SCB Policy Blog

A forthcoming article in the SCB newsletter discusses the challenges and benefits of coordinating policy work between SCB’s sections and chapters.

One of SCB’s primary goals is to increase application of science to management and policy. Five general areas have been identified as policy priorities by the global organization: biological security, climate change, green investing, scientific integrity, and treaties. The global organization has a tiered structure. The seven Sections generally address issues of regional, national, international, or larger-scale concern. The approximately forty Chapters generally focus on conservation issues of immediate impact in local and regional areas. Ideally, these foci would complement and support each other. In reality, it has been challenging to coordinate the policy work of Sections and Chapters due to their varying scales of interest. How can SCB encourage policy activity at all levels of the organization while at the same time maintaining a coherent and credible policy voice for the organization as a whole?

In order to ensure that policy statements by chapters and sections are consistent with SCB policy goals, the global organization has established a policy approval process (available at http://www.conbio.org/activities/policy/advocacy.cfm). Although the website offers guidance on the process, rejection of policy proposals can still discourage members from further involvement in SCB’s policy work if the standards are seen as unclear or arbitrary. In fact, SCB chapter members frequently commented in a recent survey that there is unclear guidance on chapter policy activities (see article on the survey in this issue). In this article, we clarify guidelines for policy work by SCB chapters and general members. We hope to help increase dialogue between sections and chapters in order to encourage development of an effective policy voice at all levels of the organization. Although our experience has been primarily with the North America section, the issues we discuss are likely relevant to other sections.

In order to retain their effectiveness as an unbiased source of policy-relevant science, professional scientific societies strive to maintain a high level of rigor in their policy work. Ideally, SCB policy statements would be seen as equivalent in credibility to the peer-reviewed primary literature they draw on. However, many chapter members have commented that current policy priorities of SCB-global are less relevant to their local work, and that a policy approval process that involves a sometimes-lengthy ‘peer review’ process is unwieldy and inappropriate to their activities.

When SCB members or a chapter identify a policy area where they hope SCB can become involved, they typically contact the global SCB Policy Director (John Fitzgerald), the Chapters Policy Coordinator (Cameron Kovach), or the policy chair of their section. The section and global policy committees then asks a series of questions:

1) Does the proposed activity match up well with SCB’s unique role as a mission-oriented scientific society and with section and global policy priorities? While many SCB members may favor or oppose a policy as citizens, the issue may not line up well with SCB’s “policy niche”, which is to bring science to policy makers.

2) What would happen if SCB weren’t involved? Would other organizations be able to bring the same perspective? If so, do we need to be involved?

Some proposals are inappropriate for involvement by SCB due to their nature (e.g., endorsements of political candidates). Other proposals are appropriate, but don’t fall within an area of high priority for the section. Priority policy issues for the North America Section in 2009-10 included the roadless conservation rule on national forest lands, scientific integrity in implementation of the US Endangered Species Act, scientifically sound climate change legislation, and a conservation blueprint document addressing energy, wildlife corridors, and water use. Ideally, the organization would encourage a chapter that was motivated to work on a relevant issue, even if it was not a section policy priority. However, a draft policy statement originating from the chapters or members typically needs substantial work by the section and global policy representatives before it meets the standards of scientific rigor and clarity expected from a global scientific society. Proposals that require significant work on the part of the policy team or the SCB Board Policy Committee have a stricter threshold in terms of earning the section’s endorsement than do draft proposals that are well-constructed.

Many SCB chapters begin their policy activities by proposing SCB’s endorsement of a local conservation campaign, often in collaboration with an environmental NGO. In contrast, the ideal policy activity from a section’s perspective would have relevance beyond a local area and associate SCB with other scientific societies rather than environmental NGOs. Even if SCB focuses on the same issue as does an NGO, our statement would typically lay out the problem and an analysis of what the results are likely to be if different options or actions are taken, rather than emphasize a single conclusion or recommendation. The different tone and content of SCB statements is intended to encourage analysis rather than accentuate polarization.

Since Section and global policy representatives are usually unfamiliar with the local issues, it is especially important in such cases for the proposals to not only be very well-constructed and of strong scientific merit, but also to draw the connection between the local issue, larger concerns of conservation biology, and SCB’s official policy priority areas.  For example, a Chapter wanting to provide public comment on plans for a major development would need to clearly explain in its proposal how this development impacts the local habitat, its relevance to larger watershed concerns and climate change, and how SCB’s unique voice will add weight to the issue.  Such explanations would help the Section to understand the need for SCB to have a voice in this issue as well as help the Chapter make a stronger statement in the public arena after gaining approval.  Policy issues often move rapidly; it is therefore critical that Chapters also alert the Chapters Policy Coordinator as early as possible when considering an issue so that everyone who needs to be involved can be brought on board in a timely manner.

Even if SCB’s policy process and priorities are well-documented, it will be challenging to achieve both inclusiveness and rigor in our policy work. We need to find the appropriate balance that encourages creative policy proposals from members yet efficiently uses the time of section and global policy representatives. We have initiated or proposed several actions that can help enhance section-chapter coordination on policy issues:

1) Establish a website for the SCB chapters ( https://sites.google.com/site/scbchapters/ ) which includes a forum for discussion of chapter policy ideas,

2) Encourage posts on the SCB policy blog ( www.conbiopolicy.org ) by chapter members describing their chapters’ policy activities,

3) Add a chapter representative to the Section board (This has been implemented for the North America, ANA, and Oceania Sections),

4) Organize workshops and symposia at SCB global and regional meetings on chapter and section policy activities,

5) Encourage chapters to seek publication of policy analyses in appropriate journals,

6) Increase funding for policy internships by chapter members, longer-term policy fellowships at SCB’s Washington, DC office, and travel support for chapter representatives to communicate with decision makers in DC (or similar venues for other regional sections) and at national and international policy fora.