Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and...
-
Upload
albert-walton -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and...
Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance
Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance
Ortwin Renn
University of Stuttgart and
DIALOGIK gGmbH
Ortwin Renn
University of Stuttgart and
DIALOGIK gGmbH
Part 1Part 1
A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision Making and Conflicts
A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision Making and Conflicts
MEANINGCulture
(RE)-PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTIONEconomy
ORDER Politics
RELATIONSHIP Social Action
The Four Functional Systems of Society (Basics)
Medium: value commitment, beliefsFunction: Integration und Identity BuildingSubfunctions:Knowledge claims (Effectiveness)Personal and collective faith (meaning): Religion and ideologiesSelf-expression (cultural reflection) -artsFunctional 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: PowerFunction: Production of colectively bining decisionsSubfunctions: 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
The Four Functional Systems of Society (Full version)
Efficiency
AcceptanceFairness
Effectiveness
Legitimacy
Participation
Mediation
Four Basic (Sub)systems and their Means of Dealing with Conflicts
Four Basic (Sub)systems and their Means of Dealing with Conflicts
Generalizable values and norms
Economic System
Optimizing allocation and distribution
• Pareto principle• Distributive
discourse(bargaining)
• Rational actor: decision/game theories
Political SystemSustaining Order
• Compatibility withuniversal or positiveprinciples
• Normative Discourse
• Theory of communicative action
Expert SystemSustaining Meaning
• Methodology and Peer Review
• Cognitive and interpretative Discourse
• Theories of knowledge management and epistemology
Civil SocietySustaining Relationships
• Mutual understanding
• Therapeutic Discourse
• Social bonding theories
Maximizing Utility
Empathy
Evidence
System Dependent Conflict Resolution Models
System Dependent Conflict Resolution Models
Crucial Questions for ParticipationCrucial Questions for Participation
InclusionWho: stakeholders, scientists, public(s)What: options, policies, scenarios, frames, preferencesScope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal)Scale: space, time period, future generations
ClosureWhat counts: acceptable evidenceWhat is more convincing: competition of argumentsWhat option is selected: decision making rule (consensus, compromise, voting)
InclusionWho: stakeholders, scientists, public(s)What: options, policies, scenarios, frames, preferencesScope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal)Scale: space, time period, future generations
ClosureWhat counts: acceptable evidenceWhat is more convincing: competition of argumentsWhat option is selected: decision making rule (consensus, compromise, voting)
Perspectives Table IPerspectives 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 (win–win solutions)
Referendum, focus groups, internet-participation
negotiated rule-making, mediation, etc.
Perspectives Table IIPerspectives 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
Perspectives Table IIIPerspectives 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
Part 3Part 3
What is an analytic-deliberative approach
in risk governance?
What is an analytic-deliberative approach
in risk governance?
Analytic-Deliberative ApproachAnalytic-Deliberative Approach
Characteristics of analytic componentLegitimate plurality of evidenceNeed for joint fact findingBut no arbitrariness in evidence claimsNew procedures necessary
Characteristics of deliberative componentBased on arguments not on positions or interestsKey variables: fairness, common good, resilience and capacity buildingCrucial factor: inclusiveness and consensus on rules for closure
Characteristics of analytic componentLegitimate plurality of evidenceNeed for joint fact findingBut no arbitrariness in evidence claimsNew procedures necessary
Characteristics of deliberative componentBased on arguments not on positions or interestsKey variables: fairness, common good, resilience and capacity buildingCrucial factor: inclusiveness and consensus on rules for closure
Risk CharacteristicsThree challenges of risk managementRisk CharacteristicsThree challenges of risk management
Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships
Uncertaintyvariation among individual targetsmeasurement and inferential errorsgenuine stochastic relationshipssystem boundaries and ignorance
AmbiguityInterpretative (What do the results mean?)
Normative (What should society do about it?)
Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships
Uncertaintyvariation among individual targetsmeasurement and inferential errorsgenuine stochastic relationshipssystem boundaries and ignorance
AmbiguityInterpretative (What do the results mean?)
Normative (What should society do about it?)
Model of IRGCModel 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
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:
DecidingUnderstanding
Pre-assessment
ManagementCommunication
Characterisation and evaluation
Appraisal
ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CORE PROCESSESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CORE PROCESS
Assessment Sphere:Generation of Knowledge
Management Sphere:Decision on & Implementation of Actions
Risk Characterisation• Risk Profile• Judgement of the
Seriousness of Risk• Conclusions & Risk
Reduction Options
Risk Evaluation• Judging the Tolera-
bility & Acceptability• Need for Risk
Reduction Measures
Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement
Pre-Assessment:• Problem Framing• Early Warning• Screening• Determination of Scientific Conventions
Pre-Assessment
Risk Appraisal:Risk Assessment• Hazard Identification & Estimation• Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment• Risk Estimation
Concern Assessment• Risk Perceptions• Social Concerns• Socio-Economic Impacts
Risk AppraisalRisk ManagementImplementation• Option Realisation• Monitoring & Control• Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice
Decision Making• Option Identification & Generation• Option Assessment• Option Evaluation & Selection
Risk Management
Communication
1 Knowledge Challenge: Complexity Uncertainty Ambiguity
2 Risk judged: acceptable tolerable intolerable
3 Risk Management Strategy: routine-based risk-informed/robustness-
focussed precaution-based/resilience-
focussed discourse-based
Need for different management strategiesNeed 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
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 IApplication to Deliberation I
For routine management, communication should include:
Information on the process of environmental managementInformation on routine management actionsIf necessary, a hot-line for questions and observations
For highly complex topics, communication and deliberation should include:
All of the aboveDiscourse among experts on ranges of acceptable evidenceAdditional effort for collecting feedback
For routine management, communication should include:
Information on the process of environmental managementInformation on routine management actionsIf necessary, a hot-line for questions and observations
For highly complex topics, communication and deliberation should include:
All of the aboveDiscourse among experts on ranges of acceptable evidenceAdditional effort for collecting feedback
Application to Deliberation IIApplication to Deliberation II
For highly uncertain interventions, communication and deliberation should include
All of the aboveInvolvement of major stakeholdersShift towards resilience approachesPossibly, public hearings
For highly ambiguous topics, communication and deliberation should include:
All of the aboveInvolvement of all parties affected by the decision
For highly uncertain interventions, communication and deliberation should include
All of the aboveInvolvement of major stakeholdersShift towards resilience approachesPossibly, public hearings
For highly ambiguous topics, communication and deliberation should include:
All of the aboveInvolvement of all parties affected by the decision
The Risk Management Escalator (from simple via complex and uncertain to ambiguous phenomena)
The Risk Management Escalator (from simple via complex and uncertain to ambiguous phenomena)
Complexity
Epistemic
Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk
Uncertainty
Reflective
Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward
Ambiguity
Participatory
Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences
Linearity
Instrumental
Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable
Agency Staff
Dominant risk characteristic
Type of participation
Actors
Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff
Scientists/ Researchers
Affected stakeholders
« Civil society »
Scientists/ Researchers
Scientists/ Researchers
Affected stakeholders
As the level of knowledge changes, so alsowill the type of participation need to change
Evaluation Criteria 1Evaluation 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)
Evaluation Criteria 2Evaluation 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)
Evaluation Criteria 3Evaluation Criteria 3Concept 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)
Evaluation Criteria 3Evaluation Criteria 3Concept 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)
Evaluation Criteria 4Evaluation 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)
Evaluation Criteria 5Evaluation 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 )
Evaluation Criteria 6Evaluation 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 )
Part 5Part 5
A model of analytic-deliberative decision making for risk governance
The Cooperative Discourse Model
A model of analytic-deliberative decision making for risk governance
The Cooperative Discourse Model
Candidates for Participation ModelsCandidates for Participation Models
Organized stakeholdersHearingRound Tables (Forum, Dialogue Processes)Negotiated RulemakingMediation and Alternate Conflict Resolution
General publicOmbudspersonPublic HearingsCitizen Advisory CommitteesCitizen Forum, Planning Cells, Citizen JuriesConsensus Conferences (Danish Model)
Organized stakeholdersHearingRound Tables (Forum, Dialogue Processes)Negotiated RulemakingMediation and Alternate Conflict Resolution
General publicOmbudspersonPublic HearingsCitizen Advisory CommitteesCitizen Forum, Planning Cells, Citizen JuriesConsensus Conferences (Danish Model)
Suitability for Risk Problems
Suitability for Risk Problems
Most suited for complex, uncertain and/or ambiguous risk problems are stakeholder involvement processes based on
The deliberative model
Most suited for complex, uncertain and/or ambiguous risk problems are stakeholder involvement processes based on
The deliberative model
Basic requirements for deliberative participation models
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)
Specific Requirements for Deliberative Participation Models
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
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 IThe Cooperative Discourse Model IThree components
Criteria and values from organized stakeholdersFacts and cognitive judgments from expertsBalancing and assignment of trade-offs by representatives of the general public (or affected citizens)
ProcedureIdentification of values, concerns and criteria through stakeholder deliberationAssessment of factual consequences of each option on each criterion though expert workshopsOption evaluation and recommendations by randomly selected citizens
Three componentsCriteria and values from organized stakeholdersFacts and cognitive judgments from expertsBalancing and assignment of trade-offs by representatives of the general public (or affected citizens)
ProcedureIdentification of values, concerns and criteria through stakeholder deliberationAssessment of factual consequences of each option on each criterion though expert workshopsOption evaluation and recommendations by randomly selected citizens
The Cooperative Discourse Model IIThe Cooperative Discourse Model II
Methods and TechniquesValue tree analysis for eliciting stakeholder concernsGroup Delphi technique for expert judgments and assessmentsPlanning cell methods relying on multi-attribute-decision techniques for incorporating public preferences and values
Advantages of three-step approachFairness through random selection and systematic selection of stakeholdersCompetence through involvement of experts and decision makers
Methods and TechniquesValue tree analysis for eliciting stakeholder concernsGroup Delphi technique for expert judgments and assessmentsPlanning cell methods relying on multi-attribute-decision techniques for incorporating public preferences and values
Advantages of three-step approachFairness through random selection and systematic selection of stakeholdersCompetence through involvement of experts and decision makers
Application of the Cooperative Discourse ModelApplication of the Cooperative Discourse Model
Germany:Energy scenarios for 1. German Enquete CommissionWaste 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
Germany:Energy scenarios for 1. German Enquete CommissionWaste 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 6Part 6
General Conclusions
Requirements for deliberation
General Conclusions
Requirements for deliberation
Summary Summary
Procedural Requirements:Inclusion: fair representation of viewpoints, arguments and relevant groupsClosure: fair competition of arguments, consensus on decision making and assurance of adequate processing of knowledge and values
Six concepts of participationFunctionalNeo-liberalDeliberativeAnthropologicalEmancipatoryPostmodern
Procedural Requirements:Inclusion: fair representation of viewpoints, arguments and relevant groupsClosure: fair competition of arguments, consensus on decision making and assurance of adequate processing of knowledge and values
Six concepts of participationFunctionalNeo-liberalDeliberativeAnthropologicalEmancipatoryPostmodern
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
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
Basic Aspects of InclusionBasic Aspects of Inclusion
Inclusion: What and who has been included?
Topics and themesPurposes (Objectives)
InformationEnlightenmentFeedback (concern expression)Recommendation for actionCo-determination
Perspectives (frames of interpretations)Knowledge (science, stakeholder, affected publics)Arguments (cognitive, expressive, normative, evaluative)Emotions, affectsTime 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?
Inclusion: What and who has been included?
Topics and themesPurposes (Objectives)
InformationEnlightenmentFeedback (concern expression)Recommendation for actionCo-determination
Perspectives (frames of interpretations)Knowledge (science, stakeholder, affected publics)Arguments (cognitive, expressive, normative, evaluative)Emotions, affectsTime 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 IBasic Aspects of Closure I
Deliberation: How is the process structured?Process structure
Institutional setting (responsibilities, accountability)Choice of instruments (Round Table, Citizen Panel, Consensus ConferenceChoice of tools (Delphi, Multiplan, Value Tree)Role of Facilitator (independence, competence, neutrality, self-interests)
Process rulesDeliberation rulesDecision making rules
Learning platformsGeneration of common knowledgeGeneration of common understandingGeneration of empathy and trustGeneration of common yardsticks for selection (options, arguments, etc.)
Deliberation: How is the process structured?Process structure
Institutional setting (responsibilities, accountability)Choice of instruments (Round Table, Citizen Panel, Consensus ConferenceChoice of tools (Delphi, Multiplan, Value Tree)Role of Facilitator (independence, competence, neutrality, self-interests)
Process rulesDeliberation rulesDecision making rules
Learning platformsGeneration of common knowledgeGeneration of common understandingGeneration of empathy and trustGeneration of common yardsticks for selection (options, arguments, etc.)
Basic Aspects of Closure IIBasic Aspects of Closure II
Selection: How is the outcome selected and what is the outcome?
Focus or closure on topics and themesSelection of optionsLegitimacy of perspectives (frames of interpretations)Validity of argumentsAuthenticity of emotionsRelevance of time frameRelevance of geographic range
Implementation: What is being done with the outcome?
Adoption by respective authorities within predefined purpose of the processConnectivity to other governance levels and structures (Anschlussfähigkeit)Monitoring and FeedbackAssessment and Evakuation
Selection: How is the outcome selected and what is the outcome?
Focus or closure on topics and themesSelection of optionsLegitimacy of perspectives (frames of interpretations)Validity of argumentsAuthenticity of emotionsRelevance of time frameRelevance of geographic range
Implementation: What is being done with the outcome?
Adoption by respective authorities within predefined purpose of the processConnectivity to other governance levels and structures (Anschlussfähigkeit)Monitoring and FeedbackAssessment and Evakuation