Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)
with a global membership of national scientific bodies (114 Members, representing 134 countries) and international Scientific Unions (29 Members).
The Council is frequently called upon to speak on behalf of the global scientific community and to act as an advisor in matters ranging from scientific conduct to the environment. ICSU’s activities focus on three areas: planning and coordinating research; science for policy; and strengthening the Universality of Science.
Suggested citation: ICSU (2008) A Review of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE). Prepared by Professor Geoffrey Oldham.
© ICSU 2008
of the Environment (SCOPE)
March 2008
Prepared by Professor Geoffrey Oldham
for the International Council for Science (ICSU)
Executive Summary Introduction
Purpose of the Review
The methodology of the Review Limitations of the Review Previous Reviews of SCOPE
Responses to the questions posed in the Terms of Reference a. The objectives of SCOPE
b. The performance of SCOPE over time
c. Problems encountered by SCOPE in meeting its objectives The future of SCOPE
Category 1: ‘More of the same’ option
Category 2: The re-invention or rejuvenation option Category 3: The merger or partnership option Category 4: The closure option
Consultants comments and recommendations Next steps
Acknowledgements
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference for the Review of SCOPE Appendix 2: Membership of the Reference Group Appendix 3: List of people interviewed
Appendix 4: SCOPE’s development over the past four decades Appendix 5: Web questionnaire response summary
Appendix 6: Preliminary work on SCOPE biometrics
Appendix 7: SCOPE Scientific Programme and Directory (at November 2007) Appendix 8: Notes on SCOPE finances - status and trends
5 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 15 20 20 20 22 22 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 34 43 48 50
The International Council for Science (ICSU) requested a consultant to prepare a review of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE). This review was required as an input to decisions about the future of SCOPE which ICSU expect to make during 2008. A Reference Group was established to help the consultant with the review, and detailed Terms of Reference were specified.
Answers to the questions posed in the Terms of Reference were based on an analysis of responses to a web based questionnaire which was sent to 370 individuals who have been associated with the work of SCOPE over the past five years. The analysis also took into account interviews which the consultant held with approximately fifty key informants. Reports and accounts were also consulted and analysed.
The results of the review demonstrate that SCOPE has had an illustrious past and particularly in its early days made many contributions to knowledge and to policy. More recently several new organizations have been esta- blished which work at the science and environment interface. These provide competition for SCOPE’s scientific assessments. They also provide competition for available financial and human resources. The financial situation facing SCOPE is now acute with funding for the Secretariat and administrative costs exceeding the subscription fees from its Members by more than $50,000 per annum. One of the main reasons for this situation is that the fees are paid in dollars and about 50% of the expenses are spent in Euros. The loss in value of the dollar has not been matched by increases in subscription fees.
The review identifies the strengths and weaknesses of SCOPE. Most of these had been identified in a previous review in 2003, and are well known both to the SCOPE Executive Committee and to the SCOPE Secretariat.
Some measures have been taken to overcome the weaknesses over the past five years, but the financial situa- tion has meant there are still many problems which remain to be solved.
Four alternative options were identified for the future of the organization. These were the ‘more of the same’
option; ‘the rejuvenation or re-invention’ option; ‘the merger’ option; and ‘the closure’ option. The majority of the people interviewed favoured the rejuvenation or re-invention option, although about a fifth was in favour of the merger or closure options. Very few people thought that SCOPE could survive by doing more of the same.
The final section of the report contains the consultant’s personal comments and conclusions. It is recommended that there should be a set of consultations and meetings which explore the needs for a SCOPE type organization given the activities of other organizations working on scientific assessments, before final decisions about the futu- re of SCOPE are taken.
Purpose of the Review
The Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) states on its web page (www.icsu-scope.org) that ‘SCOPE is an interdisciplinary body of natural and social science expertise focused on global environmen- tal issues operating at the interface between scientific and decision-making instances. A worldwide network of scientists and scientific institutions develops syntheses and reviews of scientific knowledge on current or poten- tial environmental issues’. It was established by ICSU in 1969 as a mechanism to bring together scientists to carry out international and interdisciplinary scientific assessments of environmental problems.
In the intervening years it has made many contributions to our understanding of the environment and helped launch several new organizations1Now, forty years after its inception, SCOPE is facing severe financial problems and the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) of ICSU requested this review, in consultation with the Executive Committee of SCOPE, to provide recommendations with regard to the future of SCOPE. It is a sta- tutory requirement of ICSU to review all its Interdisciplinary Bodies as appropriate.
Detailed Terms of Reference were provided by the CSPR of ICSU and endorsed by the SCOPE Executive Committee (see Appendix 1).
The methodology of the Review
As the ICSU Secretariat is already involved in three major reviews (ESSP, IGBP and WCRP), an alternative review model was used. The Review was carried out by a consultant guided by a Reference Group and supported by the ICSU Secretariat through one of its Science Officers (Dr. Patricia Ocampo-Thomason). The Reference Group advised on the overall design of the Review, the specific questions to be addressed and suggested key stakehol- ders to be contacted. The Reference Group reviewed the draft report prior to submission to the CSPR (see Reference Group list on Appendix 2). The SCOPE Secretariat also provided valuable and detailed inputs at the request of the consultant and the SCOPE Executive Committee was offered the opportunity to review the draft report for factual errors.
Several approaches were followed to obtain the information needed to answer the questions in the terms of refe- rence. These included:
The preparation of web based questionnaires aimed at different SCOPE stakeholders. These included members of the SCOPE Executive Committee, editors and contributors of the five most recent SCOPE reports, chairpersons of ongoing projects, representatives of SCOPE Committees in Member countries and of International Member Unions, and representatives of SCOPE partner organizations.
Approximately 370 individuals were invited to complete one or more of the questionnaires, and 123 responded.
Confidential interviews were held with forty-four key informants. Some were face to face, but most were telephone interviews which lasted from thirty to sixty minutes. An effort was made to interview people from different stakeholder groups, from different countries and of different age groups. The list of inter- viewees is contained in Appendix 3. There were also a few e mail exchanges with some individuals who could not be contacted by telephone. The names of these individuals are also listed in Appendix 3.
A sample bibliometric analysis was carried out.
An analysis was made of the SCOPE financial accounts for the past ten years.
Additional material was supplied from the SCOPE secretariat and the Island Press publishers.
1 For several papers on the history of SCOPE the reader is referred to 1) SCOPE: The First Sixteen Years by Gilbert White. Environmental Conservation Volume 14, No 1 Spring 1987: 2) Science International. A History of the International Council of Scientific Unions, by Frank Greenaway, Cambridge University Press 1996 and 3) SCOPE’s Development over the Past Four Decades, by Jerry Melillo – Appendix 4 pre- pared for this review at the request of the Consultant.
Limitations of the Review
Initially it had been intended that the ICSU Reference Group and the officers of the SCOPE Executive would meet with the consultant mid-way through the review to discuss the initial findings. However, some members of the Reference Group and the SCOPE Executive suggested it was inappropriate for an environmental group to bring people from around the world to meet for only one or two days. Instead, it was agreed that a preliminary draft of the report would be sent to the two groups for comment, and if necessary a conference call would be convened.
It should also be noted that efforts to answer the questions posed in the terms of reference by means of a web- based questionnaire led to responses that are the respondents’ ‘perception’ of an issue rather than necessarily reflecting reality.
Also, it is important to distinguish between the views of the various respondents and the views of the consultant.
In this report the consultant has tried to make very clear when the views expressed are his own. Otherwise, the report is a reflection of the consolidated views of the different respondents. A slightly concave mirror has been used so that there is some focus to the reflected comments.
The decision was taken at the beginning of the review that all responses to the questionnaires and interviews would be considered as confidential. This has enabled people to express their full views. But it means that the readers of the report cannot give weight to the different responses and viewpoints expressed.
Previous Reviews of SCOPE
The most recent previous review of SCOPE took place in 2003 when a CSPR Assessment Panel chaired by Robert Watson carried out an ‘ICSU Priority Area Assessment on Environment and its Relation to Sustainable Development’. In this assessment SCOPE was only one of many organizations considered. Nevertheless the Panel made several observations about SCOPE. Their comments constitute a useful benchmark for several of the issues considered in this review. The following is a direct quote from the Assessment Panel Report:
‘Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)
SCOPE was established in 1969 to identify and critically assess the importance of emerging global or regional environmental issues, emphasizing those that need an interdisciplinary perspective. SCOPE has a wide range of partnerships, both within and outside of ICSU. Its projects range from studies of biodi- versity and ecosystems, alien invasive species, biogeochemical cycles including the impact of human activities (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, and silicon), chemicals and ecosystems, and human health and the environment.
Most studies deal with environmental issues that are directly relevant to sustainable development. Major outcomes during the last decade include the identification of a number of key emerging issues, e.g.
SCOPE studies laid the foundation for the formation of the IPCC. Studies have also been among the first to explore the importance of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning and the consequences of biodiversi- ty for ecosystem goods and services; how alterations in the carbon cycle interact with the climate sys- tem, and how the nitrogen and carbon cycles are interlinked with biodiversity and land-use changes, and an assessment of methodologies to assess chemical risks to ecosystems and human health.
The major challenge for SCOPE is to prioritize its activities among the numerous topics to be explored, and to find the appropriate balance between regional versus global, and between scientifically interes- ting versus policy relevant emerging environmental issues. During the last five years, SCOPE has placed greater focus on issues that have regional significance as well as global implications in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The Panel encourages continuation of these types of studies and recognizes that the audiences for studies include both policy-makers and the science community. SCOPE can be particu- larly helpful to both these audiences by identifying issues well before comprehensive international assessments are authorized by international Conventions or UN agencies. The Panel was pleased to note the recent decision to reduce the number of projects, since recent projects have not been particularly innovative or addressed ‘over the horizon’ issues. SCOPE studies need to contribute more to the plan- ning of other ICSU activities, and when policy relevant, to include the environmental, economic and social dimensions as appropriate.’
The Terms of Reference set for this review were detailed and set primarily to inform the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) about the performance of SCOPE and its possible future evolution. The question- naire posted on the web was designed to help provide answers to the questions posed in the ToR (see summa- ry of responses in Appendix 5). This section of the report will therefore be structured as far as possible around these questions and the numbering system will refer to the letters and numbers contained in the ToR included as Appendix 1.
a. The objectives of SCOPE
a-1 Expectations of SCOPE over the past 10 years
The objectives have remained essentially the same since SCOPE began nearly forty years ago. They are to carry out scientific assessments of problems of the environment through an international and interdisciplinary process, leading primarily to the publication of books. The results of these assessments are to be communicated to both the scientific community and to policy-makers. Most of the stakeholders2recognise this dual mandate. The deba- te among stakeholders is more about the ways to achieve the objectives than the objectives themselves.
For most of its forty years SCOPE has concentrated on reaching the scientific community through its highly spe- cialized books. It has hoped to influence research agendas, but its own role has been to make scientific assess- ments and not to carry out research. What is certain is that participation in the SCOPE process has greatly enri- ched the lives of most of the participating scientists. They speak positively about the benefits they have derived from participating in the international and interdisciplinary processes and the networks they have developed with other scientists.
With few exceptions all the responses to the questionnaire on this issue confirmed this point. This has a bearing on the value of the process for capability development especially for scientists from developing countries and for younger scientists.
a-2 Changes in stakeholder views about SCOPE
The main changes have been in the actual choice of topics to be studied and the ways in which the knowledge is disseminated and how policy makers are made aware of the results of SCOPE’s work.
There has been recognition that the previous informal ways of trying to influence policy makers and the general public about the results of SCOPE work were not sufficient for the needs of the twenty first century. Hence a new set of publications were devised along with UNESCO. These are the policy briefs which capture the policy implications of the SCOPE reports in a few highly illustrated pages which are given wide distribution. In 2007 UNEP joined SCOPE and UNESCO as a partner in the preparation and dissemination of the policy briefs. The policy briefs will be used in the forthcoming e learning programme to be launched by SCOPE and UNEP.
In addition SCOPE has produced the chapter on emerging challenges for the annual UNEP Global Environment Outlook Yearbook since this yearbook was first launched in 2003. A few special books have also been produ- ced by SCOPE for the general reader. This greater recognition of the need to produce material of direct policy relevance has meant an increase in the number of social scientists who work with SCOPE. The Secretariat told this review that 20% of participants in recent projects have been social scientists. Only 6% of the respondents to the review questionnaire claimed to be social scientists, however this was from a broader sample than just pro- ject participants.
a-3 Choosing topics and setting priorities
The process of identifying topics for projects and setting priorities was the cause of considerable concern among many respondents to the questionnaire. Nearly half of those who responded to this question said that they did
2 SCOPE stakeholders include the following: Members; Executive Committee; Secretariat ;Cluster Chairs; Participating Scientists; Partner Organisations; Donors and Funders; Member countries; International Unions; Members of the target Audiences including the Scientific com- munity and Policy Makers.
not know or understand the process. Several respondents (11) thought that the process was one of the weakest features of SCOPE. They thought it was complicated, with limited consultation and determined by a small num- ber of individuals. One respondent commented that the voice of developing countries is rarely heard (quote below). The idea that Officers or some individuals are the ones that proposed the topics and set priorities is echoed by another 10 respondents.
‘This process is mainly determined by scientists from the western countries. Those from underdevelo- ped countries rarely have the opportunity to air their voices.’
Below are some other quotes that illustrate some of the answers:
‘ based on my membership of the Executive Committee for 9 years. Topics were proposed from experts in all countries; their relevance to SCOPE objectives were carefully analysed, internally and externally;
working groups were carefully selected; time-scales and costs of projects were set; progress reports were carefully monitored and non-performing projects re-assigned or terminated’.
‘Again. I have not seen anything on this. In the last meeting at which I participated (Prague) we worked up a volume with ideas and priorities that was very much directed to what one person (one of the chair- persons) expressed. I left the meeting with the feeling that I just did not know why we had done this exercise and to what purpose. I obtained a copy of the book and the rest was silence’.
‘My understanding is that ideas are put forward to a governing committee for projects. I do not know how priorities are set, unless it is at the discretion of a governing committee. My understanding is that ideas also need a champion to make them come about, and funding from somewhere (governments?
agencies?)’
‘The selection process appears strange. A proposal is not evaluated by independent, anonymous peer reviewers, but rather by people within or close to SCOPE. There were no clearly stated selection criteria.’
‘It is negatively influenced by a lack of money as there are practically no seed money available that is extremely important for any project preparation. Also, the involvement of partners (ICSU, UNEP, even- tually the business sector etc). is less substantial than it used to be and that is no good.’
One interesting comment was: ‘the structure of the process has not changed much, but the reduced relevance of some of the topics and outputs has reduced the value of and interest in SCOPE’s activities’
Others suggested that the process was straightforward. Every three years SCOPE holds a General Assembly which consists of all Members and which is the main decision making body of the Organization. At each Assembly there are working groups corresponding to three cluster areas. These working groups discuss proposals or ideas that come from Members and National Scope Committees or other participants at the General Assembly. Those that are agreed by the working groups are then submitted to the General Assembly and the Assembly decides which to accept. These are then passed to the Executive Committee which has the responsibility for developing full proposals from the ideas approved by the General Assembly, and for setting priorities. This implies that new pro- jects can only surface at General Assembly meetings which only occur every three to four years. This problem is resolved by new projects also being accepted at the open Executive Committee meetings which are held bet- ween the General Assemblies.
The Executive Committee is also able to approve new projects subject to ratification by the General Assembly.
Critics of this process pointed out that it results in an assortment of many different projects and the criteria for setting priorities is far from clear. They argue that there is an urgent need to develop a strategic plan which gui- des the setting of priorities. Another complaint was that the process generates many ideas for projects but the conversion of the ideas to project proposals depends on the availability of interested scientists.
SCOPE has had a set of criteria for determining projects which were originally drawn up by Gilbert White in the 1970s, but these are not always followed. There is little doubt that this is an area where there needs to be grea- ter transparency and a clearer procedure for determining priorities.
a-4 Factors affecting SCOPES performance over time
The publication of reference books remains the main vehicle for disseminating SCOPE’s assessments. Ten years ago an agreement was reached with Island Press which gave them first option on publishing SCOPE books.
Occasionally the Press consider a particular book to be too specialized to be included in their Series and then alternative publishers are sought for these volumes. Occasionally a project Chair has a privileged relationship with a journal and with the approval of the Executive Committee, has published the outputs from his or her pro- ject as a special issue of the journal. Island Press reported that the SCOPE Syntheses series was one of the most specialized collections that they published.
When the project is a multi-year, multi-workshop, event then mid-term outputs are usually published in refe- reed journals.
There is continual debate among SCOPE scientists on the merits of publishing their work as books or in scienti- fic journals. The latter route is more likely to receive greater recognition for career advancement, especially in some countries such as the UK where the Universities’ Research Assessment Exercise appears to give greater weight to journal articles over book chapters. However, the questionnaire responses indicated that none of the respondents considered that their careers had been hindered by publishing their work as book chapters in SCOPE publications.
The ToR asks for an assessment of the factors that have affected SCOPE’s performance over time. The most signi- ficant of these factors is the increase in the number of the organizations that are working on environmental issues, several of which do scientific assessments. The most noteworthy is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which SCOPE was partly responsible for creating. Its work and impact has meant that for the past twenty years SCOPE has done little work in this area. There have been joint projects with IGBP on cycles interactions (2001–03) and carbon cycle in the 21st century (2002-04) which dealt in part with climate change aspects.,
There remain many other topics that deserve attention but given the plethora of other institutions SCOPE must be satisfied that no one else is studying the topic, or that it can provide value added to what others are doing before it embarks on a new project. An example will demonstrate the issue. SCOPE has recently begun an assess- ment of biofuels. There are currently ten other assessments under way on this topic. Some interviewees ques- tioned whether it was sensible for SCOPE to start an eleventh assessment. The decision to go ahead was made on the grounds that none of the other assessments were concentrating on the scientific issues, nor were they able to consider the issues in a non-political, international and interdisciplinary way that SCOPE intends to take. In short, it was decided that SCOPE could provide value-added.
Whereas there were few competitors to SCOPE in the 1970s there are now many, and the rationale for SCOPE undertaking a new project must be carefully justified.
Regarding the dissemination of SCOPE’s work, the main output remains the syntheses volumes. Policy briefs are also a complementary output. The website now provides free online access to all the old books published by Wiley, but the Island Press books are not yet freely available online. Online access to the Island Press books is available for a fee through the OCLC online library.
b. The performance of SCOPE over time
b-1 Development and use of indicators
Bibliometrics
An attempt was made to use a variety of bibliometric indicators to measure the impact of SCOPE outputs on the scientific community. These attempts are described in Appendix 6. This appendix shows the difficulties of trying to assess the impact of the book chapters which appear as a part of the SCOPE Syntheses volumes. Better results occur when the results of SCOPE work are published in journals. A few sample papers were chosen for analysis and several of these were highly cited. It would be a major task to carry out a more complete analysis of all SCOPE published papers. It was a task which was beyond the time and resources available for this review, but when more resources become available it is a task that the SCOPE Secretariat should undertake. Our sample shows that although it was not possible to assess adequately the impact of the book chapters, it was possible to demonstrate that some of the recent work published in journals has had a high impact as measured by citation analysis. On the other hand the results of the sample survey using the Web of Science showed little recognition of SCOPE outputs on that important source.
Book sales
Another indicator is the number of books sold. Wiley were the main publishers of SCOPE books until the year 2000. During the period 1993 until 1999 the number of copies sold averaged 400 per volume. By the end of the period the cost of the books was as much as $250. SCOPE therefore decided to change publishers to Island Press whose charges have been substantially less. Their sales data are shown in Table 1. Island Press considered these were reasonable numbers considering the specialised nature of the publications. There are no accurate data available for the number of books which are sold to libraries but an Island Press representative estimated that approximately 50% were bought by libraries. He was unable to provide figures which showed how this per-
centage had changed over time. However he suggested that in general, book sales to libraries were declining. It should also be noted that SCOPE itself purchases 200 to 300 copies of its books and distributes many of these free of charge in developing countries. Island Press promised to supply data on the geographic distribution of their sales but at the time this report was written this information had not been received.
All the copies of SCOPE books published by Wiley are now available online.
Date published Title Total sales
Oct-02 60 Resilience 1259
Oct-03 61 Interactions BGC 940
Mar-04 62 Global carbon Cycle 1559
Jun-05 63 Alien Invasive Species 1757
Nov-04 64 Soils and Sediments 874
Sep-04 65 Nitrogen Fertilizer 1130
Nov-06 66 Silica Cycle 301
Apr-07 67 Sustainability Indicators 1016
Jul-07 68 Communication Science 561
Popular books
Dec-97 Work of Nature 5273
Apr-02 Plague of Rats & Rubbervines 4627
May-05 Under Ground 2723
Website hits
SCOPE’s website (www.icsu-scope.org)is run on a limited budget, and serviced by a webmaster in Buenos Aires.
The Online Library section, providing free access to SCOPE volumes 1–59, is in part hosted on SCOPE’s own server, with the majority of titles hosted by a Stanford server (a courtesy to save funds). Based on the data avai- lable for the period May to October 2007 the SCOPE website had an average of 5287 hits per week. The ave- rage time on site was 24 seconds and the page views per visitor were 1.47. The Stanford site could not provide the statistics on book chapter downloads. Sixty five percent of the hits on the SCOPE site were referrals from Google.
For comparison purposes, the more general science and development site www.scidev.nethas approximately 25,000 hits per week.
References to SCOPE on other organizations websites
Many policy makers and their advisors make extensive use of the websites of trusted organizations. If those trus- ted websites frequently refer to other specific sites, then these too can become trusted sites. It is therefore in SCOPE’s interest to be referred to frequently on the websites of other reputable organizations. It is also of inte- rest to know how frequently material on the SCOPE website refers to other organizations
It is now possible to use the Google search engine to identify the number of times a given website refers to other organizations. This approach was used to count the number of times SCOPE’s website has referred to other orga- nizations, and also the number of times their websites have referred to SCOPE. Table 2 shows the results. The greater the number of times the other websites refer to SCOPE the greater the probability that readers of the other sites will become aware of SCOPE and consult the SCOPE site.
Table 1: Total sales of Island Press published SCOPE books up to 31 December 2007
Name of other organization No. of refs to SCOPE No. of refs to other organiza- in other websites tions on SCOPE’s website
UN Environment Programme 288 1049
UNESCO 166 64
International Council for Science 39 1200
International Union for the Conservation of Nature 18 8
Inter. Human Dimensions Programme 8 8
Intern. Institute for Sustainable Development 8 5
Intern, Inst. For Applied Systems Analysis 7 25
Global Invasive Species Programme 7 6
World Resources Institute 6 116
International Union Biological Sciences 6 3
European Environment Agency 4 4
Inter. Fertilizer Industry Association 3 5
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2 16
Inter. Geosphere Biosphere Programme 1 39
DIVERSITAS 1 9
Stockholm Environment Institute 1 1
Intern. Institute Environment and Development 1 0
Earth System Science Partnership 0 3
It is noteworthy that UNEP and UNESCO refer to SCOPE much more frequently than other organizations.
SCOPE itself refers frequently to ICSU and UNEP, and also makes a substantial number of references to the World Resources Institute and UNESCO.
A more detailed analysis could be made of the specific SCOPE articles, books, meetings and events that the other organizations refer to in their websites. However, the limited time for the SCOPE review has meant that it was not possible to carry out this analysis.
Other accomplishments over time
The interviews revealed the immense admiration felt by the interviewees for SCOPE’s contribution to our understanding of environmental issues. Several people said that SCOPE had also played a part in helping to start several new institutions such as the IPCC, IGBP and DIVERSITAS, Others questioned this claim and thought that SCOPE’s role in the creation of these organizations had been a modest one. Many interviewees believed that over the past ten years the number of noteworthy contributions had been fewer than in its early days when it was one of the few organizations working in the field. More information on SCOPE’s accomplishments can be found in the report by Jerry Melillo in Appendix 4.
b-2 The characteristics of SCOPE assessments
There are two types of SCOPE assessment. The first are the traditional assessments that can take four to five years from the initial identification of the problem to the publication of the final report. Such assessments include seve- ral workshops, and typically cost about $500,000. The time from delivery of the synthesis manuscript to the publication is seven months.
Table 2: SCOPE Website Links to other Organizations
The second type of assessment is the Rapid Assessment Projects (RAPS). These aim to be completed in less than two years. They usually consist of a planning meeting and a single workshop. The time from the delivery of manuscript to publication is five months and total costs are about $180,000. The RAPS are meant to respond to identified needs of policy makers and scientists, whereas the traditional assessments cater more for the topics which are ‘on the horizon’ and not yet on policy-makers agendas.
The advantage of the traditional projects is that they enable the topics to be explored in greater depth and with more peer reviews. Several of the scientists interviewed still preferred this approach despite the length of time which these assessments take.
The frequency of the assessments can be judged from the fact that in the 40 years existence of SCOPE, sixty eight syntheses books have been published. In addition more than 20 assessments have been published in spe- cial issues of journals, so that the total number of assessments is a little more than two per year. There are also a number of other publications from SCOPE work and the SCOPE Secretariat has estimated that these now total about 200 references.
At any one time there are some 15 to 20 projects under way. Appendix 7 lists the current projects. The process of project selection has already been described and from the mixed comments on this process it is difficult to judge whether the timing of the assessments has been strategic. A project may be defined that is timely and stra- tegic but it is not unusual for it to take up to two and even three years before the funds can be obtained and the project get under way. By this time it is often neither timely nor strategic.
From the information provided by the secretariat the outputs for each of the assessments, including the mix bet- ween books, journal articles and policy briefs, are carefully thought through and planned during the early part of each assessment. From the interviews the nature of the intended audiences only seems to be identified in the most general terms.
b-3 Key audiences for SCOPE Assessments
The audiences for SCOPE assessments were frequently identified as ‘the scientific community’ and ‘policy- makers’. Sometimes the scientific community was subdivided into ‘general’ or ‘specialized’. It seemed that audiences were rarely involved in the identification of projects, although they sometimes participated in the workshops to discuss draft chapters.
In addition to the books which are primarily intended for a scientific audience, SCOPE also produces the poli- cy briefs in partnership with UNESCO. Although they are primarily intended for a policy audience they have also been well received and used by the scientists themselves. These are based on the respective syntheses books and are intended for policy audiences. On a few occasions books are prepared for a general audience and are published by Island Press. Finally, SCOPE has been invited to prepare chapters on emerging challenges in the UNEP GEO Yearbooks. These too are meant for general and policy audiences.
It was suggested that these publications are only the tip of the iceberg. Many other journal articles are published as a result of the SCOPE assessments, but these rarely appear under a SCOPE label.
As a part of this review the consultant interviewed stakeholders who could be considered potential clients for SCOPE outputs. They were all senior scientists who work at the interface between science and policy in the envi- ronment field. Several were directors of institutions concerned with science and the environment. Many were familiar with the early work of SCOPE but none of them were aware of its recent work .Several thought that SCOPE had already closed. From this small, but significant, sample it must be concluded that SCOPE is not doing a good job in reaching its intended audiences.
Ability to attract the best scientists to participate in SCOPE activities
One important factor influencing the quality of SCOPE assessments is the ability of the organization to attract top scientists. One of the reasons that prompted the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to suspend its members- hip of SCOPE in 2006 was its inability to persuade leading Swedish scientists to participate in SCOPE projects.
It is difficult to make a judgement on how wide spread is this situation. Most people interviewed who had recent- ly worked in a leadership role in SCOPE said that they had no problem attracting good scientists into SCOPE projects. The issue has wider implications than just for SCOPE. The number of environmental organizations requesting the participation of voluntary scientists has grown considerably in recent years. Sometimes the orga- nizations are competing for the same skills and competences. Also, it was speculated by some interviewees that since there is increased pressure in some countries for academic scientists to publish in journals, this could influence their willingness to participate in SCOPE activities. But all the scientists who responded to the ques- tionnaire indicated that they were pleased to have participated in the SCOPE project.
c. Problems encountered by SCOPE in meeting its objectives
c-1 SCOPE’s organization and management structure
The organization is quite elaborate and follows the by-rules which govern the way all ICSU’s interdisciplinary bodies are governed. It consists of several components:
National Members who are usually the National Academies of the member countries. There are 38 National Members. Several of these have established National Scope Committees
Scientific International Unions and Committees Members. There are 22 of these The General Assembly, which meets every three to four years.
The Executive Committee which consists of five officers and five additional members. These EC mem- bers are appointed for three-year terms.
The Secretariat, which consists of 2 full-time and 1 part time staff. (these are currently receiving redu- ced salaries) The SCOPE Secretariat is co-located with the ICSU Secretariat in Paris.
Scientists who volunteer their time and who do the assessment work
Programmes and projects are arranged in three clusters, each under the leadership of a cluster chair or chairs.
This is a cumbersome arrangement for an organization with relatively little funding, and especially at the present time when there is a financial crisis. Not only is there insufficient funds to permit good interactions between all the component parts of the organization, but there is also insufficient funds to build good links and partnerships between SCOPE and other organizations. In several of the interviews with partner organizations suggestions were made for new and better ways of forging active links. They could not be implemented because of lack of funds.
A part of the organization’s current difficulties lie in its lack of visibility. This will require the improvement of its website, including the development of a newsletter, more interaction between the Members and the Secretariat, and the further development of partnerships and strategic alliances.
Other problems identified through the interviews and questionnaire included:
The lack of interaction between the Members and the Secretariat and Executive Committee.
The frequent delays incurred at all stages in the project cycle.
Too many projects covering too wide a range of topics and no evident criteria for determining priorities The system does not lend itself to getting inputs from policy makers, industry, regional organizations or NGOs.
c-2 Members involvement over time
In the early days of SCOPE the most active Members were Sweden, the UK, the USA and Canada. Today, Sweden has suspended its membership. The USA continues to be active, as are France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the Czech Republic. China, India and Brazil are all active Members. India was one of the founding Members in 1969 and Indian scientists have always been quite active in SCOPE. China joined in 1988 and became very active immediately. Brazil joined more recently but Brazilian scientists have been acti- ve in SCOPE for several years. China in particular has a very active dissemination programme of some SCOPE projects. In Africa the most active country has been South Africa. Many developing country scientists participa- te actively in SCOPE projects even though their National Academies have not joined as Members. No new Members have joined the organization in the past five years.
c-3 SCOPE’s Financial Situation
Tables 3 and 4 are based on the annual audited accounts provided by the SCOPE Secretariat. The columns in Table 4 which show administrative expenditures and Membership subscriptions do not reveal the full costs of running the Secretariat. To the administrative costs must be added some salary costs which have been allocated in the accounts to scientific expenditures and publication costs. For 2006 the total secretariat costs were US
$261,969 which exceeds the subscription income from Members by US$57,884. Table 4 also shows the impact of the changing Euro /US$ exchange rates by presenting administration costs in both US$ and Euros.
Year Income Expenditure Excess I over E
2006 521,244 510,617 10,626
2005 570,294 637,002 -66,708
2004 998,050 1,049,056 -51,005
2003 1,093,325 1,231,966 -138,640
2002 1,090,998 947,548 143,450
2001 613,152 708,061 -94,909
2000 1,207,918 1,017,770 190,147
1999 886,334 802,569 83,765
1998 579,517 532,815 46,702
1997 448,423 500,216 -51,793
For the preparation of this review the Secretariat was asked to prepare a statement about SCOPE’s finances and recent trends. This statement was prepared by Véronique Plocq- Fichelet and is reproduced as Appendix 8. It pro- vides a detailed picture of the organization’s financial situation and should be read in conjunction with these tables.
Year Contribution (US$) Admin expenses (US$) Rate of exchange Expenses (Euros)
2006 204085 149262 1.284 116248
2005 230190 170208 1.247 136494
2004 246162 149838 1.224 122417
2003 250547 194389 1.176 165297
2002 149625 107583 0.938 114694
2001 187043 147870 0.856 172745
2000 203175 135974 0.936 145271
1999 232252 148172 1.048 141385
1998 186040 133385 1.102 121039
1997 177694 153665 1.149 133738
Table 5 compares the annual income for 2006 of several other science and environment organizations with that of SCOPE. It is not easy to make direct comparisons between some items of expenditure as listed in annual accounts since different accounting systems seem to be used. However, it is useful to compare the SCOPE finan- ces in general terms with those of IGBP and DIVERSITAS. This has been done in Table 6.
Name of organization Income 2006 US$ million
FPRI 38
WRI 21
IIASA 17.5
ICSU 2005 core budget 4.4
IGBP 2.3
IHDP 1
DIVERSITAS 0.8
SCOPE 0.5
Table 3: SCOPE’S annual income and expenditure figures in US$
Table 4: SCOPE Members annual contribution and administrative expenses
Table 5 : 2006 Income of other related organizations
IGBP finances for 2006 (from the IGBP annual report)
Thirty nine countries made national contributions that amounted to approximately $1.5 million. This represents between 60–70% of the total central income. The rest is derived from project grants.
One third of the core income is spent on secretarial salaries and a half on non-salary scientific and communication activities. Ten percent is spent on secretariat operating expenses and 5% on IGBP publications and the website.
DIVERSITAS finances for 2006 (from the DIVERSITAS annual report)
DIVERSITAS has 14 members which contribute subscriptions and which, in 2006, amounted to $527,000 or 67%
of total income. Expenditures were:
Scientific $641,000
Publications & communication $25,000
Administration $123,000
Mandatory reserves $394,000
The comparison between the member’s financial contributions of the three organizations is interesting and is shown in Table 6. It shows that both DIVERSITAS and IGBP receive average contributions which are much grea- ter than SCOPE. They also account for a much higher percentage of total income than is the case for SCOPE.
SCOPE DIVERSITAS IGBP
No. of members 38 14 39
2006 contribution (US$) 204,000 527,000 1,500,000
Av. contribution per member 5,360 37,640 38,460
% Total income from members 39 67 65
Ways to solve the financial problems
The consultant has estimated that there is currently a shortfall of about $150,000 per year between what is nee- ded for the smooth running of the Secretariat and its current income. This figure is based on the money needed to provide full time salaries for the Secretariat, the addition of another Secretariat member, travel costs for the Executive Committee members and Secretariat, improvement of the website and contributions to a reserve fund.
This is a considered to be the minimum sum required.
Several ways to meet this shortfall have been suggested. They include the following:
Increase the subscription fees of the Member organizations. An increase of about 75% would be requi- red to raise the additional $150,000 in this manner. This would still represent an average contribution per Member which would be less than a quarter of the current annual subscriptions contributed to IGBP and DIVERSITAS by their Members.
Increase the number of Members. At present there are 38 Members which pay varying amounts depen- ding on their ability to pay. Taking an average subscription rate of $5,000, then an additional 30 Members would be required. This must be seen at a time when some Members are resigning their Membership. Australia, Denmark and Sweden have all resigned or suspended their Membership in recent years.
Increase the number of projects that are serviced by the Secretariat, and which pay an overhead char- ge. The recommended overhead on such transactions is 15%, but this is frequently not attained. Also a number of projects are administered through the project chair’s own institution which keeps the over- head payments. At the 15% level the amount of project funding administered through the secretariat would have to increase by one million dollars per year.
Undertake fee earning activities such as organizing international conferences and training programmes (A suggestion from China)
Table 6: Member financial contribution to SCOPE, DIVERSITAS and IGBP
Transfer the Secretariat to an alternative location where the costs are less or where a government is pre- pared to subsidize the costs in order to host the headquarters of an international organization. Such a move would have to take into consideration the cost of winding up the activities in France and the cost of transferring staff to the new location. If the staff were not able or willing to transfer then the costs of closing the Secretariat in Paris would be between US$ 300,000 and US$ 350,000. At the moment there are no such offers to host the Secretariat on the table. Although it should be noted that some interna- tional organizations have transferred their headquarters to the Gulf States in recent years in order to help solve their financial problems.
Accumulate an endowment fund of US $ 3million.
It is not necessary to depend on only one of these alternatives. A combination of several might be a bet- ter solution. Even so it is difficult to envisage how any of these alternatives, singly or together, would be likely to generate the needed resources.
c-4 The efficacy of the SCOPE Executive to attract sufficient funding
The Executive and the appointed project chairs appear to have been quite successful in securing project fun- ding. Where they have failed is in raising sufficient funding for the Secretariat and administration costs – inclu- ding the costs of their own travel to Executive Committee meetings. There were no face to face Executive Committee meetings held in 2007 due to the lack of funds.
c-5 Competition with other ICSU bodies
The main competition issue with regard to other ICSU bodies is the propensity of these other bodies to engage in what is often called mission creep. This has meant that several are now carrying out scientific assessments of their own and hence increasingly overlap with SCOPE’s mandate. In the view of some interviewees this has become a serious problem which requires ICSU intervention.
An argument in support of mission creep was that it is normal in setting research priorities to carry out synthe- ses and reviews of previous research. It is not always easy to make the distinction between these activities and scientific assessments.
There was no evidence from the interviews and questionnaire responses to support the hypothesis that it was difficult for SCOPE to secure the time of voluntary scientists because of competition with other ICSU bodies.
There was some evidence that the quality of such scientists available to SCOPE was perhaps not as high as had previously been the case. This point was challenged by other interviewees who pointed out that SCOPE was often encouraged to involve younger scientists. When this is done then their international standing is not likely yet to be as high as that of the more established scientists.
The questionnaire asked whether scientists would give higher priority to their ‘spare time’ assessment work if they were paid. Most responses indicated that this was unlikely. Many indicated that they consider that their career was enhanced by being able to participate in international networks and that they did not require addi- tional payment. Had there been more responses from scientists in Developing Countries there may have been a different answer. It was suggested that it is difficult for developing Country scientists to contribute on a volun- tary basis
c-6 SCOPE’s positioning to compete in changing information and scientific assessment environments
Although some interviewees still strongly support the publication of books in a Syntheses collection, others pre- ferred publication in journals and on SCOPE’s website. They believed there would be greater readership if there were more, shorter, papers that could be published (subject to peer review) quickly on the website. In this way the timeliness of the SCOPE outputs would be enhanced. The interviews indicated that many people who should be aware of SCOPE book chapters are unaware. The website should make it easier for people who are seeking knowledge on a particular topic to find it if SCOPE has made a contribution to that topic.
The SCOPE Secretariat is well aware of the need to update and improve the website but has been hindered from doing so through the lack of resources.
In addition to the scientific publications SCOPE has positioned itself to reach policy makers and the general public through its co-operation with UNESCO and UNEP to produce policy briefs, chapters for the UNEP GEO Yearbooks and on a few occasions by the preparation of popular books. Plans are also being made to produce e-learning modules together with UNESCO and UNEP.
SCOPE positioning regarding the changing scientific assessment environment is more problematic. The number of organizations doing such assessments has grown considerably in the last ten years. Organizations which pre- viously did other things are now doing their own assessments. National groups are also carrying out assessments.
There is a strong case for an attempt to be made to rationalise all these activities, and this point will be discus- sed again in the last section of the report.
Under the above circumstances SCOPE needs to consider the activities of other organizations before embarking on new topics. It should ensure that it brings added value if others are already undertaking similar projects. The added value would be judged on the basis of the SCOPE process or methodology which ensures a neutral non-political environment but with international and interdisciplinary approaches involving both natural and social scientists.
The previous section of the report tried to answer directly the questions and issues raised in the Terms of Reference.
This section will be slightly different. It departs from the specific questions and addresses issues about the future of SCOPE which were raised in the interviews and through the responses to the web based questionnaire.
Almost all of the respondents held the view that SCOPE has had a long and illustrious history and has pionee- red many important innovations and helped launch new institutions. They also recognised that over the last two decades the institutional landscape of organizations working on environmental problems has changed dramati- cally. At the same time there is a strong view that the funding to support this work has not grown at the same pace as the growth in the number of institutions, and that SCOPE has severe financial problems. It is with this background that the different views are summarized. The views expressed fell into four main categories.
Category 1: ‘More of the same’ option
People in this category argued that SCOPE’s process, which leads primarily to the publication of books, has pro- ven itself over nearly four decades. The more recent additions of policy briefs have enabled the results of SCOPE’s work to reach both the scientific community and policy makers. They argue that despite other organi- zations which attempt to prepare similar sorts of scientific assessments there is still the need for the unique approaches followed by SCOPE so that the organization should continue in the future operating in much the same way as it has in the past. In their view the main challenge facing SCOPE is the need to resolve its financial problems. If these problems can be solved they see little need for change.
There are not many people who fall into this category.
Category 2: The re-invention or rejuvenation option
People in this group argued that although SCOPE has had an illustrious past, its method of work and its objecti- ves are no longer appropriate for today’s world. Some think relatively minor changes will suffice to remedy the situation. These proposed a rejuvenation model. Others believe the changes should be radical and favoured re- invention. There was no consensus on just what changes are needed but some of the points raised include the following:
The needed changes are both content related and process related. Suggested changes to content based on the interviews and questionnaires were:
Maintain just a few assessments which are on ‘over the horizon issues’ and which are not yet on policy maker’s agendas. For some people this should be SCOPE’s main activity.
All other assessments should aim to meet the needs of particular clients. These may be policymakers, but could also be industry, NGOs and the public.
The time frame from choice of topic to dissemination should match the needs of the clients. This may be up to two years for some issues and some clients to a few weeks for other issues and other clients.
Before embarking on a new topic SCOPE needs to ensure that it is not already being carried out by ano- ther organization, or if it is, then SCOPE’s approach should provide real and substantial value added.
SCOPE should explore new approaches for using the web as a tool to provide quick access to authori- tative scientific assessments of environmental problems. There have been interesting developments in web based access to knowledge in the biomedical field which might be adapted to the environment.
The experiences of preparing the Encyclopaedia of Life should also be studied as a possible model for what might be done for the environment
The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) proposed in the United States by the National Science Foundation might be expanded to an international network.
SCOPE might become an association of concerned scientists and seek partnership with the World Federation of Scientists.
Several shortcomings of existing procedures were also identified and will need to be addressed in any effort to either rejuvenate SCOPE or re-invent it. These include the following:
(1) Governance.The procedure of holding General Assemblies is costly in terms of time, money and carbon emissions. Its value in the light of these costs needs to be re-examined and alternative ways of involving the
Members should be considered. The role of National Committees needs to be reviewed and ways found to reac- tivate them. There should perhaps be a new type of Member which enables the participation of policy makers in the governance of the organization. At the moment wider representation in the governance of ICSU interdis- ciplinary bodies is not permitted by ICSU rules.
(2) Membership of the SCOPE Executive.Some of the respondents felt that the SCOPE Executive did an excel- lent and dedicated job, but others felt that the organization had become an ‘old man’s club’. There is a need for new blood which would help drive the organization in a rejuvenated manner. It was also pointed out that EC members were often involved in leading projects. This, it was suggested, took away time from their Executive Committee responsibilities, such as fund raising, and was something that should be discouraged. Final decisions on project selection are made by the EC, but there seems to be reluctance on their part to reject proposals pro- posed by Members.
(3) Choice of projects.Nearly half of the respondents to the questionnaire felt that the process of choosing pro- jects is opaque and needs greater clarity. Others felt the process to be cumbersome, slow and lacking in any sort of strategy or priorities. As a result, at each General Assembly many ideas for projects were approved in princi- ple, but few were actually converted into proposals. The choice of what to develop depends on the enthusiasm and availability of individual scientists. The end product is a collection of projects, with only little relationship to one another. There is a case for having topics suggested from both the bottom-up and top-down, but there needs to be a robust strategy and a basis for setting priorities.
(4) The Secretariat.In many ways it is ironic to include the Secretariat among the shortcomings. Many people remarked on its strengths. ‘I have never encountered such a dedicated and knowledgeable secretariat in all my years of working for and with international organizations.’ This was one comment. The Secretariat also produ- ced excellent inputs into this Review. Yet the Secretariat is perennially short of funds and that is a major short- coming. At the moment the staff is on part-time salaries and there are no funds for staff travel. Without such funds it is difficult to raise further funding for the organization, to develop partnerships and alliances, and to pro- vide assistance to the SCOPE Members.
One member of the Secretariat suggested that it would help their work if they could be augmented by someo- ne with a scientific background who could also help with fund raising.
(5) Speed of the processes. Dissatisfaction was frequently expressed about the speed with which SCOPE conducts its business. There are too many hold ups. Many of these are due to the voluntary basis on which SCOPE scientists contribute their time. Deadlines are missed and delays follow. The delays can occur at all stages in the process from the time taken to get approval for a project, time taken from approval to the time of launch, time from the first workshop to the time when chapters are delivered, time taken for the review process and publication time. Several people commented that by the time the book was published several of the chapters were out of date.
The criticisms came from participants in the process as well as potential users
(6) The Rapid Assessment Projects (RAPS).The RAPS are a mechanism for reducing the time taken for assess- ments. The aim is to lessen the time from launch to completion to less than two years. When it has worked the results are generally regarded as very successful. However, on several occasions the RAPS have been subjected to extensive delays. The process needs to be investigated and the established rules enforced. Since the work is voluntary there are few penalties that can be applied when deadlines are missed.
(7) Reaching policy makers.It was widely felt that the preparation of the policy briefs in a co-operative ventu- re with UNESCO had been worthwhile. But, it was also widely felt that SCOPE was still not very successful in reaching policy makers. As one interviewee put it: ‘SCOPE still seems to be operating in a twentieth century mode when it was thought that scientists produced knowledge and then they communicated it to policy makers.
The process is now recognized by most institutions to be much more complex and interactive involving several stakeholders’.
There were differing views on the solution to this problem. SCOPE itself could become more sophisticated in its approach to policy makers, or it could enter into closer partnerships with those organizations that already com- municate well with policy makers. These partnerships should also contribute to the decision-making about SCOPE projects. Examples where closer collaboration of this sort might be mutually profitable are UNEP and the EEA.
The majority of the people interviewed felt that both content and process issues needed to be reconsidered in the light of the approaches being followed by other organizations working in the science and environment area.
Many of the people interviewed fell into this second category.
Category 3: The merger or partnership option
This option is favoured by people who recognize that SCOPE does some things very well (scientific assessments) but others not so well (reaching policy-makers). It was suggested that SCOPE continues to do what it does well, but forms partnerships with other organizations for the other activities. To an extent this is what it already does with UNEP and UNESCO. However, the partnerships could be put on a more systematic basis than is currently the case.
The possibility of full mergers between SCOPE and other organizations was also proposed. It was felt that there needs to be a greater rationalisation of organizations working on science and environmental issues and that SCOPE should participate in this rationalisation. Merger partners could be either a part of the ICSU family, or outside. Possible ICSU related partners are members of the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) which is cur- rently being reviewed by ICSU. A possible outside merger partner that was mentioned is the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (IUCN)
The idea of mergers was not welcomed by some people closely associated with SCOPE. A merger with any other organizations should help resolve the financial problems. Most candidate merger partners are themselves expe- riencing financial difficulties and are not therefore ideal partners. A merger which involved relocation to another city or country would incur substantial costs if the staff did not wish to move from Paris. These costs could be as much as $350,000 and are required by French law.
Several people came into this category. Some thought that if option 4 was being considered, then option 3 should be explored first. It was pointed out that the word ‘SCOPE’ was a powerful brand name and could be attractive to some organizations.
Category 4: The closure option
A number of people interviewed felt the time had come for SCOPE to be closed. Most of these people had been very familiar and supportive of the organization in its early days, but felt its impact had declined in recent years.
They could see no obvious ways to solve the financial problems. In the light of the changed institutional lands- cape, with many more institutions working on environmental problems, they thought it was, as one person said,
‘Time to declare victory and retire’. Another person said ‘Its closure should be an event which is a celebration of great achievements’
If this option were to be followed consideration would have to be given to on going projects, and to ensure that the ‘Secretariat is compensated generously’. The minimum cost would be that required by French law, and as noted above is likely to be up to $350,000. Even if ICSU or its interdisciplinary bodies were able to offer new contracts to the members of the Secretariat there could still be substantial closing costs.
It should be noted that this category included some of the leading persons working on science and environ- ment issues.
responses, and in what I read, which was pertinent to the questions posed in the Terms of Reference. In this last section I make my own suggestions regarding the future of SCOPE and the next steps to be followed.
SCOPE faces problems of both finance and identity. However, I was struck during this review by the extent to which other science and environment organizations face similar problems of both finance and identity. Several are in the process of re-inventing themselves and preparing new strategic plans. It seems as though the whole environment field has become saturated with institutions all looking for a role and for funds. This is at a time when funding does not seem to be growing, and may even be declining.
Over the past few months I have been deeply immersed with SCOPE and its activities. I have spoken or had e mail exchanges with fifty key informants and digested the responses of about one hundred and thirty individuals to our web-based questionnaires. From this immersion I have formed a number of impressions about the strengths and weaknesses of the organization which have a direct bearing on the decision which will have to be made on its future. I will summarise what I consider to be the most significant issues.
First of all there are the contextual factors in which SCOPE finds itself. These include:
There has been a large growth in the number of organizations working at the science and environment interface. Many of these carry out scientific assessments either because of their mandate or because of mission creep.
There has also been a huge growth in interest on the part of scientists, business enterprises, policy makers and the public in the environment. This has created a demand for relevant scientific knowled- ge in a time frame which is much shorter than was the case twenty years ago.
Funding to support the scientific research, synthesis and policy interaction in the environment field has not grown at a pace commensurate with the growth in the number of organizations. There is therefore considerable competition between organizations for available funds.
The decline in the value of the dollar compared with the Euro has caused difficulties for all those orga- nizations which receive their funding in dollars and whose expenditures are mainly in Euros.
The World Wide Web is becoming an important tool not only in the dissemination of knowledge but also is creating new ways for the accumulation and generation of knowledge. There are interesting expe- riments going on in the use of the web in both the biomedical field and in the Encyclopaedia of Life.
Similar approaches may be relevant for the creation, accumulation and distribution of environmental knowledge.
The generation of scientific knowledge relevant for policy makers almost always requires the participa- tion of natural and social scientists that cooperate on an equal footing.
These are just some of the contextual features which influence SCOPE’s current and possible future activities.
The main strengths and weaknesses of SCOPE which are particularly relevant to the decision about its future will now be summarised.
The main strengths of SCOPE are:
It is an organization which has established an enviable reputation for carrying out scientific assessments of high quality on problems of the environment. These assessments are carried out in a non political milieu and with an international and interdisciplinary approach. The SCOPE brand name is still a valua- ble asset.
Most of the scientific syntheses are done by volunteer scientists. Were they to have been paid then the total costs of the work done would be much greater.
Steps have been made in the last five years to rectify a number of weaknesses in the organization. For example the Rapid Assessment Projects were introduced which cut the time of the project from approxi- mately five to approximately two years. Policy briefs have been prepared in cooperation with UNESCO.
More social scientists have been involved in the assessments. In some recent assessments as many as 20% of the team were social scientists. These examples demonstrate the ability of SCOPE to respond to new challenges.
Representatives of several of SCOPE’s partners spoke highly in my interviews about the value of SCOPE’s work. This was especially the case with UNEP, UNESCO, The European Environment Agency, and the
