460 likes | 620 Vues
Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance. Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK gGmbH. Part 1. A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision Making and Conflicts. The F our F unctional S ystems of S ociety (Basics).
E N D
Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK gGmbH
Part 1 A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision Making and Conflicts
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
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
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)
Part 3 What is an analytic-deliberative approach in risk governance?
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
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?)
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
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
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 » 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
Part 4 Evaluating public participation
Part 5 A model of analytic-deliberative decision making for risk governance 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)
Suitability for Risk Problems Most suited for complex, uncertain and/or ambiguous risk problems are stakeholder involvement processes based on The deliberative model
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 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
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