Search

Fake controversies have influenced policy making on health and environmental issues for decades, resulting in major implementation setbacks worldwide. As a case study, in this paper we examine fake controversies produced by a small group of active Brazilian researchers that have seriously impacted environmental conservation, particularly in issues related to deforestation and climate change. Based on the literature, we develop a typology of strategies deployed in fake controversies, which include manufacturing uncertainty, misusing scientific credentials, and disregarding scientific literature. Afterwards, we examine the influence of this group of contrarians at the National Congress. We then analyze the fake controversies promoted by these contrarians and argue that, to properly understand them, we need to consider a strategy so far overlooked in the literature: the manufacture of "pseudo-facts", namely, affirmations at odds with the established literature but that strives to appear as scientific facts. Unlike other contexts, in which contrarians have mainly sought to cast doubt on consensual issues by arguing that there are still considerable uncertainties surrounding them, in Brazil pseudo-facts on deforestation have been produced and published outside the peer-reviewed literature. We conclude the study with recommendations on how to oppose fake scientific controversies that threaten environmental conservation in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The operationalization of market instruments for environmental governance depends on political processes in order to adapt to socioeconomic and political contexts; • Actors participating in the operationalization of forest certificate trading group together in advocacy coalitions that emphasize (1) environmental additionality, (2) market viability or (3) agricultural consolidation. • Actors apply knowledge filters (adoption, rejection or transformation) to new ideas, experiences and knowledge in order to influence policy-making processes in accordance with their beliefs and interests • Actors can adhere to multiple advocacy coalitions and shift their position depending on the political situation, suggesting that the boundaries of advocacy coalitions overlap. • Although the appropriation of the policy process has resulted in a decree for regulating trade, there is still much uncertainty about the future due to ignored concepts and hostile politics. Market instruments for environmental governance have a foundation in an economic theorythat claims to be universal and atemporal, but their materialization in practice always takes place in specific socioeconomic and political contexts. The Brazilian trade in forest certificates (CRA) is a new market instrument that allows farmers that have deforested illegally prior to 2008 to become compliant by acquiring certificates from other farmers that conserve a forest area beyond legal requirements. Even though the CRA market has been praised as an innovative environmental policy, it is still unclear whether it will be implemented even after more than two decades of political debate, congressional approval of legislation and substantial investments in new supporting systems. This research paper aims to analyze the materialization of this market by reconstructing how policy participants form advocacy coalitions (i.e. environmental protection, market viability and agricultural consolidation) to advance their interests. Our results show that advocacy coalitions filter (i.e. absorb, reject or transform) new ideas, experiences and knowledge in order to influence the regulations for forest certificate trading. In doing so, they often combine positions, form new alliances and merge with other advocacy coalitions in accordance with the interests of their constituents. These fluid allegiances within and between coalitions explain why market materialization remains ambiguous and unlikely to become operational in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]