Linking Science to Decision Making in Environmental Policy: The Case of Marine Reserves Matthew Cahn Department of Polit

1. Linking Science to Decision Making in Environmental Policy: The Case of Marine Reserves Matthew Cahn Department of Political Science California State University, Northridge

2. Outline of Presentation:I IntroductionII The Problem (the RQ)III Theoretical Framework – The Tension Between Science and PolicyIV Resolutions: Accommodating the Tension Through RulemakingV Case Studies – Tortugas 2000 and Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary Reserve (MPA) ProcessVI Assessment

3. 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 or • no 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?

4. 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;

5. Theoretical Framework B Policy Analytic Framework How a Political Scientist or Policy Scientist would look at this issue: Policy vs. Politics Equity vs. Efficiency Stone: Policy Analysis is a form of political reasoning Why is this relevant/ important? What Policy Scientists are concerned with Bardach’s Eight Stage Approach

6. How a Political Scientist or Policy Scientist would look at this issue: Policy vs. Politics Equity vs. Efficiency  democracy vs. empiricism Stone: Policy Analysis is a form of political reasoning Why is this relevant/ important?

7. 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)

8. Bardach’s Eight Stage Model (paraphrased in seven steps) PROBLEM STATEMENT Identify with clarity and specificity the problem being addressed; ASSEMBLE EVIDENCE – fact finding Provide 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 RESPONSES Need to know what the goals and objectives are that the policy options are supposed to achieve; CONSTRUCT ALTERNATIVE POLICY RESPONSES What alternative policy responses should be considered? Examine the "best practices" of other agencies, as well as policy proposals that are emerging. The discussion of each option should be balanced, and should reflect the evidence/ data indicating degree of potential utility. Under what conditions are options likely to be most useful? Continued

9. Bardach’s Eight Stage Model (continued) LIST SPECIFIC CRITERIA USED IN MAKING EVALUATION State 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 RECOMMENDATION Close the Policy Analysis with a recommendation that summarizes the preferred policy option. Justify why this option is 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.

10. Resolutions: Accommodating the Tension Through Rulemaking Rulemaking as a Resolution Evolution of Stakeholder Involvement Regulation Negotiation (NegReg) Alternative Dispute Resolution Negotiated Rulemaking

11. 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

12. Negotiated Rulemaking Process (EPA Model) • EVALUATION • Identify issues and deadlines • Identify interested parties • Compare to selection criteria • Confirm management interest • Select convenor • CONVENING--PHASE 1 • Identify additional parties • Discuss RegNeg with parties • Determine willingness of parties to negotiate • Report to agency • Obtain agency management commitment • Preliminary selection of 15-25 participants • Continued

13. Negotiated Rulemaking Process (Continued) • CONVENING--PHASE 2 • Obtain parties commitment to negotiate • Process FACA Charter • Select facilitator/mediator • Respond to public comments on "notice" • Adjust committee membership, if necessary • Arrange organizational meeting • Arrange committee orientation/training • NEGOTIATIONS • Establish groundrules/protocols • Define "consensus" • Set meeting schedule & Publish notices of meetings • Review available information and issues • Establish work groups or subcommittees as necessary • Negotiate text or outline of proposed rule • Continued

14. 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

15. Negotiated Rulemaking Process (Continued) Draft rule is subject to public comment Committee notified of public comments Agency revises rule, if necessary Agency publishes final rule

16. Linking Science to Policy – The MPA Approach Traditional Rulemaking Model: Agency Rulemaking: Staff scientists recommendations Review by Science Advisory Committees Oversight 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)

17. Preliminary Resolution A: Negotiated Rulemaking Model Incorporates Stakeholder process; Problematic: scientific efficacy may be lacking/ conflicts between agency and stakeholders Preliminary Resolution B: Tortugas 2000 Science Advisory Panel, making recommendation to Stakeholder committee Problematic: lack of stakeholder ownership of recommendation; Preliminary Resolution C: CINMS Proposed Stakeholder Process, with Science Panel for evaluating ecological efficacy of stakeholder recommendations; Problematic: extremely inefficient (scientists keep sending back proposal)

18. 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

26. 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 sources • of failure and fosters unrealistic expectations for governance in a complex political system.

27. 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 these • Processes?

28. Assessment

29. Policy is always made by those left at the table.

30. Additional Resources available at http://www.csun.edu/~cahn/marine_policy.html