Madam Chair,
Ozone-depleting substances. Lead in petrol. Mercury. This trio of harmful substances have something in common. They were the subject of policies and legislation after science pointed out their negative impacts. This journey from science to policy to action saved millions of lives and protected the environment. But there is one other commonality: it took a long time between identification of the issue and real action.
The cases of lead and mercury are extreme. The Roman elite knew lead was dangerous, yet they kept using it in their drinking cups and water pipes. There is an ongoing debate among historians whether lead poisoning contributed to the fall of the Empire. The first deadly case of methylmercury poisoning, meanwhile, was recorded in the 19th century. But it has only been in recent years that the global community took concerted action to end mercury use in dental amalgam, lightbulbs and batteries.
Let’s look at the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, however, as a more contemporary example of emerging science. This deal protected us, the planet’s ecosystems and slowed global warming – as the main ozone-depleting gases, CFCs, also warmed the climate.
Once the Montreal Protocol was established in 1987, change quickly followed. By the mid-1990s, developed countries had phased-out CFCs. But it took thirteen years from the first science on ozone to the establishment of the Montreal Protocol. The lag from science to policy to action was in part down to industry resistance. It was in part down to the slow flow of information in pre-internet days.
Today, we are using the same approach that worked with ozone on the triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste: science to policy to action, bolstered by international multilateralism. This process is our best bet. It works.
But the lag time has been longer. Look, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have been sounding warnings for some time. Yet here we are: far behind on climate action, while the nature and biodiversity that underpins our existence disappears.
Perhaps action has been slow because climate change and nature and biodiversity loss have seemed like a future threat, a slow creep rather than a kick in the teeth like COVID-19.
But let’s be clear. The triple planetary crisis is an immediate and deadly threat.
People are dying and suffering from climate change. When more frequent and intense storms and droughts are hitting across the world. When diseases spread.
People are dying and suffering from nature and biodiversity loss. When a village is buried in a landslide because the hill above has been denuded of trees. When degraded soils lose their capacity to produce food.
And people are dying and suffering from pollution. Indoor and outdoor air pollution alone causes seven million premature deaths each year.
Friends, we need to close the time between scientific discovery and action – or we will be in deeper trouble.
We need a nimbler and more inclusive science-policy interface – one that will accelerate effective policies and follow-up action. This is how we will save and improve lives, protect the vulnerable, conserve nature and allow all communities to thrive and prosper.
To create this new interface, we need reform in four broad areas: speed, solutions, diversity and digitalization. Let’s look at them in turn.
One, closing the time between science and action.
Knowledge production systems need to be streamlined and more efficient. We need open, accessible and real-time information on threats and solutions, which people can access from anywhere.
UNEP’s World Environment Situation Room (WESR) is undergoing a revamp to fill this role as this organization reinforces the science-policy bridge. But this will be a bridge to nowhere without implementation. The COVID-19 response showed us the importance of tracking. We need monitoring and evaluation on implementation, and environmental policy trackers, to ensure effective follow-up.
Two, putting solutions at the forefront of the science-policy interface.
To exit emergency mode, we need to implement existing solutions and find new ones.
Science must be more proactive. Early warning, foresight, scenario-building, predictive analytics and a new generation of integrated assessment models will be key to UNEP’s future science-policy interface.
UNEP is evolving flagship scientific assessments and knowledge platforms, including WESR, to include insights on policy pathways and effectiveness of responses. Alongside improving foresight and horizon scanning capabilities, this will strengthen UNEP’s ability to put solutions at the forefront and get ahead of the problems.
Three, engaging every group with an open mind.
The science-policy interface should not be only about scientists sitting in their academic spires and delivering wisdom to politicians, who decide what is best for the people. It should not be the preserve of the Western world, or wealthy elites.
For centuries, indigenous peoples and local communities have managed their land in harmony with nature. They understand things that outsiders do not. A researcher who bumps over the savannah in a Land Rover and the pastoralist whose ancestors roamed those lands will see two very different things. Yes, the researcher may bring in new ideas, but it is the person with the connection to the land – who feels it through the soles of their feet, in their blood, in their spirit – who knows what has worked and what could work.
We don’t show traditional knowledge systems due respect in science and policy. We don’t value what the people closest to nature know. This must change.
There is strength in diversity. It allows us to meld ideas and deliver solutions that work with nature, not against it. We must use every piece of knowledge – from respected scientists to indigenous women to bright young youth who are not afraid to try something new. This is how we find solutions that work.
Equally, the science-policy interface must involve the private sector. We saw the importance of this with the Montreal Protocol. The private sector initially resisted, but once they jumped in with both feet, change came at lightning speed. The COVID-19 pandemic also showed us the importance of tapping into the private sector’s data, expertise and rapid response times.
Four, embrace the digital transformation, the great accelerator.
Just as we must use knowledge that stretches back centuries, we must use the latest technology – which is why UNEP’s 2022-25 Medium-Term Strategy includes a Digital Transformation subprogramme.
The digital revolution is the great accelerator. This revolution has democratized communication and the transmission of ideas that bypass gatekeepers and paywalls. If we use digital tools well, we find more solutions, we communicate and engage better, and we get those solutions out there in a way that is real and relevant.
Friends, we are living in a time of great disruption, but also one of great opportunity to reinvent how we produce and use science.
In a nutshell, we must rapidly develop specific and relevant solutions through the engagement of diverse stakeholders – and get those solutions out there quickly through real-time digital tools.
If we do this, science will become more accessible, more trusted, more democratic, and therefore more useful. The whole of society will be involved in producing and acting on science. Decision makers will have a wider range of solutions, quickly produced, upon which to act. We will brighten the light of science so that it serves as a beacon for all to follow, in policy and action, as we walk the path towards ending the triple planetary crisis.
Thank you.
