Navigating science and policy: a conversation on building climate resilience in the Mekong Region

00:00 – 00:26

Welcome to SEI Asia’s podcast on environment and policy in Asia. In this podcast series, we invite experts to discuss the many critical and complex environmental challenges in Asia, and how to find solutions through policy and partnerships.

00:33 – 00:41

Rajesh: Thank you very much, Dr. Pichamon, for joining us in this particular episode of SEI Asia series on Environment and Policy in Asia.

00:41 – 00:43

Dr. Pichamon: My pleasure.

00:44 – 00:59

Rajesh: This episode follows, of course, our Environmental Resilience Week when you were talking about policy and science connections, and hence we thought we would explore those topics a little bit more.

01:00 – 01:20

Rajesh: In particular, how can we build climate resilience in the Mekong Region through connecting policymakers with good scientific evidence and science-based recommendations? But before we get into all of that, for our listeners, Dr. Pichamon, can you tell us a little bit about your own experience as a researcher and as someone who has tried to connect policy to science?

01:22 – 01:50

Dr. Pichamon: Well, first off, I must say I attended your event, and it was absolutely fantastic. Anyone who’s listening to this, if you are invited to attend or speak at an SEI event, absolutely say yes. It’s a wonderful experience to get to connect with so many like-minded researchers and practitioners in the environment, climate policy development spaces.

01:50 – 02:27

Dr. Pichamon: That said, I would say that in terms of my own experience of being a researcher who’s tried to generate as much policy impact as possible from my own work. It’s never easy, right? It always feels like an uphill battle, where no matter what you write, how you frame the issue or the language that you use, you always feel like there’s some sort of barrier standing in the way between you and your research to reach that policy audience and ensure that the key messages are received in the way that you intend them to be.

02:27 – 02:42

Dr. Pichamon: One of the major challenges I personally find is that you might have wanted to convey a particular message, but it gets changed over the course of many different engagements, or it might even get manipulated in some instances.

02:43 – 03:08

Dr. Pichamon: It is incredibly important for us to be constantly working towards enhancing the policy influence of our work. But at the same time, for us to be mindful of the constraints we face as researchers, as well as the role of our own self-reflexivity when we do research. Thinking about what we’re trying to accomplish with our research and being aware of the biases or the motivations that undergird the enterprise as a result.

03:10 – 04:00

Dr. Pichamon: In light of all of that, I think my own trajectory as a “pracademic” – and I know it’s one of those words that might make some people really cringe and others like, “Oh, great!” – is something that best defines what we’re trying to do here. But as a “pracademic”, a practitioner combined with an academic, for me, at least in my own trajectory, I’ve wanted to try and be as unconventional as possible. I get told all the time that what I’m trying to do isn’t really academic research anymore, and I disagree because academic research for me is about bringing nuance to a debate or bringing nuance to an issue, and again, being aware of your own subjectivities when you do that.

04:01 – 04:22

Dr. Pichamon: I think there’s a fine line, in fact, between academic and policy research, and for me, it’s about embracing that fine line as opposed to saying, “Oh, this is policy research. It’s not academic enough. It’s not scientific enough.” Because if you want to have an impact, you need to also just make your own work more accessible.

04:23 – 04:53

Dr. Pichamon: In my own work, I’ve tried to do that; I’ve tried to do it in the work I’ve done in the Mekong Region. I’ve also been doing it a lot now, with a different hat on in my role as an independent expert with the United Nations (UN), and it’s really taught me that, again, we just need to be really aware of our own limitations and also try to be very practical when we want to generate influence—policy influence—on the work that we do as academics or scholars.

04:53 – 05:09

Rajesh: That is brilliant! That’s already a lot to unpack from barriers, manipulation, self-reflexivity, and also what is academic and policy research; almost a Politics of Knowledge question there. But we need to rewind a little bit before we get into that, and we are going to explore most of it.

05:09 – 05:32

Rajesh: Let me ask a simpler question: For example, we often talk of policymakers needing science, and scientists can produce science for policymakers. But do you think policymakers actually care about scientific evidence? I mean, I’m sure that’s not a simple yes or no question, but could you kind of unpack that a bit for us?

05:33 – 05:44

Dr. Pichamon: I mean Rajesh, you said it’s a simple question; I wouldn’t say that’s a simple question! In fact, it goes back to that excellent observation you made, which is I agree, we’re really going into the realm of the Politics of Knowledge here.

05:44 – 06:16

Dr. Pichamon: To your question: Based on my own experiences engaging with policy practitioners in government at the national, subnational levels, regional levels, and in a way, all policy walks of life, if I can put it that way, I do feel that most of the time what I hear from them is, in order to do this, or in order to take up this particular policy recommendation, we need evidence.

06:16 – 07:26

Dr. Pichamon: We need empirical evidence. We need to see how it has worked. Will it work? What will ensure that it works? And so, I would say, absolutely, it is very important to a lot of the policy practitioners that I engage with to see the evidence base or a policy puzzle or policy problem that we’re, that we’re facing in which we want to find a resolution. For that reason, when doing academic work, it’s important to marry the theoretical with the empirical. I think that that usually helps a lot to make your findings much more translatable to a policy audience. It’s also very important because it prevents your work from being politicized if it is the type of work to be easily politicized. We’ve seen in the past that when it comes to climate science even, despite what we see as being almost basically something that should not be contested at all, it still gets contested, especially in the political sphere.

07:26 – 07:48

Dr. Pichamon: Ensuring that your work is anchored in a sound, empirical basis or within that empirical body of knowledge is very important. It provides a stronger rationale for policymakers to take up your recommendations. The same goes for politicians to be able to say that there is sound evidence behind this; I’m not just making it up.

07:49 – 08:10

Rajesh: That is reassuring because we’re never sure whether they do actually listen to us. And as you say, they want the rationale to make decisions, but ultimately, whether the decision gets made or not based on science is, I guess, a completely different, almost black box sometimes for many of us.

08:10 – 08:34

Dr. Pichamon: It’s an important point that you’re making here, which is, yes, it is very much a black box. As an academic, and as a researcher, you don’t always know how your work is going to get used. And I know this is especially the case for a lot of natural scientists whom I work with, and that can be extremely frustrating. But again, this is why having empirical evidence that’s verifiable be made upfront as – as upfront as possible – so important.

08:34 – 09:14

Dr. Pichamon: I would also say that part of it lies with the communication question, right? How do you communicate your findings? Communicating about your work in a way that’s really accessible to the general public, to a more general audience, and in a way that ensures the integrity of your own findings is all the more important in that sense. Because if you want to influence policy, you again want to ensure that your information, the data that you’re providing, won’t get manipulated or misinterpreted, right? I just wanted to underscore that point.

09:14 – 09:47

Rajesh: Excellent. I’m going to go back to something you said, Dr. Pichamon, about how science is contested, even climate science. Actually, in a sense, climate science has been the most contested, because of the different interest groups. Eventually, the policymakers are dragged more by, shall we say, political and money questions rather than environmental questions. How does one navigate through all this as a researcher who is trying very much to achieve, shall we say, environmental and social sustainability?

09:48 – 10:15

Dr. Pichamon: That’s a very important question, and how do I answer this? I mean, in my own work, I try to be very involved in various stages of the policymaking process as much as possible. I try to engage with all the stakeholders at the local level to try and frame the issue that we’re talking about.

10:15 – 10:40

Dr. Pichamon: There’s the policy entrepreneurship literature, in policy studies as a discipline, a body of scholarship that’s dedicated to investigating how individuals or organizations can play a bigger role as policy entrepreneurs so as people or as organizations that can move policy in ways that are unexpected.

10:40 – 11:10

Dr. Pichamon: If you think about civil society or the think tanks, they can be very influential, right? But if you think about their power differentials vis-a-vis a government, then they won’t appear as influential. But in the scholarship on policy entrepreneurship, it has been established that even if you don’t appear to have a lot of power or policy influence, you can still have an impact.

11:11 – 11:53

Dr. Pichamon: Let’s say if you’re working on Mekong River issues, and obviously one entry point would be the Mekong River Commission (MRC). When we think of policy formulation, don’t think just about the CEO of the MRC and influencing that person or people who are more senior in the policymaking chain of command. But think also about the people within that organization or agency who are working on the front lines of the issue, who are making decisions on an everyday basis on how to approach the problem. Those people are worth engaging with as well and trying to help them formulate a policy that they can then raise upwards towards their bosses, right?

11:54 – 12:29

Dr. Pichamon: The same logic I would say applies to the decision-making process, as well as to policy implementation. But for me personally, I’ve always found policy evaluation as being a very important and interesting stage of the policymaking cycle to tap into. I feel that a lot of the work that we do as academics tends to be a little bit more on the critical side, right?

12:29 – 12:54

Dr. Pichamon: I would say we should also help improve policy because policy evaluation—think about monitoring, evaluation, and learning frameworks—is very much about evaluating what has worked and what hasn’t worked. I see that as a real opportunity for academics, and I don’t see a lot of academics working necessarily in that space, especially on issues to do with the Mekong and climate resilience questions, for instance. So to me, I think we need to think creatively and holistically about this.

12:55 – 13:25

Rajesh: Thank you, Dr. Pichamon. In all of that, I think one thing that I would like to go a little bit deeper into is the policy cycle. You did mention this in your presentation at the Mekong Environmental Week as well, and how policy cycles are a good way for researchers to influence policy. Could you explain a little bit more about how researchers can make use of this cycle? What is it and how does it translate into action?

13:26 – 13:44

Dr. Pichamon: If you want your work to have an impact, then you need to be in it for the long haul. And you need to try and find ways in which you can raise awareness about your research and enhance its policy influence at the different stages of the policymaking cycle, not just one.

13:44 – 13:56

Dr. Pichamon: There are usually five stages of the policymaking cycle that are especially important: agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, policy implementation, and policy evaluation.

13:57 – 14:30

Dr. Pichamon: In my work, I’ve tried to feed into each of those different stages. Ideally, you want to engage with the entirety of the process. And I know it’s not an easy thing to do, but you can be rather creative and innovative with respect to identifying entry points, as well as gatekeepers. If I can be so direct—people who are very much firmly entrenched in these spaces, who know whom you should be speaking with in order to move things, to change things.

14:31 – 15:07

Dr. Pichamon: You [may] try and rely on networks, let’s say, to help amplify the message that you’re trying to convey, or if you can be very good at identifying what we call windows of opportunity – because at each stage of the policymaking cycle, there usually are windows of opportunity that arise where public opinion suddenly sways in favor of a particular solution to a problem that may align with the research recommendations you’re putting forward.

15:08 – 15:44

Dr. Pichamon: If you think about Greta Thunberg and the activism that she displayed and how that created a lot of interest amongst the younger generations especially to do the protests in their respective countries and cities, and how that directed even more attention from governments to the climate change issue. That can also be a window of opportunity that you as an academic can leverage and use to your advantage to spotlight how your research is pivotal to answering these big, troubling questions or problems.

15:44 – 16:06

Dr. Pichamon: Similarly, with policy formulation, it can sound daunting for an academic who might not be used to engaging in that policy space. But I would say that, depending on where you’re working and the issues you’re working on, there might be opportunities for you to try and influence how policies are formulated in your particular issue area.

16:06 – 16:46

Dr. Pichamon: All of this, I’m aware, is rather abstract and that’s in part the challenge. But it’s also where there, as a result, is a bit more flexibility in how you, as a researcher, can feed into policymaking at those different stages of the policymaking cycle itself. I would also say that when it comes to these windows of opportunity, they tend to be very time-bound, so you can’t expect that they will last forever.

16:46 – 17:11

Dr. Pichamon: It’s very much like what we see in the media attention cycle; things will suddenly become of great interest and then die down. You want to try and be in a position where you can immediately leverage the media attention, the policy attention, as quickly as you can so that your research has even more impact.

17:12 – 17:26

Dr. Pichamon: If you let that moment pass, then who knows when the next moment might be? It’s not to say that it won’t ever happen again, but you just want to be in a position where you can constantly feed into or leverage those windows of opportunity as soon as they arise.

17:34 – 17:57

Rajesh: Brilliant. Thank you. As you were talking of policy cycles and windows, I was also reminded of something that happened in the early 90s in Thailand where there were enormous floods in South Thailand, and the floods washed down huge logs from clear felling. In that couple of years, or even the couple of months after that, there was such strong outrage.

17:57 – 18:17

Rajesh: The environmentalists, the media, civil society, and the local people all clamored for a logging ban, and that logging ban is still in place. Of course, we don’t have to wait for a disaster, but it kind of emphasizes your point that grabbing the day seems to work in a lot of ways in policy cycles.

18:18 – 18:28

Rajesh: This comes to the next question I have, but if I may go in a slightly different direction for now.

18:28 – 19:01

Rajesh: We talked about policy, impact, and science. I also see this, and I will welcome your thoughts on this: I also see our policy work — our research-to-policy work — as something that wants to bring out voices of marginalized people, for example, to bring out people’s concerns that are not actually taken up. Eventually, it may not even get into policy, but the fact that it has been brought up seems to itself be of value. What are your thoughts on this, Dr. Pichamon?

19:02 – 19:29

Dr. Pichamon: I absolutely agree. I think if we go with the whole notion that knowledge is power, we have to be aware that we ourselves are also wielding a degree of that power, even if it doesn’t always feel that way. In generating research and trying to enhance our own policy influence, we become part of that policymaking cycle.

19:29 – 19:57

Dr. Pichamon: And as a result, we should also carry our own responsibilities to ensure that the research that we do doesn’t result in any harm, whether it be to marginalized or at-risk groups or any other stakeholder groups, and that we undertake our own due diligence to ensure the veracity and accuracy of the information that we use and the data that we generate from our work.

19:58 – 20:29

Dr. Pichamon: And to also understand how that information or data can have an impact on the people, and the communities that we are researching or who are facing, in the case of climate change, the very real impacts of environmental degradation, erratic hydrological flows, and so forth. I think what you’ve said here, Rajesh, is extremely important for all of us to bear in mind, which is research needs to be ethical, obviously.

20:30 – 21:33

Dr. Pichamon: We, as researchers, also need to undertake due diligence to ensure that our research accurately depicts the communities and individuals who are marginalized and at risk in a way that is respectful, that ensures their human dignity, and that doesn’t misrepresent their message or their experiences. I would also say that personally, for me, the work that I’ve done and that I continue to do has been underpinned by this notion that we find in very prominent and critical theoretical traditions, which is that: Theory is always for someone and for some purpose. And we also need to ensure that if it is for someone and for some purpose, then it should be for the purpose of enhancing the lives of those who are furthest left behind to ensure that the work that we do results in the amelioration of the challenges that they face in some way.

21:34 – 22:15

Rajesh: Thank you. That does resonate with all of us, that message. I will come back to what we were talking about earlier regarding policy, and you also mentioned something about communications. The communications of science in accessible and imaginative [ways], making it relevant. It continues to be a huge challenge for many researchers in the Mekong Region, trying to get effective communication of their findings to not just the policymakers, but also to the media. I think we have heard this before, that people say we have to try and speak different languages, which is always a challenge. Your thoughts on this?

22:16 – 23:04

Dr. Pichamon: I mean, I agree, completely. I think communication is absolutely pivotal to ensuring a degree of policy influence, but it is also very difficult to ensure effective communication. It’s something that is a challenge at the semantics, linguistic level but equally at that kind of a policy translation level as well. Especially for those of us working in the Mekong Region, it goes without saying that this is a very linguistically, culturally, socially, and rather politically diverse subregion that we work in, and therefore, communicating across borders, across societies isn’t usually very easy either.

23:05 – 23:29

Dr. Pichamon: When it comes to making research useful to policy, it’s very much about understanding who your target audiences are. Who are they? At what level are they operating within? National, subnational, regional, or international? What are their own intentions or motivations in working on these issues?

23:30 – 23:49

Dr. Pichamon: Your research doesn’t always have to directly speak to those interests and motivations but at least it can resonate with those interests and motivations. If you’re going to put forward a set of policy recommendations, are they actually realistic to say that a specific law needs to be changed?

23:50 – 24:14

Dr. Pichamon: It doesn’t hurt anyone to try and reach for the stars, but we also need to be mindful that laws and policies don’t change overnight. You need to be able to stagger your recommendations and show the policymakers whom you’re targeting, and how they can take realistic and potentially more incremental steps towards that outcome that you aspire to.

24:15 – 24:39

Dr. Pichamon: And similarly, I think it’s about understanding what language appeals to them. This is something I grapple with in the work I do with the United Nations, which is we work a lot on social issues, and human rights issues, and that’s not always easy to communicate with a range of stakeholders.

24:40 – 24:58

Dr. Pichamon: So ensuring that how we talk about these issues, again, resonates with them, and they don’t find it to be too daunting or too challenging in a way that can also assist in enhancing the impact of the work you’re doing, and it’s relevant to the policy that you’re wanting to influence.

24:59 – 25:43

Dr. Pichamon: I would also say that all of this does come down to issues like presentation and word choices as well. And I keep thinking, and because you were saying, Rajesh, let’s think about a specific case: I think it was 2021 when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) had released a report saying that this is a red alert for our planet. The language of “red alert” was specifically used. I feel like that type of language is very powerful. It might not necessarily sound the most academic, but it’s easy to understand. It really does impress upon you that this is a moment; this is something that is a major challenge for all of us.

25:44 – 26:14

Dr. Pichamon: I also think, like if you look at how the policy language has shifted over time in relation to the framing of the climate crisis, we see how these days there’s more use of terms like existential; that climate change is an existential crisis. I found this to be especially intriguing but also important in the context of conveying to the defense establishment why climate change matters.

26:15 – 26:43

Dr. Pichamon: To tell defense and military people that they have to care about climate change too, that defense technology needs to be up to par when it comes to environmental sustainability standards—by linking it all to the fact that climate change poses an existential security threat to all of us—that’s powerful language as well.

26:44 – 27:34

Dr. Pichamon: And again, it wasn’t achieved over the course of a day or two. It was the contribution of a lot of different researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and more generally who had contributed to that shift in understanding, as well as in the linguistic framing of the issue. As I said earlier, the policy and media attention cycle is one that often is quite short. An issue explodes into a big problem that captures the attention of the public and of politicians, usually, and then there’s a window of opportunity for you to come in and feed into the debates and the discourses with more nuanced academic, evidence-based understandings, and then it can die away. But what I didn’t mention is that ultimately, as academics, I feel like we shouldn’t only just be seeking to write in specific ways.

27:35 – 28:23

Dr. Pichamon: We shouldn’t just be doing research that’s dictated by what’s the fad at a particular time. In fact, what we should be trying to do is to generate knowledge that is valuable, that is useful in the longer term, and that combats the tendency towards a fashionable conscience on specific issues. As a result, I feel like we should aim to generate shorter-term policy influence, but really our skin is in the game when it comes to the longer haul – to generating influence on the bigger, more deep-seated problems or challenges that our societies face today, whether it be big questions about environmental resilience or questions about social sustainability.

28:24 – 28:36

Rajesh: Excellent. Thanks, Dr. Pichamon. That brings us to almost the end of our episode. Dr. Pichamon, to end the episode, would you feel like you have something empowering to say for our listeners, especially the young researchers out there?

28:37 – 29:01

Dr. Pichamon: I would say don’t give up, even when it feels like your research is not being read by enough people, even if it feels like you’re shouting into the abyss about the impending doom that we’re facing. Don’t give up because the work that you’re doing is important.

29:02 – 29:15

Dr. Pichamon: The impact that you can generate at the policy level might not be a change in the laws; it might not be a complete change in the government’s policy direction, but it can still affect change.

29:16 – 30:03

Dr. Pichamon: And change can be very meaningful, especially when it impacts an individual or a group of individuals. I’ve seen research that is driven by a desire to improve the livelihoods of communities on the ground and ensure that the climate crisis doesn’t have as adverse an impact on them. I’ve seen so many of these pieces have a positive impact on the communities themselves, even in the sense that the communities feel like they’re being listened to—listened to by academics who have come to their communities and asked them questions that maybe governments or other stakeholders have never asked them before. Impact also happens that way too.

30:04 – 30:42

Dr. Pichamon: The awareness that you generate amongst the people that you work with at the local level can be as meaningful as the impact that you can generate at the policy level in Bangkok or in Vientiane or in any other part of the region. I would say absolutely don’t give up and think about why you want to generate this impact and who it would be most beneficial for. As long as you can answer those two questions, I think you’re headed in the right direction.

30:43 – 31:19

Dr. Pichamon: And the point is, influence is not going to happen within a day, sometimes not even in a week or in a year. It can take as long as the peer review process, and it can take longer. So, persevere, and I’m sure your hard work will pay off in some way. Your voice matters, and I hope you won’t let any of the barriers that you currently face or may face in doing work in this area stand in your way of ensuring that your voice gets heard.

31:20 – 31:36

Rajesh: Thanks, Dr. Pichamon, that has been an extremely insightful conversation and very encouraging too, and I hope it sparks new ideas among our listeners about how research can play a role in providing actionable insights for building climate resilience in the Mekong Region. Thank you so much for joining us today.

31:36 – 31:38

Dr. Pichamon: Thank you very much.

31:38 – 31:52

Rajesh: And as Dr. Pichamon said, we are here for the long game. Don’t give up. Your voice matters. Thanks to all our listeners. Please stay tuned to our Asia Podcast series on Environment and Policy in Asia for more conversations on bridging science and research to policy and sustainability. Goodbye for now.

31:58 – 32:09

Thank you for listening to SEI Asia’s podcast on environment and policy in Asia. For more information on these topics, guests, and our work, please visit our website on www.sei.org.