bob watson, tyndall centre, uea - #steps13
TRANSCRIPT
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