Consultative Meeting: Science Policy Interfaces and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)

This consultative meeting will focus on how to strengthen science policy interfaces in the context of MEAs and assessments being undertaken through science-policy interfaces such as IPBES, IPCC and others.

The following key questions will be discussed during the meeting:

1. How has science and other forms of knowledge contributed to policymaking in MEAs? Where are the gaps, and how can these be addressed? 
2. How do science policy interfaces help the decision-making processes within your MEA, and which platforms or products do you use or plan to use and why? 
3. How will you describe and prioritize science policy interface issues within your work plans during the next 5-10 years? 
4. What are the key needs from MEAs in contributing to stronger and more effective science-policy interface products?  
5. Given the rapid developments in use of data, information, and technology, how much impact do these developments have in strengthening or weakening the science policy work? 
6. What are the new considerations for science-policy linkages that MEAs need to consider with focus on technology, social science links (science-policy-society) and the related? 
7. How can the performance of science-policy interfaces in supporting decision-making by MEAs be assessed, and are there any obvious key performance indicators? 
8. What processes, platforms and/or approaches could be used to further strengthen the links between science-policy interfaces and MEAs? 

The Environmental Policy Unit of UNEP Law Division organized a meeting to bring together a number of secretariats to Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), secretariats to science panels and experts to discuss about ways to strengthen science policy interfaces. The discussions focused on how the science policy interfaces support the work MEAs and the role science policy panels play in keeping several processes informed, besides some future options for actions from UNEP.

Key outcomes from the discussions included,

1. The need to ‘connect the dots’ on science policy issues emerging from MEAs and panels that are focused on specific sectors like biodiversity and climate change with other processes that could potentially benefit from the knowledge and experiences. Currently, there are limited options for this to happen.
2. There is a need for increasing the governance focus on strengthening science policy interfaces. Differences in how science is used and interpreted for policy making in different forums continue to be a challenge to focus on environmental governance.
3. Communicating science policy interfaces still is sub-optimal. While this is critical for ensuring the science policy issues are appropriately communicated, it is also important to ensure relevant stakeholders are engaged in strengthening processes, across scales and themes.
4. UNEP needs to help ‘cluster’ the outcomes of various science policy outcomes. This is especially needed when countries continue to discuss issues of synergies only from institutional focus. Consolidating key messages is critical for appropriate social and behavoural changes.
5. Enhancing the inter-connectedness across scientific platforms and expanding the scope of engagement with traditional knowledge holders is important for the future of stronger science policy interfaces.
6. Considering the way people’s values across climate, biodiversity, pollution, and related environmental problems are different, there is a need to provide connectivity to concepts and emerging issues in better environmental governance that is informed by science and technology.
7. Financing for strengthening science policy interface related actions is critical and largely ignored.
8. While there is no need for a new process to strengthen science policy interfaces, the existing ones need to connect and communicate. UNEP needs to focus on strengthening this, including by promoting regular and informal exchanges of updates on science policy issues across MEAs and platforms given its institutional mandate.
9. UNEP needs to provide ‘safe space’ for different interest groups and parties together to discuss science policy issues.
10. Opportunities like UNEA 6 leadership dialogue on science policy interfaces need to be explored to communicate key priorities and ideas for the future.