Channelling science into policy: Enabling best practices ... - CiteSeerX

Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2012) 1e8

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Channelling science into policy: Enabling best practices from research on land degradation and sustainable land management in dryland Africa Lindsay C. Stringer*, Andrew J. Dougill Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 30 March 2012 Received in revised form 6 October 2012 Accepted 18 October 2012 Available online xxx

Demands are increasing for scientific research to be explicitly and demonstrably policy relevant. Research funders are requiring greater returns on their investments and scientists are expected to demonstrate clearly how their research can inform policy and regulation to deliver positive consequences for societal, economic and environmental wellbeing. Within the co-evolving context of environmental management research in dryland Africa and the policy approaches designed to mitigate land degradation, few academic analyses have deconstructed the practical ‘bottom-up’ actions that can help to channel scientific research into national decision-making and policy. Similarly, while international platforms developed by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification have started to facilitate greater knowledge exchange between scientists and policymakers, analyses have failed to consider the powerful informal actions that scientists can take to allow their research to inform evidence-based international policy. Drawing on examples in the literature from research on land degradation and sustainable land management across sub-Saharan African drylands, we identify key enabling activities that help make scientific research more visible, accessible to, and compatible with, policy processes at local, national and international levels. We argue that these enablers are applicable to other environmental research areas beyond land degradation, and suggest that improved understanding of science into policy processes that look across multiple scales and levels will help researchers and policy-makers to better match information supply and demand to the mutual benefit of both groups. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Impact pathway Research into policy UNCCD Knowledge transfer Knowledge exchange Land issues

1. Introduction ‘Policy relevance’ is a term that is often used when research findings can help to solve the problems faced by society in a timely way (Nightingale and Scott, 2007). In an ideal world, scientific research would produce a clear orientation of the pathway(s) that policy could follow in order to address particular problems that affect society (Holmes and Clark, 2008). In reality however, the situation is much more complex. Specialist knowledge is usually required to interpret research results, and even then, results are often contested and uncertain (Petersen, 2006). This makes it difficult for the concrete recommendations that decision-makers require to be extracted from research. Despite growing expectations that scientists should inform environmental policy through the delivery of various research ‘outputs’ (tangible knowledge packages produced through the research process (Davies et al., 2005)), lessons, and best practice guidance on the specific actions

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1133437530. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.C. Stringer).

that researchers can take throughout the research process to help channel their findings into policy, remain sparse (Shaxson, 2005). This is the case in both the academic literature (e.g. Rudd, 2011; Phillipson et al., 2012) and in supporting documents developed by research funding bodies, which themselves increasingly need to justify the investment of public funds in scientific research (e.g. NERC, 2011; Sarewitz, 2011). Although difficult to tackle in the context of sustainable development issues affecting the developing world, there remains a pressing need for greater reflection on the practical enablers allowing research to better support policy (Mollinga, 2008; Clark et al., 2011). The practical and theoretical challenges of undertaking research that crosses traditional academic disciplinary boundaries and involves non-research stakeholders (local communities, NGOs, policy-makers) throughout, are further complicated in dynamic dryland systems that are typified by thresholds and tipping points in their functioning (Behnke and Scoones, 1993; Dougill et al., 1999). The complexities of such dynamic systems and their interactions with rapidly changing social, economic and political contexts has led to high profile calls, such as through the Drylands Development Paradigm (Reynolds

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.025

Please cite this article in press as: Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Channelling science into policy: Enabling best practices from research on land degradation and sustainable land management in dryland Africa, Journal of Environmental Management (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2012.10.025

2

L.C. Stringer, A.J. Dougill / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2012) 1e8

et al., 2007), for a re-framing of how dryland research is undertaken, with a view that it better informs tools for policy and management (Chasek et al., 2011; Fraser et al., 2011). This paper addresses the need for further analysis of the routes through which dryland research can inform policy. It draws on examples from local level research on land degradation and sustainable land management across dryland Africa to identify key enabling actions that can be undertaken by researchers to facilitate the flow of science into policy. Overall, these enablers seek to enhance research visibility, accessibility and compatibility with policy processes. Land issues are in need of urgent international policy action (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Thomas et al., 2012). It is estimated that, given current levels of production, approximately 6 million ha of land per annum will need to be brought into agricultural use up to 2030, in order to meet increasing demands for food (World Bank, 2010). Drylands are particularly vulnerable in this regard, as they are both sensitive to climate change and often lack investment, which already makes the production of sufficient food challenging (Middleton et al., 2011). Drylands also feature centrally in the debate on the benefits of land sharing management strategies (managing land for multiple purposes such as food production, biodiversity conservation and carbon storage) versus those focused on land sparing (concentrating on high yielding practices in agricultural areas together with delineation and protection of separate conservation areas e see Phalan et al., 2011; Green et al., 2005). The need for scientific knowledge to feed into policies to better address land degradation and sustainable land management is therefore paramount for the maintenance of human wellbeing, and especially urgent for the drylands. Considerable research has centred on the drylands of sub-Saharan Africa, so we draw on this body of work to define the regional focus of our analysis. This paper provides a critical analysis of lessons across a range of scales and levels by seeking to: 1. Synthesise findings from local level research that demonstrate the facilitation of and barriers to research findings entering policy processes at a national level; 2. Assess the processes by which the implementation of the key international policy framework on land degradation (the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, UNCCD) has been informed by the scientific community, and the routes through which international science-policy dialogue is evolving; 3. Identify the enabling actions that researchers can undertake to help research to inform the policy process with respect to tackling land degradation and advancing sustainable land management. While our examples focus on addressing the integrated environmental and societal challenges of land degradation and sustainable land management in dryland Africa, the mechanisms and approaches that are proposed are sufficiently generic to be applicable in other research areas and environments. 2. Addressing land degradation and desertification: scientific and policy challenges at international and national levels

well as education, health and development, linking also to sustainable development concerns including climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, health, food, water and energy insecurity and human displacement (MA, 2005; Akhtar-Schuster et al., 2011). At the same time, the study of land degradation spans a range of scientific disciplines (e.g. ecology, development, soil science, agriculture, economics etc.), requiring effective disciplinary integration to deliver holistic, and policy-appropriate assessments, while also recognising that other forms of knowledge (e.g. local knowledge) are valuable in informing sustainable land management (Reed et al., 2011; Government Foresight Report, 2011). Within the world’s drylands, land degradation and desertification problems are particularly acute. International level statistics warn that 20% of the world’s drylands are degraded, largely as a result of human activities (UNEP, 1997; Bai et al., 2008). When viewed in conjunction with poverty data, the need to address land degradation issues in drylands is particularly apparent (Middleton et al., 2011), demonstrating the urgent requirement for research to inform policy shifts towards more sustainable land management. The key international policy response to land degradation in the world’s drylands is the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD, 1994). This multi-lateral environmental agreement provides a global policy framework through which its parties can take steps, through the development of national policy, programmes and laws, to address the specific land degradation problems that they face (Akhtar-Schuster et al., 2011). At the national level, each party to the UNCCD that considers itself affected by desertification and/or land degradation is obliged to prepare a National Action Programme (NAP). NAPs should outline the status of desertification and land degradation within each country, as well as the actions being taken to address those particular problems (Stringer et al., 2007b). If NAPs are to target the most urgent and severe land degradation issues and harness appropriate resources and financing to achieve implementation impact, it is vital that research on both the problems and solutions is made available to policymakers in a timely and appropriate way. The wider literature on sustainable environmental management (e.g. Bell and Morse, 2003; Fraser et al., 2006; Leach et al., 2010) recognises the need to integrate perspectives from the bottom-up (local/project level) and top-down (national and international policy level). This is acknowledged within the text of the UNCCD too, which requires NAPs to take into account multiple stakeholder views from different levels (Stringer et al., 2007c). Such a multilevel approach is essential to allow inter-connections between regions and scales to be identified on a more manageable landscape scale (Maestre et al., 2006), as well as to enable integration of the outputs from large-scale analyses typical of climate, economic or land use change modelling (e.g. IPCC, 2007) and vulnerability analyses (e.g. Schröter et al., 2005; Simelton et al., 2009), with local-scale assessments of the drivers and impacts of degradation at a household, village and district level. Linking top-down and bottom-up approaches can further help to develop ‘hybrid knowledges’ based on both scientific measurements and local stakeholder insights (e.g. Angassa and Oba, 2008; Reed et al., 2008; Stringer, 2009) with powerful, positive implications for the development of legitimate local land management practices. 3. Materials and methods

Land degradation represents a key cross-cutting issue of concern to local communities, policy-makers and scientists alike, with particular challenges posed by the dynamic, non-equilibrium and coupled nature of human-environment systems in drylands (Reynolds et al., 2007, 2011; Thomas et al., 2012). The impacts of land management challenges span a wide variety of policy sectors including agriculture, environment, forestry, water and energy as

The Dryland Development Paradigm conceptualises this multiscale challenge and advances these debates (Reynolds et al., 2007, 2011). However, it provides limited practical guidance on how to develop the research process and take research outputs forward to ensure that they are both incorporated into policy (i.e. delivering change in policy or protocol) and that they result in outcomes (i.e.



consequences of policy changes) that have direct relevance and benefit to dryland environments and societies (Whitfield and Reed, 2011). In this paper, we consider both bottom-up and top-down approaches in our assessment of key enabling activities that can help to channel scientific research into policy processes at international, national and local levels. This is achieved through a deskbased literature analysis of experiences from a range of research projects, operating at and across a variety of different governance levels (local, national and international) in sub-Saharan Africa. The paper initially analyses local level dryland African research where both scientific and local knowledge bases have been explicitly assessed and integrated. Further analysis focuses on identifying the key factors that enable this research to inform policy-making at local to national levels. In doing this, we identify commonly emerging themes from the research literature, encompassing both agricultural and pastoral systems. The paper then analyses international processes linked to the UNCCD and the role of the scientific community in informing the policy agenda at the global level. Based on the emergent themes from all scales, we then synthesise and present the enablers that apply across governance levels. 4. Enabling local level research to inform national policy The importance of integrating local and scientific knowledge and including multiple stakeholder perspectives in environmental management is increasingly recognised (e.g. Stringer and Reed, 2007; Raymond et al., 2010). Consequently, new processes are being developed to enable the scientific validation of assessments of land degradation (and its antithesis, sustainable land management), with a subsequent greater role for local communities in providing data on which policy can be based (Stringer et al., 2012). This approach has advantages beyond the integration of different knowledges (Reed et al., 2009), including local capacity building to develop and continue monitoring and assessment programmes after the end of the research project, providing the potential to inform policy development over the longer term. Indeed, case study research examples that have developed and used new approaches for involving local communities in participatory monitoring and evaluation of land degradation are becoming widespread across dryland Africa (e.g. Milton and Dean, 1996; Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001; Stocking and Murnaghan, 2001; Klintenberg et al., 2007; Angassa and Oba, 2008; Oba et al., 2008; Roba and Oba, 2009; Reed and Dougill, 2002, 2010; Kruger and Katjivuka, 2010). These typically include an initial stakeholder analysis, followed by the use of community focus groups, expert interviews and transect walks in study areas. Assessment guides and management decision-making tools are a common local level output from these kinds of processes. In taking such approaches, it is vital that sufficient resources are included in project planning to enable multi-stakeholder engagement to be an ongoing component of the research throughout its duration. The need for active participation of local communities, including community leaders in monitoring efforts is vital due to their influential role in affecting the adoption and diffusion of different land management practices (Angassa and Oba, 2008; Reed and Dougill, 2010). Active participation is further important in the development of dissemination and outreach strategies for supporting successful implementation of sustainable land management initiatives involving other stakeholders, e.g. local land management, extension services etc. (Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001; Scoones and Thompson, 2009), and helps to ensure compatibility between policies and local land users’ concerns. In practice, such best practice community participation does not often occur. For example, Stringer et al. (2007a) describe how Swaziland’s National

3

Action Programme to combat land degradation and desertification targets commonly recognised forms of land degradation such as extensive gullying on rangeland areas. Yet, their analyses of local perspectives suggested that infestations of parasitic weed Striga asiatica on arable areas were considered a much more serious symptom of land degradation and of far greater concern to the rural poor who depend on successful maize cultivation for their food security. Similarly, in Botswana the National Action Programme has focused on soil erosion concerns related to dune mobilisation and water erosion and yet local level research highlights changes in grass species palatability (e.g. Rohde et al., 2006; Reed et al., 2008) and bush encroachment of Acacia mellifera (e.g. Moleele and Perkins, 1998; Reed and Dougill, 2002) as having the most significant impacts on societal wellbeing (Dougill et al., 2010). To inform and to achieve changes in policy and land management practices based on the findings of participatory, multistakeholder research, local level land degradation investigations need to begin with a thorough stakeholder analysis to ensure the correct individuals are represented. There is also a need to identify the appropriate power base (to achieve long-term sustained action) and to ensure that a suitable mix of knowledges is developed (Fraser et al., 2006). As drylands are considered complex systems, steps should be taken to identify stakeholders operating at multiple levels (from the local to the international). This helps to ensure the visibility of the research process to all potentially interested parties, permitting a greater number of potential entry points to inform policy (Newig and Fritsch, 2009). Time spent at an early stage of project design undertaking a thorough stakeholder analysis using methods such as semi-structured expert interviews also enables research goals and knowledge exchange strategies to be refined (Reed et al., 2011), ensuring greater understanding of context, and compatibility of research outputs with stakeholder priorities and their knowledge and information needs. Spending time undertaking institutional mapping and networking exercises to identify the key communication channels between the different stakeholder groups and across levels is particularly valuable (Dyer et al., 2012). It can help to ensure the widespread visibility of the research throughout the project process; to develop an understanding of how different communication channels can be used to direct research outputs towards relevant policies; as well as to tailor dissemination products to specific research users and consumers (Chasek et al., 2011). In some instances, analyses may highlight gaps and the need for new platforms for communication to be established. For example in Namibia, government, donor and NGO support for a Forum for Integrated Research Management (FIRM) facilitated the development of strong communication platforms that are enhancing degradation assessment and rehabilitation activities on an ongoing basis (e.g. Kruger and Katjivuka, 2010). The FIRM allows improved visibility of scientific research findings to policymakers, as well as permitting land users themselves to generate monitoring data in a timely way that is compatible with policy processes (see e.g. Klintenberg et al., 2007). Similarly, in South Africa, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism established a series of regional level participatory workshops as its mechanism for improving land degradation assessments (Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001) and policy planning in relation to the dual threats of climate change and land degradation (Meadows and Hoffman, 2003; Archer and Tadross, 2009). The examples above suggest that local-scale, transdisciplinary research approaches that draw on different knowledges, can enable policymakers (at national level) and practitioners (at district level) to meaningfully engage local communities in the assessment of land degradation and in the development of management plans to rehabilitate degraded land. Thus, participatory practices can


4


enhance the visibility and accessibility of research findings for local stakeholders, and help to ensure the compatibility of assessments with policy goals. Yet, a number of challenges remain. For example, in Botswana, community rangeland monitoring guides and rangeland management decision support tools have been produced from integrated research projects supported by the United Nations (Reed and Dougill, 2010). However, as yet, there is no formal government programme to support the wider dissemination or uptake of the practices detailed in the guides, despite consultations with government and district staff from the outset of the project to enable dissemination products to meet their needs. As a result, there is a greater potential impact from the research that remains yet to be delivered. A further challenge is that government personnel who act as points of contact at the start of research projects often move on to other roles while the project is running. This can result in a loss of institutional memory and knowledge brokering capacity when it comes to collaborations with researchers, reducing the possibility to channel project findings into policy. This is a problem beyond the land degradation/dryland context, with potential solutions being reflected in calls for the mainstreaming of land degradation issues across different ministries to improve the chances of research uptake (e.g. AkhtarSchuster et al., 2011). The most recent (2011) Government of Botswana review of the National Agricultural Policy (Republic of Botswana, 1991) recognises the potential for greater community empowerment in rangeland monitoring and management initiatives. However, several analysts (e.g. Adams et al., 2002; Malope and Batisani, 2008; Perkins et al., 2011) suggest that political perspectives promoting land privatisation remain institutionalised, implying a degree of political ‘lock-in’ to the policy of privatisation of land tenure that curtails efforts to empower communal rangeland management by Kalahari pastoralists. These kinds of barriers allow scientific research findings to take second place to prevailing political or economic interests (Rayner, 2006), and demonstrate the need for a certain degree of compatibility of research findings with existing institutional and political structures and processes, as well as existing policy, if research results are to be actively taken up. Use of ‘good news’ scientific findings based on case study assessments where environmental, societal and economic benefits have resulted from community-based natural resource management projects can be critical in framing policy recommendations in a positive manner, rather than simply critiquing existing policies. For example, the Botswana Government has explicitly stated that it will look to follow the community-based conservancy model developed in Namibia that is showing positive environmental and societal benefits (Suich, 2010; Naidoo et al., 2011). 5. The international land degradation policy context and the entry points for scientific research At the international level, the channelling of scientific knowledge into multi-lateral environmental agreements including the UNCCD, is conceptualised in its simplest form along two basic (linear) routes (Pielke, 2007): 1) knowledge flows from basic research to applied research, to development and eventually delivers societal benefits; and 2) scientific consensus on an issue leads to political consensus, with specific scientific evidence compelling particular responses from policy. However, more recently it is recognised that the scientific and political arenas interact across a variety of levels and domains, leading to a process of co-evolution (van den Hove, 2007; Koetz et al., 2011). It is this more complex and dynamic process which shines through in our analysis of the flows of scientific knowledge into the UNCCD.

The formal institutional architecture through which dryland research can reach international policymakers has been extensively critiqued in recent years (e.g. Long Martello, 2004; Tal and Cohen, 2007; Bauer and Stringer, 2009; Grainger, 2009; Chasek et al., 2011). This has precipitated innovations such as the UNCCD Scientific Conferences (the first of which was held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 2009), which provide a new platform (or boundary organisation e see e.g. Cash et al., 2003) from which knowledge and information can be exchanged between scientists and policymakers at the interface, or boundary, between these different domains. Mechanisms such as this are likely to play a vital role into the future in the absence of any official international panel on land issues (i.e. a panel equivalent to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Stringer et al., 2010; Winslow et al., 2011). In addition to these more formal routes, for land degradation and sustainable land management research to be relevant at the international policy level requires first, the identification of policy needs and gaps (Bannada, 2010). This can be achieved by identifying who the relevant policymakers are from the outset of the research design process (in a similar way to stakeholder analyses at the local level) (Rothman et al., 2009); what the demand is for new ideas; and what the ideal timings are with regard to feeding science into policy. This also requires compatibility of the proposed research with the policy process. Strategic engagement in commissioned research and consultancy activities linked to policy provide another route to identifying policy needs and gaps (Mortimore and Tiffen, 2004). In the case of the UNCCD, scientific input outside of UNCCD Scientific Conferences is managed by the Convention’s subsidiary body, the Committee on Science and Technology. The CST congregates at Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings which take place every two years. At the same time, country parties to the UNCCD are required to report on their activities to implement the UNCCD by submitting national reports to the UNCCD Secretariat, in advance of meetings of the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention (CRIC). Scientific research feeding into national reports helps to shape the discussions at the higher level COP meetings. However, at the national level there are many barriers to the incorporation of scientific research into national reports, including a lack of capacity and infrastructure (for detailed analyses see e.g. Chasek et al., 2011; Nkonya et al., 2011; Bauer and Stringer, 2009). Researchers need to be aware of and actively seek out policy opportunities. The UNCCD’s scientific conference approach facilitates this process, and can help science to play an agenda-setting role in related policy discussions. The current focus on the economics of land degradation in both the international policy and research sphere provides a good example of agenda-setting. Attention to the economic aspects of land degradation partly mirrors approaches that are broadly linked to the UNCCD’s sister conventions. For example, the Stern Review (2006) has played a role in enlightening United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) discussions and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) in informing policy debate within the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). For the UNCCD, it was through papers published from the First UNCCD Scientific Conference (e.g. Requier-Desjardins et al., 2011; Nkonya et al., 2011) which, together with the interaction between science and broader policy processes linked to the other Rio Conventions, cultivated the co-evolution of the current political and scientific focus on the economics of land degradation. Aside from harnessing international policy opportunities, scientific research findings need to be made available to policymakers (Reed et al., in press) to enable dialogue and co-evolution



of policy and scientific thinking. The wider media (press, television, internet and new social media) can play an important role in this regard, though researchers often appear reluctant towards media engagement due to fears of misrepresentation, a lack of reflection on issues of uncertainty and over-simplification of research findings (Ladle et al., 2005). The media can nevertheless help to raise public awareness about important research findings, perhaps even pushing policy-makers to take action, challenging the status quo of established political and economic interests. More conventional dissemination mechanisms such as policy briefs play a vital role in communicating research processes and outcomes, maintaining both accessibility and visibility of dryland science. Within these communications to policy-makers, clarity and conciseness are vital. For policy impact to ensue requires the presentation of: a) evidence to support the recommendations being made available in a familiar form to the policy audience; b) a process through which the recommendation can be enacted; and c) the proposition of responsibilities as to who needs to do what and how. The EU-FP6 DESIRE project (Desertification mitigation and remediation of degraded land: http://www.desireproject.eu) provides a good example of dissemination that achieved these criteria. The project’s policy brief “Is the UNCCD stuck in a knowledge traffic jam?” which was co-authored with NonGovernmental Civil Society Organisations Drynet and ENID (DESIRE/Drynet/ENID, 2008) drew considerable attention through its release prior to UNCCD CRIC-7 and informed discussions in the lead-up to the COP decision to introduce scientific conferences to help improve knowledge flows. Such collaborations between scientists and NGO and Civil Society stakeholders, who have experience and play a specific awareness-raising function, can enhance the speed and extent of research dissemination. The DESIRE project’s overall design also enabled engagement with policy-makers and other stakeholders throughout (Schwilch et al., 2011). For example, it integrated tools such as WOCAT (World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies: www.wocat.net) into the research process, enabling the sharing of tried and tested sustainable land management approaches from

5

around the world based on a rigorous scientific questionnaire approach. The comprehensive on-line, open-access WOCAT database provides a framework for documentation, evaluation and dissemination of knowledge on sustainable land management, which is both visible and accessible to the international dryland policy community. The integration of WOCAT further provided the DESIRE project research with a degree of perceived legitimacy, built from its ongoing collaborations with the Food and Agriculture Organisations (FAO) and the UNCCD. The WOCAT ‘brand’ was therefore already known in policy circles prior to the DESIRE project. 6. Synthesis and conclusion Many of the enabling practices for channelling dryland research into policy apply at local, national and international levels, and they all share the common ground in that they seek to enhance the visibility, accessibility and compatibility of dryland research findings for policy-makers. The examples drawn on in our analysis have demonstrated that by identifying policy-makers, their information needs and knowledge gaps, it becomes possible to build-in policy relevance to the research focus from the outset (cf. EEA, 2001). If the research seeks to: a) link scientific and local knowledge to produce scientifically validated hybrid knowledge; and b) engage communities in both providing monitoring data and in implementing certain land management practices, undertaking a stakeholder analysis alongside institutional mapping and networking exercise can be useful. This is especially important in considering compatibility between policy and local issues (cf. Stringer et al., 2007a), and can develop a degree of legitimacy for those involved in the research. It can also provide assurance that policy-relevant information stemming from integrated knowledge is scientifically credible. At both national and international levels, information needs can also be identified through engagement in strategic consultancy and research commissions for policy institutions and donors/funders.

Fig. 1. Key enabling activities to facilitate the channelling of research on land issues into policy.


6


Best practices we have identified from the international level suggest the need to look for policy opportunities and ensure the timeliness of research outputs. This necessitates horizon scanning to identify in which upcoming events relevant policymakers are likely to be involved. Use of platforms and arenas that facilitate science-policy dialogue, such as UNCCD Scientific Conferences, have been shown to be effective in informing the political agenda at the international level. Appropriate dissemination and communication of research findings to policy-makers and other stakeholders involved in the research is paramount for the sustained effective management of drylands. Doing this effectively requires scientists to pay attention to the way in which the problem is set out and the assumptions inherent to that particular framing, the knowledge that is being produced and the uncertainties relating to it, as well as the shortcomings of the types of tools and organising concepts used within the research. Our examples from dryland Africa further illustrate the importance of building on existing strengths and framing findings in such a way that they highlight the similarities and compatibility between existing policy and emerging directions based on new scientific evidence. Evidence nevertheless needs to clearly be supported with interpretation, with consideration also given to alternative options, how they may be delivered and who they may involve if it is to attract the attention of the policy community. Finally, in communicating and disseminating policyrelevant scientific information, suitable language and media need to be used. Modern technologies, particularly web-based tools and databases can be useful in ensuring information is provided in a timely way. Fig. 1 summarises our findings and the four key enabling activities emerging from our analysis across local, national and international levels, which together can channel scientific knowledge on land issues into policy. Although these enablers have been extracted from our analysis of examples from the dryland literature focussing on land degradation and sustainable land management, we argue that they are applicable to other environmental fields and policy issues and could help researchers and policy-makers to better match knowledge supply and demand more widely. There will always be challenges in the co-evolving relationship between science and policy. Whilst in-depth exploration of these challenges are beyond the scope of the analysis presented here, the enabling activities we have outlined nevertheless provide a solid basis from which further enquiry and analysis of the ways in which science can inform policy across levels can transpire. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Anna Evely, Mark Reed and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. References Adams, M., White, R., Raditloaneng, N., Aliber, M., Stracey, G., McVey, C., Kalabamu, F., McAuslan, P., Kgengwenyane, N., Sharp, C., Egner, B., 2002. National Land Policy: Issues Report. Republic of Botswana, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Environment, Department of Lands, Natural Resource Services (Pty) Ltd, Gaborone, Republic of Botswana. Akhtar-Schuster, M., Thomas, R., Stringer, L.C., Chasek, P., Seely, M., 2011. Improving the enabling environment to combat land degradation: institutional, financial, legal and science-policy challenges and solutions. Land Degradation & Development 22, 299e312. Angassa, A., Oba, G., 2008. Herder perception on impacts of range enclosures, farms and bush encroachment on the rangelands of Borana, southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology 36, 201e215. Archer, E.R.M., Tadross, M.A., 2009. Climate change and desertification in South Africa e science and response. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 26 (3), 127e131.

Bai, A.G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L., Schaepman, M.E., 2008. Proxy global assessment of land degradation soil use and management. 24(3), 223e234. Banadda, N., 2010. Gaps, barriers and bottlenecks to sustainable land management (SLM) adoption in Uganda. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5 (25), 3571e3580. Bauer, S., Stringer, L.C., 2009. The role of science in the global governance of desertification. Journal of Environment and Development 18 (3), 248e267. Behnke, R.H., Scoones, I., 1993. Rethinking range ecology: implications for range management in Africa. In: Behnke, R.H., Scoones, I., Kerven, C. (Eds.), Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. Overseas Development Institute, London. Bell, S., Morse, S., 2003. Measuring Sustainability: Learning from Doing. Earthscan Publications, London. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (14), 8086e8091. Chasek, P., Essahli, W., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Stringer, L.C., Thomas, R.J., 2011. Integrated land degradation monitoring and assessment: horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels. Land Degradation & Development 22 (2), 272e284. Clark, W.C., Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N.M., 2011. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Early View. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900231108 (online). Davies, H., Nutley, S., Walter, I., 2005. Assessing the impact of social science research: conceptual, methodological and practical issues. ESRC Symposium on Assessing Non-Academic Impact of Research, London (online). http://www.esrc. ac.uk/_images/non-academic_impact_symposium_report_tcm8-3813.pdf (accessed 12.02.12). DESIRE/Drynet/ENID, 2008. Is the UNCCD stuck in a knowledge traffic jam? Available online. http://www.dry-net.org/index.php?page¼4 (accessed 08.03.12). Dougill, A.J., Thomas, D.S.G., Heathwaite, A.L., 1999. Environmental change in the Kalahari: integrated land degradation studies for non-equilibrium dryland environments. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59, 420e442. Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E.D.G., Reed, M.S., 2010. Anticipating vulnerability to climate change in dryland pastoral systems: using dynamic systems models for the Kalahari. Ecology and Society 15 (2), 17. Dyer, J.C., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., 2012. Jatropha curcas: sowing local seeds of success in Malawi. Journal of Arid Environments 79, 107e110. European Environment Agency (EEA), 2001. Designing Effective Assessments: The Role of Participation, Science and Governance, and Focus. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W., Reed, M.S., McAlpine, P., 2006. Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 78, 114e127. Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Hubacek, K., Quinn, C.H., Sendzimir, J., Termansen, M., 2011. Assessing vulnerability to climate change in dryland livelihood systems: conceptual challenges and interdisciplinary solutions. Ecology and Society 16 (3), 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-03402-160303. Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P., Balmford, A., 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307 (5709), 550e555. Government Foresight Report, 2011. The Future of Food and Farming. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London. Grainger, A.D., 2009. The role of science in implementing international environmental agreements: the case of desertification. Land Degradation & Development 20 (4), 410e430. Hoffman, T., Ashwell, A., 2001. Nature Divided: Land Degradation in South Africa. University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town. Holmes, J., Clark, R., 2008. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policymaking and regulation. Environmental Science & Policy 11, 702e711. IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007dthe physical science basis. In: Contribution of Working Group Ito the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. Klintenberg, P., Seely, M.K., Christiansson, C., 2007. Local and national perceptions of environmental change in central northern Namibia: do they correspond? Journal of Arid Environments 69, 506e525. Koetz, T., Farrell, K.N., Bridgewater, P., 2011. Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services International Environmental Agreements. Politics, Law and Economics 12 (1), 1e21. Kruger, B., Katjivikua, R., 2010. Towards Sustainable Rangeland Management in Ovitito. Government of the Republic of Namibia, Windhoek. Ladle, R., Jepson, P., Whittaker, R., 2005. Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30 (3), 231e240. Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Global Environmental Change 20 (3), 368e377. Long Martello, M., 2004. Expert advice and desertification policy: past experience and current challenges. Global Environmental Politics 4 (3), 85e106.


L.C. Stringer, A.J. Dougill / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2012) 1e8 MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press USA, Washington DC. Maestre, F.T., Valladares, F., Reynolds, J.F., 2006. The stress-gradient hypothesis does not fit all relationships between plant-plant interactions and abiotic stress: further insights from arid environments. Journal of Ecology 94, 17e22. Malope, P., Batisani, N., 2008. Land reforms that exclude the poor: the case of Botswana. Development Southern Africa 25 (4), 383e397. Meadows, M.E., Hoffman, T.M., 2003. Land degradation and climate change in South Africa. The Geographical Journal 169, 168e177. Middleton, N., Stringer, L.C., Goudie, A., Thomas, D.S.G., 2011. The Forgotten Billion. MDG Achievement in the Drylands. United Nations Development Programme, New York. Milton, S.J., Dean, W.R.J., 1996. Karoo Veld: Ecology and Management. Range and Forage Institute, Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, 94 pp. Moleele, N.M., Perkins, J.S., 1998. Encroaching woody species and boreholes: is cattle density the main driving factor in the Olifants Drift communal grazing lands, south-eastern Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments 40, 245e253. Mollinga, P., 2008. Water, politics and development: framing a political sociology of water resources management. Water Alternatives 1 (1), 7e23. Mortimore, M., Tiffen, M., 2004. Introducing research into policy: lessons from district studies of dryland development in sub-Saharan Africa. Development Policy Review 22 (3), 259e285. Naidoo, R., Weaver, L.C., De Longcamp, M., Du Plessis, P., 2011. Namibia’s community based natural resource management programme: n unrecognized payments for ecosystem services scheme. Environmental Conservation 38, 445e453. Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental Governance: participatory, multi-level e and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (3), 197e214. NERC (Natural Environment Research Council), 2011. Science into Policy: Taking Part in the Process. NERC, Swindon. 29pp. Nightingale, P., Scott, A., 2007. Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy-makers. Science and Public Policy 34 (8), 543e553. Nkonya, E., Reed, M.S., Mortimore, M., Winslow, M., Olukoye, G., Mirzabaev, A., 2011. Monitoring and assessing the influence of social, economic and policy factors on sustainable land management in drylands. Land Degradation & Development 22, 240e247. Oba, G., Byakagaba, P., Angassa, A., 2008. Participatory monitoring of biodiversity in East African grazing lands. Land Degradation & Development 19, 636e648. Perkins, J., Reed, M.S., Akanyang, L., Atlhopheng, J., Chanda, R., Magole, L., Mphinyane, W., Mulale, K., Sebego, R., Fleskens, L., Irvine, B., Kirkby, M. Making land management more sustainable: experience implementing a new methodological framework in Botswana. Land Degradation & Development, http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/ldr.1142, in press. Petersen, A.C., 2006. Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of ComputerSimulation Uncertainties and their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice. Spinhuis Publishers, Apeldoorn and Antwerp. Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., Green, R.E., 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289e1291. Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., Proctor, A., Ruto, E., 2012. Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. Journal of Environmental Management 95, 56e65. Pielke, R.A., 2007. The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Raymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Robinson, G.M., Evely, A.C., 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management: from products to processes. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 1766e1777. Rayner, S., 2006. What drives environmental policy? Global Environmental Change 16, 4e6. Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., 2002. Participatory selection process for indicators of rangeland condition in the Kalahari. Geographical Journal 168, 224e234. Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., 2010. Linking Degradation Assessment to Sustainable Land Management: a decision support system for Kalahari pastoralists. Journal of Arid Environments 74, 149e155. Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., Baker, T., 2008. Participatory indicator development: what can ecologists and local communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications 18, 125e1269. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who’s in and why? Stakeholder analysis as a prerequisite for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 1933e1949. Reed, M.S., Buenemann, M., Atlhopheng, J., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Bachmann, F., Bastin, G., Bigas, H., Chanda, R., Dougill, A.J., Essahli, W., Evely, A.C., Fleskens, L., Geeson, N., Glass, J.H., Hessel, R., Holden, J., Ioris, A., Kruger, B., Liniger, H.P., Mphinyane, W., Nainggolan, D., Perkins, J., Raymond, C.M., Ritsema, C.J., Schwilch, G., Sebego, R., Seely, M., Stringer, L.C., Thomas, R., Twomlow, S., Verzandvoort, S., 2011. Cross-scale monitoring and assessment of land degradation and sustainable land management: a methodological framework for knowledge management. Land Degradation & Development 22, 261e271. Reed, M.S., Fazey, I., Stringer, L.C., Raymond, C.M., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Begni, G., Bigas, H., Brehm, S., Briggs, J., Bryce, R., Buckmaster, S., Chanda, R., Davies, J., Diez, E., Essahli, W., Evely, A., Geeson, N., Hartmann, I., Holden, J., Hubacek, K., Ioris, I., Kruger, B., Laureano, P., Phillipson, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Reeves, A.D., Seely, M., Thomas, R., van der Werff Ten Bosch, M.J., Vergunst, P., Wagner, L. Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: an analysis of contemporary thinking. Land Degradation & Development, in press.

7

Reij, C., Waters-Bayer, A., 2001. Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. Earthscan, London, 362 pp. Republic of Botswana, 1991. National Policy on Agricultural Development. Government Paper No. 1 of 1991. Botswana Government Printer, Gaborone. Requier-Desjardins, M., Adhikari, B., Sperlich, S., 2011. Some notes on the economic assessment of land degradation. Land Degradation & Development 22, 285e298. Reynolds, J.F., Stafford Smith, D.M., Lambin, E.F., Turner II, B.L., Mortimore, M., Batterbury, S.P.J., Downing, T.E., Dowlatabadi, H., Fernández, R.J., Herrick, J.E., Huber-Sannwald, E., Jiang, H., Leemans, R., Lynam, T., Maestre, F.T., Ayarza, M., Walker, B., 2007. Global desertification: building a science for dryland development. Science 316, 847e851. Reynolds, J.F., Grainger, A., Stafford Smith, D.M., Bastin, G., Garcia-Barrios, L., Fernández, R.J., Janssen, M.A., Jürgens, N., Scholes, R.J., Veldkamp, A., Verstraete, M.M., von Maltitz, G., Zdruli, P., 2011. Scientific concepts for an integrated analysis of desertification. Land Degradation & Development 22, 166e183. Rohde, R.F., Moleele, N.M., Mphale, M., Allsopp, N., Chanda, R., Hoffmann, M.T., Magole, L., Young, E., 2006. Dynamics of grazing policy and practice: environmental and social impacts in three communal areas of southern Africa. Environmental Science and Policy 9, 302e316. Roba, H.G., Oba, G., 2009. Efficacy of integrating Herder knowledge and ecological methods for monitoring rangeland degradation in Northern Kenya. Human Ecology 37, 589e612. Rothman, D.S., van Bers, C., Bakkes, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009. How to make global assessments more effective: lessons from the assessment community. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1, 214e218. Rudd, M., 2011. How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy. Conservation Biology 25 (5), 860e866. Sarewitz, D., 2011. The dubious benefits of broader impact. Nature 475, 141. Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Araújo, M.B., Arnell, N.W., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T.R., Gracia, C.A., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining, M., House, J.I., Kankaanpää, S., Klein, R.J., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M.J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T.D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Sabaté, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P., Sykes, M.T., Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S., Zierl, B., 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310 (5752), 133e137. Schwilch, G., Bestelmeyer, B., Bunning, S., Critchley, W., Herrick, J., Kellner, K., Liniger, H., Nachtergaele, F., Ritsema, C., Schuster, B., Tabo, R., van Lynden, G., Winslow, M., 2011. Experiences in monitoring and assessment of sustainable land management. Land Degradation & Development 22, 214e225. Scoones, I., Thompson, J., 2009. Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development. ITDG Publishing, Oxford. Shaxson, L., 2005. Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. Evidence and Policy 1 (1), 101e111. Simelton, E., Fraser, E.D.G., Termansen, M., Forster, P.M., Dougill, A.J., 2009. Typologies of crop-drought vulnerability: an empirical analysis of the socioeconomic factors that influence the sensitivity and resilience to drought of three major food crops in China (1961e2001). Environmental Science and Policy 12, 438e452. Stern, N., 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review e Executive Summary. Available online:. Cabinet Office e HM Treasury, London http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/þ/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_ report.cfm (accessed 02.03.12). Stocking, M.A., Murnaghan, N., 2001. Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Earthscan, London. Stringer, L.C., Twyman, C., Thomas, D.S.G., 2007a. Learning to reduce degradation on Swaziland’s arable land: enhancing understandings of Striga asiatica. Land Degradation & Development 18, 163e177. Stringer, L.C., Thomas, D.S.G., Twyman, C., 2007b. From global politics to local land users: applying the United Nations Convention to combat desertification in Swaziland. The Geographical Journal 173, 129e142. Stringer, L.C., Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., Seely, M.K., Rokitzki, M., 2007c. Implementing the UNCCD: Participatory challenges. Natural Resources Forum 31, 198e211. Stringer, L.C., Reed, M.S., 2007. Land degradation assessment in southern Africa: integrating local and scientific knowledge bases. Land Degradation & Development 18, 99e116. Stringer, L.C., 2009. Testing the orthodoxies of land degradation policy in Swaziland. Land Use Policy 26, 157e168. Stringer, L.C., Thomas, R.J., Akhtar-Schuster, M., 2010. Expand scientific input to address environmental effects. Nature 465, 869. Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Thomas, A.D., Spracklen, D.V., Chesterman, S., Ifejika Speranza, C., Rueff, H., Riddell, M., Williams, M., Beedy, T., Abson, D., Klintenberg, P., Syampungani, S., Powell, P., Palmer, A.R., Seely, M.K., Mkwambisi, D.D., Falcao, M., Sitoe, A., Ross, S., Kopolo, G., 2012. Challenges and opportunities in linking carbon sequestration, livelihoods and ecosystem service provision in drylands. Environmental Science and Policy 19e20, 121e135. Suich, H., 2010. The livelihood impacts of the Namibian community based natural resource management programme: a meta-synthesis. Environmental Conservation 37, 45e53. Tal, A., Cohen, J.A., 2007. Bringing “top-down” to “bottom-up”: a new role for environmental legislation in combating desertification. Harvard Environmental Law Review 31, 163e217.


8


Thomas, R.J., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Stringer, L.C., Marques-Peres, M.J., Escadafal, R., Abraham, E., Enne, G., 2012. Fertile ground? Options for a Science-policy Platform for Land Environmental Science and Policy 16, 122e135. UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), 1994. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification Particularly in Africa: Text with Annexes. UNEP, Nairobi. UNEP, 1997. World Atlas of Desertification, second ed. United Nations Environment Programme and Edward Arnold, London.

van den Hove, S., 2007. A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 39, 807e826. Whitfield, S., Reed, M.S., 2011. Participatory environmental assessment in drylands: introducing a new approach. Journal of Arid Environments 77, 1e10. Winslow, M.D., Vogt, J.V., Thomas, R.J., Sommer, S., Martius, C., Akhtar-Schuster, M., 2011. Science for improving the monitosring and assessment of dryland degradation. Land Degradation & Development 22 (2), 145e149. World Bank, 2010. Rising Global Interest in Farmland e Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? World Bank, Washington DC.
