SUBJECT: RE: Science for better governance
AUTHOR: Rainer Muessner
DATE: 16th April 2003

KEYWORDS: Role of science, uncertainty, "best practice" manual.

SUMMARY: Scientists have to face the dilemma to give answers to policy based on weak scientific ground, even if it touches their self-understanding as "scientist". A "best practice" manual will not solve the problem.

Dear Colleagues,
In reply to Martin's and Josef Settele's contributions about the topic I would like to add some comments.

Martin described very well the current practice in policy to make decisions (their decisions track phenomena (public pressure, drafts of documents, instructions from hierarchy, questions from parliament) in which change can be observed in days or weeks - and perhaps even hours.) I guess this behaviour is typical politician-like and is just a reaction to the general trends in society (or lets say "voter community"). Of course, if we speak of "good" governance, this tendency should be counter-balanced by some long-term, strategic decision making, that opens visions in policy and maybe for biodiversity too. In this situation the time horizons of politicians can be even longer that those of scientists, that think in time-horizons like Frame programmes. Maybe long-term monitoring programmes can be compared to this kind of "good" governance.

In any case, scientists have very seldom the chance to influence policy. If it means to come to a "quick and dirty" partial solution, based on shaky scientific ground, we should do so. An answer like the one in Martin's contribution does not sound bad to me, except for the fact of having the new proposal to be funded on hand, to avoid personal interests to dominate the advice, like written in Josef's contribution. The alternative to give no answers and maybe leave the asking politician as informed as before (because the answer is not scientific secured) will bring us to the situation when politicians will not ask for advice next time and we will be "out of the game".

The second point Martin and Josef touched upon, was the "best practice" manual on how to advice policy. I really have my doubts about the usefulness of such a manual, because what to say or do, or how to promote knowledge and information for politicians is very situation-dependent, as well as the question of what actions will be based on the advice. To make clear what information is scientifically solid, what information is an educated guess and what are purely personal opinions should be a matter of course for a scientist. In any professional or official expertise in the field of biodiversity (i.e. EIA, SEA, a.s.o) we expect the expert to be clear about the origin and bases of information therefore we should expect the same while giving policy advice. "Best practice" manuals are valuable in a lot of situation and fields, but for "how to give policy advice" it seems to me to overshoot the mark.

A contribution by:

Rainer Muessner
CIMAR
Rua do Campo Alegre, 823
4150 - 180, Porto
Portugal