1. Translating Sound Science into
Sound Policy
Bob Watson
Strategic Director Tyndall Centre, UEA
Sussex University
February 7, 2013

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 Policy
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

4. 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

5. Assessments: Features for Success
 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

6. 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)

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 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

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 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)

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 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

10. 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

11. Future Earth

12. photos: www.dawide.com

Future Earth
research for global sustainability
 WMO

13. 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. 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 Themes
Transformation
towards
Sustainability
Global Dynamic
Development Planet

16. Proposed Research Themes
1 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
Co-design
with users
Develop distributed
knowledge nodes
and regional
initiatives to
address real-world
Steering problems at local
Committee and regional scales
& Office
 17

18. The Intergovernmental Platform for
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES)

19. What is IPBES?
• Established in April 2012,
Panama City, after years of
discussion and negotiation.
• An interface between scientific
and 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 of
developing countries
Scientific
Policy-relevant but not independence,
policy-prescriptive credibility,
Contribution of indigenous relevance and
and local knowledge legitimacy

21. 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)

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 national
assessment activities
• Developing common conceptual frameworks and tools
for 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 Plenary
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

28. Outstanding decisions
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

29. Potential IPBES Conceptual
Framework

30. Science and Technology Advisors and
Committees

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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