Symposium on Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development: Mobilizing Research and Development for Decision-Making

1. Symposium on Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development:Mobilizing Research and Development for Decision-Making American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting 18 February 2007, San Francisco

2. Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development:Report of an international study on mobilizing R&D to support decision making for sustainability • Project leaders: • William C. Clark and Nancy Dickson, Harvard University • Gilberto C. Gallopín, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean • Louis Lebel, Chiang Mai University • Pamela Matson, Stanford University • Researcher team: • Lee Addams, Columbia University • James Buizer, Arizona State University • David Cash, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs • Charunee Chirangworapot, Chiang Mai University • Po Garden, Chiang Mai University • Kathy Jacobs, University of Arizona • Amy Luers, Union of Concerned Scientists • David Mánuel-Navarrete, Economic Comm. for Latin America and the Caribbean • Ellen McCullough, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN • George Saliba, University of Arizona • Nicole Szlezák, Harvard University • Drinya Totrakool, Chiang Mai University • Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Australian National University

3. The problem we explored • Growing recognition that development "is built not merely through the accumulation of physical capital and human skill, but on a foundation of information, learning and adaptation” (World Bank), and that successfully “navigating a transition toward sustainable development will be an especially knowledge-intensive activity” (NRC, ICSU) • In general, however, relevant knowledge remains underproduced, underutilized and unevenly distributed… • eg. How to accommodate 3B more people in cities, sustainably • …while even the knowledge that does exist is seldom integrated into systems that can support decision, action • eg. persistent mortality due to indoor air pollution from cook stoves • But there are exceptions. This study therefore sought to answer the question “What makes some knowledge systems more effective than others in harnessing science and technology to achieve the goals of sustainable development?”

4. The approach we took • Attempt to understand the systems involved in mobilizing R&D to support decisions, action… • networks of actors, organizations, and objects that perform a number of knowledge-related functions that link knowledge and know-how with action. • included are the incentives, financial resources, institutions, and human capital that give such systems capacity to do their work, and the intention to focus such work in some arenas rather than others. • Oriented through general review of experience with knowledge systems in agriculture, health, energy, etc • Focused through a set of empirical case studies exploring a range of issues, scales and regions • developing and applying a common set of questions and research protocols • iterating between field work and conceptualization

5. The Cases we Studied • Water management: • Yaqui Valley, Mexico; Ceará, Brazil; Ping River Basin, Thailand; Upper San Pedro River, Arizona • Short-term climate forecasts: • Pacific, Southern Africa • Fisheries: • Yaqui Valley and Thailand • Agriculture: • Pampas in Argentina, Yaqui Valley, CGIAR • Health: • Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria

6. The conclusions we’ve reached:Today’s presentations • Linking knowledge with action for sustainability • William C. Clark, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ. • Multiple epistemologies of knowledge for sustainability • Gilberto C. Gallopín, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean • Governing knowledge systems for sustainability • Louis Lebel, Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University • Research actors in knowledge systems: Perspectives from the inside • Pamela Matson, School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University • Discussants • James Buizer, Office of the President, Arizona State University • Kathy Jacobs, Arizona Water Institute, University of Arizona

7. Project conclusions onLinking knowledge with action for sustainabilityWilliam C. Clark, Harvard University • Case studies revealed many different barriers that inhibited effective mobilization of R&D to support decision making • Three, however, stand out: • Mutual incomprehension between scientists, decision makers • Fragmentation of the knowledge system • Inflexibility in a world of ignorance and surprise

8. 1) Mutual Incomprehension(square pegs for round holes) • Diagnosis (Why is there a problem?) • Scientists and practitioners have different perceptions of problems, solutions, and reliable knowledge • Usable knowledge must be perceived by both scientists and decision makers to be salient, credible, legitimate (SCL) • Process prescription (What needs to change?) • Reject pipe-line models of one way knowledge transfer • Promote co-production of usable knowledge • Institutional implementation (How to do it?) • Boundary-spanning institutions that • co-produce ‘boundary objects’ (maps, models, standards)… • that are perceived to be salient, credible, legitimate by all • through processes of dual accountability to scientists & practitioners

9. A Boundary-spanning Object…

10. 2) Fragmentation (system less than sum of its parts) • Diagnosis (Why is there a problem?) • Sustainability often a public good (weak market tests) • Principal-agent issues (optimize parts, not whole) • Process prescription (What needs to change?) • Systems integration • identify missing nodes, links; • construct incentives to complete them • Institutional implementation (How to do it?) • Project-oriented management accountable for results • Adopting supply chain perspective to get all parts • Implement via task teams outside normal structures

11. Project oriented management Initial field testing, revision Large scale deployment of decision support system Farmers benefiting from forecasts Development of decision support tools for farmers Basic research on climate forecasting

12. 3) Inflexibility(static systems, dynamic challenges) • Diagnosis (Why is there a problem?) • Absence of forums to learn from others’ experience • Incentives to hide failures, not to learn from them • Willful ignorance and motives to block learning • Process prescription (What needs to change?) • From knowledge systems to learning systems • Institutional implementation (How to do it?) • Adaptive management institutions, with capacity for • experimentation (“safe spaces” for “safe failure”) • reflection (evaluations and metrics that reward learning) • response (stable resources, flexible structures and rules)

13. Summary • Lessons for Linking Knowledge with Action • Miscommunication  Boundary-spanning institutions • Fragmentation project management to integrate • Inflexibility  Adaptive management fostering social learning • But … • This has been the simplest manager’s / technician’s view of knowledge systems for sustainability • Our project also grappled with the fact that such knowledge systems need to entrain different kinds of knowledge, leading us into questions of epistemology (Gallopin) • and do so in contexts where the power to determine what knowledge gets to the table and what is done with it is unequally distributed, leading to questions of governance (Lebel) • Finally, we tried to reflect on our own learning as knowledge institutions in conducting this study (Matson)