1HlG51J

used to feature the work of these groups in a collaborativesetting, in order to allow for comparisons and gap analysis.Involve scientists in specialized fields to engage in thebroader science-policy interface through the production ofscience digests. Selected science digests might be a usefulway to involve scientists in highly specialized fields toengage in the broader science-policy interface in thecontext of the high-level political forum. 47 This is one of theways by which the science-policy debate at the forum canreflect a wider than usual range of views and perspectives.There is great interest from scientific communitiesworldwide for such an opportunity, as demonstrated by thelarge number of submissions to the GSDR 2015 in responseto a public call for briefs. 48Provide a platform for two-way interactions betweeninternational assessments and regional and nationalpolicy-making. The scale at which scientific information isproduced and the scale at which governance operates donot necessarily match the scale of concrete issues for whichscientific knowledge is needed. For example, there aredifferences among regional and sub-regional priorities forsustainable development, and those do not necessarilyreflect global priorities as addressed in internationalassessments. SPIs need to take into account thesedifferences as well as the inter-linkages between thedifferent levels of decisions (from international tonational). 49Expert quotes (4)“It would be good to consider reports produced on geographicareas that share common problems, interests or characteristicsbut belong to different UN regions, as these have something tocontribute to the sharing of strategies and policy experiences. Forexample, countries of the Mediterranean basin succeeded indelivering the Mediterranean Strategy for SustainableDevelopment and they do produce important reports within theframework of the Barcelona Convention”.Effective links between SPI processes at the internationaland national levels are critical to the implementation ofsustainable development, which to a significant degree isnational and local in nature. In particular, in order to assessthe effectiveness and relevance of the SPI at theinternational level, it is important to assess the extent towhich the national and international levels of SPIcommunicate, in both directions. Such links vary widelyacross countries, due to a range of factors that includediffering levels of development, varying importance givento science in national contexts, differing institutionalstructures to enable communication between science andpolicy, and others. Some issues have long been identified in35the literature on science-policy interface, for example theneed for improved communication and “translation” of thefindings of international assessments, the criticalimportance of buy-in by politicians, and the unequalrelevance of international assessment processes andfindings to national realities.International assessments can be important and useful inadvising policy makers at the national level, in particular toincrease the scientific awareness of those in leadershippositions and to inform civil society on science topics ofnational importance; to provide international comparisonsfor national benchmarking; and to provide evidence-basedinformation and scientific data that may not be available atthe national level. However, the different assessments donot always have discernible impact on the elaboration ofnational policies. While there is a great variety ofmechanisms and institutions at the national level whichshould allow international assessment to inform nationaland regional science priorities, 50 in practice there is oftenlow awareness of international assessment reports amongpolicy makers and a lack of formal feedback processes fortheir dissemination. Conversely, national priorities shouldinform scientific research; however, the degree to whichinternational assessments reflect national priorities forsustainable development seems to be highly variable acrosscountries and across policy areas within countries. 51The HLPF could facilitate dialogue between internationalassessment processes, organizations specialized in sciencepolicyinterface and national-level policy makers, with aview to relaying the needs of national decision-makers withrespect to international assessments and reducing the gapbetween the existence of formal structures and the realityof communication between science and policy. 52 Focusingon the UN system, the HLPF could provide a space for veryhigh level interaction between elected officials and leadersof international organizations to address these issues.Provide a platform for exchange of experience on how thescience-policy interface at the national level has worked.In many countries, in particular developing countries, thereare weak connections between science and policy andinterfaces between science and policy are often perceivedas marginal activities that are not prioritised for resourcesand time. Experts who contributed to this chaptermentioned a frequent lack of specific administrativemechanisms that would allow experts to inform nationalpolicy processes. The real impact of existing institutionsand mechanisms on policy making is often unclear andunassessed. More broadly, in some countries there is lackof trust among academia, governments and the privatesector, making the interaction quite complex. 53 In manycountries, capacity for undertaking scientific assessments is