This presentation gathers the results from Sitra's study on scientific support for sustainable development practices, written by Mr Roope Kaaronen in October 2016.

1. Brief for Sitra Studies 118: Scientific Support for Sustainable Development
Policies: a Typology of Science–Policy Interfaces with Case Studies
Roope Kaaronen, 9.11.2016
1Sitra • Roope Kaaronen •
Scientific Support for
Sustainable Development Policies

2. Science–Policy Interface (SPI)
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 2
Return on the
endowment capital
(12/2015)
5.7%
• [Suom. Interface = Rajapinta, yhtymäkohta]
• Science–policy interface: ‘organizations, initiatives or projects that work
at the boundary of science, policy and society to enrich decision
making, shape their participants’ and audiences’ understandings of
problems, and so produce outcomes regarding decisions and
behaviours’ (Sarkki et al., 2015: 506).
• Designing better SPIs requires the identification of good practices and
modes of operation: what models of SPIs exist, in what settings, what
works and where, what kinds of challenges are faced…
A need to define a typology of science–policy interfaces for
sustainable development policies (this has not been done before!)
• No single ‘right SPI model’ exists: context is definitive!

3. Underlying themes
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 3
Return on the
endowment capital
(12/2015)
5.7%
• Complexity: Sustainable development (SD) is a complex affair. No clear
answers exist as to what it is or how it is achieved, but what seems clear
enough is that it is absolutely necessary.
• Science is our best and most educated guess, and should therefore work to
support sustainable development policies. But how?
• Role of science in SD policies: moving from ’evidence-based’ linear output
to co-productive, inclusive and ’socially robust’ knowledge (broad understanding
of policy-relevant knowledge).
• Evidence-informed input to SD policies is essential, but so is also the social
and political applicability, comprehensibility and acceptability of the evidence
(and how it is portrayed)
• Iteration and balancing: learning from past experiences/foresight.
Maintaining right distances (between science/policy, authority/inclusion etc.).
Different responses to different levels of complexity!

4. Finding the Optimal ’Goldilocks Zone’ for Scientific Support
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 4
Scientific support is a constant balancing act between ’too hot’ and ’too cold’. Both drifting too
close to governments (or other decision makers) and too far from them has resulted in advisory
organisations being abolished. The same applies to being ’too loud’ or ’too quiet’, a ’watchdog’ or
a ’lapdog’. Trust and knowledge building mechanisms (e.g. co-production) are required.
The big question remains: how does scientific support remain independent, critical and vociferous
whilst also being perceived as trustworthy, credible and relevant (and not as a nuisance) by
decision makers?
Picture: Balancing between
Science (S) and Policy (P):
finding a common ground?
Mutual spaces for interaction
(e.g. workshop-style platforms,
interpersonal encounters) are
required!
From a linear model… …to co-production.

5. Typology of SPIs: The Independent Model
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 5
Return on the
endowment capital
(12/2015)
The Independent Model
Independent groups or panels of
experts conducting (‘pushing’)
scientific advice, assessment and
monitoring. The Independent
Model has particular strength as
an impartial watchdog for
governmental SD policies, yet the
true impact of their reporting-
biased approaches can often be
questioned.

6. Typology of SPIs: The Integrated Model
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 6
Return on the
endowment capital
(12/2015)
The Integrated Model
Groups of experts integrated
into the governmental sphere,
consisting not only of scientific
experts but also of
parliamentarians, political
decision-makers and other
stakeholders. Whilst integrated
SPIs often succeed particularly
in gathering a diverse variety of
experts and stakeholders who
operate in close proximity with
government officials,
experiences signify that outside
and unwelcome voices are often
silenced.
+ avoiding stakeholder dominance over scientific experts!

7. Typology of SPIs: The Assignment Model
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 7
The Assignment Model
Cases where demand-driven
scientific support is provided for
policymakers by task forces
when required. Assignment
SPIs, often embodied by, for
example, think tanks and
consultancies, offer short-term
solutions when most needed,
but generally lack the
comprehensiveness to act as
major interfaces in SD concerns.

8. Typology of SPIs: The Nested Model
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 8
The Nested Model
Cases where scientific support is
organised for policymakers via
thoroughly institutionalised
arrangements of nested expert
hierarchies. Nested Model SPIs
are especially successful in
combining independent scientific
rigour with high-level impact on
policymakers, yet find particular
challenges in co-ordination.

9. Typology of SPIs: The Adviser Model
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 9
The Adviser Model
Scientific advisers directly
informing the highest political
actors, often aided by
secretaries and advisory offices.
The Adviser SPI is an
oft-criticised model, particularly
due to its systematic lack of
transparency and social
robustness, and is thus not
well suited to complex and
often controversial SD issues.

10. Typology of SPIs: The Platform Model
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 10
The Platform Model
Deliberative and co-productive
knowledge brokering arenas for
science–policy interaction often
organised by third parties.
These SPIs offer
(face to face or online) fora
for policy co-creation and
design for those who might not
else interact, yet are sometimes
too short-lived to provide the
longevity which SD-related
SPIs require.

11. Locating Finnish SD Related SPIs in the Typology
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 11
+ ’Mixed’ Models, e.g. Expert Panel
on Sustainable Development
(Independent and Integrated with
some Platform activities)
How should these SPIs cooperate
and exchange good practices in
order to best complement each
other’s weaknesses and promote the
development of a comprehensively
sustainable Finland?
Independent
• Ilmastopaneeli
• Talouspolitiikan
arviointineuvosto
• Luontopaneeli
Assignment
• TEAS
• STN
• Ajatushautomot
Integrated
• Kestävän kehityksen
toimikunta
• Biotalouspaneeli
• TIN
• IPCC-työryhmä
Adviser
• N/A (suggested by Raivio,
2014)
Nested
• Sitra
• SYKE
• LUKE
• Suomen Akatemia
• Helsinki Sust. Sci. Center
+ Ympäristöjärjestöt
Platform
• Ympäristötiedon foorumi
• Future Earth Suomi
• Tiedeakatemiain
neuvottelukunta
• Baltic 21
• Kansallinen
ennakointiverkosto

12. Conclusions
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 12
• In a complex environment, the variety of responses both within
SPIs and between SPIs has to be diverse ( increased resilience)
Need for a variety of flexible/adaptive SPIs. Different models can
complement each other’s weaknesses. Hybrid models can/do exist.
Different working contexts/levels of complexity might call for
different approaches (e.g. ‘static’ panels complemented by ‘dynamic’
working groups; ‘watchdogs’ complemented by more deliberative
platforms…)
• Diversity in SPIs is richness, but only if networking/cooperation is
successful! (c.f. Finland, where almost all models of SPIs exist)
The big challenge is to piece this puzzle of Finnish SPI models
together!

13. Conclusions
Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 13
• SD related SPIs are still dominated by a natural scientific
environmental outlook  need for integrative expert groups who
also take into account the social and economic dimensions of SD
• Most SD SPIs rely on a linear or knowledge deficit model (speaking
scientific ‘truth’ to people in ‘power’, who just ‘don’t know enough’).
Need for socially robust knowledge (= not only scientifically valid
but also taken up in social and political context).
• Merely compiling and disseminating reports is not enough!
• Scientific support for SD policies is endangered and vulnerable to
political turbulence – support should not be taken for granted, and
should be designed particularly with resilience in mind

14. Building a successful Finland for tomorrow
sitra.fi
Facebook.com/SitraFund
@SitraFund
Roope Kaaronen
roope.kaaronen@sitra.fi