International Workshop on
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Harnessing Institutional Synergies
Trieste, Italy
6-9 February 2002
Organized
by the Third World Academy of Sciences,
as part of its contribution to the international
Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability,
with financial support from
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Workshop
Co-conveners:
Mohamed
Hassan, Third World Academy of Sciences
Calestous Juma, Harvard
University
William Clark, Harvard University
Readings Suggested
by Workshop Participants
Draft Agenda
Participant List
Draft Workshop Report
BACKGROUND
The upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), scheduled for
September 2002 in Johannesburg, will serve as a forum for world leaders to
assess the implementation of Agenda 21, the program of work adopted at the 1992
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de
Janeiro. They will also outline a strategy for implementing sustainable
development goals. In spite of the advances made in raising awareness of
sustainability concerns and articulating frameworks to address them,
considerable frustration exists with the lack of implementation of Agenda 21.
One of the key areas of concern is a perceived deficiency in marshalling the
stock of scientific and technological knowledge in advancing a sustainability
transition. The WSSD preparatory period provides a critical opportunity for both
the science and policy communities to identify innovative institutional
arrangements that can remedy this problem. This three-day workshop provides a
forum to leaders in research, government, industry, academia and civil society
to specify measures that can be used to foster the use of scientific and
technological knowledge in promoting sustainability. It is our hope that the
momentum generated by the workshop will extend beyond the WSSD process and into
a broader range of sustainability science initiatives.
The fundamental challenge is to generate problem-solving knowledge that
facilitates in action on critical issues of sustainable development. This can be
done through the design of institutional arrangements that foster the
generation, diffusion and use of scientific knowledge for the sustainability
transition. Currently, much of the knowledge needed for the sustainability
transition is fragmented across disciplines, institutions, sectors, geographical
locations and timeframes. Furthermore, the knowledge is also split between
functions such as research, observation, assessment and decision-making. In
order to improve the utility of our knowledge base, the institutional, systemic
and funding barriers to a more integrative approach to scientific and
technological capacity building is needed.
This workshop will focus on these issues by identifying the lessons learned from
the last decade of sustainable development action. More specifically, the
workshop will:
(a) review current trends in the use of scientific and technological knowledge
in the sustainability transition;
(b) identify networks of actors and organizations playing critical roles in
bridging gaps between science, technology and sustainable development and define
the existing resource base devoted to bridging these gaps;
(c) derive lessons from specific cases from fields such as global change,
agriculture, forests, energy, fisheries, water resources and human
development/institutional designs that can facilitate the use of scientific and
technological knowledge in the sustainability transition; and
(d) specify obstacles and opportunities facing efforts to improve the
contribution of global research and development institutions and their
associated networks toward a sustainability transition.
The workshop will bring together 50 leaders from research, industry, academia
and civil society from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the
Caribbean, Europe and North America. Participation will be by invitation only,
with all participants' expenses covered by the international Initiative on
Science and Technology for Sustainability, using funds from the Packard
Foundation. Participants will be invited in their personal capacity, and emphasis
will be placed on sharing experiences and lessons on effectively linking science
and technology to sustainability.
Further information on the workshop can be obtained through our workshop
organizer, Sheila Khawaja at the TWAS (sheila@twnso.org). Information on the
international Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability can be
obtained through the web site for the Initiative's Forum on Science and
Technology for Sustainability: (http://sustainabilityscience.org).
The Forum also serves as a vehicle through which the sustainability science
community can engage this workshop as well as related events conducted under the
auspices of the Initiative.
INSTITUTIONAL THEMES
We are currently developing the institutional design themes that will form the
basis of the dialog at the workshop. We would welcome comments and suggestions
on how these themes might be clarified, illustrated or extended prior to the
workshop. Please communicate by email any thoughts you may have to Dr. David
Cash (david_cash@harvard.edu).
1. Resources, capacity and human development
Scientific and technical capacity is most deficient in areas where it is most
needed. Institutional incentives - including market incentives - that could
redress this gap are lacking. What have we learned about institutional
incentives that channel resources and capacity away from areas where they are
most needed? What institutional changes will help redirect resources at capacity
deficiencies and human development needs? What reforms might be able to balance
the advantages of RFP models (screening through competition) versus endowed
program (long-term commitments, adaptability and maintaining institutional
memory)?
2. Integration
2.1 Disciplinary integration
Research capacity is often differentiated by disciplinary boundaries,
represented by physicists, biologists, and mathematical modelers, for example, within the
natural sciences, and economists, sociologists, and anthropologists, for
example, within the social sciences. While disciplinary specialization allows
for greater focus on distinct components of human-environment systems, it can
impede a comprehensive understanding of broader system dynamics. Can we preserve
insights gained through segmented specialization while fostering a more holistic
understanding of human-environment systems?
2.2 Functional integration
Research priorities, monitoring capabilities and information conveyed through
environmental assessments have varying levels of relevance to various players in
research, observation and decision-support systems. Organizational structures
have a considerable impact on the efficacy of these systems and their ability to
produce knowledge that influences behavior. What have we learned about bridging
these different functions, including efforts to modify 'upstream' assessment
practices and research priorities over time in order to better serve
'downstream' users of information?
2.3 Integration across geographical scales
In addition to the disciplinary and functional challenges outlined above, issues
of scale can confound efforts to produce problem-solving knowledge. Information
that is salient to actors working on a global scale may have little relevance to
actors working at regional or local levels. What have we learned about science
and technology initiatives that have faced significant problems of scale?
2.4 Knowledge
Indigenous populations are often repositories for local knowledge about
human-environment dynamics. While recognized as important, indigenous knowledge
has been incorporated only with considerable difficulty by the scientific
community into
more sophisticated research activities. What can be learned from experiences to
integrate local 'place-based' knowledge with systematically derived scientific
knowledge?
3. Adaptation
Tensions exist among the assessment process criteria of reliability, validity,
flexibility, precision and uncertainty. For instance, a better understanding of
ecosystem dynamics, including human-environment interactions, may point towards
the need for reformulating research programs and assessment procedures. But
doing so may introduce levels of uncertainty that undermine economic utility
along with political consensus, thus rendering decision-making problematic. What
should we do to balance these tensions?
4. Participation
Tensions exist between participation criteria used to optimize the political
receptivity of assessment processes with participation criteria used to optimize
their technical credibility. The former criteria emphasize inclusiveness,
transparency, and a broad framing of questions and issues that will accommodate
the concerns of the full range of stakeholders. The latter criteria emphasize
exclusive deference to peer-reviewed literature, internal vetting and
coordination, and a sharper focus on specific questions that are reasonably
tractable with modern scientific techniques. What can be learned from
experiences that have sought to strike a balance between these countervailing
pressures?
|