3.4 Knowledge co-production and science-policy engagement

Summary

Knowledge production and learning related to ESTPs face significant challenges, with implications for effective science-policy interactions. Scientific knowledge about ESTPs is increasingly reflected in IPCC assessment reports, but governance actors are not yet using this growing knowledge base sufficiently. Lack of awareness, misconceptions and learning challenges limit the demand for, and use of, existing scientific insights. At the same time, engagement with tipping points in the social sciences and humanities is lagging.

The knowledge needed to understand, assess and support governance efforts related to ESTPs in a polycentric setting must be solutions-oriented, context-specific and actor-relevant. Anticipatory knowledge and related capacities for making sense of and acting with regard to uncertain futures (e.g. complex systems thinking) are essential tools for decision makers. Currently dominant patterns of knowledge co-production and science-policy engagement do not foster learning and anticipatory capacity-building sufficiently to generate robust and actionable knowledge for policy. To effectively support governance efforts related to ESTPs across multiple scales, knowledge production should be inter and transdisciplinary, and increasingly participatory. Developing capacities for anticipation requires expanded use of methods like participatory scenario development, roleplay simulations and storytelling, which combine quantitative and qualitative data, foster participants’ ability to deal with uncertainty, and strengthen long-term agency.

Experiments with some of these approaches are currently taking place in global knowledge-generating institutions like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). However, more profound changes to current science-policy interface institutions and processes will be needed to support effective decision making on ESTPs. The needed knowledge-production and capacity-building processes are more resource intensive and require more time (longer and more frequent engagement) than common science-policy interactions. They are also difficult to include in the scope of international institutions like the IPCC. Regional (e.g. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) and national scientific organisations (e.g. national academies of science) and policy advisory bodies might be best suited to drive innovation and progress in this domain.