Possible mechanisms for knowledge transfer between the research and policy communities that could bridge certain gaps

Horst Korn, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Isle of Vilm, Germany

Before making proposals, let me first try to outline the major differences between the research and policy communities. The analysis may be biased by my personal perception and could be an issue for discussion:

Many researchers are forced by severe competition into a very narrow field of expertise. They feel uncomfortable providing advice on matters outside their topic or on issues with a high degree of uncertainties because they fear that they may loose credibility as a scientist. The reward system in the scientific community is based on publications of original research and the acquisition of research money. Neither of those can normally be offered by the policy community.

Policy advisors or politicians often need to prepare or make decisions on a comparatively short-term basis and based on incomplete knowledge. They have to make decisions on a wide range of issues in parallel. Therefore they cannot spend too much time on a single issue. They are no experts in the field but still want to make scientifically sound decisions. The reward system to them is the satisfaction that a goal is reached (e.g. a law or regulation is adopted by parliament, a decision in an international treaty is taken that will lead policy into a wanted direction, a programme to finance certain activities is passed). A politician may get public recognition; his advisor may eventually be promoted. In the process of political decision-making the scientific advice looses its author(s)! The bill or the programme has no reference to it, who had the original idea or who gave advise on it!

In brief: both communities have different styles to work, different reward systems and different languages.

Some mechanism that tries to bridge the "gaps" between scientists and the policy community are in place. One of those is the European Platform for Biodiversity Research (EPBRS). It can certainly be improved but it is in place and functioning. Others are the scientific and technical advisory body of the Biodiversity Convention (SBSTTA) and similar scientific advisory committees of other international treaties or in support of EU-legislation. The scientific members of such committees are familiar with the general issues, like biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, but they are no experts when it comes to the details of the issues dealt with in a single meeting which could range from taxonomy, conservation of deep sea genetic resources, effects of climate change on biodiversity, inland water biodiversity, financing of protected areas, and more. Just to give some examples!

The problem is, how to reach out to the "wider scientific community" to get advice on all these issues. One attempt is to make assessments. They could be on the global, regional or national level or deal with specific issues. Generally these assessments specify the problems and point out possible solutions. Different audiences receive different targeted outputs of the same study. Meanwhile the main report may have several thousands of pages (IPCC-Reports, MEA etc.), a summary report may contain only about 150 pages, an executive summary for decision-makers 30 pages and a press communication only 2 to 3 pages. Any factual statement or conclusion drawn in a condensed version can, if necessary, be verified by going back to its original source in the fully referenced main report. In these assessments any author or reviewer at least get full credit for their contribution.

Government agencies often invite experts to give them advice. This could be individually or by organizing a workshop or seminar. On the other hand, scientific societies can improve communication by inviting politicians or policy advisors to their meetings. There they could ask for the information they need from the experts to make decisions and to solve problems.

Another possibility to provide expert input into political decision-making processes could be to use the collective expertise of a scientific conference, be it taxonomy, vegetation science, ornithology, marine research etc to come up with advise on certain relevant issues. A document that should be short (one or two pages only) and contain the most important points that they as experts want to address to decision makers. The text has to clearly state the problems in a simple language and to provide sensible guidance for possible solutions. To catch the attention of decision-makers it is also very important to link the suggestions to actual and real world problems that need to be solved. That document could be sent to the press and other news media, but also to relevant ministries, government agencies, politicians, etc. When the message is short, clear and relevant to help resolve real world problems, decision-makers will take it up!

Such a document could be elaborated and agreed on in each scientific conference. I do not think that it would need an incredible amount of work but could make a lot of difference for political decision-making.