Administrative and political conflict resolution 11.04.2013, Riga Agnes Kasper

LECTURE OUTLINE

• • • • • • • INTRODUCTION PUBLIC POLICY COMPLEXITY OF RULEMAKING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION METHODS VALUE DECISIONS MEDIATION SESSION MANAGEMENT EXERCISE

The spoon, the cup and the bucket

During a visit to a mental asylum, a visitor asked the director how to determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalised. “Well,” said the director, “we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient, and ask him to empty the bathtub.”

???

The plug...

PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS

Problem identification Policy evaluation Policy formulation Policy implementation Policy adoption

COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC POLICY

Public policies of various govermental sectors can influence other policies, directly or indirectly.

Example: population health • • • • • Related policies: Transportation Income Education Child-care Environment

Complexity

Adopting a policy that takes into account all relevant fields and policies is a complex task. - There are many uncertain effects - Often no consensus in the civil society Decision-makers must manuever between different values, views, needs, preferences and interests.

Increased attention is paid lately to deliberative processes  critical examination of issues in groups: reasons vs courses of action, exchange information and come to an areement which informs the decision-making

Case study – Jaitapur protest

• • • • • • • What is the surface of the conflict and what are the underlying problems?

What conflict classifications can you apply? (Resources, values, interests, relationships, identity, etc.) Who are the parties and what motivate them?

How the conflict could have been avoided?

What positive and negative aspects of the conflict can you identify?

How can the conflict be “won” (and what)? Who will loose (and what)?

Can both parties win?

Complexity

Complexity

The question is “how do we get into zone P?” More often then not we get there with the help of processes such as mediation or participation.

Methods of public participation Deliberative vs non-deliberative

Citizens panels Consensus conference Citizens juries Deliberative polling (Delphi method) Focus groups Surveys Public hearings Open houses Citizen advisory committee Referenda Citizens panels

Citizens panels 1

• • • • • • consists of statistically representative sample of residents in a given area most comprise several thousand citizens who represent the general population of an area panel views are regularly sought using a survey instrument (e.g. postal, telephone surveys)

Citizens panels 2

• • • randomly selected group of 12 citizens meet routinely (eg. four times per year) to consider and discuss issues and make decisions used to guide health resource allocation decision panels act as “sounding boards” for governing authority

Consensus conference

• • a group of citizens with varied backgrounds meets to discuss issues of a scientific and or technical nature consists of 2 stages: 1)meetings with experts, discussions and work toward consensus (involves small group of people) 2)conference during which main observations and conclusions are presented to the media and general public

Citizens’ juries

• • • • group of 12-20 randomly selected citizens, gathered in such a way as to represent a microcosm of their community, who meet over several days to deliberate on a policy question they are informed about the issue, hear evidence from witnesses and cross-examine them they then discuss the matter amongst themselves and reach a decision

Deliberative polling

• • • builds on the opinion poll by incorporating element of deliberation involves larger numbers than citizens juries and may involve less time measures what public would think if it was informed and engaged around an issue

Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society

1. Engagement of the civil society in: - definition of problem, - identification of priorities, - allocation of resources - evaluation of different policy options This approch promotes conciliation, information of public, transparency, legitimacy and accountability in decision making.

Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society example

The CPRN’s citizens’ dialogues – Canada

Since the late 1990’s the Canadian Policy Research Networks have undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging public deliberation about various policy issues (e.g. the Ontario 2004-2008 budget strategy, the future of Canadian health care, the use of personal information, Canadian public health priorities).

For more information: www.cprn.org [FR/EN]

Deliberative method – expert engagement

2. Engagement of experts in: - Production of research - Interpretation of research - Bridging theory and practice This promotes evidence-informed policy making.

Deliberative method – expert engagement example

IDEAHealth – Khon Kaen, Thailand

IDEAHealth was an international dialogue sponsored by the World Health Organization that took place between December 13 and 16, 2006. It allowed decision makers, experts and other stakeholders to share their ideas and experiences and to consider the results of systematic reviews in an attempt to find concrete solutions to problems confronting developing countries. For more information: www.who.int/rpc/meetings/ideahealth/ens non-deliberative

Objectives of two deliberative trends

October 2009

Author: François-Pierre Gauvin, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy

• • • • • • • • • •

Some methods of participatory democracy

Popular/Citizens’ initiatives Referenda Public consultation Surveys Focus groups Open houses Public hearings Negotiated rulemaking Consensus-building Etc.

Citizens’ initiative

• • • It allows electorate to resolve questions where the elected representatives don’t act despite the public desire. Typical provisions in Constitutions.

“The European citizens' initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the

European Commission to make a legislative

proposal.” (Commission’s homepage) Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU, Regulation No 211/2011

Public consultation

In public consultations the agency ‘s goal is to gain information about the concerns of the public, but the final decision is still made by the agency. No consensus or decision by the public is sought. May be dominated by special interest groups feed-back obtained from this format needs to be treated carefully because it may not be representative of the community

Negotiated rulemaking

• In negotiated rulemaking process the agency seeks out the representatives of interests that will be affected and empanel them into an advisory committee that includes senior members of the agency itself. The committee is tasked with deveoping a consensus for the proposed rule. Then the normal legislative process applies.

Consensus building

• Consensus building is used to settle conflicts that involve multiple parties and complicated issues. The approach seeks to transform Adversarial confrontations into a cooperative search for information and solutions that meet all parties' interests and needs.(Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

Consensus building

• Consensus building (also known as collaborative problem solving or collaboration) is a conflict resolution process used mainly to settle complex, multiparty disputes. Since the 1980s, it has become widely used in the environmental and public policy arena in the United States, but is useful whenever multiple parties are involved in a complex dispute or conflict. • The process allows various stakeholders (parties with an interest in the problem or issue) to work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution.

(Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

Consensus building

• Like a town meeting, consensus building is based on the principles of local participation and ownership of decisions. • Ideally, the consensus reached will meet all of the relevant interests of stakeholders, who thereby come to a unanimous agreement. • While everyone may not get everything they initially wanted, "consensus has been reached when everyone agrees they can live with whatever is proposed after every effort has been made to meet the interests of all stake holding parties.“ (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

Workshop exercise VALUES

● It is 2014, and there is now scientific consensus that secondary smoking is a significant cause of cancer.

● You are all the staff of a regulatory agency that has to act once it is known that a substance causes cancer.

● Where do you stand? Please line up at the most appropriate place on the line.

Workshop exercise VALUES

WHY?

Workhop exercise VALUES

• • The instructions made clear that the science was conclusive: secondary smoking causes cancer.

There was not a disagreement on a technical basis, the disagreement was about values.

Workshop exercise Consider the figure

Workshop exercise Consider the figure

Workshop exercise Communication

1. You will be paired with another participant.

2. On the following grid, write what you would say if you were the facilitator – using the model below – to handle the seven circumstances that are listed on the grid.

I feel (ownership) + feeling word + behavioral description Example: I feel worried about the passivity of the majority of the group.

3. Then compare notes with your partner, discussing how best to send your concerns without creating defensiveness, putting anybody down, or seeming unduly controlling.

Situation

1. Group has drifted off the agreed-upon topic Your message: ...............................................

Situation

2. People are not able to complete their comments because of interruptions Your message: ...............................................

Situation

3. Too many people talking at once Your message: ...............................................

Situation

4. Comments are exceeding agreed-upon time limits Your message: ...............................................

Situation

5. Participant’s comments are insulting to other participants – “name-calling” Your message: ...............................................

Situation

6. Group needs to be reminded of agenda time limits Your message: ...............................................

Situation

7. You want to propose the use of a technique, for example, brainstorming Your message: ...............................................

The end

Thank you for your attention!

Questions???

Sources

• • • • •

A Review of Public Participation and Consultation

Methods, Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E and Gauvin F-P. Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes, McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-04, June 2001.

Consensus building, Heidi Burgess and Brad Spangler, 2003.www.beyonintractability.com

Deeliberative process, François-Pierre Gauvin, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy Participation, Consensus Building and Conflict management training course, Jerome Delli Priscoli, Unesco, 2003.

www.europa.eu