Open AccessA Transparent Process for “Evidence‐Informed” Policy Making
Author(s) -
Dicks Lynn V.,
Hodge Ian,
Randall Nicola P.,
Scharlemann Jörn P.W.,
Siriwardena Gavin M.,
Smith Henrik G.,
Smith Rebecca K.,
Sutherland William J.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
conservation letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.153
H-Index - 79
ISSN - 1755-263X
DOI - 10.1111/conl.12046
Subject(s) - evidence based policy , scientific evidence , audit , process (computing) , common agricultural policy , public economics , european union , business , environmental resource management , political science , economics , computer science , accounting , economic policy , medicine , philosophy , alternative medicine , epistemology , pathology , operating system
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.