Completing the puzzle: Bridging the gaps by building a resilient future through science missions for sustainability

Published on September 13th, 2024

In her recent commentary We need an urgent reform of our Climate COPs to enable real climate action, Sandrine Dixson-Declève points to the mismatch between the ambitious and powerful mandate of the Conference of the Parties (COP), of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the inertia that the COP process infuses among the Parties to the Convention. In light of the current polycrisis we are facing in humanity, which is only mounting in importance, she calls for a reform of the COP process so that we can deliver on the commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Dixson-Declève rightly denounces the slowness of the pace of work and the deliberations of the COP process in face of the climate crisis. She also says, again rightly so, that the science of climate change is clear, hence the sluggishness of the decision-making process on climate change appears particularly striking.

I am paraphrasing Dixson-Declève’s piece, but I think I have it right: we need to act yesterday, we know enough and the current process is not fit for the outcomes we need. If my reading of her piece is correct, I fully endorse her plea for a decision-making process that does justice to the urgent and determined action we must take: reversing the course of adverse changes in our life-supporting climate system.

There are some positives in the way the UNFCCC COP process has unfolded so far, perhaps the most significant being the multistakeholder nature of COP dialogues. Decisionmakers and policymakers are of course at the core of the COP process, and scientists, civil society and the private sector also have a vital role. Yet, the COP remains an intergovernmental process, with decisions made by Parties only, and its bureau is made up of representatives of Member States only. A truly multistakeholder system of governance in the climate change decision-making process is essential for ensuring that the inputs and outputs of the climate negotiations are meaningful and reflect the aspirations and expectations of stakeholders, not just the Parties’ representatives.

While an evolution of the COP from an intergovernmental to a multistakeholder decision-making process would be an essential first step towards more impactful decision-making on climate, this would not be enough. Dixson-Declève states that “[t]he inability to agree on phasing out fossil fuels, despite a worsening climate crisis, reveals a global leadership vacuum and our reliance on an extractive economic model. Over 100 countries called to end the fossil fuel era, yet powerful nations and 2,500 lobbyists defended vested interests. The gap between scientific and justice-based demands and what petro-states accept highlights COP's fundamental inability to deliver timely, scalable climate action”.

Integrated management of claims by multiple stakeholders to access shared spaces and resources in marine territorial waters and transboundary areas, for example, has shown that planning spatial and temporal interests can significantly reduce competition and divergence of interests. Only through proper, systematic planning of the various aspirations and expectations at the table can we reduce tensions among climate stakeholders and the resulting inequalities faced by those who will pay the highest price—namely, the poor and the most vulnerable to climate change. Moreover, these stakeholders can agree on areas of convergent interests and actions that would maximize their respective benefits, while protecting and restoring the climate system. Hence the COP, driven by a multistakeholder bureau, should be in the first place a forum where science informs a systematic approach to spatially and temporally map the respective ambitions of the various stakeholders concerned. Innovation and creativity tend to emerge where there is a shared goal, but such a goal cannot be merely a shared moral imperative. In a world largely driven by economic interests, shared goals must consider the convergence between diverse interests, including – though I personally believe the common good should suffice– economic ones.

I share Dixson-Declève’s plea for “better global governance and courageous leadership within the Bretton Woods Institutions particularly the UN and within negotiating frameworks”; but let me qualify this.

The 2023 NDC Synthesis Report shows that “75 per cent of Parties identified capacity-building as a prerequisite for NDC implementation. Capacity-building needs for formulating policy, integrating mitigation and adaptation into sectoral planning processes, accessing finance and providing the information necessary for clarity, transparency and understanding of NDCs were identified. In the new or updated NDCs, compared with in their previous NDCs, more Parties expressed capacity-building needs for adaptation”.

Climate change requires a concerted global effort, with the 2015 Paris Agreement emphasizing the role of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as central to global mitigation efforts, requiring parties to the agreement to submit and revise their NDCs every five years. Formulating country pledges and NDCs is a complex and technical process that demands specialized scientific, technical, and technological expertise. The first steps of defining country pledges, which will ideally evolve into comprehensive NDCs, are intricate. Given that NDCs are central to the success of the Paris Agreement and our overall fight against climate change, it is crucial to set up support mechanisms for UNFCCC Parties that may require help in the formulation of their respective pledges.

However, unlike the times of the Ozone Assessment and the Montreal Protocol, all the necessary  pieces of the puzzle are NOT in place. While  the science is clear, truly alternative technologies to fossil fuels such as those based on wind, ocean and solar power still lag behind in efficiency and application. Additionally, other technologies touted as promising such as electric vehicles come with significant costs in terms of social and environmental sustainability. Building capacity in support of the COP cannot be achieved through mere validation alone; it requires a comprehensive approach to address these technical challenges, using expertise in both natural and social sciences.

A different science model in support of the COP is therefore required. [AM1] A solution proposed by the International Science Council proposes leveraging COP29 in Azerbaijan to amplify the contribution of science. This involves not only providing and assessing climate change data and information, as seen in  IPCC Assessment Reports, but also transforming data and other information into   actionable and transformative scientific knowledge. In this context, financial institutions at all levels should redirect funding towards supporting all Parties – not just developing countries and economies in transition, but major polluters in the Global North – in the formulation and implementation of science missions for sustainability.

The International Science Council has invited novel collaborative consortia of scientists and scientific organizations, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, communities, and the private sector working on the cutting edge of identifying solutions for complex sustainability challenges, to co-design targeted science missions for sustainability over an initial 18-month period.

The mission is in the HOW, not in the what, i.e. science is mobilized to generate actionable knowledge in support of sustainability through: (i) the co-design of the action research agenda by multiple stakeholders beyond researchers themselves; (ii) capturing and capitalizing on relevant knowledge such as that held by traditional and local communities, and that generated in the private sector; (iii) and generating and delivering co-designed solutions at multiple scales.

A call for pilot missions issued in March this year received over 250 expressions of interest, most of which are based in the Global South. We are delighted to see this strong interest and willingness of the global community to practice science differently and to elevate the collaboration between science, policy, and society to new heights when dealing with complex challenges. 

An independent Oversight Committee has reviewed the proposed list and identified 23 shortlisted expressions of interest, taking into account geographical, gender and thematic balance. The next step is the selection of 5 to 6 pilot missions to move forward to the implementation stage.

Framed as illustrated above, Science Missions for Sustainability, as advocated by e Dixson-Declève would ensure a just global transition by considering regional differences and “(…)supporting localized pathways, knowledge exchange, technology co-development, and partnerships based on equity and empowerment”.

In conclusion, as Dixson-Declève’s piece states: “It's time for a reset, and we must reform COP to deliver real climate action through content and format changes”. Importantly, in my view, we must reform the COP so that actionable scientific knowledge is taken into account. This can only happen through the combined efforts of co-designing the climate action research agenda, co-producing knowledge and co-delivering solutions, all supported by dialogues and collaborations involving multiple stakeholders across these areas.