Pathology of the Traditional Science-Intensive Environmental Decision-making Process Ali Mostashari Introduction Due to the complex nature of environmental systems, many decision-making processes formally rely on scientific analysis of the question at hand as a basis for policy design (Adler et al., 2000). The complexity of the problem necessitates a technical and scientific analysis process, which by its nature excludes the majority of the stakeholders in the given problem. This however as often lead to the ineffectiveness of science in playing its intended role as the central piece of environmental decision-making and moves the process towards an adversarial and politicized atmosphere which is unlikely to produce good solutions. There is increased concern that science does not have a significant impact on the dynamics of the decision-making process and that the final products of the decision-making process may show little inclusion of scientific findings (Susskind, 1994). While scientists blame this on the politicized nature of the policy sphere and exculpate themselves by asserting they have provided ”quality science”, the question remains whether scientific analysis that has little bearing on the policy process is indeed good science from a policy perspective. It can be argued that changes in the scientific sphere are crucial if science is to be a central piece of the decision-making process. This paper looks at the possible weaknesses of the traditional science-intensive policy process, and how it can be improved so that scientific analysis can play a more important role in decision-making on environmental issues. The Traditional Science-Intensive Policy Process Figure 1 shows the ideal flow of information in a traditional science-intensive policy process. Table 1 shows problems that can arise at different stages of the process that can negatively affect the impact of science in the policymaking process. Scientific Analysis Process Policy Process Problem Formulation Data Gathering Model Building Evaluation of alternatives under Uncertainty Scientific Report Preparation Scientific Report Publication Formal Peer Review Process Public Review and Comment of Report Use of Findings in Negotiations Inclusion of Findings in Policy Design Policy ImplementationPolicy Implementation Monitoring Figure 1 The “traditional” science-intensive policy process. Dashed links indicate steps that may not be followed through.Table 1. Problems in different stages of the “Scientific Analysis” in the traditional environmental policymaking process and proposed solutions. Problems Process Stages Possible solutions Perceived sponsor All stages in the Independent funding for policy-related research, strong oversight on and/or organizational scientific sphere analysis and inclusion of stakeholders throughout the scientific analysis bias on problem process. Elicit stakeholder inputs in choosing alternatives. Use multiple definition, choice of criteria for comparison, refrain from optimization alternatives and findings Perceived Bias in Model Building, Use of a wide range of sensible assumptions and incorporate a sensitivity Model Assumptions Formal Peer review analysis, agree on range of uncertainties with experts representing Process stakeholders. Choose wide range of reviewers and include reviewer comments and responses to critique in the final report Uncertainty in baseline Data gathering, Model Bounding some uncertainties by bounding social-eco system interaction, data Building provision of funding for good initial data, measuring possible impact and change rather than emphasizing baseline conditions Uncertainty in Model Building Early stakeholder engagement and use of stakeholder inputs to gain better relationships between knowledge of the system. Use of extra-organizational expert knowledge to system components bound uncertainty. Uncertainty in future Model Building, Use scenario analysis to bound possible future developments and draft projection (Sarewitz et. Evaluation robust strategies that perform well across different futures Al,) Exclusion of issues of Problem definition, Inclusion of stakeholders early in the scientific analysis process starting interest to stakeholders Evaluation of from the problem definition Alternatives Obscure scientific Report preparation, Use an accessible report format, supported by easy to interpret figures and presentation of Report publication graphs. Maximize communication using new participatory techniques. findings and Elicit input on report format from stakeholders. Explain what parts of the inadequate explanation analysis are affected by uncertainty. Stress the existence of uncertainty in of uncertainty other issues and communicate its significance in evaluating alternatives Politicization and selective use of scientific findings Public review and comment on findings, Use of findings in negotiation, Inclusion of findings in Policy Design Make language as unambiguous as possible and clearly explain the significance of uncertainties and the areas of the analysis they impact to avoid selective use. Promptly respond to media characterizations of the findings to prevent misrepresentation. Include stakeholders from early on in the process, make entire process transparent Weak Stakeholder Public review and Early involvement of stakeholders in the scientific analysis. Active efforts Understanding of the comment on findings, to explain the scientific complexity and consideration of stakeholder lay Scientific Process and Use of findings in knowledge in the process. Create an accessible version of the report with Findings negotiation, Inclusion the important highlights for public understanding of the issues considered. of findings in Policy Use an accessible report format, supported by easy to interpret figures and Design graphs. Maximize communication using new participatory techniques. Stakeholder resistance Policy implementation Change the process towards a more participatory process from the towards beginning and take into account stakeholder inputs and interests at all implementation stages of the policy-making process. Take into consideration social and political feasibility in addition to technical feasibility of alternatives. No feedback between All stages of the Change the process towards a more participatory process from the policy process and process beginning and take into account stakeholder inputs and