Science and biodiversity policy

Bruce Burns

Bruce Burns and Bill Lee

Scientific knowledge about the composition, structure and function of biodiversity is a critical component in the development of effective biodiversity conservation policy. Science provides an evidence-based view of the world that should be both falsifiable and reliable (or with a known degree of reliability).

Scientific investigations provide data and methods for evaluating progress towards biodiversity goals and the effectiveness of different policy instruments. Research can assist policy-makers by defining the biodiversity issue, identifying appropriate biodiversity outcomes, establishing reliable monitoring approaches and systems, and reviewing progress towards biodiversity goals.

Given the fundamental importance of science and research for establishing and evaluating biodiversity policy, we would expect that scientific studies would be used extensively in developing policies around local government responses to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. However this is rarely the case, in New Zealand and elsewhere. One of the reasons for the absence of science involvement in biodiversity policy is that biodiversity is inherently complex, with different levels, various components, and multifarious interactions. However, we contend that scientific knowledge and interactions with scientists are underutilised by policy makers working with biodiversity issues in both setting policy and monitoring its effectiveness. The RMA does not promote the use of science in resource management so scientists often are first involved in issues once they arrive at the Environment Court rather than when policy is being developed.

I suggest that current relationships between scientists and biodiversity policy makers are poor because of the following factors:

1. Structural detachment of science and policy organisations. In some cases, policy makers are not sure where to source the most reliable science advice in a competitive market.

2. Current commercially-driven corporatisation science models lack credibility as independent providers of science, and are frequently captured by larger clients.

3. Researchers are often unaware of the operational requirements of policy, and the relevant science-based components necessary to evaluate policy goals.

4. Agencies and organisations are reluctant to commit to quantifiable biodiversity outcomes, largely because they are culturally risk-adverse and avoid measured outcomes that they may not achieve.

5. Managerial turnover rates and the lack of structured institutional support in many agencies inhibit longer-term consistent and effective biodiversity monitoring.

Policy makers could use science more effectively in developing and monitoring biodiversity policy by collaborating across agencies with common biodiversity goals, in order to minimise costs and facilitate inter-agency communication, and by using researchers to develop an assessment framework that enables managers to determine progress towards policy goals, based on credible data. Research would be based on an adaptive management model to involve the policy agencies directly.

Science and biodiversity policy

Bruce Burns

Further Reading