‘ Opening up’ the politics sustainability: reconciling science, participation and power

‘Opening up’ the politics sustainability:reconciling science, participation and power Andy Stirling, SPRU science and technology policy research presentation to seminar series on ‘Between a Rock & a Hard Place: The Politics of Regulating for Sustainability’ at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster, 18th November 2008 Sussex Energy Group

1: the general politics of innovation 2: plural pathways to sustainability 3: science and sustainability appraisal 4: participation and ‘framing’ 5: ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ 6: science, participation and sustainability Sussex Energy Group ‘Opening up’ the politics sustainability:reconciling science, participation and power

The Politics of Innovation for Sustainability on general technology policy: “[we need] more pro innovation policies …” Gordon Brown as Chancellor, 2004 on public attitudes to technology:“[there is] an anti-technology culture in the UK …a pro- technology culture must be created…”- UK Council for Science and Technology, 2000 on political process:“politicians in power are affected by the anti-science or anti-technology feelings of influential intellectuals.”- EU HIGH LEVEL GROUP on S&T

Innovation as Linear Progress conventional ‘linear’ understandings of technology change still prevail in mainstream EU technology governance TECHNOLOGY progress SCIENCE

Polarised Politics of Innovation conventional ‘linear’ understandings of technology change still prevail in mainstream technology governance FUTURE eg:“history is a race to advance technology”- UK Royal Academy of Engineering‘anti-technology protestors’ are “… members of the 'flat earth society’, opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself.” – UN DDG time PAST Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice ! No room for nonspecialist partticipation in configuring of technology.Attempts to this end risk: inefficiency, delay, politicisation, obstruction,ee

Technology Change as Market Closure space of technologicalpossibilities time Received wisdom is that technical optimisation and market competition lead to clear technological closure

Technology Change as Social Choice space of technologicalpossibilities time reveals hidden politics underlying choice of ‘sustainable’ pathways

Sustainable Energy Options No shortage of possible pathways to energy sustainability:` biomass energy? energy efficiency? landfill gas? small hydroelectricity? waste energy conversion? tidal barrages? onshore wave power? offshore tidal enclosures? subsea wave arrays? tidal stream? geothermal energy? onshore windfarms? solar thermal power? offshore wind arrays? centralised photovoltaics? integrated micro-wind? integrated photovoltaics? high-altitude kites? desert solar wind towers? nuclear power? carbon capture & storage ? … but which direction will we go?

The Dynamics of ‘Lock-in’ Economics, history, management, political science, social studies: show path-dependence, momentum, ‘lock-in’ around poor choices VHS and Betamax … media standards … … Windows software… Narrow Gauge Railways … urban transport … … internal combustion engine … QWERTY keyboards … light water reactors … … military systems … Deliberately or not – we make our technological futures

The Dynamics of ‘Lock-in’ space of technologicalpossibilities time - not all possibilities can be fully realised (especially in global markets) nuclear centralised renewables energy services carbon capture distributed renewables etc…

The Missing Politics of Choice eg: Sir David King former UK Chief Scientist current president of BAAS “…We have no alternative to nuclear power … … if there were other sources of low carbon energy I would be in favour, but there aren't.” Independent, July 2006 “…We need to do everything… … we cannot afford not to use nuclear power.” BBC Radio 4, December 2007

The Politics of Expectation Directions for technology change are driven by expectations 1: assume future electricity infrastructures shift towards distributed, low-voltage, smart-metered electricity systems, subject to intelligent control and flexible supply contracts invest in small scale renewables and energy service innovations 2: assume persistence of traditional large centralised steam-cycle power stations, presiding over high-voltage transmission systems, with one-way distribution and conventional tariffs incremental innovation along traditional fossil and nuclear paths David King is not objectively observing inevitabilities … … he is tacitly helping to make invisible political choices

‘Sound Science’ and Sustainability Strategies Politics of sustainable technology justified by science… on genetic modification: “… this government's approach is to make decisions … on the basis of sound science” on chemicals:“ …sound science will be the basis of the Commission's legislative proposal…”- EC RTD Commissioner, Philippe Busquin former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair on energy: “[n]ow is the right time for a cool-headed, evidence based assessment of the options open to us … I want to sweep away historic prejudice and put in its place evidence and science” UK Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks Treats sustainable technology strategies as a matter for science

‘Sound Science’ of Sustainable Energy • ‘Science based evidence’ appears precise coal oil gas nuclear hydro wind solar biomass 0.001 0.1 10 1000 low RISK high • ‘externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)

‘Sound Science’ of Sustainable Energy ‘Science based evidence’ appears precise • , but is sensitive to ‘framing’ n = minimum maximum coal 36 25% 75% oil gas nuclear hydro wind solar biomass 0.001 0.1 10 1000 low RISK high • ‘externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)

‘Sound Science’ of Sustainable Energy ‘Science based evidence’ appears precise • , but is sensitive to ‘framing’ n = coal 36 oil 20 gas 31 nuclear 21 hydro 16 wind 18 solar 11 biomass 22 0.001 0.1 10 1000 low RISK high • ‘externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)

‘Sound Science’ of Sustainable Energy ‘Science based evidence’ appears precise • , but is sensitive to ‘framing’ coal oil gas nuclear hydro wind solar biomass ‘Sustainability’ of energy technologies is ambiguous and uncertain

‘Framing’ in ‘Sound Science’ Sustainability can be variously ‘framed’ in analysis setting agendas defining problems characterising options posing questions prioritising issues formulating criteria deciding context setting baselines drawing boundaries discounting time choosing methods including disciplines handling uncertainties recruiting expertise commissioning research constituting ‘proof’ exploring sensitivities interpreting results All analysis requires framing … all framing involves value judgements answers given by ‘sound science’ depend on the ways questions are asked eg:‘system boundaries’ – offshore wind vs gas generation ‘discounting the future’ – nuclear energy vs biomass ‘impact weightings’ – coal & climate vs wind & amenity ‘distributional priorities’ – rooftop solar vs oil emissions What is ‘sustainable energy’? – about politics as much as science!

A Role for Participation? Many different modes, contexts and perspectives in engagement - transdisciplinary deliberation social science, religious interests, ethicists, ‘lay’ membership eg: strategic commissions; ethics councils, sustainable development commission - stakeholder engagement employers, unions, consumer organisations, ‘social parttners’, special interests eg: occupational health, Agenda 21, chemicals forum, co-operative research - citizen participation workers, local people, consumers, citizens eg: consensus conferences? citizens juries? scenario workshops? focus groups? Driving aim in UK: ‘public engagement’ as ‘fire walls’ for ‘sound science’

‘Framing’ in Participation ‘Sustainability’ can be variously framed in deliberation identification of stakeholders phrasing of questions bounding of remits recruitment of participants provision of information choice of focus personalities of protagonists medium of discourse style of facilitation selection of alternatives treatment of dissensus design of process documentation of findings dynamics of persuasion adoption of norms Participation is also open to contingency & exercise of power eg: 1994 GM CC accused of: biased evidence and ‘expertise’ 1999 Radwaste CC: steered facilitation / deliberation 2002 FSA CP: contrived question 2003 Prajateerpu CJ: selective participation / information 2004 GM Dialogue: self-selected engagement 2005 CORWM: constrained remit 2006 nuclear consultation: unlawful procedure Participation also offers means to justify ‘closing down’ politics

‘Opening Up’ through Participation? Three rationales / imperatives for participation (cf: Fiorino, US NRC) 1: Normative (Democratic) the ‘right thing to do’ in a democracy • about process: equity, inclusion, empowerment (even if ‘ineffiective’ or ‘inefficient’ according to incumbent interests) 2: Instrumental expedient means to some particular end • about narrow interests: trust, credibility, acceptance, “sedation” (offers justification and blame management in decision making) 3: Substantive improves general ‘robustness’ of policy advice • about broad consequences: harm, benefit, sustainability, precaution (according to publicly reasoned, socially deliberated values and priorities)

‘Opening Up’ through Participation?(cf: Collingridge, 1980) Just like expert and quantitative analysis, participation can … … obscure contextual, contingent and constructed complexities in appraisal … be susceptible to influence by power to justify decisions Weak justificationmaximise trust and consent of any decisionminimise controversy and conflict manage accountability and blame for general institutions and procedures associated with decision-making • Strong justificationfoster acceptance and ‘sedation’ of specific decisionconstruct legitimacy and credibility • manage dissent and opposition • benefiting particular outcomes favoured by incumbent interests As science-based appraisal loses public confidence … … instrumental pressures for justification are shifting to participation

‘Opening Up’ through Participation? • Some typical evaluation criteria(eg: Rowe & Frewer, Petts, Renn) • ubiquitous calls for evaluation generally invoke some permutation of following: • representativeness inclusivity and representative mix of interests • independence process should be conducted in independent, unbiased way • resources sufficient time, expertise, information to allow agency • structured dialogue active steps to ensure effective and unbiased debate • transparency accessibility, feedback, clarity on outputs, role of sponsors • task definitionclear and achievable aims and objectives. participants clear about their role in the task. • influencethe output from the engagement should have a genuine impact on policy. • Evaluation discourses reflect, reinforce and conceal instrumental imperatives

From Broadening Appraisal to Opening Up Choice space of technologicalpossibilities time

From Broadening Appraisal to Opening Up Choice Beyond participation / analysis dichotomies … ‘Public Engagement’ ‘Sound Science’ Broad and participatory Narrow and exclusive BUT: Multicriteria appraisal can be wide and inclusive Citizens’ Panels can be selective and constrained space of technologicalpossibilities time

From Broadening Appraisal to Opening Up Choice Beyond participation / analysis dichotomies … ‘Public Engagement’ ‘Sound Science’ Broad and participatory Narrow and exclusive BUT: Multicriteria appraisal can be wide and inclusive Citizens’ Panels can be selective and constrained Complex and opaque Straightforward, transparent BUT: Scenario backcasting can be accessible, intuitive Deliberative process / focus groups can be elaborate and highly mediated Conceals uncertainty Reveals uncertainty BUT: Minority views / sensitivity analysis can illuminate uncertainty Citizen’s Jury ‘evidence’ / ‘verdicts’ conceal uncertainty Sensitive to framing Transcends Framing Consensus conference focuses on discrete findings BUT: Mapping approaches can explore different framings

From Broadening Appraisal to Opening Up Choice • Distinction applies both to ‘analytic’ and ‘participatory’ • approaches to technology appraisal • Not just about broadening of ‘inputs’ to technology appraisal • like precautionary addressing of uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance • (issues, disciplines, perspectives, options, uncertainties in assessment) • Instead, about the ‘outputs’ of appraisal to wider governance • reflexively addressing how divergent framings yield contrasting pictures • (humility, accountability, pluralism and diversity in technology choice) • Arguably often more salient than conventional distinctions: • specialist / non-specialist • quantitative / qualitative • analysis / deliberation …but strangely neglected

‘Closing Down’ and ‘Opening Up’ • ‘opening up’ • ‘closing down’ • focus on:defining the ‘right’ questions eliciting ‘appropriate’ knowledge finding ‘most likely’ outcomes • contingencies and sensitivities contending knowledges dissenting views • emphasise:aggregation, consensus reducing complexity objectivity / legitimacy • diversity and pluralism exploring complexity transparency / accountability • result in:identify ‘best’ option ‘unitary prescriptive’ advice • mapping range of options ‘plural and conditional’ advice • eg: risk, cost-benefit, decision analysis prescriptive ethics, social expertise ‘consensus conference’, jury verdicts, • scenarios, sensitivity analysis ABM, multi-criteria mapping Q-method, dissonance panels • strategic behaviour on part of participants • vulnerable:strategic behaviour by practitioners or sponsors

Synergies: science & participation for sustainability False dichotomy: rational ‘sound science’ / ‘emotive’ precaution / participation All analysis is ‘framed’ by problems, priorities, values and interests Misleading language: pro- / anti- rhetorics’ obscure multiplicity of directions Undermines rigour on uncertainty and accountability over sustainability Precaution: ‘broadening out’ methods, framings, perspectives in appraisal Rigour over uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance on implications of directions Participation: not in itself a panacea for ‘opening up’ democratic choice Vulnerable (like analysis) to instrumental pressures for justification Opening up: as complement to closing down in appraisal of sustainability Reflexivity over contending values and interests in framing of sustainability Practical approaches: many ways to ‘open up’ analysis & deliberation alike Mapping methods, participatory modeling, plural and conditional advice Rare chance to address both scientific rigour and democratic accountability

Dealing with incomplete knowledge many contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’ knowledge about outcomes unproblematic problematic unproblematic knowledge about likelihoods problematic

Dealing with incomplete knowledge many contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’ knowledge about outcomes unproblematic problematic unproblematic RISK engineering failure short-term price covariance knowledge about likelihoods problematic

Dealing with incomplete knowledge many contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’ knowledge about outcomes unproblematic problematic unproblematic RISK engineering failure short-term price covariance knowledge about likelihoods unfamiliar toxins / hazards ‘human factor’ problematic UNCERTAINTY

Dealing with incomplete knowledge many contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’ knowledge about outcomes unproblematic problematic unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY engineering failure short-term price covariance interests / priorities / ‘framings’ divergent notions of harm trust, fairness, ethics knowledge about likelihoods unfamiliar toxins / hazards ‘human factor’ problematic UNCERTAINTY

Dealing with incomplete knowledge many contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’ knowledge about outcomes problematic unproblematic unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY engineering failure short-term price covariance interests / priorities / ‘framings’ divergent notions of harm trust, fairness, ethics knowledge about likelihoods unknowns, surprise, novelty new vectors / forms of harm unfamiliar toxins / hazards ‘human factor’ IGNORANCE problematic UNCERTAINTY

Dealing with incomplete knowledge Powerful pressures to ‘close down’ towards risk knowledge about outcomes unproblematic problematic unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY decision rules aggregative analysis deliberative process political closure knowledge about likelihoods ` evidence-basing agenda-setting horizon scanning transdisciplinarity reductive modeling stochastic reasoning rules of thumb insurance liabilitylaw harm definitionsindicators / metrics institutional remits IGNORANCE problematic UNCERTAINTY

Dealing with incomplete knowledge knowledge about outcomes unproblematic problematic unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY reductive aggregative models scenarios / backcasting interactive modeling mapping / Q-methods participatory deliberation knowledge about likelihoods uncertainty heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing monitor,surveil, research institutional learning adaptivemanagement IGNORANCE problematic UNCERTAINTY ALL INVOLVE INTERACTIVE MAPPING OF DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS

‘Broadening Out’ Appraisal (cf: EEA, 2001) extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance real world effects: CFCs, DES; ‘closed systems’: MTBE, PCBs humility on sciencesensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation omission of persistence in organochlorines, MTBE, CFCs active researchprioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment neglected:TBT, BSE; no monitoring: asbestos, benzene, PCBs deliberate argumentlevels of proof, burden of evidence, onus of persuasion Swann committee on antimicrobials, 1967 later ignored alternative optionspros, cons, justifications for range of options & substitutes ALARA, BAT, BPM – ionising radiation, fisheries, acid rain cross-disciplinary learning collect all relevant knowledge, beyond the ‘usual suspects’ MTBE / engineers; BSE / vets (clinical / toxicology / epidem.) engage public independence through pluralism and robustness on values benzene, DES, asbestos, acid rain, fisheries

‘ Opening up’ the politics sustainability: reconciling science, participation and power