1. Risk management: A social learning perspective? Mikko Pohjola, THL

2. Contents Participation and openness Collective knowledge creation Discussion Openness in the narcolepsy study / risk management

3. Participation and openness Manuscript: “Openness in participation, assessment, and policy-making upon issues of environment and health” Literature review Findings from two recent EU-projects INTARESE (Integrated Assessment of Risks from Environmental Stressors in Europe), 2005-2011 BENERIS (benefit-risk assessment of food: An iterative value-of-information approach), 2006-2009

4. Participation and openness “Do common current conceptions of participation, assessment, and policy making provide the sufficient framework to achieve effective participation?” Policy making: decision making upon issues of societal importance Assessments: systematic science-based endeavours of producing information to support policy making Participation: contributions from those who do not have formal roles as decision makers or experts in the assessment or policy processes in question Effective: (desired) influences on the (societal) outcomes Participation / stakeholder involvement a major issue issue in environment and health assessment and policy making literature

5. Participation and openness International agreements and legislation often require participation, e.g.: Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2001/42/EC) EU Public Participation Directive (2003/35/EC) Finnish Environmental Impact Assessment (YVA) Act (468/94) and corresponding EIA Decree (713/2006) The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Environmental Impact Assessment

6. Participation and openness Participation techniques A lot of “how to…” guidance exists, e.g.: the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and Radboud University: Stakeholder Participation Guide for the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency OECD/NEA: Stakeholder involvement techniques - Short guide and annotated bibliography Also plenty of literature on ”Models” for participation Analysis of applicability of participation techniques Outcome effectiveness? (e.g. Newig, 2007)

7. Purposes for participation Purposes of participation Substantive, normative, and instrumental reasons (Fiorino, 1990) Ethical, political, pragmatic, and epistemological reasons (ECLAC, 2002) Substantive, procedural, and contextual effects (van den Hove, 2003) O’Faircheallaigh (2009): Obtain public input into decisions taken elsewhere Share decision making with public Alter distribution of power and structures of decision making The three above broad purposes also broken down into ten more specific purposes Participation is more focused on access and process than on outcomes (Doelle & Sinclair, 2006)

8. Purposes for participation Other factors Assessment Participation Outcome Decision making

9. Participation and openness Participation in assessment There are various different assessment types, e.g.: Pope et al. (2004) a) ex-post, project-based assessments b) ex-ante, objectives-led assessment c) (a more theoretical) assessment for sustainability. Briggs (2008) i) diagnostic assessment (does a problem exist, is policy action needed?) ii) prognostic assessment (implications of potential policy options, which option to choose?) iii) summative assessments (effectiveness of existing policies) What is the possible influence that is allowed for participation in different assessment settings?

10. Participation and openness Participation in assessment What is the possible influence that is allowed for participation in different assessment settings? Assessments more concerned with process and procedure rather than purposes and effects (Cashmore, 2004) Participation often a certain phase in the process Participation seen as an add-on rather than an essential, substantive part of the process

11. Participation and openness Participation in policy making YVA: due to decision making structures certain aspects of assessment results cannot be taken account of Land use planning: zoning and development separate processes-> development outside assessment and participation An environmental permit case: decision maker, applicant, and stakeholders all questioned the meaningfulness of participation, although in general it was seen as important by all EIA in China: Authorities may welcome public participation if it improves the quality of information, but may not give public the power to contribute to and influence decision making by participating in the formulation of a proposal, assessment process, implementation, and evaluation Participation in altering power and decision making structures? (cf. O’Faircheallaigh, 2009)

12. Participation and openness Assessment-policy interaction (science-policy, research practice) An essential avenue for participatory effectiveness Policy, science, and boundary perspectives Very much discussed topics in scientific literature, main findings: Traditional model of disengaged assessment and policy making considered by policy makers and researchers as inadequate A need for more pragmatic needs-oriented question setting in assessments Deeper engagement between assessment and policy making is essential for policy effectiveness Stakeholder and public participation is essential for relevance both in assessment and policy making Values are an important aspect of the needed knowledge input for both assessment and policy making

13. Participation and openness Participation, assessment, and policy making an intertwined complex that needs to be considered as a whole, not as separate independent entities. Question of effective participation is meaningful only in the broader context also concerning the purposes and effects of related policy making and assessment. Common current practices of participation, assessment, and policy making not necessarily in line with the recent discourses in the literature.

14. Participation and openness Dimensions of openness (INTARESE): Scope of participation: Who are allowed to participate in the process? Access to information: What information available to participants? Timing of openness: When are participants invited or allowed to participate? Scope of contribution: Which aspects are participants invited or allowed to contribute to? Impact of contribution: To what extent are participant contributions allowed to have influence on the outcomes? i.e. how much weight is given to participant contributions? Contentual view: ALL are participants to contribute to the issue at hand

15. Participation and openness Dimensions of openness (INTARESE): A contentual (vs. procedural) view: Everyone are participants that contribute to the issue at hand Including also the experts and decision makers woith formal roles in the process in question The framework i) provides a context for evaluation and constructive criticism of existing conventions and institutions ii) facilitates innovative application of existing means for participatory processes within and alongside the existing conventions and institutions iii) promotes development of new means, conventions and institutions for participatory practice

16. Dimension of openness analysis Dimension/a pproach Scope of participation Access to information Timing of opennessScope of contributionImpact of contribution Open assessment Everyone, e.g. decision makers, NGO's, citizens, external experts, allowed to participate. User participation particularly important. All information should be made available to all participants. ContinuousAll aspects of the issue can be addressed by everyone. Based on relevance and reasoning, not source. All relevant contributions should be taken into account. Conclusions from collaborative work intended to turn into action through collective knowledge creation among participants mediated by a shared web- workspace. IEHIASpecified users (e.g. policy makers), and stakeholders (preferably by proxy) invited to participate. ?User and stakeholder participation during issue framing, design and appraisal phases (not during execution phase). Users and stakeholders can participate in scoping and design of assessment and interpretation of results. Participant views should influence the construction of the assessment framework. Discourse in the appraisal phase regarding the assessment results, their implications for action, and their linkage to the goals defined in issue framing assumed to ensure that those involved accept the outcomes. YVAPublic, liaison authority (e.g. regional environmental center), other authorities. Assessment plan and assessment report provided to the public by the project developer. The liaison authority also has access to information regarding e.g. other plans, projects and operations relevant to the project in question. Participation in two phases. Public hearing periods, possible authority statements regarding both assessment plan and assessment report. Liaison authority gives its statements after the public and the other authority statements. Any public representative can give any statements, and the liaison authority may ask specific statements on from other authorities in both phases. The liaison authority gives an overall statement on both the assessment plan and the assessment report. Public statements filed along with the liaison authority statements. Ultimately up to the project developers and the decision makers to decide if and how public statements are taken account of in project design or decision making. The liaison authority, also taking account of public and other authority statements, can also demand e.g. certain issues to be considered in the assessment or other additional information to be provided by the project developer. Red BookN/A (Assessment for nominated scientific experts only) N/A Assessment results provided for decision makers and intended to be taken into account, alongside options evaluation, in decision making and action by federal agencies. Silver BookDecision-makers, technical specialists, and other stakeholders. Formal provisions for internal and external stakeholders at all stages. At all stages: problem formulation and scoping, planning and conduct of risk assessment, risk management. Problem formulation and scoping, confirmation of utility if risk assessment, and risk management. Stakeholders as active participants. However, participation should in no way compromise the technical assessment of risk, which is carried out under its own standards and guidelines.

17. Participation and openness Implementation of openness (BENERIS, THL) Open assessment Opasnet Complete openness as the default! Inverse perspective to dimensions of openness: who should NOT be included what information should NOT be provided … Assessments need to be deeply intertwined with the decision making processes if they seriously attempt to achieve their purposes of influencing policy Decision makers a particularly essential kind of active assessment participants Assessors often credulously assume effectiveness

18. Participation and openness Challenges of openness Manageability of broad participation Information quality control Prevention from intentional bias Prevention from promotion of vested interests Protection from vandalism Cost and time expenditure … The problems are rather practical than fundamental in their nature Nevertheless they are real challenges to practical implementation of openness Perhaps in the end the greatest challenge lies in the scientists', assessors' and decision makers' attitudes towards openness, and the internal resistance to change contemporary research, assessment and decision making practices more open

19. Participation and openness Main conclusions: 1.Inclusion of stakeholders and public to participate in assessments and policy making upon issues of environment and environmental health is an issue of both great interest and importance. 2.The discourses on both assessments and participation in the contexts of environment and environmental health have been too much focused on processes and procedures, and too little attention has been given to their purposes and outcome effectiveness in policy making. 3.Consideration of effective participation is meaningful only in the context of purposes and effects of the assessment and policy making processes that participation relates to. 4.The dimensions of openness framework provides a conceptual means for identifying and managing the interrelations between the purposes and outcomes of participation, assessment, and policy making, and thereby also for effective application of existing participatory models and techniques. 5.The dimensions of openness framework also provides a context for evaluation and constructive criticism of contemporary conventions and institutions of participation, assessment, and policy making, and a basis for developing new conventions and institutions. 6.From a contentual point of view, it can be argued that participation, assessment, and policy making upon environmental and environmental health issues should be considered as completely open rather than exclusive processes by default. 7.Openness should not, however, be considered as an end in itself, but rather a means for advancing societal development through creation and use of broadly distributed collective knowledge upon issues of great societal relevance. 8.Openness brings about challenges, but they are mostly practical, rather than fundamental in their nature.

20. Participation and openness Lessons for RM? Participation, assessment, policy making inseparable If not, participation also vehicle for changing power and decision making structures In an open process the role of DM’s (same goes for assessors as well) becomes quite different From the center of the process to the outset Coordination, organization, and feeding of an open social knowledge process Many existing practices (of participation, assessment, policy making) remain useful, but the foundation changes How to enable collaborative knowledge processes?

21. Collective knowledge creation Manuscript: “Pragmatic knowledge services” ”Importance of converging knowledge, innovation, and practice are identified, but the means for its implementation are lacking.” Suitable supporting knowledge services are needed: Trialogical framework -> requirements? Three examples -> practical implications? Facilitation of collective knowledge creation considered in tomorrow’s lecture (and exercise)

22. Collective knowledge creation Pragmatism E.g. Brunner (2006) calls for a pragmatic paradigm for policy practice that: i) considers knowledge as intertwined with action ii) develops context-sensitive practical knowledge iii) evaluates knowledge and actions according to their purposes

23. Collective knowledge creation Innovation Knowledge integrated into action as systematically developed means for practice The outcomes of innovation can be realized in many ways, not only in terms of economical benefits the common definition of innovations as commercialized inventions is too narrow and technology-centred

24. Collective knowledge creation Creation of new knowledge is rarely a cognitive process of a single individual. Typically, cognitive tasks are physically, socially and temporally distributed and the new ideas and hypotheses are often materialized as external artefacts (Paavola, 2006). Argumentative processes of producing new hypotheses and ideas (i.e. abductive search for hypotheses) can be considered collaborative rather than happening only in individuals' heads (Paavola, 2006). Abductive inference produces tentative solutions to be worked collaboratively. They can be either applied in practice until better solutions are formulated or as intermediate steps that guide and promote the search for better solutions.

25. Collective knowledge creation Trialogical approach to knowledge creation and learning Suggested and applied especially in the context of computer- supported collaborative learning (CSCL) Emphasizes the role of collaborative development and reconstruction of concrete, shared artefacts in mediating knowledge creation A basis for the trialogical approach is an epistemological distinction between three basic metaphors of learning and human cognition: Monological processes of information sharing and knowledge acquisition, and dialogical processes of learning through communication and participation, are supplemented with knowledge creation as a trialogical process of collaborative development of epistemic artefacts and practices. E.g. text documents, web pages, models, prototypes… why not hammers as well?

26. Three metaphors of learning

27. Collective knowledge creation Innovative activity from the trialogical perspective means that all relevant parties should become involved in the processes of learning and production of knowledge artefacts The trialogical processes extend to the organization of work around concrete artefacts and practices in addition to mere information sharing or communication

28. Collective knowledge creation Some examples Monologue: A researcher does a literature review and writes an article about it for others to read (by themselves). Dialogue: Local citizens are invited to a hearing to discuss their opinions on the results of an environmental impact assessment. All those present (might, probably) learn more about the assessed development plan. The increased understanding may show in later decision making, public views on the development etc. Trialogue: Researchers, policy makers, NGO representatives, and citizens engage in contributing to an open assessment in Opasnet. Decisions and actions are taken (by all) according to the shared knowledge and understanding about the issue considered.

29. Open assessment Assessment Participant’s knowledge Participant’s updated knowledge Updated assessment Participant’s updated knowledge Decision Decision making Perception Contribution Pohjola et al. State of the art in benefit- risk analysis: Environmental health. Manuscript.

30. Collective knowledge creation Lessons to RM? Theories exist and means are being developed for realizing open collaborative processes of knowledge creation and use Both openness and the trialogical approach complement, extend, and improve the currently common practices In some aspects contradictions are unavoidable, but often not

31. Discussion Role and possibilities of public in the swine flu case Dimensions of openness –analysis: THL’s narcolepsy analysis / related decision making Sources of knowledge for public