Building Science in Time: Why Environmental Policymaking Needs Proactive Research
April 2026
Funded by the Strategic Research Council’s WAWE programme, the multidisciplinary WATERWAYS project examines the use of Baltic Sea maritime routes through the lens of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, developing research-based tools for up-to-date situational awareness, risk assessment and management, and cross-sectoral co-creation of sustainable future pathways.
Environmental policymaking is often seen as a scramble for data once a crisis has already hit. However, the most effective policies rest on a scientific foundation built years before the moment of decision. In this blog post, Senior Researcher Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen delves into the hidden timelines of research, from identifying ‘silent signals’ of knowledge gaps to the multi-year cycles of funding calls and peer reviews.
Environmental policymaking is often perceived as a reactive process—responding to emerging crises, new data, or shifting political priorities. Effective policy rests on something far less visible but far more demanding: a long, carefully constructed scientific foundation built well before the moment of decision arrives.
A solid scientific basis for policymaking cannot be assembled overnight. By the time policymakers require answers, the underlying research must already exist, validated and credible. This creates a fundamental challenge for the scientific community: the need to anticipate future policy questions and begin addressing them years in advance. It requires attentiveness not only to explicit demands but also to the quieter, “silent signals” of emerging knowledge gaps—those areas where evidence is still incomplete but likely to become critical.
Recognizing these gaps early is only the first step. Turning them into actionable research requires building strong collaborations. Developing a capable consortium—bringing together the right mix of expertise across institutions, disciplines, and sometimes countries—is a process that can easily take a year. Aligning goals, defining roles, and designing a coherent and impactful workplan demands both scientific clarity and organizational effort.
Once a project begins, the timeline extends further. Comprehensive environmental research often spans several (3-5) years, reflecting the complexity of ecosystems, data collection and analysis. Even after results are obtained, the process of scientific publication introduces additional delays. Academic peer review, a cornerstone of research quality, can take up to a year from submission to final publication. While essential for credibility, this timeline reinforces the need to start early if research is to inform policy at the right moment.
Securing funding adds another layer of uncertainty and time investment. Researchers must dedicate a significant portion of their effort to preparing proposals, often without knowing which ones will ultimately be funded. When suitable funding calls do not exist, the challenge becomes even greater. In such cases, researchers and institutions may need to engage proactively with European research agenda-setting processes, suggesting topics that align scientific opportunities with stakeholder needs. Influencing these agendas is itself a long-term endeavor, but it can help ensure that critical environmental questions receive the attention they deserve.
In this sense, the thematic research funding provided by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) of the Research Council of Finland provides a good example of a funding program which defines research needs of high national importance. The SRC instrument calls for a broad perspective on already identified societal challenges, emphasizing the importance of maintaining continuous multi-year interaction with policy stakeholders and government agencies. Scientific knowledge does not automatically translate into policy impact; it must be actively shared, discussed, and aligned with policy processes. This often occurs through formal document submissions to specific international meetings, each governed by strict deadlines. Missing these windows can mean that even the most robust evidence fails to be considered at the right time.
Added complexity may be required if policy topics are coordinated at the European level. EU-level processes introduce additional layers of consultation, alignment, and timing, often extending the pathway from research to policy uptake. At the same time, national coordination with industry stakeholders may also be required, particularly when policies affect sectors such as energy, agriculture, transport or manufacturing. Balancing these multiple levels of engagement demands both strategic planning and sustained effort.
Taken together, these realities highlight a simple but often overlooked truth: science for policymaking is a long game. It requires foresight, persistence, and coordination across many actors and timelines. The most effective contributions are rarely those produced in response to immediate demand, but rather those that have been quietly developed over years, ready when the policy window opens.
In an era of accelerating environmental change, strengthening this proactive approach is more important than ever. By investing early in identifying knowledge gaps, building strong research collaborations, and maintaining close ties with policymakers, the scientific community can ensure that when decisions must be made, the evidence is not only available—but robust, relevant, and ready.