Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Environmental Policy Making

Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Environmental Policy Making Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK gGmbH Part 1 A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision Making and Conflicts The Four Functional Systems of Society (Basics) (RE)-PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION Economy MEANING Culture RELATIONSHIP Social Action ORDER Politics •The Four Functional Systems of Society (Full version) Medium: value commitment, beliefs (RE)-PRODUCTION AND Function: Integration und Identity Building DISTRIBUTION Subfunctions:  Knowledge claims (Effectiveness) Medium: Money  Personal and collective faith (meaning): Function: Allocation und Distribution Religion and ideologies Subfunctions:  Self-expression (cultural reflection) -arts Functional principle: Cooperation (on the basis of  Economic order (Efficiency)  Modes of production (Optimal allocation) shared values)  Distribution of wealth( Free contracts) System Manifestation: Culture Functional principle: competition System manifestation: Economy MEANING Medium: Power Function: Production of colectively bining decisions Subfunctions:  Legislative (Legitimacy)  Judicative (Orientation security)  Executive (Practicability; Enforcement)) Functional principle: : Hierarchy System manifestation: Politics RELATIONSHIP Medium: Social influence, solidarity Function: Cohesion, bonding Subfunctions:  Personal relations (empathy))  Group relations(trust)  Social networks (commitment), Functional principle: Cooperation (on the basis of personal or group bonds) System manifestation: Social action ORDER Four Basic (Sub)systems and their Means of Dealing with Conflicts Scientific Decision Support • • • Economic System Mediation Focus on interests Property rights/Civil law Compensation for external effects (KaldorHicks) Experts • • • Focus on factual knowledge Truth claims Peer Reveiw Efficiency Civil Society • • • Focus on values Mutual understanding Empathy/Personal relations Acceptance Fairness Effectiveness Legitimacy Expert Committees Political System • • • Focus on collective principles Due process Constitutional law Participation System Dependent Conflict Resolution Models Economic System Optimizing allocation and distribution • • • Pareto principle Distributive discourse (bargaining) Rational actor: decision/game theories Expert System Sustaining Meaning • • • Methodology and Peer Review Maximizing Utility Empathy Evidence Generalizable values and norms • • • Civil Society Sustaining Relationships Mutual understanding Therapeutic Discourse Social bonding theories Cognitive and interpretative Discourse Theories of knowledge management and epistemology Political System Sustaining Order • • • Compatibility with universal or positive principles Normative Discourse Theory of communicative action Part 2 Basics of public participation Crucial Questions for participation Inclusion Who: stakeholders, scientists, public(s) What: options, policies, scenarios, frames, preferences Scope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal) Scale: space, time period, future generations Closure What counts: acceptable evidence What is more convincing: competition of arguments What option is selected: decision making rule (consensus, compromise, voting) Perspectives Table I Concept Functionalist Main objective To improve quality of decision output Rationale Representation of all knowledge carriers; integration of systematic, experiential and local knowledge Models and instruments Delphi method, workshops, hearing, inquiries, citizen advisory committees Referendum, focus groups, internetparticipation negotiated rule-making, mediation, etc. Neo-liberal To represent all values and preferences in proportion to their share in the affected population Informed consent of the affected population; Paretorationality plus Caldor-Hicks methods (win–win solutions) Perspectives Table II Concept Deliberative Main objective To debate the criteria of truth, normative validity and truthfulness Rationale Inclusion of relevant arguments, reaching consensus through argumentation Models and instruments Discourseoriented models, citizen forums, deliberative juries Anthropological To engage in common sense as the ultimate arbiter in disputes (jury model) Inclusion of noninterested laypersons representing basic social categories such as gender, income and locality Consensus conference, citizen juries, planning cells Perspectives Table III Concept Emancipatory Main objective To empower less privileged groups and individuals Rationale Strengthening the resources of those who suffer most from environmental degradation Models and instruments Action group initiatives, town meetings, community development groups, tribunals, science shops Open forums, open space conferences, panel discussions Postmodern To demonstrate variability, plurality and legitimacy of dissent Acknowledgment of plural rationalities; no closure necessary; mutually acceptable arrangements are sufficient Perspectives Best Suited For Water and Biodiversity Policies (Habermasian) Deliberative Goals: Competition of arguments Common good orientation Diversity but not representativeness Rationale: overarching rationality by appropriate discourse structure Methods: rational discourse, citizen panels, round tables Part 3 What is an analytic-deliberative approach in environmental policy making? Analytic-Deliberative Approach Characteristics of analytic component Legitimate plurality of evidence Need for joint fact finding But no arbitrariness in evidence claims New procedures necessary Characteristics of deliberative component Based on arguments not on positions or interests Key variables: fairness, common good, resilience and capacity building Crucial factor: inclusiveness and consensus on rules for closure Characteristics of Environmental Policy Making with Focus on Risk Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships Uncertainty about effects and vulnerability of absorbing system Ambiguity in interpreting results Transboundary and transsectoral impacts Model of IRGC  International Risk Governance Council in Geneva White Paper on Risk Governance  Comparisons of international and national risk taxonomies  Development of a consistent and overarching framework  Emphasis on risk governance  Application to a diversity of different areas White Paper available  Available on the web: www.irgc.org    Renn, O. and Walker, K. (Eds.): Global Risk Governance. Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework. International Risk Governance Council Bookseries 1. Berlin and Heidelberg 2008 IRGC Risk Governance Framework: Understanding Pre-assessment Deciding Appraisal Communication Management Characterisation and evaluation ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CORE PROCESS Management Sphere: Decision on & Implementation of Actions Assessment Sphere: Generation of Knowledge 3 Risk Management Strategy:  routine-based  risk-informed/robustnessfocussed  precaution-based/resiliencefocussed  discourse-based Pre-Assessment Pre-Assessment: • • • • Problem Framing Early Warning Screening Determination of Scientific Conventions Risk Risk Management Management Implementation • Option Realisation • Monitoring & Control • Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice Decision Making • Option Identification & Generation • Option Assessment • Option Evaluation & Selection Risk Appraisal Risk Appraisal: Risk Assessment • Hazard Identification & Estimation • Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment • Risk Estimation Concern Assessment • Risk Perceptions • Social Concerns • Socio-Economic Impacts Communication 1 Knowledge Challenge:  Complexity  Uncertainty  Ambiguity Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement Risk Evaluation • Judging the Tolerability & Acceptability • Need for Risk Reduction Measures Risk Characterisation • Risk Profile • Judgement of the Seriousness of Risk • Conclusions & Risk Reduction Options 2 Risk judged:  acceptable  tolerable  intolerable Need for different management strategies Dealing with routine, mundane risks: internal dialogue sufficient Dealing with complex and sophisticated risks (high degree of modeling necessary): emphasis on analytic component Dealing with highly uncertain risks (high degree of second order uncertainty): emphasis on link between analysis and deliberation component Dealing with highly controversial risks (high degree of ambiguity): emphasis on deliberative Application to Deliberation I For routine management, communication should include: Information on the process of environmental management Information on routine management actions If necessary, a hot-line for questions and observations For highly complex topics, communication and deliberation should include: All of the above Discourse among experts on ranges of acceptable evidence Additional effort for collecting feedback Application to Deliberation II For highly uncertain interventions, communication and deliberation should include All of the above Involvement of major stakeholders Shift towards resilience approaches Possibly, public hearings For highly ambiguous topics, communication and deliberation should include: All of the above Involvement of all parties affected by the decision The Risk Management Escalator Affected stakeholders Actors (from simple via complex and uncertain to ambiguous phenomena) « Civil society » Affected stakeholders Scientists/ Researchers Agency Staff Participatory Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences Scientists/ Researchers Agency Staff Instrumental Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable Linearity Agency Staff Epistemic Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk Scientists/ Researchers Agency Staff Reflective Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward Type of participation Dominant risk characteristic Complexity Uncertainty Ambiguity As the level of knowledge changes, so also will the type of participation need to change Part 4 Evaluating public participation Evaluation Criteria 1 Concept Functionalist Normative Substantive Procedural Diversity (in selecting representatives of different knowledge communities) Resource accessibility (all information available) Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight) Quality of decision Integration (results output reflect different knowledge claims) Adequacy (of results with problem at hand) Impacts (of results on policy-making) Expertise (results reflect the knowledge of the participants) Evaluation Criteria 2 Concept Neo-liberal Normative Quality of informed consent or judgement (producing a mirror image of public preferences under the condition of best available knowledge) Substantive Competence (results are based on informed choices) Internal transparency (participants know how results were articulated and how the process is structured ) Efficiency (costeffective balance between results and means of reaching these results) Procedural Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight) Representativene ss (process should deliver a true picture of participants’ preferences and interests) Professionalism (of moderators and staff) Evaluation Criteria 3 Concept Deliberative Normative Contribution to the common good Substantive Procedural Competence (results are Internal fairness based on informed (all arguments choices) should have equal weight) Accountability (results reflect commitment to External fairness moral standards) (access to participation by Capacity-building everyone with a (results reflect the stake or an potential of the argument) participants and promote their voices in the policy Independence (of arena) the process and the deliberations from External transparency external powers) (outsiders know how results were articulated Learning (process and how the process has encourages been conducted) participants to gain more insights) Evaluation Criteria 3 Concept Deliberative Normative Contribution to the common good Substantive Procedural Competence (results are Internal fairness based on informed (all arguments choices) should have equal weight) Accountability (results reflect commitment to External fairness moral standards) (access to participation by Capacity-building everyone with a (results reflect the stake or an potential of the argument) participants and promote their voices in the policy Independence (of arena) the process and the deliberations from External transparency external powers) (outsiders know how results were articulated Learning (process and how the process has encourages been conducted) participants to gain more insights) Evaluation Criteria 4 Concept Anthropological Normative Same as deliberative Substantive Competence (results are based on informed choices) Accountability (results reflect commitment to moral standards) External transparency (outsiders know how results were articulated and how the process has been conducted) Procedural Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight) Diversity (in selecting representatives of different social backgrounds) Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Evaluation Criteria 5 Concept Emancipatory Normative Empowerment of less privileged groups and individuals Substantive Capacity-building (results reflect the potentials of the participants and promote their voices in the policy arena) Accountability (results reflect commitment to moral standards) Procedural Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Compensatory selection (participation is by self-selection or by conscious overrepresentation of the less privileged) Emancipation (process encourages selfefficacy ) Evaluation Criteria 6 Concept Post-modern Normative Influence on public debate Substantive Plurality (results mirror the diversity of possible opinions) Capacity-building (results reflect the potential of the participants and promote their voices in the policy arena) Procedural Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Diversity (in selecting representatives of different social backgrounds) Emancipation (process encourage selfefficacy ) Part 5 A model of analyticdeliberative decision making for environmental policy making The Cooperative Discourse Model Candidates for Participation Models Organized stakeholders Hearing Round Tables (Forum, Dialogue Processes) Negotiated Rulemaking Mediation and Alternate Conflict Resolution General public Ombudsperson Public Hearings Citizen Advisory Committees Citizen Forum, Planning Cells, Citizen Juries Consensus Conferences (Danish Model) Basic requirements for deliberative participation models Concept Deliberative Normative Contribution to the common good Substantive Procedural Competence (results are Internal fairness based on informed (all arguments choices) should have equal weight) Accountability (results reflect commitment to External fairness moral standards) (access to participation by Capacity-building everyone with a (results reflect the stake or an potential of the argument) participants and promote their voices in the policy Independence (of arena) the process and the deliberations from External transparency external powers) (outsiders know how results were articulated Learning (process and how the process has encourages been conducted) participants to gain more insights) Specific Requirements for Deliberative Participation Models Clear mandate and time frame Range of available and suitable options Willingness of legal decision makers to give product of participation serious attention Willingness of all parties to learn from each other Refraining from moralizing other parties or their positions The Cooperative Discourse Model I Three components Criteria and values from organized stakeholders Facts and cognitive judgments from experts Balancing and assignment of trade-offs by representatives of the general public (or affected citizens) Procedure Identification of values, concerns and criteria through stakeholder deliberation Assessment of factual consequences of each option on each criterion though expert workshops Option evaluation and recommendations by randomly selected citizens The Cooperative Discourse Model II Methods and Techniques Value tree analysis for eliciting stakeholder concerns Group Delphi technique for expert judgments and assessments Planning cell methods relying on multi-attributedecision techniques for incorporating public preferences and values Advantages of three-step approach Fairness through random selection and systematic selection of stakeholders Competence through involvement of experts and decision makers Application of the Cooperative Discourse Model Germany: Energy scenarios for 1. German Enquete Commission Waste disposal management plans for the Northern Black Forest Area Switzerland: Siting of a landfill in the Canton of Aargau USA: Sludge disposal planning in New Jersey Part 6 General Conclusions Requirements for deliberation Summary Procedural Requirements: Inclusion: fair representation of viewpoints, arguments and relevant groups Closure: fair competition of arguments, consensus on decision making and assurance of adequate processing of knowledge and values Six concepts of participation Functional Neo-liberal Deliberative Anthropological Emancipatory Postmodern Final Note Deliberative processes for involving stakeholders and the general public are instruments of art and science: They require a solid theoretical knowledge, a personal propensity to engage in group interactions, and lots of practical experience EXTRA SLIDES Basic Aspects of Inclusion Inclusion: What and who has been included? Topics and themes Purposes (Objectives) Information Enlightenment Feedback (concern expression) Recommendation for action Co-determination Perspectives (frames of interpretations) Knowledge (science, stakeholder, affected publics) Arguments (cognitive, expressive, normative, evaluative) Emotions, affects Time frame (intra-generational equity) Geographic range (inter-generational equity) Representatives of these points (Who can represent these viewpoints) Who has been invited and why? How were the invited motivated? Basic Aspects of Closure I Deliberation: How is the process structured? Process structure Institutional setting (responsibilities, accountability) Choice of instruments (Round Table, Citizen Panel, Consensus Conference Choice of tools (Delphi, Multiplan, Value Tree) Role of Facilitator (independence, competence, neutrality, self-interests) Process rules Deliberation rules Decision making rules Learning platforms Generation of common knowledge Generation of common understanding Generation of empathy and trust Generation of common yardsticks for selection (options, arguments, etc.) Basic Aspects of Closure II Selection: How is the outcome selected and what is the outcome? Focus or closure on topics and themes Selection of options Legitimacy of perspectives (frames of interpretations) Validity of arguments Authenticity of emotions Relevance of time frame Relevance of geographic range Implementation: What is being done with the outcome? Adoption by respective authorities within predefined purpose of the process Connectivity to other governance levels and structures (Anschlussfähigkeit) Monitoring and Feedback Assessment and Evakuation Perspectives I Functionalist Goals: Improving policies Reach better outcomes Constructive resolution of conflicts Rationale: diversity and more inclusion avoids error Methods: Delphi, Negotiated Rule Making, Hearing, Citizen Advisory Committees Perspectives II Neo-liberal Goals Collection of public preferences Informed consent Win-win strategies for conflict resolution Rationale: either individualization or representation Methods: Referendum, focus groups, large representative samples, mediation Perspectives III (Habermasian) Deliberative Goals: Competition of arguments Common good orientation Diversity but not representativeness Rationale: overarching rationality by appropriate discourse structure Methods: rational discourse, citizen panels, round tables Perspectives IV Anthropological Goals: Involvement of the “model” citizen Common layperson as juror between conflicting interests Rationale: Belief in “universal” power of common sense Methods: Consensus conferencing, citizen juries Perspectives V Emancipatory Goals: Empowering those that have the most to lose Contribution to fight injustice and unfair distribution of power and money Rationale: Need for power redistribution Methods: Action groups, science workshops, community development groups, tribunals Perspectives VI Post-modern Goals: Giving dissenting views a public voice Deconstructing universal knowledge and value claims Rationale: Acknowledgement of plural rationalities Methods: Open forums, framing workshops