Presentation on theme: "Administrative and political conflict resolution 22.04.2013, Riga Agnes Karpati."— Presentation transcript:
Administrative and political conflict resolution 22.04.2013, Riga Agnes Karpati
Introduction Two issues: 1. Public participation 2. Inter-institutional conflict
LECTURE OUTLINE INTRODUCTION PUBLIC POLICY COMPLEXITY OF RULEMAKING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION METHODS INTER-INSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT EXERCISE
PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS Problem identification Policy formulation Policy adoption Policy implementation Policy evaluation
COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC POLICY Public policies of various govermental sectors can influence other policies, directly or indirectly. Example: population health Related policies: Transportation Income Education Child-care Environment
Complexity Adopting a policy that takes into account all relevant fields and policies is a complex task. -There are many uncertain effects -Often no consensus in the civil society Decision-makers must manuever between different values, views, needs, preferences and interests. Increased attention is paid lately to deliberative processes critical examination of issues in groups: reasons vs courses of action, exchange information and come to an areement which informs the decision-making
The question is “how do we get into zone P?” More often then not we get there with the help of processes such as mediation or participation.
Methods of public participation Deliberative vs non-deliberative Citizens panels Consensus conference Citizens juries Deliberative polling (Delphi method) Focus groups Surveys Public hearings Open houses Citizen advisory committee Referenda Citizens panels
Citizens panels 1 consists of statistically representative sample of residents in a given area most comprise several thousand citizens who represent the general population of an area panel views are regularly sought using a survey instrument (e.g. postal, telephone surveys)
Citizens panels 2 randomly selected group of 12 citizens meet routinely (eg. four times per year) to consider and discuss issues and make decisions used to guide health resource allocation decision panels act as “sounding boards” for governing authority
Consensus conference a group of citizens with varied backgrounds meets to discuss issues of a scientific and or technical nature consists of 2 stages: 1)meetings with experts, discussions and work toward consensus (involves small group of people) 2)conference during which main observations and conclusions are presented to the media and general public
Citizens’ juries group of 12-20 randomly selected citizens, gathered in such a way as to represent a microcosm of their community, who meet over several days to deliberate on a policy question they are informed about the issue, hear evidence from witnesses and cross-examine them they then discuss the matter amongst themselves and reach a decision
Deliberative polling builds on the opinion poll by incorporating element of deliberation involves larger numbers than citizens juries and may involve less time measures what public would think if it was informed and engaged around an issue
Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society 1. Engagement of the civil society in: -definition of problem, -identification of priorities, -allocation of resources -evaluation of different policy options This approch promotes conciliation, information of public, transparency, legitimacy and accountability in decision making.
Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society example The CPRN’s citizens’ dialogues – Canada Since the late 1990’s the Canadian Policy Research Networks have undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging public deliberation about various policy issues (e.g. the Ontario 2004-2008 budget strategy, the future of Canadian health care, the use of personal information, Canadian public health priorities). For more information: www.cprn.org [FR/EN]
Deliberative method – expert engagement 2. Engagement of experts in: -Production of research -Interpretation of research -Bridging theory and practice This promotes evidence-informed policy making.
Deliberative method – expert engagement example IDEAHealth – Khon Kaen, Thailand IDEAHealth was an international dialogue sponsored by the World Health Organization that took place between December 13 and 16, 2006. It allowed decision makers, experts and other stakeholders to share their ideas and experiences and to consider the results of systematic reviews in an attempt to find concrete solutions to problems confronting developing countries. For more information: www.who.int/rpc/meetings/ideahealth/ens non-deliberative
Objectives of two deliberative trends October 2009 Author: François-Pierre Gauvin, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy
Some methods of participatory democracy Popular/Citizens’ initiatives Referenda Public consultation Surveys Focus groups Open houses Public hearings Negotiated rulemaking Consensus-building Etc.
Citizens’ initiative It allows electorate to resolve questions where the elected representatives don’t act despite the public desire. Typical provisions in Constitutions. “The European citizens' initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal.” (Commission’s homepage) Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU, Regulation No 211/2011
Public consultation In public consultations the agency ‘s goal is to gain information about the concerns of the public, but the final decision is still made by the agency. No consensus or decision by the public is sought. May be dominated by special interest groups - feed-back obtained from this format needs to be treated carefully because it may not be representative of the community
Negotiated rulemaking In negotiated rulemaking process the agency seeks out the representatives of interests that will be affected and empanel them into an advisory committee that includes senior members of the agency itself. The committee is tasked with deveoping a consensus for the proposed rule. Then the normal legislative process applies.
Consensus building Consensus building is used to settle conflicts that involve multiple parties and complicated issues. The approach seeks to transform Adversarial confrontations into a cooperative search for information and solutions that meet all parties' interests and needs.(Burgess & Spangler, 2003)
Consensus building Consensus building (also known as collaborative problem solving or collaboration) is a conflict resolution process used mainly to settle complex, multiparty disputes. Since the 1980s, it has become widely used in the environmental and public policy arena in the United States, but is useful whenever multiple parties are involved in a complex dispute or conflict. The process allows various stakeholders (parties with an interest in the problem or issue) to work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution. (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)
Consensus building Like a town meeting, consensus building is based on the principles of local participation and ownership of decisions. Ideally, the consensus reached will meet all of the relevant interests of stakeholders, who thereby come to a unanimous agreement. While everyone may not get everything they initially wanted, "consensus has been reached when everyone agrees they can live with whatever is proposed after every effort has been made to meet the interests of all stake holding parties.“ (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)
Power struggle between EP and Commission - The EP on the way of becoming real legislative brach.... - Example issue – comitology - What is comitology?
Comitology In the EU, as in all legislatures, once the decision- making process enters the implementation stage, the executive – i.e. the European Commission – can receive delegated powers to execute the acts adopted in co-decision. Committees of Member States' representatives control the Commission in the exercise of delegated competences and theyr were collectively referred to as 'comitology'.
Comitology Process used to be dominated by the Commission and Member States. Comitology - 2000 implementing acts every year Ground for contention among the institutions, in particular, the European Parliament demanded a greater role in the process. Regulation of politically sensitive issues such as GMO’s, etc.
Comitology Lisbon Treaty reformed the system, giving the EP greater powers and equal footing with the Council. After a 20 years struggle the EP now has genuine legislative powers and has a say in comitology process, which is considered a great success for the EP.
Comitology Delegated acts refer to “non-legislative acts of general application” whose aim is to “supplement or amend” laws in their “non-essential elements”. The EP and the Council confer delegated powers on the Commission for the adoption of implementation measures that are likely to add further content to the act agreed through co- decision. The legislators must also define the precise terms of this delegation, i.e. objectives, scope, and duration.
Inter-institutional conflict in the EU Central driving force of the European integration, bargaining process among EU institutions to influence the policy making process, alter the outcomes (legislative act) and improve the external perceptions abot capabilities. Institutions attempt to legitimize, popularize and increase their influence, which has an affect on member states interest representation.
Inter-institutional conflict in the EU EP is a relative newcomer, and after decades and through gradual extension of legislative rights it has gained greater influence. This has been through active bargaining and struggle, but also through an additional agreement that concerns the future negotiation processes between institutions. The framework agreement concerns: In particular, these provisions concern: the political responsibility of the Commission; the establishment of regular and effective political dialogue; the implementation of legislative procedures.
Relations between EP and Commission INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission
Inter-institutional agreement – selected issues “To better reflect the new ‘special partnership’ between Parliament and the Commission, the two Institutions agree on the following measures to strengthen the political responsibility and legitimacy of the Commission, extend constructive dialogue, improve the flow of information between the two Institutions and improve cooperation on procedures and planning. “
Inter-institutional agreement They also agree on specific provisions: — on Commission meetings with national experts, — on the forwarding of confidential information to Parliament, — on the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements, and — on the timetable for the Commission Work Programme.
Constructive dialogue and flow of information The Commission guarantees that it will apply the basic principle of equal treatment for Parliament and the Council, especially as regards access to meetings and the provision of contributions or other information, in particular on legislative and budgetary matters. Within its competences, the Commission shall take measures to better involve Parliament in such a way as to take Parliament’s views into account as far as possible in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Constructive dialogue and flow of information A number of arrangements are made to implement the ‘special partnership’ between Parliament and the Commission, as follows: — the President of the Commission will at Parliament’s request meet the Conference of Presidents at least twice a year to discuss issues of common interest, — the President of the Commission will have a regular dialogue with the President of Parliament on key horizontal issues and major legislative proposals. This dialogue should also include invitations to the President of Parliament to attend meetings of the College of Commissioners, Etc...
Constructive dialogue and flow of information The Commission shall not make public any legislative proposal or any significant initiative or decision before notifying Parliament thereof in writing. On the basis of the Commission Work Programme, the two Institutions shall identify in advance, by common agreement, key initiatives to be presented in plenary. In principle, the Commission will present these initiatives first in plenary and only afterwards to the public.
Constructive dialogue and flow of information The Commission shall inform Parliament of the list of its expert groups set up in order to assist the Commission in the exercise of its right of initiative. That list shall be updated on a regular basis and made public. Within this framework, the Commission shall, in an appropriate manner, inform the competent parliamentary committee, at the specific and reasoned request of its chair, on the activities and composition of such groups.
Constructive dialogue and flow of information The two Institutions shall hold, through the appropriate mechanisms, a constructive dialogue on questions concerning important administrative matters, notably on issues having direct implications for Parliament’s own administration.
Workshop exercise VALUES ● It is 2013, and there is now scientific consensus that secondary smoking is a significant cause of cancer. ● You are all the staff of a regulatory agency that has to act once it is known that a substance causes cancer. ● Where do you stand? Please line up at the most appropriate place on the line.
Workhop exercise VALUES The instructions made clear that the science was conclusive: secondary smoking causes cancer. There was not a disagreement on a technical basis, the disagreement was about values.
Workshop exercise Communication 1. You will be paired with another participant. 2. On the following grid, write what you would say if you were the facilitator – using the model below – to handle the seven circumstances that are listed on the grid. I feel (ownership) + feeling word + behavioral description Example: I feel worried about the passivity of the majority of the group. 3. Then compare notes with your partner, discussing how best to send your concerns without creating defensiveness, putting anybody down, or seeming unduly controlling.
Situation 1. Group has drifted off the agreed-upon topic Your message:...............................................
Situation 2. People are not able to complete their comments because of interruptions Your message:...............................................
Situation 3. Too many people talking at once Your message:...............................................
Situation 4. Comments are exceeding agreed-upon time limits Your message:...............................................
Situation 5. Participant’s comments are insulting to other participants – “name-calling” Your message:...............................................
Situation 6. Group needs to be reminded of agenda time limits Your message:...............................................
Situation 7. You want to propose the use of a technique, for example, brainstorming Your message:...............................................
The end Thank you for your attention! Questions???
Sources A Review of Public Participation and Consultation Methods, Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E and Gauvin F-P. Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes, McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-04, June 2001. Consensus building, Heidi Burgess and Brad Spangler, 2003.www.beyonintractability.com Deeliberative process, François-Pierre Gauvin, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy Participation, Consensus Building and Conflict management training course, Jerome Delli Priscoli, Unesco, 2003. www.europa.eu