1HlG51J

51 Contributions sent by national level science advisors for this chapter reflect this variety. Some experts felt that there is close alignment between internationalassessments and national priorities. In some developed countries, the IPCC and the emergent SDGs were seen as having a great influence. On the other hand, somerespondents from developed countries stated that international assessments did not reflect national priorities in their countries because issues relating tosustainable development currently had low priority on their governments’ agenda. Others pointed to a contrast across policy areas, referring to the direct impact ofinternational studies on national policies in the areas of climate change, renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, while saying that international analysesoften failed to reflect crucial priorities for developing countries such as education, health and food security issues. An expert stated that international assessmentsdid not reflect his country’s priorities because they did not use data from that country. Another suggested that international assessments would be more efficient ifcarried out in collaboration with national experts involved in the area. Overall, answers clearly show a dual concern from developing country respondents regardingboth the content of the reports of international assessments (do they reflect developing countries’ priorities?) and the process of international assessments -whether these draw on national data and embed bottom-up consideration of national priorities from the start.52 For example, an expert suggested that laborious and time-consuming international assessment processes like the IPCC should be complemented by more conciseand timely analyses on more circumscribed topics.53 K. C. Urama et al., “Sub-Saharan Africa”, In: UNESCO, Science Report 2010: The Current Status of Science around the World, United Nations Educational (Paris:Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2010)298–340, quoted in contribution from UNCTAD to the GSDR 2015.54 UNEP and IOC-UNESCO, An Assessment of Assessments, Findings of the Group of Experts, Start-up Phase of a Regular Process for Global Reporting andAssessment of the State of the Marine Environment including Socio-Economic Aspects, summary for decision makers (2009); Jones, N., H. Jones and C. Walsh,Political science? Strengthening science-policy dialogue in developing countries (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2008); A. Engels, The science-policyinterface (Integrated Assessment Journal: Bridging science and policy, 2005) 7-26; Scientific Advisory Board of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Reportof the inaugural meeting, 30-31 January 2014, Berlin, Germany; W. Strydom et al., Evidence-based policymaking: A review (South African Journal of Science, 2010).55 TWAS, Building Scientific Capacity – A TWAS Perspective (Report of the Third World Academy of Sciences, 2004) No.2, TWAS.56 For example, the network of national-level science advisors created by ICSU, see www.globalscienceadvice.org.. Such a network can provide direct access to theperspectives of the “supply-side” of the science-policy interface – that is, scientists or persons in a position to provide scientific advice to governments.57 After the Earth Summit in1992, many countries set up National Councils or Commissions on Sustainable Development to develop Sustainable DevelopmentStrategies. Countries were expected to finish their strategies by 2002 and then engage in implementing them. The commitment was renewed at the World Summiton Sustainable Development in 2002, with a target date pushed to 2005. There were over 100 councils or commissions created in the period from 1992-2002.58 United Nations, Prototype Global Sustainable Development Report (New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for SustainableDevelopment, 2014), chapter 5. See also Roehrl, R., Sustainable development scenarios for Rio+20. A Component of the Sustainable Development in the 21stCentury (SD21) project (New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013).59 United Nations General Assembly, Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development and of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Report of the Secretary-General, A/68/321, August, p. 14(2013).60 In a context where moves from the international community to impose international solutions could result in resistance from the national level, the HLPF couldalso play a role in highlighting the social and economic benefits of sustainable development.61 UN Division for Sustainable Development, Summary of the Expert Group Meeting on the science-policy interface, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (NewYork: September, 2013); European Commission, Assessing and strengthening the science and EU environment policy interface (Technical Report 2012-059, 2012);Scientific Advisory Board of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN system priorities related to science for sustainable development, Background paper onitems 4 and 5 of the SAB Terms of Reference (2014).62 See InterAcademy Council, Inventing a Better Future: A Strategy for Building Worldwide Capacities in Science and Technology, (InterAcademy Council, IACReports, 2014); International Council for Science, Priority Area Assessment on Capacity Building in Science A report of the CSPR Assessment Panel (ICSU Reports,2006).63 UNCTAD, contribution to the GSDR 2015.64 The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), Building Scientific Capacity – A TWAS Perspective (Report of the Third World Academy of Sciences, No.2, TWAS, 2004).65 D. Cash et al., Knowledge systems for sustainable development (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2003) 100, 14, 8086-8091; D. Glover, Policyresearchers and policy makers: Never the Twain Shall meet? (IDRC Special Papers., 1993), http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/20445/1/102473.pdf; D.Sarewitz, How science makes environmental controversies worse (Environmental Science & Policy, 2004) vol. 7, 385-403; S. Treyer, S et al., Powerful internationalscience-policy interfaces for sustainable development, (IDDRI Policy briefs no. 06/2012).66 UNEP and IOC-UNESCO, An Assessment of Assessments, Findings of the Group of Experts, Start-up Phase of a Regular Process for Global Reporting andAssessment of the State of the Marine Environment including Socio-Economic Aspects, summary for decision makers (2009); S. van den Hove and L. Chabason, Thedebate on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2009), IDDRI Discussion Papers N° 01/2009 Governance.67 See e.g. White, G. F., R. W. Kateb, I. Burton, Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazards management (Environmental Hazards, 2001)3, 81–92; Cury et al., Viability theory for an ecosystem approach to fisheries (ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2005) 62, 577-584; J. Syroka, Rethinking internationaldisaster aid finance (Journal of International Affairs, 2006) 59, 2, 197-214, van den Hove, S. and L. Chabason (2009), S. van den Hove and L. Chabason, The debateon an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2009), IDDRI Discussion Papers N° 01/2009 Governance.68 The notions of “adaptive policy pathways” and “adaptive change” have received a lot of attention from the environmental change community. These approachesaim to establish methods for crafting robust decisions in the presence of global change and uncertainty, incorporating multiple feedback loops among science,processes and institutions. One example is the Strategic Adaptive Management approach from South Africa, an approach to identifying thresholds of potentialconcern, monitoring and acting on these over time, as well as establishing an evidence base for updating them. Many other approaches have been developed. SeeM. Haasnoot et al., Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world (Global Environmental Change, 2013),485-498; R. Wise et al., Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response (Global Environmental Change, 2014), 325-336; and m. Stafford Smith et al., “Drylands: Coping with Uncertainty, Thresholds, and Changes in State”, ch.8 in In Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World, F. Chapin, G. Kofinas and C. Folke, eds. (Springer, New York, 2009).69 United Nations, Prototype Sustainable Development Report (UNDESA, 2014), http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/globalsdreport/70 For example, insufficient development progress can threaten peace and security and vice versa. Reduced freedom can threaten peace and vice versa.Development provides the capacity to sustain nature’s life-support systems, but can also threaten them, in turn setting back development.175