Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance

1
Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk
Governance

• 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)
MEANING Culture (RE)-PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION Economy
ORDER Politics RELATIONSHIP Social Action
4
The Four Functional Systems of Society (Full
version)
Medium value commitment, beliefs Function Integration und Identity Building Subfunctions Knowledge claims (Effectiveness) Personal and collective faith (meaning) Religion and ideologies Self-expression (cultural reflection) -arts Functional principle Cooperation (on the basis of shared values)System Manifestation Culture MEANING (RE)-PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION Medium Money Function Allocation und Distribution Subfunctions Economic order (Efficiency) Modes of production (Optimal allocation) Distribution of wealth( Free contracts) Functional principle competition System manifestation Economy
Medium Power Function Production of colectively bining decisions Subfunctions Legislative (Legitimacy) Judicative (Orientation security) Executive (Practicability Enforcement)) Functional principle Hierarchy System manifestation Politics ORDER 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
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
Concept Main objective Rationale Models and instruments
Functionalist To improve quality of decision output Representation of all knowledge carriers integration of systematic, experiential and local knowledge Delphi method, workshops, hearing, inquiries, citizen advisory committees
Neo-liberal To represent all values and preferences in proportion to their share in the affected population Informed consent of the affected population Pareto-rationality plus Caldor-Hicks methods (winwin solutions) Referendum, focus groups, internet-participation negotiated rule-making, mediation, etc.
10
Perspectives Table II
Concept Main objective Rationale Models and instruments
Deliberative To debate the criteria of truth, normative validity and truthfulness Inclusion of relevant arguments, reaching consensus through argumentation Discourse-oriented models, citizen forums, deliberative juries
Anthropological To engage in common sense as the ultimate arbiter in disputes (jury model) Inclusion of non-interested laypersons representing basic social categories such as gender, income and locality Consensus conference, citizen juries, planning cells
11
Perspectives Table III
Concept Main objective Rationale Models and instruments
Emancipatory To empower less privileged groups and individuals Strengthening the resources of those who suffer most from environmental degradation Action group initiatives, town meetings, community development groups, tribunals, science shops
Postmodern To demonstrate variability, plurality and legitimacy of dissent Acknowledgment of plural rationalities no closure necessary mutually acceptable arrangements are sufficient Open forums, open space conferences, panel discussions
12
Part 3

• What is
• an analytic-deliberative approach in risk
  governance?

13
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

14
Risk CharacteristicsThree challenges of risk
management

• Complexity in assessing causal and temporal
  relationships
• Uncertainty
• variation among individual targets
• measurement and inferential errors
• genuine stochastic relationships
• system boundaries and ignorance
• Ambiguity
• Interpretative (What do the results mean?)
• Normative (What should society do about it?)

15
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

16
IRGC Risk Governance Framework
Deciding
Understanding
Pre-assessment
Appraisal
Management
Communication
Characterisation and evaluation
17
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
18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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
22
Part 4

• Evaluating public participation

23
Evaluation Criteria 1
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Functionalist Quality of decision output Integration (results 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) Diversity (in selecting representatives of different knowledge communities) Resource accessibility (all information available) Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight)
24
Evaluation Criteria 2
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Neo-liberal Quality of informed consent or judgement (producing a mirror image of public preferences under the condition of best available knowledge) Competence (results are based on informed choices) Internal transparency (participants know how results were articulated and how the process is structured ) Efficiency (cost-effective balance between results and means of reaching these results) Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight) Representativeness (process should deliver a true picture of participants preferences and interests) Professionalism (of moderators and staff)
25
Evaluation Criteria 3
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Deliberative Contribution to the common good Competence (results are based on informed choices) Accountability (results reflect commitment to moral standards) Capacity-building (results reflect the potential of the participants and promote their voices in the policy arena) External transparency (outsiders know how results were articulated and how the process has been conducted) Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight) External fairness (access to participation by everyone with a stake or an argument) Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Learning (process encourages participants to gain more insights)
26
Evaluation Criteria 3
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Deliberative Contribution to the common good Competence (results are based on informed choices) Accountability (results reflect commitment to moral standards) Capacity-building (results reflect the potential of the participants and promote their voices in the policy arena) External transparency (outsiders know how results were articulated and how the process has been conducted) Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight) External fairness (access to participation by everyone with a stake or an argument) Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Learning (process encourages participants to gain more insights)
27
Evaluation Criteria 4
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Anthropological Same as deliberative 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) 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)
28
Evaluation Criteria 5
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Emancipatory Empowerment of less privileged groups and individuals Capacity-building (results reflect the potentials of the participants and promote their voices in the policy arena) Accountability (results reflect commitment to moral standards) Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Compensatory selection (participation is by self-selection or by conscious over-representation of the less privileged) Emancipation (process encourages self-efficacy )
29
Evaluation Criteria 6
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Post-modern Influence on public debate 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) Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Diversity (in selecting representatives of different social backgrounds) Emancipation (process encourage self-efficacy )
30
Part 5

• A model of analytic-deliberative decision
  making for risk governance
• The Cooperative Discourse Model

31
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)

32
Suitability for Risk Problems

• Most suited for complex, uncertain and/or
  ambiguous risk problems are stakeholder
  involvement processes based on
• The deliberative model

33
Basic requirements for deliberative participation
models
Concept Normative Substantive Procedural
Deliberative Contribution to the common good Competence (results are based on informed choices) Accountability (results reflect commitment to moral standards) Capacity-building (results reflect the potential of the participants and promote their voices in the policy arena) External transparency (outsiders know how results were articulated and how the process has been conducted) Internal fairness (all arguments should have equal weight) External fairness (access to participation by everyone with a stake or an argument) Independence (of the process and the deliberations from external powers) Learning (process encourages participants to gain more insights)
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