Designing
a
new
science-policy
communication
mechanism
for
the
UN
Convention
to
Combat
Deserti
fication
M.
Akhtar-Schuster
a,
F.
Amiraslani
b,
C.F.
Diaz
Morejon
c,
R.
Escadafal
d,
E.
Fulajtar
e,
A.
Grainger
f,*
,
K.
Kellner
g,
S.I.
Khan
h,
O.Perez
Pardo
i,
U.
Sauchanka
j,
L.C.
Stringer
k,
Fasil
Reda
l,
R.J.
Thomas
m,na
SecretariatDesertNetInternational,c/oBiocentreKleinFlottbekandBotanicalGarden,UniversityofHamburg,Hamburg,Germany
b
DepartmentofGISandRemoteSensing,FacultyofGeography,UniversityofTehran,Iran
cMinisteriodeCiencia,TecnologíayMedioAmbiente,Cuba
dCESBIO,UniversitédeToulouse,IRD/CNES/CNRS/UPS,Toulouse,France e
NationalAgriculturalandFoodCentre,SoilScienceandConservationResearchInstitute,Bratislava,Slovakia
f
SchoolofGeography,UniversityofLeeds,UnitedKingdom
g
North-WestUniversity,Potchefstroom,SouthAfrica
h
SustainableLandManagementProgramme(UNDP),Planning&DevelopmentDepartment,Peshawar,Pakistan
i
NationalSecretariatofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment,BuenosAires,Argentina
jBelgorhimprom,Minsk,Belarus
kSustainabilityResearchInstitute,SchoolofEarthandEnvironment,UniversityofLeeds,UnitedKingdom l
AgriculturalTransformationAgency,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia
m
UnitedNationsUniversity,InstituteforWater,EnvironmentandHealth,Hamilton,Canada
n
NowatCGIARCRPDrylandsSystems,c/oInternationalCenterforAgriculturalResearchintheDryAreas(ICARDA),Amman,Jordan
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory:
Received8September2015
Receivedinrevisedform21January2016 Accepted21March2016
Availableonline6June2016
Keywords: Landdegradation
Scienceandtechnologystudies Science-advisorybodies Globalenvironmentalgovernance Scientificautonomy
Science-policyinterface
ABSTRACT
TheUnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification(UNCCD)haslackedanefficientmechanismto accessscientificknowledgesinceenteringintoforcein1996.In2011itdecidedtoconveneanAdHoc WorkingGrouponScientificAdvice(AGSA)andgaveitauniquechallenge:todesignanewmechanism forscience-policycommunicationbasedonthebestavailablescientificevidence.Thispaperoutlinesthe innovative‘modularmechanism’whichtheAGSAproposedtotheUNCCDinSeptember2013,andhowit wasdesigned.Framedbytheboundaryorganizationmodel,andanunderstandingoftheemergenceofa newmulti-scalarandpolycentricstyleofgoverning,themodularmechanismconsistsofthreemodules: a Science-Policy Interface (SPI); an international self-governing and self-organizing Independent Non-Governmental GroupofScientists;andRegional ScienceandTechnologyHubsineachUNCCD region.NowthattheUNCCDhasestablishedtheSPI,itisuptotheworldwidescientificcommunityto take the lead in establishing the othertwo modules. Science-policy communication in otherUN environmentalconventionscouldbenefitfromthreegenericprinciplescorrespondingtotheinnovations inthethreemodules—jointmanagementofscience-policyinterfacesbypolicymakersandscientists;the productionofsyntheticassessmentsofscientificknowledgebyautonomousandaccountablegroupsof scientists;andmulti-scalarandmulti-directionalsynthesisandreportingofknowledge.
ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1.Introduction
Improving the communication of scientific knowledge to United Nations environmental conventions is vital if global environmental changeis to beaddressed successfully.In some areas, knowledge flows are well established. For example, the
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)hasprovided scientific advice since before the United Nations Framework ConventiononClimateChangewasagreed,thoughtherearenow concernsaboutitsfitnessforpurpose(Hulme,2010;Wibleetal., 2014). However, ever since the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) came into force in 1996, it haslackedanefficientmechanism throughwhich itcan access state-of-the-art scientific knowledge on desertification, land degradationanddrought.In2011,respondingtogrowingcritiques
*Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddress:a.grainger@leeds.ac.uk(A.Grainger).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.009
1462-9011/ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
fromscientists,governmentsandtheUNitself(BauerandStringer, 2009;Grainger,2009;OrtizandTang,2005),theConferenceofthe PartiesoftheUNCCDdecidedtoconveneaninternationalgroupof twelvescientistsandgavethema uniquechallenge:todesigna newmechanismforscience-policycommunicationbasedonthe best available scientific evidence (UNCCD, 2012a). This article outlines theinnovative ‘modularmechanism’which this group proposedtotheConferenceofthePartiesinSeptember2013,and howthemechanismwasdesigned,bybuildingoninsightsfromthe boundary organization model of science-policycommunication andthenew‘governance’literature.
2.Background
The UNCCD was agreed in 1994 as the third of the ‘Rio Conventions’thatemergedfromtheUNConferenceon Environ-ment and Development, held in Brazil in 1992. It defines desertification as: “land degradation in arid,semi-arid and dry sub-humidareasresultingfromvariousfactors,includingclimatic variationsandhumanactivities”(UN,1994).Theconventionalso hasamajorroletoplayinimplementingthecommitmentmadeat theRio+20Conference in 2012to achievea “landdegradation neutral worldin the contextof sustainable development” (UN, 2012). This accord has been incorporated within the new Sustainable Development Goalsby a UN Summit toAdopt the Post-2015DevelopmentAgenda(UN,2015).
Tooperateeffectively,theUNCCDrequiresaccessto evidence-basedscientificknowledgewhichisformattedandcommunicated inapolicy-relevantwaytomeetdecisionmakers’needs.Thetext oftheConventionstatesthatitsConferenceofthePartiesshould receive scientific advice from the Committee on Science and Technology(CST)(UN,1994).However,asthiscommitteeisalso requiredbytheConventiontocomprisegovernment representa-tives,it depends heavilyon externalinputs ofknowledge from scientists. The UNCCD hasused various mechanisms tosupply these inputs,including ad hocpanels of scientists;a Groupof Experts which served for six years (2001–2007); and, most recently,aseriesofbiennialUNCCDScientificConferences,which discussscientificknowledgeonathemechosenbytheCST.Yetall ofthesemechanismshavehad limitedimmediateeffectiveness, owingtopoliticalconstraints,suchasgivingprioritytoregional representationoverscientificcompetencewhenchoosingexperts, aswellasfundingproblemsandcommunicationdifficultieswithin theUNCCD(Grainger,2009).
TheConference of thePartiesrespondedtothis situationin 2009byaskingtheCSTtoundertakeanotherevaluationofhowto improvetheconvention’saccesstoscientificknowledge.TheCST consulted widely on four options: (a) use existing scientific networks;(b)establishanewscientificnetwork;(c)useexisting intergovernmental scientific advisory mechanisms, suchas the IPCCortherecentlyestablishedIntergovernmentalScience-Policy PlatformonBiodiversityandEcosystemServices(Perringsetal., 2011);or(d)establishanewintergovernmentalscientificpanelon landandsoil(Thomasetal.,2012).WhentheCSTfailedtoreach agreementona preferredoption, theConference oftheParties decidedin2011toestablishatwelvememberAdHocWorking GrouponScientificAdvice(AGSA)todevelop a freshapproach (UNCCD,2012a).Thepresentauthorsincludeallthemembersof thisgroup.
3.Methods
TheAGSAwasaskedinitsTermsofReferencetoacknowledge themeritsofthefour‘macro’optionsconsideredbytheCST,butto go beyond them by taking a ‘micro’ approach, which involved
analysing 11 genericcomponents that shouldbe present inany goodscience-policycommunicationmechanism(Table1).These componentswereidentifiedbytheCSTBureau,comprisingthefive members of the CST who follow up its work between formal sessions (UNCCD, 2012b). To facilitate reporting of the AGSA’s findingsinthispaper,thecomponentsaredividedhereintofive maingroups:
1. Components 1 (role and objectives), 2 (implementation mechanismsandfunctionalmodalities),and3(legalandfinancial implications),whichallrefertoanentiremechanismof science-policycommunication.
2.Components4(mandate),5(legalstatus)and6 (member-ship), which refer to each of the constituent bodies of the mechanism.
3. Component 7 covers the science-policy interface where scientificknowledgeissharedwithpolicymakers,andhowthe interfaceandthemechanismasawholearegoverned.
4. Component 8 identifiesthe disciplines towhich advisors shouldbelongifcomprehensiveinputsofscientificknowledgeare tobeprovidedbythescientificbodiesinthemechanism,while component 9 identifies potential contributions by external science-advisorybodies.
5.Component10describestheoutputsreportedtotheCSTand tostakeholderswithinandoutsidetheintergovernmentalarena, whomayalsocontributetheirnon-academicknowledge (compo-nent11).
The AGSAevaluatedalternative optionsfor each component and then identified the option that was likely tobe the most effective.Thepreferredoptionswerethenpiecedtogether,much likeajigsaw,toconstructtheoverallscience-policy communica-tionmechanismthatwasrecommendedtotheUNCCD.
To frametheanalysisof theelevencomponents, andof the factorsthathavelimited theUNCCD’saccesstostate-of-theart scientificknowledge,two existingconceptualframeworkswere used. First, the boundary organization model, which has been widelyusedforanalysingscience-policycommunicationinrecent decades (e.g. Hoppe and Wesselink, 2014; Lee et al., 2014). Accordingtothismodel,communicationbetweenthescienceand policydomainsismosteffectivewhenitflowsinbothdirections. Negotiationswithinsmallgroupsofscientistsandpolicymakers, calledboundaryorganizations,cangreatlyfacilitatethetranslation of scientific knowledge into lay language, and ideal two-way communicationisachievedwhenthescientistsandpolicymakers involvedinthesenegotiationsareeachresponsibletotheirparent domains(Fig.1)(Cashetal.,2003).BecausetheUNCCD’sscientific advisershavepreviouslyonlybeenresponsibletotheUNCCDand
Table1
Elevengenericcomponentsofscience-policy communica-tionmechanisms,asanalysedbytheAGSA.
1. Roleandobjectives
2. Implementationmechanismsandfunctional modalities
3. Legalandfinancialimplications 4. Mandate
5. Legalstatus 5. Membership
7. Governingmodalitiesandscience-policyinterface
8. UNCCDcoreandessentialdisciplinesandthematic areas
9. Exploitingsynergieswithexistingpanels, platformsandnetworks
10. Expectedoutputsanddeliverables,andthe reportingprocess
nottotheirfellowscientists,e.g.throughpeerreview,therehave beennoexternalchecksonthequalityofscientificadvicegivento theUNCCD(Grainger,2009).Consequently,thetwowayflowsof informationandknowledgethatarefundamentaltotheboundary organizationmodelhavebeenabsent.
The boundary organization model also proposes that negotiationsin boundaryorganizationsoptimize the combina-tionof the salience,legitimacyandscientific credibilityof the translatedknowledgeasperceivedbypolicymakers(Cashetal., 2003). According to one analysis, the UNCCD’s primary concern when selecting scientific advisers has not been their credibility, as determined by their competence, but their legitimacy, e.g. whether they are representative of the five regions recognized by the UNCCD (Grainger, 2009). One explanation for this is that politicians often view scientific knowledgeas a commodity, and assume that any scientistcan communicateit (Thomas,1997).However, themostcompetent scientists in any field will not only be recognized as such by theirpeers,but willalso understandthefull rangeof state-of-the-art scientific knowledge, and prevent oversimplifications when this is synthesized for policy makers. The autonomy of scientists is further limited if they regard themselves as representativesof theirgovernments.
The second framework expands the generic description of styles of governing to encompass the recent shift from the conventional government style, in which governments steersociety, towardsa new governance stylein which society steers itself through inclusive, multi-scalar and polycentric networked processes, and in which non-state (orcivil society) groups are more influential relative togovernments than they wereinthepast(HeldandMcGrew,2002;Rhodes,1996,2007; Ostrom,2010).
Evidence for this shift is accumulating. For example, the unidirectional policy instruments which governments have traditionally used to implement their policies, e.g. regulations andgrants,havebeenincreasinglysupersededbyanewfamilyof policyinstrumentsthataremulti-directionalandlesscoercive,e.g. voluntaryagreements,market-basedmechanismsandeco-labels (Jordan et al., 2003). Conventional forms of environmental managementwhichreliedontop-downbureaucratic administra-tionarebeingreplacedbymoredecentralizedapproaches(Ribot etal.,2010).Atlocalscale,communitiesaredevisingtheirown rulestomanagetheirenvironmentssustainablywhen manage-ment by stateorganizations proves ineffective (Ostrom,2005). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are substituting for ineffectiveactionbyintergovernmentalinitiativesatglobalscale too,mostnotablybyestablishingtheForestStewardshipCouncilto accredit groups who determine the sustainability of forest management (Pattberg, 2005). NGOs also had more influence overnegotiations onthetext of theUN ConventiontoCombat Desertificationthan thescientificadvisorypanelwhich theUN establishedtoadvisethenegotiators.Forexample,byproposinga
distinctiveparticipatory multi-scalar approachtoimplementing theconventionthroughregional,sub-regionalandnationalaction programmes(CorellandBetsill,2001).
Bothframeworkshavelimitations,thoughthesewerenotfeltto besevereenoughtoimpedetheirapplicationhere.Forexample, the boundary organization model has been criticized for not covering all forms of boundary arrangements (Hoppe, 2005); specifyingalltheprocessesinvolvedincommunicationbetween scientists and policy makers (Jacob, 2005; Raman, 2005); and explainingtheroleofpower(Leinhos,2005).Widerrecognitionof the transition from the government style of governing to the governancestylehasbeenhinderedsemanticallybythecommon practiceofusingtheterm’governance’asasynonymforgoverning (e.g.HoppeandWesselink,2014;Mattoretal.,2014).Whenthe boundary organization model was first proposed it did not incorporatethenewprocessesfoundwithinthisemerging style of governing, and so it assumed that governments could still privilege scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge (Guston,1999).Yettheboundaryorganizationmodelhasalready beenemployedtogetherwithpolycentricgovernancemodels(e.g.
Grainger,2012;Leeetal.,2014).Suchcombinations: (a)helpto counteranotherlimitationof theboundaryorganizationmodel, thatitdoesnotincludetheviewsofgroupsotherthanstatesand scientists(Bäckstrand,2003);and(b)supportitsassumptionthat the scientific community, like all civil society groups, has the autonomy to communicate its knowledge free of government influence.Suchgovernmentdominancepersistsinsomearenas, e.g.theSummariesforPolicymakersofIPCCAssessmentReports arerevisedbyitsmemberstatestoensurepoliticalacceptability (Wible et al., 2014). Although the Intergovernmental Science-PolicyPlatformonBiodiversityandEcosystemServiceswillalso negotiate and approve Summaries for Policymakers at its plenaries, its rules reflect the realities of the new governance style,byallowingnon-governmentalstakeholderstoparticipatein nominatingaproportionoftheexpertswhoproduceitsreports, andrecognizingthevalueofnon-academicknowledge(Borieand Hulme, 2015).Acrucial implication ofthegrowinginfluenceof knowledgecommunicatedbyothercivilsocietygroupsinthenew governance style is that scientists need to strengthen their interactionswithpolicymakerstoensurethatpolicyformulation iswellinformedbyscientificknowledge.
TheAGSAalsodevisedandtestedanewknowledge fingerprint-ing method. This is based on the assumption that any major research field can be characterized by the distinctive set of scientificdisciplinestowhichtheauthorsofstudiesinthatfield belong, and by the relative percentage contributions of these disciplinestotheoverallbodyofknowledgeinthisfield.Anynew science-advisorybodyestablishedtosupplycomprehensiveadvice in a given field should therefore contain scientists from the disciplinesthatconstitutethefingerprintofthatfield.Themethod canalsobeusedtodetermineifexistingscience-advisorybodies cansupplythisknowledge.
4.Results
4.1.Componentanalysis
AddressingthefirstcomponentinTable1,theAGSA(2013a)
proposedthattheroleofthemechanismshouldbeto:(a)evaluate, synthesize, and serve as a repository for available scientific information and knowledge, and identify information and knowledgegapsonallaspectsofdesertification,landdegradation anddrought;and(b)communicatethis information,knowledge andpolicy-relevant(butnotpolicyprescriptive)advice,totheCST andtoallstakeholdersconsideredrelevantforimplementationof theConvention.Six objectiveswould help tofulfil this role:(a)
Fig.1.Theboundaryorganizationmodel,showingscientists(S)andpolicymakers (P)inaboundaryorganization,eachresponsibletotheirrespectivedomains(based onCashetal.,2003).
fosterascience-policydialoguesothattheinformationneedsof policymakersandotherstakeholdersconsideredrelevantforthe implementationof theConventionareclearlycommunicatedto scientists;(b)undertakecomprehensiveassessmentsofdeserti fi-cation, land degradation and drought on the basis of existing information and knowledge,analysepolicy-relevantfuture sce-narios,and alertthePartiestotheConventiontonew develop-mentsandissues;(c)serveasaglobalthink-tankandrepositoryfor scientific knowledge and information (including scientifically verifiednon-academic knowledge);(d) catalyseresearch initia-tivesandpartnershipstogenerateanddisseminatenew knowl-edgeatallscales;(e)developsynergisticrelationshipswithother internationalscience-advisorybodies;and(f)provideguidanceon appropriate tools to assess and monitor desertification, land degradationanddroughtatdifferentscales.
Theboundaryorganizationmodelandgovernanceframework wereemployedtogetherinanalysingcomponents4–7.Concerning component 7, the generic term science-policy interface is now increasinglyusedtorefertocommunicationprocessesbetween scientistsand policymakers (e.g.López-Rodríguezet al.,2015). Buildingoninsightsfromtheboundaryorganizationmodel,which indicatethattheeffectivenessofanymechanismofscience-policy communication depends on how its interface is governed, the
AGSA(2013b)evaluatedtwomaingoverningstyleoptionsderived fromthegovernanceframework:(i)agovernmentoption,inwhich theCSTwoulddecidetherulesofthescience-policyinterface,thus maintainingthestatusquo;and(ii)agovernanceoption,inwhich thescience-policyinterfacewouldbejointlymanagedbyUNCCD representativesandscientificadvisersrepresentingan indepen-dentinternationalgroupofscientists.TheAGSA(2013b)concluded thatoption(ii)waspreferable,basedonthelargebodyofempirical evidence for the existenceof political constraintson scientists underpreviousUNCCDmechanismsconsistentwithoption(i);and alsoontheoreticalgrounds,since option(ii)would replicatean idealboundaryorganizationandleavescientistsfreeto commu-nicate to policy makers all available scientific knowledge. The choiceofcomponents4–6forthescience-policyinterfaceshould therefore be consistent with the governance option for its governingstyle.TheAGSArecommendedthatthescience-policy interfaceshouldreceiveamandatefromtheUNCCD,itslegalstatus should be consistent with this, and its membership should comprise representatives of the scientific community and the UNCCD.
Selectingthegovernanceoptionforthescience-policyinterface alsohadimplicationsforthechoiceofcomponents4–6forthe self-governingscientificgroupwhichwouldprovideitwithsynthetic assessments of global scientific knowledge. The AGSA (2013b)
concludedthatthescientificgroupshouldhavenon-governmental legal status, be responsible to fellow scientists through peer review,anditsmembersshouldbeindividualscientistsselectedon thebasisoftheirscientificcredentials.
Specifyingthedisciplineswhichthemembersofthisscientific groupshouldrepresent(component8)waschallenging,fortwo reasons.First,theUNCCDhastraditionallyreliedonarelatively small number of scientists who generally adhere to the con-vention’sdefinitionofdesertificationas“landdegradationinarid, semi-aridanddrysub-humidareasresultingfromvariousfactors, includingclimatic variations and humanactivities” (UN,1994). Manyotherscientistswhostudy‘landdegradation’eitherdonot recognizethevalidityof“desertification”(ThomasandMiddleton, 1994)ortheydefineitdifferently(Safriel,2009),yetitisvitalthat theUNCCDbenefitsfromtheknowledgeofthisbroaderscientific community tooifthe science-policyinterfaceis toachieve the idealtwo-waycommunicationportrayedintheboundary organi-zationmodel. The moreinclusive termof “desertification,land degradationanddrought”helpstobridgethislinguisticdivide,and
also expresses the UNCCD’s aspirations toaddress degradation bothwithinandoutsidedryareas.Theseaspirationshaverecently beensupportedbyadecisionbythe12thConferenceoftheParties in 2015 to assist member states in meeting the new land degradation neutrality goal outside dry areas (UNCCD, 2015). Thesecondchallengeisthatdesertification,landdegradationand drought are investigated bymany disciplines, as togetherthey comprise a highlycomplex phenomenon linkedtomulti-scalar socialandenvironmentalprocesses(Reynoldsetal.,2007).
To identify the disciplines that would be essential if this scientificgroupweretoprovidetheUNCCDwithcomprehensive knowledge the AGSA (2013b) used thenew knowledge finger-printingmethod,describedabove,toanalysetheactualsourcesof scientificknowledgeon desertification and landdegradation. A sample of 140 papers with ‘desertification’ in their titles and publishedbetween1977and2012werefoundtobewrittenby scientistsfrom19disciplines(orsub-disciplines).Anothersample of 165 papers published in the journal Land Degradation and Development between2008and 2011 had authorsfrom18 dis-ciplines. This particular journal was chosen because it was assumedthatcontributorstoitassociatetheirresearchwiththe field of ‘land degradation’. The four volumes were chosen to provideasamplethatwas closeinsizetothatofthesampleof paperson‘desertification’.Basedonthesetwosamples,theAGSA concludedthattheUNCCDwouldneedtodrawonscientistsfrom 23 disciplinestogain comprehensiveknowledgeondeserti fica-tion, land degradation and drought (Table 2). The specialities reportedby1767membersoftheUNCCDRosterofExpertsplaced themin16ofthesedisciplines,whichindicatesthateachofthese disciplinesisrecognizedasessentialbyatleastonePartytothe UNCCD.
Thefingerprint forknowledgeonland degradationis distin-guishedbyfivecoredisciplines:62%ofauthorsofthesampleof papers in this field belongedtoagronomy, geography, environ-mental management, soil science and ecology, while in the correspondingfingerprint for knowledgeondesertification 68% ofauthorsofpapersinthatfieldwerefromthesedisciplinesplus remotesensing(Fig.2A).
TheAGSAthenusedfingerprintingtocheckifexisting science-advisorybodiescouldprovidetheUNCCDwithalltheknowledge thatitneeds.AstheIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformon Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services had not published any assessmentreportsbythetimeoftheAGSA’sresearch,theAGSA (2013b) used samplesof papers on biodiversityand ecosystem servicestoproduceafingerprintforthisjointfield,andfoundthat thisfingerprintisverydifferentfromthedesertificationandland degradationfingerprints(Fig.2B).Fourdisciplines biology,plant
Table2
The23essentialdisciplinesandsub-disciplineswhichstudydesertification,land degradationanddrought,asidentifiedbytheAGSA.
Agronomy,anthropology,atmosphericscience,biology,developmentstudies,
ecology,economics,environmentalmanagement,environmentalscience,
forestscience,geography,geology,hydrology,livestockscience,medicine,
plantscience,politicalscience,rangelandmanagement,remotesensing
science,sociology,soilscience,watermanagementandzoology.
NB.TheAGSA(2013b)madefourdiscretionaryadditionstothelistofdisciplines andsub-disciplinesidentifiedbythefingerprintingmethod:anthropologyand medicinewererepresentedinthedisciplinesoftheUNCCDRosterofExperts,while rangelandmanagementandwatermanagementwereconsideredtobeimportant sub-disciplines of environmental management. The AGSA concluded that mathematicswasfundamentaltomanyessentialdisciplinesbutnotessentialin itsownright.
Fig.2.Thedisciplinaryfingerprintsofscientificknowledgeon(A)desertificationandlanddegradation;(B)biodiversityandecosystemservices(tosimulatethepotentialfor knowledgewhichcouldbesuppliedbytheIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformonBiodiversityandEcosystemServices);and(C)climatechange(torepresentthe knowledgewhichcouldbesuppliedbytheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange).
science,ecologyandzoology accountedfor69%oftheauthorsof asampleof60papersonbiodiversity,whileanothersetoffour disciplines biology, economics, environmental science and zoology accounted for 54% of a sample of 60 papers on ecosystemservices.Twocoredisciplinesinthedesertificationand landdegradationfingerprints agronomyandgeography have very low rankings in the biodiversity and ecosystem services fingerprints,andsoilscienceistotallyabsent.
The fingerprint for knowledge supplied by theIPCC proved more difficult tomap. While theIPCC listedthe namesof the thousandsofscientistswhocontributedtothelatestAssessment Report available tothe AGSA the Fourth Assessment Report publishedin 2007 the departmental affiliations of scientists wereonlylistedinthereportsofoneofthethreeIPCCWorking Groups (Working Group I). The AGSA (2013b) therefore con-structedaninterimproxyfingerprintbyassigningtooneormore disciplines each of the 33 non-introductory and non-regional chaptersof all threevolumes of the FourthAssessment Report (Solomonetal.,2007;Parryetal.,2007;Metzetal.,2007).This suggestedthatclimatechangehasadistinctivefingerprint,with 32%ofknowledgecomingfromatmospheric sciencealone.This andfourotherdisciplines marine/freshwaterscience, environ-mentalmanagement,politicalscienceandsociology accounted for59%ofallknowledge(Fig.2C).Environmentalmanagementis theonlycoredisciplineinthedesertificationandlanddegradation fingerprintsthatfeaturesprominentlyintheIPCCfingerprint,but itonlyhasa6%share.
Furtherresearchisneededtoproduceadefinitivefingerprint for the IPCC, but the AGSA (2013b) concluded that this proxy fingerprintwassufficienttoindicatethattheIPCCwasunlikelyto beabletoprovidealltheknowledgethattheUNCCDneeds.The fingerprintoftheIntergovernmental Science-PolicyPlatformon BiodiversityandEcosystemServicesindicatedthatitcouldnotdo soeither. TheIntergovernmental TechnicalPanelonSoils(FAO,
2014) was not yet operational when the AGSA undertook its research,butitspotentialtooffercomprehensiveadvicecaneasily beevaluatedinhindsightusingthesamefingerprintingmethod, sinceallofits27currentmembersarespecialistsinsoilscience, whichisjustoneofthe23essentialUNCCDdisciplineslistedin
Table2.SothiswouldnotchangetheAGSA’s(2013b)conclusion thattheUNCCDneededanewscience-advisorybody.
To ensure consistency with the choice of options for components4–7,describedabove,theAGSA(2013b)considered that the most desirable options selected for components 10 (outputs andreporting)and11 (non-academicknowledge)should beconsistentwithfeaturesofthegovernancestyleofgoverning, andthatconsequentlytheyshouldbelinkedtomulti-directional flows of information and knowledge. Since the intensity of desertification,landdegradationanddroughtvariesgreatlyfrom placetoplace,evenwithinthesamearea(Warren,2002),when evaluating component 10 the AGSA inferred that global peer-reviewed knowledge was insufficient to assist the UNCCD and stakeholdersinplanningprogrammestocombatdesertification, land degradation and drought in the UNCCD’s five regions: Africa, Asia,Central and EasternEurope,LatinAmericaand the Caribbean, and the Northern Mediterranean, Consequently, the
AGSA(2013a)concludedthattoobtainalltheknowledgethatit needs the UNCCD should also: (a) make direct use of the expertiseofscientistsineachoftheUNCCD’sfiveregions,since much reliable scientificknowledge never makes the transition from research institute publications to well-cited academic journals; and (b) draw on non-academic local knowledge (component 11), whose importance is recognized in the text oftheConvention.Newregionalbodieswouldbeneededineach region to facilitate these flows of knowledge, and the AGSA (2013a) decided that their mandate, legal status and member-ship (components 4–6) shouldbe chosenby representatives of each region.
TheAGSA’srecommendationsoncomponents2and3,which are concerned with practical aspects of implementation, are discussedinthenextsection.
4.2.Modularmechanism
WhentheAGSA(2013a)hadidentifieditspreferredoptionsfor eachcomponent,itfoundthattheelevencomponentscouldbe assembledintofour‘functionalgroupings’.Oneofthesegroupings (components1–3)referredtothewholeofthenewmechanismof science-policy communication. Three other groupings, which referredtocomponents7–11,dividedthemechanismintothree modules,eachofwhichcouldalsobecharacterizedbycomponents 4–6(Table3,Fig.3):
1.AScience-PolicyInterface(SPI),whichwouldcomprisepolicy makersandscientistsandbejointlycoordinatedbythem.TheSPI wouldidentifytheUNCCD’sneedsforknowledgeondeserti fica-tion, land degradation and drought; meet this demand by discussingand synthesizing available scientificknowledge; and channelitssynthesisreports,togetherwithpolicy-relevantadvice, totheCST.MembersoftheSPIcouldincludethemembersofthe CST Bureau; representatives of UNCCD member states with relevantknowledge;andrepresentativesoftheothertwomodules outlined below. Representatives of UN organizations, other science-advisory bodies and civil society groups could attend SPImeetingsasobserverstosupportcollectiveunderstandingand action.JointcoordinationoftheSPIbyscientistsandpolicymakers would reduce current political constraints on science-policy communication, and help to ensure that information and knowledgeflowinbothdirections,astheboundaryorganization modelrequires.
2.TheSPI’sprincipalsourceofglobalknowledgewouldbea newinternationalself-governingandself-organizingIndependent
Non-GovernmentalGroupofScientists(IGS).Itsmemberswould bedrawnfromthe23essentialdisciplinesidentifiedbytheAGSA, andwouldbeselectedbasedontheirscientificcredentials.AnIGS would prepare, and deliver to the SPI, comprehensive peer-reviewed reports that provide synthetic assessments of peer-reviewed knowledge and provide policy-relevant advice. Outputscould,forexample,includeregularassessmentreports. Supplementary knowledge could come from three existing science-advisory bodies: the IPCC, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils. As in an ideal boundary organization model, scientific advisers would be responsibletotheirpeersandscientificcredibilitywouldbegiven a high priority. The IGS would also allow scientists to take advantageofthegreaterautonomyavailabletotheminthenew globalenvironmentalgovernance.
3.RegionalScienceandTechnologyHubswouldbeestablishedin eachUNCCDregiontoenableexistingscientificnetworkstomeet togethertocollateandsynthesizeregionalknowledgeondeserti fi-cation,landdegradationanddrought.Theywouldthen communi-cate their reports to the SPI, IGS, governments and other stakeholders, such as non-governmental organizations which undertakesustainabledevelopmentprojects.Knowledgefromthese regional hubs would complement that from the IGS; enhance researchandscience-policycommunicationineachregion;andalso helpeveryregiontomakefulluseofitsownscientificand non-academicknowledge,as well ascorresponding knowledgefrom otherregions,whendesigningprogrammestocombatdeserti fica-tion, landdegradation anddrought.The hubs would also help to meet therequirementsofthemanystakeholdersinglobalenvironmental governanceformulti-scalarknowledgeinthisfield.
Theregionalhubswouldplayanimportantroleinensuringthe multi-directional and multi-scalar flows of knowledge in the
Table3
Conclusionsonthebestoptionforeachoftheelevencomponentsdividedintofourfunctionalgroupings,thethreemodulesoftheresultingmodularmechanism,andthe genericprinciple(initalics)associatedwitheachmodule.
Component Functionalgrouping Bestoptionforcomponent Module(andprinciple)
EntireMechanism –
1. Role&objectives Seetext 2. Implementationmechanisms
&functionalmodalities
Sequentialimplementation
3. Legal&financialimplications Sequentialimplementationisfeasible
Science-PolicyInterface Science-PolicyInterface
4. Mandate FromtheUNCCD Science-policyinterfacesarejointlymanagedby policymakersandscientists
5. Legalstatus ConsistentwithUNCCDstatus
6. Membership RepresentativesofUNCCDandscientificcommunity 7. Governingmodalities&
science-policyinterface
Science-policyinterfaceisjointlymanagedby scientistsandpolicymakers
ScientificGroup IndependentNon-GovernmentalGroupofScientists 4. Mandate Accountabletoscientificcommunity Unbiasedandpeer-reviewedreportsthatsynthesizeavailable
scientificknowledgeareproducedbyautonomousgroupsof scientistswhoareaccountabletothewiderscientific communityandareselectedonthebasisofscientific competence
5. Legalstatus Non-governmental
6. Membership Individualscientistsareselectedonthebasisoftheir scientificcompetence
8. UNCCDcore/essential disciplines
23essentialdisciplines
9. Exploitingsynergieswith existingpanelsetc.
Synergieswithexistingscience-advisorybodiesare important,butanewscientificgroupisneeded Multi-Directional
KnowledgeFlows
RegionalScience&TechnologyHubs
10. Expectedoutputs& deliverables,andthe reportingprocess
Outputsarepeer-reviewed.Reportingismulti-scalar andmulti-directional,involvingnewregional
science-advisorybodies,whosemandate,legalstatusand membership(Components4–6)arechosenwithineach region
Knowledgesynthesisandreportingaremulti-scalarand multi-directional,sotheyaresalienttotheneedsof stakeholdersatallspatialscales,whomayalsosharetheirown knowledgewithotherdecisionmakers
11. Non-academicknowledge Regionalscience-advisorybodiespromoteuseof non-academicknowledge
modular mechanism. Two-way exchanges of information and knowledgewouldoccurbetweentheSPIandtheIGS,betweenthe SPIandthehubs,betweentheIGSandthehubs,andbetweenthe hubsandregionalscientificnetworksandpolicy-orientedbodies, includingtheUNCCD’sRegional,Sub-RegionalandNationalAction Programmes.Thehubswouldcarryoutregularassessmentstofill information and knowledge gaps in their regions, as well as disseminatingscientificknowledge synthesized bythe IGS and hubsin otherregions.According tothetextof theConvention, governments are responsible for documenting non-academic
knowledgeintheircountries,butthehubscouldprovidescientific supportforusingnon-academicknowledgeineachregion.
WhentheAGSAevaluatedoptionsforcomponents2and3in relationtothemodularmechanismitconcludedthattofacilitate feasibleimplementationandfunding,theSPIshouldbelaunched first, as it will play the centralrole in channelling to the CST knowledge from the other two modules. The IGS would be establishednext,andtheneachUNCCDregioncoulddesign and launchaRegionalScienceandTechnologyHubatitsownpaceto meetitsneeds.
5.Implementation
AfterdiscussingtheAGSA’sreport,the11thConferenceofthe PartiesheldinNamibiainSeptember2013agreedtoestablishthe SPI, and tofundit fromthe Convention’s core budget,thereby demonstrating the strong commitmentof the UNCCD. The SPI comprisesthe5membersoftheCSTBureau,10scientistsselected bytheBureauafteranopencalltoscientistsworldwide,5scientists nominatedbytheUNCCDregions,and3observers.Itisco-chaired by the chair of the CST Bureau and a scientist chosen by SPI members(UNCCD,2013), andheld itsfirstmeetingin Bonnon 24–26June2014.Threesubsequentmeetingswereheldin2015. TheConferenceofthePartiesalso“encouraged”theformation oftheothertwomodules.Itcouldnotgofurtherthanthis,because iftheIGS is tobeindependent,onlyscientists canestablish it. Similarly, the Regional Science and Technology Hubs must be foundedbyscientistsandgovernmentsineachregion.Although theConference of theParties referred tothe IGS and Regional ScienceandTechnologyHubsas“anindependentconsortiumof scientificnetworks” and “regional scienceand technology plat-forms”(UNCCD,2013),respectively,thefunctionsofthesemodules remainconsistentwiththosein theAGSA’sproposal,and their actualnamesmay differ, asthey will be chosenby those who establishthem.
Asthe11thConferenceofthePartiesrespondedpositivelytothe AGSA’schallengebyestablishingtheSPI,itisuptotheworldwide scientific community to deliver its part by taking the lead in establishing the other two modules. This paper is intended to supportsuchaction.TheAGSAproposedthattheinitialmembership oftheIGScouldcomefromexistingnetworks,e.g.thoseestablished toproducereportsforthefirsttwoUNCCDScientificConferences, and expand from there, using innovative sources of funding. AlthoughtheRegionalScience andTechnology Hubsareequally novel,theLatinAmericanandCaribbeanInitiativeonScienceand Technologyperformssimilarfunctionsasaninformationclearing house,therebyshowingthatsuchhubsarefeasible.
TwoobstaclescouldaffectearlyestablishmentoftheIGS.First, scientistsaregenerallyhappytoserveasexpertsonUNadvisory panels, but have so far been much less willing than non-governmental organizations to operate autonomously in the internationalarena.Second, establishingtheIGS would involve aninitialfinancialriskprior totheawardofcontractsfromthe UNCCD.TheAGSA(2013b) didnotprovideanindicativeannual budgetfortheIGSinitsreport,thoughitdidexaminetheannual budgetsofexistingscience-advisorybodies,suchastheIPCC,and concludedthat operatingtheIGS wouldbe lessexpensive, and wouldrelyonexternalfundingsources.ThecosttotheUNCCD wouldbereducedbecausetheAGSAenvisagedthattheIGScould alsoofferadvicetobodiesotherthantheUNCCD.Thefirstsession oftheSPIdiscussedvariousnovelproceduresforfundingtheIGS andmakingitmoreattractivetoscientists.Forexample,regular assessmentsofthestate-of-the-artofscientificknowledgeinthis field couldbe publishedcommercially in a dedicated scientific journal,e.g.“AnnualReviewsofDesertification,LandDegradation andDrought”,whichwouldbeconsistentwithexistingjournalsof thiskind.
6.Modelforotherconventions
Otherconventionscouldimprovetheirownaccesstoscientific knowledge by taking advantage of the AGSA’s analysis, the modularmechanism design,and threegenericprincipleswhich representitsinnovationsindesigningscience-advisorybodiesso that they are consistent with the new governance style of governing(Table3):
1 Science-policy interfaces are jointly managed by policy makersandscientists.
2. Unbiased and peer-reviewed reports that synthesize available scientific knowledge are produced by autonomous groupsof scientistswhoareaccountable tothewiderscientific communityandareselectedonthebasisofscientificcompetence. 3. Knowledge synthesis and reporting are multiscalar and multidirectional,sotheyaresalienttotheneedsofstakeholdersat allspatialscales,whomayalsosharetheirownknowledgewith otherdecisionmakers.
TheIPCCcontinuestobecriticizedforpoliticalbiasintroduced bygovernmentswhenfinalizingitsSummariesforPolicymakers (Wible et al., 2014); for neglecting social science perspectives (Bjurström and Polk, 2011; Hulme and Mahoney, 2010) a problemexperiencedbytheUNCCDtoo;andforpoor communi-cation(Beck,2012).SowhiletheIPCCagreedinNairobiinFebruary 2015tomakeonlyminorchangestoitscurrentprocedureswhen preparing the Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2015), more fundamental structural changes seem inevitable. Proposals by
Zorita (2010) that it should be replaced by an independent InternationalClimateAgency,withitsownstaffof200scientists, andbyPrice(2010)thatgovernmentsshouldnolongerselectlead authorsandthatallscientistsshouldbechosenaccordingtotheir competence,areconsistentwiththeAGSA’ssecond(autonomy) principle.AproposalbyHulme(2010)foratripartitestructure a Global Science Panel, Regional Evaluation Panels and a Policy Analysis Panel has interesting parallels with the modular mechanism. If the Global SciencePanel had non-governmental status(oneoftwooptionsconsideredbyHulme(2010))itwould resembletheIGS.TheRegionalEvaluation Panelsaresimilarto RegionalScienceandTechnologyHubs,andsatisfytheAGSA’sthird (multiscalarity)principleinbeingdecentralizedandresponsibleto governments,civilsocietyorganizationsandbusinesses(Hulme, 2010).
TheIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformonBiodiversity andEcosystemServicessharesmanyfeaturesoftheIPCC,butits design is consistent with the AGSA’s third (multiscalarity) principle,asitallowsnon-governmentalstakeholdersto partici-patein nominating theexpertswho produceitsreports, andit recognizesthevalueofnon-academic knowledge.Althoughthe functioningofthenewplatformhasalreadycomeundercritical scrutiny(e.g.BorieandHulme,2015),thepresentauthorsbelieve that since the platform is still evolving it will take time to determine if its design will give the Convention on Biological Diversityandotherconventionsthescientificadvicetheyneed. 7.Conclusions
This is a pivotal moment for scientists studying global environmental change. In the two decades since the three Rio Conventionscameintoforce,progressintacklingglobal environ-mentalproblemshasnotbeenasgreatasmanyhopedforbackin 1992. However, if scientists can take advantage of the fresh opportunities which the newglobal environmental governance offersforautonomousactionbycivilsocietygenerally,thenthey couldserveascatalystsforfasterprogress.
Scientistsbelongingtothe23disciplinesthatstudydeserti fi-cation,landdegradationanddroughthaveamajorroletoplayin this.TheAGSAhasalreadysucceededingainingapprovalfromthe UNCCD for establishing one of the modules in the modular mechanism, in what is perhaps the first example of a UN conventionusingscientificprinciplesasthebasisfordetermining how it receives scientific knowledge. If the world’s drylands scientists can now assert theirautonomy and take thelead in establishingtheremainingtwomodulesthen,aswellasbringing about a quantum leap in the UNCCD’s access to scientific
knowledge, they could inspire similar initiatives in other internationalenvironmentalconventionstoo.
Acknowledgement
This research received funding from the UN Convention to CombatDesertification.L.C.StringerwassupportedbytheESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, award ES/K006576/1.R.J.ThomaswassupportedbytheCGIARDryland SystemsProgram.
AppendixA.Supplementarydata
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2016.03.009.
References
AGSA,2013a.Conclusionsandrecommendationsoftheadhocworkinggroupto furtherdiscusstheoptionsfortheprovisionofscientificadvicefocusingon desertification/landdegradationanddroughtissues,ICCD/COP(11)/CST/3.UN ConventiontoCombatDesertification,Bonn.
AGSA,2013b.Reportbytheadhocworkinggrouptofurtherdiscusstheoptionsfor theprovisionofscientificadvicefocusingondesertification/landdegradation anddroughtissues,ICCD/COP(11)/CST/INF.2.UNConventiontoCombat Desertification,Bonn.
Bäckstrand,K.,2003.Civicscienceforsustainability.GlobalEnvironmentalPolitics 34,24–41.
Bauer,S.,Stringer,L.C.,2009.Theroleofscienceintheglobalgovernanceof desertification.J.Environ.Dev.18,248–267.
Beck,S.,2012.Betweentribalismandtrust:theIPCCunderthe’publicmicroscope’. Nat.Cult.7,151–173.
Bjurström,A.,Polk,M.,2011.Physicalandeconomicbiasinclimatechangeresearch: ascientometricstudyofIPCCThirdAssessmentReport.Clim.Change108, 1–22.
Borie,M.,Hulme,M.,2015.Framingglobalbiodiversity:IPBESbetweenmother earthandecosystemservices.Environ.Sci.Policy54,487–496.
Cash,D.W.,Clark,W.,Alcock,F.,Dickson,N.,Eckley,N.,Guston,D.,Jager,J.,Mitchell, R.,2003.Knowledgesystemsforsustainabledevelopment.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci. U.S.A.100,8086–8091.
Corell,E.,Betsill,M.E.,2001.AcomparativelookatNGOinfluenceininternational environmentalnegotiations:desertificationandclimatechange.Glob.Environ. Polit.1(1),86–107.
FAO,2014.ReportoftheSecondSessionoftheIntergovernmentalTechnicalPanel onSoils,Rome,Italy,7–11April2014.UnitedNationsFoodandAgriculture Organization,Rome.
Grainger,A.,2009.Theroleofscienceinimplementinginternationalenvironmental agreements:thecaseofdesertification.LandDegrad.Dev.20,410–430. Grainger,A.,2012.Theroleofforestsustainabilityindicatorsystemsinglobal
governance.Glob.Environ.Change22,147–160.
Guston,D.,1999.StabilizingtheboundarybetweenUSpoliticsandscience:therole oftheOfficeofTechnologyTransferasboundaryorganization.Soc.Stud.Sci.29, 1–25.
Held,D.,McGrew,A.,2002.Introduction.InGoverningGlobalization,Held,D., McGrew,A.(eds).PolityPressCambridge,pp.1–21.
Hoppe,R.,2005.Rethinkingthescience-policynexus.PoeisisPraxis3,199–215. Hoppe,R.,Wesselink,A.,2014.Comparingtheroleofboundaryorganizationsinthe
governanceofclimatechangeinthreeEUmemberstates.Environ.Sci.Policy44, 73–85.
Hulme,M.,Mahoney,M.,2010.Climatechange:whatdoweknowabouttheIPCC? Prog.Phys.Geogr.34,705–718.
Hulme,M.,2010.Splitintothreepanels.Nature463,730–731.
IPCC,2015.IPCCtakesdecisionsonfuturework.PressRelease,27February. IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange,Geneva.
Jacob,M.,2005.Boundaryworkincontemporarysciencepolicy.Prometheus23, 195–207.
Jordan,A.,Wurzel,R.K.W.,Zito,A.R.,2003.Newinstrumentsofenvironmental governance:patternsandpathwaysofchange.Environ.Polit.12(1),1–24. Lee,E.,Jung,C.S.,Lee,M.-K.,2014.Thepotentialroleofboundaryorganizationsin
theclimateregime.Environ.Sci.Policy36,24–36.
Leinhos,M.,2005.TheUSnationalbioethicsadvisorycommissionasaboundary organization.Sci.Publ.Policy32,423–433.
López-Rodríguez,M.D.,Castro,A.J.,Castro,H.,Jorreto,S.,Cabello,J.,2015. Science-policyinterfaceforaddressingenvironmentalproblemsinaridSpain.Environ. Sci.Policy50,1–14.
Mattor,K.,Betsill,M.,Huayhuaca,C.,Huber-Stearns,H.,Jedd,T.,Sternlieb,F.,Bixler, P.,Luizza,M.,Cheng,A.S.,2014.Transdisciplinaryresearchonenvironmental governance:aviewfromtheinside.Environ.Sci.Policy42,90–100. Metz,B.,Davidson,O.R.,Bosch,P.R.,Dave,R.,Meyer,L.A.(Eds.),2007.ClimateChange
2007:MitigationofClimateChange.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. Ortiz,E.F.,Tang,G.,2005.ReviewoftheManagement,AdministrationandActivities
oftheUNConventiontoCombatDesertification(UNCCD).JointInspectionUnit, UnitedNations,Geneva.
Ostrom,E.,2005.UnderstandingInstitutionalDiversity.PrincetonUniversityPress, Princeton.
Ostrom,E.,2010.Polycentricsystemsforcopingwithcollectiveactionandglobal environmentalchange.Glob.Environ.Change20,550–557.
Parry,M.L.,Canziani,O.F.,Palutikof,J.P.,vanderLinden,P.J.,Hanson,C.E.(Eds.),2007. ClimateChange2007:Impacts,AdaptationandVulnerability.Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge.
Pattberg,P.,2005.Whatroleforprivaterule-makinginglobalenvironmental governance?AnalysingtheForestStewardshipCouncil(FSC).Int.Environ. Agreem.5,175–189.
Perrings,C.,Duraiappah,A.,Larigauderie,A.,Mooney,H.,2011.Thebiodiversityand ecosystemservicesscience-policyinterface.Science331,1139–1140. Price,J.,2010.Producemorereportsfaster.Nature463,732.
Raman,S.,2005.Institutionalperspectivesonscience-policyboundaries.Sci.Publ. Policy32,418–422.
Reynolds,J.F.,StaffordSmith,D.M.,Lambin,E.F.,Turner,B.L.I.I.,Mortimore,M., Batterbury,S.P.J.,Downing,T.E.,Dowlatabadi,H.,Fernández,R.J.,Herrick,J.E., Huber-Sannwald,E.,Jiang,H.,Leemans,R.,Lynam,T.,Maestre,F.T.,Ayarza,M., Walker,B.,2007.Buildingasciencefordrylanddevelopment.Science316,847– 851.
Rhodes,R.A.W.,1996.Thenewgovernance:governingwithoutgovernment.Polit. Stud.44,652–667.
Rhodes,R.A.W.,2007.Understandinggovernance:tenyearson.Org.Stud.28,1243– 1264.
Ribot,J.C.,Lund,J.F.,Treue,T.,2010.Democraticdecentralizationinsub-Saharan Africa:itscontributiontoforestmanagement,livelihoods,and
enfranchisement.Environ.Conserv.37,35–44.
Safriel,U.,2009.Desertsanddesertification:challengesbutalsoopportunities.Land Degrad.Dev.20,353–366.
Solomon,S.,Qin,D.,Manning,M.,Chen,Z.,Marquis,M.,Averyt,K.B.,Tignor,M., Miller,H.L.(eds),2007.ClimateChange2007:ThePhysicalScienceBasis. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Thomas,D.S.G., 1997.Scienceandthedesertificationdebate.J.AridEnviron.37,599– 608.
Thomas,D.S.G.,Middleton,N.J.,1994.Desertification:ExplodingtheMyth.John Wiley,Chichester.
Thomas,R.J.,Akhtar-Schuster,M.,Stringer,L.C.,Marques,M.J.,Escadafal,R., Abraham,E.,Enne,G.,2012.Fertileground?Optionsforascience–policy platformforland.Environ.Sci.Policy16,122–135.
UN,1994.ElaborationofanInternationalConventiontoCombatDesertificationin CountriesExperiencingSeriousDroughtAnd/orDesertification,Particularlyin Africa.UnitedNations,NewYork.
UN,2012.TheFutureWeWant.OutcomedocumentadoptedatRio+20,UN ConferenceonSustainableDevelopment,RiodeJaneiro,Brazil,20–22June 2012.UnitedNationsNewYork.
UN,2015.TransformingOurWorld:The2030AgendaForSustainableDevelopment. Finalisedtextforadoption(1August).UnitedNationsNewYork.
UNCCD,2012a.ReportoftheConferenceofthePartiesonitstenthsession, Changwon,10–21October2011.Addendum.Part2:Actiontakenbythe ConferenceofthePartiesatits10thSession.ICCD/COP(10)/31/Add.1.UN ConventiontoCombatDesertification,Bonn.
UNCCD,2012b.Termsofreferenceforanadhocworkinggrouptofurtherdiscuss theoptionsfortheprovisionofscientificadvicefocusingondesertification/land degradationanddroughtissues(AGSA).UNConventiontoCombat Desertification,Bonn.
UNCCD,2013.ReportoftheConferenceofthePartiesonitseleventhsession,ICCD/ COP(11)/23/Add.1.UNConventiontoCombatDesertification,Bonn. UNCCD,2015.ReportoftheConferenceofthePartiesonitstwelfthsession,ICCD/
COP(12)/20/Add.1.UNConventiontoCombatDesertification,Bonn. Warren,A.,2002.Landdegradationiscontextual.LandDegrad.Dev.13,449–459. Wible,B.,Victor,D.G.,Gerlagh,R.,Baiocchi,G.,Dubash,N.K.,Fleurbaey,M.,Kartha,
S.,2014.IPCClessonsfromBerlin.Science345,34–36. Zorita,E.,2010.Independentagencyneeded.Nature463,731.
