Science-Policy Disconnects, Unintended Consequences, and the Role of Citizens

From Coastal Sarasota Watersheds Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Title: Science and Policy Decision Disconnects

Discussion Leader: Jon Thaxton

Advocacy

Permittee (i.e. phosphate miner, home owner) pays someone to advocate on their behalf
Permitor (i.e. government agency) has staff to meet the objectives of the agency, uphold the law (law is often written by policy-makers who may not have science or environment as their primary concern)
So who advocates for science-based decisions? To protect the environment?
- Activist - may be good for the environment, but may not be good advocates of the science, often lack the in-depth knowledge of the permittee’s advocates
- Scientist - often reluctant to get involved. A scientist is “not supposed to be an activist,” feels like a compromise to fact-based science ethics. May jeopardize funding if perceived as activist. Science info is not easily obtainable to policy-maker. Science info is not easily understood by non-scientist.
Playing field is not level
- Advocate for permittee has much greater financial reward. Access to experts is easier if you have dollars. Policy and politics requires dollars.
- Some policy makers just don’t care
- Some policy makers are not interested in the facts of science.
- Need for an ombudsman type position

QUESTIONS

DISCUSSION

Political decision-making works on a schedule not conducive to citizen participation – time of day, postponements in the process, decisions made quickly in a way that citizen’s who are not at each meeting can’t follow
Citizens tend to get very emotional – so easy for politicians to write them off
Citizens get repetitive in public testimony – so organize yourselves so everyone says something different
Citizens may include 1-2 wrong fact in a string of 5-6 facts. All facts are then dismissed
Citizens have to stick with it, sometimes takes a very long time
Government agencies often promulgate a rule based on science. The policy-makers then don’t “enforce” the rule and allow for “exceptions”
- Solution: Criteria in the rules need to maintain good science
  - YET lawmakers want discretion in interpreting a rule. Elected officials make decisions in a democracy, not bureaucrats

Elected officials are not in attendance at this Symposium
- But maybe learning through their advisory committees
- Reconvening of 25 years ago – is a time frame irrelevant to politicians

Advisory committees are under-utilized and could help explain complex topics at each of its meeting to help educate the general public. Meet in a less threatening atmosphere, easier to have discussion. Those who serve on advisory committees often don’t have sufficient knowledge. Role of staff can be both positive and negative.
- Estuary Program is an example of an effective advisory group with strong science knowledge

How do you make an elected official want to learn?
- Have to develop clout, make noise, so politicians will listen – threat of re-election. Example from Wisconsin Land Conservation Foundation
- Voices are not created equal. Sometimes power is not in numbers.

Politically we work with borders, yet the environment flows across borders
- Instead of talking about comp plans (which have become a compilation of decades of zoning), talk about portfolio of assets, look beyond political borders

Us vs. them mentality doesn’t help. Engage with each other.
- For example Mosaic and Estuary Bay Program – have open dialogue to have better permit outcomes, better environmental outcomes
- It’s not about “win or loose,” but successes come when working in a problem-solving mode