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.

Draft options Efforts are made by all scientific institutions and governments to promote and publicise the broader roles of science in the modern community, especially with respect to its role in the transition to sustainability, including: access to international scientific and technological knowledge; education, both formal and public; solution to problems (for commercial or public good); leadership; and advice in policy development.

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.

Draft options Efforts are made by all scientific institutions and governments to recognise the inherent value of having a world-class scientific/technological professional sector, at least part of which operates in an environment conducive to independence and freedom to provide fearless advice consistent with national well-being, irrespective of its political correctness.

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.

Draft options Renewed emphasis on science studies in schools, founded on problems not just disciplines. Assist State governments to include appropriate modules in school science curricula to educate students on the 'state of the world' (and of the particular challenges at a national and local level), and the role of science in the transition to sustainability. Attention to public education in science and technology aimed at a S&T literate and critical society. Establish centres for integrative science training, to allow for complex systems, including social and ecological aspects. Ensure that accredited science courses in universities include a basic training in 'sustainability', and the emerging 'sustainability science'.

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:

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).

Draft options Review the institutional capabilities in Australia for addressing sustainability issues. Look for opportunities for new integrative science, inter-institutional collaboration and activities, institutions designed specifically to fill gaps. Renewed involvement of the Australian academies. Seek greater involvement of non-governmental institutions in supporting sustainability science.

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.

Draft options Recognise the current disconnect between management agencies that conduct intervention and science teams that could assess prior and post-intervention conditions. Recognise the need for some long-term investments in observational, process and systems studies. New approaches and appropriate resourcing are required to deliver appropriate knowledge to those who can use it to guide their decisions.

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).

Draft options The formation and identification of a five-year work program is supported for the newly established Australian Academy of Science National Committee for Sustainability and the Australian Joint Academies Committee for Sustainability. The support of a national conference on sustainability being planned for 2003 by the Joint Academies Committee, as a key component in building national awareness, building science community synergies and partnerships, and commencing the process of the identification of national options. In particular, the Joint Academies Committee be supported to develop incentive structures that would guide the transition to a sustainable pattern of development, drawing on the expertise of all four academies. Government and Australian Academy of Science support be strengthened for Australian scientific participation in the international global change programs of IGBP, WCRP and IHDP, and Diversitas.

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.

Draft options Convene a Joint Academies Workshop to identify the relevance of such studies, and to establish priorities. Resources be provided for retrospective studies of profound shifts in natural systems, in the expectation of identifying thresholds or limits beyond which major changes occur.

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.

Draft options Commitment to observing and monitoring the real natural and social world. Commitment to the National Land and Water Audit and the coupling of this with State of the Environment reporting. Improved stream gauging, biodiversity monitoring. Targeted development areas for observations. Improved linkages between remote sensing and national resource management and research. Renewed support for taxonomy and national biological collections.

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.).

Draft options A limited set of regional integrated systems studies to be established as partnerships between government, community and the private sector. This will provide: training and development of methodologies; experience in complex systems science across institution boundaries; solid policy advice on future options.

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.

Draft options Develop, as a matter of high priority, a capacity for nested modelling of local, regional and global dynamical systems.

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:

Draft options Using the overall set of environmental indicators developed as part of the national State of the Environment reporting process as a starting point, develop a smaller set of key indicators of sustainability to guide future decision-making.

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?