International Conferenceon Sustainability Science, 2009

(ICSS 2009)

February 5 - 7, 2009Sanjo Conference Hall, the University of Tokyo, Japan

�

The ICSS2009

It has been seven months since we had the ICSS2009, hosted by the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR�S) in February, 2009.

Global Sustainability is now the central issue for the humankind in the 21st Century, and beyond. We are faced with a number of challenges, which are all complex and intertwined: the establishment of low-carbon society, poverty eradication, preservation of cultural diversity, and so on. Addressing these issues calls for methods to integrate diverse disciplines in a manner truly useful to society.

We all know that no single institute is capable of tackling the issues we face, and thus have established a number of research networks. We consider that it is time for us to go a step further to achieve a higher level of orchestration of our efforts: provide a linkage among these networks and create the Network of Networks.

A basic idea of Network of Networks was initially developed at the University of Tokyo and then presented to the participants of the first G8 University Summit held a week before the G8 Leaders Summit in the summer of 2008. As a result of lively discussions, a proposal to develop Network of Networks was formulated and included in the Sapporo Sustainability Declaration, which was handed to then-Prime Minister Fukuda.

With this as background, the ICSS2009 was held to provide an international and interdisciplinary forum for the representatives of research networks to promote a deeper understanding of diverse academic approaches to Sustainability Science and to discuss how to design a framework for providing a linkage among existing networks toward the establishment of the Network of Networks. Thanks to the active discussions by all participants, the symposium turned out to be a great success.

The endeavor for promoting the Network of Networks continues. It was discussed at the Second G8 University Summit held in Torino in May, 2009. I am particularly pleased that the CIRPS has agreed to host the second ICSS conference, the ICSS2010 in Italy.

Hiroshi KomiyamaConference Chair

�

IntroductionScholars from leading research institutions around the world met in Tokyo February 5 - 7, 2009 to examine the role of universities and other research institutions to meet the enormous challenges of sustainability that confront the planet Earth today. The impetus for the meeting was the call emanating from the G8 University Summit in which presidents of 27 universities meeting in Sapporo Japan June 29 - July 1, 2008 recognized the urgent need for rapid and joint evolution in the generation and application of new knowledge to address the world’s most pressing sustainability problems which lie at the intersection of environmental and economic issues. In their meeting declaration, the university Presidents called for the creation of a network of research networks to promote the development of a holistic action-oriented science.�

In his opening remarks, University of Tokyo President, Hiroshi Komiyama, stressed the need for a new global academic activity that will accelerate the process of transmitting knowledge that can be readily applied to effective action. “We know that global sustainability is the central issue that faces humankind in this century”, he said, “and universities are the generators of knowledge that is needed to address this issue.” At the same time, he noted, “our traditional (academic) approach to generate and transmit knowledge to society may no longer be adequate to the task at hand.” Komiyama’s paradigm for the 21st century is “the shrinking Earth” which is characterized by the intricate interdependencies that link nations and people throughout the globe and by the rapid and dramatic global spread of effects of events inherent in these linkages, such as the current global economic crisis. Similarly, environmental impacts cannot be confined to one nation or region. The same, according to Komiyama, can be said for our cultural and academic activities. Yet, in order for holistic knowledge to be developed and disseminated rapidly, more robust networks than those that exist now are necessary. “We know that no single institution or network is capable of tackling these issues,” Komiyama noted, “and there exist today many research networks from which to create synergies. We need now,” he said, “to go a step further and create more robust networks in order to achieve a higher level of integration.”

As indicated in the conference background paper “The G8 University Summit and university efforts toward global sustainability”� the ICSS 2009 was organized to advance four goals for academia: to link research networks together; provide society with a new kind of science; educate a new generation of sustainability stakeholders for the 21st

century; and take the lead in social change and innovation

for sustainability.” Over the course of two and a half days in plenary, working, and poster sessions participants in ICSS 2009 developed a deeper mutual understanding of what sustainability science entails and identified elements of a framework for constructing a network of networks (NNs) to enhance the integration and application of knowledge that is generated through the practice of this science.

As noted by conference participants, there is increasing evidence of both the need and potential for developing synergies to achieve the dual goals of the proposed NNs. The recognition of sustainability science as a robust field is reflected for example in the increasing number of submissions to the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) section on sustainability science, in the creation of the academic journal Sustainability Science, and in the growing number of conferences and Web-based forums world-wide to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of research aimed at promoting informed action for sustainable development. The conference took note of many of these including, for example, the Network for Science and Technology for Sustainability, which is supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the United Nations University (UNU) Institute for Sustainability and Peace, the IR�S of the University of Tokyo and its Joint Initiative for Sustainability with UNU, the CHANS-Net (International Network of Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems) sponsored by the US National Science Foundation, and the UNU Program of Education for Sustainable Development in Africa (ESDA), which represents one of the university’s contributions to the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Conference participants recognized the importance of including more representation from developing countries and took note of several processes underway which could facilitate better collaboration for example, the Kyoto Science and Technology Forum for Society and The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS).

The statement (attached) issued by participants at the conclusion of the conference calling for the creation of a network of networks with specific characteristics indicates that the conference made progress toward attainment of its goals and laid a foundation for next steps to be taken when the ICSS is convened at the Sapienza University, Rome in 2010. Looking to the future, participants from the United States and France, as well as Italy, proposed hosting the ICSS in their countries as efforts to construct and expand a NNs move forward.

� See, G8 University Summit Web site: http://g8u-summit.jp/� Kinai, Mariko, Shinichi Arai, “The G8 University Summit and University Efforts toward Global Sustainability ”, Program and Abstracts, International Conference on Sustainability Science, February 5 - 7, 2009, University of Tokyo, Japan: pp. �-8.

5

Conference objectives and organization

As outlined by the organizers, the ICSS 2009 had four primary objectives:

Review and discuss goals, policies, and activities of current sustainability science research networks

Identify differences and similarities between the existing networks

Discuss the potential for complementarities between the networks and between individual initiatives in sustainability science with a view to clarifying opportunities for effective collaboration

Identify and prioritize follow-up activities for future collaboration through, for example, the exchange of students and researchers, and joint activities focused on outreach to society.

1.

2.

�.

�.

Table1: ICSS2009 Outline

Plenary opening session

Parallel session

Climate changeand energy

Session 1Climate Change

Session 2Energy sustainability

Food , water andresources

Session 3Food and water

Session 4Resource circulation

and land use

Long-term scenario forsustainable society

Session 5Resillience for Sustainableecosystem management

Session 6Integrative scenario for

sustainable society

SustainabilityEducation

Session 7Development of doctoralprograms on sustainability science

Session 8Role of university in

society for sustainability

1.Opening remarks2.Welcome note3.Introduction of concepts and structures of ICSS20094.Keynote speech

Panel discussion

Plenary closing session

1.Session report and panel discussion by session’ s chairpersons2.Proposal for the ICSS20103.Closing remarks

�

7

Summaries of Plenary Sessions :Keynotes and Panels

8

Keynote SpeakersKeynote speakers Govindan Parayil, Vice Rector of the United Nations University, and Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan pointed to the challenges inherent in meeting the goal of developing a new integrative science that can be focused on the most pressing challenges to global sustainability.

Vice Rector Parayil focused his remarks on the urgent need for more open and expanded sharing of technological innovations to address the two most pressing sustainability challenges of our time: climate change and extreme poverty, and the role that universities can and must play in speeding such efforts. “We need to act on these defining challenges of the 21st century without delay and on an unprecedented scale and scope through science, technology and sustainable innovation.” He called for a radical departure from the profit first /winner-take-all markets ideology that has served as the driver for innovation in the past to what he identified as “sustainable innovation”-that is, a global compact to develop and use clean and zero emission technologies and to use appropriate local knowledge to share and diffuse those innovations in less developed countries. “Universities”, he said, “should serve as hubs for structuring actions at various levels to meet the sustainability challenge.” According to Parayil, knowledge and innovations taken for granted by the rich could lift those in materially poor societies out of desperate poverty but for the barriers to knowledge sharing that stem from fear of losing profits. “We are at a unique turning point in history to change this situation”, he asserted. Sustainable innovation means balancing our developmental needs with our planet’s ecosystems and environmental limits over the long term. A challenge universities face according to Parayil, is to bridge gaps between scientific research and meeting societal needs. Upstream research discoveries need to be bridged to downstream applications. In order for this to happen, he said, we must move beyond price signals for market clearance and allow more open user-producer interactions. Bold taxation and regulatory measures will be needed to foster what he calls a new-eco-innovation dynamic. The private sector, he said, will not allocate resources under the existing incentives structures without the visible hand of government & civil society. But if we are serious about the sustainability challenge, then we need more equitable globalization of the fruits of science and technology. And for this to happen, according to Parayil, a new way of thinking about diffusion of knowledge and innovation is necessary. “We must do so with an historical understanding of how science and technology developed”, he said, and to recognize that science and technological progress is part of the world heritage of human knowledge. “Intellectual borrowing is a cultural attribute”, he said. Parayil presented a number of examples in the chain of intellectual development throughout the world and through the ages that contributed to advances in science and technology. “But now,” he observed, “that world is dichotomized into so-called developed and developing worlds.” The developed nations used free knowledge to grow; they burnt fossil fuels by using our atmosphere as sinks for nearly two centuries. It is only fair to share the new clean technologies and pay for cleaning up the environment & and help solve poverty through clean

production. Parayil suggests that this sharing begin with basic technologies and then move on to more advanced eco-innovations. He provided examples from smokeless ovens to sanitation, bed nets, LEDs for lighting and other new energy technologies, innovations in agriculture, and many other existing technologies that can improve the lives of millions. The process of sharing, he suggested, could begin with a global epistemic community of sustainability science practitioners to harness science and technology for finding innovative and imaginative solutions to combating global poverty and global climate change. Models for such communities exist in the so-called “green revolution” and the epistemic community that developed and continues to work on the Montreal Protocol that led to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons. “Science and technology can be the basis for a sustainable future,” according to Parayil, “provided we free knowledge and work together to make sustainability science a reality.” In the discussion that followed the Vice Rector ’s talk, participants explored ways in which the free flow of knowledge could be enhanced from developing more collaborative relations between developed and developing countries, to modifying the restrictive intellectual regime that was created by the international system of patents. One way to address the intellectual property rights issue, he noted, is through the network of networks that is being discussed at this symposium. Parayil proposed that such a network of networks provide some practical examples and demonstration projects. It is clear, he noted, that industry should be rewarded. But rewards for innovation are based on an old system and world. As one participant noted, change often comes as a result of shocks, and perhaps the present financial crisis is such a shock that will result in major change.

Asked about the role that universities and, in particular the United Nations University could play, Parayil pointed to the role of universities as the site of knowledge production and exchange and their historical role as convener of such activities which they are well equipped to play, emphasizing the need to include representatives of civil society and to engage students from all over the world. Out of the integration of ideas and actions that emerge through such meetings and networks, he said, universities can take a pro-active role in proposing bold ideas to policy makers.

Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the AIST asked participants to consider what the difference between sustainability science and traditional science is as they move forward to create a network of networks for sustainability science. Using a graph comparing the two in terms of aims, objectives, results, methods, measures and expected practical results, Yoshikawa demonstrated how sustainability science is a method for integrating knowledge gained through traditional science and aimed at understanding particular and visible problems that plague mankind: storms, drought, disease, poverty, etc. to address issues in sustainability that are inherently more complex He noted that as problems have been identified, the scientific community expanded the number of disciplines to address them. In each of the disciplines, he noted, huge amounts of knowledge have been generated. Yet it remains insufficient

9

to address modern problems that are the result of human actions such as climate change, worsening of the global environment, inequities between rich and poor, terrorism, and social alienation. These problems, Yoshikawa asserts, require a science that goes beyond understanding of what is “fact” or true to one that is aimed at use in order to address the problem at hand. “We face modern evils that are quite different from those we confront in traditional disciplines. They cannot be solved by the results of any single discipline because they are more complex and, often, they are inter-related.” The solution to this issue of scientific relevance to contemporary sustainability issues is, according to Yoshikawa, a sophisticated, high level of integration. His formula would be Fact + Use = Meaning, where “fact“ is knowledge generated to understand reality, “use” is operational knowledge, and “meaning” is the integration of the two for action. AIST has undertaken analysis of the diversified disciplines in the organization’s research units. From this analysis researchers at AIST are trying to understand how work in diverse disciplines can be integrated in order to create “knowledge for action.” Yoshikawa pointed to two characteristics of traditional science that could hinder

the development of sustainability science. One is the lack of consistency in approach to problem identification and solutions between different disciplines. The other is that at present, we have no systematic method or vehicle to “use” knowledge. Sustainability science should be aimed at bringing disciplines together to achieve greater consistency in approaches between them and, at the same time, it should aim to develop a systematic, (coherent) method regarding the use or application of generated knowledge. This, in turn, requires consistent collaboration between science and society leading to what he calls “social technology” (Figure1). A parallel may be found in Karl Popper’s definition of social engineering. Quoting Popper’s “The Poverty of Historicism”, Yoshikawa stressed the need for flexibility and “piecemeal experiments” in the application of sustainability science. As he noted, the traditional scientific method (hypothesis - experiment - theory - verification - refutation - etc.) is based on deduction. Sustainability science, on the other hand is based on abduction in which the premises and conclusion are only probable.

As Popper wrote, “we make progress if, and only if, we are prepared to learn from our mistakes: to recognize our errors and to utilize them critically instead of persevering in them dogmatically.” What Popper called “piecemeal social engineering”, and what one might come to think of as sustainability science according to Yoshikawa is the introduction of scientific methods into planning and

politics. (From “A Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, 1998). Diagrams presented by Yoshikawa illustrate the patterns in relationships between traditional science and sustainability science, the means by which consistent collaborations between science and society can occur and how sustainable societies can (and must) evolve through a loop of piecemeal “abductions”.

Productrealization

This �gure is the primitive representation of sustainable scienceFigure 1 : Social technology for Sustainability

Physical technology,Biological technology,Psychical technology

Social technology

Natural science,Social science

Synthesiology(engineering science, semiology and algebra)

Type-1basic research

Type-2basic research Socialization

Sustainability Index

10

Panel DiscussionsOn the closing day of the ICSS, two panel discussions were organized to identify means to foster collaborations between industry and academia and to advance the development of a Network of networks for sustainability science.

In the first panel “Sustainability Science for Industry” representatives of the Toyota Motor Company, Japan Airlines, and Showa Shell Sekiyu KK joined academics Professors Keisuke Hanaki of the University of Tokyo (panel chairman), Greg Morrison of Chalmers University, Sweden representing the Alliance for Global Sustainability (AGS), and Fabio Orecchini of Sapienza University, Rome in an open and frank exchange of views on creating effective partnerships between industry and research universities aimed specifically at creating a sustainable society.

The industry perspectiveThe industry representatives started off the panel discussion by describing their activities related to sustainable development and their experience in collaborations with universities. The company representatives all expressed familiarity with the three pillars of sustainable development with regard to corporate social and business responsibility and how their companies have taken steps to integrate it into their business models. One hurdle to building collaborations in sustainability science is to work with industry both to define what it is, and to couple it with product development, that is to business activity, rather than linking it to policy or risk management sectors of the corporation. As Masayuki Sasanouchi of Toyota Motor Corp. said, “we still have difficulty understanding exactly what it (sustainable development) means and even more so with the concept of sustainability science.” Sasanouchi went on to discuss the positive collaborations the company has had with universities. “We have achieved many good outcomes from these collaborations”, he said, “especially with respect to basic science in materials and information technologies. But these collaborations are part of our product development, and we are willing to pursue them because our company will make a profit “ If “sustainability science” can help us in the same way, he noted, we would be very happy to have such support. In defining sustainability science for industry, he suggested that it is important for industry to understand and articulate not only what they can do to contribute, but also what they cannot do. Academics working on sustainability science can help to understand and articulate both the opportunities and the limitations for industry in working with universities on sustainability science. He also made the suggestion that perhaps what was needed now to move sustainability science further was to have a symbolic work similar to that of the 1982 report of the Bruntland Commission, “Our Common Future”, to go beyond sustainable development. “We believe globalization is a good philosophy and we need to understand it in its full meaning, for example, to answer the question “What is global governance of human and natural and technological resources”? Perhaps, he challenged, you (universities) can give us a new answer.

Abe of Japan Airlines said the company is in a very early stage of understanding sustainability science. Although not

a manufacturer, the company is aware of resource limitations and in particular of the potential for dwindling resources of fossil fuels. An important issue for the sustainability of the airline industry, then, is alternative fuels, e.g. bio fuels, which the company recently tested on a two-hour flight over Tokyo. Such fuels may be promising alternatives to fossil fuels. But the issue is complex and the company realizes the need to move forward very carefully with alternative fuels. “Second generation bio fuels are good for sustainability and for greenhouse gas reduction”, he said, “but we must carefully determine which feedstock is sustainable” A challenge for the airline industry will be to develop sustainable alternative fuels, noting that first generation bio fuels at present are not compatible with deforestation and food issues. The industry would look to sustainability science to help it move forward with these complex issues.

The third industry representative, Katsumi Yoshida of Showa Shell, noted that the company has long recognized its responsibility to sustainable development, and recently (two years ago) established a new organization within the firm to work on future fuels including bio fuels and hydrogen and to deal with CO2 management. Within the firm, Yoshida is responsible for the hydrogen unit and in that context he is particularly interested in deployment of new technologies. Focused on the issue of collaboration with universities, Yoshida indicated that the deployment issue is one that would make sense for such collaborations. “My expectation for sustainability science in this context”, he said, “would be to address how we can facilitate and accelerate deployment. Within this broad issue, he proposed three specific research questions: 1)how should we educate and learn from policy makers at all levels, 2) what kind of financial and social incentive schemes should be in place to facilitate deployment, and �) are there specific ways to facilitate deployment of new technologies in developing countries.

The academic perspectiveMorrison reminded participants of the Yoshikawa keynote address earlier in the symposium and how he illustrated how sustainability science can help to bridge the gaps between the roles of pure academic research and research for action through sustainability science. “This is where we want to go”, he said. He described ongoing work within the context of the AGS with two major Swedish companies: one on short-term CO2 management issues, and the other, working with the AGS to understand what the long-range issues are that the company, which is family owned, will face in the future. Morrison outlined the way AGS works with companies which provide funding for the research. Though not significant in the total research budgets of the universities, such financing provides support for research that might not otherwise be undertaken. In order to consolidate work and improve the funding mass for the sustainability-focused research, AGS went from a small projects model to a “flagship” project approach. The consortium now has three such initiatives in place: on energy, water and food, and on urban futures. One of the challenges to the universities, according to Morrison, is how to communicate findings and to make their findings useful to industry. What is needed, he said, is a model for working together. AGS has met with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development to study their

11

pathways and scenarios. “What they are missing,” he noted, “is validity.” Academia he noted can determine the validity of the scenarios that are being used by business. Another area for industry/academic cooperation may be in the area of the large and complex issue of “urban futures”. The complexity of the issue-which necessitates bringing together a huge amount of information from myriad sources-is something that can be of interest to industry both for the near-term and in planning for the future, but is research that industry would not tackle itself.

Orrechini emphasized the importance of universities and industry working together to define sustainability science from the beginning. “As noted by the industry representatives,” he said, “they have been working on sustainable development in the business context for a decade. Now it is time to go forward together on sustainability science.” This, he said requires not just dialogue, but working together. Drawing on comments from the industry representatives, Orrechini noted that fruitful coordination between industry and universities might be found in the university role to analyze what specific energy options, such as bio fuels, industry is considering would, in fact, be sustainable. “We cannot forget”, he noted, that we have just entered a global crisis

that is at once environmental, economic, and political. Taken together, these will require the development of new technologies and revisiting old ones, to study what the market is and should be. We need to work with industry to address these issues and at the same time it is important to re-enforce the interface with government as well. For example, as governments decide how to design stimulus packages for the economy as assistance or investments, we feel the emphasis should be on investment.

In the discussion that followed the panel presentations a number of constraints to industry/university collaborations in sustainability science were raised. One is the problem of the short-term perspective of industry (12 - 18 months) for research outcomes, vs. the longer-term research interests of universities (1-� years). An industry representative suggested that one way to address the long-term issues would be to begin work on a specific project or issue. Another was the issue of the changing role of universities to act not only as custodians of new knowledge, but also to take responsibility for its dissemination. Right now, universities in general are not structured to take on this role. A suggestion was made to create a forum at which the question of relevance of research can regularly be exchanged.

Moving forward: a summary of main points on “sustainability science for industry”

Industry and academia should work together from the beginning to define sustainability scienceDefine what industry both can and cannot do

A symbolic work that defines sustainability science in the context of contemporary challenges is needed to galvanize all actors

Work should be similar in scope to the Bruntland Commission Report on sustainable development “Our Common Future”

Focus industry/university collaborations on specific sustainability targets, e.g.Alternative fuels (options analysis, feasibility and effectiveness analyses)University studies to validate scenarios developed and used by industryDeployment of new technologies (identification of opportunities and constraints in both developed and developing countries)

Complex issues (e.g. global urban futures) may be of interest to and important to the future of industries, but is not necessarily research that industry would undertake itself

University outreach to industry and government is necessary to ensure relevance and effectiveness of results of sustainability science

The cooperative interface should include universities-government-and industry in both developed and developing countriesUniversities need to consider structures in place to improve ability to be more effective in outreach As new knowledge is developed through sustainability science, universities must go beyond role serving as custodians of that knowledge to become proactive in its dissemination

There is a need to develop concrete cases on moving knowledge to action

Major challenges to industry university collaboration on sustainability scienceStructure of universitiesShort term (12 - 18 month) perspective of industry vs. long-term research needs (1 -� years minimum)Barriers to effective outreach

●

○

●

○

●

○

○

○

●

●

○

○

○

●

●

○

○

○

12

Panel 2: Network of networks for sustainability scienceIn this panel, participants turned their attention to key elements in NNs to achieve the dual goals of sustainability science: knowledge innovation and action. Panelists were Akimasa Sumi, the University of Tokyo (Panel chairman), Chongrak Polprasert, Asian Institute of Technology, Peter Edwards, Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology-Zurich, Jean Louis Armand, Counselor for Science and Technology of the French Embassy in Japan, Nancy Dickson, Co-Director of Harvard University’s Sustainability Science Program, Kazuhiko Takeuchi, University of Tokyo and UNU, James L. Buizer, Science Policy Advisor to the President, Arizona State University, and Vincenzo Naso, Director of the Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development (CIRPS). Panelists provided perspectives on what should be the purpose and elements of a network of networks for sustainability science. Polprasert, for example, quoted the keynote address by Hiroyuki Yoshikawa in which he defined sustainability science as a science for action. Bearing this in mind, Polprasert said, the NNs should be aimed at action. In the case of water he noted this could include integrating food and water concerns and focusing on economic as well as technological issues. He proposed that the creation of NNs begin small, focused on a specific issue perhaps, and then grows larger to encompass issues such as “food and water for all”. Armand emphasized the importance of ensuring quality in work that stems from NNs and called for an evaluation process to be built into a NNs structure. He also urged the symposium to be more inclusive of developing countries and to ensure research exchanges that move from developing countries to developed and between developing countries as well as the more common “north to south” knowledge flows. In his third point, Armand suggested that NNs should not be limited to networks of academics but should involve representatives of both national and international government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and industry.

Edwards focused on ways in which the creation of NNs could help address the urgent need for answers to complex issues now. “Politicians around the world”, he said, “are looking for guidance, and universities have failed to meet this challenge in part because academic disciplines are so strong. All universities say that they want to tackle these big problems, he said, but their structures fight against this. The Network of networks may well be one way to help universities get out of the stranglehold of their traditional structures.” In addition to helping universities break out of the disciplinary mold, Edwards argues, a network of networks could also provide a mechanism for bringing in broader knowledge that is necessary to fully address sustainability issues, that is knowledge from cultural, local, and regional sources. And, finally, he noted that the broader network would also provide opportunities to train students in how to break out of their disciplines and provide them with extraordinary experience in dealing with complexity and cultural diversity that is necessary to understanding and addressing these problems. Edwards sited some of the lessons learned in the context of the AGS networks on specific projects and how the projects demonstrated that working with multiple

stakeholders in framing and carrying out research can result in immediate action.5

For his part, Buizer reminded participants of the need to ensure that any network that is created needs to have a good organizational foundation and function. In this context, he noted the importance of working jointly with industry and other stakeholders both to frame research questions and to conduct the research itself, which in turn will help keep the research focused on action. The NNs itself, he suggested could result in the exchange of faculty and corporate people between member institutions, it could ensure the exchange of students, and also result in an ongoing Web-based dialogue to continue the efforts begun here.

Naso emphasized too the impor tance of a strong organizational structure for the NNs that would help to keep the network focused on concrete goals and avoid repetition of ongoing activities. In this context, he suggested that it would be useful to formalize the NNs, beginning with a statement issued from the Congress to be delivered to the next G8 University Summit and requesting it to be disseminated to universities worldwide asking them to join in the NNs effort.

Nancy Dickson raised three questions that lie at the core of constructing a new NNs: Do we need one? What should be its goals? How can we do this? The conference itself provided answers to the first question. Sustainability science is about coupling research on human and natural systems and therefore must bring together research communities that are not usually accustomed to working jointly. The goals of a NNs might therefore appropriately be to promote collaboration and communication, that is working together to disseminate synthetic results. She too emphasized the crucial need to maintain the highest academic standards in the evolution of sustainability science and noted the importance to the field of recognition by academic and professional societies. She cited in particular the recognition sustainability science has gained with a section devoted to it in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the publication of the academic journal: Sustainability Science. In this context, she proposed that as the NNs evolves one might consider the development of a journal of sustainability science literature along the lines of the Journal of Economic Literature. Fostering collaboration will mean identification of existing networks, she said, noting for example the Network on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development that exists through the AAAS.

Kazuhiko Takeuchi noted that most discussions on the role of universities in advancing sustainability focus on their role in technological and social innovation, less on structuring knowledge. He welcomed the offer by Sapienza University, Rome, to continue the ICSS forum by hosting it in 2010. Takeuchi added that as the NNs is developed organizers

5 See, for example, the AGS Book Series, “Science and Technology: Tools for Sustainable Development” at www.springer.com/series/ags for books on the result of AGS-based research

1�

should bear in mind the need to preserve cultural diversity, and to preserve diversity between the networks, rendering them complementary rather than competitive.

The ideas put forth by the panelists provided context to a stimulating floor discussion that added many points to be considered in the development of NNs. These are summarized (without attribution) below.

ChallengesNeed to bridge different styles of collaboration between scientists (focused on processes and mechanisms) and stakeholders (focused on concrete actions/solutions)Focus for NNs: Need to begin with one or several issues relevant to social sustainability; also great need for coherence and synthesisFind ways to incorporate global sustainability issues into challenges at local level

CriteriaIssues taken up by NNs must meet three criteria: saliency (relevance); legitimacy (supported by stakeholders); and credibility (meet rigorous scientific standards)What is meant by credibility must be clearly defined as well as measures to determine when knowledge links to actionRecognize that sustainability science is “evolutionary” and that while aimed at action, it is not focused on “one solution” (which can lead to other problems) but, rather, to improving systems

Future meetingsInvite greater representation from developing world networks and universitiesMove education component forward; have a session on education in the plenary and ensure greater student participationInvite greater representation from stakeholders; that is, industry and NGOs

●

○

○

○

●

○

○

○

●

○

○

○

ConclusionAt the conclusion of the panel and open discussion Akimasa Sumi proposed that prior to the next meeting, some work is done on developing a structure for NNs. Participants noted that funds were needed in order to provide means to bring in more representation from developing countries and to include lesser known universities from these countries. In addition to including more developing countries, participants also noted the importance to include students

from all over the world in the discussions surrounding the development of the NNs. Taking account of the comments made by panelists and in the general discussion participants concluded the meeting by preparing a draft statement on the components necessary for a successful NNs that they intend for consideration by the G8 University Summit which will be held in Torino Italy in May 2009. (See attached statement)

1�

Poster SessionThe ICSS 2009 concluded with the award of recognition prizes to three authors of posters presented during the symposium. Posters were presented in eight topic categories broadly reflecting the four tracks of the ICSS working sessions: climate change, energy sustainability, food and water, resource circulation and land use, resilience for sustainable eco-system management, integrative scenarios for sustainability science, policy, communication and ethics, and other posters on specific problems in sustainable development. Representatives of seven universities submitted 25 posters on current research. Three were singled out for recognition

according to the number of votes they received from participants based on quality, content and presentation. The winning posters from different departments within the University of Tokyo were, Grace Dewi, Sustainability Science department at the University of Tokyo (Todai), “Sustaining Natural Resource's Sustainable Development: From Carrots and Sticks to Governmentality”, Sakeb Arefin Khan, Technology Management for Innovation dep. at Todai, “Information and Communication Technology for Sustainable Human Development: A Composite Index for South Asia” and Petr Matous, Civil Engineering dep. at Todai, “Evaluating Sustainability of Asian Small Water Supply Systems”.

15

Summaries of Parallel SssionsWorking GroupsIn order to examine in depth potential synergies between networks focused on the challenges addressed in the keynote speeches, parallel working sessions were organized on four tracks (see table below) related to sustainability science. Summaries of the working sessions with highlights of the research discussed are in the following pages. In each case, the session chairperson took note of the group’s discussions on ways in which a Network of Networks (NNs) could contribute to more robust research outcomes for sustainability?that is, synergies that could be aimed at support of actions within each of the four areas. Reports on these outcomes were then made to a plenary session in which all participants could discuss the conclusions holistically. In turn, the reported outcomes of the working sessions also contributed to the plenary discussions following presentations by panels on two major themes of the conference: building university/industry interactions for sustainability science and developing a Network of Networks.

Climate changeand energy

Food, water andresources

Long-term scenario forsustainable society

SustainabilityEducation

Session 1Climate change

Session 3Food and water

Session 5Resillience for Sustainableecosystem management

Session 7Development of doctoralprograms on sustainability science

Session 2Energy sustainability

Session 4Resource circulation

and land use

Session 6Integrative scenario for

sustainable society

Session 8Role of university in

society for sustainability

1�

Track 1: Climate change and energySession 1: Climate change PresentationClimate change issues include the following areas: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities, carbon cycle, global warming, impacts of climate change on both natural ecosystems and human society, and responses to those impacts that eventually lead to changes in human society. The global warming cycle is dynamic, not static. If we can change society, we can reduce the emission of CO2 and hence the related impacts of climate change. To understand comprehensively the commonalities of the different areas, six speakers from different fields presented their views on climate change. The representative themes were climate prediction and uncertainty; impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation; climate policy; and changes in social systems. The speakers introduced the current situation as well as the challenges encountered so that participants could share the knowledge and experiences.

DiscussionDiscussion on climate change was divided into two parts. The first part was on climate change itself: “How can we deal with the uncertainty surrounding climate change and what policies can be introduced to confront these uncertainties?”; “Can we determine what the dangerous level is?” The second part was on the role of sustainability science: “Can sustainability science change climate policies and lifestyles?”; “How can we apply climate change to the broader sustainability science aspect?” The key points of the discussion are summarized as follows:

Climate changeWe need to translate scientific knowledge into policies that the public can understand. It is necessary to continue seeking better ways of communicating climate change to society.It is important to render mainstream adaptation into conventional policies, such as development, and achieve a win-win relationship between adaptation and the other pathways.We can utilize economic tools such as cap and trade and carbon tax for mitigation.We need a long-term vision of climate stabilization and low-carbon society.

Sustainability scienceIt is important to place climate change issues in the framework of a broader sustainability science.We need innovations in science, technology, and social systems for sustainability.The integration of science and economy is required to facilitate social change (e.g., finance, market mechanism, and incentives).We need indicators for sustainability (e.g., green GDP for sustainable society). We have to rethink the goals of society. We need to examine indicators such as satisfaction, employment, among others; and not rely on just a single indicator such as GDP.When we talk about sustainable societies, we tend to think

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

about the situation in our own country, or some particular part of the world. However, we should recognize that there are people uncovered by market since the market mechanism cannot work in some developing countries. It is important to discuss how we can achieve mutual beneficial development goals.

Related sessions and academic disciplines We have identified the other sessions and academic disciplines that can stimulate the advancement of climate change discussed in this session.

Session 2 (Energy sustainability) is closely related to mitigation of global warming.Adaptation and development strategies should go together. In other words, mainstreaming climate change adaptation in the policy process is valuable.Economics and social sciences can help us evaluate policy and technologies for adaptation and mitigation.Session � (Integrative scenario for sustainable society) provides us with the vision for achieving a sustainable society in the future.

Possibility of collaborationWe have identified the institutions/networks that can collaborate with us and be included in ICSS activities.

START and IR�S/ICASCo-host International Symposium “Cities at Risk” in Bangkok, Thailand (February 2009)

PIK and IR�S/ICASImpact analysis on global and local level/ EU and Asian countries

HELIO (session 2) and IR�SDevelopment and comparison of sustainable indicators.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Participants took part in active discussions and exchanged ideas on climate and sustainability issues

17

Track 1: Climate change and energySession 2: Energy sustainability

PresentationMaking the transition t o a f u t u r e o f sustainable energy i s o n e o f t h e crucial challenges m a n k i n d f a c e s i n th is new centur y. I t entai ls securing a d e q u a t e e n e r g y resources to sustain the current and future economies of developed and developing countries while preserving the underlying integrity of essential natural systems, including avoiding dangerous climate change. To achieve equilibrium between the two objectives requires energy systems designed to meet sustainability criteria. In addition, new approaches are required to analyze the interactions among climate change, development and energy. The dimensions are simultaneously social, technological, economic and political. The perspective is local as well as global. Sustainability Science can help in understanding those linkages, create methods and visions for analyzing trade-offs and develop policy-making support tools to solve the concomitant risks to human well-being and security. The main topics addressed by the 8 speakers were focused on the following aspects:

Methodological approaches and analytical instruments to analyze in a participatory approach key economic-environmental-social interactions; dynamic indicators system to evaluate, assess, monitor and promote sustainable energy policies; application of sustainability science principles to assess and promote alternative energy technologies. Future alternative energy scenarios and consequent implications.Possible solutions, new technologies, new concepts that facilitate integration of global socio-economic development and environmental integration towards a new Sustainable Energy Era.

Three solutions in three different steps have been assessed:A short-term solution based on energy efficiency and integration of low carbon technologies and RES.A mid-term solution based on low carbon technologies and RES integration for green electricity and hydrogen aiming at zero emission.A long-term solution based on zero consumption - zero waste model.

Discussion Topics On the basis of the above shared knowledge, the discussion was focused on the main issues that should be dealt with to move towards a new sustainable energy paradigm. Among them the following have been outlined:

A clear definition of energy sustainability within the needed common platform of Sustainability Science based on the following priorities, which are a) renewability of energy resources, b) efficiency in energy conversion, distribution, use, c) lowering of environmental impact, d)

1)

2)

�)

1)

2)

�)

1)

increasing of energy access, and c) tailor making on local social-economic-environmental conditionsA transdisciplinary integrative comprehensive framework of evaluation to be provided to society, economy, policy decision makers and industry for assessing and promoting sustainable energy systems Dissemination of empirical best practices Criteria and indicators to measure the complex economic-ecological and social dimension of energy Long term vision (and related roadmap) coherent with the definition of energy sustainabilityThe inclusion of energy vectors in the energy system chain towards a “closed cycles of resources” systemTechnology innovation as a driver for socio-economic development.

Regarding the need of cooperation with other sessions and academic disciplines, several key energy-related disciplines have been referred, namely, “environmental sciences”, “economics”, “social sciences”, and “political science.” Each of the mentioned disciplines exhibits strong links to energy issue. For instance, political science stresses the importance of including the �th pillar in the SD framework, the policy and institutional pillar, which is fundamental in realizing a sustainable society. Additionally, social sciences are very important for taking into consideration the societal readiness and local appropriateness of the introduction of new technologies. A stronger linkage between climate change and energy disciplines in terms of better link and synergy among adaptation, mitigation and development strategies has been advocated by participants.

ConclusionsWith reference to the role and position of the session in sustainability science, it has been stressed the need of building a strong theoretical framework from the energy point of view. This is to effectively answer the fundamental question of how to reconcile the need to secure adequate energy resources to sustain the current and future economies of Developed and Developing Countries while preserving the integrity of earth systems at the same time. Finally, further discussions were made to define what a sustainable society should be. As a first attempt, it was defined as a society with low carbon emissions, with equal opportunities of development for all countries and where poverty has been eliminated, with an aim towards zero waste and zero consumptions and one that continuously re-uses its resources. Open dialogue and effective collaboration among all stakeholders have been identified as necessary to promote a sustainable society, calling for a greater effort in this direction to be achieved.

2)

�)�)

5)

�)

7)

18

Track 2: Food, water and resourcesSession 3: Food and water

AimsSession � aimed to identify the issues that should be dealt with to ensure sustainability of food and water for the next generation. To achieve this aim, the session provided the opportunity to share knowledge and views on:

future needs and demand for food and water;prediction of food production and available land and water resources; andrisks that lurk behind the future change of situations in food and water.

PresentationsFollowing the introductory address of Chongrak Polprasert, seven speakers provided the key topics on sustainability of food and water. The presentations were divided into four categories: Global water resources, Agriculture from regional and national aspects, Future risk assessment and its implications, and Regional ecosystem management.

Global water resources Water stressed areas of the world was graphically presented by Taikan Oki, by using ‘water stress’ and ‘water footprint’ indicators. Utilizing an integrated global water resources model, it was shown that water could be saved through international trading. Expected impacts of climate change on water resources and its threats were also mentioned by him.

Agriculture from regional and national aspects Change in agricultural land use in China was the focus of Li Xiubin’s talk. During the past few years, land use has been characterized as disintensification especially in terms of labor and monetary inputs. The implications of this change to sustainability issues were discussed. Based from various experiences in Southeast Asia, Arnulfo G. Garcia raised the necessity of an integrated and effective management of our natural resources, especially soil and water in order to ensure food security. SEARCA’s activity on human resources development was referred during the discussion with Carlos M. Pascual. Vulnerable situation of food and water supply in Taiwan was introduced by Duu-Jong Lee. Some problems identified included a very small proportion of agricultural goods in GDP (1.8%), low self-sufficiency of food; (�0% on a calorific basis), a large amount of groundwater withdrawal and virtual water import due to the low water availability.

Future risk assessment and its implicationsTwo case studies of risk assessment were presented by Srikantha Herath: impacts of aerosols on local climate and food production in Sri Lanka; and a regional program on capacity development of flood impact assessment. High risk of infectious diseases in developing countries was highlighted by Tatsuo Omura, and its relationship with poverty and lack of human resources to manage water supply safely.

Regional ecosystem managementThree case studies of ecosystem management were

>>

>

introduced by Greg Morrison including Mellby river catchment (Sweden), Western corridor (Australia), and Lake Malaren (Sweden). The application of a transdisciplinary approach to understand the systems was emphasized.

DiscussionDuring the discussion, emerging issues related to sustainability of food and water were tackled by the session chair as well as the participants. Among the topics covered were:

Population growth, which affects all aspects of sustainability; Need for fertilizers in food production, particularly phosphorous, which is a nonrenewable nutrient. Involvement of social scientists; it is required to see food and water issues from a different perspective,Equity; mechanisms are needed to strengthen the societal structure to reduce differences between the rich and poor, and Development of technical system; it is important to provide clean water at a low cost as the world's economy is not likely to recover immediately.

Summary of the SessionEach participant could recognize the issues that needed to be addressed for sustainability of food and water. In addition, participants inspired each other through knowledge exchange and active discussion. The session closed with high expectations of further discussions on this field of study during the next ICSS in 2010.

>

>

>

>

>

19

Track 2: Food, water and resourcesSession 4: Resource circulation and land use

Outline of the sessionRenewable energy use and circulation of resources including wastes are the keys to establishing a sustainable society. To understand how best to promote renewable energy use and resources circulation such as use of organic wastes, the session aimed to discuss the following topics: 1) methods to estimate potential resources of energy and materials, 2) potential systems that enable the integration of the elements for renewable energy use and waste resources circulation, �) related projects in progress throughout the world, and �) any models that would enhance the cooperation among cities, towns, and villages for the purpose of sharing the potential resources of energy and materials. Additionally, participants also shared their ideas of future collaboration and how to enhance global networks among researchers.

To address the above-mentioned topics effectively, the following sub themes were particularly addressed during the session: a) concept of “New society” based upon renewable energy use and resources circulation, b) ongoing projects regarding eco-energy farming systems and c) energy and material flows through the linkage between urban and rural areas.

Points of presentationsThe first presentation addressed the socio-technical aspects of sewage sludge transformation to liquid oil, which is a new approach to utilize sewage sludge in Japan. The second presentation discussed the EU’s policy and practices of sustainability assessment by showing actual chronological information for some indicators in EU. The third presentation argued the concept and approach for eco-police (eco-city) planning, with some information about theories and actual practices in China. The fourth presentation tried to argue the potential of energy sufficiency by utilizing bio-energy within the boundary of Furano City, Hokkaido, Japan. The fifth presentation referred to the Global Land Project framework in viewing the Earth as a coupled human-environmental system and disucssed such issues as the challenges for assessment of sustainable land management and disconectedness of production and consumption. The sixth presentation introduced Jühnde as one of the first bio-energy village projects in Germany, which aims to supply electricity and heat from biomass energy sources.

Discussions during the sessionOsaki of Hokkaido University, chair of the session, opened the discussion on the floor by welcoming comments on any of the issues raised earlier in the session, as well as inviting ideas for future networking. The participating academics had a fruitful discussion with the following topics raised:

Understanding of the inescapable role of the “conflicts” within sustainability issues, such as water, is critically important. It is essential to keep in mind the “scale” in addressing the issues related to sustainability science. It is also important to take into account “indirect impacts” beyond the boundary or scales. Proper assessment

1)

2)

�)

methods, thus, should be developed for the analysis of such indirect impacts.The biomass town project in Japan is an example of a good practice that could assist networking. Such useful networks could be linked up to similar types of networks in other countries. We should search for and summarize such networks that already exist in the world.Another networking related program introduced in the session was the Affiliated Non-Conventional Energy Center (ANEC), which is a program in the Philippines that has been conducted for about 15 years, and has sites in many different countries like India, Vietnam etc. The center addresses many research areas including land use.We should promote the study of scenario planning applicable to land-use and material consumption, similar to the scenario studies widely applied to the issues of climate changes. The scenario planning in our field could be a possible theme of future ICSS sessions.On the matter of networks, it was suggested that we try to identify clearly what projects and networks are currently in existence globally in order to identify which areas are lacking, so that we could recognize the potential fields and communities for our networking.

Summary of the sessionWith about �0 people attending, the session successfully provided a forum where important issues on renewable energy ut i l izat ion, re levant projects in the wor ld, sustainability assessment, etc, were actively debated. At the end of the session, the participants discussed the promotion of networking and agreed to continuously pursue the enhancement of research networks around the world at all levels and to contribute to the development of sustainability science.

�)

5)

�)

7)

20

Track 3: Long-term scenario for sustainable societySession 5: Resilience for sustainable ecosystem management

Session Background and PurposeThe global decline in biological diversity has become a growing problem in recent years. Ecosystem services, which refer to the multitude of benefits that humankind derives from the natural world, have been affected negatively. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, there has been a rapid increase in the use of provisioning services such as agricultural crops, livestock, and timber over the last fifty years. At the same time intensive farming methods and the expansion of agricultural lands have strongly and adversely affected the regulating and supporting services bringing about the loss of biological diversity. Scientific understanding of ecosystem services and finding rehabilitation methods based upon adaptive management viewpoints are urgently needed. In view of the above background, this session provided an opportunity for researchers to report on case studies from a variety of specific local ecosystems and to share information about the possibilities of sustainable resource management today.

PresentationsThere were five speakers in this session. Nair firstly reviewed the developments in agriculture and in forestry during the past fifty 50 years. He suggested that while agriculture and forestry had made great progress, it had also vast impacts on the earth through land degradation and loss of biodiversity. He suggested that the Agroforestry system, which is a mixture of trees and crops and/or animals in interacting combinations for a variety of objectives, has a role in addressing the problems of modern commercial agriculture and forestry based on single species. Okuro gave an overview of the current status of desertification in the North-east Asian region. He explained that desertification is one of the greatest contemporary problems which affect not only ecosystems but also poor and politically weak citizens. Although people’s livelihood in drylands relies highly on biological productivity, dryland ecosystems are extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation and inappropriate land use. He introduced two aspects of management practices: early warning as a proactive practice, and restoration as a reactive practice. Edwards suggested that the nutrient cycle of modern agriculture is open ended with a lot of fertilizer being used but not all of which is included into the food produced. He highlighted the importance of recycling waste and mentioned that achieving the closed nutrient cycle is an economic and regulation problem. Yamano explained the structure of many different types of coral reefs and mentioned that coral reef in Asia is attached to land, which means that it is and tightly connected to land activities and so needs specific ways to achieve a sustainable co-existence between such activities and coral reef. Amemiya suggested that the understanding of nonlinearity in ecosystems is essential. He insisted on the possibility that unknown parameters can exist which may lead to a regime shift and these should be recognized also.

DiscussionDiscussion was mainly focused on the following two issues: 1) How to create research networks for ecosystem studies? 2) What kinds of bottlenecks exist? Zakri mentioned that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is not an output of research results but a process of how to compile, assess, and bring the issue of Ecosystems Assessment to the attention of decision makers, through a strengthening of the knowledge base. He suggested that it may be easier just to “go for low hanging fruits first” i.e. examine existing networks e.g. AGS, Resilience Alliance, tripartheid arrangement to follow up MEA (UNESCO, International Council of Science, United Nations University). Edwards suggested that bottom-up network is often a successful way, but it also tends to be a uni-disciplinary network. Takeuchi pointed out that motivating people through flagship projects (AGS, IR�S) can be helpful citing the examples of AGS and IR�S. Nair suggested however that we should recognize the pillars of sustainability (Environment, Economy, and Society), and that this is a huge task. He also suggested that the network should not become an exclusive club. Edwards pointed out that one of the advantages of smaller networks is that it helps to get to know people who are important for continuity, and can therefore cut through bureaucracy. However he also suggested that the networks still need to maintain diversity and proposed Network of Networks (NNs) as a possible solution. Overall discussion was summarized:

Research should be relevant and should address challenges of the day (Saliency)Research needs to be credible - increase involvement among universitiesPolit ical legitimacy - research that is effective in influencing policy.

1.

2.

�.

21

Track 3: Long-term scenario for sustainable society Session 6: Integrative scenario for sustainable society

Needs of Integrated Approach for Global SustainabilityIt has become increasingly clear that it is critically important to synthesize the three separate streams of sustainability efforts, namely, climate change, the circulation of resources and biological diversity, into a coherent one, as witnessed by the recent debate surrounding the pros and cons with regard to biofuels. Therefore, the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR�S) in cooperation with the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) initiated a collaborative new research project aimed at establishing a unified, long-term scenario for navigating the entire world into a sustainable pathway by the year 2050. The participants explored appropriate approaches to develop integrated and very long-term scenarios and tried to suggest socio-economic and technological changes needed.

Six Presentations of the Scenario Studies

Keisuke Hanaki, IR�S, chaired the session. Toshihiko Masui, NIES, Japan, presented preliminary study results of long-term vision of a global sustainable society from view points of low-carbon, material cycle, and ecosystem modeling study, utilizing modified AIM/CGE [Global] model with qualitative scenarios. The target in 2050 is to halve greenhouse gas emissions. The total material input, the quantities of material recycling such as steel and paper, and land use, in particular, forest area, were used as indicators representing the progress. Shilpa Rao, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, examined three IPCC scenarios in her presentation

entitled “Long-term scenarios of energy and climate change-implications for sustainability” and mentioned that a target of two degrees Celsius rise of temperature by the end of the century is possible if global decisions on emissions control are made immediately. She also emphasized the co-benefits of climate mitigation and air quality improvements. Eiji Hosoda, Keio University, proposed a feasible and sustainable transaction scheme of recyclable resources and recovered resources in Asia, exemplified by a project conducted by the City of Kitakyushu and the City of Tianjin. He also emphasized the key role of the private-public-partnership in the project.A.H. Zakuri, Centre for Global Sustainability Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, referred to the scenarios developed by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment that focus on ecosystem services and effects of ecosystems on human well-being. He mentioned that significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices are necessary to respond to the challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems. In this context, the scientific community should interact with politicians, industry, and NGOs. Kentaro Tamura, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, mentioned that Asia had not framed an alternative future that simultaneously provided for an escape from poverty and responded to the need for a low carbon, climate resilient sustainable development pathway. He emphasized four priorities, one of which is exploiting developmental co-benefits towards a low carbon economy.Vaibhav Chaturvedi, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, emphas ized that incor porat ing the sustainability paradigm into national development policies in India presented opportunities and avenues to reap co-benefits and nurture a resource efficient and sustainable society.

ConclusionsAchieving sustainability in all three aspects of economy, environment and society is a complex undertaking. However, a cross-disciplinary integrated or sustainability sciences approach is inevitably essential to understand better the linkages among the three aspects.Sustainable society is crucial to missions of low-carbon society, resource circulation, and harmony with nature. Social sustainability, for example, social relationship and ethics, needs to be included in an explicit way. Each society scenario is already incorporated to some extent but more resources are needed for conducting a comprehensive study. It is also important to study local implications and regional consequences of global scenarios. The overarching importance of the global sustainability in the 21st century is now the central issue for humankind. The global environmental challenges ahead are all complex and intertwined. It would be difficult to study global sustainability in a comprehensive work since it is too large and complex to set priorities, or to analyze it all. Addressing these issues requires methods to integrate all disciplines in a manner that is truly useful to society. Therefore, it will be useful to look at sustainable linkages across societies and to study the sustainability in terms of economy, environment and society through physical linkage, i.e., cooperation among institutions.

Global Modeling on three societiesJoint work IR3S and NIES

Sustainability indices to connect each society

Integrated and Very Long-term Scenario for Sustainable Society

A Sustainable Society

Nature-harmonious society

Resource-cieculatingsociety

Low CarbonSociety

Indices:Quantities of naturalresources exploited,Recycling rates,amount of waste

Indices:Land use,Changes inland use rates, Ecosystem functions

Indices:Energy production(fossil fuels,renewable),GHG emissions

Climate change andenergy/resources

Climate change andecosystems

Ecosystems andenvironmental load

22

Track 4: Sustainability educationSession 7: Development of Doctoral Programs on Sustainability Science

This workshop was organized to provide an international forum to exchange, share, and discuss diverse ideas, concepts, and methodologies in developing doctoral programs on sustainabil ity science and to explore opportunities for mutual collaboration in institutionalizing the academic field of sustainability science. Leading experts working in the field of sustainability science were invited to learn from experiences gained through existing and prospective doctoral programs on sustainability science at different universities and research institutes around the world.

Diversity of Knowledge in Sustainability ScienceThe emerging field of sustainability science is facing the serious challenge of establishing itself as an academic field through institutionalization and networking and collaboration with stakeholders in society. As sustainability science is aimed at understanding the fundamental characteristics of complex and dynamic interactions between natural, human, and social systems, it is crucial to make effective use of knowledge and information on diverse aspects of sustainability. That necessarily requires a broad range of academic disciplines, including natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities. Thus many concepts and methodologies have been proposed in sustainability science, which poses a significant challenge to establishing it as an academic field.

Concepts and methodologies in Academic FieldsIn the past development of academic fields we could observe at least two types of evolution; one is concept-oriented as in chemical engineering, and the other is problem- or use-oriented as in agricultural science and health science. In the case of developing chemical engineering as an academic discipline, it was of critical importance that diverse chemical processes were conceptualized into “unit operations,” such as drying, distillation, separation, extraction, evaporation, absorption, etc. Based on this intellectual foundation, an independent academic department was established, and a standard textbook was published. Conceptualization of unit operations effectively functioned as a “focusing device” in elaborating the purposes of research in chemical engineering. Concepts, tools, and methodologies were applied to actual problems in industry, and the knowledge and experiences obtained were fed back to education and research at university, leading to the development and institutionalization of chemical engineering. In developing sustainability science as a new academic field, it would be important to investigate whether and, if so, how such conceptualization is possible.

Interdisciplinary/Transdisciplinary ApproachesSince dif ferent discipl ines are involved to address many issues related to sustainability, the concept of interdisciplinarity/transdisciplinarity has been emphasized by many researchers in sustainability science. That means it is considered to be a field of meta-science, the science of connecting, integrating, or transcending sciences. We then

need to investigate how that could be possible theoretically and to elaborate how transdisciplinarity can actually be implemented in research and education. The same issue could be tackled with different approaches, which, however, are not necessarily connected or integrated, let alone transcended. It is urgently needed to develop concepts and methodologies to implement inter-/trans-disciplinarity in research.

InstitutionalizationTo gain recognition of sustainability science as an academically established field by colleagues, institutionalization through establishing programs, societies/associations, and journals would be helpful. Incentives of researchers need to be adjusted to promote cooperation and collaboration between those in different faculties, which would require changes in the criteria for per formance evaluation. Promotion and tenure structure need to be adjusted in many universities and research institutes for promoting mobility and developing long-term career paths. It would also be important to create and maintain effective feedback loops with diverse stakeholders in society. Involving various stakeholders in society, however, might pose difficulties in producing rigorous results in the traditional sense. The process of collaborating with stakeholders needs to be credited appropriately in education and research in sustainability science.

Opportunities for CollaborationWe have identif ied several opportunities for future collaboration to promote educational and research activities in sustainability science. Students, fellows, and researchers could be exchanged between different universities, possibly with portable scholarships and fellowships. Coordination of academic programs through bilateral/multilateral schemes could also be pursued. Joint workshop or summer school for doctoral and young researchers would be a valuable opportunity to exchange and learn from different approaches to conducting rigorous research in this diverse field. Career paths for graduates and researchers need to be explored, with interviews, surveys, and continued dialogues with industry and government. Also it would be useful to have a scheme for exchanging students and faculty members in university with employees and researchers in industry. Coordinated efforts for effective outreach to decision makers and stakeholders in international communities would contribute greatly to establishing sustainability science.

Partners for NetworkingPartners for future networking activities include the Harvard Kennedy School in the United States as well as the School of Sustainability of Arizona State University in the United States, Centre for Sustainability Studies of Lund University (LUCSUS) in Sweden, International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development ( ICIS) of Maastr icht University in the Netherlands, and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (South Africa). Close collaboration will be maintained through the AAAS Forum on Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development for information exchange on publications, programs, projects, researchers, institutions in sustainability science.

2�

Track 4: Sustainability educationSession 8: Role of University in society for sustainability

Session ObjectivesThis session aimed to find both the commonalities and differences among various educational programs on “sustainability” or “sustainable development” by comparing the programs on the basis of the following:

Most important message which the program intended to send to the studentsLearning outcomes and competencies which students should acquire before graduationHistorical background of establishment of the programPedagogy and practical method for education

In contrast to session 7, which dealt with doctoral program in “sustainability science”, this session focused on the core principles or commonalities, if any, among a wide variety of “sustainability education” programs and their specific features (localities) created by the difference in the target groups or other local factors.

PresentationsJames Buizer from Arizona State University (ASU) introduced the School of Sustainability in the Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS/SoS), where students can seek for their Bachelors, Masters and PhD. Buizer stated that the critical ingredients for a successful sustainability education program are leadership, big thinking, science managers, trust, buy-in, funding, and partnerships.

Onuki Motoharu from the University of Tokyo introduced the Graduate Program in Sustainability Science (GPSS). Onuki mentioned that both understanding and maintaining diversity are important for training future leaders for building sustainable society. GPSS accepts students from all over the world and offer all lectures in English. Students are engaged in group works and discussions on concrete cases, putting knowledge and experiences from diverse fields of studies. Through these experiences, students are expected to acquire capability of accepting diversity and respecting minorities, in addition to transdisciplinary knowledge.

Jean-Louis Armand from the French Embassy (former President of Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)) suggested that the integration of ethics and engineering is a big step forward toward the emergence of the concept of sustainability. Armand also pointed out that North-South/South-South exchange of knowledge is more important than unilateral North-to-South technology transfer.

Jordi Segalas from Technical University of Catalonia (UPC) presented how the concept of sustainable development (SD) is introduced to engineering education in technological universities: Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, Delft University of Technology in Netherlands, and Technical University of Catalonia in Spain. He classified competencies into � categor ies : k nowledge and understanding; skills and abilities; attitudes, and then concluded that sustainable development education needs to be more creative, cooperative, active learning style and process-, development-, and action-oriented.

•

•

••

Heike Zimmermann-Timm is a science researcher from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and introduced new “Sustainability Education @ PIK” which is designed for junior scientists in PIK. She mentioned that education in interdisciplinary, scientific and problem-oriented knowledge in the natural and social sciences is essential and introduced six dimensions of Sustainability Education @ PIK : Scientific excellence, networking, interdisciplinary scientific work, political Dialogue, business Dialogue, soft tools.

Zinaida Fadeeva from UNU-IAS introduced two projects of her institutions: Regional Centres of Expertise on ESD (RCEs) and ProSPER.Net. She mentioned that Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) should optimize their academic activities, consider how to deliver SD related services better and become providers of better SD-related services. She stated that the challenge of solving problems of underdevelopment is specific to each region and thus suggested delivery of SD-related services should also be specific to the region.

DiscussionDiscussion focused on the following points which reflected the most important topics extracted from Session 7 and Session 8: Transdisciplinarity; Institutional structure and governance.

TransdisciplinarityAll agreed on the necessity of transdisciplinarity, but materializing it in actual educational activities is not easy. Finding a concrete project (or problem) and tackling it with people from different disciplines as a team are essential. For doing this, at least knowing methodologies and assumptions behind each discipline is essential for substantial collaboration of different disciplines. Importance of integrating academic knowledge and experiential knowledge were also pointed out.

Institutional structure and governanceSustainability educational programs are something like a unit which slices across disciplines and departments, bridges between many stakeholders and a hub of networks. Therefore, it is crucial to have a strong external advisory board to make a good collaboration. Needless to say, strong leadership by the top who understands the sustainability concept well is also necessary.

The necessity for new criterion for promotion and tenure of scholars were also pointed out to challenge against discipline-focus culture and attract top scholars.

2�

25

Appendix

2�

Detailed ICSS2009 Program

Day1 (February 5, 2009)

09:30 Registration

11:40 Lunch break

17:30 Reception

10:00

10:10

10:25

10:40

11:30

Plenary opening sessionOpening remarksKazuhiko Takeuchi, Deputy executive director of IR3S, the University of Tokyo

Welcome noteHiroshi Komiyama, President of the University of Tokyo

Introduction of concepts and structures of ICSS2009Kensuke Fukushi, IR3S, the University of Tokyo

Keynote speechGovindan parayil, Vice rector of the United Nations University

Commemorative photograph of participants

15:00 Plenary sessionPanel discussion1 : Sustainability science for industry

Panel discussion2 : Network of networks for sustainability science

13:00

17:00

Parallel session

Track1-Session1Climate change

Track2-Session3Food and water

Track3-Session5Resilience for sustainable ecosystem management

Track4-Session7Development of doctoral programs on sustainability science

Day2 (February 6, 2009)

09:30

14:30 Co�ee break

17:0018:30

Poster Session

Keynote SpeechHiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Japan

10:30 Parallel session *lunch will be served during the session.

Track1-Session2Energy sustainability

Track2-Session4Resource circulation and land use

Track3-Session6Integrative scenario for sustainable society

Track4-Session8Role of university in society for sustainability

Day3 (February 7, 2009)

09:30

11:00

11:10

11:30

Plenary closing sessionSession report and panel discussion by session’s chairpersonsProposal for the next ICSS2010Closing remarksAkimasa Sumi, Executive Director of Transdisciplinary Initiative for Global Sustainability(TIGS),The University of Tokyo

27

ICSS2009 speakers and major participants

Alphabetical order* : Session coordinator

Plenary sessionHiroshi Komiyama, President of the University of Tokyo, Executive Director of IR�S, JapanGovindan Parayil, Vice Rector of the United Nations University, JapanAkimasa Sumi, IR�S, the University of Tokyo, Japan Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology(AIST), JapanSession1: Climate changeSuppakorn Chinvanno, Chulalongkorn University, ThailandSeita Emori, National Institute on Environmental Studies (NIES), JapanJunichi Fujino, National Institute on Environmental Studies (NIES), JapanSeiji Ikkatai, Kyoto University, JapanJuergen P. Kropp, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research(PIK), Germany*Nobuo Mimura, Ibaraki University, JapanRosa T. Perez, Ateneo de Manila University Campus, PhilippinesSession 2: Energy sustainabilityAlan Brent, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South AfricaHideaki Horie, the University of Tokyo, Japan Mithra Moezzi, HELIO International, FranceYvani Myriam Deraniyagala, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Sri Lanka*Vincenzo Naso, CIRPS, Sapienza University of Rome, ItalyFabio Orecchini, CIRPS, Sapienza University of Rome, ItalyMasayuki Sasanouchi, Toyota Motor Corporation, JapanKatsumi Yoshida, Sowa Shell Sekiyu K.K., JapanSession 3: Food and waterArnulfo G. Garcia, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), PhilippinesKensuke Fukushi, the University of Tokyo, JapanSrikantha Herath, Institute for Sustainability and Peace, the United Nations University, JapanXiubin Li, Chinese Academy of Sciences, ChinaD.J. Lee, Taiwan National University, TaiwanGreg Morrison, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden Taikan Oki, the University of Tokyo, Japan Tatsuo Omura, Tohoku University, Japan*Chongrak Polprasert, Asian Institute of Technology(AIT ), ThailandSession 4: Resource circulation and land useTomas Hak, Charles University of Prague, Environment Center, the Czech Republic Marianne Karpenstein-Machan, IZNE, Gottingen University, GermanyTohru Morioka, RISS, Osaka University, Japan*Mitsuru Osaki, SGP, Hokkaido University, Japan Anette Reenberg, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Nobuyuki Tsuji, SGP, Hokkaido University, JapanRusong Wang, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Science, Chinese Academy of Science, ChinaNoboru Yoshida, Wakayama University, Japan

Session 5: Resilience for sustainable ecosystem managementTakashi Amemiya, Yokohama National University, JapanPeter J. Edwards, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, SwitzerlandToshiya Okuro, the University of Tokyo, JapanP.K. Ramachandran Nair, University of Florida, United States of America*Kazuhiko Takeuchi, IR�S, the University of Tokyo, JapanHiroya Yamano, National Institute for Environmental Studies, JapanSession 6: Integrative scenario for sustainable societyVaibhav Chaturvedi, Indian Institute of Management (IIM), India*Keisuke Hanaki, IR�S, the University of Tokyo, JapanEiji Hosoda, Keio University, JapanToshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), JapanShilpa Rao, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), AustriaKentaro Tamura, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan A. H. Zakri, the Universiti Sains Malaysia in Penang, Malaysia.Session 7: Development of doctoral programs on sustainability scienceMichael Burns, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South AfricaNancy Dickson, Harvard University, United States of AmericaPim Martens, the University of Maastricht, the NetherlandsLennart Olsson, Lund University, SwedenArnim Wiek, Arizona State University, United States of America*Masaru Yarime, the University of Tokyo, JapanSession 8: Role of university in society for sustainabilityJean-Louis Armand, French Embassy in Japan, FranceJames L. Buizer, Arizona State University, United States of America Zinaida Fadeeva, United Nations University, Japan*Takashi Mino, IR�S, the University of Tokyo, JapanMotoharu Onuki, the University of Tokyo, JapanJordi Segalas, Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), SpainHeike Zimmermann-Timm, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), GermanyPanel discussion 1: Sustainability science for industryYasunori Abe, Japan Airlines, Japan*Keisuke Hanaki, IR�S, the University of Tokyo, JapanGreg Morrison, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden Fabio Orecchini, CIRPS, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Masayuki Sasanouchi, Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan Katsumi Yoshida, Showa Shell Sekiyu K.K., JapanPanel discussion 2: Network of networks for sustainability science*Akimasa Sumi, IR�S, the University of Tokyo, JapanJean-Louis Armand, French Embassy in Japan, FranceJames L. Buizer, Arizona State University, United States of AmericaNancy Dickson, Harvard University, United States of AmericaPeter J. Edwards, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, SwitzerlandVincenzo Naso, CIRPS, Sapienza University of Rome, ItalyChongrak Polprasert, Asian Institute of Technology, ThailandKazuhiko Takeuchi, IR�S, the University of Tokyo, Japan

contact:

ICSS Secretariat OfficeIntegrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR�S)The University of Tokyo

icss@ir�s.u-tokyo.ac.jp