Procedures for stakeholder based decisions

Stakeholder participation can contribute to all aspects of stewardship activities, including record keeping, monitoring, communication, investment and site maintenance. In this section the focus is on the idea of stakeholders as partners with regulatory agencies and technical experts, through looking at the basis for decisions made about stewardship strategies.

A standard economics approach to decision making is to seek to establish a ‘rational’ justification for a choice between actions A, B, C, etc., on the basis of relations of preference. If action C is preferred over B, and B is preferred over A (etc.), then C is the highest valued action. However, whenever the span of choices involves and will have consequences for more than one person, TABLE 2. FUNCTIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES IN REMEDIATION PROJECTS (after Ref. [53])

Parties Interests

Problem holders Cost effectiveness

Functionality of environmental media Efficient decision making

Authorities Multifunctionality of soil

Minimization of residual environmental load Consistent policy

Efficient decision making

Maintenance/improvement of tax revenues through viable economy Consultants Interests of their clients (problem holders or competent authorities)

Efficient decision making Shareholder benefits Contractors Interests of their clients

Efficient decision making Shareholder benefits Public Risk reduction

Minimal limitations of use Minimal nuisance Efficient decision making

Maintenance/improvement of socioeconomic conditions

judgements typically differ as to which is preferable. Each option for site management will produce distinct types and differing distributions of benefits, costs and risks that will be looked at differently by each of the individuals or sectors of society concerned. Not only will the different protagonists concerned have divergent views about what is their interest, their right or their due; they may also propose quite different principles for resolving this problem of social choice.

The particular difficulties of contaminated site stewardship as a problem of social choice can be summarized by the following four points:

(1) The choices relate to complex entities, processes or outcomes (involving geological, biological and social systems), each option being charac-terized by a range of attributes. Comparison of stewardship options means comparing a vector of attributes with a wide variety of concepts, units of measure and criteria. It is not always easy to pass from a multiple criteria appraisal to a ranking of alternatives along a single scale.

(2) The consequences of decisions are distributed in time (Section 5.1), and often different aspects of outcomes (good and bad, as perceived by different constituencies) will have distinctive time profiles, for example:

vegetation cover; diffusion or dilution of dangerous substances in water, rock and soil; financial costs of monitoring; financial benefit streams including stewardship salaries and eventual site use.

(3) There are various degrees of uncertainty due partly to the complexity of natural systems and partly to social indeterminacies such as decisions not yet made or the consequences of which are not yet known, or future interest in the site.

(4) Many reasons or principles can be put forward as justifications for the acceptability, or not, of different outcomes (including perceived uncer-tainties and risks, distribution of benefits and costs across different constituencies within society, or across generations through time, see Section 6.6). It may not be possible to respect all principles simultane-ously (this may be the case for the judgements offered by a single person, or for the judgements offered by a range of sectors). Because the principles may be ‘irreducible’ (i.e. incomparable, in the sense of being grounded in qualitatively different considerations), choice can be charac-terized by dilemmas and the need to make sacrifices of principle, rather than mere trade-offs on quantitative terms.

These complexities account for the importance of consultations with stakeholders, for example through processes of dialogue and of structured deliberations about site management issues and options. Stakeholder dialogues

can be used to help build up a clear picture about the merits and demerits of site stewardship alternatives that present themselves to the relevant authorities and stakeholders in the society. In general, three points must be addressed in order to build a structured stakeholder dialogue process:

(1) There must be an explicit identification of the relevant stakeholders, and the establishment of an institutional framework within which exchange of information and opinions can take place.

(2) There must be a clear picture of the relevant site management options.

For example, remediation and long term site stewardship issues and options can be explored in terms of a small number of scenarios each of which expresses distinct technological, economic and governance features. Stakeholders can sometimes be solicited to contribute to the framing of these scenarios.

(3) There must be a clear expression of the criteria for selection of the stewardship strategies, with a variety of different criteria reflecting the full diversity of societal concerns.

If these conditions are met, then stakeholder dialogue can be organized as an evaluation of the different stewardship solutions or scenarios, within a multiple criteria framework that covers a full range of governance issues. The distinct stakeholder perspectives become visible through the contrasting judgements made in relation to each option or scenario. As systems analyst Rittel has remarked [54]:

“A policy maker or analyst in this sort of situation needs to be more like a

‘midwife of problems’ than a provider of determinate and uncontro-versial solutions. Decision making has to be understood as an argumen-tative or deliberative process, one of raising questions and issues towards which you can assume different positions, and with the evidence gathered and arguments built for and against these different positions.”

Quite often, a constructive stakeholder interaction can permit the emergence of novel ideas for solutions, including compromises between different performance criteria. These processes of information sharing and debate can also be effective in building goodwill, respect and trust. Differences of view are not to be feared. Commitment to a stewardship role, or to cooperating with site stewards, can emerge alongside and partly through mis-understandings, disputes and conflicts.

There is already some experience with processes of this type. In the UK, a stakeholder dialogue process has involved NGOs within the SAFEGROUNDS

Learning Network [55]. Although the NGOs and problem holders often have differing perspectives, the process has been very successful in that many areas of common ground have been established. Well structured participatory processes can help with:

(a) Identification and development of elements of common problem definition and common language for all the parties concerned;

(b) Understanding of the assumptions underlying expert solution proposals and evaluation techniques, of the terms in which these techniques can contribute to reasoned decisions, and limitations to their application;

(c) Sharing of the reasons and justifications brought by the different social groups to the deliberation process;

(d) Status and respect given to participation by both professionals and lay persons in the deliberation processes.

Multistakeholder deliberation requires information, and may certainly be aided by good inputs from experts and by systems of indicators at appropriate scales. However, stakeholders do not just receive and exchange information.

They interact in a variety of formal and informal ways, sometimes being in conflict and sometimes cooperating. Working together to produce a well structured and transparent evaluation of stewardship options, with inputs from different sectors of the affected communities, can contribute significantly to the confidence and shared understanding needed to build a common future together.

6.6. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? (MANAGING ETHICAL QUESTIONS)