Balancing informational perspectives - Environmental Reform in the Information Age - page 291

A third set of questions is related to new power constellations
in informational governance. Inequalities and monopolies related to
the construction of environmental knowledge, information handling
capacity, information generation and transmission capabilities, access
to information and to information publication and credibility con-
struction are becoming key resources in power struggles concerning
informational governance. We know that environmental authorities,
polluting producers or media multinationals are able to monopolise
environmental definitions, environmental monitoring and access to and
distribution of environmental information and knowledge, but to what
extent does that happen and with what kind of consequences on envi-
ronmental struggles and outcomes? Where, to what extent, and how do
citizens, consumers, insurance companies, environmental NGOs and
others gain a position in the 'information battlefield', strengthening
their power in new arrangements of informational reform? What kind
of sociomaterial infrastructures, in what kind of settings, favour demo-
cratic information flows? These questions open up new debates on and
challenges for democratic environmental governance, surveillance and
countersurveillance, and inclusion and exclusion, on all levels (local
to global) and spatial relations (regions, networks, fluids) and without
any predetermined outcome.
A final set of (normative) questions emerge with respect to the form
and design of informational reform. Some theorists (cf. Young, 1994 ;
Urry, 2003 ) claim that under conditions of the Information Age the
(environmental) state loses its relevance, either in reality or as a con-
cept. At the same time, the more empirical literature on informational
regulation -incontrast - tries to draw lessons with respect to the con-
crete design of informational regulation and information disclosure
arrangements, especially related to effectiveness, efficiency and costs
(e.g., Tietenberg, 1998 ) and to performance, access and democracy
(e.g. Case, 2001 ; Cohen, 2000 ). If our social science notion of informa-
tional governance can be interpreted as walking between these two, a
number of questions become relevant. What material and social infras-
tructures facilitate and contribute to effective and democratic informa-
tional reform of the environment? What requirements does this pose
and what possibilities does this open for environmental governance
arrangements and networks; for monitoring, transparency and veri-
fication structures and strategies; for information handling capacities
and capabilities; and for stimulating (information) access rather than