Inside the Science- Policy interface

Transcription

1 Inside the Science- Policy interface Reflections on ten moments of interaction 1

2 2

3 Can deliberative theory help dealing with uncertainty in an authoritative way? 3

4 Deliberative Policy Analysis in key commitments - 1 An interpretative account of governance: Appreciate the openness of situations; the instability of institutions, fluidity of networks; analyse the contextualized interaction of actors Show the particulars of how macrotrends impact on policy making in particular situations and explain the dynamics of policy making and politics in those terms 4

5 DPA key commitments - 2 Discursive dimension of policy making Politics is made through talk; take discourse seriously Connect policy process to an expansive idea of democracy (Warren) All styles of policy making have normative democratic dimension Link to STS scholarship See science and technology as particular set of social practices 5

6 Political Sociology of policy making and politics Politics takes place in new spaces Politics takes place under conditions of radical uncertainty Knowledge-for-policy no longer works so well ( first get the facts right ); appreciate deep value-pluralism The importance of difference People not sharing a same frame of reference to make sense of a situation The awareness of interdependence Problems require emergence of communities of action (Arendt) Dynamics of trust and identity New problems call for new institutions trust in which cannot be assumed; need for active participation 6

7 Adventures in the real world of policy making Climategate or The winter of discontent

8 Science for policy Cross-party dialogue 8

9 9

10 The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced. (IPCC 2007: 547) In actual fact: 55% of the country is at risk of flooding; - 26% is below sea level, - 29% because of river flooding 10

11 Moment I. I will not tolerate any further mistakes! Ik dult geen enkele fout meer Jacqueline Cramer, Dutch Minister for the Environment, February 2010 (Herself under fierce Pressure in parliament on climate issue) 11

12 How to respond? What is the basis of authority? How authoritative governance is possible in our day and age? Positivist repertoire is speaking truth to power But what is a deliberative repertoire? 12

13 Authority as performance [Authoritative] communication[s], whether opinions or commands, are not demonstrated through rational discourse, but they possess the potentiality of reasoned elaboration they are worthy of acceptance. Seen in this perspective, authority is a quality of communication, rather than of persons, and when we speak of the authority of a person, we are using a shorthand expression to indicate that he possesses the capacity to issue authoritative communications.... The capacity of men to speak in meaningful terms, to say the things which may be thus elaborated, varies enormously. This capacity, I think, is implied when we speak of some of them as authorities. (Friedrich 1958: 35 7, italics in original) 13

14 DPA: useful knowledge? How authoritative governance is possible in our day and age? Positivist repertoire is speaking truth to power But what is a deliberative repertoire? See assessment as co-construction No black box: openness & transparency Appreciate variety of backgrounds from actors Appreciate role of frames Appreciate conditionality of knowledge claims Appreciate interaction between practice and dynamics of trust Be aware of boundary work in your actions 14

15 Moment II. Street interview for 8 o clock news People are concerned, and they are right [frame I: acknowledgement] The errors are a disruption and we need to draw lessons [frame II: IPCC isn t holy] It seems as if procedures weren t followed [Frame III: Professionalism] We need more openness [Frame IV: renewal, way forward] 15

16 Moment III. Debate in Dutch Parliament Can parliament rely on IPCC reports? Are there more errors in Fourth Assessment Reports (2007)? Minister Cramer asked to have reports investigated; requests PBL to undertake this endeavour Moment IV. Populist response (blogosphere) : Butcher to test its own meat! ( slager keurt eigen vlees ) Toilet Duck effect (after popular commercial: We from Toilet Duck advise: Toilet Duck!) 16

17 Analysing the discursive space Climategate Protagonists: climate scientists, IPCC calling and threatening Antagonists: climate sceptics knocking on the door No middle ground 20 years of work in constructing IPCC as institution of authority But on a positivist basis: 90% certainty No space for discussing the implicit politics of IPCC Reversal of the critic vs system positioning James Hansen was lone wolf in late 1980s Sceptics used same rhetoric in 2010s Positivist performance of IPCC: speaking truth to power In fact an interface between science and policy 17

18 18 Foto: Arthur Petersen, PBL

19 What sort of institution is this?! Assessment: the IPCC does not do research itself The IPCC works with selected scientists who, together, are expected to cover a certain theme / knowledge area Goal: the supply of the best available knowledge in support of good political and administrative decision making Science chooses its own issues for investigation; consequently the available scientific evidence differs from policy issue to policy issue Weighing scientific literature is a matter of expert judgment Allowing for the direct link to politics was the whole point of IPCC! So to judge IPCC by scientific criteria is to miss essence of the organisational practice 19

20 PBL: reframe! See IPCC crisis as a critical moment: Do not assume deep seated positions, use attention to communicate Created a big fight with climate community Stay out of the dichotomy, create a third space! No alarmism, no scepticism Try and create a public sphere Invite the critics into the castle! Create a new institutional interaction Enhance understanding of what climate science is about Moment V. Standpunt.nl talk radio show: 2% shift in trust based on less then three minutes explaining and responding 20

21 PBL: reframe! Try and make the investigation into an example of a deliberative approach What does a deliberative institution do? What should it avoid? Key literature for us: Hulme (2009) Why we disagree on climate change Mary Morgan (2010) Traveling facts Hajer (2009) Authoritative Governance (BSE chapter) Petersen (2006) Simulating Nature 21

22 PBL investigation: a policy of transparency Moment VI. Website for public registration of possible errors Moment VII. Ask IPCC authors for feedback Moment VIII. Use seminars: in vivo emotional confrontation 1. at beginning, with critical voices Hulme, Rayner and Von Storch; 2. to discuss first draft, with national external reviewers Moment IX. Erect independent supervision against Toilet Duck effect KNAW: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 22

23 23

24 24

25 Errors are a frame! Errors as part of attempt to re-open debate Politics of doubt IPCC Working group II mainly ecologists, biologists, agricultural scientists; different from physicists from IPCC Working Group I. Long slumbering controversy within IPCC Regional chapters are making an assessment of what environmental change may have been caused by, or relate to, climate change Controversy about what sort of science is needed for good policy making Knowledge that shows society pathways how to move on? Knowledge in terms of solid laws of nature 25

26 Scientific uncertainty is easily misunderstood Constant confrontation with a mysterious understanding of science as solid and uncontroversial The distance to knowledge argument (McKenzie) the best of scientists (closest to knowledge) are all too aware of the conditionality of their knowledge. Policy makers and politicians, standing further away, have difficulty handling uncertainty, which they see as standing in the way of action. The lay public, standing way apart from the practice of academic knowledge have yet another understanding: uncertainty delegitimizes the scientific basis for (costly) action. Hence communication on uncertainty is tricky 26

27 27 27

28 Key messages from PBL report Main conclusion WG II well founded: effects of climate change are already visible and will become more serious under further temperature increases Errors that were found do not undermine main conclusions on future regional impacts however, more quality control is needed Foundation for some of the conclusions should have been made more transparent: expert judgement Instead of only emphasizing main negative impacts at summary level, full spectrum of the effects of climate change should be presented 28

29 Behind this a politics of classification E1 Inaccurate statement E1a Errors that can be corrected by an erratum (5) E1b Errors that require a redoing of the assessment of the issue at hand (2) E2 Inaccurate referencing (3) C1 Insufficiently substantiated attribution (1) C2 Insufficiently founded generalization (2) C3 Insufficiently transparent expert judgment (10) C4 Inconsistency of messages (2) C5 Untraceable reference (3) C6 Unnecessary reliance on grey referencing (2) C7 Statement unavailable for review (1) 29

30 Findings 1 minor error in summary number of people exposed to water stress 3 major errors in underlying text incl. 2 old ones Himalaya Glacier Part of NL below sea level Productivity decrease in fisheries under doubling CO2 6 minor errors & 4 inaccurate references 7 insufficiently traceable expert judgements in summary (incl. generalisations) 1 incorrect attribution of heat-related deaths to only climate change 30

31 Recommendations for Fifth IPCC report Make foundations of summary conclusions more transparent Present full spectrum of regional impacts Invest more in quality control of entire IPCC process Invest more in knowledge capacity building Cf. Report of InterAcademy Council, August

32 32 PBL the future of assessments Strengthening of review process for PBL reports (internal & external) in selected cases: apply similar analysis as was done on the IPCC report Strengthening of seminars at beginning and end of project with external out-of-the-box experts Continuing education for PBL assessors about the nature of assessments and the changed requirements for transparency Create shift in culture towards more openness: organize your own critique 32

33 Towards an open assessment procedure Make expert judgements more transparent Expert judgements are indispensable but now too much an in group decision Actively report on main claims made in public debate Don t restrict assessment (report) to best available knowledge; hoover scientifically unsupported claims away Use public forum to help spot group think Work towards living documents Create website for errata, showing your anticipation of (smaller) errors Similar work on opening up cost-benefit analysis 33

34 Moment X. Presentation of the report Main conclusions IPCC on regional effects well founded; no significant errors IPCC can strengthen credibility by being more open on reasons and arguments you cannot say: Trust us, we are academics 34

35 35

36 Findings I. DPA is useful - Deliberative practices work: Generated new credibility in a mediatized crisis Helped to set a new standard This is as much an inside struggle on shift in practice as one on the outside: Reframing comes with emotional roller coaster Deliberative institutions: Give best judgements but use living documents Allow critics in in drafting of documents Write in a language that is appreciative of variety of audiences Require freedom of manouevre for its key performers Constant risk of slippage : Established routines are always there with the comfort of knowing what to do 36

37 Findings II. Media and politics There is more to a good performance than a good argument Knowledge/Power: Policy space comprises very active networks that cut across science, media, NGOs Strong community aspect to climate network Networks cut across: Local & Global Exercise meant to rescue Dutch Minister, but could have put IPCC and climate politics in jeopardy Politics of Science: boundary work No way of avoiding developing story lines yourself, creating meaning, excluding other readings Excercise totally irresponsible without a keen eye for the ethical and moral dimension; Background is a politics of doubt 37

38 Findings III. And outlook Politics is made of language and numbers Knowing the right words is being influential like numbers are key markers ( 2 degrees / 4 degree world ) Knowing the precise meaning of words at a particular moment is to be very influential What is the family of terms in use? What are the outer boundaries? Climate change / green growth / greening of the economy / sustainable production & consumption What does IPA community want to do in this sphere? What sort of development of our research agenda is appropriate? 38

39 Never waste a strong symbol 39

40 Thank you for your attention! 40