Report on International Scientific Advisory Processes on the Environment and Sustainable Development

Hyperlinked version for the Internet

Prepared for the UN System-Wide Earthwatch Coordination, UNEP
by Jan-Stefan Fritz

The Document contains the views expressed by the author acting in his individual capacity and may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or the United Nations Environment Programme.

Research for Linked version completed mid-December 2000

Copies of this Report are available from:
Division of Early Warning and Assessment
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya

For their valuable assistance in providing information and/or comments, I would like to thank: Frank Biermann (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), Rajeb Boulharouf (Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification), Renate Christ (IPCC Secretariat), Robert A. Duce (GESAMP), Niklas Hohne (Climate Change Secretariat), Calestous Juma (Harvard University), Manfred Nauke (GESAMP), Dwight Peck (The Ramsar Convention Bureau), Véronique Plocq-Fichelet (SCOPE), Nelson Sabogal (The Secretariat for the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol), Ibrahim Shafii (Secretariat of the Basel Convention), Judy A. Stober (Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety), Aase Tuxen (UNEP Interim Secretariat for the Rotterdam Convention), Robert Vagg (UNEP/CMS Secretariat), Jerry Velasquez (UNU), Anne-Marie Verbeken (The STAP Secretariat), Ger van Vliet (CITES Secretariat), and Peter Wells (GESAMP). 

I would especially like to thank Lee A. Kimball (independent Consultant) and Arthur Dahl (UN System-Wide Earthwatch/UNEP) for having reviewed the complete Report and for providing detailed comments.

LINKAGES

Science for Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Science for Intergovernmental Deliberations

Science for State of the Environment Knowledge

THEMATIC FOCUS ON FRESHWATER

TRENDS and INFORMATION GAPS

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE INFORMATION FOR DECISION-MAKING
 
 

AN OVERVIEW OF WEBSITE CONTENTS OF MAJOR ADVISORY BODIES

FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS

A LIST OF BACKGROUND PROFILES

This Report makes two specific contributions. First, it provides an overview of what advisory processes exist, how they work, and their interrelations. Second, this Report highlights recent trends, remaining information gaps, and makes recommendations to strengthen advisory processes by improving the way in which information is compiled, debated, shared and reflected in policy outcomes. Thus this Report offers a perspective on what catch-words like ‘information gaps’ and ‘interlinkages’ mean in practice, and their impact on the effectiveness of present and future international scientific advisory processes. 

Part 1 of the Report assesses the institutional linkages between existing scientific advisory and intergovernmental processes. Part 2 assesses the links between science and policy in the context of freshwater; an issue of particular contemporary relevance. Part 3 identifies some major recent trends and specific remaining information gaps. Part 4 makes some recommendations on how to bridge the gaps identified in the previous part. Figures are included to illustrate the science/policy nexus, trends in the creation of scientific advisory processes and the contents of websites of major advisory processes. Finally, Background Profiles have been prepared as sources of information on the major advisory processes referred to in the Report. For the sake of scope, the focus is on processes that, by their definition, take a planetary view.
 

The second broad trend involves a shift in the content of scientific advice from identifying problem areas to suggesting alternative scenarios for effective action. 
 

Greater dialogue between advisory processes and other communities 

Increased recognition that local/national-level capacity building should also be a goal of advisory processes 

Increased awareness of the need to coordinate through substantive collaboration 

Slow progress in improving data availability on emerging priorities 

Improved use of Internet to manage and disseminate information 
 

A Linkages Gap exists between the increasing number of advisory processes being founded.

A Public Access Gap exists between the production and synthesis of knowledge and its use by a broader readership.

A Systematic Organization of Information Gap exists making it difficult for users to find information quickly about different environmental media from different perspectives. 

An Impact Gap exists between the work of scientific advisory activities and efforts to support local/national-level capacity building. 
 

Standardized and/or harmonized methods for managing data and information from scientific support activities (e.g. G30S and international organizations) should serve clearly identified audiences or purposes. 

Link the earth observations systems to the specific needs of advisory processes to MEAs and other relevant intergovernmental deliberations. 

Continue to complement science with traditional knowledge as a means of bridging the gap between 'problem identification' and 'proposing alternatives for implementation'. 

Those advisory processes that have not undergone review processes should be encouraged to so. 
 

To improve accessibility, a UN System-Wide Web Site Locator for Environment and Sustainable Development could be established. 

NGOs and related forums should be harnessed as sources of information on possible emerging problems and alternative means of supporting the implementation of agreements. 
 

No new scientific advisory processes should be created unless no other appropriate international scientific body exists. 

An Ad Hoc Working Group to Identify Areas of Substantive Cooperation on Emerging Issues might be created. 
 

The immediate mandate for this Report is the recommendation of the Earthwatch Working Party “that the [first] report be completed and sharpened with conclusions and recommendations”. 
 

UNEP has also highlighted the importance of scientific advisory processes as part of its role as Global Environmental Authority. The UNEP Executive Director has emphasized the importance of scientific advice in his reform programme. In fact, UNEP’s new Corporate Profile is the first such document to specifically identify the value of scientific advisory processes. 
 

Intergovernmental frameworks concerned with environmental affairs, involve at least four major processes. These include: institutional bargaining between states; the international administration of policy decisions and priorities; business and NGO lobbying; and the provision of scientific advice. 

The category of scientific advice is distinct because the participating independent scientists represent the only members of civil society to be consistently asked to advise government representatives. This recognizes that many advisory processes also include government-appointed experts. New scientific advisory processes are created every year. At present, several million US dollars are invested in international scientific advisory processes annually and over 3000 individuals are appointed to UN-sponsored processes alone, with many thousand others directly contributing their expertise.ⁱ

Normally, the role of scientific advisory processes is to support policymakers by providing relevant observations on the state of the environment. Traditionally, they were expected to involve natural scientists identifying problems in response to specific requests from policymakers. While this may seem a relatively simple arrangement, the practice of establishing advisory processes has been far more complex and challenging. Increasingly, advisory processes also assess socio-economic dimensions of problems as well as options for technical and policy responses. Debates about the independence of scientific expertise, especially concerning those advisory processes comprised of government-appointed experts, have also become more prevalent. This has made scientific and technical advisory processes foci for debate on problems and potential solutions, bringing together politicians, scientists, advocacy groups and a myriad other actors in intense debates about knowledge and social choice. 

While advisory processes are not intended to serve either research or advocacy purposes, invariably their role involves a bit of both. On one hand, advisory processes need to determine what knowledge exists, in whose hands it is held, what relevant research is being conducted, and how the results are presented to most usefully serve policy-making processes. On the other hand, though the knowledge that is provided principally aims to serve policymakers there is also a tacit desire on the part of scientists to ‘improve’ policymaking to the extent that policy should reflect the best knowledge and technical practices available. 

Given the complexity of the science^*/policy nexus, it is impossible to speak of an ‘ideal’ advisory process. However, within a general framework, one can conceive of scientific advice as a lynchpin between international scientific support activities and the international policy realm. Figure 1 outlines the basic elements of a working scientific advisory process. 

This Report contributes to a better understanding of this challenging space by offering a qualitative, comparative analysis of international scientific advisory processes. It is a thorough overview and analysis of advisory processes.ⁱⁱ As such, it complements other ongoing activities that seek to improve understanding of the issues at stake in international environmental affairs and the linkages between legal frameworks created to address these issues. Some prominent examples include the GEO report series, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and the UNU Inter-linkages Initiative. 
 

Technical Working Group of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes (Basel-TWG) 
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-SBSTTA) 
Advisory Committees of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 
Committee on Science and Technology of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD-CST) 
Scientific Council of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) 
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC-SBSTA) 
Assessment and Technical Options Bodies of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Ozone) 
Interim Chemical Review Committee - Rotterdam Convention on PIC for Certain Hazardous Chemicals in International Trade (PIC-Interim CRC)
Scientific and Technical Review Panel of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar-STRP) 

The following are referred to in MEAs as advisory processes: 
GESAMP is referred to in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 related thereto (MARPOL 73/78) 
IUCN is identified as the advisory body on natural sites under the World Heritage Convention (WHC), and it provides scientific support to CITES and Ramsar 

The most important fact to remember about bodies listed in Box 1, is that - with the exception of the last two - all are created by governments as subsidiary bodies. This warrants noting because, in addition to scientific or other considerations, political considerations also determine their organization and dynamics as well as their work and relations with other advisory processes. 
 

Similar to distinguishing between expert bodies and open advisory processes, a distinction can also be made between those bodies that provide technical advice and those that provide substantively broader advice. Those processes furnishing advice on broad issue areas - notably the Rio Convention subsidiary bodies - have a challenging task. Perhaps the most challenging of these tasks is the need to balance the furnishing of specific advice with an understanding of the issue area as a whole. In this, these bodies reflect two of the dominant trends visible in many contemporary advisory processes. On one hand, advice to many MEAs is becoming increasingly technical and specialized. Many MEAs require highly specialized knowledge relating to problem identification, articulation, and alternatives for action. On the other hand, there is an increasing need for broad advice on the intra- and inter-relations between ecosystem and social dynamics. For example, this can be seen such agreements as the Biosafety and Kyoto Protocols. 

 “... technical change does not transform societies independently of other factors unrelated to technology as such. The social and cultural factors - the attitudes and the beliefs attached to economic, political and social organization - influence the role that science and technology play in a given society.”ⁱ

integrating more closely the work of NGOs and other international organizations; 

improving and ensuring the quality of reports to decision-making bodies by drawing on as many sources as possible (the question of quality is regularly emphasized in meetings of advisory processes, as a result of which more consultant reports are peer reviewed before being submitted to government representatives); and 

opening meetings and workshops to NGOs and other relevant participants. 

One priority for advisory processes in recent years has been to organize knowledge for better access. The amount of information that many advisory processes must managed is so large and detailed that new means are needed to organize it, while maintaining and even improving access. Since publication of the first Report on Scientific Advisory Processes, use of the Internet has increased substantially and the websites of MEAs and their advisory processes have become much more sophisticated. The first Report observed that more attention needed to be devoted to ensuring the completeness and improving the quality of information provided by advisory processes. Since then, the situation has greatly improved. Now background documents, meeting reports, decisions and even some live footage are generally available. Concerning the biodiversity conventions a step has even been taken to harmonize the information that is presented in the form of a joint website (see coordination below). See also Annex 1 for an overview of what information is provided by the websites of some major advisory processes. 

During the past few years, an increasing interest has emerged to better coordinate the work of MEAs and their subsidiary bodies. Two meetings were held in 1999 on coordinating the work of MEAs and their subsidiary bodies. The first was a UNU sponsored meeting entitled Inter-linkages – Synergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (Tokyo, July 1999) and the second was a UNEP Consultative Meeting on Collaboration Among the Scientific and Technical Subsidiary Bodies of Multilateral Environmental Conventions (Bonn, October 1999). These meetings highlighted three broad areas of focus concerning the management of MEA-relevant environmental information: 

harmonizing information systems and information exchanges (includes standardizing databases, indicators and related information requirements, etc.) 

coordinating the work of the subsidiary bodies of MEAs 

streamlining National Reporting 

The UNU conference provided the impetus for a UNU Inter-linkages Initiative which will involve many activities to promote increased coordination between the conventions through to 2002. Unfortunately, the UNU Initiative has placed little emphasis on synergies among advisory processes or, in fact, the possibility of using advisory processes to promote synergies amongst MEAs. 
 

Commission on Sustainable Development - Ad Hoc Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Energy and Sustainable Development
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) 
Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (concluded) 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) 
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility
World Conservation Union (IUCN) 
World Commissions 

- Independent World Commission on the Oceans (1995-1998) 

- World Commission on Dams (IUCN/World Bank)(1998-2000) 

- World Commission on Water for the 21st Century (1998-) 

- World Solar Commission (1995-) 

FAO's Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS), Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases (EMPRES), and the Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture (GIEWS) 
IAEA’s Nuclear Safety Programme, and Nuclear Sciences and Applications Programme 
UNESCO's intergovernmental scientific activities (International Geological Correlation Programme (IGCP), International Hydrological Programme (IHP), Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), Management of Social Transformations Programme (MOST), and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) 
WHO’s Cluster of Sustainable Development and Human Environment activities, which include programmes on Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality and Air Quality. 
WMO’s Applications of Meteorology Programme, Atmospheric Research and Environment Programme, Hydrology and Water Resources Programme, World Climate Programme and World Weather Watch. 

An important role played by bodies included in this section is to catalyze policy action by using science to set the terms of debate. Before the international community of states begins policy deliberations on an issue, there is often a need to highlight the importance of that issue and consolidate current thinking. In such cases, advisory processes that can harness scientific knowledge and present it in policy relevant terms are useful. Sometimes, this may lead to concrete action, such as negotiations on a legal agreement. At other times it may simply introduce new terms or concepts, which serve to frame diffuse debates. Perhaps the pre-eminent example of a body that both shaped the policy framework and introduced new concepts was the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Its work publicized the term ‘sustainable development’ and led to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The term sustainable development served to provide a conceptual framework to subsequent discussions on environmental protection and human development, while UNCED paved the way for at least three Conventions. 
 

A third role bodies in this section play is to establish authoritative scientific standards for policy deliberations, decisions and even implementation. There are several criteria which influence whether a body is accepted as providing standards for policy. Above all, the body must be recognized as providing independent, authoritative information that is presented clearly to policymakers. Often, but not always, scientific consensus is an important factor in establishing the authority of an advisory process. However, whether a process is judged to be authoritative does not reflect whether scientific consensus exists. Instead, this reflects more a consensus amongst policy makers that the knowledge provided is the ‘best available’. How exactly this works in practice varies from case to case, so unfortunately an in depth consideration of this is beyond the scope of this short Report. However, while calls for ‘scientific consensus’ may be useful this will, in all likelihood, not affect whether science is reflected in policy or not. 

On the edge of what may be considered scientific advice, there are many further activities also bringing scientific knowledge to intergovernmental deliberations. Two prominent examples include WCMC and GESAMP. Briefly, WCMC contributes to Conventions on Biodiversity, Migratory Species, World Heritage, CITES, and several other international policy-relevant initiatives. For its part, GESAMP contributes SoE reports to its sponsors as requested, it is identified as a scientific advisory body in the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, and it provides input to other global and regional marine conventions. 
 

GENERAL
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (ongoing process through 2004) 
World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems: The Frayed Web of Life (WRI/UNEP/UNDP/World Bank, 2000) 
The Living Planet Report , (WWF, 2000) 
Global Environment Outlook - 2000 (UNEP, 1999) 
Emerging Environmental Issues for the 21^st Century: A Study for GEO-2000 (SCOPE/UNEP, 1999) 
Protecting Our Planet – Securing Our Future: Linkages Among Global Environmental Issues and Human Needs (UNEP/NASA/World Bank, 1999) 
Critical Trends: Global Change and Sustainable Development (UN, 1997) 

SPECIFIC ISSUES
Global International Waters Assessment (UNEP/GEF, to be completed in 2003) 
Climate Change: IPCC Third Assessment Report (IPCC, to be published in 2001)
A Sea of Troubles (GESAMP, to be published early 2001) 
Land-based Sources and Activities Affecting the Quality and Uses of the Marine, Coastal and Associated Freshwater Environment (GESAMP, to be published early 2001) 
Human Development Report (UNDP, 2000) 
World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2000) 
Poverty Report: Overcoming Human Poverty (UNDP, 2000) 
The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements (UNEP/UNCHS, 1999) 
World Disasters Report (IFRC, 1999) 
World Health Report (WHO, 1999) 
State of the World’s Forests (FAO, 1999) 
Synthesis of the Reports of the Scientific, Environmental Effects, and Technology and Economic Assessment Panels of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP, 1999) 
World Resources 1998-1999: Environmental Change and Human Health (WRI/UNEP/UNDP/World Bank, 1998) 
The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (FAO, 1998) 
Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World (UN/SEI/WMO, 1997) 
Health and Environment in Sustainable Development: Five Years After the Earth Summit (WHO, 1997) 
World Atlas of Desertification (UNEP, 1997) 
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plant and Animals (UNSCEAR, 1996)
Climate Change 1995 (IPCC, 1995) 
Global Biodiversity Assessment (UNEP, 1995) 
Global Waste Survey: Final Report (IMO, 1995) 

GLOBAL OBSERVING SYSTEMS (G3OS) 
- Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)
- Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS)
- Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) 

One important question facing the assessment reports is defining the type of knowledge they seek to provide: is it more data presentation or analysis; and should it include natural sciences, social sciences, or even other types of knowledge. In recent years there has been a move away from publishing data sets, toward proffering policy-relevant observations about the state of the environment, developing future scenarios, identifying linkages between environment and social issues, and recommending plans of action. By making this shift, assessments are testing the balance between presenting hard data and making qualitative observations. This is a difficult balance if they are to avoid offering policy prescriptions, as has been recommended by some.^v The real difficulty is that policymakers do not find data useful as indicators of policy priorities, but they do not want specific policy prescriptions either. The mark of a successful assessment is thus often the one that is judged to be sufficiently analytic to be interesting, while sufficiently quantitative to avoid being labelled as ‘biased’. How this plays out in practice changes from assessment to assessment and from time to time. 
 

There have been many debates about the use of printed assessments and whether “anybody actually reads or uses them”. Part of the problem arises out of the fact that in the past few assessment reports were prepared for a defined readership. This lack of readily identifiable readership is closely linked to difficulties in defining ‘policy relevance’ at an appropriate scale; which to most policymakers is at regional, transboundary, national and/or local levels. Constant debate on this issue and the search for financial resources have resulted in some change. 
 

Preparations for the GEO-3 provide another example. While not tied to a specific readership, the GEO team is conducting an Internet-based Reader Survey in order to improve the effectiveness of the third Report due in 2002. 
 

Increasingly, there is also a recognition that SoE assessments are not only about having a readership, as important as this is. The ability of assessment and observation processes to contribute to capacity building is something that is being experimented with in a few cases, though it is still too early for an analysis thereof. However, the benefits of linking assessments to capacity-building could include, amongst many others: building a firmer knowledge-base for future assessments, building confidence in the assessments themselves, improving relevance by including the concerns of more contributors, and broadening the long-term impact of the assessment. 
 

In addition to defining a readership and building capacity, a third approach to improve the definition and impact of assessment reports and observation processes is to employ innovative processes to manage them. For example, as the most ambitious assessment process, the GEO series of reports was established to be participatory and ongoing. Research centres and individuals world wide are involved in a process that illustrates the possibility of being open while remaining efficient. The GEO process has, however, become so complicated and extensive that there is now a search for effectiveness through the Internet. Thus, there are now efforts underway to launch a GEO Support System on the Internet as a means of facilitating contributions and interactions between contributors. 
 

Assessments and observing systems also play another important role as conduits for linkages between international agencies. So, for example, the Millennium Assessment, the World Resources Reports, GIWA, and the GESAMP reports are all collaborative efforts between various agencies. In fact, GESAMP is considered by many to be an excellent example of substantive collaboration between international institutions. 
 

ⁱⁱ  See, for example, the Feasibility Study for a Harmonised Information Management Infrastructure for Biodiversity-related Treaties, written by Timothy H. Johnson, Ian K. Crain, Martin V. Sneary on behalf of WCMC (August 1998), and the background paper prepared by Mark Collins for the 1999 UNU Interlinkages Conference entitled 'Harmonization of Information for MEAs'

ⁱⁱⁱ  For another extensive list of recent and ongoing environmental assessments see the Survey of Ongoing and Planned Science Assessments Related to the Proposed Millennium Assessment, updated December 1999 and available at http://www.ma-secretariat.org

^iv  GEO-2000, Nairobi: UNEP, 1999, p.xix

^v  See Inter-Linkages: Synergies and Coordination between Multilateral Environmental Agreements, Tokyo: UNU, July 1999, p.25.

^vi  The Environmental Impact of Refugees in Guinea, Report to the Secretary General on the Findings and Recommendations of the Pre-Assessment on the Environmental Impact of Refugees in Guinea, Nairobi: UNEP with UNCHS and UNHCR, 1999.

^vii  J.C.R. Hunt, 'Another Task for Kyoto: Strengthen Data-Gathering,' International Herald Tribune (December 1997).

^viii  GCOS, 'Report on the Adequacy of Global Climate Observing Systems,' GCOS Report N.48, prepared for UNFCCC COP-4,October 1998.

United Nations System
UN Commission on Sustainable Development
UN System-Wide World Water Development Report (to be completed 2002) 
UN Inter-Agency Working Group on Water in Africa 
UN ACC Sub-Committee on Water Resources (Chaired by Director of IHP) 
For a comprehensive list of UN activities on freshwater see Report of the Secretary General on Activities of the Organizations of the UN System in the Field of Freshwater Resources (E/CN.17/1998/3 of April/May 1998) 
For a list of UN water-related databases (as at 10 August 1999) see http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/watbase.htm. 

UNEP
Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA). For an annotated list of links see website. 
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities
WCMC,Freshwater Biodiversity: A Preliminary Global Assessment (1998) 
Managing Water for African Cities (UNEP/UNCHS, UNF/UNFIP funded) 
UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System Freshwater Quality Programme (GEMS/WATER) 

UN and Affiliated International Organizations
FAO has numerous activities under its Water Resources, Development and Management Service. 
GEF: Global Action on Water has funded projects in the areas of water scarcity, pollution reduction, preventing conflict, and land-based sources of marine pollution. 
WHO: Global Assessment 2000: Status of the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (to be published 2000); Divisions responsible for water projects include: Water, Sanitation and Health; Child Health and Development; and Control of Tropical Diseases. A Report of the UN Secretary-General on Progress in Providing Safe Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation for all during the 1990s is also to be published. 
Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) was established within WHO as follow-up to the UN International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade (1981-1990). It organized a Fifth Global Forum on water in November 2000 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 
UNESCO - International Hydrological Programme (IHP) has many activities including the new Hydrology for the Environment, Life and Policy (HELP) programme and the Flow Regimes from International Experimental Network Data Sets (FRIEND). 
UNESCO - Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) - Global Directory of Marine and Freshwater Professionals (GLODIR) 
UNDP Sustainable Energy and Environment Division (SEED) works with the Global Water Partnership and hosts the GEF International Waters secretariat, and has many other activities. For an extensive list of water-related links see http://www.undp.org/seed/water/. 
UNDP, World Bank and 15 bilateral donors have a Water and Sanitation Programme
The World Bank has many water activities and sponsored a Water Supply and Sanitation Forum in April 2000 
WMO has numerous activities under the Hydrology and Water Resources Programme, and the World Climate Research Programme has a Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) 

Other International Activities
Global Water Partnership 
International Water and Sanitation Centre (The Netherlands, UNDP, UNICEF, WHO, WORLD BANK, WSSCC) - maintains the UNEP/UNCHS urban water website
World Commission on Dams (IUCN and The World Bank) 
World Water Council has initiated the World Water Vision (managed by IHP) and the World Water Forum (guided by the World Commission on Water for the 21^st Century) 

These are some of the basic concerns identified with freshwater resources. They are also concerns raised by some about the provision of policy-relevant scientific knowledge on this issue. Certainly, a myriad international activities exist, which provide research, support capacity building, catalyze international policy deliberations, and promote coordination. In the last two years alone, at least: three ministerial-level policy conferences were held; six major assessments were initiated (and some completed); and, three ‘comprehensive’ lists of international water-related activities were posted on the Internet, each providing useful but overlapping and incomplete information. 
 

Though many initiatives exist to promote action on freshwater issues, these have little consolidating influence. Unlike many other issues of international concern, there is no global, framework convention on freshwater. Nor is there any single global set of intergovernmental deliberations. In fact, reading through the many UN documents on the issue reveals a thorough-going emphasis on local, national and regional perspectives. This stems largely from the fact that freshwater is not an inherently global issue. Freshwater concerns can be considered in terms of vastly different levels of analysis: local (e.g. water pollution, urban supplies); regional (e.g. water shed management); and global (e.g. climate change). In addition, freshwater evokes distinct responses from different perspectives, whether these be scientific, consumer, economic, legal, intergovernmental political, domestic political, etc. At the international level, the activities listed in Box 4 reflect several core foci for international scientific activities concerned with freshwater: 

International law. The Conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Desertification, as well as the Ramsar Convention and CMS, serve to focus scientific activity on a number of specific freshwater-related concerns. In 1997 the UN General Assembly also passed the Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses providing an umbrella for regional agreements. This convention includes articles on the: protection and preservation of ecosystems; prevention, reduction and control of pollution; introduction of alien or new species; protection and preservation of the marine environment; and, sustainable management of international watercourses. 

Capacity-building projects. The multilateral funding agencies, including GEF, UNDP and the World Bank are important foci of attention through their projects. The World Bank alone spends $US 3 billion on water a year with current outstanding commitments of another $US 20 billion. In addition, recent activities such as the UNEP/UNCHS project on water for African Cities, which is funded by the UN Foundation, will serve to focus attention on freshwater quality, supply and related issues. 

Assessments. FAO, WCMC, WRI and WWF have recently prepared assessments, which serve to focus general attention on trends and scenarios in freshwater issues and the impact of human activities as well as management efforts of freshwater ecosystems. 

Research activities. UNESCO and WMO sponsor the largest research activities, which focus mainly on the hydrological cycle and the impact of this on freshwater as a resource. 

Intergovernmental deliberations. The Commission on Sustainable Development and the World Water Forum serve as foci for attempts to establish an international policy-making framework. On a more operational level, UNEP’s Water Policy and Strategy provides a framework for focusing that organization’s scientific activities. The World Commission on Dams has also emerged as an important example of cooperation between NGOs and governmental institutions on a highly controversial issue.ⁱⁱ
 

The UNEP Executive Director has identified assessment, management, and coordination as the most important components of addressing freshwater resources at the international level.ⁱⁱⁱ These components encompass an enormous breadth of activity from understanding freshwater problems, initiating activities to mitigate or overcome problems, and improving the effectiveness of existing activities through targeting these in line with clear priorities. 
 

Global Observing and Assessments which involve long-term processes of improving knowledge about climate dynamics and hydrological cycles 

Early-Warning Systems which link knowledge, forecasting and information dissemination systems and serve specific regions and watersheds. 

Capacity-building is necessary to improve local, national, regional water-management expertise, information dissemination systems, as well as disaster preparedness, mitigation, and prevention activities. 
 

Are the priorities of the different foci listed above mutually-supportive? Or, are there conflicting priorities? 

Are existing scientific activities adapted to providing knowledge to support existing policy and capacity-building processes? 

Are the main areas of policy concern also reflected in the work of scientific support and advisory processes? 

What knowledge gaps exist that can be appropriately filled by international scientific activities in support of the expressed needs of local, national and regional decision-makers and stakeholders? 

What knowledge is still needed from local and national sources in regions most affected by freshwater-related problems? 
 

This section briefly illustrates why an integrated approach is needed and how such an approach supports EWS.
 

ⁱⁱ  A recent book has event cited the World Commission on Dams as an excellent example of the possibilities of improved cooperation between governmental and non-governmental institutions. See Wolfgang H. Reinicke and Francis Deng, Critical Choices, The United Nations, Networks, and the Future of Global Governance, final Report of the Global Public Policy Project, Washington, D.C., 2000. 

ⁱⁱⁱ  Report of the Executive Director on Water Policy and Strategy of the UN Environment Programme and Addendum, UNEP/GCSS.VI/6/ and Add.1 of 27 April 2000. 

^iv  For numerous situation and analytic reports on the topic of water-related disasters see http://www.reliefweb.int. 

^v  Barbara E. Carby (Director-General, Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management, Jamaica), 'Role of Science in the Evolution of Disaster Management,' Background Paper for Thematic Meeting on Scientific Expertise and Public Decision-Making at the UNESCO/ICSU World Conference on Science, 1999. 

2  Environmental Health, Energy, Tourism and Urban Environment are listed here because although no central scientific advisory processes exist for these issues, recent bodies have been established which will seek to incorporate at least some scientific advice.

3  Though the Balkans Task Force is not a scientific advisory process per se, it is the first body that is mandated to provide conflict and disaster related SoE reports.

~   Denotes advisory bodies that provide advice to specific conventions, but are not tied exclusively to those conventions

The next UNEP Global Ministerial Forum would serve as an ideal venue to improve dialogue between providers of scientific and other knowledge and policymakers. As a Forum designed to promote strategic policy discussions and to strengthen constructive partnerships a session could be scheduled to identify types of advice that policymakers prefer, areas needing further advice in future, and reviewing success stories of past advisory processes. 

Harmonized processes and standardized methods in information management are useful to the extent that they serve the actual needs of some audience or specific purpose. For example, the benefit of harmonizing national reporting mechanisms of the biodiversity conventions, is that it serves to simplify the work of national governments and improve the information required under the conventions. Following this example, standardized and/or harmonized methods for managing data and information from scientific support activities (e.g. G30S and international organizations) should serve clearly identified audiences or purposes. In particular, this might include UNEP’s proposed work on disaster EWS, which must first though set its own priorities for what an operational EWS will need. 

As shown in Part 1, earth observation systems potentially play an important support role to advisory processes in addition to being providers of 'baseline knowledge'. For this reason, there have been many recent calls to strengthen these systems with additional resources. It may also be functionally supportive to link the earth observations systems to the specific needs of advisory processes to MEAs and other relevant intergovernmental deliberations. One benefit would be to avoid the difficulty of setting priorities, as faced by past international observing systems. The priority foci should be determined by policy-making processes and applied to the scientific activities of international institutions. As discussed, this has been effectively initiated by GCOS and the Climate Change Convention. This issue might be considered during CSD-9 as part of discussions on dual-purpose observation programmes that serve both international scientific research and policymaking. 

Rather than offering a formal proposal, this paragraph serves to stress the importance of identifying the ‘best’ information and knowledge to support policymaking. Such knowledge should come from all possible sources to serve the demand. This is an important means of bridging the gap between ‘problem identification’ and ‘proposing alternatives for implementation’. For example, the Biodiversity and Desertification conventions play important roles in determining what traditional knowledge can usefully supply and how it should be included within scientific advice for policymaking. These will set an example for future framework advisory processes dealing with broad issues, including possibly forests, land, water and environmental health. 

Many advisory processes have gone through internal review processes and the consensus seems to be that this has led to positive results. One specific result identified in the past, includes a clearer sense of expectations by policymakers and scientists, both in terms of what advice is sought and what can be plausibly delivered. Those advisory processes that have not undergone review processes should be encouraged to do so.

In some countries public service institutions have introduced Customer Charters as means of improving services in a non-regulatory fashion. Using this as an example, it would be useful to establish a Stakeholder Charter on Minimum Standards of Information provided by UN sources on environment and sustainable development. Such a Charter would provide a non-regulatory standard to assist institutions in providing accessible and timely information. Naturally, this will take much preparatory work, but if treated as an ongoing project the benefits could be captured immediately. Some foreseeable benefits include: a clear guide to what the public can expect from the UN, increased transparency of the UN’s work, coordination is promoted without administration, and, webmasters would have a guide to preparing websites and their content. 
 

More effort should be made to improve accessibility to UN supported scientific and synthesis work. Many studies commissioned by the UN, UNEP and other agencies are excellent sources of information and analysis, but these are either used for a single purpose and then filed or not used at all. To improve accessibility, a UN System-Wide Web Site Locator for Environment and Sustainable Development could be established. This should be a low-maintenance, accessible, well-advertised website locator which points the way to finding documents, reports, and other relevant information. Such a site would also provide a useful mask highlighting similarities and differences in existing information sources, without formally coordinating the presentation of Internet sites. A third benefit to all information providers would be to highlight what knowledge exists and what knowledge gaps remain. The basis for such a website exists in the UN System-Wide Earthwatch Coordination site, which is described by the UN Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements as an excellent site. Moreover, a locator would contribute to implementing Earthwatch’s mandate to provide “effective, accessible and strictly non-political scientific knowledge” capable of meeting the needs of decision-makers.^iv In any case, the valuable contributions of newly-established clearinghouses (eg. biodiversity and desertification) and web site linkages (eg. biodiversity) must be considered in conceiving any Locator. 
 

NGOs and related forums should be harnessed as sources of information on emerging problems and alternative means of supporting the implementation of agreements. Many NGOs have experience balancing science/civil knowledge and the need for cost-effectiveness in project implementation. This supports the recommendation made in the Report of the UN Secretary-General that "UNEP and Habitat should strengthen their systems of receiving and responding to information from non-governmental organizations, especially on emerging problems, and encourage non-governmental organizations to provide information on new problems."^v

There is surprisingly little competition between the various advisory processes. In fact, since publication of the first Report, there has been a marked improvement in what was identified above as niche definition. Thus, there should not be any effort to create a formal coordinating mechanism between advisory processes. Collaboration should be needs driven, ends oriented, and reflect self interest on the part of all participants. The best way of ensuring coordination amongst scientific advisory processes may be to encourage substantive collaboration. Encouraging collaborative approaches is a means of pooling resources and improving outputs; in other words, giving concrete meaning to calls for improved ‘synergies’. 
 

Existing scientific advisory processes should be supported and strengthened to address emerging issues. New scientific advisory processes should be created only when no other appropriate scientific body exists. Most emerging issues, including those identified by UNEP as policy priority areas, have scientific bodies that already exist. As issues emerge onto the policy agenda, efforts should be made to identify appropriate existing scientific bodies that could provide the necessary scientific knowledge. In other words, the system of providing scientific advice should remain decentralized. 
 

To identify gaps in linkages it may be useful to establish an ad hoc, informal working group to identify areas of possible cooperation among advisory processes. This was suggested by the UNU Inter-linkages Report, and much of this role is being fulfilled by the UNU Inter-linkages Initiative. However, that Initiative has placed relatively little emphasis on scientific advisory process. Thus, a time limited, clearly defined, cost effective working group may be useful to identify areas that could benefit from increased collaboration - including UNEP’s environmental policy priority areas. Other substantive areas have been identified by the UNU Initiative and the 1998 Linkages Report referred to earlier. 

There is a strong potential link between international advisory processes, the scientific activities of international institutions, and capacity building in developing countries. Advisory processes should be encouraged to set priorities by identifying areas needing further information from developing countries. Such priorities should be encouraged as useful guides to the scientific activities of international institutions that support capacity building. International scientific activities could assist MEAs by supporting effective National Focal Points and assisting the responsible national bodies to fulfil MEA report-writing requirements.

to update UNEP’s webpage on Scientific Advisory Groups; 

a summary may be useful for UNEP, should it update its Corporate Profile (see p.14); 

an up-to-date version could be provided to CSD-9, 

it may be useful for preparing the upcoming Report of the Secretary General on Enhancing Complementarities among International Instruments related to Environment and Sustainable Development, to be prepared for the 55^th UN General Assembly by UNEP, 

the UNEP meeting of Subsidiary Advisory Bodies (scheduled for Autumn 2000), and 

UNU Inter-linkages Initiative 

More generally, the Report could serve to: 

assist in the creation of new advisory processes that wish to have an immediate overview of what bodies already exist and their different experiences. 
 

ⁱⁱ  For a detailed analysis of adaptive management understood in these terms see Kai N. Lee, Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993. 

ⁱⁱⁱ  For a good outline of what adaptive management entails in the international context see SBSTTA, Ecosystem Approach: Further Conceptual Elaboration, (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA /5/11 of 23 October 1999). 

^iv  For more information see: Resolution A/543/242 of 10 August 1999, adopted by the General Assembly on the Report of the Secretary-General on Environment and Human Settlements, paragraph 9; and, the Report of the Secretary-General on Environment and Human Settlements (A/53/463 of 6 October 1998), which includes as an Annex the Report of the United Nations Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements. 

^v  Report of the Secretary General on Environment and Human Settlements (A/53/463 of 6 October 1998), paragraph 30(f).
 

Mission Statement

History/ Background

Text of Treaty

Contact Info

National Focal Points

Calendar of Meetings/ Events

Advisory Body Meeting Doc's

COP Meeting Doc's

Scientific Reports

National Reports

FAQ

Site Map

Links

Website: up-to-date?

PIC- Interim  CRC

NA

NA

new  website

Ramsar- STRP

Montreal  Protocol- Assessment  Panels

NA

NA

IPCC

NA

NA

NA

NA

Clear Site

IFCS

NA

NA

NA

! GEF-STAP

NA

NA

Some

NA

NA

UNFCCC- SBSTA

UNCCD- CST

NA

! CMS- Scientific  Council

NA

Available by Post

Available by Post

CITES- Advisory Processes

Clear site except for Frames

CBD- SBSTTA

Basel  Convention- TWG

! = This website is made using frames, so links within the website structure are less clear when the document is accessed directly. To reach the homepage, click on its name in the first column on the left of the table.

Each profile provides information on the following (as available): 

Background, including: founding date, sponsoring body(ies), and mandate. 

Organization and Dynamics, including: membership and membership dynamics (How is the membership selected? What is looked for in appointing members? How long do they serve? Is there a regular rotation?); processes for gathering and managing information; and, experiences with membership composition, selection, and organization. 

Work and Outputs, including: list of principal recent outputs; recent meetings; principal means of conveying information to policymakers; and, experiences with responses from policymakers. 

Information Technology used to improve information management. 

Linkages, including: a list of cooperative arrangements with other scientific advisory or support activities; as well as the main reasons why cooperation is pursued and experiences thereof. 

For the sake of economy, complete profiles are not attached to this Report.