Introduction

Scholars from leading research institutions around the world met in Tokyo, 5–7 February 2009 to examine the role of universities and other research institutions in meeting the enormous challenges of sustainability that confront the planet Earth today. The International Conference on Sustainability Science (ICSS 2009) was organized by the program on Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S) of the University of Tokyo, and the IR3S-United Nations University (UNU) Sustainability Joint Initiative. The impetus for the meeting was the call emanating from the G8 University Summit, in which presidents of 27 universities meeting in Sapporo Japan 29 June–1 July 2008 recognized the urgent need for rapid and joint evolution in the generation and application of new knowledge to address the world’s most pressing sustainability problems, which lie at the intersection of environmental and economic issues. In their Sapporo meeting declaration, the university presidents called for the creation of a network of research networks to promote the development of a holistic action-oriented science (G8 University Summit 2008).

In his opening remarks, University of Tokyo President, Hiroshi Komiyama, stressed the need for a new global academic activity that will accelerate the process of transmitting knowledge that can be readily applied to effective action. “We know that global sustainability is the central issue that faces humankind in this century”, he said, “and universities are the generators of knowledge that is needed to address this issue.” At the same time, he noted, “our traditional (academic) approach to generate and transmit knowledge to society may no longer be adequate to the task at hand.” Komiyama’s paradigm for the twenty-first century is “the shrinking Earth”, which is characterized by the intricate interdependencies that link nations and people throughout the globe and by the rapid and dramatic global spread of effects of events inherent in these linkages, such as the current global economic crisis (see Komiyama and Kraines 2008). Similarly, environmental impacts cannot be confined to one nation or region. The same, according to Komiyama, can be said for our cultural and academic activities. Yet, in order for holistic knowledge to be developed and disseminated rapidly, more robust networks than those that exist now are necessary. “We know that no single institution or network is capable of tackling these issues,” Komiyama noted, “and there exist today many research networks from which to create synergies. We need now,” he said, “to go a step further and create more robust networks in order to achieve a higher level of integration.”

The ICSS 2009 was organized to advance four goals for academia: to link research networks together; provide society with a new kind of science; educate a new generation of sustainability stakeholders for the twenty-first century; and take the lead in social change and innovation for sustainability” (Kinai and Arai 2009). With respect to the latter point, the conference aimed to identify and prioritize follow-up activities for future collaboration through, for example, the exchange of students and researchers, and joint activities focused on outreach to society. Over the course of two and a half days in plenary, working, and poster sessions, participants in ICSS 2009 developed a deeper mutual understanding of what sustainability science entails, and identified elements of a framework for constructing a network of networks (NNs) to enhance the integration and application of knowledge that is generated through the practice of this science.

As noted by conference participants, there is increasing evidence of both the need and the potential for developing synergies to achieve the duel goals of the proposed NNs. The recognition of sustainability science as a robust field is reflected, for example, in the increasing number of submissions to the United States Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) section on sustainability science, in the creation of the academic journal Sustainability Science, and in the growing number of conferences and Web-based forums world-wide to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of research aimed at promoting informed action for sustainable development. The conference took note of many of these, including, for example, the Network for Science and Technology for Sustainability, which is supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the United Nations University (UNU) Institute for Sustainability and Peace, the IR3S of the University of Tokyo and its Joint Initiative for Sustainability with UNU, the CHANS-Net (International Network of Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems) sponsored by the US National Science Foundation, and the UNU Program of Education for Sustainable Development in Africa (ESDA), which represents one of the university’s contributions to the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Conference participants recognized the importance of including more representation from developing countries and took note of several processes now underway that could facilitate better collaboration, for example, the Kyoto Science and Technology Forum for Society and The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS).

The statement issued by participants at the conclusion of the conference calling for the creation of a network of networks with specific characteristics indicates that the conference made progress toward attainment of its goals and laid a foundation for next steps to be taken when the ICSS is convened at Sapienza University, Rome in 2010. Looking to the future, participants from the United States and France, as well as Italy, proposed hosting the ICSS in their countries as efforts to construct and expand NNs move forward.

Major challenges for sustainability science

Keynote speakers Govindan Parayil, Vice Rector of the UNU, and Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan, pointed to the challenges inherent in meeting the goal of developing a new integrative science that can be focused on the most pressing challenges facing global sustainability.

Vice Rector Govindan Parayil focused his remarks on the urgent need for more open and expanded sharing of technological innovations to address the two most pressing sustainability challenges of our time: climate change and extreme poverty, and the role that universities can and must play in speeding such efforts. “We need to act on these defining challenges of the twenty-first century without delay and on an unprecedented scale and scope through science, technology and sustainable innovation.” He called for a radical departure from the profit first/winner-take-all market ideology that has served as the driver for innovation in the past to what he identified as “sustainable innovation”—that is, a global compact to develop and use clean and zero emission technologies and to use appropriate local knowledge to share and diffuse those innovations in less developed countries. “Universities”, he said, “should serve as hubs for structuring actions at various levels to meet the sustainability challenge.” According to Dr. Parayil, knowledge and innovations taken for granted by the rich could lift those in materially poor societies out of desperate poverty but for the barriers to knowledge sharing that stem from fear of losing profits. “We are at a unique turning point in history to change this situation”, he asserted. Sustainable innovation means balancing our developmental needs with our planet’s ecosystems and environmental limits over the long term. A challenge universities face according to Dr. Parayil, is to bridge gaps between scientific research and meeting societal needs. Upstream research discoveries need to be bridged to downstream applications. In order for this to happen, he said, we must move beyond price signals for market clearance and allow more open user–producer interactions. Bold taxation and regulatory measures will be needed to foster what he calls a new-eco-innovation dynamic. The private sector, he said, will not allocate resources under the existing incentives structures without the visible hand of government and civil society. But if we are serious about the sustainability challenge, then we need more equitable globalization of the fruits of science and technology. And for this to happen, according to Dr. Parayil, a new way of thinking about diffusion of knowledge and innovation is necessary. “We must do so with an historical understanding of how science and technology developed”, he said, and to recognize that technological progress is part of the world heritage of human knowledge. “Intellectual borrowing is a cultural attribute”, he said. Dr. Parayil presented a number of examples in the chain of intellectual development throughout the world and through the ages that contributed to advances in science and technology. “But now,” he observed, “that world is dichotomized into so-called developed and developing worlds.” The developed nations used free knowledge to grow; they burnt fossil fuels by using our atmosphere as sinks for nearly two centuries. It is only fair to share the new clean technologies and pay for cleaning up the environment and help solve poverty through clean production. Dr. Parayil suggests that this sharing begin with basic technologies and then move on to more advanced eco-innovations. He provided examples from smokeless ovens to sanitation, bed nets, LEDs for lighting and other new energy technologies, innovations in agriculture, and many other existing technologies that can improve the lives of millions. The process of sharing, he suggested, could begin with a global epistemic community of sustainability science practitioners to harness science and technology for finding innovative and imaginative solutions to combating global poverty and global climate change. Models for such communities exist in the so-called “green revolution” and the epistemic community that developed and continues to work on the Montreal Protocol that led to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (UNEP 2000). “Science and technology can be the basis for a sustainable future,” according to Dr. Parayil, “provided we free knowledge and work together to make sustainability science a reality.”

In the discussion that followed the Vice Rector’s talk, participants explored ways in which the free flow of knowledge could be enhanced from developing more collaborative relations between developed and developing countries, to modifying the restrictive intellectual regime that was created by the international system of patents. One way to address the intellectual property rights issue, he noted, is through the network of networks that is being discussed at this symposium. Dr. Parayil proposed that such a network of networks provide some practical examples and demonstration projects. It is clear, he noted, that industry should be rewarded. But rewards for innovation are based on an old system and world. As one participant noted, change often comes as a result of shocks, and perhaps the present financial crisis is such a shock that will result in major change.

Asked about the role that universities and, in particular the UNU could play, Dr. Parayil pointed to the role of universities as the site of knowledge production and exchange and their historical role as convener of such activities, which they are well equipped to play, emphasizing the need to include representatives of civil society and to engage students from all over the world. Out of the integration of ideas and actions that emerge through such meetings and networks, he said, universities can take a pro-active role in proposing bold ideas to policy makers.

Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the AIST, asked participants to consider what the difference between sustainability science and traditional science is as they move forward to create a network of networks for sustainability science. Using a graph comparing the two in terms of aims, objectives, results, methods, measures and expected practical results, President Yoshikawa demonstrated how sustainability science is a method for integrating knowledge gained through traditional science and aimed at understanding particular and visible problems that plague mankind: storms, drought, disease, poverty, etc., to address issues in sustainability that are inherently more complex. He noted that, as problems have been identified, the scientific community has expanded the number of disciplines to address them. In each of the disciplines, he noted, huge amounts of knowledge have been generated. Yet it remains insufficient to address modern problems that are the result of human actions such as climate change, worsening of the global environment, inequities between rich and poor, terrorism, and social alienation. These problems, President Yoshikawa asserts, require a science that goes beyond understanding of what is “fact” or true to one that is aimed at use in order to address the problem at hand. “We face modern evils that are quite different from those we confront in traditional disciplines. They cannot be solved by the results of any single discipline because they are more complex and, often, they are inter-related.” The solution to this issue of scientific relevance to contemporary sustainability issues is, according to President Yoshikawa, a sophisticated, high level of integration. His formula would be fact + use = meaning, where “fact” is knowledge generated to understand reality, “use” is operational knowledge, and “meaning” is the integration of the two for action. AIST has undertaken analysis of the diversified disciplines in the organization’s research units. From this analysis, researchers at AIST are trying to understand how work in diverse disciplines can be integrated in order to create “knowledge for action.”

President Yoshikawa pointed to two characteristics of traditional science that could hinder the development of sustainability science. One is the lack of consistency in approaches to problem identification and in the development of solution options between different disciplines. The other is that, at present, we have no systematic method or vehicle to “use” knowledge. Sustainability science should be aimed at bringing disciplines together to achieve greater consistency in approaches between them and, at the same time, it should aim to develop a systematic (coherent) method regarding the use or application of generated knowledge. This, in turn, requires consistent collaboration between science and society, leading to what he calls “social technology”. A parallel may be found in Karl Popper’s definition of social engineering. Quoting Popper’s “The Poverty of Historicism”, President Yoshikawa stressed the need for flexibility and “piecemeal experiments” in the application of sustainability science (Popper 1957). As he noted, the traditional scientific method (hypothesis–experiment–theory–verification–refutation, etc.) is based on deduction. Sustainability science, on the other hand is based on abduction in which premises and conclusion are only probable thus requiring frequent interactions between science and society. As Popper wrote, “we make progress if, and only if, we are prepared to learn from our mistakes: to recognize our errors and to utilize them critically instead of persevering in them dogmatically.” What Popper called “piecemeal social engineering”, and what one might come to think of as sustainability science according to Yoshikawa, is the introduction of scientific methods into planning and politics (Scott and Marshall 1998).

The keynote speakers presented the participants with a valuable set of ideas and challenges to address in their discussions on sustainability science. In summary, they raised inter alia: the urgent need for more open and expanded dialogue and sharing of technological innovations between developed and developing countries to address both climate change and extreme poverty; the need for development of a flexible and integrated science that goes beyond understanding of what is fact or true to one that is aimed at use, application and action at all societal levels and on a global scale; the need for universities to act as “hubs” for structuring knowledge (including traditional and local sources of knowledge) and actions to meet the sustainability challenge; and the need to build robust collaborations between scientists and policy makers, societal leaders, and industry to bridge the gap between upstream research and downstream applications. These points would provide the backdrop to deliberations in working groups which were held in parallel sessions. In each group, participants discussed existing sustainability science research networks with a view to identifying opportunities and means for future effective collaboration and the development and deployment of a network of networks.

More complex networking to meet the sustainability challenge

In order to examine in depth potential synergies between networks capable of focusing on the challenges addressed in the keynote speeches, the parallel working sessions were organized on four tracks related to sustainability science:

  • Track 1: climate change and energy

    1. i.

      Climate change

    2. ii.

      Energy sustainability

  • Track 2: food, water, and resources

    1. i.

      Food and water

    2. ii.

      Resource circulation and land use

  • Track 3: long-term scenarios for a sustainable society

    1. i.

      Resilience for sustainable ecosystem management

    2. ii.

      Integrative scenarios for a sustainable society

  • Track 4: sustainability education

    1. i.

      Development of doctoral programs in sustainability science

    2. ii.

      Role of the university in society for sustainability.

In each of the working groups, scholars presented ongoing research and recent findings with a view to identifying opportunities for collaboration. Paper abstracts and contact information for the scholars who presented papers in each session are available on the conference Web site at: http://www.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp/res/res5/ICSS2009.html. Each working group chairperson then led discussions on ways in which a network of networks could contribute to more robust research outcomes for sustainability—that is, synergies that could be aimed at support of actions within each of the four areas, with specific reference to the challenges and ideas put forth by the keynote speakers. The discussions on “Climate change and energy”, for example, identified ways in which studies that can be brought together through sustainability science may contribute to improvements in international negotiations and climate policies generally, as well as in societal perceptions of the problem and potential solutions. Working group participants suggested that embedding climate change in sustainability science might entail four focus areas:

  • innovation for both science and technology and in socioeconomic systems,

  • integration of science and economics including in the study of finance mechanisms, developing incentives for industry, studying employment effects of various strategies, and understanding limitations of market mechanisms,

  • the provision of indicators and evaluation of options from the perspective of sustainability,

  • providing holistic visions of a “sustainable future” through integrating efforts such as development of a portfolio of mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change, mainstreaming climate change policy in development strategies, and building collaborations between energy, material-circulation, and nature-friendly sciences.

The working group on food and water identified three areas in need of urgent attention through the lens of sustainability science: ensuring greater recognition that agriculture is a major factor in the Earth system dynamic; increasing studies on changes in land use throughout the world; and, most importantly, improving understanding of the consequences of the increasing global disconnection between places of production and those of consumption. In anticipating network of networks to address these issues, participants in track 2 discussions noted that a network of networks could help to facilitate the study and understanding of the inescapable role of conflicts in addressing issues of water and food given the diverse uses of these resources. They also noted that linkages of projects such as two discussed in session 2 (one on biomass towns in Japan, another on “ecopolis” planning in China) provide examples of the kind of “supra networks” that could serve as models for building a network of networks. Participants also considered ways in which a network of networks could contribute to development of the concept of a “new society” based upon renewable energy use and resources circulation; eco-energy farming systems; and improved energy and material flows between urban and rural areas.

Sessions that focused on long-term scenarios for a sustainable society centered on case studies on various ecosystems. The working group participants considered indicators to measure the health of ecosystems, identified some adaptive management techniques, and discussed the role of traditional land resource management practices in the quest to reverse adverse trends. Overall, what emerged from the cases was a sobering overview of resilience in ecosystem management, where resilience is defined as “the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state” and the urgency the speakers maintained was essential to address the problems they identified. Participants agreed that there is a need to fill gaps in understanding of the social and economic advantages of supporting sustainable systems. In this context, they supported the idea of networking of a more complex nature and discussed attributes that should be included in such networks as well as impediments to the creation of them. A network of networks could, for example, be useful in building complex integrated scenarios for a future sustainable society that is low-carbon, resource circulating, and harmonious with nature. Underlying the discussions on how sustainability science networks can help to promote the required transformations is an understanding that, as the keynote speakers alluded to, there must be a vision of what that society entails. Long-term scenarios based on complex modeling and networking can help to create that vision and bring greater understanding to the opportunities and challenges that societies will face in moving toward attainment of those visions.

In the fourth track, discussions on Sustainability Education focused on challenges to creating doctoral programs on sustainability science, and on the role of the university in promoting sustainability. The participants focused on the challenges to establishing doctoral programs in sustainability science in three main areas: the creation of an academically established field; the challenges for institutionalization; and the challenges for networking with stakeholders.

Participants stressed that in developing a doctoral program in this field, there is a need to clarify and elaborate the key concepts of sustainability science, and to define how they can actually be implemented in research. Institutionalization of the new discipline of sustainability science has begun through the establishment of academic programs and through the development of academic journals and other publishing sources for those engaged in this science. To advance this, however, the working group report noted that universities need to provide incentives to promote cooperation and collaboration among researchers, and in many cases tenure and promotion structures need to be adjusted to encourage and facilitate mobility. Finally, the participants noted that because sustainability science is “action-oriented”, as noted by President Yoshikawa, it must necessarily involve multiple stakeholders, including non-academics, in the framing and conduct of research. This, the working group noted, can pose difficulties in producing traditional academic results. Thus, the process of collaborating with stakeholders needs to be evaluated appropriately in order to obtain academic credibility with respect to both research and education. The working group made a number of recommendations to advance sustainability science education, many of which were incorporated in the final statement to be issued by the meeting participants. These include the development of programs that facilitate interaction between students, faculty, and industry researchers, a joint workshop or summer school for young researchers to show their work and research results, the identification of potential career paths for graduates through interviews, surveys and continued dialogues with industry, and a “proof of concept” to demonstrate that sustainability science is indeed feasible and useful to stakeholders.

Following plenary session reports by the working groups, panels were organized to provide opportunity for all participants to discuss jointly two major themes of the conference: building university/industry interactions for sustainability science and developing a network of networks.

Building university/industry interactions for sustainability

In the first panel “Sustainability Science for Industry”, representatives of the Toyota Motor Company, Japan Airlines, and Showa Shell Sekiyu KK joined academics Professors Keisuke Hanaki of the University of Tokyo (panel chairman), Gregg Morrison of Chalmers University, Sweden, representing the Alliance for Global Sustainability, and Fabio Orecchini of Sapienza University, Rome, in an open and frank exchange of views on creating effective partnerships between industry and research universities aimed specifically at creating a sustainable society.

The industry representatives started off the panel discussion by describing their activities related to sustainable development and their experience in collaborations with universities. The company representatives all expressed familiarity with the three pillars of sustainable development with regard to corporate social and business responsibility, and described how their companies have taken steps to integrate it into their business models. One hurdle to building collaborations in sustainability science is to work with industry both to define what it is, and to couple it with product development, i.e., to business activity, rather than linking it to policy or risk management sectors of the corporation. As Masayuki Sasanouchi of Toyota Motor Corp. said, “we still have difficulty understanding exactly what it (sustainable development) means and even more so with the concept of sustainability science.” Mr. Sasanouchi went on to discuss the positive collaborations the company has had with universities. “We have achieved many good outcomes from these collaborations”, he said, “especially with respect to basic science in materials and information technologies. But these collaborations are part of our product development, and we are willing to pursue them because our company will make a profit. If “sustainability science” can help us in the same way, he noted, we would be very happy to have such support. In defining sustainability science for industry, he suggested that it is important for industry to understand and articulate not only what they can do to contribute, but also what they cannot do. Academics working on sustainability science can help to understand and articulate both the opportunities and the limitations for industry in working with universities on sustainability science. He also made the suggestion that perhaps what was needed now to move sustainability science further was to have a symbolic work similar to that of the 1982 report of the Bruntland Commission, “Our Common Future”, to go beyond sustainable development. “We believe globalization is a good philosophy and we need to understand it in its full meaning, for example, to answer the question: What is global governance of human and natural and technological resources”? Perhaps, he challenged, you (universities) can give us a new answer.

Mr. Abe of Japan Airlines said the company is in a very early stage of understanding sustainability science. Although not a manufacturer, the company is aware of resource limitations and in particular of the potential for dwindling resources of fossil fuels. An important issue for the sustainability of the airline industry, then, is alternative fuels, e.g. bio fuels, which the company recently tested on a 2-h flight over Tokyo. Such fuels may be promising alternatives to fossil fuels. But the issue is complex and the company realizes the need to move forward very carefully with alternative fuels. “Second generation bio fuels are good for sustainability and for greenhouse gas reduction”, he said, “but we must carefully determine which feedstock is sustainable.” A challenge for the airline industry will be to develop sustainable alternative fuels, noting that first generation bio fuels at present are not compatible with deforestation and food issues. The industry would look to sustainability science to help it move forward with these complex issues.

The third industry representative, Katsumi Yoshida of Showa Shell, noted that the company has long recognized its responsibility to sustainable development, and recently (2 years ago) established a new organization within the firm to work on future fuels including bio fuels and hydrogen, and to deal with CO2 management. Within the firm, Mr. Yoshida is responsible for the hydrogen unit and, in that context, he is particularly interested in deployment of new technologies. Focused on the issue of collaboration with universities, Mr. Yoshida indicated that the deployment issue is one that would make sense for such collaborations. “My expectation for sustainability science in this context”, he said, “would be to address how we can facilitate and accelerate deployment. Within this broad issue, he proposed three specific research questions: (1) how should we educate and learn from policy makers at all levels, (2) what kind of financial and social incentive schemes should be in place to facilitate deployment, and (3) are there specific ways to facilitate deployment of new technologies in developing countries.

Professor Morrison reminded participants of the Yoshikawa keynote address earlier in the symposium, and how he illustrated how sustainability science can help to bridge the gaps between the roles of pure academic research and research for action through sustainability science. “This is where we want to go”, he said. He described ongoing work within the context of the AGS with two major Swedish companies: one on short-term CO2 management issues, and the other, working with the AGS to understand what the long-range issues are that the company, which is family owned, will face in the future. Morrison outlined the way AGS works with companies that provide funding for the research. Though not significant in the total research budgets of the universities, such financing provides support for research that might not otherwise be undertaken. In order to consolidate work and improve the funding mass for sustainability focused research, AGS went from a small projects model to a “flagship” project approach. The consortium now has three such initiatives in place: on energy, water and food, and on urban futures. One of the challenges to the universities, according to Prof. Morrison, is how to communicate findings and to make these findings useful to industry. What is needed, he said, is a model for working together. AGS has met with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development to study their pathways and scenarios. “What they are missing,” he noted, “is validity.” Academia, he noted, can determine the validity of the scenarios that are being used by business. Another area for industry/academic cooperation may be in the area of the large and complex issue of “urban futures”. The complexity of the issue—which necessitates bringing together a huge amount of information from myriad sources—is something that can be of interest to industry both for the near-term and in planning for the future, but is research that industry would not tackle itself.

Professor Orecchini emphasized the importance of universities and industry working together to define sustainability science from the beginning. “As noted by the industry representatives,” he said, “they have been working on sustainable development in the business context for a decade. Now it is time to go forward together on sustainability science.” This, he said requires not just dialogue, but working together. Drawing on comments from the industry representatives, Professor Orecchini noted that fruitful coordination between industry and universities might be found in the university role to analyze what specific energy options, such as bio fuels, industry is considering would, in fact, be sustainable. “We cannot forget”, he noted, “that we have just entered a global crisis that is at once environmental, economic, and political. Taken together, these will require the development of new technologies and revisiting old ones, to study what the market is and should be. We need to work with industry to address these issues and at the same time it is important to re-enforce the interface with government as well. For example, as governments decide how to design stimulus packages for the economy as assistance or investments, we feel the emphasis should be on investment.”

In the discussion that followed the panel presentations, a number of constraints to industry/university collaborations in sustainability science were raised. One is the problem of the short-term perspective of industry (12–18 months) for research outcomes, versus the longer term research interests of universities (1–3 years). An industry representative suggested that one way to address the long-term issues would be to begin work on a specific project or issue. Another participant raised the issue of the changing role of universities to act not only as custodians of new knowledge, but also to take responsibility for its dissemination. Right now, universities in general are not structured to take on this role. A suggestion was made to create a forum at which questions of relevance of research can regularly be exchanged between academic and industry scientists.

Given the centrality of interactions between academic scientists and industry in sustainability science, the participants discussed means to work toward more robust collaborations. The following is a summary of the points made during the plenary discussion.

  • Industry and academia should work together from the beginning to define sustainability science

    • It is necessary to define what industry both can and cannot do

  • A symbolic work that defines sustainability science in the context of contemporary challenges is needed to galvanize all actors

    • This work should be similar in scope to the Bruntland Commission Report on sustainable development “Our Common Future” (Bruntland 1987)

  • Industry/university collaborations should focus on specific sustainability targets, e.g.,

    • Alternative fuels (options analysis, feasibility and effectiveness analyses)

    • University studies to validate scenarios developed and used by industry

    • Deployment of new technologies (identification of opportunities and constraints in both developed and developing countries)

  • Complex issues (e.g., global urban futures) may be of interest to and important to the future of industries, but is not necessarily research that industry would undertake itself

  • University outreach to industry and government is necessary to ensure relevance and effectiveness of results of sustainability science

    • The cooperative interface should include universities, government, and industry in both developed and developing countries

    • Universities need to consider structures in place to improve their ability to be more effective in outreach

    • As new knowledge is developed through sustainability science, universities must go beyond their role of serving as custodians of that knowledge to become proactive in its dissemination

  • There is a need to develop concrete cases on moving knowledge to action.

Creating a network of networks for sustainability science

In this panel, participants turned their attention to key elements in network of networks to achieve the dual goals of sustainability science: knowledge innovation and action. Panelists were Chongrak Polpraser, Asian Institute of Technology; Peter Edwards, Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology-Zurich; Jean Louis Armand, Counselor for Science and Technology of the French Embassy in Japan; Nancy Dickson, Co-Director of Harvard University’s Sustainability Science Program; Kazuhiko Takeuchi, University of Tokyo and UNU; James L. Buizer, Science Policy Advisor to the President, Arizona State University; and Vincenzo Naso, Director of the Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable Development (CIRPS). Panelists provided perspectives on what should be the purpose and elements of a network of networks for sustainability science. Professor Polprasert, for example, quoted the keynote address by Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, in which he defined sustainability science as a science for action. Bearing this in mind, Polprasert said, the network of networks should be aimed at action. In the case of water he noted this could include integrating food and water concerns and focusing on economic as well as technological issues. He proposed that the creation of network of networks begin small, focused on a specific issue perhaps, and then grows larger to encompass issues such as “food and water for all”.

Professor Armand emphasized the importance of ensuring quality in work that stems from network of networks and called for an evaluation process to be built into a network of networks structure. He also urged the symposium to be more inclusive of developing countries and to ensure research exchanges that move from developing to developed countries, and between developing countries, as well as the more common “north to south” knowledge flow. In his third point, Prof. Armand suggested that network of networks should not be limited to networks of academics but should involve representatives of both national and international government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and industry.

Professor Edwards focused on ways in which the creation of network of networks could help address the urgent need for answers to complex issues now. “Politicians around the world”, he said, “are looking for guidance, and universities have failed to meet this challenge in part because academic disciplines are so strong. All universities say that they want to tackle these big problems, he said, but their structures fight against this. The network of networks may well be one way to help universities get out of the stranglehold of their traditional structures.” In addition to helping universities break out of the disciplinary mold, Edwards argues, a network of networks could also provide a mechanism for bringing in broader knowledge that is necessary to fully address sustainability issues, that is knowledge from cultural, local, and regional sources. And, finally, he noted that the broader network would also provide opportunities to train students in how to break out of their disciplines and provide them with extraordinary experience in dealing with complexity and cultural diversity that is necessary to understanding and addressing these problems. Edwards sited some of the lessons learned in the context of the AGS networks on specific projects and how the projects demonstrated that working with multiple stakeholders in framing and carrying out research can result in immediate action. He noted that many examples are available in the publications of the AGS book series, “Science and Technology: Tools for Sustainable Development” (Springer 2009).

For his part, Dr. Buizer reminded participants of the need to ensure that any network that is created needs to have a good organizational foundation and function. In this context, he noted the importance of working jointly with industry and other stakeholders both to frame research questions and to conduct the research itself, which in turn will help keep the research focused on action. The network of networks itself, he suggested could result in the exchange of faculty and corporate people between member institutions, it could ensure the exchange of students, and also result in an ongoing Web-based dialogue to continue the efforts begun here.

Professor Naso emphasized too the importance of a strong organizational structure for the network of networks that would help to keep the network focused on concrete goals and avoid repetition of ongoing activities. In this context, he suggested that it would be useful to formalize the network of networks, beginning with a statement issued from the Congress to be delivered to the next G8 University Summit and requesting it to be disseminated to universities worldwide asking them to join in the network of networks effort.

Nancy Dickson raised three questions that lie at the core of constructing a new network of networks: Do we need one? What should be its goals? How can we do this? The conference itself provided answers to the first question. Sustainability science is about coupling research on human and natural systems and therefore must bring together research communities that are not usually accustomed to working jointly. The goals of a network of networks might therefore appropriately be to promote collaboration and communication, i.e., working together to disseminate synthetic results. She too emphasized the crucial need to maintain the highest academic standards in the evolution of sustainability science and noted the importance to the field of recognition by academic and professional societies. She cited in particular the recognition sustainability science has gained with a section devoted to it in PNAS, and the publication of the academic journal Sustainability Science. In this context, she proposed that, as the network of networks evolves, one might consider the development of a journal of sustainability science literature along the lines of the Journal of Economic Literature. Fostering collaboration will mean identification of existing networks, she said, noting for example the Network on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development that exists through the AAAS.

Professor Kazuhiko Takeuchi noted that most discussions on the role of universities in advancing sustainability focus on their role in technological and social innovation, less on structuring knowledge. He welcomed the offer by Sapienza University, Rome, to continue the ICSS forum by hosting it in 2010. Prof. Takeuchi added that, as the network of networks is developed, organizers should bear in mind the need to preserve cultural diversity, and to preserve diversity between the networks, rendering them complementary rather than competitive.

The ideas put forth by the panelists provided context to a stimulating floor discussion that added many points to be considered in the development of network of networks. These are summarized (without attribution) below.

  • Challenges

    • Need to bridge different styles of collaboration between scientists (focused on processes and mechanisms) and stakeholders (focused on concrete actions/solutions)

    • Focus for network of networks should begin with one or several issues relevant to social sustainability. There is also great need for coherence and synthesis

    • Proponents of network of networks should find ways to incorporate global sustainability issues into challenges at local levels.

  • Criteria

    • Issues taken up by network of networks must meet three criteria: saliency (relevance); legitimacy (supported by stakeholders); and credibility (meet rigorous scientific standards)

    • What is meant by credibility must be clearly defined as well as measures to determine when knowledge links to action

    • Recognize that sustainability science is “evolutionary” and that while aimed at action, it is not focused on “one solution” (which can lead to other problems) but, rather, to improving systems.

  • Future meetings on network of networks should consider the following:

    • Invite greater representation from developing world networks and universities

    • Move education component forward; have a session on education in the plenary and ensure greater student participation

    • Invite greater representation from stakeholders; that is, industry and NGOs.

Conclusion

The ICSS 2009 opened a discussion and provided the foundation for concrete steps to advance sustainability science while building a network of scholars to address the most pressing challenges. At the conclusion of the ICSS, Professor Akimasa Sumi, University of Tokyo, proposed that work be done to develop a structure for a network of networks. Since the meeting, the University of Tokyo has established the network of networks Website and has begun to collect information on actions to promote “green campuses”. Information is available at the Network of Networks Web site: http://nns-u.org. Participants noted that funds were needed in order to provide means to bring in more representation from developing countries and to include lesser known universities from these countries. In addition to including more developing countries, participants also noted the importance of including students from all over the world in discussions surrounding the development of the network of networks. The statement that the meeting participants agreed upon, and which they forwarded to the G8 University Summit in Torino Italy May 17–19, 2009 took account of these concerns and should provide the basis for future actions in developing sustainability science in general, and a network of networks to promote collective action on a global scale for sustainable development (see text of statement below). The Final Declaration of the 2009 G8 University Summit calls the implementation of the network of networks “essential to the development of sustainability science” and recommends the creation of a Virtual Centre on Education and Research for Sustainable Development (G8 University Summit 2009). That effort has already begun, with the G8 universities participating in the collection and sharing of data on “green campuses” on the network of networks Web site and with plans to build on the ICSS effort by holding a second International Conference on Sustainability Science in Italy in 2010. The statement issued by participants at the conclusion of the ICSS 2009 provides the proponents of such a network of networks with guidance on the way forward. What follows is the final statement as forwarded to the 2009 G8 University Summit.

Statement of participants in the ICSS2009 on the need for a network of networks

Effective action is urgently needed to address the serious challenges the world faces today at all levels: global, regional, national, and local. Sustainability science is necessarily aimed at action and requires innovations in knowledge generation and dissemination sustainability on a global scale. In order to ensure that sustainability science results in meaningful action, networks that transcend disciplinary, cultural, geographical, and societal barriers are crucial. Interactions between scientists across many disciplines as well as between scientists and all sectors of society are essential. While such networks exist at regional and global levels, they tend to be centered in developed countries, to be limited in both scope and participation, and to lack communication and coordination between them. We believe a network of sustainability networks can help to overcome these barriers to effectiveness and speed the translation of the newly generated knowledge to appropriate action. To this end we recommend the creation of a network of networks focusing on sustainability science to facilitate effectiveness through the promotion of:

  • The identification of complementarities so as to reduce duplication of effort and to enhance synergies

  • Cultural and geographical diversity in network participation

  • Greater participation of developing countries

  • The engagement of industry and other stakeholders from both developed and developing countries in the framing and execution of research agendas

  • Education and training of students and increased participation of students, particularly from developing countries through student exchanges as well as modern technologies.

We urgently request representatives at the G8 University Summit to endorse and facilitate the creation of this network of networks to address complex sustainability issues, and to encourage their faculties and students, as well as other universities, to join in this endeavor.