SCIENCE AT THE SHINE DOME canberra 1 - 3 may 2002

Symposium: Transition to sustainability

Friday, 3 May 2002

A blueprint: the science needed to underpin Australia's transition to sustainability

(a draft prepared by Dr Graeme Pearman, Dr Peter Scaife and Dr Brian Walker)

The challenge – Transition to sustainability
The academies acting in concert
Sustainability science
Elements of national preparedness
Early demands
Indicators
The way forward
Key references

The challenge – Transition to sustainability

Observations and process understanding of the natural world over the past two decades has provided indisputable evidence that current worldwide trends in human activities, including population growth and resource utilisation, are unsustainable. Although Australia has a small population compared to its landmass, and a good resource base, there is clear evidence that some present activities are unsustainable, as shown by land degradation, depletion and degradation of fresh-water resources, depletion of fisheries, loss of species, inter alia.

It is clear that in the next few decades at most, new technologies, new ways of doing things and a new ethos will be required to avoid serious interference with the natural and socioeconomic systems that currently support food production, energy requirements, security and safety for humans, and the ways of life for our many unique species.

These changes, a transition to a new and more sustainable development trajectory, will be a great challenge for human societies in the coming years. All sectors of the communities of the world will be impacted and will contribute to this transition to sustainability.

The same science that has contributed to this awareness of the fragility of our current approaches and imperatives has a significant role to play in providing analyses and options from which communities can chart these new courses. But the readiness and capabilities of the science community to provide this role should not be presumed. Rather, there are important key issues that need to be addressed so that this capability can play its role in the challenges ahead.

The academies acting in concert

In responding to this challenge, the four Australian academies (Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of Humanities, and Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering) recognise that no one academy acting alone can achieve the desired outcome for Australia. While some academies have established sustainability committees, the Joint Academies Committee on Sustainability provides a mechanism for a coordinated approach. The overall organisation is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The interlinking of the four Australian academies in their contribution to the issue of sustainability.

As a first step in developing a cohesive strategic response and an appropriate action plan, this Blueprint has been prepared by the Australian Academy of Science. It is a first national attempt to identify some of the issues that need serious consideration in building and strengthening the science community in Australia to meet these challenges, and to participate in the development of Sustainable Australia.

Other purposes of the Blueprint are to:

• identify high-level strategies and actions, and the associated role of the academies;
• provide a basis for the Joint Academies Conference on Sustainability planned for late 2003;
• generate feedback from members of the academies;
• stimulate interaction between the academies.

By stating our action agenda in this Blueprint, we are declaring our willingness to work with other stakeholders (government, professional bodies, business/industry and community groups) in the development of a vision for Australia (where do we want to be in 20-30 years?), and in defining preferred pathways for the transition.

Some of the context of this document has been drawn from ICSU (2002) and Kates et al. (2001) [1].

Sustainability science

Until relatively recently, natural scientists had concentrated their efforts on observing the natural world and how it is changing, and building knowledge of the component processes that make up that environment. This has led to a clear picture of a changing world, one that is being influenced at the local, regional and global scale by the activities of humans. It is also clear from this research that many of these changes cannot go on without significant threat to people and the natural environment.

Sustainability science is about taking the next step towards applying the knowledge gained, and indeed seeking new knowledge through integrated analyses, to better understand human and natural systems as an integrated whole. The ultimate practical aim is to use that knowledge to recommend options for mitigation and adaptation that will lead nations and the world to more sustainable futures. This approach does not abandon the commitment to observations and process studies, for experience shows that there are new issues to be discovered still; it is concerned with adding to this knowledge a more integrative science that enables the assessment of particular developments, social, economic and environmental as a whole.

In the recent past, the community has mostly sought triple bottom line outcomes, that is, integrated economic, social and environmental improvements, but rarely managed to achieve them; economic considerations typically dominated, often to social and environmental detriment. Sustainability is about a new commitment of communities, companies and governments to make choices in which these components are in more equitable balance, and recognise both the immediacy of equity and its intergenerational components.

Sustainability science is designed to support that commitment. It is, for example, concerned with assessing the vulnerability of people and ecosystems to change, with assessing their resilience and adaptability. Above all, it is about the scientific community helping the wider community make the transition to a sustainable future, in a way that minimises threats to our security, well-being, economic strengths and social imperatives, and analogously for our natural communities. It is also about, where appropriate, the scientific community, with its own particular views and perceptions of the existing and potential futures, demonstrating leadership.

The science that needs to be added is more integrative. Many of our scientists are trained in reductionist science. Some of them may need to change their approaches, but we also need to train new researchers in systems science. This in itself is particularly challenging when it is realised that integration in this science is more than interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary. It involves bridging the divide between natural science and social science and the humanities. It is about coping with enormous complexity, and understanding global process properties like resiliency, adaptability and irreversible thresholds.

It is likely to need new methodologies, newly trained people, and perhaps new institutions. There is a need for networks and collaboration across disciplinary boundaries, political boundaries, institutional rivalries, etc., that transcend anything that has gone before. These challenges must not be regarded as daunting, and will be progressively addressed. However, it must be recognised that time is running out; now is the time for action.

Elements of national preparedness

i. New commitment to a pluralistic role of science for the community

It can be argued that in the latter half of the twentieth century, the potential role of science in service of the community at large became somewhat focused, reflecting the desire to maximise the application of science to the creation of economic wealth and employment. Contrary views have become almost politically incorrect.

There is an urgent need, one that is made even greater by the issue of sustainability, for a broader understanding and definition of the role of science in modern society. This needs to include the legitimate focus on wealth creation, but also encompass the wider community needs concerning the identification of threats and opportunities, education, policy development (both private and public) and cultural strength. In developing this new role, it should be acknowledged that the social sciences and humanities will be key contributors.

ii. Independence/fearless advice

Science practised under strict direction by governments or the private sector will provide outcomes that focus on the needs of those directing the research (not necessarily those of the community itself). This sort of science is less likely to give fearless advice concerning the opportunities and threats indicated by new knowledge, or what that knowledge implies for the human and natural environment.

It is essential for society that independence is ensured for a significant part of the science sector, as an investment in unpredictable discoveries of new facts and options and of new opportunities for future development of human societies. As a trade off for this independence, the science sector has a responsibility to speak out on issues of public concern, and to provide leadership to both the general community and the government and private sectors on matters in which science and technology are an integral part. Similar considerations apply to the social sciences and humanities disciplines involved.

iii. Education-training-human resources

As noted by the Chief Scientist, Australia needs a scientifically literate and critical society to support the transition to sustainability. This is a major challenge, to be addressed by a range of stakeholders, including the community itself.

We need to maintain disciplinary excellence through to doctorate level for most researchers. There is also a need for increased inter – and multidisciplinary training, for example in sustainability science, posing problems for academics and universities. The quantum of human resources required with such training is unknown, but should increase rapidly. That this is occurring while interest in science is decreasing in secondary schools is of particular concern. But by focusing on issues and then the application of disciplinary skills to these issues, the interest of students may be rekindled.

In addition to increasing education and training to meet Australia's needs, it would be shortsighted if support were not also provided to meet the training needs of developing nations in our region. A sustainable Australia cannot exist in an unsustainable region.

iv. Institutions

At the World Scientific Academies Conference 'Transition to Sustainability in the 21^st Century', held in Tokyo in May 2000, Lord Bob May made the point that:

The traditional scientific institutions do not wholly satisfy all of the requirements of the new sustainability science. Because it is characterised by a greater emphasis on problems and integrative science, motivated by problems more interdisciplinary than disciplinary and often formulated in the Mode II rather than Mode I approach (see Gibbons et al., 1994), sustainability science will more profoundly demand a team approach to the way science is done. It will build teams to seek knowledge on complex integrative systems that bridge across natural, social and economic systems. These teams may more often include members whose expertise is not only in knowledge generation, but also in knowledge application, and will equally deeply integrate appropriate humanities and social science expertise.

Australia will need a complementary set of centres in which a balance is achieved between disciplinary/interdisciplinary focus, knowledge generation and application, methodologies, and geographical interest. We have some, but need more.

Current trends in the roles of government institutions, including government departments, towards a low level of involvement may need to be reassessed as there is a need for leadership across the sectoral interests of the wider community and where market failures predominate. This aside, there is likely to be an increased role and importance of foundations to ensure the there is an opportunity for 'unfettered' science. Already the budgets of foundations such as Hewlett, Packard, Moore, Rockefeller, etc., are substantial and important. In Australia, these are very important (eg, Ecosystems Services Project and Tumut Fragmentation study through Myer Foundation).

In Australia, the four Academies are well placed to provide the requisite disciplinary depth and contribution, if not to lead the debate, to stimulate the required institutional changes.

v. Linkages

• Of institutions
  
  The demands for science to assist with the Australian 'transition' to sustainability will be very significant. Australia cannot afford to have mediocre scientific institutions, and in particular there is a need for scientists and institutions to work in concord. There is a need to ensure the independence of individual scientists and recognise the importance of competition. However, Australia is very small in terms of the institutional capacities to meet these new demands. There will be a need for greater teamwork across the institutions.
  
  We need to employ a Team Australia/Science Australia culture that frowns on unreasonable and non-productive competition and isolationism. Australia is also only a small part of the world's science base. We are already well linked to major international scientific programs such as International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), World Climate Research Program (WCRP), International Human Dimensions Program (IHDP), and Diversitas, with our role being recognised and respected. These links must be maintained.
  
  While these programs are fundamental in understanding the state of the world, and the changes that are likely to occur, we must also develop the science related to renewable energy, energy storage, land rehabilitation, water management and food production, to name but a few. In addition, sustainability science, a new field, must be rapidly progressed. Australia should be aggressive in developing strategic linkages with key international research organisations working in these areas, using bipartite science and technology agreements with the USA, Germany, Japan, etc., and we equally also include our colleagues in New Zealand.
  
  Within Australia, sustainability science will also require aggressive development of strategic linkages with key research efforts in the humanities and social sciences, for example those concerned with responding to shifting communities and practices in the energy and agricultural sectors. We should mobilise these and our science, engineering and technology resources to address major sustainability challenges (the Murray-Darling Basin immediately springs to mind). The CSIRO, with its Flagship Projects, is already moving in this direction, and is considering how the contributions from university researchers can be made. Some universities (eg, ANU, Griffith, Murdoch) have had small interdisciplinary groups for decades.
  
  The CRC Program has made a major contribution to the development of linkages between industry/business, academia, government departments and research organisations. Perhaps we need an additional or alternative model(s), that runs large projects on agreed national priority problems, with specified deliverables, run by a competent project manager (who could bring together research and other resources from academia, CSIRO, industry, etc.). This could be a variant of the Major National Research Facilities program – but instead of funding major capital infrastructure for research, provides funds to achieve outcomes.

  Draft options Recognise that Australia’s capabilities are small and the problems large. Government and institutional support be strengthened for Asia-Pacific regional research on global change and sustainability issues (through, for example, START: System for Analysis, Research and Training International, and the Asia Pacific Network: APN for global change research). CSIRO, in collaboration with CRCs, to develop and implement research strategies for addressing key national priorities. The CSIRO Flagship Program is an important initiative in defining the problems, and could be further developed through relationships with other research institutions and stakeholders.

• Language
  
  The transition to a sustainable future is a partnership between all sectors of the community, including the scientists. In any partnership it is necessary for there to exist open communication. The wider community does not always understand the language of science. This leads to misconceptions, mistrust and sometimes alienation.
  
  There is a new need, within the transition, for a greater commitment to the translation of scientific and technological knowledge into language that is widely understood. Without this, the wider community remains ignorant of the knowledge that is produced by science, and any subsequent reluctance to accept guidance or advice from the scientific community is understandable. To achieve the demands of the transition, Australia needs a scientifically and technologically literate society. This ensures democratic and informed community involvement in the selection of options for the future.

  Draft options Improved communication of science and technology, in language that enhances broad community perceptions and encourages cross-disciplinary, cross natural-social science understanding. Improved communication of science and technology, in partnership with the community, to create a learning society, via cross-disciplinary, cross natural-social science understanding.

  
  
  Conversely, scientists need to understand that practical decisions typically impact across many academic domains or aspects, and are typically made in the face of important risks and under many conflicting constraints and so may not always respect all the wishes of any one piece of technical advice. Sustainability science will equally require scientists who are able to work in such decision settings and who are skilled in providing intelligible, suitably crafted technical advice.

• Humanities and social/natural sciences
  
  Perhaps one of the single most important challenges is the emerging need for mutual respect, deeper shared understanding and collaboration between the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. Traditionally these disciplines have been relatively isolated. This is no longer tenable given the level of integration required to address the issue of transition. The joint Australian academies have a very important leadership role to play in this regard. But all scientists from each of these areas have a responsibility to build bridges through greater understanding and cooperation. Some of these barriers may be only broken by the interdisciplinary education of young scientists and by the establishment of new institutions.

  Draft options New commitment by all scientists to recognition, understanding and collaboration between the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.

• Interdisciplinarity/multidisciplinarity
  
  Disciplinarity remains an important approach in the training of individuals and in the development of deep understanding of the natural and social world. There is a need to continue a commitment to this approach into the future. However, sustainability science demands interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. This, in turn, reflects the need for training and institutional structures that allow some of our scientists to choose this approach to science as their future. This interdisciplinarity is where the disciplines of science can be mixed with those of entrepreneurialism, governance, policy development, finance, etc.. These are new regimes for scientists by and large. We need to investigate the social and intellectual barriers that prohibit such interdisciplinarity and seek mechanisms to encourage interaction.

  Draft options Provide dedicated research funds for interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary projects. Encourage universities to develop programs of study that will provide a new generation of practitioners, building on such models as architecture (which requires sound science and engineering as well as social and cultural sensitivity).

  
  The significant challenge in this lies in productively conjoining humanities and social science with natural science.

• Policy connections (engage and involve)
  
  Responsible engagement of the scientific and technological community in the decision-making process is indispensable for effective governance aimed at sustainable development. The science and technology community has a responsibility to inform and participate in decision-making processes in order to increase the impact of science in policy discussions and decisions. The products of scientific endeavours, such as integrated assessments, should be designed and disseminated in such a way as to contribute directly to decision-making processes.
  
  Moreover, the science and technology community has a major role to play, especially through its representative academies and professional organisations, in promoting the public understanding of science, science education and literacy at all levels. (ICSU, 2002)

A barrier to the creation of knowledge applicable to policy is the concept of 2 – or 3-year funding and project time lines. Whilst often appropriate, they are clearly inappropriate when considering the evolution and naturally time-varying nature of natural and social systems.

Delivering appropriate knowledge to those who can use it to guide their decision-making is not being done effectively at present, and new approaches and appropriate resourcing are required. And there needs to be developed a variety of policy-usable tools, such as criteria for application of policies (eg, sustainability indicators).

vi. Role of the academies

The Australian Academy of Science has established a National Committee for Sustainability. The intention is for this committee to play an integrating role in tapping the scientific talents of its fellowship and the wider community, linking to the international scientific community and providing expert assessments of scientific advice to underpin policy decisions.

As noted earlier, in collaboration with the other three academies, the Academy of Science has established a Joint Academies Committee on Sustainability, with the expressed intention of drawing on the wider scientific and humanities expertise of its members to cover the broadly interdisciplinary content of issues related to sustainability.

The academies, together with professional societies such as the Institution of Engineers, Australia and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, could organise reviews of key sustainability issues (such as Australia's energy future), and recommend research strategies, and development opportunities for government. This could involve workshops with community and industry involvement.

A key area for collaborative research has been identified as the system of 'incentive structures, including markets, rules, norms and scientific information' that could most effectively improve social capacity to guide development toward more sustainable trajectories (Kates et al; 2001).

Early demands

i. Learning from the past

There is still much to be learned about Earth's natural systems and social-ecological systems by observing their behaviour over long time-scales as deduced through records of the past. This creates a context in which we can assess the current status and rates of change.

Paleo, archaeological and historical studies indicate that sudden catastrophic shifts in systems are common. We need to understand what determines these thresholds and we need to know where our systems are and how they are changing in relation to such thresholds.

The general acceptance of the value of such studies will require discussion and debate between the academies, because equilibrium concepts are still held by many (eg, economists), while many historians agree that there are no generalities, just time and place particularities.

ii. Contemporary observations and monitoring

The continued and improved observations of the natural and social environment provides the basis for further understanding of these systems, the mode of operation of the processes that make up the whole, and the capacity to integrate this into Earth systems models that can be used for evaluation of options for future policy development. Long-term monitoring (over 20-50 years) is required; this can be expensive, and requires a long-term plan and vision. The Cape Grim station in Tasmania is an excellent example for atmospheric monitoring, and is recognised internationally; the long-term storage of air samples from this station has provided Australia and the world with critically important data for climate change and ozone depletion.

Since we have limited resources, the key question is: What long-term monitoring sites (how many, and where) do we need to establish, to assess the changing status of our natural systems, on which life depends? We are aware of monitoring relating to the Great Barrier Reef, the Murray-Darling Basin, and diversity in many areas (from local government areas, to national and marine parks). But are these the correct sites for long-term monitoring? Are there others that are critical to include? How effective are our current activities?

A fundamental impediment to understanding the complex natural systems of Australia is that only 10-15 per cent of the species have been identified (SoEAC, 1996). A renewed commitment to the painstaking work of taxonomy is essential if we are to develop an understanding of our biota and their interactions.

iii. Regional scale (place-based) case studies

Decision-making concerning the development of specific regions of the Australian continent can no longer be based on single-factor considerations such as employment, wealth generation, cultural protection, environmental protection, etc. Rather, all of these and other factors need to be evaluated simultaneously through a process of integrated impact assessment, based on whole-of-system models. Such integrated studies might, in the first instance, tackle such things as the sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin, in which the obvious issue of resource degradation is considered in the wider context of ensuring economic and social outcomes that are optimised. These studies would involve observations, process studies and integrated studies.

There are a number of regional scale studies in existence. We should build on them, and develop synergies (eg, Goulburn-Broken study, the University of Queensland School of Economics study of Lockyer Valley, CSIRO Atmospheric Research study of the Hunter Valley, etc.).

iv. Simulating Earth systems dynamics at regional and global scales

There is an urgent need to develop the capacity to link local practice to regional and global processes and trends. For example, how we farm in this country is both influenced by and an influence on global climate change; run-off of sediment and nutrients from agricultural practices in Queensland affect the Great Barrier Reef; decisions about emissions from individual projects need to consider the dynamics of the overall air-shed in which they are located.

Indicators

An ingredient of any coordinated and systematic attack on a strategic issue includes the setting of targets and the measurement of performance.

At the national and international levels, it is important to define the range of indicators which must be tracked, and which will drive change. As noted in a recent presentation to the Annual Conference of European Environmental Councils, the Chair of the OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development, stated:

An essential component of the transition in Australia will be the establishment of indicators of sustainability; things that can be measured in the natural and social environment that reflect the intended outcomes socially, economically and environmentally. There must be widespread debate within society to establish indicators that match our conditions and requirements. Such indicators must be reviewed from time to time to ensure relevance.

The way forward

In this Blueprint, the key issues relating to the contribution of science to achieving sustainability in Australia have been discussed. Other disciplines, such as humanities, social sciences and engineering, are equally important, and the collaborative activities being undertaken by the four academies recognise this.

Progress will take time. Interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity require a change in culture and incentive structures. Public engagement with, and communication to, the broader community will be a considerable challenge; however, without this, political support and resources will be difficult to obtain.

In the short to medium term, feedback will be sought from members of the academies, with a revised Blueprint being prepared for the Joint Academies Conference on Sustainability in late 2003. Suggestions for concrete action, particularly action that can be undertaken by individual scientists, would be particularly helpful. As an example, for members in the education sector, a practical contribution would be the introduction of sustainability into courses, and the active fostering of interdisciplinary research.

Key References

ICSU (2002). Role and contributions of the scientific and technological community (S&TC) to sustainable development. Paper of the International Council of Science and the World Federation of Engineering Organisations, as coordinating partners for the scientific and technological community (Chapter 31 of Agenda 21), in the preparatory process for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. See www.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Notwotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The new production of knowledge, the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications.

Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grubler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore III, B., O'Riordan, T. and Svedin, U. (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292, 641-642.

NRC (1999) Our Common Journey: A transition towards Sustainability. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 363pp.

RS (2000) Towards sustainable consumption: A European perspective. B. Heap and J. Kent (Edts.), The Royal Society, London, 157pp.

SoEAC, 1996.

Notes

[1] Core questions of sustainability science (Kates et al., 2001)

1. How can the dynamical interactions between nature and society – including lags and inertia – be better incorporated into emerging models and conceptualisations that integrate the Earth system, human development and sustainability?
2. How are long-term trends in environment and development, including consumption and population, reshaping nature-society interactions in ways relevant to sustainability?
3. What determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature-society system in particular kinds of places and for particular types of ecosystems and human livelihoods?
4. Can scientifically meaningful 'limits' or 'boundaries' be defined that would provide effective warning of conditions beyond which nature-society systems incur a significantly increased risk of serious degradation?
5. What systems of incentive structures – including markets, rules, norms and scientific information – can most effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories?
6. How can today’s operational systems for monitoring and reporting on environmental and social conditions be integrated or extended to provide more useful guidance for efforts to navigate a transition towards sustainability?
7. How can today’s relatively independent activities of research planning, monitoring, assessment and decision support be better integrated into systems for adaptive management and societal learning?