Knowledge, trust and interest in the governance of ecological resources

1. Knowledge, trust and interest in the governance of ecological resources Steve Yearley Professor of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge & Director of the ESRC Genomics Forum University of Edinburgh

2. Justin Irvine (PI) Macaulay Institute René van der Wal University of Aberdeen Brenda Mayle Forest Research, Alice HoltLiz O’Brien Forest Research, Alice Holt Robin Gill Forest Research, Alice Holt Helen Armstrong Forest Research, NRSDouglas MacMillan DICE University of Kent Piran White University of YorkJim Smart University of YorkRehema White University of St AndrewsSteve Yearley University of EdinburghRAsNorman Dandy Forest Research, Alice HoltZoe Austin University of YorkAmy Turner University of Aberdeen Stefano Fiorini Macaulay Institute • CONTACT: • Justin Irvine, Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH. • Tel. 01224 395200, Fax: 01224 395010, E-mail: j.irvine@macaulay.ac.uk • www.macaulay.ac.uk/relu/

3. Why “Governance” in resource governance? Governance refers to the process whereby elements in society wield power and authority, and influence and enact policies and decisions concerning public life, and economic and social development. Governance is a broader notion than government. Governance involves interaction between these formal institutions and those of civil society. The Governance Working Group of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences 1996.

4. Governance and the limits of control ~ 1 First, governance approaches reflect the idea that – as a matter of fact – control and regulation of ecological resources are becoming increasingly dispersed; they are harder to monopolise. In a world of climate change, for example, forests and soils, fish stocks or peat-bogs may be altering, whether their ostensible owners and managers will it or not.

5. Governance and the limits of control ~ 2 Second, governance approaches acknowledge that – as a matter of policy – attempts are being made to increase the number of people who have a voice in many aspects of environmental management. More ‘stakes’ are being recognised or asserted. This is a form of deliberate demonopolisation.

6. Performing resource governance More effective ecological resource governance accordingly benefits from: • new ways of expressing different actors' stakes and interests; • new forms of knowledge ‘capture’; • techniques which overcome distrust among actors.

7. Wild deer in the UK and resource governance Traditional governance of deer has developed formally over centuries and is essentially a matter of protecting the resource. However, recent natural heritage and access legislation can in some cases demand deer management that runs counter to traditional approaches. Coupled with large increases in the diversity of stakeholders and the expansion in the diversity of ownership types, traditional managers may often be at odds with public objectives.

8. Recording actors' stakes and interests Widening the range of ‘stakes’ recognised Documenting stakes using qualitative and quantitative methods.

11. Eliciting and expressing stakeholder knowledge Taking stakeholder knowledge seriously Using strategies such as mapping techniques to express stakeholders’ insights For example, treating stakeholders as ‘extended referees’ of deer-distribution models.

12. a) original model prediction covered 51% b) improved model prediction covered 77% of observed stag locations in winter of observed stag locations in winter

13. Summing up Ecological resources are increasingly treated in terms of governance. Governance invites or facilitates new forms of stake or interest; how to express these in tractable ways? Governance makes stakeholder knowledge important in novel ways With more actors involved in governance, techniques are required that help overcome distrust.