1HlG51J

Communication between scientists and policy-makers isone of the critical factors impacting the effectiveness ofSPIs. Scientific information is more likely to be used if it isdelivered in appropriate formats, at the right time andthrough the appropriate channels. SPI effectiveness is likelyto suffer when communication is largely one-way,infrequent or occurs only at certain stages of the policyprocess. Gaps in effective communication have beenidentified in the literature: i) between knowledge holdersinside science, across regions, scales, disciplines andassessments; ii) between science and traditional andpractical knowledge holders; iii) between science andpolicy; and iv) between science and society. Improvingcommunication and managing boundaries betweenscientists and decision-makers is therefore a critical issue. 25These gaps have to be assessed in the broader context ofthe interaction between science and the political process,as decisions by policy-makers on whether and when to usescientific knowledge may often be based on strategiccalculations, based on their specific priorities and interests.1.2. Possible roles of the HLPF for strengthening thescience-policy interface: opinions from scientistsand development expertsDecades of practice have resulted in a rich body ofknowledge on the science-policy interface, going from theanalysis of the roles it plays at various levels in society, tothe way it impacts decision-making, to the design ofeffective science-policy interface mechanisms. The range ofchallenges that have been identified is vast, and concerns arange of actors operating across all geographical levels.Among the important issues identified in the literature, notall are equally relevant to intergovernmental discussions onsustainable development.The GSDR team undertook a review of the literature onscience-policy interface at the international level. Thereview considered academic articles and policy-orienteddocuments, in particular extensive reviews produced byUNEP 26 and background papers prepared for the firstmeeting of the UN Secretary-General’s Scientific AdvisoryBoard. 27 Fifteen broad issues were highlighted aschallenges for the science-policy interface in this field. Theselection of issues was made based on the potentialrelevance of the HLPF to address them. 28 The GSDR teamalso considered ideas that had been expressed by UNMember States, UN organizations and other stakeholdersfor the preparation of the UN Secretary-General’s report on“Options for the scope and methodology for a globalsustainable development report” in 2014. 29 Thesubmissions received for that report included a number ofsuggestions on how the global sustainable developmentreport could support policy discussion at the high-levelpolitical forum in the future. 30 The main themes that ran30across the suggestions made were: the need to allow for awide range of participation and feature a wide range ofperspectives; capturing past and future trends; addressinginterlinkages, synergies and trade-offs among sustainabledevelopment areas; examining emerging issues; presentinggood practices in terms of integrated policies. Many ofthese themes suggest concrete ways in which the HLPFcould contribute to strengthening the science-policyinterface. 31Based on this review, an initial list of 20 ideas regardingconcrete ways for the HLPF to strengthen the science-policyinterface for development was constituted. A questionnairewas sent to a sample of scientists, developmentpractitioners and experts of the science-policy interface,asking them to classify the ideas identified in the first stagein terms of importance in the context of the mandate ofthe HLPF. Experts were also asked to provide additionalideas and provide more qualitative views, briefs or otherrelevant material. 32 Inputs were received from 19 individualexperts representing a broad range of professionalbackgrounds and expertise and several UN agencies. TheGSDR team, in collaboration with the International Councilfor Science (ICSU), also requested inputs from national levelscientists and science advisors, based on a shortquestionnaire addressing various aspects of the linkagesbetween the international and national levels of sciencepolicyinterface for sustainable development. 33 Inputs werereceived from 15 national level advisors. Insights from sucha small sample are not necessarily representative of theviews of all science or development practitioners’communities. Rather, they provide a range of concretesuggestions for the HLPF going forward, while alsoshedding light on the diversity of views that exists.Expert quotes (2)“There is a lot of work going on, however, it is not coherent orsystematic and there is no guidance or distillation process tomake sense of it or to form the direction of priority.”“The focus ought to be not just advice from the UN but alsolooking at what the global community (UN) has a comparativeadvantage in offering. I believe it is, first and foremost, twothings: 1. the identification and inclusion of broaderperspectives so as to avoid the sustainability discussion gettingclogged in solely “northern” points of view; and 2. the ability togenerate and sustain a consistent level of interface betweeninternational science and “local” national needs and policy.The latter is an oft-lost opportunity, even though it is in themandate of many agencies.”In their contributions, experts brought forth importantnuances and suggestions regarding possible roles for the