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