DRAFT Summary of Findings

1. DRAFT Summary of Findings An 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)

2. 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)

3. “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

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. What should it be for? • Achieving social goals on sustainability • Solving specific problems • Empowering people • Facilitating social learning

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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?)

10. 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

11. 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…

12. 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…

13. Frameworks for classifying problem-driven R&D

14. 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…

15. 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

16. 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…

17. 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? )

18. 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”

19. 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…

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Finally… • Need for indicators of how well we are doing what we are trying to do… • Need to reflect on whether we are doing what we ought to…