The authority of rules in Chile’s contentious environmental politics

In 2010 Chilean legislators replaced a small environmental coordinating agency with an Environment Ministry, an autonomous Environmental Impact Assessment Agency, an enforcement agency, and specialized tribunals. Though ambitious, the reform failed to meet the stated objective of depoliticizing environmental decision-making. Instead, the reforms strengthened the authority of the central state, justified on the premise that decisions would now be based on ‘technical criteria’, meaning rules rather than politics. Comparing the creation (1990–1994) and reform (2009–2010) of Chile’s environmental institutions, it is demonstrated that a defining feature of Chilean political culture involves treating rules as if these were independent of the state. Chilean lawmakers use rules as science is used elsewhere: as an ‘objective’ voice separate from politics, that helps legitimate decisions. Appeals to the rules were used to increase the central state’s authority and exclude local representatives, concerned communities, and scientists from environmental decision-making.     

Opening Up for Participation in Agro-Biodiversity Conservation: The Expert-Lay Interplay in a Brazilian Social Movement

In science and environmental studies, there is a general concern for the democratization of the expert-lay interplay. However, the democratization of expertise does not necessarily lead to more sustainable decisions. If citizens do not take the sustainable choice, what should experts and decision makers do? Should the expert-lay interplay be dissolved? In thinking about how to shape the expert-lay interplay in a better way in agro-biodiversity conservation, I take the case of the MST (Movimento Sem Terra/Landless People’s Movement), possibly the largest rural movement in Latin America. The MST is in a process of turning towards environmentalism. It has adopted agroecology, a democratically oriented knowledge field. However, not all of the farmers were willing to adopt new environmentalist ideas and practices. Through ethnographic research, I analyze how expertise was recognized and redistributed within the MST, attending particularly to the role of MST coordinators and technicians. I explore how participation was framed and put into action. The adoption of agroecology brought to the MST a new and more inclusive map of expertise, but it also influenced new social distinctions within the communities. In part, farmers’ knowledge was labeled as ignorance. This may close down possibilities for dialogue as well as for sustainability. The paper suggests that experts’ power for discriminating among lay knowledges should come together with a responsibility for opening spaces for dialogue and action. One way of doing so could be by adding “interactional reflexivity” to experts’ expertise.     

Divergent Perspectives on Expert Disagreement: Preliminary Evidence from Climate Science,Climate Policy,Astrophysics, and Public Opinion

We report the results of an exploratory study that examines the judgments of climate scientists, climate policy experts, astrophysicists, and non-experts (N?=?3367) about the factors that contribute to the creation and persistence of disagreement within climate science and astrophysics and about how one should respond to expert disagreement. We found that, as compared to non-experts, climate experts believe that within climate science (i) there is less disagreement about climate change, (ii) methodological factors play less of a role in generating disagreements, (iii) fewer personal or institutional biases influence climate research, and (iv) there is more agreement about which methods should be used to examine relevant phenomena we also observed that the uniquely American political context predicted experts’ judgments about some of these factors. We also found that, in regard to disagreements concerning cosmic ray physics, and commensurate with the greater inherent uncertainty and data lacunae in their field, astrophysicists working on cosmic rays were generally more willing to acknowledge expert disagreement, more open to the idea that a set of data can have multiple valid interpretations, and generally less quick to dismiss someone articulating a non-standard view as non-expert, than climate scientists were in regard to climate science.     

Mapping divergent concepts of sustainability: lay knowledge,local practices and environmental governance

This paper examines local sustainability concepts in Connemara, a predominantly rural region in the West of Ireland (in this paper, the term “Ireland” refers to the Republic of Ireland), to show how they are (re-)constituted through people's interactions with social and biophysical environments. We argue that these interactions produce diverse forms of lay environmental knowledge and expertise that encompass cognitive and emotional aspects, a fact that is frequently ignored in environmental policy-making which prioritises rational arguments over reactions rooted in people's sense of place and community. Local people's responses to this dominance of “official” rational-technical sustainability concepts are central to recent cases of environmental controversy and lack of compliance to environmental policies that have characterised the study area but that show many parallels to conflicts and disputes elsewhere. Drawing on rich qualitative evidence from interviews and ethnographic fieldwork, this paper demonstrates how communities' responses to environmental policies depend on how well (or poorly) sustainability concepts underpinning these policies match local people's social-ecological practices and related place-specific views of what should be sustained.     

Socio-environmental conflict in the construction of a power plant in Spain's Basque Country: strategies,expertise and certifications

Social and anthropological studies show a growing number of conflicts surrounding energy projects, as governments and companies insist on their implementation despite the concerns of local actors about their perceived socio-environmental risks. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to analyse the politicisation of expertise and certifications in a conflict over the construction of a combined cycle power plant by linking strategic assumptions from two particular sociological approaches. The first approach is based on the study of frame alignment in social movement organisations and the second on the translating interests in actor–network theory. These linked premises are examined in the conflict arising from the construction of a combined cycle natural gas plant in Boroa, in the Basque Country of Spain. This case study brings to light interesting findings on the strategies of the different agencies, certifications, politicisation of expertise and the increasing hostility in local conflicts.     

Lateral knowledge: shifting expertise for disaster management in Chile

Deemed as technocratic and exclusionary, disaster management has failed in its promise of knowing, let alone controlling, catastrophic events. Consequently, disaster managers are searching outside of science for sense‐making analytics. This paper analyses the emergent narratives articulated by disaster managers in Chile to cope with the uncertain nature of their object of intervention. It explores how knowledge of disasters is modified and enriched by disaster managers in what is termed here as ‘lateral knowledge’: the epistemic adjustment by which practitioners revalidate their expert status by expanding key assumptions about disaster risk reduction. The study, which draws on in‐depth interviews with disaster managers in Chile, suggests that lateral knowledge is established both through the increasing validation of community knowledge and the recognition of politics as a critical mediator in the practice of disaster management. The paper concludes by making the larger point that public understanding of science scholars should pay more attention to the adapting capacities of expertise.     

The Food Debate: Ethical versus Substantial Equivalence

Substantial equivalence (SE) has beenintroduced to assess novel foods, includinggenetically modified (GM) food, by means ofcomparison with traditional food. Besides anumber of objections concerning its scientificvalidity for risk assessment, the maindifficulty with SE is that it implies that foodcan be qualified on a purely substantial basis.SE embodies the assumption that only reductivescientific arguments are legitimate fordecision-making in public policy due to theemphasis on legal issues. However, the surge ofthe food debate clearly shows that thistechnocratic model is not accepted anymore.Food is more than physico-chemical substanceand encompasses values such as quality andethics. These values are legitimate in theirown right and require that new democraticprocesses are set up for transverse,transdisciplinary assessment in partnershipwith society. The notion of equivalence canprovide a reference scale in which to examinethe various legitimate factors involved:substance (SE), quality (QualitativeEquivalence: QE), and ethics (EthicalEquivalence: EE). QE requires that newqualitative methods of evaluation that are notbased on reductive principles are developed. EEcan provide a basis for the development of anEthical Assurance as a counterpart of QualityAssurance in the food sector. In France, asecond circle of expertise is being set up toaddress the social issues in food public policybeside classical risk assessment by the firstcircle of expertise. Since ethics is likely tobecome an organizing principle of the secondcircle, the equivalence ethical framework canprove instrumental in this context.     

Science Communication and Stakeholder Expertise: Insights from Sustainability Science*

Communicating science is a multifaceted and complex process, particularly in sustainability science where researchers directly engage with non-academic stakeholder partners. In this insight, we explore the relationship between science communication behaviour and perceptions of stakeholder scientific expertise in a large-scale sustainability-focused research project in the Northeastern United States. We find that higher levels of perceived scientific expertise are associated with dialogic and participatory models of communication, and lower levels of perceived scientific expertise are associated with dialogic and diffusion models of communication. This work, while small in scope, highlights the utility of attending to perceptions of expertise within stakeholder engagement contexts. Implications, limitations, and opportunities for future research are discussed.     

Taking risks with the precautionary principle: food (and the environment) for thought at the European Commission

Various parties relate to the precautionary principle with various understandings, claims and hopes. One of the ways to comprehend this multiplicity of meanings is to examine the composition of this problematic norm in the societal and institutional settings where it occurs. In this paper, I address its elaboration on the European Union institutional terrain with the European Commission's Communication on the Precautionary Principle. This effectuation of the precautionary principle embraces a number of issues of transnational or multilevel governance, expertise, legitimacy and sovereignty. The crucial matter that this paper engages in initially is that of risk analysis, the procedural framework that the precautionary principle confronts with its innovative articulations of science and policy-making, but to which I argue that it succumbs in part. Also explored, in turn, are further framings of the precautionary principle: science versus policy, a given policy domain—environment—in relation to others, as well as action versus inaction (whereas I argue that the precautionary principle ought to be about acting and doubting). These are further evaluated in the conclusions, together with the predicament of establishing a common understanding or defining the precautionary principle. I show that, complementary to drivers of divergence, one finds support for a common approach, though there is no radial symmetry in these tangled stakes, and any ‘diffusion’ of the precautionary principle has to be actively carried out for a shared understanding to be more widely shared. In this process, Europe, the European Commission, its Communication, and the precautionary principle are being shaped into diverse compositions of unity in diversity. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.