• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Science and Effective Policy for Managing Aquatic Resources

Posted on: Thursday, 2 March 2006, 21:00 CST

By Sallenave, Rossana; Cowley, David E

Scientists often feel powerless to affect policy on natural resource conservation or management, and managers frequently feel that there is not enough time or money to gather data to enlighten resource management decisions. This article summarizes the discussions in a facilitated workshop that brought together academicians, natural resource managers, and individuals from the private sector to discuss limitations in aquatic resource management policy and how science could be used more effectively in the decision-making process. A major impediment to including science in management and policy decision-making is insufficient dialogue between scientists and managers. For science-based resource management decisions, it is imperative to understand the distinction between science and professional judgment. The former is the acquisition of knowledge by applying the principles of the scientific method, whereas the latter may be based on science-in- progress, has not been subjected to peer review, and can be misrepresented to be science. Resource managers face significant problems making sound, science-based management decisions including: historical antecedents for resource use, changing social values, legal constraints, economics and politics, poorly focused management, plurality and diversity of stakeholders, and the credibility of agency-produced science. Effective conservation of aquatic resources can be undermined by distrust and disagreement between resource users, scientists, agencies, and even among academicians, leading to an atmosphere of "combat biology." The principles of science should be introduced early in the decision- making process because they encourage articulation of multiple perspectives and fair but rigorous assessment of all hypotheses.

Keywords sound science, policy-making, stakeholders, resource management, peer review, decision support, combat biology, scientific method

Introduction

Water is one of the most valuable natural resources. Though fundamental to all life, potable water of sufficient quality to support human uses grows increasingly scarce. It has been estimated that approximately 3.4 billion people may face shortages of water by 2025 (Engelman et al., 2000). Currently, 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.8 billion lack basic sanitation services (World Health Organization, 1996). As of 1992, 26 countries had more people than could be adequately supported by their water supplies (Postel, 1992). Agriculture, industries, cities, and countries vie for dwindling supplies of water. The growing demand for clean water escalates tensions between competing uses, and the biota of aquatic systems suffer as more water is claimed for human uses.

Three major threats face our aquatic ecosystems. First, flow modifications alter the geomorphic characteristics of rivers and upset the dynamic nature of riverine systems. second, introduction of pollutants, contaminants, and nutrients impair the basic features of biological production of aquatic systems and they alter the composition of their biotic communities. Third, the introduction of exotic species threatens native taxa with displacement or extinction. These threats are common to all aquatic systems in all areas occupied by humans, but they are especially acute in arid and semi-arid lands where water is at a premium.

Although many laws and conventions have been enacted to protect imperiled species and their habitats, their implementation is often controversial when competing human interests are at stake. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended, ESA) is one of the most powerful laws in the United States and it demonstrates the benevolent will of the people to live in harmony alongside other forms of life. Its enactment has prolonged the existence of species like the bald eagle and the whooping crane. Yet, endangered species listings and recovery programs become more contentious and less effective because opposing sides purport to enlist "science" in support of their positions. And while these controversies are global in scope, they are particularly acute in arid lands where water is scarce.

Scientists often feel powerless to affect policy decisions and feel that science is largely overlooked in resource management decisions. This article summarizes a workshop that brought together academicians, natural resource management agency personnel representing state and federal governments, and individuals from the private sector to discuss the limitations in the current aquatic resource policy-making process, and to devise strategies to use science more effectively in the decision-making process. The workshop attendees were divided into workgroups to discuss one of four session topics. In a closing plenary session each discussion group presented a summary that identified conclusions and recommendations for their question. A workshop transcript was recorded by a court reporter, which enabled us to write the summary reported here.

Topic 1, Part 1: What is Sound Science?

The term "sound science" has been extensively used, and has even been incorporated into recent pieces of legislation in the U.S. as the prerequisite basis for future management decisions regarding endangered species. It has been used and misused by groups on opposite sides of environmental issues either to justify maintaining the status quo ("more sound science is needed") or to demonstrate the need for changes to current management practices ("proven by science"). To understand the redundancy of the phrase "sound science," it is important to clarify what science is and how it differs from terms such as data collection, best-available commercial data, anecdotal evidence, expert opinion, professional judgment, and informed speculation. None of these are inherently wrong or flawed, and in some cases they may be the only avenues available to making management decisions, but they should not be confused (used interchangeably) with science, and their limitations and margins of uncertainty should be clearly outlined.

While opposing sides in endangered species controversies often enlist their own "experts" in swaying the outcome of decisions, there is a great misunderstanding as to what constitutes science. Science, the acquisition of knowledge by implementing the principles of the scientific method, is sound by its very nature; hence, the term "sound science" is redundant. Science includes a series of elements: independent confirmation of facts, substantive debate by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view, articulation of all the different hypotheses that might explain the facts, investigations that test falsifiable hypotheses, and publication of the results of the study in a peer-reviewed forum. Exclusion or omission of any element makes the findings fall short of the standard of science.

Science refers to the objective investigations and observations made using documented methods to answer properly framed questions by testing falsifiable hypotheses. Science is sound because it relies on the formulation of hypotheses and the testing of null hypotheses to answer questions. The soundness of science is strengthened when the results of investigation are shown to be repeatable, verifiable, and able to withstand peer review that accompanies publication in refereed scientific journals. In other words, science is the sound application of the scientific method in answering questions. Science is not the collection of large quantities of data from which a question that can make use of these data is formulated a posteriori. The process must be preceded first by the articulation of a question, which then leads to the formulation of a testable hypothesis, followed by the development of a sampling or monitoring plan which enables the investigators to collect data that will provide a scientific test of the hypothesis.

One of the attributes that ensures the soundness of science is that qualified personnel (SETAC, 1999) conduct the research. In order for others to trust and have confidence in the results of the research, the investigators must be trained and have the necessary expertise in the subject area. There tends to be the perception that anyone can be a scientist, unlike in other professions, such as law, where it is understood that a degree, and board examinations are prerequisites to becoming a practicing lawyer. Not only is it essential that qualified personnel conduct the research, but that the policy-makers interpreting the research findings also are qualified or have qualified advisors in assessing the merits of the work.

Science is sound because it is peer-reviewed and published in refereed journals accessible to the public. This does not imply that a study is invalid or poorly executed unless published in a refereed journal. It does not mean that science always yields correct answers; even widely held scientific conclusions can be incorrect as the science progresses in testing hypotheses. However, there is no way to verify or assess the merit of unpublished work or studies that appear only in commercial reports or other "gray literature" not subjected to peer scrutiny. Peer review provides the opportunity to assess whether documented methods were used in undertaking the study, if the \study was designed properly, and if the data were correctly analyzed and interpreted. Peer review also provides a counter balance for personal biases of investigators that could consciously or unconsciously influence their study design or data interpretation.

When reporting scientific findings, it is important to report and quantify uncertainty associated with the results. The findings should always include measures of the confidence of a statistic or observation to help readers assess the reliability or significance of a result. In ecological studies, considerable areas of uncertainty are common, and to be expected. Science is a progressive endeavor, and a study that reports measures of uncertainty due to remaining unanswered questions is no less valid, if the principles of sound science were applied during the process.

Topic 1, Part 2: How Can Science Be Brought to Bear on Management Decision-Making and Policy-Making?

One of the problems with policy decisions that affect the management of environmental resources is the frequent lack of cooperation between scientists and managers. Scientists often lament their lack of inclusion in or influence on management decisions. To some extent, this is because scientists are often hesitant or unable to participate in the process (Brown, 2000). There is also a prevailing view among some scientists that simply providing the findings will somehow translate into management or policy without better communication and cooperation between themselves and managers. On the other side of the debate, managers are often operating under legal mandates, and argue that they do not have the luxury to wait for scientists to provide them with more definitive answers. This has led to decisions being made that were based on weak science, as evidenced by a number of panel reviews of existing management decisions (Mann and Plummer, 1997; NRC, 2002). Finally, science is only one of several factors that are considered in most resource management decisions, the most compelling arguments usually being socio-economic and political. In addition, in more contentious areas (see Service, 2003), there can be considerable animosity between the opposing camps, and scientists are often mistrusted. Not only does it become critical in these situations for scientists to uphold very scrupulous, rigorously unbiased standards of investigation, but they must also learn to better communicate their findings with agency managers if they have any hope of affecting policy. It is important for scientists to separate their scientific findings from their personal views, and make clear when expressing personal views which of the two hats they are wearing.

In order to ensure that the scientific findings being considered are credible and sound, it is important that agencies maintain rigorous standards by encouraging and rewarding their staff to continue their education, and by stressing the importance of carefully planned sampling programs and hard empirical evidence. Furthermore, it is equally important to educate the public (through outreach programs) as to what constitutes sound science, and why findings presented by agencies used to set policy must be complete, accurate, and peer-reviewed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using unpublished agency data to assist in setting policy. However, to retain the public's trust, the type of data that were used to make management decisions should be clearly articulated; the public should not be led to believe that the decisions were based on information obtained using the sound principles of science. Often the term "best available science" is tossed around, adding confusion and leading to the erroneous conclusion that science can be practiced in many ways and is always acceptable and accurate. It is equally important that policy and decision-makers have the skills to evaluate and assess the merits of the data being considered. This could be achieved by training the policymakers in the principles of science, or by including scientists in the policy-setting process. Regardless of which strategy is used, more dialogue and cooperation is needed between scientists, agency managers, and policy-makers.

Topic 2: What are the Problems with Making Management Decisions Based on Science and How Can These Problems Be Addressed?

Significant problems confront resource managers that complicate making sound, science-based management decisions. These include historical antecedents for resource use, changing social values, legal constraints in water law, economics and politics, poorly focused management, plurality and diversity of stakeholders, and the credibility of agency-produced science. Another problem identified by managers is that much of the scientific literature fails to address the management implications of their findings, rendering it of little practical use to them.

History defines the context within which management decisions must be made and it often determines the range of options available to resource managers. Across the western U.S., use of natural resources, especially water, enabled development of an economy that facilitated social and economic growth of settlements and entire regions. Environmental concerns were not a primary consideration and the object was to exhaustively appropriate natural resources to maximize cultural gains. This historical reality sets the backdrop against which contemporary natural resource problems must be solved. History defines the status quo and provides a strong and determined resistance to solving these problems. Changes in contemporary social values can be a sharp contrast to historical uses of natural resources and lead to intense conflict between stakeholders.

Water law of most western states was founded on the doctrines of prior appropriation and beneficial use. This legal framework led to overappropriation of water that was further exacerbated by the construction of dams to hold water back during periods of excess and send it downstream in times of diminished natural flows, making water supply appear larger than it was. River regulation and water law together have contributed to the deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and loss of native biota. Under contemporary circumstances that are often driven by endangered species recovery, water law provides no incentive to redirect water to support ecological uses.

Economic concerns and politics often outweigh science in matters of natural resource allocation. Resource managers and agencies can be subjected to political pressures to ignore science and protect economic interests. Thus, even if science is brought to bear on a natural resource problem, there is a possibility that it might be ignored in favor of more benign social or cultural outcomes.

Agencies and their staff scientists sometimes have a credibility problem when it comes to science. Too often, agency "science" is not hypothesis-driven and casual observations are conferred the credence of science. Even when scientific investigation is carried out on testable hypotheses, there is often a lack of proper identification of the problems or questions that the science is to test. Sound natural resource management requires careful identification of the problem so that science can be directed at the correct issue.

The plurality and diversity of stakeholders in contemporary natural resource issues can be staggering. Within the middle Rio Grande, there are state, federal, and tribal agencies, environmental organizations, and municipalities involved in arbitrating restoration of the Rio Grande and recovery of the Rio Grande silvery minnow and southwest willow flycatcher. With a high level of diversity, it is unlikely that management decisions can be made that will satisfy all stakeholders. However, consensus decisions could be made that at least acknowledge all viewpoints.

Topic 3: What Can Be Done to Address the Problems with Making Science-Based Management Decisions?

Problems arising with social, economic, and political views and values are perhaps the most intractable of the problems. With respect to water law, actions mandated by the Endangered Species Act might be accompanied by acquisition of a Federal Reserve water right to support endangered species. This would require legal acknowledgment of such as a beneficial use of water. The New Mexico attorney general has offered the opinion that instream use of water could be beneficial, but it is unclear how widely this view would apply across the western states. Natural resource managers might also reach out beyond their own personnel ranks to bring outside scientists in when the credibility of agency is called into question. Most importantly, agencies and scientists should strive to fully identify the problem so that science is brought to bear most effectively on solving them.

Topic 3: How Can Scientists, Resource Managers and Policy-Makers Work Together to Avoid "Combat Biology" That Undermines Effective Conservation of Resources?

In light of the events surrounding the Upper Klamath Basin debate, it has become increasingly clear that hostilities frequently arise not only between opposing resource users (farmers versus environmentalists) but also between scientists and agency managers and even among academicians (see Cooperman and Markle, 2003; Lewis, 2003; Service, 2003). All too often, scientists are brought in after management decisions have already been made and asked to sort through the aftermath and evaluate the empirical data that were used to make the decision. When science panels conclude that the decisions were made based on weak science, hostilities mount and public skepticism of the scientific process increases.

To avoid such scenarios, it is essential that scientists be part of the initial discussions. In aquatic resource debates, all stakeholders, including scientists and policy-makers, should be brought together at the forefront. Each stak\eholder group can articulate its values and the entire group of stakeholders have a much better chance of formulating the types of questions that specifically address underlying problems and that can be answered using the principles of sound science. Science cannot solve problems or answer questions for which it was not a priori designed. For their part, scientists must be willing to acknowledge the concerns and needs of managers as well as the limits of their own knowledge of the issue in question.

By introducing the principles of science to other stakeholders early in the decisionmaking process, the different interest groups have time to assimilate the information, and adjust or modify their stands on the issues, and become more receptive to other views. It increases the likelihood that some stakeholders may become advocates of implementing sound science in the problem-solving/decision- making process, and of involving other interest groups that could lobby (generate pressure), and generate funding.

To avoid "combat biology" (Service, 2003), outreach programs must be used to build trust and understanding among stakeholder groups and scientists and policy-makers. Equal partnership of all stakeholders is essential. In summary, science must be brought into the discussion early to increase understanding of key ecological functions, for stakeholders to be proactive rather than reacting to problems after they have occurred, and to increase the likelihood of its effectiveness.

Topic 4, Part 1: What Constitutes a Sound Management Decision in The Face of Complexity, Chaotic System Fluctuations, and Unknowns?

All management decisions must be made with varying degrees of uncertainty as to their outcomes, and managers must wrestle with finding a balance between all competing interests. The reality facing aquatic resource managers, particularly in arid regions like the western U.S., is that there are too many competing users and not enough water to satisfy all demands. Resource managers typically attempt to allocate these resources to as many users as possible, often to the detriment of the aquatic ecosystem. From an ecological perspective, one might argue that a sound decision in resource management will minimize collateral damage to aquatic ecosystems and will utilize natural resources in a sustainable manner.

The workshop attendees identified six steps that lead to a sound management decision in the face of complexity and uncertainty. The first step in the management decision process is to clearly articulate the questions that need answering. Stating the question in unambiguous terms will help define its context, scale, and affected parties. The second step is to identify the potential outcomes of all reasonable options available to managers. These should adequately represent a diverse set of ecological, biological, sociological, and economic effects. In highly complex settings, computer models can be developed to predict the effect of the various options on the ecological community dynamics, nutrient and water cycling, energy flow, as well as on socio-economic indices. Simulation models for decision support should be designed by an interdisciplinary team of scientists with expertise in the various fields to be modeled, with input from stakeholders through the entire process. The predictive ability of all models largely depends on the quality of the data that are included. Thus, simulation models are of no value and can be deceptively inaccurate unless the assumptions and limitations built into them are clearly outlined.

Once the model has been constructed using the best empirical data available, the third step is to assess relative likelihoods of the different possible outcomes, such as the extinction of an endangered species, the collapse of a farming community, or tourism industry. The fourth step is to evaluate alternatives against one another and to choose the option with the best overall outcome to all stakeholders. Fifth, implement a management decision. The sixth and final step is to monitor and document the outcome, so that future decisions can consider any failings or errors in the execution of the plan and avoid repeating these mistakes in the future.

Topic 4, Part 2: How Can Scientists Assist Resource Managers to Make Sound Management Decisions?

Scientists can assist resource managers in making sound management decisions by fully participating in the process of articulating and understanding the issues and predicting outcomes of different possible management strategies. As was pointed out in the workshop, it is not the job of scientists to make management decisions on behalf of agency managers. However, scientists can help managers ask the right questions (questions that lead to testable, verifiable hypotheses), design rigorous studies and sampling programs to answer these questions, and assist managers in using the correct methods to analyze and interpret the data. The ultimate responsibility for the decision often lies with the manager, not the scientist.

Conclusions

The disconnect between science and management can only be bridged with more dialogue and cooperation on both sides, and by including all stakeholders in initial discussions related to resource management decisions. Scientists must learn to better communicate their findings with agency managers in order to affect policy. Resource managers have a responsibility to honestly convey the soundness of the information relied upon in making a management decision. The collection of data is not synonymous with science, and upholding data and conclusions as science when they haven't been subjected to peer review is dishonest. Conflicts became so common that Congress enacted the 1998 Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act (P.L. 105-156) that created the U. S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (http://www.ecr.gov/). The institute provides a neutral setting where public and private interests, guided by skilled facilitators, can reach common ground.

Acknowledgments

Numerous individuals participated in the workshop discussions. By discussion group, participants were: Group 1-David Cowley (chair), Rossana Sallenave, James Davis, Sterling Grogan, Donald Caccamise, LeeAnn DeMouche, Craig Runyan, and Jennifer Sanders; Group 2- Michael Hatch (chair), F. Richard Hauer, Dan Santantonio, Gary Davis, Peter Wilkinson, Tim Darden, and Gail Dethloff; Group 3-Neal Schaeffer (chair), Robert Wissmar, Jacob Malcom, and Lee Watts; Group 4-Philip Pohl (chair), Seva Joseph, Shann Stringer, and Jim Andreason. Workshop transcripts were recorded and produced by Keith and Miller Certified Court Reporters, El Paso, Texas. The workshop was facilitated by Mette Brogdan, from the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona. Financial support for this workshop was provided by the Rio Grande Basin Initiative under the USDA/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Agreement No. 2001-45049-01149.

References

Brown, K. S. A new breed of scientist-advocate emerges. Science, 287: 1192-1195 (2000).

Cooperman, M.S., and D. F. Markle. The Endangered Species Act and the National Research Council's interim judgment in Klamath Basin. Fisheries, 28(3): 10-19 (2003).

Engelman, R., R. P. Cincotta, B. Dye, T. Gardiner-Outlaw, and J. Wisnewski. People in the balance: Population and natural resources at the turn of the millennium. Population Action International, Washington, DC, http://populationaction.org/resources/publications/ peopleinthebalance/ downloads/people_balance.pdf (2000). Last accessed Nov. 11, 2005.

Lewis, W. M. Klamath Basin Fishes: Argument is no substitute for evidence. Fisheries, 28(3): 20-25 (2003).

Mann, C., and M. Plummer. Qualified thumbs up for Habitat Plan science. Science, 278: 2052-2053 (1997).

National Research Council (NRC). Scientific evaluation of biological opinions on endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Interim report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (2002).

Postel, S. The Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity. New York: W.W. Norton and Company (1992).

Service, R. F. 'Combat Biology' on the Klamath. Science, 300: 36- 39 (2003).

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Sound Science Technical Issue Paper, Pensacola, FL (1999).

World Health Organization (WHO). Water supply and sanitation sector monitoring report: sector status as of 1994. WHO/EOS/96.15, Geneva, Switzerland (1996).

ROSSANA SALLENAVE AND DAVID E. COWLEY

New Mexico State University, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences, Las Graces, New Mexico, USA

Address correspondence to Rossana Sallenave, New Mexico State University, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences, Box 30003, MSC 4901, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 88003-8003. E-mail: rsallena@nmsu.edu

Copyright CRC Press 2006

Source: Reviews in Fisheries Science

More News in this Category