The authority of science in sustainability governance: A structured comparison of six science institutions engaged with the Sustainable Development Goals

Over the past decades, numerous science institutions have evolved around issues of global sustainability, aiming to inform and shape societal transformations towards sustainability. While these science-based initiatives seem to take on an ever growing active role in governance for sustainable development, the question arises how they can claim any political authority in the first place. We present here a structured comparison of six international science-based initiatives, all engaged in governance processes related to the recently established Sustainable Development Goals. We focus on the material and rhetorical strategies employed by these science institutions to acquire authority by fostering perceptions of salience, credibility and legitimacy among governance actors. We distinguish three modes of scientific authority: an assessment-oriented mode that combines a strategy of salience through integration, with credibility by formal mechanisms of review, and legitimacy through representation; an advice-oriented mode, which appeals to salience through the promise of independent and timely science advice, to credibility through the credentials of the scientists involved, and to legitimacy through formal recognition by governance actors; and a solution-oriented mode, with science institutions claiming relevance based on the promise to contribute to solutions for global sustainability, while credibility is sought by invoking support of the scientific community, and legitimacy through a strategy of participation. Based on this analysis, we provide a framework for reflection on the claims and strategies of science-based initiatives, and their role and responsibility in governance for sustainable development.This article is part of a special issue on solution-oriented GEAs.     

Preparing for the European Thematic Strategy on air pollution: at the interface between science and policy

In 2005 the European Commission launched a Thematic Strategy on air pollution for the European Union. We use an analytical framework that relates credibility, legitimacy and relevance of assessments to “boundary work” between science and policy to address the following questions: (1) how did experts, stakeholders and policy makers in the process distribute roles and tasks between them and how did they work together and (2) to what extent and in what way did this constitute credibility, legitimacy and relevance of the assessment? We conclude that the European Commission took great effort to organise a transparent assessment process based on scientific knowledge and with extensive involvement of stakeholders and Member States. Bilateral consultations, review of integrated assessment models, and transparency and documentation of integrated assessment work played an important role in enhancing credibility, legitimacy and relevance for the Member States. On the other hand, some industry groups were not satisfied with their role as stakeholders instead of experts. However the assessment established a sufficient degree of credibility, legitimacy and relevance with the majority of the actors involved to have an impact on the actual policy process.     

The participation of experts and knowledges in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

This paper examines the participation opportunities and role of nominated experts from the Eastern European region in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The governance of international knowledge-making spaces and events occurs through standardised institutional rules and expectations that affect experts as well as define accepted forms of knowledge. Within IPBES, experts may participate through United Nations Regional Groupings, which are regions that have complex geopolitical legacies and features. Between regions, experts have variable financial, networking and institutional capacities that in turn affect the operations and outputs of their contributions to science-policy interfaces. For IPBES, regional and localised environmental assessments and ecosystem services valuations require existing place-specific knowledge that may not be ‘available’, as well as understandings that are frequently in conflict with the standardised, homogenising practices of international environmental knowledge-making.     

Policy-makers perspectives on credibility,relevance and legitimacy (CRELE)

For more than a decade, a popular theory amongst scholars of science-policy interactions has been that research is most effective at informing policy and decision-making processes when it is credible, relevant and legitimate (CRELE) with multiple audiences simultaneously. In this paper, we argue that this triad reflects a primarily intra-scientific perspective, rather than the needs and considerations of policy-makers themselves. Using over seventy semi-structured interviews with policy-makers, we present alternative criteria for effective science-policy interactions based on experiences in the urban water sector. We find that applicability, comprehensiveness, timing and accessibility (ACTA) better summarises the most important aspects of scientific research when it comes to influencing decision-making, while finding that CRELE was a poor predictor of policy-maker concerns. Whilst the ACTA quartet effectively gives double-billing to the ‘relevance’ component of CRELE, credibility and legitimacy were much lower priorities for policy-makers interviewed. This article questions whether CRELE is a useful mindset for researchers interested in policy influence. These findings will be of interest to those engaged in debates related to effective science-policy interactions more broadly, and researchers that want to marshal policy influence more specifically.     

The role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation strategies—A Danish water management example

We propose a generic framework to characterize climate change adaptation uncertainty according to three dimensions: level, source and nature. Our framework is different, and in this respect more comprehensive, than the present UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approach and could be used to address concerns that the IPCC approach is oversimplified. We have studied the role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning using examples from four Danish water related sectors. The dominating sources of uncertainty differ greatly among issues; most uncertainties on impacts are epistemic (reducible) by nature but uncertainties on adaptation measures are complex, with ambiguity often being added to impact uncertainties. Strategies to deal with uncertainty in climate change adaptation should reflect the nature of the uncertainty sources and how they interact with risk level and decision making: (i) epistemic uncertainties can be reduced by gaining more knowledge; (ii) uncertainties related to ambiguity can be reduced by dialogue and knowledge sharing between the different stakeholders; and (iii) aleatory uncertainty is, by its nature, non-reducible. The uncertainty cascade includes many sources and their propagation through technical and socio-economic models may add substantially to prediction uncertainties, but they may also cancel each other. Thus, even large uncertainties may have small consequences for decision making, because multiple sources of information provide sufficient knowledge to justify action in climate change adaptation.     

Boundary work in climate policy making in Brazil: Reflections from the frontlines of the science-policy interface

Despite challenges to the authority and legitimacy of science as a neutral representation of the world, expert advisors are playing an increasingly central role in environmental policy-making in both the Global North and South. This article explores the science-policy interface, based on the experience of the main author as a scientist and policy-maker at FEAM, a state-level environmental agency in Brazil. Contributing to the literature on boundary objects and organizations, the article details the practices necessary to manage the relationship between political and scientific norms in the development of the regional Climate and Energy Plan (CEP) for the state of Minas Gerais. To sustain the role of FEAM as a boundary organization mediating between political and scientific demands, a team of scientists and policy-makers had to perform different types of boundary work in a closely connected manner. It was necessary to actively frame climate change as an economic problem, and structure its solution in terms of mitigation mechanisms. Responding to changes in the national and international political context, FEAM reframed climate change from mitigation into largely an adaptation issue that could lead to win-win solutions as to attain saliency and avoid insurmountable political obstacles for its approval. Based on this experience, the article argues that the performance of boundary objects and organizations in the science-policy interface not only requires an ability to bring ‘truth to power’ but to also the capacity to sense, anticipate and avoid political obstacles. For this reason even though boundary organizations provide a breeding ground for institutional learning it is an unsuitable location for scientific or political revolutions.     

Which “fairness”, for whom,and why? An empirical analysis of plural notions of fairness in Fairtrade Carbon Projects,using Q methodology

Fairness is a relative concept with multiple, subjective and competing notions of what it is, how to achieve it, and for which beneficiaries. Fairtrade International's collaborative efforts to develop a standard to certify Fairtrade Carbon Credits (FCCs) brought together multiple stakeholders in a deliberative context. This paper uses Q methodology to empirically assess the notions of fairness this wider consultation group held. Three distinct ‘factors’ (or perspectives) are identified, and discussed in relation to a multi-dimensional framework for exploring fairness. The first factor prioritises development delivered through organisations, participation in decision-making and use of minimum prices to adjust trade imbalances. The second factor conceptualises a non-exclusive approach maximising generation and sales of FCCs, involving a commodity chain where everyone performs their optimum function with financial transparency and information-sharing to facilitate negotiations. The third factor involves minimising intervention, allowing carbon commodity chains and project set-ups to function efficiently, and make their own adjustments to enhance benefits access and quality received by beneficiaries. The three factors reflect debates within carbon and fair trade spheres about who should be playing which roles, who should be accessing which benefits, and how people should be supported to interact on an uneven playing field. Communicating findings to standards organisations enables a more open and inclusive policy process. Our research provides a critical reflection on these plural notions of fairness, identifying areas of (dis)agreement within the FCC dialogue, and provides a wider, yet manageable, set of inputs for supporting the FCC process during its inception and subsequent implementation. Clearer definitions of “fairness” are also useful for standards organisations in reviewing ex post whether “fairness” goals have been met.     

The social side of spatial decision support systems: Investigating knowledge integration and learning

Spatial decision support systems (SDSS) represent a step forward in efforts to account for the spatial dimension in environmental decision-making. The aim of SDSS is to help policymakers and practitioners access, interpret and understand information from data, analyses and models, and guide them in identifying possible actions during a decision-making process. Researchers, however, report difficulties in up-take of SDSS by the intended users. Some suggest that this field would benefit from investigation of the social aspects involved in SDSS design, development, testing and use. Borrowing insights from the literature on science-policy interactions, we explore two key social processes: knowledge integration and learning. Using a sample of 36 scientific papers concerning SDSS in relation to environmental issues, we surveyed whether and how the selected papers reported on knowledge integration and learning. We found that while many of the papers mentioned communication and collaboration with prospective user groups or stakeholders, this was seldom underpinned by a coherent methodology for enabling knowledge integration and learning to surface. This appears to have hindered SDSS development and later adoption by intended users.     

Designing a new science-policy communication mechanism for the UN Convention to Combat Desertification

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has lacked an efficient mechanism to access scientific knowledge since entering into force in 1996. In 2011 it decided to convene an Ad Hoc Working Group on Scientific Advice (AGSA) and gave it a unique challenge: to design a new mechanism for science-policy communication based on the best available scientific evidence. This paper outlines the innovative ‘modular mechanism’ which the AGSA proposed to the UNCCD in September 2013, and how it was designed. Framed by the boundary organization model, and an understanding of the emergence of a new multi-scalar and polycentric style of governing, the modular mechanism consists of three modules: a Science-Policy Interface (SPI); an international self-governing and self-organizing Independent Non-Governmental Group of Scientists; and Regional Science and Technology Hubs in each UNCCD region. Now that the UNCCD has established the SPI, it is up to the worldwide scientific community to take the lead in establishing the other two modules. Science-policy communication in other UN environmental conventions could benefit from three generic principles corresponding to the innovations in the three modules—joint management of science-policy interfaces by policy makers and scientists; the production of synthetic assessments of scientific knowledge by autonomous and accountable groups of scientists; and multi-scalar and multi-directional synthesis and reporting of knowledge.     

Policy-induced innovations networks on climate change adaptation – An ex-post analysis of collaboration success and its influencing factors

This study is about 16 policy-induced innovation networks on climate change adaptation, i.e., subsidised multi-actor networks that are initiated by research institutes and formed around a particular real-life problem aiming at joint development, test, and implement adaptation measures. The political-administrative context is Germany, and the institutional context is a joint research framework in which each network works independently on a particular topic, but remains bound to the principle of practical and solution-oriented research carried out in close partnership between scientific and extra-scientific actors. Our objective is to provide empirical insights into the processes and outcomes of such networks and to systematically analyse the networks’ collaboration success and its influencing factors. To this end, collaboration success is operationalised as a three-dimensional metric including (1) the practitioners’ satisfaction with the cooperation, (2) their perceived learning effects, and (3) their perceived implementation capacity. Results show a decreasing level of success throughout the three dimensions and particularly a gap between knowledge acquisition and learning on the one hand and implementation, i.e., transforming the knowledge into action, on the other. While the positive relationship between these dimensions is confirmed, results of correlation analysis highlight the importance of repeated participation, appropriate information management, and inclusive as well as responsive network practices. We discuss the results against our existing knowledge on multi-actor collaborative research and deduce (methodological) lessons learnt as well as future research needs.     

Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes,expectations, and tensions

Transdisciplinary approaches are becoming increasingly adopted as a way to research complex socio-environmental problems. Conceptually, transdisciplinarity aims to foster meaningful knowledge co-production through integrative and participatory processes that bring together diverse actors, disciplines, and knowledge bases. In practice, transdisciplinarity is more ambiguous. While there is a growing body of literature on such approaches, there remains no widely-accepted definition, concrete framework, or empirical strategy for how to carry out a transdisciplinary project. We propose that this lack of explicit structure and entrenched meaning leaves space for transdisciplinary approaches to be shaped by the evolving network of participating scientists and stakeholders, according to their perspectives of the approach and what it embodies. Here, we examine the perspectives of a diverse group of actors (n = 42) embarking on a 10-year transdisciplinary research project focused on building resilience to natural hazards and disasters in New Zealand. We present the findings of qualitative surveys and group interviews that investigate stakeholders’ and scientists’ early perspectives of transdisciplinary, or co-created, research. The study represents the first stage of longitudinal research that will continue over the course of the project. Results show that early actors in the project share an overall consistent understanding of co-created research. Participants described a process that integrated diverse people and knowledge; created benefits on both a social and personal level; fostered clear, two-way dialogue; and overcame pragmatic and intrinsic challenges. Collectively, participants agreed with adopting transdisciplinary approaches to natural hazard, risk, and resilience research, with stakeholders showing a stronger degree of agreement than scientists. While attitudes towards transdisciplinarity were overall positive, a number of underlying conflicts emerged in regards to carrying out new modes of knowledge production within traditional social and institutional structures. These conflicts result in a tension that is felt by actors involved in transdisciplinary projects early on, and in some cases, influences perception of their ability to fully participate in such an approach. Evaluating actor perspectives and expectations early in the transdisciplinary process can give insight into how attitudes, expectations, and conflicts might shape transdisciplinary efforts, and can provide relevant parameters for assessing change over time.     

Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is the best-known framework for voluntary reporting of environmental and social performance by business worldwide. Using extensive empirical data, including interviews and documentary analysis, we examine GRI's organizational field and conclude that since its modest beginnings in 1999 GRI has been by several measures a successful institutionalization project. But the institutional logic of this new entity, as an instrument for corporate sustainability management, leaves out one of the central elements of the initial vision for GRI: as a mobilizing agent for many societal actors. This emergent logic reflects GRI's dominant constituency – large global companies and financial institutions and international business management consultancies – and not the less active civil society organizations and organized labor. We attribute these developments to factors such as building GRI within the existing institutional structures; the highly inclusive multistakeholder process; and the underdeveloped base of information users. From the institutional theory perspective, this case shows how the process of institutionalization is deeply affected by initial strategies of the founders, and how it reproduces existing power relations. From the governance perspective, this case leads us to question the power of commodified information to mobilize civil society and to strengthen governance based on partnerships.     

What is the potential and demonstrated role of non-life insurers in fulfilling climate commitments? A case study of Nordic insurers

Collective actions of stakeholders are required for fulfilling the climate commitments of the Kyoto protocol. The insurance sector's global influence and societal impact is fairly well documented. The sector influences societies based on its interaction with stakeholders, on its products, business and political stance. As such, it is a critical actor in facilitating key climate change actions of mitigation and adaptation, and has already been recognized as a leading sector in terms of climate adaptation. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of non-life insurers in fulfilling the climate commitments of the Kyoto Protocol. This paper is based on a case study on Nordic non-life insurance companies. The study documents that Nordic insurers are responding to climate-related threats and opportunities in a strategic manner by reducing their own impacts, through their core activities, and by influencing others to act. Although Nordic insurers do not classify their actions into mitigation and adaptation, but classify them according to their core activities, they demonstrate through actions their role as potential allies for nations in fulfilling the Kyoto protocol climate commitments. The study also reveals that the commercial reality of the industry is not the same as the expected contribution to climate commitments, for instance as specified in international conventions and treaties and in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and industry reports.     

Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond

There has been much debate about the assessment process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Yet two of the most fundamental challenges that directly threaten the ability of the IPCC to fulfill its mandate have been largely neglected so far. Firstly, the magnitude and rapid expansion of the climate change literature makes it increasingly impossible for the IPCC to conduct comprehensive and transparent assessments without major innovations in assessment practices and tools. Secondly, the structure, organization and scientific practices across the social sciences and humanities prohibit systematic learning on climate change solutions and increasingly limit the policy-relevance of IPCC assessments. We highlight the need for responses along three avenues to prepare the IPCC for continued success in the future: 1) IPCC assessments must make better use of big-data methods and available computational power to assess the growing body of literature and ensure comprehensiveness; 2) systematic review practices need to be enshrined into IPCC procedures to ensure adequate focus and transparency in its assessments; 3) a synthetic research culture needs to be established in the social sciences and humanities in order to foster knowledge accumulation and learning on climate solutions in the future. As policymakers become more interested in understanding solutions, the future prospects of global environmental assessment enterprises will depend heavily on a successful transformation within the social sciences and humanities towards systematic knowledge generation. This article is part of a special issue on solution-oriented Global Environmental Assessments.     

生态环境保护公众参与的不同层次分析

人类赖以生存的自然环境遭到破坏,会给社会、经济、政治的发展带来严重影响,也会对人类健康造成危害。保护生态环境,光靠政府采取措施、调整政策、加强环境公共事务的管理还不够,还必须有广大民众,各个层次的社团、组织的参与。文章从民众、民间团体、国际组织3个层面分析了生态环境保护公众参与的必然性、必要性。     

New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth

In the context of complex and unprecedented issues of global change, calls for new modes of knowledge production that are better equipped to address urgent challenges of global sustainability are increasingly frequent. This paper presents a case study of the new major research programme “Future Earth”, which aims to bring ‘research for global sustainability’ to the mainstream of global change research. A core principle of Future Earth is the co-production of knowledge with extra-scientific actors. In studying how the principle of co-production becomes institutionalised in the emerging structure of Future Earth, this paper points to the existence of three distinct rationales (logics) on the purpose and practice of co-production. Co-production is understood as a way to enhance scientific accountability to society (‘logic of accountability’), to ensure the implementation of scientific knowledge in society (‘logic of impact’), and to include the knowledge, perspectives and experiences of extra-scientific actors in scientific knowledge production (‘logic of humility’). This heterogeneous conception of knowledge co-production provides helpful ambiguity allowing actors with different perspectives on science and its role in society to engage in Future Earth. However, in the process of designing an institutional structure for Future Earth tensions between the different logics of co-production become apparent. This research shows how logics of accountability and impact are prominent in shaping the development of Future Earth. The paper concludes by pointing to an essential tension between being inclusive and transformative when it comes to institutionalising new modes of knowledge production in large research programmes.     

Desertification,and climate change: the case for greater convergence

Poor knowledge of links between desertification and globalclimate change is limiting funding from the Global Environment Facility foranti-desertification projects and realization of synergies between theConvention to Combat Desertification (CCD) and the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (FCCC). Greater convergence betweenresearch in the two fields could overcome these limitations, improve ourknowledge of desertification, and benefit four areas of global climate changestudies: mitigation assessment; accounting for land cover change in thecarbon budget; land surface-atmosphere interactions; and climate changeimpact forecasting. Convergence would be assisted if desertification weretreated more as a special case in dry areas of the global process of landdegradation, and stimulated by: (a) closer cooperation between the FCCCand CCD; (b) better informal networking between desertification and globalclimate change scientists, e.g. within the framework of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Both strategies wouldbe facilitated if the FCCC and CCD requested the IPCC to provide ascientific framework for realizing the synergies between them.     

Does the potential of the use of LCA match the design team needs?

Today, most people involved in the industrial engineering community (consultants, manufacturers, researchers and institutional actors) assert that Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the most successful tool to assess environmental considerations in the product design process. This assertion is addressed in this article through a simultaneous check of the potential of this tool and the environmental needs of the design team. After a comparison of this potential to these needs, the following assertions may be made: (1) LCA is not an adequate tool for the designer, because its utility in the design process is limited to an analysis of existing products or well defined products at the final stages of the design process, and (2) LCA is not useful in creating a learning dynamic (awareness) within the company, because it does not improve the legitimacy or the credibility of environmental considerations. Moreover, it may generate confusion within the design team while restricting the capacity for innovation within the company. This paper concludes that, in the product design field, the LCA tool should be considered as a specialized tool handled by a specific player (the environmental actor) and should be dedicated to the strategic evaluation of new concepts.     

参与式方法在乡村生态恢复与保护规划中的应用

对区域生态环境恢复与保护的规划,传统上由相关技术人员应用生态经济学原理和景观生态学的方法进行。把当前国际发展领域通用的参与式方法与生态规划方法相结合,通过多层次、多学科、多部门的共同参与,使外来者的技术和当地相关利益群体的经验比较好地融合,完成村民参与式的生态环境恢复与保护规划。利用这种方法形成的规划,能够增强社区村民的拥有感,有利于规划付诸实施。     

Indicators for assessing Indonesia’s Javan rhino National Park vulnerability to climate change

Climate change is already affecting ecosystems in protected forest areas. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted its impacts will accelerate rapidly over the coming decades. The components of vulnerability have been defined as exposure, sensitivity and the capacity to adapt to climate change. Vulnerability, however, is not an easy concept for policy makers, local communities and other affected stakeholders to understand. This paper illustrates the use of participatory processes in understanding climate change adaptation and defines indicators for assessing the vulnerability of the Javan rhino's national park habitat in Indonesia. The processes generated local vulnerability indicators, organised hierarchically as principles, criteria and indicators (PCIs). While vulnerability principles and criteria were pre-determined and globally defined, the indicators were designed to address the local context. We found the PCIs to be practical tools for communicating vulnerability and for multi-stakeholder dialogues on vulnerability to climate change.