Science and Public Policy: How the Twain Might Meet

Glover (1993) and Bromley (1999) raised the issue of how science feeds public policy. They discussed views on how research contributes to policy making and how public policy is enriched by research. Glover reviewed the literature on the topic. He summarized their principal points and discussed how economics research improves public policy. He noted four constraints on the ability of research to contribute to policy making: (1) it is unable to meet the needs of the policy makers in terms of providing answers to the questions they need to resolve at the time they need to do it (c.f. Hirschman & Lindblom 1962, Lamb 1987, Wilson 1978, Lynn 1978, Sundquist 1978, Weiss 1977, Rose 1977, Verdier 1984, Sharpe 1977, Davis & Salasin 1978); (2) its logic differs from the logic that policy makers follow (c.f. Leman & Nelson 1981, Nehn 1981, Verdier 1984, Rhoads 1978); (3) it has technical demands on itself that policy makers cannot accommodate (c.f. Weiss 1977, Aaron 1978, Streeten 1988, Szanton 1981); and (4) in many countries (particularly developing ones) there is not enough political space nor resources for doing it to support policy making (c.f. Fine 1990 and Thomas & Grindle 1990).Public policy

On the Archipelagic Ecology and the Economy of the Philippines

This policy note underscores that while Philippine marine ecosystems are among the world's richest in life forms and of high socioeconomic importance to Filipinos, these are highly threatened. Among the most serious threats are the combinations of overfishing; illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; habitat destruction; increased demand for fisheries; and climate change. Probably the most serious threat is the “policy blindness” of the country to its vast and rich ecosystem services. Three policy actions are then proposed, effectively urging for national policies and regulations that will heighten the protection and security of all Philippine terrestrial and aquatic life forms and their genetic information from internal and external threats

Fisheries Management Areas in the West Philippine Sea and Their Heritage Values

Geopolitical issues pose a challenge to the holistic management of fisheries and associated ecosystems in two Philippine fisheries management areas (FMAs 5&6) encompassing the West Philippine Sea. One way to allay these issues is through a common values approach based on heritage. This paper presents evidence of the heritage value of FMAs 5&6 that could be integrated into an ecosystem approach to fisheries management to manage conflicts. This presupposes a common understanding of their heritage value and the fundamental principle that sustaining this value is good—in fact, essential—for everyone and our planet. Heritage value is assessed as a composite and dynamic unity of human gains and investments in the ecological value, economic value, and value to society of ecosystem services, which create cultural significance and socioeconomic worth for communities and peoples. Ecological value is assessed by way of selected indications of the ecosystem services of the two FMAs; economic value is assessed using published estimates of the monetizable and nonmonetizable value of these services; and value to society is evaluated based on influences on cultural identities, ways of life, and amenities in surrounding lands and contiguous waters. The values are highly significant and beneficial not only to Filipinos but also to others around the South China Sea and beyond. However, the ecosystem services underlying these values—and users’ access to them—are at risk. They need to be protected from climatic and anthropogenic threats, including illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, pollution, coastline modifications, island building, and violations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions on safeguarding the marine environment and fishers’ safety