1. Overview of evidence‐based
decision‐making
Gillian Petrokofsky
University of Oxford
gillian.petrokofsky@zoo.ox.ac.uk
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 1

2. Evidence Use in Policy Making
National governments
USA
Obama, B.H. (2009), Inaugural Address, Washington DC, 20
January, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the‐
press‐office/ president‐barack‐obamas‐inaugural‐address.
Coalition for Evidence‐Based Policy Making
(http://coalition4evidence.org/)
Australia
Leigh, A. (2009), 'What evidence should social policymakers
use?', Australian Treasury Economic Roundup, 1, pp. 27‐43.
Canada
Townsend, T. and Kunimoto B. (2009), Collaboration and
Culture. The Future of the Policy Research Function in the
Government of Canada, Policy Research Initiative, Ottawa,
Canada, March.
New Zealand
Marsh, D. (2006) Evidence‐based policy: framework, results
and analysis from the New Zealand biotechnology sector.
Int. J. of Biotechnology, Vol.8, No.3/4, pp.206 ‐ 224
South Africa
Office of the Presidency (2010), Guide To The Outcomes
Approach, Pretoria, Office of the Presidency of South Africa
UK
Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising Government White
Paper, CM4310. London: TSO.
International focus
OECD
UNESCO
World Bank
DfID
AusAID
Cochrane Collaboration
Campbell Collaboration
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence
Eppi Centre
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 2

3. Evidence for policy
“science does not per se provide answers
to policy issues, nor is it the only source of
what counts as authoritative evidence”
(Sutherland et al., 2012)
We acknowledge that it is complex
Science is not the only form of evidence…
….however
‘rarely does research supply an “answer”
that policy actors employ to solve a policy
problem. Rather, research provides a
background of data, empirical
generalisations, and ideas that affect the
way that policy makers think about a
problem…
…but to acknowledge this is not the same
as saying that research findings have little
influence on policy.’ (Weiss,1982)
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 3

4. ‘Evidence based forestry’
a model
Best
science
Society’s
needs &
preferences
Expert
opinion
EBF
7/05/2013 Corvallis,Oregon 2013 4
Beware of
experts’ bias!

5. Good information for policy
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 5
A framework to reduce bias Systematic review:
a review of a clearly formulated
question that uses systematic and
explicit methods to identify, select
and critically appraise relevant
research, and to collect and
analyse data from the studies that
are included within the review.
Statistical
methods (meta‐analysis) may or
may not be used to analyse and
summarise the results of the
included studies.
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence
(2013) Guidelines for Systematic Review
and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental
Management.

6. Good information for policy
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 6
A framework to reduce bias Systematic review:
a review of a clearly formulated
question that uses systematic and
explicit methods to identify, select
and critically appraise relevant
research, and to collect and
analyse data from the studies that
are included within the review.
Statistical
methods (meta‐analysis) may or
may not be used to analyse and
summarise the results of the
included studies.
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence
(2013) Guidelines for Systematic Review
and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental
Management.

7. Good information for policy
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 7
Systematic review:
a review of a clearly formulated
question that uses systematic and
explicit methods to identify, select
and critically appraise relevant
research, and to collect and
analyse data from the studies that
are included within the review.
Statistical
methods (meta‐analysis) may or
may not be used to analyse and
summarise the results of the
included studies.
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence
(2013) Guidelines for Systematic Review
and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental
Management.
A framework to reduce bias

8. What are the important questions?
• Who decides?
– How much collaboration?
– What methods?
– Who pays?
– So what?
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 8

9. CIFOR & Partners’ EBF initiative
• Who decides?
– Partnership
– guided by a Steering Committee
• What methods?
– internet‐based moderated approach
– standing invitation to suggest questions
– meetings where key stakeholders gather
• Who pays?
– initial seed‐funding
– donor/national/International/Private sector funding
• So what?
– Systematic Reviews of evidence to support questions
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 9

10. First tranche of priority questions
Topic
CIFOR lead author;
key partners
Impacts of biofuel crops on biodiversity
Sini Savilaasko;
ETH
Gender, forests & food security Esther Mwangi;
SLU
Concepts of science quality & research
evaluation
Brian Belcher;
Royal Roads Univ
Biodiversity benefits of “alternative
livelihood” projects
Terry Sunderland;
IIED, Zoological Society
of London
Property rights and the environment
Maria Ojanen;
U Michigan
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 10

11. Second tranche and beyond
Online collaboration Collaboration at Meetings
UNFF – an interactive
session to scope policy
questions for systematic
review
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 11

12. Interactive session to scope policy
questions
Aim: Identify key policy questions of policy‐relevance which require
strong science evidence base
What to do
1. review flyer & briefly complete the second page individually
(5 minutes)
2. get into small groups & choose a spokesperson & note‐taker
3. discuss your individual questions
4. select one that you can all agree is a high priority and can be
addressed practically
5. as a group complete a form for this question
6. be prepared to present your question briefly to all
7. we will collect ALL individual and group suggestions
please take good notes of your group discussions
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 12

13. References
• Lomas, J. (2000) Connecting research and policy. Spring.
• Seddon, A. et al. (in press) Looking forward through the past. Identification of
50 priority research questions in palaeoecology
• Petrokofsky, G., N.D. Brown, G.E. Hemery, et al. (2010). A participatory process
for identifying and prioritizing policy‐relevant research questions in natural
resource management: a case study from the UK forestry sector. Forestry 83,
357‐367.
• Pretty, J., et al. (2010) The top 100 questions of importance to the future of
global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8 (4)
219‐236
• Sutherland W.J, Bellingan L, Bellingham J.R, Blackstock J.J, Bloomfield RM, et al.,
2012. A collaboratively‐derived science‐policy research agenda. PLoS ONE
7(3): e31824. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031824
• Weiss, C.H. (1982) Policy research in the context of diffuse decision‐making, in:
D. P.B. KALLEN, G.B. KOSSE et al. (1982) Social Science Research and Public
Policy Making: a reappraisal (Windsor, NFER‐Nelson).
10/04/2013 UNFF Istanbul, 10 April, 2013 13