Links between science and policy making
D. Norse
∗,1, J.B. Tschirley
2Department of Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1P 0AP, UK
Abstract
Shifts in the driving forces for agricultural production and agro-ecosystem processes require a re-examination of the links between research and policy making. The major driving forces shaping global change impacts on food and agricultural pro-duction in the future will be appreciably different from those prevailing when the global change and terrestrial ecosystems (GCTE) programme was setup in 1984. Population growth and technological change aimed at raising yields were the main driving forces in the 1980s. Future driving forces, however, will be centred on income growth, shifts in consumption pat-terns and technological change shaped by environmental objectives and social concerns operating through the market, e.g., pollution taxes on fertilisers and pesticides, and consumer resistance to genetically modified crops, respectively. It follows, therefore, that global change impacts on food and agricultural production will increasingly be the consequence of interactions between bio-physical and socio-economic processes rather than predominantly by the former as is assumed by many GCTE activities.
These shifts in driving forces point to the need for a reassessment of the policy context of global change research, and of the multiple roles that science can play in the policy process. It is important at the outset of research project formulation to consider how science can contribute to each stage of the policy process, and particularly to: problem identification; strategy formulation; selection of policy options; policy implementation; setting of regulatory standards; monitoring and evaluation.
This paper provides such an assessment and puts forward a number of principles for policy relevant science. For example: broad consultation in identifying and defining the issues; greater inter-disciplinarity because of the growing importance of socio-economic factors. It highlights a number of issues and research opportunities. These include the current difficulties of scaling up from GCTE plot observations and transects so that they provide meaningful inputs to the analysis of global issues and the greater use of matrix analysis and similar tools to key science and policy linkages. It is not enough for the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme and GCTE to promote leading edge science. They need to enhance the role that policy needs and socio-economic factors play in setting scientific agenda. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:Policy relevant science; Policy analysis; Global change research and research project formulation
∗Corresponding author. Tel.:
+44-20-7679-4543; fax:+44-20-7679-7565.
E-mail address:dnorse@ucl.ac.uk (D. Norse).
1Present address: Special Advisor to the Provost and President of
UCL on China & Co-ordinator of the China Programme University College London, 4 Taviton Street, London WC1H 0BT, UK.
2Present address: GTOS Programme Director, Food and
Agricul-ture Organisation of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
1. Introduction
The importance of science to public policy was recognised by Francis Bacon some 400 years ago when he argued for a major role by scientists in government (Bacon, 1625). Since that time, and es-pecially during the last half of this century, scientists have struggled with the conflict and inevitable com-promises that occur in devising policies that meet social and economic objectives.
The importance of science at the global level was confirmed in the early 1990s by Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Envi-ronment and Development (UNCED). He asked the International Council for Scientific Unions (ICSUs) together with the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the World Climate Programme (WCP) and others to make an independent scientific assessment of R & D priorities for the 21st century as a contribution to the preparation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Conventions (Dooge et al., 1992) which provide the overall policy framework for sustainable development.
Policy development processes are seldom linear nor do they necessarily follow a logical progression. They can be long, controversial, and in some cases, unscien-tific! In many cases, policymakers do not know what kind of information they can reasonably expect (or ask for) from the scientific community; they are also frequently driven by factors such as expediency, cost, and vocal constituencies.
As scientific data evolves toward more generalised information for policymakers, there is necessarily a considerable amount of compromise that occurs; subtlety is lost, data volume decreases, subjectivity increases (Fig. 1). It is during this process that an active role of scientists is essential in assessing policy needs and advising decision makers on how they may
Fig. 1. Moving from data to information (adapted from Wasser, 1999).
reasonably interpret scientific results. Given that most policy making will proceed either with or without sci-ence, in most cases it is better to have some scientific contribution, whether imperfect or incomplete, rather than none at all.
Policy fora provide an important outlet whereby the results of research efforts can be applied toward the solution of important global problems. A classic example is the case of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs). In 1971, a group of scientists composed primarily of atmospheric chemists and physicists announced their findings that CFCs would likely lead to a thinning of the ozone layer. This was followed by nearly 2 years of debate at a high political level on whether the re-sults were valid and if so, what should be done. In short, the message from the policymakers was to carry out further research until there was greater certainty of this phenomenon. Three years later scientists re-turned with evidence confirming the depleting effect that CFC’s have on the ozone layer. This eventually led to the adoption of the Montreal protocol in 1987, a process which took more than 15 years.
an article by Hamilton in which he puts forward an argument for more “relevance to world issues” and one by Huebert, who argues that the “building blocks” of basic scientific knowledge must be much stronger before taking on global modelling and policy relevant research (Hamilton, 1999; Huebert, 1999). Clearly both have valid points of view.
Global change research has a vital role to play in addressing questions such as — in what timeframe and spatial scale will global changes occur? Will it be short or long-term? Will it be global or regional in terms of physical and socio-economic impacts? What are the levels of uncertainty regarding the time scale or geographic impact? This is especially important where there is need for proactive or precautionary policy actions which may be required years be-fore the negative consequences of global change are apparent.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations contribution to and use of global change research is only justified in terms of its rele-vance to its mandated responsibilities for food and agriculture. These include, e.g., threats to food security and hence FAO’s early contributions to climate change research and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The remainder of this paper draws on the FAO experience with policy led research to widen the arguments for closer links between research and policy making. First, by considering where science fits in a policy context. Second, by outlining the compo-nents of policy analysis and implementation. Third, by suggesting principles for policy relevant science. And finally, by suggesting research opportunities and how global change and terrestrial ecosystem (GCTE) partnerships could achieve closer alignment with the policy formulation processes.
2. Science in a policy context
Global change research as it relates to food and agricultural policy is a relatively recent activity. Through the 1960s most research was focused on national or regional issues of a short-term and narrow technical nature. However, the publication of Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), the Stockholm Conference in 1972, the World Food Conference in 1974, UNCED in 1992 and the World Food Summit
in 1996, to name just a few, increased awareness of the global dimensions of food and agriculture.
Today, many of us live, eat, and speak globally. And yet, beyond the stream of assessment reports that utilise the same limited data and information sources, we are still far from understanding important global change processes in terrestrial ecosystems. Compared to the atmospheric and ocean disciplines, terrestrial science is far behind in its ability to carry out policy relevant research. This is due to many factors, includ-ing institutional constraints, but loominclud-ing large is the simple fact that human beings inhabit the land and their environmental, social and economic interactions are extremely complex.
The policy context of science and research is set by its role in guiding and informing debate — issues such as destruction of the ozone layer, the effects of toxic chemicals, climate change and both the experi-mental and commercial use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Policy relevant science often fosters public understanding and support for major political decisions. It is therefore essential to provide early warning of emerging issues.
There are a number of factors that inhibit the use of science in policy formulation:
• Misconceptions about the nature of natural resource management(NRM)problems. In the 1970s, e.g., it was mistakenly argued that groundwater contami-nation by nitrates stemmed from the use of min-eral fertilisers in high input production systems and that the solution was a switch to organic production systems. It is now accepted that badly managed or-ganic manure applications can be just as polluting as mineral fertilisers.
• Tendency to accept at face value public
equilibrium with rainfall (Nicholson and Tucker, 1998), and overgrazing was not the major factor in causing observed changes in the desert margins (Behnke et al., 1993). Research revealed that suc-cessful rangeland management depended as much on cultural and institutional factors as ecological and technical ones. More than one billion dollars of development aid appears to have been directed to symptoms rather than causes of change because of misunderstandings about the bio-physical and socio-economic determinants of dryland producti-vity and degradation (FAO, 1986).
3. Components of policy analysis and implementation
The role of science in policy can be set out as a sequence of contributions that includes the following:
• problem identification;
• strategy formulation;
• selection of policy options;
• policy implementation;
• setting of regulatory standards;
• monitoring and evaluation.
This scientific foundation and sequence of research contributions can be illustrated using the global nitro-gen (N) cycle as an example.
3.1. Problem identification
Human activity is disrupting the biogeochemical ni-trogen cycle at various spatial scales and through a variety of mechanisms. Food and agricultural produc-tion has played a role in this disrupproduc-tion (Smil, 1985; Socolow, 1998) and will continue to do so for the fore-seeable future as population and income growth bring about greater inputs and outputs of nitrogen per unit of production (Table 1).
The main problems fall into two groups. First, those that are alreadyglobal in scaleand are part of the main focus of the IGBP, e.g., the increase in atmo-spheric concentrations of nitrous oxide (N2O) which contributes to global warming and higher ultra-violet (UV) radiation at the earth’s surface (IPPC, 1995; Mosier and Kroeze, 1998). Second, those problems that are global in scope (and in the future may be global in scale) in that they are found in discrete
loca-Table 1
Global emissions of N2O from agricultural soilsa
Mt N per year
1996 2030
Direct soil emissions
Mineral fertilisers 0.87 (0.18–1.6) 1.2 Animal wastes 0.63 (0.12–1.1) 1.0 Biological N2fixation 0.12 (0.02–0.2) 0.25
Crop residues 0.37 (0.07–0.7) 0.58 Cultivated histosols 0.1 (0.02–0.2) 0.1?
Subtotal 2.1 (0.4–3.8) 3.13
Animal production including grazing animals
Animal waste management systems 2.1 (0.6–3.1) 3.2
Indirect emissions
Atmospheric deposition 0.36 (0.07–0.7) 0.58 Nitrogen leaching and runoff 1.4 (0.11–6.7) 1.9 Human sewage 0.22 (0.04–2.6) 0.33
Subtotal 1.98 (0.22–10.0) 5.61
Total 6.2 (1.2–16.9) 9.14
aSource: Mosier and Kroeze (1998) and FAO (2000).
tions of the major continents, but have no well-defined feedbacks on the earth system. They include the re-lease of ammonia from intensive livestock systems and build-up of nitrate fertiliser residues in ground and surface water. The latter problem first emerged in the developed countries in the 1970s as a conse-quence of agricultural intensification, but are now appearing in the developing countries (Sinha, 1997; Zhang et al., 1996).
respond. Consequently policy difficulties have arisen because of disagreements amongst scientists as to the contribution of mineral and organic fertilisers to the eutrophication and the best way to control it.
Scientific research comes into problem identifica-tion and quantificaidentifica-tion of N cycle disrupidentifica-tion at many points. There is, e.g., uncertainty about the size of the main sources and sinks of N2O with 10–20-fold differences between the highest and lowest estimates for the contribution of agricultural soils to the global N2O budget (IPCC, 1997). There is no doubt, how-ever, that atmospheric concentrations of N2O are in-creasing annually by about 0.3%. And there is a wide body of research which shows that: (a) much of this increase comes from mineral N fertilisers and animal wastes from agriculture (Mosier and Kroeze, 1998), and (b) continuing intensification will maintain these increases with a possible doubling of agriculture’s contribution by 2050 (Smith, 1999), though there are sound arguments for believing that the increase might be lower at around 50% (FAO, 2000).
More systematic observations are therefore required at all scales as well as research into the processes involved in the N cycle, such as denitrification rates in the main managed and unmanaged terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. An integration and scaling mechanism is also needed to take these ecosystem measurements and model them at the global level. This is both a technical challenge requiring improve-ments in N cycle modelling and an institutional task, notably through the bringing together of in situ and satellite observations.
3.2. Strategy formulation
It follows from the above that science may con-tribute to mitigation strategies by establishing the primary anthropogenic sources of N disrupting the global N cycle, and how these may change over time. It can quantify the time trends for this disruption by setting parameters and constructing mathematical models. The latter show that continued agricultural intensification, which is essential to meet future food demands, will, e.g., increase emissions of N2O which has a stronger radiative forcing potential than carbon dioxide (IPPC, 1995).
Science can determine the scientific pros and cons of strategies to mitigate N cycle disruption and
thereby help policymakers set priorities for action. Thus, a central objective should be to steer agriculture on to a more sustainable growth path, and the main mechanisms will be the development of “greener” technologies through R & D and the promotion of their adoption through regulatory measures, voluntary codes and economic policy instruments.
3.3. Selection of policy options
This element of policy formulation typically goes beyond the normal boundaries of the IGBP. In the 1970s when the build-up of groundwater nitrate first became an issue in Europe, a common response was to expand scientific investigations of the movement of nitrates through the soil and aquifer. Nitrate moni-toring, lysimeter studies, watershed modelling were used to determine which production systems are the primary cause of the build-up, how widespread the problem was and how soon policy action might be re-quired. Research has demonstrated that organic inputs to high input systems can be just as harmful as badly managed mineral fertiliser-based systems (Addiscott et al., 1991).
Research has also led to the identification of para-meters for assessing potential impacts from both ma-nure and fertiliser and strategies for managing them. This is a good first step toward assisting policymakers but scenario development, management and policy op-tions, and economic analysis are also required, high-lighting the need for social science as well as natural science inputs to the policy process. Economic factors became an important issue because of the high cost of treatment to bring nitrate contaminated water to an ac-ceptable drinking water quality. Price factors continue to play an important role in policy selection with grad-ual acceptance of the need for using both technological and economic instruments such as charges or levies.
3.4. Policy implementation
standards; the development of response models to test the feasibility and possible impact of pollution taxes or environmental service payments; and the formula-tion of codes of conduct.
In the design and implementation of policy instru-ments it is important to know how quickly an aquifer or catchment system will respond to reductions in ni-trogen use and at what tax level farmers would start to lower nitrogen application rates. Modelling has played a vital role in both these cases. In the former by mak-ing it possible to extrapolate in space and time from a small number of observations to estimate how soon different policy measures will start to improve water quality. In the latter by helping to determine the pos-sible impact of pollution taxes on fertiliser use, farm profitability and viability and compare their efficacy with alternative policy instruments.
These examples also illustrate how bio-physical models can complement economic models. For ex-ample, by showing how pollution taxes could be undermined if farmers applied mineral fertilisers in the wrong season or switched to poorly managed manure. Such models have been constructed in many developed countries and can be readily parameterised for use in developing countries as they start to face similar problems and policy needs.
Regulations and economic instruments alone are seldom sufficient in achieving policy objectives. There are, e.g., limits to the monitoring of farmer’s com-pliance with regulatory standards. Hence European policymakers are emphasising codes of conduct for good farming practice (Dwyer and Baldock, 1999) based on research to determine the management prac-tices that minimise leaching and runoff from crops and grassland (MAFF, 1999).
3.5. Setting regulatory standards
Scientific research has been able to provide much of the quantitative framework required to set meaningful standards to reduce N cycle and ecosystem disruption to tolerable levels although the transition time may be long. Given knowledge of soil type, rainfall, average nitrate leaching rates, volatilisation rates, etc., it is possible to prepare critical load estimates, identify the main areas at risk and designate nitrate vulnerable zones in response to policy directives (EU, 1991). Sci-entifically based regulations can then be set for
maxi-mum application rates of mineral fertiliser restrictions on the timing of manure spreading and reductions in permitted livestock density rates as in the Netherlands.
3.6. Monitoring and evaluation
The scientific inputs to monitor determine which variables to measure, how to measure them and with what frequency, to parameterise the models, and to assess the effectiveness of different technical or nutri-ent managemnutri-ent measures. There are possibilities to align the GCTE more closely with the policy process through projects that: (a) help refine monitoring and evaluation techniques, (b) provide a wider terrestrial ecosystem framework within which to assess sectoral contributions to N cycle disruption, and (c) contribute to the scaling up of national or regional N cycle dis-ruptions to the global level.
These two possibilities relate closely to concerns raised by FAO and other international bodies regard-ing the lack of integrated monitorregard-ing data on the condition of terrestrial ecosystems, with well-known researchers, e.g., concluding that soil erosion is greatly undermining food security and others argu-ing that it is not. They consider that this lack of monitoring data is a major constraint to policy for-mulation in their respective areas of responsibility, to the assessment of issues such as land degradation, to global change research and to the functioning of the international conventions on climate change, bio-diversity and desertification. The latter is considered particularly important because member countries of the United Nations had agreed to establish these in-ternational conventions without considering whether mechanisms existed for providing the scientific in-formation needed to set priorities and evaluate or monitor policy performance. Their response was to establish a Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) (ICSU/UNEP/FAO/UNESCO/WMO, 1996, 1998), which is helping to establish GT-Net, a global system of terrestrial observation networks to fill this monitoring gap (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. GT-Net — a global system of terrestrial observation networks.
response framework is an example of a tool that was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the 1970’s for use in considering policy options related to air pollution. Its application to other environmental prob-lems has been considerably broadened in recent years. However, understanding the linkages between driving forces, states and responses, complex as they may be, is only part of the picture. Sustainability components (the economic, social and environmental dimensions and how they interact) must also be assessed through the use of analytical tools such as modelling and integrated assessment techniques. Fig. 3 provides an example of a framework for sustainability analysis. Such frameworks underline the importance that an issue like agriculture’s contribution to the disruption of the N cycle must not be tackled in isolation from other components of the N cycle or from other actions to promote sustainable agriculture. Thus the scientific support to policies to reduce agriculture’s impact on the N cycle must be part of a broader bio-physical and social science agenda for integrated farming, organic food marketing, and other agri-environment measures that are part of the multifunctional character of agriculture (FAO, 1999).
4. Principles for policy relevant science
There are several principles that could improve and widen the contribution of GCTE science to global change understanding. They include the following:
• correct identification and definition of the issues through broad consultation within and outside the bio-physical community;
• clear specification of the form policy developers need the scientific information and the time con-straints within which they are operating;
• greater recognition that research which is commis-sioned by one ministry or policy body is likely to involve many others and their needs should be given early consideration;
• recognition that no single organisation can com-mand the data, information, expertise or finance for path-finding global research;
• balanced and strategic geographical participation of
scientists and institutions since responses to global change will commonly require joint international action by many countries;
• full disciplinary and analytical integration;
Fig. 3. A framework for sustainability analysis.
• an open peer review process to establish scientific credibility, community and clarification of issues on which there is not yet broad consensus;
• sensitivity analysis of the scientific uncertainties about global change processes and their spatial and temporal impacts before they enter the policy process;
• clear synthesis and presentation of the scientific issues and of the response options.
5. Issues and opportunities for policy relevant research
No single approach can remove all of the scientific uncertainty before policy decisions are made. It is likely that the information will have to come from several sources, and some will be subject to debate. The latter, together with uncertainties in the nature of bio-physical processes and their socio-economic driv-ing forces or modifiers, perhaps obviates the need for more use of sensitivity analysis than is presently used. The science community played an important role in
removing scientific and public uncertainty regarding the extent and causes of shifts in desert margins and human induced desertification in Africa. This was done, in part, by intelligent use of ground and space data.
Correct and early identification of issues such as nitrate contamination of water supplies and respective roles of mineral and organic fertilisers is important but even with good national and international science pro-grammes and systematic observation networks, some issues will arise with little prior warning.
There is a strong case for strengthening the FAO/ GCTE partnership to achieve closer alignment with the policy formulation process, and increasing the relevance of GCTE research to the needs of so-ciety for food security and sustainable development. FAO often serves as the voice of small countries which lack the resources to play a full part in in-ternational research, and of low-income farmers and the rural poor who are seldom consulted by research scientists (FAO, 1986). FAO is a co-sponsor of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Re-search (CGIAR) together with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank. The CGIAR is financed largely by the same countries that support the GCTE. FAO could help to strengthen the links between the GCTE and the research and policy related 16 international centres included in the CGIAR.
There is a tendency for global change research to remain shaped by the prevailing concerns of the 1970s and 1980s. For example, population growth still tends to be treated as the major driving force, and land use change as a key consequence. While population is certainly a critical factor, looking ahead 20–30 years it can be argued that migration, income growth, and changes in consumption patterns may be more impor-tant driving forces especially in developing regions, where population growth, has been slowing down more rapidly than expected (Lutz et al., 1997). An ex-ception is sub-Saharan Africa, which seems destined to continue to experience high population growth, high mortality, and low per capita incomes for a considerable time to come.
If one looks at recent projections of land use change (FAO, 2000), it is clear that a key issue is the en-vironmental pressures associated with intensification rather than land cover or land use change per se. Dur-ing the next 30 years and given the assumption of no major policy changes, annual rates of new cropland development are projected to fall to about 4 Mha/yr, with two-thirds of it coming from secondary forest or rangeland.
Thus, almost all of incremental food and agricul-tural production will come from improved cultivars, higher inputs of mineral fertilisers together with bet-ter nutrient management, integrated pest management and irrigation. This intensification will be shaped more by economic forces than regulatory instruments. For
example, almost all European countries have intro-duced or are planning pollution taxes on mineral fer-tilisers and pesticides. As affluence and food security rises in developing countries it seems likely they will follow similar policy pathways to limit adverse envi-ronmental impacts of agricultural intensification.
If the above trends hold, it is evident that GCTE and other IGBP programmes will have to become more integrated and multi-disciplinary with more con-tributions from economists and other social scientists. A separate initiative (e.g. the International Human Dimensions Programme — IHDP) probably cannot be sufficiently integrated with a programme such as GCTE to have lasting effect. A specific element jointly established by the IGBP and IHDP may be required to deal with the social and economic dimensions of change in terrestrial ecosystems.
An initial step toward more integration of GCTE programmes with policy issues could be to make more use of matrix analysis and similar tools in order to: (a) identify key linkage effects and interactions, and (b) identify opportunities for contributing to policy areas outside those initially targeted.
Fig. 4. Influence of scale on policy relevance.
used by the participating sites need only to be broadly similar for the aggregate figure to be accurate. Thus, in this case, resources would be inefficiently deployed if more intensive sampling and replicable observation techniques were to be used when cheaper and faster techniques would yield satisfactory results.
The task and cost of global change research has grown so large that no country or organisation can operate in isolation. Furthermore, global science can be no better than the global data sets that it depends on, hence the importance that FAO gives to rapidly developing the GTOS. One important opportunity in this regard is to establish a closer partnership between GCTE, the GTOS terrestrial observation networks and other scientists making in situ observations on the one hand, and those making satellite observations on the other. It is surprising how little of the space imagery on land use and land cover change has been ground truthed. It is also surprising how large the gap is be-tween science programmes conducted from space and those that take place on the ground despite their pursuit of common themes (e.g. nitrogen or carbon sequestra-tion). The global observing systems have made a start on bridging this gap by working with the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) to establish an Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) that will define the space-based measurements required by scientists working on the ground. The involvement of GCTE could be essential in defining the needs, methodologies and priority research topics.
It is a human tendency to continue doing what feels comfortable, or “what you know”. If the IGBP and the GCTE are to be successful in building bridges
to key global change policy forums they will need to break traditional moulds and build new collabora-tive, cross-disciplinary partnerships. Their approach to research priority setting needs to be widened. It is not enough for IGBP and GCTE to promote leading edge science. They need to enhance the role that po-licy needs and socio-economic factors play in setting scientific agenda. More effort is required to assist decision makers in the interpretation of scientific re-sults. Similarly, greater importance should be given for preparing policymakers summaries of the main programme outputs — a process shown to be of great importance for the success of the IPCC.
6. Conclusions
It is important that the GCTE programme and other programmes of the IGBP pay as much attention to the drivers of terrestrial ecosystem change as to the bio-physical processes and nature of change. They should consider from the outset the information needs of the policymakers and some of the research products should be tailored to those needs. This would imply at least three shifts in the GCTE programme (and in other global change programmes).
2. The use of matrix analysis at the beginning of the research process to target key policy areas and opportunities.
3. Early and direct links (collaborative partnerships) with policy research, analysis and formulation spe-cialists. This is likely to require the involvement of scientists from other disciplines especially social scientists and politically oriented persons.
These shifts require closer coupling of bio-physical and economic analysis, and interdisciplinary research. Integrated pest management in rice is one excellent example where both policy and farmer practices have been changed in a number of countries, and where the success of the programme owes much to the willingness of pest ecologists and modellers to forge new partnerships with economists, communication specialists and farmers. Other areas where such col-laboration might yield similar positive results include integrated soil management (especially regarding plant nutrition strategies as well as the role of soil as global sources and sinks) and agro-ecosystem management (especially to assist district and national planning processes). Progress is already being made on some of these shifts. During the past 10 years, e.g., the CGIAR system has begun to evolve from a crop-based research organisation to one making wider use of systems approaches, and focusing more on natural resources management and, to some extent, toward global issues such as climate change. It has not been an easy process and much remains to be achieved.
References
Addiscott, T.M., Whitmore, A.P., Powlson, D.S., 1991. Farming, Fertilisers and the Nitrate Problem. CAB International, Wallingford.
Bacon, F., 1625. Of seditions and troubles. In: Essays, London. Behnke, R.H., Scoones, I., Kerven, C. (Eds.), 1993. Range
Ecology at Disequilibrium. New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. Overseas Deve-lopment Institute, London.
Dooge, J.C.I., Goodman, G.T., la Riviere, J.W.M., Marton-Lefevre, J., O’Riordan, T., Praderie, F. (Eds.), 1992. An Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dwyer, J., Baldock, D., 1999. CAP reform and the protection of soil and water. DETR/IEEP Briefing Note. Institute for European Policy Analysis, London.
EU, 1991. EU Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). Commission of the European Union, Brussels.
FAO, 1986. African agriculture: the next 25 years. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
FAO, 1999. Taking stock of the multifunctional character of agriculture and land. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. FAO, 2000. Agriculture towards 2015/30. Interim Technical
Report. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
Hamilton, N., 1999. An outsider’s view of the congress. IGBP Global Change Newsletter No. 38. IGBP, Stockholm, pp. 8–9. Huebert, B., 1999. IGBP’s vision scares me. IGBP Global Change
Newsletter No. 38. IGBP, Stockholm, pp. 10–11.
ICSU/UNEP/FAO/UNESCO/WMO, 1996. Global Terrestrial Ob-serving System (GTOS): Turning a sound concept into a practical reality. Report No. UNEP/EAP.TR.95-08. UNEP, Nairobi.
ICSU/UNEP/FAO/UNESCO/WMO, 1998. GTOS implementation plan, Ver. 2.0. Report No. GTOS-17. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
IPPC, 1995. Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios. Houghton, J., Meiro Filhjo, L.G., Bruce, J., Lee, H., Callander, B.A., Haites, E., Harris, N., Maskell, K. (Eds.), UNEP/WMO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC, 1997. Agriculture: nitrous oxide from agricultural soils
and manure management. In: IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. OECD, Paris.
Lutz, W., Sanderson, W.C., Scherbov, S., 1997. Doubling of world population unlikely. Report No. RR-97-010. International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Luxembourg. MAFF, 1999. Tackling nitrate from agriculture: strategy from
science. Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries, London. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., 1972. The Limits to
Growth. University Books, New York.
Mosier, A., Kroeze, C., 1998. A new approach to estimate emi-ssions of nitrous oxide from agriculture and its implications for the global change N2O budget. IGBP Global Change Newsletter
No. 34, pp. 8–13.
Nicholson, S.E., Tucker, M.B., 1998. Desertification, drought and surface vegetation: an example from the west African Sahel. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 815.
Pitcairn, C.E.R., Leith, I.D., Sheppard, L.J., Sutton, M.A., Fowler, D., Munro, R.C., Tang, S., Wilson, D., 1998. The relationship between nitrogen deposition, species composition and foliar nitrogen concentrations in woodland flora in the vicinity of livestock farms. Environ. Pollut. 102 (Suppl. 1), 41–50. Sinha, S.K., 1997. Global change scenario — current and future,
with reference to land cover changes and sustainable agriculture in the south and south east Asian context. In: Ravinchandran, V. (Ed.), Regional Land Cover Changes and Sustainable Agriculture in South Asia. Proceedings of the COSTED/EU International Workshop on Regional Land Cover Changes, Sustainable Agriculture and their Interactions with Global Change, Chennai, December 1996. Committee on Science and Technology in Developing Countries, Chennai.
Smil, V., 1985. Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulphur: Human Interference in Grand Biospheric Cycles. Plenum Press, New York.
and Forestry: Global Change and Global Challenges, September 20–23. The University of Reading.
Socolow, R.H., 1998. Nitrogen management and the future of food: lessons from the management of energy and carbon. Paper presented to the NAS Colloquium “Plants and Populations: Is There Time?”
Wasser, C., 1999. Terrestrial data and information systems. Presen-tation to the GTOS Regional Synthesis Workshop, September 9–10, Budapest.
