This report focuses on the role of scientific advice in transnational crises. It brings together expertise from both the science and crisis management communities, through the OECD Global Science Forum (GSF) and the OECD High Level Risk Forum (HLRF). It builds on the 2015 GSF report on Scientific Advice for Policy Making: the Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists presented at an OECD science ministerial meeting in Daejeon, Korea, and the 2015 HLRF report on The Changing Face of Strategic Crisis Management, as well as the 2014 OECD recommendation on the Governance of Critical Risks.

Scientific advice has an important role to play in all phases of the crisis management cycle: preparedness, response and recovery. It can be particularly valuable when a crisis occurs and develops, which is when sense-making matters. However, this value is dependent on the quality and timeliness of the advice and, most importantly, its relevance to the decisions that crisis managers and policymakers have to make. Generating rigorous scientific advice requires access to relevant data, information and expertise. Ensuring that this advice is useful requires effective connections between scientific advisory processes and crisis management mechanisms. When crises are novel, complex or large in scale and, in particular, when they have a trans-national impact, ensuring the rigour and usefulness of scientific advice can be particularly challenging. It requires effective mechanisms for rapid exchange of data and information and a common understanding of how scientific advisory mechanisms operate in different countries. Otherwise, there is a serious risk of confusion that can impede the crisis response, undermine public trust in government and responsible agencies, and, ultimately, lead to avoidable loss of life and increased economic disruption.

There are five key areas where policy action is necessary to improve the provision and use of science advice in international crises. Firstly, the appropriate structures and mechanisms to link scientific advisory mechanisms and crisis management need to be in place at the national level.Secondly, there is a need for clear communication and exchange across national boundaries and effective frameworks to facilitate this. Thirdly, there is a need to build trust between providers and users of scientific advice across national borders. Fourth, being prepared is crucial to crisis management and cross-sectoral and cross border cooperation is required to ensure this. Finally, communication with the public should, as far as possible be coordinated across countries.

Scientific advice plays an important role in the management of crises but can also be a source of dissent between countries. This study explores the challenges to international coordination with regards to scientific advice. To this end, a cross country survey was conducted and the outcomes were fed into an international workshop that brought together crisis managers and scientists. This workshop focused on the in depth analysis of specific case studies.

No two crises are the same and, in an interconnected world, we are increasingly confronted with novel and complex crises that have spill-over effects involving multiple countries. Science advice can be useful in all stages of crisis management - preparedness, response and recovery. Different countries have developed their own mechanisms for developing and accessing the advice that is necessary in specific situations. These tend to be more or less centralised or distributed and can be difficult to understand for outsiders, which can be an obstacle for international cooperation.

While many OECD countries have the scientific capacity and management structures in place to deal with 'routine' domestic emergencies, as the scale and complexity of a crisis increases so the need for international cooperation is likely to increase. There are a number of international frameworks that have already been agreed, which govern the exchange of scientific data and information between countries during certain types of crisis.Some of these are 'owned' by international organisations.However, the implementation of these agreements is dependent on the existence of trusted international networks.

There are a number of important barriers to trans-national cooperation around scientific advice in crisis situations. These include: imbalances in scientific capacity between countries; lack of clearly defined domestic mechanisms for developing and using rigorous advice and a lack of understanding of existing mechanisms across countries; lack of incentives coupled with potentially serious liabilities for individual scientists and their institutions; legal and cultural differences; lack of cross-sectoral communication; andlack of trust between different actors and between public authorities, the scientific community and the public at large.

While all crises are different, there are a number of common issues that recur across countries and communities with respect to science advice and the management of crises. These relate partially to technical issues - structures, mechanisms and frameworks. However the most important factors inhibiting effective cooperation are social or cultural. Policies are required that promote mutual understanding, trust and effective communication between different actors and different countries.