Mitigating Mistrust Tspace.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca Mitigating Mistrust? Participation and Expertise in Hydraulic Fracturing Governance Kate J. Neville and Erika Weinthal Version Post-print/accepted manuscript Citation Neville, K. J., & Weinthal, E. (2016). Mitigating mistrust? Participation (published version) and expertise in hydraulic fracturing governance. Review of Policy Research, 33(6), 578-602. Publisher’s Statement This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Neville, K. J., & Weinthal, E. (2016). Mitigating mistrust? Participation and expertise in hydraulic fracturing governance. Review of Policy Research, 33(6), 578-602, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12201. This article may be used for non- commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. How to cite TSpace items Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page. This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Title: Mitigating mistrust? Participation and expertise in hydraulic fracturing governance Authors: Kate J Neville1 and Erika Weinthal2 Acknowledgements: This work was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The authors thank Don Roberts and members of Yukoners Concerned, as well as Lois Moorcroft, Jim Tredger, Sandy Silver, Darius Elias, Currie Dixon, and Patti McLeod. Earlier versions of this paper were presented in 2014 at the University of British Columbia Liu Institute, in 2015 at the International Studies Association in New Orleans and the Duke University Environmental Institutions Seminar series, and in 2016 at the Hybrid Organizations working group at Duke University and the Northern Planning Conference in Whitehorse. We thank participants of these sessions, including Michael Urban and Sara Elder, for their helpful comments. The authors are also indebted to Alayne Potter for research assistance, and to Shana Starobin, Kimberly Marion Suiseeya, Christopher Paul, McKenzie Johnson Durnez, Lukas Neville, and two anonymous reviewers for generative and generous comments on the manuscript. ___________________ 1 Department of Political Science and School of the Environment, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3G3, email: [email protected] 2 Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 9 Circuit Drive, Durham, NC, USA, 27708, email: [email protected] Mitigating mistrust? 1 Mitigating mistrust? Participation and expertise in hydraulic fracturing governance Abstract: In Canada’s Yukon Territory, a legislative committee was tasked with assessing the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing. The committee designed an extensive participatory process involving citizens and experts; however, instead of information access and public hearings fostering an open dialogue and trust, these two channels failed to de-polarize debates over hydraulic fracturing. We argue that mistrust was reinforced because (1) weak participatory processes undermined the goals of public involvement, (2) scientific evidence and scientists themselves were not accepted as neutral or apolitical, and (3) strategic fostering of mistrust by actors on both sides of a polarized issue intensified existing doubt about the integrity and credibility of the process. The implications of a failure to restore trust in government are significant, not only for the issue of hydraulic fracturing, but for governance more broadly, as mistrust has spillover effects for subsequent public negotiations. keywords: participation, expertise, hydraulic fracturing, governance, mistrust, trust Mitigating mistrust? 2 Mitigating mistrust? Participation and expertise in hydraulic fracturing governance Introduction In May 2013, responding to citizen concerns about new oil and gas claims, at the instigation of the government of Canada’s northwestern territory, the Yukon, the Legislative Assembly created a “Select Committee” to evaluate the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing (HF: at times referred to as “fracking”)i (YLA, 2013a). Around the world, HF—a process for extracting unconventional oil and gas resources involving the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals into tight rock formations—has been controversial owing to its potential environmental, health, and social impacts (Vengosh et al., 2014). The six-person Select Committee—comprised of politicians from all three of the territory’s political parties, with an equal number of members of government and opposition parties—held a series of public hearings in 2014 to solicit citizen views on HF. They travelled to 12 communities across the territory and listened to statements from nearly 250 individuals. The Committee also held two separate two-day expert proceedings, bringing in speakers from industry, government, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), and academia to testify on HF. In these hearings, Select Committee members and the watching public listened to presentations on the potential impacts of allowing HF in the Yukon (SC-HF, 2014a). The government’s stated aim was to develop public policy on this emerging technology and process based on scientific data, informed opinion, and public participation. However, over the course of the Committee’s work, from its initiation in 2013 to its report submission in 2015, these approaches failed to foster open dialogue, information access, or the perception of transparency. Through public meetings, written submissions, and on the sidelines of official processes, many citizens expressed strong doubt about government sincerity, the validity of scientific evidence, and the qualifications of the invited experts. Trust, understood as a relational, conditional, action-inducing judgment necessary for accepting perceived vulnerability (Levi and Stoker, 2000), was notably lacking in these debates. When mistrust exists at the outset, new negotiations over contested projects are difficult to conduct—once lost, trust is exceedingly difficult to restore (Lount et al., 2008). Governments and industry are increasingly searching for ways to repair relationships and overcome public skepticism. However, in the Yukon, such strategies have been unsuccessful. Why have these efforts to develop participatory processes and engage with evidence-based policy-making failed to assuage citizen mistrust of decision-makers? We argue that, together, the lack of confidence in the integrity of consultative and participatory processes and the disagreements about facts and expertise reinforce existing mistrust of government. This occurs in two ways, one unintended and the other deliberate. First, weak participatory processes undermine the goals of such approaches, leading to unintended outcomes—these leave citizens feeling unheard, and thus lacking confidence in the decisions of government. Second, the strategic fostering of mistrust by actors on both sides of a polarized issue intensifies existing doubt—these are intentional processes that create uncertainty and skepticism. We suggest, these create a barrier to meaningful agreement on the issue of HF, with outcomes that benefit no one: social tensions heighten between those supporting and those opposing these developments; many citizens perceive themselves to be ignored by their governments, leading them to turn to protests and lawsuits; and corporations end up with official Mitigating mistrust? 3 permits but lack the security of a social license to operate. The absence of meaningful public dialogue and involvement, and a shared foundation for debate, has implications for understanding the dynamics of governance processes over contested energy and development projects. Participation and science-based decision-making are widely lauded in the policy field as tools for fostering open dialogue and gaining social license for development projects. However, our work traces the processes through which public participation and scientific expertise fail to build trust. To make the argument about why expertise and participatory processes often fail to overcome lost trust, we proceed in five parts. First, we situate our argument in the literature on trust, participation, and science policy. In section two, we describe our investigation of HF debates in the Yukon. We detail our methods, including fieldwork in the Yukon, use of documents on the public record, and analysis of public hearings. Next, we look at the goals and challenges of participatory processes (section three), and at the contested role of expertise in policy development (section four). In both, we consider evidence from the Yukon case study. Finally, we assess the linkages between expertise and consultative processes, and the implications of multiplying mistrust for resource development decisions in the Yukon and for governance more broadly. I. Trust, participation, and science policy Trends in mistrust – and why mistrust matters Survey data in Canada indicates that governments and industry seem not to inspire high levels of public trust. For instance, the World Values Survey recorded a drop in Canadians’ confidence