Elisa Vecchione

Science for the Environment: Examining the Allocation of the Burden of Uncertainty

The aim of this paper is to review the basic literature on scientific uncertainty in its statistical paradigm in order to provide enlightenment on one pivotal facet of the precautionary principle, i.e. the allocation of the burden of proof to demonstrate that an activity is not harmful to the environment. The purpose is not to explain a new theory of statistical inference, but to show how regulatory policymaking that is properly informed by scientific expertise and designed to avoid one type of error, may actually make other errors more likely and thus expose the public to danger. This problem is explained in terms of the conceptual as well as operational conflicts that arise when knowledge about statistical-inferential methods is applied to policymaking. The paper argues that this issue can be resolved by first reconsidering the burden of proof as a burden of uncertainty.

Deliberating beyond evidence: lessons from Integrated Assessment Modelling

The premises of this paper rely on associating policy inertia toward action on climate change with the inadequacy of the classical ‘liability culture’ of evidence-based policy-making to deal with this global environmental challenge. To provide support to this hypothesis, the following discussion analyses the technical properties and the current policy use of Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) of economic-climate interactions. The paper contends that IAM is still not clarified enough as far as its potential for information-production in the framework of policy making processes is concerned, and that this fact is symptomatic of the current inability of societies to undertake the challenge of sustainability. The paper explains the reasons for this disconnect and proposes solutions in the form of a renovated framework of deliberative policy-making.

Evidence and Policy in Aid-Dependent Settings

This chapter examines how the political dynamics of aid relationships can affect the use of evidence within health policymaking. Empirical examples from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Ghana illustrate how relationships between national governments and donor agencies influence the ways in which evidence is generated, selected, or utilised to inform policymaking. We particularly consider how relationships with donors influence the underlying systems and processes of evidence use. We find a number of issues affecting which bodies or forms of evidence are taken to be policy relevant, including: levels of local technical capacity to utilise or synthesise evidence; differing stakeholder framing of issues; and the influence of non-state actors on sector-wide systems of agenda setting. The chapter also reflects on some of the key governance implications of these arrangements in which global actors promote forms of evidence use – often under a banner of technical efficiency – with limited consideration for local representation or accountability.

Ministries of Health and the Stewardship of Health Evidence

This chapter describes how Ministries of Health have been mandated to act as stewards of populations’ health according to the World Health Organization. We argue that this mandate extends to them having (at least partial) responsibility for ensuring relevant evidence informs policy decisions. Yet this requires consideration of the evidence advisory systems serving Ministry needs, particularly whether or how such systems work to provide relevant information in a timely manner to key decision points in the policy process. Insights from our six cases are presented to illustrate the structural and practical differences which exist between evidence advisory systems and how, at certain times, key health decisions may in fact lie outside ministerial authority. These divergent experiences highlight a range of analytical challenges when considering the provision of evidence to inform health decisions from an institutional perspective.

The Use of Evidence in Health Policy in Ghana: Implications for Accountability and Democratic Governance

The use of evidence in policymaking is often argued to improve accountability, effectiveness, and stakeholder involvement in policy decisions. The features of this practice, however, remain vague in the discourse of evidence-based policymaking, with the risk of obscuring important governance and legitimacy implications. In programme planning and evaluation especially, the use of evidence can be critical to translate technical measurements of policy achievements into political values for shaping future policy directions. This chapter presents a case study from Ghana to discuss how institutionalized evidentiary practices used in policy review affect aspects of governance. Drawing on interviews, we reflect on how the evidence review process—agreed in collaboration with development partners—links to the evidence advisory system and the accountability systems in place. We find that the uses of evidence promoted by international donors actually creates disconnect with the national accountability system in place, with implications for democratic governance.

Locked-In Scientific Evidence: The WTO EC-Biotech Dispute

The parsing of the WTO EC-Biotech is intended to raise substantive issues on the interface between science and law to the extent that the former is brought as legal evidence before courts. The paper contends that the Panel maintains a form of substantial and procedural transitivity between the ability to perform risk assessment and the sufficiency of scientific evidence to legitimate measures of protection, by that preventing States from legitimately undertaking precautionary measures in the absence of scientific evidence. This said, the paper will propose a new way to intend and demonstrate scientific uncertainty in WTO trade disputes