The opportunities and challenges of using electronic means for resolving science- intense conflicts TED Workshop, Helsinki May 19-22, 2005 Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart TED Workshop, Helsinki May 19-22, 2005 Ortwin Renn University of Stuttgart

Part 1 What is an analytic-deliberative approach? What is an analytic-deliberative approach?

Characteristics of Environmental Decision Making Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships Uncertainty about effects and vulnerability of absorbing system Ambiguity in interpreting results Transboundary and transsectoral impacts Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships Uncertainty about effects and vulnerability of absorbing system Ambiguity in interpreting results Transboundary and transsectoral impacts

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 interests Key variables: fairness, understanding and respect 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 interests Key variables: fairness, understanding and respect Crucial factor: inclusiveness and consensus on rules for closure

Crucial questions for deliberative processes Inclusion Who: stakeholder definition What: options, scenarios, etc. Why: problem representation, framing For what purpose: goals and mandate Closure What counts: selection process What is more convincing: argumentation process What option is selected: balancing process Inclusion Who: stakeholder definition What: options, scenarios, etc. Why: problem representation, framing For what purpose: goals and mandate Closure What counts: selection process What is more convincing: argumentation process What option is selected: balancing process

Structural elements of deliberation Deliberative procedures All participants equal rights and duties Fair exchange of arguments and evaluations Searching for consensus (compromise) Deliberative composition Legal decision makers Representative composition Stakeholders Non-organized citizens Deliberative theories Rational actor (game theory): compensation Systems theories: code translation Communicative action: common good Postmodernism: free negotiation Deliberative procedures All participants equal rights and duties Fair exchange of arguments and evaluations Searching for consensus (compromise) Deliberative composition Legal decision makers Representative composition Stakeholders Non-organized citizens Deliberative theories Rational actor (game theory): compensation Systems theories: code translation Communicative action: common good Postmodernism: free negotiation

Need for different deliberation strategies Dealing with routine, mundane problems: internal dialogue sufficient Dealing with complex and sophisticated issues (high degree of modeling necessary): emphasis on analytic component Dealing with highly uncertain consequences (high degree of second order uncertainty): emphasis on link between analysis and deliberation Dealing with highly controversial debates (high degree of ambiguity): emphasis on deliberative component Dealing with routine, mundane problems: internal dialogue sufficient Dealing with complex and sophisticated issues (high degree of modeling necessary): emphasis on analytic component Dealing with highly uncertain consequences (high degree of second order uncertainty): emphasis on link between analysis and deliberation Dealing with highly controversial debates (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 Instrumental discourse For highly complex topics, communication and deliberation should include: All of the above Discourse among experts on ranges of acceptable evidence Epistemological discourse For routine management, communication should include: Information on the process of environmental management Information on routine management actions Instrumental discourse For highly complex topics, communication and deliberation should include: All of the above Discourse among experts on ranges of acceptable evidence Epistemological discourse

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 Reflective discourse For highly ambiguous topics, communication and deliberation should include: All of the above Involvement of all parties affected by the decision Design or normative discourse For highly uncertain interventions, communication and deliberation should include All of the above Involvement of major stakeholders Shift towards resilience approaches Reflective discourse For highly ambiguous topics, communication and deliberation should include: All of the above Involvement of all parties affected by the decision Design or normative discourse

Routine operation Actors: Risk managers Discourse: instrumental Simple Application to Risk Problems: The Risk Management Escalator Risk Tradeoff Analysis and Deliberation Necessary Risk Balancing Necessary Risk Assessment Necessary Types of Conflict: cognitive evaluative normative Actors: Risk Managers External Experts Stakeholders such as Industry, Directly Affected Groups Representatives of the Public(s) Discourse: normative Ambiguous Risk Balancing Necessary Risk Assessment Necessary Types of Conflict: cognitive evaluative Actors: Risk Managers External Experts Stakeholders such as Industry, Directly Affected Groups Discourse: reflective Uncertain Scientific Risk Assessment Necessary Types of Conflict: cognitive Actors: Risk Managers External Experts Discourse: epistemological Complex

Part 2 Models of deliberation Models of deliberation

Four Systems of Society: Internal Mechanisms, Social Functions and Synergisms Economic System Property rights Private contracts Compensation for external effects Political System Due Process Legal Rules Voting Expert System Test of truth claims Instrumental Knowledge Enlightenment Social System Mutual Understanding Social Values Lifestyles Efficiency Acceptability Fairness Effectiveness Legitimacy Expert Advisory Panels Risk-Benefit Balancing Participation Meditation

General Requirements for a Participation Model I Fairness inclusion of all affected parties representation of all relevant arguments representation of all relevant interests and values Competence communicative ability (able to make claims and challenge them) substantive validity (state of the art in knowledge) Fairness inclusion of all affected parties representation of all relevant arguments representation of all relevant interests and values Competence communicative ability (able to make claims and challenge them) substantive validity (state of the art in knowledge)

General Requirements for a Participation Model II Efficiency Proportionality between costs of participation and costs of post-decisional regret Efficient use of participants’ time Legitimacy Representation of interests and values Connectivity to legal decision making process (Anschlussfähigkeit) Efficiency Proportionality between costs of participation and costs of post-decisional regret Efficient use of participants’ time Legitimacy Representation of interests and values Connectivity to legal decision making process (Anschlussfähigkeit)

Specific Requirements for 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

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)

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 3 Electronic Deliberation Prospects and limitations Electronic Deliberation Prospects and limitations

E-Participation: Prospects Number of participants almost without limits High cost-effectiveness High flexibility and learning by doing Programs with attractive user interfaces: bulletin, forum, audit-forum, video-conferencing Possibility for standardized evaluation and data processing Number of participants almost without limits High cost-effectiveness High flexibility and learning by doing Programs with attractive user interfaces: bulletin, forum, audit-forum, video-conferencing Possibility for standardized evaluation and data processing

E-Participation: Limitations Lack of face-to-face interactions Problem of continuity and consistency during deliberations Often lack of commitment and seriousness “Artificiality” of discourse: always mediated through technology Lack of informal communication space Consensus building often formalized rather than evolving through discourse Lack of face-to-face interactions Problem of continuity and consistency during deliberations Often lack of commitment and seriousness “Artificiality” of discourse: always mediated through technology Lack of informal communication space Consensus building often formalized rather than evolving through discourse

Different requirements for different types of discourse Epistemological E-exchange facilitates data exchange and learning E-communication can be organized in a formal way (cognitive mapping) Consensus seeking may be facilitated by formal methods such as Delphi Overall judgment: well suited if participants know each other and discourse can be limited to a pre- defined set of participants Epistemological E-exchange facilitates data exchange and learning E-communication can be organized in a formal way (cognitive mapping) Consensus seeking may be facilitated by formal methods such as Delphi Overall judgment: well suited if participants know each other and discourse can be limited to a pre- defined set of participants

Different requirements for different types of discourse Reflective I: trying to get an informed view of people’s preferences and evaluations E-exchange facilitates open call for opinions and reflections E-communication can be organized in a quasi-formal way (forum with thematic groups, structured dialogue) Consensus seeking is not necessary just compilation and summary of clusters Dangers of manipulation by groups and problem with commitment and seriousness Overall judgment: well suited if objective is to collect informed opinions and get a discourse started without reaching a final agreement Reflective I: trying to get an informed view of people’s preferences and evaluations E-exchange facilitates open call for opinions and reflections E-communication can be organized in a quasi-formal way (forum with thematic groups, structured dialogue) Consensus seeking is not necessary just compilation and summary of clusters Dangers of manipulation by groups and problem with commitment and seriousness Overall judgment: well suited if objective is to collect informed opinions and get a discourse started without reaching a final agreement

Different requirements for different types of discourse Reflective II: trying to develop a reflected recommendation on a controversial topic E-exchange needs to be limited to a pre-defined sample E-communication should be organized in an open from including audio and visual forms of interaction Consensus seeking is difficult and often based on fatigue rather than convictions Problem with commitment and continuity Overall judgment: clear limits when consensus seeking is essential; could be part of a hybrid model Reflective II: trying to develop a reflected recommendation on a controversial topic E-exchange needs to be limited to a pre-defined sample E-communication should be organized in an open from including audio and visual forms of interaction Consensus seeking is difficult and often based on fatigue rather than convictions Problem with commitment and continuity Overall judgment: clear limits when consensus seeking is essential; could be part of a hybrid model

Different requirements for different types of discourse Design: trying to select the most appropriate option in a decision making situation E-exchange needs to be limited to a legitimate group of individuals E-communication should be organized in an open from but formal decision tools can be used Consensus seeking can be built upon formal decision making methods (MCA, MAU, etc.) but finding compromise may be difficult Problem with acceptance of formal rules and possibility of strategic maneuvering Overall judgment: clear limits when compromise is essential; could be part of a hybrid model Design: trying to select the most appropriate option in a decision making situation E-exchange needs to be limited to a legitimate group of individuals E-communication should be organized in an open from but formal decision tools can be used Consensus seeking can be built upon formal decision making methods (MCA, MAU, etc.) but finding compromise may be difficult Problem with acceptance of formal rules and possibility of strategic maneuvering Overall judgment: clear limits when compromise is essential; could be part of a hybrid model

Design of a hybrid model First stage: Participants meet in person: Getting acquainted with each other Framing of problem Mandate and decision rules Second stage: E-based deliberation Exchange of arguments Formal methods of decision aids Cognitive mapping and other visual aids Third stage: Personal meeting Assignment of relative weights Modification of options Building consensus or compromise First stage: Participants meet in person: Getting acquainted with each other Framing of problem Mandate and decision rules Second stage: E-based deliberation Exchange of arguments Formal methods of decision aids Cognitive mapping and other visual aids Third stage: Personal meeting Assignment of relative weights Modification of options Building consensus or compromise

Part 4 General Conclusions General Conclusions

Summary I w Need for deliberative forms of decision making ­ demand for more direct participation by stakeholders and the public ­ Need for integration of facts and values (combination of distant and involved learning) ­ Deliberation offers new solutions to intense value conflicts w Problems of deliberation ­ fair representation of all interests and values ­ dealing with conflicting arguments ­ assurance of competence and factual accuracy ­ interface with legitimate decision making bodies ­ public accountability ­ efficient and effective handling of problems w Need for deliberative forms of decision making ­ demand for more direct participation by stakeholders and the public ­ Need for integration of facts and values (combination of distant and involved learning) ­ Deliberation offers new solutions to intense value conflicts w Problems of deliberation ­ fair representation of all interests and values ­ dealing with conflicting arguments ­ assurance of competence and factual accuracy ­ interface with legitimate decision making bodies ­ public accountability ­ efficient and effective handling of problems

Summary II w Requirements for deliberative models ­ Fairness and representation of public values, interests and worldviews ­ Competence (factual, communicative, normative) ­ Efficiency (resources such as costs and time) ­ Legitimacy (justification and connection to legal bodies of decision making) w Possible solution: Differentiation ­ Epistemological: consensus on facts ­ Reflective Screening of informed judgments about an issue Consensus on balanced judgment about an issue ­ Design or normative: consensus on design or decison w Requirements for deliberative models ­ Fairness and representation of public values, interests and worldviews ­ Competence (factual, communicative, normative) ­ Efficiency (resources such as costs and time) ­ Legitimacy (justification and connection to legal bodies of decision making) w Possible solution: Differentiation ­ Epistemological: consensus on facts ­ Reflective Screening of informed judgments about an issue Consensus on balanced judgment about an issue ­ Design or normative: consensus on design or decison

Summary III w Electronic versions of deliberations ­ Advantages: large audiences, fast, efficient and variable to suit different needs ­ Disadvantages: no face-to-face-interaction, technologically mediated, consistency, continuity, and seriousness ­ Well suited for: epistemological and reflective discourse without balancing judgments ­ Less well suited for: reflective discourse with balancing judgments and normative discourse ­ Hybrid Models most appropriate for reflective and normative discourse w Electronic versions of deliberations ­ Advantages: large audiences, fast, efficient and variable to suit different needs ­ Disadvantages: no face-to-face-interaction, technologically mediated, consistency, continuity, and seriousness ­ Well suited for: epistemological and reflective discourse without balancing judgments ­ Less well suited for: reflective discourse with balancing judgments and normative discourse ­ Hybrid Models most appropriate for reflective and normative discourse

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