Problems of the science-policy interface: Would a Council of Scientific Advisers for European Biodiversity Conservation Policy help?

In responding to Sandra Rientjes' call for experiences related to the science-policy-interface I would like (1) to highlight two aspects which according to my own experience are highly important with respect to the science-policy-interface: The different time frames in scientific research and policy making and the incentive structure for scientists and policy makers to participate in the science-policy interface. Furthermore, I would like to make a suggestion for a Council of Scientific Advisers for European Biodiversity Conservation Policy.

The problem of different time frames:
Those who are interested in scientific information relevant to policy making often need this information on a rather short term basis within a few months or one or two years. Examples are the policy maker who needs information for drafting, implementing or evaluating a certain piece of legislation or the NGO that is struggling against a development project which would negatively affect certain conservation goals. By contrast, the scientific process often delivers results and information on a rather long term basis. Taking EU-funding as an example it may well take more than five years from the first idea of a project over waiting for a call where the proposal can be submitted, writing the proposal, having it evaluated, negotiating matters with the Commission, starting the research (which may out of necessity take two to three years itself) until the final results are published. These different time frames in the political and the scientific arena can make the co-operation very difficult even if both sides are interested in it.

Incentive structures:
This, however, is not necessarily the case. The career of scientists largely depends on their scientific output (in journals) and only to a much less extent on whether they are involved in policy advice. At least in my own discipline, economics, it is often very difficult to publish the work that has been done for policy making in scientific journals. Therefore, in terms of career prospect there is little incentive for scientists to be actively involved in policy advice. On the other side of the table, the incentive structure may be a bit better. However, taking into account scientific knowledge in policy-making may be a burdensome process and imply a lot of work. Furthermore, the results of the scientific research may be critical of current policies and thus may be in conflict with the policy makers’ goal of recognition and career prospects. According to my own experiences, these can be reasons for not seeking or refusing co-operation with scientists.

Would a Council of Scientific Advisers for European Biodiversity Conservation Policy help?

I would like to discuss one suggestion that may help to alleviate both problems and increase the effectiveness of the science-policy interface in the field of European Biodiversity Conservation in general: the setting up of a Council of Scientific Advisers for European Biodiversity Conservation Policy. Following (for example) the role of the German Council of Environmental Advisers such a body would comment on policies affecting biodiversity and point to areas where it feels that deficiencies exist and suggest policy (and/or) research initiatives to remedy such deficiencies. Members of this council would be academics with an outstanding research background and a good understanding of policy processes alike from a variety of disciplines from the natural and social sciences. They would be appointed for a certain period and then be replaced by other experts. Such a council would be so prominent (this is at least the case in Germany) that it is an honour for scientists to be a member (increasing the incentives for scientists to do policy relevant research) and difficult for policy makers to neglect its advice (giving an incentive for policy makers to listen to the Council). The task of the Council members would not be to do own research but to take up existing research and feed it into the policy process with the aims of influencing the process and of providing a timely response to requirements from the policy process. This would make the different time frames of scientists and policy makers more compatible.

I am looking forward to comments related to this suggestion.