How democratic innovations realise democratic goods. Two case studies of area committees in the Netherlands

Participatory planning is becoming increasingly integral to governance. Numerous planning innovations are developed which aim to increase democratic legitimacy and improve decision making. This paper critically reflects on a typical Dutch innovation: the area committee. Based on two individual case studies, we investigate whether area committees realise democratic legitimacy in existing planning practices. Analytically, we focus on four democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement and transparency. Based on the interdependencies between area committees and government structures we discuss the potential and dilemmas for the area committee to contribute to the democratic legitimacy of environmental policy and rural development.     

民主：环境保护的政治基础

通过对全球100多个国家的环境指数比较研究发现,环境保护与民主水平之间的相关性存在统计学的显著性。民主水平无一例外地和5个不同环境评价指标之间的相关性具有明显的统计学显著性。这表明,民主水平的提高有助于促进环境治理、环境可持续发展,有利于降低人们对环境的破坏。为此,解决环境问题需要进行相应的政治体制改革,为环境可持续发展扫除政治方面的障碍。     

Collectively engaging complex socio-ecological systems: re-envisioning science, governance, and the California Delta

We address the future of science and governance for the California Delta, focusing on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, an interagency, multi-stakeholder effort to understand and manage the Delta for multiple purposes. We portray a Delta history as a coevolutionary process between science, governance and ecosystems. Global integrated environmental assessments (IEA) provide insights into understanding complex, dynamic socio-ecological systems. Many of the discursive stakeholder and scientific activities that have arisen under CALFED are similar to IEA and remain essential to the shared learning needed to effectively interact with a dynamic Delta. More deliberately enmeshing environmental monitoring, analysis, and collective learning into Delta governance will improve outcomes.     

Ensuring social acceptance of the energy transition. The German government’s ‘consensus management’ strategy

This study deals with the German Federal Government’s approach of ensuring public support for its ‘Energiewende’, the swift and complete transition to an energy system based on renewable sources. First, the government’s ‘consensus management’ strategy is described as consisting of four elements: the setup of stakeholder deliberation fora; the funding of organisations dedicated to the public promotion of the energy transition; public campaigns that appeal to people’s commitment and the support of research on energy technologies. The study then traces the need for a strong social mandate of the energy transition back to the scope of the regulatory challenge and the recently growing conflicts around implementation, to institutional constraints of a consensus democracy and to the narrative of ‘Energiewende’ as the ‘grand national task’.     

Forging New Directions in Science and Environmental Politics and Policy: How Can Co-operation, Deliberation and Decision be Brought Together?

Science, politics and environmental policy have for several years been encountering social and institutional as well as scientific challenges, national and international. The normative basis of all sciences is pressurised from three sides: by awareness of the public, who claims more transparency and sensibility from the scientific institutions regarding factual or possible impacts of science-based industrial progress; by the industries, which try to speed up and intensify the industrialisation of knowledge; and by the public policies, which want to see the sciences engaged in ways to mitigate unintended consequences of economic, ecological and social developments. At the same time, environmental policy is undergoing a tremendous sea change both in conceptual and practical matters. Since the Brundtland Report in 1987 and accelerated after UNCED 1992, environmental policy has been struggling to become a groundbreaking new paradigm for the capacity of resolving social and political issues as well. Any successful attempt to alter traditional institutional and mental structures in policy-making toward sustainability presupposes a renewed association of co-operation, deliberation and decision making. Results from theory of democracy, studies in science and technology, and evaluation studies in environmental policy and politics can be utilised for this context.     

Finding Hope in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Abstract:  Over the past quarter century, a new scientific activity has emerged: collective assessments by large numbers of scientists from different disciplines combining their expertise to better understand human interrelations with nature and to inform policy. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment exceeded all such assessments before it in both the breadth of its coverage and the depth of its analysis of socioecological system dynamics. The findings are not encouraging. Nearly all ecosystems are being degraded and will continue to be degraded for decades to come even if policy changes are initiated now. For scientists participating in the assessment, the MA had another disconcerting aspect. It clearly shows that our fragmented, disciplinary knowledges cannot simply be combined to form an understanding of a whole complex system. Counterbalancing the despair of the findings and scientific difficulties of aggregating specialized knowledges, the MA demonstrated the potential of a deliberative democratic approach to grappling with complex problems .     

An ecological economics approach to the management of a multi-purpose coastal wetland

Three interrelated management problems—eutrophication of multiple use shallow lakes, sea level rise and flood risk mitigation and tourism pressures—are analysed in the context of an internationally important wetland area, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads in the UK. The ecological-economic research findings presented should provide essential information to underpin the regulatory and management process in this internationally important conservation area. The relevant authority somehow has to integrate the maintenance of public navigation rights, nature conservation, and tourism promotion in a highly dynamic ecosystems setting. Because of the stakeholder conflicts, potential and actual, a more inclusionary decision-making procedure is required, and is currently being implemented.     

Democratising planetary boundaries: experts,social values and deliberative risk evaluation in Earth system governance

ABSTRACT

Recent debates about the concept of planetary boundaries recall longstanding concerns about whether ecological limits are compatible with ecological democracy. The planetary boundaries framework (originally set out in Rockström et al., 2009a, 2009b) defines values for key Earth-system processes such as climate change and biodiversity that aim to maintain a ‘safe’ distance from thresholds or levels that could endanger human wellbeing. Despite having a significant impact in policy debates, the framework has been criticised as implying an expert-driven approach to governing global environmental risks that lacks democratic legitimacy. Drawing on research on deliberative democracy and the role of science in democratic societies, we argue that planetary boundaries can be interpreted in ways that remain consistent with democratic decision-making. We show how an iterative, dialogical process to formulate planetary boundaries and negotiate ‘planetary targets’ could form the basis for a democratically legitimate division of labour among experts, citizens and policy-makers in evaluating and responding to Earth-system risks. Crucial to this division of evaluative labour is opening up space for deliberative contestation about the value judgments inherent in collective responses to Earth-system risks, while also safeguarding the ability of experts to issue warnings about what they consider to be unacceptable risks.     

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting,REDD+, and rewilding

ABSTRACT

Ecological democracy seeks environmentally sustainable ends through broad, active democratic participation. What happens when laws fostering participation in environmental decision-making and biodiversity preservation lead to differing results? What is best for biodiversity may not be what for local citizens believe is best. I examine conflicts and congruencies in the context of Biodiversity Offsetting, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), and the Rewilding movement. I ask questions that are legal (Who has what legal rights to speak for or against programs that enhance biodiversity?), epistemological (Whose expertise and knowledge matters when scientists and non-scientists don't agree?), axiological (Are some values objectively better, and why?), and normative (Whose opinions about biodiversity should count?). Many people have the right to participate in an ecological democracy: But when protecting biodiversity, who does and should have the right to be heard? I problematize the role that ‘local’ actors play in decision-making and describe the variegated role that experts – particularly biologists – play in ecological democracy when biodiversity preservation matters. To determine whose values and voices should be prioritized, I describe ‘deep equity,’ an axiological and normative groundwork for determining when biodiversity-promoting policies may be preferable even if affected citizens don't agree.     

Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus

ABSTRACT

Concepts of ecological and environmental democracy seek to reconcile two normative ideals: ensuring environmental sustainability while safeguarding democracy. These ideals are frequently conceived as being in conflict, as democracy is perceived as too slow and cumbersome to deliver the urgent large-scale collective action needed to tackle environmental problems. Theories addressing the democracy-environment nexus can be situated on a spectrum from theories of ecological democracy that are more critical of existing liberal democratic institutions to theories of environmental democracy that call for reforming rather than radically transforming or dismantling those institutions. This article reviews theoretical and empirical scholarship on the democracy-environment nexus. We find continued theoretical and empirical diversity in the field, as well as vibrant debates on democratising global environmental politics, local material practices, and non-human representation. We argue for stronger dialogue between environmental political theory and empirical, policy-oriented research on democracy and sustainability, as well as further exploration of complementarities between ecological and environmental democracy. We identify four main areas of challenge and opportunity for theory and practice: public participation and populism; technocracy and expertise; governance across scales; and ecological rights and limits.