Closing the gap between researchers and the public sector

Christian Devenish participated in the II Meeting of Environmental Researchers in the city of Arequipa, Peru (3 - 5 July 2013), organized by the Environmental Researchers Network, hosted by the Ministry of the Environment. One of the principal objectives of this meeting was to bring researchers and regional authorities and businesses closer together, so that research results can play a part in decision making and policy formulation in the region. This was the second of these regional meetings, and one aspect to highlight in this version in south Peru was the greater protagonism on the part of regional governments, who participated in the round table discussions and also presented their research needs during the plenary sessions.

CONDESAN supported the organization of the event, especially in the area of biodiversity, where 15 papers were presented, among talks and posters, as well as a round table discussion with the public sector aimed at examining the role of the different actors involved in achieving decision making processes based on scientific evidence and identifying the research needs of the southern region of the country.

The round table discussion was based on the following points:

1. What are the region’s needs in terms of basic and applied science?
2. How are these needs reflected in the research papers presented during the event?
3. Who should set the national and regional research agendas? Which sector?
4. Who should participate in the implementation and development of the research agendas?
5. What opportunities for dialogue and exchange should exist between academia and the public sector?

The discussion panel was made up of the following:

• Gustavo Delgado Alvarado - Coordinator of Land Use Zoning in Arequipa, Regional Government of Arequipa
• Juan Torres Guevara - Director of the Research Centre for Arid Zones, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
• José Álvarez – Director of Biological Diversity at the Environment Ministry, Peru.
• Betty Millán – Director of the Natural History Museum, Universidad Nacional Mayor San Marcos.

Moderator: Christian Devenish

Below are some of the conclusions from the round table discussion, complemented by reflections on the discussion.

With regard to the regional research needs, the discussion focused on general themes rather than specific topics. Without a doubt, one of the most assertive was the suggestion that the regional research agenda should make explicit mention of mountains and deserts, and recognise these two systems as the principal context for research. The verticality component of mountain biodiversity research was also highlighted and goes hand in hand with the above assertion.

The subject of how we recognise mountains is an interesting issue throughout the Andes, we live in mountain areas but we don’t always recognise them as such. Ask someone from Santiago de Chile if they live in the Andes and they will tell you that they don’t! For those in Santiago, the Andes begin in the Cordillera to the east of the city. Here, semantic notions and the perception of our surroundings are mixed up, sometimes it is important to have a wider vision to really appreciate the setting or context of our work.

The discussion also highlighted the importance of contemplating links between researchers and the social activities involved in research, as well as the cultural aspects, which often are relegated to a secondary plane. For example, with a biologist’s eyes we see a mountain as a mountain ecosystem with its associated flora and fauna, but with ‘other eyes’ we could see a mountain as a god, or a sacred place.

The research needs presented by the regional governments respond to knowledge needs to overcome development problems. This explains the emphasis on the utility of research, and how it should serve the community, given the applied nature of the majority of the research needs set out. Nevertheless, the importance of basic research must not be overlooked, providing baseline information for more applied research. Apparently simple topics such as species inventories, including within what we call agrobiodiversity, can have a direct link to regional needs, especially given the growing interest in using biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of alternatives to current development models. For example, do we know how many species of potato exist? This is a basic question of biodiversity, but with important implications for development.

Lastly, in this section on regional research themes, finance was brought up in the discussion. If there is a need from the public sector (and private) to use research results in the formulation of policies, then there should be a corresponding component of funding on the part of the public sector for applied research. It is very difficult to place a value on the totality of the contribution from researchers to regional development, given that often multiple people and institutions are involved in the generation of knowledge, and that results can be used in multiple ways and across multiple times. Therefore, for regional, and national development, a clear compensation for research efforts is its funding from the public sector.

--- ---

The majority of the papers presented in the biodiversity and ecosystems session did not coincide with the needs outlined by the regional governments. Research needs were centred on environmental issues, such as waste management, water availability, river pollution and ecosystem degradation. In contrast, the papers were overwhelmingly focused on basic ecology, for example, species presence and distribution, state of conservation, and some on ecological restoration. Although the regional government’s research needs were not exclusively focused on biodiversity, this divergence, in part, reflects the way in which each group sets out its own research agenda without effective consultation or coordination. However, the question as to who should decide or who really decides on research agendas is not so simple. On the one hand, it is desirable to respond to regional needs, but without losing autonomy, and without disregarding the importance of basic research. And on the other, it is important to separate what corresponds to academia with regard to research, and what corresponds to regional government management within their regional priorities. Not all priorities will be resolved by universities. And even though setting out regional priorities is an excellent starting point to establish research agendas, it must be accompanied by processes to filter and complement the regional needs. For example, with regard to waste management, which was mentioned on repeated occasions by regional governments, solutions already exist (in part, provided by academia), but there is a greater lack of implementation than need for new research.

We can conclude, as the members of the round table agreed, that the definition of research agendas should be participative, bottom-up processes, where it is vital to ask the end-users, and respond to the needs expressed by regional governments, but also remain flexible to be able to accommodate changing priorities. However, the discussion also mentioned the fact that we are not isolated and that to a certain extent we follow global trends with regard to the principal research themes. For instance, the increase in research in climate change over the last decade, and the increase in biodiversity research since Rio 92 bear witness to these trends.

--- ---

The last round of commentaries was focused on opportunities that exist (or not) for the exchange of information among researchers and the public sector. There was general agreement that a lack of such opportunities exists, maybe due to a certain disdain on both sides, and what has repeatedly been called the breach between science and policy. Much has been written about this issue, on topics such as lack of communication, understanding, willingness, although recent contributions also signal a lack of participation or integration among both sides. On the side of the researchers, there is a need to sell their products better, to highlight the importance of their results and research for the construction of policies. This means that we have to create these opportunities from the research side, and be willing to participate. This last point is important given that for many researchers, a research project finishes with the publication of a paper in a journal. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, there is no obligation to participate in policy formulation, but it is important that data and results are available to those who do want to use results in decision making processes. Being more inclusive on both the part of academia and the public sector with regard to the occasions where research agendas are defined would help gain confidence and create opportunities to work together.

To facilitate the exchange of information, academia needs to consolidate studies to be able to share the information in formats that fit the daily work routine of the public sector, especially given the nature of scientific knowledge, in that it is constructed by consensus and from multiple sources. Decision makers do not need to read scientific articles, they are not the target audience of these communications, and neither would it be recommendable to base decisions on one or a few specific research projects. This is precisely why it is important to summarise and synthesise information as an intermediate stage between research and the creation of public policies, in order to provide conclusions and guidelines for policy resulting from research. As researchers, we must remember that our information is just one part of the many different components that enter into the process of creating policies. There is no lineal relation between a research project and a policy, at least not in many cases.

Finally, on the subject of opportunities to exchange information, the members of the panel recommended that more opportunities for exchange and collaboration were needed between researchers themselves, among universities and research centres, as well as within the public sector, between ministries, and even between ministerial departments.

--- ---