Abstract:
An idealized model of knowledge–policy linkages would show science informing policies and practice. This involves gathering evidence and validating these against existing knowledge. A process of deliberation follows, and the decisions are implemented through programmes and interventions. However, it is widely acknowledged that the process from science to environmental policy is not a seamless one. In the aftermath of the Kerala floods of 2018, there was a polarized debate, with one set of analysts arguing that dams exacerbated flood impact while another group arguing the opposite, with both groups drawing upon almost the same set of evidence, but drawing different conclusions. We present this high-stakes disaster event as a case of contestations of knowledge. There is also disconnectedness between policy makers and those affected by their decisions. As an illustration, we use the example of micro-irrigation technologies, designed as a long-term intervention programme. Despite experimental plot-level studies showing the benefits of such technologies and massive promotion by the government, the uptake of micro-irrigation schemes by farmers has been well below expectations. A closer look at such contestations and disconnectedness will help us think critically through the knowledge–policy linkages and be self-reflective of the limitations of the idealized model.