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

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).