Citizens’Juries: an innovative tool for public ... gestió de l'aigua_archivos/jornada ai… ·...
Transcript of Citizens’Juries: an innovative tool for public ... gestió de l'aigua_archivos/jornada ai… ·...
Citizens’ Juries: an innovative tool for public
participation in River Basin Management
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)
Dave Huitema & Marleen van de Kerkhof
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)
Amsterdam – The Netherlands
2
Outline of this presentation
I. What is a citizens’ jury?
II. The Dutch citizens’ jury on water
III. Empirical observations
IV. Propositions for debate
3
Part I: origins of the citizens’ jury
� Juries in court cases
� The US and Germany: planning cells and citizens’ juries (1970s)
� Later (1990s) also in the UK, Australia and other countries
� Guidance under the Water Framework Directive
4
Part I: jury characteristics
� 12 to 18 randomly selected citizens to form a
microcosm of the community
�Who attend a series of meetings (3 - 5 days)
�Who hear evidence, question witnesses, discuss
a specific issue as suggested by the authorities
�Who make an informed judgment and
recommendations
5
Part I: who wants to organize one?
� Deliberative democrats - desire more inclusiveness, more discussion and real citizenship
� Juries as a supplement to ‘ordinary’ decision making
� For complex decisions that are socially controversial
� Here: River Dialogue and a Dutch province
6
Part II: the IJsselmeer
7
Part II: the Dutch citizens’ jury
� Jurors: 14 citizens from a town at the lake
� Witnesses: User groups of the lake
� Charge: Priorities for water quality policy
� The jury: Three days and three evenings
� Moderator: Strong role
� Decisions: No consensus necessary
8
Part II: Selection of jurors
� 2,000 invitations sent to random people
� Gender, age, education level and ethnicity
� Profession as a ‘negative’ criterion
9
Part III: empirical observations, response
� Positive response first 3%, second 6%
(internet panel 20% )
� Many men, 40+ years, and highly educated
� Adjustment through selection -> avoidance
of ‘professional’ public participants
10
Gender
0
20
40
60
80
Male Female
%
Respondents
Lelystad
Jurors
Age
0
10
20
30
40
20 –
29
30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 64 65 - 79 80 >
%
Respondents
Lelystad
Jurors
Education
0
20
40
60
80
Secondary-, Lower
vocat ional -, Intermediate
vocat ional education
Higher vocational
education
University
%
Respondents
Lelystad
Jurors
Right proportion of men
and women
The group was a bit too
old..
…and a bit too
smart
Part III: representativeness
11
Part III: representativeness
Provincial election
citizens’ jury
non-respondents
province
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
D66
VVDGL
CDA
SP
PVDA
CU
LPF
percentage
SGP
Provincial election
citizens’ jury
non-respondents
province
citizens’ jury
non-respondents
province
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
D66
VVDGL
CDA
SP
PVDA
CU
LPF
percentage
SGP
12
Part III: empirical observations, learning
� Interaction with witnesses enriches the process
� Jurors able to handle complex information
� High learning effect
13
Part III: cognitive maps
Fish yield, increase or decrease
_
Metals Mercury Aluminium Lead
_
"the quality of the
water in the
IJsselmeer"
_
pH Value
More sand extraction Clear water
More fish ±
+ + More birds
±
"The quality of the
water of the
IJsselmeer" +
No
professional
fisheries
_
More sludge
Water level down;
water warmer
Water level
up; water
colder
<- before the jury
after the jury->
14
Part III: empirical observations, policy
� Link with policy process is a difficult matter
� Cost effectiveness? 30,000-40,000 Euros
� Citizens’ jury does increase political
involvement
15
Part III: empirical observations
1
2
3
4
5
6
Inte
rest
Sel
f
conf
iden
ce
satis
fact
ion
Cyn
icis
m
Exp
edie
ncy
Ove
rall
polit
ical
invo
lvem
ent
Group 1 T0
Group 2 T0
Group 1 T1
Group 2 T1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Inte
rest
Sel
f
conf
iden
ce
satis
fact
ion
Cyn
icis
m
Exp
edie
ncy
Ove
rall
polit
ical
invo
lvem
ent
Group 1 T0
Group 2 T0
Group 1 T1
Group 2 T1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Inte
rest
Sel
f
conf
iden
ce
satis
fact
ion
Cyn
icis
m
Exp
edie
ncy
Inte
rest
Sel
f
conf
iden
ce
satis
fact
ion
Cyn
icis
m
Exp
edie
ncy
Ove
rall
polit
ical
invo
lvem
ent
Ove
rall
polit
ical
invo
lvem
ent
Group 1 T0
Group 2 T0
Group 1 T1
Group 2 T1
Group 1 T0
Group 2 T0
Group 1 T1
Group 2 T1
16
Part IV: proposition 1
“Jurors should be educated in
the technical issues that are
relevant for the matter at
hand”
17
Part IV: proposition 2
“Public authorities should be
bound by the recommendations
from citizens' juries”
18
Part IV: proposition 3
“Jurors should be allowed to
choose witnesses they want to
hear during the jury themselves”
19
Part IV: proposition 4
“The deliberative capacity of jurors
should be the basis for their
selection, rather than criteria like
age, gender and education level”