Policy Is Policy and Science Is Science: Shall the Twain Ever Meet? - Governing the Nexus: Water, Soil and Waste Resources Considering Global Change - page 213

2 Think Tank Function of UNU

We began this volume by posing two questions: (1) Why does good science not
always equate with good policy? and (2) Why does good policy not always equate
with what is politically expedient? These may be characterized as think tank
questions. Robust think tanks incubate policy relevant questions without neces-
sarily offering de nitive advice on one or more options. They can perform this

function by: (a) identifying cases of programme implementation success and failure,
(b) understanding the spatial and temporal context for explanations of success and
failure that incorporate both biophysical and institutional perspectives, (c) consol-
idating data, information from multiple sources in support of scienti

c analysis, (d)
exploring technologies that permit real time, continuous monitoring or validation of
scienti

c analysis and (e) translating knowledge gained from analytical work into
policy relevant advice on available options together with an explanation of trade-
offs and synergies involved under different scenarios. To be able to perform this
function effectively, think tanks usually distinguish between science concerns (e.g.
scale, boundary conditions or feedback loops) from policy concerns (poverty
reduction, equity, ef ciency).

The introductory chapter of this volume hypothesized that the nexus approach
can advance integrated management of environmental resources by identifying
through trial and error factors that lie at the intersection of: (a) spatial dynamics of
material fluxes, (b) socio-ecological differences in resource use and (c) rules that
guide allocation of public finances. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that

there are no blueprint solutions to challenges of environmental resource manage-
ment. This perspective also suggests that there is heterogeneity both within bio-
physical domains (e.g. forests, watersheds) and institutional domains (e.g. public
sector agencies, water user associations). Finally, administrative culture and indi-
vidual discretion can play a role at multiple levels of governance with implications
for public interventions (e.g. levels of accountability) and environmental outcomes
(e.g. levels of soil erosion).

2.1 Co-provision: Rudiments of an Analytical Framework

The nexus approach to management of environmental resources can be advanced if
the science-policy divide is bridged. For this to occur, three considerations must be
addressed: (a) scale, (b) boundary conditions and (c) feedback loops. Conventional
discussions on integrated management of environmental resources have focused
either only on water and underplayed the links with soil and waste resources.
Second, the issue of governance has only made a super cial reference to issues of

trade-offs. Nevertheless, there is a vast amount of literature on the commons and
collective action that engages with concepts of accountability, autonomy and
institutions ( understood as rules ). The concept of co-provision is pertinent to