Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making Rhetoric to Reality?

Rosemary F James1 and Russell K Blamey2

Paper presented at the 1999 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management Brisbane, Australia 7 - 10 July 1999

Introduction There are many methods of and opportunities for public participation3 in environmental decision-making in Australia. The emphasis in this paper is on methods of public participation in environmental decision-making which lie outside the normal representative political process, having stronger foundations in participatory democracy. In particular, the potential of discursive and deliberative forms of participatory democracy to provide alternative approaches to public participation in environmental management is discussed. One particular method, the citizens' jury, is considered in some detail and key methodological issues concerned with the application of the method are discussed. The paper is structured as follows. The role of public participation in environmental management is considered in the next section, including a brief overview of the notion of participatory democracy. Typologies of participation are considered in the next section, along with the nature of public participation in national park planning in New South Wales. Deliberative forms of public participation are then introduced, and some of the key methodological issues pertaining to the conduct of citizens' juries are identified, and discussed at length. Some brief conclusions are drawn.

The role of public participation in environmental management The history of participation in development projects is perhaps longer and more diverse than that of participation in conservation and environmental matters, and may thus be informative to consider. Participatory approaches were first discussed in the
1

Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University and CRC for Weed Management Systems. Email: rfjames@cres.anu.edu.au 2 Urban and Environmental Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University 3 In the context of this paper, public participation is used to mean "...active involvement of people in making decisions about the implementation of processes, programmes and projects which affect them." (Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer 1995, p3).

development literature in the late 1950s; failures of development projects were in many cases attributed to inadequacies of project design and implementation, as a consequence of insufficient involvement by local populations (Rahnema, 1992). This view is expressed in much of the development and conservation literature, and relies in the main on the premises that the quality of the project design and/or stakeholder support for the project will be reduced if effective participation has not occurred (see, for example, Davis-Case, 1989). The more recent involvement of communities in conservation-related projects in less developed countries, dating from the mid-1980s, including those focusing on sustainable development, derives from a similar basis - the emerging realisation that conservation projects operating in a manner, or with objectives, unacceptable or unimportant to local people will have reduced chances of success (see, for example, Pimbert and Pretty, 1997). More recently, inclusion of the views of those potentially affected by development projects has been seen not merely as a task to be undertaken in order to reduce project failure, but as a necessity on ethical grounds. There is an emerging trend to recognise the need for empowerment of communities so they may participate in decisions which affect them (Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer, 1995). Hence it appears that two bases are commonly used in justifying public participation in development and conservation projects in less developed countries. Firstly, that the project will fail or at the least meet with reduced success, if all the relevant stakeholders do not participate effectively. Secondly, that the stakeholders have a right to be involved. As Slocum and Thomas-Slatyer (1995, p. 11) note, "central to these approaches is the belief that ordinary people are capable of critical reflection and analysis and that their knowledge is relevant and necessary." The emergence of interest in public participation in decision-making in developed countries has been well-documented by Webler and Renn (1995). The authors note the surge of public interest in environmental matters in the 1970s, and the subsequent legal provision of various means of public access to government decision-making. Theoretical basis The theoretical basis for public participation lies largely with participatory democracy, which, in simple literal terms, means 'rule by the people'. Chekki (1979, xiii) refers to participatory democracy as "all acts of citizens that are intended to influence the behaviour of those empowered to make the decisions". Participatory democracy thus involves decentralised or dispersed forms of decision-making and the direct involvement of amateurs in the making of decisions (Cook and Morgan, 1971). Associated with the dispersion of power is the notion of community empowerment. Empowerment involves self-perceptions of competence associated with an active engagement in one's community and an understanding of one's sociopolitical environment. Rather than taking the external environment as a given, empowered individuals learn how to exert greater control over it4
4

Empowerment implies involvement of members of the community in the development, implementation and evaluation of interventions. Professionals tend to work with members of the community as 'coequal

(Zimmerman, 1995). Community development is a classic example of an empowering form of participatory democracy. A common distinction in participatory democracy is between co-determination models and self-determination models. The former refers to mutual cooperation between nonexpert citizens and trained experts and a form of joint decision-making. The latter refers to the complete autonomy of citizens in decision-making (Chekki 1979). Under the tenets of participatory democratic theory, as noted by Webler and Renn (1995), participation of the public is functionally and morally central to democracy. Public participation is seen as essential to advise decision-makers adequately of community needs and preferences. Some of the foundations which have been used to support participatory democratic theory and hence public participation in government decisionmaking are summarized in Table 1. The application of public participation methods will not necessarily satisfy principles of participatory democracy, as described by some of the authors cited in Table 1, however. In particular, the development, definition and communication of the public will requires, at the least, information, time and means for deliberation, and a method by which to reliably transmit the results of that deliberation to decision-makers. Typologies of participation As noted earlier, there is an extensive literature on the effective use of public participation in development and conservation projects in less developed countries. This literature addresses issues such as the purposes to which participation may be put, the stages of the project life cycle at which it should be employed, the level of power with regard to the decision-making process which should be afforded to the participants and the methods which may be appropriate under different circumstances. For example, Pimbert and Pretty (1997) list some 30 participatory methods and approaches. By contrast, there is relatively little published material available regarding methods of public participation in environmental decision-making in Australia and evaluations of the effectiveness of such participation. Many agencies involved in natural resource management, however, include public participation of various types in their decisionmaking processes. Various typologies of public participation have been published in recent years. Gujit (1996) cited a number, including those presented by Biggs (1989); Hart (1992); Stiefel and Wolfe (1994); and Cornwall (1996). One which is of particular relevance in this context is that presented by Pimbert and Pretty (1997) , in their examination of participation in conservation projects in less developed countries. The key features of the classification, which is of relevance to developed countries also, are detailed in Table 2. It is noteworthy that only the use of methods falling into the last three categories of the typology would potentially lead to participatory democracy. The necessary
partners' (Zimmerman, 1995). Their role is one of facilitation and support. Community dependence on these professionals is reduced by providing opportunities for members of the community to develop the skills necessary to carry out tasks.

conditions information, time and means for deliberation, and a method to communicate the results of the deliberation to decision-makers are potentially associated only with functional and interactive participation and self-mobilisation, as the terms are employed in the typology. The participation classification developed by Pimbert and Pretty in relation to conservation projects corresponds with that documented by Arnstein (1969), and subsequently much-cited, which was based primarily on urban development and welfare programs in the United States. The points of equivalence are summarized in Table 3. Both typologies are arranged on the basis of the level of power accorded to the participants, a common basis for such classifications. Alternative classifications can be envisaged based on the participatory methodologies employed, on the stage of the project cycle at which participation occurs, and on the extent of legislative support for participation. For example, Taberner, Brunton et al. (1996) provided a brief classification of public participation in environmental protection and planning law in Australia based on the form of participation employed. Ramsay and Rowe (1995) noted that public participation in environmental decision-making in Australia could occur at a number of stages, including: . formulation of policy and law; . rights of notification or access to information; . rights to seek review of decisions; . rights to force a Government agency to take action; and . the ability to bring court proceedings to prevent contravention of the rights to participation. The typology developed by Pimbert and Pretty encompasses the types of public participation most commonly used in Australia. Some examples of these are shown in Table 4. The examples provided serve to illustrate the lack of opportunity for the public deliberation on the environmental issues under consideration. In key areas of environmental management, such as management planning for national parks, public participation is limited to the capacity to provide comments on a draft plan. Even this capacity, as is noted in the accompanying text box, is subject to stringent constraints. It is clear that this approach to public participation in park management planning is only one of several modes available. The presumed advantages and disadvantages of the approach are considered briefly in Table 5. Clearly, there are a number of potential shortcomings associated with the method used to seek public participation in the formulation of national park management plans in the case examined. Perhaps the most significant failings of this approach to public participation are that those with vested interests are more likely to become involved, participants are often ill-informed, and it fails to provide any means by which conflicting views on the allocation of the park's physical resources and/or the most appropriate modes of management can be resolved. It is here that some of the more deliberative and representative forms of public participation may have something to offer.

.. ...
Public participation in national park management planning in New South Wales The state of New South Wales contains some 103 national parks, covering an area of 3.8 m ha. This represents approximately 4.7 % of the area of the state (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service 1998). These areas fall under the responsibility of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS). Under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974), a plan of management is required to be prepared for each national park. As at 30 June 1998, plans of management were in force for 72 of the state's 103 national parks. The plan of management is a legally binding document, which details the future management of the area concerned. The planning process is briefly as follows: . the Director-General (the senior civil servant) of the NSW NPWS gives notice that a draft plan of management has been prepared; . the plan is made available for public comment, for at least one month; . the draft plan and copies of all representations received from the public are referred to the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council for consideration. (This body comprises 15 representatives of various community groups and interests and the Director-General); . the Council prepares recommendations regarding the draft plan, which are then submitted by the Director-General to the responsible Minister for consideration. The Minister may either adopt the plan or refer it back to the Director-General and the Council for further consideration. (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1998) The public, then, has the opportunity for participation by two means by submission when the plan is made available for comment, and through the community representatives on the Advisory Council. There are explicit limitations placed on the former mode of participation, however. Instructions accompanying a plan recently available for comment include the following: . ' the draft plan of management will not be amended if your submission: . makes points ... that were considered during plan preparation;... . contributes options that are not feasible (for example, not consistent with existing legislation or Government policy).....' (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service 1999)

The deliberative alternative Whilst it is generally acknowledged that participatory democracy will often stimulate information acquisition and various degrees of deliberation, this tends not to be the emphasis. The past couple of decades have seen renewed interest in deliberative forms of participatory democracy. In simple terms, deliberative, or discursive, democracy is participatory democracy in which reason, argument and deliberation have primacy over intuition5. Deliberative democracy can be defined as "the idea that legitimate lawmaking issues from the public deliberation of citizens" (Bohnian and Rehg, 1997). According to Bohman (1997, p321), "deliberation is democratic, to the extent that it is based on a process of reaching reasoned agreement among free and equal citizens". The four ideals of deliberative democracy are thus that it is free, reasoned, equal and consensual. What is meant by each of these principles, and the extent that they can be expected to be satisfied in practice, has been the subject of much discussion. For example, whilst discursive democracy strives for consensus, reasoned disagreement is considered more realistic (Dryzek, 1990). Deliberative democracy clearly requires that citizens are psychologically willing and able to construct and publicly express their own reasons, and consider those expressed by others (Bohman, 1997). Structural requirements, pertaining to the circumstances in which society is organised and the nature of the participatory mechanism, are additional. Deliberative democracy can be contrasted with other forms of democracy such as elite theory in political sociology and the economic theory of democracy. Schumpeter (1943, p251) in his seminal work on elite theory argued that consensual outcomes reflecting the common good cannot be reached due to "irreducible differences of ultimate values which compromise could only maim and degrade". According to elite theory, citizens in modern democracies are politically uninformed, apathetic and manipulable (Bohnian and Rehg, 1997). Governance is hence best left to leadership elites with the scope of democracy restricted to the election of these leaders. Whilst a more rational notion of the citizen is advanced by Down's (1957) economic theory of democracy, the theory has commonalities with elite theory in so far as voting is seen as the primary form of democratic control and the political process is characterised by conflict, bargaining and exchange, rather than public reasoning. Deliberative democracy views the political process as involving more than rational self-interested competition governed by bargaining and social choice mechanisms (Bohnian and Rehg, 1997). Individuals are seen to be capable of acting as citizens rather than consumers. According to Christiano (1997), there are three ways that public deliberation can be seen to be of value. First, it may produce valuable outcomes, in terms of a) direct moral or
5

Whilst deliberative and discursive democracy are similar and tend to be used interchangeably, Dryzek's (1990) discursive theory has stronger roots in Habermasian critical theory (Dryzek pers comm; Blaug, 1999).

non-moral consequences of decisions; b) greater legitimacy resulting from greater understanding and consensus; and c) the creation of a more socially aware and virtuous citizenry. Second, the process of deliberation may have intrinsic value to the extent that it promotes self-esteem, mutual respect and so on, independently of the issues under deliberation. Participation in public deliberation may thus represent part of the 'good life'. Finally, public deliberation may facilitate political justification in the sense that it can be argued that such processes are more defensible than some others. In the next section, a form of participatory democracy that emphasises deliberative processes is outlined. The citizen's jury In developed countries, over the last 30 years there has been growing interest in a group of public participation methods grounded in deliberative democracy. The methods include citizens' juries, consensus conferences, planning cells and deliberative polls. The foundations common to all are concerns regarding the failure of representative democracy to provide adequate consideration of the views of the public, and the need for participatory approaches that are deliberative and empowering. The method which is of immediate interest in this work is the citizens' jury. Almost simultaneously, and certainly independently, Peter Dienel in Germany and Ned Crosby in the United States developed similar techniques for deliberative decision-making by members of the public on matters of public policy significance. The planungszelle, or planning cell, method, was developed in Germany in 1969 and the citizens' jury method was developed in 1971 (Crosby, 1996) ). The citizens' jury method has since been used in many parts of the world and in many different types of application. Some recent applications are summarised in Table 6. The principal features of the method, as detailed in Crosby (1991, 1996) are briefly as follow: . the topic should be one which serves the general public interest and not sectional interests; . the jury is given a specific charge to examine; . the charge should be clear and concise; . the process is facilitated; . the panel is selected either randomly or by use of stratified random sampling; . selection bases may be demographic, attitudinal or both; . the panel members are paid; . the panel members are allowed time to consider the matter adequately; . information is presented to the panel by witnesses who represent divergent viewpoints; . the panel members have sufficient time to deliberate on and review all their findings and recommendations; . thus the panel meets most usually for 2-4 days; and . the final report of the jury includes an evaluation of the process by the jurors.

Consideration of this method in comparison with that currently employed in, for example, the finalisation of management plans for national parks in New South Wales, leads to identification of a number of advantages. The perceived advantages of this method include the following: . participants are able to reflect as citizens on the issue; . participants have time and opportunity to consider the issue adequately; . participants are given access to all information they require in order to consider the issue; and . participants deliberate in a group and thus the approach mimics the usual processes of societal learning and decision-making. The method will shortly be trialled on a matter concerning national park management in New South Wales, and in the process of finalisation of the application a number of methodological issues have been identified. These are discussed in the following section. Methodological issues Whilst the technique has been in use since the early 1970s, such use has been limited and individual applications have not been conducted under conditions to which statistical analysis can be applied. In addition, applications of the technique have been conducted in widely disparate social and cultural settings, on a diversity of topics. Hence the refinement of the technique has been largely driven by experiences and events at each of the applications, rather than by a strategically planned and incremental research agenda. Nonetheless, a number of key methodological issues can be identified from the literature. These, and some comments on them, follow. Jury selection There are two aspects of jury selection: the identification of the population from which the sample will be drawn, and the method of selection of the sample. Identification of the relevant population It is clear that the population to be sampled should relate closely to the issue to be considered, and that the population selected will, as noted by Smith and Wales (1999a), be determined by the nature and scale of the problem. In spite of the potential impact of this aspect of the process on the outcomes from citizens' juries, the matter has received little attention in the literature to date. This may be in part be due to the dynamic nature of the sphere of interest for particular issues. For example, use of the Internet and other forms of media in environmental campaigns in recent years has served to broaden the constituency of the environmental activists rapidly and effectively. Global campaigns are now waged against unsustainable harvesting of tropical timbers and tuna fisheries which are not considered 'dolphin-safe'. Hence the constituency relevant to a particular citizens' jury charge may alter rapidly, if the topic is of sufficient interest. In general, however, the population to be sampled can be defined as that which would be subject to clear impact by the decision on the charge.

 Sample selection The dominant focus in the literature has been on the method of selection of the jury from the target population. The basis for jury selection has varied in the applications examined. This is one of the central issues of the process, and the basis for the choice of selection method lies in the logical underpinning of the technique. If one is assuming that the panel is to represent the entire community, then stratified random sampling on some basis is required. Crosby (1991) considers that the jury members should be a microcosm of the society from which they come, and should therefore be selected not only on the basis of demographic criteria but also on the basis of attitude to the issue on which the panel will deliberate. The jury is, in Crosby's model, proportionally representative of the community as a whole. Examples of this approach are provided in Jefferson Center (1989), Crosby (1991), and Aldred and Jacobs (1997). This issue of representativeness is a key concern in the selection of the panel. A decision must be made whether to use a random sample or a stratified random sample. Dienel, in the conduct of planning cells in Germany, is reported by Smith and Wales to use the former approach. However, a degree of representativeness can be expected to result from the fact that the planning cells are replicated simultaneously and/or in series. In addition to the increased inclusiveness resulting from replication (up to 20 replications have been reported), the cells each contain 25 members (Smith and Wales, 1999a). Given the lower number of participants in citizens' juries and the usual practice of running only a single jury on a topic, the use of stratified random sampling appears essential. Smith and Wales (1999a) raise some interesting points in relation to the use of stratified random sampling, however, given the low numbers involved in citizens' juries, and propose the use of the term 'inclusiveness' instead of 'representativeness'. As the basis for the citizens' jury process lies in deliberative democracy, and participants are encouraged to consider the issue at hand from a societal rather than a sectional viewpoint, the use of demographic data in selection of the strata may be unnecessary. It could be taken to imply that representatives of sectional groups are unable to deliberate as citizens and are instead expected to act as representatives of those sectional groups6. The idea of artificial constituencies also arises. For example, as Smith and Wales (1999a) ask, are all elderly jurors expected to represent all other elderly citizens? These authors also raise the practical difficulty that no small sample can adequately represent all the societal dimensions. The authors posit that there is a conflict between representation and democratic deliberation. This need not be so, however, at the practical level of an individual citizens' jury, if the participants are clearly advised that they are to deliberate as citizens with collective interests rather than as representatives for particular sectional interests.

On the other hand, different demographic groups may simply have different ways of conceptualising issues.

In spite of these difficulties, there would appear to be no better basis for jury selection than the use of stratified random sampling. This is based not on the grounds of statistical validity, as the low sample size and lack of replication of the process exclude the use of inferential statistics, but on the basis of what Coote and Lenaghan (1997) refer to as symbolic representation, in contrast to proportional representation. Whilst there may questions regarding the assumptions underlying the design of the strata, the absence of an explicit basis for jury selection would be even more troubling and would leave the results of the process open to question by groups and individuals concerned with the outcome, regarding the inclusiveness of the process. Nature of the topic and wording of the charge The nature of the topic and the wording of the specific charge placed before the jury are key matters in determining the effectiveness of the process and the capacity of the panel to reach a decision . The charge should be 'short, direct and clear..' (Crosby, 1991). The charge generally consists of a statement of the central issue and several derived questions which the jurors should address (Crosby, 1995). Coote and Lenaghan (1997) provide guidance on appropriate wording of the charge, based on their experience in running two juries on the same topic, but with different approaches to the wording of the charge. Both open-ended and more specific charges were used, with the latter proving more effective. In addition, it is clear that the topic must be sufficiently complex and interesting to engage all the panel throughout the jury process. In focus groups run recently by the authors to examine the proposed citizens' jury on weed control on a particular national park, it was made clear that a jury would not be sufficiently absorbed by the topic to consider it over the two day period envisaged. Duration of the process Crosby (1991) suggested that the process could run from 10 hours to 10 days. Reports in the literature suggest durations of 4 days in general (see, for example, Crosby 1996; Aldred and Jacobs, 1997). Clearly the duration should reflect the complexity of the charge and the volume and complexity of material to be presented to the panel. Sequencing of activities The key task of the panel is to reach a considered verdict regarding the charge. In order to accomplish this, there appear to be a number of essential elements in the jury process. These include aspects related directly to the task and those related to the development of a suitable set of relationships and of a mode of interacting between the panel members themselves and the panel and the facilitator and witnesses. From assessment of published reports of citizens' juries, principally those provided by Crosby (1991, 1996) and Aldred and Jacobs (1997), and from development of the process to be followed in a forthcoming citizens' jury, the following appear to be essential elements for successful operation for a jury.

10

Group dynamics and jury operation . explicit development of a set of operating rules for the jury, to govern the behaviour of members towards each other (Smith and Wales (1999a) use the term 'rules of conduct'); . sufficient time for informal development of operating relationships within the group; . clarification of procedural issues regarding the process; and . evaluation of the process. Jury process . familiarisation with the charge; . development of jury questions regarding the charge; . presentations by the witnesses; . consideration of written and oral material presented by witnesses; . development of questions for specific witnesses; and . preparation of the response to the charge.

These activities may occur either in plenary sessions or in smaller groups which report back to the larger group. It should be noted that the sequence of these elements and the frequency and duration of each can be expected to vary widely across juries. Accordingly, two of the most critical features in the design and operation of a citizens' jury would appear to be the design of a schedule which can permit variation during the process of the jury, and the selection of a facilitator who is similarly able to respond to emerging group requirements. Size of the jury Jury sizes reported in the literature range from 12 (Crosby, 1991), 16 (Aldred and Jacobs,1997) to 24 (Jefferson Centre, 1989). In determination of the panel size, consideration needs to be given to the need to maximise inclusiveness on demographic and attitudinal grounds, whilst at the same time being cognisant of the difficulties posed by management of large groups with a single facilitator. Smith and Wales (1999a) note that the small size of the jury appears to facilitate the deliberative process, by increasing the opportunity for all panel members to participate. The panel size should be small enough to ensure adequate opportunity for participation. Selection of the witnesses The selection of appropriate witnesses is a potential source of conflict in juries where the topic is contentious. Crosby (1991) advises that witnesses should be selected to represent differing viewpoints. Imbalances in the number of witnesses presented from each side of the issue, or unequal allocations of time for presentation by the witnesses may result in allegations of bias. Smith and Wales (1999a) refer to the need to ensure that the informed decision-making anticipated from a citizens' jury does not become manipulated decision-making. To this point one could add that the jury should be able to be certain that it has had access to all

11

required witnesses. One would anticipate strong reactions and limited deliberation on the charge from a jury which suspected that the witnesses provided had been selected to favour a particular viewpoint and the addition of a provision for the panel to summon witnesses would to some extent allay those concerns. Crosby (1991), Coote and Lenaghan (1997) and Smith and Wales (1999a) advocate the allocation of free time towards the end of the jury schedule in order to allow the panel to call any additional witnesses it may require. Whilst this may provide some organisational difficulties, and witnesses may not always be available, the benefits may be significant in terms of both jury faith in the integrity of the process and of enhanced deliberative capacity. Accuracy of information provided by the witnesses One of the criticisms which has been levelled regarding the recently-conducted consensus conference in Australia7 is that there was no mechanism for correction of factual errors in the material presented by witnesses. This applied both to written and oral material. This is noted as a potential issue by Smith and Wales (1999b), amongst other authors. It is clear that there needs to be some type of mechanism which allows for correction of factual inaccuracies in material presented by the witnesses. Crosby (1995) discussed this issue at some length and concluded a discovery process (as employed in the legal system) might be used for written material, and a neutral expert could be present during the jury process to provide clarification and advice to the panel on technical matters. Facilitation As noted earlier, the choice of facilitator is considered a critical element in the successful conduct of a citizens' jury. In addition, the facilitator should be sufficiently empowered by the commissioning agency that she/he can assume a clear position of authority in the minds of the jurors in relation to jury procedural matters. There is little discussion in the literature on the characteristics of effective facilitators for citizens' juries, but a number of key characteristics are identified in the literature on focus groups. These include the following. The facilitator should : . be a good listener; . have a demonstrated capacity to manage groups; . be a good communicator; . have a basic knowledge of the topic (Krueger 1989).

A consensus conference is in effect an extended citizens' jury, lasting in this case 3 days plus two prior weekends. One of the key differences between the two techniques is the far greater role of the panel in developing the key question or charge in a consensus conference. Information on the technique can be found in Grundahl (1995). This particular consensus conference was conducted from March 10-12, 1999, under the auspices of the Australian Consumers' Association, on the topic of Gene Technology in the Food Chain.

12

To these characteristics should be added that of possession of an understanding of the philosophical basis of citizens' juries and an intention and capacity to comply with the protocol for the jury as determined by the commissioning agency. Facilitators with prior experience in running focus groups should be made aware of the differences between focus groups and citizens' juries. It should be stressed to them that the purposes of the two methods are quite different. In the former, the intention is to extract information on the views of the participants, whereas in the second the intention is to assist the participants in deliberating an issue (Coote and Lenaghan, 1997). The decision rule The general expectation is that the jury will reach a consensual agreement. Smith and Wales (1999b) noted the need for the panel to be allowed space to work through disagreements regarding the decision on the charge, and the need to guard against facilitators who seek to push for consensus in advance of the group resolving differences of opinion. However, consensus, whilst desirable, is not essential to the process (Coote and Lenaghan, 1997).

Bias It is critical to the success of the individual citizens' jury itself, to the adoption of the results and to the further development of the technique that a citizens' jury should be as free from bias as possible. Bias in this sense is used to indicate imbalance of some type in the process of the citizens' jury, such that a particular outcome is rendered more likely as a consequence of structural features of the citizens' jury application, rather than being determined solely by the panel's considered views regarding the issue. Sources of bias in this sense may originate from the following. (The references cited are some of those in which the presence of this source of bias was either explored or identified.) . panel selection (Smith and Wales, 1999a); . framing of the charge (Armour, 1995; Smith and Wales, 1999b); . background material presented to the panel (Aldred and Jacobs, 1997); . witness selection (Armour, 1995; Smith and Wales, 1999b); . unequal access by witnesses to the panel (Jefferson Center, 1989); . greater or lesser presentation skills on the parts of the witnesses; . differences in the complexity of arguments used by the witnesses; . behaviour of the facilitator; and . behaviour of the associated staff (Jefferson Center, 1989); Many of these sources of bias can be controlled through the design of the process of the individual citizens' jury. Adoption of the result Indications from the focus groups conducted recently in order to structure the proposed citizens' jury on weed control in national parks were that few people would participate unless they were certain that the results of the citizens' jury would be used by the relevant

13

agencies. This concern was also expressed by the citizen panel in the recent Australian consensus conference. Hence it is considered essential that the relationship between those conducting the panel and the commissioning agency (where there is one) be close, and that the charge be structured so as to ensure that adoption of the outcome is possible. To that end, the charge should, in general, be worded so as to exclude the possibility of outcomes which are outside the current legal framework and would therefore not be implemented. However, there may be circumstances in which the commissioning agency is willing to consider extra-legal outcomes, and the charge may be worded to reflect that, with the addition of a proviso that all efforts will be made to modify the law. This approach would be of particular benefit in situations where the current law is considered inapplicable to the prevailing social circumstances and attitudes, and where the jury is charged to recommend amendments. Smith and Wales (1999a) advocate the signing of a pre-jury contract between the commissioning agency, the facilitating agency and the jurors. One of the clauses of the contract would require the commissioning agency to either adopt the results of the jury or to explain why it has decided not to do so. Clearly this approach will not be appropriate to all citizens' juries; for example, those reported by the Jefferson Center (1989) and Crosby (1991) were concerned with assessment of candidates for political office. However, in cases where the charge concerns some issue of allocation of public resources or determination of public policy, such an approach would ensure jurors of the value which would be placed on the results of their endeavours. As has been mentioned earlier, a citizens' jury will be run shortly in New South Wales on the issue of investment in protected area management, with particular reference to the management of environmental weeds. At this stage it is intended that the methodological issues raised above will be handled as shown in Table 7. Conclusion Citizens' juries offer an alternative to the more commonly applied means of public participation in environmental management in Australia. Decisions on such matters are frequently complex and involve trade-offs which may not be readily apparent. Although gaining in popularity, the technique is one which has not been widely applied. Hence there are major methodological issues to be explored. The technique is soon to be applied by the authors in an attempt to assess the environmental values associated with an environmental management issue within coastal national parks in an Australian state.

14

References Aldred, J. and M. Jacobs (1997). Citizens and wetlands. Lancaster, UK, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University: 40. Armour, A. (1995). The citizens' jury model of public participation: a critical evaluation. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10: 175 - 187. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planning 35(4): 216-224. Biggs, S. (1989). Resource- Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experience from Nine Agricultural Research Systems. The Hague, The Netherlands, ISNAR, OCFOR Project Study. Blaug, R. (1999). Democracy, Real and Ideal: Discourse Ethics and Radical Politics, Albany, State University of New York Press. Bohman, J. (1997). Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources and Opportunities, in Bohman and Rehg (eds) pp321-348. Bohman, J. and W. Rehg. (1997). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge Massachusetts, MIT Press.

Carson, L. (1996). How do decision makers in local government respond to public participation? Faculty of Education, Work and Training. Lismore, Southern Cross University: 278 + app. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last., IT Publications . Chekki, D.A. (1979). Participatory Democracy in Action: International Profiles of Community Development, Bombay, Vikas Publishing House. Christiano, T. (1997). The significance of public deliberation, in Bohman and Rehg (eds) pp243-278. Cook, T.E. and P.M. Morgan. (1971) Participatory Democracy, San Francisco, Canfield Press. Coote, A. and J. Lenaghan (1997). Citizens' Juries: Theory into Practice, Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR): 113.

15

Cornwall, A. (1996). Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and participatory process. Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences. K. d. Koning and M. Martin. London, UK, Zed Books: 94-103. Crosby, N. (1991). Citizens' juries as a basic democratic reform. Minneapolis, MN, USA, Jefferson Center: 43. Crosby, N. (1996). Creating an authentic voice of the people. Deliberation on Democratic Theory and Practice, Chicago, ILL, USA, Midwest Political Science Association. Daneke, G. A., M. W. Garcia, et al. (1983). Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment. Boulder, CO, USA, Westview Press. Davis-Case, D. (1989). Community Forestry - Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation. Rome, Italy, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Dienel, P. C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports on technological projects. Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. C. Vlek and G. Cvetkovich. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, Harper and Row. Dryzek, J.S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gujit, I. (1996). Participation in natural resource management: blemished past and hopeful future. Making Forest Policy Work: the Oxford Summer Course Programme, Oxford University. Hart, R. (1992). Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence, Italy, UNICEF / International Child Development Centre. Jefferson Center (1989). Report on findings and results : Electoral jury on the St Paul Mayoral election. Minneapolis, MN, USA, Jefferson Center: 51. Krueger, R. A. (1989). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park, California, USA, Sage Publications Inc. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (1998). Annual Report 19971998. Sydney, Australia: 144. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999). Eurobodalla National Park. Draft Plan of Management. Sydney, Australia: 65. Pimbert, M. P. and J. N. Pretty (1997). Parks, People and professionals: putting 'participation' into protected area management. Social Change and Conservation

16

Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. K. B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert. London, UK, Earthscan Publications Limited: 297-330. Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. The Development Dictionary. W. Sachs. London, UK, Zed Books Ltd: 116-131. Ramsay, R. and G. C. Rowe (1995). Environmental Law and Policy in Australia: Text and Materials. Sydney, Australia, Butterworths. Rosenbaum, N. (1978). Citizen participation and democratic theory. Citizen participation in America. S. Langton. Lexington, KY, USA, Lexington Books: 43-54. Rosenbaum, W. (1979). Elitism and social participation. Citizen Participation Perspectives: National Conference on Citizen Participation, Washington DC, USA, Tufts University Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs. Rousseau, J. (1968). The Social Contract. Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin. Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London, Unwin. Slocum, R. and B. Thomas-Slatyer (1995). Participation, empowerment and sustainable development. Power, Process and Participation - Tools for Change. R. Slocum, L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau and B. Thomas-Slatyer. London, UK, Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd: 3-8. Smith, G. and C. Wales (1999a). Towards deliberative institutions: lessons from citizens' juries. ECPR Workshop, Innovation in Democratic Theory. Smith, G. and C. Wales (1999b). The theory and practice of citizens' juries. Policy and Politics In press. Stiefel, M. and M. Wolfe (1994). A Voice for the Excluded. Popular Participation in Development: Utopia or Necessity? Geneva, Switzerland; London, UK, UNRISD/Zed Books. Taberner, J., N. Brunton, et al. (1996). The development of public participation in environmental protection and planning law in Australia. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 13: 260-268. Van Valey, T. L. and J. C. Petersen (1987). Public service centers: the Michigan experience. Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making. J. DeSario and S. Langton. Westport, USA, Greenwood Press. Webler, T. and O. Renn (1995). A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental

17

Discourse. O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10: 17 - 33. Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations, American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5) pp581-599.

18

Table 1 Participatory democratic theory

Author Rosenbaum (1978) Public participation is necessary for democratic functionality through its role in ensuring political equality and popular sovereignty. Public participation is required to ensure that the public will becomes clear . Public participation is required to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunity to influence outcomes. Citizens need to be able to participate in order to protect their interests. Participation is necessary in order to define the collective will. Participation serves to enhance personal development. Participation serves to enhance social development.

Rousseau (1968)

Van Valey and Petersen (1987)

Rosenbaum (1978)

Dienel (1989)

Daneke, Garcia et al. (1983)

Rosenbaum (1979)

Modified from Webler and Renn (1995)

19

Table 2 A Typology of Participation

Description Passive participation

Components of each type . unilateral announcement by authorities; . no room for response by others; . people are told what will happen or has happened . information extracted from participants through surveys or questionnaires; . participants cannot influence outcomes, as results of information collection are not shared . . . . participants are consulted; views are noted; problem definition and solutions may be modified; no obligation to accept participants' views

Increasing community empowerment

Participation in information- giving

Participation by consultation

Participation for material incentives

. participants provide resources e.g. labour; . participants have no stake in continued involvement once the project ends . participants form groups to meet pre-determined project objectives . groups often dependent on external initiators

Functional participation

Interactive participation

. people participate in joint analysis of options; . formation or strengthening of local groups occurs; . groups may continue after project ends . participants initiate action independently of the project.

Self-mobilisation

Adapted from Pimbert and Pretty (1997).

20

Table 3 Comparison of two typologies

Pimbert and Pretty (1997) Passive participation Participation in information- giving Participation by consultation Participation for material incentives Functional participation Interactive participation Self-mobilisation Partnership / Delegated power Citizen control Arnstein (1969) Manipulation / Therapy / Informing Consultation Placation

21

Table 4 Public participation in environmental management in Australia

Description

Components

Australian Environmental Example . declaration of new national parks

Passive participation

. unilateral announcement by authorities; . no room for response by others; . people are told what will happen or has happened . information extracted from participants through surveys or questionnaires; . participants cannot influence outcomes, as results of information collection are not shared . participants are consulted; . views are noted; . problem definition and solutions may be modified; . no obligation to accept participants' views . participants provide resources e.g. labour- in exchange for payment; . participants have no stake in continued involvement once the project ends . participants form groups to meet pre-determined project objectives . groups often dependent on external initiators . people participate in joint analysis of options; . formation or strengthening of local groups occurs; . groups may continue after project ends . participants initiate action independently of the project.

Participation in information- giving

. visitor surveys conducted in national parks

Participation by consultation

. national park and state forest planning in Victoria* . national park planning in New South Wales

Participation for material incentives

. hiring of local residents as seasonal labour involved in national park or forest management

Functional participation

. Friends of the Parks groups

Interactive participation

. planning for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park . CYPLUS (Cape York Planning and Land Use Study)

Self-mobilisation

. Landcare groups

New South Wales and Victoria are two of the Australian states.

22

Table 5 Participation in park management planning

From the Perspective of the Park Management Agency Advantages of the current method Seeking responses is low cost. All literate members of the community are given the chance to comment. The process is tightly controlled and therefore easily managed, with strict rules governing timing and type of input. The process is readily understood by the community. Disadvantages of the current method May produce conflicting responses. May attract dissent rather than develop accord.

Analysis of responses may be high cost, depending on volume and complexity.

Respondents may be ill-informed and responses may be technically incorrect or legally infeasible. May not represent the views of the community, but rather those of vocal, interested minorities.

The process is consistent from plan to plan, and therefore interest groups can develop a modus operandi which will cover responses to multiple plans. This may result in higher quality submissions, with more attention to detail and less to process. The process is consistent from plan to plan, and therefore staff of the agency can develop a modus operandi which will cover responses to multiple plans.

Illiterate members of the community, or those for whom English is a second language, have limited access to the process.

Responses may be limited to those with time available to devote to the matter. Significant sectors may therefore be omitted from the process. From the Perspective of the Community Anyone can potentially participate access to the process does not need to be granted. The process is readily understood by the community. Participation involves low direct costs. Participation requires time, and access to information. Participants' views may not be accepted. The mechanism for resolution of conflicts between submissions, and between individual submissions and the plan, is not known. Similarly, the details of such resolution are not made public.

The process is consistent from plan to plan, and therefore interest groups can develop a modus
23

operandi which will cover responses to multiple plans. Illiterate members of the community, or those for whom English is a second language, do not have access to the process. Comments which are considered to disagree with Government policy are not considered. The approach does not provide an avenue for debate on more fundamental issues such as the legislation underpinning park management in the state.

24

Table 6 Applications of the Citizens' Jury Method

Year

Topic

Location Author Ely, UK Aldred and Jacobs (1997) UK Coote and Lenaghan (1997) Australia Carson (1996) US Crosby (1996) Minnesota, USA Crosby (1991)

1997

Wetland creation

1996

Allocation and management of health services School management

1993

1993

US Federal budget

1990

Gubernatorial election

Table 7 Citizens' jury on protected area management

Issue Jury selection Design Approach Population: New South Wales Sample method: stratified random sampling. The charge has been expanded to encompass management of all coastal New South Wales national parks. One night and two days. Maximum of 16. Written material will be exchanged amongst witnesses in advance of the jury hearings. A neutral expert will be on hand to assist the jury.

Framing of the charge

Duration of the process Size of the jury Accuracy of information from witnesses

25