Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Environmental Policy Making

1
Stakeholder and Public Involvement in
Environmental Policy Making

• Ortwin Renn
• University of Stuttgart and
• DIALOGIK gGmbH

2
Part 1

• A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision
  Making and Conflicts

3
The Four Functional Systems of Society (Basics)
4

• The Four Functional Systems of Society (Full
  version)

5
Four Basic (Sub)systems and their Means of
Dealing with Conflicts

Mediation
Efficiency
Acceptance Fairness
Effectiveness
Legitimacy
Participation
6
System Dependent Conflict Resolution Models

• Economic System
• Optimizing allocation and distribution
• Pareto principle
• Distributive discourse(bargaining)
• Rational actor decision/game theories

Maximizing Utility

• Civil SocietySustaining Relationships
• Mutual understanding
• Therapeutic Discourse
• Social bonding theories

• Expert System
• Sustaining Meaning
• Methodology and Peer Review
• Cognitive and interpretative Discourse
• Theories of knowledge management and epistemology

Empathy
Evidence
Generalizable values and norms

• Political SystemSustaining Order
• Compatibility withuniversal or
  positiveprinciples
• Normative Discourse
• Theory of communicative action

7
Part 2

• Basics of public participation

8
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)

9
Perspectives Table I
10
Perspectives Table II
11
Perspectives Table III
12
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

13
Part 3

• What is
• an analytic-deliberative approach in
  environmental policy making?

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
IRGC Risk Governance Framework
Deciding
Understanding
Pre-assessment
Appraisal
Management
Communication
Characterisation and evaluation
18
ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CORE PROCESS
Assessment SphereGeneration of Knowledge
Management SphereDecision on Implementation
of Actions

• Risk Management Strategy
• routine-based
• risk-informed/robustness-focussed
• precaution-based/resilience-focussed
• discourse-based

3
Communication

• Knowledge Challenge
• Complexity
• Uncertainty
• Ambiguity

1

• Risk judged
• acceptable
• tolerable
• intolerable

2
19
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

20
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

21
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

22
The Risk Management Escalator (from simple via
complex and uncertain to ambiguous phenomena)
 Civil society 
Actors
Affected stakeholders
Affected stakeholders
Scientists/ Researchers
Scientists/ Researchers
Scientists/ Researchers
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Reflective Involve all affected stakeholders to
collectively decide best way forward
Participatory Include all actors so as to
expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences
Epistemic Use experts to find valid, reliable
and relevant knowledge about the risk
Instrumental Find the most cost-effective way to
make the risk acceptable or tolerable
Type of participation
Complexity
Uncertainty
Ambiguity
Linearity
Dominant risk characteristic
As the level of knowledge changes, so also will
the type of participation need to change
23
Part 4

• Evaluating public participation

24
Evaluation Criteria 1
25
Evaluation Criteria 2
26
Evaluation Criteria 3
27
Evaluation Criteria 3
28
Evaluation Criteria 4
29
Evaluation Criteria 5
30
Evaluation Criteria 6
31
Part 5

• A model of analytic-deliberative decision
  making for environmental policy making
• The Cooperative Discourse Model

32
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)

33
Basic requirements for deliberative participation
models
34
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

35
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

36
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

37
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

38
Part 6

• General Conclusions
• Requirements for deliberation

39
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

40
 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   
41
 EXTRA SLIDES    
42
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?

43
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.)

44
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

45
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

46
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

47
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

48
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

49
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

50
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