Beyond the Surf? The ‘4As’ of Knowledge-Politics Interdependence in Marine Governance

Multiple knowledge use in decision-making is increasingly advocated in today’s governing philosophy and especially for environmental governance (e.g. reglementary science, technical expertise, user knowledge, citizen science). Yet, the uptake of different knowledge forms and the involvement of civil society has become a controversial debate. In their well-known paper on the ‘third wave of science studies’, Collins and Evans launched a discussion on “the value of scientists’ and technologists’ knowledge and experience as compared with others’ knowledge and experience” (Collins and Evans, 2002: 236). Less than a decade later, they described the problem they perceived in this way: “Demands for increased public participation in science, however, have the tendency to lead to a ‘levelling of the epistemological playing field’ and to a collapse of the concept of expertise” (Collins et al, 2010: 186). If scientists no longer had special access to the truth, they questioned, why should their advice be especially valued? Whereas these essentialist positions grant scientists a dominant role determining what does and does not count as legitimate knowledge in governing, the aim of this paper is to go beyond these debates addressing multiple knowledge use instead from the perspective of actors in interaction with institutions. Drawing on a political sociology of science (Weisbein, 2015; Frickel and Moore, 2006), the aim is to rigorously capture causes and consequences of changing power relations underlying new ‘knowledge-politics’ interdependencies in marine governance. To do this, the paper develops a new analytical framework, the ‘4A’ framework. Each ‘A’ refers to a different ‘knowledge-politics’ coupling practice in governing and gives rise to a distinct line of questioning. Acquisition: to define problems and render them ‘knowable’, knowledge must be acquired. Which data, knowledge, policy practices are acquired by governors and why?; Aggregation: when setting policy instruments, acquired knowledges must be aggregated. Which policy objectives, measures or tools result from this aggregation? Which knowledges ‘win out’ over others and why?; Articulation: once policy instruments are set, they are often communicated to wider audiences. Which knowledges and values are articulated by actors in the justification of policy choices and appear dominant? Which are silenced?; Accumulation: choices made accumulate over time. Which knowledges, instruments and power relations result from these practices and become available for future actions? Which are rendered ‘invisible’? To illustrate their empirical contribution, I apply the 4As to compare two case studies on i) marine water quality and ii) coastal fisheries in the South West of France. In both cases, actors are confronted with a new regulatory imperative to implement an ‘ecosystem’ governing approach. This potentially opens marine governance up to new policy problems, knowledges and stakeholders. Yet, preliminary results reveal important tensions over the delimitation of ‘legitimate knowledge’ in the favour of reglementary science. Whereas a collapsing of the category of ‘expertise’ is not in evidence, which might reassure certain scientists, the conclusions of the paper point rather to potential negative consequences of the continued dominance of reglementary science for developing new relationships between civil society and the seas, essential for oceans’ continued protection.