Scientists are needed immediately
Several aspects have changed in the position of science in relation to changes in society. First, the globalization of the language used in the international debate – sustainability, biodiversity, participation – requires translation into the context of policymaking (Eastwood, 2005). In addition, these new concepts do reflect a more integrated perspective, but they are also complex and ambiguous in that many values are included. As a result, policymakers have not yet completely understood or mastered the underlying concepts. The international dialogue on forests has generated an important call to scientists to bring precision and legiti- mization to the terminology in use when policies choices are explained. This issue of language and terminology is important partly because most of the policy issues related to the idea of sustainability were brought into the debate by envi- ronmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) promoting a new style of expertise by arguing with science. Thus, the very concepts themselves are viewed by many – scientists, policymakers, managers, civil society – as norma- tive expressions of values and not scientific concepts based upon theory and research.
Responding to this call is certainly not an easy task for scientists for several reasons: (i) basic scientific concepts used in defining sustainability and establish- ing policy solutions (such as ecosystem dynamics, social values, democracy, social change) are scientifically disputable, especially when considerations of
environmental ethics are present; (ii) research very often leads to, and is encour- aged by, peer review to provide complicated explanations. This tendency, of course, is the opposite of how policy seeks to create simple assertions and easily tested hypotheses; and (iii) cooperation between scientists and policymakers presupposes a new scientific behaviour, and this will require major changes in how research is organized, conducted and funded.
Secondly, the changes at the world level are so rapid (and not only in coun- tries with economies in transition) that time pressures for policymaking and knowledge creation have become more intense than ever. Since the 1990s, the international community has accepted short time frames for major policy res- ponses to critical, highly complex environmental problems. Correlatively, since policy decisions are made very rapidly, policymakers cannot wait for scientific results. Thus, scientific research as related to sustainability and sustainable forest management needs to be organized so as to perpetually adapt to emerging ques- tions and problems and to provide results before a full analysis with scientifically acceptable levels of certainty is available. This social demand for science may have an important impact on what is considered by society as useful research in the coming years.
Which research topics need greater attention and funding?
Perhaps scientists need to reflect upon new paradigms and philosophies for forest sustainability. Surely these new paradigms should promote multifunction- ality as a research concept. Defining sustainability as a complex of ecological, economic and social elements can easily lead to considering technical and policy means aiming at reaching it. However, sustainability is more like a guiding star illuminating the ways in which forests are needed to provide, in the same time and place, a variety of products, benefits, goods and services.
Multifunctionality is a major challenge in Europe and elsewhere, and clear concepts and theories are needed to guide public action (Nabuurset al., 2003).
The concept of function, traditionally used in European forest policies as a norm, is a very disputable one, and a policy aiming at multifunctional management is advocated by some decision makers by pretending that these goals are objec- tively predefined by science (Krott et al., 2000). The American ‘multiple-use’
notion seems specifically restricted to sociological issues, referring only to direct utilities of the forests to people, and yet it creates the same issue when decision makers assert that some kinds of values are more ‘valuable’ than others, espe- cially those that are measured by prices and create political power though wealth creation (Shannon, 1987). The implicit and explicit values that underlie these concepts need to be open to disputation through interrogation of ideas, delibera- tion regarding both the science and the policy and collaboration in engaging researchers in providing greater credible definition for these terms, thus relieving them of their purely normative character (Healy, 1997).
‘Integration’ also refers to how, where and when various social values and utilities are provided by concrete management practices. Thus, the concept of
‘multi-beneficiaries’ may be more promising than multifunction since it can take
into consideration both marketable and non-marketable goods and services provided by the forests, but it needs to be further specified and elaborated by scientists in order to be useful for decision makers (Buttoud, 2000). This example shows how more scientific discussion on basic, core concepts is needed.
A new idea is to develop a multi-theoretical framework for understanding change (mixed models) (Buttoud and Yunosova, 2002). In all countries in the world, forest policy is unlikely to achieve concrete progress based on specific disciplinary scientific results. Policies effectively aimed at achieving sustainable management of the forests will proceed from a multi-theoretical and multi- disciplinary approach, which can more directly give the policymakers the scien- tific basis for public action. The need for a cross-analysis based on various theories and frameworks is derived from the large number of issues to be addressed at the same time by a forest policy, and also from the large number of people involved who share different – and sometimes opposite – views on priori- ties and objectives (Dube and Schmithusen, 2003). This is not a discursive topic:
building up a multi-theoretical approach requires a rigorous deductive and participatory process engaging scientists from various disciplines.
Do we need new ways for conducting forest research?
A real challenge for scientists is not only in delivering the scientific results, but in presenting them in a useful way. This also means a new organization of the scientific work at an international level, which presupposes: (i) working with for- est managers and practitioners in analysing their own needs and translating their technical questions into scientific ones (such a cooperative process between scien- tists and managers is usually difficult because, most of the time, the practitioners view the research as a way for reconsidering and negatively evaluating the activi- ties they have carried out); (ii) working with social scientists, as one of the goals for scientific work is to question the demands of society (this cooperation remains weak in the forestry field because technical viewpoints still prevail);
(iii) networking at both international and regional levels among scientists, in order to be able to act for decision-making support at the right levels at the time the policy processes are taking place (strong incentives in the EU have improved this linkage); and (iv) last but not least, discussions with politicians, who, after all, are among the major actors making policy. All these improvements in the science–policy linkage must begin by creating forums in which scientists and policymakers discuss critical issues of the day and for the future and pose questions of current and anticipated interest.
Hot questions for science
This role of scientists in the process of decision making brings new challenges to research institutions and to the conduct of science and the behaviour of scientists.
The instrumentalization of science
The support science may bring to decision making is often a questionable issue, especially in countries where forest policy is an old, institutionalized process.
Many cases exist where scientists are considered simply to be alibis for politi- cians, stakeholders or bureaucrats willing to use them in order to justify their arguments by drawing upon the positive image of science. Finding ways in which research supporting decision making could bring more transparency to the policy process in line with the open culture of science could limit the use of scientific results as weapons.
What is good science?
In the academic world, good scientific research is basically constituted with a rig- orous development of argumentation based on verifying facts through analysis.
Formalization through mathematics is a must in the ideal. However, a policy decision is not only based on rational analysis, but also on collaborative action.
In such a framework, it may be that ‘good research’ is research that is more or less directly usable for decision making in the present context, but which also enables the decision makers to adapt and modify the context of the public deci- sion in a proactive manner, in order to take into consideration improved knowl- edge of the situation and ongoing processes. Science can inform a decision, but it can also alter the decision through the context of construction of knowledge that is endogenous to the society.
Is science neutral?
It should be clear that science and all underlying theory are not neutral – as Johnson discusses, it takes a position as to the nature of the world and its mean- ing. So a real challenge is, more than ever, ensuring the independence of the research structures. In all disciplines, including studies of the policy process itself, science will be best served by creating structures of accountability that recognize the role of scientists in policy and the implications of pressing social problems for the conduct of science.