Whose Knowledge Counts? How do we Count it?

1
Whose Knowledge Counts? How do we Count it?

• Rod Dobell, Katherine Barrett and Stuart Lee
• University of Victoria
• National Policy Research Conference
• Ottawa, October, 2002

2
Brief bios

• Rod Dobell finished a PhD in economics at MIT and
  taught mathematical economics at Harvard and
  Toronto before beginning a long re-learning
  process in social realities, procedural ethics
  and sustainability studies, including fieldwork
  in the Government of Canada, OECD, IRPP and other
  NGOs. He has just learned that retirement
  means that paycheques can cease but research
  project interests and responsibilities never die.

3
Katherine Barrett, PhD

• Katherine Barrett completed BSc and MSc degrees
  in microbiology, and a PhD in Botany in
  association with the Centre for Applied Ethics at
  UBC, examining the use of science in formulating
  policies related to GMOs. She has worked for
  several years with the Science and Environmental
  Health Network and the POLIS project on
  Ecological Governance at the University of
  Victoria. This paper was completed under the
  auspices of the Clayoquot Alliance for Research,
  Education and Training, a SSHRC-CURA project.

4
Stuart Lee, PhD

• Stuart Lee combined BSc and MSc degrees in
  molecular biology with studies in the sociology
  of science to complete his PhD at the University
  of Victoria. Recent research pursues issues of
  knowledge and decision making at the interface of
  science and civil society, with a particular
  interest in cultural integration occurring in the
  Clayoquot Sound region of Vancouver Island. Work
  on this subject was undertaken for the Clayoquot
  Alliance. He has recently been appointed as an
  ST Policy Analyst at Environment Canada.

5

• Basic theme of this session is the need for
  governments, in a complex, uncertain and rapidly
  changing world of deep diversity, to rethink
  their ideas of evidence-based decision and
  results-oriented accountability.
• Entails recognition of many conflicting
  perspectives in participatory processes, and an
  integration of distinct belief systems in the
  negotiation of understandings of problems and
  collective responses to them.

6

• At the heart of decision-making in an uncertain
  world is the precautionary principle.
• Not a principle of decision theory, relevant when
  risk assessment is complete rather a general
  approach to framing of and response to problems
  of social risk.
• Founded in interactive analytical-deliberative
  processesnot just inside science into policy,
  but also outside deliberative processes leading
  into collective commitments to coherent
  individual action.

7

• Will look here at two facets of the storythe
  precautionary principle itself, broadly
  understood as a basis for action and
• The negotiation of understanding and commitment
  in synthesis of traditional ecological knowledge
  and conventional science (Scientific Panel for
  Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound.)
• Katherine Barrett will address the first issue,
  and Stuart Lee will follow directly.

8
What is thePrecautionary Principle?

• An approach to decision-making under conditions
  of great uncertainty and potential harm
• Originating in environmental policies of the 1970s

9
Interpreting thePrecautionary PrincipleRio
Declaration (1992)

• In order to protect the environment, the
  precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
  States according to their capability.
• Where there are threats of serious or
  irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
  certainty shall not be used as a reason for
  postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
  environmental degradation.

10
Interpreting thePrecautionary Principle
Wingspread Statement (1998)

• When an activity raises threats of harm to human
  health or the environment, precautionary measures
  should be taken even if some cause and effect
  relationships are not fully established
  scientifically.

11
Key Elements of thePrecautionary Principle

• Recognition of potential (serious, irreversible)
  harm
• Recognition of uncertainty (and complexity)
• Recognition that action is warranted

12
Implementing thePrecautionary Principle

• A Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary
  Principle/Approach. Discussion Document (2001)
• Highlights key controversies and tensions around
  implementation

13
Where Does thePrecautionary Principle Apply?

• Steps in Decision-Making Process
• Define the problem
• Gather and assess evidence
• Develop and select options
• Implement decisions
• Monitor

14
Precaution as aManagement Option

• Define the problem
• Gather and assess evidence
• Develop and select options
• Implement decisions
• Monitor

15
Precaution as a Comprehensive Decision-Making
Process

• Define the problem
• Gather and assess evidence
• Develop and select options
• Implement decisions
• Monitor

16
Precaution as a Comprehensive Decision-Making
Process

• Re-frame the problem
• Acknowledge the limits of science
• Admit broader range of evidence and expertise
• Account for value assumptions

17
Precaution as a Comprehensive Decision-Making
Process

• The precautionary approach is unique within
  traditional risk management because of the higher
  degree of uncertainty, the parameters that can
  establish what constitutes an adequate scientific
  basis, and the distinctive aspects of sound and
  rigorous judgment.
• empirical, theoretical or traditional
  knowledge

18

• a different approach to public engagement is
  required.
• Public involvement should be structured into the
  scientific review and advisory process as well as
  the decision-making process.
• from A Canadian Perspective (2001)

19
Broadening the Bounds Integrating Traditional
Ecological Knowledge

• Case Study
• The Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest
  Practices in Clayoquot Sound

20
This talk . . .

• Brief geographical and historical context
• Presentation of key elements that reflect
  influence of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
  (TEK)
• Closing arguments regarding integration of new
  knowledges

21
Clayoquot Sound

• Two towns
• Five FN villages
• Approximately equal FN/non-FN popn
• Tourism
• Fishing
• Logging

22
Conflict around Forestry - I

• 1984 First logging blockade in Canadian history
  when Macmilan Bloedel (MacBlo) attempts to log
  Meares Island
• 1985 First court injunction preventing logging in
  BC history - Meares Island
• 1988 More conflict - Sulphur Pass chief
  arrested, with many other local protesters

23
Conflict around Forestry - II

• 1989-92 Sustainable community efforts amid
  ongoing strife
• Oct. 1992 Clayoquot Sound Sustainable
  Development Strategy Steering Committee
  disbanded
• April 1993 Cabinet presents Clayoquot Sound Land
  Use decision

24
Conflicts around forestry - III

• 1993 Clayoquot Summer largest ever Canadian act
  of civil disobedience 900
• ENGO-led International boycotts
• International campaigns by Nuu-chah-nulth

25
The Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest
Practices in Clayoquot Sound

• Review the forest management standards for
  Clayoquot Sound and make recommendations for
  changes and improvements where required to
  develop a set of world class forest practices
  for Clayoquot Sound. (BC, Oct 22, 1993)

26
1 Panel Constitution

• Western Scientists
• They were not residents, govt or industry
  employees, or associated with environmental
  groups
• Nuu-chah-nulth elders
• They were long-time residents, socially and
  politically involved

27
2 Panel Process

• Mandated Deliverable
• Initial report of standards review and
  recommendations for forest harvesting, road
  construction and engineering, access, slope
  stability and hydrology (BC, Oct 22, 1993)

• Panel Deliverable
• The Panel has forged a protocol that
  reflects.... the Nuu-chah-nulth approach to group
  processes (CSSP Report 1, p . 5)

28
3a. Panel Terms of Reference

• Mandated TOR
• 1. Review existing forest management standards
• 2. Recommend changes to these standards... based
  on the best available scientific information.
  (BC, Oct 22, 1993)

29
3b. Panel Terms of Reference

• Panel TOR
• the Panels task changed from reviewing and
  revising current standards to creating standards
  for a different approach to forest planning in
  Clayoquot Sound. (CSSP Report 2, p. 4)

30
4 Nuu-chah-nulth Terminology

• Hishuk ish tsawalk everything is one
• Iisaak respect
• Halhuulhi traditional governance/resource
  management

31
5 Challenged Existing Legal/Industrial agreements

• Panel recommends a planning process that
• calculates area available for commodity
  production
• specifies a harvesting rate
• and identifies the locations where harvesting may
  occur
• These harvest levels functionally replace the
  AAC in defining expectations for harvestable
  wood (rep. 5, p.154)

32
Incorporating Traditional Knowledge also meant

• Changing Panel selection criteria and Panel
  process through influence of TEKs different ways
  of coming to know
• Introducing new languages/concepts into forestry
  document
• Changing legislation to allow an entirely
  different basis for forestry management

33
Implementation

• New governance arrangement - increased community
  control
• New business arrangements to make
  ecosystem-approaches to logging economically
  feasible

34
Taking new knowledge seriously means taking new
knowledge SYSTEMS seriously

• Different knowledge comes from different
  practices, with different attendant social
  arrangements to support them
• When proposing changes to how an organization
  gathers/assesses evidence, be prepared for the
  change in other sectors that must follow

35
Concluding comments

• Extending precautionary approach upstream, to
  framing, and downstream, to implementation and
  compliance.
• Case study illustrates issues in extending
  upstream, to negotiation of understanding across
  scientific and other cultures
• And downstream, to need for new institutions to
  accommodated participatory discussion and shared
  governance.

36

• Re-thinking of governance in face of inherent
  uncertainty and indeterminacy of complex systems
• Need to design institutions for safe-fail safe
  in failure operation, not fail-safe safe from
  failure. Redundancy may help.
• (And need accountability concepts and audit
  practices to recognize the difference!)
• Need to move to risk culture acknowledging
  indeterminacy, not promote audit culture premised
  on certainty and measurement.

37

• So need adaptive management, institutions,
  governance but also need interactive
  deliberative and inclusive processes for dealing
  with social riskneed to ground decisions on
  collective action within social institutions that
  are accepted as legitimate.
• In the end, this means focus on the
  responsibility of public servants for judgments
  on a broad range of ethical as well as technical
  considerations.

38
The Reflexive Public Servant

• Above argument calls for a public servant willing
  to re-examine and challenge her own starting
  points, biases and belief systems
• Willing to give up hiding political agenda behind
  mask of expert knowledge
• Willing to seek reconciliation of exercise of
  power with professions of truth
• Willing to give up appeal to simple concepts like
  a uniform social threshold for acceptable risk.

39

• The reflexive public servant expects and
  anticipates evolution and adaptation in beliefs,
  values and norms (double-loop social learning)
• Recognizes that distributional issues and ethical
  dilemmas cannot be resolved or disguised as
  technical computations
• Is willing, once again, to challenge not only the
  biases and constructions that other participants
  bring to the table, but her own as well.