Three
questions with Felix Dodds
 |
| Thomas Roswall with Felix Dodds at ICSU Habitat X |
In every edition of Science X HLPF, we speak to a scientist or
expert involved in the implementation of the SDGs. This week, we speak to
Felix Dodds, Global Research Institute
Senior Fellow at the Water Institute and a prominent observer of UN
processes, about the "Major Groups" — which are a system for
stakeholder groups to participate in UN processes.
Could you tell us about the history of the Major Group for
Science and Technology? Why was it created and what was it supposed to
do? Was this a first in the UN system?
In the runup to the Rio Earth Summit (1992), Maurice Strong, who was the
Secretary General for the Summit, recognized that it was important to
have ‘different stakeholder’ views – not only in developing Agenda 21,
but also in helping to deliver it. This approach was a departure from the
default model of grouping all NGOs together as “civil society”.
 |
| ICSU at Habitat III |
The Earth Summit recognized nine stakeholders, including the Science and
Technology Community. For the first time, science and technology were
given a seat at the table to ensure that member states could hear the
latest scientific evidence. But the new system also enabled women
to have a chance to explain the gender aspect of policies. It ensured
that the next generation – youth and children – and Indigenous Peoples
would have a voice. It also brought in local government as a stakeholder,
recognizing that in many cases they would be important partners in
delivering the outcomes.
Most of these ‘stakeholder groups’ organized global conferences to
develop input for the Earth Summit’s main outcome document. In
particular, the scientific community gathered in November 1991 to develop
input for the Earth Summit at the Vienna International Conference on an
Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the Twenty-first
Century (ASCEND 21). The conference was organized by the International Council
of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and the Third World Academy of Sciences
(TWAS).
After the Earth Summit, as governments established their Councils of
Commissions for Sustainable Development, nearly all of these started by
engaging the national leaders of each of the Major Groups. These bodies
then played a key role in the years after the Rio 92 conference in
ensuring effective follow-up at the national level.
Broadly speaking, how has the S & T Major Group evolved
since its creation?
The Major Groups have developed in interesting ways since 1992. The
approach has expanded to many of the environmental conventions, UNEP, and
conference processes related to sustainable development. This has
enlarged the space for different and, in many cases, unique views from
the different stakeholders to be heard.
Some of the most successful outcomes in policy terms driven by Major
Groups since 1992 occurred during the years 1998-2002 of the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). The introduction of the
multi-stakeholder dialogues was revolutionary at the time. Member states
gave up two days of negotiations at the beginning of a two-week CSD for
four three-hour sessions where three or four stakeholder groups presented
their views and had a dialogue with member states on issue that CSD would
address. These processes helped build trust and understanding and,
therefore, a better set of policies for the CSDs. Since then, this
approach has been replicated in a number of different fora.
The scientific community’s input to Rio+20 included a series of policy
briefs released at the Planet Under Pressure Conference, as well as the
outcomes of the conference itself. The conference was positioned a little
late in the preparatory process. If the preparatory process had been going
well (it wasn’t), it would have provided an important contribution to the
Future We Want. I would always advise that stakeholder conferences need
to take place at least 18 months in advance to generate substantive
inputs for the agenda.
What is the role of the Major Group for Science and Technology
in SDGs process? And at the High Level Political Forum (HLPF)?
The role of the Major Group for Science and Technology should be all
about ensuring that the best science is put forward and challenging things
when it isn’t. It’s about helping policy makers understand science and
where to find information so that it can inform decisions, and proposing
other views on solutions without being prescriptive.
With regards to the HLPF, the key problem is that the outcome document –
which is meant to be based on learning and discussion of what has
happened in implementing particular goals – is negotiated before the HLPF
meets. It’s done through an informal process during June, which requires
lobbyists to be in New York for a month to secure the kind of outcome
that reflects the interest of the scientific community. This is not just
a problem for the Major Group of Science and Technology, it’s a problem
for all the Major Groups.
The HLPF needs to be reformed, and that issue will be addressed in
October 2019. In the meantime, it would be great to have the Science and
Technology Major Group come forward with suggestions on what this reform
should look like.
|
Comments
Post a Comment