FO CUS:

POVERTY AND

ENVIRONMENT

N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H A N G EUPDATEIH

DP

04/2002

W W W . I H D P . O R G

Phot

o:E.

Dyck

I H D P U p d a t e i s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l H u m a n D i m e n s i o n s P r o g r a m m e o n G l o b a l E n v i r o m e n t a l C h a n g e ( I H D P ) , Wa l t e r - F l e x - S t r. 3 , 5 3 1 1 3 B o n n , G e r m a n y, V. i . S . d . P. : E l i s a b e t h D y c k

1 Living in a Changing EarthSystem | C.H. Vogel

2 Editorial

4 Poverty and EnvironmentLinkages | A. Atiq Rahman

6 Degradation Narratives |B. Hartmann

8 Scaling the Urban EnvironmentalChallenge | G. McGranahan

10 Masthead

11 City Consultation – A Strategyfor Poverty ReductionInterview with A.L. Mabogunje

12 2003 Open Meeting of theHuman Dimensions of GlobalEnvironmental Change ResearchCommunity

13 Environmental Change andVulnerability | J.M. Pulhin

14 Soil Mining in Eastern Uganda |J. Woelcke

15 Core Projects:15 Land-Use and Land-Cover

Change | H. Geist, E. Lepers, W.McConnel, E. Lambin, N.Ramankutty

16 IT SSC Convenes in Bonn |A.J. WieczorekA New Sponsor for GECHS IPO |M. Brklacich, M. Woodrow

17 Joint Projects:The Global Water System |S. Karlsson

18 In Brief, Meeting Calendar

19 Publications

20 Contact Addresses

➤ One of the recent requests following my acceptance as Chair of the IHDP ScientificCommittee (SC) was to write an article for UPDATE. May I first take this opportunity to

thank all those who felt that I was a suitable candidate, and let me also express my humble

thanks to the prestigious group of scientists who elected me to this position. I trust that we

will all be able to continue the good work that has already been successfully undertaken by

previous Chairs and members of the IHDP SC.

Coming to the Chair of the IHDP SC at such an interesting time in the evolution of glob-

al change science is challenging. The legacy of excellent science that has already been under-

taken through various global change science initiatives, and my previous exposure to knowl-

edgeable scientists in this field has been extremely valuable and rewarding. The develop-

ments in the global environmental change (GEC) programmes, the recent World Summit on

Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg and several other initiatives provide

many opportunities for global change science.

These progressive developments, exposure to such groups and the growing corpus of sci-

ence also cause much introspection. What is the role of science in the pursuit of environ-

mental sustainability? Has the science been useful? Can we evaluate at this stage whether we

have been active about “strengthening international science for the benefit of society” (ICSU,

2002). Could our science be made even more useful? Such questions have become more per-

tinent for me in my ongoing work on drought and vulnerability in the southern African

region. I will briefly attempt to grapple with some of these questions, identify some possible

LIVING IN A CHANGING EARTH SYSTEMCaveats and Challenges | BY COLEEN H. VOGEL

C O N T E N T S

➤ continued on page 2

caveats in the application of the science and also suggest some

areas where the Earth System Science Partnership1 (ESSP) can

play a role.

THE UNFOLDING FAMINE IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Recent assessments by leading scientists, such as contribu-

tions of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the

IPCC, point to various environmental changes that may accom-

pany climate change in Africa:

“There is wide consensus that climate change will worsen

food security, mainly through increased extremes and tempo-

ral/spatial shifts” …“Adverse changes in seasonal river flows,

floods and droughts, food security, fisheries, health effects, and

loss of biodiversity are among the major vulnerabilities and con-

cerns of Africa, Latin America and Asia where adaptation oppor-

tunities are generally low” (IPCC, 2001).

In light of this growing concern efforts are being made to

improve the scientific understanding of what drives the earth-

atmosphere system producing such changes in the region, iden-

tify those areas that may be particularly vulnerable to environ-

mental change, both socially and biophysically, and improve

adaptation and mitigation to enable groups to better live with

environmental changes. The unfolding famine in southern and

northern Africa captures some of the scientific and humanitari-

an dilemmas facing those involved and includes many ESSP

dimensions (e.g. El Niño and drought – a WCRP focal research

area; the impacts on vegetation, water and food – focal concerns

of a number of allied programmes; and the human dimensions –

the role of institutions, e.g. in mediating access to food).

DROUGHT – THE REAL EVIL?

Droughts occur frequently in South Africa and the wider region.

They are caused usually by variations in the large-scale atmospher-

ic systems that produce rainfall (e.g. those associated with the El

Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon (Unganai, 1992;

Mason and Tyson, 2000). Droughts usually result in major impacts

in the region, such as downturns in GDP and impacts on the agri-

cultural industry (Benson and Clay, 1998). Droughts cause farm

retrenchments and livelihood losses that severely aggravate the

plight of many of the rural poor in the region.

Scientists, including those in the social sciences, have tried to

identify the underlying factors that may contribute to and height-

en drought impacts. Droughts thus have been viewed within the

broader context of determining some of the underlying drivers of

change that have (Davis, 2001) and may be heightening vulnera-

bility to change (Devereux, 2001). Issues such as globalisation, the

role of institutions in mediating access to resources, poor main-

tenance of infrastructure and lack of political commitment to

reduce vulnerabilities to various threats and risks (Benson and

Clay, 2000; Devereux, 2001) compound drought situations.

Drought therefore needs to be viewed as both a physical and

social phenomenon. Famine and periods of food shortage

require not only technical fixes, e.g. better early warning systems

and meteorological science, but also substantial political will

(Devereux, 2000; de Waal, 2000; Vogel and Smith, 2002).

IMPROVED DROUGHT SCIENCE

There is growing global and national commitment to reduce

the risk of living with GEC. Major improvements in ‘drought

A C H A N G I N G E A R T H S Y S T E M

2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

poverty & environment

This issue of UPDATE reports on the linkages between pover-

ty and environmental change. Articles by researchers and

young scientists from the international human dimensions

community provide a comprehensive picture of the multi-

faceted problems faced by humankind such as the urban

poor, drought, uncontrolled population growth, unsustain-

able land management, and vulnerability. They also suggest

approaches to facilitate poverty alleviation, e.g. by ‘city con-

sultations’, as outlined in the interview with Prof. Akin

Mabogunje.

This is the first issue of UPDATE since I became IHDP

Executive Director at the beginning of November. I would

like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to

the Search Committee and the sponsors of IHDP, the

International Council for Science (ICSU) and the

International Social Science Council (ISSC), who appointed

me to this position. As a researcher at the University of

Bonn, I observed IHDP develop over recent years, as it

became an effective programme for the enhancement of

research on global environmental change. It is a great pro-

fessional and personal challenge for me to contribute to

IHDP at this point in time.

The challenges ahead are numerous, but so are the opportuni-

ties for strengthening the role of social science research on

global environmental change. There are several tasks to

which I plan to give priority. One of them is to emphasise

the role of social science in environmental research. There is

ample historical experience in managing environmental

risks, such as droughts, famines or climate change; still it is

not given sufficient attention in the current debate.

Another major activity will be to support IHDP’s capacity

building efforts that aim at involving more young scientists

and researchers from developing countries in our network.

Also, as Coleen Vogel, Chair of the IHDP Scientific

Committee, points out in her article, we will continue our

excellent co-operation with the major partner programmes

on global environmental change (IGBP, WCRP and

DIVERSITAS) within the framework of the Earth System

Science Partnership (ESSP).

Another aim is to establish closer collaboration with develop-

ment policy and environment organisations and to increase

IHDP’s visibility and acceptance among German and inter-

national donors. Intensifying contacts with international

organisations in Bonn, such as the Secretariat for the UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

and the Secretariat for the UN Convention to Combat

Desertification (UNCCD), will further the dialogue

between policy makers and the human dimensions research

community at an international level.

In the months to come, I look forward to contacting and

meeting many members of the IHDP network. I trust that

we will be able to establish a fruitful and mutually beneficial

co-operation.

BARBARA GÖBEL

IHDP Executive Director

E D I T O R I A L

➤

1 ESSP is a partnership of four global change research programmes (IGBP, IHDP,WCRP and DIVERSITAS) for the integrated study of the Earth System, thechanges that are occurring to the System, and the implications of these changesfor global sustainability.

science’ in understanding the predictability of southern Africa’s

seasonal rainfall have also emerged over the past decade (e.g.

Goddard et al., 2001; Landman and Goddard, 2002). Due to such

improvements, seasonal rainfall forecasts and seasonal tempera-

ture and rainfall outlooks have become possible (Carson, 1998).

More is also currently known about food systems, both in

terms of food production and food provision (ICSU, 2002).

Global agro-ecological assessments for the 21st century, under-

taken recently by the International Institute for Applied Systems

Analysis (Fischer et al., 2001) indicate that there is still significant

potential for expansion of cultivated land in parts of Africa. As

the authors point out, “in many developing countries, provided

adequate inputs and improved management are applied, there is

scope for increased yields” (Fischer et al., 2001, emphasis added).

The collective focus of several GEC initiatives is therefore not

only on improving science related to food; increasingly global

change scientists have begun to focus on aspects that underpin

vulnerability and adaptability to changes in food systems, food

production and food provision (e.g. GECAFS).

IS ESSP SCIENCE USEFUL?

Despite all this activity, the southern African region is cur-

rently in the grips of famine. Assessments show that ca. 14.4 mil-

lion people will require food aid in six affected countries in

SADC, the Southern African Development Community (Morris,

2002). The World Food Programme (WFP) has launched a US$

507 million appeal to provide relief. The combined impacts of

HIV/AIDS, land issues, prices, poor governance and trade policy

together with climate variability threaten to heighten risks for

those currently lacking food and adequate livelihoods. The WFP

website (www.wfp.org) provides current assessments of the

‘crisis’.

Of concern and deep frustration is that this situation began to

gain press at the same time as the WSSD was hosted in

Johannesburg (with the theme on poverty and sustainability).

The ‘crisis’ is also unfolding at a time when scientific efforts are

being marshaled to revive the debate of ‘theoretical’ issues that

underpin what is unfolding in the region, e.g. ‘vulnerability’ sci-

ence. How can such science be used to play a meaningful role in

the region? Do we learn from past science and past lessons?

(Glantz, 2001; 2002). The ironies are clear and resolution of some

of them will require much deeper thought and engagement

between a host of role players.

In the recent volume “Challenges of a Changing Earth”

(Steffen et al., 2002), a synthesis of earth system science is pre-

sented together with several visions for future ESSP science (see

page 19 of this UPDATE issue). In the volume caveats and prob-

lems are also identified including papers that cover discussions

on food. Global agro-ecological assessment, it is argued, will be

complex:

“Given the complex and interlinked components of the food

security challenge in the 21st century, it is clear that solutions that

deal with one part – for example, crop productivity, land use,

water conservation, or forest protection – will not be sufficient.

The issues are connected and must be dealt with as an interlinked

holistic system…” (Shah, 2002).

The complexity of food systems is further enhanced when

socio-political issues are included: the governance of food, access

to and tracking of food, and how food enters into the discourse

of democracy through different political forms and institutions

(Watts, 2001). Such components move debates of famine beyond

mere assessments of food production. Some of the underlying

concerns and fundamental questions that thus may confront the

ESSP include the quest for a ‘sensitive steering system’ (Young,

2002) to guide us through this convoluted terrain, challenges for

trying to ‘communicate in accessible languages’ and whether we

have the data to even begin modeling some of the complexities in

such systems (Joachim and Schellnhuber, 2002).

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

In the drive towards a sustainable transition in an ever chang-

ing earth system one is left asking the question: why the crises in

the southern African region? Famines and drought disasters are

not new in these areas and have always been complex phenome-

na, driven in part by the vagaries of weather, but also by other fac-

tors such as governance and a variety of social and economic

issues. Also famines usually have been the outcome of complex

socio-economic and biophysical systems that have allocated risk

differentially to various people.

The niche for greater collaboration between social and bio-

physical scientists and meteorologists has been created with the

ESSP. My concerns include: Why has such official collaboration

taken so long? What will it take to make a workable, meaningful

and sustainable connection between policy makers, humanitarian

agencies, wider civic society and scientists so that effective action

can be taken? For those in the southern African region, actively

involved in one ESSP area, the mix of factors, e.g. HIV/AIDS, cli-

mate and governance, may override well-intentioned humanitar-

ian assistance. The challenges are great for the ESSP. Other chal-

lenges exist and require similar energies. My hope is that we may

continue to prompt, critique and encourage excellence in global

change science for all concerned.

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website

at www.ihdp.org/update0402/references.htm

COLEEN VOGEL is Chair of the IHDP Scientific Committee and

Professor at the School of Geography, Archaeology and

Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, South Africa; 017chv@cosmos.wits.ac.za

A C H A N G I N G E A R T H S Y S T E M

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 3

poverty & environment

➤

Drawing brackish water from a pool during a drought.

Phot

o:FA

O/M

.Mar

zot

➤

➤ In 2002, as the world leaders gathered in Johannesburgfor the World Summit on Sustainable Development

(WSSD), the total wealth of the planet was never any greater.

Simultaneously, the numbers of people below poverty line

and the extent of environmental degradation facing them

were never greater. There are inextricable, multidimensional

and complex linkages between increasing poverty and envi-

ronmental degradation. There is a serious lack of under-

standing and consensus among the different actors, includ-

ing policy makers, that the interests of the poor and of envi-

ronment are mutually compatible. A scientific and better

understanding of the poverty-environment nexus could lead

to sound and informed strategies, policies and actions for

the local, national and global communities to fight both

poverty and environmental problems.

FROM RIO TO JOHANNESBURG:

INCREASING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POVERTY

One of the greatest successes of the UNCED (Rio) process

was the acknowledgement of the need for integrating environ-

ment, development and social justice. A key group actively

highlighting the need to integrate poverty as a central concern

was the Global Forum on Environment and Poverty (GFEP).

They asserted that there could be “no sustainable development

without eradication of poverty”. Maurice Strong, Secretary

General of UNCED, acknowledged that the two most needed

areas that UNCED did not address adequately were poverty and

demilitarisation.

However, it is not declarations but actions that count. For

example, the seven heads of governments of South Asia signed

the South Asian Poverty Commission Report (1992), which

asserted that poverty from South Asia would be eliminated by

2002. As 2002 arrived, it was clear that the number of poor in

South Asia had stabilised, if not increased.

The WSSD Plan of Implementation (2002) and the UN

Millennium Declaration have emphasised poverty alleviation as

a cross-cutting issue. The stated goal is to “halve, by the year

2015, the proportion of the world’s poor whose income is less

than $1 a day and the proportion of people who suffer from

hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people

without access to safe drinking water”. The unfortunate corol-

lary is that even in its intentions and declarations, the global

community has condemned half of the global poor to abject

poverty even after 2015.

The political declaration at the WSSD states in Article 7:

“Recognizing that humankind is at a cross road, we have unit-

ed in a common resolve to make a determined effort to respond

positively to the need to produce a practical and visible plan

that should bring about poverty eradication and human devel-

opment”. Sadly no such “practical and visible” plan was in place

and the same agencies, which failed to reduce poverty in the last

five decades, seem least likely to solve these problems today.

A completely different approach, newly enthused human

resources and an analytical framework are needed. Fortunately,

a number of national sustainable development institutes have

emerged in the last twenty years, many of them are in develop-

ing countries. Their combined efforts offer the best hope of

addressing this complex agenda.

POVERTY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The WSSD recognised poverty reduction as a central tenet of

achieving sustainable development. Indeed, some international

financial institutions have declared themselves as “poverty

banks”. Is this a genuine shift of priorities in favour of the poor

or a new recognition that the previous emphasis on the market

and trickle-down economic policies fall far short of achieving

global or national objectives of poverty reduction? Reducing

poverty essentially entails access to higher amounts of financial

resources, to goods and services including access to institutions,

participation, decision-making and social justice. Reduction of

vulnerability of the poor to illnesses, natural disasters, social

exploitation, and repressive policies reduces the pressures of

poverty.

The low resource base, small internal markets, low purchas-

ing power of the poor, absence of good governance and effective

local government, low level of skilled personnel, low literacy

rate, lack of national, political consensus and continuity of

major policies, a degrading natural resource base, poor law and

order at home, global financial instability and political insecuri-

ty – all of these combine to create a vicious cycle of continuation

of poverty. This is despite some brave attempts by government

and non-government sectors to reduce poverty systematically.

POVERTY: LIVELIHOOD AND NATURAL RESOURCES

NEXUS

The poor depend on natural resources to manage their

livelihood portfolios. Any degradation and loss of access to

natural resources deprives them of their livelihood potential.

Despite all the technological and economic achievements,

there are over one billion people who live on less than US$ 1

a day. Another billion live on less than US$ 2 a day. These are

the people who are most vulnerable to natural disasters and

health hazards. Impacts of climate change, particularly the

increase of extreme events will hit the poor the hardest.

KEY LINKAGES BETWEEN POVERTY AND

ENVIRONMENT

The physical environment provides services to the popu-

lation. People develop specific social systems, institutions

POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT LINKAGESAn emerging concern needs greater attention and focused action | BY A. ATIQ RAHMAN

P O V E R T Y & E N V I R O N M E N T L I N K A G E Spoverty & environment

4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

and technologies to interact with the environment to gain

livelihood supports. The absence or denial of these basic

environmental services constitutes absolute poverty.

Unequal access to basic necessities and other environmental

resources is the foundation of relative poverty. In addition to

being excluded from access to basic resources, the poor are

also most likely to be subjected to the degrading or polluting

impacts of the consumption patterns of others. Where local

sustainable patterns of agriculture are diverted to monocul-

ture for the global market, the breaking of traditional fertil-

ity cycles is associated with negative changes in social struc-

tures and economic relationships. The poor have been sys-

tematically supplying their share of resources for environ-

mental and global benefits but are continually ‘dis-benefited’

due to structured societal disempowerment and are thus

being forced to move towards more environmentally vulner-

able areas.

GLOBAL PICTURE AND THE SOUTHERN PERSPECTIVES

About 2.8 billion people live in poverty. According to a

recent World Bank report, more than 23% of these people

live in extreme poverty, and the number of poor people

remained almost constant in the past decade (Poverty Net,

2002). The majority of poor people live in Sub-Saharan

Africa, South Asia and the Pacific, Eastern Europe and

Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Moreover, in

recent decades the poor are migrating increasingly to the

cities. Urban poverty has become one of the most pressing

development and environment concerns. At the same time,

the gap between the poor and rich in terms of both wealth

and consumption has increased.

Many social scientists have argued that poverty in the

South was initially created mainly by colonial domination

and exploitation. The post-colonial period saw much mis-

management and lack of participation in natural resource

management. The industrialised countries made their eco-

nomic progress in the 18th and 19th centuries at the cost of the

resources of today’s underdeveloped countries. Another

cause of environmental degradation is the trade imbalance

and unequal growth of economies of the North and the

South. Bad governance, elitism and poor management by the

governments of many emerging and independent countries

probably made the largest contribution to continued pover-

ty, natural resources and environmental degradation

(Rahman et al, 1998).

Many international agencies, such as UNDP, UNEP,

World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, are currently

working on integrating environment and poverty issues in

the development process. But their capacity to reach the

poor is extremely limited. The NGOs, grassroots organisa-

tions and national think tanks, particularly in the South, are

more likely to be the appropriate agents, if utilised properly.

GFEPS EFFORTS FROM RIO TO JOHANNESBURG

During the Rio (UNCED) process, civil society pointed to

the linkages between poverty and the environment through

the Global Forum on Environment and Poverty (GFEP). The

Declaration on Environment and Poverty asserted that:

➤ The rights of all people to have access to food and other

basic requirements for a healthy and meaningful life are

inalienable.

➤ The poor, both men and women, must be able to make

decisions about their own local environments and natu-

ral resources.

➤ Although poverty must be addressed at a global scale,

there can be no solution without the direct participation

of people at the local and national levels.

➤ Efforts must be undertaken to remove the most out-

standing obstacles to poverty eradication and environ-

mental conservation.

➤ The rich must pay the full ecological costs of their con-

sumption.

➤ All people, including the poor, must have equal rights to

global commons including the atmosphere and the

oceans.

In Johannesburg, the GFEP developed an action plan and

research agenda on environment and poverty. The large

number of actions identified fall under six broad themes:

follow-up of Rio instruments and WSSD; advocacy; institu-

tion building; technology and knowledge; research; training

and publications.

The Johannesburg meeting also posed challenges for dif-

ferent actors including taking into account human rights

and equity issues; dealing with consumption-production

systems worldwide; ensuring technology transfer; reversing

the flow of financial resources from South to North; taking

into account the informal and non-monetised economy;

meeting basic resource needs of the poor; reconciling sec-

toral and integrated approaches; ensuring that investments

actually reach the poor; and balancing risk minimisation of

the poor with their need for access to markets.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to develop a better understand-

ing of poverty-environment linkages, and act on these. It is

of utmost importance that the human dimension of the

problem be the focus of research, analysis and actions. In a

rapidly globalising world, greater poverty will induce greater

human insecurity in all countries. The poor must be part of

the solution and their contribution must be recognised in

the global environmental discourse and the decision-making

processes. The discourse, initiated by GFEP in Rio (1992)

and continued at the WSSD (2002), offers an approach

towards addressing some of the most pressing questions of

the new millennium.

A. ATIQ RAHMAN is Executive Director of the Bangladesh

Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), Dhaka, Bangladesh;

e-mail: atiq.r@bdcom.com; www.bcas.net

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 5

poverty & environment

➤

P O V E R T Y & E N V I R O N M E N T L I N K A G E S

➤ Ever since the colonial era, “degradation narratives”have exercised considerable influence on understandings of

the relationship between population, poverty and environ-

mental degradation in the Global South. The basic story line

common to these narratives is that population pressures and

poverty precipitate environmental degradation. More

recently, environmental conflict theorists have extended the

causal chain to include migration and violent conflict. Vaclav

Smil humorously describes the resulting equation: “eroding

slopelands = environmental refugees = overcrowded cities =

political instability = violence” (1).

Degradation narratives largely view peasants and pas-

toralists as destroyers of the environment. This negative

stereotype has roots in colonial biases against native agricul-

tural practices. In areas of settler agriculture in eastern and

southern Africa, for example, land expropriation policies

were predicated on the perceived backwardness of African

peasants and the superiority of Western knowledge. In

Kenya, European settlers mounted a campaign in the 1920s

and 1930s to depict African agriculture as a scourge upon the

land. “The African people have never established a symbiot-

ic relationship with the land”, stated a witness before the

Kenyan Land Commission. “They are, in the strict scientific

sense, parasites on the land, all of them” (2).

The image of a backward and destructive peasantry car-

ried over into post-World War II development thinking, with

neo-Malthusian assumptions becoming increasingly promi-

nent. Within large international agencies such as the World

Bank, degradation narratives came to serve as a rationale for

both rural development and population control interven-

tions. A critique of Bank policy in Africa notes how the Bank

tended to ignore the great variety and complexity of African

agricultural practices, characterising them mainly as slash

and burn and nomadic livestock raising, both of which can

become destructive under conditions of high population

growth. Meanwhile, the Bank neglected the ecologically

damaging impact of the mechanised, chemical-intensive

farming it was promoting (3).

Despite important challenges from within the develop-

ment field, degradation narratives shaped the emerging con-

cept of sustainable development in the 1980s. Liberal sus-

tainable development advocates were more willing to

acknowledge the role of social and economic disparities,

such as unequal land distribution, in the creation of rural

poverty. But as their argument proceeded, these inequalities

would often fade from view. The poor made themselves even

poorer by having too many children, setting in motion a

vicious downward spiral of increasing poverty and environ-

mental degradation. The concept of “environmental

refugees” was added to the picture, with exaggerated claims

that there were 25 million such people whose migration

posed a major threat to international stability (4).

In the rethinking of security, which took place with the

end of the Cold War, the relationship between environment

and conflict received increasing attention in foreign policy

circles, especially in the U.S. The work of Canadian political

scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon was the most influential.

Homer-Dixon maintained that scarcities of renewable

resources such as cropland, fresh water, and forests, induced

in large part by population growth, contribute to migration

and violent intrastate conflict in many parts of the develop-

ing world. He embraced the degradation narrative:

“POPULATION GROWTH AND UNEQUAL ACCESS TO GOOD LAND

FORCE HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ONTO MARGINAL LANDS. THERE,

THEY CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND BECOME CHRONICALLY

POOR. EVENTUALLY, THEY MAY BE THE SOURCE OF PERSISTENT

UPHEAVAL, OR THEY MAY MIGRATE YET AGAIN, HELPING TO STIMU-

LATE ETHNIC CONFLICTS OR URBAN UNREST ELSEWHERE”. (5)

Homer-Dixon as well as others scholars and journalists

who shared this view helped elevate degradation narratives

into the high politics of national security. During the

Clinton administration, policy-makers in the State

Department as well as in military and intelligence agencies

often depicted the relationship between poverty, population

growth and the environment in the Global South with

degradation narratives.

Today, there is a growing body of scholarly literature,

which offers a more nuanced and complex view of this rela-

tionship. However, degradation narratives continue to circu-

late in population, environment and security circles, and it is

important to identify and challenge their basic assumptions.

Following are some key points of consideration.

Over-generalisation: The most obvious point to be made

is how degradation narratives ignore the great diversity in

both social systems and ecological conditions in the Global

South. Context, contingency, agency and specificity are sac-

rificed to a universalising one-size-fits-all model.

Localisation of blame: In focusing on poor peasants and

pastoralists as the destroyers of the environment, degrada-

tion narratives do not take into account other social, eco-

nomic and political forces, which may be strongly implicat-

ed. ‘Effective demand’ from elsewhere for a region’s natural

resources may drive environmental degradation much more

than local poverty or population growth. For example, the

crucial role of extractive industries – mining, timber,

agribusiness, etc. – does not figure in the story at all. Also

DEGRADATION NARRATIVESOver-simplifying the link between population, poverty and the environment | BY BETSY HARTMANN

D E G R A D A T I O N N A R R A T I V E S

6 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

poverty & environment

ignored are the complex interactions between resource

appropriation and power structures at the local, regional,

national and international levels (6).

Neo-Malthusian causality: The belief that population

pressure is automatically associated with both increased

poverty and environmental degradation is overly simplistic

and deterministic. Whether or not population pressure is

beneficial or damaging to the environment depends on a

host of intervening institutional and technological factors as

well as the nature of the particular environment in question.

Degradation narratives fail to take into account that

under some circumstances, population pressure may spur

agricultural innovation and intensification. While popula-

tion growth may decrease the size of landholdings, it can also

expand the family labour supply, encouraging more labour-

intensive cultivation and conservation techniques. Thus, a

study in Rwanda found that declining landholdings were

associated with more investments in soil conservation and

greater managed tree densities per unit of land (7).

Degradation narratives also ignore the possibility that

depopulation of an area may lead to environmental decline.

In Brazil many areas, depopulated by poor peasants because

of their lack of access to land and agricultural inputs, have

gone over to ecologically damaging extensive cattle raising,

industrial monoculture and logging. Similarly, in Mexico the

exodus of poor peas-

ants to urban areas

has led to the loss of

valuable micro-habi-

tats and crop genetic

diversity previously

sustained by their

labour (8, 9). Such is

the power of neo-

Malthusian reason-

ing, however, that in

some studies, such as

a 1999 UNEP report

on Africa, increases

in population densi-

ty are used as a proxy

for the location of

emerging environ-

mental threats (10).

Failure to consid-er livelihood diver-sification: Degradation narratives tend to promote a one-

dimensional view of the peasantry as living solely off the

land, ignoring the reality that many peasant households have

diversified livelihood strategies. In a village in Bangladesh,

e.g. one family may have different members engaged in agri-

cultural labour, petty trade, rickshaw driving, teaching and

service in the military. Income derived from non-agricultur-

al activities is often invested back in productivity-increasing

land improvements.

Degradation narratives also fail to differentiate types of

rural poverty and their relationship to environmental

change. Agrarian scholars have pointed out how poverty

cannot be treated as a single concept and that assets must be

broken down into specific categories. When households are

‘investment poor’, lacking the cash and human resources to

invest in maintenance or enhancement of the natural

resource base, then environmental degradation is more like-

ly to occur. However, there are many different reasons for

investment poverty, and analyses need to be time- and site-

specific. Moreover, the precise nature of the environmental

change in question must be specified (11).

Migration: Degradation narratives have a similar one-

dimensional view of migration as distress-generated and

generating. However, the causes of migration are extremely

complex and context-specific, and there is little evidence to

support the view that demographic pressure is at the root of

many population movements (12). Moreover, migration

from rural areas is often not a linear phenomenon or a rejec-

tion of rural livelihoods. Instead, it can be a vital part of sus-

taining them. A study in Vietnam found that internal migra-

tion is frequently circular and seasonal, with migrants

returning to the rural areas at harvest time. Their remit-

tances from urban jobs often help fund investments in agri-

cultural intensification, children’s education, etc., enhancing

the ecological and social resilience of the household (13).

Gender: Despite

lack of explicit atten-

tion to gender issues,

certain views of

women are implicit

in degradation nar-

ratives, especially

given the central and

negative role they

ascribe to population

growth. Subsumed

into the analytic

frame of population

pressure, women

through their fertili-

ty become the breed-

ers of environmental

destruction, poverty

and violence, and

controlling their fer-

tility becomes the

magic bullet solution. Women’s access to land and property

rights, labour obligations, roles in environmental resource

management, and relative status in the household and com-

munity are not part of the picture, even though gender

dynamics can have an important impact on agriculture and

the environment. Case studies in Africa note how in many

places women are making the day-to-day decisions about

agriculture when access to land is still invested in men, a

contradiction which can lead to agricultural stagnation (14).

D E G R A D A T I O N N A R R A T I V E S

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 7

poverty & environment

In many places women are making the day-to-day decisions aboutagriculture when access to land is still invested in men.

Phot

o:V.

A.Dy

ck

SCALING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGEThe urban poor and the displacement of urban environmental burdens | BY GORDON MCGRANAHAN

Degradation narratives not only misinform, but also can

have potentially negative policy consequences. Some inter-

national conservation organizations persist in blaming pop-

ulation growth and poverty disproportionately for environ-

mental degradation (15). This can lead to coercive conserva-

tion measures, where local people are forcibly denied access

to the resources on which their livelihoods depend, or to

population-environment projects where reducing fertility is

promoted as the main means of nature protection. Family

planning is thus removed from the health and human rights

context in which it should belong, with important implica-

tions for quality of care and reproductive choice.

Degradation narratives are one of the main obstacles

standing in the way of greater understanding and communi-

cation between northern and southern environmental schol-

ars and advocates. The time is long overdue to move beyond

them.

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website

at www.ihdp.org/update0402/references.htm

BETSY HARTMANN is Director of the Population and

Development Program at Hampshire College in Amherst,

MA, USA. She is a member of the Scientific Steering

Committee of the IHDP Project on Global Environmental

Change and Human Security (GECHS);

bhartmann@hampshire.edu

D E G R A D A T I O N N A R R A T I V E S / U R B A N C H A L L E N G E

8 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

poverty & environment

➤ Urban economic growth has been accompanied histori-cally by a shifting of environmental burdens, over space and

through time. This has helped to create a situation in which

many of the world’s urban poor face multiple burdens. A

large proportion lives in unhealthy local environments char-

acterised by a complex of interrelated risks, involving crowd-

ing, sanitary hazards, unsafe or insufficient water, indoor air

pollution, accumulations of waste and disease bearing pests.

Many live in areas also threatened by ‘modern’ risks that can

be brought on by environmentally negligent industrialisa-

tion and motorisation. Increasingly, the urban poor also live

under the threat of global risks such as climate change. They

still tend to be healthier than their counterparts in past cen-

turies, at least in part, because they are far more knowledge-

able than past generations about the risks they face locally

and how to avoid them. However, they not only face more

serious environmental health risks than affluent groups, but

the share of their mortality and morbidity that can be

ascribed to environmental causes is also higher.

Given the multiple risks they face, one might expect the

urban poor to be among the main beneficiaries of the

increasing international concern about the environment.

Unfortunately, the environmental risks that affect them the

most are not those on the top of the international environ-

mental agenda – partly because the risks that fall most heav-

ily on the poor tend to be localised and longstanding, rather

than global and newly emerging. Similar tendencies exist at

national and city levels. A colleague of mine summarised the

situation as follows:

“THE ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS OF POVERTY ARE SUFFERED BY

THE POOR AND DEALT WITH BY THE POOR. THE ENVIRONMENTAL

BURDENS OF AFFLUENCE ARE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AND DEALT

WITH BY THE GOVERNMENT.” (MARIANNE KJÉLLEN, STOCKHOLM

ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE)

The concept of sustainable development was intended,

among other things, to reconcile the poverty and environ-

ment agendas. It has been successful in many respects, but has

led to misrepresentation of the environmental implications

of urban poverty and environmental interests of the urban

poor. From the time of the Brundtland Commission’s influ-

ential report Our Common Future (1987), proponents of sus-

tainable development have been inclined to treat poverty as

“a major cause and effect of global environmental problems”.

This has been very misleading. The urban poor do not con-

tribute significantly to global environmental problems,

although they may be associated with local environmental

problems that are very widespread. Alternatively, global envi-

ronmental problems like climate change may lead to more

human hardship among the urban poor than among more

affluent urban dwellers. This does not imply that placing such

issues at the centre of the international environmental agen-

da is ‘pro-poor’ (the urban poor are also likely to suffer more

when there is a stock market crisis, but that does not mean

that economic policies designed to protect stock values are

pro-poor.) In order to understand the relationship between

urban poverty and the environment, it is important to distin-

guish between different types of environmental problems.

➤

Poor people living in the streets of Calcutta

➤

FAO/

G.Bi

zzar

ri

URBAN ECONOMIC STATUS

AND THE SCALE OF URBAN

ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS

Data on urban per capita income

and urban environmental burdens

are scarce and often of dubious

quality. The evidence that exists

does indicate, however, that cities in

more affluent countries tend to cre-

ate more spatially extensive and

temporally delayed environmental

burdens. More specifically, the fol-

lowing stylised facts are indicated:

➤ Local environmental burdens,

with an immediate impact on

human health, tend to be more

prevalent in the cities of low-

income countries and particularly

their poorest neighbourhoods.

These include indoor air pollution

from cooking fires, inadequate

access to water and sanitary facili-

ties, and accumulations of solid

waste in and around people’s

homes.

➤ Citywide and regional environ-

mental burdens, often combining

immediate health and longer-term

ecological impacts, tend to be more

prevalent in and around cities in

middle-income countries. Such

problems also tend to be linked to

city-size, and are particularly severe in and around megacities.

They include ambient air pollution, the release of untreated

sewage into water bodies, and unsanitary dumpsites.

➤ Activities that contribute to global environmental burdens,

often threatening the world’s life support systems and future

generations, tend to be more prevalent in cities in high-income countries. These include the emissions of greenhouse

gases and the consumption of resource and waste intensive

products.

The implied relations between economic status and the

scale of urban environmental burdens are summarised in the

highly stylised curves of Fig. 1. Such curves only account for

part of an existing inter-urban variation, and simply hide

intra-urban variation. Classifying urban environmental bur-

dens by their scale is itself problematic. Poor household san-

itation (an archetypal small-scale problem) can help trigger

large scale pandemics. But most important, these curves

reflect predispositions, not causal relations. There is no pre-

determined environmental trajectory that economically

developing cities must go through. The lessons contained in

these curves have more to do with urban environmental

challenges that must be overcome than with development

paths that can or should be followed.

It is not surprising that the share of the urban population,

facing serious environmental hazards in and around their

homes, has tended to decline with economic growth. In the

19th century, such hazards were common even in the most

affluent cities. For much of the century they were very poor-

ly understood, despite causing enormous public health

problems. They nevertheless became the principle target of

the sanitary and public health movements. By the early 20th

century, universal access to piped water, sewerage systems,

waste collection, and clean fuels became a realistic aspiration

in most affluent cities. A range of relatively standardised

technologies and institutional mechanisms for providing

and servicing these facilities have been developed. In today’s

cities, wealthier people can better afford the facilities

required to avoid localised environmental risks, and wealth-

ier governments can better afford to ensure that they are

made available and used, if private incentives are insuffi-

cient.

Nor is it surprising that the resource consumption and

waste generation that drives global environmental burdens

are associated with urban affluence. The risks of global

resource depletion and waste generation including, e.g.

greenhouse gas emissions, have only recently gained wide-

spread recognition. The effects are delayed and remain high-

ly uncertain. International mechanisms, needed to ensure

that there are suitable incentives for preventive action,

remain rudimentary and heavily disputed. Wealthier people

can afford to consume more resources and produce more

U R B A N C H A L L E N G E

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 9

poverty & environment

Global

(e.g. Carbon Emissions) Local

(e.g. Sanitation)

Increasing Wealth

Increasing Severity

Poor Settlements Wealthy Settlements

Local

Immediate

Threaten Health Directly

Global

Delayed

Threaten Life Support Systems

Shifting Environmental Health Burdens

From Sanitation to Sustainability

City-Regional

(e.g. Ambient Air)

Fig. 1. A Stylised Urban Environmental TransitionSource: G. McGranahan, P. Jacobi, J. Songsore, C. Surjadi, and M. Kjellén, 2001, The

Citizens at Risk: From Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities, Earthscan, London

waste, and wealthy governments still have relatively little

incentive to prevent their own citizens from doing so.

The rise and fall of the mid-scale burdens, e.g. ambient

concentrations of ambient air pollution, pollution of local

water ways, and urban waste disposal problems, is surprising

and empirically debatable. The poorest cities are not suffi-

ciently motorised or industrialised to create serious ambient

air pollution problems. They do not have the sewers and

drains, or solid waste generation and collection systems to cre-

ate large citywide waste disposal problems. On the other hand,

many cities in affluent countries have implemented control

measures that, together with a shift away from industry and

into services, have led to appreciable improvements in recent

decades. This can leave middle-income cities, and particularly

large industrialised middle-income cities, with serious mid-

scale problems. This pattern was documented for several

forms of urban air pollution in the early 1990s, and was

labelled the environmental Kuznets curve.

Affluence has historically been based on activities that cre-

ate environmental ‘pressures’, but also has brought greater

capacity to avoid the adverse consequences. The local priority

has been to address the more discernible, immediate and

proximate consequences, which tend to affect local residents.

In some cases, local environmental pressures have been

reduced by drawing on more distant resources, searching for

more distant waste sinks, or simply dispersing the pollution in

the air or water. Affluence has helped urban centres address

local and immediate burdens, but has brought greater pres-

sures with more distant or delayed consequences. It has there-

by come to be associated with more spatially extensive and

temporally delayed environmental burdens.

ECOLOGICAL INSIGHTS ON SCALE

In ecology, scale is increasingly recognised as a critical

aspect of system dynamics. Two simple, yet important insights

arising from ecosystems analysis are: 1) ‘big’ processes are

often ‘slow’, while ‘small’ processes are often ‘fast’; and 2) scale

is not politically neutral, and the selection of scales may priv-

ilege certain actors or groups. Both of these ecological insights

are relevant to the stylised curves in Fig. 1. The environmental

burdens of urban poverty involve ‘small’, ‘fast’ processes that

threaten the health of the urban poor themselves, while those

of urban affluence involve ‘big’, ‘slow’ processes that threaten

the life support systems of future generations. Thus, when

they focus on large-scale processes, international environ-

mental policy-makers are not simply focusing on a scale

appropriate to their international mandate, but are (inten-

tionally or unintentionally) privileging the concerns of the

affluent and of future generations over those of the poor. To

make matters worse, processes operating at different scales are

intimately related. Without at least a rough understanding of

these relations, and explicit attention to the ‘small’, ‘fast’

processes, it is difficult to see how the inherently multi-scaled

urban environmental challenges can be addressed equitably

and efficiently.

ECONOMIC INSIGHTS ON SCALE

From an economic perspective the scales of environmental

burdens are also critically important, particularly as they often

involve increasingly extensive ‘externalities’ or public ‘bads’. In

the urban context, the failure to take account of global envi-

ronmental impacts is a longstanding problem, historically

experienced at sub-global scales. Urban activities often have

their most serious environmental consequences outside of the

localities where they take place, whether it is a latrine pollut-

ing neighbours’ wells, a textile mill polluting the river for

downstream users, or the release of CFCs contributing to

ozone depletion in the stratosphere. These environmental

risks involve unintended consequences of human activity and

the complex interplay of physical and socio-economic sys-

tems. They often transcend the spatial boundaries of property

systems and public administration. They do not simply reflect

human preferences at different levels of economic develop-

ment. Narrow-minded proponents of economic growth may

argue that there is no need to address urban environmental

burdens directly, since as cities become more affluent, the

problems of the past will eventually decline. This not only

neglects the changing spatial scale of urban environmental

burdens, but is also bad economics. The local environmental

externalities that plague the urban poor can be just as signifi-

cant as the city-level externalities brought on by industrialisa-

tion and motorisation, or the global externalities brought on

by high material consumption levels.

GORDON MCGRANAHAN is Director of the Human Settlements

Programme at the International Institute for Environment

and Development (IIED), London, UK;

gordon.mcgranahan@iied.org; www.iied.org

U R B A N C H A L L E N G E

1 0 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

poverty & environment

➤ The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of theInternational Human Dimensions Programme on GlobalEnvironmental Change and its research community.

UPDATE is prepared by the IHDP Secretariat Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany.

EDITOR: Elisabeth Dyck, IHDP; elisabeth.dyck@chello.at

LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn,Germany

UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATE

may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Pleasesend a copy of any reproduced material to the IHDPSecretariat.

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyrepresent the position of IHDP or its sponsoringorganisations.

➤

JEANNE KASPERSON †

Jeanne Kasperson died in August 2002. Throughout hercareer, Professor Kasperson was an active researcher, pur-suing scholarly interests on human-environment linkages,and in particular global environmental risk assessment.Her contributions to the IHDP research agenda, especiallyin the area of Vulnerability, will be sorely missed.Our sympathies go to her husband, Roger Kasperson, andher family.

➤ Akin L. Mabogunje is Director of the DevelopmentPolicy Centre (DPC) in Ibadan, Nigeria. Since 1998, theCentre has been promoting a strategy of poverty reductionthrough city consultation, a process to build consensusamong key stakeholders, including the urban poor. TheDPC has implemented this strategy in Ijebu-Ode, a citywith about 200,000 inhabitants in the southwest ofNigeria.

Q: Professor Mabogunje, why are city consultations held andwho is involved?

A city consultation tries to bring together all stakeholders in

a city – those who are affected by priority issues, including the

urban poor, and those who have the relevant information,

expertise and implementation instruments. You need to involve

all stakeholders in a participatory process of decision-making

that should lead to reducing poverty. If you concentrate only on

one group, e.g. farmers, traders or market gardeners, there will

be a gap. The traders have to know what the farmers are doing.

Stakeholders can include, e.g. trade associations, co-operatives,

mechanics, welders, market women and artisan groups.

Religious leaders have to be involved in the process, as well as

the elite of a city or country. This is particularly useful if you

want to build capacity and raise funding. It is important to

stress the interdependence between the various stakeholders

and give them a vision of what should be achieved.

Q: Who developed this strategy for poverty reduction andwhat does it involve?

The strategy was developed within one of the UN Centre for

Human Settlement’s (Habitat) global programmes, the joint

UNCHS-UNDP Urban Management Programme. Its aim is to

improve the capacity of cities with environmental and poverty

problems. Habitat (www.unhabitat.org) provided a grant to

the DPC, and we chose the city of Ijebu-Ode in Nigeria to

implement it. The strategy includes accepting that participation

is central to poverty reduction; it is not just talking to people,

but involving them in the process. First, we establish a “poverty

profile” of a city, then we hold a series of mini-consultations

and third, we plan and hold the formal city consultation. A suc-

cessful consultation will be followed by concrete actions.

Q: How did this process work in Ijebu-Ode?

We first conducted a study to establish the poverty profile of

the city, i.e. we tried to identify who and where the poor are and

what they are doing. This was a three-day process. We put

everybody into the picture and divided people in working

groups to decide on available resources, how to get more jobs

and money, and evaluate the infrastructure of the city, its socio-

economic strength and the government situation. We had four

groups with chairs and deputy chairs, one male, one female, and

a rapporteur each. The participants could choose to which

group they wanted to contribute. We also held a series of mini-

consultations to explain the

process, the interdependence

between various stakeholders, and

why it is important to get every-

body together to come and con-

sult.

A city consultation is only the

beginning of a process. At the end

of the consultation, we held a plenary session with reports by all

groups. A committee was set up, including chairs, deputy chairs

and rapporteurs, who worked with a team from the DPC to

develop an action plan. This plan included recommendations,

such as setting up a Development Board for poverty reduction.

To make sure that different stakeholders were represented, there

were in total 30 people on the Board, including some members

of the elite. Their task was to help raise local funding. They

worked with the traditional ruler of the town, the Awujale of

Ijebu-Ode, to establish a fundraising campaign. The Awujale

also provided an office for the Board in his palace. The Board,

of which I am a trustee, chose a chairman, a retired civil servant

whose integrity is unquestionable. When the action plan was

launched, distinguished sons and daughters of the country, i.e.

industrialists and bankers from larger cities came together. The

event brought nine million Nira (ca. US$ 100,000); half of it

came from the government. This fund is being used now to

support community projects. The Board submits a report each

year, and its launching has turned into a town festival, because

every stakeholder group attends.

Q: What in particular did this action plan include?

The Board decided on the number of programmes, such as

identifying industries that we can use to alleviate poverty. We

also set up training programmes. The training participants had

to pay a small amount, ca. 100 Nira (50-70 US cents), because

the Board decided that if you do not pay for something you do

not value it. The payment becomes a measure of commitment

to show that people were able to improve their productivity.

Even poor people have money, but they may not have it when

they need it.

One of the industries we identified was the fruit processing

industry, in particular pineapples. Participants were trained

how to grow pineapples. Also, a pharmaceutical company need-

ed honey as an ingredient, so people were taught how to keep

bees; other training programmes focused on poultry breeding

and on training market women in micro-financing. There was

also a spillover from each project. For example, the poultry

keepers needed cages, and so welders made the cages to keep the

chickens; the beekeepers needed special clothes, which the

women could sew, and manufacturing beehives provided work

for carpenters - all these projects created more jobs.

After the training the participants had to prove that they

could manage their own business, and they could borrow from

the launching money. A community bank was engaged to be the

CITY CONSULTATION:

A STRATEGY FOR POVERTY REDUCTION

A K I N L . M A B O G U N J E

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 1 1

interview

Phot

o:A.

L.M

abog

unje

lending institution, and the Board recommended to the bank

who should get a loan. The demand on the bank increased

tremendously and by now, the launching money has been used

up for loans.

Q: What are the long-term benefits of city consultation inefforts to alleviate poverty?

The long-term benefits are not only alleviation of poverty,

but also discussions of city problems. This is important for a

participatory process in the country. It also relates to accounta-

bility, as external auditors audit the accounts. I was at the gen-

eral meeting last year, and the spirits were fantastic. Now the

town has added health to its agenda and is looking into ways to

improve the health of its inhabitants.

Q: Is it planned to hold city consultations in other towns aswell?

City consultations have also started in the northern part of

Nigeria, in Mena, a town larger than Ijebu-Ode, with about

400,000 inhabitants. Activities started there about a year ago,

and by now the action plan is ready. In Tamale and Tema, two

cities in Ghana, the consultation process has begun only this

year and is at the first step of getting local institutions involved

in developing a poverty profile and identifying stakeholders.

The DPC serves as the “anchor” institution for the Urban

Management Programme in Anglophone Africa, which

includes Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Gambia and Liberia and

cooperates with other organisations in these countries.

Q: What, in your view, are the main advantages of city con-sultations?

Poverty means disempowerment, i.e. that people are unable

to fend for themselves, and society does not provide an enabling

environment for them. City consultation means empowerment

– the poor are included in discussions of the town’s develop-

ment and their own conditions. It is the first time they feel they

have a part to play in the process, also about issues of environ-

mental change or health, e.g. waste disposal. It means finding

relevant and socially robust solutions within the community.

The poor are mainly concerned with livelihood. City consulta-

tion creates a framework to build trust in an internal dialogue.

It helps people discover their own strengths and improve their

livelihood.

INTERVIEW BY ELISABETH DYCK

A K I N L . M A B O G U N J E

1 2 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

interview

2003 OPEN MEETING OF THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE RESEARCH COMMUNITY16-18 October 2003 Montreal, Canada

TAKING STOCK AND MOVING FORWARD

Following a decade of sustained interdisciplinary research on the human dimensions of global change, this is an appropriate timeto assess the fruits of our efforts. Are we achieving cumulative, progressive research findings? Are we enhancing the set of method-ologies at our disposal? Are we generating useful knowledge for decision-makers? Are we developing effective mechanisms for bridg-ing disciplinary divides?

Plenary speakers at the 5th Open Meeting will address these questions in the context of major areas of human dimensions research.The organisers also invite submission of focused “stock-taking” panels that take stock of particular areas of human dimensionsresearch such as land-use/land-cover change, integrated assessment, population, environmental security, industrial transformation,institutions, environmental economics, and others. These panels should consist of 3-4 paper presenters, a chair and a discussant.Abstracts for each paper are required along with an abstract for the panel. Proposals to submit individual research papers are also wel-come. These may be on any area within the broad human dimensions research agenda. Poster sessions will be held as well.

Participation of researchers from a broad range of disciplines is expected. Researchers from developing countries and countries witheconomies in transition, as well as young researchers from all over the world are especially encouraged to submit proposals. Effortswill be made to provide financial support to participants from these categories, if their abstracts are selected for presentation at themeeting. Representatives of other communities, such as NGOs, business and government, are also welcome.

The 5th Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community will be hostedby the McGill School of Environment. It is organised by an international science planning committee, co-chaired by Peter Brown,McGill School of Environment, Canada, and Marc A. Levy, CIESIN, Columbia University, USA. The meeting is sponsored by theCenter for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University, the Inter-American Institute forGlobal Change Research (IAI) and the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP).

Updated information about the Open Meeting, as well as registration details and procedures for submitting presentation propos-als will be available at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/openmeeting.Presentation proposals will be accepted at this website beginning January 1, 2003. The deadline for submissions is March 30, 2003.

➤

2 0 0 3 O P E N M E E T I N G

➤ The Philippines, a small nation with more than 7,000islands in Southeast Asia, was one of the first countries to

take action on the Agenda 21 process initiated during the

Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in 1992. It formulated its

own national Agenda 21 in a highly participatory process.

This document was endorsed by the Cabinet in 1996 and

received wide support from various sectors. Despite this,

however, the state of the Philippine environment, evidenced

by various kinds of environmental problems, has reached an

unmanageable level. Among the problems are extensive

deforestation, pervasive and health-impairing pollution,

indiscriminate discharge of mine tailings and other pollu-

tants into rivers and lakes, destruction of coastal and marine

ecosystems, massive pesticide poisonings, degradation and

erosion of agricultural land, siltation of rivers and farmland,

salt water intrusion into aquifers and loss of biodiversity.

The country’s declining environmental quality manifests

itself in the frequent occurrence of environmental disasters,

such as destructive floods and landslides during rainy sea-

sons, prolonged drought during dry seasons, and large-scale

poisoning and death of fish and other aquatic resources.

These in turn claim human lives and destroy valuable infra-

structure and property including poor people’s major

sources of livelihood. Even the gains of economic growth are

being diminished or negated by the numerous forms of envi-

ronmental disasters. From 1988 to 1992, the Philippine gov-

ernment had to obtain a total of US$ 731 million worth of

forestry sector loans to rehabilitate what can be considered

as one of the world’s greatest forest plunders after World War

II. Similarly, the costs of restoring water and air are equally

high, estimated at a minimum of US$ 680 million and 320

million, respectively. Unless the deteriorating environmen-

tal situation can be stopped, its adverse impacts will strong-

ly affect the economy, rendering elusive the pursuit towards

sustainable development.

While adverse environmental change has negative reper-

cussions on the entire Philippine population, the most severe

impact is on the lives of the poor, who constitute about 70%

of the country’s total population (ca. 80 million). Poor peo-

ple are most vulnerable to environmental disturbance – they

have low income, are less able to save and accumulate assets,

and are often powerless. They usually fail to build social net-

works, avail of credit facilities, and access social and other

forms of formal assistance. These limitations restrict their

capacity to cope with adverse impacts of environmental risks

and disasters. This involves a decline in socio-economic

well-being, including lost property and lives, physical isola-

tion, population displacement, and cultural disintegration

leading to a loss of indigenous knowledge systems and fur-

ther contributing to environmental degradation.

Current government policies and programmes to reduce

the vulnerability of the poor to adverse environmental

impacts have only had limited success. A three-pronged

strategy is recommended to improve present performance:

➤ develop a more responsive policy and practice of com-

munity-based resource and environmental management;

➤ conduct intensive and continuing public environmental

education; and

➤ strengthen support for research and development.

At the policy level, efforts should be made to improve the

present approach to policy formulation and implementa-

tion. Policy formulation should focus more on the develop-

ment of an institutionalised mechanism that builds consen-

sus and wide representation among stakeholders, including

the poor. Such mechanism or process should also strength-

en the link between science and policy, with scientific infor-

mation as the basis for policy decisions. Monitoring and

feedback mechanisms should be instituted to determine

compliance and ensure policy relevance at the ground level.

Field implementation of the different community-based

resource management initiatives should likewise be

improved to be more responsive to the needs and priorities

of the poor.

A continuing environmental education at all levels should

also be vigorously pursued to increase awareness among the

entire population about environmental issues and mobilise

them to action. Environmental activities should be incorpo-

rated in school/university curricula at all levels and possibly

in the programmes of government agencies, NGOs and the

private sector. The media should likewise be motivated to

educate the pubic about environmental issues.

Finally, support to research and development should be

strengthened. One way to do this is to require large foreign-

assisted environmental programmes and projects to include

R&D as one of the components of field implementation.

South-North research collaboration could likewise be

tapped to build the capacity of local researchers and provide

additional resources.

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website

at www.ihdp.org/update0402/references.htm

JUAN M. PULHIN is Associate Professor and Associate Dean

of the College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University

of the Philippines, Los Baños, Philippines;

jpulhin@laguna.net

E N V I R O M E N T A L C H A N G E & V U L N E R A B I L I T Yyoung scientist research

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND VULNERABILITYA strategy for the Philippines | BY JUAN M. PULHIN

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 1 3

➤

➤

➤ Nutrient depletion is reaching alarming levels in sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of farmers extract nutrients mainly

through harvested crops, without replenishing them through

inorganic or organic fertilisers. Policy-makers and researchers

have raised concerns that nutrient depletion contributes to declin-

ing yields, with serious consequences for food security and house-

hold welfare. Consideration of these problems led to important

research questions: why do poor farmers mine their soils? Why do

they not invest in environmentally sound land management prac-

tices that would guarantee higher yields in the future?

Uganda is among the countries with the highest levels of

nutrient depletion in sub-Saharan Africa and therefore an inter-

esting location to explore these issues. For this purpose, the

research project “Policies for Improved Land Management in

Uganda”, funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic

Cooperation and Development, was initiated in Uganda. Its

immediate objective was to assist policy-makers in identifying

and assessing policy, institutional and technological strategies for

improved land management.

Two comprehensive household surveys were carried out in

two villages in eastern Uganda. These data were used to develop

a bio-economic simulation model that reflects the objectives and

constraints of farm households in the region. The model com-

putes the optimal choice of farming activities and quantifies the

financial consequences at household level. It also includes a yield

estimator and nutrient balances to assess the ecological impacts

of these farming practices. The model results reveal the main rea-

son why farm households do not pursue sustainable, intensive

agricultural production as an appropriate strategy: it is not prof-

itable under current socio-economic and agro-ecological condi-

tions. Low economic incentives to adopt improved land manage-

ment practices are due to market imperfections reflected in high

transaction and transportation costs and insufficient access to

financial loans. Consequently, farmers adopt a strategy of ration-

al soil mining. Even with the introduction of new fertilizer tech-

nologies and the provision of credit, non-negative nutrient bal-

ances are not feasible for most households. Only drastic changes

in input and output prices would induce the farm households to

conserve their soil nutrient stocks while simultaneously satisfying

their consumption needs. Significant improvements in the socio-

economic environment are essential to successfully promote

intensive agricultural production in a sustainable manner. The

effectiveness of direct market interventions, such as subsidies, is

often limited due to enforcement problems. Moreover, they dis-

tort the private costs of resource use. But direct market interven-

tions should not be ignored as a complementary policy measure,

considering the substantial price changes needed to adopt new

technologies. Implemening measures that aim at reducing trans-

action and transportation costs will affect the market in the

longer run, and fertilizer subsidies may be a suitable option dur-

ing a transition period. As for the policy efforts to modernise

agricultural production by increasing the production of high

value crops, the simulation experiments indicate incompatibili-

ties between private and social goals. Although modernisation

has a positive effect on farm incomes, it leads to increased soil

nutrient depletion, because some nutrients are not adequately

replenished by the technologies adopted.

Several policy conclusions can be derived from the bio-eco-

nomic model. First, the model results strongly encourage the

completion of market reforms in Uganda. The process of market

liberalisation has removed some major distortions, but has not

been sufficient to create a business environment, which enables

private trade, nor has it succeeded in linking small farms to high

value markets. More public investment in market institutions,

e.g. market information systems, and in finance and contract

enforcement should be undertaken. Second, the model results

emphasise that the provision of credit alone does not necessarily

lead to sustainable farming practices. Policy programmes that

combine access to new technologies, credit and training/educa-

tion need to be designed. The Ugandan micro-finance pro-

gramme Entandikwa seems to be a potential starting point to

provide also poor farmers with loans. Third, more agricultural

research is needed to search for better targeted technologies that

will allow farm households to intensify their agricultural produc-

tion without increasing nutrient extraction. Several national

research institutions are carrying out encouraging field experi-

ments, but more efforts and funding are required to revitalize

R&D in Uganda.

JOHANNES WOELCKE was a junior researcher at the Center for

Development Research (ZEF) in Bonn, Germany. In November

2002 he joined the CGIAR-Secretariat at the World Bank.

j.woelcke@uni-bonn.de; www.zef.de

SOIL MINING IN EASTERN UGANDA(In)compatibilities between poverty reduction and sustainable land management at the farm

household level | BY JOHANNES WOELCKE

S O I L M I N I N G I N U G A N D Ayoung scientist research

1 4 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

Better targeted technologies would allow farm households tointensify their agricultural production without increasing

nutrient extraction.

➤

Phot

o:J.

Woe

lcke

➤ Research discussions within the Scientific SteeringCommittee (SSC) of the LUCC Project have revealed that over

the last few years our understanding of the patterns and drivers

of land-use change has been altered in a major way (1). Efforts

are now focusing on producing syntheses of knowledge on areas

of rapid land-cover change and on integrating rates of change

with causal patterns.

META-ANALYSES OF THE CAUSES OF LAND-USECHANGE

The quest for new knowledge on the causes of land-use

change is met through a network of case studies that represent

the variety of human-environment conditions and multiple

organisational levels influencing land-use change. A two-fold

approach has been taken. First, additional case studies have been

developed, as can be seen from the portfolio of an increased

number of scientific investigations through endorsed proj-

ects and regional networks (see “research” at

www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC). In these case studies, linking house-

hold–level information to remote sensing data has become an

important tool to increase our understanding of land-use

dynamics (2). Second, synthesis of knowledge through compara-

tive analysis of cases has been broadened and improved in the

form of meta-analyses, i.e. statistical techniques to synthesize

results from individual studies. On tropical deforestation, e.g., it

has been found that a set of recurrent, underlying driving forces

(demographic, technological, economic, political, and cultural

factors) is contributing to a limited set of proximate causes (agri-

cultural expansion, infrastructure extension, wood extraction),

with clear regional distinctions of the patterns of causal synergy

(3). On drylands, it has been found that many more properties

of systems dynamics (thresholds, feedback loops) are inherent to

desertification, mainly due to the coupled impact of human

causes and biophysical factors. Slow dryland change have been

quantified and distinguished from fast changes, thus supporting

empirically the Dahlem paradigm, stating that ‘desertification‘ is

a process of sudden or gradual decline in the slow variables gov-

erning collectively the trajectory towards (non)sustainable land

use (4). On agricultural change, the importance of widely-theo-

rised causal factors, including population growth and market

demand, were confirmed, though the effects of these factors are

always modulated by a set of institutional factors, especially

property regimes and government and non-governmental pro-

grammes. Strong regional trends are evident, e.g. in the nature of

changes in property regimes, with the Latin American experience

with land reform quite distinct from trends in the privatisation of

communal land holdings in Africa. In addition, a diffuse set of

equity issues, including economic and gender differentiation, are

strong factors explaining which farmers change their production

systems.

GLOBAL SYNTHESIS OF THE AREAS OF RAPID LAND-COVER CHANGE

Joint efforts of LUCC, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

(MEA), and Global Observations of Land Dynamics

(GOLD/GOFC) have arrived at a synthesis of the areas affected

by rapid land-cover change during the last fifteen to twenty years

per various change classes. The exercise, based on existing data-

bases, helps to focus attention on the areas experiencing the most

significant land-cover changes (‘hot spots’) and to identify

change processes for which poor information and data are avail-

able. A synthesis of all previous research on the subject at region-

al to global scales (e.g. deforestation, intensification, soil degrada-

tion, desertification, urban expansion, exceptional fires) is being

carried out. The final product is a recent 1km resolution global

land-cover base map (GLC2000) on which the areas affected by

significant land-cover change are identified by colour codes for

different processes of land-cover change. For each change patch,

a description of the nature of the change, date, causes, impacts,

detection method and references is included. It complements the

improvements carried out on longer-term cover analyses (5).

OUTLOOK

In its seventh year, the LUCC Project is about to integrate sci-

ence outcomes on global land-use change (Focus 1) with those

on global land-cover dynamics (Focus 2), and develop regional

and global models; this will provide the wider science communi-

ty with quantitative, spatially explicit data for scenario develop-

ment. The concept of land-use transitions is being developed to

support such scenario development. The work of meta-analysing

causal synergies and synthesising rates of change is crucial for the

next decade of integrated land change research (6, 7).

REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website atwww.ihdp.org/update0402/references.htm

HELMUT GEIST (Executive Officer, geist@geog.ucl.ac.be) and

ERIKA LEEPERS (Science Officer, lepers@geog.ucl.ac.be) are with

the LUCC International Project Office;

ERIC LAMBIN (lambin@geog.ucl.ac.be) is Chair of the LUCC

Scientific Steering Committee; all: University of Louvain,

Belgium, www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC;

WILLIAM MCCONNELL is with the LUCC Focus 1 Office, Indiana

University, Bloomington, USA; wjmcconn@indiana.edu;

NAVIN RAMANKUTTY is a researcher at the Center for

Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), University of

Wisconsin, Madison, USA; nramanku@facstaff.wisc.edu

LAND-USE AND LAND-COVER CHANGEMeta-analyses of the causes and synthesis of the rates of change |

BY HELMUT GEIST, ERIKA LEPERS, WILLIAM MCCONNELL, ERIC LAMBIN, NAVIN RAMANKUTTY

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 1 5

core projects

The pace, magnitude and spatial reach of human alterations

of the Earth’s land surface are unprecedented. To understand

recent changes and generate scenarios on future modifications

of the Earth system, the scientific community needs quantita-

tive, spatially explicit data on how land cover has been

changed by human use over the last 300 years, and how it will

be changed in the next 50-100 years.

L U C C

➤

➤

➤ The IT Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) met for thethird time – this time in Bonn, Germany, at the end of May 2002,

following a successful workshop on Industrial Transformation

research in Germany. The SSC identified several important tools

and activities to assess the success of the IT Project, such as IT

publications, endorsed projects and events and web site hits. It

also discussed tentative plans for an international conference in

2004 and fellowship awards.

In view of the geographical scope of the endorsed projects, the

SSC decided to hold IT workshops in Germany, Scandinavia,

Central and Eastern Europe, South Asia and the USA, to identify

and/or initiate international IT projects and develop a more sys-

tematic cooperation between national and international IT

research groups worldwide. The German workshop proved that

there is already much research being carried out in the area of

Industrial Transformation at a national level, which needs to be

promoted and linked to international science. At a recent work-

shop in Twente on “Transitions towards Sustainability through

System Innovation”, international researchers discussed the

nature and ways transitions are induced. They also tried to deter-

mine whether transformations can be managed at all, as many of

them occur regardless of whether they are desired or not.

‘Partnerships’ with other programmes and research institutes

were considered as a means to strengthen the IT network and

improve cooperation with organisations that pursue similar

goals. In addition to endorsing projects and workshops, the SSC

decided to create a category ‘IHDP-IT partner institutes’. Such

partner institutes are programmes and organisations which also

promote research on alternative development pathways that pose

a significantly smaller burden to the environment; have at least

two research areas in common with IT; are internationally ori-

ented and financed; and/or undertake research that addresses

questions of the IT Science Plan.

Finally the SSC has advised me to create an IT bibliography

for each of the IT research foci and compile the most cited IT sci-

entific publications. An interactive reference manager should be

available on our website in spring 2003. The next issue of

UPDATE (1/2003) will focus on research on transformations

towards sustainability, with highlights from endorsed projects

and workshops of IT. More information and updates on the IT

Project are available at the IT website:

www.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/

ANNA J. WIECZOREK is Executive Officer, International Project

Office of the IHDP Project on Industrial Transformation (IT);

anna.j.wieczorek@ivm.vu.nl;www.vu.nl./ivm/research/ihdp-it/

➤ GECHS is pleased to announce it has forged a partner-ship with Procter & Gamble (Canada) for an initial two-

year period, which commenced in mid-2002. This partner-

ship, in conjunction with support from Carleton University,

provides much needed stability for the IPO. P&G’s support

is founded upon its sustainable development initiatives

(www.pg.com/canada/), which emphasise that improving

human livelihood and security must be based on integrating

economic progress with social development and environ-

mental protection. This partnership will enable the GECHS

IPO to improve its capacity to foster international research

and leadership in the area of global change and human secu-

rity. P&G sponsorship is used primarily to support a full-

time Executive Officer. Dr. Maureen Woodrow has come to

the GECHS Project from the University of Ottawa where she

was Coordinator of Research Initiatives for the Institute of

the Environment at that University. The P&G sponsorship

also includes a graduate scholarship. Paul Steenhof is the

inaugural recipient of the P&G-GECHS graduate scholar-

ship. He has commenced PhD studies at Carleton University

and his research focuses on energy security issues.

Changes in GECHS Staff and SSC Membership: Ann

Zurbrigg, the University of Victoria Project Officer, will leave

the GECHS team in late 2002 following the SSC meeting in

November. The GECHS SSC would like to thank Ann for her

tremendous contribution to the Project since its inception in

June 1999. In addition, GECHS would like to thank two

departing members of the SSC, Dr. Chou Meng Tarr of

Cambodia and Dr. Okechukwu Obeanu of Nigeria and also

welcome Dr. Karen O’ Brien, a Senior Research Fellow at

CICERO in Oslo, Norway, and Dr. Kwasi Nsiah-Gyabaah,

Principal of Sunyani Polytechnic in Ghana. Dr. O’Brien’s

research focuses on relationships between globalisation and

the environmental and social vulnerability to global envi-

ronmental change. Dr. Nsiah-Gyabaah’s research pro-

gramme investigates relationships amongst poverty, envi-

ronmental degradation and sustainable development.

MIKE BRKLACICH is Chair of the Scientific Steering

Committee of the IHDP Project on Global Environmental

Change and Human Security (GECHS);

mbrklac@ccs.carleton.ca

MAUREEN WOODROW is Executive Officer, International

Project Office of the IHDP GECHS Project;

mwoodrow@ccs.carleton.ca; www.gechs.org

IT SSC CONVENES

IN BONN| BY ANNA J. WIECZOREK

I T / G E C H S

1 6 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

core projects

A NEW SPONSOR

FOR GECHS IPO| BY MIKE BRKLACICH AND

MAUREEN WOODROW

➤

➤

➤

➤ In Update No. 3/2001, we reported on the efforts of thefour global environmental change (GEC) programmes, i.e. IGBP,

IHDP, WCRP and DIVERSITAS, to establish a Joint Water

Project (JWP). This short article provides a progress report on

the Project’s developments and planned scientific focus.

In the autumn of 2001, a scoping team was appointed, includ-

ing Carlo Jäger (IHDP), Dennis Lettenmaier (WCRP), Christian

Léveque (DIVERSITAS), Harry Lins (WCRP), Madiodio Niasse

(IHDP), Michel Meybeck (IGBP) and Charlie Vörösmarty

(IGBP). The team’s task was to develop a draft plan on the scien-

tific scope, potential activities and products of the JWP.

Representatives from the core projects of the four GEC pro-

grammes were invited to a meeting in Paris in May 2002 where

the suggestions of the scoping team were discussed and further

elaborated.

At the heart of the project is the global water system, which

plays a central and integrative role in the dynamics of the Earth

System (see box). The overarching scientific question to be

addressed by the Joint Water Project is:

How are humans changing the global water cycle,the associated biogeochemical cycles, and the bio-logical components of the global water system, andwhat are the social feedbacks arising from thesechanges?

These issues are clearly complex and call for integrative and

interdisciplinary approaches, combining studies of the physical

water cycle, the influence of human actions and water-related

institutions, as well as biogeochemical and ecological processes.

Three initial framing questions, consistent with the overarching

science question, are proposed to provide some sense of the scope

of activities that could be pursued by the Join Water Project.

Question 1: What are the relative magnitudes of global-scale

changes in the global water system that are attributable to chang-

ing human activities such as water use, water management, land

use, and to environmental factors such as climate variability and

change?

Question 2: What are the main mechanisms by which human

activities are affecting the global water system?

Question 3: To what extent is the global water system (from

the perspective of its living and social components) resilient to

global change? How adaptable is the global water system and how

capable are water management systems and ecosystems to cope

with water issues, in particular when these arise in combination

with further challenges like biodiversity loss or economic

poverty?

The Project will have a global focus. A number of studies,

based on continental and global-scale datasets and evolving glob-

al modelling capabilities confirm that the effects of human devel-

opment on the terrestrial water cycle are already truly global in

scope. In addressing the questions on the integration of environ-

mental and human dimensions, it is envisaged that the method-

ology will include comparative regional studies, focusing on two

or more heterogeneous regions that can be included in continen-

tal and global-scale analyses.

The draft scoping document of the JWP can be downloaded

from the Project’s website (www.jointwaterproject.net).

Comments on the document are welcome and should be sent

directly to the co-ordinator, Holger Hoff (hhoff@pik-pots-dam.de) or to the IHDP liaison to the Project, Sylvia Karlsson

(karlsson.ihdp@uni-bonn.de). During 2003 the scoping team

will convene several workshops to further develop the scientific

framework including plans for implementation. Also, the four

GEC programmes will discuss the Project’s progress at their

respective Scientific Committee meetings. The goal is to launch

the JWP before the end of 2003, with an International Project

Office and a Scientific Steering Committee in place.

For more information on the JWP read the article by H. Hoff

in the IGBP Newsletter No. 50 (www.igbp.kva.se).

SYLVIA KARLSSON is an International Science Project Co-ordinator

at the IHDP Secretariat in Bonn and IHDP liaison to the JWP;

karlsson.ihdp@uni-bonn.de; www.ihdp.org

THE GLOBAL WATER SYSTEMinvolves physical, biogeochemical and socio-economic

components:

➤ the physical water cycle

(which is central to the system);

➤ waterborne substances;

➤ biological species; and

➤ humans with their water-related institutions,

as well as the interactions between these components.

THE GLOBAL WATER SYSTEMA progress report on the Joint Water Project | BY SYLVIA KARLSSON

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 1 7

joint projects

➤

G L O B A L W A T E R S Y S T E M

➤➤➤ IHDP Executive DirectorBarbara Göbel (Germany) has

taken up office as the next IHDP

Executive Director on 1 November

2002, succeeding Jill Jäger, who

served in this position since 1999.

Dr. Göbel is a social anthropolo-

gist, specialised in environmental

issues. Before joining IHDP, she

was a senior researcher and lectur-

er at the Institute of Anthropology

of the University of Bonn. Earlier

employments were with the

Universities of Göttingen, Tübingen, and Hohenheim and at

the Collège de France (Paris). She was also a Visiting

Professor to the Universities of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Jujuy

(Argentina) and La Paz (Bolivia).

Barbara Göbel’s main research interests are the cultural,

economic and institutional dimensions of global environ-

mental change. She was involved in several interdisciplinary

research projects of the German Research Association

(DFG), investigating environmental and cultural issue with

special focus on arid areas in Latin America. She also co-

operated with research programmes in Africa and Asia as

well as both with governmental and non-governmental

organisations. Barbara Göbel holds a PhD in social anthro-

pology, prehistory and social and economic history from the

University of Göttingen (1990).

➤➤➤ MODLUC Advanced Study CourseWith support from the European Commission, DG XII

Environment and Climate Programme, the Advanced Study

Course ‘Modelling Land Use Change’ (MODLUC) was held

at the LUCC-IPO’s host university in Louvain-la-Neuve,

Belgium (27 Oct – 2 Nov 2002). Sixteen teachers trained

more than 40 post-graduate students from all over Europe in

modelling techniques within the context of global environ-

mental change research. Course materials are available at:

http://www.geo.ucl.ac.be/MODLUC.

➤➤➤ Research and Writing Competition The MacArthur Foundation invites proposals relating to

Technological Change and Global Security andSustainability for 2003 and 2004. These grants to individu-

als and two-person teams are intended to support projects

that explore the development of improved understanding of

key topics in global security and sustainability, and to broad-

en and strengthen the community of scholars engaged in

work on these issues.

Applicants may request up to US$75,000 for individual

projects, and US$100,000 for two-person collaborations.

The deadline for the proposals is February 3, 2003 and

February 2, 2004. For further information write to:

researchandwriting@macfound.org.

Grantmaking guidelines at:

http://www.macfound.org/programs/gss/gss_guidelines.htm#research_writing

➤➤➤ 23 - 25 January 2003 - Punta Arenas, Chile

Symposium on Global Change:Toward a Systemic ViewFocuses on physical and socio-economic issues in different

ecosystems, with an emphasis on scientific research in Latin

America; includes topics covered by IGBP and IHDP

Contact: scovarru@dim.uchile.clwww.cmm.uchile.cl/scc2003/

➤➤➤ 10 - 11 February 2003- New Delhi, India

South Asia Regional Conference on TransitionsTowards Sustainable DevelopmentOrganised by TERI in co-operation with IHDP-IT and

START; held at the India Habitat Centre

Contact: www.teriin.org/events/docs/ihdp.htm

➤➤➤ 13 – 18 February 2003 – Denver, CO, USA

AAAS Annual Meeting – Science as a Way of LifeAnnual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Contact: www.aaas.org/meetings/

➤➤➤ 16 - 23 March 2003 - Kyoto, Shiga and Osaka, Japan

Third World Water Forum The IGU Commission for Water Sustainability is organising

sessions on “Managing Human Impacts on WaterResources and the Water Environment”Contact: www.worldwaterforum.org

➤➤➤ 24 - 27 March, 2003 – Gdansk, Poland

European Conference on Coastal Zone Research:an ELOISE ApproachConference on the EU Project Cluster on European Land-

Ocean Interaction Studies (ELOISE); held at the Technical

University Gdansk

Contact: eloise@nilu.nowww.nilu.no/projects/eloise

➤➤➤ 31 March - 3 April 2003 - Beijing, China

International Symposium on Climate Change (ISCC)Organised by the China Meteorological Administration

(CMA)

Contact: www.cma.gov.cn/tongzhi.htm

16-18 April 2003 - Utrecht, The NetherlandsInternational Conference on Framing Land UseDynamics:Integrating knowledge on spatial dynamics in socio-economic and environmental systems for spatialplanning in western urbanised countriesEndorsed by the IGBP/IHDP LUCC Project

Contact: http://networks.geog.uu.nl/conference

IN BRIEF

N E W S / M E E T I N G S

1 8 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2

in brief/calendar

MEETING CALENDAR

Phot

o:B.

Göbl

CHALLENGES OF A CHANGING EARTHProceedings of the GlobalChange Open ScienceConference, Amsterdam,TheNetherlands, 10-13 July 2001Will Steffen, Jill Jäger, David J.Carson, Clare Bradshaw (eds);Springer, 2003; 216 p. 187 illus.,79 in colour. ISBN 3-540-43308-2; recommended retail price:€ 79,95

➤ This book presents a state-of-the-science overview of globalchange and its consequences forhuman societies. It highlights

four areas of critical importance – food, water resources, air qual-ity and the carbon cycle – from both science and policy perspec-tives, and points the way towards the new scientific approachesneeded to study the Earth System in the future. The book alsosummarises recent advances in understanding in global changescience: the climate system, global biogeochemistry, land-oceaninteractions and changing land cover and the Earth System. Thevolume is based on plenary presentations from Challenges of aChanging Earth, a Global Change Open Science Conference, heldin Amsterdam, the Netherlands, July 2001. The conference wasorganised by three international global change programmes –IGBP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme), IHDP(International Human Dimensions Programme on GlobalEnvironmental Change) and WCRP (World Climate ResearchProgramme).

PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENTApproaches for LinkingHousehold and CommunitySurveys to Remote Sensing andGISJefferson Fox, Ronald R. Rindfuss,Stephen J. Walsh and VinodMishra (eds.); Kluwer AcademicPublishers, December 2002; 344 p.,ISBN 1-4020-7322-4; Price:€ 85.00/US$ 83.00/£ 54.00

➤ This new LUCC publicationappeals to a wide range of natural,social, and spatial scientists with

interests in conducting population and environment researchand thereby characterising (a) land-use and land-cover dynamicsthrough remote sensing, (b) demographic and socio-economicvariables through household and community surveys, and (c)local site and situation through resource endowments, geograph-ical accessibility, and connections of people to place through GIS.Case studies are used to examine theories and practices useful inlinking people and the environment. The authors also describeland-use and land-cover dynamics and the associated social, bio-physical, and geographical drivers of change articulated throughhuman-environment interactions. A CD-ROM is included.Principal investigators or project leaders of LUCC endorsed proj-ects from Africa, Asia and Latin America may contact the LUCCInternational Project Office for a free copy.(lucc.ipo@geog.ucl.ac. be).

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE IN ALPINEREGIONSRecognition, Impact, Adaptation and MitigationKarl W. Steininger and Hannelore Weck-Hannemann (eds.);Edward Elgar Publishing, Nov. 2002; ISBN 1 84376 193 1

➤ Mankind is both responsible for, and affected by, global envi-ronmental change. Options for adaptation and mitigation candiffer dramatically between regions. This book studies the effectson Alpine regions and other mountainous areas, which areamong the most vulnerable, as they are affected early and mostsignificantly by environmental change. The problem becomeseven more acute in these regions because options for adaptationare severely limited. The local economy is based on environment-dependent forms of land use such as tourism and agriculture, yetit is exactly these activities, which help accelerate or mitigate envi-ronmental change.

MAKING WAVESIntegrating CoastalConservation and DevelopmentKatrina Brown, EmmaL.Tompkins and W. Neil Adger;Earthscan Publications, 2002; cloth ISBN 1 85383 915 9; paperISBN 1 95383 912 4; Online Price£ 16.16

➤ Coastal zones are critical multi-ple-use resources, under pressurefrom constant demands from dif-ferent sources - conservation,economic growth and social wel-fare. Making Waves identifies the

dilemmas of managing conservation and development in coastalareas. It is packed with important and timely information andtools for the management, conservation and assessment of socialimplications of coastal resource use. The authors present a varietyof methods and techniques that can be used to highlight thetrade-offs and promote sustainable decisions among diverseusers.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FUTURESAn Ecological PerspectiveJill S. Baron (ed.); Island Press, 2002; 352 p.cloth ISBN 1-55963-953-9 online price: US$ 52.00paper ISBN 1-55963-954-7 online price: US$ 26.00

➤ The book presents a comprehensive and wide-ranging exami-nation of the ecological consequences of past, current and futurehuman activities in the Rocky Mountain region of the UnitedStates and Canada. It brings together 32 leading ecologists, geog-raphers, and other scientists and researchers to present an objec-tive assessment of the cumulative effects of human activity on theregion’s ecological health and to consider changes wrought bypast human use. This combined view of past and present revealswhere Rocky Mountain ecosystems are heading, and the authorsproject what the future holds based upon current economic andsocial trends and the patterns that emerge from them.

PUBLICATIONS

N E W B O O K S

I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2 | 1 9

publications

IHDP SECRETARIAT

• IHDP Secretariat:Barbara Göbel, Executive Director

Walter-Flex-Str. 3

53113 Bonn, Germany

Phone: +49-228-739050

Fax: +49-228-739054

ihdp@uni-bonn.de

www.ihdp.org

IHDP CORE PROJECTS

➤ GECHS

• Global EnvironmentalChange and Human Security c/o Maureen Woodrow

Executive Officer

GECHS International Project Office

Dept. of Geography &

Environmental Studies,

Carleton University

1125 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada

gechs@carleton.ca

www.gechs.org

➤ IDGEC

• Institutional Dimensions ofGlobal Environmental Change c/o Syma Ebbin, Executive Officer

IDGEC International Project Office

6214 Fairchild, Dartmouth College,

Hanover, NH 03755, USA

syma.ebbin@dartmouth.edu

www.dartmouth.edu/~idgec

➤ IT

• Industrial Transformation c/o Anna J. Wieczorek,

Executive Officer

IT International Project Office

Institute of Environmental Studies

De Boelelaan 1087

1081 HV Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Anna.J.Wieczorek@ivm.vu.nl

www.vu.nl/ivm/research/ihdp-it/

➤ LUCC

• Land-Use and Land-CoverChange c/o Helmut Geist, Executive Officer

LUCC International Project Office

University of Louvain

Place L. Pasteur 3

1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

lucc.ipo@geog.ucl.ac.be

www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC

JOINT PROJECTS

➤ GECAFS

• Global EnvironmentalChange and Food Systems c/o John Ingram, Executive OfficerGECAFS International ProjectOffice, NERC-Centre for Ecology &Hydrology, Wallingford OX 10 8BB, UK

jsii@ceh.ac.uk

www.gecafs.org

➤ GCP

• Global Carbon Projectc/o Pep Canadell

Executive Officer

GCP International Project

Office, CSIRO

Canberra, Australia

Pep.Canadell@csiro.au

www.globalcarbonproject.org

➤ Water

• Water Joint Projectc/o Sylvia Karlsson

IHDP Liaison Officer

IHDP Secretariat, Bonn, Germany

karlsson.ihdp@uni-bonn.de

IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC)

➤ Chair

• Coleen Heather VogelDept. of Geography & Env. Studies

University of Witwatersrand

Johannesburg, South Africa

017chv@cosmos.wits.ac.za

➤ Vice Chair

• M.A. Mohamed SalihInstitute of Social Studies

The Hague, The Netherlands

salih@iss.nl

➤ Past-Chairs

• Eckart Ehlers Institutes of Geography

University of Bonn

Bonn, Germany

ehlers@joyce.giub.uni-bonn.de

• Arild Underdahl Rector, University of Oslo

Oslo, Norway

arild.underdal@stv.uio.no

➤ Members

• William C. ClarkJFK School of Government

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA, USA

william_clark@harvard.edu

• Carl FolkeCNM, Stockholm University

Stockholm, Sweden

calle@system.ecology.su.se

• Gilberto C. GallopinEconomic Commission for Latin

America & the Caribbean (ECLAC)

Santiago, Chile

ggallopin@eclac.cl

• Carlo J. JaegerPotsdam Institute for Climate

Impact Research (PIK)

Potsdam, Germany

carlo.jaeger@pik-potsdam.de

• Tatiana Kluvankova-OravskaInstitute for Forecasting

Slovak Academy of Sciences

Bratislava, Slovak Republic

tatiana@progeko.savba.sk

• Elinor OstromCenter for the Study of

Institutions, Population &

Environmental Change

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN, USA

ostrom@indiana.edu

• Xizhe PengInstitute of Population Research

Fudan Unviersity

Shanghai, P.R. China

xzpeng@fudan.edu.cn

• P.S. RamakrishnanJawaharlal Nehru University

New Delhi, India

psrama2001@yahoo.com

• Roberto Sanchez-RodriguezUniversity of California

Santa Cruz, CA, USA

rsanchez@weber.ucsd.edu

• Paul L.G. VlekCenter for Development

Research (ZEF)

Bonn, Germany

p.vlek@uni-bonn.de

EX-OFFICO MEMBERSIHDP SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE

➤ ICSU

• Gordon McBean Institute for Catastrophic Loss

Reduction, University of Western

Ontario, London, ON, Canada

gmcbean@fes.engga.uwo.ca

➤ I S S C• Kurt Pawlik Institute for Psychology I

University of Hamburg, Germany

pe6a017@uni-hamburg.de

➤ DIVERSITAS

• Michel LoreauEcole Normale Superieure

Laboratoire d'Ecologie

Paris, France

loreau@ens.fr

➤ IGBP

• Guy Brasseur Max-Planck-Institute for

Meteorology

Hamburg, Germany

brasseur@dkrz.de

➤ START (alternating)

• Sulochana GadgilIndian Institute of Science

& Oceanic Sciences

Bangalore, India

sulo@caos.iisc.ernet.in

• Graeme I. PearmanCSIRO Atmospheric Research

Aspendale, Australia

graeme.pearman@dar.csiro.au

➤ WCRP

• Peter LemkeAlfred-Wegener-Institute

for Polar and Marine Research

Bremerhaven, Germany

plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de

➤ GECHS

• Michael Brklacich Carleton University

Ottawa, Canada

mbrklac@ccs.carleton.ca

➤ IDGEC

• Oran R. Young Dartmouth College,

Hanover, NH, USA

oran.r.young@dartmouth.edu

➤ IT

• Pier Vellinga Dean, Faculty of Life and Earth

Sciences

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

The Netherlands

vell@geo.vu.nl

➤ LUCC

• Eric Lambin Dept. of Geography

University of Louvain

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

lambin@geog.ucl.ac.be

SOCIAL SCIENCE LIAISON OFFICER

• João M. MoraisIGBP Secretariat

The Royal Swedish Academy of

Sciences, P.O. Box 50 005

10405 Stockholm, Sweden

morais@igbp.kva.se

C O N T A C T A D D R E S S E Saddresses

S U B S C R I P T I O N

➤ For a free subscription to

this newsletter, write to the

IHDP Secretariat at the

above address

or send an e-mail to:

staff.ihdp@uni-bonn.de

Pri

nte

d o

n r

ecyc

led

pap

er

2 0 | I H D P N E W S L E T T E R 4 / 2 0 0 2