An invitation for exchanges about Energy Democracy

The content of this post was originally written as a short article for the April 2009 Newsletter of the STTEP (Standing Together to Enable Peace) Initiative.



STTEP is a great peace network initiative, the brainchild of my dear friend and UPEACE classmate Shreya Jani, and other Indian colleagues. I greatly recommend checking it out.

Energy Democracy:
New Visions, New Challenges

The international community is focusing increasingly on clean energy as a driver of economic recovery and as a crucial global response to climate change and its associated threats to human security. Numerous state and national governments are pursuing new legislation to promote alternative sources of energy and energy efficiency policies. Multi-nationally, new agendas for collaboration on these issues are emerging, a few examples being the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate[1] (APP), established by some of the most prominent economies of that region in 2006, the recent creation of an International Renewable Energy Agency[2] (IRENA) last January; and the current efforts to establish a renewed Energy Partnership of the Americas, promoted both within the structure of the Organization of American States[3] and as a key element of Barack Obama’s political platform for the hemisphere[4].

At first sight, this would seem like a long-awaited blossoming of global social and environmental responsibility in the face of climate change and a vigorous step towards the greening of international economies. Upon closer inspection, however, the framing of this new energy agenda seems at odds with another global phenomenon of great importance, the emergence of a more active and inclusive conception of democracy.

This new vision of democracy is permeating diverse areas of social and political interaction, ranging from inter-generational and gender relations to the endowment of trust by citizens upon experts and decision-makers. In the latter case, as British Sociologist Anthony Giddens has pointed out, citizens’ relationships to authority figures are experiencing a shift from passive trust, based on tradition and pre-established social roles, to active trust, which needs to be earned instead of being taken for granted under existing power dynamics[5].

This entails a profound change in the nature of politics, from traditional implementation politics that seek to affirm pre-existing meanings, institutions and resource use claims, to generative politics that seek to build trust and create new meanings, new social organizations and new resources, through a broader social dialogue engaging multiple stakeholders[6].

Generally, the institutions and authorities responsible for energy sector decision-making at the national and international levels have shown little receptivity to the implications of this shifting view of democracy on the development of energy policy. When facing opposition to their projects or policies by environmentalists, local communities or indigenous groups they tend to perceive this opposition as unreasonable, and frame it in simplistic terms, like “NIMBY” syndrome, political opportunism, or manipulation by other vested interests.

However, these attitudes only reinforce the perception by social movements that their perspectives will not be seriously incorporated into the decision-making process, and that resistance is their only alternative to respond to energy projects and initiatives which exclude their views and concerns. Unfortunately, these two perceptions reinforce one another and can therefore drive a cycle of increasing polarization affecting energy sector management and policy. In such a polarized setting, it is likely for most major energy infrastructure projects to encounter opposition from local, environmental, and/or other social activist groups. Energy analysts, who are used selecting among potential sites based on elements such as landscape, climate conditions and financial cost-benefit analyses, but who have little familiarity with issues of institutional legitimation, stakeholder risk perception, and governance, are likely to become frustrated when one after another, alternative sites face mounting opposition from organized social movements. Often they will tend to fault the general population for “not being properly educated” about the benefits of these projects.

However, at the core of this impasse is a conceptual limitation not on the part of the general population, but on the part of energy decision-makers: their inability to acknowledge the impact that eroded public trust has had in rendering the capacity of energy agencies much more limited when it comes to implementing their own plans and programs. In Latin America, ingobernabilidad – “un-govern-ability”, is often pointed out as the culprit when it appears as if the carefully designed plans and programs of technical experts are becoming impossible to execute – suggesting that a combination of civil society opposition and an excessive burden of rules and regulations have rendered the system “impossible to govern”. It is almost as if the governments and decision-makers are turning to look for a solution in the direction of more restrictive – instead of more open – forms of democracy.

Ironically, energy institutions have had much greater difficulty realizing the importance of a related concept which has a much more integral meaning: that of good governance of energy institutions, programs and models. The concept of governance refers, in a very broad sense, to the traditions and institutions through which power over particular resources is exercised. It contemplates the role not just of formal institutions, but of multiple constituencies at the local, national and supra-national levels. The notion of good governance contemplates elements such as efficiency, transparency, credibility, accountability, and also the assurance that all affected stakeholders are included in decision-making. What many energy agencies are beginning to face, and are having trouble realizing, is that poor governance of energy policies can be as substantial a barrier to their successful implementation as economic, technical or resource constraints.

Therefore, it becomes essential for any movement advocating a cleaner and more sustainable energy policy to incorporate a clear and explicit foundation of democratic principles to guide that policy. Neglecting this may lead to a, perhaps well-meaning, promotion of certain technologies as environmentally friendly, while shrugging off any responsibility for ensuring that these technologies are implemented in ways that are respectful of the concerns of communities, environmentalists or minorities. This contradiction has already been playing out for some time in certain international environmental policy arenas, such as the UN Climate Change Convention, where numerous indigenous peoples organizations have repeatedly denounced the disregard of their human, cultural and environmental rights in the context of measures, such as hydroelectric dams, that are being increasingly promoted to mitigate the impact of global climate change[7].

Moreover, the element of greater social dialogue and greater inclusion in energy decision-making has been omitted from recent instruments such as the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency and the Sustainable Energy Partnership for the Americas. This issue is also not mentioned in any of the 9 points addressing Hemispheric Collaboration in Energy Security in the Draft Charter of Port of Spain prepared for the Summit of the Americas, which is taking place at the time this article is being finalized, and in which Energy Policy has been given a central role in the agenda.

In the hopes of sparking a broader dialogue on what the desired principles of energy democracy should be, I would like to offer the following general ideas, in the hopes that other colleagues and friends from STTEP will offer their feedback and reflections and help elaborate them further:

· The commitment to seek greater social inclusion, citizen engagement, dialogue and deliberation in defining the paths through which societies will fulfill their energy needs;

· The implementation of strong, effective and accountable policies to prevent and eliminate exploitation and human rights abuses in the context of energy infrastructure projects;

· The recognition of the crucial role of participation and democratic governance in the formulation of regional policies and partnerships that pursue energy security and energy independence.

· The commitment to harness social energy and clean technologies to produce more equitable and sustainable societies

These principles will be increasingly vital to ensure that the growing social call for a clean energy paradigm leads our local and global communities in a direction that reinforces, instead of disempowering, the fundamental accomplishments of recent years in the construction of more equitable, just and inclusive societies.

---

[1] The official site can be found at this address http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/english/default.aspx

[2] Find the official site at this link http://www.irena.org

[3] See: http://www.sepa-americas.net/

[4] See for example: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090418/obama-initiates-energy-and-climate-partnership-with-americas.htm

[5] Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

[6] See for example, Shannon, M.A. (2002). Understanding collaboration as deliberative communication, organizational form and emergent institution. In O. Gislerud & I. Niven (Eds.), National Forest Programs in European Context: European Forestry Institute Proceedings No. 44 (pp. 7-25). Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.

[7] See for example: http://www.redd-monitor.org/

Bibliografía sobre Gobernanza Energética - FLACSO Ecuador

La FLACSO-Ecuador ofrece una Maestría en Gobernanza Energética, en el marco de su Programa de Estudios Socio-Ambientales.

Sigan este vínculo para revisar la bibliografía sobre Gobernanza Energética que han recopilado.


FLACSO-Ecuador offers a Master's in Energy Governance (in Spanish), as part of its Socio-Environmental Studies Program.

Follow this link to review the bibliography they have compiled on Energy Governance.

Maybe Willy'ing it can't make it so... but

I really want it to succeed, I really want it to be meaningful!

I like the idea of a Good Ole Texas boy looking at the war in Iraq and saying, "to hell with it, let's grow our own fuel at home." Or some such sentiment.

I would really like it if the Willie Nelson idea of having a trucker's biofuel revolution was one that could really hold water, and make a strong contribution to reducing environmental bootprints accross the heartland of the gas guzzling U.S. of A.

I am really hesitant, though. Because as much as I like the mystique of the home grown fuel solution, resolving the energy intensity and greenhouse gas emission problems is going to take a lot more than switching fuels. And soybean fuels have been documented to have a fairly problematic environmental footprint of their own. Also, we need to change our models of consumption, our transportation habits, and our love affair with roaming with a big engine down a vast open highway.

Still... we need to work it out so that we have an integrative scenario and so that truckers, farmers, and outlaw country singers can make their contribution... and besides...

I have been waiting eight years to have a Texan I can empathize win... and you can't help but like Big Willie...

Read about BioWillie on this NY Times article (I think it is fairly balanced, since it has the dissenting opinion of the Sierra Club as well in there).

Enter the concept of "Social License" (to Operate)

My own research about the institutional discourse concerning energy development in Costa Rica (and the barriers to the energy development model) seems to indicate no formal acknowledgment by institutions that they are facing a LEGITIMATION CRISIS in the view of the organized citizenry, and public opinion in general.

In essence, the causes of the deadlock in the implementation of the dominant energy model are framed as "real or perceived" technical problems, policy issues (there isn't a policy that sets clear guidelines, or there are conflicting policies), and finally, ideological interference by some groups whose intentions are nearly charicaturized ("radical ecologists" and "union troublemakers").

Nowhere in the official government's "explanation" of why the implementation of the dominant model of energy infrastructure has come to a stand still can one find mention of governance problems, or of the notion that organized communities may have legitimate concerns about the sector.


Contrasting this, enter a group of mining companies, consultants, researchers, and at least one group dealing in energy market assessment (Business News Americas)... with a strong interest in spreading a new concept: Social License (to Operate).

Here is the reference made about the concept in the website of the University of British Columbia's N.B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering:

"Social License to Operate is rapidly becoming the new ‘vision’ for companies to recognize and embrace in order to ensure economic certainty with respect to new projects.
However, it is presently intangible and there does not appear to be a systematic method of evaluating and monitoring a project. Sustainable economic development drives the need for mining engineers to have parameters and modeling techniques that integrate social dimensions into project design."

http://www.mining.ubc.ca/SocialLicense.html#research

Business News Americas featured the concept in its Latin American Energy Intelligence Report for February 2008. (I have not downloaded the report, since it's a pretty expensive download). In the report's abstract, they make the argument that this concept is timely and necessary given the demands of Latin American social movements for for greater access to decision making and for greater accountability of electric projects.

"Social license - gaining the approval of local communities and reducing environmental impact to a minimum - is thus of ever greater importance throughout Latin Americas energy sector. This report looks at how the concept of social license has evolved in the region, how companies have learned from their mistakes, how social license affects project financing and examines some cases where greater social liaison is producing positive effects."

http://www.bnamericas.com/store/products.jsp?sku=71I10472687&sector=10&idioma=I&periodo=2008

Finally, a B.C. based consortium is promoting the greater application of the concept by industries in their relationships with stakeholders. They provide an interesting two-page outline of the concept int their website. http://socialicense.com/


So, briefly, I think the concept is promising because it promotes an awareness that when absent, as the Costa Rican case suggests, restricts the space for deliberation. Conversely, the recognition that earning legitimacy and credibility is necessary, is more consistent with an open mindset to more inclusive processes and broader social agreements.

On the other hand, it may be cause for concern if this new outlook becomes a strategy undertaken unilaterally by the business sector, particularly by the companies and their consultants in certain natural resource intensive industries. If done this way, it may become mediatized, and not attain the construction of active trust, legitimacy, AND democratic relationships that it claims to pursue.

Salmon, Orkas and Dams: Pondering Rivers and Hope in the Pacific Northwest

I have only begun to read about the tradition of energy activism in the U.S. and Canada Pacific Northwest. It is an inspiring legacy of more than 25 years. The initiative that has evolved into the Northwest Energy Coalition tells its story in a special issue of its Newsletter: The Energy Activist.

I believe you will find it a really interesting read.

http://www.nwenergy.org/publications/energy-activist/previous-issues/2007/ActivistWinter07.pdf


On a more current perspective, activist Pat Ford recounts the need for integrative understanding in the issue of dams as an energy solution, versus the viability of the Snake River salmon and the orcas that depend on them. With compelling words, he calls for an integrative second-tier view, that recognizes multiple perspectives, and mourns the poverty in both our institutions and social movements that cannot recognize the need for inter-woven vision.


"I have an instinct that to achieve either we must achieve both – that stopping warming, and shepherding ourselves and earth through it, must be inextricable in our actions and policies because they are so in our lives. I don’t think this is a truism. Neither among global warming warriors nor citizens generally nor lawmakers do I detect a rooted awareness of this inter-weaving, so as to generate well-woven action."

Here is the full article for your enjoyment

http://www.lightintheriver.org/perspectives.html

The Risk Society and the Nuclear Jet

Professor Ulrich Beck, for "The Risk Society", has written an article about the implications of the recent thrust for nuclear power as a solution to climate change.

He uses a clever analogy of "the jet whose landing strip has not yet been built", to underscore the recklessness of the nuclear power bandwagon.

I thank the Whitman Institute's blog: http://think4change.org for first bringing this article to my attention.

To read Dr. Beck's article on The Guardian, follow this link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/nuclearpower.climatechange , or by clicking on the title of this blog article.

New Facebook group on Energy Democracy

When I decided to pursue my M.A. at the University for Peace, it was for a number of reasons. One of the central ones was to find a new focus for my personal work. I felt that I needed to tie together my work in conflict resolution, environmental policy, environmental justice, renewable energy, life coaching and psychology.

A great deal of this has been about looking inwards: who am I? what are my talents? what do I enjoy? what can I be good at and how can I make a difference doing it?

At the same time, it has also involved looking outwards, how does what I have to offer fit in the world? these things I have been asking myself all these questions about, what brings them all together?

I believe that, for the present, the best name I can give to what brings all this together is ENERGY DEMOCRACY. It seems to be a label under which everything I am professionally mobilizing to work on can come together.

So I've created a new Facebook Group with this name. I would greatly enjoy it if everyone who has been interested in reading my posts on here (and on my other blob) came by and checked it out. Hopefully it will be a lively meeting place for those interested in exploring these issues.

The link is http://www.tinyurl.com/FB-NRGdemocracy

See you there!

A New Energy Parnership: A place for energy democracy?

Over the past couple of weeks I have come across a large number of references to the New Energy Partnership of the Americas, an initiative originally raised by U.S. President (then candidate) Barack Obama in a campaign speech in Florida. Lately it has been referenced speeches by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Some analysts are predicting that this will be the Obama administration's new focus of social policy towards Latin America (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/andres-oppenheimer/story/859217.html)

Many in the cluster of industries loosely identified as "clean tech", particulary nonconventional energy (a category seems to be expanding to include coal and nuclear power) welcome this as new engine for dragging the economy out of the present crisis. For many, here is an ideal opportunity for building an hemispheric strategy aimed at consolidating energy security and re-energizing (literally) national economies. Some also welcome as an opportunity to reduce the quota of political power that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has acquired by "flexing his oilfields to entice other governmenst in the region".

But what of the new fresh air of democratic governance that U.S. social movements have been so excited about in President Obama's political discourse, will this be part of the New Energy Parthership? Will citizen engagement, environmental justice and societal consensus-building find their way to the guiding principles of the New Energy Partnership?

Foreseeably, many powerfull stakeholders in the energy sectors of the countries of the Americas will not be interested in becoming entangled in a discourse of participation and citizen engagement that, at best, they have been willing to pay ocassional lip service to, and at worst, they vigorously oppose. As a recent example, the United States and Canada vigorously opposed the inclusion of any language recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in the text of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanism at the last Poznan Conference of the Parties of the UN Climate Change Convention, last December. ( http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=314&Itemid=27 )

So how will this new Energy Partnership fare in light of the emerging global call for more democratic and inclusive institutions? Much of it will depend on how closely the new social movements and stakeholders monitor this newly evolving instrument and push for it to develop along a path that is accountable and transparent.

An excerpt of my thesis

I am awaiting the final feedback from my external thesis reader anyday now. Once his assessmet has been received, my thesis will be finalized. It's been a long 19 month journey.

Get your own - Open publication

For now, I would like to share this excerpt containing the first two chapters. It's available online for reading at issu.com, you can find it at the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/garudasofia-te

I welcome your feeback. Your insights are very valuable to me.

Cheers,

Sergio.

How Can Deliberation Contribute to Environmental Governance? An integral and normative analysis

This is the current version of chapter 4 of my thesis. All rights reserved. Please do not cite or distribute without permission.

------------------------------

Chapter IV: How Can Deliberation Contribute to Environmental Governance? AN INTEGRAL AND normative analysis

This chapter builds on the emerging normative premises of deliberative democratic theory in order to sketch out the diverse contributions that deliberation can make to the enhancement of environmental governance. The current deliberative turn is a recent phenomenon in modern democratic theory (Dryzek, 2000, p. 1), and one important focus of the scholarly work is the integration of different theoretical perspectives. Furthermore, a concern reflected in the academic literature relates to how some of these theoretical models fail to address cultural, institutional, and psychological elements[1].

In order to encompass elements of these different dimensions in this overview of deliberation s potential contributions to environmental governance, this chapter makes use of the quadrants perspective, and element of U.S. philosopher Ken Wilber s integral theory. Quadrants constitute one of the major aspects in Wilber s AQAL[2] integral framework. It is a valuable instrument to understand any phenomenon in a comprehensive way, by integrating the four perspectives most commonly used in epistemological approaches: the external, observable dimensions (behavior and systems) and the internal, subjective dimensions (experience and culture) (Brown, 2006, p. 64).

The analytical approach used in this chapter seeks to reflect elements from each of these four dimensions. A graphic representation interrelation between the quadrants map is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As can be seen, the left side of the diagram contains the internal (subjective) dimensions, while the right side contains the externally observable (objective) dimensions. The perspective of a single individual or organism (whether subjective or objective) is portrayed in the upper quadrants, while the lower ones contain the collective perspective of groups, networks or systems of individuals or organisms.

The development and application of the quadrants has been conceived to support the integration of all four of the aforementioned lenses or perspectives in the study of phenomena as diverse as ecology, sustainability, governance, and education, among others. Thus it aims to offset the limitations of some analytical approaches due to their consideration of only certain of these dimensions.

Figure 4.1. The Quadrants Map of Integral Theory

Adapted from Brown (2006, pp. 8-18)

EXPERIENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION

The first quadrant that will be analyzed is the experiential quadrant, which contemplates personal subjective experience, and phenomena generally classified as psychological or, in some cases, spiritual. As Riedy (2006) states the position taken by an individual during deliberation is dependent on their cognitive ability, values, morals, self identity, and other interior structures (p. 52).

From a deliberative perspective, a person, through certain modes of communicative action, can attain a better understanding of her own policy preferences in relation to those of others and in the context of reasonable standards for the common or greater good. Thus, it is posited that a person will be able to re-examine her own views (opinions, preferences, priorities) in light of information received from others, and hence resolve any conflicts between her views and those of others, by assessing which present the soundest validity claims . Hence, deliberative democratic theory attributes greater relevance to individual introspection than aggregative democratic theory.

Two elements of Introspection commonly regarded as essential for deliberation are self-reflection and empathy. Self-reflection, in the context of deliberation, entails the examination of one s own thoughts, feelings and beliefs, and the ability to revise them critically seeking to explore the validity of the presuppositions of the meaning perspectives we hold [and] question where these presuppositions came from, how they were formed and if they are still valid , and at a deeper level still, to critically reflect on our own process of faming these problems and perspectives. (Fisher-Yoshida, 2005, p. 8). For many deliberative theorists, self-reflection informed by an open dialogue with others is crucial for the outcomes of deliberation to both have collective legitimacy and to fully reflect the truly free actions of an individual.[3].

While self-reflection can help broaden and transform our framing of the issues, the second introspective element, empathy, defined as the ability to experience the emotional state of another, and practice constantly doing so (Macnair, 2003, p. 61), allows the person to overcome her preconceptions about the motivations of others and to more openly listen to them with the purpose of understanding their perceptions. In this way, a person is able to move beyond selfish concerns and to pay attention to the common good (Steenbergen, B chtiger, Sp rndli & Steiner, 2004, p. 9).

CULTURAL ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION

Under the integral theory framework, a second fundamental perspective for the study of phenomena is that of collective interiors or intra-subjectivity , most commonly associated the domain of culture. At the cultural level, the communicative interaction of deliberation can lead stakeholders with diverse worldviews to establish active trust, which as was seen in Chapter 2, is not based on traditional roles but rather on more reflective mutual understanding and more transparent social relations (Giddens, 2001, p. 100). It can also foster the collaborative construction of a more integrative worldview. This is illustrated by Riedy (2006)

From a cultural perspective, deliberation is an interplay of different discourses and worldviews. ( ) Cultural interaction and contestation challenges unconsidered views and preferences. This challenge is central to deliberation as it has the potential to induce reflection and perhaps a change in preferences. The challenge of deliberation is to reach a shared decision that all members of the group can support, even if they have different reasons for their support. This decision constitutes a shared discourse that integrates, in some way, the various discourses involved in the deliberation (p. 52).

Furthermore, at the cultural dimension, deliberation can help transform a group s dynamic of identity construction, making that identity more closely tied to the group s own interests, and hopefully through expanded awareness - to the good of all of society, and less dependent in ways of differentiating themselves from, or opposing, other groups. As Wondolleck, Gray and Bryan (2003) comment Because identities often arise in order to distinguish oneself from others, a consequence can be the formation of negative characterizations of others. That is, identities can promote tension and exclusion, fostering an in-group/out-group dynamic wherein outsiders are stereotyped and motives are attributed to them that are frequently inaccurate but are nonetheless imposed in order to elevate the in-group s view of themselves (p. 207).

Steenbergen et al. (2004) observe that the respectful and rational discourse that takes place in deliberative interaction can support the development of superordinate identities which encourage the recognition of common ground among actors who have confronting identities. (p. 13).

BEHAVIORAL ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION

The third approach for exploring deliberation is the behavioral dimension, which corresponds to observable patterns of activity by individuals, including the action of communicating with others. A behavioral perspective related to deliberation can focus on the behaviors during the deliberation process or on behaviors (or changes in behavior) as outcomes of the deliberation process. Examples of the former include types of speech, body language and brain activity during deliberation (Riedy, 2006, p. 52), or specific indicators that assess the quality of deliberation such as those comprising the Discourse Quality Index (DQI) developed by Steenbergen et al. (2004, p. 6; see also B chtiger & Steenbergen, 2004, p. 32).

Although this in no way contests the value of the DQI as an instrument to assess the quality of a deliberative interaction, from an integral framework perspective it is problematic as a reference point for understanding the behavioral element, this is because many of its indicators focus more on the introspective and cultural dimensions than on the behavioral dimension (external, individual quadrant). A more straightforward way of approaching the element of behavior during deliberation is to look at an observable reference point of what the deliberative process is intended to be: a transformed communicative action. The process of this transformed communication is composed of introspective and cultural elements (and systemic elements that have not yet been discussed) and by specific communicative behaviors. These behaviors entail at least four elements: participation (electing to take part in the deliberation process), listening (respectful listening of the views of others), speaking (formulating one s own views and validity claims), and metacommunication (discussing the process itself of communication).

With regards to behaviors resulting from deliberation, among the most commonly studied ones are: political behavior (voting choices, personal engagement in political issues, and policy or decision-making preferences), conformity with or departure from the dominant group s views, and habitual behaviors related to particular issues (such as consumption patterns or recycling in the case of the environment). Throughout much of the scholarly discourse about deliberation (Steenbergen et al., 2004, p. 10; Riedy, 2006, p. 52; Rostboll, 2005, p. 372) the transformation of preferences is regarded as a key outcome of deliberation, and this shift in preferences can be expected to correlate with changes in behaviors such as habits and political actions.

SYSTEMIC ELEMENTS OF DELIBERATION

The final dimension in the study of deliberation involves social and natural systems. As Riedy (2006) mentions deliberation is a practice engaged in by a group of people, supported by particular technological, economic, social and political systems (p. 52). Some recent work on promoting successful deliberation has focused on institutional design, an aspect pertaining to the domain of social and political systems that can influence the feasibility and success of deliberation (Steenbergen et al., 2006, pp. 18-20).

For some scholars, the original conception of deliberation relies on idealized conditions of equality and agency that are, in general terms, still unattained under the current political reality; therefore, embodying and preserving the values of deliberation in suboptimal circumstances requires adapting them to the existing economic, social and political realities (Fung, 2005, pp. 387-400). On the other hand, deliberation can also be an instrument for transforming the social, economic and political context in order to support a more inclusive, equitable and reasoned involvement by multiple stakeholders, as several international experiences suggest[4].

The systemic level is also relevant to deliberation in terms of the complexity of nested spatial levels (local, regional, national, multinational and global). Shannon stresses the growing need for increased generative deliberation and coordination across policy sectors and geographic levels, in response to the rising diversity and complexity of policy communities, as evidenced in her remarks about the particular needs of the forestry sector

( ) the kinds of problem forest policy addresses today demand integration because no one policy sector, agency or political actor can effectively address the problem alone. The new issues cross boundaries ecologically, socially, politically, administratively and legally. Indeed, frequently several regions, states and countries are involved and their separate regimes must find ways to work together on a common problem (2003, Conclusions, Paragraph 1).

This section has identified key elements of the normative conception of deliberation and classified them according to the four dimensions (or quadrants) used in the integral framework, as summarized in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. Normative Elements of Deliberative Democracy

classified according to the Quadrants Map

DELIBERATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: AN INTEGRATIVE VIEW

As it was discussed in Chapter 2, there are multiple definitions of environmental governance, and diverse visions of what it encompasses. However, the same chapter also points out a particular context under reflexive modernity in which environmental governance can benefit from the specific contributions of a deliberative democratic model.

This section focuses on two particular challenges stressed in the recent literature on environmental democracy: responsiveness to plural views (Smith, 2003, pp. 13-28), and social legitimation (Marshall & Goldstein, 2006, pp. 223-226). This section will address the theoretical contributions of deliberative democracy (and the interactions among the four integral dimensions) for each of these challenges.

A. Responsiveness to plural views.

As Smith (2003) asserts, a diversity of moral sources and traditions have affected our thinking about the environment and given rise to the diversity of different positions within the environmental movement (p. 19). Smith contends that an environmental agenda rooted in the belief that there can be a single ethical perspective to guide the entire environmental movement is unrealistic and can lead to the loss of much of the richness of human non-human interactions (pp. 20-21). In contrast, he argues that different and conflicting accounts of the good life exist within the environmental movement, and that it is not always possible to reduce these different values to one another or to an independent standard.[5]

Environmental governance thus needs to respond to plural perspectives and values, while acknowledging that decision-making will at times entail making judgments under conditions where reason may not generate a single objectively right answer. However, this should not be perceived as a cause to abandon the effort to make reasoned decisions, but rather as a reminder that different stakeholders will often base their judgments on different value frames. Thus, by becoming aware of the diversity of perceptions and values comprising the environmental movement, and gaining an enriched understanding of those values, each person can strengthen the reflexive nature of her or his own perspective, and the collaborative character of her or his interaction.

To comprehend another s judgement is to attempt to understand the perspective from which they judge, and, through such an attempt, one s own perspective becomes a matter for reflection. Through understanding the judgement of others we come to recognise that our own perspectives may be limited and fallible, in that certain values may be ignored or misrepresented ( ) It is only through encountering other perspectives and value orientations that we are able to come to reflexive judgements. (Smith, 2003, p. 25).

Hence, as this particular issue illustrates, an element pertaining to the cultural dimension (value pluralism), partly rooted in systemic causes (the complexity and interconnectedness of environmental issues), can affect the emergence of an experiential phenomenon (self-reflection). Furthermore, the opportunity for this insight to emerge will also depend on the availability of the proper conditions at the institutional (systemic) level, such as the access to appropriate fora for exchanging views, and the communicative (behavioral) level, like ensuring that mutual listening indeed takes place.

B. Social legitimation.

In Chapter 2, the notion of an environmental legitimation crisis, proposed by Marshall and Goldstein (2006, p. 218), was discussed. Their work expands on the crisis theory of the Frankfurt school, and the notion of a democratic legitimation crisis developed by Jurgen Habermas (Ure a, 1998, pp. 112-113).

Marshall and Goldstein (2006) perceive the Ecological system as a semi-autonomous system interacting with three other systems (economic, political administrative and socio-cultural). The environmental legitimation crisis arises when the Political Administrative system is unable to address the degradation of the three key functions of the Ecological system: supply depot, waste repository and living space and fails to protect the citizenry from the impacts of their degradation (p. 216). They identify three main manifestations of this crisis, two of which are in the form of claims made by the citizens against the State[6], whereas the third involves the emergence of grassroots environmental movements to protect communities from environmental degradation, where the State is seen as neglectful in fulfilling this function (p. 220).

Concerning environmental governance, a key contribution of Marshall and Goldstein is providing a framework that addresses both environmental degradation, in objective terms, compounded by the impact of negative views on the State s environmental institutions (as undeserving of the public trust). Under such a dual crisis, ecological systems deteriorate and the existing institutions and traditions of management and problem-solving face declining credibility and capabilities. However, there is also an element of opportunity associated with such a crisis, as was discussed in Chapter 2, since it can herald the emergence of a more reflexive and participative citizenry and the transformation of the conventional dynamics of trust into a active trust that needs to be earned by institutional actors (Giddens, 2001, p. 100).

Life politics, according to Giddens, are an emerging framework of politics where decisions that would have previously been based on tradition and established roles are now articulated around choice and identity (2001, p. 97). Life politics can become generative politics and serve as the scaffolding for the construction of active trust if it can create new meaning, new resources, new social organizations, new values and new interests through public deliberation (Shannon, 2002, p. 13).

Thus, as the cultural (dynamics of trust) and systemic (environmental degradation and loss of institutional legitimacy) dimensions of environmental governance are facing intertwining transformations, the construction of viable solutions must therefore be approached through multiple and sometimes overlapping dimensions. Generative politics requires the construction of new identities and values (cultural), the manifestation of new preferences and modes of interaction (experiential and behavioral), and the creation of new institutional arrangements and social organizations (systemic).

WORKS CITED CHAPTER 4

B chtiger, A. & Steenbergen, M.R. (2004, November). The real world of deliberation: A comparative study of its favorable conditions in legislatures. EUI Working Paper SPS No. 2004/17. Florence: European University Institute. Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/2634/1/sps2004-17.pdf

Brown, B. (2006, September). The four worlds of sustainability: Drawing upon four universal perspectives to support sustainability initiatives. AQAL Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. Retrieved October 21, 2006 from http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/files/35/sustainability/default.aspx

Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics and contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fisher-Yoshida, B. (2005, June). Reframing conflict: Intercultural conflict as potential transformation. Journal of Intercultural Communication-SIETAR, 8, 1-16. Retrieved December 14, 2008 from http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/FisherYoshidaReframingConflictSIETAR.pdf

Fishkin, J. S. (1999). Chapter Twelve Toward Deliberative Democracy: Experimenting with an Ideal. In K.E. Soltan (Ed.) Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions, (pp. 279-290). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27794998

Formless Mountain (n.d.) Integral Quadrants. An integral atelier. Retrieved December 10, 2007 from http://www.formlessmountain.com/quads.htm

Fung, A. (2003). Associations and democracy: Between

theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 515-539.

Fung, A. (2005, June). Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory, 33, 397-419. Retrieved February 6, 2007 from http://plx.sagepub.com/

Goodin, R.E. & Dryzek, J.S. (2006, June). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society, 34 (2), 219-244. Retrieved November 2, 2007 from http://plx.sagepub.com/

Guild, W., Lehr, R. & Thomas D. (2003, August 19). Nebraska Public Power District Customer Meeting on Energy Alternatives: Summary of results. Retrieved January 6, 2007 from http://www.nppd.com/newsroom/additional_files/deliberative_polling_results.pdf

Hoechst, E. H. (2004, Apr). Not open for discussion: A psychological account of democratic deliberation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://64.112.226.69/one/mpsa/mpsa04/index.php?cmd=mpsa04

Macnair, R.C., (2003). The psychology of peace: An introduction. Westport, C.T.: Praeger.

Marshall, B.K., & Goldstein, W.S. (2006). Managing the environmental legitimation crisis. Organization and Environment, 5, 214-232. Retrieved June 17, 2007 from http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/214

Muhlberger, P. (2006). Report to the Deliberative Democracy Consortium: Building a deliberation measurement toolbox (Version 1.0). Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.geocities.com/pmuhl78/DDCReport.pdf

Riedy, C. (2006, May). Two social practices to support emergence of a global collective. Journal of Future Studies, 10 (4), 45-60.

Rosenberg, S.W. (2004). Reconstructing the concept of democratic deliberation. CSD Paper 04-02. Irvine: University of California. Center for the Study of Democracy. Retrieved October 17, 2007 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/04-02

Rosenberg, S.W. (2006). Types of democratic deliberation: the limits and potential of citizen participation. CSD Paper 06-12. Irvine: University of California. Center for the Study of Democracy. Retrieved October 17, 2007 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/06-12

Rostboll, C.F. (2005, June). Preferences and paternalism: On freedom and deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 33 (3), 370-396. Retrieved November 3, 2007 from http://ptx.sagepub.com/

Shannon, M. A. (2002). Understanding collaboration as deliberative communication, organizational form and emergent institution. In O. Gislerud & I. Neven (Eds.), National Forest Programs in a European Context: European Forest Institute Proceedings No. 44 (pp. 7-25). Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.efi.fi/attachment/f5d80ba3c1b89242106f2f97ae8e3894/774cf3cc4b717eb20ca0fc07c769978e/Proc_44.pdf

Shannon, M. A. (2003). Mechanisms for coordination. In Dub , Y. C. & Schmith sen, F. (Eds.), Cross-sectoral policy impacts between forestry and other sectors. FAO Policy Paper No. 142. Rome: FAO. Retrieved January 13, 2008 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4653E/y4653e08.htm

Shannon, M. A. (2002). Understanding collaboration as deliberative communication, organizational form and emergent institution. In O. Gislerud & I. Neven (Eds.), National Forest Programs in a European Context: European Forest Institute Proceedings No. 44 (pp. 7-25). Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.efi.fi/attachment/f5d80ba3c1b89242106f2f97ae8e3894/774cf3cc4b717eb20ca0fc07c769978e/Proc_44.pdf

Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. New York: Routledge.

Steenbergen, M.R., B chtiger, A., Sp rndli, M. & Steiner, J. (2004, May). Toward a political psychology of deliberation. Paper presented at the Conference on Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics, Florence: European University Institute. Retrieved on January 11, 2007 from

http://www.iue.it/SPS/People/SwissChairPdfFiles/PaperSteenbergenetal.pdf

Ure a, E.M. (1998). La teoria critica de la sociedad de Habermas: La crisis de la sociedad industrializada [The critical theory of society of Habermas: The crisis of industrialized society].(2nd ed.). Madrid: Tecnos.

Wilber, K. (2001). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science and spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.

Wondolleck, J. M., Gray, B. & Bryan, T. (2003). Us versus them: How identities and characterizations influence conflict. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 207-213.

---

[1] See for example concerns expressed by: Steenbergen, B chtiger, Sp rndli and Steiner (2004) and of Rosenberg ( ) regarding the neglect of psychological variables; XXXXX regarding underrepresented or excluded discourses; and XXXX regarding the lack of institutional prescriptions.

[2] Quadrants is one of five elements of the AQAL framework. The acronym AQAL stands for all quadrants, all levels, all streams, all states, all types. A more thorough description of the complete framework, including all elements, is available at Wilber (2001, pp. 42-55). There is also an online interactive summary of the quadrants map at Formless Mountain (n.d.) available at this link http://www.formlessmountain.com/quads.htm

[3] Joshua Cohen (cited in Hoechst, 2004) states that according to most proponents of deliberative democracy, political decisionmaking is legitimate insofar as its policies are produced in a process of public discussion and debate in which citizens and their representatives, going beyond mere self-interest and limited points of view, reflect on the general interest or their common good (p. 2) [emphasis added].

Additionally, Peter Muhlberger (2006), states that ( ) agency is the capacity to choose and successfully execute actions consistent with a coherent and reflectively determined self.( ) It is only by reflexively considering their values and preferences that people exercise agency that is only by subjecting uncritically absorbed values and preferences to conscious and thoughtful reflection (p. 11) [emphasis in the original].

[4] Examples include the cases of Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and subsequently in other Latin American cities (Goodin & Dryzek, 2006, p. 222); democratic decentralization initiatives in the Indian State of Kerala (Fung, 2003, p. 528); and participatory energy planning through deliberative polls in nine United States electric utilities (Fishkin, 1999, p. 288; Guild, Lehr & Thomas, 2003, p. 5)

[5] Smith labels the first situation value incompatibility and the second value incommensurability . To illustrate the first, he points to the existing diversity in conceptions of sustainable development. As an example of the second, he offers the case of valuating a rainforest, where aesthetic, scientific, cultural, and economic judgments cannot be reduced to one another. (2003, pp. 20-23).

[6] These two claims, involving recreancy and agency capture, have been described more extensively in Chapter 2.