*Corresponding Author ([email protected])
Science-Policy Bridging in Decision-making process: A Developing Nation Context
Sadia Afrin 1, Md. Mostafizur Rahman2*
1Graduate Student, Department of Environmental Sciences, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
(Received: 23 February 2022, Revised: 24 June 2022, Accepted: 28 June 2022, Online: 30 June 2022)
Abstract
This study focuses on a better assessment of the bridging process of science and policy. The science-policy bridging process is highlighted for a better understanding of the theoretical challenges of environmental governance. The bridging process of science and policy needs human intervention to achieve a co-relation between these approaches, especially in Bangladesh. The science and policy bridging process involves social processes which can address the interrelationship between scientists, researchers, and other bodies associated with the policy-making process, knowledge construction, and exchange to achieve effective decision making.
Such studies in Bangladesh on process design are ascending to develop a strong relationship between the idea of science and policy. The study concluded that ideal requirements might improve the implementation criteria, designs, and real-life implications of science and policy. Therefore, the main methodological issues must be identified for the bridging process through further studies and practical analysis.
Keywords: Environmental sustainability, LEED certification, Green building technologies, Energy efficiency, Relative Importance Index (RII).
Introduction
This study aims to establish a concept of the science-policy bridging process in developing countries like Bangladesh, as this process eventually may create some theoretical challenges, where some ideal requirements need to be picked out for the process implementation and design. Science and policy are the two most essential variables in environmental governance (Hove et al., 2007).
Funtowics et al. (1993) and Ravetz et al. (1999) developed the future-common science, demonstrating an initial understanding of the relationship between science and policy. In the private and public sectors, policymakers and planners are actively creating new science trends and decision-making interactions (Hove et al., 2006). In the Sixth Framework (FP6) of search and Technological Development of the European Union, the necessity of further analysis on expert- civil society-policy makers, science-governance, and science-policy bridging process was first identified for creating channels for policymakers and equipping them with essential analysis tools (Siebenhuner et al., 2003). Many studies focus on reinforcing the policy network interaction to improve overall science-policy interaction (Jasanoff, et al., 2004). Also, scientific information
dissemination at the policy level is necessary to accurately assess worldwide environmental changes and social responses (Farrell et al., 2005; Jasanoff et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2006). An efficient science-policy bridging process in Bangladesh depends on long-term sociological and theoretical aspects, indicating the introduction of science in society and future implications in decision-making. Policymakers and managers from both public and private bodies are constantly trying to create new structures at the local level for the interaction between science and the decision- making process in Bangladesh. Many research projects suggest that there should be an interaction between experts, industry, civil society, and policymakers to address this interface. There are some practical implementations of this practice, e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Agrawala et al., 1997; Siebenhuner et al., 2003), International Mechanism of Expertise on Biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006). It is also reflected from recent studies that for accurate environmental governance, the science-policy bridging works as a critical element.
From a global perspective, all the multiple features of ‘science’ depict in searching for the basis of the relationship between science and policy, we often get the result of the scientific processes and the actors playing their role in it and a reflection of the overall context.
Material and Methods
A data collection questionnaire was prepared first to gather necessary information from experts.
KII (Key Informant Interviews) of four (04) environmental and climate change experts was done for the study purpose regarding policy and decision-making process.
Results and Discussion
Science and policy interrelationship
Scientists play a mediating role; they try to work as a bridge between the community and policymakers. There are specific environmental and social issues that the community is constantly facing. Scientists try to observe these issues, then find solutions for them with some empirical evidence. Scientists try to see the issues from different angles of possible solutions and convey these to the policymakers, try to convince them and finally help them formulate policy guidelines so that policy can address these issues. Scientific knowledge is a crucial element of policy making.
Science often provides solutions to societal problems. There are two types of scientific knowledge.
One is subjective knowledge which is action-based, and the other is objective knowledge which is scientific activity-based (Popper et al., 1989). Figure 1 represents the necessary steps of the policy process. This interrelationship is very complex, and it can be helpful for the production of information and its uses in the policy.
Figure 1: Necessary steps of the policy process (Modified after Helbig et al., 2015)
Purpose of Science-policy interactions
1. For building a foundation for a sustainable future because policy decisions that are informed by science are hermetically important.
2. For understanding changing climate and its impacts on every part, from public health and safety measures, to secure economic aspects, which can provide solutions for the mitigation and adaption for the possible effects.
3. For understanding the overall context of natural disasters, including cause and effects, this bridging process can help to address the risk effectively.
4. Science-policy process, including geophysical research, reflects the societal process playing an important role in successfully mainstreaming policy and decision-making that can significantly help build the world sustainably and manage the critical resources in the same manner.
Stakeholder participation in the science-policy bridging process
Stakeholder participation may vary with the perception of policy criteria (Fung et al., 2006).
Therefore, the policy-making process is intricate and needs to be conceptualized in different ways.
Public policy-making criteria are mostly accepted (Sabatier et al., 1991). These stages have their limits, and to understand the policy-making process, proper methods must be established to offer an efficient theoretical approach (Jenkins-Smith et al., 1993). The policy-making approach involves a few stages, such as identifying the problems, setting an agenda, formulating a policy, adopting a
Identify the problems
Setting agenda
Formulate a policy Adopt a
policy Implement a
policy Evaluate a
policy
policy, and evaluating a policy (Lasswell et al., 1951; Easton et al., 1965; Jones et al., 1977). And in policy implementation and policy evaluation stage needs feedback from one another and policy formulation stage. Moreover, the benefits of the participation of stakeholder in governance has been recognized by several researches of different public and private sectors. Stakeholder participation ensures multiple factors such as problems in policy formulation, decision making and their implementation. Direct participation of stakeholders ensures the understanding of issues and the outcomes publicly. Moreover, this direct participation increases more policy action options, ensure the confrontation of the possible adverse consequences, better understanding of the existing governance and uncover different impingement among various groups of stakeholders.
Several criteria involve stakeholder views, opinions, information generation in policy and decision- making process. Participation criteria may take five separate steps of engagement (The International Association for Public Participation: IAP2, 2007). At the initial steps, stakeholders are being allowed to take a close look to policy conversation, where they are acquainted through newsletters, websites and so on. This stage is preferable for less emergency stakeholder participation concerning the importance of the situation (Bryson et al., 2004).
Stakeholder participation is very intense where they work together in policy and decision making process. According to Wimmer et al. (2012), few tools and methods have been addressed efficiently in incorporating the choices of policy criteria, such as Delphi methods (Linston et al., 2002) where expert panels are being engaged, group model building (Andersen et al., 2007; Vennix et al., 1996).
These methods highlights the information generation process from different sectors, actors though the pathway and strictness differ. According to IAP2 (2007), stakeholders suggestion and comments will be taken in account of the ultimate policy and decision making process. To achieve quality in this approach, unity building is very crucial. Few essential strategies such stakeholder board (Klievink et al., 2012; urbanAPI, 2014), citizen jury (Smith et al., 2000), constructing living labs (Tan et al., 2010) can be effective in making possible implementation, solution to problems and their evaluation. These approaches increase the recognition of stakeholders and their views in the policy making process as they are an important part of decision-making process (Klievink et al., 2013)
Practice and opportunities of science-policy bridging process in decision making: Bangladesh perspective
In Bangladesh, particularly climate change related policies are well informed by the knowledge.
Traditional global literature or academic literature both are quite balanced and well influenced. One of the major reason behind this effectiveness is, the leading researchers in Bangladesh, they are well aware of the global landscape long ago. Distinguished scientists from Bangladesh play a major role in climate change related policy and literatures. Displaying Bangladesh as initials and in vulnerability assessment, the ministry has taken inputs from them actively. So, more or less the people associated with the ministry are well informed of what is happening concerning scientific activity. In climate change related policy, not only MoEF&CC is involved but also Department of Environment (DoE) with other ministries are involved. But the other ministries are less concerned with this area and they are not also involved in such processes broadly. Moreover, DoE is much more active in this process, as DoE is well aware of whole Bangladesh’s situation and what is happening around including societal activity. Particularly in climate change policy making, different ministries have successfully taken the initiatives from notable scientists as they are very
up-to-dated, very well-known and knowledgeable in their expertise. For example, MoEF&CC and DoE have contributions in such big policies- NAPA (National Adaptation Program of Action), BCCSAP (Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan), ccGAP (Bangladesh Climate Change Gender Action Plan). The ministry has formulated all these plans and made decisions collaborating with experts. Moreover, different scientists are now collaborating with the ministries in formulating policies. The policy making of the ministry in Bangladesh is very knowledge aware and up-to-dated because the leading researchers are involved in such for a long time and they have co-relations with the ministry as well. It reflects that different ministries in Bangladesh have close connection between policy and science.
Also there are some other policies in Bangladesh mentioned below which include science-policy bridging process, NDC Roadmap and Sectoral Action Plan for Transport, Industry and Power Sectors; TNC(Third National Communication) Reports of Bangladesh; Country Investment Plan (CIP) for MoEF&CC; COP21 agreement 2015; Rio & Bangladesh National Report on Sustainable Development, 2012; River Water Quality Report 2010-12; Community Based Adaptation in the Ecologically Critical Areas through Biodiversity Conservation and Social Protection (CBA-ECA) Project funded by BCCTF etc. Different scientists participate with their findings to formulate the policies. In 2020, 1st regional (South Asia) office of Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA) launched in Dhaka under MoEF&CC to assess how Bangladesh is adapting to the impacts of climate change, the meeting involved the participation of Commissioners, civil society, scientists
& representatives from convening countries.
Perception of Science-policy bridging in Bangladesh
There are some issues that arise from the scientist involvement in the policy making. Researcher or scientist usually expect that the ministry will pick the research as they conduct. But, the ministry has no such purpose, as the government believes in supply driven knowledge not demand driven.
So, it is partly a responsibility of the researchers to focus on how to make their findings more presentable and understand the required steps to take the findings to the policy making level. In such case, knowledge broker performs a crucial role through which the policy makers will learn. It is very important to reach knowledge broker groups because there are thousands of articles published every year for example climate change related articles and so on that are different from each other. Reading all these papers is not the work of the ministry, they search from the summary or overall trend of the scientific activity, where knowledge broker works as a median. As a result, the ministry perform well in disseminating the knowledge as they are quite strong and up-to-dated.
The prominent people from the scientific level all over the world are working constantly with the ministry as a knowledge broker. The information they achieve through research, they will convey that information effectively to the ministry level for decision making. As, it is a close network, there can be some argument on why they do not perform such collaboration on wider network while the knowledge are generating from a selected close circle. This kind of selected circle knowledge generation is not only happening in Bangladesh but also everywhere in the world. Table 1 represents existing problems at the bridging of science–policy and ideal requirements to achieve this approach.
Intellectual freedom does exist to some extent. There is a common scenario which arises from this interface that is as there are hundreds and thousands of academics and researchers, it is not possible for the policy makers to go to those thousand people. And the same goes for the academics as they don’t know all the policy makers. Policy makers go to the academics, researchers, scientists whom
they know or prefer based on the effective formulation. This traditional way is being followed for the decision-making by the ministry. More or less, in all of the places, this structure is being followed. Though there is a possibility of missing some minor points policymakers will follow some knowledge brokers for the knowledge. There should be a systematic way to perform this process, but it is not possible yet to do things in such a manner. So, a knowledge broker acts as the main actor in disseminating knowledge and information at the ministry level. The information will not reach the ministry level effectively without the participation of knowledge brokers.
Table 1: Existing problems at the bridging of science–policy and ideal requirements to achieve this approach
Existing problems Ideal requirements for science-policy bridging Uncertainties • Enhance communication and discussion to consider the
choices of different actors regarding the barriers to scientific integration in the bridging process
• Allow manifesting of the local, political, and institutional information for the record.
• Integrate a participatory approach through creating opportunities for transparent debates.
The conflict between curiosity- driven and issue-driven science
• Balance these approaches through the articulation process for effective decision making.
Lack of roles in scientific predictions and elaboration
• Strongly emphasis on the role of scientific elaboration shedding light on the existing issues, justification, options for taking actions
Vague lines between science and policy
• Recognize existing interdependencies of scientific and social actions where public can be encouraged to share their knowledge for this bridging process.
• Ensure dynamic information exchange between different boundary of social and scientific perception
Capacity of scientists • Target for training and education of scientists for proper communication, collaboration and competency.
Imbalance in scientific quality • Firm assessment of the outputs of scientific approaches to assess user requirements and related information
Ineffective approach between social process sciences and science-policy bridging
• Allow intense interaction between science and social process
• Recognize competent social personnel such as planners, implementers, designers, assessors of science-policy bridging and increase their roles as mediators and practitioners.
Biased approach and objectives between scientists
• Bring up evident morality, ethical perspective, and values among the knowledge bearers
• Also, allow the manifestation of the objective learnings of the scientists.
Barriers of science-policy bridging process in decision making:
Despite the outstanding efforts, some barriers remain in achieving the following approach, Such as:
➢ For a strong interface process, researchers and policy makers must come forward. In that case, policy makers has more power than the scientists/researchers.
➢ In terms of civil society in Bangladesh, gaps are there to convey the message to the Government.
➢ The main problem in the policy making is the implementation. There is a gap between the policy implementation, to fill up this gaps more time is need. Policies are implemented the way it can be possible, after that the evaluation feedback is not satisfactory.
➢ Researchers/scientists from universities have some lack of interest and policy makers are very busy and tough to find them together.
➢ In present situation the public universities researchers/scientists are more dominant in terms of interacting with the policy making than private universities.
➢ In Bangladesh, the culture of monitoring and evaluation are weak and poor. This is why there is an oversight in the policy implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Necessary recommendations
Some recommendations can be given for achieving integrated science-policy bridging. Such as:
• Knowledge brokers must be involved for the operative science-policy bridging process in decision making.
• The communication system must be strong for the better mainstreaming.
• The universities must be involved in the decision-making process. The universities are already being involved in such processes as stakeholders but in limited extent.
• There is a need to reach out integrating market because market people is part of the policy making issues.
• The ministries must ensure the policy making inputs coming from the highly knowledgeable people in academia and research field, also to involve local people for indigenous knowledge because local problems must be taken care of using indigenous knowledge.
• More research with wider community engagement is pivotal, thus making more networking with policy makers.
• Exchange of dialogues should happen in order to decide what can be better in future.
Research is a strong field, definitely should think about taking collaborative research.
• The system should be formalized. Policy formulation should be performed with the broad collaboration of researchers. Whatever the policies are, if the responsible bodies don’t have strong implementation, monitoring and evaluation in the field, then any well-defined policy wouldn’t be able to attract much.
• The governance system must be developed effectively, Bangladesh needs to go more forward for the proper governance. Without strong monitoring and evaluation, overall governance will not be improved. The governance system must be strong, then the whole science-policy process can successfully perform.
Concluding remarks
However, there are some gaps in science, policy, and decision making. Though the activities regarding science-policy bridging process are growing in recent days through researches, practical practices, approaches and so on. It has become an imminent concept. In this study, we tried to shed light on the concept of science-policy bridging in accordance with theoretical approaches of environmental governance in countries like Bangladesh. There is a need to check the problems within science-policy bridging. In the actual assessment and implementation, science-policy bridging process still pose a challenge and need operative designs and improvement in existing options. The ideal requirements can guide the stakeholder and policy makers to design and implement actual science-policy bridging.
To conclude, science and policy bridging process depends on one another, whether the responsible bodies of different sectors address the interdependency or not. Science recognizes policy via evidence-based approach of decision-making where policy makers can co-operate with the researchers regarding their authoritative requirements. This implicit relationship has made the urge of science-policy bridging, to minimize the current underlying gaps between science, policy and decision making. An efficient science-policy bridge involves the collaboration of stakeholder of different levels, enhanced feasible communication and information exchanging between science and policy-making bodies. However, knowledge brokers act as mediators to encourage the information sharing, and communication process thus may proof efficient in implementing a wider approach of the science-policy bridging process.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the experts for their insightful comments and discussions. Any error put here will remain entirely under my responsibility.
References
Andersen, D.A., Vennix, J., Richardson, G., Rouwette, E., 2007. Group Model Building: Problem Structuring, Policy Simulation and Decision Support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5).
Agrawala, S., 1997. Explaining the evolution of the IPCC structure and process, ENRP Discussion Paper E- 97-05, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Bryson, J., 2004. What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53.
Convention on Biological Diversity, 10 March 2006. Report on progress of the consultative process to assess the need for, modalities of, and options for an international mechanism of scientific expertise on biodiversity. Note by the Executive Secretary, UNEP/CBD/COP/8/INF/3.
Easton, D., 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.
Farrell, A., Jager (Eds.), J., 2005. Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decision making, RFF Press, Washington, DC.
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7), 735–755.
Fung, A., 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public administration review, 66(s1), 66N75.
IAP2, 2007. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. International Association for Public Participation State Government Victoria (2011) Stakeholder Engagement Framework.
Jasanoff, S., Long Martello (Eds.), M., 2004. (Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Sabatier, P.A., 1993. (The study of public policy processes. PA.
Jones, C., 1977. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, 3ded. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Klievink, B., Janssen, M., Tan, Y.NH., 2012. A Stakeholder Analysis of Business-to-Government Information Sharing: the Governance of a Public-Private Platform.(International Journal of Electronic Government Research, (8(4), 54-64.
Klievink, B., Lucassen, I., 2013. Facilitating adoption of international information infrastructures: a Living Labs approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8074, 250-261.
Linstone, H., Turoff, M., 1975.The Delphi Method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, London.
Helbig, N., Dawes, S., Dzhusupova, Z., Klievink, B., Mkude, C., 2015. Stakeholder engagement in policy development: Observations and lessons from international experience. Policy Practice and Digital Science: Integrating Complex Systems, Social Simulation and Public Administration in Policy ResearchEdition: Public Administration and Information Technology.
Hove, S.V.D., 2007. A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39, 807–826.
Lasswell, H.D., 1951. The policy orientation. The Policy Sciences (Stanford University Press, 1951), 13-14.
Mitchell, R.B., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M., 2006. Global Environmental Assessments:
Information and Influence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Popper, K., 1989. Objective Knowledge, An Evolutionary Approach, second ed., Clarendon, Oxford.
Ravetz, J.R., 1999 (Ed.) Special issue: post-normal science, Futures 31(7).
Sabatier, P.A., 1991. Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. PS: Political Science Politics, 24, 147- 156. doi:10.2307/419923.
Siebenhuner, B., 2003. The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments—the case of the IPCC, Global Environmental Change 13, 113–123.
Smith, G., en Wales, C., 2000. Citizens’ juries and Deliberative Democracy, Political St dies, 48(1), 51-65.
Tan, Y., H., Bjørn-Andersen, N., Klein, S., Rukanova, B., 2010. Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT- innovation: ITAIDE tools and methods. Springer.
urban API: Interactive Analysis, Simulation and Visualisation Tools for Urban Agile Policy Implementation, 2014.
Vennix, J.A.M., Akkermans, H.A., Rouwette, E., 1996. Group model-building to facilitate organizational change: an exploratory study. System Dynamics Review, 12(1), 39–58.
Wimmer, M.A., Scherer, S., Moss, S., Bicking, M., 2012. Method and Tools to Support Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: The OCOPOMO Project. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 8(3), 98–119. Spg (Accessed 20 April 2022)
