Linking Science to Decision Making in Environmental Policy:The Case of Marine Reserves

       

Matthew CahnDepartment of Political Science

California State University, Northridge

Outline of Presentation: I Introduction II The Problem (the RQ) III Theoretical Framework – The Tension Between Science and Policy IV Resolutions: Accommodating the Tension Through Rulemaking  V Case Studies – Tortugas 2000 and

Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary Reserve (MPA) Process VI Assessment

The Problem

There is a tension between science and democratic policymaking that results in poor policy outputs –

Policy may reside too much on the side of stake-based interests, or too much on the side of narrow technocratic solutions (with little orno public involvement). One end of this continuum may result in poor science, the other may preclude meaningful participation in Policymaking and may invite residual implementation difficulties.

RQ: How do we overcome the tension between Science and Policy?

Theoretical Framework A

Differing Assumptions of Science and Policy

Science  Empirical;

Assumes high degree of Training & Expertise;

Narrow protocol of acceptable methodologies;

Access is limited;Outcome is empirically justifiable;

  Policy

Normative (what ought we to do);Assumes multiple interests/ stakes;Multiple methodologies – no agreed upon

protocol;Access is (at best) unlimited;Outcome is not empirically justifiable;

Theoretical Framework B

Policy Analytic Framework

How a Political Scientist or Policy Scientist would look at this issue:

Policy vs. PoliticsEquity vs. EfficiencyStone: Policy Analysis is a form of political

reasoning

Why is this relevant/ important?

What Policy Scientists are concerned with

Bardach’s Eight Stage Approach

How a Political Scientist or Policy Scientist would look at this issue:Policy vs. PoliticsEquity vs. Efficiency democracy vs. empiricismStone: Policy Analysis is a form of political reasoning

Why is this relevant/ important?

Areas of Concern to Policy Scholars: 

The Search for Theory in Policy (Sabatier 1991 & 1999, Lowi 1964, Salisbury 1968, deLeon 1999, Schlager 1999) Policy Cues, Symbols, & Agenda Setting (Edelman 1964 & 1988, Cobb & Elder 1983, Kingdon 1984) Interest Based Equilibrium/ Disequiliubrium (Dahl 1967, Miliband1969, Mills 1956, Truman 1971) Issue Networks & Policy Streams (Heclo 1978, Light 1984) Bureaucratic Structure, Process, and Implications (Weber 1946, Wilson 1975) Incrementalism and the Drive for Rational Policy (Lindblohm 1959, Schulman 1975, Ostrom 1999, Zahariadis 1999) Implementation Hurdles and Opportunities (Bardach 1977, Majone & Wildavsky 1973, Sabatier & Mazmanian 1980) Policy Analysis and Evaluation: Are we doing what we think? (Nachmias 1980, Nagel 1990, Blomquist 1999) Institutional Behavior (Fiorina 1989, Mayhew 1974, Neustadt 1986, Wildavsky 1966, Meier 1985, Baum 1990, Glazer 1975)

Media Influences (Iyengar & Kinder 1987, Graber1988) The Influence of Political Consultants and Lobbyists (Berry 1989, 1981) Economic Influences (Beard 1935, Bowles & Gintis 1986, Friedman 1962, Dahl 1985, Domhoff 1983) Equilibrium, Stability, & Change: The role of time on policy (True, Jones, Baumgartner 1999, Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith 1999)

Bardach’s Eight Stage Model (paraphrased in seven steps)

PROBLEM STATEMENTIdentify with clarity and specificity the problem being addressed; ASSEMBLE EVIDENCE – fact findingProvide specific background for the question at hand. If this is a shared or stakeholder process, shared factfinding would ensue; need to know the dimensions and parameters of the problem; and need to know the state of the problem. ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR POLICY RESPONSESNeed to know what the goals and objectives are that the policy options are supposed to achieve;  CONSTRUCT ALTERNATIVE POLICY RESPONSESWhat alternative policy responses should be considered? Examine the "best practices" of other agencies, as well as policyproposals that are emerging. The discussion of each option should be balanced, and should reflect the evidence/ dataindicating degree of potential utility. Under what conditions are options likely to be most useful? Continued

Bardach’s Eight Stage Model (continued)

LIST SPECIFIC CRITERIA USED IN MAKING EVALUATIONState the criteria that you will use to score the alternatives explicitly. Specific criteria depend on context of problem, but typically include such issues as mitigating measurable indicators associated with problem, cost-efficiency, and equity? APPLY CRITERIA (the ‘analysis’)Apply the Criteria to each of the policy alternatives using the most appropriate methodology. This should be done in a transparent manner, with all data and results listed explicitly. If possible, score the alternatives.  MAKE RECOMMENDATIONClose the Policy Analysis with a recommendation that summarizes the preferred policy option. Justify why this optionis preferred over the others. If the policy options are weighted and scored, identify the criteria used to score the options, and their order of priority.

Resolutions: Accommodating the Tension Through Rulemaking

Rulemaking as a ResolutionEvolution of Stakeholder InvolvementRegulation Negotiation (NegReg)Alternative Dispute ResolutionNegotiated Rulemaking

 Traditional Rulemaking Process  EVALUATION

Identify issues and deadlines Compare to selection criteria Confirm management interest Review available information and issues  RULEMAKING Agency drafts proposed rule Agency circulates draft for internal/external review Agency publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)  Draft rule is subject to public comment Committee notified of public comments Agency revises rule, if necessary Agency publishes final rule

 Negotiated Rulemaking Process (EPA Model)

EVALUATION Identify issues and deadlinesIdentify interested partiesCompare to selection criteriaConfirm management interestSelect convenor

CONVENING--PHASE 1 Identify additional partiesDiscuss RegNeg with partiesDetermine willingness of parties to negotiateReport to agencyObtain agency management commitmentPreliminary selection of 15-25 participants

Continued

 Negotiated Rulemaking Process (Continued)

CONVENING--PHASE 2 Obtain parties commitment to negotiateProcess FACA CharterSelect facilitator/mediatorRespond to public comments on "notice"Adjust committee membership, if necessaryArrange organizational meetingArrange committee orientation/training

NEGOTIATIONS Establish groundrules/protocolsDefine "consensus"Set meeting schedule & Publish notices of meetingsReview available information and issuesEstablish work groups or subcommittees as necessaryNegotiate text or outline of proposed rule

Continued

 Negotiated Rulemaking Process (Continued)

RULEMAKING Negotiations concluded;If concensus is reached on language of rule: Agency circulates draft for internal/external review Agency publishes consensus as draft rule

If consensus is reached only on issues or outline: Agency drafts proposed rule Agency circulates draft for internal/external review Agency publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

If consensus is not reached: Agency proceeds with rulemaking using discussions as a guide Agency drafts and publishes NPRM

Continued

 Negotiated Rulemaking Process (Continued)

Draft rule is subject to public commentCommittee notified of public commentsAgency revises rule, if necessaryAgency publishes final rule

Linking Science to Policy – The MPA Approach

Traditional Rulemaking Model:

Agency Rulemaking:Staff scientists recommendationsReview by Science Advisory CommitteesOversight by Science Advisory Board

Problem:

According to Shrader-Frechette and McCoy (1993), Kuhn (1970), Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith (1993), Science is not neutral;Beset by normative assumptions and paradigmatic bias

Further, science is rational, not democratic (see differing assumptions between science and policy)

Preliminary Resolution A: Negotiated Rulemaking ModelIncorporates Stakeholder process;Problematic: scientific efficacy may be lacking/ conflicts between agency and stakeholders

Preliminary Resolution B: Tortugas 2000Science Advisory Panel, making recommendation to Stakeholder committeeProblematic: lack of stakeholder ownership of recommendation;

Preliminary Resolution C: CINMS ProposedStakeholder Process, with Science Panel for evaluating ecological efficacy of stakeholder recommendations;Problematic: extremely inefficient (scientists keep sending back proposal)

CINMS Model in Practice

Stakeholder process linked up front with Science panel (CINMS model):

Stakeholders define specific problem that is to be addressed (this can mandated by agency):

MRWG define goals, and measurable & attainable objectives that help to attain goals;

  SAP evaluates & gives feedback to MRWG:

  MRWG revises Goals and Objectives:

  SAP assesses available datasets, applying MRWG’s objectives, and develops several “goal oriented options” that are spatially explicit for each Objective;

  MRWG assesses alternative options, integrates data from socio-economic panel, and makes preliminary reserve recommendation

Coglianese Critique

Consensus conjures up notions of teamwork, community, and harmony, all attractive ideas in themselves. Yet as alluring as consensus may be in principle, any widespread institutionalization of consensus-building as a basis for policy-making would mark a significant shift in prevailing modes of governmental decision-making in the United States.

Such a shift, I argue here, appears neither necessary nor wise. It is not necessary because the benefits attributed to consensus-based processes can be obtained from other forms of public participation which do not revolve around a quest for consensus. It is not wise because reliance on consensus as a decision rule exposes policy-making to new sourcesof failure and fosters unrealistic expectations for governance in a complex political system.

Is Coglianese right?

Potential Conflicts are always present;

Consensus is – at best – extremely inefficient;

Agencies may give up policy authority through these processes making it difficult to assert administrative discretion;

By what criteria do we measure the success or failure of theseProcesses?

Assessment

Policy is always made by those left at the table.

References and Related Bibliography available at www.csun.edu/~vcpol00c/mpa