Advanced

A Transparent Process for "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making

Dicks, Lynn V.; Hodge, Ian; Randall, Nicola P.; Scharlemann, Joern P. W.; Siriwardena, Gavin M.; Smith, Henrik LU ; Smith, Rebecca K. and Sutherland, William J. (2014) In Conservation Letters 7(2). p.119-125
Abstract
Political institutions are keen to use the best available scientific knowledge in decision-making. For environmental policy, relevant scientific evidence can be complex and extensive, so expert judgment is frequently relied upon, without clear links to the evidence itself. We propose a new transparent process for incorporating research evidence into policy decisions, involving independent synopsis of evidence relating to all possible policy options combined with expert evaluation of what the evidence means for specific policy questions. We illustrate the process using reforms of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy currently being negotiated. Under the reform proposals, 30% of direct payments to farmers will become conditional... (More)
Political institutions are keen to use the best available scientific knowledge in decision-making. For environmental policy, relevant scientific evidence can be complex and extensive, so expert judgment is frequently relied upon, without clear links to the evidence itself. We propose a new transparent process for incorporating research evidence into policy decisions, involving independent synopsis of evidence relating to all possible policy options combined with expert evaluation of what the evidence means for specific policy questions. We illustrate the process using reforms of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy currently being negotiated. Under the reform proposals, 30% of direct payments to farmers will become conditional upon three "compulsory greening measures." Independently, we compiled and evaluated experimental evidence for the effects of 85 interventions to protect wildlife on northern European farmland, 12 of which correspond to aspects of the compulsory greening measures. Our evaluation clearly indicates evidence of consistent wildlife benefits for some, but not all, of the greening measures. The process of evidence synopsis with expert evaluation has three advantages over existing efforts to incorporate evidence into policy decisions: it provides a clear evidence audit trail, allows rapid response to new policy contexts, and clarifies sources of uncertainty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
CAP reform, scientific assessment, Europe, evidence-based conservation, Agriculture
in
Conservation Letters
volume
7
issue
2
pages
119 - 125
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • wos:000334164400006
  • scopus:84897450089
ISSN
1755-263X
DOI
10.1111/conl.12046
project
BECC
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
ebe46b3d-a161-4043-8f11-084758f20835 (old id 4439408)
date added to LUP
2014-05-20 14:49:00
date last changed
2017-11-05 03:53:57
@article{ebe46b3d-a161-4043-8f11-084758f20835,
  abstract     = {Political institutions are keen to use the best available scientific knowledge in decision-making. For environmental policy, relevant scientific evidence can be complex and extensive, so expert judgment is frequently relied upon, without clear links to the evidence itself. We propose a new transparent process for incorporating research evidence into policy decisions, involving independent synopsis of evidence relating to all possible policy options combined with expert evaluation of what the evidence means for specific policy questions. We illustrate the process using reforms of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy currently being negotiated. Under the reform proposals, 30% of direct payments to farmers will become conditional upon three "compulsory greening measures." Independently, we compiled and evaluated experimental evidence for the effects of 85 interventions to protect wildlife on northern European farmland, 12 of which correspond to aspects of the compulsory greening measures. Our evaluation clearly indicates evidence of consistent wildlife benefits for some, but not all, of the greening measures. The process of evidence synopsis with expert evaluation has three advantages over existing efforts to incorporate evidence into policy decisions: it provides a clear evidence audit trail, allows rapid response to new policy contexts, and clarifies sources of uncertainty.},
  author       = {Dicks, Lynn V. and Hodge, Ian and Randall, Nicola P. and Scharlemann, Joern P. W. and Siriwardena, Gavin M. and Smith, Henrik and Smith, Rebecca K. and Sutherland, William J.},
  issn         = {1755-263X},
  keyword      = {CAP reform,scientific assessment,Europe,evidence-based conservation,Agriculture},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {119--125},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Conservation Letters},
  title        = {A Transparent Process for "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12046},
  volume       = {7},
  year         = {2014},
}