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 • Economic System • Focus on interests • Property rights/Civil law • Compensation for external effects (Kaldor-Hicks) • Experts • Focus on factual knowledge • Truth claims • Peer Reveiw • Civil Society • Focus on values • Mutual understanding • Empathy/Personal relations • Political System • Focus on collective principles • Due process • Constitutional law Expert Committees ScientificDecision Support Mediation Efficiency Acceptance Fairness Effectiveness Legitimacy Participation

6. System DependentConflictResolution 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: Understanding Deciding Pre-assessment Appraisal Communication Management Characterisation and evaluation

18. Pre-Assessment • Pre-Assessment: • Problem Framing • Early Warning • Screening • Determination of Scientific Conventions Risk Management Risk Appraisal • Risk Management • Implementation • Option Realisation • Monitoring & Control • Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice • Decision Making • Option Identification & Generation • Option Assessment • Option Evaluation & Selection • Risk Appraisal: Risk Assessment • Hazard Identification & Estimation • Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment • Risk Estimation • Concern Assessment • Risk Perceptions • Social Concerns • Socio-Economic Impacts Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement • Risk Evaluation • Judging the Tolera-bility & Acceptability • Need for Risk Reduction Measures • Risk Characterisation • Risk Profile • Judgement of the Seriousness of Risk • Conclusions & Risk Reduction Options ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CORE PROCESS Management Sphere:Decision on & Implementation of Actions Assessment Sphere:Generation of Knowledge • 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 Instrumental Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable Epistemic Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk 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 NoteDeliberative 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