From information to dialogue: New approaches to risk communication and public involvement : Ortwin Renn Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gemeinnützige GmbH

CALCULATED RISK

August 2007Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 3  DecidingUnderstanding Pre-assessment ManagementCommunication Characterisation and evaluation Appraisal IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK Who needs to do what, when? Who needs to know what, when? Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable? Getting a broad picture of the risk The knowledge needed for judgements and decisions

Complementary Phase Risk Communication

Objectives of Risk-Benefit Communication Enlightenment: Making people able to understand risks and benefits (and their interactions) Behavioral changes: Making people aware of potential risks and benefits help them to make the right choices Trust building: Assisting risk management agencies to generate and sustain trust Conflict resolution: Assisting risk managers to involve major stakeholders and affected parties to take part in the risk-benefit evaluation

Important Contextual Aspects  Levels of risk-benefit debates –Factual evidence and probabilities –Institutional performance, expertise, and experience –Conflicts about worldviews and value systems  Types of audiences –Peripheral versus central –Cultural subgroups: entrepreneurial, egalitarian, bureaucratic, individualistic

Some Major Insights Risk-benefit communication needs to address:  Difference between risk and hazard  Difference between random event and faulty behavior  The process of management decision making  The trade-offs and value conflicts when making management decisions (risk-benefit-balancing)  The meaning of standards and the respective protective goal behind them Trust and credibility cannot be “produced” or “manufactured” but only earned in terms of performance and effective communication

PREASSSSMENT Internal Informing other agencies and getting feedback from them (who is affected and how does it relate to their mandate?) External Media briefing about process to start Inviting stakeholders to provide feedback and framing suggestions (if risk appears to load high on uncertainty and ambiguity) Risk Communication at Different Stages (1)

APPRAISAL Internal Informing the appropriate scientific departments in other agencies and, if necessary, organize workshops External Media briefing and announcement to stakeholders that assessment process is on its way (low complexity) Depending on degree of knowledge, press conferences or press releases on results (high complexity) Conducting hearings, Delphi, or other information gathering techniques with appropriate knowledge carriers (high complexity and uncertainty) Risk Communication at Different Stages (2)

EVALUATION Internal Involving all affected agencies if risk characterisation is either uncertain or evaluation controversial External Press conferences with assessors and managers on evaluation results and protective measures (low uncertainty and ambiguity) Information of stakeholders and invitation for written review (high uncertainty and low ambiguity) Deliberation with stakeholders about values/perspectives and assigning trade-offs (high ambiguity) Risk Communication at Different Stages (3)

EVALUATION Internal Involving all affected agencies if risk characterisation is either uncertain or evaluation controversial External Press conferences with assessors and managers on evaluation results and protective measures (low uncertainty and ambiguity) Information of stakeholders and invitation for written review (high uncertainty and low ambiguity) Deliberation with stakeholders about values/perspectives and assigning trade-offs (high ambiguity) Risk Communication at Different Stages (3)

Management Internal Involving all affected regulatory or government bodies if risk management measures have impacts on their mandate External Press conferences on selection of management measures (low uncertainty and ambiguity) Information of stakeholders about regulatory impact review and, if needed, organisation of hearings (high uncertainty and low ambiguity) Engaging in formal deliberations with stakeholders and representatives of the public (high ambiguity) Risk Communication at Different Stages (4)

Dialogue with stakeholders and the public From communication to public involvement

Crucial Questions for Involvement 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)

Economic System Optimizing allocation and distribution Pareto principle Distributive discourse (bargaining) Rational actor: decision and game theories Political System Sustaining Order Compatibility with universal or positive principles Normative Discourse Theory of communicative action Expert System Sustaining Meaning Methodology and Peer Review Cognitive and interpretative Discourse Theories of knowledge management and epistemology Social System Sustaining Relationships Mutual understanding Therapeutic Discourse Social enhancement theories Maximizing Utility /Efficiency Empathy/Fairness Evidence/Effectiveness Collectively binding norms/Legitimacy Input to Decision Making in Civil and Plural Societies

16 Typology of stakeholder involvement techniques and procedures Consensus Input orientation Stakeholder Input Layperson input Deliberative Polling Delphi Furture conference Citizen Jury Round Table Consensus Conference Town Hall/ Citizen Referendum Planning cell Expert panel Cognitive Mapping Search Conference Blue Ribbon Panels Expert Input Focus groups Value Tree Negotiated Rule Making

August 2007Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 17  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 Participative Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences Simple Instrumental Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable Agency Staff Dominant risk characteristic Type of participation Actors STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Agency Staff Scientists/ Researchers Affected stakeholders « Civil society » Scientists/ Researchers Affected stakeholders As the level of knowledge changes, so also will the type of participation need to change

Conclusions I Risk-benefit communication serves the needs of enlightenment, behavioral advise; trust building and conflict resolution Risk communication needs to address the specific risk levels and different audiences There is no recipe book, but good advise available to improving risk communication Risk-benefit communication needs to be integrated in a larger risk governance framework

Conclusions II Requirements for Stakeholder Involvement  Inclusion: fair representation of relevant stakeholders  Closure: fair competition of arguments  Legitimacy: specific input, proceudres and stakeholder composition in each phase of water basin governance Specific Needs for Each Risk Governance Phase  Pre-assessment: Legitimacy of frames  Appraisal: Inclusion of all relevant knowledge  Evaluation: Assigning trade-offs  Management: Selecting and implementing effective, efficient, fair and acceptable options

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