Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
with applications for 'Biosphere management for climate mitigation' still outstand-
ing as of March 2008. The latter produced some interesting results (GOTW, 2007).
Only a single grant actually mentioned the words 'Earth System Science' and that
was awarded £47k for a postdoctoral training network. Widening the search to
'Earth System' did produce another 82 grants funded for a total of £16.9 M (exclud-
ing those funded through QUEST). Only fi ve of these grants were awarded to
geography departments (compared to four of the 29 QUEST-funded projects). Aca-
demics from whatever discipline in the UK seem less than keen to promote an ESS
narrative, even those who have directly benefi ted from funding considered to be in
the fi eld.
Clearly, there are also political aspects to such decisions and to the relative posi-
tionings of different disciplines. As Clifford and Richards (2005, p. 379) point
out:
Positions are now regularly being created with titles like 'Chair in Earth (sometimes
Environmental) Systems Science', and in the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise
(RAE) now has a sub-panel, which emerged through a rather mysterious lobbying
process, confusingly entitled 'Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences'.
For example, the previous professorial appointment to my own in Geography at
Sheffi eld was in ESS. As this paper is being written, the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE) is carrying out the abovementioned RAE to decide
on funding for universities for the period to 2010 at least. The composition of the
sub-panel referred to by Clifford and Richards is illuminating: it is chaired by
someone from an Earth Sciences department, with a panel made up of four others
from Earth Sciences, two from combined Earth Sciences deparments (one Earth and
Ocean Science, one Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences), two from
Ocean Science, two from Biology and one each from Environmental Health Sciences,
Environmental Sciences and two non-academic members. By comparison, the 'Geog-
raphy and Environmental Studies' sub-panel (chaired by Richards) has seven panel
members from Geography and one each from Geography and Environment; Geog-
raphy, Earth and Environmental Sciences; Geographical and Earth Sciences; City
and Regional Planning; and the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (RAE, 2008).
Clearly, environmental science departments needed to decide between the rock of
being poorly represented in the 'Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences' sub-
panel and the hard place of losing their science in the 'Geography and Environmen-
tal Studies' sub-panel. The fallout from such decisions is likely to have long-term
impacts on the sorts of research carried out in the UK both within and outwith the
ESS umbrella.
At an international scale, the impact of the ESS has been felt by the setting up
of a number of initiatives, often within existing organisations. The IPCC has already
been mentioned. It was created in 1988 by United Nations resolution as a collabo-
ration between the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and has strong parallels with the underly-
ing concepts of ESS. The ESSP (Earth System Science Partnership) was set up fol-
lowing the Amsterdam convention of 2001 under the aegis of the International
Council for Science (ICSU), to coordinate the efforts of four international research
programmes: DIVERSITAS (the international programme of biodiversity science),
IGBP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme), IHDP (International Human
Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change), and the WCRP (World
