Holm Tiessen, Director, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research

in Climate Environment by alovering — August 28, 2011 at 10:29 am | 0 comments

Across the world, changes to the environment are leading to innumerable alterations in ecosystem dynamics. In this candid interview, IAI Director Holm Tiessen explains why the unique nature of the Americas provides an unparalleled opportunity to understand these changes and their impact upon us

To begin, could you explain the focus of this Institute, and why it is unique in its objectives?

Structurally it is an intergovernmental organisation with 19 member countries across the Americas, giving IAI a special flavour. The global change discussion, such as that facilitated by the IPCC, has been able to crystallise this debate – in Copenhagen for example – but it’s extremely difficult to combine so many nations, cultures, development histories etc., with clear political action. Therefore the strength of the IAI is bringing together countries such as the U.S. and Bolivia.

From an environmental perspective, the Americas are the only continent that reach north to south from pole to pole. This plays a role in some of the research we support; for instance projects that look at climate and hydrology from the Rocky Mountains in Alaska to the southern Andean glaciers. With research that spans this cross-section, clear trends are emerging that are repeated on both hemispheres – demonstrating global phenomena. Serving as an example of this we have a project on dry forests, looking at regions in Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Brazil. These regions are witnessing shifts as a result of climate change across both hemispheres. Therefore, due to its geography, the data this continent offers is far more diverse than elsewhere.

Could you offer some examples of the research activities the IAI is conducting which highlights global change?

Much of our research demonstrates global change, but to illustrate this we are supporting a hydrology project that shows trends in glacier size. In the American continent there are tropical glaciers, providing a unique opportunity for studying them. The high-elevation glaciers in Ecuador and Bolivia are shrinking very rapidly – unlike the Himalayan glaciers. Some glaciers in these areas have disappeared while others are on the brink of completely melting. Outside the tropics there is a tendency for glaciers to shrink – except for regions in Chile and Argentina which are growing due to their highly elevated and southerly position, as well as increased snowfall due to climate change. We are steadily starting to witness these connections in glacial growth and melt and are beginning to see that glaciers are only a very small part of the issue. Snowfields and their dynamics play a vital role in maintaining stream flow both in Glacier National Park on the border between the U.S. and Canada and in border regions in Chile and Argentina where there has been excess water in the spring and not enough in the summer. This example shows that these problems are not isolated but span the continent.

Regardless of whether the particular phenomenon of global change is natural or human-induced, its effects often cross geopolitical borders. This can often be very difficult to address when political differences and tensions abound. In what way does IAI communicate between governments?

In my view there are two types of politician – the visible and the invisible. Those that are visible engage in campaign trails, attend international meetings etc., but those that are invisible work in the ministries doing the groundwork and preparing briefs for ministers. These individuals often have a scientific background and understand its language and are therefore much more receptive to the arguments that science produces. The IAI aims communication efforts at this invisible layer of politics, which has proved quite successful. For instance, when looking at the impact of climate change on public health we organised a training institute where we invited students, researchers, academics, and also politicians. After that short institute someone from the Ministry of Health in Mexico remarked that she wished the training institute had been organised six months earlier so that she could have been better informed about the potential impact of climate change on public health when writing a brief for her minister. This sadly shows that health science doesn’t talk to climate science, which doesn’t talk to environment research and few of them talk to public agencies. Some governments are trying to initiate this cross-dialogue and have established offices specifically for climate change that span their ministries. The IAI are therefore injecting science and capacity building into this dialogue to create an environment of mutual learning between policy makers and scientists where no question is too ‘silly’ to ask – we haven’t quite managed this yet however.

What are some of the strategies you are developing to realise your objectives?

We fund research programmes, but we attach conditions with our support. Each project must involve at least four countries, be interdisciplinary and focus on an issue of global change. At a project’s close we try to avoid the common position where programme coordinators say results are not conclusive and more research is needed.

We find that scientists grumble when you force them to engage with disciplines they don’t understand. The transaction costs of managing a research project across four different countries with different accounting systems can also be challenging. After they finish grumbling however they realise that this is a tremendously enriching experience. For example, we had a project located in Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru where people were relating deforestation to cattle ranching activities in the Amazon basin. When the Brazilian scientists started to look at exactly the same phenomenon under the economic and political conditions of the ‘Colombian’ lowlands, they came to different conclusions. The international experience and the different political and social contexts scientists are forced to work under provide new insights. For this project conclusions went beyond the ‘pastures versus rainforest’ debate to address, for example, the efficacy and geographic spacing of slaughterhouses.

Another example of land use innovation comes from a team based in north-eastern Brazil. This region is almost as dry as the Sahel. They researched the use of cactus for cattle feed; a traditional use of cactus in the area. Having teamed up with a project in Mexico where the same cactus is a delicacy, used in salads or as a meal, they developed pamphlets and manuals for rural populations, exchanging ideas on how to remove the cactus spines, prepare it for human consumption and for use in cattle feed. The teams thus sought novel solutions that had an impact both on what they saw on their plates and how they approached the science.

Projects such as this have given the IAI a significant convening power across the continent, helping scientists to realise that there is a world beyond their laboratory.

What types of information does IAI provide policy makers with and where does IAI retrieve this data from? Does the IAI play a role in assessing and rewriting the information that it offers to governments?

There are two different kinds of processes we employ: the first is the effect of IAI engagement on our scientists. The second approach is identifying commonalities, gaps, opportunities for synthesis etc. between projects. We then convene with scientists to distill common lessons.

In terms of the IAI’s role in assessing information, I attend meetings with scientists and ask them to explain their concepts to me. If, with my scientific background, I don’t understand their research, a politician probably won’t either. These meetings have allowed us to create a dialogue with which we have slowly established what we actually know and what we don’t. This is sometimes a slow and tedious process – we have had meetings that were totally without result – but surprising and exciting science has emerged.

One of our targets is to keep scientists honest and this means stopping them from pretending that they know everything and are engaged with other disciplines, when in reality their links are tenuous. The IAI wants to move away from ‘bull**** bingo’ where scientists put three or four fashionable catchphrases in a line and instantly receive the research grant. There is a tendency to play this game, and we are trying to instill ethics into the science-policy dialogue to move towards a more constructive engagement.

From a regional perspective, what does IAI’s work encompass? To what degree is the Institute using a bottom-up approach?

We operate as a funding agency, issuing open calls. Other global programmes identify problems and then seek teams to address those issues. We however wish to harness the creativity of the scientists on the continent and then gently steer them. This helps us to arrive at very high quality science.

IAI has implemented training and education programmes. Could you outline the form this has taken and if this is happening across your member countries?

We have a training programme that runs workshops. The material covered is roughly the equivalent of a university course, compressed into a couple of weeks of intensive work. We hold them on themes such as health, urbanisation and the application of geographic information systems. The training institutes are integrated with our science programmes. Within them we try to eliminate, as far as possible, the distinction between the teachers and students. All the students engaged in these training institutes are advanced, with their own thesis research projects. We tend to hold these programmes in small countries which do not have a strong science background in order to bring them up to speed and start to level the playing field.

How is the Directorate promoting and representing the Institute to the rest of the world?

We are an official observer for the UNFCCC and are collaborating with their technical advisory body on a regular annual basis, informing them of our science findings and what we expect on the horizon. We are also engaged with the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Our exposure to Europe however is a little fraught since many European programmes that are allegedly outreach initiatives are not interested in collaboration unless it is set to directly benefit European science. This is a science that I don’t support as we are facing global issues. I have dedicated my entire career to this interface and I have found that creating international science is 80 per cent psychology and 20 per cent good science. Bridging the divides between cultures, making politicians feel comfortable and working against prejudice is a huge part of the IAI’s work. For example, we operate with a Canadian organisation where 20 years ago Mexicans were seen as guys with funny hats; now they are esteemed as valuable colleagues and scientists who can contribute to a joint cause. President Obama’s team actually mentioned the IAI as a model for driving political and scientific integration forward across a region. The IAI are therefore at a very exciting but difficult juncture – trying to engage people and help them to benefit from their differences.

www.iai.int

Tags: Global change Holm Tiessen IAI Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research