J. Jäger/E.Dyck/Jan. 2004 1 Science Initiative on Strengthening the Scientific Base of UNEP

J. Jäger/E.Dyck/Jan. 20041

Science Initiative onStrengthening the Scientific Base

of UNEP

Science Initiative on Strengthening the Scientific Base of UNEP


UNEP GC/GMEF Consultative Process

Decision GC22/1 I A invited Governments, IGOs, NGOs and scientific institutions for views on

3 questions and 8 considerations

relating to assessment of environment and environmental change and the work of UNEP and other organizations in this area



UNEP GC/GMEF Consultative Process

627 Governments and Institutions contacted to provide views on GC questions and considerations, and on optional supplementary questions by UNEP

122 substantive responses received by 12 Nov. 03: 59 Governments, 21 IGOs, 17 NGOs, 25 scientific institutions

In total, 153 responses received by 8 Jan 04: 75 Governments, 28 IGOs, 23 NGOs and 27 scientific institutions - additional responses at

http:// science.unep.org



Geographical Distribution of Government Responses

Geographical distribution of Governments

participating in the Science Initiative

Africa

Asia and the Pacific

Europe

Latin America & Caribbean

North America

W est Asia



Geographical Distribution of 75 Governmentsparticipating in the Science Initiative

(as of 8 January 2004 )

Africa

Asia and the Pacific

Europe

Latin America & Caribbean

North America

West Asia



Governments‘ Self-Evaluation of Participation in Environmental Assessments

10.2%

20.3%

62.7%

37.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Global Level RegionalLevel

NationalLevel

Sub-nationalLevel

Governments: Extensive Participation in Environmental Assessments



Scientific Institutions‘ Self-Evaluation of Participation in Environmental Assessments

36.0%40.0%

32.0%

20.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%


NationalLevel

Sub-nationalLevel

Scientific Institutions: Extensive Participation in Environmental Assessments



Governments‘ Self-Evaluation of Knowledge of UNEP‘s Work in Environmental Assessments

30.5%23.7% 27.1% 22.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%


NationalLevel

Sub-nationalLevel

Governments: Extensive Knowledge of UNEP's Work in Environmental Assessment



Scientific Institutions‘ Self-Evaluation of Knowledge of UNEP‘s Work in Environmental Assessments

44.0%

36.0%

16.0%8.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%


NationalLevel

Sub-nationalLevel

SIs: Extensive Knowledge of UNEP's Work in Environmental Assessment



GC22/1 I A: Question 2 (a)

What are the likely gaps and types of assessment needs with respect to the environment and environmental change?



GC22/1 I A 3. (a) to (h)

8 Considerations:(a) Scientific credibility, saliency, legitimacy and relevance in the

assessment processes(b) Interaction between science and policy development(c) The role of existing institutions(d) Possible options including strengthening existing institutions and

mechanisms and the establishment of an IPEC(e) Links and sectoral integration(f) Duplication, cooperation, complementarity and added value to the

work of the assessment processes, international agonies and the multilateral environmental agreements

(g) Cost-effectiveness and efficiency(h) Developing country participation and capacity-building



Gaps and Needs

Assessment of existing environmental challenges

Assessment of interlinkages (scale, sectors, human-environment system, Millennium Development Goals)

Scientific credibility, legitimacy and relevance in assessment processes

Cost-effectiveness, cooperation and strengthening of existing institutions

Developing country participation and capacity building



GC22/1 I A: Question 2 (b)

How are the United Nations Environment Programme and other organizations currently meeting assessment needs?



Meeting Assessment Needs (1)

UNEP plays an important role in partnerships at global and regional levels and in catalyzing support for regional, sub-regional and national level assessments, but

Increase in complexity of environmental problems requires further strengthening of UNEP‘s work in this area



Meeting Assessment Needs (2)

Difference of views on how UNEP and other organizations meet those needs

Need for strengthening support to regional and subregional integrated assessments

Better address linkages across all levels of assessment

Need for financial resources for environmental assessment processes

Harnessing S&T for sustainable development



Suggestions for Meeting Assessment Needs (1)

Creation of regional science councils and strengthening of links between regions

Priority setting

Development of an assessment and methodological framework (also to include civil society, business and industry etc in assessment processes)



Suggestions (2)

Rationalizing of resources in UNEP/DEWA to focus on assessment products and use the resources of other UNEP centers

Revitalization of Earthwatch to improve UN system-wide integration on environmental issues

Strengthening of the UN University as a think-tank for environmental assessments

Strengthening and expansion of existing institutions, e.g., IPCC

Institutional re-organization within the UN system



Suggestions (3)

Quality assurance of data used in assessment processes

Intergovernmental panel(s) established by UNEP (panel(s) with independent scientists concerned with multiple level assessment needs)

Strengthening of national institutions and links to regional assessment processes and to global change research and funding programmes (e.g. IGBP, IHDP, WCRP, DIVERSITAS, IAI and APN)



GC22/1 I A: Question 2 (c)

What options exist with respect to meeting any unfulfilled needs that fall within the role and mandate of the United Nations Environment Programme?



Proposed Options

Strengthening local and regional capacities for integrated environmental assessment

Setting priorities for global environmental change issues and rationalizing assessment activities

Strengthening cooperation with scientific institutions, academia and within the interagency system

Improving access to data and information

Improving links to policy-making



An Intergovernmental Panel on Global Environmental Change (IPEC)

Arguments for: mechanism for cross-cutting analyses of GEC, integration, coordination of assessments, interdisciplinary cooperation between sectors, MEAs and for ensuring effective communication between knowledge and action communities

Arguments against: impossible to represent the myriad of disciplines, risks of duplication, cost-effectiveness



An Intergovernmental Panel on Global Environmental Change (IPEC)

Agree on the needs and functions of such a panel

An IPEC receives support and strengthening of existing institutions is a priority

See results of Question 5, UNEP Questionnaire:Preference for: Strengthening UNEP‘s current assessment activities

An improved UN system-wide Earthwatch mechanism

A clearing-house mechanism for monitoring and assessment activities

A global Assessment Compact or partnerhsip on monitoring and assessment of GEC



Optional Supplementary Questions by UNEP Question 2

(UNEP Questionnaire)

How well are the different thematic areas being covered by existing assessments?



Thematic Areas of Assessments in Question 2

2.1 Atmosphere 2.15 Environment & technology2.2 Biodiversity 2.16 Environment & trade2.3 Chemicals 2.17 Forests2.4 Climate 2.18 Freshwater2.5 Consumption & production 2.19 Global environmental change2.6 Coastal areas 2.20 Land and soil2.7 Deserts and arid lands 2.21 Mountain areas2.8 Environment related disasters 2.22 Polar areas2.9 Ecosystem services 2.23 Oceans and marine2.10 Energy 2.24 Small island developing

states2.11 Environment & agriculture 2.25 Sustainable development2.12 Environment & conflict 2.26 Transport2.13 Environment & human health 2.27 Urban areas2.14 Environment & poverty 2.28 Waste management



Thematic Areas “not well covered“ (1)

Thematic Areas Covered "Not At All Well"

by Existing Global Environmental Asssessment (2.1 - 2.14)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Gov.

IGOs

NGOs

SIs




Thematic Areas Covered "Not At All Well"by Existing Global Environmental Asssessment (2.15 - 2.28)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Gov.

IGOs

NGOs

SIs




All respondent groups found that four thematic areas were not well covered:

Ecosystem servicesEnvironment and conflictEnvironment and povertyEnvironment and trade

Three of four respondent groups found two additional areas not well covered:

Consumption and productionSustainable development



Optional Supplementary Questions by UNEPQuestion 5


Respondents’ views on options 5.1 to 5.11 suggested by UNEP to meet unfulfilled needs and gaps relating to environmental assessments



Options for meeting unfulfilled needs and gaps (1)

All respondent groups expressed a clear preference for:

5.1 Strengthening UNEP‘s current assessment activities

5.2 An improved UN system-wide Earthwatch mechanism

5.3 A clearing-house mechanism for monitoring and assessment activities

5.4 A Global Assessment Compact or Partnership on monitoring and assessment of GEC



Options for meeting unfulfilled needs and gaps (2)

All Groups:

Percentages of high and low preferences for Options 5.1 - 5. 11

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11

High Preference Low Preference



Government Responses to Question 5

Governments: Percentages of high and low preferences

for Options 5.1 - 5. 11

0%5%

10%15%

20%25%30%

35%40%

45%50%

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11




Scientific Institutions Responses to Question 5

Scientific Institutions: Percentages of high and low preferences

for Options 5.1 - 5. 11

0%5%

10%

15%20%25%30%35%

40%45%50%

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11




Optional Supplementary Questions by UNEPQuestion 6


Optional Statements: Clarification of issues related to the implementation of

decision 22/1 I A (Statements 6.1 – 6.6)



6.1 The current international institutional arrangements for assessing environment and env. change are effectively responding to the

information needs of policy and decison makers

0.8%

27.9%

34.4%

1.6% 1.6%

33.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

% % % % % %

Strongly Agree

Agree Dis-agree

Strongly Disagree

No Opinion

Blank

All Groups:Degree of Agreement with Statement 6.1



Conclusions (1)

The thematic area “Atmosphere” and “Climate” are very well covered by assessment processes

Areas considered to be not well covered are:

Consumption and productionEcosystems servicesEnvironment and conflictEnvironment and povertyEnvironment and tradeSustainable development



Conclusions (2)

The following options are supported:

Strengthening UNEP’s current assessment activities

An improved UN system-wide Earthwatch mechanism

A clearing-house for monitoring and assessment activities

A Global Assessment Compact or Partnership on monitoring and assessment of global environ-mental change



Conclusions (3)

A pilot phase for an Intergovernmental Panel on Monitoring and Assessment of Global Environmental Change (IPEC) received mixed support

Assessment of environment and environmental change should include:

research priorities future assessment priorities policy relevant conclusions policy options policy recommendations information to support policy implementation



Conclusions (4)

The options provided in the Questionnaire for enhancing scientific credibility, relevance and legitimacy were supported, except for “An intergovernmental process where the findings are subject to Adoption or Approval”, which received considerably less support

There is a strongly perceived need for capacity building to ensure participation of developing country experts in the assessments



Conclusions (5)

Capacity building requires, in particular, training, financial resources, and tools and methodologies.

Strengthening the monitoring and assessment of environment and environmental change requires

improved collaboration

linkages between global, regional, national and local assessments

support for developing countries



Conclusions (6)

There is an urgent need for support and funding to allow UNEP to achieve the goals and targets set by the GC/GMEF.

Documents

J. Jäger/E.Dyck/Jan. 2004 1 Science Initiative on Strengthening the Scientific Base of UNEP