1	Environmental Decision-Making: The Use, Misuse, and Lack of Use of Scientific Data Christopher F. D’Elia, Ph.D. Professor, Environmental Science and Policy Associate Vice Chancellor, Research and Graduate Studies University of South Florida St. Petersburg
2	This Presentation How science and scientists play a role in the policymaking process Factors that foster scientifically based environmental policymaking Policy examples from the Chesapeake that illustrate when scientific data are effectively used and when not Some recommendations to improve science-policy relationship
3	Examples I’ll Draw On Use of Scientific Data (Albeit Reluctant Use): Nitrogen control policy for Patuxent River, Maryland Misuse of Scientific Data (with Good Intentions): Pfiesteria - fish kills and human health concerns Lack of (or Insufficient) Use of Scientific Data: Anticipation of global change and sea-level rise
4	My Experience: Different Roles, Different Perspectives Researcher and professor at University of Maryland’s Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, 1977-1999 Working in area of real relevance to Bay’s problems: effects of excess nutrient inputs Chairman of Patuxent River Technical Advisory group for §208 Basin Planning in early 1980s Member of CBP’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) in 1990s Testified in U.S. Congress, Maryland and Virginia legislatures on nutrient policy-related issues Director of Maryland Sea Grant Program, 1989-1999 Professor, Environmental Science/Policy, 2002-
5	My Premises and Assumptions Effective environmental management requires effective policymaking Effective policymaking requires appropriate and credible incorporation of scientific data Scientists play a key role in producing and interpreting scientific data and defining issues Scientists can and should contribute to the development of environmental policies
6	Some Questions What is the proper role of scientists in the policymaking process? What impedes or leads to effective incorporation of science into policymaking process? What can experience tell us about use, misuse or lack of use of scientific data? How can we better incorporate science into environmental policymaking?
7	The Realities Most scientists don’t like to (and won’t) involve themselves in public policy formulation Most public policymakers do not have time or inclination to learn science necessary to develop scientifically driven policy Scientists and policymakers speak different languages Often difficult to focus on key issues and data necessary to develop effective policy when scientific complexities are great
8
9	Major Political Factors (Ernst, 2003) Economic primacy in policy process creates generally hostile climate for environmental politics America’s fragmented political system fosters competitive forces that hamper environmental innovation and policy implementation at state and local levels Dynamics of interest group formation and maintenance tend to favor industry and corporate groups over broad-based environmental groups Events and leaders can coalesce to create limited windows of opportunity for environmental innovation
10	A Few Drivers of Environmental Policy
11	Problem Solving Approach for Environmental Science
12	Five Levels of Scientific-Policymaking
13	Use of Scientific Data (Albeit Reluctantly): Nutrient Control Policy for Patuxent River Water quality & declining living resources became a major concerns in late 1970s Came to head when 3 Southern Maryland Counties won suit against upriver counties, EPA and State regarding sewage inputs to river First major case in Bay to focus public attention on broader nutrient issues Originally framed as a “point-source” problem 1981 “Charette” organized by Bill Eichbaum, hired by Gov. Hughes to deal with hot environmental issues like Patuxent, brought all parties together
14	Map of Chesapeake Showing Location of Patuxent Watershed (and Some Places I’ll Mention)
15	Obstacles to Action in Late 1970s Lack of consensus that Patuxent and Bay were in trouble Poor framing of the problem – concerned general public and elected leaders unclear on what issues to focus Institutional coordination, commitment and cooperation were lacking Economic concerns existed about expense of upgrading sewage treatment facilities Challenges of being in early stage on “Stewart-Mumpower 5-level continuum”
16	Evidence for Excessive Nutrient Enrichment: A Lot of Data by 1985 Historical increases in nutrient inputs and concentrations available for algal growth Increased levels of plant pigments (chlorophyll) due to algal blooms Decreased water clarity due to algal blooms Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation from lack of light Hypoxia and anoxia in bottom water layer from decomposition of algal blooms Nutrient enrichment experiments
17	Population and Sewage Effluent
18	Water Clarity -Solomons Island, MD
19	Nutrient Policy Issues in Late 1970’s Uncertainty about strategies to control enrichment effects: No requirement for Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT), i.e. nutrient removal Which nutrient element (N or P or both) do you target? What is relative importance of point and non-point sources? What is role of bottom sediments in nutrient regeneration and water quality, and how great is “sediment memory”? Rigid federal regulations, e.g. cost-share policies, discouraged innovative treatment practices Financing construction and O&M for AWT Collaboration and communication weak among scientists, managers and modelers Financing “fundamental,” but politically sensitive research, on applied problems
20	Leadership: Role of Local Politicians Southern Maryland Counties very concerned about upstream development Calvert County Commissioner (’70-’82) C. Bernard Fowler led fight Led tri-county suit to reduce sewage loadings to Patuxent in late ‘70s Later Maryland Senator (’83-’95), leader in Chesapeake Bay Commission and moral force for Chesapeake environmental quality
21	Some Others With Impact on Nutrient Control Policy for the Patuxent Science: Don Heinle, Jim Sanders, Walt Boynton, Gene Cronin, Bob Ulanowicz, Sandy Sage, Joe Mihursky, David Correll, CFD Policy: Harry Hughes, Bill Eichbaum, Gary Hodge, Ruth Keeton, Connie Lieder Press: Tom Horton Advocacy: Bill Johnston, Merilyn Reeves, Fran Flannigan
22	Experimental Nutrient Enrichment Experiments at Benedict, MD
23	Response of Phytoplankton Biomass to Nutrient Enrichment: Experiments of D’Elia, Sanders & Boynton, 1986
24	1982: Awards for contributions, but still no action…
25	But… Very complex problem: N control remained a controversial and misunderstood issue N and P budgets and cycle still poorly researched Sanitary engineers in Maryland, especially, refused to acknowledge role of N State and federal officials understood that implementing N removal by then available technologies was too expensive to do Scientific uncertainty still too great
26	1985-6: Breakthrough on N Controversy Leadership & Focusing Event: Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) Releases Report Acknowledging Role of Nitrogen in Chesapeake Economics: Clifford Randall Proposes Affordable “BNR” – Biological Nutrient Reduction for Point Source Controls
27	Misuse of Scientific Data (with Good Intentions): Pfiesteria Not talking about what has been variously called “bad,” “pseudo,” “Voodoo,” or “pathological” science Very complex problem Scientists behaving badly – ad hominem attacks Nitrogen policy promulgated based on belief that nutrient enrichment was the cause of Pfiesteria blooms Good result (N control) for wrong reason and without clearly linking N inputs to Pfiesteria “blooms” “Hard cases make bad laws” (and misguided policy)
28	Pfiesteria piscicida Very complex issue with human health implications Not algal bloom densities Shows many pitfalls of science-policy interaction High degree of uncertainty and complexity Public demanded fast answer on difficult problem Lots of questions still remain
29	Complex Life Cycle of Pfiesteria piscicida
30	Lack of Use of Scientific Data: Global Change and Sea-Level Rise Serious long-term prospects, high degree of complexity, uncertainty and controversy Difficult to say yet what actions to take Many immediate problems receive inadequate attention, so why worry about distant future? – this reality distracts leaders from long-lead-time issues Economic interests focus on near-term gains not long-range investment
31	Lack of Use of Scientific Data: Anticipating Global Change/Sea-level Rise
32	Suggestions for Improving Process Increase public understanding of science Educate environmental scientists about workings of government and communicating with press and public Enhance communication between scientists and policymakers Foster better science reporting in news media Uncouple discussions of cost and problem solving Provide stable funding for competitive, peer-reviewed science and social science: build endowments free of governmental conflict of interest