Post-Normal Science in Practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Abstract

About a decade ago, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) unwittingly embarked on a transition from a technocratic model of science advising to the paradigm of “post-normal science” (PNS). In response to a scandal around uncertainty management in 1999, a Guidance for “Uncertainty Assessment and Communication” was developed with advice from the initiators of the PNS concept and was introduced in 2003. This was followed in 2007 by a “Stakeholder Participation” Guidance. In this article, the authors provide a combined insider/outsider perspective on the transition process. The authors assess the extent to which the PNS paradigm has delivered new approaches in the agency’s practice and analyze two projects—on long-term options for Dutch sustainable development policy and for urban development policy—the latter in somewhat more detail. The authors identify several paradoxes PBL encounters when putting the PNS concept into practice. It is concluded that an openness to other styles of work than the technocratic model has become visible, but that the introduction of the PNS paradigm is still in its early stage.

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

“…Implicit disclosure and the use of such vague terminology not only makes uncertainty classifications presented in the academic literature (e.g., Tennøy, Kvaerner, and Gjerstad 2006;Walker et al 2003;De Jongh 1988) difficult to apply, if not impractical, it also poses challenges to regulatory decision makers in trying to identify whether and where uncertainty exists and how significant these uncertainties are with respect to a project's approval or approval conditions. Consistent with Larsen, Kørnøv, and Driscoll (2013) and Petersen et al (2011), we suggest there is a need for improved understanding of, consistency among, and transparency of uncertainty reporting practices by those involved in the EA process. The Committee on Decision Making Under Uncertainty (2013), for example, suggests that to successfully communicate uncertainty there is a need to develop communication plans and strategies that are sensitive to the needs of stakeholders and decision makers À in this case affected communities and regulatory agencies.…”

Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

“…The argument is therefore that rational decision-making is neither typical of proposals subject to IA, nor appropriate (Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000). Furthermore, Petersen et al (2011Petersen et al ( ) describe a "scandal around uncertainty management in 1999 in the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, whereby a senior statistician in the Agency published a national newspaper article criticising their approach of relying heavily on computer models without real measurements to back them up, providing unrealistic accuracy claims (i.e. hiding uncertainty).…”

“…This threatened the Agency's funding and resulted in them attempting to introduce a post-normal science approach to their work via guidance on uncertainty assessment and communication, and guidance on stakeholder participation; albeit they conclude that changing the mind-sets of their staff is a longer-term prospect. This example typifies the field of IA which is traditionally very technocratic, embedded in a utopian rationalist view of the role of science in policy (Petersen et al, 2011) which argues that the assimilation of scientific, value-free information, should influence policy outcomesdespite the evidence to the contrary. This view of IA is institutionalised which, as the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency found, makes any redirection a 'scandal'.…”

Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations

“…Saloranta, 2001); and to 122 explain the processes of science in practice in the light of PNS (e.g. Turnpenny Lorenzoni and 123 Jones, 2009; Petersen et al, 2011). Among the more enduring debates about PNS is the 124 extent to which it represents a normative framework for scientific practice and its links to 125 policy, or rather, is a theoretical model, a description or a heuristic (Farrell, 2011) that offers 126 an explanatory framework for this interaction as it happens in practice.…”