|
|
CONCERTED ACTION: Environmental Valuation in Europe (EVE) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Summary of EVE Workshop 9Participatory Decision Processes
Contributions:
Workshop Summary:Deliberative Processes in Environmental ManagamentThe very nature and dynamics of most present day environmental issues discourage any explanation, forecast and decision based on a reductionist approach. As human systems and biophysical systems are mutually interrelated in complex ways, no single truth can be discovered. As a consequence, an 'adaptive' style of management and decision is necessary, which maintains the capacity to adapt to changing environmental and human conditions. This implies that many social actors must be involved in an extended dialogue where different types of knowledge and perspectives are brought to the forum and taken into consideration. These progress not only from experts, but also from lay people. In some countries and/or traditions, legal instruments and practical resources are already in place which provide opportunity and justification for deliberative approaches to environmental problems. In others, a reflection on the new challenges posed by global change to both biophysical and socio-political systems has still to be initiated. Even in the former case however, the process of critical reflection on the current models of development and management is rather recent, shaky, and sometimes just formal. In this respect, many international treaties, agreements and conventions promote public participation in environmental decisions and establish a set of principles and/or guidelines for their implementation. The Aarhus convention of 25 June 1998, for example, states it as a matter of fact that "[...]in the field of the environment improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and implementation of decision [...]". However, in practice expressions such as 'public participation' and 'quality of decisions' must be more accurately defined and their mutual relationship can be hardly reduced to one of simple cause-effect. Aims and Structure of the WorkshopThe workshop's main purpose was to discuss in detail the ideas and practice of deliberative participatory processes which are nowadays 'fashionable' in Western democracies, in part seen as a response to the dramatic decrease of public trust in institutions and the crisis of traditional decision mechanisms. Key speakers were selected with different professional backgrounds and from different European countries, including one from the former Soviet block. All key speakers were experts of theoretical aspects of democratic deliberation as well as experienced in setting up participatory exercises in environmental valuation, either in a research or policy-decision setting. In order to broaden insight on other than European realities, a representative of the World Bank was present, reporting mainly on 'third world' experiences. The workshop was structured along the same principles of participatory research. The eight invited speakers were asked to act as interactively as possible in their presentations accommodating requests/questions from other participants. Special attention was paid to bringing together 30 people of different ages and professional experience, from different backgrounds, and with different 'vocations', from within and outside the EVE network. Participants included academics, politicians, students, journalists, civil servants, and free-lancing professionals taking an active role in discussions and bringing in their own experiences. Every two presentations, all participants split into three discussion groups. The last session of the workshop was devoted to a plenary discussion, for drawing provisional conclusions. The overall style of the work sessions was participative and informal, which favoured the continuation of discussion also during breaks and informal events at the workshop as well as after its conclusion, mainly via the exchange of e-mail messages. Main Points of Debate and OutcomesParticipants expressed dissatisfaction for merely technocratic procedures of environmental valuation. Interest in (new) participatory processes went beyond personal positions of highly committed scholars, practitioners and 'amateurs', reflecting more general attitudes and aspirations. Diverse experiences, theoretical frameworks and disciplinary approaches were considered, and the following singles out some key points which came out strongly and were subsequently taken up for discussion in the working groups and highlighted in the final plenary session. There is a shared understanding that participatory decision processes have to be set within a wider political process. Therefore issues to be addressed regard not only the structure of a particular exercise and its purposes, but also the broader context and processes which will favour or hinder deliberative processes. "Cui prodest?" is the question to ask at all times, to discover whether participation will favour manipulation and consolidate existing lobbies or rather enhance transparency and empower citizens at large. The challenge seems to be one of building or changing institutions so that they are going to support genuine change towards enlarged democracy. Also it is recognised that some of those who promote participatory processes do so with an expectation that they will fail to deliver what they promise, and will therefore be discredited by institutions and the very social actors involved. Defining the purposes and scope of participatory processes is therefore part of the methodology no less than designing their structure. The rationale underlying the "new" participatory methods is that they cannot be separated from practice, and the epistemology is demonstrated in practice/process rather than axioms. Thus the outcome is not conditioned by an inflexible method based on strict formal criteria, but is constructed through a process which fosters mutual learning, acknowledges the possibility of error, and allows for surprise. On the other hand it is felt that some degree of formalisation is necessary to manage and monitor participatory processes in their different phases, including that of implementation of decisions. The discussion on "quality indicators" and "quality assessment" is multi-faceted and needs to take into account both general principles and context-specific aspects, with a view also to those constituencies that are excluded such as future generations and non-humans. The development of deliberative processes for environmental decision-making seems to be going through a period of growth. It is therefore important to use what appears to be a current opportunity in the area of environmental deliberation to think reflectively and build-in critical aspects of debate: what can be expected from these processes, what can be achieved, how and for whom. This can best be done in an open debate, which contrasts the common tendency to close down into narrow networks and defend vested interests. ConclusionsThe workshop provided a good example of how to open-up thinking in the area. The opportunity was provided to learn from a range of different experiences. Different positions were expressed about conducting deliberative processes and a range of studies presented from across Europe. Looking further afield was shown to be important with valuable experience presented from transitional economies and industrially developing countries. Further consideration needs to be given to the issues addressed and others, only marginally touched, must be tackled: for example, how different approaches can be combined to address problems of complexity and uncertainty in environmental matters.
Workshop Participants:
Contact Details: Bruna De MarchiISIG - PEM Via Mazzini, 13 34170 Gorizia Italy Tel: (+39) 0481 53 36 32 Fax: (+39) 0481 53 20 94 E-mail: [email protected]
|
