Packard

Sustainability Science: From Knowledge into Action

An International Science-Practitioner Dialogue on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development.

The aim of this project was to set up an International Dialogue on Science and Practice in Sustainable Development. A review of submitted proposals and responses to funding requests led to a refocusing of the project.

The aim of the proposed dialogue was to provide a platform for bringing scientists together with policy-makers, resource managers, development specialists, educators, and a wide array of other relevant stakeholders. The Dialogue’s goal is to increase radically the quantity and effectiveness of knowledge/action partnerships for sustainability being pursued around the world, and to enhance the world’s capacity to establish and implement such partnerships. An International Planning Committee was established and a web-site was set up.

After the first year of activity, the Oversight Committee for the project came to the conclusion that a major refocusing of the Dialogue was necessary. Instead of the large general dialogue that was originally proposed, the project will on two smaller and more focused dialogues on the topics being pursued by the project working groups on “Production/ Consumption Systems” and “Vulnerability/Resilience”.

The reasons behind the change in plans may be summarized as follows. As we moved forward with the project and planning for the Dialogue, we received consistent feedback that, contrary to our expectations, there is not a general demand on the part of senior practitioners for broad-purpose, international “dialogues” with scholars on matters relating to sustainability. Instead, there is a modest interest among some practitioners in focused dialogues on specific topics of immediate interest to them in the contexts in which they work. Similarly, there is not a general interest among scholars of sustainability in “dialogues” in general. Rather, there is an interest among some scholars in better connecting their own research with relevant decision makers in their countries and regions. This feedback took several forms. It came in pointed comments about the need to focus on specific problem areas from the senior practitioners. It came from other practitioners, who argued for more regional focus. It came indirectly from the funding sources we contacted, who were more interested in supporting work to bridge knowledge-action gaps focused on specific topics and regions, than in dialogues in general. It came from the disappointing results of our call for proposals, most of which were unable to propose innovative dialogue formats or novel approaches to linking knowledge with action. Taken together, this feedback led the Oversight Committee to undertake the mid-course adjustments summarized above.