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

Part 2Part 2

Basics of public participation

Basics of public participation

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

Part 4Part 4

Evaluating public participation

Evaluating public participation

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 

 

 EXTRA SLIDES

 

 

 

 EXTRA SLIDES

 

 

 

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