Translating Sound Science into Sound Policy

Bob WatsonStrategic Director Tyndall Centre, UEA

Sussex UniversityFebruary 7, 2013

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

Good Science is Essential for Informed Public Policy but not Sufficient

Comprehensive natural and social scientific programs at the national level are essential - multi-disciplinary science is critical

Coordination of international scientific programs through Future Earth is essential, e.g., WCRP, IGBP, IHDP, Diversitas and Earth System Science Programmes

National and international multi-disciplinary scientific, technical and economic assessments are essential – best experts from all stakeholder groups must be involved

Indigenous knowledge needs to be integrated with “modern scientific knowledge”

Effective involvement of decision-makers (governments, private sector, NGOs, media and civil society) is essential – co-design and co-production

Recognize that decision-makers need a consensus view in a digestible form of the evidence, including what is known, unknown and uncertainties, and what the policy implications of uncertainties are

Sound Science into Sound Policy

Assessment processes need to be credible, transparent, legitimate and owned by relevant decision-makers, policy relevant but not prescriptive

There is a need to understand the needs of society, decision-makers and the political context of decision-making, and that inter- and intra-generational equity issues are critically important

There is a need to recognize the complexity of the socio-political system and political realities

There is a need to assess the consequences of action and inaction

There is a need to assess the complementary roles of technologies, policies and behaviour change

There is a need to link environmental issues (e.g., climate change, loss of biodiversity) to societal needs – food, energy, water and security

Sound Science into Sound Policy

Ownership and participation by all relevant stakeholders in the scoping, 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 legitimate

process, with well defined principles and procedures

Assessments: Features for Success

Peer-reviewed by all relevant stakeholders Peer-review comments and author responses open for everybody to

review Review editors to ensure appropriate response by authors

Policy-relevant, but not policy prescriptive, presenting options not recommendations

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)

Assessments: Features for Success

• 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 in

the US

• International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (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

International 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 intergovernmental

processes, 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) and

governments (e.g., UK NEA)

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 Paper

for 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

Ecosystem Assessments

An Electronic Web-based Assessment Process

• We need an integrated web-based assessment process that recognizes the inter-linkages among all regional and global environmental issues and development 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 currently being evaluated, which would for the first time truly integrate and assess the implications of climate change, loss of biodiversity/ecosystem services, land degradation, and air quality on issues such food, water, energy and human security

• It would an inter-disciplinary assessment, embracing, inter-alia, the range of issues covered by the IPCC, MA, IPBES, IAASTD, TEEB, the Global energy assessment, and UNEP’s GEO focussing on the inter-linkages

Future Earth

Future Earth research for global sustainability

photos: www.dawide.com

WMO

Future Earth: goal

To provide the knowledge required for societies in the world:

to face risks posed by global environmental change and to seize opportunities in a transition

to global sustainability

Future Earth will intellectually integrate WCRP, IGBP, IHDP, Diversitas and ESSPs

14

Cross -scale interactions from local to regional and global scales

Global sustainability within Earth system boundaries

Conceptual framework for Future Earth

Future Earth: proposed Research Themes

Transformation towards

Sustainability

Dynamic Planet

Global Development

Proposed Research Themes1 Dynamic Planet: Observing, explaining, understanding,

projecting earth, environmental and societal system trends, drivers and processes and their interactions; anticipating global thresholds and risks.

2 Global development: Providing the knowledge for sustainable, secure and fair stewardship of food, water, biodiversity, health, energy, materials and other ecosystem functions and services.

3 Transformation towards Sustainability: Understanding transformation processes and options, assessing how these relate to human values, emerging technologies and economic development pathways, and evaluating strategies for governing and managing the global environment across sectors and scales.

16

17

Establishing an

institutional design for

Future Earth

Develop distributed knowledge nodes and regional initiatives to address real-world problems at local and regional scales

Co-design with users

Steering Committee

& Office

The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

(IPBES)

What is IPBES?

• Established in April 2012, Panama City, after years of discussion and negotiation.

• An interface between scientific and policy communities

IPBES Principles

Collaboration –avoiding duplication

Scientific independence,

credibility, relevance and

legitimacy

Policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive

Contribution of indigenous and local knowledge

Full participation of developing countries

Gender equity

Bottom-up

Inter- and multidisciplinary approach

Address terrestrial, marine and inland water biodiversity and ecosystem services and their interactions

IPBES structure

Plenary – Decision making body of the Platform

Government Members (currently over 100) and observers

Bureau – Overseeing administrative functions and observers on the MEP

10 members (2 from each UN region)

Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) – overseeing scientific and technical functions

25 members ( 5 from each UN region)

What will IPBES do?

Four main functions

• Knowledge generation

• Regular and timely assessments

• Support policy formulation and implementation

• Capacity building

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 national assessment activities

• Developing common conceptual frameworks and tools for assessment

• Catalogue of assessments

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

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

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

Elected Bureau members – chair (Dr. Zakri), vice-chairs and other members

Elected members of the Multi-disciplinary Expert Panel (MEP)

Significant progress on finalizing Rules of Procedure

Agreed on a inter-sessional work program

Agreed UNEP will provide the Administrative functions of the secretariat, and developing roles for UNDP, UNESCO and UNDP

Progress at First Plenary

Agree on a detailed work program

Agree on the spatial structure for regional and sub-regional assessments

Agree on a Conceptual Framework that operates over a range of spatial and temporal scales and can include different types of knowledge

Decide whether to have regional or thematic hubs

Decide whether the IPBES should be transformed into a UN body

Outstanding decisions

Potential IPBES Conceptual Framework

Science and Technology Advisors and Committees

Scientific Advisors and Scientific Advisory Committees

UK system of “independent” CSAs for each Government Department working in a highly collegial and integrated manner is a model that should 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 and Science and Technology Advisory Committee, ala, the UK and US

The establishment of a multi-disciplinary Science Advisory Board for Sustainable Development to the Secretary-General of the United Nations is a very positive step to strengthen the science-policy interface within the UN system

Conclusions

The science-policy interface requires: strong national and international trans-disciplinary

research programs trans-disciplinary national, regional and global

assessments independent scientific advisors and advisory committees

Co-design and co-production involving all relevant stakeholders is vital, ensuring policy-relevance

Conclusions

The science-policy interface requires: strong national and international trans-disciplinary

research programs trans-disciplinary national, regional and global

assessments independent scientific advisors and advisory committees

Co-design and co-production involving all relevant stakeholders is vital, ensuring policy-relevance