Table 1 Organizational and procedural setup of a selected few science-policy interfaces
From: Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning
Research studies (including meta-studies, pre-assessments and so on) | Individual or small groups of scientific advisors or consultants | Permanent scientific advisory bodies (not providing larger-scale assessments) | Standardized impact assessments | Conventional medium-scale to large-scale integrated scientific assessments | Integrated scientific assessments in the spirit of the PEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Examples | Transport and ETS (See https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecc/wpaper/2.html, accessed 15 May 2016); ADAM (See https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/sustainable-solutions/flagshipspld/MitigationScenarios/adam/adam-project, accessed 15 May 2016); papers commissioned by, for example, WHO, CBD and so on (See, e.g., https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/reducing-risk-of-future-disasters#supporting-evidence, http://www.who.int/hia/health_indicators/en/, and http://www.cbd.int/doc/health/guide-biodiversity-health-en.pdf, accessed 15 May 2016)). | Reports by science academies, think tanks, etc. (see examples & discussions in OECD, 2015; McGann et al., 2014; Mentzel, 1999); Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) | To national governments (that is, US SAB and multiple sub-committees), India SAC-PM and SAC-C) or to International Conventions (for example, UNFCCC SBSTA, UNESCO SAB, CBD SBSTTA; EU SAM) | EU Impact Assessment (See http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/index_en.htm, accessed 15 May 2016) | Stern Review; UK Foresight Reports ( See https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/foresight-projects, accessed 15 May 2016); UN Emissions Gap Report (See, for example, http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/, accessed 15 May 2016); HDR (See, for example, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf, accessed 15 May 2016); UNEP‘s GEO series; GBO; IAASTD. See IPBES (2013) for details and acronyms | IPCC WG III AR5; MA; envisioned IPBES assessments (see IPBES, 2013 for details and acronyms) |
Organizational and procedural setup | ||||||
Number of experts and disciplines | Few (sometimes interdisciplinary) | 1 to a few (sometimes>10 authors, sometimes inter-disciplinary) | Many (often >10, often inter-disciplinary) | Often >15 authors, often inter-disciplinary | Very high number (usually >100 authors, mostly interdisciplinary) | Very high number (usually >100 authors, always inter-disciplinary) |
Author selection process | Self-selected; rarely nominated, e.g. if papers have been commissioned | Self-selected, or sometimes nominated, e.g. CSA, or if reports have been commis-sioned | Often through formalized, criteria-based nomination process envisaging balanced representation | Usually nominated | Formalized process, often many divergent perspectives, and regional representation | Highly formalized process, many divergent perspectives, and regional representation |
Duration of process | Between a few months and 1–2 years | Often <1 year (sometimes more) | Often for a set term, for example, 4 years | Often<2 years | Usually several years | Often 4–7 years |
Governance structure (incl. formalization of processes) | informal | Mostly informal | Often formalized, for example, under guidance of a chairperson | Usually, parts of the process are formalized | Highly formalized re. committees, procedures, conflict of interest policies etc. | Highly formalized re. committees, procedures, conflict of interest policies and so on. |
