Mutual Benefits: Linking Science and Policy in the Delta

Abstract

October 2013 San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science: Science & Policy for the Delta Mutual Benefits: Linking Science and Policy in the Delta Judy L. Meyer Odum School of Ecology University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 USA jlmeyer@uga.edu Member, Delta Independent Science Board Introduction Scientists and decision-makers in the San Francisco Bay–Delta are not unique. Ecosystem management programs worldwide are exploring ways to better link science and policy as a means to enhance and restore the services that ecosystems provide to society. Improving the effectiveness of this link requires policy-relevant scientific research, effective communication of research findings, and an efficient means of altering policy when the desired outcomes are not achieved or when relevant scientific understanding changes. Enhancing Policy-relevant Scientific Research Science will not provide clear policy solutions, but it can be useful in establishing the boundary conditions within which a policy decision can be reached. Fostering policy-relevant scientific research requires dynamic leaders in both science and policy arenas and interactions that build trust among them. To be effective, the science needs to address relevant questions, meet standards of scientific rigor, and be unbiased politically (Clark et al. 2002 in Van Cleve et al. 2004). This requires scien- tists who are independent and informed about the issues that managers and policy- makers face and who recognize that increased scientific understanding can result from research inspired by policy questions. Yet research shouldn’t be driven only by current policy questions. Long-term and anticipatory research is essential to develop the scientific knowledge base that will be needed for future decisions. These goals are facilitated by respectful interaction between both researchers and the policymakers whose decisions will be informed by the information gathered. An effective structure for policy-relevant science acknowledges that disagreements among scientists are inevitable (e.g., differing interpretations of data or competing restoration proposals) and provides mechanisms for resolving these disagreements. Means of resolution include establishing a scientific assessment process (e.g., work- shops aimed at achieving a consensus-based scientific understanding from exist-