Consultation feedback so far on Research Strategy SC Diversitas BioSUSTAINABILITY, ecoSERVICES, bioGENESIS, bioDISCOVERY, ecoHEALH, GMBA, freshwaterBIODIVERSITY SC IGBP GLP, IHOPE UGEC, ESG CCAFS WCRP, GCOS Other discussions at meetings with PROVIA, WCRP, IGBP, IHDP, Diversitas, and town halls at RIO+20, PUP, USNRC, German GC ctee, CEATS, National Committees

General points so far… Support for general concept of Future Earth and bringing together of programs and of natural and social science Improvement over earlier versions Some enthusiasm about certain research themes and cross cuts

General points so far… Problems identified Lack of responses from TT to earlier comments Needs an analysis of what is good and bad about existing programs and structures Be clearer about role of projects and their science communities Why not ground up clustering of existing projects? Who is the audience? What is the science-policy interface? Negative tone, celebrate some achievements in sustainability and have some solution focus It is much too broad, needs to be selective Where and what is the basic science/discovery? Make links to conventions and assessments much clearer Importance of joint communication strategy Why not focus just on linking science to policy and leave science with existing programs? Why not just be a GCRP for sustainability? Disaggregate earth trends and think more about regions

Conceptual Framework Considerable criticism of conceptual framework – too broad, everything connected to everything – does no identify high priorities and gaps – not bottom up Goes too far beyond environmental change science to general social and development issues What about trade offs? Why not use MA or GLP frameworks? Need to lead coherently to the IRTs

Research Themes State of the Earth and Resources for Development are too broad Links to policy processes should be stronger Biodiversity needs to be more visible, especially because of IPBES, species evolution, and cultural connections Oceans should not have separate program, it looks biased Pivotal places confusing, could it be about local-global connections or regions Include need for projections and scenarios Transformation should either be across all or merged with governance

Proposed new Research Themes Biodiversity theme Land/terrestrial theme: Sharing Land Urban theme: Urban Earth Cultural theme Climate change theme Food theme Materials and energy and economics missing Health theme

Next steps Welcome remaining input to consultation Improve conceptual framework? Add, focus, refine, cut IRTs? Science committee for Future Earth should finalize conceptual framework and put research themes into full co-design mode Potential to cluster existing projects to provide co-design Create platforms for new IRT discussions

Comments from TT Many projects in all themes Its all local More on why Future Earth Make it clear it’s a process

Research Themes Urban futures/Sustainable settlements Food and energy for all The future of cultural and biological diversity in a changing environment > IPBES Sharing land / land systems science Climate, society and low carbon futures >IPCC Health Economics The State of the Planet: Observing, explaining, and modeling earth and societal system trends, drivers, and processes and their interactions Responses to global environmental change: Understanding and evaluating current strategies for governing and managing the global environment across scales and sectors Reducing Risk: Anticipating global thresholds, improving resilience and reducing disaster risks [Resources for development and wellbeing: Providing the knowledge for sustainable, secure and fair stewardship of food, water, health, energy, materials and other ecosystem services] Pivotal Places: Understanding global change from local and regional perspectives Global Change and Local Places Living with the Sea: Oceans, coasts and blue societies Transformative Pathways: Towards a Sustainable Future Earth

What are the changes? How to prevent them? How to cope with what we do not prevent?