Bob Watson, Tyndall Centre, UEA - #steps13

Download Bob Watson, Tyndall Centre, UEA - #steps13

Post on 11-May-2015

949 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li>1.Translating Sound Science into Sound Policy Bob Watson Strategic Director Tyndall Centre, UEA Sussex University February 7, 2013</li></ul> <p>2. Outline of Presentation Key Elements of the Science-Policy Process National and International Research Programs National and International Assessments Science Advisory Committees and Chief Scientific Advisors Future Earth Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science and Technology Advisors and Advisory Committees Advisory Board to the United Nations on Sustainable Development Conclusions 3. Sound Science into Sound PolicyGood Science is Essential for Informed Public Policy but not SufficientComprehensive natural and social scientific programs at the national level areessential - multi-disciplinary science is criticalCoordination of international scientific programs through Future Earth is essential,e.g., WCRP, IGBP, IHDP, Diversitas and Earth System Science ProgrammesNational and international multi-disciplinary scientific, technical and economicassessments are essential best experts from all stakeholder groups must be involvedIndigenous knowledge needs to be integrated with modern scientific knowledgeEffective involvement of decision-makers (governments, private sector, NGOs, mediaand civil society) is essential co-design and co-productionRecognize that decision-makers need a consensus view in a digestible form of theevidence, including what is known, unknown and uncertainties, and what the policyimplications of uncertainties are 4. Sound Science into Sound PolicyAssessment processes need to be credible, transparent, legitimate and owned byrelevant decision-makers, policy relevant but not prescriptiveThere is a need to understand the needs of society, decision-makers and the politicalcontext of decision-making, and that inter- and intra-generational equity issues arecritically importantThere is a need to recognize the complexity of the socio-political system and politicalrealitiesThere is a need to assess the consequences of action and inactionThere is a need to assess the complementary roles of technologies, policies andbehaviour changeThere is a need to link environmental issues (e.g., climate change, loss ofbiodiversity) to societal needs food, energy, water and security 5. Assessments: Features for Success Ownership and participation by all relevant stakeholders in thescoping, preparation, peer-review and governance structure governments, private sector, civil society/non-governmental organizations, scientific community balanced intellectually (natural and social researchers, economists, technologists) balanced geographically - participation (developed, developing and economies in transition) experts are involved in their individual capacity, nominated and chosen by an open and transparent process utilize traditional and institutional knowledge as appropriate co-chairs one each if international developed and developing country Conduct using an open, transparent, representative and legitimateprocess, with well defined principles and procedures 6. Assessments: Features for Success Peer-reviewed by all relevant stakeholders Peer-review comments and author responses open for everybody toreview Review editors to ensure appropriate response by authors Policy-relevant, but not policy prescriptive, presenting options notrecommendations Evidence-based, not based on ideological value systems Encompass risk assessment and risk management Present different views Identify areas of certainty, uncertainty and areas of controversy Outreach-communications strategy starting at the beginning of the process Multi-thematic (environmental, technological, social, economic) Multi-spatial using a consistent framework Multi-temporal, i.e., historical to the future, employing plausible futures Multi-sponsors (maximize stakeholder involvement) 7. International Assessments International Ozone Assessments (1981-present) inter-governmental expert peer-review highly influential on national and international policy formulation International Panel on Climate Change (1988-present) inter-governmental expert and government peer-review, government approval of the SPMs influential on national and international policy processes, albeit limited inthe US International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology forDevelopment (2004-2008) Inter-governmental, but with a multi-stakeholder Bureau expert and government peer-review multi-scale assessment: local to global Impact has been increasing 8. Ecosystem Assessments Global Biodiversity Assessment (1993-1995) non-governmental expert peer-review limited impact on international policy formulation lacked the appropriate mandate -- supply-driven not demand driven Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2001-2005) non-governmental, but tied to intergovernmentalprocesses, e.g., CBD, CCD broad range of stakeholders on the Board of Directors expert and informal government peer-review multi-scale assessment: local to global Increasing influence on conventions (e.g., CBD) andgovernments (e.g., UK NEA) 9. Ecosystem Assessments UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2009-2011) non-governmental , but commissioned by Government broad range of stakeholders on the Board expert and government peer-review multi-scale assessment: local to national Immediate impact on policy basis of the Natural Environment White Paperfor England Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services An intergovernmental process Four pillars of work Assessments (global, regional and sub-regional) Research (stimulate not fund) Capacity-building Policy-relevant tools Detailed work program have yet to be established Established in Panama, 2012 10. An Electronic Web-based Assessment Process We need an integrated web-based assessment process that recognizes theinter-linkages among all regional and global environmental issues anddevelopment issues that is spatially explicit - global, regional and sub-regional level and, where possible, national level The concept of a web-based electronic assessment process is currentlybeing evaluated, which would for the first time truly integrate and assessthe implications of climate change, loss of biodiversity/ecosystem services,land degradation, and air quality on issues such food, water, energy andhuman security It would an inter-disciplinary assessment, embracing, inter-alia, the range ofissues covered by the IPCC, MA, IPBES, IAASTD, TEEB, the Global energyassessment, and UNEPs GEO focussing on the inter-linkages 11. Future Earth 12. photos: www.dawide.com Future Earth research for global sustainability WMO 13. Future Earth: goalTo provide the knowledgerequired for societies in the world:to face risks posed by global environmental change and to seize opportunities in a transitionto global sustainability Future Earth will intellectually integrate WCRP, IGBP, IHDP, Diversitas and ESSPs 14. Conceptual framework for Future Earth Global sustainability within Earth system boundaries- Cross scale interactions from local to regional and global scales 14 15. Future Earth: proposed Research ThemesTransformation towards SustainabilityGlobalDynamic Development Planet 16. Proposed Research Themes1 Dynamic Planet: Observing, explaining, understanding,projecting earth, environmental and societal system trends,drivers and processes and their interactions; anticipatingglobal thresholds and risks.2 Global development: Providing the knowledge forsustainable, secure and fair stewardship of food, water,biodiversity, health, energy, materials and other ecosystemfunctions and services.3 Transformation towards Sustainability: Understandingtransformation processes and options, assessing how theserelate to human values, emerging technologies and economicdevelopment pathways, and evaluating strategies forgoverning and managing the global environment acrosssectors and scales.16 17. Establishing an institutionaldesign for Future Earth Co-design with usersDevelop distributedknowledge nodesand regionalinitiatives toaddress real-worldSteeringproblems at local Committeeand regional scales&amp; Office 17 18. The Intergovernmental Platform forBiodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 19. What is IPBES? Established in April 2012,Panama City, after years ofdiscussion and negotiation. An interface between scientificand policy communities 20. IPBES Principles Address terrestrial, Inter- and multidisciplinary marine and inland approach water biodiversity and ecosystem services Gender equity and their interactions Collaboration Bottom-up avoiding duplication Full participation ofdeveloping countriesScientificPolicy-relevant but notindependence,policy-prescriptivecredibility, Contribution of indigenousrelevance andand local knowledgelegitimacy 21. IPBES structurePlenary Decision making body of the PlatformGovernment Members (currently over 100) and observersBureau Overseeing administrative functions and observers onthe MEP10 members (2 from each UN region)Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) overseeing scientificand technical functions25 members ( 5 from each UN region) 22. What will IPBES do? Four main functions Knowledge generation Regular and timely assessments Support policy formulation and implementation Capacity building 23. Potential activities in the area of assessments Regular multidisciplinary assessments at regional(including sub-regional) and global scales. Thematic assessments on policy relevant issues,including emerging issues Technical support and capacity building for nationalassessment activities Developing common conceptual frameworks and toolsfor assessment Catalogue of assessments 24. Potential activities in the area of policy support Overview of policy-relevant knowledge, tools and methodologies Partnerships to develop priority tools and approaches Promotion of effective tools through communication and capacity building Policy-relevant (eg sector specific) knowledge syntheses 25. Potential capacity building activities Maintain a list of CB needs Specific workshops and training on assessment approaches Increasing access to data, information and knowledge for use in assessment Scholarships, fellowship programme, mentoring Peer to peer exchange visits Regional hubs supporting assessment and peer learning 26. Potential activities on knowledge generation Identifying and communicating gaps in knowledge including from assessments Convening research and donor communities to agree on policy-relevant research priorities Supporting peer learning and networks to strengthen generation of policy-relevant research 27. Progress at First PlenaryElected Bureau members chair (Dr. Zakri), vice-chairs andother membersElected members of the Multi-disciplinary Expert Panel (MEP)Significant progress on finalizing Rules of ProcedureAgreed on a inter-sessional work programAgreed UNEP will provide the Administrative functions of thesecretariat, and developing roles for UNDP, UNESCO andUNDP 28. Outstanding decisionsAgree on a detailed work programAgree on the spatial structure for regional and sub-regionalassessmentsAgree on a Conceptual Framework that operates over a rangeof spatial and temporal scales and can include different types ofknowledgeDecide whether to have regional or thematic hubsDecide whether the IPBES should be transformed into a UNbody 29. Potential IPBES Conceptual Framework 30. Science and Technology Advisors andCommittees 31. Scientific Advisors and Scientific Advisory Committees UK system of independent CSAs for each Government Departmentworking in a highly collegial and integrated manner is a model thatshould be replicated by other Governments Government Departments should also have independent multi-disciplinary Science Advisory Committees Each Government should have a Science and Technology Advisor andScience and Technology Advisory Committee, ala, the UK and US The establishment of a multi-disciplinary Science Advisory Board forSustainable Development to the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations is a very positive step to strengthen the science-policyinterface within the UN system 32. Conclusions The science-policy interface requires: strong national and international trans-disciplinaryresearch programs trans-disciplinary national, regional and globalassessments independent scientific advisors and advisorycommittees Co-design and co-production involving all relevantstakeholders is vital, ensuring policy-relevance 33. Conclusions The science-policy interface requires: strong national and international trans-disciplinaryresearch programs trans-disciplinary national, regional and globalassessments independent scientific advisors and advisorycommittees Co-design and co-production involving all relevantstakeholders is vital, ensuring policy-relevance </p>