Topic 1 – IPU strategy and vision for peace towards establishing a parliamentary expert community, based on science and peace

 

Speakers: Ambassador Mokhtar Omar (IPU), Mr. Denis Naughten (IPU – WGST Chair), Mr. Gennaro Migliore (IPU – MEC Chair), Mr. Serge Stroobants (Director of Europe & MENA region at the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP))

 

Science for Peace Schools :

 

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) said that the Science for Peace School was designed to allow parliamentarians to work together and understand the scientific cooperation model. The aim of the present meeting was not to make decisions in relation to the programme, but rather to allow the Secretariat to adequately prepare for the first conference for parliamentarians on water. The IPU’s Member Parliaments had agreed to several strategic objectives for the Organization, one of which was to empower parliamentarians. Inviting external partners ensured that the concept of science was at the forefront of the agenda. The aim of the Science for Peace School was to prepare the groundwork for parliamentarians and ensure that a network could be established that would be sustainable for the future. There would be mechanisms put in place to improve and develop the programme in the months and years to come.

Mr. G. Migliore (President, IPU Committee on Middle East Questions) said it was important to really understand the meaning behind the Science for Peace School initiative. Fundamentally, it was a programme designed for politicians and their technical advisers. The reputations of the IPU and CERN would ensure that the programme would be perceived as a serious science-based initiative. The overall aim, however, was to connect the concepts of science and peace through the School. As the present event was the first School to take place, it was an example forum to demonstrate what could be achieved. If an event was well organized, it would ensure that more people, including state actors and the private sector, could come together to share experiences. It was crucial to be open to new projects and initiatives.

​

Evidence-based approach for legislations :

​

Mr. D. Naughten (Chair, IPU Working Group on Science and Technology) said that Ireland was no different when compared to other countries around the world. Parliamentarians around the world were typically allocated a researcher or parliamentary assistant. In most cases, such members of staff were being used to handle constituency matters, as opposed to carrying out research on behalf of their national parliaments. While funding had been provided for additional members of parliamentary staff, parliamentarians regularly glazed over the science. Politicians were great supporters of evidence and case studies, but it was imperative to take science and convert it into language that communicated applicable evidence effectively. He recalled using anecdotal evidence exclusively in the past to support a line of enquiry during a debate. However, as a result of improvements in research capacity, he now had evidence on hand and was able to communicate research to colleagues more easily. As an example, the issue of long COVID had not been a priority topic in the Irish parliament. However, upon using a research paper to justify the need for investment in that regard, numerous parliamentarians had contacted the Library and Research Service requesting a copy of the applicable research paper and had even discussed the topic with him directly. It was crucial to provide evidence in such a way that one or two parliamentarians would be prepared to enter their parliaments and articulate such evidence. It was important that those who had been invited to the present meeting were in attendance, as opposed to parliamentarians themselves, as they could provide a greater impact by presenting case studies as empirical evidence to parliamentarians to support arguments made in national parliaments. Language was the most crucial element.

One of the participants said that it was important to find an overlap between science and politics. In his view, science operated in a vastly different language compared to politics. Some parliamentarians around the world had a background in science. It was crucial to involve them in discussions and as part of the Science for Peace School, so as to effectively leverage science and evidence in political discourse.

Although CERN was a government-funded organization, private businesses had the most to gain from the Organization’s scientific developments. By using inputs rationally, businesses could become more productive and more sustainable. The agricultural industry, for example, used 70% of all water in day-to-day processes. Yet in some countries, water was being used more efficiently. Experiments and case studies therefore needed to be shared, which required technology and science. He asked for further clarification regarding the contribution of the private sector to CERN.

Ms. A. Del Rosso (CERN) said that CERN focused on fundamental science, as opposed to applied science. There were mechanisms in place to transfer cutting-edge technologies and capacities to industry, as well as other forms of interaction and coordination.

The participant from the Netherlands said that over the past few years, the Dutch Parliament had introduced new systems to ensure that the knowledge and information that was used on a day-to-day basis was truly independent and was not sourced from the government or certain lobby groups. Every committee now had research staff who were able to perform their own research. A memorandum of understanding had been signed with various Dutch universities and institution to facilitate information gathering on policy debates. There were some challenges initially, as parliamentarians from certain political backgrounds were intentionally looking for certain results. However, over the years, the initiative had been used on a more objective basis, as part of the overall decision-making process.

The participant from India said that the aim of the Indian National Science Academy was to create a framework where parliamentarians or committee members could be provided with scientific expertise which was used to help constituency-related issues, inform policy dialogue or be used in international negotiations. It also was a way to cut out any form of bureaucracy in access to science. He was hopeful that it would provide positive results in the future.

Mr. S. Stroobants (Director, Europe and MENA, Institute for Economics and Peace) said that it was either a personal or political decision to construct legislation or political work around evidence-based resources or empirical approaches. For some countries, the use of independent research in developing policies and decision-making was not an option, therefore it was important that an organization such as the IPU was supporting such parliaments. It was incredible to see collaborations and exchanges of best practices and information taking place between parliaments. Evidence-based resources transcended political affiliations, which worked not only in the interests of national parliaments, but also at the national and international levels.

At the most recent UN Climate Change Conference in Sharm el Sheikh, there was a stark difference between the models and solutions presented to combat the effects of climate change and the amount of money that had been spent on other concerns. One such example was the staggering quantities that had been spent to save national economies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such notable differences also extended to the cost of violence. Every year, the world spent US$ 16.5 trillion on violence, of which 80% was spent on violence containment. Just 1% of that figure was the equivalent of the total global budget of overseas development. Investing in violence and conflict was a political choice. The economic model of peace was much more profitable than the economic model of conflict. In recent days, the US Air Force had announced plans to acquire at least 100 B-21 Raider bombers. A single bomber cost approximately US$ 700 million. It was a political choice to direct investment into violence. It was hard to imagine how many thousands of projects could be financed to reduce the impact of climate change if different choices had been made. Parliamentarians were elected to serve their communities and constituencies. Science and research could provide facts, data and evidence to help develop policies and serve communities more effectively.