During the
BACC II presentation in Copenhagen, I took the opportunity to ask Deliang Chen
of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, a few questions. Deliang has been an
important figure in international research coordination for many years. From
2009 to 2012 he was Executive Director of ICSU, the International Council of
Science (ICSU). This international organization has committed itself to
strengthen international science and scientific collaboration on the global
level for the benefit of society. The transition of the Earth System Science
Partnership programmes and the birth of Future Earth fell into Deliang´s term
at ICSU.
Q: What
raised your interest in climate scienc
A: It was
clouds. When I was a child, I was fascinated by the seemingly unlimited number
of different forms of clouds. That trigged my interest in meteorology, and then
climate science. I became really interested in climate science during my PhD
work which dealt with global climate modeling. Since then I have a fairly broad
interest in Earth System Science which has replied on advances in climate
science, especially the creation of the concept climate system and climate
models.
Q: During
your time at ICSU, how has the international research landscape changed (with
respect to environmental change programmes) and how to you rate that change?
A: A lot of
things happened during my tenure at ICSU (2009-2012). As you know, ICSU have
many activities, but the leadership for global environmental change programmes
(IGBP, IHDP, WCRP, Diversitas and their partnership ESSP) is probably the most
important one. I would say that the most important change is the mindset of the
global scientific community. Having realized the crucial role that human
activity plays and the great need of society for scientific input to achieve
sustainability, the community is more ready to move towards truly integrated
Earth System Science and to take the responsibility to find new ways to
co-design and co-create knowledge involving a broad range of social and
engineering communities, as well as with other stakeholders. I think these
changes are necessary and great since all scientists also have social
responsibility through our basic and applied research activities. While
fundamental research is often disciplinary and curiosity driven research is
always needed, solution oriented research with in-depth disciplinary knowledge
and transdisciplinary approach provide effective means to deliver useful and
relevant knowledge to society.
Q: The new
BACC book has just now been finished. What are the main differences to the
well-known IPCC reports?
A: To me
there are two main differences with regard to government involvement and scope.
IPCC is a UN body under influences of governments, while BACC represents a
bottom-up process involving scientific communities in the region. The IPCC
report focuses on climate change issues only, whereas BACC also dealt with
non-climate issues such air pollution. Besides, IPCC has three separate working
groups and reports, whereas BACC has integrated various aspects in one volume.
The political aspects of IPCC are sometimes seen as something negative. But it
is absolutely necessary as it is meant to serve as a common basis for
interaction negotiations on climate change. BACC enjoys the full independence
compared to IPCC. But it may need additional efforts to reach out to the policy
and decision making communities afterwards, to make it more useful and
accessible to the nonacademic readers. It is clear that the regional focus of
BACC report offers a great potential to be useful for the region. However,
nothing automatic should be expected. Finally, since the future scenarios of
BACC depend on IPCC report, the two efforts are really complementary.
Q: You are
in the new Baltic Earth advisory committee. Where do you see Baltic Earth in
the international research landscape?
A: I see
Baltic Earth as a mutual community and network with a great potential for
research development and service to society in the Baltic Sea region. It had
some links to WCRP through GEWEX which focuses on water and energy balance. Now
that both Baltic Earth and international research landscape have been changed and
is changing, there is an opportunity for Baltic Earth to find its new role and
its relation with global research programmes. In this regard, I am thinking
specifically on a new framework towards regional Earth System Science for
sustainability in the region, and the new global research program Future Earth
which is becoming “the game of the town” for Earth system science for global
sustainability.
Q: What
would be your advice for Baltic Earth in the long term?
A: I would
say that the most important thing is to keep focusing on added value and
synergy in the changing world and remain relevant and inspirational.
Q: Tell us
a little bit about your current research activities.
A: At the
national level, I am involved in two Swedish national strategic research
programs BECC (Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate) and
MERGE (ModElling the Regional and Global Earth system). I am also leading a
project to develop a framework to support climate-adaptation actions in Sweden
with a focus on extremes such as flooding and drought. At the international
level, I am involved in statistical downscaling activity for VALUE (a COST
action) and CORDEX (a WCRP project). Overall, my main focus has been on a
project looking at climate change and its impact on water balances in Tibet. I
visited Tibet in 2011 and have since then developed a strong interest for the
regional. Recently, I joined a group of more than 80 Chinese scientists in
making an Environment Change Assessment for Tibet, which is similar to the BACC
effort.
Thank you,
Deliang, for this interview!
