Final Report of the Great Lakes Science-Policy Initiative
5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Great Lakes policy development and implementation often occur in an institutionally complex environment. Indeed, there are many levels of government and many key players in the policy arena that make it particularly challenging.

Not only is Great Lakes policy development and implementation institutionally complex, it also is particularly challenging because of the disciplinary differences between scientists and policy-makers/politicians. This is sometimes described as the knowledge-power axis, where policy-makers/politicians are often perceived as having all the power and scientists having all the knowledge. One obvious challenge is to try to get more scientists involved in Great Lakes policy development and implementation, and more policy-makers/politicians involved in learning and applying Great Lakes science.

To affect policy development and implementation requires building a strong consensus and mandate. Building a strong consensus and mandate for a particular Great Lakes issue will require good science. Experience has shown that having good science as the foundation for Great Lakes policy development and implementation means less argument. Less argument translates into a higher probability of success in the policy arena. From a Great Lakes policy-makers' perspective, good science is generally described as:

• Relevant (a priority to Great Lake managers and policy-makers)
• Current (up-to-date information and knowledge);
• Robust (supported by a strong weight of evidence);
• Recognizes limits (sensitive to scientific uncertainty and knowledge gaps; understands limits of current knowledge and scientific understanding)
• Understandable (clearly communicated, in a concise fashion, and with aptness of thought); and
• Accessible (science is easily accessible via the Internet and other mechanisms).

The U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls for use of a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach (i.e., accounting for interrelationships among water, air, land, and all living things, including humans, and involving all user groups in management) in water resource planning, research, policy development, and management. Use of an ecosystem approach requires not only a strong scientific foundation, but a strong linkage between science and policy as well. Although there are some very good examples of use of an ecosystem approach in the Great Lakes, much more can and should be done to operationalize use of an ecosystem approach and strengthen the science-policy linkage.

Although there is no single best way to implement an ecosystem approach and establish a strong, effective linkage between science and policy, all successful approaches follow an adaptive management framework. Adaptive planning and management recognizes the uncertainties and imperfect knowledge of ecosystems. Adaptive planning and management is an iterative learning process that integrates the environment with economic and social understanding, and helps reduce uncertainty in management decisions by using knowledge/information gained from past experiences to reassess priorities for future actions. It strives for continuous improvement through an iterative decision-making process based on trial, monitoring, and feedback. Put another way, an inclusive decision-making process is used to assess, set priorities, and take action in an iterative fashion for continuous improvement. Any long-term effort to strengthen the science-policy linkage in the Great Lakes Basin must also be viewed as an iterative process for continuous improvement.

Through IAGLR's project to strengthen the science-policy linkage in the Great Lakes Basin, many excellent suggestions were received. Suggested actions and activities to strengthen the science-policy linkage can be generally grouped into the following categories:

• Clarify and reach agreement on priorities
• Plan cooperatively
• Share responsibilities for delivery of programs
• Share resources
• Build partnerships and cooperative relationships
• Integrate research, monitoring, and management
• Develop new approaches to science, policy, and management issues; and
• Communicate the value and benefits of a strong linkage amongst science, research, policy, and management (Table 2).

CATEGORY	SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES
Clarify and reach agreement on priorities	Use mechanisms like the International Joint Commission (IJC), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), and Great Lakes Commission (GLC) to clarify and reach agreement on research and policy priorities Ensure that research priorities explicitly address management goals and policy needs
Plan cooperatively	Use mechanisms like the IJC, GLFC, and GLC to foster cooperative planning and management Make greater use of informal mechanisms of binational, science-policy cooperation (e.g., Wayne State University, University of Windsor, and others held a 2002 workshop to evaluate the effects of PCB control measures in Detroit River and Western Lake Erie) Champion cooperative planning processes like remedial action plans (RAPs) and lakewide management plans (LaMPs) Maximize science use and management result (i.e., by ensuring use of available science, ensuring no conflict among management goals, and furthering integrated action) Develop more congressional and parliamentary dialogues and committees to increase communication and cooperation on science transfer to policy-makers
Share responsibilities for delivery of programs	Combine U.S. and Canadian surveillance efforts into a single, binational program Develop more government-university and public-private centers of specialty in science analysis, science transfer, etc. Further community-based, volunteer, monitoring programs and ensure that data/knowledge can be used in policy development and management
Share resources	Encourage university and government scientists to take sabbatical leaves in policy and management organizations Establish more cooperative agreements between research institutions and resource management agencies Establish more government funded faculty positions to strengthen the science-policy linkage (e.g., Partnership on Ecosystem and Resource Management between Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Fisheries Division and Michigan State University)
Build partnerships and cooperative relationships	Utilize more partnerships like HabCARES (Habitat Conservation and Restoration Strategies) that pool resources from numerous partners to strengthen the science-policy linkage in an issue-driven and product-driven fashion for management purposes Develop more partnerships like Canada's Lake Superior Programs Office that promote strong science-policy linkages Co-locate management agencies on university campuses to foster stronger science-policy linkages Establish more centers of excellence to strengthen science-policy linkages Undertake cooperative projects among organizations like the Council of Great Lakes Industries, IJC, governments, IAGLR, etc. to strengthen science-policy linkages
Integrate research, monitoring, and management efforts	Encourage U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada to expand the focus of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences to include not only status and trends, but the policy/management response as well Encourage IJC and GLFC to initiate a five-year rotating cycle of reporting out on progress, reviewing and evaluating progress, and setting management and policy priorities by Great Lake (all monitoring data, research information, and management actions would be discussed in an open forum with scientists and policy-makers)
Develop new approaches to science, policy, and management issues	Undertake resource management projects like experiments with strong science-policy linkages (e.g., Green Bay Mass Balance Study, Hamilton Harbour Habitat Rehabilitation Project) Develop new data sources and management tools (like the Detroit River habitat inventories and GIS technologies) Develop new funding alternatives (e.g., a portion of license plate fees designated for integrated research and policy development; leverage, challenge, and partnership grants)
Communicate the value and benefits of a strong linkage amongst science, research, policy, and management	All Great Lakes researchers and scientists must take personal responsibility for translating their science and making sure that their science is used in ecosystem-based management initiatives Data and information from all research should be easily accessible and understandable through the Internet to foster communication and dialogue Governments, in cooperation with IAGLR, could sponsor a collaborative effort that quantifies the benefits of science-based, ecosystem management in the Great Lakes Basin

Improvements can be made in each of the above categories and areas. The suggested activities presented above are not comprehensive or perfect, but are intended to give practical suggestions to help strengthen the science-policy linkage and provide the necessary foundation for effective Great Lakes management. The rate of change in environmental and resource issues, and programs, is accelerating. Therefore, decision-makers in research, science, policy, and management cannot be afraid to change.

All policy-makers recognize that sound and credible decision-making depends on good science, good databases, and effective science transfer. Sound science will be even more important in ecosystem-based, decision-making processes that require understanding of cause-and-effect relationships of persistent toxic substances, exotic species, climate change, changes in food web structure and function, and continued habitat loss and degradation. In addition, sound science is a prerequisite to setting priorities and targeting greatest risks.

Recommendations
Many good suggestions and recommendations were made to strengthen the Great Lakes science-policy linkage throughout this two-year project. For example, IAGLR's June 4, 2002, Science Policy Advisory Board meeting (convened as part of the Association's annual conference at the University of Manitoba) provided many good ideas and recommendations. However, as noted above, strengthening the science-policy linkage in the Great Lakes Basin is a process that should follow an adaptive management framework to assess, set priorities, and take action in an iterative fashion for continuous improvement.

Based on an assessment of the project steering committee, there are a number of ongoing efforts to strengthen the science-policy linkage in the Great Lakes Basin; however, much more can and should be done to strengthen this linkage. Recommended priorities (no rank order implied) for strengthening the science-policy linkage in the Great Lakes Basin include:

• Strategic Planning and Outreach - IAGLR's Outreach Committee should work in cooperation with the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network and others to develop a strategic plan to systematically strengthen the science-policy linkage in the Great Lakes Basin. This would place a high priority on outreach (e.g., issuing news releases of timely journal articles, preparing an annual conference summary, developing science translation documents, etc.). The strategic planning process would be collaborative and direct future project-related activities aimed at strengthening science-policy linkages throughout the Great Lakes Basin. This strategic planning process would define long-term (e.g., five-year) project goals and objectives; guide potential future activities relative to those objectives; and periodically assess the degree to which the objectives have been achieved and, ultimately, Great Lakes science-policy linkages have been strengthened.
• Strategic Evaluations - As part of the strategic planning process noted above, evaluations should be performed by IAGLR, in partnership with key stakeholder organizations, to implement project objectives/activities; assist stakeholders with science-policy resource access and utilization; and obtain real-time stakeholder feedback regarding resource enhancement to better meet their science-policy needs. This information will enable IAGLR to adaptively manage the science-policy process as new issues, policy-makers, and elected officials emerge over time throughout the basin. The evaluation should also include a follow-up survey of all stakeholder organizations to assess project outcomes, specifically the degree to which project activities have strengthened science-policy connections among Great Lakes stakeholder organizations
• Additional Pilot Projects - The aquatic invasive species pilot project was very well received. It is recommended that IAGLR do more of these science transfer pilot projects in cooperation with policy partners like the Council of Great Lakes Governors, North East Midwest Institute, etc. Such pilot projects would produce scientific knowledge assessments on specific topics for policy-makers. Emphasis should be placed on effective, reliable, and timely translation of information and views between scientists and policy-makers. For example, IAGLR could develop a white paper on the research and policy/management needs for the establishment of a common resource-based standard for evaluating water withdrawals/diversions in the Great Lakes Basin. Another example would be for IAGLR to help develop a science transfer report for policy-makers on the anoxic dead zone in Lake Erie.
• Scholarships and Fellowships - IAGLR could issue a scholarship for someone to work intensively to strengthen the science-policy linkage on a timely Great Lakes issue and/or could offer a policy fellowship like the Sea Grant Knauss Fellowships and Great Lakes Commission Fellowships that would work to strengthen the science-policy linkage on a specific issue
• Special Symposia - IAGLR should convene more special symposia with policy institutions (e.g., Council of Great Lakes Governors, North East Midwest Institute, Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, International Joint Commission) to tackle specific issues and develop an action agenda to strengthen the science-policy linkage. Special emphasis should be placed on enticing the right people (e.g., key policy-makers) to participate
• Collaborative Study or Project - Federal, state, and provincial governments should be challenged to carry out a major, collaborative, interdisciplinary initiative that would systematically strengthen the science-policy linkage. For example, a Four-Party Agreement (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Ontario Ministry of the Environment) exists for management of the Detroit River watershed. Currently, there is a piece-meal approach to monitoring, research, policy development, and management activities for the Detroit River. A collaborative, interdisciplinary project could be initiated under the Four-Party Agreement to integrate and coordinate monitoring, research, policy development, and management activities, potentially facilitated by the IJC and/or GLFC. This collaborative project would be managed jointly by policy-makers and research scientists/resource managers
• Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution - IAGLR should initiate a study of how to strengthen the linkage between science and policy with respect to urban nonpoint source pollution, with a special emphasis on the role of science in fostering more sustainable patterns of urban development (often referred to as "smart growth"). This initiative could take the form of a set of parallel case studies of successful "smart growth" initiatives. An appropriate study design would focus on two cases in the United States, and one in Canada, so as to account for the significance of varying jurisdictional/governance structures. In each study, the specific contributions that science has made in encouraging these initiatives would be identified, as well as more general lessons, applicable to other urban areas across the Great Lakes Basin. These lessons could be used to "kick start" the iterative learning process that is the basis for adaptive policy and management, by providing practical examples of what has worked elsewhere. These studies could be conducted in cooperation with policy partners either within or outside the region, as the issues at stake are shared by urban areas across North America
• State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) - SOLEC conferences are hosted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada on behalf of the two Countries every two years in response to the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These successful conferences provide a forum for exchange of information on the ecological condition of the Great Lakes and surrounding lands. A major purpose is to reach a large audience of people in the government (at all levels), corporate, and not-for-profit sectors that make decisions that affect the lakes. Five such conferences have been held to date that focus on the condition or state of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada should expand the focus of SOLEC from solely reporting on condition/state of the ecosystem to reporting on condition/state and policy/management response. SOLEC provides a unique opportunity to strengthen the science-policy linkage in the Great Lakes Basin by expanding binational discussions to include our knowledge of both condition/state and policy/management response.