Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK gGmbH Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK gGmbH

Part 1 A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision Making and Conflicts A Systems Analytic View on Society, Decision Making and Conflicts

MEANING Culture (RE)-PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION Economy ORDER Politics RELATIONSHIP Social Action The F our F unctional S ystems of S ociety (Basics)

Medium: value commitment, beliefs Function: Integration und Identity Building Subfunctions:  Knowledge claims (Effectiveness)  Personal and collective faith (meaning): Religion and ideologies  Self-expression (cultural reflection) -arts Functional 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: Power Function: Production of colectively bining decisions Subfunctions:  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 F our F unctional S ystems of S ociety (Full version)

Civil Society Focus on values Mutual understanding Empathy/Personal relations Economic System Focus on interests Property rights/Civil law Compensation for external effects (Kaldor-Hicks) Political System Focus on collective principles Due process Constitutional law Experts Focus on factual knowledge Truth claims Peer Reveiw Efficiency Acceptance Fairness Effectiveness Legitimacy Expert Committees Scientific Decision Support Participation Mediation 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 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 Civil Society Sustaining Relationships Mutual understanding Therapeutic Discourse Social bonding theories Maximizing Utility Empathy Evidence System Dependent Conflict Resolution Models

Part 2 Basics of public participation 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) 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)

Perspectives Table I ConceptMain objectiveRationale 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-liberalTo 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 II ConceptMain objectiveRationale 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 AnthropologicalTo 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 III ConceptMain objectiveRationale 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 3 What is an analytic-deliberative approach in risk governance? 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 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 Characteristics Three 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?) 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:  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:  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 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 Appraisal Risk Management Implementation 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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

Part 4 Evaluating public participation Evaluating public participation

Evaluation Criteria 1 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural FunctionalistQuality 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 2 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural Neo-liberalQuality 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) Representativene ss (process should deliver a true picture of participants’ preferences and interests) Professionalism (of moderators and staff)

Evaluation Criteria 3 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural DeliberativeContribution 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 3 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural DeliberativeContribution 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 4 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural AnthropologicalSame 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 5 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural EmancipatoryEmpowerment 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 6 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural Post-modernInfluence 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 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 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) 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 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 ConceptNormativeSubstantiveProcedural DeliberativeContribution 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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? 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.) 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 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