1. Science and Policy Interface:
An integrated socio-technical and Institutional
Framework to deal with water scarcity in WANA region
Mukhtar Hashemi National Consultant, Water Resources Management, UNDP/GEF Conservation of
Iranian Wetlands Project
2. Science and Policy Interface:
issue in the 2009 Istanbul World Water Forum
(WWAP, 2009).
Science and This section attempts to address one main question:
how to link or find an interface between policy
Policy Interface: (institutional matters) and science (technical and
natural environment aspects); in other words, an
interface between scientific knowledge systems and
An integrated socio-technical and
policy-making decisions. Given the complex nature of
Institutional Framework to deal with water scarcity in the WANA region, finding the
water scarcity in WANA region science –policy interface is vital to enhance the
policymaking process in the region.
Why Science Policy interface for WANA Basic definitions
Region Hashemi and O'Connell (2011) have provided the
WANA region is characterised by its dynamic nature following definitions of key terms used in this section:
in terms of socio economic and political, climate,
technological and resource availability changes. Policy- A Framework is a non-predictive representation of
makers have to consciously change their assumptions. structures and provides interlinkges for the relevant
So, policy-makers tend to use empirical and analytical components of a system that influence the policy in
evidences1 to legitimise policy decisions. However, question.
the evidences carry a varying degree of uncertainties. theory “makes specific assumptions on the linkages
Sometimes, this has resulted in inaction and lack of between variables and outcomes” (quoting Clement
improvising sustainable polices or polarisation of 2008)
opinions among major decision and policymakers.
a model “makes more precise predictions than a
This polarisation will undermine both political
theory and often relies on mathematical tools"
confidence and the question of legitimacy. The latter
(quoting Clement, 2008)
is a vital component in any policy appraisal (Hashemi
et al, 2007). The primary role Technical and Interface: a mechanism or framework to link two
empirical evidences is to educate the policy-makers systems; be able to exchange, use or process the
about the nature of the problem and provide information
evidence for policy-making and not to legitimize
Perspectives are mental models of actors involved in
policy (Sharifi, 2003). However, policymakers tend to
designing , implementing and affected by policy in
use technical evidences in arguments by highlighting
question
uncertainties in some results to reject or accept a
given policy. Interface: a mechanism or framework to link two
systems; be able to exchange, use or process the
In the WANA region in which water scarcity is a fact information.
of life, water sector institutions need to be re-
A Science-policy interface defines the points of
oriented to cater for the needs of changing supply-
interaction, interplay and linkage between technical
demand and quantity-quality relationships in the
and social or non-technical frameworks.
emerging realities (Saleth & Dinar, 2004). One of the
main obstacles to implementing IWRM is institutional Stake-holding is defined as a measure of the changing
inadequacy i.e. lack of workable policies. wide. attitudes of stakeholders
Institutional matters were still the most important
1
Multidimensional Water scarcity
Evidence: any kind of qualitative and quantitative
information including values and perceptions and
subjective views
Page 2
3. Science and Policy Interface:
Water scarcity in WANA region is multi-dimensional. others that X is a social problem or that Y offers the
A World Bank Report (2007) highlights three levels solutions.
of scarcity including
Policy formulation and adoption: consists of 3
Governance level: lack of transparency in decision main phases: analyzing policy goals and solutions,
making; Worldwide Governance indicators (WGI) identifying alternative recommendations and finally
developed by the World Bank (2010) is based on selecting a policy.
perception data and measures 6 categories of good Policy implementation: once a policy has been
governance since 1996: legalized (usually through an Act of Parliament) a
These are Voice and Accountability mandate is given to administrative institutions to
implement the policy. This is done at local, provincial
Political Stability and Absence of Violence / and national levels. Administrative bureaucracies
Terrorism make decisions about how to use both human and
Government Effectiveness, financial resources.
Regulatory Quality Policy evaluation/adjustments/termination: it
involves selecting an option among criteria based on
Rule of Law and values and ideologies. A policy appraisal entails a fact
Control of Corruption finding mission: information must be obtained to
measure the extent to which a policy goals have been
Organisational capacity level: inability of organisations
met. Therefore, efficiency indicators are employed
to effectively manage water resources
for this purpose. The data required includes views
Physical resource level (water shortage, water stress and values of the institutions/organizations involved,
conditions, temporal and seasonal variations) stakeholders and general public who may be paying
for the implementation of a policy. Opposing groups
A single water policy cannot deal effectively with the
can portray their preferred options as being most
multilevel water scarcity issues and hence there is a
efficient by emphasizing on different assumptions,
need for integrated enabling assessment tools to
(Stone, 2002). Therefore, it is always a contestable
achieve adequate policy decision outcomes. A science
concept.
policy interface can be used to harmonise scientific
evidences in policymaking decisions.
Pitfalls
Understanding Policy making process There are certain issues (pitfalls) that has a bearing on
policymaking process. These are as follows:
Deborah Stone (2002) describe policy making as “the
struggle over ideas. Also, as reported by Stave (2002), Poor definition of policy objectives. Incoherent
Dietz and Stern (1998) among others, noted that goals and objectives are sometimes blamed for
policy decisions are based on social values (values of inadequate policies which is influenced by ethical
society as a whole). By inspecting policy literature, 4 context of decision making i.e. customs,
steps in policy making process are identified perceptions, belief and culture (Loucks & van Beek,
(FrameWorks, 2005): 2005).
Problem identification/gaining agenda status: Lack of Local knowledge. Armitage (2004) notes
issues labeled as social or public problems get the that: local knowledge system is an important element
attention of legislative bodies and hence will gain for a successful policy on the use of resources.
agenda status. Issues that do not perceived as a Community based natural resources management is
problem by the society will not become a policy increasingly popular, (Fortmann et al, 2001). Armitage
(Best, 1995). Best asserts that framing an issue (2004) recalls form experiences in West Africa that
depends in part upon whether the claims persuade the mainstream narratives and policy discourse on
the impact of population growth and environmental
Page 3
4. Science and Policy Interface:
decline have caused marginalization of those without prejudice and advantage (Hampton, 2004).
disadvantaged resource users least able to protect Stakeholders should be involved in discussing the
their interests and rights. Kidane-Mariam (2003) trade-offs. Participation provide legitimacy for a given
notes that: a similar pervasive view has led to the policy (Hendriks, 2005) and enhances the ownwrship
adoption of policies in Ethiopia and Ghana with little and general acceptance of a given policy. However,
impact on actual population growth and many participation platforms have no clear boundary
environmental degradation because of the lack of and position rules (se e.g. Ostrom, 2005) for the
implementation strategies at local, regional and participants. Some of the participants do not have
national levels. These polices were based on resource confidence or not allowed to have a meaningful
mobilization mechanisms from international sources. participation and have restrictive roles. Stakeholder
On an international basis, Water policy comes within participation has also side effects such as slowing
broader policies on sustainable development, down the process of decision-making and could lead
Millennium Development Goals, MDGs and human to conflicts as well (Ubbels and Verhallah, 2000).
development criteria. The regional or local issues
might be overlooked by these donor driven polices. Undermining learning during the process..
People’s evaluation of policies may change as their
Inadequate consideration of Ethics A Central perception changes about issues they value. This is
question in policy appraisal is how to take called stakeholding. Many participants might change
environmental issues into account in decision making their position but if rigid poltical tactics are played
process? Ethical [value-laden,? Moral, religious] people are locked in their position and hence the
considerations have been the backbone of process of true consultation will be stopped. It will
environmental agenda, (Healy et al, 1994). For also cause a polarization of opinions if the stakholding
example, Healy et al (1994) suggest that UK process is undermined. One has to appreciate that all
understanding of the meaning of environment from are in a process of learning.
1940s to 1990s have 5 strands: (1) a welfarist-
utilitarianism combine with a moral landscape Lack of economic assessment of policy. The
aesthetic (1940s on); (2) growth management, main constituents of environmental policy are
servicing and containing growth and conserving open regulatory institutions (Emel et al, 1995). Therefore,
land (1960s on); active environmental care and in our appraisal of a policy we must consider the
management (1970s on); (4) a marketised costs of a regulation. Despite being a common issue,
utilitarianism, combined with conservation of there is little understanding of the economy-wide
nationally important heritage (1980s on) and (5) costs of regulation (Pearce, 2000). Regulations
sustainable development. impose costs on business and impair competitiveness.
Therefore economic measures can bring these costs
Pearce (2000) suggests that ideas such as carrying down by accelerated depreciation on clean
capacity, ecological footprints and environmental technology (removing uncertainty of policy change for
space can emanate from concerns about equity and businesses); inducing and simulating technological
are helpful to raise resource efficiency but they have change; encouraging savings (less consumption); and
little relevance for policy. How can we apply equity investing in human capital (education). Technological
principles (Millennium Development Goals, MDG) in changes affect institutions and governments
natural resources decision making? The answer is to (economic agents) and in response, they have to
integrate equity into cost-benefit analysis since adapt to these changes in order to survive in a
economic valuation and cost-benefit analysis provide competitive environment, (Archibugi et al, 1999).
one coherent set of procedures for determining
human concerns (health, amenity, resource depletion Understanding the meaning of integrated
etc). methodological framework.
To attain a science-policy interface, social assessment
Lack of clear participation mechanisms. All
frameworks (such as institutional analysis and policy
stakeholders should be given a voice and be heard
Page 4
5. Science and Policy Interface:
analysis frameworks) and technical assessment Conceptual frameworks: comprising of (a)
frameworks (such as DPSIR2) should be linked. First, decision-making perspective and (b) IWRM interface
we need to consider the meaning of the framework frameworks.
and differentiate it from theory and model. Secondly,
Analytical frameworks: (a) DPSIR (Driver-
there is a need to appreciate the implications (and
Pressure-State-Impact-Response) socio-technical
advantages) of the use of different theories and
assessment and (b) institutional analysis (IA) ‘social
frameworks to form the a single conceptual
assessment’ frameworks.
framework. As explained by Clement (2008) “A
framework identifies structures and links the relevant DSSs consisting of coupled tools such as process,
variables or elements that affect the issue in concern, planning and evaluation models and tools statistical
but does not make any predictions” (p. 33). By and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDA) tools.
comparison, a theory “makes specific assumptions on Interactive and internet based stakeholder
the linkages between variables and outcomes” and a participation platform with DSS performance
model “makes more precise predictions than a theory assessment (uncertainty and risk analysis) tools within
and often relies on mathematical tools”. Some might a graphical user interface (GUI) shell.
criticise this approach of combining various
theoretical frameworks in a single conceptual The integrated framework provides an interface
methodological framework to be “an internally between policy and science by (a) linking socio-
contradictory and messy approach, with a limited technical Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
explanatory capacity”. However, we need to (DPSIR) assessment framework with Institutional
appreciate that these frameworks are non-mutually Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework; and (b)
exclusive and there are interfaces or points of providing a basis for good governance by integrating
contacts between them; hence they can be an ethical and cultural aspects within the DPSIR
conceptually linked to each other. framework (Figure1).
Science policy interface components
There are three elements to be considered: (1) the Figure 1: The proposed science-policy
underlying assumptions (IWRM, sustainable interface integrated methodological
development, decision making perspectives (2) framework
stakeholder participation and (3) DSS interface. In
order to achieve the science-policy interface, two Conceptual frameworks Dealing with
objectives must be attained: (1) the user friendly
cultural and ethical aspects
technical assessment tools (such as DSSs) should be
designed to accommodate non-technical experts
(common users); and (2) they should yield easily
interpreted or understood evidence
(data/information). Based on these two objectives,
the proposed science-policy interface integrated
methodological framework (Figure 1) is a unique
analytical approach (similar to Blomquist et al, 2005)
that can establish the links or interfaces between
technical and policy and institutional frameworks.
Therefore, the conceptual methodological framework
consists of the followings:
2
DPSIR stands for Driving forces-Pressures-State-
Impact-Response socio-technical analytical framework
Page 5
6. Science and Policy Interface:
and often decision makers make
mistakes on these types of simple-
looking questions.
The perspectives framework may
have six ‘agents’: natural physical
environment, economic, ecological
harmony, institutional (political),
social and ethical. These are parallel
to the dominant paradigms of
IWRM, sustainable development,
holistic and ecosystem approaches.
This mental model has an important
role and can have inputs into both
analytical and conceptual
frameworks by measuring cultural
and ethical influences on policy-
making decisions. Human
perspectives are considered as part
of evidences or input information
and hence this framework is an
important element of the proposed
methodological framework.
IWRM has three institutional
Perspectives are important as shown in the case of interfaces for intervention: the national level interface
policymaking on climate change: the action taken by provides a linkage to the national water policy level
the decision-makers has been influenced by their through the IDA policy map framework; the
perception of the ‘danger’ of climate change (Daniels management level interface captures the institutional
& Endfield, 2009). The ethical aspects of administrative aspects of the water resources system
decision/policymaking have two elements: first, the and provides links to the multilevel IAD and the
human elements of ethics that deals with human DPSIR frameworks. The local level interface is an
perspectives (Spranger, 1928) and second, a cultural operational level in which water availability and
context of ethics. The latter relates to the allocation is evaluated based on the three pillars of
environment in which decision making takes place. sustainability (equity, economic efficiency and
Spranger (1928) made a great contribution by environmental sustainability) using the DPSIR
considering value laden human perspectives: framework. Also, it can be considered as an
theoretical, economic, atheistic, social, political and institutional interface by linking to the action arena of
religious. Spranger argued that these perspectives are the IAD framework.
not mutually exclusive and so a man can have multiple
perspectives at the same time. Institutional interventions can occur at:
Perspectives are important in the participatory local level; the day to day management of the water
decision making. Usually, simple questions have no or resources (or action arena)
very difficult answers such as Penman’s (1961) famous organisational (administrative) management level in
question: “what happens to the rain?” and so ‘how which development plans are developed monitored
much water should be allocated to the environment?’. and evaluated; and
They are simple in linguistic form but very hard to
answer and require many negotiated deliberations
Page 6
7. Science and Policy Interface:
governance level in which policies are reviewed and Since the advent of modern computing platforms in
revised. the 1960s and despite scepticisms and uncertainties,
modelling systems have become indispensable tools in
Analytical frameworks water resources management. They have been
The methodological framework requires analytical postulated to support the decision-making process
frameworks to study change, predict future trends, and hence the term decision support systems (DSSs)
assess impacts of policies on the water resources emerged. Past research indicates that decision makers
systems and provide alternative options. In this are becoming more dependent on scientific
methodological framework, the Driver-Pressure- information (e.g. Matthies et al, 2007; Liu et al, 2008)
State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) (AidEnvironment, and hence there is a quest for developing
2004; ProGea, 2004) is adopted to assess, evaluate comprehensive DSSs; certain end-users expect the so
and offer alternative management options change and called ‘super’ software which can make decisions with
the impact of the policy in question a click of a button i.e. they require instantaneous
answers to extremely intricate situations.
The institutional analysis (IA) framework consists of
two institutional analysis approaches: DSSs are not off-the-shelf software packages but they
are interactive multi-stakeholder decision-making
The Institutional Decomposition Analysis (IDA) platforms. A DSS is not a tool for making-policy but it
Framework (Saleth & Dinar, 2004). Using the IDA is a tool to facilitate an informed, transparent and
framework, a water institution is defined in a participatory decision-making process.
pragmatic way by considering it to have three main
components: (1) Water Policy; (2 ) Water Law; and Living with uncertainty
(3) Water Administration (Saleth & Dinar, 2004). This The scientific uncertainty of any analytical assessment
frameowk can provide a map for existing polices. may limit the authority of scientific knowledge in
The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) policy making (Shackley et al, 1996). The scientific
Framework (Ostrom, 1999, 2005). The IAD ambiguity serves both policymakers and scientists: it
framework is a multi-level analysis framework and is can be used as an alibi in accounting for a lack of
useful as it can link local with higher decision levels. policy effectiveness. However this should not affect
The IAD framework is a powerful analytical tool to the importance of scientific knowledge in decision
capture institutional levels which do not necessarily making as uncertainty is a byproduct of analyzing
correspond to administrative levels. For example, complex issues, (Armitage, 2004).
local communities can establish their own rules which
One of the uncertainties around freshwater
can operate at collective choice or even the
availability is the impact of climate change on both
constitutional levels (see e.g. Clement, 2008).
temporal and special distribution of freshwater
Therefore, it is not a rigid framework and can be
(Carpenter et al, 1992). Nevertheless, it is now a
used in a variety of situations depending on the actors
common knowledge that climate change will affect
and action situations. The IAD framework can be
both precipitation and evaporation and hence the
linked to the perspective model and DPSIR
water cycle. Global warming (increasing
framework to reflect the institutional aspects of the
temperatures) will therefore, affect the abundance of
decision-making process.
freshwater needed for drinking, irrigation, industry,
One thing we have to remember is that we have to transportation, tourism and fisheries.
re-define the meaning of an institution when dealing
with different institutional analysis frameworks as the The way forward
meaning of an institution is different in each of the
An integrated methodological framework is proposed
institutional frameworks used.
to create a science-policy interface based on: first,
establishing the relationships between the dominant
DSSs are not for policymaking paradigms (e.g. IWRM) and different methodological
Page 7
8. Science and Policy Interface:
frameworks (e.g. Institutional Analysis, DPSIR); and
second, linking social (policy) and scientific
methodological approaches through an exchange
mechanism among outputs of the frameworks used in
the DSS. An IWRM approach can use scenario
analysis which is embedded in the DPSIR framework.
This will interface with the IA framework. The
interface between science and policy can be
established by looking at integrating technical and
social assessment methodologies on a dynamic,
interactive multi-windowed stakeholder interface
platform. The IWRM paradigm will itself need to
evolve to embrace emerging issues such as the
management of ‘green’ water and accounting for
virtual water.
Polices to deal with water scarcity in WANA region
are influenced by cultural and ethical aspects which
represent a dimension of the community attributes
which has to be considered in any policy analysis
exercise. On the above basis, it is argued that it is
vital to incorporate ethical perspectives into
integrated institutional and technical frameworks for
better water resources management under water
scarcity.
Page 8