Anna Wesselink

Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners' perspectives

Participation has become a mantra in environmental governance. However, there are signs that the participatory agenda has started to lose its momentum and justification because of disappointments about actual achievements. Rather than focusing on improving participatory processes or articulating best practices, in this paper we seek to understand the more fundamental reasons why difficulties are encountered. In our interviews with professionals involved in participation in environmental governance we found varying and potentially conflicting rationales for participation, with instrumental and legalistic rationales dominating. We contend that the institutional and political context in which this participation takes place is an important explanation of this prevalence. This includes the provisions for participation in EU directives, failing policy integration, institutional and political barriers, and failing political uptake of results from participation. We conclude there is a need for more reflexive awareness of the different ways in which participation is defined and practised in contemporary environmental policy making and for a more realistic assessment of possibilities for changes towards more participatory and deliberative decision making.

If Post-Normal Science is the Solution, What is the Problem?: The Politics of Activist Environmental Science

Post-normal science (PNS) is presented by its proponents as a new way of doing science that deals with uncertainties, value diversity or antagonism, and high decision stakes and urgency, with the ultimate goal of remedying the pathologies of the global industrial system for which, according to Funtowicz and Ravetz, existing science forms the basis. The authors critically examine whether PNS can fulfill this claim in the light of empirical and theoretical work on politics and policy making. The authors credit PNS as an innovative frontrunner in raising important issues regarding the limited problem-solving capacity of ‘‘normal science’’ and ‘‘professional consultancy.’’ Yet, the authors notice that PNS lacks important considerations about the governance of problems and aspects of participatory and deliberative democracy. PNS in effect implies that methodological ‘‘ratiocination’’ would prevail over political deliberation and democratic interaction and that merely changing scientific input in public policy making would have the power to change its outcomes. This scientistic hubris can be traced back to PNS’s origin in concerned scientists’ activism, which in effect accessed the political arena through the scientific entrance. The authors conclude that the art of politics needs to come back into the discussion on environmental problems if societal change is to occur.

Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review

The quantification of uncertainty is an increasingly popular topic, with clear importance for climate change policy. However, uncertainty assessments are open to a range of interpretations, each of which may lead to a different policy recommendation. In the EQUIP project researchers from the UK climate modelling, statistical modelling, and impacts communities worked together on ‘end-to-end’ uncertainty assessments of climate change and its impacts. Here, we use an experiment in peer review amongst project members to assess variation in the assessment of uncertainties between EQUIP researchers. We find overall agreement on key sources of uncertainty but a large variation in the assessment of the methods used for uncertainty assessment. Results show that communication aimed at specialists makes the methods used harder to assess. There is also evidence of individual bias, which is partially attributable to disciplinary backgrounds. However, varying views on the methods used to quantify uncertainty did not preclude consensus on the consequential results produced using those methods. Based on our analysis, we make recommendations for developing and presenting statements on climate and its impacts. These include the use of a common uncertainty reporting format in order to make assumptions clear; presentation of results in terms of processes and trade-offs rather than only numerical ranges; and reporting multiple assessments of uncertainty in order to elucidate a more complete picture of impacts and their uncertainties. This in turn implies research should be done by teams of people with a range of backgrounds and time for interaction and discussion, with fewer but more comprehensive outputs in which the range of opinions is recorded.

Evidence and meaning in policy making

In 2011, Sense About Science launched a campaign backed by various celebrities, academics and other public figures entitled Ask for Evidence, ‘saying that consumers, voters and patients should demand evidence for scientific and medical claims to counter a tide of misinformation’ (Sense About Science, 2011). The campaign website provides examples of people asking for evidence on public claims in such disparate policy areas as video game addiction, food waste among single people and the carbon footprint of recycling mobile phones (Sense About Science, 2014). Potential campaign pa ticipants are advised that ‘[w]hen you ask for evidence, ask them about the science behind the claim’ (Peters, 2013). The campaign provides an example of the widespread support that the idea of evidence-based policy (EBP) now commands (Rutter, 2012). After all, using evidence as the basis for formulating public policy appears so uncontroversial as to be almost impossible to oppose (for an example to the contrary, see Pile, 2011). Taking EBP at face value in this way implies a rational-technical view of policy making, in which principles for selection, action and evaluation are shared amongst policy actors. Such a view assumes that the ‘evidence’ in evidence-based policy making is a given, and that if only politicians paid more attention to the evidence, society would see better policy. This special issue of Evidence and Policy follows the ‘interpretive turn’1 in the analysis of policy making to challenge this view: a shift in the object of attention (policy) from being an artefact – clear, fixed and created by ‘policy makers’ – to a process of meaning making between a range of participants (Hoppe, 1999; Majone, 1989). So if the interpretive approach leads us to focus on meaning, what might this mean for studying EBP? First, it highlights that actors may contest what is meant by ‘evidence’ as a factor in the policy process. One definition could be that evidence is policy-useful information (Lindblom and Cohen, 1979), but what makes information useful, and how does knowledge become useful information? How does the context in which the information is being used affect what counts as evidence? Second, even if a particular piece of evidence becomes accepted as justification for, or measurement of, a particular policy, it will still hold different meanings for different actors (Yanow, 1996). Third, the meaning of EBP as a paradigm guiding policy makers comes into SPECIAL ISSUE • Evidence and meaning in policy making

Hydrology and hydraulics expertise in participatory processes for climate change adaptation in the Dutch Meuse

Many scientists feel that scientific outcomes are not sufficiently taken into account in policy-making. The research reported in this paper shows what happens with scientific information during such a process. In 2001 the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management commissioned their regional office in Limburg to assess how flood management objectives could be achieved in future in the Dutch Meuse valley, assuming climate change will increase peak discharges. To ensure political support, regional discussion rounds were to help assess the measures previously identified. This paper discusses the ways in which hydrological and hydraulic expertise was input, understood and used in this assessment process. Project participants as a group had no trouble contesting assumptions and outcomes. Nevertheless, water expertise was generally accepted as providing facts, once basic choices such as starting situation had been discussed and agreed. The technical constraints determined that politically unacceptable measures would have to be selected to achieve the legally binding flood management objective. As a result, no additional space will be set aside for future flood management beyond the already reserved floodplain. In this case, political arguments clearly prevail over policy objectives, with hydraulic expertise providing decisive arbitration between the two.

The politics of adaptive climate management : Scientific recipes and lived reality

While excited about the ground-breaking work coming out of the epistemic community promoting adaptive (climate) management (AM), we worry about its tendency to ignore normative implications originating in the implicit worldviews underlying AM literature. Generally, AM has a “green” ideology and focuses on the bioregion as the only sensible level for analysis and action. This tendency for systemic functionalism of AM-as-(green)-policy-prescription depoliticizes an issue (“what to do about climate change”) that is political through and through. For example, those who stand to lose their livelihood as a result of AM plans or simply cannot adapt so fast may resist AM propositions. Implementing AM in practice thereby often leads to social and institutional engineering to overcome resistance. AM in academia seems quite far removed from the “real worlds” of social deliberation and praxis where policy is made and implemented, and where other values and interests than those implicit in AM prevail. We therefore highlight the importance of practices on the ground, claiming AM is not achieved by bioregional policies, but developed “on the hoof” at locally appropriate scales. Everyday professional work is characterized by “organized improvisation” where tacit professional and experiential knowledge are of prime importance. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Institutions for Adaptation.