Docstoc

Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Environmental Policy Making

Document Sample
Stakeholder and Public Involvement in  Environmental Policy Making Powered By Docstoc
					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
Function: Integration und Identity Building         (RE)-PRODUCTION AND
Subfunctions:                                      DISTRIBUTION
 Knowledge claims (Effectiveness)
 Personal and collective faith (meaning):          Medium: Money
    Religion and ideologies                          Function: Allocation und Distribution
 Self-expression (cultural reflection) -arts        Subfunctions:
Functional principle: Cooperation (on the basis of  Economic order (Efficiency)
shared values)                                      Modes of production (Optimal allocation)
System Manifestation: Culture                       Distribution of wealth( Free contracts)
                                                     Functional principle: competition
                                                     System manifestation: Economy
MEANING
Medium: Power                                                                 RELATIONSHIP
Function: Production of colectively bining
decisions                                         Medium: Social influence, solidarity
Subfunctions:                                     Function: Cohesion, bonding
 Legislative (Legitimacy)                        Subfunctions:
 Judicative (Orientation security)               Personal relations (empathy))
 Executive (Practicability; Enforcement))        Group relations(trust)
Functional principle: : Hierarchy                 Social networks (commitment),
System manifestation: Politics                    Functional principle: Cooperation (on the basis of
                                                  personal or group bonds)
                                   ORDER          System manifestation: Social action
          Four Basic (Sub)systems and
      their Means of Dealing with Conflicts

    Scientific              Economic System
     Decision                                           Mediation
      Support        • Focus on interests
                     • Property rights/Civil law
                     • Compensation for external
                       effects (Kaldor-Hicks)



   Experts                     Efficiency            Civil Society

• Focus on factual             Acceptance          • Focus on values
  knowledge                    Fairness            • Mutual understanding
• Truth claims                                     • Empathy/Personal
• Peer Reveiw                 Effectiveness          relations

                              Legitimacy



      Expert              Political System
    Committees                                        Participation
                         • Focus on collective
                           principles
                         • Due process
                         • Constitutional law
                     System Dependent
                  Conflict Resolution Models
                                Economic System
                                    Optimizing allocation
                                  and distribution
                                • Pareto principle
                                • Distributive discourse
                                  (bargaining)
                                • Rational actor:
                                  decision/game theories


                                Maximizing Utility              Civil Society
Expert System                                                   Sustaining
Sustaining Meaning                    Empathy                   Relationships

• Methodology and Peer                                      •   Mutual understanding
  Review
                                     Evidence
                                                            • Therapeutic
• Cognitive and           Generalizable values and norms        Discourse
  interpretative
  Discourse                    Political System             • Social bonding
                                                              theories
                                 Sustaining Order
• Theories of knowledge
  management and               • Compatibility with
  epistemology                   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         Main objective       Rationale               Models and
                                                             instruments

Functionalist   To improve           Representation of       Delphi
                quality of           all knowledge           method,
                decision output      carriers; integration   workshops,
                                     of systematic,          hearing,
                                     experiential and        inquiries,
                                     local knowledge         citizen
                                                             advisory
                                                             committees

Neo-liberal     To represent all     Informed consent        Referendum,
                values and           of the affected         focus groups,
                preferences in       population; Pareto-     internet-
                proportion to        rationality plus        participation
                their share in the   Caldor-Hicks
                affected             methods (win–win        negotiated
                population           solutions)              rule-making,
                                                             mediation,
                                                             etc.
Perspectives Table II
Concept           Main objective        Rationale               Models and
                                                                instruments

Deliberative      To debate the         Inclusion of relevant   Discourse-
                  criteria of truth,    arguments, reaching     oriented models,
                  normative validity    consensus through       citizen forums,
                  and truthfulness      argumentation           deliberative
                                                                juries



Anthropological   To engage in          Inclusion of non-       Consensus
                  common sense as       interested laypersons   conference,
                  the ultimate          representing basic      citizen juries,
                  arbiter in disputes   social categories       planning cells
                  (jury model)          such as gender,
                                        income and locality
Perspectives Table III
Concept        Main objective           Rationale                  Models and
                                                                   instruments

Emancipatory   To empower less          Strengthening the          Action group
               privileged groups        resources of those         initiatives, town
               and individuals          who suffer most from       meetings,
                                        environmental              community
                                        degradation                development
                                                                   groups,
                                                                   tribunals,
                                                                   science shops

Postmodern     To demonstrate           Acknowledgment of          Open forums,
               variability, plurality   plural rationalities; no   open space
               and legitimacy of        closure necessary;         conferences,
               dissent                  mutually acceptable        panel
                                        arrangements are           discussions
                                        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                    Deciding
                  Pre-assessment




      Appraisal   Communication      Management




                  Characterisation
                   and evaluation
    ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN
    THE CORE PROCESS
                      Management Sphere:                                                                               Assessment Sphere:
                      Decision on & Implementation of Actions                                                        Generation of Knowledge

                                                                       Pre-Assessment
                                                                  Pre-Assessment:
3   Risk Management Strategy:
     routine-based                                               •   Problem Framing
                                                                  •   Early Warning
     risk-informed/robustness-                                   •   Screening
      focussed                                                    •   Determination of Scientific Conventions
     precaution-based/resilience-
      focussed
     discourse-based
                       Risk Risk Management
                            Management                                                                                Risk Appraisal
                                                                                                                Risk Appraisal:
                       Implementation                                                                           Risk Assessment
                       • Option Realisation                                                                     • Hazard Identification & Estimation
                       • Monitoring & Control                                                                   • Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment
                       • Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice                  Communication                       • Risk Estimation
                       Decision Making                                                                          Concern Assessment
                                                                                                                                           1   Knowledge Challenge:
                       • Option Identification & Generation                                                     • Risk Perceptions
                       • Option Assessment                                                                      • Social Concerns
                                                                                                                                                Complexity
                       • Option Evaluation & Selection                                                          • Socio-Economic Impacts        Uncertainty
                                                                                                                                                Ambiguity


                                                          Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement
                                                         Risk Evaluation                      Risk Characterisation
                                                         • Judging the Tolera-                • Risk Profile
                                                           bility & Acceptability             • Judgement of the
                                                         • Need for Risk                        Seriousness of Risk
                                                           Reduction Measures                 • 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
 Dealing with highly controversial risks (high
 degree of ambiguity): emphasis on deliberative
 component
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
(from simple via complex and uncertain to ambiguous phenomena)
                                                                       « Civil
                                                                       society »
                                                      Affected         Affected
                                                      stakeholders     stakeholders
Actors                                                Scientists/      Scientists/
                                    Scientists/
                                    Researchers       Researchers      Researchers

                 Agency Staff       Agency Staff      Agency Staff     Agency Staff
                                                                       Participatory
                 Instrumental       Epistemic        Reflective
                                                                       Include all
                 Find the most      Use experts to   Involve all
                                                                       actors so as to
Type of          cost-effective     find valid,      affected
                                                                       expose,
participation    way to make        reliable and     stakeholders
                                                                       accept,
                 the risk           relevant         to collectively
                                                                       discuss and
                 acceptable or      knowledge        decide best
                                                                       resolve
                 tolerable          about the risk   way forward
                                                                       differences

Dominant risk                       Complexity       Uncertainty       Ambiguity
                 Linearity
characteristic


                             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       Normative             Substantive            Procedural

Functionalist   Quality of decision Integration (results     Diversity (in
                output              reflect different        selecting
                                    knowledge claims)        representatives
                                                             of different
                                    Adequacy (of results     knowledge
                                    with problem at hand)    communities)
                                    Impacts (of results on   Resource
                                    policy-making)           accessibility (all
                                    Expertise                information
                                    (results reflect the     available)
                                    knowledge of the         Internal fairness
                                    participants)            (all arguments
                                                             should have
                                                             equal weight)
Evaluation Criteria 2
     Concept      Normative             Substantive           Procedural

Neo-liberal    Quality of           Competence (results     Internal fairness
               informed consent     are based on informed   (all arguments
               or judgement         choices)                should have
               (producing a                                 equal weight)
               mirror image of      Internal transparency
               public preferences   (participants know      Representativene
               under the            how results were        ss (process
               condition of best    articulated and how     should deliver a
               available            the process is          true picture of
               knowledge)           structured )            participants’
                                                            preferences and
                                    Efficiency (cost-       interests)
                                    effective balance
                                    between results and     Professionalism
                                    means of reaching       (of moderators
                                    these results)          and staff)
Evaluation Criteria 3
      Concept       Normative              Substantive              Procedural

Deliberative    Contribution to the   Competence (results are Internal fairness
                common good           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       Normative              Substantive              Procedural

Deliberative    Contribution to the   Competence (results are Internal fairness
                common good           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         Normative        Substantive            Procedural

Anthropological   Same as        Competence (results       Internal fairness
                  deliberative   are based on informed     (all arguments
                                 choices)                  should have
                                                           equal weight)
                                 Accountability (results
                                 reflect commitment to     Diversity (in
                                 moral standards)          selecting
                                                           representatives
                                 External                  of different
                                 transparency              social
                                 (outsiders know how       backgrounds)
                                 results were
                                 articulated and how       Independence (of
                                 the process has been      the process and
                                 conducted)                the deliberations
                                                           from external
                                                           powers)
Evaluation Criteria 5
    Concept       Normative           Substantive            Procedural

Emancipatory   Empowerment of    Capacity-building         Independence (of
               less privileged   (results reflect the      the process and
               groups and        potentials of the         the deliberations
               individuals       participants and          from external
                                 promote their voices      powers)
                                 in the policy arena)
                                                           Compensatory
                                 Accountability (results   selection
                                 reflect commitment to     (participation is
                                 moral standards)          by self-selection
                                                           or by conscious
                                                           over-
                                                           representation of
                                                           the less
                                                           privileged)
                                                           Emancipation
                                                           (process
                                                           encourages self-
                                                           efficacy )
Evaluation Criteria 6
    Concept      Normative         Substantive            Procedural

Post-modern   Influence on    Plurality (results        Independence (of
              public debate   mirror the diversity of   the process and
                              possible opinions)        the deliberations
                                                        from external
                              Capacity-building         powers)
                              (results reflect the
                              potential of the          Diversity (in
                              participants and          selecting
                              promote their voices      representatives
                              in the policy arena)      of different
                                                        social
                                                        backgrounds)
                                                        Emancipation
                                                        (process
                                                        encourage self-
                                                        efficacy )
Part 5
          A model of analytic-
         deliberative 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       Normative              Substantive              Procedural

Deliberative    Contribution to the   Competence (results are Internal fairness
                common good           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-attribute-
   decision 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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:60
posted:4/28/2008
language:English
pages:50