Turning science into policy

Professor Paul S. Monks
Department of Chemistry, University of Leicester and Chair of the Defra Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG)
l.s.monks@le.ac.uk
ECG Bulletin February 2013

​This article is based on an invited lecture given by Professor Paul Monks to the RSC ECG Atmospheric and Environmental Chemistry Forum held in Leicester on 25th June 2012.

Science plays a crucial role in so-called “evidence-based policy-making”. The policy-making process (Figure 1) provides a number of opportunities for scientific engagement, from reviewing evidence to monitoring progress and assessing risk and uncertainty. Air quality is one area where environmental chemists are particularly active in informing the evidence-based policy making arena. Air pollution (Figure 2) is a significant problem for the UK, with annual health costs of roughly £15 billion. Poor air quality reduces the life expectancy of everyone in the UK, as well as causing significant damage to ecosystems and historical buildings (1).

In the Forum lecture, I overviewed the Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) as an example of a scientific body contributing to the above process. AQEG is an expert committee to Defra (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) that provides independent scientific advice on air quality, in particular the air pollutants contained in the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and those covered by the EU directives on ambient air quality. AQEG gives advice on levels, sources and characteristics of air pollutants in the UK. It does not advise on health impacts or air quality standards that are within the remit of COMEAP (2). 

Figure 1: The policy process and opportunities for scientific input (7)

As an integral part of its function, AQEG conforms to the government principles of scientific advice (3). These principles are centred on understanding the clear roles and responsibilities of such committees: independence, transparency and openness. The applications of these principles are important in understanding the role of scientific advice in the complex areas of policy formulation and delivery. Scientific advisors have to respect the democratic mandate of the government to take decisions based on a wide range of factors and recognise that science is only part of the evidence-base that government must consider in developing policy. At the same time, government respects and values the academic freedom, professional status and expertise of its independent scientific advisors.

An example of the sort of advice these expert committees give, in the case of the Air Quality Expert Group, was the recent report on road transport biofuels and their impact on UK air quality (4). Biofuels are superficially attractive as a means of offsetting greenhouse gas emissions through combustible materials that derive their carbon content from contemporary atmospheric carbon dioxide, but biofuels present wider issues with respect to sustainability. The EU has a biofuels directive that sets renewable targets for transport and the share of biofuels by the end of 2020. AQEG were asked to comment on what are the likely biofuels and the combination of blends likely to be implemented. What is the evidence that biofuels change vehicle exhaust emissions and does this have an impact on air quality? How do exhaust emissions vary with blend strength and source material? What is the evidence from other countries for changes in atmospheric composition as a result of biofuel usage? Finally, what is the likely impact on air quality in the UK of the change in emissions as a result increased use of biofuels? After looking at the available scientific evidence, synthesising and providing expert opinion that weighs the risks and uncertainties of that evidence, AQEG concluded that the consumption of biofuels as low strength blends of up to 15% with “traditional” fossil fuels had little effect on air quality. It did point out that there should be markers of biofuels usage, for example, acetaldehyde, that could be monitored as part of routine air quality monitoring as an alert to change. It further noted there was substantial uncertainty about the effects of biofuels on vehicle emissions. If there was to be a move to higher strength blends of either bioethanol or biodiesel there would need to be a consideration of air quality impacts.

Figure 2: Reducing harmful car emissions is a key aspect of air pollution reduction strategies. It is uncertain how use of biofuels will change vehicle exhaust emissions. Credit: Olegusk/Shutterstock

This short article demonstrates some of the processes and methodologies applied to develop evidence-based policy-making using air quality as an example. In the lecture, I gave further examples at the EU level as part of the air quality review process (5) and at the international level as part of efforts to understand the trade-offs between air quality and climate (6). These examples demonstrate that scientific evidence and process is now a key aspect of policy development, formulation and delivery.

References
1. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/04/13/pb13378-air-pollution
2. See www.comeap.org.uk
3. See www.bis.gov.uk/goscience-copsac
4. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/04/06/pb13464-road-transport-biofuels/
5. See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/review_air_policy.htm
6. See http://www.igacproject.org/AirPolClim
7. NERC, Science Into Policy, Jan 2011, see http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/corporate/policy.asp