Building Blocks for the Institutional Architectureof the SDGs Science-Policy Interface

Copyright © The Project On Sustainability Transformation beyond 2015 (POST2015) and United Nations
University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the United Nations University.

This research was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-11) of the
Ministry of the Environment, Japan and the Japan Science and Technology Agency.

The workshop on the Institutional Architecture for the Science-policy Interface on the Sustainable
Development Goals was organized by POST2015 (hosted by Keio University, and sponsored by the Ministryof the Environment Japan and the Japan Science and Technology Agency) and Earth System Governance
Project. It was endorsed by Future Earth and Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

Published by:United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS)
5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku,
Tokyo 150-8925, Japan
Tel: +81 3 5467 1212
Fax: +81 3 3499 2828

This report is prepared by:Robert Lindner, Norichika Kanie, Mari Kosaka, Maki Koga, Yui Nakagawa, Steven Bernstein, Pam Chasek
and Ruben Zondervan

Please cite this report as: Robert Lindner, Norichika Kanie, Mari Kosaka, Maki Koga, Yui Nakagawa, StevenBernstein, Pam Chasek, Ruben Zondervan (editors) 2016. Building Blocks for the Institutional Architectureof the SDGs Science-Policy Interface: POST2015/UNU-IAS Conference Report. Tokyo: United Nations
University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability.

Design and Layout: Noge Printing Co., Japan

Building Blocks for the Institutional Architectureof the SDGs Science-Policy Interface(Workshop, 19-20 June 2015, New York)
1. Introduction
On 25 September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the post-2015 development
agenda, called “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Agenda
marked a historical decision to mainstream sustainable development in the holistic agenda for global
development. In other words, from now on all development has to be sustainable. Several principles underpin
the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). First, inclusiveness, the idea that “no one will be left behind.”
Second, universality, the idea that as unlike the previous set of goals (Millennium Development Goals, or
MDGs), the SDGs are universal and apply to both developing and developed countries. Third, diversity, theidea that policies and targets should be set at regional and national levels, guided by global ambition. And
fourth, integration, the idea of incorporating the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic,
social and environmental—as a key to achieving the goals.
The importance of the science-policy interface for the successful implementation of the new agenda
has been stated repeatedly. The Rio+20 outcome document, “The Future We Want,” calls for the promotionof a “a strong science-policy interface, building on existing international instruments, assessments,
panels and information networks (…) as one of the processes aimed at bringing together information
and assessment to support informed decision-making” (UNGA 2012, paragraph 88). The United Nations
Secretary-General further emphasized its importance in his synthesis report “The Road to Dignity by 2030,”
by stating that a transformational and universal post-2015 development agenda needs to be “buttressed byscience and evidence” (UNGA 2014, paragraph 49). This was also echoed in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda(AAAA) of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD3), adopted on 27 July
2015, that recognizes the importance of “harnessing the potential of science, technology and innovation(…) for the shift towards sustainable development and poverty eradication” (UNGA 2015a, paragraph5). The outcome document from the September 2015 UN Sustainable Development Summit assigns the“central role in overseeing follow-up and review at the global level” (UNGA 2015b, paragraph 47) to the
new High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF). Many important details regarding its
mandate are yet to be decided, but the document specifies that the HLPF will be convened once a year
under the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and every four years under the auspicesof the United Nations General Assembly. On these occasions the HLPF will be informed annually by two
separate reports: the annual SDG Progress Report, to be prepared by the Secretary-General in cooperation
with the UN system, and the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), “which shall strengthen thescience-policy interface and could provide a strong evidence-based instrument to support policymakers inpromoting poverty eradication and sustainable development” (UNGA 2016, paragraph 83). In his reporton critical milestones towards coherent, efficient and inclusive follow-up and review at the global levelfrom January 2016, the Secretary-General recommended that each HLPF have a certain thematic focus“reflecting the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development” (UNGA 2016, paragraph92). He further suggested two basic options for reviewing all of the SDGs during the four-year cycle: first, acomprehensive review of all goals each year guided by the theme, or second, an additional in-depth review
of a certain subset of goals (UNGA 2016, paragraphs 96-97). The current proposal suggests the following
themes for the HLPF.
2017 Theme: Ensuring food security on a safe planet by 2030
Set of focus goals: 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 17
2018 Theme: Making cities sustainable and building productive capacities

01Set of focus goals: 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17
2019 Theme: Empowering people and ensuring inclusivenessSet of focus goals: 3, 4, 5, 10, 16 and 17
With this background, we convened a workshop on 19-20 June 2015 in New York focusing on the role of science,scientific assessments, and inputs in the implementation of the SDGs, as well as review and monitoringprocesses. The workshop was held under the Chatham House Rule and was attended by 17 researchersand 13 practitioners, including delegates to the SDGs negotiations, non-governmental organizations andrepresentatives of UN organizations. The participants considered what types of knowledge would facilitate
successful implementation and monitoring processes for the SDGs, how such knowledge could be inserted
into the global SDGs process, and what institutional architectures would enhance overall effectivenessfrom global to regional and national level science-policy interfaces for the SDGs. One of the challenges for
effective institutional architecture for the SDGs is finding ways to accommodate effective science-policy
interface throughout all stages of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Transdisciplinarity requires“co-design” of the agenda before “co-production” and “co-delivery” of the outcomes. The workshop
therefore also discussed the methodology for transdisciplinary research and its practical applications for the
SDGs. On the first day, practitioners and academics shared their views, generated new ideas, and identified
options for the institutional architecture. On the second day, participants discussed how the output of
the workshop could inform the ongoing policy process. A series of small group discussions took place togenerate new and innovative ideas for institutional architecture in the face of challenges presented by the
SDGs. Summaries of the small group discussions were reported back to the plenary, where they served asa basis to further develop ideas. The following section describes five building blocks that emerged out of
the two-day exercise.

2. Five Models for the Institutional Architecture of the SDGs SciencePolicy Interface
The meeting identified five models for the science-policy interface (SPI) to effectively implement the SDGs.
Each one identifies core elements of the model, options for its development and implementation, pros andcons for those options, and additional considerations. In many cases, elements of the models address thescience-policy nexus at multiple levels—global, regional, national and/or local. Although these models arepresented individually, some could be developed in tandem and are not mutually exclusive. The concluding
section of this report briefly discusses and compares the different models and highlights a number of crosscutting issues important to all of them.

Model 1: Extended Global Expert Panel on the SDGsx Description and purpose
This model envisions a global assessment organization for the SDGs, similar in structure to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services (IPBES). These organizations conduct assessments based on reviews of peer-reviewed
literature and compile their results into reports that are adopted by governments. Although the IPCC’s
stakeholder involvement has been limited, its model as a global expert organization may be more conduciveto the type of multi-stakeholder structure needed for the SDGs. It can also provide or inspire solutions
that may not need decision-making to be done by consensus. Because of the multi-faceted and integrative
character of the SDGs, the findings of a panel could be fed as knowledge into existing decision-making
bodies (e.g., UNFCCC’s SBSTA type of bodies).
x Who appoints members?
As is currently the case for the IPCC and IPBES, governments would nominate scientific experts fromacademia. Governments could also nominate national stakeholders if the model was to include multi-

02

stakeholders in the panel to ensure greater legitimacy. Such stakeholders might include policymakers andexperts related to the different SDGs—from the private sector and nongovernmental organizations, forexample.
x Options for organizational responsibility (who runs the secretariat)
A new board to govern the organization would need to be established, and a secretariat inside or outsideof the United Nations would be needed, to support the board. The secretariat could coordinate therelevant stakeholders (scientists, governments, NGOs, etc.). Each goal might require a technical support
unit to coordinate and manage scientific knowledge. For example, the IPCC has its secretariat in Geneva,
Switzerland, and each working group has technical support units run by universities or research institutes
in different countries.
x How to secure vertical linkage (from national to global and vice versa), where needed
Vertical linkage would be high with this model, as national governments would nominate national experts(stakeholders) to the organizations.
x Pros and cons
Pros
9 Procedures for decision-making and selecting experts would be formally established with this model,
and relevant actors would meet regularly. Thus, legitimacy would be high.
9 Synthesis reports would be published, and would be useful.
9 Potential levels of public awareness and legitimacy would be high.
9 Through national nominations there would be “co-ownership” by member states, which could help in“uptake” of the outcomes.
Cons
9 In the process of developing and adopting reports, there would be strong and regular interface between
scientist and policymakers, but entry points for science are often limited in the policy arena once
reports have been published.
9 IPCC and IPBES were established to deal with specific issues such as climate change and biodiversity;i.e., they have a single-issue focus. In contrast, a global expert organization on the SDGs would need
to focus on multiple goals (17 goals and 169 targets). Coordination of assessments or identification of
emerging issues would be complex.
9 The panel should provide knowledge to decision-makers with appropriate political scales andtimeframes (for example, forecast at 2030 but not 2100), following the IPCC example with both asummary for policymakers and a larger report.
9 By opening up participation to relevant stakeholders, legitimacy increases, but scientific integrity may
decrease.
9 There is a risk that a more centralized mechanism would focus on only priority issues, with less attention
to other issues, which would ultimately weaken the SDGs and risk undermining their integrative
approach.
x Other ideas and alternatives:
9 One panel cannot handle all problems related to SDGs or sustainable development. Setting parallel
processes may be one solution (e.g., working groups of the IPCC, work programmes of the IPBES).
9 Clear interlinkages are needed between the SDGs and other existing mechanisms. Therefore, acoordination mechanism may be necessary.
9 Whatever new mechanism is created, it cannot only focus on a few “priority” issues. Otherwise manyof the issues would not get the attention they deserve, thereby weakening the SDGs.

Model 2: Thematic Task Forcesx Description and purpose
In this model, oversight of the SDGs would be assigned to thematic task forces that are either working on

03

specific goals, or on cross-cutting issues, to move beyond “silos” (UNGA 2015b, para 85). In contrast to
the Extended Global Expert Panel, the task forces themselves would not be permanent, but rather, always
flexibly constructed by a permanent steering board in response to the respective annual theme of the HLPF
or the subset of goals chosen for the annual thematic reviews. There could be a choice of two approaches
for the form of task forces: (1) inter-governmental, or (2) non-governmental. Their annual working cycles
would have to be organized in a way that their output could inform the regular HLPF sessions and cover all
17 SDGs within its four-year reporting cycle. As for the inter-governmental bodies, the collection of thematic
reporting by UN agencies or other inter-governmental bodies inside and outside the UN system could
form one option. A non-governmental approach could, for example, follow the IUCN model of bottom-up(voluntary) involvement of expert task forces. In both options, the task forces should also engage withall relevant stakeholders and align with the working cycles of the HLPF and the SDG Progress Report.
Additional task forces could be created to deal with emerging issues, orphan goals, or cross-cutting issues.
x Who appoints members
In the inter-governmental approach, the chairs, steering committee and other members of the task forces
could be nominated by the relevant UN agencies or programmes, thereby using their existing mandates,
resources and expertise. A major role in this process could be assigned to the respective chief scientistsof the agencies or programmes and science organizations (like Future Earth or SDSN) could be invited toparticipate. However, the criteria of accreditation and selection processes must be transparent and public,
and should be overseen by the HLPF, to lend legitimacy. In the non-governmental approach, concerned
experts would voluntarily cooperate in bottom-up, problem-specific initiatives, perhaps organized bynational and international science organizations like Future Earth.
x Options for organizational responsibility (who runs the secretariat)
The composition of the task forces and annual reviews would be aligned with the annual theme of the HLPF
or the subset of goals chosen for the annual thematic review. The task forces would be coordinated by apermanent (inter-agency) steering body and supported by a secretariat, based either in the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) or outside the UN system. The secretariat could
coordinate the task forces, each of which might need to establish a technical support unit to coordinate andmanage scientific knowledge. The reports of the task forces would feed into a synthesis report, for example
the GSDR. The report would also showcase best practices and lessons learned, would also look at the nexus
of topics or cross cutting issues, and conduct its own reviews of specific areas related to the SDGs.
x How to secure vertical linkage (from national to global and vice versa), where needed
In both approaches, task forces could form around relevant goals or cross-cutting issues at the (sub-)nationaland regional levels. However, capacities to conduct reviews vary greatly between countries, and not allgoals and targets are equally important for all countries and regions. A central role in this model could
therefore be assigned to regional forums (UNGA 2015b, paragraph 81) to organize regional efforts and toreport to the global level. National and regional synthesis reports could be created to make the reviews
more accessible and relevant to (sub-)national governments and stakeholders.
x

04

Pros and cons
¾ Each task force would focus on its respective goals and clusters and deliver its results for thesynthesis report to the higher levels—either the steering body at the HLPF or the respective
national or regional forums (in case of national or regional synthesis reports).
¾ The publishing of synthesis reports at all levels could help to engage (sub-)national policymakers
and stakeholders and to make the results more meaningful to them.
¾ A task force for every goal would be complex and could easily overstretch resources; therefore,
some kind of clustering (e.g., cross-cutting issues or nexus of topics) might be advisable; thisclustering would also avoid the danger of “silo” thinking.
¾ What could be done to include stakeholders and non-scientific knowledge? By opening up
participation to relevant stakeholders, legitimacy increases, but scientific integrity may decrease.

¾ Incentive structures for scientists need to be considered, especially for the non-governmental
option.
¾ The different reporting cycles of UN organizations are a major disadvantage for the synthesis
reports and should be aligned, wherever possible.
¾ Legitimacy is high, but involvement of science organizations on all levels could give the task
forces greater credibility in the science communities.
x Other ideas and alternatives
9 Model could be combined with separate mechanisms on emerging issues; for example, the foresightconference or the roster model.
9 Funding needs to be considered to support scientists’ involvement: One option could be theestablishment of a dedicated voluntary fund (maybe outside the UN).
9 For the non-governmental option, a competition model similar to that used by the IUCN could be
utilized to address specific issues arising during the implementation of the SDGs: policymakers would
formulate questions and problems, and the concerned scientists or science organizations would
consider what their communities can offer. This would result in many proposals policymakers could
choose from. Also, the HLPF could provide legitimacy for the process.

Model 3: Network of Networksx Description and purpose
The “network of networks” would be a science-policy interface to bring together a wide range of existing
information and assessments on sustainable development, and conduct reviews in a comprehensive mannerat the international level. However, in contrast to the previous models, the “network of networks” would not
be conducting its own scientific assessments, but rather, serving to do an “assessment of assessments.”
The GSDR would likely be a central node in a network of networks as the main assessment report thatwould inform discussions on sustainable development at the HLPF. The United Nations General Assembly
has mandated the HLPF to strengthen the science-policy interface “by examining documentation, bringing
together diverse information and assessments, including in the form of a global sustainable development
report, building on existing assessments, enhancing evidence-based decision-making at all levels andcontributing to the strengthening of ongoing capacity-building for data collection and analysis in developing
countries” (UNGA 2013, para. 20). The GSDR would be designed as an assessment of assessments, which
would reflect existing knowledge rather than produce new knowledge on sustainable development.
x Who appoints members
A coordinating body or clearing house mechanism would be located in the future HLPF secretariat to ensure
political oversight and close linkages to GSDR development. It could be assisted by a permanent Scientific
Advisory Board that would provide oversight and include chief scientists from each agency, representatives
from science organizations, and stakeholders.
x Options for organizational responsibility (who runs the secretariat)
A coordinating body or clearing house mechanism for the “network of networks” would be located in the
future HLPF secretariat to ensure political oversight and close linkages to GSDR development. It would
provide leadership in promoting and coordinating the implementation of the sustainable development
agenda of the United Nations. Its core functions would be divided into five categories: support to UN
inter-governmental processes on sustainable development; analysis and policy development; capacity
development at the national level; inter-agency coordination; and knowledge management, communicationand outreach.
x How to secure vertical linkage (from national to global and vice versa), where neededThis model would ensure vertical linkages through top-down reporting from the UN and bottom-up
verification from grassroots to regional levels. The global report would be informed by regional reports, tomake it more relevant for regional and national policymakers and stakeholders. UN regional commissions

05

could take the lead in compiling regional reports, thereby also drawing from and encouraging national
reporting.
xPros and cons
Pros
9 Already exists and has a mandate
9 Comparatively low cost, but coordination efforts necessary
9 Orchestration of dispersed information and assessments
9 Illustration of interlinkages across goals, sectors and issues
9 Provision of policy-relevant scientific knowledge.
9 Identification of priority issues
9 (Multi-)stakeholder engagement
9 Could be a periodically updated electronic report
9 Experience exists within UNDESA to translate scientific knowledge to policymakers and vice versa.
Cons
9 Possible lack of coherence9 Lack of independent analytic capacity or analysis which may be needed to truly synthesize existing
reports
9 Complexity of the issues and limited capacity within UNDESA

Model 4: Ad-hoc Rosterx Description and purpose
In this model, experts are selected from rosters at irregular intervals and on a temporary basis to review
specific thematic areas of SDGs implementation, follow-up and review, or emerging issues as the agenda
emerges. Ad-hoc rosters could be defined as registers of professionals and their respective areas of expertise.
They would be called upon to establish temporary technical expert groups only when there is a significant
assessment need, ideally always with due regard to geographical representation and gender balance. It
would be especially important for rosters to address thematic areas where implementation of the SDGs is
off-track or “orphan issues from the SDGs that don’t have a clear home in the UN” (ECOSOC President’s
Summary, p. 8). In addition they could be called upon to deal with emerging problems—globally, regionallyor nationally—or to address specific local or small-scale issues at the (sub-)national or regional levels.
x Who appoints members
The legitimacy of this model greatly depends on the appointment mechanisms. Rosters have been used inmany UN agencies and programmes in the past, and various approaches have been followed. Some arevery transparent and provide the possibility of self-registration (e.g., UNEP’s Roster of Experts1), while others
are more restrictive. Another approach, though arguably less appropriate for sustainable development, isthe Security Council Affairs Division (SCAD) Roster of Experts.2 It purposely avoids transparency as its
rosters are by invitation only and it does not reveal the identities of the experts. A weakness of the ad-hoc
roster model is its tendency in practice towards a lack of transparency in the selection and appointment
criteria. Thus, a feasible approach for the SDGs that would lend legitimacy to the process and build on
existing infrastructure could be the involvement of independent, non-governmental outside organizations
in nominating experts under the auspices of the HLPF, for instance the international science organizations.
A similar process could occur at regional and national levels where the respective assessment bodies(e.g., the regional commissions or governments) would involve the respective science organizations (e.g.,
regional chapters of science organizations or national academies of science). Alternatively, the model could
follow the approach of the UNFCCC Roster of Experts3 and assign the task of nomination of experts tonational focal points in the respective governments.

1 http://www.unep.org/gender/data/GenderExpertsRoster/FrequentlyAskedQuestions/tabid/54773/Default.aspx
2 http://www.un.org/sc/committees/expertroster/index.htm
3 http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/roster_of_experts/items/534.php

06

x Options for organizational responsibility (who runs the secretariat)
Depending on the final architecture of the science-policy interface for SDGs, the ad-hoc rosters could becreated and maintained by the relevant agency or programme designated as the lead for a particular SDG,
or in a centralized form by the ECOSOC secretariat, possibly in cooperation with the involvement of scienceorganizations. The same model could be applied to the regional and national levels to deal with more
localized challenges of SDG implementation.
x How to secure vertical linkage (from national to global and vice versa), where needed
The vertical linkages could be strengthened by the involvement of the national and regional chaptersof the science organizations in the process of nomination. Also, experts can be deployed at the mostappropriate level, not necessarily always global. This approach could also serve as a mechanism to ensure
the participation of experts from otherwise under-represented regions, while at the same time function asa capacity building measure.
x Pros and cons
Pros
9 Easy to establish, very flexible and low-cost
9 The UN has a lot of experience with this model and many agencies and programmes already haveexisting rosters (e.g., Democratic Governance Experts Roster (UNDP), Gender Experts Roster (UNEP),UN WOMEN roster, FAO Food Safety Expert Roster etc.)
9 The model can also be used to address small-scale or local issues by (sub-)national and regional bodies.
9 Experts can be selected for a specific issue, a specified period of time, and for specific deliverables.
9 Can build on existing mechanisms, mandates and resources.
Cons
9 The Integration of stakeholders and non-scientific knowledge is difficult due to the temporary natureof the assignments.
9 A roster once created has to be constantly updated.
9 Legitimacy and acceptance by the public and the science community are highly dependent on theappointment mechanisms (transparency, openness, involvement of science organizations etc.).
9 The public’s perception depends on the issues that are dealt with as well as on the reputation of theexperts involved
9 This model has no regular interaction and development of trust between scientists and policymakers
due to the temporary nature of the involvement and only few possibilities of interaction.

Model 5: Quadrennial Foresight Conferencex Description and purpose
A global “Foresight Conference” could serve to identify emerging problems in addition to the follow-up andreview process as the SDGs agenda evolves. The conference would be held every four years, a few months
ahead of the HLPF meetings under the UNGA, to allow enough time to provide input into the UNGA. The
conference could play the role of an “engagement platform” that facilitates an active interaction between
scientists, policymakers and other important stakeholders in order to translate scientific knowledge into
political language and vice versa. By doing so it would help to bridge the various timescales in which scientists,
governments and the UN system operate. The conference could also be complemented by smaller annual
events that focus on specific goals or issues. An example for this model of active engagement between
scientists and policymakers is the "Planet under Pressure" conference held in the run-up for Rio+20,4 but
it is also feasible to build on existing, regularly-held scientific meetings such as the World Science Forum
jointly organized by UNESCO, the European Commission and the International Council for Science (ICSU).5x Who appoints members, and options for organizational responsibility (who runs the secretariat)
The conference could be organized as an inter-governmental forum (e.g., under the auspices of the
HLPF or by an inter-agency science group), as a non-governmental scientific forum (e.g., organized by
4 http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/
5 http://www.sciforum.hu

07science organizations like ICSU and Future Earth), or as a combination of both. In all models a leadingorganizing role by the major science organizations is a prerequisite to lend the conference legitimacy inthe science community, as a leading role by the HLPF or another UN body would not provide the rightform of organizational support and incentives for scientists and science organizations. The organizational
responsibility of the conference(s) should thus rest with a steering body in which the science organizations
involved would collaborate with the relevant UN bodies. To lend more political legitimacy to the nongovernmental option, the agency’s chief scientists and the Secretary-General’s scientific advisory board
should be involved in the process.
x How to secure vertical linkage (from national to global and vice versa), where needed
In addition to the Quadrennial Foresight Conference, regular supporting conferences at the regional andnational levels could be held to address more local challenges. Analogous to the global level, they should
be organized as (inter-)governmental events (e.g., by the regional commissions) or as non-governmental
scientific forums by the national or regional chapters of international science organizations or by national
academies of science. The conference could serve to engage policymakers on these levels and to foster
exchanges between policymakers, scientists and stakeholders. While securing vertical linkages by feeding
outcomes into the global conference, these events could also double as a means of scientific capacity
building in developing regions.
x Pros and cons
Pros
If held simultaneously or back-to-back with HLPF meetings the conference could bring together
a wide range of stakeholders involved in delivering enhanced stewardship, including seniorpolicymakers, industry leaders, NGOs, development agencies and the media. In doing so it could
also draw crucial global media attention to the agenda and increase its visibility.
The regular conference(s) would provide a platform to translate the respective community’s
perceptions and expectations to each other and open new opportunities for scientists to get
involved in the policy process.
Cons
The events could prove to be expensive and have limited outcomes (e.g., at best a declaration,
instead of comprehensive assessments or detailed reports and policy options).

3. Discussion
The models presented in this report are not mutually exclusive, but should rather be seen as basic models
whose elements can be combined. For example, the Quadrennial Foresight Conference on emerging issues
might be a suitable addition to all other options, while the roster model could also provide ideas on how tocreate a pool of experts for the more institutionalized panel and task force options.
A number of aspects relevant to all five models need to be discussed.
First, the costs involved in setting up a new SPI body for the SDGs vary greatly between the suggested models.
However, the question of funding needs to be considered for all options as it seems very unlikely that member
states would be willing to fund what some perceive to be yet another costly UN body. The emergence of newdonors during the last decade, including philanthropies and other actors from the private sector, has opened up
new funding options that could be considered, even though the increased involvement of these outside actors
has also been widely criticized due to fears of their alleged influence on agenda-setting and the “privatization” of
the UN system’s functions (Global Policy Forum 2015). The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) could offera model to balance these issues by integrating external donors through enhanced participation rights, without
losing control over agenda-setting or the drafting of output documents.
Second, legitimacy is another important aspect that needs to be considered in all models. This includes not onlytransparent appointment mechanisms, but also efforts to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including08

policymakers, the private sector, civil society organizations, development agencies, and the media. Each option
should incorporate institutional mechanisms that ensure that they are not only assessing and generating scientificexpert knowledge, but also ensure a diverse representation of other important stakeholders in review protocols
and decision-making processes (Turnhout et al. 2012). An example of improved engagement with multiple
stakeholders is again the Committee on World Food Security that added the new category of “participants”
to its institutional structure during its reform in 2009. The CFS is trying to avoid the traditional “member” and“observer” distinction that characterizes many UN bodies, by endowing this new group with enhanced rights tointervene in the panel or to actively contribute to the preparation of documents and proceedings.
Third, as for the assurance of scientific quality and the commitment of scientists involved, one option could beto treat the scientists as hired consultants compensated with honorarium payments, for example through theestablishment of a dedicated voluntary fund (which would possibly be outside the UN). Although the voluntary(i.e., pro bono) participation of scientists would save resources and could possibly secure the involvement ofmotivated experts, it would not guarantee the participation of the most suitable or capable candidates available,
as the incentive structure in the academic world differs considerably from this approach. Alternative, nonfinancial incentives relevant in the academic community might include the acquisition of titles and authorships,
in particular, by engaging the young generation of scholars in need of scientific recognition, or the creation of
rewarding environments through participation in professional networks and communities.
Fourth, without compromising scientific quality, each model should incorporate measures to address
traditional barriers to the involvement of scientists from the developing world, such as language, financial
resources, or the lack of professional networks.

4. References
Global Policy Forum. 2015. Fit for whose purpose? Private funding and corporate influence in the United
Nations. Bonn, New York.
Turnhout, E., Bloomfield, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J., & Wynne, B. 2012. Conservation policy: Listen to thevoices of experience, Nature, 488(7412), pp. 454-455. doi:10.1038/488454a.
UNGA. 2012. The future we want. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. A /RES/66/288.
UNGA. 2013. Format and organizational aspects of the high-level political forum on sustainable development.
9 July 2013. A/RES/67/290.
UNGA. 2014. The road to dignity by 2030: ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet.
Synthesis report of the Secretary-General on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. A /69/700.
UNGA. 2015a. Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing forDevelopment. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2015. A/RES/69/313.
UNGA. 2015b. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted
by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1.
UNGA. 2016. Report of the Secretary-General on critical milestones towards coherent, efficient and inclusive
follow-up and review at the global level. 15 January 2016. A/70/684.

09Annex 1: Outline and Agenda of the workshop (19-20 June 2015)


WorkshopontheInstitutionalArchitecturefortheScienceͲpolicyInterfaceonthe
SustainableDevelopmentGoals
Date:19Ͳ20June2015
Venue:JapanSociety(333E47thSt,NewYork)


Backgroundandaimsoftheworkshop
AsthePostͲ2015DevelopmentAgendawillbelaunchedattheUNSummitinSeptember2015,theEarth
SystemGovernanceProject1,POST20152andKeioUniversitywilljointlyorganizeaworkshopwithpolicyͲ
makersandstakeholderstoexplorepossibleinstitutionalarchitectureofthescienceͲpolicyinterfacefor
implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The workshop is endorsed by Future
Earth, a ten year global research programme for sustainability, and the Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN). It is supported by the Ministry of the Environment Japan and the Japan
ScienceandTechnologyAgency(JSPS).

TheimportanceofthescienceͲpolicyinterfaceforthesuccessfulimplementationofthenewagendahas
beenrepeatedlystated.Amongstothers,theRio+20outcomedocument‘TheFutureWeWant’aimedto “promote a strong scienceͲpolicy interface, building on existing international instruments,
assessments,panelsandinformationnetworks(…)asoneoftheprocessesaimedatbringingtogether
information and assessment to support informed decisionͲmaking” (paragraph 48). The Secretary
Generalfurtheremphasizedtheimportanceinhissynthesisreport‘TheRoadtoDignityby2030’,by
statingthatatransformationalanduniversalPostͲ2015Developmentagendaneedstobe“buttressed
byscienceandevidence”(paragraph49).ThiswasalsoechoedintherecentzerodraftoftheoftheoutcomedocumentfortheUNSummittoadoptthePostͲ2015DevelopmentAgenda‘Transformingour
worldby2030’thatrecognizes”thecentralrolethatscience,technologyandinnovationplayinenablingtheinternationalcommunitytorespondtosustainabledevelopmentchallenges”(paragraph33).With this background,the workshop will focus on the role of science and scientific assessments and
inputs in the implementation as well as review and monitoring processes of the Sustainable
DevelopmentGoals.Theworkshopwillconsiderwhattypesofknowledgewouldfacilitatesuccessful
implementationandmonitoringprocessofSustainableDevelopmentGoals,howsuchknowledgecould
be inserted in the global SDGs process, and what institutional architectures would enhance overalleffectivenessfromglobaltoregionalandnationallevelscienceͲpolicyinterfacesfortheSDGs.
One of the challenges for effective institutional architecture for the SDGs is ways to accommodate
effective scienceͲpolicy interface throughout all stages of the PostͲ2015 Development agenda.
Transdisciplinarity requires “coͲdesign” the agenda before “coͲproduction” and “coͲdelivery” of theoutcome.Thisworkshopthereforealsodiscussesthemethodologyfortransdisciplinaryresearchandits
practicalapplicationfortheSDGs.






1www.earthsystemgovernance.org

2ResearchprojectundertheEnvironmentResearchandTechnologyDevelopmentFund,MinistryoftheEnvironment,Japan.

www.post2015.jp/en

10

1/2

Annex 1: Outline and Agenda of the workshop (19-20 June 2015)

2/2





OrganizationoftheworkshopandguidingquestionsOnthefirstday,practitionersandacademicswillsharetheirviews,generatenewideas,andidentify
optionsoftheinstitutionalarchitecture.Onthesecondday,participantswilldiscusshowtheoutputoftheworkshopcaninformtheongoingpolicyprocess.Introductorypresentationswillbegiveninorder
todevelopacommonunderstandingwithregardtothecurrentstatusofthenegotiationsontheSDGs
and its scienceͲpolicy interface. A series of small group discussion will follow to generate new and
innovativeideasforinstitutionalarchitectureinfaceofthechallengesprovidedbytheSDGs.Summaries
ofthe smallgroupdiscussionswillbereportedback totheplenarywheretheywillserveas basisto
furtherdevelopideas.ChathamHouseruleswillapply.
Thefollowingquestionsareexamplesofthosethatwillbeaddressedattheworkshop:
1. What is the role of scientific knowledge for the transformation towards sustainabledevelopment within the framework of the SDGs, especially considering the need to address
simultaneouslyhumanandplanetarywellͲbeinginavarietyofthematicareassuchasfoodand
agriculture,transformationofenergyandthetransformationoflifestyles?
2. What are the options for institutional design for scienceͲpolicy interface for the PostͲ2015
DevelopmentAgenda?Forexample,doesglobalassessmentmodelsuchasIPCCworkforthe
SDGs,orwoulditbeacollectionofthematicreviewandassessmentthatenableseffectiveSDGs
process? Or, does a series of (regional or thematic) expert consultation work better for theSDGs?
3. What institutional architecture enables transdisciplinary research development with theresearchoutcomebeingusableforpolicyͲmakersandstakeholders?Whatwouldbeaneffective
feedbacksystemfortheresultofreview(scientificassessments)oftheSDGstothesubsequent
policyͲmakingprocesses?
4. HowtolinkglobalscienceͲpolicyinterfacearchitecturewithregionalandnationallevel,andvice
versa?Whatrolecanindicatorsplay?

Thesequestionsareindicativeandmightchangeasthediscussionevolves.


OutlookoftheworkshopDay1:19June
9.15Ͳ9.30
Coffee9.30Ͳ10.30 OpeningandIntroductoryPresentations(includingQ&A)
10.30Ͳ12.30 Discussion1:BreakͲoutandplenarydiscussions(2hours)
12.30Ͳ14.00 Lunch
14.00Ͳ15.30 Discussion2:BreakͲoutandplenarydiscussions(1.5hours)
15.30Ͳ15.45 Coffeebreak
15.45Ͳ17:15 Discussion3:BreakͲoutandplenarydiscussions(1.5hours)
17.15Ͳ17.30 WrapͲupDay2:20June
9.30Ͳ11.00 Discussionsontheoutcomedocumentoftheworkshop
11.00Ͳ11.15 Coffeebreak
11.15Ͳ12.45 Discussions(continued)
12.45Ͳ13.00 Conclusionsandclosing

11Annex 2: Summary Table - Institutional Architecture of SPI for the SDGs


Scope&levelof
institutionalizĂͲtion

Organizational
structure

Appointment
bywhom?

Output/
Deliverables

ExtendedGlobalExpert
PanelontheSDGs
Thepermanentworkinggroupsofthepanelcoverall17SDGs.Additional
projectgroupscanbe
createdtodealwith
emergingissues,orphangoals,orcrossͲcuttingissues.

ThematicTaskForces

Thepanelwillneedanew
boardtogovernthe
organizationaswellasasecretariatinsideor
outsideoftheUNto
supporttheboardandto
coordinaterelevant
stakeholders(scientists,
governments,NGOs).Each
goalmightrequireatechnicalsupportunitrun
byuniversityorresearch
institutestocoordinateandmanagescientific
knowledge.Interlinked
assessmentsare
coordinatedthrougha
steeringcommitteeinalignmentwiththeannualthemeoftheHLPForthesubsetofgoalschosenfor
theannualthematic
review.
Governmentsnominate
expertsfromacademiathroughnationalfocal
points.Governmentscould
alsonominatenational
stakeholdersincasethemodelincludesmultiͲ
stakeholdersinthepaneltoensuregreater
legitimacy.Such
stakeholdersmayinclude
policymakersandexperts
relatedtothedifferent
SDGs–fromtheprivate
sectorandNGOs.

Ownassessmentsfeed
intotheannualGSDR.A
comprehensive
quadrennialreportwill
informtheHLPFunderthe
UNGA.

ThecompositionoftheTask
Forcesandtheannual
reviewsarealignedwiththe
annualthemeoftheHLPF
orthesubsetofgoals
chosenfortheannual
thematicreview.Theyare
coordinatedbya
permanent(interͲagency)
steeringbodyand
supportedbyasecretariat
eitherbasedinUNDESAor
outsidetheUN.

UNDESAcoordinatesthedraftingofthethematic
reporting,drawingoninput
fromUNagenciesand
programmes,otherintergovernmentalbodiesandforums,thescientific
communityandotherstakeholders.Theannual
GSDR’sfocuswillbealignedwiththeannualthemeoftheHLPForthesubsetofgoalschosenfortheannual
thematicreviewTwodifferentoptionsare
possible:aninterͲ
governmentalmodel,
wheretheexpertsare
assignedthroughgovernmentinvolvement,orabottomͲupmodel,led
bytheglobalscientific
organizations,where
expertsarechosenthroughopencalls.

Acoordinatingbodyor
clearinghousemechanism
shouldbelocatedinthe
futureHLPFsecretariatto
ensurepoliticaloversight
andcloselinkagestothe
GSDRdevelopment.ItcouldbeassistedbyapermanentScientificAdvisoryBoardthatwouldprovide
oversightandincludesthe
chiefscientistsfromeachagency,representatives
fromscienceorganizationsandstakeholders.

Twodifferentoptionsare
possible:abottomͲup
approach,whereacommonsteering
committeeofglobal
scientificorganizations
initiatetheworkinggroups
oraUNleadmodel,whereforexampleaninterͲ
agencysteeringbody
wouldkeeptherostersandestablishtheworkinggroups.

Organizedbyscienceorganizations,
integrationintopolicy
processthroughinvolvementofHLPF
andother
representativesin
SteeringGroupOwnannualassessments
informtheGSDR/HLPF.

Orchestrationofthematic
reportingandadditional
overarchingreview(assessmentofassessments)informofthe
GSDR.

Asummaryreporton
emergingissuescould
feedintotheGSDR
andinformthe
workingprogrammes
ofscienceorganizations.

TheTaskForcescouldform
aroundrelevantgoalsor
crossͲcuttingissuesonthe(subͲ)nationalandregional
levelsaswell.Acentralroleinthismodelcould
thereforebeassignedto
regionalforumstoorganize
regionaleffortsandtoreporttothegloballevel.

Theglobalreportshouldbe
informedbyregional
reportstomakeitmore
relevantforregionaland
nationalpolicymakersand
stakeholders.TheUN
regionalcommissioncould
taketheleadincompilingtheregionalreports,
therebyalsodrawingfromandencouragingnational
reporting.

OwnassessmentscanfeedintheGSDRorinirregularreportsfocusingon
specificthematicissues.
ResearchcouldbecoͲ
designedandtheoutput
deliveredrelatively
quickly.
Similarrosterscouldbe
createdattheregional
andnationallevelswheretherespectiveassessmentbodies(e.g.,theregional
commissionsor
governments)would
involvetherespectivescienceorganizations(e.g.,
regionalchaptersofscienceorganizationsor
nationalacademiesofscience).

Verticallinkages Directlinkthroughnationalgovernment
involvement.







12

FlexibleTaskForcesare
constructedtocoverall17
SDGswithina4yearreportingcycle.Additional
Taskforcescanbecreated
todealwithemerging
issues,orphangoals,or
crossͲcuttingissues.NetworkofNetworks
(GSDR)
Annualreportsandaquadrennialcomprehensive
editionwillcoverall17
SDGswithina4yearreportingcycle.
AdͲhocExpertRoster

Quadrennial
ForesightConference
Expertsarechosenin
Conferencewillbe
irregularintervalsandona heldeveryfouryears
temporarybasistoreview inalignmentwiththe
specificproblematicareas HLPFunderUNGAtooftheSDGs
focusspecificallyon
implementation,followͲup emergingIssuesorandrevieworemergingorphangoals.
issuesastheagenda

emerges.
Themajorglobal
Themodelcouldeither
involveindependent,nonͲ scienceorganizationsandresearchfunding
governmentaloutside
agencieswillleadthe
organizations(e.g.,
internationalscienceplanningofthe
organizations)in
conferencein
nominatingexpertsunder coordinationwiththe
theauspicesoftheHighHLPFandrelevantLevelPoliticalForum
scientificUNbodies(HLPF),oralternatively,it
suchastheagency’s
couldassignthe
sciencecommissionsnominationofexpertsto
andchiefscientists.
nationalfocalpointsinthe
respectivegovernments
(IPCCapproach).

Theconferencecanbe
complementedwith
similarregionalevents
focusingonlocalized
issues,perhapsheld
beforetheglobal
conferencetoprovide
input.

The Project On Sustainability Transformation beyond 2015 (POST2015) aims at contributing to theestablishment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and thereby to the transformation towards
global sustainability. The project was supported by the Environment Research and Technology
Development Fund (ERTDF) as its strategic research project (FY 2013-2015) by the Ministry of theEnvironment, Japan. The project was organized by Keio University.
http://www.post2015.jp/

The United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) is a leading
research and teaching institute based in Tokyo, Japan. Its mission is to advance efforts towards a moresustainable future, through policy-relevant research and capacity development focused on sustainability
and its social, economic and environmental dimensions. UNU-IAS serves the international community,
making valuable and innovative contributions to high-level policymaking and debates within the UN
system. The activities of the institute are in three thematic areas: sustainable societies, natural capitaland biodiversity, and global change and resilience. ias.unu.edu

Earth System Governance — a global research alliance, is the largest social science research networkin the area of governance and global environmental change. The Earth System Governance researchalliance takes up the challenge of exploring political solutions and novel, more effective governancemechanisms to cope with the current transitions in the biogeochemical systems of the planet. The
normative context of this research is sustainable development; earth system governance is not only
a question of institutional effectiveness, but also of political legitimacy and social justice. www.
earthsystemgovernance.org

This report is a product of the Governance for Sustainable Development (GSD) programme of UNUIAS. For further details of the programme, please contact the Programme Head, Norichika Kanie (kanie@
unu.edu).