The role of NBPs in bridging science and policy - an example from Bulgaria


Dear all,

Answering Rainer’s short questionnaire in support of the preparation of the Dutch colleagues for the launching of their National Platform we felt tempted to share our experience from the short life of the Bulgarian Biodiversity Platform (BBP). Our thoughts are very much in line with the remaining contributions but we try to stress some national peculiarities.

We are still beginners in the challenging job of bridging science and policy, to overcome the opposite stereotypes and overlap the contradicting time frames since the Bulgarian Biodiversity Platform (BBP) was only launched a year ago. Nevertheless, we have gathered some experience and we hope that we have some modest success in bringing science and policy together for the sake of Bulgarian biodiversity. When we started the BBP we initially had to admit that in Bulgaria the interaction of biodiversity science and policy is still a rather weak point. For various reasons the connections were broken some time in the past and the consequences are still present nowadays. However, the situation is improving slowly. The key role of scientists as providers of sound and reliable data for a background of the policy making process is starting to be recognized and biodiversity experts have been invited to participate in advisory bodies to the government (e.g. the National Biodiversity Council to the Minister of Environment and Waters), the development of the national biodiversity related legislation and strategic documents (e.g. Biodiversity Act; Act on the Protected Areas; National Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation and Action Plans, National Biodiversity Monitoring System etc.), realization of key projects on biodiversity conservation (e.g. compilation of National Red Lists, preparation of National Red Data Book, elaboration of the National Biodiversity Monitoring System, elaboration of Management plans of protected areas, including National and Nature parks, gathering of base-line information for elaboration of a Strategy on Invasive Alien Species etc.).

We would argue against establishing a new advisory body in Bulgaria for two reasons basically:

1. We already have such bodies - the National Biodiversity Council to the Minister of Environment and Waters and the National Scientific Coordination Council on Biodiversity to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The problem is how to make the already existing bodies functional and overcome the hindered communication between policy makers and scientists on the one hand, and between biodiversity researchers from different disciplines on the other. Sometimes (unfortunately not very rare) the communication does not go very smoothly or effectively due to the personal characteristics of the scientist or the policy maker, but sometimes, both sides are ready to collaborate but they simply need to learn to listen to and understand each other.

2. In terms of our short experience, the NBP can serve as a medium for the cultivation of such dialogue.

Since its launch, the BBP has been playing an important role in bridging biodiversity science and policy in the country. The BBP initiated important national events like the discussion of the implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan (1999-2004), elaboration of the new Biodiversity Action Plan (2005-2010), and had an impact on the elaboration of the National Biodiversity Monitoring System through implementation of the CBD, EU and EPBRS documents and achievements.

The main obstacles that hinder a more efficient collaboration in Bulgaria are:

- Poor funding of biodiversity research in Bulgaria from national sources: due to the transition economy science is very poorly funded by the state - little money for commissioned research (the equipment and hence methodologies lack behind compared to the European standards); often scientists are asked to carry out quick and high quality research for very insufficient national funding. Politicians do not always fully understand and respect the specificity of biodiversity research and that often the production of reliable data requires long-term and sometimes expensive studies;

- Discrepancies between urgency of policy needs and the time necessary for high quality biodiversity research: preparing to join the EU in 2007 Bulgaria needs to implement the EU biodiversity related legislation and requirements in a very short time, which is extremely insufficient for scientists to carry out relevant research and provide all the necessary data;

- Still inefficient communication of the policy needs of the country from the state administration to the biodiversity community in Bulgaria. Bulgaria has ratified and implements most of the biodiversity related acts - Conventions, EU directives, etc. and the necessary focal points and state units do exist. However, maybe due to the overloading with administrative work in the preaccession process, these state units do not communicate the current achievement and planned activities of the related initiatives to the biodiversity community in Bulgaria in a timely manner.

- Very low salaries: scientific jobs are not attractive especially for the young people - they either leave the country or abandon scientific work;

- Inefficient organization of scientific work in the national biodiversity research centers: enormous amount of data on biodiversity are stored and hosted by research centers but these data are inappropriately organized and difficult to retrieve (reasons: lack of sufficient financial resources and trained staff in the research centers; shortage in national financial support for improving this situation); research plans of scientific institutions need to be adapted to policy needs of the country;

- Underestimated importance of the social functions of scientists: the key role of scientists and scientific work in support of the decision-making process is not fully understood and appreciated in the society, including among politicians;

The key role of the BBP is to help the overcoming the above mentioned constraints and to improve communication between scientists, policy makers, business and NGOs in support of sound decision making and policy relevant research. The process has started but it is still very slow. The BBP can be particularly helpful in:

- Building trustful communication between scientists and policy makers, i.e. scientists understand that one of their obligations is to scientifically support the policy making processes in the country; politicians accept that the most reliable information is produced by scientists;
- Achieving more effective management of the research institutions, transition to a market approach (through discussions, sharing of experience with other similar institutions etc. facilitated by the NBPs);
- Establishment of effective bidirectional link between science and business. Involvement of business in support of biodiversity science and ensure money spent for biodiversity research;
- Achieving effective dissemination of the documents, achievements and the lessons learned from the BioPlatform and EPBRS meetings, and the other NBPs

We think that the continuation of networking like BioPlatform and especially regional collaboration is very important and necessary. Often countries from one and the same region share similar past and therefore similar problems, hence the solutions may be common.

To conclude: our experience with launching the Bulgarian Biodiversity Platform and the subsequent work revealed the following facts:
- Scientists have come up to the conclusion that collaboration makes their work more effective and are willing to cooperate to BBP;
- Policy makers are more ignorant to BBP. They are not always willing to understand the potential impact of such formations. To overcome this situation further efforts are necessary to “push the string”;
- Business has to be specifically addressed, which is one of the major near tasks of BBP.

Key factors for success can be:
- Support of the policy making process through organizing of national meetings, different seminars and workshops at a smaller scale, for example to identify the gaps of biodiversity research in the country, to communicate the EC policy to researchers etc;
- Collaboration of BBP with the national CHM and other NBPs;
- Ensuring sufficient and long-term/sustainable funding for the NBP at national level.

Ana Petrova, Dessislava Dimitrova, Vladimir Vladimirov
Institute of Botany, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Acad. Georgi Bonchev St., bl. 23
1113 Sofia, Bulgaria