Clarifying relationships between participatory approaches,issues, processes,and results,through crosscutting case analysis in Japan’s environmental,energy, and food policy areas

Participatory public engagement approaches such as Consensus Conferences, Deliberative Polling^®, and Planning Cells have been used to try and resolve environmental disputes in Japan; however, the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches have not been analyzed adequately or comprehensively. This paper evaluates practical applications of each of the above participatory approaches and conducts a crosscutting analysis of these applications to evaluate how effectively each approach provides scientific information to participants and to consider how the quality of deliberations that occur during these processes affect their outputs. Based on existing classification of participatory processes, and methodology for public involvement in US environmental decision-making, this study compares and contrasts the processes and outcomes of 25 participatory planning case studies in Japan. After compiling a case inventory of participatory approaches, the features of one approach are documented using qualitative analysis, and the aspects of four other approaches are confirmed using crosscutting analysis. In so doing, the likely strengths and weaknesses of each approach are suggested as follows. When discussions require an understanding of scientific knowledge, the Consensus Conference tends to be more suitable than the DP approach. If the consensus of participants is expected, the Consensus Conference is also thought to be suitable. But through a DP process or Simplified Planning Cells approach, we can know the quantitative portion of each opinion through results of ballots. In sum, new participatory approach that incorporates strengths of the Consensus Conference and the Simplified Planning Cells into Local Environmental Planning is needed. Thus, the quality of consensus building could be improved.     

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

Identifying and communicating uncertainty is core to effective environmental assessment (EA). This study evaluates the extent to which uncertainties are considered and addressed in Canadian EA practice. We reviewed the environmental protection plans, follow-up programs, and panel reports (where applicable) of 12 EAs between 1995 and 2012. The types of uncertainties and levels of disclosure varied greatly. When uncertainties were acknowledged, practitioners adopted five different approaches to address them. However, uncertainties were never discussed or addressed in depth. We found a lack of suitable terminology and consistency in how uncertainties are disclosed, reflecting the need for explicit guidance, and we present recommendations for improvement. Canadian Environmental Impact Statements are not as transparent with respect to uncertainties as they should be, and uncertainties in EA need to be better considered and communicated.     

Filtering with a drill pump: an efficient method to collect suspended sediment

Water quality monitoring programs across multiple disciplines use total suspended solids (TSS), and volatile suspended solids (VSS), to assess potential impairments of surface water and groundwater. While previous methods for instream filtering have been developed, the need for rapid, cost‐effective, high volume sampling has increased with the need to verify and supplement data produced by sondes and instantaneous data loggers. We present an efficient method to filter water instream with a portable drill pump that results in reduced sample processing time, and potentially reduced error associated with sample transportation, preservation, contamination, and homogenization. This technical note outlines the advantages of filtering instream vs. in the laboratory. It also compares TSS and VSS concentrations filtered with a drill pump vs. standard filtration methods with a vacuum pump as outlined by USEPA methods 160.2 and 160.4. Samples were collected at 4 sites and filtered in the field, or transported to the laboratory and filtered within 12 or 24 h of collection. Overall TSS and VSS samples filtered instream with a drill pump vs. in the laboratory produced similar concentrations with a similar range in variability for each method. Sample filtering with a drill pump decreased processing time by five minutes per sample.     

Food: From Commodity to Commons

Our food and farming system is not socially, economically or ecologically sustainable. Many of the ills are a result of market competition driving specialization and linear production models, externalizing costs for environmental, social and cultural degradation. Some propose that market mechanisms should be used to correct this; improved consumer choice, internalization of costs and compensation to farmers for public goods. What we eat is determined by the path taken by our ancestors, by commercialization and fierce competition, fossil fuels and demographic development. Based on those, governments and the food industry are the choice architects who determine what we eat; consumer choice plays a marginal role. Using market mechanisms to internalize cost and compensate farmers for public goods has been proposed for decades but little progress has been made. There are also many practical, ethical and theoretical objections to such a system. The market is not a good master for a sustainable food system. Instead we need to find new ways of managing the food system based on food as a right and farming as a management system of the planet Earth. The solutions should be based on relocalization of food production and de-commodification of food and our symbionts, the plants and animals we eat.     

The Normative Limits of Consumer Citizenship

In political philosophy, citizenship is a key concept. Citizenship is tied to rights and duties, as well as to concepts of social justice. Recently, the debate on citizenship has developed a new direction in focusing on qualified notions of citizenship. In this contribution, I shall defend three claims. Firstly, consumer citizenship fits into the discussion of qualified notions of citizenship. Secondly, the debate on qualified notions of citizenship cannot be detached from the normative claims in the philosophy of citizenship more generally. In particular, duties and rights receive a distinct shape when debated in terms of “consumer citizenship”. Thirdly, I shall argue that further normative limits can be established by discussing qualified notions of citizenship as items of a list that need to cohere in normative terms. I shall pay particular attention to environmental citizenship.     

Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?

Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.