In a Québec Science’s compelling article, discover how participatory research is transforming who gets to do science — and how it’s done. Read this article published by Québec Science about the importance of participatory research The excellent science magazine Québec Science a very interesting article, written by Sophie Mangado and published by . It is in French, but worth the read. Use your favorite translation tool or challenge your high school French if you have some! “What happens when science steps out of the lab and into communities?” ask this article.  From Indigenous knowledge holders to patients, farmers, and local citizens, non-scientists are actively shaping research questions, collecting data, and driving meaningful change. This piece highlights real-world examples from different parts of Québec, showing that when people outside academia get involved, science becomes more grounded, inclusive, and impactful. Whether you’re a researcher, policymaker, or community leader, this article offers a rich, thoughtful look at how participation improves both knowledge and outcomes. Some examples At the Université de Montréal, a participatory research project on rare genetic diseases involves patients and their families in shaping research priorities. Their input helps scientists understand not only the biological mechanisms, but also the day-to-day challenges of living with such conditions — resulting in more relevant and humane research outcomes. In Quebec, farmers are working directly with researchers to test sustainable practices in agriculture and soil conservation. Their on-the-ground expertise influences experimental design, ensuring that scientific solutions are practical, not just theoretical. Citizen science initiatives allow locals to help monitor biodiversity and water quality. Volunteers collect data on invasive species or pollution levels in rivers and forests, empowering communities to take part in environmental stewardship. In Indigenous-led collaborations, traditional ecological knowledge is recognized as co-equal with academic science. This is especially important in areas like land use, conservation, and climate adaptation. 👉 Read the article here: https://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/societe/recherche-participative-impliquer-non-scientifiques-etudes/ SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

The UNESCO-MOST BRIDGES Coalition’s gathering in July 2025 will have a day of sessions open to everybody Phan Thị Kim Phúc, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for the Culture of Peace, will deliver the Bridging Futures Inaugural Distinguished Public Lecture with the title “From the Terror of War to Reconciliation and Care” The BRIDGES International Programme Office warmly invites everyone to join for a special day of programming on Wednesday, 16 July 2025, as part of the UNESCO-MOST BRIDGES Coalition’s gathering, at the Dylan Thomas Centre, Swansea, Wales. While the full event spans two days, this invitation is specifically for friends, partners, and wider community to participate in a day of events on the 16th, culminating in the inaugural Bridging Futures Distinguished Public Lecture. Let join for this day of shared learning, cultural exchange, and visionary dialogue. The day offers a rich and inspiring programme designed to highlight the voices, contributions and connections that make BRIDGES such a vibrant global community. Programme Overview Showcase of Contributions from BRIDGES hubs and coalition partners, including innovations, impact stories, and collaborative projects Presentation of UNESCO’s Publication on the social impacts of climate policy High-Level Roundtable featuring global thought leaders in sustainability Cultural Activities & Interactive Sessions, including an address from the Kogi Indigenous Community (Colombia) Strategic Dialogue on shaping BRIDGES 2025–2028 Intergenerational Conversation on co-creating pathways to flourishing futures Keynote Address on building bridges to better futures From the Terror of War to Reconciliation and Care The Inaugural Bridging Futures Distinguished Public Lecture will be given by UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador and global peace advocate Phan Thị Kim Phúc (Kim). As a child, Kim was the subject of one of the most iconic and haunting photographs of war in the late 20th century, The Terror of War, by Vietnamese-American photographer Nick Ut. The Pulitzer Prize-winning image captured 9-year-old Kim fleeing with her family from a napalm attack on civilians outside a temple in Trang Bàng, Vietnam. Since then, she has devoted her life to peace, reconciliation, and advocacy for victims of war. Her message carries urgency and resonance in today’s troubled world and vital lessons for the future. You can view a short film about the photograph that changed the Vietnam war (note that the film contains very distressing images and may not be suitable for all viewers). The Bridging Futures lecture is co-sponsored by the UNESCO-MOST BRIDGES Coalition, the Office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, and Arizona State University, Julie Ann Wrigley, Global Institute of Sustainability. Lunch and refreshments are included. The Dylan Thomas bar will be open after the lecture until 9pm providing an opportunity for informal dialogue and celebration of our shared work. Places are limited so please RSVP here. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

The association Sciences Citoyennes acts to ensure that citizens have a say in the organization of research and its orientations, to equip society for an ecological and inclusive transition Aude Lapprand is the coordinator of the association Sciences Citoyennes What is Sciences Citoyennes? Aude Lapprand: It is an association, founded in 2002. At the start, there were reflections carried out by Science & Technology Studies (STS): the co-founders gathered through a critical vision of science, in connection with 1970s movements that questioned hegemonic sciences. These founders came from the humanities and social sciences and from the experimental sciences. Some of them were themselves impacted by this majority science, as well as whistleblowers, such as Jacques Testart, who criticized his own experimental research practices on medically assisted procreation, André Cicollela, who studied the dangers of glycol ether, and Catherine Bourgain, who described how biology research was monopolized by the issue of GMOs. What were the goals of these founders? A. L.: The Sciences Citoyennes charter highlights the proliferation of environmental, health and other crises. In this context, it asserts that there is an urgent need to bring together different forms of knowledge to respond to the challenges posed by these crises: the only “legitimate” sciences from academia will not be enough. It is the hybridization of different kinds of knowledge that will enable citizens to find a way out of the current crises. With these multiple crises, it is necessary to stop thinking about science as mean of mastering nature: science should serve common good, and be designed with and for citizens. So, the members of Sciences Citoyennes are professional scientists? A. L.: No. The level of education of our 200 or so members is quite high: mostly master’s degree and above. But we are not a collective of scientists: we wish to be open to all citizens who combine strong militant convictions and an interest in science, without necessarily being professionals. Many of our members join us because they are initially motivated by a particular techno-scientific controversy: geo-engineering, nuclear power, GMOs, etc. And they discover that the underlying questions are the same in all areas: who are the experts? How is the regulatory question formulated? What research choices have been made? How can a truly democratic debate be created on this scientific issue? Sciences Citoyennes conducts a cross-fields reflection on these different themes. And so, what actions does the association take? A. L.: We have defined five axes, in which we are more or less active depending on the period: reorienting research, making research and expertise more accountable, producing a critical analysis of techno-sciences, supporting the third scientific sector and mobilizing with civil society. Reorienting research: what does that mean? A. L.: It starts with analyzing public research strategies at the regional, national and European levels, to find out what public decision-makers want to encourage as a research orientation. And it continues with reflection and proposals on the ways in which citizens could influence these research orientations. Since 2007, we have worked extensively on citizens’ assemblies, in line with what the Danish Board of Technology did in the 1980s. It is a democratic process that needs to be well-framed to avoid abuses and instrumentalization, as we saw in France in 2019 and 2020 with the Citizens Convention on Climate. It is also a topical issue: thanks to our work, in January 2025 French parliamentarians tabled a proposal for a constitutional law on citizens’ assemblies. The aim is for the mechanism to be enshrined in the Constitution, with precise rules on who can convene it, who organizes it, how the steering committees are constituted, how representative democracy interacts with participatory democracy, etc. And we also propose that 10% of the public research budget be allocated each year by one of these citizens’ assemblies. What is you action at the European level? A. L.: Research funded by the European Union is organized by the Horizon Europe framework program, which is discussed every six years. This program is extremely structuring, both because of the money it mobilizes and because it defines major trends for research, that other funders often follow. At each deadline, we try, with a coalition of other organizations from other European countries, to influence both the content and the way the content is made. We support, as in France, the proposal that part of the framework program budget be allocated by a citizens’ assembly. What are your suggestions relative to the direction this framework program should take? A. L.: In 2019, together with AtEcoPol Toulouse and Engineers Without Borders, we drew up our own version of a European framework program for research, with the aim of achieving an ecological and inclusive transition. What research do we need to make this transition a success? The result was a text of about a hundred pages, with 400 priority research questions, which was clearly different from Horizon Europe: our horizon was not growth and industrial competitiveness! This text is a tool that we also use to advocate the idea, if there was still any need to prove it, that science is not neutral. What are your actions for the second axis, making research and expertise more responsible? A. L.: In 2018, we wrote a Manifesto for Responsible Scientific Research and organized a series of three symposia on this issue: the first focused on the responsibility of research institutions, how they are organized, what kind of research they promote and what this produces; the second was devoted to the professional responsibility of researchers; the third focused on proposals to make scientific research truly responsible. Are you involved in the work on RRI, supported by the European Union in particular? A. L.: We are more radical. In particular, we criticize the notion of academic freedom, according to which only research professionals decide what they work on. This academic freedom is used, in some cases, to legitimize some sciences, without discussion. Sciences Citoyennes considers that research orientations are, above all, political choices, and that it

If you are interested in crossing disciplines, in working with the people who are affected by complex societal or environmental problems, and with decision makers, you should join! Gabriele Bammer is the president of the Global Alliance for Inter-and Transdisciplinarity (ITD Alliance) What is the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity? Gabriele Bammer: We have two major purposes. One is to be a professional society for people who consider themselves to be inter- and transdisciplinarians. The other is still an aim, namely to help establish a peak body for all the different groups that develop approaches for tackling complex problems like sustainability. This obviously involves the inter and transdisciplinarians, and also the convergence researchers, the post normal scientists, the action researchers, the systems thinkers, etc. There is a long list of approaches, and we are all developing theory and methods that overlap, but we all have our own silos. Why? G. B.: For two reasons. One is that it’s important from a scholarly perspective, for doing good work and not reinventing the wheel. For example, transdisciplinarians often start thinking about problems as systems, so rather than reinventing systems thinking transdisciplinarians should be collaborating with systems thinkers. It is also important from a political perspective: if we want science for sustainability to become accepted and to use the kinds of methods and concepts and theories that have been developed, then we need to be an influential group, and for that size matters. Being a number of small groups is hopeless, because nobody can find us, and because we have no voice at the research policy and funding tables. You mean, on the last point, even regarding the institutions you are working with, transdisciplinarity is not regarded well enough? G. B.: It depends, institutions vary, with some embracing transdisciplinarity or one of these other approaches and some not interested. If we look at global bodies, the International Science Council, for instance, is really taking transdisciplinarity seriously, which is fantastic. But there are other major organizations that set the research agenda that don’t pay any attention to transdisciplinarity at all, or very little to these different ways of doing science. What are the differences between transdisciplinarity, system thinking, action research, etc? G. B.: Let me talk about our similarity: we are all interested in crossing disciplines, in working with the people who are affected by the complex societal or environmental problem, and in working with decision makers to do something about the problem. Those three things unite transdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, systems thinking, action research, post-normal science, implementation science, team science, etc. In terms of differences, each approach puts the focus in different places: transdisciplinarians on co-production, systems thinkers on connections, boundaries and interrelationships, action researcher on giving power to those affected by the problem, so they try to take the back seat as researchers and really push forward the people with the problem to help them get power and to solve the problem for themselves. These are three examples. We are all doing the same thing, but with different emphases. And in any research project, one approach is just too narrow. Where can sustainability be present in this community of approaches? G. B.: All the approaches that I talked about deal with sustainability and all also deal with a whole range of other complex problems. In fact, sustainability science is another one of those approaches and I just haven’t mentioned it. The thing that defines these approaches is that we support methodological and theoretical development to deal with systems, context, uncertainty, pluralism, integration, change, decision making, communication, working together etc. There are plenty of people dealing with sustainability problems who are good at the science, and what these approaches aim to do is help them efficiently work with other disciplines, affected communities and decision makers, by providing relevant easy-to-access theory and methods, so they don’t have to reinvent them. One could imagine that the approaches you described could be at the service of goals very different from sustainability, and perhaps even opposite. G. B.: Yes. For instance, you can see the Manhattan project that built the nuclear bomb in World War II as a transdisciplinary project: an alliance between a number of physical science and broader disciplines, working with the military. It’s important to say that for transdisciplinarians, systems thinkers and proponents of other approaches, being clear and transparent about your values is critical. So, if you are working against sustainability, you are doing it knowing full well what you are doing. Do you think that the status of the non-scientific stakeholders that researchers collaborate with, be they associations, citizens or private companies, makes a difference to the status of the science? G. B.: It is a really important question. The non-scientific stakeholders provide different perspectives on the problem and potential actions that can be taken. How representative they are (especially citizens) and how influential they are (especially those who are in a position to take action) can massively affect how well the problem is understood and how effective the actions are. ITD-Alliance is a member of The Earth Humanity Coalition. What do you expect from this membership? G. B.: Sustainability is a big, complex problem, and it is fantastic that The Earth-Humanity Coalition recognizes that transdisciplinarity and all those allied approaches are important. What we want is to be able to contribute and provide shortcuts for people who are in the coalition and who are unfamiliar with these approaches, so that they do not have to reinvent the wheel. The ITD Alliance can provide a conduit to all the other approaches, e.g. systems thinking, action research, post-normal science etc. On the other way, do you expect something from other members? G. B.: We are a new organization. Many EHC members are peak bodies that have been around for a long time. Watching how they operate is a huge lesson for us. It is really enlightening. Let’s talk now about your planned activities in 2025. What are your plans for the coming months?

In the Kimberley region of Western Australia, Indigenous First Australians are partnering with researchers to pioneer environmental planning and management. Anne Poelina of the Nulungu Research Institute at the University of Notre Dame Australia argues that the key to our planet’s future may lie in Indigenous knowledge and wisdom The Martuwarra, named the Fitzroy River by European settlers, flows through the Kimberley region of Western Australia. For the Indigenous peoples, the River is not merely a geographical feature, but a living ancestral serpent being and the source of law, spirituality, and identity. This deep connection between people and place is at the heart of recent research by Indigenous scholar, Professor Anne Poelina of the Nulungu Research Institute at the University of Notre Dame Australia. Poelina champions the position that Indigenous leadership, wisdom and governance are crucial in addressing climate change and achieving environmental and multi-species justice, providing the ability to include this ancient wisdom and practice towards a climate chance. A long history of exploitation Today, Yi-Martuwarra people showcase the Fitzroy River as Australian National and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. However, it faces threats, of water extraction for agriculture and large-scale mining, including fracking. These plans, Poelina argues, continue a long history of exploitation, and ongoing invasive unjust development that has transformed a region of peace, harmony and balance into a situation of incremental ecocide and genocide. Central to the Indigenous perspective on these issues is the concept of First Law. This law, passed down through generations, governs the relationship between people and Country. It is not merely a set of rules, but a holistic system that encompasses spirituality and sustainable management practices. The Bookarrakarra philosophy The researchers introduce the concept of Bookarrakarra, an Indigenous philosophy that calls for us to learn from history to plan for the future, but to enact these lessons now. This perspective challenges linear Western notions of time, offering a holistic view of environmental stewardship. Yi-Martuwarra people believe that human and non-human beings have an equal right to life. Everything is in relationship as kin, as family. They see humans as part of nature, not separate from or dominant over it. This worldview recognizes the interconnectedness of living things and challenges the dominant Western paradigm of nature as an exploitable resource. Relearning harmony In response to the threats facing the Martuwarra, local Indigenous elders and young leaders from 9 nations have come together to form the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. Established in 2018, this alliance of Traditional Owners aims to maintain the legal, spiritual, cultural, and environmental stewardship of the region. As the world grapples with climate change, the message from the Martuwarra and its people resonates far beyond the Kimberley. Our survival depends on relearning how to live in harmony with the natural world, guided by the wisdom of those who have maintained that connection for millennia. Watch the video Original Article Reference Summary of the papers ‘People: ‘Just-Us for All’ – Indigenous wisdom for human and planetary well-being’ in Minority and Indigenous Trends, ‘Martuwarra Fitzroy River Watershed: One society, one river law’ in PLOS Water, and ‘Ancient wisdom dreaming a climate chance’ in Traditional knowledge and climate change: An environmental impact on landscape and communities. Contact For further information, you can connect with Prof. Anne Poelina at chair@martuwarrafitzroyriver.org or anne.poelina1@nd.edu.au This article has first been published on SciTube This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

November 27 is proposed for an annual celebration by Ukraine and 34 other countries The Junior Academy of Sciences of Ukraine sustain engagement in science with several kind of activities for school children and students April 14, 2025, the Executive Board of UNESCO approved a resolution recommending the proclamation of the 27 November of each year as the International Day of Engagement in Science for Sustainable Development. The formal proclamation will be held during the General Conference, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, in November 2025. The initiative of this resolution has been taken by Ukraine. The country has a rich tradition of engagement in science, especially thanks to the Junior Academy of Sciences, which is a Category 2 center of UNESCO. The resolution is proposed with a co-sponsorship by 35 countries (see below). Empowering the people The draft resolution states that : The International Day of Engagement in Science for Sustainable Development will promote the exchange of innovations, expertise and experience, empowering people with the knowledge, tools and platforms they need. It will provide an interactive space where scientists and global citizens can effectively work together to accomplish the Sustainable Development Goals. And also an idea that we particularly cherish at EHC: Science and scientists significantly influence the development of society in all spheres of life. Applied research reveals new issues and solves existing problems of humanity. However, research, innovation, and science cannot effectively address complex social, environmental and economic problems without developing dynamic relationships between science, education, policy, and the public. Creating a more thorough and inclusive knowledge-sharing process by bridging the gaps between science, education, policy, and decision-makers is one way to do this. Establishing a dialog at a global level And we only can agree with an initiative that aims that A bilateral dialogue will allow scientists, educators and the public to discuss the benefits and risks associated with the impact of science on our daily lives. This approach provides an opportunity to understand and solve problems better and identify new perspectives and forms of knowledge, potentially increasing scientific impact. Successful, continuous, science-based interaction with governments strengthens relationships and trust in society. This will enable to build more inclusive societies where all people are engaged for the common good. Finally, we very much hope to be able to help that: The International Day of Engagement in Science for Sustainable Development will be a joint commitment by thousands of partners and millions of representatives of civil society, business, academic and educational circles, and the UN system to accelerate the achievement of the SDGs. It will open opportunities to share knowledge and ideas and create transformative solutions to address global challenges. The date proposed to celebrate this International Day is 27 November. On this day in 1918, coincidentally, both the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Borys Yevhenovych Paton have been born. Paton was the president of the Academy continuously between 1962 and 2020. Luc Allemand Co-sponsors of the resolution: Albania, Armenia, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bulgaria, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, India, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nigeria, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Ukraine, Uruguay and Yemen. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

An innovative approach combining fieldwork and local participation means that agroecology can be evaluated with fewer resources and comparable results Multifunctional landscapes combine various agroecological spaces: flooded rice paddies, cattle grazing areas, annual crops on foothills, and agroforestry systems on slopes (photo: IRD – Jean-Christophe Castella) Agroecology draws its inspiration from natural ecosystems to reconcile food production, resource conservation, and improved living conditions for farmers. It is a response to the challenges posed by climate change and the erosion of biodiversity, and establishing itself as a sustainable alternative to intensive agriculture in many parts of the world. However, its rapid development raises important questions: how to evaluate the implementation and development of agroecology in a given region? What indicators and methods should be put in place for rigorous measurement? How can they be adapted to local contexts? IRD scientists and their partners have attempted to answer these questions with a new approach tested in three districts of Xiengkhouang Province, Laos, as part of the ASSET project. The right balance between local and global The most widely used agroecology evaluation methods oscillate between two main trends: one is locally rooted and participatory, the other is global and standardized. While the former offers detailed information on the local factors behind the switch to agroecology, it mobilizes intense resources, making it complicated to implement on a large scale. The second, on the other hand, categorizes farms into different types using generic indicators applicable to a variety of contexts, but limits the co-production of knowledge with local communities and misses essential regional specificities. “Yet this subtle balance between local relevance to encourage action and the importance of generalizing results to produce syntheses on the large-scale coverage of agroecology is essential for building political advocacy aimed at donors, sustainable development actors and decision-makers”, analyses  Jean-Christophe Castella, an IRD agronomist with the SENS unit. This is why, with an interdisciplinary and international team, the researcher has developed an innovative methodology capable of rapidly providing decision-makers with empirical data to guide their policies and intervention plans. A Participatory and Multi-Scale Approach “The idea was to propose an alternative to existing methods that was rapid, applicable on a large scale and adaptable to a diversity of contexts, while adequately capturing the level of agroecology in the areas studied”, explains Zar Chi Aye, senior researcher at the University of Bern’s Interdisciplinary Centre  for Sustainable Development and Environment (CDE), and first author of the study. To achieve this, the team designed and tested an approach based on field observations and Focus Group Discussions with key witnesses to socio-technical change at village and district levels. These discussions were based on a set of indicators defined in consultation with local stakeholders and covering several dimensions: agronomic (crop diversity, soil cover, recycling of organic matter), economic (farm autonomy, short marketing circuits), social (collective organization, transmission of knowledge) and environmental (preservation of water and soil resources, functional biodiversity). “Over and above village-level mapping, this multi-scale approach has enabled us to characterize the extent and intensity of agroecological transformations”, says Albrecht Ehrensperger, geographer at the University of Bern’s CDE. Comparable results with fewer resources One of the strengths of the methodology put in place by the scientists is that it do not rely on the aggregation of figures from different sources of information, whose collection and processing methods may be uncertain, but on the participation of stakeholders in the transformations underway. This makes it possible to go beyond a simple report on the state of agroecology and interpret agroecological scores in terms of actionable knowledge. “In the end, our method mobilizes far fewer human and financial resources than traditional household surveys, while delivering comparable results”, says Zar Chi Aye. A method that represents an interesting advance in the evaluation of agroecology, but which is still in its infancy and could be further improved. One of the challenges is to extend its field of application to other territories and agricultural contexts. To this end, scientists suggest to adapt indicators to local specificities by co-constructing them with those involved in the agro-ecological transition, and developing digital tools to facilitate data collection and analysis. Indeed, the involvement of farmers and other agro-ecology stakeholders in the evaluation process remains crucial. Greater appropriation of the method by local communities would make it a real lever for supporting the agroecological transition. This would provide a snapshot of the current state of agroecology in local areas, as well as a monitoring tool to help agricultural policies implement sustainable food systems. Louise Hurel This article has first been published by IRD, which is a member of EHC. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

It is time to renew membership, or to become a new member of EHC Go to http://app.synelink.fr/inscription/earth-humanity As we are entreting the second year of The Earth-Humanity Coalition, it is time for members to renew their membership, and for new members to join. Any organization can be a member of EHC, as long as it approves the charter, that you can dowload from this link. It has been decided by the General Assembly, in December 2024, that the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) would host EHC in 2025. Membership of EHC is then formalized by the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding with IUPAP (you can download a generic version of the MoU). It has also been decided that the basic membership fee dor 2025 is 1,000 €. However, if an organization wishes to join but cannot pay, in-kind contributions are accepted: the Steering Committee will decide on a case by case base. A simplified process To keep the MoU production simple, we created an online registration platform. Just click on the button “Join us” in the top menu, then on the button “Join here”: it will bring you to the platform, where you will be asked the name of the organization that wishes to join, and a person contact name and e-mail. After a simple check (to avoid spam), you wull receive an invitation to create an account on the platform, and then to provide information for the MoU and for the invoice, if relevant. Even more simple, as you are reading this post: go to http://app.synelink.fr/inscription/earth-humanity SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

As World Water Day approaches, Hester le Roux highlights the link between water security, gender equality and women’s rights – and explains why the Fair Water Footprints programme is working to ensure that the water we use is truly equitable for all. Local communities in Woukpokpoe, Benin accessing safe, clean water (Photo: World Bank Photo Collection, via Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) The annual World Water Day (22 March) comes close on the heels of International Women’s Day, which is marked on 8 March every year. This feels apt, given that issues affecting women and gender equality – social norms, power relations, land ownership, access to basic services, risk of violence and the like – are also hugely relevant in the spaces of water security and WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene). Recent months have seen a backlash in some quarters against any initiatives that openly commit to include everyone in their reach, regardless of personal characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity or ability. Such initiatives surely have admirable intentions, despite being tarred by the tainted ‘DEI’ brush. Yet, the fact remains that water security affects different groups of people in very different ways. Any efforts to ensure better management of our collective water resources that do not make special provision for these groups, risk deepening existing inequalities and increasing potential harm to the very people whose rights they seek to protect. This is why gender equality and social inclusion has been placed at the heart of the Fair Water Footprints initiative. Launched at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, Fair Water Footprints forms one part of the UK government-funded Just Transitions for Water Security programme, which aims to help countries manage water resources responsibly for the future. Watching our water footprints Similar to carbon footprints, a ‘water footprint’ can be a useful indicator of how sustainable a production process is from a water use perspective. Developed in 2002 by Professor Arjen Hoekstra, a product’s water footprint takes into account all the water consumed to make it, expressed in cubic metres per year. This includes ‘blue water’ (freshwater like lakes and rivers), ‘green water’ (rainfall) and ‘brown water’ (freshwater needed to dilute pollutants in post-production water to make it safe to use again). It is thanks to this concept that we now know that it can take up to 83,000 litres of water to manufacture a car, or 10,800 litres for one pair of jeans: an extremely water-intensive process. For context, the average person in the UK uses around 150 litres of water per day. The concept of a product’s water footprint is becoming more widely used to influence buying decisions. During the ‘Veganuary’ campaign earlier this year, I was able to compare the water footprints of different milks and milk substitutes on offer in a London coffee shop, thanks to a poster prominently displayed near the counter. (In case you’re wondering, rice milk had the lowest water footprint, while cow’s milk had the highest, with 125.6 litres of water used to produce just 200ml). Whose water is it anyway? However, knowing how much water is used in the products we consume is only one part of the picture. What do we understand about where the water used in the production process was sourced from, or who was affected by its use in this particular way? Which groups had less access to water as a result of the making of this product? Was any community’s only source of fresh water polluted? Were people’s WASH needs met before water was diverted for commercial use? These are the issues the Fair Water Footprint initiative seeks to address through the Glasgow Declaration for Fair Water Footprints (PDF), which commits signatories to a number of principles, including sustainable and equitable withdrawal and water use, and zero water pollution. The fact is, while risks to water security affect entire communities, certain groups within those communities are even more at risk: particularly those whose voices often go unheard, or who lack access to services, decision-making and empowerment.  This typically includes include people living with disabilities, the elderly, young people, LGBTQI+ communities, Indigenous Peoples, migrants or displaced communities and, unsurprisingly, women. Women and water: an unequal burden In many communities in the global South, fetching water is women’s work. Time spent collecting water for the household’s daily needs, on top of providing care and domestic work, leaves women and girls little time to earn money or attend school; let alone to rest. When water sources are polluted or depleted, women and girls have to walk further to collect water, also increasing their risk of harm from gender-based violence. In many agricultural communities, women make up the majority of smallholder farmers who are very vulnerable to disruptions in their clean water access; and when their farming income is threatened, entire households are at risk of harm. These water security risks are exacerbated by the effects of climate change, which is disrupting rainfall patterns and causing more droughts and floods. Women are also disproportionately affected by lack of access to WASH. If workplaces do not have clean, adequate and safe WASH facilities, this prevents women from realising economic opportunities and can also create gender-based violence risks.  In most sectors, women have less power and representation at work, so are less able to advocate for their needs. Girls are more likely to stay away from school if their hygiene needs are not met – with lifelong implications for their income, opportunities and wellbeing.  Ensuring no one is left behind In light of these vulnerabilities, the Fair Water Footprint initiative has gender equity and social inclusion (GESI) baked into its very design. The four organisations jointly delivering the initiative – CDP, Chatham House, IIED and Water Witness – have signed up to a set of GESI principles that will guide all their activities. This allows GESI to become mainstream throughout the programme: from design and implementation, to stakeholder engagement and monitoring impact. While women are not the only group disproportionately affected by water insecurity, this month’s

The French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development organizes permanent forums for dialogue and exchange bringing together partners around major societal challenges The Knowledge Communities (CoSav, from Communautés de Savoirs in French) are both an internal cement for the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), and a support point for federating and innovative activities. These communities provide a framework for collaboration conducive to the emergence and co-construction of multi-stakeholder projects. By pursuing a transdisciplinary approach, and with the achievement of the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) as a benchmark, the knowledge communities aim to facilitate the response to concrete opportunities such as setting up projects, preparing syntheses, investing in new collaborative tools, responding to institutional requests and international organisations, and making sustainability science and its methods more visible and accessible. The IRD has nine knowledge communities. Biodiversity Biodiversity refers to all living things and the ecosystems in which they live – from bacteria to plants and animals. This term also includes the interactions of species with each other and with their environments. Biodiversity is threatened directly and indirectly by human activities (changes in land use, direct exploitation of species and ecosystems, pollution, etc.), while humans depend on it in material (for example, by providing our food and contributing to climate regulation) and immaterial (cultural, aesthetic, etc.) terms. This interdependence is particularly important in the countries of the Global South, where the conservation of biodiversity and the improvement of the living conditions of their inhabitants must be carried out in a coordinated manner, taking into account the often far-reaching consequences of climate change. Providing solutions to these challenges, as some of the Sustainable Development Goals aim to do, requires research that brings together all components of society: researchers from all relevant disciplines, decision-makers, donors, civil society and the populations. The objective of CoSav Biodiversity is to structure a community of researchers to think about and predict future dynamics via inter- and transdisciplinary approaches linking natural sciences to human and social sciences. It thus aims to offer its expertise to the academic and international decision-making sphere on issues related to biodiversity (IPBES, IUCN, CBD, etc.). Climate The consequences of global warming are already being felt in many parts of the world and it is likely that even if it is kept below 1.5°C, global warming will threaten certain regions, species and activities. In this context, interdisciplinary and intersectoral approaches are necessary to understand and anticipate the consequences in terms of the evolution of climatic hazards and impacts, to analyze the new risks and vulnerabilities and to co-construct sustainable solutions to limit the impacts in the South. The objective of the Climate Knowledge Community is to create cross-disciplinary links between mixed research units (UMR) involving the IRD and its partners on issues related to global warming. This interdisciplinary cross-disciplinary initiative is structured around four actions: low-carbon research in the South; the co-production of knowledge and solutions at the territorial level; the development of a digital platform for climate services; participation in the science-policy dialogue. Georesources and sustainability Extractive activities are a source of disruption for society and the environment and are therefore not very compatible with the concept of sustainability. The Georessources and sustainability (GéoD) Knowledge Community explores the various facets of this antagonism at different scales of space and time, in a global context of global warming, ecological and energy crisis and social and territorial inequalities. The scope of GéoD covers georesources from their genesis and geological context to their integration into socio-technical assemblages, modes of governance and heterogeneous extractive territories. It also includes the analysis of disturbances induced in the biogeochemical cycles of contaminants in the environment, as well as the health risks and social vulnerabilities generated by associated extractive and industrial activities. This community is a forum for dialogue open to all scientific disciplines, and aims to foster the emergence of new scientific frontiers and original solutions for the avoidance, mitigation and/or repair of damage caused by the exploitation of geological resources. GeoD contributes to the co-construction of a fairer and more sustainable relationship with georesources and the regions that are home to them, driven by an ethic of responsibility and a reflexive approach. The concepts of justice and responsibility – environmental, health, social, economic – are at the heart of the debates, within the framework of an inclusive science-society-politics dialogue and citizen/participatory research in both the Global North and the Global South. Coastline and ocean In the context of global changes, knowledge relating to oceanic and coastal areas is becoming a top priority, as demonstrated by the launch of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). Ocean and coastal ecosystems provide various services: supply by providing a high level of essential foodstuffs; regulation and protection against hazards (carbon sequestration); support (life and element cycles); cultural (levers of attractiveness for seaside tourism and a strong heritage dimension). However, economic and demographic growth, coastal development and climate change are generating increasing pressures on these ecosystems. These pressures are aggravating the services provided by these oceanic and littoral ecosystems, thus demonstrating the interdependence of societies, coasts and oceans. Understanding the complexity of the interactions between these environments and humans, who have multiple representations and uses of them, requires the mobilization of a broad spectrum of tools, disciplines and actors. Inter- and transdisciplinary collaborative approaches are essential for the study of the coast-ocean complex as a socio-ecosystem and for the construction of strategies guaranteeing the sustainability of its uses. The objective of the CoSav LeO is to help bring together, unite and promote a close-knit and visible community of IRD actors and partners in the Global South and Overseas Territories around these issues. Migrations In 2021, there were 281 million international migrants in the world, i.e. people living in a country other than the one in which they were born. This ever-increasing international migration is mainly between countries in the Global South, with intra-regional migration being the most common. In addition to this migration between countries, there