Whose expertise counts? Assisted migration and the politics of knowledge in British Columbia's public forests. (April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pelai, Ricardo; Hagerman, Shannon M.; Kozak, Robert
• Is Part Of: Land use policy. Volume 103(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-04
• Subjects: Assisted migration -- Knowledge politics -- Climate change adaptation -- Science-policy; Land use -- Periodicals; Land use -- Government policy -- Periodicals; Sol, Utilisation du -- Périodiques; Sol, Utilisation du -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 333.7305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105296
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-8377

Abstract

Highlights: Little is known about how knowledge is included/excluded in the development of novel climate change adaptation strategies. Knowledge considered credible to inform assisted migration is restricted to the natural sciences. There is limited input from Indigenous Peoples and local foresters to assisted migration policy. Limiting the types of expertise for assisted migration may exclude other possibilities for generating transformative change. Abstract: The assisted migration (AM) of trees is increasingly being proposed and trialed to adapt forest management to the impacts of climate change. While institutional and risk perception dimensions of AM are increasingly well-studied, a key gap that remains is to understand how current institutional practices shape the types of knowledge that are considered in AM policy development, and how this in turn makes visible different risks and benefits. In this study, we use a politics of knowledge lens applied to the case of British Columbia, Canada, where AM policy is currently in place, to examine the types of knowledge informing AM thus far, and how that knowledge shapes perceived AM risks and ways of addressing them. Based on 27 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key government employees and forest industry professionals involved with the development and implementation of AM, we find an overall optimistic view of AM. However, the type of knowledge deemed credible to inform AM decision-making is restricted to biophysical, model-based, scientific knowledge. This primarily biophysical framing of AM arises from the objectives and worldviews of actors working in the AM space and gives rise to relatively narrow ways of understanding potential AM risks and solutions to them. While policymakers and government scientists recognize the need to engage industry, Indigenous Peoples, and the general public, these groups are seen as knowledge receivers. We argue that these beliefs about what counts as credible expertise (and who can produce it) have served to exclude other knowledge forms from being considered in decision-making, and in so doing, have limited possibilities for generating transformative change.