The Group of Friends on Science for Action at the UN
Recently, a new science-policy mechanism at the UN was announced by Belgium, India, and South Africa: The Group of Friends on Science for Action. This is an interesting initiative. A functioning international science-policy interface is essential for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Will this new group be able to find the right voice, timbre, and tone to make an impact?
For many years, I have been arguing for a stronger position of science at the UN, both in the sense of science as a form of knowledge, and in the sense of science as an essential stakeholder in the sustainability policy processes. I made this point on the stage of the UN High Level Political Forum (2018, Leaving No One Behind (a Paywall)), in critical reflections on the science representatives in the process (2017, The scientific and technological community in the Sustainable Development Goal process), by recommending feasible incremental interventions (2015, Fine tuning the Science and Technology Major Group), by counting words in policy documents (2015, How much science is in the Sustainable Development Goals zero-draft?), or hidden in academic articles (Schneider et al. 2021, Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations).
Add to that my rants, monologues, arguments, coffee and chats at countless meetings of the HLPF, UNEA, UNFCC COP, UN Science-Technology Forum. Sometimes I did so ex-officio as the executive director of the Earth System Governance Project or as interim director of Stakeholder Forum. Other times I spoke as a mercenary for science policy (a descriptor I still use in my social media profiles today). In short: it is an issue I care about a great deal.
Back to the question: Will this Group of Friends on Science for Action make an impact? The honest answer is: Too early to say. So far, only little is known about the aims, governance, and method of work of this group. Two aspects of this initiative however are distinct from other science-policy efforts and can make a difference.
First, the procedural genesis of the group: Going through member-states is clever. Whatever one thinks about the role of stakeholders, the reality is that they can be ignored when it matters (or when it is convenient) - even their formal representation like the Major Groups System (which anyway is fundamentally flawed). The launch by member-states thus will help to anchor this initiative more firmly. Inversely, talking truth to power might become an insurmountable challenge.
Second, the connection to the academic community: Using the ISC as connector to the scientific community is clever too.
The International Science Council will mobilize its global membership of national academies, international scientific unions and associations and international scientific networks across the natural and social sciences to catalyse and convene scientific expertise and advice on major issues of concern to both science and society and provide scientific and technical support for the deliberations and initiatives of the Group of Friends. (ISC)
Many science groups at the UN are made up of individual scholars (of varying quality), selected on diversity quota (though not scholarly schools of thought), and with narrow product-oriented mandates. Do not get me wrong, some of these groups delivered excellent reports, like the Independent Group of Scientists that wrote the 2019 GSDR. However, they lack a constituency to draw legitimacy and authority from, and to be accountable to. They also can not represent science as such.
If the ISC succeeds to properly take the convening and catalyzing role, the Group of Friends can overcome this and give science a stronger voice at the UN. A voice not confined to a specific deliverable or policy proces - and hopefully a strong voice in a position to talk truth to power.