Scientific support for sustainable development policies

Brief for Sitra Studies 118: Scientific Support for Sustainable Development Policies: a Typology of Science–Policy Interfaces with Case Studies

Roope Kaaronen, 9.11.2016

1Sitra • Roope Kaaronen •

Scientific Support for Sustainable Development Policies

http://www.sitra.fi/en/julkaisu/2016/scientific-support-sustainable-development-policies

Science–Policy Interface (SPI)

Sitra • Roope Kaaronen • 2

Return on theendowment capital(12/2015)

5.7%

• [Suom. Interface = Rajapinta, yhtymäkohta]

• Science–policy interface: ‘organizations, initiatives or projects that work at the boundary of science, policy and society to enrich decision making, shape their participants’ and audiences’ understandings of problems, and so produce outcomes regarding decisions and behaviours’ (Sarkki et al., 2015: 506).

• Designing better SPIs requires the identification of good practices and modes of operation: what models of SPIs exist, in what settings, what works and where, what kinds of challenges are faced…

A need to define a typology of science–policy interfaces for sustainable development policies (this has not been done before!)

• No single ‘right SPI model’ exists: context is definitive!

Underlying themes



5.7%

• Complexity: Sustainable development (SD) is a complex affair. No clear answers exist as to what it is or how it is achieved, but what seems clear enough is that it is absolutely necessary.

• Science is our best and most educated guess, and should therefore work to support sustainable development policies. But how?

• Role of science in SD policies: moving from ’evidence-based’ linear output to co-productive, inclusive and ’socially robust’ knowledge (broad understanding of policy-relevant knowledge).

• Evidence-informed input to SD policies is essential, but so is also the social and political applicability, comprehensibility and acceptability of the evidence (and how it is portrayed)

• Iteration and balancing: learning from past experiences/foresight. Maintaining right distances (between science/policy, authority/inclusion etc.). Different responses to different levels of complexity!

Finding the Optimal ’Goldilocks Zone’ for Scientific Support


Scientific support is a constant balancing act between ’too hot’ and ’too cold’. Both drifting tooclose to governments (or other decision makers) and too far from them has resulted in advisoryorganisations being abolished. The same applies to being ’too loud’ or ’too quiet’, a ’watchdog’ ora ’lapdog’. Trust and knowledge building mechanisms (e.g. co-production) are required.

The big question remains: how does scientific support remain independent, critical and vociferouswhilst also being perceived as trustworthy, credible and relevant (and not as a nuisance) bydecision makers?

Picture: Balancing between Science (S) and Policy (P): finding a common ground? Mutual spaces for interaction (e.g. workshop-style platforms, interpersonal encounters) are required!

From a linear model… …to co-production.

Typology of SPIs: The Independent Model



The Independent Model Independent groups or panels of

experts conducting (‘pushing’) scientific advice, assessment and

monitoring. The Independent Model has particular strength as

an impartial watchdog for governmental SD policies, yet the

true impact of their reporting-biased approaches can often be

questioned.

Typology of SPIs: The Integrated Model



The Integrated ModelGroups of experts integrated

into the governmental sphere, consisting not only of scientific

experts but also of parliamentarians, political

decision-makers and other stakeholders. Whilst integrated SPIs often succeed particularly

in gathering a diverse variety of experts and stakeholders who operate in close proximity with

government officials, experiences signify that outside

and unwelcome voices are oftensilenced.

+ avoiding stakeholder dominance over scientific experts!

Typology of SPIs: The Assignment Model


The Assignment ModelCases where demand-driven

scientific support is provided for policymakers by task forces when required. Assignment

SPIs, often embodied by, for example, think tanks and

consultancies, offer short-term solutions when most needed,

but generally lack thecomprehensiveness to act as

major interfaces in SD concerns.

Typology of SPIs: The Nested Model


The Nested ModelCases where scientific support is

organised for policymakers via thoroughly institutionalised

arrangements of nested expert hierarchies. Nested Model SPIs

are especially successful incombining independent scientific rigour with high-level impact on policymakers, yet find particular

challenges in co-ordination.

Typology of SPIs: The Adviser Model


The Adviser ModelScientific advisers directly

informing the highest political actors, often aided by

secretaries and advisory offices. The Adviser SPI is an

oft-criticised model, particularly due to its systematic lack of

transparency and social robustness, and is thus not well suited to complex and

often controversial SD issues.

Typology of SPIs: The Platform Model


The Platform ModelDeliberative and co-productive

knowledge brokering arenas for science–policy interaction often

organised by third parties. These SPIs offer

(face to face or online) forafor policy co-creation and

design for those who might not else interact, yet are sometimes

too short-lived to provide the longevity which SD-related

SPIs require.

Locating Finnish SD Related SPIs in the Typology


+ ’Mixed’ Models, e.g. Expert Panel on Sustainable Development (Independent and Integrated with some Platform activities)

How should these SPIs cooperate and exchange good practices in order to best complement each other’s weaknesses and promote the development of a comprehensively sustainable Finland?

Independent

• Ilmastopaneeli

• Talouspolitiikan

arviointineuvosto

• Luontopaneeli

Assignment

• TEAS

• STN

• Ajatushautomot

Integrated

• Kestävän kehityksen

toimikunta

• Biotalouspaneeli

• TIN

• IPCC-työryhmä

Adviser

• N/A (suggested by Raivio,

2014)

Nested

• Sitra

• SYKE

• LUKE

• Suomen Akatemia

• Helsinki Sust. Sci. Center

+ Ympäristöjärjestöt

Platform

• Ympäristötiedon foorumi

• Future Earth Suomi

• Tiedeakatemiain

neuvottelukunta

• Baltic 21

• Kansallinen

ennakointiverkosto

Conclusions


• In a complex environment, the variety of responses both withinSPIs and between SPIs has to be diverse ( increased resilience)

Need for a variety of flexible/adaptive SPIs. Different models can

complement each other’s weaknesses. Hybrid models can/do exist.

Different working contexts/levels of complexity might call for

different approaches (e.g. ‘static’ panels complemented by ‘dynamic’ working groups; ‘watchdogs’ complemented by more deliberative platforms…)

• Diversity in SPIs is richness, but only if networking/cooperation is successful! (c.f. Finland, where almost all models of SPIs exist)

The big challenge is to piece this puzzle of Finnish SPI models

together!

Conclusions


• SD related SPIs are still dominated by a natural scientific environmental outlook need for integrative expert groups who

also take into account the social and economic dimensions of SD

• Most SD SPIs rely on a linear or knowledge deficit model (speaking scientific ‘truth’ to people in ‘power’, who just ‘don’t know enough’).Need for socially robust knowledge (= not only scientifically valid but also taken up in social and political context).

• Merely compiling and disseminating reports is not enough!

• Scientific support for SD policies is endangered and vulnerable to political turbulence – support should not be taken for granted, and should be designed particularly with resilience in mind

Building a successful Finland for tomorrow

sitra.fi

Facebook.com/SitraFund

@SitraFund

Roope Kaaronen

[email protected]

Scientific support for sustainable development policies

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Scientific support for sustainable development policies