144 Abstract Shale gas involves a technology which is a controversial method of energy production mainly because there are uncertainties about the possible environmental and human health impacts. The article aims to identify the level of knowledge in relation to the impact of environ- mental risks attached to shale gas exploitation in the academic and scientifi c community. It does so by employing the expert elicitation approach which has the benefi t of quantifying the judg- ment of individual experts. We have revealed a consistency among researchers in assessing the level of uncertainty of the main environmen- tal risks and a preferred policy option in dealing with uncertainty, a vow for improved transparen- cy, openness and ease of access to information. Shale gas policy-making in Europe needs a sci- ence-based approach as science informs policy by delivering objective and reliable knowledge. The article concludes that developing a compre- hensive approach based on scientifi c data and an appropriate regulatory framework will provide a path forward for the future development of con- tested policies like shale gas. Keywords: shale gas, uncertainty, access to information, expert elicitation. UNCERTAINTY IN THE SHALE GAS DEBATE: VIEWS FROM THE SCIENCE–POLICYMAKING INTERFACE Constantin Marius PROFIROIU Paolo GASPARINI Valentina IVAN Constantin Marius PROFIROIU Professor, Faculty of Public Administration and Management, Academy of Economic Sciences, Bucharest, Romania E-mail: profi roiu@gmail.com Paolo GASPARINI Professor Emeritus, University of Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy, and AMRA Scarl, Napoli, Italy E-mail: gasparin@na.infn.it Valentina IVAN Assistant professor, Faculty of Public Administration and Management, Academy of Economic Sciences, Bucharest, Romania E-mail: valentina.ivanjb@gmail.com Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 46 E/2015, pp. 144-161 145 1. Introductory remarks Shale gas, an unconventional hydrocarbon resource which became accessible through a contested technology occurs within a complex, multilevel context, involv- ing multiple stakeholders and diff erent levels of governance. Europe has so far expe- rienced a hesitant progress, mainly on environmental grounds. Policy formulation in Europe poses a great challenge because it represents a problem of decision-mak- ing under uncertainty considering that impact assessments are still being carried at European level. The European Commission has released so far only a non-binding Recommendation aimed to guide Member States and has sponsored several reports aimed to assess the environmental, economic and social impact of shale gas(Europe- an Commission’s website, undated). Ivan (2013, p. 82) highlights that the European Commission has to make sure that operations comply with all applicable EU legisla- tion and safeguard the safety of the environment and humans, in particular to paint a clear picture on potential risks and impacts. In an att empt to address concerns with sound scientifi c evidence, the European Commission has decided beginning with 2015, as part of its Horizon 2020 research and innovation program to grant about € 12 million to two studies aimed to assess and mitigate the environmental footprint of shale gas exploration and exploitation (Kelly, 2015). The article is split in three main sections. First, the introductory part will briefl y point to the literature on the environmental impact with the aim to identify the main risks,as well as knowledge about their impacts on environment. Considering that production from shale rock formations has not yet started in Europe, uncertainties should be clarifi ed and properly assessed before being incorporated in the decision making process. The literature review shows that uncertainty signifi cantly limits the degree to which science can provide a solid fundament for policy making. The second part sets out the research design based on an expert elicitation questionnaire which was employed to gain knowledge into the views of representatives of academia and scientifi c environment which have expertise in the shale gas research fi eld. Lastly, the discussions section will reveal experts’ view on the uncertainties in the process, barriers encountered when assessing relevant information, type of information which should be considered confi dential and policy options to ease the science – policy rela- tion. To conclude with, the article argues that, although environmental risks of shale gas development have been reviewed,the context is still surrounded by uncertainty which has to be properly assessed when taking governmental decisions or drafting regulatory framework to accompany the development of shale gas in Europe. 2. Shale gas: a tale of two sides There have been many discussions about the costs and benefi ts of developing shale gas among scientists, industry, representatives of environmental organizations, policy makers, and the general public. The debate was polarized around the poten- tial gains in scoring emission targets (Howarth, Santoro and Ingraff ea, 2011, p. 679; Wang, Ryanand Anthony, 2011, pp. 8196-8199), economic benefi ts (Husain et al., 2011; 146 Medlock, 2012, pp. 33-37), energy independence (Gény, 2010, p.10; Melikoglu, 2014, p. 460) and national security (Kuhn and Umbach, 2011), as well as likely threats to the environment and public health. Boersma and Johnson (2012, p. 570) split the environ- mental impacts associated with shale gas in three main categories: (i) groundwater contamination and release of waste water, (ii) greenhouse gas and fugitive methane emissions, and (iii) increased seismic activity. First, hydraulic fracturing has been crit- icized for excessive water use (Kargbo, Wilhelm and Campbell, 2010, p. 5681; Zobak, Kitasei andCopithorne, 2010, p. 7) and polluting water due to potential toxicity of fracturing fl uids (Chen et al., 2014, pp. 2546-2555; Colbornet al., 2011, pp. 1039-1056) and methane contaminating drinking water (Osborn et al., 2011, pp. 8172-8176; Wood, 2012, p. 4). Ground water issues have become an increasingly important area of re- search (Younger, 2014, p.7), particularly ‘as a number of knowledge and informa- tion gaps relating to hydrogeological data exist, especially in the European context’. Second, shale gas emits greenhouse gas caused by fugitive methane, thus leading to harmful health impacts (Howarth, Santoro and Ingraff ea, 2011, pp. 679-690; Wigley, 2011, pp. 601-608; White et al., 2015; Jones, Hillier and Comfort., 2013, p. 387). Finkel and Hays (2013, p. 889) have emphasized that ‘scientifi c evidence on the impact of shale gas development on climate change is also highly contested considering that, despite the fact that natural gas burns cleaner than coal, methane is leaked and vent- ed into the atmosphere throughout the lifecycle of shale gas development’. Research- ers (Wigley, 2011, pp. 601-608; Cathleset al., 2012, pp. 525-535; Howarth, Santoro and Ingraff ea, 2012, pp. 1-13; Wang et al., 2014, p. 16) sharing diff erent views on the im- pact have emphasized that there are uncertainties related to methane leaks. Third, researchers have assessed the seismic risks (Ellsworth, 2013; Green, Styles and Baptie, 2012) portraying the likely impacts. To conclude with, Styles (2015, p. 314) reviews in detail the main environmental impacts of shale gas extraction concluding that there do not seem to be insurmountable obstacles to the extraction of shale gas ‘in a proper- ly regulated regime’.Wang et al. (2014, p. 1) have summarized the key reports, papers and analyses that show the evolution of shale gas, reviewed evidence of revolution in US, and discussed environmental challenges att ached to shale gas exploration and exploitation and portrayed a wide range of views on the environmental impacts. Fur- thermore, Barcelo and Bennett (2015), scientists and co-Editors-in-Chief of Science of the Total Environment journal have painted a clear picture of environmental and hu- man health risks of fracking by reviewing papers from 2012 up to fi rst half of 2015 covering climate change, environmental health impacts, and risks to the aquatic envi- ronment issues. The scientists have concluded that fracking operations are not free of risk to the environment and human health; however, scientists have a diff erent view when assessing impact. Cairneyet al. (2015, p.1) argue that ‘there are two types of information relevant for the shale gas debate, that is the technical information, used to address scientifi c uncertainty, and political information, used to bolster agenda sett ing strategies’. This article will focus on the technical information used to address the scientifi c uncer- 147 tainties, defi ned by the researchers (Cairney, Fischer and Ingold, 2015, p. 1) as ‘the information on the technical aspects of unconventional gas development, as well as scientifi c information on potential implications for the environment’. For the pur- pose of this article, we argue that technical information relevant (but not exclusive) to the shale debate is data related to greenhouse gas emissions, leaked methane gas, groundwater pollution, chemicals used in the fracking technology, data on the water supply, risk of earthquakes-seismicity data, air and noise pollution to local areas, and infrastructure issues. The UK Environment Agency (2013, p.5) has summarized in a diagram the main risks (see Figure 1) which were taken into consideration for this research. Figure 1: Environmental impact from Shale Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Source: Environment Agency, UK, 2013, p. 5. We argue that science plays a key role in providing societal responses to these problems, but more importantly, it informs policy by producing objective, valid and reliable knowledge. Environmental issues are complex and fall within the realm of a number of scientifi c and socio-economic disciplines; are subject to integrated ap- proaches and public participation.To bett er respond to the shale gas debate, a wide area of resources are employed, among which science and evidence based decision making (AEA, 2012; Boersmaand Johnson, 2012, pp. 570-576; Pearson et al., 2012; Ea- ton, 2013, pp. 158-169; Gamper-Rabindran, 2014, pp. 977-987), social dialogue and stakeholder consultation (North et al., 2014, pp. 8388-8396; Jacquet, 2014, pp. 8321- 8333; Wheeler et al., 2015, 299-308) are of paramount importance. Environmental reg- ulation, and in particular tailor made shale gas policy begs for a more rational, rigor- ous and systematic approach to policy-making. Fischer (2001, p. 34) argues that ‘the demand for scientifi c expertise is especially strong among policy-makers in the envi- ronmental and natural resources policy, mainly because of the long term impact and uncertainty’, view shared by Profi roiu (2006, p. 45) who draws att ention to the fact that, in relation to environmental issues,‘expertise becomes a key factor in organizing 148 political activity’. This is particularly the case of shale gas which involves a new tech- nology whose long-term impact is still under consideration and raises fi erce debates. The link between scientifi c information and policy is not linear or unproblematic (Cairney, 2014). Involving science in the decision making process bears some criti- cism considering that scientifi c consensus does not necessarily guarantee the level of certainty demanded by policy makers. First, Levin and Cooper (2012, p.18) under- lined that ‘knowledge emerging from research (...) is subject to revision as time goes on’. This is especially a limiting factor in the shale gas process due to the insuffi cient track record. Second, Carney et al. (2015, p.3) emphasize that ‘policymakers decide who and what information to trust, to help them develop a sense of risk associated with any decision’. Based on the risk level, policy makers decide on the acceptable risks counterbalanced by the likely benefi ts and take a decision. Policy makers are urged to take decisions despite the scarce availability of data and the knowledge gaps, despite their limited abilities to comprehend scientifi c reports. Third, while ‘expert power’ may to an extent be necessary, Haas (2004, p. 115-136) suggests that ‘more stringent “science policy” involving careful and transparent coordination by government of the use of expertise is key to legitimacy’. Despite the limitations in considering uncertainty, disregarding it can negatively impact the policy making process as poor informed decisions in this case are likely to lead to negative long term environmental and human health consequences.van der Sluijs (1997) highlights that ‘the failure to acknowledge and treat uncertainty can lead to poor decisions’, while Walker et al., (2003, p. 5) stress that especially for environmental science a ‘bet- ter understanding of uncertainty and of how the level of uncertainty infl uences ac- tion is a prerequisite’. van Asseltand Rotmans (1996, p. 121) highlights that there are three main reasons for the degree of uncertainty att ached to scientifi c problems: (1) they are universal in scale and long-term in their impact; (2) available data is lamentably inadequate; and (3) the phenomena, being novel, complex and variable, are themselves not well understood. The shale gas debate scores all these three. First, considering that un- conventional gas resources such as shale gas can be found in the US, Europe, China or Australia, solving the shale gas related uncertainties is likely to lead to responses to a universal scale issue. Second, data on environmental impact att ached to shale gas exploitations is still being piled up, with a thorough long term impact lacking. In Europe, the situation is even more in the dark considering that production from shale gas formations has yet to happen. Third, evidence of its environmental impact is still under consideration, with risks still under review, which makes drawing sci- entifi c conclusions with a high level of certainty very diffi cult. Uncertainty may arise because of incomplete information – whatwill be the environmental impact in the year 2030 of shale gas on groundwater in the U.S., or what will be the impact of the fracturing process in 30 years on environmental parameters (water chemistry and fl ow, air quality, micro-seismicity and seismicity, ground deformation). Refsgaard et al. (2006, p. 1547) concludes that main reasons for uncertainty might include a judg- 149 ment of the information as incomplete, blurred, inaccurate, unreliable, inconclusive, or potentially false. To bett er exemplify how science can support the decision making process on the shale gas debate and reduce uncertainty, we will portray a short case study on assess- ment of seismic risk in UK. In April 2011 there were small tremors (which measured magnitude 2.3 and 1.5 on the Richter scale) at Preese Hall near Blackpool, where hy- draulic fracturing operations were taking place. Styles (2015, p. 332) highlights that ‘the felt seismicity (...) att racted signifi cant public interest worldwide, resulting in a government enquiry and an 18-month suspension of operations’. The UK Depart- ment of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) suspended all hydraulic fracturing (June 2011) operations to investigate the issue and commissioned three independent experts1 to assess thecauses based on available geological and geophysical data. The scientists were selected because of their knowledge of geology, seismicity, and frack- ing (DECC, 2014). Detailed technical investigations were undertaken, which conclud- ed that the tremors were probably caused by fracking fl uids fl owing into a geological fault (Green, Styles and Baptie, 2012). Based on scientists’ recommendation a traffi c light system was put in place which was aimed to determine whether the injection of water is safe; a threshold was set, with operations to be ceased if a tremor of mag- nitude 0.5 or greater is detected. This has also created a window of opportunity for the UK government which introduced new controls and checks for operators using hydraulic fracturing and imposed a stricter monitoring. Based on available data, sci- ence has informed decision makers in this respect. Studies carried have also shown that the probability of further earthquake activity is low which has given confi dence to the authorities to allow fracturing operations in UK and lift the moratorium in De- cember 2012. DECC (2014, p. 1) highlights in its fi nal report assessing the seismic risk that ‘as more data becomes available, the eff ectiveness of the new rules, including the threshold imposed will be reviewed’, fact which streamlines the importance of new evidence brought by science in taking decisions and drafting policy. The article argues that in contested policy issues, such as the shale gas, science is set to be an infl uential player in the public arena, a stakeholder which should con- tribute to a more democratic public debate by informing, communicating results and sharing knowledge. We emphasize that informed shale gas (policy) decisions require constant review of the uncertainties taking into consideration a range of possible sce- narios. Decision making over shale gas in Europe will be most eff ective if scientif- ic uncertainty is incorporated into a rigorous theoretic framework, and not ignored. Moreover, the eff ective access to information and expertise represents a prerequisite for the use of science to inform policy-making and regulation. Scientifi c community struggle to bring light to the debate should be complemented by policy makers’ ef- forts to design bett er methods to incorporate science into the policy-making process 1 Brian Baptie from the British Geological Survey, Peter Styles from Keele University and Chris Green from G-frac. 150 and address the growing public concerns and diminish inaccuracies. This is likely to require improvements in the regulatory framework on public participation process, as well as on issues of transparency, accountability, and access to information. 3. Research design The article’s main objective is to identify environmental risks att ached to shale gas exploitation and the level of knowledge in relation to the impact of these identifi ed hazards in the academic and scientifi c community. First, a literature review was per- formed to point to the main environmental risks att ached to shale gas exploitation based on information extracted from specialized publications, peer-reviewed, impact studies and reports of international bodies and academic research institutions. Sec- ond, we emphasize that involving science in the decision making process leads to a more rigorous and systematic approach to policy-making. Finally, we aim to question experts’ judgment on the level of data reliability with regard to environmental im- pacts. The article will empirically examine two hypotheses. First, our assumption is that there is a limited degree of certainty in relation to environmental risks att ached to shale gas exploitations. Second, we intend to fi nd out which are the most suited policy options to deal with uncertainty issues at the European level. The list of researchers targeted for this study was put together using the snowball sampling instrument. Based on the studies commissioned by the EC between 2012 and 2014 to external consultants (who provided a comprehensive and trustworthy list of references), we have drafted a list of potential respondents for our research. On top of this, we have used the following criteria: (a) membership to a specifi c science institutional fi eld (university) or to a research institute, or think-tank; (b) within the scientifi c fi eld, membership to a specifi c discipline (such as geology, mining, hydrolo- gy); (c) has carried research on shale gas, preferably commissioned by a state/nation- al governmental body, European bodies/agencies. In total, the list numbered about 150 representatives to whom a questionnaire was sent. This method was preferred because EC has stressed that these studies have been used when drafting key rec- ommendations for Member States pondering upon investigating potential for shale gas. This stands for an indication of data (information, knowledge) a decision maker would use in making decisions and shaping policy. The research was conducted using a quantitative methodology, employing a ques- tionnaire base research, encompassing scale, open end and multiple answers type of questions. A questionnaire-based expert elicitation was performed which is usually used when a research needs to achieve knowledge from individuals that have a par- ticular expertise on a subject where there is insuffi cient knowledge (Refsgaardet al., 2006, p. 1590; Knolet al., 2010, p.1) or when issues are contentious and complex (O’Ha- gan, 1998, p. 21). The questionnaire was sent via email to the 150 representatives of the academic and scientifi c community who were engaged (or still are) in shale gas research. Sills and Song (2002, p. 24) indicate that ‘a non-response rate of 80% for web-based questionnaires is not uncommon’. Our response rate was low, a total of 17 151 experts out of 150 responded (11%), most likely due to holiday period (we had a sig- nifi cant number of ‘out of offi ce’ replies). Responses were submitt ed during May-July 2015. Results should thus be treated with care as our sample is a limited subset of the total expert-population, thus the results are not necessarily representative, but rather valuable for the line of arguments and the insights into this highly contested issue. However, the ensemble of information we have from our literature review and the consistency of answers is signifi cant enough for our purposes. Researchers have participated in the study on the understanding that their contributions would remain anonymous. The questionnaire was structured in three main parts: 1) environmental impact and reliability of present data on shale gas exploration, 2) access to data when doing research in this fi eld (including barriers), and 3) potential solutions to improve the situation. 4. Discussion From the 17 replies that we have got from the academic and scientifi c community, all of the respondents have carried research on shale gas, eight being commissioned to carry research on shale gas for a national/local governmental offi ce or European Commission. This has confi rmed the snowball sampling methodology employed has led to a correct identifi cation of respondents for this research. For a detailed list of respondents’ affi liation see Figure 2 below. There were eleven representatives of uni- versities, two from geological research institutes, and other four research institutes with competences in environment and energy related issues; with ten answers from U.S. and Canada, while the rest came from European countries (United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, Romania and Italy). Out of the ten researchers from U.S. and Can- Figure 2: Respondents’ affi liation 152 ada, four have been involved in information sharing with governmental offi ces of Eu- ropean Member States or bodies of the European Commission with respect to shale gas knowledge. We have asked researchers to indicate their main area of expertise with the aim to identify researchers that could evaluate risks associated with the environmental impact of shale gas development (see Figure 3 below). We argue that researchers from the geology, hydrology, and natural sciences have expertise in assessing envi- ronmental impacts identifi ed through the literature review, such as impact on water resources and pollution of water, seismic risk or impact of greenhouse gas on the en- vironment. We have not disregarded answers from the environmental economics and law which are assessing the environmental impact from an economic perspective (for example, costs att ached to hazards) and from the regulatory point of view aimed to accompany the shale gas development. The proportion of experts from each special- ization is uneven, which has an impact on the fi ndings; on the other hand the hetero- geneity is a preferential feature of the sample of experts and this is why we aimed for experts from diff erent fi elds. Figure 3: Respondents’ area of expertise Second, we have asked researchers to rank using a 3 point Likert scale (limited, medium and robust) the level of precision with which environmental hazards related to shale gas exploration and exploitation can be estimated, given the present state of knowledge. Based on the literature review on environmental risks att ached to shale gas hydraulic fracturing operations, we have drafted a list of main risks. We claim that the views of the interviewees are neither exhaustive, nor representative of sci- entifi c and academia community, but it rather holds subjective beliefs, experts’ judg- ment for a small sample. The impact on water resources from water for the hydraulic fracturing process was identifi ed as being the risk for which there is a robust level of knowledge, closely followed by the risk related to contamination of soil, surface or groundwater due to spills of chemicals or return fl uids (see Figure 4 below). Most of the scientists argued that there is a medium level of knowledge in relation to the risks related to earth tremors and earthquakes and treatment or disposal of waste waters. Respondents’ view shows there is predominantly a medium level of information on the risks at- 153 tached to shale gas development, with contamination of groundwater due to mobili- zation of solutes or methane perceived as baring a limited level of knowledge, closely followed by the risks att ached to fugitive emissions of methane and contamination of groundwater due to poor well design or failure. This comes to infi rm our hypothesis that there is a limited degree of certainty in relation to environmental risks att ached to shale gas exploitations. There are three possible explanations for this. First, consid- ering that shale gas exploitations are in an early stage of development, evidence to assess the impact is being collected at an impressive speed. The literature review sec- tion has mentioned peer-reviewed articles, most of them dating from years 2011 and 2012. This is likely to show that an increasing volume of impartial, evidence-based in- formation now exists as science helps build the evidence for this very recent and con- tested topic. Second, we have a limited number of answers which make our fi ndings bias to experts’ judgment. Third, specialization of the respondent is relevantwhen weighing the environmental risks. For example, for the risks related to contamination of groundwater dueto solutes or methane, or due to poor well design or failure, half of the respondents argued that there is a medium level of certainty. However, the only hydrologist who has participated to this research has indicated that there is lim- ited knowledge with regard to the two mentioned risks. Third, in order to identify the reasons for uncertainty in the fi eld, we have asked whether the lack of access to relevant data needed to carry the research was one of the barriers. This was a simple ‘yes or no’ type of question. Fifteen out of seventeen respondents stressed that relevant data was missing, showing that some of the un- certainty in the fi eld is likely to stem from the scarcity of data. Using a ‘yes or no’ type of question, we than asked whether researchers have encountered barriers in 3 4 4 1 2 4 5 3 5 10 8 10 6 8 8 7 8 3 4 5 6 4 4 4 Impact on water resources Earth tremors and earthquakes Fugitive emissions of methane Treatment or disposal of water Contamination of soil, surface or groundwater due to spills Contamination of groundwater due to well design or failure Contamination of groundwater due solutes or methane Impact on air quality ROBUST MEDIUM LIMITED Figure 4: Reliability of assessment of environmental impacts from shale gas hydraulic fracturing operations 154 accessing relevant information when carrying research on shale gas and 14 respon- dents mentioned ‘yes’, which shows that data needed to carry research is not public- ly available. With an open type of question we wanted to identify how respondents have overcome constraints in assessing data. Barriers seem to derive from three main factors. First, ‘much of the relevant data are proprietary’and when made available by the corporate sector, the data ‘is viewed with suspicion by some parties in the public debate’. Second, ‘there is a general lack of data on impacts of operations on broader landscape’, fact that stresses that the long term impact were not properly assessed up to this moment. Lastly, sometimes the regulation forbids operators to make data public. Forth, we have asked respondents to mention whether any type of data should not be disclosed. The literature review on main environmental risks has helped us cate- gorize relevant data for the debate; furthermore, we have identifi ed data supplied by operators (revenue and cash fl ow data – capital and operating expenditures), as well as operational data (well productivity, construction and development plans) as being relevant for the debate. Our assumption was that some sensitive data (such as compa- ny related data) should be protected and kept confi dential, and thus the access to this type of data would be restricted. Furthermore, we have assumed that relevant data is also in the possession of governments, thus making licensing data procedures lead- ing to the grant of an exploration and exploitation authorization) and geo scientifi c data (seismic and geological profi les, quality and quantity of resources) of key impor- tance. We have asked respondents to mention which type of information should be considered confi dential and/or protected in oil and gas exploration and exploitation of unconventional resources. The company data, in particular the revenue and cash fl ow data of operators (including capital and operating expenditures) was identifi ed by eleven respondents as being the most sensitive. This was followed by operational data (such as well productivity, construction and development plans), with ten re- plies, out of which three scientists argued that it should only be partially confi dential. Geo scientifi c data ranked third with eight replies, of which two scientists argue that it should only be partially confi dential. 0 5 10 15 Licensing data Geo scientific data Water availability Environmental impact assement Environmental mitigation costs Fracturing fluid additives Operational data Revenue and cash flow data Should be partially confidential Should be confidential Figure 5: Type of data which should be kept confi dential 155 Respondents have shown that with the exception of company specifi c data, most of the data relevant for the debate should be made public. There are mixed views regarding access to data which is usually in government’s possession, such as geo sci- entifi c data and licensing data procedures. Our example on the science-policy making link has proved how relevant data regarding seismic and geological profi les was to identify the problem and take a decision in this respect. In this particular case, policy makers have used scientifi c conclusions grounded on reliable and accurate data, in- formation which was used to create important scientifi cresearchresultsandleadtoim- proved quality of information on the topic. Fifth, we then wanted to identify the way forward in dealing with hindered ac- cess to data,so we have advanced a list of policy options which could accompany the process and lead to improved quality of governance and science-based policy mak- ing. We have identifi ed the policy options based on the stakeholder consultation car- ried by the European Commission (2013, pp. 67-83) with the aim to bett er understand stakeholders’ views and concerns. In total, 22,875 respondents participated in the consultation. This consultation was the basis for the Recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high volume hydraulic fracturing issued on January22, 2014. The main policy options tested by EC have revealed that 51% of individual respondents believe that a comprehensive and specifi c EU piece of legislation for shale gas should be developed while 47% recommend clarifying existing EU legislation through guidelines, with 45% of individual respondents disagreeing with the statement that the current frame- work is appropriate to address the identifi ed challenges and environmental risks. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Do nothing, the current framework is appropriate Clarify existing EU legislation in terms of access to information through guidelines More stringent Freedom of Information regulation at European or National level Voluntary compliance to international initiatives such as Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative Figure 6: Preferred policy option Respondents have indicated ‘clarifying existing EU legislation in terms of access to information through guidelines’ (13 out of 17) as most preferred policy option (see Figure 6 above), followed by ‘imposing more stringent Freedom of Information regu- lation at European or national level’ (9 out of 17). Third preferred option was volun- tary compliance with international initiatives such as Extractive Industry Transpar- ency Initiative. This has shown that researchers feel there are inconsistencies in terms 156 of regulation and even legislative gaps, and that more accountability and increased transparency is needed. We have assumed that clarifying legislation in terms of ac- cess to information is the most preferred policy option by the researchers as some- times the regulatory framework hinders access to data. Public disclosure of data re- lated to shale gas development is likely to gain public trust and therefore improve public governance in the opinion of most of the scientists interviewed. Finally, we have asked our respondents, through an open question, their view on disclosure on data and whether it can contribute to an improved act of gover- nance.‘More information should be compiled and shared in a way to facilitate research’ which can be used to inform the public at large considering that the debate is an emotion fuelled one, an ideological batt le. One respondent emphasized that‘both the public and the press are, in general, poorly informed about the main environmental issues; all would be bett er served by more transparency and public disclosure about operations, potential impacts and mitigation plans’.A way forward would be for the ‘regulators to see researchers as helpful partners in the safe oversight of industrial activities’ as ‘limited data access always breeds suspicion’ concludes one researcher. On the other hand, some expressed wari- ness because disclosure will not achieve what it is expected‘due to the already large mis- trust of the public in oil and gas companies’and the fact that it has to be supplemented by other aspects (‘there is a lot more to gaining public trust than information disclosure’) while other, building on U.S. experience has argued that ‘you could have a 100% risk free well drilling and natural gas production process and 10-15% of a very vocal part of the population would still be strongly against it’. Reluctance of governments and companies does not encourage research, and mechanisms aimed to ease access to data or compile and share information to facilitate research are sometimes missing. To conclude with, one researcher streamlines the debate by putt ing forward the argument that ‘government data should be public by defi nition; however, the situation with corporate data is trickier for competitive reasons’and this could be solved by limiting the scope of what is consid- ered trade secret. Improved access to information and data should facilitate research which in turn could help close the knowledge gaps by providing unbiased, reliable information to be incorporated in the decision making process. Without relevant in- formation, hazards directly att ributable to fracking operations cannot be quantifi ed. 5. Concluding remarks Literature review on the environmental challenges att ached to shale gas explora- tion and exploitation portrayed a wide range of views on the magnitude of impacts. It is acknowledged that fracking operations are not free of risk to the environment; however, scientists have a diff erent view when assessing the impact. Scholars have emphasized that there is predominantly a medium level of information on the risks att ached to shale gas development, highlighting that evidence to assess the impact is being collected in a fast-paced manner, with an improved accuracy of data provid- ed by science.The fi ndings contribute to the current state of art reviewing the main environmental impacts by identifying the risk perceived to hold limited knowledge. 157 Clarity in science should be supplemented by clarity in regulation which safeguards access to information and transparency. Our research has showed that the most pre- ferred option in dealing with uncertainty is clarifying existing EU legislation in terms of access to information through guidelines. Respondents have shown that more ac- countability and openness towards the general public and increased transparency is needed. Considering that the shale gas debate is mainly an emotional fuelled one, an ideological batt le, the lack of science, evidence and scarce data breeds suspicion. Making reliable and accurate data available for research purposes will lead to scien- tifi c evidence grounded on quality data which can be easily reviewed, thus eliminat- ing inconsistencies and biases. There are signifi cant challenges att ached to eff ectively incorporating science, out of which limited disclosure of data relevant for the shale gas debate makes it diffi cult for representatives of academia and scientifi c communi- ty to carry research. We think that further research should be done to assess which data should be considered confi dential in this debate. Our case study on incorporat- ing science and evidence when making decisions has revealed that scientifi c data on the issue should be open access. Furthermore, instead of shaping a transparent frame- work for the debate, the regulatory framework hinders access to information. Future research should be carried in assessing the regulatory framework at European level in terms of access to information. However, a signifi cant part of uncertainty related to shale gas development may be unavoidable and scientifi c truths should be subject to review and revision. Thus, when dealing with controversial issues, policymakers will always face signifi cant uncertainty when drafting policies, which requires a robust behavior in dealing with uncertainty and risk, encompassing communication of un- certainties, good scientifi c practice, accountability and openness towards the general public. References: 1. AEA, ‘Climate Impact of Potential Shale Gas Production in the EU’, Report for Europe- an Commission DG CLIMA, July 30, 2012, Issue 2, [Online] available athtt p://ec.euro- pa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/docs/120815_fi nal_report_en.pdf, accessed on June 12, 2015. 2. Barcelo, D. and Bennett , J.P., ‘Human Health and Environmental Risks of Unconventi- onal Shale Gas Hydrofracking’, 2015, Science of the Total Environment, Virtual Issue about Human Health and Environmental Risks of Unconventional Shale Gas Hydrofracking, [On- line] available at htt p://www.journals.elsevier.com/science-of-the-total-environment/ virtual-special-issues/virtual-issue-about-human-health-and-environmental-risks/, ac- cessed on August 28, 2015. 3. Boersma, T. and Johnson, C., ‘The Shale Gas Revolution: US and EU Policy and Re- search Agendas’, 2012, Review of Policy Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 570-576. 4. Cairney, P., ‘Evidence Based Policy Making: If You Want to Inject More Science into Policymaking You Need to Know the Science of Policymaking’,conference paper, Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Manchester, April 2014, [Online] available at htt ps://paulcairney.fi les.wordpress.com/2014/02/cairney-psa-2014-ebpm-5 -3-14.pdf, accessed on June 12, 2015. 158 5. Cairney, P., Fischer, M. and Ingold, K., ‘Hydraulic Fracturing Policy in the UK: Coali- tion, Cooperation and Opposition in the Face of Uncertainty’, book chapter prepared for the edited book Mapping Political Landscapes of Hydraulic Fracturing, undated, [Online] available at htt ps://paulcairney.fi les.wordpress.com/2015/01/cairney-fi scher-ingold- fracking-in-the-uk-for-zurich-workshop-23-jan-2015.pdf, accessed on May 12, 2015. 6. Cathles, L.M., Brown, L., Taam, M. and Hunter, A., ‘A Commentary on ‘The Green- house-Gas Footprint of Natural Gas in Shale Formations’ by R.W. Howarth, R. San- toro, and Anthony Ingraff ea’, 2012, Climatic Change, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 525-535. 7. Chen, J., Al-Wadei, M.H., Kennedy, R.C.M. and Terry, P.D., ‘Hydraulic Fracturing: Paving the Way for a Sustainable Future?’, 2014, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2014, article ID 656824, 10 pages, htt p://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/656824. 8. Colborn, T., Kwiatkowski, C., Schultz , K. andBachran, M., ‘Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective’, 2011, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, vol.17, no. 5, pp. 1039-1056. 9. Commission Recommendation of 22 January 2014 on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, no. 2014/70/EU, published in Offi cial Journal of the European Union, L. 39/72, 8.2.2014. 10. Department of Energy & Climate Change (‘DECC’), UK, ‘Fracking UK Shale: Under- standing Earthquake Risk’, February 2014, London, [Online] available at htt ps://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/att achment_data/fi le/283837/Seismic_ v3.pdf, accessed on May 13, 2015. 11. Eaton, T.T., ‘Science-based Decision-Making on Complex Issues: Marcellus Shale Gas Hydrofracking and New York City Water Supply’, 2013, Science of the Total Environ- ment, vol. 461-462, pp. 158-169. 12. Ellsworth W.L., ‘Injection-Induced Earthquakes’, 2013, Science, vol. 341, no. 6142, DOI:10.1126/science.1225942. 13. Environment Agency, UK, ‘An Environmental Risk Assessment for Shale Gas Explor- atory Operations in England’, August 2013, [Online] available at htt ps://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/att achment_data/fi le/296949/LIT_8474_fb b1d4. pdf, accessed on May 23, 2015. 14. European Commission, DG Environment, ‘Analysis and Presentation of the Results of the Public Consultation “Unconventional Fossil Fuels (e.g. Shale Gas) in Europe”: Final report’, October 3, 2013, [Online] available at htt p://ec.europa.eu/environment/ integration/energy/pdf/Shale%20gas%20consultation_report.pdf, accessed on April 27, 2015. 15. European Commission, Energy and Environment, ‘Environmental Aspects on Uncon- ventional Fossil Fuels’, undated, [Online] available at htt p://ec.europa.eu/environ- ment/integration/energy/unconventional_en.htm, accessed on August 30, 2015. 16. Finkel, M.L. and Hays, J., ‘The Implications of Unconventional Drilling for Natural Gas: A Global Public Health Concern’, 2013, Public Health, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 889-893. 17. Fischer, F., ‘Beyond Technocratic Environmentalism: Citizen Inquiry in Sustainable Development’, in Hisschemöller, M., Hoppe, R., Dunn, N.W. and Ravetz , J.R. (eds.), Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis, New Brunswick; London: Transaction Publishers, 2001, pp. 29-45. 159 18. Gamper-Rabindran, S., ‘Information Collection, Access, and Dissemination to Support Evidence-Based Shale Gas Policies’, 2014, Energy Technology, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 977-987. 19. Gény, F., ‘Can Unconventional Gas Be a Game Changer in European Gas Markets?’ Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, NG 46, December 2010, [Online] available at http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/NG46-CanUn conventionalGasbeaGameChangerinEuropeanGasMarkets-FlorenceGeny-2010.pdf, accessed on April 27, 2015. 20. Green, C.A., Styles, P. and Baptie,B.J., ‘Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing: Review and Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation’, UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, April 2012, [Online] available at htt p://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/ decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/oilgas/5055-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review- and-recomm.pdf, accessed on May 3, 2015. 21. Haas, P., ‘Science Policy for Multilateral Environmental Governance’, in Kanie, N. and Haas, P. (eds.), Emerging Forces in Environmental Governance, New York: United Na- tions University Press, 2004, pp. 115-136. 22. Howarth, R.W., Santoro, R. and Ingraff ea, A., ‘Methane and the Greenhouse-Gas Foot- print of Natural Gas from Shale Formations. A Lett er’, 2011, Climatic Change, vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 679-690. 23. Howarth, R.W., Santoro, R. andIngraff ea, A., ‘Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles et al.’, 2012, Climatic Change, vol. 113, no. 2,pp. 537-549. 24. Husain, T.M., Yeong, L.C., Saxena, A., Cengiz, U., Ketineni, S., Khanzhode, A. and Muhamad, H., ‘Economic Comparison of Multi- Lateral Drilling over Horizontal Drill- ing for Marcellus Shale Field Development’, Final project report, May 1, 2011, Phil- adelphia: Pennsylvania State University, [Online] available at htt p://www.ems.psu. edu/~elsworth/courses/egee580/2011/Final%20Reports/fi shbone_report.pdf, accessed on June 30, 2015. 25. Ivan, V., ‘European Governance on the Shale Gas Debate: The Need for an Environ- mental Impact Assessment’, 2013, Proceedings of the 9th Administration and Public Man- agement International Conference, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 81-91. 26. Jacquet, J.B., ‘Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Energy Development’, 2014, Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 48, no. 15, pp. 8321-8333. 27. Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D., ‘Fracking and Public Relations: Rehearsing the Arguments and Making the Case’, 2013, Journal of Public Aff airs, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 384- 390. 28. Kargbo, D.M., Wilhelm, R.G. and Campbell, D.J., ‘Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities’, 2010, Environmental Science and Tech- nology, vol. 44, no.15, pp. 5679-5684. 29. Kelly, E., ‘EU Announces around €12 Million in Funding for Fracking Research’, Sci- ence Business, February 25, 2015, [Online] available at htt p://www.sciencebusiness.net/ news/76921/EU-announces-around-%E2%82%AC12-million-in-funding-for-fracking- research, accessed on May 16, 2015. 30. Knol, A.B., Slott je, P., van der Sluijs, J.P. andLebret, E., ‘The Use of Expert Elicitation in Environmental Health Impact Assessment: A Seven Step Procedure’, 2010, Environ- mental Health, vol. 9, no. 19, pp. 1-16. 160 31. Kuhn, M. and Umbach, F., ‘Strategic Perspectives of Unconventional Gas: A Game Changer with Implication for the EU’s Energy Security’, European Centre for Energy and Resource Security, strategy paper, vol. 1, May 1, 2011, [Online] available at htt ps:// www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/research/groups/eucers/strategy- paper-1.pdf, accessed on May 16, 2015. 32. Levin, B. and Cooper, A. ‘Theory, Research and Practice in Mobilising Knowledge in Education’, in Fenwick, T. and Farrell, L. (ed), Knowledge Mobilization and Educational Research, New York: Routledge, 2012, pp. 17-29. 33. Medlock, K.B., ‘Modeling the Implications of Expanded US Shale Gas Production’, 2012, Energy Strategy Reviews,vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33-41. 34. Melikoglu, M., ‘Shale Gas: Analysis of Its Role in the Global Energy Market’, 2014, Re- newable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 37, pp. 460-468. 35. North, D.W., Stern, P.C.,Webler, T. and Field, P., ‘Public and Stakeholder Participation for Managing and Reducing the Risks of Shale Gas Development’, 2014, Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 48, no. 15, pp. 8388-8396. 36. O’Hagan, A., ‘Eliciting Expert Beliefs in Substantial Practical Applications’, 1998, The Statistician, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 21-35. 37. Osborn, S.G., Vengosh A., Warner, N.R. and Jackson, R.B., ‘Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing’, 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 20, pp. 8172-8176. 38. Pearson, I., Zeniewski, P., Gracceva, F., Zastera, P., McGlade, C., Sorrell, S., Speirs, J. and Thonhauser, G., ‘Unconventional Gas: Potential Energy Market Impacts in the European Union’, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, 2012, [Online] available at htt ps://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/fi les/reqno_jrc70481_unconventional_ gas_potential_energy_market_impacts_in_the_european_union.pdf, accessed on Au- gust 30, 2015. 39. Profi roiu, M., Politicipublice: teorie, analiză, practică, Bucharest: Editura Economică, 2006. 40. Refsgaard, J.C., van der Sluijs, J.P., Brown, J. and van der Keur, P., ‘A Framework for Dealing with Uncertainty Due to Model Structure Error’, 2006, Advances in Water Re- sources, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1586-1597. 41. Sills, S. and Song, C., ‘Innovations in Survey Research. An Application of Web-based Surveys’ 2002, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 22-30. 42. Styles, P., ‘Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing: A Review of the Environmental, Geo- logical, and Climate Risks’, in Unconventional Fossil Fuels, Abu Dhabi: The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, 2015, pp. 299-346. 43. vanAsselt, M.B.A. and Rotmans, J., ‘Uncertainty in Perspective’, 1996, Global Environ- mental Change, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 121-157. 44. van der Sluijs, J.P., Anchoring amid Uncertainty, PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 1997. 45. Walker, W.E., Harremoes, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J., van Asselt, M.B.A., Jans- sen, P. andKrayer von Krauss, M.P., ‘Defi ning Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-based Decision Support’, 2003, Integrated Assess- ment, vol. 4 , no. 1, pp. 5-17. 46. Wang, J., Ryan, D. and Anthony, E.J., ‘Reducing the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Shale Gas’, 2011, Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 8196-8199. 161 47. Wang, Q., Chen, X., Jha, A.N. and Rogers, H., ‘Natural Gas from Shale Formation – the Evolution, Evidences and Challenges of Shale Gas Revolution in United States’, 2014, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,vol. 30, pp. 1-28. 48. Wheeler, D., MacGregor, M., Atherton, F., Christmas, K., Dalton, S., Dusseault, M., Gagnon, G., Hayes, B., MacIntosh, C., Mauro, I. and Ritcey, R., ‘Hydraulic Fracturing – Integrating Public Participation with an Independent Review of the Risks and Bene- fi ts’, 2015, Energy Policy, vol. 85, pp. 299-308. 49. White, E., Fell, M., Smith, L. and Keep, M., ‘Shale Gas and Fracking’, House of Com- mons Library, London, Briefi ng Paper number SN06073, June 25, 2015, [Online] avail- able at www.parliament.uk/briefi ng-papers/sn06073.pdf , accessed on April 26, 2015. 50. Wigley, T.M.L, ‘Coal to Gas: The Infl uence of Methane Leakage’, 2011, Climatic Change, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 601-608. 51. Wood, J., ‘The Global Anti-Fracking Movement: What it Wants, How it Operates and What Next’, Control Risks Group, London, 2012, [Online] available at htt ps://www. controlrisks.com/~/media/Public%20Site/Files/Oversized%20Assets/shale_gas_white paper.pdf, accessed on March 27, 2015. 52. Younger, P.L., ‘Hydrogeological Challenges in a Low-Carbon Economy’, 2014, Quar- terly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 7-27. 53. Zobak, M., Kitasei, S. and Copithorne, B., ‘Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development’, Briefi ng Paper 1, Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC, July 2010, [Online] available at htt ps://www.worldwatch.org/fi les/pdf/Hydraulic%20 Fracturing%20Paper.pdf, accessed on March 2, 2015.