Future Earth Summary of comments received and initial responses

Who has commented? GEC programs (DIVERSITAS, IGBP, IHDP, WCRP, ESSP), Alliance members, Projects, Joint projects “Town Halls” e.g. PUP Launch events e.g. Rio+20 National Committees Regional consultations Various international groups e.g. PROVIA Individual discussions with Alliance and Transition Team

Comments Support for a more integrated, international and interdisciplinary framework for GEC research with more stable funding and infrastructure Like the simple accessible name of Future Earth Pleased to see an initiative that responds to the sustainable development agenda, the increasing overlaps/links between the GEC programs, implements the spirit of Amsterdam/PUP and Rio+20, and the need to look at long term transformations

4 Future Earth: Proposed Integrated Research Themes June A Changing Planet: Understanding earth, ecological and societal system trends, drivers, processes, and projections 2 Resources for development and wellbeing: ensuring the sustainable provision of food, water, health and ecosystem services 3Low Carbon Societies: Linking Climate Change, Energy and the Economy 4Living with the Sea: Oceans, coasts and blue societies 5 Reducing the risk of catastrophes: Global thresholds and disaster risk reduction 6Pivotal places: Cities, regions, and critical biomes 7Global Responses: Managing change and governing the environment 8 Transformative Pathways: Fundamental changes for a Sustainable, Inclusive and Prosperous Future Earth 9Other themes to be proposed by the scientific community…..

Comments - 1 What needed fixing? Why change things that are working well? Top down, lack of understanding/representation of existing GEC programs and projects, lack of attention to developing world, lack of response to input Not enough reassuring detail for projects, scientists, national funders about transition process and governance Research strategy is too …natural science/social science, academic/solutions/stakeholder/future oriented Overall tone is too negative, catastrophic, advocacy

Comments - 2 Need a simpler/more complex conceptual framework It is much too broad, needs to be selective Lack of attention to basic science Its too social/its not social enough Its too stakeholder driven/not driven enough Why not ground up clustering of existing projects? Why not just use ICSU visioning framework? Why not use MA framework? Why not focus just on linking science to policy and leave science with existing programs? Why not just be a GCRP for sustainability?

Comments - 3 Needs to make links to conventions and assessments much clearer Should emphasize regions more (less) Is WCRP in or out? What about trade offs? Risks of stakeholder driven science Why not mention specific projects? Why 10 years? Needs more on joint communication strategy Need a better defined audience

Comments on Initial Research Themes State of the Earth and Resources for Development are too broad What is the transformation theme really about? Too much overlap between them Oceans should not have separate theme, it looks biased/special interest Don’t like pivotal places…why highlight certain places/biomes? Biodiversity needs to be more visible Land change science poorly represented Cities not well represented Engineering poorly represented (my project/program should be better represented/a core theme….) Why not do sectors Water/Biodiversity/Energy/Cities?

Comments on missing or alternative research themes Biodiversity theme Land/terrestrial theme: Sharing Land Urban Earth Future Water Future Forests Cultural theme Climate change theme Food theme Materials and energy and economics themes Health theme Infrastructure theme

Other aspects of TT response…so far Create a simpler list of three themes that highlight…. The dynamic planet > input into key assessments, basic science, earth system science GEC research for decision making, development, resource stewardship > food, water, biodiversity, energy etc. Long term transformative research > understanding changes in fundamental driving forces, new technologies, values