You are in ePLANETe >
Extended peer involvement
Stakeholder involvement in not only the decision making process but also in knowledge production and knowledge use, can help to assess and manage complex (environmental) problems in a better way. This potential can be tapped in three ways:
(1) By enabling them to articulate issues of concern and to improve the problem framing for research and policy;
(2) By utilising their own (non scientific) knowledge and observations and their capacity to invent new options; and
(3) By involving them actively in the quality control of the operational knowledge that is co-produced (extended peer review).
By engaging stakeholders into the risk management process it is likely that they will not only contribute to future risk management decisions but also support their implementation.
We have another concern as well when addressing complex environmental policy issues in a participatory way. The scientific soundness of the presumed causal mechanisms underlying alternative problem definitions needs to be warranted if we want to base our policies on scientifically sound underpinnings. Although there is more than one legitimate interpretation of the science, this plurality of perspectives does not deny the special competence of scientists. It does mean that there is a mixing and blending of skills, partly technical and partly personal, of all those engaged that can enrich the comprehension of the whole.
The RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication (Van der Sluijs et al. 2004) has a useful section on stakeholder involvement, including an instrument for discourse analysis.
Stakeholders can also be used in environmental monitoring, as is done for instance in the European Phenological Data Platform for Climatological Applications and other initiatives where citizens provide observations on effects of climate changes on nature (e.g. first day in the year that a bird species is observed).
The HarmoniCOP project has developed a typology to characterise tools to support the public participation process in relation to implementation of the Water Framework Directive (Maurel, 2003).
Resources required
Stakeholder involvement in knowledge production requires very good communication and deliberation skills and the involvement of social scientists is recommended. It also puts high requirements on the infrastructure through which stakeholders can contribute their knowledge and on the quality assurance of the knowledge provided, especially if this infrastructure has to function during a long period of time (as with environmental monitoring systems).
Strengths and limitations
+ Increases the level of public accountability in knowledge production
+ May increase the public support for the knowledge base that is co-produced
- There are many unresolved challenges regarding the quality control of knowledge produced by non scientific actors
Must read
Stakeholder Participation Guidance for the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
- Main Document
- Checklist
- Practice Guide
References
Kloprogge P and van der Sluijs JP (2006) The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change. Climatic Change 75 (3) 359-389.
Maurel P (Ed.) (2003) Public participation and the European Water Framework Directive. Role of Information and Communication Tools. Workpackage 3 Report of the HarmoniCOP Project. Cemagref, Montpellier, www.harmonicop.info.
Osidele OO and Beck MB (2002) Integrating Stakeholder Imagination with Scientific Theory: A Case Study of Lake Lanier, USA, Proceedings of the IEMSS, 31-36
Stern PC and Fineberg HV (eds.) (1996) Understanding risk, informing decisions in a democratic society, Washington DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
van der Sluijs JP, Risbey JS, Kloprogge P, Ravetz JR, Funtowicz SO, Quintana SC, Guimarães Pereira Â, De Marchi B, Petersen AC, Janssen PHM, Hoppe R and Huijs SWF (2003) RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Detailed Guidance Utrecht University & RIVM.
Yosie FT and Herbst TD (1998) Using stakeholder processes in environmental decision-making. An evaluation of lessons learned, key issues and future challenges, Ruder Finn Washington, ICF Inc.,
Fischer, C., Leydesdorff, L., Schophaus, M. (2004). “Science Shops in Europe: The public as stakeholder”. Science and Public Policy, vol. 31, p. 199-211.