by Arild Vatn Department of Environment and Development, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

1. Cherishing Ecosystem Services:Environmental appraisal methods as value articulating institutions (VAIs) by Arild Vatn Department of Environment and Development, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Lecture at the international workshop: “Making Sense of Ecosystem Services: Ecosocial and Institutional Perspectives” Koli, Finland, August 25-27

2. Culture Motivations/action Values Positions/interests Institutions Appraisals (of ES) Policy formulation ‘The Policy Cycle’ The issue (ES)

3. Outline • Defining value articulating institutions (VAIs) • Implicit and explicit VAIs • Choosing between VAIs for environmental appraisal • The second order problem • Concluding – comparing VAIs

4. 1. Defining value articulating institutions • The distinction between • Individual rationality (‘I’) – instrumental/strategic interaction • Social or cooperative rationality (‘We’ rationality) – communicative interaction/commitments • Institutions as rationality contexts • Establishes arenas or contexts for choice – e.g., coordination • Markets (‘I’) • Firms (‘I’) • Households/families (‘We’) • Communities (‘We’) • States (‘We’??) • Offers direct solutions to coordination problems • E.g., specific norms

5. Defining value articulating institutions (cont.)Core aspects of a VAI • Appraisal methods as VAIs (Jacobs 1997) • Methods like • cost-benefit analysis (CBA/CV), • multicriteria analysis (MCA) and • deliberative methods (DI) can be viewed as VAIs – i.e., as a set of rules – conventions and norms – based on a specific ontological and epistemological basis • Participation could be included in all the above VAIs. Inherent part of DIs. Increasingly used in MCA. Focus groups in CV studies. New ‘trend’: ‘Deliberative CBA’. Consistency?

6. Defining value articulating institutions (cont.)Core aspects of a VAI (cont.) • VAIs can be characterized by the following set of rules: • Who should participate and in what capacity/role/position (consumer, stakeholder, citizen, expert) • What is considered data and which form they may take • Price bids • Arguments etc • How information is conveyed (incl. role of expertise) • Which kind of data handling procedures are involved  what is considered a conclusion and how to reach it • Aggregating/optimizing • Negotiating • Voting • Agreement/consensus

7. Defining value articulating institutions (cont.)The philosophical underpinning of a VAI What assumptions underlie the method concerning • what motivates choice • the formation of preferences • the characteristics of values and preferences • how we can legitimately get from individual to social choices • the role of institutions

8. Defining value articulating institutions (cont.)Institutions and preference articulation • Two aspects • Plural preferences: Individual vs. social preferences • Commensurable vs. incommensurable/lexicographic preferences • Concerning a): The VAI will influence which set apply • Concerning b): The VAI will influence how you can inform about your preferences • The Spash (1998) study on lexicographic preferences, protest bids and WTP estimates • The Clark et al. (2000) study on nature conservation • The Brouwer et al (1999) study on flood control

9. 2. Implicit and explicit VAIs • Different institutional structures include different ways of articulating values and interests, and making choices. Some of these are implicit in the prevailing set of institutions: • Markets: Prices and individual choice • Firms: Board decisions based on deliberation and voting. • Common property: Deliberation/communication, negotiation, voting among co-owners • Public regulations (state, municipalities etc.): Negotiation, voting, deliberation. • In the case of the latter three, evaluation of conse-quences based on different explicitly formulated VAIs may be used – e.g., CBA, MCA and DI

10. 2. Implicit and explicit VAIs (cont.)Institutional development and the environment • Characterizing the environment • Dynamic system • Interconnected (biogeochemical) processes in time and space • Characteristics of present institutional development • Separation in space and time – firms and consumers interacting via markets •  the creation of separated interests • Borders between units only nominal due to interlinked biogeochemical processes. • The system facilitates growth, but treats subsequent environmental problems as unintended ‘accidents’ and not as systems dependent issues • The fundamental issue is that of developing basic institutions of the economy that can handle the interrelationships between human action in a way that is coherent with/respects the integrity of natural systems

11. 3.Choosing VAIs for environmental appraisal • This is a normative choice • It depends on how we • understand the problem and values involved • see the role of the parties involved • The archetypes: the market vs. the forum • Markets: Emphasizing exchange/instrumental interaction • Forum: Communicative interaction – fostering deliberation • The second order problem • The way we choose VAIs • Bottom-up vs. top-down vs. top-down-up vs. bottom-up-down • The logic of the appraisal method vs. the issue of empowerment – this not only an issue about ‘method’, but time and place, basic institutions of the specific society, what is to be changed etc.

12. Social Communicative Human interaction Rationality Instrumental/calculative Individual The good Simple Certainty/ ordinary risk Individual items Complex Radical uncertainty Common goods 3. Choosing VAIs (cont.)A framework – the issue of consistency

13. 3. Choosing VAIs (cont.)How the VAI forms how we see and treat issues • CBA • all uncertainty must be transformed to risk • all values viewed as commensurable • DI • can treat various forms of uncertainty, but still very demanding cognitive issues ( use modeling?) • Incorporates incommensurable values as far as it is incorporated in the language • MCA • It depends on the way data is conveyed and the form of participation

14. 3. Choosing VAIs (cont.)Choosing forms of participation Basic charac- teristics Operational aspects

15. 3. Choosing VAIs (cont.)Choosing forms of participation (cont.)

16. Representation/roles Stakeholders Citizens Type of conflict Interest Negotiation Value Non-reconcilable Negotiation  ’War’ Deliberation  ’War’ Reconcilable Deliberation 3. Choosing VAIs (cont.)Representation and type of conflict

17. 3. Choosing VAIs (cont.)Stakeholder vs. citizens’ representation • Involving stakeholders vs. involving citizens creates very different processes • EXAMPLE: The Nesodden ‘citizens’ meetings’ (Norway 2006) – coastal zone planning (Soma forthcoming) • Two groups of 10-12 citizens • Stakeholder representatives and experts included in a pre-face – clarifying the issues • Groups discussed up front what it meant to act as citizens • Further institutionalizing of role: choice of time horizon (both groups chose 100 years!) • Two meetings each group. Experts and stakeholders invited to the second meeting as ‘experts’ • We observed very clearly how the role of acting as citizens influenced the deliberation – not detached but ‘impartial’ • Challenge: How conclusions from these kinds of meetings influence ‘Business as usual’ policy where stakeholders intervene …

18. 4. The second order problem The process of choosing VAI • If VAI  preferences; preference/value articulation; decision rules  a 2nd order problem is created • How to choose VAI • How to secure participation and deliberation in the choice and development of methods • A professional forum to discuss experiences • ‘second order communication’ – reflexiveness • The role of logical and normative models in this • The importance of ‘theoretical’ or ‘synthetic’ models for communication and coherence in process vs. the role of ‘practical experience’ • People may not want to deliberate • Selforganizing: Bottom – up vs. top – down. Empowering

19. 5. Conclusion – comparing VAIs CBA MCA DI Autonomous ???? The human is individuals social Individual/calculative Bounded Communicative/ rationality rationality social rationality Preferences Preferences Preferences are given may change may change Commensurability Incommensurable Incommensurable preferences preferences The preference of society = sum of Compromises The best argument individual pref. Social preferences The effect of choices The effect of choices are individual are common Consumer Decision maker Citizen, stakeholders Stakeholders Market Forum Capacity to pay Position Capacity to argue