RIVER DIALOGUE � A STUDY OF INFORMATION COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC

							RIVER DIALOGUE – A STUDY OF INFORMATION COMMUNICATION
AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ESTONIA, THE NETHERLANDS AND
SWEDEN

Geoffrey D. Gooch

Linköpings University, Linköping, Sweden, Gulnara Roll, CTC, Tartu, Estonia, David Huitema,
IVM, Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

River Dialogue is an ongoing EU project aimed at bridging the gap between scientists, decision-
makers involved in managing European waters, and the public. Its focus is on increasing
understanding of the challenges of water use and protection, and of the scientific and technological
issues connected with water use and protection. The project will develop specific strategies for
three-way communication between decision-makers, scientific experts, and the public concerning
the use of scientific information on different aspects of water use. Project objectives are to identify
the best approaches to increasing public empowerment and public involvement in the
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and river basin management plans. Case
studies involving focus groups and citizen juries will be conducted in three European river basins:
the Motala Stroem in Sweden, Ijsselmeer in the Netherlands and the Emajõgi River in Estonia.

The participation of stakeholders and the public in river basin management creates a number of
potential problems. The first of these is the production of relevant scientific information that fulfils
the criteria of reliability, and of internal and external validity. The second is the presentation of this
information in a form that is suitable for the proposed audience. The third is the communication of
the information. The fourth is the assimilation of the information by the receivers and its
transformation into knowledge through acceptance into the receiver’s frames of reference. Finally,
if this knowledge is then to lead to empowerment and changes in behaviour, institutions must exist
that enable participation and demands for new information.

A major problem is the potential contradiction between increased participation and informed
decision-making. In processes characterised by information, not communication, experts and
decision-makers have often claimed that the public, and some stakeholders, lack sufficient
knowledge to make informed decisions. This is a general criticism against, for examples, the use of
referendums to decide complicated issues such as energy systems. This need not necessarily be so.
Crosby (1986) states that

"A standard criticism of citizen participation is that average citizens are not capable of making
decisions on complex public policy matters. The position of the authors is that average citizens can
do an effective job of decision making if the hearing format is properly structured for them".

What are needed are methodologies for transforming information into knowledge, and institutions
that facilitate extra activities and participation leading from this knowledge. There are a number of
arguments for increasing public and stakeholder participation. Democratic ethics demand that the
population can influence decisions, either directly or through delegates. The growing alienation of
large sectors of the populations of many Western countries from state institutions, expressed by
decreasing levels of voting and the difficulties of recruiting politicians at local levels, are often seen
as an indication of an approaching fossilisation of democracy. There are, of course, other
arguments. In the conditions of uncertainty that characterise post-modern society, it becomes almost
impossible to be able to gather the amount of information needed for decision-making according to
the classic rational model. If decisions are taken only by a small group of experts and politicians,
the same limited group that made the decisions must carry the blame for the inevitable mistakes
resulting from some of these decisions. The publics’ awareness of the mistakes resulting from some
decisions is amplifying the distrust of political and state institutions already felt by large sectors of
society. By involving stakeholders and the public in the decision-making process the responsibility
for mistakes can be shared.

The two methodologies utilised in the River Dialogue project both aim at developing ways of
transforming information into knowledge, and at refining methodologies for stakeholder and public
participation. Focus groups can provide valuable insights into the ways that information is
individually and collectively treated, and also into how knowledge is collectively constructed.
Citizen juries provide a representative group of stakeholders and the public with information from
politicians, experts, and interest organisations. The method has been used a number of times in
individual cases and the results have shown that

"After two and a half days of intensive learning most citizens had gained a degree of expertise
which sometimes was superior to the knowledge of the politicians represented at the podium. The
reactions of the politicians upon realizing that ordinary citizens were able to detect technical
mistakes or biased argumentation varied from astonishment to anger". (Renn, et al. 1984)

The approach taken by the River Dialogue project will allow comparisons of the applicability of the
methodologies in different cultural contexts.

This paper will provide a detailed outline of River Dialogue’s aims, scientific approach and
theoretical base, as well as a presentation of the results of the first seven months work.



References:

Crosby, N. e. a. (1986). "Citizen Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation." Public
            Administration Review 46(2).
Renn, O., H. U. Stegelmann, et al. (1984). "An Empirical Investigation of Citizen's Preferences
            Among Four Energy Scenarios." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1984,
            26, pp 11-46.