Yi Ling Roy Ngerng, Assistant Research Fellow, RSPRC
Victoria Hu, Assistant Research Fellow, RSPRC

We invited Professor Kim Fortun to our center to give a special lecture on "Risk Governance in Brown Economies" on 22 April 2019. Prof Fortun is the President of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), and Professor and Department Chair at the University of California Irvine's Department of Anthropology.

The Production of Environmental Risks

Prof Fortun shared that she has been conducting research in Science, Technology and Society (STS), a multidisciplinary study which looks at how science and technology shapes society and the quality of life, and how they in turn shape science and technological developments. She added that international systems are currently shaped by brown economies which have a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and there is a need to move towards green economies which uses cleaner energy. Prof Fortun went on to highlight that late industrialization is also a cultural force, and that we need to recognize the industrial and cultural logics behind it, and what they mean so that we would be able to move away from these, as well as from the effects of late industrialization. Prof Fortun also explained how the interactions of the different systems, in terms of the technological, social, ecological, economic, political and cultural aspects, also creates environmental risks, and that the vulnerabilities and harms created are unevenly distributed in our societies. However, at a time where collective response and coordinated political action is required, there is also deep political cynicism due to a profound distrust in the government that has developed, because of what is perceived as inaction by the government of these environmental risks. In order to manage such risks, there is therefore a need to develop innovative forms of knowledge production, sharing and use, which can be supported by new technologies, to enable data preservation and the right to know, so that such information can be used to galvanize people into action.

Worlds At Risk: The Bhopal and Fukushima Disasters

To explain the risks that the world is facing, Prof Fortun drew on the research that she has conducted globally, to highlight the risks faced as well as the impediments in managing them. Prof Fortun shared her research on the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India where a gas leak at a pesticide plant killed an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 people in the immediate aftermath, and how the out of court settlements resulted in compensation that were more beneficial to the plant owners, due to the difficulty of defining injury in the Supreme Court, even in the presence of clear and gross injury. She also talked about the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster where government officials had difficulties deciding on whether to move people out of the disaster area or to ask them to remain, and on deciding when to move people back to the disaster area after having moved them out. She explained that in her work with the medical communities there, there was a need to take steps to prepare residents for future nuclear disasters. As such, there was a need to understand the social dimensions of the disasters, for which she developed an analytical framework to do so, and so as to address the risks.

 

Figure 1: Professor Kim Fortun

 

12-Scale Framework to Understand Disasters and Risks

Prof Fortun explained that there was a need to develop a framework to provide a structure for collaboration, and for analysis of incidents across different scales. She introduced the 12-scale analysis (Figure 2) she developed in appraising incidents, which starts on the "geo" scale by developing an understanding of the places in which risk is produced and lived by the residents. On the next "eco-atmo" scale, the focus is to look at the ecosystems that are dependent on the landscape in which the incident has happened, and to understand how other factors such as climate change could exacerbate the risks. On the "techno" scale, comparative analysis is conducted on the infrastructure and built environment to look at how risks can be reduced and the enhancement of data infrastructure and laws are explored on the "data" scale so as to obtain data to deal with these risks, such as by using visualization tools. On the "exdo" scale, the questions to look at are on whether there are enough scientists to study the risks, and whether there are enough academic programs in the disciplines in which scientists are required to address these risks. The "nano" scale involves identifying cultural factors which would help in understanding the risks, and the "bio" scale seeks to understand the specificity of the place in question at the bio level, to collect bio data such as blood or asthma levels, to understand the impact of the risks on the human body.

The "micro", "meso" and "macro" scales explore respectively the design of infrastructural space and cultural practices, social formations such as labor unions, and the macro laws and economic drivers, that are in existence and which might expose people to risks and how these can be mitigated. In the "macro" sense, Prof Fortun mentioned that she was impressed by Taiwan’s commitment to promoting energy alternatives and government programs aimed at pushing back against the brown economy. On the "meta" scale, Prof Fortun explained that there is a need to look at the discourses that are deflecting our attention from risks, such as on how the development of the new energy economy is deflecting from concerns about climate change and asthma, so much so that the debate on climate change may fall off the table. Finally, the "deutero" scale looks at the capacities of societies and communities to learn about the problems at hand. To that, Prof Fortun pointed to our Risk and Society Policy Research Center and the work we do in building capacity. Prof Fortun explained that this framework could provide guidance in understanding how risks are created along each of these scales, and to help characterize these risks, so that detailed ways of mitigating these risks could be developed, such as by developing new laws or reforming existing ones. It would also provide a framework to ask questions about transitions, and what would enable or disable these transitions.

 

Figure 2: Prof Fortun’s 12-Scale Risk Analysis Framework

 

Taiwan At Risk

Prof Fortun then brought the conversation back to Taiwan and suggested that Taiwan could use this 12-step framework to conduct an analysis of its risks on a national level. For example, she asked: what could be the social formations that would expose people to environmental risks? Also, does the intensity of party politics undercut the way broadcast news can be used as a mechanism to communicate with the public, which otherwise could serve as a medium that could cut across party lines? She also spoke about her concern of Taiwan’s petrochemical industry not being profitable because this would mean that the industry would pose as a danger, based on her experience.

Kaoshiung At Risk

To illustrate, Prof Fortun talked about her visit to Kaoshiung City and how the framework could be used to structure the understandings of the city. For example, she explained that Kaoshiung City is facing pollution on the "geo" scale, and the air pollution has affected health outcomes on the "bio" scale. She added that on the "meso" level, the intensification of party politics and their influence on broadcast news, has become a social formation which could expose people to environmental risks. However, she noted that on the "deutero" scale, the city councilors in Kaoshiung City have been receptive to academics, which would enable academics to build the knowledge infrastructure to empower the work of local communities.

Prof Fortun also talked about the 6+ City Project that she is working on, which studies air pollution in six cities in India and the United States, to look at the environmental health effects of the pollution, and recommendations that can be made in terms of governance. The project is a transnational collaborative project, and Prof Fortun explained that an important process of the project is about how people question the data and how such active deliberation and active questioning among the community would allow researchers to explore questions such as what would constitute causation, and when there is enough data to act, and how this then feeds into the process of getting people to be more reflective about their research paradigm, which could lead to a paradigm shift in how studies are designed, to not just be about the production of more knowledge. Prof Fortun shared that Kaoshiung City could be a possible candidate to be part of the project, to explore the effect of air pollution on environmental health.

To conclude, Prof Fortun shared that it would be useful to think in kaleidoscopic ways, which would enable us to think of the knowledge required to understand risks beyond linear and mechanistic casualties, so that we would be able to look at a complex problem from all angles, and to spin the problems on their different angles, so as to identify new ways of addressing them.

 

Figure 3: Associate Professor Hsin-Yi Lu

 

The next speaker, Associate Professor Hsin-Yi Lu from the Department of Anthropology at the National Taiwan University, further elaborated on Prof Fortun’s lecture by using the case study on the Houjin community in Kaoshiung. Prof Lu shared that the residents of Houjin community had been protesting against the Fifth Naphtha Cracker plant since the latter part of Taiwan’s martial law in the 1980s, as the way the plant was built meant that the air pollution was being blown downwind towards the Houjin community. Even though the first stage of the movement was not successful, the government eventually promised to close down the plant in 2015.

Prof Lu also explained that at that time, the local leaders had developed their own tools to monitor the soil, but in order for the data collected to be useful, the local leaders had to translate the data into a vocabulary that the local people could understand, which therefore require social trust among the residents. Prof Lu explained that this reflected the kaleidoscope way of thinking, in that local ways of conceptualizing the disaster enabled the development of a risk mitigation strategy that was suitable for the local context. However, Prof Lu also shared that barriers were faced in the traditional mindsets that people held which caused them to focus on the closure of the plant as an end-goal but on the other hand became less concern about the impact on the land. Also, even as people wanted to implement innovative ideas to deal with the issue, they had to content with the existing power networks.

 

Figure 4: Professor Chang-Chuan Chan

 

The Importance of Local Understandings in Changing Mindsets

The last speaker, Professor Chang-Chuan Chan, Dean of the College of Public Health at the National Taiwan University, also shared his experience in working with local communities and highlighted that even though it is important to use data to convince people of the pollution in their communities, he faced resistance as the residents in these communities do not understand the data. He highlighted that in Kaoshiung, the pollution has taken root for the past 30 years and due to the long duration, it seems as if the people in Kaoshiung have assimilated with the pollution and that in reality the pollutants are not only in people’s bodies, but also in people’s minds. He explained that it therefore takes time for individuals in these communities to change their mindset, especially where traditional thinking has taken root and can be difficult to overcome. He added that the relationship with these communities is therefore important, in order for the data to make sense at some level.

 

Figure 5: Professor Kuei-Tien Chou

 

Finding Common Solutions to Risks in the Region

The special lecture was moderated by our center’s Chief Director Professor Kuei-Tien Chou. He concluded by explaining that Taiwan is facing a double risk society, because not only is Taiwan facing environmental risks, there is also the risk of Taiwan’s industrial complex. Prof Chou also explained that our center seeks to explore the regional environmental risks in East Asia, especially because the region shares similarities in its complex industrialization and organization, so as to understand the common political and social mechanisms in the region, in order to identify the common issues faced and develop possible solutions.

 

Figure 6: The panel of speakers (from left to right):
Associate Professor Hsin-Yi Lu, Professor Kim Fortun, Professor Chang-Chuan Chan, RSPRC Chief Director Professor Kuei-Tien Chou (moderator)

Figure 7: An audience member asking a question during the question and answer session