGBP programme is well supported and 
advanced.  While the national committee includes only 
one social scientist, there are prospects for including 
historians and historical geographers in one of the IGBP 
core projects.  The Ministry of Science and Technology, 
which funds the programme, is beginning work on public 
education and is preparing an inventory of ongoing work.  
In general, work on HDGEC is less well-developed, though 
a de facto national committee intends to establish 
priority areas for research at a meeting in early 1991.  
A major need in Germany is coordination between the 
national committees for IGBP, HDGEC, and MAB and other 
UN agencies, and intergovernmental and non-governmental 
organizations (IGOs and NGOs).


VII.F. Sweden: Dr. Uno Svedin, Swedish Council for 
Planning and Coordination of Research, Stockholm.

The long concern with environmental issues in Sweden, 
together with interest in the increasing spatial and 
temporal dimensions of GEC recognized in the 1980s, led 
to the establishment of the IGBP Secretariat in 
Stockholm.  Parallel to this emphasis in the natural 
sciences, some interest in GEC developed in the social 
sciences and humanities, and increased from the mid-
1980s.  A particular catalyst was the publication of the 
report of the World Commission in Environment and 
Development, which led to discussion of frameworks for 
sustainability and the integration of natural and social 
sciences.  In 1988, a meeting on `human response to 
global change' was held.  This has been followed by work 
in many institutions on the ecology/economics interface, 
incentives and regulations for societal activities, 
urban issues, indicators of sustainability, and ethical 
and cultural issues.  In October 1990, a common platform 
on HDGEC was agreed on, involving the national IGBP 
Committee, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
other organizations who recognize the need for 
cooperation within a broad institutional framework 
including IGOs and NGOs.


VII.G. United Kingdom: Dr. Michael Redclift, Wye 
College, University of London.

The Economic and Social Research Council is interested 
in establishing and developing studies on GEC and 
equipping scientists to deal with these issues.  About 
one-third of the UK science budget in the 1990s is 
likely to be spent on GEC research, primarily in the 
natural sciences.  Social scientists must be brought to 
the heart of this research; yet few have exercised their 
minds in this direction.

       In July 1991, a GEC centre, directed by an 
economist, will be established in London.  This will be 
associated with research initiatives on four main 
themes, some of which have started: 1) institutional 
change: international agreements and their 
implementation, non-formal organizations, and the 
management of uncertainty; 2) the UK economy and GEC: 
agriculture, transport, and technology; 3) environmental 
economics: internalization of externalities, equity, and 
ethics; and 4) regional studies: arctic areas, tropical 
forests, and sub-Saharan Africa.  Programmes relating to 
HDGEC aim to create a corps of qualified scientists 
through support for pre- and post-doctoral research, and 
to develop new paradigms.  The focus is wider than 
merely climate change, and considers causes of GEC as 
well as impacts, which are the primary research topic of 
natural scientists.  A major priority is the social 
authority of science: how the credibility of scientists 
affects behaviour.  The planned research will be policy-
relevant, but not policy-directed.


VII.H. Union of Societ Socialist Republics: Dr. Renat 
Perelet, All-Union Institute for Systems Studies, 
Moscow.

Soviet interest and participation in research on HDGEC 
dates back to the first international symposium in Tokyo 
in 1988, which led the USSR Academy of Sciences to 
create a Commission for Socio-environmental Studies, 
including natural and social scientists.  This de facto 
national committee for HDGEC preceded the national IGBP 
Committee, established in 1989.  Members of both 
committees are active in the National Programme on 
Biospheric and Ecological Research (NPBER), which funds 
research on global environmental issues.  In 1990, the 
USSR designated its contribution to the IGBP for the 
promotion of studies on HDGEC.  Also in 1990, the 
national IGBP Committee proposed that the NPBER should 
focus on three major themes: 1) studies of biosphere 
dynamics: biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity, dynamics 
of primary productivity, etc.; 2) studies to improve 
biosphere simulation modelling and contribute to a 
global system for environmental observation and 
monitoring; and 3) studies of sustainable socio-economic 
development under conditions of possible environmental 
stress.

       The ISSC Framework has been well-received by both 
natural and social scientists.  There is consensus that 
Soviet institutes should participate actively in the 
ISSC's programme, with particular emphasis on the 
economic aspects of environmental management.  Several 
institutes will develop research on HDGEC in 1991 and 
subsequent years, considering: 1) the measurement of the 
psychological dimensions of human perception and 
behaviour in relation to GEC; 2) interactions between 
environmental knowledge and environmental law; 
international law as a global phenomenon; 3) the 
establishment of environmental reference and data bases; 
4) social objectives and values and their influence on 
energy development policies; interactions between energy 
policies and social development; 5) alternative 
approaches to sustainable development; 6) interactions 
of social factors and GEC in critical environmental 
zones; 7) socio-economic, political, and environmental 
influences on land-use change; development of principles 
for the management of land use; compilation of 
integrated socio-economic/environmental maps for 
decision-making; 8) the evolution of cognitive processes 
and public opinion in the context of GEC; 9) 
technological changes and global environmental 
modelling; and 10) environmental economics, security, 
and risk management.


VII.I. United States of America: Dr. Roberta Miller, 
Division of Social and Economic Science, National 
Science Foundation, Washington D.C.

The US Global Change Research Program (GCRP) has been 
developed by the Committee for Earth and Environmental 
Sciences, which includes representatives from many 
federal agencies.  The committee began its work with a 
survey of the activities of these agencies that could 
contribute to the GCRP.  The GCRP has close links to 
both national and international science programmes.  
Funding is spread across seven elements (including 
`human interactions') which are ordered in a hierarchy, 
with topics in each element prioritized.  Approximately 
two-thirds of the budget is for space-based programmes.  
Initially, few agencies were interested in the 
involvement of social scientists, but all agencies will 
participate in the `human interactions' element in the 
next fiscal year.

       The National Science Foundation's (NSF) programme 
on the human dimensions of global change has primarily 
supported the planning of activities by committees of 
the NAS and the Social Science Research Council.  The 
NSF programme has also supported a workshop on education 
in regard to GEC and research projects of all sizes, 
particularly looking at data sources and measurement.  
In the future, regional research centres may be 
established to focus on data collection and analysis in 
specific regions.  Long-term data of all types would be 
compiled to assess change and force research into 
productive areas.  In addition to the NSF's programme, 
there are other programmes concentrating on more applied 
research, including the MARS (Mitigation and Adaptation 
Research Strategies) Programme and the ad hoc task force 
on economic research and GEC.


VII.J. The European Economic Community (EEC): Dr. Per 
Sorup, EEC Directorate Environment and Non-nuclear 
Energy, Brussels, Belgium.

The European Economic Community's (EEC) framework 
programme for research and technological development 
includes an environment programme for which proposals 
will be submitted in early 1991.  The largest portion of 
the funding will be for research on GEC, primarily by 
natural scientists and emphasizing the potential 
consequences of GEC.  Funding will also be allocated to 
integrated research projects, research on technologies 
and engineering for the environment, and research on 
economic and social aspects of environmental issues.  
The interdisciplinary research projects within this 
international programme will be conducted by scientists 
from all countries of the EEC and the European Free 
Trade Association.  They should be relatively short-
term, concentrate on basic research, and support and 
complement national programmes.  A major focus should be 
on pathways to sustainability, recognizing environmental 
policy as a global issue.


VIII. ONGOING RESEARCH PROGRAMMES.

VIII.A. The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme 
(IGBP).  Dr. Thomas Rosswall, IGBP Secretariat, 
Stockholm.

The IGBP is a targeted international research programme, 
not an umbrella programme for national initiatives.  
With its focus on interacting biogeochemical cycles, the 
IGBP is complementary to ICSU's World Climate Research 
Programme.  It is also important for the IGBP to foster 
closer relationships with the social science community.  
The goal of the IGBP is to develop a predictive 
understanding of the Earth system, especially with 
regard to changes affecting the biosphere at scalees of 
decades to centuries.  The underlying themes are: 1) to 
document and predict GEC; 2) to improve understanding of 
forcing functions and transient phenomena; and 3) to 
assess changes affecting the availability of renewable 
and non-renewable resources. 

       A three-year planning period, involving over 500 
scientists at about 50 meetings, led to the 
identification of seven key questions, each of which 
will be addressed by research projects: 1) how is the 
chemistry of the atmosphere regulated, and what are the 
roles of biological processes in producing and consuming 
trace gases; 2) how do biogeochemical processes 
influence and respond to climate change; 3) how will 
changes in land use, sea level, and climate affect the 
coastal zone and its resources; 4) how does vegetation 
interact with the physical processes of the hydrological 
cycle; 5) how will GEC affect terrestrial ecosystems; 6) 
what significant climatic and environmental changes took 
place in the past, and what were the causes - how do 
anthropological influences compare to natural 
variability; and 7) how can understanding of the 
components of GEC be brought together to aid prediction?  
The projects are in various stages of development; some 
are ongoing, while others may not start this decade.  
All will last for ten years at most.

       As well as the research projects, the IGBP 
includes other initiatives, such as the IGBP-DIS and 
Regional Research Centres.  These will focus on 
developing countries, and are needed for the analysis 
and synthesis of information.  They must be related to 
the development of national initiatives.  To date, there 
has been little activity in Africa or southeast Asia; 
regional meetings are being held to set priorities.  In 
addition, an international group of funding agencies has 
met to discuss support for GEC research, particularly in 
developing countries.

       The 2nd Scientific Advisory Committee for the 
IGBP met in September 1990.  It recommended 
collaboration with social scientists, particularly the 
ISSC, in relation to land use, which is pertinent to 
many IGBP projects.  Such collaboration is necessary for 
the development of scenarios of land use changes and 
their feedbacks to the rest of the biosphere, 
recognizing that these changes are driven by socio-
economic forces as well as climate.  It is hoped that 
the joint IGBP/ISSC committee on land cover and land use 
will have prepared a plan for research by the end of 
1991.


VIII.B. The United Nations University (UNU).  Dr. Roland 
Fuchs, UNU, Tokyo.

The UNU is an organization dedicated to the examination 
of pressing issues by the global community of scholars.  
It includes centres focussing on specific topics and 
collaborates closely with other organizations.  In 1988, 
UNU held a symposium on HDGEC in conjunction with the 
ISSC and the International Federation of Institutes for 
Advanced Study (IFIAS).  At the symposium, six working 
groups were established: 1) global risk analysis and 
critical environmental zones; 2) industrial 
restructuring and metabolism; 3) legal, ethical, and 
institutional processes; 4) ethics and environmental 
policies; 5) international governance and GEC; and 6) 
concepts, models, and data for the study of GEC.

       All of these working groups have met 
subsequently, and most have published papers or books.  
The network of scientists should be widened and 
strengthened by a new journal, `Global Environmental 
Change: Human and Policy Dimensions,' sponsored by UNU 
and published by Butterworths, to which contributions 
are invited.  Future UNU activities on HDGEC depend on 
stocktaking in the near future.  Possible emphases of 
activities include: international governance and the 
`retooling' of the UN, economic development, and the 
development of a new theory of environmental economics.  
It will be essential to involve participants from 
developing countries and younger scholars, and to 
develop more efficient means of communication to other 
programmes on HDGEC.


VIII.C. UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme.  
Dr. Bernd von Droste, Division of Ecological Sciences, 
UNESCO, Paris.

MAB started in 1971, and undertakes problem-orientated 
research on human-environment interactions.  MAB's role 
in providing a bridge between the natural and social 
sciences has led to a number of problems, which must be 
evaluated in order to capitalize on past experience.  
Most of the staff and funding for MAB are provided by 
participating countries.  MAB includes 30 international 
research networks, and has held over 50 training courses 
for nearly 3,000 people in the past two years.  MAB is 
interested in further cooperation with the ISSC, which 
is one of MAB's advisory bodies.  In particular, MAB 
lacks experience in synthesis and the transformation of 
experience for decision-makers, and needs help in these 
areas.

       The core of MAB is its international networks.  
In relation to GEC, these consider three major areas: 1) 
biological diversity: World Heritage Convention, Action 
Plan on Biosphere Reserves, IGBP core project on 
biological diversity (being coordinated by SCOPE and the 
International Union of Biological Sciences); 2) the 
scientific basis for sustainable development: tropical 
forests, desertification; and 3) coping with change in 
human-environment interactions (especially at local to 
regional scales): urban ecology, sustainable development 
of islands, mountain resources, soil fertility of 
tropical areas and savannahs, radioecology (post-
Chernobyl).  The largest component of MAB is the network 
of biosphere reserves: 300 sites in 75 countries, many 
including indigenous populations.  The reserves, 
especially those with long-term records, offer 
opportunities for research and monitoring, particularly 
comparative research by social and natural scientists 
which could contribute to the understanding of human-
environment interactions in relation to GEC.

       Many MAB activities relate to topics outlined in 
the Framework.  MAB's research orientation on `human 
investment and resource use' is comparable to the ISSC 
topic on `social dimensions of resource use.'  A 
forthcoming MAB programme on the sustainable future of 
mountain communities could also be complementary to ISSC 
work on this topic.  A research programme on land use 
change in 11 European countries, supported by the EEC, 
will include 3 meetings in 1991.  ISSC involvement in 
this is welcomed, and the joint development of other 
regional programmes with ISSC and IGBP should be 
considered.  MAB programmes on the management of 
tropical forests include energy aspects.  Cooperation 
has already begun with the ISSC/UNAMAZ programme on 
`Ecological Disorder in Amazonia,' but stronger 
institutional frameworks (e.g., with the World and 
Inter-American Banks) should be developed in relation to 
this and related issues, such as the Third World debt 
crisis and debt-for-nature swaps.  There are also 
possibilities for MAB and ISSC to cooperate in areas 
such as food and nutrition, environmental security, and 
sustainable development.  Of relevance for these topics 
is the MAB research orientation on `human response to 
environmental stress.'

       MAB and ISSC, together with other organizations 
including UNU, FAO, and UNEP, should work together as 
partners in the large-scale interdisciplinary effort to 
cope with GEC.  At the national level, links between 
national committees for MAB, SCOPE, etc., are vital.  At 
the international level, UNESCO's experience in 
communicating information to the public could also be 
critical in developing a network of partners.


VIII.D. The Social Science Research Council (SSRC).  Dr. 
Richard Rockwell, SSRC, New York.

The SSRC programme on HDGEC, overseen by the SSRC 
Committee for Research on Global Environmental Changes, 
is designed to foster interdisciplinary research in a 
number of priority areas.  "Research consortia" in these 
areas are composed of social and natural scientists who 
undertake their research projects in collaboration and 
coordination with other members of the consortium, thus 
obtaining some degree of comparability and cumulation.  
Consortia are being formed on: 1) land use changes; 2) 
the comparison of landed property rights; 3) 
environmental changes, international conflicts, and 
international cooperation; 4) social learning in the 
management of global environmental risks; 5) sustainable 
development; 6) the national implementation of 
international environmental accords; and 7) linkages 
between population change and environmental change.  A 
project on an epidemiology of GEC was initiated and then 
set aside when it became apparent that the needed basic 
research has yet to be done.

       Four of these projects are explicitly 
comparative, with one involving indigenous researchers 
and three involving area studies scholars and indigenous 
scholars.  The project on land use changes is designed 
to support the IGBP-ISSC working group, and the 
population-environment project is conducted with ISSC 
and Development Alternatives for Women in a New Era 
(DAWN).  None of these projects yet has sufficient 
involvement of economists; this also appears to be true 
of the ISSC programme on HDGEC.  Both SSRC and ISSC must 
recognize the influence of economics on governments, and 
better involve economists in their programmes on HDGEC 
or risk becoming marginalized.  It is also important to 
increase the participation of natural scientists in 
HDGEC projects.  A major aid to the research commuity 
would be programmes of dissertation and post-doctoral 
scholarships.


VIII.E. The European Science Foundation.  Dr. Arild 
Underdahl, University of Oslo, Norway.

The European Science Foundation's programme on 
Environment, Science, and Society began in late 1989.  
While it focuses on economics and institutions, 
political science is an unequal partner; economists have 
more unified frameworks and concepts and an established 
network.  Social scientists from other disciplines are 
also being brought into the programme.  They need not 
have a long experience of issues relating to the 
environment; the aim is to develop new social science 
tools.  The programme has two major components: the 
development of an analytical framework, and regional 
case studies.

       The analytical framework is being developed by 
three groups, each including two task forces (one of 
economists and one of political and other social 
scientists) and considering the following themes: 1) the 
evaluation of change and policy options; 2) policy 
instruments and techniques of regulation; and 3) 
international collaboration.  Complementarities exist 
between the three groups; the economists focus on 
specific instruments, while the political scientists 
focus on contextual constraints.  The regional case 
studies are using findings from natural science research 
as a basis for assessing social costs and benefits of 
policy options.  The focus of the North Sea study is 
eutrophication and the dumping of toxic waste.  The 
focus of the Mediterranean study has yet to be 
developed.  The programme as a whole is complementary to 
the EEC's environmental programme, and its findings 
should be more widely applicable to research and 
policies relating to GEC.


IX. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSC PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH ON
THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE.

The session was introduced by Dr. Jacobson, who stated 
that the preceding sessions had covered the most 
important variables of HDGEC.  The discussions and 
presentations on land use had touched on many of the 
issues in topics one through three of the Framework.  
This was reassuring, but the linkage of micro- and 
aggregate approaches to land use remained unresolved.  A 
number of other conclusions could be drawn from the 
symposium.  The collection of data and the development 
of theories must be closely linked.  Energy must be high 
on the agenda.  The training of scientists in developing 
countries is important.  A critical part of work within 
topics one and two must be to understand the processes 
which will drive responses to GEC.  Dr. Arizpe described 
the process of developing research on HDGEC as a 
paradox; of reasoning about something before developing 
the instruments to approach it.

       Dr. Byers proposed that peace research was 
relevant to topics one and two of the Framework and the 
activities of various working groups.  Conflict and 
military expenditures are both potential driving forces 
of GEC which, in turn, may lead to both conflict and 
cooperation.  Advances in conflict management and 
resolution will be important in defining international 
agreements and responses to GEC.  The International 
Peace Research Association (IPRA) held a special session 
of GEC at its 1990 meeting, and is establishing a 
network and newsletter on environmental security.  
Further interaction between IPRA and the ISSC working 
groups should take place, for instance in relation to 
the stimulation of conflict by land use change and links 
between energy use and policy and conflict.  Dr. 
Boulding emphasized that two-way communication should be 
established and encouraged between the many ISSC member 
associations that have committees and have started 
projects on GEC.  Associations must feel part of the 
Work Programme.

       Dr. Soroos stated that environmental problems 
transcend national boundaries, extending into the 
international commons.  The International Studies 
Association has had an environmental studies section 
since 1976, and a committee on HDGEC since 1989.  They 
need to be involved in bringing countries and groups 
together to address and mitigate GEC.  He commented that 
the Work Programme appears to be more data- than theory-
driven, and that a better balance was needed.  The uses 
of data should be defined before they are compiled.  
Also, while the day's presentations had discussed the 
role of social science in natural science programmes, it 
is vital for social scientists to identify agendas that 
make sense as social science and to undertake this 
research.  Dr. Heginbotham suggested that one necessity 
was to define priorities for research on human 
behaviours, because of their impact on the global system 
and because understanding would be critical for the 
effective implementation of policies.

       Dr. Massini noted that the symposium showed that 
great awareness of GEC exists, with significant 
institutional support and a number of major activities.  
Yet discussions centred on the interconnectedness of 
these very complex issues and the need to gather data.  
It may be time for a major change in epistemology, 
linking humanists and natural scientists.  However, a 
paradox is evident because, in spite of this need, there 
is pressure to respond quickly to GEC.  It is vital to 
avoid the tendency to substitute methodologies for 
knowledge and ethical principles.

       Dr. Rayner commented that there had been little 
discussion of issues relating to energy during the 
symposium.  He outlined four important areas, with a 20-
30 year history of interdisciplinary cooperation, within 
which social scientists should work: end uses, supplies, 
institutional and economic aspects for developing 
countries, and the transfer of technology and 
information.  Developing countries have a keen interest 
in energy, so that there is no need to persuade their 
decision-makers of the importance of such research.  
Funding is available from both the USA and the EEC.  A 
working group on energy should be formed within the ISSC 
HDGEC programme.

       Dr. Szell noted that economic issues are central 
to GEC, but that criteria for economic growth are 
relative.  The recognition that three-quarters of what 
is measured as growth is actually for repairing damage 
must be included in economic analysis.  There is no 
social theory of the environment.  This needs to be 
developed, after the establishment of clear criteria 
based on theory (which will vary between disciplines).  
The further development of the HDGEC programme must 
consider: why are we doing this research; what are our 
visions of the future of mankind; who are the decision-
makers, what are their concerns, and how can we address 
them; why are the results of research so rarely 
implemented and how can we prevent the repetition of 
failures?  Dr. Trent added that the synthesis and 
dispersal of the programme's findings were critical 
issues.  The programme must find ways to make impacts on 
decision-makers.

       Dr. Gutman proposed two changes to the Work 
Programme.  First, the working group on the impacts of 
structures and institutions should also consider the 
other parts of the dynamics: the outcomes and functions 
of structures and institutions.  Second, the working 
group on environmental security and sustainable 
development should address the positive aspects of 
sustainable development.  Latin American scientists 
would be willing to participate in this work.  Dr. 
Roqueplo suggested that the programme should be 
evaluated in three years, particularly with respect to 
the degree of success in collaboration between social 
and natural scientists.  The Work Programme must state 
how and when this evaluation will take place.  Dr. 
Jacobson replied that evaluation would be incorporated 
in the Work Programme, and could be a topic for a 
proposed symposium in 1992, but that the methodology and 
timing would depend on the decision of the ISSC as a 
whole.

       Dr. Redclift questioned whether the purpose of 
the HDGEC programme was to develop a unified paradigm.  
Social science develops through the asssessment of 
different approaches to issues.  For instance, 
`environmental management' is a culturally-loaded 
concept, with very different epistemologies in 
industrialized and developing countries.  To address 
global problems may require finding more than one 
paradigm.  It is a paradox that the environment exists 
in our discourse about it, but that we cannot understand 
it until we have developed our discourse about it.  This 
is exacerbated by the fact that while social scientists 
tend to recognize the past less than natural scientists, 
we must understand the past to manage the future.  Dr. 
Jacobson responded that the HDGEC Committee assumed a 
multiplicity of paradigms, and never aspired to create 
one.  The programme aims to clarify processes, dynamics, 
and values of environmental management, not to define 
it.