The opportunities and challenges of using electronic means for resolving science-intense conflicts

1
The opportunities and challenges of using
electronic means for resolving science-intense
conflicts

• TED Workshop, Helsinki
• May 19-22, 2005
• Ortwin Renn
• University of Stuttgart

2
Part 1

• What is
• an analytic-deliberative approach?

3
Characteristics of Environmental Decision Making

• Complexity in assessing causal and temporal
  relationships
• Uncertainty about effects and vulnerability of
  absorbing system
• Ambiguity in interpreting results
• Transboundary and transsectoral impacts

4
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 interests
• Key variables fairness, understanding and
  respect
• Crucial factor inclusiveness and consensus on
  rules for closure

5
Crucial questions for deliberative processes

• Inclusion
• Who stakeholder definition
• What options, scenarios, etc.
• Why problem representation, framing
• For what purpose goals and mandate
• Closure
• What counts selection process
• What is more convincing argumentation process
• What option is selected balancing process

6
Structural elements of deliberation

• Deliberative procedures
• All participants equal rights and duties
• Fair exchange of arguments and evaluations
• Searching for consensus (compromise)
• Deliberative composition
• Legal decision makers
• Representative composition
• Stakeholders
• Non-organized citizens
• Deliberative theories
• Rational actor (game theory) compensation
• Systems theories code translation
• Communicative action common good
• Postmodernism free negotiation

7
Need for different deliberation strategies

• Dealing with routine, mundane problems internal
  dialogue sufficient
• Dealing with complex and sophisticated issues
  (high degree of modeling necessary) emphasis on
  analytic component
• Dealing with highly uncertain consequences (high
  degree of second order uncertainty) emphasis on
  link between analysis and deliberation
• Dealing with highly controversial debates (high
  degree of ambiguity) emphasis on deliberative
  component

8
Application to Deliberation I

• For routine management, communication should
  include
• Information on the process of environmental
  management
• Information on routine management actions
• Instrumental discourse
• For highly complex topics, communication and
  deliberation should include
• All of the above
• Discourse among experts on ranges of acceptable
  evidence
• Epistemological discourse

9
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
• Reflective discourse
• For highly ambiguous topics, communication and
  deliberation should include
• All of the above
• Involvement of all parties affected by the
  decision
• Design or normative discourse

10
Application to Risk Problems The Risk
Management Escalator
Risk Tradeoff Analysis and Deliberation
Necessary Risk Balancing Necessary Risk
Assessment Necessary Types of Conflict cognitive
evaluative normative Actors Risk
Managers External Experts Stakeholders such as
Industry, Directly Affected Groups Representatives
of the Public(s) Discourse normative Ambiguous
Risk Balancing Necessary Risk Assessment
Necessary Types of Conflict cognitive evaluative
Actors Risk Managers External Experts Stakeholder
s such as Industry, Directly Affected
Groups Discourse reflective Uncertain
Scientific Risk Assessment Necessary Types of
Conflict cognitive Actors Risk
Managers External Experts Discourse epistemologic
al Complex
Routine operation Actors Risk managers Discourse
instrumental Simple
11
Part 2

• Models of deliberation

12
Four Systems of Society Internal Mechanisms,
Social Functions and Synergisms
Meditation
Efficiency
Acceptability Fairness
Effectiveness
Legitimacy
Participation
13
General Requirements for a Participation Model I

• Fairness
• inclusion of all affected parties
• representation of all relevant arguments
• representation of all relevant interests and
  values
• Competence
• communicative ability (able to make claims and
  challenge them)
• substantive validity (state of the art in
  knowledge)

14
General Requirements for a Participation Model II

• Efficiency
• Proportionality between costs of participation
  and costs of post-decisional regret
• Efficient use of participants time
• Legitimacy
• Representation of interests and values
• Connectivity to legal decision making process
  (Anschlussfähigkeit)

15
Specific Requirements for 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

16
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)

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
Part 3

• Electronic Deliberation
• Prospects and limitations

21
E-Participation Prospects

• Number of participants almost without limits
• High cost-effectiveness
• High flexibility and learning by doing
• Programs with attractive user interfaces
  bulletin, forum, audit-forum, video-conferencing
• Possibility for standardized evaluation and data
  processing

22
E-Participation Limitations

• Lack of face-to-face interactions
• Problem of continuity and consistency during
  deliberations
• Often lack of commitment and seriousness
• Artificiality of discourse always mediated
  through technology
• Lack of informal communication space
• Consensus building often formalized rather than
  evolving through discourse

23
Different requirements for different types of
discourse

• Epistemological
• E-exchange facilitates data exchange and learning
• E-communication can be organized in a formal way
  (cognitive mapping)
• Consensus seeking may be facilitated by formal
  methods such as Delphi
• Overall judgment well suited if participants
  know each other and discourse can be limited to a
  pre-defined set of participants

24
Different requirements for different types of
discourse

• Reflective I trying to get an informed view of
  peoples preferences and evaluations
• E-exchange facilitates open call for opinions and
  reflections
• E-communication can be organized in a
  quasi-formal way (forum with thematic groups,
  structured dialogue)
• Consensus seeking is not necessary just
  compilation and summary of clusters
• Dangers of manipulation by groups and problem
  with commitment and seriousness
• Overall judgment well suited if objective is to
  collect informed opinions and get a discourse
  started without reaching a final agreement

25
Different requirements for different types of
discourse

• Reflective II trying to develop a reflected
  recommendation on a controversial topic
• E-exchange needs to be limited to a pre-defined
  sample
• E-communication should be organized in an open
  from including audio and visual forms of
  interaction
• Consensus seeking is difficult and often based on
  fatigue rather than convictions
• Problem with commitment and continuity
• Overall judgment clear limits when consensus
  seeking is essential could be part of a hybrid
  model

26
Different requirements for different types of
discourse

• Design trying to select the most appropriate
  option in a decision making situation
• E-exchange needs to be limited to a legitimate
  group of individuals
• E-communication should be organized in an open
  from but formal decision tools can be used
• Consensus seeking can be built upon formal
  decision making methods (MCA, MAU, etc.) but
  finding compromise may be difficult
• Problem with acceptance of formal rules and
  possibility of strategic maneuvering
• Overall judgment clear limits when compromise is
  essential could be part of a hybrid model

27
Design of a hybrid model

• First stage Participants meet in person
• Getting acquainted with each other
• Framing of problem
• Mandate and decision rules
• Second stage E-based deliberation
• Exchange of arguments
• Formal methods of decision aids
• Cognitive mapping and other visual aids
• Third stage Personal meeting
• Assignment of relative weights
• Modification of options
• Building consensus or compromise

28
Part 4

• General Conclusions

29
Summary I

• Need for deliberative forms of decision making
• demand for more direct participation by
  stakeholders and the public
• Need for integration of facts and values
  (combination of distant and involved learning)
• Deliberation offers new solutions to intense
  value conflicts
• Problems of deliberation
• fair representation of all interests and values
• dealing with conflicting arguments
• assurance of competence and factual accuracy
• interface with legitimate decision making bodies
• public accountability
• efficient and effective handling of problems

30
Summary II

• Requirements for deliberative models
• Fairness and representation of public values,
  interests and worldviews
• Competence (factual, communicative, normative)
• Efficiency (resources such as costs and time)
• Legitimacy (justification and connection to legal
  bodies of decision making)
• Possible solution Differentiation
• Epistemological consensus on facts
• Reflective
• Screening of informed judgments about an issue
• Consensus on balanced judgment about an issue
• Design or normative consensus on design or
  decison

31
Summary III

• Electronic versions of deliberations
• Advantages large audiences, fast, efficient and
  variable to suit different needs
• Disadvantages no face-to-face-interaction,
  technologically mediated, consistency,
  continuity, and seriousness
• Well suited for epistemological and reflective
  discourse without balancing judgments
• Less well suited for reflective discourse with
  balancing judgments and normative discourse
• Hybrid Models most appropriate for reflective and
  normative discourse

32
 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