The rocky path from policy-relevant science to policy implementation — a case study from the South American Chaco

Abstract

Why does co-produced, policy-relevant, adequately communicated science fail to influence 33 policy implementation? Analysts of the science-policy interface often focus on the societal 34 relevance of the research questions and on the strategies to convey findings to the political 35 sphere. We argue that these conditions are necessary but not sufficient. We analyze a case 36 study from Argentina, the process leading to the Córdoba Provincial Law for the Protection 37 of Native Forests, in the light of two contrasting models of the science-policy interface: the 38 Information Deficit and the Power Dynamics models, and conclude that the second better 39 describes the process. We propose some broad conditions that should influence the 40 likelihood of a piece of scientific knowledge to be incorporated into environmental policy 41 implementation. 42 43 44 Introduction 45 46 Controversies on the role of science in society, dating far back [1-5], have now regained 47 momentum in the face of the formidable ecological and sustainability challenges of the 48 21th century [6-9]. There is a vast and heterogeneous corpus of literature on the science-49 policy interface, and more specifically on why science cannot find its way into policy more 50 easily [10-18]. There is convergence among authors in pointing that, in order to influence 51 environmental policy implementation, scientific knowledge should (a) address questions 52 and demands identified by the wider community; (b) be framed within an interdisciplinary 53 context; (c) be designed or at least produced in coordination with the users; and (d) be 54 communicated in a way that can be understood and appropriated by them [13,15,19-22]. 55 But sometimes all these conditions are not enough to ensure effective incorporation of 56 scientific findings into environmental policy implementation. The main arguments as to 57 why this happens can be summarized, perhaps simplistically, in two broad categories. 58 59 The first one, called "Information Deficit Model" (also known as "Deficit Model" or 60 "Science Deficit Model", it is probably the most popular approach among scientists [23-61 26]. It proposes that the reason for the poor translation of scientific findings into policy 62 implementation is the lack of public understanding of science. The science-policy interface 63 is seen as a two-player game where scientists have to produce and deliver sound scientific 64 knowledge to policy makers who, in turn, will produce appropriate policies. The model 65 follows a linear and unidirectional trajectory from the identification of relevant research 66 questions by scientists to the adoption of recommendations based on its results, in the form 67 of favourable changes in policy. The public is assumed to be "deficient", in the sense that 68 their mistrust in scientific contributions is attributed to their ignorance of the underpinning 69 science [24]. The lack of impact of science on policy is usually seen as scientists' failure to 70 address relevant research questions and/or properly ...

Las disputas por los bienes comunes y su impacto en la apropiación de servicios ecosistémicos. La Ley de Protección de Bosques Nativos, en la Provincia de Córdoba, Argentina

“…El proceso de tratamiento, aprobación y reglamentación de la Ley de Bosques en la Provincia de Córdoba resulta un caso paradigmático en esta discusión. Esta ley permite vincular los conceptos de servicios ecosistémicos, cercamientos, bienes comunes y acumulación por desposesión, en un marco de disputa y conflictividad social donde emergen y se sostienen distintos posicionamientos político ideológicos (Cáceres et al 2016). …”

Searching for solutions to the conflict over Europe's oldest forest

“…Therefore, the case also fits the information‐deficit model (Cáceres et al. ), where the necessary science to back up decisions is not available or policy makers lack an understanding of the available science (e.g., Posner et al. ).…”

Research on Climate Change Policies and Rural Development in Latin America: Scope and Gaps

“…As the authors of a large body of literature on solution-oriented research ('science for climate policies´) cannot expect policy makers to read their publications, there is also a need to build or improve communication channels between science and policy in order to foster policy action on climate-related problems [118]. We also need more analyses of policy processes in order to understand why adequately communicated policy-relevant research results fail to influence policy development [119]. More fundamental inquiry can improve our understanding of climate policy processes through theory and concept development.…”