Banca de DEFESA: Thais Rozas Teixeira

Uma banca de DEFESA de MESTRADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : Thais Rozas Teixeira
DATE: 29/11/2022
TIME: 10:00
LOCAL: SOL - Remoto
TITLE:

You don't know where politics stands, where science begins': inevitable intertwinings between science and climate policy for Brazilian livestock

KEY WORDS:

co-production, scientific controversy, science-policy interface, livestock and climate change, carbon removal in soils.

PAGES: 180
BIG AREA: Ciências Humanas
AREA: Sociologia
SUMMARY:

This paper investigates the debates around carbon removals, mainly from adopting degraded pasture management technologies, as mitigation strategies for Brazilian cattle ranching. For this purpose, efforts were directed toward understanding the narratives of scientists involved in debates regarding the controversy over the carbon removal potentials of such technologies and the directions of climate policies at the national level. Strategies for recuperating degraded pasture, or integration with other agrosystems (such as crops and forests), are based on the assertion that managing pasture allows for to strengthen of the carbon stock mechanism in soils and thus reduces emissions by removal. Despite the prominent place occupied in national policies, this does not mean that there are no controversies or that science speaks "the truth" to power in a linear movement of advice. Thus, the notion of co-production is used to investigate the complexities and intertwining of science and politics, which are mutually co-produced in this context. More so, as a scientific controversy, two groups of scientists contribute significantly with research and results that conflict with each other, demarcating boundaries between what is good or bad research, negotiating criteria of validity and credibility. Through the researcher's readings and incursions into the field of controversy, the groups of scientists that centralize the debate about the mitigation potential of management technologies are related to the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa)and the Remote Sensing Center of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (CSR/UFMG). Regarding negotiations, scientists seek neutral criteria and objective boundaries to refer to and justify divergent results, such as the amount of research, methodological choices to deal with diverse data, and how they publish their results. Moreover, they also dispute the very terms of the negotiations, that is, each group of scientists starts from and results from diverse framings of what the world would be or is, putting into discussion climate geopolitics and epistemological conceptions for doing science. It makes us point out the inevitable intertwining between science and politics. Thus, in addition to negotiations in the scientific sphere, it is argued that scientists also dispute the ways of doing science, given that the debates take effect of reality and contribute to constituting a hybrid arena of dispute. Embrapa scientists defend the idea of science concerned and aligned with national interests, while CSR/UFMG scientists argue for a more disinterested science steeped in interests. In terms of operationalization, seven qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted to access the narratives of the central scientists, along with readings of technical papers and participation in events in the area, to understand the criteria under negotiation and what kind of geopolitical and epistemological conceptions and policy directions the scientists are co-producing, whether in the order of an efficient and sustainable Brazilian ranching or different alternatives focused on the intensification of production.

BANKING MEMBERS:
Externo à Instituição - Paulo de Freitas Castro Fonseca
Interno - 1642428 - FABRICIO MONTEIRO NEVES
Interno - 1804106 - STEFAN FORNOS KLEIN
Presidente - 1569541 - TIAGO RIBEIRO DUARTE