Public and Stakeholder Participation

Public and Stakeholder

Participation

Simon French

[email protected]

2

Plan

• Background

– Decision process

– Democracy

• 20 years of experience

• Design of participation processes

• Issues and Concerns

Background

Generic decision processes

Formulate

issues and

structure

problem

Analysis

Decide

and

Implement

Science – what might happen

Values – how much it matters if it

does

Democracy …

… „ is government of all the people, by all the people,

for all the people.‟

Theodore Parker

… „is the worst form of government – except for all the

others‟

Winston Churchill

… „substitutes election by the incompetent many for

appointment by the corrupt few‟

George Bernard Shaw

Types of Democracy

• Procedural or representative democracy

– people elect representatives to take decisions

– a few democracies allow referendums

(but referendums are votes not decisions)

• Deliberative or direct democracy

– Citizens participate in decisions

– Athenean ideal

• By and large with conventional methods, full

deliberative democracy is infeasible

The middle ground

Representative(Parliamentary)Democracy

Representativeselected to take

decisions

DeliberativeDemocracyIndividualsparticipateand vote

in all decisions(Athenian Ideal)

PublicParticipation

Individuals interactand participate; but authorities or parliament

decide.

Public Participation inEmergency Planning

and Recovery

Arrow’s TheoremNo constitution (voting system) satisfies:

• Weak ordering (complete, transitive)

• Non Triviality

• Universal domain

• Independence of the irrelevant alternative (IIA)

• Pareto Principle

• No Dictatorship

Attempts to avoid Arrow’s

result• Since 1951 there have been many attempts

– to find a flaw in Arrow‟s reasoning

– to argue that it is irrelevant to democracy

• Essentially all have failed.

– In fact, each of the assumptions may be

dropped and a version of his Theorem still holds

– Moreover, many other similar theorems have

been proved.

• honesty and manipulability;

• agenda rigging;

• …

Better to think of groups as

social processes

• Need to facilitate these process:– foster effective communication between the members;

– explore the issues in a creative, effective manner;

– reduce unproductive tensions and disagreements;

– protect the group from dysfunctional activities such as groupthink;

– build a shared understanding;

– build a commitment to implement the selected course of action;

– record and report their discussions

• and support each member‟s own thought processes, judgements and decision making.

Societal Risk Management …… should be more than identifying and dealing

with the actual risks: viz:

„the SCIENCE‟

It requires:

communication with all stakeholders

a recognition of their

perceptions (their science)

values (social and political ‘intangibles’)

indeed, their involvement

Stakeholder Engagement

An evolving decision-framing process

within and between stakeholders that is

inclusive and participatory, with open and

two-way discussions, leading to

relationships where issues can be

identified, discussed and resolved,

resulting in sustainable decisions.

(OECD, 2006)

Fischhoff’s stages

1. All we have to do is get the numbers right

2. All we have to do is tell them the numbers

3. All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers

4. All we have to do is show them that they‟ve accepted similar risks in the past

5. All we have to do is

show them it‟s a good

deal for them


treat them nice


make them partners

8. All of these

Fischhoff’s stages

1. All we have to do is get the numbers right

2. All we have to do is tell them the numbers

3. All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers

4. All we have to do is show them that they‟ve accepted similar risks in the past


show them it‟s a good

deal for them


treat them nice


make them partners

8. All of these

15

Science and Values

• Science – what might happen

– seldom a single science view

– subjective, controversy, debate

– uncertainty

• Values – how much it matters if it does

– subjective

– often relate to intangibles

16

Players

Decision

Makers

Experts

Science

Forecasts of

what might happen

Stakeholders

Values

Accountabilities

and responsibilities

Analysts

Process

expertise

A stakeholder ...

... is someone who is or will be impacted

by the decision – or believes that they will

be.

Stakeholders are not objectively defined:

they define themselves.

17

Stakeholder Identification

Power/Influence

Stake

Context-setters

(loose cannon) Players

Influence Manage interaction

Monitor Meet responsibilities to

Bystanders Victims/

Beneficiaries

Power/Influence

Stakeholders

Stake

Other media

Sunday Times ICRF

National

Asthma

Compaign

Producer

Company

GP’s

Parents

Patient

groups

Asthmatic

children

General

Public

Stakeholders involved in Asthma

Drug Scare

Cultural Theory

Individualist/Entrepreneurs: risks present opportunity, save those that threaten freedom of choice and action within free markets

Hierarchists: fear threats to social order and believe technological and environmental risks can be managed within set limits.

Egalitarians: fear risks to the environment, the collective good and future generations.

Fatalists: do not knowingly accept risks but accept what is in store for them.

21

Further interactions

Decision Makers

Experts

Science

Forecasts of

what might

happen

Stakeholders

Values

Accountabilities

and

responsibilities

Analysts

Process

expertise

22

Further interactions

Decision Makers

Experts

Science

Forecasts

of what might

happen

Analysts

Process

expertise

Experts

Alternative views

of Science

Forecasts

of what might

happen Stakeholders:

decision makers on

their actions

Accountabilities


Values

Further stakeholders:

families, employees,

etc.

Accountabilities


Values

23

Informed decision making

There are two aspects to informed

decision making

– Communication effectiveness:

Does the information provided actually

inform the public?

– True devolution of responsibility:

Are the public trusted and truly given the

freedom to make their individual decisions?

20 years of experience

Background

Over the past 20 years there has been a

growth in stakeholder and public

participation in planning and, indeed,

delivering recovery actions after an

incident.

25

1990 2000 now

International Chernobyl Project

• Held Autumn 1990

• 5 „decision‟ conferences

• Wide representation of internal USSR/Republic

stakeholders

• No public

Chernobyl

project

1990 2000 now

NKS workshops

• Held 1992 & 1995

• Range of local and government officials and

regulators from Scandinavian Countries

• No public

Chernobyl

project NKS

Workshops

1990 2000 now

Ethos Project• Held between 1996 & 1999

• Full public participation in Olmany, Stolyn, Belarus

• Helped design and adoption of recovery actions in

village

• Clear passing of problem ownership and control to

the villagers

Chernobyl

project NKS

WorkshopsEthos

1990 2000 now

JFSSG FSA• Late 1990‟s to 2000

• Programme of workshops and planning in the lead up

to the establishment of UK Food Standards Agency

• Clear link to development of skills in public risk

communication

• 3 stakeholder workshops with increasing „distance of

stakeholders from government‟

Chernobyl

project NKS

WorkshopsEthos

JFSSG FSA

1990 2000 now

Farming• 2000 to 2004 involving UK, Finland, Belgium, France

and Greece

• Successor to a stakeholder engagement process run

by UK Agriculture and Food Countermeasures

Working Group

• Wide range of stakeholders to consider agricultural

recovery after an accident

Chernobyl

project NKS

WorkshopsEthos

JFSSG FSA

Farming

1990 2000 now

FSA Risk Communication Workshops

Chernobyl

project NKS

WorkshopsEthos

JFSSG FSA

Farming

• 2000 to 2003

• Research exercise to explore what the public would

like the FSA to communicate about food risks.

• Public or stakeholder groups designed integrated

management and communication strategy for

hypothetical issues

FSA Risk

1990 2000 now

EVATECH

Chernobyl

project NKS

WorkshopsEthos

JFSSG FSA

Farming

FSA Risk

• 2001 to 2005

• Improving nuclear emergency management decision

support systems and involving stakeholders in the

process

• 9 recovery workshops involving some stakeholders

on scenarios in Denmark, Belgium, Finland,

Germany, Poland, Slovak Republic and UK

EVATECH

1990 2000 now

RELU

Chernobyl

project NKS

WorkshopsEthos

JFSSG FSA

Farming

• 2005 to 2008

• Involving rural stakeholders in managing food chain

risks

• Simulated process with involvement of stakeholders

at various phases:

formulation analysis evaluation

RELU

FSA Risk

EVATECH

1990 2000 now

EURANOS

Chernobyl

project NKS

WorkshopsEthos

JFSSG FSA

Farming

• 2004 to 2009

• Follow on to ETHOS, EVATECH and FARMING

• Development of protocols for public participation in

recovery and rehabilitation

RELU

EURANOSFSA Risk

EVATECH

Other activities

• Direct Involvement

– TED: ESF Programme to discuss and explore electronic democracy and e-participation

– Sundry stakeholder workshops

• General

– Enormous growth in stakeholder involvement, public participation and deliberative democracy

What have we learnt?

• Involving stakeholders and the public

– Builds trust and acceptance

– Better than „Decide Announce Defend‟

– Is greatly valued by the participants and their

peers

– Produces sound conclusions and results that

seem to compare in their validity with more

traditional approaches

Design of Participation Processes

Instruments and Processes

• A participation instrument is an

interaction – maybe extended – which

seeks to achieve some limited set of

objectives.

• A participation process typically involves

several instruments blended together to

support and make a societal decision.

38

Participation Instruments

Referendums

Deliberative Polling

Public Hearings/ Enquiries

Public Opinion Surveys

Negotiated Rule Making

Mediation

Consensus Conference

Citizen Jury/ Planning Cells

Citizens Panel

Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC)

Workshops

Study Circles

Round Tables

Collaborative Watershed

Management

Focus Groups

Online Discussion Forums

e-voting

e-polling

e-consultation

e-mail/email-lists

e-panels

e-petitions

Online Chat

Web-pages

SMS Messaging

Geographic Information System

Digital TV

Simulation

Games

Video Broadcasting

Advertisements

Informative Programmes

Interviews

Soap Operas

Celebrities

News Articles

Debates

Music

Advertisements

Programmes

Articles

Advertisements

Letters

Press Releases

Postal Letters

Information Leaflets

Education in Schools

Billboards

‘The’ decision making process as part of

direct democracy

Formulate

issues and

structure

problem

Analysis

Decide

and

Implement

• Discuss and share

ideas and issues

• Multiple

perceptions

• Sense making

• Ask questions

• Soft OR/PSM

• Models, but

multiple

paradigms

• Build

understanding

• Answer questions

• Decide/ Vote

But

• Arrow’s Theorem

So

• Social process of

deliberation, acceptance

and implementation

Different participation instruments may be

appropriate at each stage

Processes of participation & deliberative

democracy

• There is no best instrument

• We need to develop a process in which several instruments are blended into a hybrid process– E.g. a mix of web-sites with information and

decision analyses, plus stakeholder workshops, plus postal consultation, plus …

• Bayley and French (2008) have suggested how this might be done

To design collaboration and participation

we need some objectives

• If we take a democratic

ideal perspective, principles

matter most.

• If we take the perspective

of a regulator, the choice is

based upon more

pragmatic attributes

• Objectives may have

different weights at each

phase of the process

Level Formulation Analysis Decision

1 NoPP1

Issues are identified and structured by

authority

NoPP1

No public participation in the analysis.

Undertaken by authority

NoPP1

Public excluded from decision:

authority decides

2 NoPP2_MediaWeb

Issues identified and structured by

authority. Programme of

communication using media and

websites

NoPP2

As NoPP1 but with some public

communication via media and website of

evolving analysis

NoPP2_Comm

Authority decides but communicates

reasoning to the public via websites,

media and public meetings.

3 NoPP3_PubMeet

As NoPP2 but public meetings to

explain the options

NoPP3

As NoPP2 but with public meeting

PP1

Options with pros and cons

communicated to public and

opinions polled via surveys and

website

4 NoPP4_OpinionPoll

As NoPP3 but with opinion polling to

get public values

PP1

Analysis open to the public for comment,

e.g. on a web site.

PP2_Meet

As PP1 plus Meetings (Citizen

panels, juries, etc.)

5 PP1_WebForum

Create website to explore public

perception of issues and involve them

in formulating problem.

PP2_pubParallel

As PP1 but allow Public to change

parameters etc and conduct parallel

analyses

PP3_Vote

Options communicated and

discussed as in PP2 and a public

vote taken which is legally or

morally binding.

6 PP2_StakeholderWkS

As PP1 with live interactions (focus

groups, stakeholder workshops, ...)

PP3_Alternative

As PP2 but allow public access to data

and some analysis tools so that

independent agencies can conduct own

analyses

7 PP4_FullPubInvolvemt

Run workshops with authority, public and

stakeholder involvement. Full

partnership in analysis

Levels of Participation

44

Analysis with EQUITY

Research Questions (1)

• What are the objectives of inviting the

public to participate in a societal

decision?

• How should a participation process be

structured?

• How should we decide upon levels of

increasing participation?

Research Questions (2)

• What are the relative merits of different

participation mechanisms?

• Are there interactions between the

possible mechanisms?

• Should the public be involved in the

design of the participation mechanism?

Critique: Issues and Concerns

What have we learnt?

• Involving stakeholders and the public

– Builds trust and acceptance

– Better than „Decide Announce Defend‟

– Is greatly valued by the participants and their

peers

– Produces sound conclusions and results that

seem to compare in their validity with more

traditional approaches

• But how do we know or demonstrate this?

• And is all this true/valid?!?

Evidence for success of stakeholder

involvement and public participation• Exit questionnaires with responses such as:

– “All felt that having many varied perspectives present … had been

useful”

– “one of the clearest conclusions is the simple value of holding such

a workshop to permit the different players to network and gain

better understanding of each other”

• Acceptance of the outcomes

• More ideas generated in the divergent phase

– … in theory, but little empirical evidence

• Prescriptive arguments from the perspective of deliberative

democracy that participation is a ‘good thing’

• Most persuasive empirical evidence is from the observed

benefits of the ETHOS project in Belarus.

Action research

• Most of existing research into and applications of

stakeholder workshops and public participation has

used exploratory action research methodologies and

as much triangulation as possible.

• But now the processes are mainstream, we need to

reflect and build a more empirical basis so that we

can design stakeholder involvement and public

participation processes to be as effective as possible.

• We need to move on from action research to provide

an empirical basis for collaboration engineering.

Building an empirical knowledge base

• Common reporting framework and an

open knowledge base.

• Comparative studies

• And note that things are not standing

still

– Web 2.0 and social networking

Comparative design in RELU

Phase 1

First stakeholder

interaction: defining the

questions

Phase 2

Risk Assessment:

estimating the risks (3 months)

Phase 3

Second stakeholder interaction :

making recommendations

Science

stakeholders only

All stakeholders

including some

scientists

Adjudication driven

discussion

Consensus driven

discussion

Plen

ary

Sess

ion

Briefing

Docum

ent

sent

out

Briefing

Docum

ent

sent

out

Web discussion of issues. General

problem formulation etc.

Web discussion of assessments and

conclusions

Risk

Assess

ments

delivere

d

Analysis 2

Analysis 3

Analysis 1

Building an empirical knowledge base

• Common reporting framework and an open knowledge base.

• Comparative studies

– But such studies are expensive in time

– Also difficult to get participation unless a live topic

• We propose that most real public participation exercises contain

one or more extra evaluation activities: e.g.

– to record the basis of their design;

– to document the strengths and weaknesses discovered in the

instruments used;

– to compare the effectiveness of different instruments used for the

same purposes;

– to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall participation process.

Its all a very big problem, but

…

I know of no safe depository of the

ultimate powers of the society but the

people themselves; and if we think of

them as not enlightened enough to

exercise their control with a wholesome

discretion, the remedy is not to take it

from them, but to inform their discretion

Thomas Jefferson