D. Norse, J.B. Tschirley Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 15–26 21
Fig. 2. GT-Net — a global system of terrestrial observation networks.
response framework is an example of a tool that was developed by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development OECD in the 1970’s for use in considering policy options related to air
pollution. Its application to other environmental prob- lems has been considerably broadened in recent years.
However, understanding the linkages between driving forces, states and responses, complex as they may be,
is only part of the picture. Sustainability components the economic, social and environmental dimensions
and how they interact must also be assessed through the use of analytical tools such as modelling and
integrated assessment techniques. Fig. 3 provides an example of a framework for sustainability analysis.
Such frameworks underline the importance that an issue like agriculture’s contribution to the disruption
of the N cycle must not be tackled in isolation from other components of the N cycle or from other actions
to promote sustainable agriculture. Thus the scientific support to policies to reduce agriculture’s impact on
the N cycle must be part of a broader bio-physical and social science agenda for integrated farming,
organic food marketing, and other agri-environment measures that are part of the multifunctional character
of agriculture FAO, 1999.
4. Principles for policy relevant science
There are several principles that could improve and widen the contribution of GCTE science to global
change understanding. They include the following: •
correct identification and definition of the issues through broad consultation within and outside the
bio-physical community; •
clear specification of the form policy developers need the scientific information and the time con-
straints within which they are operating; •
greater recognition that research which is commis- sioned by one ministry or policy body is likely to
involve many others and their needs should be given early consideration;
• recognition that no single organisation can com-
mand the data, information, expertise or finance for path-finding global research;
• balanced and strategic geographical participation of
scientists and institutions since responses to global change will commonly require joint international
action by many countries;
• full disciplinary and analytical integration;
• transparency of data, method, and presentation;
documentation of meta data;
22 D. Norse, J.B. Tschirley Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 15–26
Fig. 3. A framework for sustainability analysis.
• an open peer review process to establish scientific
credibility, community and clarification of issues on which there is not yet broad consensus;
• sensitivity analysis of the scientific uncertainties
about global change processes and their spatial and temporal impacts before they enter the policy
process;
• clear synthesis and presentation of the scientific
issues and of the response options.
5. Issues and opportunities for policy relevant research
No single approach can remove all of the scientific uncertainty before policy decisions are made. It is
likely that the information will have to come from several sources, and some will be subject to debate.
The latter, together with uncertainties in the nature of bio-physical processes and their socio-economic driv-
ing forces or modifiers, perhaps obviates the need for more use of sensitivity analysis than is presently used.
The science community played an important role in removing scientific and public uncertainty regarding
the extent and causes of shifts in desert margins and human induced desertification in Africa. This was
done, in part, by intelligent use of ground and space data.
Correct and early identification of issues such as nitrate contamination of water supplies and respective
roles of mineral and organic fertilisers is important but even with good national and international science pro-
grammes and systematic observation networks, some issues will arise with little prior warning.
FAO and the GCTE clearly have common interests in understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems
in global change. They have been partners for many years. FAO has contributed to the development of
GCTE science plans, and provided data, informa- tion and methodological tools for many of its pro-
grammes. Equally, GCTE has provided FAO with data and information vital to the understanding of the
bio-physical processes involved in sustainable NRM, and IGBP scientists have participated in the plan-
ning and implementation of FAO-led activities such as GTOS.
D. Norse, J.B. Tschirley Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 15–26 23
There is a strong case for strengthening the FAO GCTE partnership to achieve closer alignment
with the policy formulation process, and increasing the relevance of GCTE research to the needs of so-
ciety for food security and sustainable development. FAO often serves as the voice of small countries
which lack the resources to play a full part in in- ternational research, and of low-income farmers and
the rural poor who are seldom consulted by research scientists FAO, 1986. FAO is a co-sponsor of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Re- search CGIAR together with the United Nations
Development Programme UNDP and the World Bank. The CGIAR is financed largely by the same
countries that support the GCTE. FAO could help to strengthen the links between the GCTE and the
research and policy related 16 international centres included in the CGIAR.
There is a tendency for global change research to remain shaped by the prevailing concerns of the 1970s
and 1980s. For example, population growth still tends to be treated as the major driving force, and land use
change as a key consequence. While population is certainly a critical factor, looking ahead 20–30 years
it can be argued that migration, income growth, and changes in consumption patterns may be more impor-
tant driving forces especially in developing regions, where population growth, has been slowing down
more rapidly than expected Lutz et al., 1997. An ex- ception is sub-Saharan Africa, which seems destined
to continue to experience high population growth, high mortality, and low per capita incomes for a
considerable time to come.
If one looks at recent projections of land use change FAO, 2000, it is clear that a key issue is the en-
vironmental pressures associated with intensification rather than land cover or land use change per se. Dur-
ing the next 30 years and given the assumption of no major policy changes, annual rates of new cropland
development are projected to fall to about 4 Mhayr, with two-thirds of it coming from secondary forest or
rangeland.
Thus, almost all of incremental food and agricul- tural production will come from improved cultivars,
higher inputs of mineral fertilisers together with bet- ter nutrient management, integrated pest management
and irrigation. This intensification will be shaped more by economic forces than regulatory instruments. For
example, almost all European countries have intro- duced or are planning pollution taxes on mineral fer-
tilisers and pesticides. As affluence and food security rises in developing countries it seems likely they will
follow similar policy pathways to limit adverse envi- ronmental impacts of agricultural intensification.
If the above trends hold, it is evident that GCTE and other IGBP programmes will have to become
more integrated and multi-disciplinary with more con- tributions from economists and other social scientists.
A separate initiative e.g. the International Human Dimensions Programme — IHDP probably cannot
be sufficiently integrated with a programme such as GCTE to have lasting effect. A specific element jointly
established by the IGBP and IHDP may be required to deal with the social and economic dimensions of
change in terrestrial ecosystems.
An initial step toward more integration of GCTE programmes with policy issues could be to make more
use of matrix analysis and similar tools in order to: a identify key linkage effects and interactions, and b
identify opportunities for contributing to policy areas outside those initially targeted.
Some research initiatives do not sufficiently recog- nise the important influence that scale has on project
design and policy relevance. It is not sufficient nor necessarily valid to aggregate local or regional results
in order to understand change on a global scale. The variables and the driving forces of change are usu-
ally a function of scale. Thus, if a project is intended to have impact at global scale, the observations, the
sampling scheme, the analysis and the modelling tools must be selected with this in mind Fig. 4.
For example, net primary productivity NPP is an important measure that many research scientists who
work at an ecosystem level spend considerable effort in measuring in great detail. Soil moisture precipita-
tion, temperature, leaf area index and land cover are used to estimate NPP and the same methodology is
used for each set of measurements. However, assess- ment of NPP at a global level, used widely in climate
change modelling, requires only a few observations e.g. land cover and leaf area index and a relatively
small number of sites i.e. 50–100 distributed over the globe to yield data that is representative of the
global situation. Support from satellite imagery can supplement the in situ measurements to arrive at good
quality information for modellers. The methodologies
24 D. Norse, J.B. Tschirley Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 15–26
Fig. 4. Influence of scale on policy relevance.
used by the participating sites need only to be broadly similar for the aggregate figure to be accurate. Thus,
in this case, resources would be inefficiently deployed if more intensive sampling and replicable observation
techniques were to be used when cheaper and faster techniques would yield satisfactory results.
The task and cost of global change research has grown so large that no country or organisation can
operate in isolation. Furthermore, global science can be no better than the global data sets that it depends
on, hence the importance that FAO gives to rapidly developing the GTOS. One important opportunity in
this regard is to establish a closer partnership between GCTE, the GTOS terrestrial observation networks and
other scientists making in situ observations on the one hand, and those making satellite observations on the
other. It is surprising how little of the space imagery on land use and land cover change has been ground
truthed. It is also surprising how large the gap is be- tween science programmes conducted from space and
those that take place on the ground despite their pursuit of common themes e.g. nitrogen or carbon sequestra-
tion. The global observing systems have made a start on bridging this gap by working with the Committee
on Earth Observation Satellites CEOS to establish an Integrated Global Observing Strategy IGOS that
will define the space-based measurements required by scientists working on the ground. The involvement
of GCTE could be essential in defining the needs, methodologies and priority research topics.
It is a human tendency to continue doing what feels comfortable, or “what you know”. If the IGBP and
the GCTE are to be successful in building bridges to key global change policy forums they will need
to break traditional moulds and build new collabora- tive, cross-disciplinary partnerships. Their approach
to research priority setting needs to be widened. It is not enough for IGBP and GCTE to promote leading
edge science. They need to enhance the role that po- licy needs and socio-economic factors play in setting
scientific agenda. More effort is required to assist decision makers in the interpretation of scientific re-
sults. Similarly, greater importance should be given for preparing policymakers summaries of the main
programme outputs — a process shown to be of great importance for the success of the IPCC.
6. Conclusions
