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.