Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 15–26
Links between science and policy making
D. Norse
∗ ,
1
, J.B. Tschirley
2
Department of Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1P 0AP, UK
Abstract
Shifts in the driving forces for agricultural production and agro-ecosystem processes require a re-examination of the links between research and policy making. The major driving forces shaping global change impacts on food and agricultural pro-
duction in the future will be appreciably different from those prevailing when the global change and terrestrial ecosystems GCTE programme was setup in 1984. Population growth and technological change aimed at raising yields were the main
driving forces in the 1980s. Future driving forces, however, will be centred on income growth, shifts in consumption pat- terns and technological change shaped by environmental objectives and social concerns operating through the market, e.g.,
pollution taxes on fertilisers and pesticides, and consumer resistance to genetically modified crops, respectively. It follows, therefore, that global change impacts on food and agricultural production will increasingly be the consequence of interactions
between bio-physical and socio-economic processes rather than predominantly by the former as is assumed by many GCTE activities.
These shifts in driving forces point to the need for a reassessment of the policy context of global change research, and of the multiple roles that science can play in the policy process. It is important at the outset of research project formulation to
consider how science can contribute to each stage of the policy process, and particularly to: problem identification; strategy formulation; selection of policy options; policy implementation; setting of regulatory standards; monitoring and evaluation.
This paper provides such an assessment and puts forward a number of principles for policy relevant science. For example: broad consultation in identifying and defining the issues; greater inter-disciplinarity because of the growing importance of
socio-economic factors. It highlights a number of issues and research opportunities. These include the current difficulties of scaling up from GCTE plot observations and transects so that they provide meaningful inputs to the analysis of global issues
and the greater use of matrix analysis and similar tools to key science and policy linkages. It is not enough for the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme and GCTE to promote leading edge science. They need to enhance the role that policy
needs and socio-economic factors play in setting scientific agenda. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Policy relevant science; Policy analysis; Global change research and research project formulation
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-20-7679-4543; fax: +44-20-7679-7565.
E-mail address: dnorseucl.ac.uk D. Norse.
1
Present address: Special Advisor to the Provost and President of UCL on China Co-ordinator of the China Programme University
College London, 4 Taviton Street, London WC1H 0BT, UK.
2
Present address: GTOS Programme Director, Food and Agricul- ture Organisation of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di
Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
1. Introduction
The importance of science to public policy was recognised by Francis Bacon some 400 years ago
when he argued for a major role by scientists in government Bacon, 1625. Since that time, and es-
pecially during the last half of this century, scientists have struggled with the conflict and inevitable com-
promises that occur in devising policies that meet social and economic objectives.
0167-880900 – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 8 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 - 9
16 D. Norse, J.B. Tschirley Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 15–26
The importance of science at the global level was confirmed in the early 1990s by Maurice Strong,
Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Envi- ronment and Development UNCED. He asked the
International Council for Scientific Unions ICSUs together with the International Geosphere–Biosphere
Programme IGBP, the World Climate Programme WCP and others to make an independent scientific
assessment of R D priorities for the 21st century as a contribution to the preparation of Agenda 21
and the Rio Conventions Dooge et al., 1992 which provide the overall policy framework for sustainable
development.
Policy development processes are seldom linear nor do they necessarily follow a logical progression. They
can be long, controversial, and in some cases, unscien- tific In many cases, policymakers do not know what
kind of information they can reasonably expect or ask for from the scientific community; they are also
frequently driven by factors such as expediency, cost, and vocal constituencies.
As scientific data evolves toward more generalised information for policymakers, there is necessarily
a considerable amount of compromise that occurs; subtlety is lost, data volume decreases, subjectivity
increases Fig. 1. It is during this process that an active role of scientists is essential in assessing policy
needs and advising decision makers on how they may
Fig. 1. Moving from data to information adapted from Wasser, 1999.
reasonably interpret scientific results. Given that most policy making will proceed either with or without sci-
ence, in most cases it is better to have some scientific contribution, whether imperfect or incomplete, rather
than none at all.
Policy fora provide an important outlet whereby the results of research efforts can be applied toward
the solution of important global problems. A classic example is the case of chloroflourocarbons CFCs.
In 1971, a group of scientists composed primarily of atmospheric chemists and physicists announced their
findings that CFCs would likely lead to a thinning of the ozone layer. This was followed by nearly 2 years
of debate at a high political level on whether the re- sults were valid and if so, what should be done. In
short, the message from the policymakers was to carry out further research until there was greater certainty
of this phenomenon. Three years later scientists re- turned with evidence confirming the depleting effect
that CFC’s have on the ozone layer. This eventually led to the adoption of the Montreal protocol in 1987,
a process which took more than 15 years.
Science is subject to forces that often pull in diverg- ing directions. There is the traditional value attached
to research for the knowledge it generates and, there is the “efficiency” group that insists upon relevance to
current policy issues. The June 1999 issue of the IGBP newsletter provides a good example of this. It contains
D. Norse, J.B. Tschirley Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 15–26 17
an article by Hamilton in which he puts forward an argument for more “relevance to world issues” and
one by Huebert, who argues that the “building blocks” of basic scientific knowledge must be much stronger
before taking on global modelling and policy relevant research Hamilton, 1999; Huebert, 1999. Clearly
both have valid points of view.
Global change research has a vital role to play in addressing questions such as — in what timeframe
and spatial scale will global changes occur? Will it be short or long-term? Will it be global or regional in
terms of physical and socio-economic impacts? What are the levels of uncertainty regarding the time scale
or geographic impact? This is especially important where there is need for proactive or precautionary
policy actions which may be required years be- fore the negative consequences of global change are
apparent.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO of the United Nations contribution to and use of global
change research is only justified in terms of its rele- vance to its mandated responsibilities for food and
agriculture. These include, e.g., threats to food security and hence FAO’s early contributions to climate change
research and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC. The remainder of this paper draws on
the FAO experience with policy led research to widen the arguments for closer links between research and
policy making. First, by considering where science fits in a policy context. Second, by outlining the compo-
nents of policy analysis and implementation. Third, by suggesting principles for policy relevant science.
And finally, by suggesting research opportunities and how global change and terrestrial ecosystem GCTE
partnerships could achieve closer alignment with the policy formulation processes.
2. Science in a policy context
