Science-Policy Interfaces: From Warnings to Solutions

This policy brief examines the evolution, effectiveness, and challenges of science-policy interfaces (SPIs) in global environmental governance since 1972. It analyzes existing models like the IPCC and IPBES, evaluates proposals for new SPIs focused on chemicals, waste, and food systems, and provides a three-pronged design framework to ensure future interfaces are credible, inclusive, and policy-relevant.

• Science-policy interfaces (SPIs) emerged following the 1972 Stockholm Conference, which established that science and technology should be used for the "identification, avoidance and control of environmental risks and the solution of environmental problems".
• The landscape of SPIs is categorized into subsidiary SPIs, where agendas are set by convention parties, and stand-alone SPIs with their own governing bodies. Examples of subsidiary bodies include the UNFCCC’s SBSTA and the UNCCD’s Committee on Science and Technology, though some have been criticized as "mini-COP" entities with more government representatives than scientists.
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) are prominent stand-alone models. While the IPCC focuses on "policy-relevant but not policy prescriptive" assessments, IPBES adds functions such as capacity building and the "Enhanced recognition of and work with Indigenous and local knowledge systems" in its work programme up to 2030.
• There is significant support from the scientific community and human rights experts for a new global SPI on chemicals and wastes. In December 2021, a group of countries including Costa Rica, Ghana, Mali, Norway, Switzerland, the UK, and Uruguay released a draft resolution for a Science-Policy Panel to support action in this area.
• Proposals for an "IPCC for Food" have faced criticism from some scientists and the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). Critics argue the proposal originated from a small group aligned with business and industry and warn that without pluralism and inclusion, such a platform "could do more harm than good".
• Effective SPIs are characterized by credibility, relevance, legitimacy, transparency, iterativity, and inclusiveness. To achieve these, the document suggests a three-pronged design approach: determining expert membership (including diversity in age, gender, and affiliation), establishing institutional rules (such as conflict of interest procedures and consensus methods), and deciding which disciplines and ways of knowing (including social sciences and Indigenous knowledge) should inform the work.

APA

Kohler,, P. (2022). Science-Policy Interfaces: From Warnings to Solutions. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/articles/science-policy-interfaces

Chicago

Kohler,, Pia. Science-Policy Interfaces: From Warnings to Solutions. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2022. https://www.iisd.org/articles/science-policy-interfaces.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Kohler, |first1=Pia |title=Science-Policy Interfaces: From Warnings to Solutions |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=24 January 2022 |url=https://www.iisd.org/articles/science-policy-interfaces |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{kohler2022sciencepolicy, author = {Kohler,, Pia}, title = {{Science-Policy Interfaces: From Warnings to Solutions}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2022}, month = jan, url = {https://www.iisd.org/articles/science-policy-interfaces}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }