IHDP Strategic Positioning Workshop Summary and Implementation Plan

ii

IHDP Strategic Positioning Workshop Summary and Implementation Plan

Supported by UNESCO and the International Social Sciences Council (ISSC)

Funded by the Packard Foundation

Table of Contents

1 Context ... 1 2 Methodology ... 2

2.1 Social sciences and humanities survey 2

2.2 Policy maker interviews 3

2.3 SWOT analysis 3

2.4 Workshop 4

3 Social sciences and humanities researcher results ... 6 3.1 Characteristics of IHDP network members vs. survey respondents 6 3.2 Social sciences and humanities research priorities 6

3.3 Current activities 6

3.4 Incentives and disincentives 6

3.5 IHDP past performance and ideas for future strategic positioning 7

3.6 Audiences for research 7

4 Policy maker perspectives ... 8

4.1 Priority questions 8

4.2 Research content 8

4.3 Packaging research 9

4.4 Recommendations for better engaging policy makers 9 5 IHDP SWOT analysis ... 10

5.1 Strengths 10

5.2 Weaknesses 11

5.3 Opportunities 12

5.4 Threats 12

5.5 Group prioritized activities/actions 13

6 IHDP strategic positioning ... 15

6.1 GEC landscape 15

6.2 Options for IHDP strategic positioning 16

6.3 Outcomes 17

7 Implementation plan recommendations ... 22

7.1 Internal activities 23

7.2 External activities 23

Table of Figures

Figure 1 SWOT prioritisation metrics ... 10

Figure 2 The GEC landscape of actors ... 15

Figure 3 Categories of actors within the GEC landscape ... 15

Figure 4 Four options for IHDP strategic positioning ... 16

Figure 5 Strategic positioning prioritisation metrics ... 17

Figure 6 Workshop participant and group ranking of IHDP’s strategic position ... 18

Figure 7 Groups’ recommended activities for IHDP as integrator ... 19

Figure 8 Groups’ recommended activities for IHDP as influencer ... 20

Figure 9 Timeline of forthcoming events... 22

Figure 10 Sample timeline of IHDP activities ... 22

1

1 Context

The global environmental change (GEC) research community has increasingly recognised the importance of social science and humanities research in addressing global environmental problems. Indeed, human actions lie at the heart of current global environmental change. Societies define the boundaries and character of their environments, while affecting, reacting to and adapting to changes in their environment. ¹ Recently, organisations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Council for Science and the International Group of Funding Agencies have called for better integration of social science research into the GEC field. In response to these calls, IHDP has initiated a strategic positioning process in partnership with UNESCO and the International Social Sciences Council (ISSC). In order to establish the views of IHDP’s key stakeholders, IHDP solicited input from those responsible for supplying research (social sciences and humanities researchers), those demanding research (policy makers), and from coordinators of the process (IHDP staff and associated members).

Research supply: IHDP developed a social sciences and humanities survey, which was sent to ~26,000 researchers around the world in order to better understand: (i) the social science research landscape, including characteristics of researchers, (ii) incentives and disincentives for engaging the social science community in human/social dimensions of GEC research and (iii) the key research questions that need answering in the next decade.

Research demand: Policy makers and researchers seeking to influence policy makers were contacted through a series of targeted interviews in order to understand the key research questions that policy makers would prioritise and the best methods of engaging these individuals in social/human dimensions of GEC research.

Research coordination: Finally, staff, project officers and Science Committee members were asked to describe IHDP’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

A staff IHDP’s strategic positioning workshop was held on Friday, 18 March 2011 to review the findings and determine next steps. This document aims to provide an overview of the data gathering process, the decisions taken at the workshop and the recommended next steps for the IHDP Secretariat.

The next section outlines the methodology used to gather inputs from suppliers, demanders and coordinators of social/human dimensions of GEC research. Sections 3 and 4 highlight findings for research supply and demand. Sections 5 and 6 describe the discussions and conclusions from IHDP’s workshop. Section 7 outlines a sample IHDP implementation plan based on outcomes of the workshop.

1 IHDP website

2

2 Methodology

IHDP commissioned Dalberg Global Development Advisors to support the development of their strategic positioning. Dalberg sought input from researchers, policy makers, and IHDP staff and projects to inform the strategic decision making process. Sections 2.1 to 2.3 outline the approach to obtaining this input through a survey and interviews. Section 2.4 explains the IHDP strategic positioning workshop methodology which aimed to provide options for IHDP’s optimal strategic positioning.

2.1 Social sciences and humanities survey

The project team designed the social sciences and humanities survey to understand researchers’ views on the social and human dimensions of GEC and IHDP’s effectiveness as an organisation. Specifically, the survey aimed to understand social sciences and humanities research priorities, current activities, and incentives and disincentives for conducting work in this field. In addition, the survey asked questions about IHDP’s past performance and ideas for its future strategic positioning.

The social sciences and humanities survey was developed between December 2010 and February 2011, with the help of a Survey Steering Committee (SSC). The SSC provided input and feedback throughout the design process. SSC members included:

• Mr. John Crowley, Senior Programme Specialist – UNESCO

• Dr. Heide Hackmann, Secretary General – ISSC

• Mrs. Eleanor Hadley Kershaw, Communications and Outreach Consultant – ISSC

• Dr. Eduardo Brondizio, Associate Professor – University of Indiana

• Dr. Heidi Prozesky, Lecturer – Stellenbosch University

• Dr. Anantha Duraiappah, Executive Director - IHDP

• Dr Deborah Rogers, Academic Officer – IHDP

The team worked with the SSC to refine the survey based on feedback from eight pilot survey testers. The survey was launched on 7 February 2011.

Approximately 26,000 individuals from social science and humanities networks around the world received the survey. This figure is based on an estimate for each network which agreed to send the IHDP survey out to its members. Networks include:

• IHDP: 4,000 members

• The Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA): 2732 members

• The Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN): 1,800 members

• International Sociological Association (ISA): 4,877 members

• International Peace Research Association (IPRA): 120 members

• Population-Environment Research Network (PERN): 1,267 members

• International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS): 300 individuals

• Tsinghua University School of Public Policy and Management: 2,000 members

• Society for Social Studies of Science (4S): 1,200 members

• International Union of Scientific Study of Populations (IUSSP): 2,248 members

• International Studies Association (ISA): 5,400 members

A first round of responses was analysed on 2 March, after the survey was open for 24 days.

The survey has been left open to allow additional participation by potential respondents.

Further updated analysis will be conducted by IHDP.

3

The overall survey response rate on 2 March was 4.4%. A total of 1,168 responses were collected. IHDP’s network response rate was highest. Of the 3,860 individuals that received the survey, 18.3% responded. There are two potential reasons for the lower response rates in other networks. Firstly, there is potential overlap of network participants. For instance, some PERN scholars also participate in the IUSSP network. Secondly, as external network participants may not have known IHDP, there would be a lesser incentive to participate in the survey.

Of total respondents, 77.6% completed the survey (equivalent to 907 respondents).

Refer to Annex A for the full set of questions asked of survey respondents. ² Annex B contains the full results of the IHDP social sciences and humanities survey.

2.2 Policy maker interviews

Policy maker interviews were designed to understand what the priority policy questions in social and human dimensions of GEC are and what the most effective ways of communicating with policy makers would be. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. The team asked the following types of questions:

• What are your organisation’s priority questions in the field of social and human dimensions of GEC?

• What kind of research content should be shared with policy makers?

• How should results be packaged?

• How could policy makers be better accessed and engaged?

The Dalberg team interviewed 7 individuals who link science and policy or who are involved directly in developing policy for GEC:

• Anne Teller – European Commission Environment Directorate General Policy Officer

• Thomas Koetze – European Commission Research Programme Officer for Biodiversity and Ecosystems

• Jason Jabbour – UNEP Programme Officer for Scientific Assessments

• Geoff Garrett – Queensland Government Chief Science Advisor

• Andrew Ash – CSIRO Director of The Climate Adaptation Flagship

• Mark Stafford Smith – CSIRO Science Director for the Climate Adaptation Flagship

• Thomas Downing – Global Climate Adaptation Partnership President Refer to Annex C for the summary results generated from policy maker interviews.

2.3 SWOT analysis

In order to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of IHDP, different sources of information were used to describe IHDP’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Eight interviews were held with IHDP staff, International Project Office (IPO) chairs and Science Committee members. In addition, a number of questions were asked of survey respondents who knew IHDP prior to taking the survey. These questions were:

• Overall, how relevant has IHDP been for your work? (551 responses)

2 Skip logic was used in the online survey, which is not reflected in the PDF version of the survey. For instance, only those people who knew

IHDP prior to taking the survey were asked questions on its relevance and past performance.

4

• How well does the IHDP perform each of its roles? (585 responses)

• What do you see as IHDP’s strengths? (297 responses)

• What do you see as IHDP’s weaknesses? (290 responses)

• What do you think IHDP should do differently in future? (275 responses)

Refer to Annex D for results of the interview and survey SWOT analysis, and Section 5 for the workshop summary SWOT analysis.

2.4 Workshop

IHDP held a one day workshop at their offices in Bonn, Germany, to define IHDP’s optimal strategic positioning. The workshop provided a forum for participants to discuss findings from IHDP’s stakeholders. Workshop attendees prioritized internal and external IHDP activities and actions that: build on IHDP’s core strengths, improve identified weaknesses and take advantage of strategic opportunities. This list of activities and actions was then further refined in the afternoon based on IHDP’s positioning within the broader GEC landscape.

Core workshop sessions included:

• Introductions

o Welcome and introductions o Workshop objectives

• Survey and policy maker interview highlights

o Presentation of selected results for the IHDP Social Sciences and Humanities Survey and policy maker interivews

• SWOT analysis

o Group activity to summarise findings from the SWOT analysis based on poster summary findings

o Facilitated plenary to share feedback

o Development of actionable recommendations for IHDP

• IHDP strategic positioning

o Discuss IHDP positioning options

o Prioritise IHDP current and planned activities

• Integration and next steps

o Discuss implications for future integration o Next steps

Workshop attendees included all IHDP current staff as well as Prof. Gernot Klepper, the co- chair of the “National Committee on Global Change Research” of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and a previous Science Committee member. IHDP current staff included:

• Anantha Duraiappah – Executive Director

• Deborah Rogers – Academic Officer

• Pablo Munoz – Science Officer

• Barbara Solich – Programme Associate

• Anne Kathrin Raab – Communications Associate

• Louise Smith – Art and Website Manager

• Russell Morgan – Communications Assistant

• Anne Gessner – Executive Assistant

• Sabrina Zwick – Finance and Administration Officer

5

• Ainara Alonso – Communications Intern

• Paola Betancourt – Academic intern

Refer to Annex E for the facilitation materials used during the workshop.

6

3 Social sciences and humanities researcher results

The survey aimed to understand social sciences and humanities research priorities, current activities, and incentives and disincentives for conducting work in this field. In addition, the survey asked questions about IHDP’s past performance and ideas for its future strategic positioning. For a full outline of the survey questionnaire and associated results, refer to Annex A and B. Below, find a brief summary of survey results.

3.1 Characteristics of IHDP network members vs. survey respondents

Survey respondents work across the spectrum of social sciences and humanities, with strong participation by researchers working in environmental studies and geography. The majority of respondents have Doctorates (66%), while 29% have a Masters degree and 5%

a Bachelors as their highest academic degree. The gender breakdown of respondents is 61% male and 39% female. Seventy one percent of respondents are based at universities rather than government departments, NGOs, research councils, think tanks, private sector or media organizations. Respondents based in 103 countries answered the survey, with most responses from the USA, India and Germany. Though 33% of respondents are based in the Western Europe and 16% in North America, the geographic research focus is much more evenly split across the global South.

Fifty three percent of respondents who know IHDP are active in the network (very engaged, regular participants or occasional participants in the IHDP network), and active members of the IHDP network tend to be more educated, have more experience and be based more often in universities compared to all survey respondents.

3.2 Social sciences and humanities research priorities

Respondents were asked to rank their top four research topic groupings as highest priorities and most serious gaps, respectively. The topic grouping “equity/equality;

wealth/resource distribution” was cited most often as both the most important priority and the most serious gap. Other priorities and gaps diverge. The next most important priorities were policy, education, identity and health; whereas the next most serious gaps were identity, behaviour, policy and globalization.

Other high priority research topics included developing and least developed countries, urban (large to mega) populations and interventions to improve the lives of slum dwellers, and rural populations and natural resource conservation.

3.3 Current activities

Eighty one percent of survey participants already conduct research into the social and human dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Of these researchers: 11.6% only focus on this field, 60.8% consider it an important area of research and 27.6% consider it a small area of research.

3.4 Incentives and disincentives

Funding was identified as the main incentive to encourage greater participation in

social/human dimensions of GEC research. Other key incentives in order of mentions were:

7

• Opportunity to form / join collaborative research projects

• Professional recognition for engaged researchers

• Opportunity to help frame questions and research agenda

• Better access to colleagues working on similar issues

• Better access to training

Inadequate funding is considered the primary disincentive limiting research into GEC, followed by “policy makers don’t listen to the results of this work”.

3.5 IHDP past performance and ideas for future strategic positioning

Sixty one percent of respondents who know IHDP believe it is relevant or highly relevant.

They consider IHDP to play the following roles excellently, very well or well (in order):

• Providing workshops and conferences

• Supporting exchange of knowledge between humanities, social sciences and natural sciences

• Supporting research collaboration between humanities, social sciences and natural sciences

• Promoting interdisciplinary research

• Synthesizing research findings and conducting rapid assessments IHDP is considered to perform less well in the following three roles:

• Building capacity in human dimensions research

• Being responsive to donor community demands and requirements

• Creating and strengthening the interface between science and policy

3.6 Audiences for research

The audiences that social sciences and humanities scholars are trying to influence are (in order of priority):

• Academic institutions

• Governments in high income countries

• Multilateral organizations related to the environment (e.g. IPCC, UNEP, UNFCCC)

• Governments in low income countries

• Governments in middle income countries

• General public

• Peer review journals

• Non-profit, non-governmental organizations

• Private sector enterprises

• Multilateral organizations related to people (UNHABITAT, UNICEF)

• Multilateral processes (Rio+20, Millennium Development Goals)

• Mass media

• Foundations

8

4 Policy maker perspectives

The primary aim of policy maker interviews was to establish how policy makers can be better accessed and engaged in social/human dimensions of GEC research. Interviewees were asked about research questions their organisations prioritized in the field of social/human dimensions of GEC research. In addition, questions were asked about the kind of research content that would be relevant for policy makers and optimal packaging of information for this audience. For a full outline of interview results, refer to Annex C. Below, find a brief summary of interview and desk research results.

4.1 Priority questions

Based on a scan of five organisations’ ³ priorities in this field, a number of trends were evident. Firstly, policy making institutions tend to focus on effects of GEC rather than causes. This is evidenced in questions like “How do you build human resilience to climate change impacts” and “How do societies respond to climate change (notably through human mobility and security)?”

The level of analysis of policy making institutions tends to be national (rather than individual or societal). Examples of such questions include “How do governments develop and demonstrate innovative approaches to supporting pro-poor adaptation in diverse urban and rural contexts”

Finally, topics mentioned by policy making institutions tend to focus on natural resources, economic activity, governance and policy. For example, “How can natural resources like forests and fisheries be protected while ensuring sustainable livelihoods for local populations?” and “How do decision-makers develop coherent international decision- making processes for governance.”

4.2 Research content

Policy makers like actionable policy-relevant research content. Interviewees recommend that content should clearly outline how research findings are relevant to policy, making policy options and tradeoffs clear. Policy briefs should highlight certainties and explain uncertainties in research methodology and findings, while selecting findings to highlight, based on their credibility and relevance to policy topics.

Regarding data, policy briefs should include facts and figures (even if only partial) that can be used by policy makers to convince constituents. In addition, source data should be made available to policy makers or advisors to allow them to verify conclusions.

In terms of presentation of findings, content should be kept concise using layman’s language. Complex ideas are most powerful when conveyed through metaphors or day-to- day examples. Results could be presented by sector, location or constituency – all concepts with which policy makers are familiar.

3 A scan was conducted of the following organisations: the World Bank Social Dimensions of Climate Change (SDCC) Team, the European Commission Environment Directorate, UNEP, the US Government Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and UNDP Climate Change.

Where interviews were not held with organisations, desk research was conducted to establish organizational priority questions.

9

4.3 Packaging research

Policy makers tend to prefer short 1-2 page concept notes. However, findings need to be tailored to the needs of individual policy makers to be most effective. As such there is no

‘one size fits all’ solution. Results should align with policy maker priorities, modes of working and preferred communication techniques. Policy advisors require greater content and source material such as source data.

4.4 Recommendations for better engaging policy makers

Policy makers like one-on-one interaction. Thus developing long lasting relationships will enhance the likelihood that results are used in making decisions. Conducting workshops or developing a targeted organisational communications strategy could be used for regular outreach.

There is a divide between the timelines and constraints faced by researchers and policy makers. For instance, while policy makers tend to have relatively short time frames, researchers tend to operate on longer time scales. Educating policy makers about research methods and timeframes will help them understand what questions they can and cannot realistically ask. Educating researchers about policy maker priorities will help them develop policy relevant findings from their research.

Developing periodic syntheses of research findings helps give policy makers a sense of the

kind of research that is currently underway. This practice, frequent in natural sciences,

gives policy makers broader perspectives of research themes which can be used as inputs

when developing their own research or policy agendas.

10

5 IHDP SWOT analysis

This section focuses on results of the SWOT workshop activity. SWOT survey and interview results were reviewed by participants and can be viewed in detail in Annex D.

Workshop attendees evaluated IHDP based on Annex D results, and prioritised IHDP activities based on the following dimensions:

Figure 1 SWOT prioritisation metrics

Sections 5.1 to 5.4 summarise and categorise individual participants’ SWOT analysis, citing where relevant justification for these assertions. Section 5.5 outlines activities/actions prioritized by each of the three workshop groups, based on group discussions.

5.1 Strengths

5.1.1 Network and Interdisciplinarity

• IHDP’s strength is that it has built up a network of interdisciplinary GEC scientists and therefore is in a unique position to bundle knowledge within this network

• IHDP networks

• IHDP’s interdisciplinary network; as we have an overview, we are in the position to channel the input we receive in order to:

o Define where IHDP wants to go and use the network’s input to support it o Increase our own visibility and credibility

o ‘Translate’ it for policy makers

• Convening power; the successes of the open science conferences and workshops demonstrate the convening power of IHDP in bringing together social scientists

• We are an interdisciplinary network

• IHDP’s strength is its commitment to its network

• IHDP’s most important asset is its interesting network which provides a forum for exchanging ideas and research results

• IHDP’s strengths are its long history of developing a network of committed scientists and an up-to-date interdisciplinary expertise. IHDP is also able to drive bottom-up processes well.

Prioritisation metrics Related questions 1. Mission metric: Is this

consistent with IHDP’s mission?

• Does this option fit with IHDP’s current priorities?

• Is this option consistent with our mission and vision?

2. Capabilities metric: Is IHDP the right organization to take this forward (on its own or through a partnership)?

• Is IHDP able to draw on the expertise necessary to engage in this activity effectively?

• Are we excited / enthusiastic about our participation?

• Does IHDP have the capacity to take this on and effectively continue the other activities it’s already engaged in?

3. Serving our members: Is this what our members want us to focus on?

• Will our involvement make a marked difference for our network?

• Is someone already providing this service to our members?

4. Serving policy makers and funders: Would this make a difference to policy makers and funders?

• Does this option have relevant policy implications?

• Are policy makers and funders likely to find this useful?

11

5.1.2 Other

• The uniqueness of IHDP: social science focus, international, well connected, human perspective

• There is a contradiction between the quality of staff IHDP employs and the high turnover of staff mentioned as a weakness, perhaps because IHDP employs quality people who are then frustrated at the impact of our work

5.2 Weaknesses

5.2.1 Lack of clear mandate

• IHDP shows a lack of visibility, a lack of clear mandate and a lack of capacity to extend activities

• IHDP lacks direction and as a result there is an internal motivation problem

o Staff need to know what the organisations goals are so that we can work towards achieving them

o Goals should be set and maintained

o The strategic approach of the organisation changes on a whim

5.2.2 Funding constraints

• IHDP is too ambitious in focus given the lack of funding o IHDP targets too many groups and topics

o Because of our broad network, we are not able to achieve all our goals

• IHDP’s weakness is its unstable funding structure and management strategy

o IHDP has experimented in the past with various management models and has switched between research priorities and directions

o This has lead to mistrust among the scientists and funders o Secretariat staff’s unsatisfactory working conditions adds to that

• Increases in funding would improve staff’s situations and help IHDP be more successful

5.2.3 Limited/exclusive network

• Research exclusivity and limited policy interaction

o Developing country scholars repeatedly mention difficulty of engaging with IHDP

o IHDP has limited impact in policy

o IHDP needs to be more publically relevant in research

• IHDP does not reach developing country researchers or the policy community o This is a part of our strategic plan

o However it is unclear whether the capacity building and policy advice activities should be a core responsibility of IHDP

5.2.4 Other

• Weak link between projects and the IHDP Secretariat

• The SWOT weaknesses perfectly reflects the array of challenges that the secretariat

faces. We are not an effective organisation and it is unfortunate that our problems

are so visible to the wider community

12

5.3 Opportunities

5.3.1 Build on ICSU Grand Challenges and the Belmont Process

• Acknowledgement by scientific and donor community (e.g. ICSU Grand Challenges) of need for more social science research

• The current Visioning and Belmont Processes may be an opportunity to strategically position social sciences/humanities in the GEC landscape

• Project overlap with grand challenges; topics of equity, behavior o Current IHDP projects were defined years ago

o Some of these projects may not be updated or reflect the grand challenges

5.3.2 Improve IHDP’s convening role

• IHDP has a great potential to reach out to developing country researchers and to the policy community; the question is whether IHDP has the resources (financial or human) to make progress

• IHDP positioning including outreach and sharing a clear message

• Position IHDP as the facilitator/expert/supporter of social science research on GEC, but first we must establish a research focus/theme. If we do this we can:

o Set the agenda in research o Communicate with policy makers

• Be able to bundle important knowledge on GEC and link it to activities

• There is a desire for our knowledge and we should spread our impact by focusing on application

5.3.3 Other

• Reduce the uncertainty in IHDP and strengthen the secretariat’s work by o Engaging the network

o Engaging employees

5.4 Threats

5.4.1 Insufficient funding

• Lack of funding and thus capacity to be more visible is IHDP’s main threat

• Lack of money: we won’t become irrelevant topically, but might not have a strong enough voice to succeed

• IHDP is threatened financially and may lose the connection to the shaping of the new GEC framework

• The biggest threats are financial. Less funding means less continuity of staff and work flow

5.4.2 Other

• Lack of transparency

o Our network does not know what we are doing

o Funders may be unclear about our ‘contribution’ as a Secretariat

• There is a mismatch between demand and supply driver agendas o Is the research agenda driven by the demand or supply side?

o If demand side, it may be too top down rather than bottom-up

• IHDP’s complex structure is the main internal threat. IHDP’s external outreach is too

broad.

13

5.5 Group prioritized activities/actions

IHDP Secretariat IHDP Network and Projects External to IHDP

Continue as is • Science conferences / workshops

• Identify research hot spots to help define the research agenda

• Working closely with leading scientists

• Science policy activities

• Outreach to decision makers

Start • Develop professional development plan

Individual level

Incentives to contribute to IHDP’s goal

• Fill vacant positions for instance funding vacancy, project liaison

• Institutional memory focusing on improving access to and provision of data, improving archives and knowledge management

• Clarify relationship with donors and sponsors – who has decision making power and who should advise?

• Unifying theme (within social science research in GEC): “global responsibility”

-> global sustainability

• New project addressing gaps and priorities

• Integration efforts

• Contact management

• Joint publication activities e.g. a publication series

• Science – policy interface:

Summaries for decision makers / policy briefs

Event series (e.g. Beijing dialogues)

Build personal relationships through contacts of the Executive Director

• Policy briefs / SDMs. Develop decision maker network and influence (Whether?

How?)

• IHDP-wide cooperation on overall GEC positioning

Continue but improve

• Fundraising strategy

• SC and project committee research team setup

Geographical

Disciplinary

Gender

• Update IHDP website

• Job conditions focusing on stability and continuity of staff

• Fundraising focusing on diversification and sustainability of IHDP funding

• Coordination among projects

• Conferences (OM, PUP) focusing on higher frequency of events

• Workshops (capacity building) focusing on either making relevant or stopping.

• Contact management focusing on developing a wide network, retaining current and attracting new members

• Communication / collaboration with projects

• Take leadership role in assessment

• Capacity development of emerging scholars through mentorship programs and visiting scholar programs

• Improve policy pathways with UN

• Positioning in the visioning process

• Corporate image and interpersonal

relationships with others

14

5.5.1 IHDP secretariat recurring themes 5.5.1.1 Fundraising

Groups identified a need to develop a fundraising strategy, recruit a fundraising manager and ensure diversification and sustainability of IHDP funding in the long term. The Executive Director mentioned plans to bring on an employee to design IHDP’s fundraising strategy, building from the resource mobilization database that Dalberg developed.

5.5.1.2 IHDP staffing

The development of professional development plans, improved staff stability and job conditions were mentioned as levers to improve the secretariat’s functioning. Filling vacant roles such as the project liaison was highlighted by participants. The initiation of a system for maintaining the institutional memory of the organisation including access to and provision of data, structured archiving and a knowledge management system were also mentioned.

5.5.2 IHDP network and projects recurring themes 5.5.2.1 Interaction with the IHDP networks

Improved contact management was mentioned by two groups as a way to develop a wider network, retaining current members while attracting new members. More frequent workshops and conferences were recommended to improve interactions with IHDP’s network. In addition, capacity development of emerging scholars through mentorship programs and visiting scholar programs was a recommended improvement.

5.5.3 External to IHDP recurring themes

5.5.3.1 Positioning in the broader GEC landscape

Improved positioning in the visioning process and sustained IHDP co-operation with overall GEC positioning was mentioned as activities to improve and start respectively. One group recommended that the IHDP Secretariat should discuss strategic positioning with project chairs and the Science Committee.

5.5.3.2 Science-policy interface

Science-policy briefs (or summaries for decision makers) were highlighted by all groups as

an activity to develop and expand in future. Building personal relationships with policy

makers through the Executive Director was recommended along with improving outreach

communication with these individuals. Expanding policy pathways within the UN system

through the existing UNU link was recommended as a way to initiate the process.

15

6 IHDP strategic positioning

6.1 GEC landscape

IHDP is one player in a broader GEC landscape. Examples of actors in this landscape are highlighted in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 The GEC landscape of actors

The three actors at the top of the landscape: funders, international and national policy makers constitute the “demand” for research. These organisations either fund or use the outputs of research. Similarly, the three actors at the bottom of the landscape: next generation researchers, current social scientists and humanities researchers and current natural scientists constitute the “suppliers” of research. They generate research relevant to GEC. Convenors and membership networks coordinate research.

Figure 3 Categories of actors within the GEC landscape

Belmont Forum / IGFA

Packard Foundation

UNFCCC European Commission

World Bank

National governments Regional governments Local governments Communities

Young researchers Developing country

researchers

ISSC IHDP Diversitas

IGBP WCRP

UN agencies (UNESCO) Government

agencies

Think tanks Universities (Columbia Earth Institute)

Government agencies Think tanks

Universities UN agencies

(WMO) Industry

ICARUS

GEC UNU-RTCs

Institutes (SRC)

ICSU National research

networks NSF

Membership networks Funders

International policy makers

National policy makers

Conveners

Current natural scientists Current social scientists and

humanities researchers Next generation

researchers

GEC UNDP UNEP

Research Demand

Research Supply

Membership networks

Funders International policy makers National policy makers

Conveners

Current natural scientists Current social scientists and

humanities researchers Next generation

researchers

GEC

Research Coordination

16

6.2 Options for IHDP strategic positioning

In this landscape, IHDP has the option of positioning its coordination activities between different groups of actors. Options for strategic positioning are not mutually exclusive, but rather serve to highlight the emphasis of the organisation’s staff in time and funding on different types of activities.

Figure 4 Four options for IHDP strategic positioning

6.2.1 Option 1: Influencer

The influencer connects current social scientists and humanities researchers with national and international policy makers. On one side of the spectrum, IHDP’s role could be to shape the policy agenda on one or more topics to one kind of policy maker (e.g. multilateral environmental organisations). On the other side, IHDP could simply aim to provide inputs on one or more topics to policy makers.

6.2.2 Option 2: Enabler

The enabler connects current social scientists and humanities researchers with funders. On one extreme, IHDP could become a funder for researchers developing work on social/human dimensions of GEC. On the other, IHDP could facilitate access to and guidance on how to fund research for its network.

6.2.3 Option 3: Educator

The educator connects next generation researchers to current social scientists and humanities researchers working in social/human dimensions of GEC. On the one side of the spectrum, IHDP could create a university department which offers courses to young

Membership networks Funders

International policy

makers National policy

makers

Conveners

Current natural scientists

Current social scientists and humanities

researchers

Next generation researchers

GEC Membership

networks

Funders

International policy makers

National policy makers

Conveners

Current natural scientists

Current social scientists and humanities

researchers

Next generation researchers

GEC

Membership networks Funders

International policy makers

National policy makers

Conveners

Current natural scientists

Current social scientists and humanities

researchers Next

generation researchers

GEC Membership

networks Funders

International policy makers

National policy makers

Conveners

Current natural scientists Current social scientists

and humanities researchers

Next generation researchers

GEC

Option 1 Option 2

Option 3 Option 4

17

students to learn about social/human dimensions of GEC. On the other, IHDP could focus on expanding its networks to young researchers from target developing countries.

6.2.4 Option 4: Integrator

The integrator facilitates interactions between current social scientists and humanities researchers and natural scientists. On one extreme, IHDP could integrate with a natural science organisation or program. On the other, IHDP could facilitate dialogue between researchers of the four core GEC programs.

Participants were asked to rank the four options based on results of the SWOT analysis, specifying IHDP’s role and target audience for each option. In addition, they agreed on a group ranking and set of objectives. Finally, for the two priority positions, actions/activities that IHDP could continue, continue but improve and start were outlined, based on the following prioritisation metrics:

Figure 5 Strategic positioning prioritisation metrics

6.3 Outcomes

Participants and groups showed remarkable continuity in ranking IHDP’s strategic positioning. Overall, the integrator was considered IHDP’s top strategic position, followed by influencer, enabler and then educator. All groups ranked the integrator and influencer as the top two strategic positions for IHDP.

Prioritisation metrics Related questions 1. Mission metric: Is this

consistent with IHDP’s mission?

• Does this option fit with IHDP’s current priorities?

• Is this option consistent with our mission and vision?

2. Capabilities metric: Is IHDP the right

organization to take this forward? (on its own or through a partnership)

• Is IHDP able to draw on the expertise necessary to engage in this activity effectively or would other organizations have the same or better contribution?

• Are we excited / enthusiastic about our participation?

• Does IHDP have the capacity to take this on and effectively continue

the other activities it’s already engaged in?

18

Figure 6 Workshop participant and group ranking of IHDP’s strategic position

6.3.1 Integrator outcomes

Individual workshop participant views on the objective and audience of the integrator:

• Provide policy-relevant insights into policy making processes

• Influence policy makers by transferring research results into activities/policies for decision makers

• Bring IHDP network perspectives into discussions with multilateral and intergovernmental organisations

• Provide ‘translated’ findings to intergovernmental policy makers or national committees on a smaller scale

• Maximize policy influence for decision makers on IHDP’s target topics

• Bridge the gap between supply and policy makers

• Promote ‘selling’ and ‘demand driven’ research by focusing on international policy makers and IHDP research projects

Groups diverged in views about IHDP’s objective as an integrator:

• Positioning IHDP as the key network for social/human dimensions of GEC by linking other GEC programmes with social and humanities sciences

• Social scientists take the lead for integrating and interpreting GEC science focusing on sustainability

• Become agenda setters and focus on research institutions

Overall rating

Group 1 participant Group 1 participant Group 1 participant Group 1 overall rating

Influencer Enabler Educator Integrator

Group 2 participant Group 2 participant Group 2 participant

Group 2 overall rating

Group 3 participant Group 3 participant Group 3 overall rating Group 2 participant

Key

Top ranking Second highest ranking

Third highest ranking Fourth highest ranking

19

Figure 7 Groups’ recommended activities for IHDP as integrator

Discussion between groups on the integrator role focused on the development of an integrated approach to research. Participants reported that the division between social and natural science is unlikely to survive in the long run as interdisciplinary research becomes more main stream.

6.3.2 Influencer outcomes

Individual workshop participant views on the objective and audience of the influencer:

• Integrate social and natural scientists by integrating research results

• Co-operate with natural scientists within ESSP and core programs to enable a holistic view of GEC challenges

• Integrate social and humanities sciences into GEC projects

• Bring multidisciplinary research communities together

• Integrate social dimensions into all GEC research focusing on natural science projects in GEC

• Frame integrative approaches to research connecting research institutions with individuals

Similarly, groups diverged in views about IHDP’s objective as an influencer:

• Group 1: Provide credible, legitimate, salient science for policy makers by linking multilateral and intergovernmental organisations with IHDP’s social science network and IHDP’s project network

• Group 2: Supply background information for international policy processes

• Group 3: Key player and gateway between researchers and international policy makers (although it may be dangerous for IHDP to move directly into this role as it was ranked as its greatest weakness by survey respondents)

Action Recommended integrator activities Continue •Supporting existing networks of scientists

• Planet under Pressure planning process (get key issues into this conference which was planned as an IGBP conference, but it is now a joint conference)

Improve • Coordination of projects through facilitating influential conferences and workshops (Diversitas, ICBP, WCRP, PECS, IRDR)

• Geographical, disciplinary and gender representation in IHDP network (address exclusivity of IHDP)

• Broader IHDP participation in GEC realignment processes (helpful that more people are present because in the end it matters how many people are at the table)

• Improve involvement of IHDP members in joint projects (food, water, carbon, health) - ESSP projects are very important in the public domain, and a more active role from the side of IHDP could help IHDP but also the projects and the integration activities

• Representation of social scientists in various advisory and governing bodies

• Promotion of interdisciplinary research (like ESSP projects)

Start • Start new projects on global responsibility for global sustainability working together with all GEC programs

• IHDP SC projects and secretariat develop strategy towards integration of natural and social science research activites

• Thereafter, initiate dialogue with other GEC programmes

• It is important to have the courage to say that the natural sciences need to come to us, and not

the other way around

20

Figure 8 Groups’ recommended activities for IHDP as influencer

6.3.3 Enabler outcomes

Groups agreed that IHDP should have a limited enabler role:

• Influence design for calls for proposals (e.g. French ANR; IHDP has been approached by the EU to help them frame their next focus area) between donors, funding agencies; social and humanities sciences

• IHDP’s role is very improbable because IHDP doesn’t have the contacts with donors and we don’t think we have value add here

Discussion between groups on the enabler role, focused on IHDP’s strategy for selecting and funding projects. Participants mentioned that IHDP should strategically seeking funding for core projects that fit within its strategy.

6.3.4 Educator outcomes

Groups agreed that IHDP should have a limited educator role, relying on strategic partnerships:

• Strategic partnerships with others that have the means. For example, let ISSC take the lead on developing a capacity building program and we supply the educators but don’t coordinate the education. Target:

o Young researchers from developing countries o Educators from our networks

Action Recommended influencer activities

Continue • IHDP’s current activities are not able to influence the decision making process

• IHDP should develop a long term strategy of how to move forward

• Provide background information on basic research results that may not be relevant for immediate decision making, but may inform future debates

• Summaries for decision makers and policy briefs

• PuP policy briefs

• Integrated wealth reports

• Be present at IPBES and other science-policy process events

Improve • Harvest policy relevant results from projects (provide one story line from human dimensions)

• Translate into lay person language

• Profile experts on policy relevant issues

• Drastically improve or leave policy dialogue events – they require a lot of input, and neither the policy makers nor the media showed up for this process. This doesn’t get IHDP where it wants to go

• Website would need to help policy makers; IHDP would need to go out more to media and more present e.g. a booth or a side event is better than a research panel

• Contact management; establishing contacts with key players

Start • Build relationships with multilateral and intergovernmental organisations (detailed interviews with key stakeholders is relationships; you need a long term relationship)

• Establish database of scientists for policy relevant issues (we have really good people in our network but we don’t tap into our network; profile our scientists)

• Outreach training for experts (communications group to bring in our experts to work with reporters and profile them like TED)

• Develop a strategy towards policy relevant research (relationship to integration) – what is socially relevant?

• Consider facilitating role (policy people on staff) – depends on long term relationships, but there is an intermediate role. There are consultancy firms that specialise in facilitating this process. IHDP could consider that they engage in this. Probably needs a policy person in the staff e.g. retired high level decision maker who has access

• Develop distribution lines for policy documents

• Well covered events (e.g. selected audiences)

• Policy briefs

21

o New generation of social science researchers

Discussion between groups on the educator topic highlighted the efficiency of international

Human Dimensions Workshops (IHDWs). IHDWs have networking benefits but are costly to

organise and run. People come for a few days but much of the information presented is

beyond their scope and they have no ability to act or integrate information they learn in their

work. A platform needs to exist for young and old to meet, but perhaps this could be a side

event at Planet Under Pressure Conference or to encourage social sciences and

humanities researchers to interact.

22

7 Implementation plan recommendations

The following section outlines a high level implementation plan which could be adopted based on the results of the strategic positioning exercise. Content in this section was not discussed during the workshop. This section is a draft plan of activities for the short and medium term which draws on input from the survey, interviews and the workshop. It summarises Dalberg’s recommendations for next steps, but does not represent a set of activities that have been agreed to, either by the Executive Director or his team.

In the short term, IHDP has a window of opportunity to develop activities and outputs which contribute to the Planet under Pressure Conference and therefore, the Rio+20 Conference.

During this time IHDP should remain closely involved with Belmont and ICSU meetings in the lead up to the formal endorsement of a new structure planned for December 2011.

These activities could help develop the link with natural scientists to better position IHDP as the integrator between natural and social scientists. While many activities would be initiated in the short term, IHDP has the opportunity to further develop these in the medium term, focusing on e.g. its science policy-link and providing strategic support to its network.

Figure 9 Timeline of forthcoming events

Below, a sample activity timeline highlights possible IHDP internal and external activities that could be implemented in the short and medium run:

Figure 10 Sample timeline of IHDP activities

Short term Medium term

Belmont &

ICSU meetings

International GEC conferences & MDGs

2011 2013 2015

MDG deadline

2014 2012

Next MDG deadline

2020

Rio+20 Jun

//

PuP Mar Belmond forum

Apr

ICSU General Assembly Sept

Formal endorsement of new structure, Dec

Long term

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

IHDP Secretariat Activities

Engage in ICSU/Belmont processes Engage in planned ICSU/Belmont meetings Implement IHDP assessment

Provide additional support to projects Develop project unifying theme Develop IHDP assessment Expand science-policy linkages Initiate science policy linkages

Develop longer term IHDP network services Implement IHDP network quick wins External activities

Implement new educator and enable activities Reassess educator and enabler activities Implement staffing strategy

Design staffing strategy Implement fundraising strategy Create fundraising strategy Align plans with Science Committee Update IHDP strategic programme Internal activities

Short term

Medium term

23

7.1 Internal activities

Internal secretariat activities refer to all work conducted within the secretariat that improves internal functioning but has limited impact on IHDP stakeholders such as projects, its network and the broader GEC landscape.

7.1.1 Strategic programme

The first activity required of IHDP to move forward, is to update the IHDP 2011-2013 strategic programme based on results of the strategic positioning workshop. Specifically, the role of the integrator should be highlighted more strongly and a set of outcomes developed for this role. IHDP could consider strengthening or reallocating resources to undertake this work stream.

As a part of this revision, the IHDP Secretariat would consult the Science Committee (SC).

The SC would provide input on the revised IHDP 2011-2013 strategic plan, and develop IHDP’s unifying research theme based on results of the IHDP survey. In addition the SC would review the survey results white paper prior to publication, providing input as required.

7.1.2 Fundraising strategy

The development of a fundraising strategy will allow IHDP to expand its capacity in the creation and improvement of current services. IHDP would need to recruit a member of staff or contractor to develop IHDP’s fundraising strategy and implementation plan. Based on IHDP’s 2011-2013 Strategic Programme, the organisation should focus on diversification of funding sources, using its recently completed resource mobilization database as a first step.

Depending on the workload of the finance and administration officer, additional capacity to assist with writing funding proposals could be allocated internally from within current IHDP staff.

7.1.3 Staffing plan

A number of staffing concerns were raised in interviews and at the workshop. IHDP could develop a staffing strategy to deal with these concerns. The strategy would outline professional development plans for staff members and create structured hand-over or archiving systems for staff that leave. The plan would set staff expectations regarding tenure and performance and would enhance the overall stability and continuity of work. A plan for hiring staff to fill vacancies would also need to be developed.

7.1.4 Educator and enabler roles

Given the lower priority placed on the educator and enabler activities, IHDP will need to reorient staff towards more pressing IHDP tasks, and revise activities currently under way in these fields. IHDP could design a partnership strategy with ISSC for the educator role. It could conduct enabler activities by making the IHDP network aware of funding opportunities for research in social/human dimensions of GEC, as mentioned above.

7.2 External activities

External secretariat activities refer to all work conducted within the secretariat that directly

affects IHDP stakeholders such as projects, its network and the broader GEC landscape.

24

7.2.1 IHDP Network

Results of the survey and SWOT analysis demonstrate that IHDP’s key strength is its network. IHDP has the opportunity to provide some ‘quick win’ services to its network, while investing in parallel, in some longer term network support activities. Quick wins include providing research funding information from the recently completed resource mobilization database to IHDP network participants and projects. As funding was identified as the key barrier and incentive to doing work in social and human dimensions of GEC in the survey, documentation of existing funding sources for research could help to improve researcher participation in this field. Furthermore, IHDP could provide networking opportunities to members at an IHDP side event to the upcoming PuP conference, rather than investing in more costly IHDWs. Finally, IHDP could complete and distribute the white paper on survey results to survey participants and its broader network.

Medium term network investments, which could be initiated in the short term, include the development of a contact management system for IHDP’s network, which could be integrated into the current communications strategy to improve regular outreach. In addition, IHDP could update its website to fill in pages listed ‘under construction’, and profile individual researchers within the IHDP network to enhance visibility of individuals conducting research in the field. Finally, IHDP could develop ideas for a mentorship program to link young and old scholars targeting specific research topics or geographic locations.

7.2.2 Science policy linkages

The importance of developing science policy linkages was highlighted in the survey and policy maker interviews. However, IHDP has been ranked weakest in this area by survey participants. In order for IHDP to improve, it should continue to develop and disseminate policy briefs and decision maker summaries. To do this sustainably, IHDP would need to employ a specialised staff member, fluent in English, who understands both social science and policy perspectives. In addition, IHDP should develop a policy maker communications strategy, likely with multilateral decision makers, which integrates the policy perspective into the current communications strategy. This will require participation of the Executive Director, thus roles and responsibilities should be defined clearly between the communications team and managerial staff. One tenet of the approach could be to improve UNU pathways to access and influence decision makers within the UN system.

In the medium term, IHDP will need to invest time in relationship development with strategically chosen institutions. In addition, IHDP may consider developing (in partnership with another institution such as the European Commission) an online database of policy relevant materials. IHDP could also explore the potential for policy actors to pay for social/human dimensions of GEC research directly and help facilitate the process of network members applying for funding from policy institutions.

7.2.3 IHDP projects

The integrator role between social scientists and natural scientists occurs most frequently on a project level when researchers from many disciplines work together to develop a solution to a complex issue. As such, IHDP could use their project platform to play its role as integrator. As IHDP decides on its unifying topic for its next project, it could consider a theme that requires integration of disciplines from the natural and social sciences.

More broadly, IHDP could provide a platform for its joint projects with other programs to be

featured more frequently through its IHDP updates. In addition, IHDP could offer joint

25

projects the opportunity to develop policy briefings for policy makers to enhance their exposure, or to reach out to the IHDP network on integrated topics such as food and water security.

In order to better serve IHDP projects, IHDP could conduct a brief survey of project chairs and researchers to understand their needs and select tasks that IHDP is best placed to perform given its strategic positioning.

7.2.4 IHDP assessment

The IHDP social sciences assessment is designed to synthesise research on social/human dimensions of GEC. IHDP could engage volunteers from the survey to help develop the assessment methodology. However, coordination for the process would need to be managed by the IHDP Secretariat directly. The PuP conference could be an event at which IHDP recruits additional support for the assessment and delivers a status update.

In the medium term, IHDP could develop an Assessment Steering Committee to enhance participation and buy-in from the community more broadly. Findings could be tailored both for social scientists as well as policy makers, thereby furthering IHDP’s goal of being a successful influencer.

7.2.5 ICSU/Belmont processes

Finally, IHDP would continue its active participation in the ISCU visioning and Belmont

processes. Sufficient representation should be planned for key meetings in 2011. The

survey white paper could be provided to ICSU and Belmont participants as an input to the

process. Finally, IHDP should engage closely on integration plans. This would involve

developing a set of IHDP principles for integration and ensuring that social scientist and

humanities researcher interests are represented in discussions and in the final

organisational structure.