Post on 26-Feb-2023
Gerard Mullally and Aveen Henry
Contra-indications? Evaluating the Role of Deliberative Democracy in Regional Sustainable Development
1 Introduction Spangenberg, in a recent address to the Pathways to a Sustainable Future conference in
Dublin, stressed the importance of indicators based on the economic, social,
environmental and institutional dimensions of sustainable development as a support for
decision-makers on a regional, national and European level.1 Among the core objectives
of the institutional dimensions of sustainable development he lists ‘an open participatory
approach based on equity and non-discrimination, justice and solidarity’ (Spangenberg et
al. 2002, 86).2 Sustainable Development, according to Lafferty, can only be achieved by
combining democratic mobilisation and social learning with more legitimate and
effective steering at the regional and global levels. Agenda 21 builds on the premise that
the achievement of sustainable development requires new forms of social learning
‘whereby major collective actors seek to resolve potential conflicts on environment-and-
development issues through new forms of involvement and co-operation’ (Lafferty, 1998:
1). In a European context, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) made sustainable
development a horizontal principle of EU policies and programmes and this commitment
was reaffirmed in A Sustainable Europe for a Better World (CEC, 2001a). Meanwhile
the White Paper on European Governance (CEC, 2001b) has espoused the principles of
openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence as principles of good
governance (Schleicher-Tappeser 2001, Callanan 2002). Although the reforms proposed
by the White Paper are primarily directed at improving governance at the EU level, there
are direct implications in terms of more systematic dialogue between the European
Commission, sub-national government and groups and organisations within civil society
(Callanan 2002). In many ways European developments are symptomatic of the types of
1 Pathways to a Sustainable Future: A Showcase of Environmental Research, Dublin, 15th-16th May, 2003. 2 The four dimensions of sustainability are based on those established by the UNDSCPD (1996).
changes that academics have tried to capture when they speak of a more general shift
from government to governance in contemporary society (Adshead and Quin 1998).
. A number of authors, including Dryzek (1996), Barry (1999), Hajer and Kesselring
(1999), Blaug (1999) and Eder (2000), have highlighted the growth of ‘new’ discursive
institutional forms that coincide with the emergence of public discourse on sustainable
development. Indicative lists generally include: Citizens’ Juries, ‘round tables’,
environmental forums, consensus building conferences, public inquiries, public hearings,
parliamentary inquires, regulatory negotiation and so on. At the same time the charge
usually directed at discursive politics is that it fails to connect with the normal routines of
decision-making within the political-administrative system of constitutional societies.
The lack of an institutional fit is not the only problem. There is also an intrinsic tension
within these new institutional forms between the perceived fairness of the process and
efficiency in terms of product, i.e. moving towards sustainable development. The
evaluation of [regional] sustainable development is, as pointed out in the call for papers,
presented with a similar challenge. Yet the evaluation of the product is sometimes more
focused on outputs than on outcomes. Meanwhile the process, at least in the Irish case, is
seldom evaluated beyond indicating its existence. This has important implications in
terms of binding stakeholders into arrangements for working towards sustainable
development.
This paper adapts an evaluative theoretical tool developed by Blaug to assess the
potential for discursive democracy in ‘real situations’ to the problem of regional
sustainable development. The paper argues that by mapping the moments in a
deliberative decision-making process onto the objectives of Agenda 21 we have the
possibility for internal evaluation of the process by participants creating the potential for
social learning, as well as the possibility for external evaluation to ensure that the process
is efficient in terms of outcomes that contribute to regional sustainable development.
2 Deliberative democracy, discursive designs and sustainable development
The essence of decision-making in a deliberative democracy is in its communicative
character, in debate and discussion, in something approaching a public sphere (Barry,
1999: 217). A recent exploration of a number of institutional designs related to
sustainable development in Munich, including Local Agenda 21, has highlighted at least
three distinct though related arguments underpinning the democratisation of policy-
making and the emphasis on new discursive institutions in the current academic debate
(Hajer and Kesselring 1999). The three arguments are that: ‘democracy is a goal in
itself’, ‘the renewal of democracy is a functional requirement of new social
circumstances and increased social complexity’; and ‘new institutional arrangements can
facilitate effective and legitimate governance’. For our purposes here it is the latter
argument that provides the basis for our exploration of regional sustainable development,
but it is necessary to briefly examine all three to justify why we think that this is the case.
2.1 Democracy as a goal in its own right Jürgen Habermas is most commonly associated with the line of argumentation that sees
democracy as a goal in its own right. This is contained in his call for deliberative
democracy that has evolved in the general framework of his discourse theory. Discourse
is a mechanism for transforming dissent into consent and has to do with communication
and the force of a better argument in a dialogical situation (Eder 2000: 226). The theory
acts as ‘a regulative ideal’, a benchmark against which existing institutions or reform
projects can be measured (Pellizzoni 2001, 69). Nevertheless, the task of translating
discourse theory into an evaluative standard for democratic practices on the ground
remains problematic. In the case of regional sustainable development we are met with an
acute problem because many of the issues that arise are characterised by complexity and
uncertainty that are magnified as ecological systems interact with social, economic and
political systems (Dryzek 1997: 198). The emphasis on the force of a better argument in
the Habermasian approach to deliberative politics has often provided the basis of a
fundamental critique of its application to specific issues (Pellizzoni 1999, 2001; Blaug
1999). In politics, as Beck points out, there is never a single, nor a best solution, but
always several solutions; the formulation of [a] programme and decision-making process,
as well as the enforcing of the those decisions, must rather be understood as a process of
collective action, and that means, even in the best case, collective learning and collective
creation’ (1992: 191). This necessitates institutions and discourses that are ‘capable of
learning – not least about their own shortcomings’ (Dryzek, 1997: 198).
2.2 Democracy as a functional necessity Beck and Dryzek share many of the normative commitments of Habermas’s discourse
theory, however, they bring us in a different direction since they predicate their
arguments on a more functional premise. Both have pointed to the necessity of new
institutional practices as knowledge generating devices that can bring new insights to
bear under the general conditions of complexity and uncertainty that prevail in
contemporary society (Hajer and Kesselring, 1999: 6).
For Dryzek, the emphasis is very much on questions of the design of these institutions.
He expresses a preference for what he calls discursive designs which, involves:
‘collective decision-making through authentic democratic discussion, open to all
interests, under which political power, money and strategizing do not determine the
outcomes’ (Dryzek, 1990: 29-56). Dryzek’s preferred location for discursive designs is
in autonomous public spheres in civil society, however, he acknowledges that the ‘glaring
problem with this emphasis is that it may leave public policies unchanged (1996: 119).
He recognises the existence of more moderate, or ‘incipient discursive designs’, which
includes participatory models of planning, right-to-know legislation, public hearings,
regulatory negotiation and environmental mediation (Barry, 1999: 216). Yet, the link
between these designs and the state, as well as the possibility of participation in more
inclusive forms of corporatism, are inherently problematic because they are open to
strategic manipulation and the exercise of power. This still leaves the problems of how to
reconnect civil society and public policy (Dryzek 1996). The implication of autonomous
‘discursive designs’ is that they do not exert influence immediately, but are influential
over time and in an indirect way (Hajer and Kesselring 1999: 19).
Beck sees a growing demand in society for forms and forums of consensus building co-
operation among industry, politics, science and the populace (1997). Discursive models
have a role to play in environmental politics but:‘negotiation forums are certainly not
consensus production machines with guaranteed success’ (1997: 123). They can,
however, ‘urge prevention and work towards a symmetry of unavoidable sacrifices’ [...]
‘as well as revealing winners and losers, making them public and thereby improving the
preconditions for political action’ (ibid.).
Although these authors differ in the possible social location of discursive institutions they
both emphasise the potential for social learning in rational procedures for decision-
making. However, for issues that are characterised by high degrees of uncertainty, there
is a serious possibility that rational procedures cannot produce internally rational
solutions in the sense of a general agreement of all ‘on the reasons leading to a choice as
the best available at the moment’ (Pellizzoni 1999). For Pellizzoni, deliberation is at best
the ‘fitting together of the different positions that emerge in dialogue’ (2001: 81). The
aim of deliberation is ‘not to find a common reason, but to reach agreement on a practice,
not to define principles, concepts and broad goals but to devise concrete solutions for
circumscribed problems’ (2001, 79). Pellizzoni invokes Local Agenda 21 community
participation programmes, specifically referring to Lafferty and Eckerberg (1998), as an
example of just how difficult a task this is in practice. While this is certainly a pragmatic
approach to deliberative politics, does it not risk throwing the baby out with the bath
water as far as sustainable development is concerned? Is it possible to retain a link to the
democratic impetus within the principles, concept and goals of sustainable development
while at the same time agreeing on practices and concrete solutions to concrete
problems? We will argue that it is, but that it leads us to consider the third major line of
argumentation we find in the literature.
2.3 Democracy as an effective and legitimate form of governance
The third line of argumentation is that new discursive institutional arrangements can
facilitate effective governance, i.e. they can secure consensus and legitimacy
transforming the corporatist arrangements that were a part of the rise and fall of the
welfare state. In our case the assumption is that the creation of new institutions will
provide a legitimate and effective basis for the implementation of sustainable
development. This can be understood as a situation ‘whereby national governments
engage explicitly with sustainable development; integrate it as a norm in public decision-
making processes; and ensure the adoption of policies congruent with its orientation’
(Lafferty and Meadowcroft 2000: 20). However, it also transcends this usage because
implementation in a sociological sense does not just refer to governmental action, but
also to that undertaken by other social groups (ibid. 21). This can take a number of
different forms, such as extended forms of participation through ‘deliberative institutions
in a post-corporatist order’ (Eder 2000), or more targeted, though perhaps less inclusive
‘co-operative management regimes’ (Lafferty 1998, Lafferty and Meadowcroft 1996).
There is a wide array of institutional possibilities in the range between these two poles
from specific social partnership arrangements e.g. Comhar – the National Partnership for
Sustainable Development or Local Agenda 21 forums, to voluntary agreements such as
REPAK in Ireland. What links these approaches is the attempt ‘to redistribute
responsibility by binding societal members into accountable relationships’ (Eder 2000,
242).
Existing institutions such as parliament resolve the question of participation through
representation, alternatively in neo-corporatist arrangements, participation is resolved by
putting together the most powerful and consequential collective actors who represent the
different ‘interests’ of society. The latter generally consists of the tripartite interests of
the state, industry and labour. In the Irish case, this has been institutionalised in the form
of the National Economic and Social Council. Eder argues that post-corporatist
arrangements such as those in discursive institutions, deal with the issue of democratic
participation by adding a fourth actor, i.e. public interest groups and social movement
organisations, into the deliberative space (Eder 2000a). In the case of Irish social
partnership this finds institutional expression in the National Economic and Social Forum
and more recently in the National Partnership for Sustainable Development. Eder argues
that the democratic idea that underlies the principle of participation is equality of access
to deliberative procedures, but the greater the number of participants, the less likely
effective deliberation becomes (2000: 237). On this point, he argues that discursive
institutions will never be discursive in the emphatic sense rather they are approximations
aimed at securing legitimacy and effectiveness. These real world approximations are also
faced with barriers in functional terms since they may also have to contend with the
necessity of trading off effectiveness and efficiency. Institutional designs based on
deliberation have to steer a path between their ends, means, and the ability to generate
acceptability and legitimacy for particular programmes or plans. The attractiveness of
these designs lies not in the ability to produce correct answers but to generate decisions
for which everybody takes responsibility (Eder, 2000).
For Lafferty, sustainable development implies ‘a clear reallocation of responsibility -of
risks, gains and losses among the major stakeholders of society’ (1998: 9). Co-operative
management regimes have been identified as an institutional design for mediating such
large-scale change (Lafferty and Meadowcroft 1996). Cooperative management regimes
involve processes of ‘discursive consensus formation where groups become engaged in
exchange and interaction with other social organisations and / or administrative agencies,
and through constructive dialogue, reflection, negotiation and compromise arrive at an
agreed solution to the problem in question’; and ‘each participant assumes some
responsibility for the implementation of the agreed solution’. (Lafferty and Meadowcroft
1996: 257-8). We are talking about a broad range of collaborative efforts aimed at
solving specific problems, e.g. linked to the work of regional development agencies,
targeted sectoral regimes, product-life cycle management, coastal zone management etc.
The idea of co-operative management regimes in isolation is not necessarily consonant
with an extensive, or even extended democratised public process. Yet, as Lafferty argues,
these regimes, in the context of sustainable development, do depend on a version of
discursivity for their legitimacy. Agenda 21 in particular, comes down on the side of an
expanded role for civil society in relation to both national and local authorities arranged
in new democratic practices. However, these regimes may also be more exclusive in
their make-up depending on the problem at hand. The specific linkage to sustainable
development in Lafferty’s model, is the vertical integration of these regimes to supra-
national governance and long term-planning through the UNCED Agenda 21 process
which have actual correlates on the global, European Union, national, regional and local
levels (Lafferty, 1998). Lafferty and Coenen caution against only viewing cooperative
management regimes in a positive light since the assumption that all participants
simultaneously enhance their own advantage and the cause of sustainable development
through cooperative efforts, gives a decisive impression that change can be achieved
without serious conflicts of interest (2001, 284). Sustainable development requires
‘relative losers as well as joint winners’ (ibid).
In varying degrees both approaches indicate a shift beyond conventional corporatist
structures or neo-corporatist structures. This shift has been characterised as the
emergence of a type of eco-corporatist structure (Taylor 1998, Smith 2001).
Nevertheless, the approach outlined by Eder, and by Lafferty, if achievable, would be ‘a
decisive step in creating a discursive consensus through which to underpin the legitimacy
of the regulatory regime’ (Taylor 1998: 151).
2.4 Deliberative democracy Irish style? The notion of deliberation has increasingly begun to attract attention in the Irish context
in relation to environment, development and sustainable development debates. There is a
growing body of sociological research that has evaluated a range of institutions designed
for problem-solving and decision-making in relation to environmental issues and to
support progress towards sustainable development (Skillington 1997, Keohane 1998,
Broderick 1999). Using evaluative models based largely on the normative and functional
justification for deliberative institutions presented above, these studies invariably find
distortions of power and strategic manoeuvring aimed at winning rather than achieving
mutual understanding or social learning (Mullally 2001, Motherway 2002). Ultimately,
these studies have found that these ‘new’ institutions both fall short of normative
(deliberative) democratic standards and are also largely ineffectual when it comes to
advancing progress towards sustainable development. This may well be the case, but it
may be the case that a justification based on the argument of deliberative democracy as a
legitimate and effective form of governance may find that these innovations are not as
empty as they first appear. Recent work on environmental consultation processes and
LA21 in Ireland ((Motherway 2002, Mullally 2001) and a recent research paper on LA21
in Norway suggests that the discourse of sustainable development has brought certain,
albeit limited, forms of deliberative institutions into being (Lindseth 2001).
In public policy terms, deliberation has been identified as a key element of Irish social
partnership (O’ Donnell, 2000), and has recently been identified as priority for social
partnership in the period 2002-2005 by the National Centre for Partnership and
Performance. In terms of policy statements and directions, enhanced democratic
participation has been emphasised by the National Strategy for Sustainable Development
and is a key component underpinning the policy priorities for the future identified in the
recent national report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg. Meanwhile, the ‘sustainability checklist’ provided for use by local
authorities in the guidelines for Local Agenda 21 contains a section for evaluating
‘participation and democracy’ (DoELG, 2001: 98). Implicit in the kind of approach that
is emerging in Irish policy circles is an idea of deliberation that involves ‘a shared
understanding which coalesces around problem-solving’ (Taylor 2001: 151).
3 Mapping deliberative decision-making on to LA21
Both Eder and Lafferty highlight that deliberation, in the context of an argument based on
legitimate and effective governance, invariably involves compromises and trade-offs. As
Lafferty reminds us the politics of sustainable development are rooted in global norms for
national implementation. It is at this point that recent work by Ricardo Blaug offers the
possibility of connecting global norms and local compromises in a model that provides a
basis for evaluating decision-making processes in terms of their fairness and efficiency.
Blaug like many of the authors reviewed here rejects the notion of a strong consensus
(implied in the force of a better argument) and speaks instead of ‘reaching an
understanding’. This weaker condition of consensus is necessary because of value
pluralism, but also because trade-offs are often required in everyday life (1999, 116).
These trade-offs are required because of externally imposed pressures which means that
participation is often limited by the need to make decisions within a certain time-frame.
Alternatively, trade-offs can also be conditioned by the fact that decisions are already
within the functional remit of the economy, or the administrative state (1999: 116).
However, the condition that he attaches is that ‘reaching an understanding’ has to take the
form of a ‘discursive redemption of trade-offs’ between efficiency and participation (112-
127). What this means is a series of evaluative questions that need to be posed at each
stage of a decision-making process. Blaug sees these stages as problem recognition,
deliberation, decision, implementation, and evaluation. Although Blaug has developed
his approach as a means for the internal and external evaluation of what he calls
breakouts of democracy, it may also be a useful way to evaluate social processes of
evaluation, in the context of regional sustainable development. However, it must take
account of the fact that the legitimacy and effectiveness of decisions taken within
deliberative institutions must relate to the wider context in which they are located. The
moments in the decision-making process are outlined in Table 1.
The stages of the decision-making process identified here are complementary with,
though not analogous to, the ideal typical models of LA21 (Åalborg Charter) and the
steps involved in City/ County Development Strategies that are now the basis for Local
Agenda 21. The linkage between LA21 and the City/ County Development Strategy has
been discussed in detail elsewhere (Mullally 2002a, 2002b, 2003). What distinguishes
these strategies from many previous instrumentalities of development is the fact that they
were elaborated through consultative processes (i.e. participative social processes) and
their implementation, monitoring and evaluation (social processes of evaluation) steered
by broadly based City/ County Development Boards supported by a community forum.
Mapping Blaug’s model onto Agenda 21 allows for an evaluative tool that does not just
incorporate process criteria but also social goals criteria for public involvement in
decision-making (Motherway 2002). Local processes and strategies may well prove to be
legitimate and effective in terms of their internal functioning, but if they are to contribute
to moving sustainable development forward they must also link into national and regional
principles, policy priorities, strategies and processes.
Moments in the Decision-Making
Process
Perceptual Issues
Procedural Issues
1. Problem Recognition Noticing a decision is required. Seeing the need for a gain in efficiency. Seeing in a problem, the threat to deliberative capacities
How are the problems brought to the group’s attention? How to prioritise problems? How to set the agenda?
2. Deliberation Having the necessary information. Seeing relevance of information. Recognising fair deliberation. Seeing threat, in chosen procedures, to deliberative capacities. Seeing need for trade-off.
Can all join the debate? How is the debate arranged? Is the debate fair? Is the debate efficient? Is there a place for raising emotional issues? Is damage to deliberative capacities minimised? Trade-offs fairly redeemed?
3. Decision Recognising when to close deliberation. Seeing how best to make a decision.
Method for making fair yet efficient decision. Minimising threat to deliberative capacities.
4. Implementation Understanding the decision. Seeing how and when to implement. Seeing inappropriate implementation.
Procedures for implementation. Procedures for handling difficulties in implementation.
5. Evaluation Seeing fairness of process. Seeing effectiveness of process. Seeing need for trade off. Recognising damage to deliberative capacities.
Procedures for evaluation. Procedures for changing elements of process. Re-assessing damage. Re-assessing trade-offs. (Source: Blaug, 1999, p. 142)
Table 1. Blaug’s Model of Decision-making
4 National indicators, principles and priorities for sustainable development
The National Strategy for Sustainable Development identifies indicators as a means of
measuring progress over time, towards or away from sustainability. Høyer and Aall
make a useful distinction between ‘cold and warm’ environment and sustainability
indicators:
‘Cold indicators are developed by experts who “know” what sustainable
development is […] but they do not always lead to a response with the public and
politicians. The warm indicators are not necessarily very precise, but they may
initiate action more easily – even if those actions are not particularly sustainable’
(cited in Lindseth 2001, 154).
A number of sets of indicators have been developed at national level in Ireland over the
last number of years. These can be divided between indicators developed by experts e.g.
environmental indicators based on Pressure State Response or Driving Force, Pressure,
Impact, State, Response developed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
indicators for sustainable development developed by the social partners which link
indicators to the themes of an agreed vision for a successful society (NESC, 2002).
4.1 NESC - National progress indicators for sustainable development
The National Progress Indicators for Sustainable Economic, Social and Environmental
Development represent an instance of an existing social partnership mechanism adapting
to the challenge of a new policy imperative. The National Economic and Social Council
was mandated to prepare the indicators in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.3
In an attempt to confine the focus to a small set of easily understood indicators, thereby
increasing their utility in the policy process, a small number of headline indicators was
identified, supported by background indicators where useful. The headline indicators
refer to a very large extent to social and economic sustainability, whereas environmental
indicators tend only to be linked to the theme of ‘maintaining and managing the
environment’ (Table 2.). Comhar – the National Partnership for Sustainable
Development – commenting on earlier attempts to devise sustainable development
indicators, stressed the need to highlight the dynamic inter-linkages between different
dimensions of sustainability. In this case, we have an example of a deliberative body
created with the express purpose of advancing sustainable development feeding into the
activities of a more traditional mode of social partnership.
3 The basis of the recent social partnership agreement
Elements of NESC Vision Headline Indicators Sustainability Dimension
1. Successful Adaptation to Change H1.1 Labour Productivity
H1.2 Per Capita GNP/ Annual GDP
Growth rates
• Economic Sustainability
• Economic Sustainability
2. Utilisation and Development of
Information Society
H2.1 Gross Domestic Expenditure on
R&D as a proportion of GDP (GERD)
H2.2 Proportion of Households with
Access to a PC Internet
• Economic Sustainability
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
3. Economic Inclusion H3.1 Employment Rate
H3.2 Unemployment Rate
H3.3 Labour Force Participation Rate
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
4. Social Inclusion H4.1 Percentage of Households living in
consistent poverty
H4.2 Households and Persons
Experiencing Relative Income Poverty
H4.3 Retention Rates to the End of Upper
Secondary School
H4.4 Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy
at birth and 60 years
H4.5 Housing Stock and Completions
Local Authority and Private
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
• Economic and Social
Sustainability
5. Lifelong Learning H5.1 Participation in Adult Education • Economic and Social
Sustainability
6. Balanced Regional Development H6.1 Employment Growth by Region • Economic and Social
Sustainability
7. Commitment to EU/ International
Organisations
H7.1 Total ODA as a percentage of GNP • Economic and Social
Sustainability
8. Maintaining and Managing the
Environment
H8.1 Greenhouse Gas Emmissions
H8.2 River Water Quality
H8.3 Disposal and Recovery of Municipal
Waste
• Economic, Environmental and
Social Sustainability
• Economic, Environmental and
Social Sustainability
• Economic, Environmental and
Social Sustainability
(Source: NESC, 2002 p14)
Table 2. National Progress Indicators for Sustainable Development
4.2 Comhar – Principles for sustainable development In 1999, Comhar - the National Sustainable Development Partnership was established.
Its mission is to provide a ‘forum for national consultation and dialogue on all issues
surrounding the pursuit of sustainable development’ (DoELG 2002a, 113). Comhar
includes representation from the state, economic, environmental NGOs, social/
community NGOs and academic/professional sectors. To facilitate the broader
understanding of sustainable development and the greater integration of environmental
issues into economic / sectoral policies, Comhar agreed a thematic framework from
which a set of sustainable development principles was derived (Table 3). The framework
is based on the understanding that economic and social development and environmental
protection are integrated ‘on the basis that sustainable development is a process in which
these three objectives are addressed on an equal footing and are mutually reinforcing’ and
citizen participation is a key dimension in moving towards sustainability (DoELG 2002,
91). The policy priorities for the next decade (Table 4.) will be set against the background
of these principles and the imperatives of the EU 6th Environmental Action Programme
(EAP) and the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development agreed in Gothenburg in 2001. Themes Principles
1. The use of non-renewable resources should be minimised Satisfaction of human needs by the efficient use of
resources 2. Use of hazardous/ polluting substances and wastes created should
be minimised; waste management should be environmentally sound
3. Renewable resources should be used within the capacity for
regeneration
Equity between generations
4. The quality of soils and water resources should be maintained and
improved
Respect for ecological integrity and biodiversity 5. The diversity of wildlife, habitats and species should be
maintained and improved
6. Air and atmosphere should be protected and human-induced
effects on climate minimised
Equity between countries and regions
7. The development of resource potential in one region should not
compromise the ability of other regions to achieve their own
potential
8. Social inclusion should be promoted to ensure an improved quality
of life for all
Social equity
9. Sustainable development depends on co-operation and agreement
between states
Respect for cultural heritage/ diversity 10. The quality of landscapes, the heritage of the man-made
environment and historic and cultural resources should be maintained
and improved
11. Decision-making should be devolved to the appropriate level Good decision-making
12. Stakeholder participation should be promoted at all levels of
decision-making (Source: Comhar, 2002 pp. 4-5)
Table 3. Comhar: Principles for Sustainable Development
4.3 Priorities for national sustainable development policy
Making Ireland’s Development Sustainable, the Irish government’s report to the World
Summit in Johannesburg 2002, identifies a number of priority areas in line with the 6th
EAP. The priority areas are: Climate Change; Nature, Biodiversity and Heritage;
Environment and Health; and Waste Management. Among these it highlights certain
“Cross-Sectoral Priorities” for attention, the aetiology of which ranges over more or less
discursive, deliberative, participatory and consensual forms of democratic decision-
making (Table 4.).
The range of themes contained within the cross-sectoral priorities listed here demonstrate
experimentation with a range of instruments for the governance of sustainable
development and modes of participation which are more extensive and complex than
when compared to the situation that obtained in the immediate aftermath of Rio. A
comprehensive evaluation of the depth of democratisation that has been effected by the
discourse and practice of sustainable development is beyond the immediate scope of this
paper, but there are indications that the regional level is playing, or set to play, an
increasingly pivotal role in an evolving system of multi-level governance in Ireland.
Themes Mechanisms and Examples Modes of Participation National Spatial Strategy Polycentric Development Models
Regional Authorities Regional Assemblies Regional Planning Guidelines
Consultative4 Co-operative Management Regime
Eco-Taxes Compliance Landfill Tax Compliance CO2 Tax / Greenhouse Gas Taxes Compliance Plastic Bag Levy Compliance Differential pricing on Unleaded Petrol Compliance Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 – levies on other goods and articles
Compliance
Variable Rate Pricing for Solid Waste by 2005 Compliance Emissions Trading Permits Co-operative
Management Regime Cleaner Production Pilot Demonstration Programme Cleaner Greener Production Programme
Co-operative Management Regime
Recognition Schemes
Working with the Market
ISO14001 EMAS EU Eco-Label
Co-operative Management Regime
Voluntary Agreements REPAK Co-operative
Management Regime Farm Plastic Collection Scheme Co-operative
Management Regime
Producer Responsibility Initiatives
New unit in EPA to co-ordinate and enforce producer responsibility initiatives
Compliance
Regulatory Reform Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Licensing [Resource Conservation (Energy / Water / Materials)] EMS approach in Control of Dangerous Substances in Water Regulations, 2000
Compliance Compliance Co-operative Management Regime?
Better Implementation and Enforcement
New Office for Environmental Enforcement under the Agreed Programme for Government 2002
Compliance
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Planning and Development Act 2000 Compliance
Local Agenda 21 City/County Development Strategies City/County Development Boards
Deliberative
Non-Governmental Organisations
Comhar (NSDP) Deliberative
Research ERTDI Programme 2000-2006 EPA Assessment of State of the Environment Reports in 2004 and 2008
Expert participation
Indicators5 NESC Progress / Headline Indicators NESC Background Indicators EPA Environmental Indicators
Deliberative6 Deliberative2
Expert participation (Source: Comhar 2002; DoELG 2001; DoElG 2002a, pp. 97, 98; DoELG 2002b; Flynn 2003; Maxwell 2002; NESC 2002; Mullally 2001a; Motherway 2002,
Table 4 Cross-Sectoral Priorities
4 The exercise conducted to develop the NSS was based on broad-based consultative participation. The implementation of the Strategy, as proposed in the NSS, may involve deliberative participation (see “Implementing the National Spatial Strategy, DOELG, 2002b, pp. 118 – 125). 5 Illustrative of the government position on consultative and deliberative modes of participation in furthering the sustainable development agenda is the following comment on the use of indicators: “This work [on indicators] will be taken forward and built on in the period ahead so that accurate and timely information is available on which decisions can be based; indicators will also (our emphasis) be used as a means to engage the public more fully in the sustainable development agenda”(DOELG, 2003, p.98). 6 These indicators were developed as a result of deliberation in a social partnership mechanism. The NSDP fed into the final choice of indicators through a deliberative process.
5 Deliberating regional sustainable development?
The emphasis on equity between regions in the Principles for Sustainable Development
and sustainable balanced regional development in the Progress Indicators for Sustainable
Economic, Social and Environmental Development are explicitly linked to the National
Development Plan 2000-2006 and the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020. The NDP
identified the need for a National Spatial Strategy and set a clear objective for regional
policy in the following terms:
“To achieve more balanced regional development in order to reduce the disparities
between and within the two Regions (Border, Midlands and West and South and
East) […] Policies to secure such development must be advanced in parallel with
policies to ensure that this development is sustainable with full regard to quality of
life, social cohesion and conservation of the environment and the natural and
cultural heritage” (NDP 1999, para.3.19).
In the preface, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government characterised the
National Spatial Strategy as: ‘a framework for all sectors of society, national government,
regional and local authorities, State agencies and all of the other social partners […] to
come together to achieve a better Ireland (DoELG 2002b). Harris points out that in a
European context, practical and policy agendas related to spatial planning have acted to
promote the development of new approaches to spatial planning activity at the regional
and sub-regional levels (2001, 34). Drawing on Healy, he points to a specific emphasis
on strategic and collaborative planning which are specifically related to the ‘deliberative
paradigm change’ in spatial planning (ibid. 35). The National Spatial Strategy claims
that the process of preparation was ‘aimed at building ownership and wide consensus
around the product i.e. the National Spatial Strategy itself” (DOELG, 2002b, 130). Yet,
while there was a consultative process involved which yielded a significantly broadly
based set of responses, many of these were incorporated although what filtering process
and selection criteria were applied is unclear. Given that this was a process premised on
sustainable and balanced regional development, it clearly created ‘winner’ (and ‘loser’)
regions and sub-regions. However, the implementation mechanisms signalled in the
Strategy, if carried through as indicated, are significant. The principle of Strategic
Environmental Assessment has been incorporated into the Planning and Development
Act 2000: all regional development plans, city and county development plans and local
area plans must contain information on the likely effects on the environment of
implementing the plan. The National Spatial Strategy involves mobilising regional and
local authorities and City/ County development boards to support and implement the
spatial policies, especially through the preparation of regional planning guidelines
(DoELG 2002, 122). The preparation of regional planning guidelines and regional
reports in tandem, in 2003, has been identified as ‘an opportunity to take account of the
socio-economic context emerging for the City / County Development Board strategies’
(ibid.). As such the regional planning guidelines and reports act as a critical juncture
between national priorities and local social processes underpinning the governance of
sustainable development.
6 Concluding perspectives on deliberation in regional sustainable development
The Irish case is clearly not an example of an ideal deliberative democracy, however, this
is not our point. Discursive and deliberative practices and processes have appeared as
part of a changing architecture of governance in Ireland. While it is useful to highlight
the shortcomings and limitations of these new practices, it is equally important to
examine the extent to which they play a role in a legitimate and effective form of
governance for regional sustainable development. As Spangenberg et al. point out,
indicators are not an end in themselves, but are ‘purpose bound tools to guide, support
and monitor decision-making’ (2002: 90). Moreover, they are ‘no substitute for clearly
defined policy targets as a result of the political process. […] To the contrary they should
reflect the political will and help implementing it’ (ibid 92). What is becoming clear
from the Irish case, is that policy priorities are being shaped by a combination of factors
from global political and economic processes, through European programmes and
strategies, and increasingly to agreed visions, principles and themes that emerge from
structured negotiation and deliberation forums. Meanwhile, local participative processes
are replicating the same complexity, but are making demands from the bottom-up for a
stake in the wider debate and an input into decision-making processes. The regional level
of governance in Ireland, though relatively weak in a European context, and largely
devoid of a directly elected component, has an important coordinating and mediating role
to play in linking deliberative processes on the local and national level. Although much
of the institutional machinery is in place in the Irish context, it remains to be seen
whether the cogs will connect and move us towards a more democratic and sustainable
regional development.
References:
BARRY, JOHN (1999), Rethinking Green Politics: Nature, Virtue and Progress,
London: Sage.
BECK, ULRICH (1997), The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the
Global Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
BECK, ULRICH (1999), World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Press
BLAUG, RICARDO (1999), Democracy Real and Ideal: Discourse Ethics and Radical
Politics, Albany: State University of New York Press.
BRODERICK, SHEELAGH (1999), ‘The State versus Civil Society: Democracy and
Sustainability in Ireland’, Democracy and Nature, Vol. 5, No. 2, 343-356.
COMHAR – THE NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
(2002), Principles for Sustainable Development, Dublin: Comhar.
COMHAR- THE NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
(2001), Assessment of Progress on Agenda 21: Report to the Earth Council, Dublin:
Comhar.
CONVERY, FRANK AND FEEHAN, JOHN (eds.), (2002), Achievement and
Challenge, Rio + 10 and Ireland, Dublin: The Environmental Institute.
CONVERY, FRANK AND FEEHAN, JOHN (eds.), (1995), Assessing Sustainability in
Ireland, Dublin: The Environmental Institute.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [DOELG]
(1997), Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland, Dublin: The Stationary Office.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [DOELG]
(2001), Towards Sustainable Communities, Guidelines for Local Agenda 21, Dublin: The
Stationary Office.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [DOELG]
(2002), Making Ireland’s Development Sustainable: Review, Assessment and Future
Action, Dublin: The Stationary Office.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [DOELG]
(2002). The National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020: People, Places and Potential, Dublin:
The Stationary Office.
DRYZEK, JOHN S. (1990), Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political
Science, New York: Cambridge University Press.
DRYZEK, JOHN S. (1996), ‘Strategies of Ecological Democratization’, in William M.
Lafferty and James Meadowcroft (eds.), Democracy and the Environment: Problems and
Prospects, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 108- 123.
DRYZEK, JOHN S. (1997), The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EDER, KLAUS (2000). Taming Risks through Dialogues: the Rationality and
Functionality of Discursive Institutions in Risk Society. In Maurie J. Cohen (Ed.), Risk in
the Modern Age: Social Theory, Science and Environmental Decision-Making, London:
Macmillan, 225-248.
FLYNN, BRENDAN (2003), ‘Much Talk but Little Action? New Environmental Policy
Instruments in Ireland’, in Andrew Jordon, Rudiger K.W Wurzel and Anthony R. Zito
(eds.) ‘New’ Instruments of Environmental Governance: National Experiences and
Prospects, London: Frank Cass, 137-156.
HAJER, MAARTEN A. AND KESSELRING, SVEN (1999), ‘Democracy in the Risk
Society: Learning From the New Politics of Mobility in Munich’, Environmental Politics,
Vol. 8, No. 3, 1-23.
HARRIS, NEIL (2002), ‘Collaborative Planning: From Theoretical Foundations to
Practice Forms’, in Phillip Almendinger and Mark Tewder-Jones (eds.) Planning
Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, London and New York: Routledge, 21-43.
KELLY, RUTH. 2000. Local Agenda 21 in the Mid-West Region of Ireland. Local
Authority News, 19( 5): 4-5.
KELLY, RUTH AND RICHARD MOLES. 2000. Towards Sustainable Development in
the Mid-West Region of Ireland. Environmental Management and Health, 11(5): 422-
432.
KEOHANE, KIERAN (1998), ‘Reflexive Modernization and Systematically Distorted
Communications: An Analysis of an Environmental Protection Agency Hearing’, Irish
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 8, 71-92.
LINDSETH, GARD (2001), Participation, Discourse and Consensus: Local Agenda 21 in
a deliberative democracy perspective, in Corrado Diamantini (ed.), The Region:
Approaches for a Sustainable Development, Trento: Temi Editrice.
LAFFERTY, WILLIAM (1998), ‘Democracy and Ecological Rationality: New Trials for
an Old Ceremony’, paper prepared for the CPSA/ IPSA, Quebec, unpublished MS.
LAFFERTY, WILLIAM AND MEADOWCROFT, JAMES, (1996), ‘Democracy and the
Environment: Prospects for Greater Congruence’ in William Lafferty & James
Meadowcroft (eds.), Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 256-272.
LAFFERTY, WILLIAM AND MEADOWCROFT, JAMES (2000), Implementing
Sustainable Development: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LAFFERTY, WILLIAM AND COENEN, FRANS (2001), ‘Conclusions and
Perspectives’ in William Lafferty (ed.) (2001).
MOTHERWAY, BRIAN (2002), ‘Public Involvement in Environmental Decision-
Making in Ireland’, Dublin: The Policy Institute at Trinity College Dublin, Working
Paper No. 3.
NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL (NESC), (2002), National
Progress Indicators for Sustainable Economic, Social and Environmental Development,
Dublin: National Economic and Social Council.
MULLALLY, GERARD. (2001a) Environment, Democracy and Local Agenda 21:
Towards a Sociology of Sustainable Development in Ireland. Cork: National University
of Ireland, Cork, Unpublished PhD Dissertation.
MULLALLY, GERARD. (2001b) ‘Starting Late: Building Institutional Capacity on the
Reform of Sub-national Government’, in William M. Lafferty (ed.) Sustainable
Communities in Europe London and Sterling VA: Earthscan, 130-152.
MULLALLY, GERARD (2002a), ‘Is Local Agenda 21 Working in Practice? Lessons
From Cork Environmental Forum’, A paper presented to the conference: Encouraging
Public Participation in Planning for Surburban and Urban Environmental Management,
Trinity College Dublin, September 6th.
MULLALLY, GERARD (2002b) ‘Shakespeare, the Structural Funds and Sustainable
Development: Reflections on the Irish Experience’, A paper prepared for the REGIONET
Workshop: Regional Sustainable Development – The Role of the Structural Funds.
Schloss-Seggau, Austria, September 9th-11th.
MULLALLY, GERARD (2003), ‘Tipping the Scales towards Sustainable Development?
Questions for the European Regions posed by the Irish Case’, A paper prepared for the
REGIONET Workshop: Regional Sustainable Development – Strategies for Effective
Multi-level Governance, Lillehammer, Norway, January 29th-31st.
NEILL, WJV. AND ELLIS, G. (2002), ‘Local Agenda 21 and Civic Identity: Reflections
on Belfast and Dublin, in Frank Convery and John Feehan (eds.), 276-281.
O’ DONNELL, RORY (2000), ‘Public Policy and Social Partnership’, in Joseph Dunne,
Attracta Ingram, and Frank Litton (eds.) Questioning Ireland: Debates in Political
Philosophy and Public Policy, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 187-213.
O’ DONNELL, RORY (2001), ‘The Role of Social Partnership’, Studies, [Ireland in an
Age of Prosperity], Vol. 90, No. 347, 47-56
O’ REGAN, BERNADETTE., MOLES, RICHARD., KELLY, RUTH., RAVETZ., JOE
AND MCEVOY, DARRYN (2002), ‘Developing Indicators for the Estimation of
Settlement Size in Ireland’, Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp.
450-466.
PELLIZONI, LUIGI (1999), Reflexive Modernisation and Beyond: Knowledge and
Value in the Politics of Environment and Technology, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol.
16, No. 4, 99-125.
PELLIZONI, LUIGI (2001), The Myth of the Best Argument: Power, Deliberation and
Reason, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52, No. 1, 56-86.
SKILLINGTON, TRACEY (1997), ‘Politics and the Struggle to Define: A Discourse
Analysis of the Framing Strategies of Competing Actors in a “New” Participatory Forum,
British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 3, 493-513.
SCHLEICHER-TAPPASER, RUGGERO (2001), ‘Assessing Sustainable Development
in the European Union: The Sustainable Quality Management® Approach in the Context
of Structural Funds’, Greener Management International, 36, 51-66.
SMITH, MARK J. (2001), ‘Social Movements in Europe: The Rise of Environmental
Governance’, in Montserrat Guibernau (ed.), Governing European Diversity, London/
Thousand Oaks/ New Dehli: Sage Publications/ Open University Press, 103-138.
SPANGENBERG, JOACHIM., MESICEK, ROMAN., METZNER, ANDREAS AND
LUKS, FRED (2001), ‘Sustainability Indicators for the Knowledge Based Society:
Measuring the Sustainability of the Information Society’, Futura, 2/02, 85-95.
TAYLOR, GEORGE (1998), ‘Environmental Democracy, Oral Hearings and Public
Registers in Ireland: “Methinks thou do’st protest to much”’, Irish Planning and
Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, 143-151.
TAYLOR, GEORGE (2001), Conserving the Emerald Tiger: The Politics of
Environmental Regulation in Ireland, Galway: Arlen Press.
Name: Dr Gerard Mullally and Ms Aveen Henry
Institution: Cleaner Production Promotion Unit, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, and Environmental Research Institute,
National University of Ireland – Cork
Contact Address: 16 South Bank, Crosses Green, Cork, Republic of Ireland