This article was downloaded by: [218.30.160.181] On: 23 April 2014, At: 05:24
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Environmental Politics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20
Representing and regulating
nature: boundary organisations,
portable representations, and
the science–policy interface
Rolf Lidskogaba
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies b
HumUS; Örebro University, Sweden Published online: 21 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Rolf Lidskog (2014): Representing and regulating nature: boundary organisations, portable representations, and the science–policy interface, Environmental Politics, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2013.898820
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.898820
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or
implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this article are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles are normally published under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0/. However, authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0/ Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Select articles are currently published under a license to publish, which is based upon the Creative
Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License, but allows for text and data mining of work. Authors also have the option of publishing an Open Select article under the Creative Commons Attribution License http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open Select article to confirm conditions of access and use.
Representing and regulating nature: boundary organisations,
portable representations, and the science
–policy interface
Rolf Lidskoga,b*
a
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies;bHumUS; Örebro University, Sweden
The interaction between science and policy in transboundary environmental regulation is dynamic. By elaborating on the concepts of boundary organisa-tions and portable representaorganisa-tions, I shed light on how science-based policy and policy-relevant science are co-produced. This perspective is then put to use in an analysis of the scientific representation and political regulation of two different environmental issues: ground-level ozone and biodiversity. Portable representations function as a link between experts and policy-makers. By means of portable representations, nature is not only measured and represented but also made governable. Portable representations seemed to strengthen the credibility of both scientific assessments and policy. Science makes itself matter by formally separating itself from policy con-siderations, although the two are at the same time integrated through portable representations from boundary organisations.
Keywords: portable representation; boundary organisations; science–policy interface; co-production; ground-level ozone; biodiversity
Introduction Science meets policy
Knowledge making and policymaking have in recent decades become increas-ingly related and intertwined, not least in the governing of transboundary environmental problems. Even though lay understandings and other kinds of knowledge– spurred by media coverage and public discussion – are important for putting an environmental problem on the political agenda, these understand-ings and claims are commonly based on scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the production of scientific knowledge and its uses are widely recognised as essential elements of environmental standards-setting (Jasanoff and Wynne1998, Bijker et al. 2009, Fischer 2009). By defining the criteria by which environmental degradation and health risks are assumed to be avoided or mitigated, it is
*Email:rolf.lidskog@oru.se
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.898820
© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Routledge.
This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
determined what should be considered as‘good’ and ‘bad’ environments, e.g. clean and unclean air, anthropogenic or naturally caused climate change, and toxic or non-toxic soil. Examples of such environmental standards include the Red List of Threatened Species, which evaluates the risk of extinction of species and subspecies; Carbon Dioxide Equivalents (CDE), which describe how much global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas causes; and Critical Loads, which evaluate the environmental effects of airborne pollutants. Thus, how an environmental problem is represented and measured – provided this representation is seen as scientifically sound and the policy community deems it valid– has great implications for its regulation.
Instruments such as monitoring technologies and mapping activities do not simply measure objective parameters of environmental processes; they are also important in shaping the recognition and conceptualisation of environmental pro-blems (Latour1987, Asdal2008, Callon et al.2009), which is also a reason why many ways of measuring the environment are controversial and contested. Actors have a great interest in orchestrating science to support (or hinder) particular courses of action, not least the opening up of international governance to greater deliberation has fuelled conflict concerning the status of knowledge-claims (Miller2007). The struggle over not only political ideas but also scientific facts has led actors to put more effort into making people believe or disbelieve knowledge claims. But to make an environmental issue governable, it is not sufficient to characterise scientifically an environmental problem’s causes, effects, and remedies, and distribute this knowl-edge in society. Scientific knowlknowl-edge needs to be credible, legitimate, and salient for decision makers (Clark et al.2006), but there is also a need to make this knowledge meaningful in order to foster political action. For those within a particular scientific community, this meaning may be self-evident. For instance, whereas radiative forcing capacity (RF) is meaningful for climate scientists, and the exposure index AOT40 for plant physiologists, this is not the case either for people in general or for most scientists in other fields of research. To make scientific concepts meaningful for people outside a particular scientific community, there is a need for translation and representation (Latour 1987, 2005). These representations need to be not only meaningful but also credible to different categories of actors and in different con-texts. Science and policy are often described as two discrete but interrelated entities, with scientific findings being delivered to policymakers who then act on them. From this perspective, the challenge is to construct bridges that make science and policy communicate with each other (Andresen and Skjaerseth 2007, Biermann et al.
2012). Lack of communication, misinterpretation of messages, unfamiliarity with other ways of reasoning, or disinterest in what others say are often seen as the main reasons why science–policy relations often fail. Another explanation is that science has often not developed independent of policy, but has begun offering political advice before it has established firm scientific knowledge (Haas and Stevens2011). Here, I will tread another path. Instead of seeing science and policy as separate, with the challenge being to make knowledge travel from the world of science to the world of politics, I assume that there are no clear boundaries
between science and policy. Instead, these boundaries are the result of strategic and context-specific actions undertaken by a group of actors in order to legit-imise their own roles and positions– and delegitimise the roles and positions of others (Gieryn 1983). Scientific and political considerations are merged in the development of ways to understand environmental problems and invent relevant remedies; science and policy are co-produced (Latour 1993, Jasanoff 2004a). However, this understanding, aiming to persuade actors outside the scientific community, may also affect the production of scientific knowledge itself. My aim here is to investigate how complex and ambiguous environmental issues are made governable, i.e. how objects are constructed to be amenable for regulation. In this, boundary organisations and portable representations are pivotal. By negotiating and renegotiating the boundaries between science and policy, envir-onmental problems and their possible solutions are co-produced. Both science and policy are mobilised in order to solve a specific environmental problem. Guiding research questions are as follows. How do the boundary organisations design the science–policy interface? What role do the portable representations perform in the development of science-based policies?
This discussion is divided into five parts. Following this introduction, the second part elaborates on how science and policy mutually shape each other, and in particular it develops the concepts of boundary organisations and portable representations. The third part investigates how two different environmental issues– ground-level ozone and threatened species – have been shaped, under-stood, and communicated. In particular, it explores the boundary organisations that have emerged around these issues and the portable representations they have created in order to influence policy. The fourth part analyses these cases, and shows how boundary organisations consciously draw sharp borders between science and policy in order to gain credibility for their portable representations. The fifth and concluding part returns to the wider question of the configuration of the science–policy interface.
Boundary organisations and portable representations
The concept used to indicate that science and policy are interrelated– or even deeply intertwined– is ‘co-production’. It suggests that they are neither separate spheres (that in certain situations interact and interconnect) nor reducible; science is not reducible to the outcome of political interests nor is it external and autonomous in relation to political processes (Jasanoff2004a). The co-produc-tion thesis is formulated as an alternative to two forms of determinism: a techno-scientific one, in which techno-scientific knowledge is seen as configuring social reality, and a social one, in which knowledge is seen as a reflection of material interests. In opposition to these determinisms, the co-production thesis stresses that the ways by which we know the world and scientifically represent it are closely related to the ways by which we live in it. Scientific knowledge both embeds and is embedded in social practices (Jasanoff2004a).
The roots of the co-production thesis trace back to Ludwik Fleck’s and Thomas Kuhn’s work within the philosophy of science (Jasanoff2004c: 276), but the concept is more immediately derived from the field of sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), which emphasises how knowledge is created through agency, instruments, and interests (Bloor 1976, Latour and Woolgar
1979). It highlights both agency and context, maintaining that knowledge and knowledge processes are always situated in specific contexts but are not reduci-ble to them (Latour1987, Knorr-Cetina1999). Co-production implies that efforts to separate science from policy, which are frequently undertaken in modern societies, are only representations that conceal deeper and more fundamental processes of co-production. Behind this separation, we always find collabora-tions and conneccollabora-tions among actors, activities, and spheres. Thus, the boundary between science and policy is dynamic, fluid, and subject to negotiation among actors. Nevertheless, this boundary is often presented as fixed and stable in order to persuade actors (Gieryn 1999). To uphold its epistemic authority, science needs to draw and maintain boundaries between itself and non-scientific fields and actors (Gieryn1999, p. 23). If, however, science is seen as credible but no paths are constructed for knowledge to travel from the world of science to the world of policy, then the authority and credibility of science serves no function for policymaking.
The bridging of these worlds is often performed by boundary organisations: formal organisations that exist in the interface of research and policy (Guston
1999,2001). In order to function as a bridge, they have to both separate science and policy (by drawing boundaries between them) and offer a platform for communication and collaboration between these worlds. These organisations use knowledge from both the political and the scientific domains in order to facilitate the interplay between them (O’Mahony and Bechky2008). By anchor-ing the bridge in both domains, the boundary organisation becomes credible for both science and policy. Boundary organisations are hybrid organisations in the sense that they employ different kinds of specialists: scientists as well as representatives from other areas of society, but also professionals who are located between science and politics and whose task is to communicate and mediate between the two spheres (cf. Miller2001, Pielke 2007, Huitema and Turnhout
2009, Hisschemöller and Sioziou 2013). In that sense, boundary organisations are wider than epistemic communities that only involve professional experts. But even if boundary organisations involve actors from both worlds, they play a distinct role that neither of the worlds is able to play independently. They amalgamate differing forms of praxis in order to synthesise, validate, and distribute knowledge intended for solving particular environmental issues. In other words, boundary organisations have to consider both worlds as relevant and credible, and adapt their communication accordingly (Guston2001, p. 403). Because they belong to different worlds, they have to maintain a balance in order to be credible and trustworthy in the eyes of both the scientific community and other communities.
Boundary objects are objects (e.g. artefacts, conceptual models, and classifi-cation systems) that allow actors to interact with each other and coordinate their efforts, despite divergent perceptions of the object (Star 1989). A boundary object needs to be both flexible, to adapt to specific needs of the parties employ-ing them, and robust, to maintain a common identity across sites (Star1989, p. 21). Thus, a boundary object serves as a point of reference, or a node, where different stakeholders can meet and find mutual interests. In order to provide stability, it also needs to be credible for all involved.
The idea of the boundary object has been further developed with the concept of standardised packages (Fujimura 1992). Standardised packages are less abstract and more structured than boundary objects. They involve standardised methods which further restrict and define boundary objects. This concept is useful for analysing collective action aiming to produce relatively stable facts across social worlds. The use of standardised packages also implies that practices on both sides of the boundary are affected. Standardised packages are in that sense performative; they affect the identities and practices of the actors that develop and make use of them. Their performative character sets them apart from the concept of boundary objects. It is, however, necessary to develop further the concept of standardised packages. In explaining how knowledge can travel from one actor to another without suffering distortion and loss, Latour (1987) has developed the concept of the immutable mobile. This is an entity that is mobile (i.e. can easily travel between worlds) but at the same time is immutable (i.e. is permanent and stable in the sense of not being influenced by the actors or contexts). Resources are required to create and sustain an immutable mobile; technology has to be mobilised, operators trained, and institutions designed for the handling of these entities.
Boundary objects, standardised packages, and immutable mobiles all concern representation: a state of nature being measured and fixed into a particular way to represent it. Many representations are fixed to the context in which they are developed. For example, concepts such as‘inertial mass’, ‘cathexis’, and ‘aliena-tion’ are mainly comprehensible and meaningful for those within the epistemic communities of physics, psychology, and sociology respectively. However, there are also concepts that are meaningful for diverse communities. In that sense they are context-independent; they can rather easily travel between different contexts and be charged with partly different meanings. These are portable representa-tions, i.e. artefacts that are seen as context-independent and therefore able to move between different social settings. Nature is measured, analysed, and arranged, and then represented in the form of diagrams, figures, models, indexes, and maps (Latour1987, Asdal2008). The task of constructing these representa-tions is mainly undertaken by boundary organisarepresenta-tions. Hence, it is not necessa-rily performed by researchers alone, but may involve other actors and areas of competence. Also, when transferred from the context in which they are con-structed to the contexts where they are to be applied, portable representations may change their meaning. The reason for this is that the representations are
actively appropriated; the original meaning developed by the boundary organisa-tion is not mechanically transferred when communicated to other actors. Actors reopen and reinterpret the representation, and invest it with particular meanings that make it understandable, relevant, and meaningful to them. Thus, portable representations are deliberately invented and distributed by boundary organisa-tions for the purpose of influencing other actors’ activities. However, in some cases, a representation may not work, and an organisation may therefore cease to use it, while in other cases an already existing concept may be adopted by a boundary organisation. A portable representation makes it possible to evaluate whether a change in nature is positive or negative, severe or insignificant, pressing or trivial– but it also makes it possible to develop specific goals within an environmental area and evaluate to what extent a policy has been successful (in terms of goal attainment). Thus, portable representations are essential to the creation of a space populated by governmental entities in need of political action.
Representing and regulating environmental issues
In the following discussion, two specific environmental issues are analysed: endangered species and ground-level ozone. Both of these problems are situated as parts of broader environmental regimes which have received high political priority. Boundary organisations have also developed around these two issues, and have created portable representations with the aim of granting science an important role in policy development. At the same time, the boundary organisa-tions have different levels of formal status, with one of them being part of the convention and the other not. The environmental problems are differently orga-nised and regulated; endangered species are related to a convention with a very broad regulatory object (from genes to ecosystem), unlike ground-level ozone which is associated with the narrower issue of clean air. Furthermore, whereas both endangered species and ground-level ozone are in pressing need of transboundary regulation, the issue of endangered species also includes a place-based approach. These two cases have accordingly been selected because both have been successful in terms of developing portable representations that are widely adopted and used in policymaking (internationally as well as nationally), but also because the boundary organisations differ in terms of formal status, actors involved, and practices employed. Hence, this study investigates two successful but different boundary organisations, and thereby explores the implications of portable representations in cases where they have been of importance, without claiming that they are equally important for all kinds of environmental problems. The empirical material for studying the Red List consists of documents on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) website, complemented by secondary literature on the history of the IUCN and its Red List. For ground-level ozone, the empirical material consists of the official documents from workshops organised by the Convention for Long-Range, Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP, UNECE 1979). For a detailed description of the
development and employment of the Red List and for the development of the regulation of ground-level ozone, see Gustafsson and Lidskog (2013) and Lidskog and Pleijel (2011).
The red list of threatened species
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is currently ratified by 190 nations, which makes it one of the most widely adopted international agreements ever (Larigauderie and Mooney2010). At the same time, protecting biodiversity is a rather vague goal, ranging from protecting genetic diversity to promoting varied ecosystems, and both politicians and scientists contest its meaning. It is also a political goal that is not easy to operationalise; on what scale should it be measured and what indicators should be used to gain knowledge about how the issue progresses? With the establishment of the convention, a need arose to measure loss of biodiversity and to do so in a way that would be seen as credible by the international community.
Boundary organisation
The organisational basis of the Red List is the IUCN. Founded in 1948, it is today the largest professional global conservation network. It is funded by governments, public agencies, foundations, member organisations, and corporations. Today, the IUCN includes more than 1200 member organisations (90 states, 120 govern-mental agencies, 864 national non-governgovern-mental organisations [NGOs], and 104 international NGOs). The professional secretariat has a staff of 1000 people in 45 countries in all parts of the world. It serves as a forum for developing strategies in conservation work, and has official observer status at the UN General Assembly. Some 11,000 individual volunteer scientists and experts in 160 countries work in its six commissions, one of which is the Species Survival Commission (SSC). The SSC is responsible for establishing lists of species threatened by extinction.
The establishment of the CBD in 1992 gave the IUCN increased legitimacy to develop knowledge about threats to biodiversity, not least by constructing criteria to measure and assess these threats. The status of the IUCN Red List grew rapidly and gained momentum during the final years of the twentieth century. The goal of the IUCN Red List became to ‘provide information and analyses on the status, trends and threats to species in order to inform and catalyze action for biodiversity conservation’ (IUCN2011b).
Portable representation
When the IUCN was established, no procedures existed for how to investigate the status of endangered species (Rodrigues et al.2006). With the foundation of the SSC in the 1960s, the work of establishing lists of endangered species became institutionalised (Scott et al. 1987). The first version of the list was,
however, only used to a limited extent in national and international policies; this was because it did not provide any standardised way to measure loss of biodi-versity. Therefore, the SSC undertook to establish standardised criteria for how to create Red Lists (IUCN2001). In1994, the IUCNpresented the first version of its standardised classification criteria for threatened species, describing the system as objective, neutral, and replicable (IUCN1994). Some small adjust-ments have been made, but to a large extent the 1994 classification criteria have remained unchanged.
The process of assessing species at the global level is managed and authorised by the SSC. The main responsibility for the first step of the assessment process is delegated to SSC Specialist Groups, which are networks of volunteer scientific experts who are highly qualified regarding species, groups of species, or specific geographical areas (IUCN 2011a, 2011b). Through the use of the web-based computer program IUCN Species Information Service (SIS), the Specialist Groups gather data, estimate uncertainty within the data, and make use of the SIS criteria calculator to determine the most probable category for the assessed species (IUCN2011a,2011c). The mandatory documentation for all assessments includes a map of the species’ extent of occurrence; a list of its major habitats; what major threats it faces; an indication as to whether its population trend is increasing, decreasing, stable, or unknown; what conservation actions are in place or needed; and information on the utilisation of the species (IUCN2011d).
To enhance the credibility of the IUCN Red List in terms of scientific accuracy, all proposed Red List categorisations are subject to peer review by a minimum of two members of the IUCN Red List Authority (IUCN2011b). As a complement to this peer review, all submitted assessments are also checked by the IUCN Species Program staff to review the use of the Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN2011a). All accepted assessments are published online in the next update of the IUCN Red List (IUCN2011e).
One major difference between the current quantitative Red List and the earlier qualitative versions is that science is now given a more decisive role. Previously, experts (scientists or competent civil servants) used their specific knowledge of species and their general scientific knowledge to make qualitative assessments of whether a specific species was threatened. With the new quanti-tative assessment, scientific expertise only provides the data necessary for the statistical calculations used in the Red List’s classification process, while the evaluation is made by standardised criteria not dependent on any single scientist. The assessments have thereby been made science-dependent in the sense that scientific expertise, rather than civil servants, now perform them, and the assess-ments are based on scientifically developed standardised criteria.
A hybrid practice with objective results
The IUCN Red List has become a portable representation of how to measure and assess biodiversity. The list offers a standardised way to evaluate and monitor
loss of biodiversity, which, through its organisational site (IUCN), provides it with credibility. Also, by using specific species as indicators of biodiversity trends, the list not only assesses the threat to individual species but also says something about general trends worldwide. Hence, diverse group of actors, forms of knowledge, and interests are shaped and coordinated around a specific way to measure endangered species. Volunteer scholars, environmental conservationists, scientific research centres, and public authorities are all parts of the process. Despite the hybrid character of this process, it presents itself as objective, value-free, and separate from normative assumptions. The IUCN Red List thereby functions as an instrument for keeping scientific findings separate from political action; its objective description of threatened species does not contain any explicit guidance about what action should be taken and by whom. At the same time, through its focus on what is needed to rescue threatened species from extinction, the Red List contributes to the perception of biodiversity loss as a severe global environmental problem.
Representing and regulating ground-level ozone
Ground-level ozone was gradually included in the CLRTAP. It was first included in the convention by the Sofia protocol on nitrogen oxides (UNECE1988), its regulation was taken a step further in the Geneva protocol on Volatile Organic Compounds (UNECE 1991), and with the multipollutant/multieffect protocol (signed in Gothenburg in 1999), ground-level ozone emissions were established as one of three environmental targets addressed by the Convention. Currently, ground-level ozone is considered the most significant toxic gaseous pollutant in terms of direct effects on vegetation in Europe (Orru et al.2012).
Boundary organisation
The CLRTAP comprises a structure of bodies for environmental monitoring and modelling, scientific assessment, and policy development. Under the executive body, there are two working groups (the Working Group on Effects and the Working Group on Strategies and Reviews) and one monitoring body (EMEP Steering Body). These comprise 29 expert groups, either in the form of task forces or programme centres. Led by the parties to the CLRTAP, they are normally chaired by an expert nominated by a leading country, and many of the experts involved are selected by the member states (Hettelingh et al.2004, p. 73). The CLRTAP task forces have included national experts, as well as policy-makers and representatives of nongovernmental organisations. The task forces have also organised training workshops to brief policymakers on the state of the art, as well as on the costs and effectiveness of possible policy strategies (Maas et al.2004, p. 94).
The European Monitoring and Evaluation Program (EMEP) is crucial for the CLRTAP’s functioning (Schneider and Schneider2004, p. 31). It currently has
five centres and four task forces, all of which report annually to the EMEP Steering Body, which in turn reports annually to the CLRTAP Executive Body (Schneider and Schneider2004, p. 37). The programme encompasses some 100 monitoring stations in Europe– measuring, for example, sulphur dioxide, nitro-gen dioxides, and ground-level ozone. EMEP provides a mechanism for produ-cing standardised emission data, i.e. key materials for evaluating the effects of various abatement strategies (Wettestad2002, Lidskog and Sundqvist 2011). It has also fostered the development of uniform abatement strategies and a shared understanding and modelling of transboundary air-pollution flows.
Portable representation
With air quality becoming an object of regulation, the need arose to measure unclean air. Scientists invented the Critical Loads and Critical Levels concepts as ways to evaluate the environmental effects of airborne pollutants.‘Critical Load’ means a quantitative estimate of a level of exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specific sensitive elements of the environment do not occur, according to present knowledge (Nilsson and Grennfelt1988, p. 9).
The first interactive computer model that used Critical Loads and cost-effectiveness to suggest optimised abatement strategies came in the form of RAINS (the Regional Acidification Information System), developed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in 1984. It was developed in cooperation with researchers from a range of disciplinary and national affiliations, most of whom were associated with the CLRTAP. The RAINS model has been able to bring heterogeneous scientific practices together to speak with a single voice in a scientifically defensible way, as well as to communicate results to policymakers (Sundqvist et al.2002). Thus, through the RAINS model, science and policy were connected; it made use of Critical Loads in developing effect-based and cost-effective abatement strategies. However, simply producing quantitative estimates of critical levels for various pollutants and ecosystems is of no help to policymakers when they are negotiating relevant and cost-effective abatement strategies. Therefore, the CLRTAP’s Mapping Manual was developed as a tool for modelling and mapping critical and exces-sive levels and loads (UNECE2004). It standardised the methods for deriving data with which to assess effects and risk. The Mapping Manual identifies geographical areas to determine the scope and extent of pollutant depositions and concentrations which exceed Critical Loads and levels. The Mapping Manual serves as an important means for making the effects of air pollution understandable and meaningful to politicians and negotiators.
Several workshops were organised to conceptualise, define, and formulate the problem of ground-level ozone in a way suited for political consideration and action (Fuhrer and Achermann 1994, Kärenlampi and Skärby 1996, Karlsson et al.2003). By means of monitoring activities and exposure indices, unclean air
was identified and measured, and by means of integrated assessments and mapping technologies, the geographical consequences of current emissions were presented and maps were produced for future scenarios.
Objective science delivering political advice
The concept of Critical Loads is a portable representation for measuring ground-level ozone. Together with the instruments attached to it– EMEP, the RAINS model, and the Mapping Manual – Critical Loads became central for abating increased levels of level ozone. A standardised way to measure ground-level ozone was developed, and through its organisational site (the CLRTAP), it was provided with credibility. Also, the regulation of ground-level ozone became part of a broader problem through its integration with two other major trans-boundary environmental problems: acidification and eutrophication (UNECE
1999).
The boundary organisation was made up mainly of scientists with different disciplinary belongings, but also included political representatives and represen-tatives from NGOs (Lidskog and Pleijel 2011). Nevertheless, the result – the critical load of ground-level ozone and how to measure it– was seen as a purely scientific outcome, independent of who had been involved in its development. To a large extent, this was made possible by adopting standardised ways to measure nature. This was considered a guarantee that descriptions of the environmental conditions and the proposed abatement strategies were based on scientific findings.
At first sight, the CLRTAP seems to be a somewhat paradoxical convention because it was deliberately designed to maximise its political influence by separating policy (in terms of national policy) and science (in terms of science-based abatement strategies). Leaning on science, the CLRTAP was seen as delivering trustworthy advice and thereby as capable of guiding policy action. Thus, the portable representation not only served to separate science and policy, but also– in contrast to the Red List – included explicit proposals for action.
Analysis: integrating science and policy by separating them
Obviously, there are major differences between these two environmental issues and their regulations. The IUCN is a network of different kinds of organisations, whereas the CLRTAP is a formal convention hosted by the United Nations. Both boundary organisations enrol scientists, but in the case of the CLRTAP, many of these scientists are appointed by nation states. The empirical data of the Red List are collected not only through scientific research but also by skilled amateurs and from museum collections. With the CLRTAP, there is no need for this kind of local input because data are collected by monitoring stations that measure emissions. Also, the CLRTAP includes the investigation of general causes of the problem (emissions to air) and places demands on different sectors to reduce
airborne pollutants. Due to the differing character of the environmental issue it addresses, the Red List does not include causes of biodiversity loss and species extinction; it only provides knowledge of the effects on species, leaving it to individual states to decide how to regulate activities in order to safeguard threatened species.
However, there are also a number of important similarities between the two. Their boundary organisations involve not only scientists but also members of other professions. The portable representations developed by them have, in partly different ways, been integrated into the regulation of biodiversity and trans-boundary air pollution. The trans-boundary organisations constructed representations that were not only meaningful to them but also understandable by other com-munities. The Red List and Critical Loads were not, however, mechanically transferred from one setting to another. Instead, they were charged with mean-ings that were not entirely identical with their original ones. Actors reinterpreted the meaning of the representations to make them relevant to their ways of thought. To exemplify: a recent study of the appropriation of the Red List shows that it is given partly different meanings by public agencies responsible for biodiversity issues; some agencies ascribe great certainty to its findings and accord it the highest status in their work with biodiversity, whereas other agencies see it as less central to their biodiversity work (Gustafsson and Lidskog 2013). Turning to the issue of air pollution, one study shows that some involved in the CLRTAP see critical loads as a scientific concept, while others see it as merely a pedagogical instrument that bridges science and policy (Sundqvist et al.2002). Thus, as several other studies have shown, for knowl-edge to travel, it needs to be translated into a form comprehensible by the people in the new context (Latour1987, p. 142, Callon et al.2009, pp. 59–70). Portable
representations are in this sense both context-independent and context-sensitive; different social settings provide them with partly different meanings. In this way, a representation becomes meaningful for diverse and heterogeneous actors.
Portable representations cannot, however, imply totally different meanings, because they would then no longer be functional. To be portable, a representation needs to provide some shared meaning or point of reference to make commu-nication between diverse actors possible and productive. The representation can thereby facilitate the development of policies that are both science-based and context-sensitive. In both cases, boundary organisations consciously draw sharp borders between science and policy. The Red List presents itself as merely descriptive, as completely free of values and recommendations about what to do and how to act. By providing factual knowledge, the boundary organisation believes that politicians will realise that something has to be done to counteract the ongoing extinction of species. In the case of ground-level ozone, expert groups within the CLRTAP are consciously designed to maximise their political influence by keeping science separate from policy. From this position, the working groups articulate knowledge not only on the state of the environment, but also about what needs to be done to counteract air pollution. They not only
offer knowledge on the spatial distribution of detrimental consequences of ground-level ozone and information on the main sources of this problem, but also propose abatement strategies. By drawing a sharp dividing line between science and policy, they achieve a position from which they can deliver political advice and provide opinions about not only the state of the environment but also how to act in order to reduce emissions of airborne pollutants.
Thus, in a sense, the different boundary organisations have chosen different strategies for influencing policy: either only speaking about the state of the environment, or also saying what relevant actions need to be taken. However, both strategies aim to maximise the influence of science on policymaking. They both draw a sharp distinction between science and policy, and use this boundary to gain credibility. They also formulate strategies for how to represent the environment in order to persuade the policy community of the need to take action. In this sense, their efforts have succeeded in making science matter by separating science and policy. In both cases, political considerations were weighed concerning how best to deliver trusted knowledge, and it was believed this should be done by configuring a non-political science, separate from policy-making but nevertheless important for it.
As shown above, the Red List of threatened species and the Critical Load for ground-level ozone have both been constructed by hybrid groups comprising different kinds of actors and expertise. Information about the processes through which information the Red List and Critical Loads are constructed– how condi-tions and phenomena are categorised, measured, and assessed– is easily acces-sible. But it is the product– the portable representation – that is transferred to other settings. There seem to be few initiatives to open up and critically discuss the process by which portable representations are constructed. Instead, they are portrayed as fixed products, seemingly isolated from the processes and settings which have constructed them. Through this decoupling, the politics of expertise– how expertise was mobilised and used in delivering political advice (cf. Beck
2012)– were depoliticised, which further strengthened the separation of science and policy, because the portable representations are presented as indisputable facts – as objective and science-based ways to measure and represent nature.
Conclusion: policy-relevant science and science-based policy
There are different normative proposals on how the science–policy interface should be designed to achieve better governance. Most scholars agree that science is important, with some stating that in order to be influential, science should be kept separate from policy (Haas and Stevens 2011), and others claiming that it is misleading to talk about a separation between science and policy because they are always integrated (Latour 1993, Jasanoff 2004b). Drawing upon my analysis here, three findings should be stressed. Although they are not necessarily valid for all kinds of boundary organisations, they have something important to say about the science–policy interface.
First, as I have shown, boundary organisations have designed the science– policy interface in such a way as to maximise their social authority and political influence. This does not, however, mean that the involved experts see themselves as political actors, but only that social organisations and regulatory objects are entangled (cf. Pellizzoni 2011). On another level, however, science is co-pro-duced with policy; scientific knowledge and expertise are always located in a social setting in which various actors consider how to construct policy-relevant science and influence policymaking (Jasanoff2004b). Thus, scientific facts and political interests are intermingled, and there is no linear sequence from science to policy.
Second, portable representations have implications not only for how an environmental problem is regulated but also for how it is understood. Environmental problems need social practices that make them visible, institu-tional mechanisms that disseminate knowledge about them, and strategies that mobilise support for regulating them. A crucial part of the regulatory process is first to define the object at stake in a way that makes it governable. In this process, the development of portable representations by boundary organisations is vital. However, these organisations give certain kinds of expertise a central role in constructing an environmental issue suitable for regulation. In the case of the CLRTAP, a limited number of experts were included, and dissenting views were rarely heard (Maas et al.2004, p. 94). Thus, boundary organisations are important for the institutionalising of science–policy interactions, but also because they serve as gatekeepers, causing certain kinds of expertise and knowl-edge to be seen as relevant and others to be excluded.
Third, this means that science-based policy and policy-relevant science are two sides of the same coin, both resulting from interaction and negotiation between the various actors. The definition, categorisation, and assessment of unclean air and endangered species cannot be separated from the production of policies for combating air pollution and protecting biodiversity. Beneath what may seem to be the formally distinct activities of science and politics lies a hidden process of interaction and integration. In other words, it is a case of co-production of governable space, in which scientific indicators and political considerations influence each other, resulting in policy-relevant science and science-based policy.
To sum up, this study shows that the boundary organisations function as a link between scientists and policymakers. Through portable representations, nature was not only measured and represented but also made governable. In addition, the portable representations seemed to strengthen mutually the cred-ibility of the scientific assessments and the policy that was formed. A final conclusion that can be drawn is that science makes itself matter by formally separating itself from policy considerations, yet at the same time the two are integrated through portable representations from boundary organisations.
In a world where knowledge production and decision making are becoming increasingly connected (Miller2007), where the amount of knowledge and the
number of knowledge sites are expanding rapidly (Nowotny et al. 2001), and where not only political ideas but also scientific facts are frequently contested (Jasanoff 2011), there is a need for knowledge brokers and institutions that transfer and transform knowledge between different communities, and package knowledge in a way that makes it both credible and meaningful to these com-munities. Boundary organisations, to varying degrees, fulfil this need, and it is therefore reasonable to believe that they will continue to play an important role in international environmental governance.
Acknowledgements
This article was written as part of the project Science role in international environmental governance supported by the Swedish Research Council. I thank Ingemar Elander, Karin M. Gustafsson, Erik Hysing, and Ann-Sofie Lennqvist-Lindén at the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Örebro University, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version.
References
Andresen, S. and Jon Skjærseth, B., 2007. Science and technology: From agenda setting to implementation. In: D. Bodanski, J. Brunnée, and E. Hey, eds. The oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 182–202.
Asdal, K., 2008. Enacting things through numbers: Taking nature into account/ing. Geoforum, 39 (1), 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.11.004
Beck, S., 2012. The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: The case of Germany. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3 (1), 1–17. doi:10.1002/ wcc.151
Biermann, F., et al., 2012. Navigating the anthropocene: Improving earth system govern-ance. Science, 335 (6074), 1306–1307. doi:10.1126/science.1217255
Bijker, W.E., Bal, R. and Hendriks, R., 2009. The paradox of scientific authority. The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloor, D., 1976. Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago, LA: University of Chicago Press.
Callon, M., Barthe, Y., and Lascoumes, P., 2009. Acting in an uncertain world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, W., Mitchell, R., and Cash, D., 2006. Evaluating the influence of global environ-mental assessments. In: R.B. Mitchell, C.C. William, D.W. Cash and N.M. Dickson, eds. Global environmental assessments: information and influence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–28.
Fischer, F., 2009. Democracy and expertise. Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fuhrer, J. and Achermann, B., 1994. Critical levels for ozone. UN-ECE workshop report. Schriftenreihe der FAC Liebefeld No. 16.
Fujimura, J.H., 1992. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and ‘translation. In: A. Pickering, ed. Science as culture and practice. Chicago, LA: University of Chicago Press, 168–211.
Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781–795. doi:10.2307/2095325
Gieryn, T.F., 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, LA: University of Chicago Press.
Gustafsson, K. and Lidskog, R., 2013. Boundary work, hybrid practices and portable representations: An analysis of global and national co-productions of Red Lists. Nature and Culture, 8 (1), 30–52. doi:10.3167/nc.2013.080103
Guston, D., 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29 (1), 87–111. doi:10.1177/030631299029001004
Guston, D., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science Technology and Human Values, 26 (4), 399–408. doi:10.1177/ 016224390102600401
Haas, P.M. and Stevens, C., 2011. Organized science, usable knowledge, and multilateral environmental governance. In: R. Lidskog and G. Sundqvist, eds. Governing the air. The dynamics of science, policy, and citizen interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 125–162.
Hettelingh, J.-P., et al, 2004. Air pollution effects drive abatement strategies. In: J. Sliggers and W. Kakebeeke, eds. Clearing the air: 25 years of the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. New York, NY: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 59–84.
Hisschemöller, M. and Sioziou, I., 2013. Boundary organisations for resource mobilisa-tion: Enhancing citizens’ involvement in the Dutch energy transition. Environmental Politics, 22 (5), 792–810. doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.775724
Huitema, D. and Turnhout, E., 2009. Working at the science–policy interface: A discur-sive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands environmental assessment agency. Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 576–594. doi:10.1080/09644010903007427
IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red list Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria– Version 3.1. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
IUCN, 2011a. Assessment Process. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/assess-ment-process[Accessed 3 September 2012]
IUCN, 2011b. Red List overview. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/red-list-overview
[Accessed 3 September 2012]
IUCN, 2011c. IUCN Species Information Service. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/ SIS_Brief_Overview_Doc.pdf[Accessed 3 September 2012]
IUCN. 2011d. Data Organization. IUCN Species Survival Commission. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/data-organization [Accessed 3 September 2012]
IUCN, 2011e. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. Available from:http://www.iucnredlist.org[Accessed 3 September 2012]
Jasanoff, S., 2004a. The idiom of co-production. In: S. Jasanoff, ed. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge, 1–12.
Jasanoff, S., 2004b. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: S. Jasanoff, ed. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge, 13–45.
Jasanoff, S., 2004c. Afterword. In: S. Jasanoff, ed. States of knowledge: The co-produc-tion of science and social order. London: Routledge, 274–282.
Jasanoff, S., 2011. Cosmopolitan knowledge: Climate science and global civic episte-mology. In: J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard and D. Schlosberg, eds. The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 129–143.
Jasanoff, S. and Wynne, B., 1998. Science and decision making. In: S. Rayner and E.L. Malone, eds. Human choice and climate change Vol. 1: The societal framework. Columbus: Battelle Press, 1–87.
Kärenlampi, L. and Skärby, L. 1996. Critical levels for ozone in Europe: Testing and finalizing the concepts. UN-ECE Workshop Report. University of Kuopio, Department of Ecology and Environmental Science.
Karlsson, P.-E.Selldén, G. and Pleijel, H. eds. 2003. Establishing ozone critical levels II. UNECE workshop report. Göteborg, Sweden 19–22 November, 2002. Göteborg: IVL Report B 1523.
Knorr-Cetina, K., 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Larigauderie, A. and Mooney, H.A., 2010. The international year of biodiversity: An opportunity to strengthen the science–policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2 (1-2), 1–2. doi:10.1016/ j.cosust.2010.04.001
Latour, B., 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., 2005. Trains of thought. The fifth dimension of time and its fabrication. In: A.N. Perret-Clermont, ed. Thinking time. Gottmgen and Bern: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers, 173–187.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S., 1979. Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lidskog, R. and Pleijel, H., 2011. Co-producing policy-relevant science and science-based policy. The case of regulating ground-level ozone. In: R. Lidskog and G. Sundqvist, eds. Governing the air. The dynamics of science, policy, and citizen interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 223–250.
Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G., 2011. The science–policy–citizen dynamics in interna-tional environmental governance. In: R. Lidskog and G. Sundqvist, eds. Governing the air. The dynamics of science, policy, and citizen interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 323–360.
Maas, R., et al., 2004. Integrated assessment modelling– the tool. In: J. Sliggers and W. Kakebeeke, eds. Clearing the air. 25 years of the convention on long-range trans-boundary air pollution. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publication, 85–96. Miller, C.A., 2001. Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and
environmental governance in the climate regime. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26 (4), 478–500. doi:10.1177/016224390102600405
Miller, C.A., 2007. Democratization, international knowledge institutions, and global governance. Governance, 20 (2), 325–357. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00359.x Nilsson, J.Grennfelt, P. eds. 1988. Critical loads for sulphur and nitrogen. Report from a
Workshop Held at Skokloster Sweden. 19–24 March 1988, Copenhagen: Nordic council of ministers, Nord 1988:15.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
O’Mahony, S. and Bechky, B.A., 2008. Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (3), 422–459. doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.422
Orru, H., et al, 2012. Impact of climate change on ozone related mortality and morbidity in Europe. European Respiratory Journal, published online before print June 27, 2012, doi:10.1183/09031936.00210411
Pellizzoni, L., 2011. The politics of facts: Local environmental conflicts and expertise. Environmental Politics, 20 (6), 765–785. doi:10.1080/09644016.2011.617164 Pielke, R., 2007. The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rodrigues, A.S.L., PILGRIM J, LAMOREUX J, HOFFMANN M, BROOKS T, 2006. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 21 (2), 71–76. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010
Schneider, T. and Schneider, J., 2004. EMEP– backbone of the convention. In: J. Sliggers and W. Kakebeeke, eds. Clearing the air. 25 years of the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publication, 31–44.
Scott, P., Burion, J.A., and Fitter, R., 1987. Red data books: The historical background. In: R. Fitter and M. Fitter, eds. The road to extinction: A symposium held by the species survival commission. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1–5.
Star, S.L., 1989. Regions of mind: Brain research and the quest for scientific certainty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sundqvist, G., Letell, M., and Lidskog, R., 2002. Science and policy in air pollution abatement strategies. Environmental Science and Policy, 5 (2), 147–156. doi:10.1016/ S1462-9011(02)00032-1
UNECE. 1979. The convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. Geneva: UNECE.
UNECE. 1988. Protocol to the 1979 convention on long-range transboundary air pollu-tion concerning the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides or their transboundary fluxes. Geneva: UNECE.
UNECE. 1991. Protocol to the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution on the control of emissions of volatile organic compounds or their transboundary fluxes. Geneva: UNECE.
UNECE. 1999. Protocol to abate acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone. Heralding 20 years of international cooperation to reduce air pollution. Geneva: UNECE.
UNECE, 2004. Revised manual on methodologies and criteria for mapping critical levels/ loads and geographical areas where they are exceeded, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, Germany. Available from: http://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/Topics/I/ICP_M_M/ Mapping_Manual[Accessed 4 October 2012]
Wettestad, J., 2002. Clearing the air: European advances in tackling acid rain and atmospheric pollution. Aldershot: Ashgate.
