1HlG51J

educe the time lag between science and policy, eventhough the relationship between science and decisionmakingis too complex to allow for simple prescriptions inthis regard 67 (see Chapter 7 for an elaboration on this). TheHLPF could commission reviews of how internationallegislation in areas relevant to its work reflects the currentstatus of science in relation to sustainable developmentobjectives.1.2.4. Additional ideas suggested by expertsA number of suggestions put forward by scientists andexperts concerned monitoring and evaluation of progresson sustainable development, reflecting the importance ofthese issues in the current debates on the SDGs and thepost-2015 development agenda and that, for this, a set ofmetrics and scientifically sound and practically applicableand reliable measurements should be elaborated.Specific suggestions made by contributors included:ensuring the integration of “non-numeric” findings in theassessment of progress towards the SDGs in order tofacilitate quality judgments on the achievements ofsustainable development; providing a mechanism forgreater coherence and compatibility of the variousinternational processes (e.g. SDGs, climate agreement,Hyogo Framework 2) in terms of reporting and datarequirements; holding regional forums on methods forestablishing baseline conditions and indicators ofvulnerability and impact assessments and for evaluatingprogress towards sustainable development goals;improving consistency of data collection related tosustainable development goals; developing an open accessdatabase of timely spatial data related to sustainability tohelp authorities and scientists in less developed countriesmonitor progress; and developing an open access platformwhere scientists can share data and research outcomes onsustainability.1.3. ConclusionThis chapter, informed by the perspective of scientists,development practitioners and science advisers, exploredways in which the HLPF, following its mandate, couldcontribute to strengthening the science-policy interface.Even focusing only on issues relevant to sustainabledevelopment at the international level, the domain ofinteractions between science and decision-making is vast;and many shortcomings and avenues for improvementshave been identified in the literature on the science-policyinterface. Consequently, the forum could contribute inmany possible ways.Among ideas considered by experts, providing improvedaccess to the findings of existing assessments, highlightingsynergies and trade-offs and tools to address them, and38helping transpose the outcomes of global science-policydebates into regionally and nationally relevant frameworksfor action were the most consensual. These ideas reflectsome of the core mandates of the HLPF and the fact thatexperts rank them as very important attests to a sharedsense of priorities among scientists and policy-makers.Most of the experts who contributed to the GSDR alsoconsidered important that the HLPF could informorientations for science, as well as conveying to thepolitical debate the work of scientific advisory groups andassessment initiatives. Other important ideas revolvearound the identification of sustainable developmenttrends, the identification of and action on emerging issues,and improving the link between international assessmentsand national policy-making. Many of the practitioners whoprovided inputs for this chapter emphasized theimportance of considering an array of actions, rather than asingle action, recognizing potential synergies among them.UN Member States will have to decide on the actions theywish the HLPF to implement in the future, and prioritize.Scientists suggested that priorities for the forum should bebased on the capacity for the forum to assess thesignificance of progress globally, based on a synthesis andanalysis across all goals and targets towards the overalloutcome of achieving global sustainability and humandevelopment, as an ingredient of an adaptive learningprocess that informs governance of sustainabledevelopment. 68This suggests that a criterion for prioritization could be howwell specific actions and roles of the forum would supportother mandates of the HLPF, and especially: providingpolitical leadership, guidance and recommendations;enhancing integration of the three dimensions ofsustainable development at all levels; following up andreviewing progress in the implementation of sustainabledevelopment commitments, including means ofimplementation; promoting the sharing of best practicesand experiences and enhancing evidence-based decisionmaking;and contributing to strengthening ongoingcapacity-building for data collection and analysis indeveloping countries.Other possible criteria for prioritization of HLPF rolesinclude the comparative advantage of the UN with respectto other communities, and the comparative advantage ofthe HLPF within the UN architecture. Possible roles couldbe classified into those where the HLPF would take thelead, as opposed to those where it may provide guidance toand promote collaboration among others processes andinstitutions.