Post on 19-Dec-2015
DRAFT Summary of FindingsAn initial attempt to identify widely shared themes in what we have been
telling one another through the ISTS/ICSU/TWAS/IAP initiatives on Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development
June 2000 – May 2002
(Prepared by William Clark, william_clark@harvard.edu)
Sources (copies at http://sustainabilityscience.org)
• Tokyo Symp. of World Scientific Academies (May 2000)
• Friibergh Workshop on Sustainability Science (Oct 2000)
• Amsterdam Open Science Conference (July 2001)
• ICSU/WFEO/… submissions to WSSD (early 2002)
• ISTS Regional Workshops (Nov 2001-March 2002)– Abuja, Chiang Mai, Bonn, Santiago, Ottawa, [Alexandria]
• Paris International Science Workshop (February 2002)
• Trieste Institutional Synergies Workshop (February 2002)
• Cambridge Mobilizing S&T Workshop (April 2002)
“New Contract” between science and society for sustainable development?
• The big problem: S&T thinks it has more to offer to sustainable development than society is willing to buy
• Half of a solution: Increase society’s demand for S&T– Heighten public, political awareness of problem…
– But also convince society that S&T has solutions to them.
• Another half: Increase supply of S&T society wants– Target S&T on solving stakeholders’ problems
– Build capacity commensurate with magnitude of the job
Negotiating the New Contract
• How should the S&T community change its approach to be a better contract partner?
• What should be the agenda priorities of R&D for sustainable development?
• What institutional innovations are most needed to implement of the agenda?
• What partnerships will be most helpful in producing early products of the contract?
How should the S&T community change its approach to become a better partner?
• “Business as usual” will not do the job
• Needed, instead, is a deep reconsideration of role of S&T in sustainable development: – What should it be for?– What should it study?– How should it “certify” knowledge?– How should it set its agendas?
What should it be for?
• Achieving social goals on sustainability
• Solving specific problems
• Empowering people
• Facilitating social learning
What should it study?
• Socio-ecological systems
• Place-based interactions– With due attention to embedding in the global
• Complexity– uncertainty, time lags, conflict, cross-scale
links
Where should it look for knowledge?
• “Universal” knowledge remains important– conventional science, disciplinary, interdisciplinary
• But place-based knowledge needs more attention– Endogenously generated, weakly transferable
– Resident in people, landscapes, technology
• All the world’s regions– There is a wealth of relevant knowledge everywhere
– Ask what does each region have to teach the rest?
How should it certify knowledge?
• For science used to shape society, “falsification” criteria of academic science are not enough
• People are more likely to let new knowledge change their behaviors to the extent that it (and the process that created it) exhibits:– Credibility (Is it reasonable?)
– Saliency (Is it relevant to my problems?)
– Legitimacy (Is it fair with regard to selection of questions, evidence, and participation?)
How should it set agendas?• Consultation among affected stakeholders
– … who will often have conflicting views on needs
• Scale dependent… with “subsidiarity”?– Protect local agendas from displacement by global ones
• Criteria (to avoid “science of everything”)– Driven by sustainability goals
– Focused on solutions to specific problems… but open to identifying underlying conceptual, method questions
– Emphasizing work where synthetic, integrative approaches are essential
– Conducted to be credible, salient, legitimate
Agendas on S&T for Sustainable Development
• Transcendent need is to negotiate S&T agendas at scales appropriate to the problems and solutions of most concern to society, rather than letting global agendas displace or devalue local ones…
• But taking this view seriously generates long lists of place-specific priorities. Are we comfortable with this? Alternatives…
Agenda setting: Goal and Problem Frameworks
• Broad agreement on general goals that should drive agenda setting on S&T for sustainability – eg. Millennium Goals: development, poverty, envir.
• Broadly shared frameworks for classifying problem-solving efforts– Environment (eg. air pollution, conservation, water)
– Development (eg. energy, education, consumption)
– [Socioecological systems (eg place-based degradation)]
– Integrative perspectives…
Agenda setting: Frameworks for underlying
conceptual, method questions
• Broad endorsement of general Friibergh framework, with modifications…
• Connections with emerging Earth Systems Science “2nd generation” questions (GIAM)
• Additional suggestions from the field…
Additional suggestions from the field…
• Adaptiveness, vulnerability and resilience in complex socioecological systems
• Sustainability in complex production-consumption systems
• Institutions for linking science and decision making across spatial scales
• Comparative regional case studies to establish generalizability of findings
Agenda setting results
• The workshops and reports feeding into this summary filled the problem-driven and conceptual frameworks with many candidate R&D projects…
• But their priorities did not, in general, invoke specific selection criteria (those listed above, others)
• So we don’t have a common story about why we’ve picked our priorities for problem-solving R&D.
• We have somewhat better agreement on underlying conceptual and methodological questions…
Agenda setting action
• This Workshop might consider a structured, criteria-based priority-setting exercise to identify – Which R&D has most substantially contributed to
problem-solving, which could do so in near term (eg. 3 years), which could do so in longer term (eg. 10 years)
– Needs to be differentiated by scale, at least to • Global problem-solving
• Regional problem-solving
• Local problem-solving (“Local Agenda 21s” for S&T? )
What institutional changes are needed to support implementation of
problem-solving S&T?
• “Agenda” question was about what S&T needs to do in supporting sustainabilty
• “Institutions” discussion is about what infrastructure, capacity, incentives are necessary to implement the agendas
• “Institutions” broader than “organizations”
Findings on Institutions to harness S&T to sustainability
• There are successes at all scales… but they are rare, idiosyncratic, and not widely known.
• Need to systematize learning about what institutional barriers are most constraining, what adjustments work best at getting around them, under which circumstances.
• In the meantime, experience suggests…
Experience suggests that successful institutions…
• Match appropriate S&T to urgent problems of sustainable development via “boundary-spanning” institutions;
• Integrate science, technology, and tacit knowledge in problem-solving efforts– Problems from each of 3 pillars, interactions– Expertise from public and private, science and
engineering, practical experience
Experience suggests that successful institutions…
• Facilitate a balance of flexibility and stability, especially through mixed-mode institutions involving permanent but small core “secretariats” plus ad hoc teams
• Take a strategic approach to infrastructure and capacity building, with attention to individuals, organizations, and networks
• Build on (and convert) existing capacity
Financing Issues
• Agreement on the need– For more, and more stable, financing– To demonstrate the value of our product– To engage the private sector– To allocate (mobilize?) financing at right scales
• Disagreement over how, and how much– Need for scaling the problem– Need for a critical analysis of alternatives