Strengthening Science - Policy Dialogue in Developing Countries: A Priority for Climate Change Adaptation

This Background Note, from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), describes the increased importance of incorporating scientific knowledge into policy, particularly on climate change adaptation (CCA) in developing country policy processes. The note summarises insights from a recent study (Jones et al., 2008) that highlights a number of key tensions and challenges in incorporating science, technology, and innovation (ST&I)-related knowledge effectively into policy dialogue in developing countries. From that study's international survey of Southern perspectives, this paper focuses, in particular, on the role of knowledge intermediaries in brokering understanding between researcher and policy communities, but also among the general public, in advancing effective and context-sensitive CCA policy strategies.

Because understanding the potential impacts of future climate shifts in developing countries requires interpretation of scientific inputs, expertise is needed in order to map not just the hazards but also the vulnerability of the physical and social systems that will be affected. The need for evidence-informed CCA policy highlights the limits of uptake of ST&I knowledge in development policy dialogues and decision-making processes due to "systemic obstacles, including: low levels of scientific understanding by policy-makers (64% of survey respondents), limited openness by politicians to using ST&I information (61%), limited dissemination of research findings (59%), a lack of incentives for the use of ST&I in development policy-making (56%) and a lack of institutional channels for the incorporation of ST&I information into policy (44%)."

Due to the narrow focus and long timescales of scientific research relative to political priorities, its timing does not always serve politicians who are trying to meet the demands and needs of constituents. "The most important challenges to ST&I knowledge access identified by respondents in the ODI study related to the quantity, timeliness and depth of information provided, as well as the amount of time taken to locate and absorb relevant findings....Survey results showed strong support for greater engagement of researchers with policy debates, with a sizeable number of developing country policy-makers (49%) asking for scientists to provide opinions and advocate policy positions in addition to research findings." Another source of research-policy tension is the attempt to incorporate indigenous knowledge in research, integrating two knowledge bases. "There are often clashes between different paradigms of knowledge, methods of validation and explanatory frameworks."

Participatory and deliberative processes can strengthen the science-policy interface through active participation of concerned parties, but attempts at "consultations have often been shallow, with overall ownership and ‘buy-in’ narrow and technocratic, restricted to a small number of strategically well-placed public officials....The ODI study findings suggested a wide consensus on the need for intermediary organisations [research institutes, international alliances and international non-governmental organisations] to serve as knowledge brokers at the science-development policy interface and as capacity builders for both researchers and policy-makers. Creating or strengthening such knowledge brokers would be one way of working towards these complementary reforms..."

Key lessons for strengthening the work of science-policy intermediaries in developing countries include the following:

• Audience-appropriate information targeting - including: tailor information services and products to audiences; demystify key messages; consider operating language, objectives, timeframe, contacts, and mediums of communication; use expert opinion articles, news items on other countries' approaches, and policy briefs from authorised sources; disseminate to a variety of different policy actors; build capacity among policy-makers to use scientific research; and network between scientists and policy-makers, helping to institutionalise communication channels for scientific information uptake.

• Promoting inclusive dialogue - provide and manage fora for deliberation and participation that attend to the way questions are framed, the kinds of evidence drawn upon, the background of stakeholders involved, and the ways in which the process is managed.

• Capacity building - build capacity of researchers to respond to current political agendas, build credibility, and consider the potential applications and implications of research across sectors; use networking and online discussions to improve interaction, increase dissemination of research findings, and improve credibility of scientific data in the eyes of policy-makers; improve researchers’ capacity to target findings to the relevant points in the policy cycle; rethink the role of science-policy interface institutions to incorporate management services and active shaping of public policy analysis; and educate for sustainable development through curricula of schools or other educational institutions to help future decision makers develop the skills and knowledge needed to understand and tackle issues such as CCA.

The paper concludes that investment in building intermediaries requires that donors, international agencies, and domestic actors invest in exploratory initiatives such as: "embedding researchers within government agency hubs to filter and tailor scientific knowledge to key decision makers as new findings emerge; establishing citizen juries on proposed CCA options to ensure adequate and informed public participation; or developing clearing houses for new research on CCA themes that can overcome knowledge management barriers."