Lost in translation – Critical reflections on the disposal of submarine tailings in Kvalsund municipality

• Published in: The extractive industries and society 2017-07, Vol.4 (3), p.481-488
• Main Authors: Bjørgo, Frode, Bay-Larsen, Ingrid
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arctic; Conflict of interest; Environmental impact assessments; Local governance; Mining
• ISSN: 2214-790X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.exis.2017.05.012

•While environmental impact assessments are designed to assist political controversies, they sometimes become the political controversy itself.•The identification of inherent paradoxes in EIAs add nuance to the simplistic narrative of mining as an environmental question only.•To overcome information asymmetry, social impact assessments, or even community-controlled impact assessments, must be ensured.•To overcome conflict of interest in scientific scrutiny, we must turn to democratic principles and institutions that are designed to resolve conflicts between opposing parties, values and insights. This article critically examines how an environmental impact assessment designed to assist in the resolution of a political controversy became the political controversy itself. Turning a complex political dispute into a scientific one had certain consequences. The empirical material from this study demonstrates how the main characters in the process changed from local politicians, to scientists far away. Even more alarming were results showing how a broad range of important local societal considerations receded from the debate. Such a twofold move away from the local context raises important questions about how the hegemony of knowledge-based management frames, and sometimes constrains, political decisions. In conclusion, the article makes two intertwined statements. First, to overcome deficiencies inherent with information asymmetry in environmental impact assessment (EIA), social impact assessments must be strengthened. Second, to overcome conflict of interest in scientific disputes, we must turn to democratic principles and institutions to resolve differences between opposing parties, values and insights.