interfaces between science & society-collecting experiences for good practice

8/10/2019 Interfaces Between Science & Society-Collecting Experiences for Good Practice

1/156

INTERFACES BETWEEN SCIENCE & SOCIETYCollecting Experiences for Good Practice

EDITED BYAngela Guimares Pereira

Merc Agera Cabo

Silvio Funtowicz

BOOK OF ABSTRACTSIn te rna t iona l Worksop - M i lan o 27 - 28 Nov em be r 2003

http://alba.jrc.it/interfaces

\ EUROPEAN COMMISSIONJOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

UJ

$LO0 0o

UJ


2/156


3/156

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Wo r k s h o p

I n t e r f a c e s b e t w e e n S c i e n c e & S o c i e t yCol lec t ing exper iences fo r good prac t iceM i l a n o , 2 7 - 2 8 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3

B D D K D F A B S T R A C T S

E d i t e d B y

A n g e la G u i m a r e s P e r e i r aM e r c A g e r a C a b S i l v i a F u n t o w i c z

K n o w l e d g e A s s e s s m e n t M e t h o d o l o g i e s


4/156

THE MISSION OF THE JRCT h e m i s s i o n of the JR C is to p ro v i d e c u s t o m e r - d r i v e n s c i e n t if ic an d t e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t for the c o n c e p t i o nd e v e l o p m e n t i m p l e m e n t a ti o n and m o n i t o r in g o f EU p o l ic i e sAs a s e r v i c e o f th e E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o nth e JRC f u n c t i o n s as a r e f e r e n c e c e n t r e o f s c i e n c e an d t e c h n o l o g y for the U n i o n . C l o s e to the p o l ic ym a k i n g p r o c e s s e sit s e r v e s the c o m m o n i n te r e s t of the M e m b e r S t a te s w h i l e b e in g i n d e p e n d e n t of s p e c i a li n t e r e s t s w h e t h e r p r iv a t e or n a t i o n a l .

^ n | EUROPEAN COMM ISSIONI JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any personacting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which mightbe made of the following information.

EUR 20854EN European Communities, 2003

Printed in Italy


5/156

INTERFACES BETWEEN SCIENCE SOCIETYCOLLECTING EXPERIENCES FOR G O O D PRACTICE

In recent years science has come dow n from i ts acad emic iv ory tower, an d is now ma nag ed as a prod ucer of intel lectual pro pe rtyin a mark etpl ace of c orp ora te customers. There is anothe r t ransform ation , whe re science relate d to public pol icy has been broug htinto the forum of debate among concerned ci t izens. The f i rs t development has led to the industr ial isat ion of the research enterprise .The second has led to the enga gem ent of the public in the assessment of the relevant kn owle dge and the gove rnance o f i ts product ion.

I t is now ap pre cia ted that in a ful ly de mocrat ic society, science must submit to public scrutiny and pa rt ic ip at io n in the ap pr op ria tew a y s . The task of this conferen ce wil l be to explo re the implicat ions of this new extension of democ racy. The varie ty of interfacesbetw een science an d society wil l be ex pl or ed , so that gu idanc e on best pract ice in each are a can be ach ieve d.

In every ar ea , the workshop w il l be enco urag ed to a roun ded view of the issues. Thus, while revie wing posi t ive accomplishmentsand prospects for fur ther pro gress , the discussion should include diff icul t ies , disad van tage s an d dan gers of such develop ments . Inthis way the workshop should contr ibute to enrichment and deepening of our understanding of these important new trends in thesocial relations of science.

T H E M E S C O y E R E D ^ B Y T H E W O R K S H O P

Processes CO MM UN ICA TIN G A M O N G PLURAL PERSPECTIVES: Explorin g the communicat ion of diffe ren t kinds of inform ationamong pa r t i c ipan t s wi th d i ff e ren t backgrounds and pe r spec t ives .

M A N A G I N G U N C E RTA I N T Y, C O M P L E X I T Y A N D VA L U E - C O M M I T M E N T S : Exploring the management of thesequal i ta t ive aspects of information among the diverse perspect ives. Implementat ion of precaut ionary principles . KNOW LEDGE ASSESSMENT: Integrat ing the different methods and cr i ter ia of assessment of information among thediverse perspect ives.

ContextTRANSPARENC Y, OPENNESS A ND PARTICIPATION IN SCIENCE POLICY PROCESSES: Developments in the principles

and conduc t o f governan ce , e spec ia l ly r egu la to ry agenc ies , enab l ing b roa der pa r t i c ip a t ion , a t bo th na t iona l and EU leve ls . CO MM UN ITY BASED RESEARCH: Reviewing relevant wo rld wi de exp erienc e on community base d research, e .g.science shops, including their societal and policy impacts. Exploring how these can be useful in the context of new EC initiativessuch as science & society interfaces; science & governance; r isk and governance; e tc . EMERGING STYLES OF GOV ERNA NCE AN D NEW ICT: Exploring how the new Informatio n and Comm unicat ionTechnologies can become a convivial m edium of social learning and govern ance of scient if ic issues in the EU context . ("e2governance" = e l ec t ron ic and ex tended) .


6/156


7/156

Sys tems of Kno wledge for the Conserva t ion of the Ma ya Rainfores t (Mexico and Guate mala )David Manuel Navarrete

Whose VISTA and Why: Identifying Beneficiaries and Evaluating their Perceptions of Land Use Change in EuropeanTradi t iona l Agr icu l tura l LandscapesJacqueline de Chazal & Sandra Lavorel

Snails , Sex and Science: Communicating Values, Facts and Interests between Scientists and Stakeholders Page 27

Th e Tributyltin (TBT) s tory 187 0- 20 00 : Wh en Smal l was Sexual ly Powerfu lDavid Gee

Marit ime Shipping and the Environment. The Potential of Science and Scientists to Assist in Policy Planning for theEnvironment and in Raising Public AwarenessCafo C. ten Hallers-Tjabbes

Long- te rm: Thinking , Mon i tor ing , Communica t ing an d Coo pera t ingSofia Guedes Vaz

Risk Ma nage men t and Food Safe ty, Learn ing f rom the Ni t rofen CaseLucilla Gregoretti & Johannes Kern

Uncerta inty, Assumptions, and Va lue Commitments in the Kno wled ge Base of Comp lex En vironmental Problems Page 3 3

Towards Multi Dimensional Uncertainty AssessmentBy Jeroen Van Der Sluijs

Decisio n-Ma king unde r Uncerta inty: Is there any other Kind?Naomi Oreskes

Kno wle dge an d Values in Transdisciplinary ResearchBarbara Regeer

Cr ea tin g Ears for Inclusive Policy Page 39

Insti tut ional Div ide: Are They R eady To Listen To Cit izen ry?Angela Guimares Pereira

Looking a t Policy Mak ing from the Scientists Perspective: the Case of Air Pollution Research and PolicyFrank Raes


8/156

Gender Approach to Envi ronmenta l GovernanceMerc Agera Cabo

Influencing Policy Making through Reflexivity: a Feasible Challenge for Science AN D Public Part icipation?Matthieu Graye

Principles of Transparency: The Insti tut ionalisat ion of Public Engagement at the European Food Safety AgencyJavier Le za un & Robert Doubleday

The Post-Normal Times: Broadening the Cultural Context for Public Dialogue on Science and PolicySylvia S. Tognetti

Insti tut ional Arrangements and Public Part icipation: a Laboratory of Local GovernanceFrancesco M azze o Rinaldi

Science Comm unication: Hierarchies or Partnerships? Page 51

Science Comm unication: Hierarchies or Partnerships?Bruna De Marchi

Comm unication: the Ga p betw een Inform ation and Scientif ic Knowle dge . Role of the AssociationsNicole Alby

Informing to Educate. Can the Media Help to Enable Women to Safeguard their Health Themselves?Gianna Milano

Why Partnership with Users?Gabriella Salvini Porro

Science for Governance: the Implications of the Complexity Revolution Page 59

lhe Crash of Reductionism agains t the Comple xity of Reali ty

Mario Giampietro

For Simple Systems We Ca n Use Mo dels , but Comple x Systems Must Hav e Na rrati veTim Allen

Multiple Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal Metabolism (MSIASM): Examples of ApplicationsJesus Ramos Martin


9/156

Rethinking the Conc ept of Sound Science in the GM O Aren a?Anne Ingeborg Myhr

The Pros and Cons of Messy Governance Page 65

The Uncer ta in ty and Com plexi ty of Mana gin g Uncer ta in ty and C omple xi tyRoger Strand

How Exte nded Peer Communities Can Hand le Subtlety an d Com plex ity in the Assessment of Scientif ic Ma teria lsJerry Ravetz

The Norca t Pro jec t: Ma nag ing Uncer ta in ty, Comp lexi ty and Landscape va lues in a No rweg ian v i l l ageSilvia Caellas i Bolt

Participation Under UncertaintyMoses A. Boudourides

Technology, Foresight and People Page 71

A Concept of Part icipatory Technological Envisioning

Bruce Beck

A Strategic and Practical Approach to Sustainable Development of Cit iesPeter Head

Civil Infrastructure as if People Really MatterSarah Hunt

New Perspectives on Conservation of our Cultural Heritage at RiskSc/ra Menoni

Partic ipato ry Technology Assessment Processes: Reflections on Theory and Practice Page 77

Participatory Technology Assessment Processes: Reflections on Theory and PracticeJacquie Burgess

Issues an d Challen ges of Part ic ipato ry Techn ology AssessmentLuigi Pel Tizzoni

Par ticipa tory Environme ntal Risk Ap pra isa l in the UK - Practi t ioner Perspectives on Effective Practice in the Ar ea of Rad ioactive Wa ste


10/156


11/156

Time Scales, Uncertainty and Jargon: the Case of Science and Agri-Environmental PoliciesJuliette Young

Toothless Paper Tigers Digest Slower. Discussing Lessons from a Process-Oriented Science-Policy InterfaceTom Bauler

How the Sociology of Sciences could Help the Improvement of Science-Society Interfaces?Pierre Deceun'mck

Patents at the Interface amo ng Science, Society and the Law Page 701

Biotech Patents: A Case for Co-p rodu ction be twe en Science and the LawMariachiara Tallacchini & Amedeo Santosuosso

Instances of BiopiracyJoan Martinez Alier

Life Patening: Towards an Altern ative or a Reform?Emmanuela Gambini & Andrea Lusignani

Deliberating on Patents

Sara Casati

Science Shops as Interfaces betw een Science & Society Page 7 0 7

Science Shops as Universi ty-Society Interfaces An introductionHenk A. J. Mulder

Improving the Interaction between NGOs and Universi t ies through Science ShopsMichael Sgaard Jrgensen

The First Science Shop in RomaniaLaura Pricope

Non-Universi ty Based Science Shops in GermanyNorbert Steinhaus & Anke Valentin

Building Kno wle dge Partnerships? Social and Techno logical Condit ions of Conviv iali ty Page 1 13

Dom ination and R eciprocity: Cha racterising the (Existential , Socia l , Economic an d Technological) Condit ions for Dialogu e and Con viviali ty


12/156

Martin O'Connor

VIVIANE, the Virtual Visi t to my Environment: the Case of AgricultureJean-Marc Douguet

VGAS - a Convivial Exploration of Energy, Lifestyles and ClimateTiago Pedrosa, Angela Guimares Pereira, Ricardo Andrade, Nuno Cardoso, Edm undo Nobre, Pedro Pedrosa

Evalua t ing /Valu ing: Loca l Poten t ia l s as "Urban Cata lys t" S t ra tegyMaria Cerreta

Por ta l s for Knowledge Man agem entDenisa Neagu

Kno wled ge Assessment and the Science/Po licy Interface Page 7 2 7

Know ledge Soc ie ty Div ides . . . Kno wledge Assessment Br idgesRen Von Schomberg

The Social and Poli t ical Control of Knowledge in Modern SocietiesNico Stehr

Experts , Jurors and Judges: Managing the Science/Society Interface in CourtRuth McNally

Are Science and Technology Councils an Ap pr op ria te W a y of Pro viding Advice to the Policy Ma kin g Process?Katy Whitelegg

Imp rovin g Science - Society Re lationships thro ugh Foresig ht Exercises in Europ eVassilios Laopodis

E x h i b i t i o n s

The Terri tory and the Local Space in the Processes of Change Towards New Environmental Mentali t ies. Contributions from theAnalysis the Cit izens ' Part icipative Local Experiences Page 131M Angels Ali, Silvia Mateu, Laia Peir


13/156

Tools to Inform Deb ates, Dialogu es & Delibe rations Page 7 3 2ARTLab

New Media Technology Projects at Universi tt Pompeu Fabra Page 133Josep Blat

An Exam ple of Com munication Processes To Mi tiga te Risk In An Urb an Are a Exp osed To A Haz ardo us Chem ical Facil i ty Page 134Simona Caragliano, Scira Menoni

Wa t e r a t 3 6 0 D e g r e e s Page 135P Ciceri, E. Tibaldi, J. Some rville, P Cozens

Suppor t ing Col la bora t ive Learn ing in Regiona l Natura l Park P lanning: the Case of Gravin a in Pugl ia Page 136Adele Celino, Grazia Concilio

Partic ipato ry Processes an d Education al Pilot Projects: a Case-S tudy Concern ing Plant Genetics and Biotechnolog y Page 7 3 7M . Alexandra Abreu Lima, Lia Vasconcelos

Visua l i sa t ion of Land Use Change in the S ta te of Nor th R hine-Westpha l ia , Germ any Page 138Anke Valentin

Vi r t u a l G a r d e n Page 139YDreams

Tangitable - People Simulating Pollutant Transport Page 140YDreams


14/156


15/156

K E Y N D T E S P E E C H E


16/156


17/156


18/156

This communication process should not be seen as an extra cost ofd ia logue on pol icy- re la ted sc ience . Rather, i t i s an oppor tun i ty for alearning experience by all participants, including those with an apparentlysupe rior technical kn ow led ge . For i t is fa r from a simple process of'popular i s ing ' o r ' s impl i fy ing ' a rcane sc ien t i f ic concepts for the lessfor tun a te ine xpe r t membe rs . Wh i le tha t i s go in g on , those whoseawareness is less confined within a scientif ic paradigm have much toteach the exper t s about the qua l i ta t ive aspec ts o f the i r quant i ta t iveinformat ion .

M a n a g i n g U n c e r t a in t y , C o m p l e xi t y a n d V a l u e - C o m m i t m e n t s

These qua l i ta t ive aspec ts a re unders tood through the th ree headingsof this theme . Unce rtainty and value-com mitments should be fam ilia rnow, th rough the NUSAP t rad i t ion tha t i s now be ing c ar r ied forw arda t U t r e c h t a n d R I V M . B ut ' c o m p l e x i t y ' n e e d s s om e e x p l a i n i n g .

First , the policy issues in which science is involved, are inevitably andessen t ia l ly complex . This does no t mean ' compl ica ted ' , hav ing manycomponents and many relat ions among them. Rather, 'complex' refersto propert ies of a system and i ts sub-systems. The defining propertyfor us that a comp lex system is one wh ere there is no privile ge d pointof view. The differences in spatial and temporal grids, as well as infunction and purpose, among the various hierarchical levels, preventthe existence of a unique 'solution' to the pro ble m of c hara cterisin gsuch a system. A simpler ex am ple o f this same pr op er ty is a de signp r o b l e m , where some aspects of the si tuation are necessari ly sub-optimised for the sake of others, but there is no rigidly defining criterionfor which aspec ts a re favoured .

It is less commonly understood that the scientif ic knowledge is i tselfcomplex in this same sense. For i t comes to be through a variety oftechno-social processes of prod uction an d evalua tion, with judgem entsof ad equ acy and va lue be ing m ade a t every s tage . This aspec t o fknow ledge is conveyed in the Ped igree cate gor y of the NUSAP scheme.The Dutch wo rk in that tradit io n is , I believe, creatin g the circumstancesin which these issues will be capable of disciplined discussion andmanagement .

K n o w l e d g e A s s e s s m e n t

Although these considerations are being discussed here in the contextof p olicy -rele van t science, the processes are in fac t not so very diff ere ntfrom what happens at the research front of any active f ield of science.

There we f ind ac t ive deba te over c la ims to knowledge , a deba te tha tis sometimes quite impassioned, and sometimes even involved with issuesof pow er and prope r ty. There is a dee p d i ffe rence be twee n tha t caseand th i s , which provide s a key to the pro blm at iqu e of th i s p resen tworkshop. At the research front, the only interests who are competentto jo in the deba te a re those whose spec ia l exper t i se makes themfam i l ia r w i th the a rguments , t echniques and spe c ia l p i t fa l l s o f thepar t icu la r f ie ld of enq ui ry involv ed . There is necessar i ly a res t r ic tedpeer community for the quali ty assessment of the new products ofscientif ic research.

When we come to sc ience deployed in the po l icy process , i t i s verydi ffe ren t . Here an ex te rna l c r i t ique becomes re levant and poss ib le .There is a variety of grounds for such a critique. First, particular resultscan be simply irrelevant. The local conditions involved in the policy issuemay be to ta l ly d i ffe ren t f rom those of the s tudy tha t p rovided thed a t a . Or the re may be too much var ia b i l i ty in the f i e l d , or even toomuch uncertainty about what is out there. Results based on the artificiallypure and s tab le condi t ions of a cont ro l led sc ien t i f ic exper iment maybe of very l imited relevance to the complexit ies of a real si tuation. I tis possible that the structure of the research may i tself embody value-assumptions that are part of the issue in debate. Even a stat ist ical testmay be too selective, excluding ' false-posit ive ' results r igorously, andthereby becoming insufficiently sensit ive, missing possible evidence ofharm. Such considerations, and others, are not beyond the competenceof cri t ics whose technical knowledge is more general , but whose cri t icala w a r e n e s s i s w e l l d e v e l o p e d . In t h a t w a y, t h e r e i s a f r u i t f u lc o m p l e m e n t a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e t w o s o r ts o f p e r s p e c t i v e .

If we enrich the original concept of Post-Normal Science to interpret'systems uncertainties ' to include the subtlety and part iculari ty of localsi tuations, alon g with the commitments of pe ople affe cted by part icu larpolicies, then the scheme can prov ide insight for a l l these area s whe reth is workshop i s ende avour ing to advance g oo d p rac t ice .


19/156

Evaluating Experiments In The 'Ne w' Gov ernan ce O f Science And Technology: SomeReflections On Theory And Practice

D e p a r t m e n t o f G e o g r a p h y, U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e L o n d o n , U K .acquie Burgess

. b u r g e s s @ g e o g . u c l . a c . u k

Context

There is wid es pre ad rec ognition that the emer gence of 'new' strateg iesfor the governance of sc ience and technology ref lec ts the fa i lure ofestablished risk assessment techniques to deal effectively with intractableuncertainties and to accommodate the full range of public concerns. Incont ras t to t rad i t iona l pol icy-m aking b ased on mixtures of h ierarchica land m arke t - led s t ra teg ies , the new governa nce i s base d on ideas of' communica t ive par tnersh ip ' be tween d i ffe rent in te res ts who have (ormay have) a s take in the i ssue . In common wi th o ther pu bl ic pol icya r e a s , dec is ion-makers in sc ience and technology a re a t tem pt ing tocaptu re a much wid er ran ge of knowl edge a nd va lues than h i ther to .The las t ten years or so has seen in tense exper ime nta t io n an d ra pidinnovat ion in the des ign and implementa t ion of par t ic ip a tory appr a isa lprocesses in many dif fere nt pa rts of the wo rld . Following the first flushof enthusiasm , it is evi den t that many issues rem ain unres olve d. Fore x a m p l e , w h a t a r e a p p r o p r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n s p e c i a li s t s ,s takeho lders a nd c i t izens in com plex tec hnol ogy assessments? Is i tposs ib le genuine ly to in tegra te quant i ta t ive and qual i ta t ive appra isa lmethodologies a nd, if so, how would such hybri d findings be communicatedto pol icy -mak ers? Is the dr ive for consensus ac tua l ly pr efe rab le tof indi ng common ground or, more r i sk i ly, encou raging ex plo ra t io n ofd i s s en t b e t w e e n p a r t i e s ? Wi t h o u t m o r e c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a tpar t ic ipa t ion has made any d i ffe rence whatsoever to the outcome ofpolitica l or comm ercial decisions, why should stakeholders and memb erso f t h e w i d e r p u b l i c b o t h e r t o t u r n u p f o r f u t u r e e x e r c i s e s ?

E v a l u a t i o n : t h e ' f o rg o t t e n e l e m e n t ' o f p a r t i c i p a t o r y p r o c e ss e s

A body of shared 'good practice' within and between different countriesi s growing, much suppor ted by the EU in programmes such as Europtaand ULYSSES but the eva luat ive crite ria upon which such judgem entsare made are often implicit rather than explicit; emerging from anecdotal

evidenc e rather than more form al judgem ent. This rather i l l-dis ciplinedapp roac h to ' ev idence of e ffec t ive - i s com pounde d by the d i ffe rent ,over lapp ing goals of the actors and institutions in parti cipa tory processes.For example , sponsor ing agencies may wel l be seeking u t i l i ta r ian

outcomes such as 'educating' the public into accepting a new technology,building ' trust ' so that contentious decisions are acc epta ble to a maj oritya n d , in d i ff icu l t s i tua t ions , ' sed a t ing ' publ ic oppos i t ion by offer ing aconsultative process.

Practit ioners and process exp erts, including a gro win g number of socialscientists now engaged in action research alongside policy-makers arem o r e l i k e l y t o e m b r a c e subs tant ive outcome s in terms of a betterar t icu la t ion of the conf l ic t ing knowledges and d ivergent va lues whichu n d e r p i n d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s o n a p r o b l e m a n d a g r e e m e n t t o acourse of ac tion which, if not fully ag re ed by all the partie s, is at leastrecognised as having been achieved through a fa i r process . And fortheore t ic ians , there a re n o r m a t i v e pr inc ip les underpinning d i ffe rentmodels of relation ship b etw een the state, the mark et and civil society.Del ibera t ive and inc lus ive dec is ion-m aking processes may perh aps

demonst ra te the ex tent to which pol i t ica l power lessness , soc ia l andeconomic inequal i t ies , and envi ronmenta l in jus t ices can be redressed .

In the presen ta t ion , I sha l l a rgue tha t much more a t ten t ion needs begiven to the eva lua t ion of par t ic ipa tory processes in dec is ion-making .


20/156

Here is smal l bod y of l i tera ture which seeks to add ress quest ions ofeva lua t i on . Some eva lua t i ve c r i t e r i a a r e be i n g d e r i ve d f rom f i r s tpr inciples ; o thers are emerging f rom consensus between pract i t ionersbase d on f i rs thand exper ie nce . Par t ic ipants are a lso now being askedto evaluate thei r own exper iences in enga gem ent processes . But wha tis r equ i r ed i s a much more t ho r ough - g o ing ap p r o ac h t o e va lua t i o nwhich complements each s tage of a process f rom the in i t ia l analys is ofthe decis ion-s i tuat ion and the se lect ion of a methodology which is f i t -for-purpose , through to the immediate outputs an d longer term outcomes.

Some consensus is em ergin g arou nd a core set of eva luati ve 'prin ciples 'or cr i ter ia and I wi l l d iscuss these mor e ful ly in the p res en ta t io n:inclusiveness allied to questions of representativeness; trans parency;open-ness ; mutu a l respec t ; soc ia l learn ing; e ff ic iency; e ff icacy;a n d l eg i t imacy. I wi l l draw on our current research conducted un derthe sponsorship of the medical research char i ty, the Wel lcome Trust tosuggest how an expl ic i t commitment to evaluat ion a t each s tage of theresearch process , us ing the cr i ter ia abo ve, inf luenc ed wha t we di d ,how we did i t , and what effects i t had.

Th e eliberative Mapp ing project

Deliberative Mapping is an innovative part icipa tory tech nology assessmentme thod o lo g y b a sed o n ind i v idua l and g r o u p m u l t i - c ri t e r ia app r a i s a l s .It sits alongside citizens' juries and consensus conferences in its aims

o f p rom o t ing de ba t e be twee n expe r t s , s takeho l de r s and c i ti z en s f roma wide range of socia l groups . DM differs f rom jur ies and conferencesin t h a t i t f a c i l i t a t e s quan t i t a t i ve and qu a l i t a t i ve a pp r a i s a l , b a se d i nboth individual and group-based del ibera t ions (see for a copy of thef i na l p r o j e c t r ep o r t ) . Bo t h spec i a l i s ts and c it i z ens c om p le t e d t heapp r a i s a l p roce s s d e t e rmin ing t he r e l a t i v e pe r fo rm a n c e o f op t i o n sto clo se t he ' g ap ' be twe en t h e number o f pa t i en t s r equ i r i ng k i d ne yt r an sp l an t and t he number o f dono r s cu r r e n t l y ava i l ab l e - p r o v id inga unique oppor tuni ty for comparat ive assessment of cr i ter ia se lect ion

and opt ion performance. Al l opt ions are character ised by sc ient i f ic andtechnical uncer ta int ies and /o r ra ise socia l , economic, cul tura l or e th icaldi ff icul t ies . In th is context , there i s a pa r t icula r valu e in appro ach es topubl ic engagement , which provide for effect ive in tegrat ion and mutuall e a r n i n g b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t s p e c i a l i s t s , s t a k e h o l d e r s a n d c i t i z e nperspect ives .

The criteria outlined above were used to design the Deliberative Mappingprocess, guide its implementation, and assess its outputs and outcomes.In the pres enta tion , I will re flect critica lly on the lessons lear ne d by th e

research team, augm ented b y comments f rom the di fferen t par t ic ipan ts

in the process; specialists who a tten de d a proje ct dissemination work shopi n J u n e 2 0 0 3 ; a n d t w o e x t e r n a l a s se s s o r s f o r t h e p r o j e c t .

In s u m m a r y, t h e d e l i b e r a t i v e m a p p i n g a p p r o a c h d o e s c o m b i n einclusiveness an d openness t o d ive rge n t pe r spec t i v e s , specificity androbustness in it s pol icy impl ica t ions , transparency a n d auditability fort h i r d p a r t i e s , and efficiency a n d added value f o r sponso r ing p o l i cyinstitutions. How ever, there ar e also imp orta nt constraints and limitationsto be ack now ledg ed. One key issue that ar ises in any app rais a l process w h e the r d e l i be r a t i v e o r a n a ly t i c conce rns t he de g re e t o w h ichoutcomes may be subject to invis ib le cont ingencies . The DM processwas des igned both to minimise and provide a check on such factors .However, th is does not preclude the poss ibi l i ty that cer ta in aspects ofthe findings may be artefacts of the process. For instance, there is someevidence that in ter-personal encounters between specia l is ts and c i t izensat a Joint Workshop may have affected appraisa ls for cer ta in opt ions .I f a spec i a l i s t wa s f e l t t o be f r i end l y, open and a p p roachab l e , someof the c i t izens responded more posi t ively to ' the i r ' opt ion in subsequentdiscussion.

It also seems that the process of weighting of criteria for option appraisalmay ac tual ly be condu cted by specia lis ts in a ra ther d i ffe ren t fashionthan is a s su m ed i n t he theo re t i c a l f r a me wo rk fo r dec i s i on ana ly s i s .Ref lect ing other PTA research f indings , there are a lso quest ions aroundstrategic behaviour in the assessment of the options a fac tor address edby t he h i g h au d i t ab i l i t y o f t h e MC M proce du re . F ina l l y, a l t hough i tmay be seen as eff ic ient in re la t ion to the added value of the outputs ,Deliberative Mapping i s qui te comple x, t ime consuming and expens ive .I t needs s t rong project man age me nt and high qua l i ty fac i l i ta t io n. Thisplaces s ignif icant dem ands on sponsors , pract i t ion ers and par t ic ip antsa l i ke . Such investments of t ime, effor t an d resources are not poss ibleo r a p p r op r i a t e i n e ve ry con t ex t and shou l d no t be und e r t aken l i gh t ly.

Ou r expe r i en ce w i th Deliberative Mapping indicate s that it is ind ee dposs ible to take c i t izens and specia l is ts through a very demanding andcomplex process of opt ion appraisa l to ar r ive a t a se t of robust resul tsthat may assist strategic transpl anta tion policy decisions. The eva luativ ec r i t e r ia p r o v id e d a t heo re t i c a l f r a mew ork w i th in wh ich ou r expe r imen tcould be designed and assessed. Specific assumptions (and aspirations)a b o u t t he ' p rop e r con duc t ' o f i n s ti t u ti ons , po l i cy -mak e r s , sponso r s ,pract i t ioners and par t ic ipants in PTA processes are embedded in thesec r i t e r i a . The De l i be r a t i ve Map p in g p r o j ec t suggest s t h a t , f o r c e r t a i na c to r s , e xpec t a t i ons o f ' p rop e r cond u c t ' do i n d eed ca l l t ha t conduc tfo r t h . So , f o r e x a m p le , i n d iv idua l m e mber s o f t h e pub l i c , do t ake onthe role of c i t izens concerned to ar t icula te 'publ ic reasons ' in thei r


21/156

delib eratio ns. If insti tutions and stakehold er interests are seen to bebehaving strategically in their own self interest in processes, and ifpolicy-makers continue merely to pay l ip-service to the outcomes, i t isuncertain that part icipatory science and technology assessment wil l beable to maintain any claim to democratic legit imacy.


22/156

Quicksandy K now ledge Bases. The N ee d For Gu ida nce For Dea l ing Wi th Uncer ta in ty,Assumptions And Value Commitments In Environmental Assessment

C o p e r n i c u s I n s ti t ut e f o r S u s t a i n a b l e D e v e l o p m e n t a n d. I n n o v a t i o n , U t r e c h t U n i v e r s i t y. T h e N e t h e r l a n d s j . p . v a n d e r s l u i j s @ c h e m . u u . n l

Jero en P. va n der Sluijs

T he k n o w l e d g e b a s e a v a i l a b l e f o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g o n ( g l o b a l )envi ronm enta l problem s i s chara c ter i s ed by imp erfec t unders tandingof the com plex systems involv ed, assum ption ladenness of the mod elsused to assess these sys tems, va lu e- la denn ess of m any of thesea s s u m p t i o n s , a n d s c i e n t i f i c a n d s o c i e t a l c o n t r o v e r s i e s . F o r m a n ycon tem pora ry env i ronm enta l i ssues , dec is ions wi l l need to be m adebefore conclusive scientific evidence is available while at the same timethe potentia l error costs of w rong decisions can be huge. The com binationof th is soc ie ta l contex t of kn ow led ge pr oduc t ion and use and theepis tem ologic a l imi ta t ions of the assessment models used , impl ies anurgent need for fu l ly- f ledged management of uncer ta in ty and extendedpeer rev iew of under ly ing assumpt ions .

S i n ce t h e e i g h t i e s o f th e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y c o m p u t e r m o d e l s a r eincreas ingly be ing used in comp lex env i ronm enta l assessments : theyenable ana lys ts to s imula te rea l i ty and run severa l scenar ios , therebyi n t e g r a t i n g k n o w l e d g e f r o m d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l in e s . T h e a s s u m p t i o nladenne ss of the models thems elves , the use of mo dels an d thetranspare ncy o f models have been crit icised over the years. The buildingof environ mental assessment models inev itably involves subjective choicesa n d v a l u e - l a d e n a s s u m p t i o n s . L a c k o f t r a n s p a r e n c y w i t h r e g a r d t othese assumptions and uncertainties may lead to scandals and loss oftrust in the scientific basis for po licies. A historic ex am ple is the s canda lof the MASA energ y scenarios in the eighties: In a crit ical r eview of th emodels used for these scenarios Keepin and W ynn e (1 984) demo nstrated

convincing evidence of ' informal guesswork' and a lack of peer reviewand qu al i ty cont ro l , ' r a i s ing ques tions about pol i t ica l b ias in sc ien ti f icanaly s is ' , l ead ing to a c r is i s wi th in the ins t i tu te . M ore recent ly theNether lands Nat ional Ins t i tu te for Publ ic Heal th and the Envi ronmentencountered a s imi lar scandal : In 999 a senior s ta t i s t ic ian of RIVMHans de Kwaadsteniet, publicly accused the institute of l ies and deceitwi th studies based on the v i r tua l rea l i ty of poo r ly v a l id a te d com putermodels that were hardly based on measurements. This led to vehement

soc ie ta l deb ate abo ut the use of m odels in envi ronm enta l assessmentstudies and the robustness of RIVM's environmental numbers, with primet ime media coverage over a per iod of severa l months and ques t ionsin par l iament .

The cont roversy u l t im ate ly ga ve r i se to the develo pme nt of a s ta te ofthe a r t Guidance for Uncer ta in ty Assessment and Communica t ion wi thinputs from an international multidisciplinary team of uncertainty experts.T h e g u i d a n c e o f f e r s a s s i s t a n c e t o e m p l o y e e s o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d sE n v i r o n m e n ta l A s se s sm e n t A g e n c y ( R I V M / M N P ) i n m a p p i n g a n dcommunica t ing uncer ta in t ies in envi ronmenta l assessments . I t a ims tosuppor t dea l ing wi th uncer ta in t ies in a broad sense ( tha t i s , b roadert h a n o n l y a p p l y i n g r e a d y - m a d e to o l s f o r u n c e r t a i n t y a n a ly s i s a n dcommunica t ion) , for in a l l par t s of envi ronmenta l assessments choicesare ma de which have a bear in g on the wa y uncer ta in t ies a re d ea l tw i t h . In the Guida nce s pec ia l a t ten t ion i s pa id to the fo l lowin g phasesof environmental assessments:

p r o b l e m f r a m i n g ;involvement of s takeh olders ;se lec t ion of indica tors ;a p p r a i s a l o f k n o w l e d g e b a s e ;ma ppi ng and assessment of re lev ant uncer ta in t ies ;repor t ing of uncer ta in ty informat ion .


23/156

The core of the guidance is set up as a checklist that can be used bycompetent practi t ioners as a (self) el ici tat ion instrument or by projectmanagers as a gu id ing ins t rument in problem f raming and pro jec tdesign. The checklist builds further on the Checklist for Qu ality Assistancein Environmental Mo del l ing de ve lop ed by Risbey et al . , (20 01 ) but isw i d e r i n i ts a p p l i c a b i l i t y b y c o v e r i n g th e b r o a d e r p r a c t i c e s o f

e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s se s s m e n t a s p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n t h e R I V M .The checkl i s t he lps iden t i fy ing poten t ia l p i t fa l l s in the process ofuncertainty management, related to each of the phases l isted above.It facil i tates a diagnosis of uncertainties for the case at hand in viewof i ts societal context , function of the assessment, and the specificnatures, types and characteristics of the uncertainties and value loadingsinvo lved . On the basis of tha t diagnosis step , the guid anc e structuresthe generation of a priori t ised l ist of the uncertainty types and sourcesthat need p art icula r at tention for the case at han d. The guida nce alsocontains a tool catalogue, describing for each tool i ts main purposeand use, sorts and locations of unce rtainty ad dres sed , require d resources,strengths and l imitat ions, guidance on i ts application, typical pi tfal ls ,and re fe rences to handbooks , user-guides , web resources , examplestudies, experts and the like. The guidance then assists in matching thespecific characteristics of the case to the specific uncertainty assessmentmethods avail abl e in the toolbox to address diffe rent type s of uncertainty.A directed effort to analyse and communicate uncertainty is usuallymade in the las t two phases ment ioned . However, the choices andjudgements that are made in the other four parts are also of highimpor tance for ascer ta in ing the mos t re levant uncer ta in t ies and forcommunica t ing abo ut them. The Guid anc e i s in tend ed to s t imula tereflection on choices, which are made in different parts of environmentalassessments. This can lead to more conscious, more transparent andbet te r-documented choices and a s we would a rgue a better wayof dealing with uncertainties.

Similar to a patient information leaflet alert ing the patient to r isks andunsuitable uses of a medicine, the guidan ce and its uncertainty assessmenttoo ls enable the de l ivery of po l icy- re levant quant i ta t ive in format iontogether with the essential warnings on i ts l imitat ions and pitfal ls . I tthereby promotes the responsible and effective use of the informationin policy processes.


24/156

Why Knowledge Assessment?

S i l v i o F u n t o w i c zS i l v i o F u n t o w i c z , E C - J R C / I P S C - K A M , I t a l y.

, s i l v i o . f u n t o w i c z @ j r c . i t

I

In most spheres of industrial an d inst i tut ional activity, the form aliz atio nof quality-assurance has become the norm. In academic science however,alon g with cultural pursuits like the arts , the methods a re st i l l larg elyi n f o r m a l . Science has bee n almost unique in hav ing self-assessme ntper formed by prac t i t ioners ra ther than by ex te rna l ' c r i t i cs ' . To whatextent and in what ways this must change, to keep pace with science'sexpanding ro le in publ ic l i fe , i s becoming an urgent ques t ion in thegovernance of science.

As long as sc ience rema ined ma in ly acade mic , p roblem s of qu a l i tywere assumed to be reso lved by the very na ture of the sc ien t i f icendeavour. The informal systems of checking by p eers seemed a rat ionalresponse to the problem, rather than a culturally contingent mechanismcharacterist ic of a part icular epoch.

Sc ien t i f ic fac t s were be l ieved to be d i scovered by some infa l l ib leM e t h o d , and scientists were themselves viewed as being endowed withcer ta in super ior mora l qua l i t i es tha t p ro tec ted them f rom ord inaryhuman frai l t ies. This lat te r could be exp la ine d in socio logica l terms,as in the ' four norms' of scientif ic practice e xp ou nd ed by Rob ert K.Mer ton in 1 94 2 , o r ph i losop hica l ly, as in the comm it ted a t temp ts a tself-refutat ion supposed by Karl Popper to be normal scientif ic practice.

With the onset of the industrial ization of science after World War II ,the self-conscious study of science as a social activity, including themethods of qua l i ty -assura nce , beca me inevi ta b le . Gro wth in s ize ,cap i ta l inves tment , sca le , and soc ia l d i ffe ren t ia t io n wi th in sc ience ,created divisions between managers and research workers, as well asbe tw een research ers and teache rs in un ivers i ti es . A Gemeinschaft(communi ty) o f scholars could no longer rea l i s t i ca l ly be assumed.

Derek d e Solla Price noticed in the early 60's that at the leadin g Britishscience reference library, only a minority of journals was ever requested.

The contents of the others could be inferred to have no interest , andhence to be of ve ry low scientific quality . This phen ome non is a r emi nde rthat quali ty is a relat ion al at tr ibu te. 'Fitness for purp ose ' dep end s onwhose purposes are dominant; not always perhaps those of a communitydevoted to the advancement of learning, but possibly those scientistsworking under constraints of 'publish or perish ' .

This analysis provides a background for the current interest in trust asan essential element of practice in science, in society and in theirinteractions. The broader society has provided resources to the esotericactivit ies of science because i t t rusts the scientif ic community to makegood use of them. There has always been an undercurrent of distrust ,based on evidence ei ther of pointless research or of malign applications.

Now tha t science is so de ep ly involve d in techno logy a nd re late d policyproblems that crucial ly affect public health and welfare, the tradit ionaltrust can no longer be assumed. I t wo uld ap pe ar to be necessary forthe principles and practices of accountabil i ty to be extended from theins t i tu t ions of po l i t i ca l governance (as by represen ta t ive democracy)to those ins t i tu t ions , whic h gove rn sc ience an d it s app l ica t io ns .

Qual i ty cont ro l in research sc ience has become more d i ff icu l t as there la t ive ly in f le x ib le technica l requi rements of the t rad i t ion a l p r in t ingprocess have been re laxed .


25/156


26/156

Tr a n s p a r e n c y, O pe n n e s s A n d P a r t ic i p a t io n In S c ie n c e P o l ic y P r o c es s e s

M a r i a E d u a r d a G o n a l v e sI ISCTE - Ins t itu to Sup er io r de C inc ias d o Tra ba lho. e d a E m p r e s a , U n i v e r s i d a d e d e L i s b o a , P o r t u g a l .. m e g o n c a l @ n e t c a b o . p t

At present, science finds i tself , so to say, at a crossroad. On the oneh a n d , science is g re a t ly respec ted as a source of in for mat io n andw e a l t h , and as the provider of solutions for technical as well as socialprob lem s. On the other ha nd , i t is losing i ts aur a of neutra l i ty an dobjectivity, and is perceived as a factor contributing to the "risk society".

G o v e r n m e n t s a n d t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n g i v e h i g h p r i o r i t y t o t h eencouragement of research and development, and innovation. This goalhas even been pol i t i ca l ly s t rengthened by the dec la ra t ion of theEuropean Summit, in 2000, of Europe's ambition to become the mostcompet i t ive and dynamic wor ld knowledge-based economy. However,th i s des ign i s p roc la imed a t a t ime when rap id and profound changespervade the social context of science and technology. These includethe growing publ ic awareness of r i sks der ived f rom indus t r ia l andtechnological progress, together with an increasing high value assignedto the environment and public health; changing att i tudes towards scienceand technology; and claims for more active part icipation by the publicin science-based decision making.

As a consequence, European governments begun to realise that poli t icalc h o i c e s i n v o l v i n g s c i e n c e n e e d w i d e s p r e a d s o c i a l c o n s u l t a t i o n s .Enlightenment concepts of science are givin g w ay to new, more pluralistapproaches that demand not only the exercise of scientif ic expert ise,but also negotiation of the end results of its use.

In this connection, poli t ical theory e lab ora ted the concept of governa nceas distinct from the tradit ional concept of go vernment. Wh ile governmen tinvolves formal inst i tut ions of a legislat ive, executive or judicial nature,governance is in the hands of informal regulation mechanisms, consistingo f p u b l i c i n s ti t u ti o n s , i n d i v i d u a l s , c o m p a n i e s , n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a lorgan isations an d other groups in civil society, with co-op era tion andco-ordination at various levels.Hence a central question now is how to produce the information and

knowledge necessary for publ ic as wel l as p r iva te dec is ion-making inways that guarantee i ts scientif ic soundness and democratic legit imacy.To wh at extent is science-ba sed decision -making respo nding to currentc la ims for new governance modes based on t ransparency, opennessand par t ic ipa t ion?

The init iat ives launched recently by the EU, within the fra me wo rk o f i tsscience and technology policy, to address social resistance to technologicalchange provide a start ing point for discussing new forms of governanceof science and inn ovation. In recent documents of the Europ ean Comm ission,in par t icu la r the commu nica t ion on 'Sc ience , soc ie ty an d c i t i zens in

Europe' , and the f irst Science and Society action p l a n , while stressingthe need to st imulate and support popularisat ion of science activit ies,the EC concedes that a two-w ay d ialo gue betw een science and societyis required 'where each listens as much as talks'. Science and Society. ActionPlan, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, 2002.T he i m p o r t a n c e t o p r o m o t e p u b l i c d i a l o g u e a n d t o " d e m o c r a t i s eexper t i se " is ackn owle dged , whereby o ther sources of in format ion andknowledge such as e th ica l , exper ien t ia l , economic a re cons idered asre levant for dec is ion-making .

In pa ral lel , the inst i tut ions an d proce dures of r isk regulatio n are bein greformed wi th a v iew to guaran tee th ree main ob jec t ives :


27/156

t h e i n s t i t u t i ona l i ndependence f rom v e s t ed i n t e r e s t s o f expe r t r i s kassessors and pol icy-makers ; t ransparency of ins t i tu t ional processes ;and t he r ep r e sen t a t i ve and de l i be r a t i ve ch a r ac t e r o f t he p rocedu re sto be ad op ted , which should involve expl ic i t engagem ent of a bro ade rrange of s takeholders .

One i l lus t ra t ion of these developme nts i s the ado pt ion by the Europea nPa r l i a m e n t and the C o unc i l o f Regu l a t i o n (EC) No 17 8 / 20 02 o f 28

January 2 00 2 laying do wn the gene ral pr inciples and requirements offoo d law, es tabl ishing the European Food Safe ty Author i ty and layingdow n procedures in mat ters of food safe ty. An add i t io nal i l lus t ra t ionis offere d by Direct ive 200 1 / l 8 /EC of 1 2 March 20 01 on the del ibera ter e l ea s e i n t o t h e en v i r onm en t o f g e n e t i c a l l y m o d i f i e d o rgan i sms .

Regula t ion n 178/2002 s t ipula tes that in order to achieve the generalobject ive of a h igh level of protect ion of human heal th and l i fe , foodlaw shall be based on risk analysis and that risk assessment shall relyon ava i l ab l e s c i en ti f ic ev idence and unde r t ak e n i n an i nd epen den t ,object ive and t ransparent manner. Provis ions are included on publ icc onsu l ta t i on and i n fo rma t ion i n the p roce s s o f p r e pa r ing , eva lua t i ngand revising food law. The functions of the recently created Food SafetyAuthor i ty are to provide sc ient i f ic advice and sc ient i f ic and technicalsupp or t to the Communi ty, to moni tor r i sks , and commu nicate them tothe public. Independence, transparency, confidentiality and communicationare la id down as bas ic pr inciples of the FSA.

In turn, Directive 2001/1 8/EC states that persons submitting a notificationfo r a de l i be r a t e r e l e a s e o f GM O fo r ma r k e t o r o th e r pu r pose s a r eobl iged to carry out a pr ior environmental impact assessment . Publ icconsul ta t ion of the publ ic and of in teres ted groups is provided for aspar t of the author is ing procedure .

I t comes out that foo d and environmental r isk associa ted wi th indust r ia lproduct ion an d t ra de is being tack led by mechanisms and proce duresplac ed a t the ba ck-e nd o f the innovat ion p rocess , that i s to say, oncethe decis ion has been taken to develop a technology, or to p lace aproduct in to the market . The accent has been put on publ ic control ofthe products and thei r impa cts on publ ic heal th or the environment , andthe use of sc ient i f ic advice by the regula tory sys tem; ra ther than oninvestment decis ions , research a nd de velo pm ent choices , or the ways c i e n t i f i c e x p e r t i s e is u s e d a t t h e e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l l e v e l .

However, g iven the cr i t ica l socia l c l imate surrounding the product ionand uses of scientific and technological knowledge, one should recogniset ha t t he con t ex t o f im p l i c a t i o n mus t be ad d r e s s ed , a s we l l a s th econtext of appl ic a t ion , and that sc ient if ic knowledg e must be not only

r e l i a b l e bu t a lso soc ia l l y r obu s t (Nowotny, Sco tt and G ibbons , 20 0 1 , 2 40 ) . Wh a t i s mean t i s t h a t t he consequences o f know ledge andinnovat ion processes imply consul t ing other know ledg e producers andusers, and a lso wid er soc ia l consti tuencies abou t the impl ica t ions ofpar t icula r projects , in ord er to gather a d ive rs i ty of pe rspect ives . Interms of science policy, one can draw from this suggestion the corollarythat there should be a del ibera te s t ra tegy of sc ient i f ic ins t i tu t ions toiden t i f y and a r t i cu l a t e t he con t ex t o f im p l i ca t i o n o f t he i r r e s e a r chprojects or ac t iv i t ies . I t has been ad mit te d that doubts and disputesar ise in socie ty espec ia l ly w here d eb ate on those topics is couchedsole ly in terms heal th or environmental impacts , for exam ple , ex cludingo th e r a rg u m e n t s s uc h a s e t h i ca l , consumer o r e conomic on e s .

Accordingly, a change is required in the cul ture of publ ic as wel l aspr ivate ins t i tu t ions that would lead to greater openness and dia loguego i n g beyon d pub l i c educa t i on a n d marke t r e s ea r ch t o b e c o me ano rm a l and i n t eg ra l p r oce s s o f s c i ence -ba s e d dec i s i on -ma k ing .

Reference

Now otny, Helga , Peter Scot t and Mic hael Gib bon s (20 01 ) , Re-thinkingScience. Knowledg e and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, C a m b r i d g e ,Polity.


28/156

L in kin g S c i e n c e , P o l ic y A n d Lo c a l G o v e r n a n c e : M o v i n g B e y o n d 'Ta l k T h e Ta l k ' T h r o u g hC o m m u n i t y - b a s e d R e s e a r c h

CSIRO Sus ta inable Ecosys tems , Br i sbane , Aus t ra l ia ., j e n n y. b e l l a m y @ c s i r o . a ue n n i f e r B e l l a m y

Creating inst i tut ions and practices to meet the challenge of sustainabledeve lopment and to be f lex ib le enough to be adapt ive to change i sa rguably one of the more impor tan t cha l lenges conf ront ing soc ie ty.There is a long history of criticism however that many existing institutionala r rangements a re se t up to meet the needs of par t icu la r governmenta g e n c i e s o r r e s o u r c e m a n a g e r s , r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g d e v e l o p e d a sada pt ive man agement f rameworks for sus ta inable deve lopmen t . Theyalso often entrench inequit ies. Deficiencies often high lighte d include:

o A mismatch of the ju r i sd ic t ions of po l i t i ca l dec is ion-m aking ,benef i t s , cost bear ing and implem enta t ion ;

o Highly formal i sed and adve rsar ia l modes of dec is ion-making;o Sub ord in a t ion of the publ ic in te res t to a spec ia l in te res t ;o Lack of coo rd in a t io n across ju r i sd ic t ions an d ' s i lo -ba se d '

a p p r o a c h e s ;o P o o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g l e v e l s o f g o v e r n m e n t ;o Poor ins t i tu t iona l s t ruc tures wi th in ju r i sd ic t ions lea d in g to

' ins t i tu t iona l iner t ia ' wi th the f ragmenta t ion of respons ib i l i t i es anddecision-making across multiple bodies;

o Piecemeal app roac hes to problem s that are often systemicallyw r o n g ; and

o Unrealist ic assumptions of pre dic tab il i ty and a fai lu re to usescience effectively.

In response to this cri t icism, new mo dels of g ove rna nce th at d evo lved e c i s i o n -m a k i n g t o m o r e c o l l a b o r a t i v e g o v e r n a n c e f r a m e w o r k s a r eemerg ing . Wh ile these innovations incorporate elements of best practicein reg ion a l deve lo pme nt and envi ronmen ta l governan ce , the rhe tor icbehind these emerging governance systems is dist inctively different inseveral areas relat ing to:

o Empow erment and legit ima cy through mean ingful and inclusivepart icipation of al l those who are l ikely to be responsible for, or toexperience impacts from, decisions and actions;

o Col la bora t iv e or consensual dec is ion-ma king;

o E n h a n c e d g e o g r a p h i c a l a n d i n t e r a n d i n t r a - g o v e r n m e n t a lc o o r d i n a t io n a n d c o o p e r a t i o n ;

o A more holist ic an d inte gra ted science that crosses trad it ion alk n o w l e d g e b o u n d a r i e s ;

o Learn ing through ad apt ive man agem ent ; ando Equity and fairness of process.

These emerg ing co l labora t ive par tnersh ip approaches re f lec t the fac ttha t sus ta inable so lu t ions re ly on implementa t ion f rameworks tha t a resupported by long-term democratic authori ty, social cohesion, legit imacyand accountab i l i ty.

In the last de ca de , there has been a vast amount of ' talk ing ' abou t themer i ts o f such co l lab ora t ive f ra mew orks for sus ta inable d eve lopm ent .But wh at is the rea l i ty? Exp er ien ce shows the de ve lop me nt of

co l labora t ive par tnersh ips is o f ten complex , dynamic an d evolu t ionaryand not always successful . Although communities have developed plansand s t ra teg ies , there has been a d i sappo in t ing lack of ac t ion a r i s ingfrom all this ' talk ' . Importa ntly, 'walking the walk' through implem entingac t ions a r i s ing f rom a l l the p lanning and s t ra teg is ing to change thewa y we use and m ana ge our resources , has proven d i ff icu l t fo r theindividuals, inst i tut ions and communities involved.

Attr ibutes of not only the exist ing governance arrangements but alsoscientif ic cultures are major contributors to this fai lure. .


29/156

As such, there i s gro wing recogn i t ion of the need fo r new tec hnicalsolutions and community investment to achieve sustainable development.This requires change in the institution and culture of science to one thatsuppor ts a mo re hol is t ic and i n te gra ted sc ience process , the cre at ionof a more c ivic sc ience and the re thinking of the role of sc ient i f icadv o ca cy i n t he po l i cy p roce s s . I n pa r t i c u l a r, new co l l a b o r a t i v e

governance models demand more par t ic ipatory and discurs ive researchdesigns that :o Promote demo crat ic del ibera t ion about the problems that c iv icsoc i e ty and no t on ly ' t e chn i c a l expe r t s ' se e a s imp or t a n t ;o Giv e grea ter s ta tus an d respect to 'grass roots ' or socie ta lk n o w l e d g e ;o Fos te r de l i be r a t i on abo u t va l ue s , p r i o r i t i e s and ac t i ons ;o Embrace new fo rms o f kno wled g e and mu l t i p l e sou rc e s o fi n fo rma t ion ;o Stimulate local innovation and emphasise principles and processesr a t h e r t h a n r e c i p e s a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s ; a n do Supp o r t s co l l abo ra t i v e l e a rn in g a n d adap t i ve i n s t it u t ions .

Innovat ions through more del ib era t ive and discurs ive approa ches basedon col laborat ive par tnerships between key s takeholders in government ,indust ry and communi ty and adapt ive learning approaches that suppor tthe constant improvement in the knowledge base of all these stakeholdersoffer an important new framew ork for deal ing wi th the vast heterogenei tyof interests and social values in our society. In ad di tio n, they hav e thepo t en t i a l f o r bu i l d ing l oca l gove r na nc e capac i t y t o dea l w i t h t hecomplex, dynamic, in terdependent and evolving sus ta inabi l i ty i ssues ofour time; issues where the time horizons are l o n g , where decis ions arecomp lex, where the r isks are h igh , uncer ta in ty gr eat and responsibil i tiesare f ragmented across ins t i tu t ions and communi t ies .

Thi s pa pe r d r aw s on r ecen t expe r i en ce s i n co l l a bo r a t i ve r e s ea r chpar tnerships for regional sus ta inable development to ident i fy some keycha l l e nge s and opp o r tun i t i e s f o r l i nk i ng sc i ence , po l i cy a nd l oca lgovernan ce through comm uni ty-based research. These innovat ions areen gag ing bo th pub l i c and p r i va t e s e c to r p l a y e r s and f i l l i ng g a p spar t icula r ly where no one agency or bo dy has jur isdic t ion. Important ly,they provide a f rame work to move beyon d ta lk ing the ta lk to walkingthe wa lk through commitment to rea l implemen tat ion of manag eme ntact ions in a s t ra tegic manner that shows potent ia l for moving towardsmore sustainable and equitable resource use and management outcomes.


30/156

G o v e r n a n c e a n d I n fo r m a t io n a n d C o m m u n i c a t io n Te c hn o l o g ie s in 2 0 1 0

A n t n i o S . C m a r aI N e w U n i v e r s i t y o f L i s b o n , L i s b o n , P o r t u g a l, a s c @ m a i l . f c t . u n l . p t

Governance, at the European Union level , implies processes to set rulesand policies that ul t imately affect the ci t izens of the member states.Rapid advances in in forma t ion and communica t ion technologies a r ehaving two major consequences on such processes: they are based oninternal information infrastructures; and the general public now demandst h a t t h e y b e c o m e e x t e r n a l l y a v a i l a b l e o n t h e I n t e r n e t .

By 201 0 , the four th genera t ion of m obi le communica t ions wi l l e nab lepersona l mul t imedia communica t ion us ing a 1 00 M bps inf ras t ruc ture(the third gen era tion is exp ect ed to offer 2 Mbp s). Tele-presenc e willbecome common. Processing speeds will enable realist ic renderings ofvirtual worlds. A network of wireless sensors (both remote and local)will feed information infrastructures on topics such as securi ty, t rafficand envi ronment . Radio tags wi l l rep lace bar codes to fac i l i t a te thetracking of objects from Euro bil ls to vehicles.

The development of fourth generation infrastructures, wireless sensornetworks, and a radio tags based economy are huge challenges. Thereare certainly dangers such as the creation of a European Big Brother.B u t e c o n o m i c , e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d s e c u r it y a rg u m e n t s w i l l p r e v a i l .

Following these assumptions, one can anticipate the design of a systemsup portin g EU gove rnan ce in 201 0 ( let us call i t EU1 0). EU1 0 m ay bethe f irst system to successfully bring together symbolic and real worlds.The symbolic world will be a scientif ic, technological , legal and financialknowledge base fed by exist ing information acquisi t ion systems (suchas those a l r ead y ex is t ing and the sensor ne tworks to be dep loye d) .

The rea l wor ld wi l l be represen ted by a v i r tua l represen ta t ion of theEU that ma y reach a 5 0 cm resolution per pi xel (Vir tual EU). The Virtua lEU wi l l be an in te r face to the know ledg e-b ase d sys tem: by poin t ingto a p lace a l l re levant knowledge about tha t p lace wi l l be re t r ieved .The Vir tua l EU may be a l so used to v i sua l ize s imula t ions a t loca l ,

r e g i o n a l , na t iona l and t rans-na t iona l l eve ls .

EU10 will support European Union internal work processes. I t wil l alsobe used for communication with EU cit izens.

The system will be available for mult iple platforms: extra-large screensin dec is ion thea t res ; d ig i ta l t e lev is ion se t s ; persona l computers ; andmobi le devices . The f i r s t two p la t forms wi l l be increas ing ly used forvirtual meetings across Europe. By using the Virtual EU as an interface,cha t t ing and ins tan t t rans la t ion fac i l i t i es such meet ings wi l l ex tendprinciples already common in massive multiplayer games. Having grownup pla yin g such games, EU cit izens will certainly a do pt EU 1 0 in 20 1 0.


31/156

A Forward Look In to The "Knowledge Soc ie ty" And I t s Impl i ca t ions For Pub l i c Po l i c i e s

P a r a s k e v a s C a r a c o s ta sI Sc ience and Techn ology Fo res igh t , Di rec t ora te K, " K n o w l e d g e E c o n o m y a n d S o c i e t y " , D G RT D -. E C , P a r a s k e v a s - D i m i t . C a r a c o s t a s @ c e c . e u . i n t

" Informat ion Soc ie ty" , "Know ledge Soc ie ty" , Cogni t ive Soc ie ty" , "NewEconomy "...These notions which ar e included in the speeches of politicians,journalists , spokesmen of enterprises and used by many insti tut ions(some of these notions have been around for thir ty years and othersfor about a decade) try to express the changes which occur in oursoc ie t ies . Behind them, l i es the fasc ina t ion for in format ion andcommunication technologies (ICT) which have been developed over thelast thir ty yea rs and are ex pe cted to lea d us to a new "info rma tionsociety".

Beyond th i s t echnologica l de te rmin ism, which seems to ignore the

necessary co-evolution of techniques and of processes of social andins t i tu t iona l change , the burs t ing of the ICT bub ble tw o years ag oshowed that the "new economy", ma rked by endless grow th, turned outto be a lure or rather a specific economic feature of the Americaneconomy.

More significantly, perhaps, the Enron case showed that the dream ofa soc ie ty, in which informat ion i s p roduced and c i rcu la ted in anincreasingly transparent and rapid way, crashed i tself to pieces on thewall of the crisis of f inancial capital ism. If the f inancial markets, knownfor the transparency of the information on which they rely, becomesopaque, if one no longer knows what the f inancial information publiclyprovided ac tua l ly means (desp i te - o r ra ther owing to - audi tors ,regula tory agency, e tc ) , which type of in format ion can we then re lyupon? The information produced and diffused by the media at large?By companies? by NGOs? By Governments? By Universities and Researchcent res? In soc ie t ies whe re var ious k inds and of te n con t rad ic to ryinformat ion a re produced and d i ffused , where the In te rne t ampl i f iesthe phenomenon by i ts "Webzines", how can one find his/her way ifover-information and over-communication actually results in an informationover-kil l?

Does the concept of a "knowledge society" make a difference in thecontext of intel lectual confusion regarding the notions ci ted above?Moreover, does i t say something on how our societ ies wil l change?

If this involves a reduction to an empirical concept, demonstrat ing theimpor tance of a knowledge economy a t the hear t o f our soc ie t ies(illustrated by indicators such R&D/GDP expenditure; number of researchworke rs in pro por tion o f the work ing forc e, etc), the limits of this conceptshould immediately be pointed out. Indeed, i t is not because the shareof the knowledge economy (measured by tradit ional indicators) growsin our econom ies (or some of them ), tha t our societies are trul y d riven

by the impe rative of k now ledge . It may we ll be, for exa mp le, that theimp erative of pro fi t mak ing, the driver of the conte mpo rary capital ists o c i e ti e s , r e q u i r e s a n h y p e r - c o m p e t i t i o n d r i v e n b y a c c e l e r a t e ddi ffe ren t ia t ion an d innovat ion , and thereby expla in in g the grow ingimportance of the sub-sector of the knowledge economy. The underlyingpolitical-economic discourse shows the mismatch between the needs forknowledge and competencies of companies and the knowledge supplyprovided by universities and public research institutions. It testifies thedominant and u t i l i t a r ian des ign of the knowledge economy: in orderto renew itself advanced capitalist economies need to become "cognitive".


32/156

But there is per hap s another wa y of app roa ch ing the concept o f"knowledge society": rather than only seeking in vain the signs of i tsadvent from a taking into account of the development of i ts economiccomponent and its often unrelated indicators (a pinch of R&D expenditure,ICT expendi ture , t ra in ing expendi ture , the propor t ion of "serv ices" ,etc.) , this involves evalu atin g the prosp ectiv e scope of i t and to see

wha t would occur i f we were lo ca te d in the "u top ia" of a soc ie tycentere d on the product io n , the d i s t r ibu t ion , the shar ing and use ofk n o w l e d g e .

Wh at w ould be the charac te r i s t ics o f such a type of soc ie ty? W ha twould be i ts relat ions to other contemporary notions and visions of howour societ ies are changing?

The knowledge soc ie ty could be a type of soc ie ty cen te red on theproduct ion , acquis i t ion and the d i ssemina t ion of knowledge , l ea rn ing ,in production, consumption, the social relat ions and cit izen activity; thistype succeeding the rural society, the urban-industrial society and theurb an- te r t ia ry s oc ie ty ; a soc ie ty whe re over more and more of i tscomponents are involved in learning activities, i ts productive basis beingbased on a broad knowledge product ion sec tor.

What would be the implications for public policies?

After the hypothesis of the emergence, at the end of the 1 990s , o f athird phase in the period isation of the history of research a nd innovationpolicies which coupled societal objectives with implementation approachesfocused on innovation in the b roa d sense after the phases art iculat ingthe goal of national defence and the stress laid on fundam ental research(1 95 0-1 975 ) a nd the aim of industrial competi t iveness a nd a focus onkey-technologies 1 97 5-1 99 5) - , one can wonder a bout the consequences,for public policies in a br oa de r sense, of a society in which kno wle dgeis p rodu ced and i s consumed in a dece nt ra l i sed w ay a nd w here th i sc o - p r o d u c t i o n - c o n s u m p t i o n c o n s t i t u te s t h e d o m i n a n t s e c to r.

The presen ta tion and the accompanying pap er w i l l a t tempt to addressthese questions.


33/156


34/156


35/156

S c i e n c e , S u s t a i n a b l e D e v e l o p m e n t a n d o t he r K n o w l e dg e s

C o m m u n i c a t in g A m o n g P l u ra l P e r sp ec tiv e s

Drganis

y

U

Gi lbe r to Ga l lop n

Hebe Vessuri

Dav id Manue l Navar re t e

Jacquel ine de Chazal & Sandra Lavorel

CEPAL, Chi le . gg al lopin@ eclac .c l

Instituto Venezolano de Investigacin Cientfica, Venezuela.

hvessur i@supercable .net . veUnivers idad Autnoma de Barcelona, Spain.Dav id .Manue l@campus .uab .e s

CNRS, Universit Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France. acque l ine .dechaza l@uj f -g renob le . f r


36/156


37/156

OrganiserA r t i c u l a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e k n o w l e d g e s y s t e m s f o r s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t : th e s c ie n t if ic c h a l l e n g eBy Gilberto Gallopn

Reaching a useful and us able und erstand ing of the sustainabil i ty, dynamics, vulnera bil i t ies, and resi l ience of the coupled so cio-ecologica l systemsinvo lved in susta inab il i ty issues will req uire a strong push to ad va nce focu sed scientif ic rese arch , includin g buil ding up classical disc iplin arykno wle dge f ro m the na tura l and the soc ia l sc iences, and an even s t ronger dev e lopm ent of in te rd isc ip l inary and t ransd isc ip l inary research .

But the challenge goes beyond scientif ic knowledge i tself ; many discussions and consultat ions on the role and nature of S&T for sustainable

deve lopment emphas ized the impor tance of incorpora t ing knowledge genera ted endogenous ly in par t icu la r p laces and contex ts o f the wor ld ,inc lud ing empir ica l knowledge , knowledge incorpora ted in to technologies , in to cu l tura l t rad i t ions , e tc .

Science for sustainable development creates historic opportunit ies to use inputs from other forms of knowledge, by exploring the practical , poli t icaland ep is temolo gica va lue of t rad i t io na l / loc a l /e mp ir ica l / ind ige nou s kno wle dge ; the incorpora t ion of " lay expe r t s" in the processes of publ icdecision-making and the research agenda makes good sense in terms of using the expert ise that is available, even when i t is found in unexpectedplaces.

W e lack, however, a comprehe nsive fram ew ork reg ard ing the multiplici ty of local knowledg es that could be used as inputs for scientif ic researchand ha ve thus fa r remain ed la rge ly unknown to research sys tems as po ten t ia l sources of innovat ion . The key know ledg e ge nera ted by the layex pe rt is often contextu al , pa rt ia l and loca lized , and has not been easy to translate or integrate into a more scientif ically man ag eab le c onceptua lf r a m e w o r k .

The par t ic ipa t ion of o ther soc ia l ac tors , in add i t ion to S&T profess iona ls , a t the d i ffe ren t phases of the sc ien ti f ic and te chnolog ica l researchprocess and in re la ted dec is ion-making , can be c ruc ia l fo r a number of reasons (ECLAC 2002) : Ethical. The right of the sectors affected topart icipate in decisions that have a bearing on their wellbeing (such as the instal lat ion of a nuclear or chemical plant in their area) is undeniable.Political. I t is essential to guar an tee society 's control over researc h and deve lopm ent outputs, pa rt icu larl y those that have an impact on healthand the envi ronment . Pragmatic. In cer ta in cases (e .g . new agr icu l tura l t echnologies , new hea l th t rea tments ) , it can be espec ia l ly impo r tan t toencourage the soc ia l g roups who are the in tended benef ic ia r ies to have a sense of ownersh ip over the sc ien t i f ic and technologica l knowledge .For this i t may be essential to engage these groups at the R&D phases in order to incorporate their interests and perceptions into the process.Epistemologica . The comp lex nature of the sustainable develo pme nt prob lm atiq ue, in which biogeop hysica l and social processes usually overla p,often makes i t necessary to consider the different perceptions and objectives of the social actors involved. Also, i t is increasingly clear that i t isimpo r tan t to combine em pir ica l kn owled ge bui l t up by t rad i t ion a l fa rme rs , o ther cu l tures and e thnic groups , wi th modern sc ient i fic and technicaknowledge ( the cons t ruc t ive combina t ion of d iverse types of re levant knowledge) .

The need to include other knowledges and perspectives in the S&T enterprise poses important methodological challenges to S&T for sustainabledeve lopm ent , as i t requi res the adop t ion of c r i te r ia o f t ru th and qua l i ty tha t a re bro ade r than those accepted to da y by the S&T communi ty,y e t n o t l es s s o l i d a n d r i g o r o u s ( o t h e r w i s e , t h e r e l e v a n c e a n d c r e d i b i l i t y o f S & T c o u l d b e g r a v e l y d a m a g e d ) .

To what degree , in which s i tua t ions , what type and in what form a l te rna t ive knowledges wi l l need to be incorpora ted in to S&T for sus ta inabledeve lopment a re open ques t ions tha t need to be addressed .


38/156

K n o w l e d g e h y b r i d i z a t i o n . S c i e n c e a n d l o c a l kn o w l e d g e s i n th e s e a r c h f o r s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n tBy Hebe Vessuri

Sustainable development is possible and there are growing voices and init iat ives addressed to building roads towards i t . Science has been calledupon to transform itself in i ts core commitments so as to mak e i t more cond ucive to foster sustainable d evelo pm ent. Social scientists diffe r ma rke dlyin the i r be l ie fs , espec ia l ly on i ssues tha t touch on pol icy-wh ich v i r tua l ly a l l the ques t ions sur rounding de ve lo pme nt do . Sc ience for sus ta inabledeve lopm ent i s one of those cont rovers ia l is sues . For soc io logica l ana lys i s i t i s no t a ques t ion of s imply a dd ing one mo re f ie ld of app l ica t ionfor science. Rather, i t takes the shine off the conventional understanding of science, and explores i t in terms of i ts epistemology, i ts ontology i tspoli t ics and the belief system in which i t is embedded.

In thi s pa pe r I dea l wi th the pro blem of the qua l i ty of kn owle dge , knowle dge robus tness in toda y ' s r i sk soc ie ty. Science faces new cha l lengest h a t f o r c e i t t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t o t h e r k n o w l e d g e s y s t em s a n d i n s o d o i n g r e v i s e i ts o w n s t a n d a r d s o f e f f i c i e n c y a n d e f f i c a c y .One point I raise is that the fruits of scientif ic research ar e nourished by ma ny roots, including the earl ie r wo rk of other scientists . The im ag ina tionof scientists often draws also on another, quite different , "extra-scientif ic" type of source. Such hints point to paths that historical scholarship onsc ience have ex plo red re luc tan t ly - t rac ing cu l tura l /ep is tem ic roo ts tha t may have he lped shape sc ien t i fic ideas in the fi r s t p lace . So fa r, therehave been comparatively few such investigations that encompass the wider, intel lectual-cultural directions. The full understanding of any part icularscientif ic adva nce re quires at tention to both content and context . But the meaning o f 'context ' is much broa de r than wh at is conve ntionally acc ep tedin soc io logy of sc ience , involv ing even tua l ly o ther k now ledge s as w e l l . Al l a long i ts h i s tory, deve lo pme nts in We ste rn or fo rm al sc ience ha vecrea te d oppor tun i t ies for inputs from ind igenous , t rad i t io na l , loca l , o r a l te rna t ive know ledges . Unders tand ing of ind igenous know ledg e has beenre la t ive ly easy whene ver i t could be re duced to 'd a ta ' tha t was recorde d an d put in to sc ien ti f ic l an gua ge . In so do in g the recogni t ion an d thust h e m e m o r y o f s u ch c o n t r i b u t i o n a n d t h e b l e n d i n g p r o c e s s b y w h i c h it o c c u r r e d h a v e b e e n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o b l i t e r a t e d .

A second poin t re fe rs to the ques t ion of he te rogene i ty when the bas ic tene ts o f the sc ience knowledge sys tem conf l ic t o r d iverge markedlyrelat i vely to other kno wle dg e systems in the confron tation w ith a given re ali ty , an d i t is no longer po ssible for science to simply assimilate par tsof them, while there ma y be effe ctive consequences from one or the other. Then We ster n science is cha llen ged to d ea l with those other kno wle dg eas be ing wel l g roun ded on exper ien ce and recognize he te rog ene i ty, add ing to i t by inc lud ing fur ther (?) ( ins tead of 'o ther ' ) ways of kno wled geproduction. Local (or indigenous) knowledge, in turn, is cha lleng ed to ad dress i ts cognit ive q uali ty instead o f seeking shelter in the cultural reserveswhere a pp ea l ing to po l i t i ca l cor rectness corners i t. The ensu ing neg ot ia t ion process may le ad to recogni t ion of p rofo und d i ffe rences be tw eenknow ledge systems, which is a l re ad y an imp or tan t s tep in rea l iz ing the poss ib i l i ty of m utua l l ea rn ing . The increas ing hybr id iza t ion and hyb r id i tyof knowledge for sus ta inable deve lopment tha t can be envisaged would be an ou tcome of the in te rac t ion tak ing p lace in increas ing f ie lds ofscience.

YungS y s te m s o f k n o w l e d g e f o r t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f t h e M a y a R a i n f o re s t (M e x i c o a n d G u a t e m a l a )By David Manuel Navarrete

During the las t deca des , severa l conserva t ion in i t i a t ives have come toge the r in the Ma ya Rainfores t . These in i ti a t ives a re f ra me d ac cord in g tod iverse sys tems of know ledge which have been prod uced in the Nor th and ex por ted to the South in a desp era te ly a t tempt to save the remain ingt ropica l ecosys tems . I c lass ify these sys tems of know led ge accord ing to th ree ca teg or ies : (1 ) Norm at ive , (2 ) P lura l is t i c , and (3) C ol la bor a t ive .The cri teria for this classif ication are based on: (a) the scientif ic disciplines involved in the init iat ive, (b) how ecological integri ty is defined andcon cep tua l ized , (c) the ro les of sc ience and soc ie ty in the produc t ion of know led ge an d the imp lem en ta t io n of con serva t ion in i t i a t ive s .


39/156

The nor ma tive- bas ed systems of kn ow led ge include ethics, laws, conse rvation bio logy , and systems thinkin g;ecolo gical integr i ty is de fine d as an objectiv e measu rable concept. Science is the only legit im ate kno wle dge p roduction system, and man age men tand laws enforcement are the preferred means for implementing conservation. The Pluralist ic-based systems of knowledge combine social sciences,conserva t ion eco logy, and complex sys tems synthes i s . Ecologica l in tegr i ty needs to be negot ia ted among s takeholders th rough formal processof p ar t ic ip a t ion in which sc ien t i fic nar ra t ives a re the main input . These nar ra t ives may inc orpo ra te sc ien t if ic knowle dge prod uced loca l ly ortrad it io na lly. The co llab ora tive -ba se d systems of kn ow led ge include na tura l , social sciences, an d humanit ies, but also non-scientif ic systems ofknow ledge . Here , d i ffe ren t cu ltures and ind iv idua l ' s exper iences have equ a l l eg i t imacy in the product ion of knowledg e . However, co l labo ra t ivelearn ing is nee de d to prod uce collective know ledg e, which is useful for ecolo gical integr i ty.

The three categories are used for assessing and interpreting conservation strategies in the Maya Rainforest . The creation of Natural Parks, areasof str ict protec tion within biosphere rese rves, and r egio nal schemes for enhancing ecolo gical connectivity be long to the norm ative cate go ry. Thepluralist ic category includes init iat ives in which the part icipation of stakeholders in the management of the forest is emphasized. For instance,the es tab l i shment of comm uni ty-bas ed fo res t ry concess ions in the mul t ip le use zone of the M ay a Biosphere Reserve . Co l labo ra t ive in i t ia t ivesinc lude those cases in which conserva t ion is in i t i a ted an d des ig ned by loca l peop le acco rd ing to the i r endogeno us ly p roduce d kn owled ge , bu tin co l lab ora t ion wi th sc ien t if ic know ledge .

The conserva t ion outcomes of each s t ra tegy depend on the i r s t ruc tura l coupl ing wi th loca l and g loba l soc io-ecologica l and cu l tura l contex ts .The init iat ives themselves relate to each other ei ther as competing, or complementary strategies. They also interact with other frameworks ofknowledge tha t genera te non-conserva t ion s t ra teg ies . For example , s t ra teg ies of economic growth based on neoc lass ica l economics (e .g . P lanPuebla-Pa nama ) , o r s t ra teg ies of po l i t i ca l /cu l tura l eman cipa t ion b ased on Ma ya cosmologies (e .g . Zapa t i s ta movement ) . The in te ract ions andaccommodations among the diverse knowledge systems behind those strategies are discussed and assessed in terms of their conservation outcomes.Prelimina ry findings suggest that conserv ation strategies w il l fai l in the long term in the May a rainforest unless they comp lemen t each other, an dp a y f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e u n e q u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o w e r a n d r e s o u r c e s b o t h a t t h e n a t i o n a l a n d t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l s .

i scussantW h o s e V I S TA a n d w h y : i d e n t i f yi n g b e n e f i c i a r i e s a n d e v a l u a t i n g t h e ir p e r c e pt i o n s o f l a n d u s e c h a n g e i n E u r o p e a n T r a d i t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a lL a n d s c a p e sBy Jacqueline de Chaza & Sandra Lavarei

The VISTA projec t (Vulnera bil i ty of Ecosystem Services to Land Use Cha nge in Trad it ional Ag ricultur al Landscapes) aims to identify bene ficiarie(stakeholders) and their associated 'ecosystem services ' , as well as evaluate their perceptions of prospective land use changes in ' t radit ional 'ag ro- pa sto ral lan dscape s of less prod uctive region s of Europe. These landsca pes are und ergo ing ma jor land use chan ge as a result of recentrap id technolog ica l , economic and socia l changes . An overa l l reduc t ion in agr icu l tura l l and through ' aban donm ent ' a nd /or changes in in tens i tyand type of use have t ransformed landscapes f rom mosa ics of a range of l and use in tens i t i es to mosa ics where la rge abandoned a reas a recontras ted w ith foci of intensive use. The project uses Plant Functional Traits (PFTs) to des cribe prospe ctive ecosystem cha nge o ver the next 10 0yea

interfaces between science & society-collecting experiences for good practice

Documents