Deliberative Democracy in Disaster Recovery: Workshop Report

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY IN DISASTER RECOVERY
WORKSHOP REPORT
Workshop Report Prepared by Frankie MacLennan, Nicole Hunter & Doug Millen December 2011 On 18 November 2011, the Deliberative Democracy in Disaster Recovery Collaboration held a workshop with around 30 recovery-focused disaster workers, hosted by Australian Emergency Management Institute in Macedon, Victoria, to explore the potential role for deliberative methods in disaster recovery. Specifically, the workshop investigated: The current extent of deliberation and deliberative methods used in post-disaster policy making; and How deliberative methods could be built into disaster recovery policy to improve decision-making.
The workshop facilitated the development of ideas for how deliberative methods can be embedded into the recovery model, and the approach of the workshop encouraged participants to draw on their experience and vision improved community engagement in disaster recovery based on deliberative democratic theory. This report is explicitly descriptive, and consists of participants unedited responses from workshop activities. It is accompanied by a document containing appendices, which can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76183305. A more evaluative report from projects across the DDDR Collaboration will follow in early 2012.
Deliberative Democracy in Disaster Recovery: Workshop Report
KEYWORDS
Deliberative democracy, deliberative methods, community engagement, disaster recovery, betterment, sustainability, disaster resilience
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge Louise Mitchell and Australian Emergency Management Institute for their generous support of this project, including full accommodation and venue for the workshop.
PREPARED BY
Frankie MacLennan Department of Sustainability and Environment Yarram, Victoria Nicole Hunter Fire Light consulting Geelong, Australia Doug Millen Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy University of Western Sydney
PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS
Sponsored by: Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy, University of Western Sydney newDemocracy Foundation Supported by: Australian Emergency Management Institute Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria GreenCross Australia
PROJECT TEAM
Mara Bun GreenCross Australia Maryella Hatfield University of Western Sydney Nicole Hunter Fire Light Consulting Frankie MacLennan Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
University of Western Sydney 2011
2 of 16
INTRODUCTION
As part of the original project scope and methodology (see Appendix A http://www.scribd.com/doc/76183305) the Deliberative Democracy and Disaster Recovery project designed a brief deliberative workshop to be part of the research that informed the final paper. This workshop was designed to meet a variety of aims but ultimately to inform a guide for using deliberative methods in a disaster recovery situation. The workshop took place on the 18th November 2011 at the Australian Emergency Management Institute in Mt Macedon. The project team is very grateful for AEMIs support of this project. The format of the workshop took a strategic planning approach. Firstly describing what is the current situation (NOW), then exploring whats possible (WHERE), and finally outlining the necessary actions to shift and meet our ideals (HOW). A detailed run sheet for the entire workshop is included in Appendix D http://www.scribd.com/doc/76183305.
PARTICIPANTS
There were a total of 29 participants who came from Tasmania, Queensland, NSW and Victoria. Invited participants from New Zealand, Canada and W.A. were unable to make the journey for a short one-day workshop. The breakdown of participants, where they came from and the hat they wore in coming to the workshop are outlined in the following graphs.
Vic NSW QLD Tas
How many years have you worked in disaster-related fields?

Less than 3 years 9 people. Less than 10 years 19 people. More than 10 years - 10 people Twenty years or more three people. 10 years I was born into it! Have been working with CFA since 2000. 7 years I started working with the Bushfires CRCs in health and social services-related settings.
3 of 16
Decades Rick McKay was involved in Ash Wednesday recovery. He was the operations managers for Board of Works at that time, and managed water supply. He has worked as an international risk management consultant, and is now working for City of Whittlesea.
AIMS OF THE WORKSHOP

RATIONAL AIMS
1. To explore current policy making in post disaster situations with regard to how deliberative it is. To explore how deliberation could be built into post disaster policy in order to improve decisions. The output from the workshop will inform a guide for using deliberative methods in a disaster recovery situation. The workshop will produce ideas for how to embed deliberation into the recovery model. To move from the theory to the practice and experience
2.
Community or Interest Group NGO Local Govt State Govt Researcher Other
3.
4. 5.
EXPERIENTIAL AIMS
1. 2. 3. Draw on participants experience of recovery and allow collective wisdom to emerge Participants have an experience of deliberation at the workshop For participants to have an ah-ha experience about deliberation and what it could be used for post disaster To shift from uncertain to willing to take some action To move from being uncomfortable to comfortable with the concepts of deliberative democracy Head and heart involvement in the day
4.
How many years have you worked with, or known about, deliberative methods?
Didnt know about it before being invited to the workshop ~7 people Had heard about it ~5 people Relatively experienced ~7 people o E.g. Michelle Croker used deliberative methods in a year-long project two years ago. Deliberative methods veterans and facilitators (~5 years) ~9 people o E.g. Brian Lennon has been using deliberative methods in local governments for over 10 years. He was first inspired to do so in order to engage a broader range of residents in making decisions that affect their lives. o E.g. Martin Butcher (DSE Vic) reviewed deliberative methods as part of a PhD in participatory development some time ago.
5.
6.
WHAT QUESTIONS CALLED

PEOPLE TO THE WORKSHOP?
Im interested in how we can build community resilience and capability prior to disaster? What does deliberative democracy look like after disaster and what are the factors that impinge on it? Policy and politics after disaster: how can we have some deliberative foundation in policymaking? How can deliberative methods support longterm vision? How can we convert what we know is a good process into accepted good practice? o Whats the leadership, resources, capacity, and authority required to do this at multiple levels? Is the technocratic managerialist ideology on the way out are we ready to try democracy?
4 of 16
How can we hold the anxiety of democracy? When the town hall meeting goes berserk, which voices do we listen to how do we hear more than the loudest most anxious voices? If a community doesnt have DD methods in place before disaster, what capacity do they have to use it post-disaster? Disaster recovery is not a fixed science. How is deliberative democracy going to be better than any other process for community engagement?
example). Key content that fed the online discussion was drawn from a literature review commissioned as part of the larger DDDR project, which can be found in Appendix C http://www.scribd.com/doc/76183305 or here http://www.scribd.com/doc/72514456. The number and title of each forum topic and the number of associated comments are tabled below.
Forum Topic Welcome and Introductions Recovery Funding & Its influence on Community recovery Deliberative Democracy What is it? Have you experienced it? Definitions Looking at a case Study New Orleans (Large Scale Disaster and Deliberation)
No. of comments 3 9 8 19 5
The insights and reflections about what participants learnt about deliberative democracy from the online environment were shared at the start of the workshop:
What did you learn about DD in the online pre-work?
INSIGHTS AND REFLECTIONS FROM THE ONLINE PRE-WORK

Prior to the workshop an online dialogue platform was set-up in BIgTent to encourage some thinking beforehand, explore some definitions, provide some resources and reading material, and whet peoples appetites for the conversations at the workshop. The online forum was also used as a deliberative tool in itself to explore case studies, experiences and understand the terminology surrounding the project. Participants were asked to sign-up 3 weeks before the workshop to partake in conversations about the research. Of the 29 participants at the workshop, 27 signed on to the BigTent forum. Three of the project team registered initially then 13 others in the first week, 7 in the second week and 4 in the third week. The key themes discussed included what do the terms disaster, recovery, democracy and deliberation mean? What experiences of deliberative democracy have people had? What a key case study tells us about deliberative approaches and disasters in an Australian setting (using the Unified New Orleans Project as the
If you cant use the tools prescribed for engagement, then the mechanism is not necessarily fully democratic. E.g. The current projects mechanism for online engagement. o Are we being inclusive? o However, online engagement often provides an opportunity for individuals to participate who may not typically have been able to. We need to use multiple methods of deliberative democracy in order to be inclusive. Trying different DD methods offers opportunities for practice. The process of engagement has shifted but influence is key. o We need to move away from effectively teaching learned helplessness in our communities. We must show our communities that these processes are workable. o E.g. Brian Lennon gave a powerfully illustrative example from Newstead, in the form of the Newstead 2021 summit in 2008, which began an ongoing process of building a sustainable culture of engagement in Newstead.
5 of 16
Outcomes: if action does not follow deliberative methods, individuals and communities are pushed away and may become disheartened. The process is also an outcome! Government and decision-makers must believe in the capacity of individuals/communities to make decisions. o Strong community engagement and the use of deliberative methods pre-disaster, in normal times, strengthens communities to survive and succeed through disaster. o Who is democracy for when is democracy for? DD methods should not be used only post-disaster; democracy should be emphasized and practiced as a part of everyday life. Community development is a key idea in this discussion we must leverage this. E.g. Martin Butcher (DSE Vic) gave an example of a recent engagement process he used to consult with users of ground water in a ground water mapping process. During and following the process, participants expressed how grateful they were to have been involved in the mapping process. The paradigm going forward if very different than the past. Mara Bun noted that we need to consider how climate change will affect disasters. We need to think forward and consider what might be different due to climate change in the future, rather than prioritizing the past in creating future methods. Can deliberative democracy be populist/reactionary, and could this be problematic? Not everyone shares our ideological view of community engagement we need to consider this and present new methods within existing frameworks of decision-making and community engagement. E.g. Daryl Taylor notes that he heard Fran Kelly (Radio National) say that there is a universal agreement that the citizens assembly for climate change was a terrible idea. Daryl notes that this has created a difficult environment for using these methods. There is always going to be disagreement how do we acknowledge and support this? How do we prevent individuals who feel marginalized from continuing to feeling so how do we create space for disagreement? The recovery area is a great place to make inroads with deliberative democracy.
Rick McKay notes that the room has just described Lyn Stones model of community decision-making, whereby individuals position problems within their own perspective. He notes that the room is viewing this issue from a societal perspective. Nicole notes that deliberative democracy is just a little bit different than pure engagement. Its the three tenets that make this so influence, inclusion and deliberation.
6 of 16
HOW DELIBERATIVE IS POSTDISASTER POLICY MAKING NOW?

Participants were asked to think about a story of a deliberative experience post disaster for policymaking they have (a) personally experienced, (b) read about e.g. New Orleans or (c) observed. By sharing their stories and choosing the most interesting/powerful/insightful they slowly gathered into pairs and then groups of four choosing the best story from each discussion. These stories were not necessarily positive, but were telling and insightful about the current state of deliberation post disaster at a policy making level. These stories included: 1. 2. VicUrban kills Democracy Community takes control Mitchell Shire Council Community members led and supported their return to their homes. Great democracy! But now the politics After 2009 fires a number of people were invited to re-evaluate Australias fire danger ratings. Experts were involved to inform participants, as well as many technical advisors and information. There was intense disagreement. The process was influential in every state, except for Victoria. The Victorian Premier at the time personally disagreed with the outcome and decided to proceed on a different track. Marysvilles Broken Heart: A Fair Cop Post-2009 bushfires community engagement shaped the principles to guide a new public space in the affected town centre. A group within the engagement process advocated for a police station to be a part of the development. This example showed that in a process that engages meaningfully could enable groups who are traditionally disenfranchised to be heard. No one I know went: Community engagement in Kinglake How do we re-engage a community who has had bad experiences with community engagement? A flood of tears An engagement event was foisted upon us so that council could push through decisionmaking. The community recovery committee
selected the facilitator but there were other shortfalls in engaging the CRC in framing the engagement event. The state government intervened and disapproved the communitychosen facilitator, and instead appointed a facilitator that the community had been dissatisfied with in the past.
WHATS POSSIBLE THROUGH

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY POSTDISASTER?
WORLD CAF SESSION
Three different questions were asked on a total of 7 tables. These questions were: 1. What might be possible in community resilience through deliberative democracy post disaster? What might be possible in sustainability or betterment through deliberative democracy post disaster? What might be possible in policy making through deliberative democracy post disaster?
2.
3.
3.
This activity utilised a world caf process for a total of 3 rounds with a final 4th round asking for the gems from their conversations. The dot points following each question are the notes from each table as well as the gems and insights collated in the final round.
4.
5.
6.
What might be possible in community resilience through deliberative democracy post disaster?
It should be possible to have an ongoing process of inclusion that is activated post disaster 7 of 16
It should be possible for community to see itself as able to help itself (build capacity) It should be possible to have a fluid process It should be possible to support and up-skill community leaders without dictating to them It should be possible to have local decisions made locally people come first What resilience we can use or express is affected by how local, state, federal government enable Manuals by definition will not work Provide what is needed e.g. an admin person Resilience; culturally relevant language; communities bounce back, organise; designed by who for who? local sense making and definition leading to action Umbrella (1) leadership who? How? (2) adaptable, (3) culture comes to the fore what is the culture before and which part of the culture, (4) people come first Linking deliberative democracy and self-organizing systems (emergence) small groups doing things, taking action. Link these small self-organizing systems (SOS) into a larger deliberative process. Link up SOS leaders for example Kinglake Ranges 16 self organizing systems, shoulder-to-shoulder solving, resolving fundamental human and social needs Walk Out Bypass DD is a way of life a living process Our role is enabling so that conversations or processes remain in communities long after government or agencies withdraw Leadership Role of story telling DD in everyday existing processes in schools, playgroups etc.
Immediate? What is the deliberative process here e.g. Major Cantwell and the community Positive money, skills, connection, Negative poor health Government needs to listen sharing the stories I can make things happen! Making procedures and policy transparent and accessible by all the community Authority communities have their own capacity to run their own recovery their policemen could do no wrong The trust in the known Funding; community development for the purpose (criteria) of knitting social fabric Recognise the value of informal community events to build resilience, which in turn leads to more community engagement and a greater DD capacity
What might be possible in sustainability or betterment through deliberative democracy post disaster?
Scenario planning with communities pre-disaster (what if) might support better conversations and outcomes in post disaster strategic priorities for investment sustainability/betterment investment How do we filter community priorities? Involving people from problem/opportunity to delivery within an action learning approach Reshape the landscape process of disaster management Population change equals diversity Hope capturing and sharing success Sustainability or betterment post disaster will depend on where the community was pre event e.g. if under stress then the disaster may be the final straw (may flow from a population change a kind of renewal) Pre-forming an idea of what will sustain a community and what investments need to be made priority setting; strategic planning; funding; leadership Prioritizing the deliberations according to system and human needs. Leave less urgent decisions if you can. Make time for strategic community visioning When is the right time to finalise a decision? Emergent groups at different times change the decision (time critical -----deliberation) Post disaster is a bit late. Pre makes more sense Existing examples Newstead, Townsville Esplanade Local history Open systems feed in and feed out. Strategic investments e.g. school. Newstead.com.au; Geoff Park; Genevieve Barlow Sustainability and betterment; new knowledge and existing knowledge; history, local geography and conditions; solution knowledge what has worked combined with new knowledge, science, solutions that are working and will work into the future Making these decisions post disaster = insecurity, fear, anxiety Can risk scenarios be thought or felt (in a real sense) in order to choose where to rebuild
Cedar Rapids example Build on playground project group Who is known and therefore trusted? All the ideas were brought into the discussion Who defines what is a normal pace It has to be our journey you cant recover for me The DD process lesson = Professional Development (P.D.?) needs to be mainland into the future Some communities are more mature than others All the ideas are brought into the discussion
8 of 16
Disaster as an opportunity but not forced betterment
examples using Sustainable principles but could have gone further
What might be possible in policy-making through deliberative democracy post disaster?

Strong leadership on process; perhaps a temporary fix Real tension between optimal solution with deliberation and the needs of today e.g. school being rebuilt Ability to lead with not knowing and say No but together through deliberative/inclusive process Possible local community responses Local deliberation around response how will we prepare and respond (local trained, home-grown solution) Empower to come up with own response (resilience prior to the event) and able to work together when needed in a whole of community approach, supported by government in (influence). Good process is needed. Participation find the hook for people to become involved Building trust before hand how consistent, stay in the space, long term. Trust of government at different levels Quality of relationship will change during event A flexible local authorizing environment Appropriate and pushed down decision-making to communities Everyone needs to be at the table and it may help to slow down Issues of timing for involving people Priority what comes first, what is most important past food and shelter In disaster have to involve people as government is not there but its challenging due to political need What is policy making post disaster? Currently happens in Canberra; policy and government please decision-makers rather than engagement; Highly pragmatic, responding to Royal Commission; Evidence based; Politically influenced immediate short term outcomes
What makes the difference? Bold decision-makers with money and influence Greensborough Kansas after tornado Government funding commitment and they came at it from weve been here for 200+ years and want to be here for the next 200+; lengthy DD process 9 weeks lead by the Mayor population 2000, 900 participated! Build it back better Betterment simple idea but when it comes to dollars, difficult NDRRA- development methodology for ROI, cost benefit it costs more to build it back better Public Servants with an interest in this are not promoted So used to coming to processes that are disempowering normally 2% say if you are brave No surprises for the Minister. Success = a moment of bravery. Ministers are decision-makers Deliberative democracy cases are up against official democracy we are elected keep the power Community Building framework for betterment brotherhood fibre, core, foam soak in water light weight sandbag Shifting the status-quo, create inspiration as one stop in a process (not enough) DD can create a framework for empowering participants and influencing government Policy setting there is no precedent in policy; power lines, roads, schools, Agency = low hanging fruit its only in the last 26 years that government has been running recovery Bruce Esplin Strathewen Re-imagining major event as opportunity Money to shires DD process before an event happens; hypothetical, imagine this, what can we do? Envision the future, on a needs scale Never give up Attitude of the politicians Where are the risks? Clonbinane Community Hall looking for green sustainable ideas to build into the hall - Some good
9 of 16
Scale for policy national, state, townships Barriers are politically driven Can we make slower decisions state and federal? Discussion with community and later on long term and big issues Public policy process and how it works Subsidiary principle Nillumbik Public Health Plan 2001 Participatory Action Research and deliberation training (30) conducted dialogical processes across 30 stakeholder groups and won a state award. Growing Up in the Cities (GURC) - UNESCO most 5-15 year olds 20 action research tools generated child-centred policy Who is around the table? Stakeholder inclusive? Social, Ecological, Economic? How do we shift the questions, paradigms, intergenerational Build trust; community of government, government of community, subsidiary democracy, learned agency, authorizing environment. Learning from best practice examples egg. Major Cantwell a supportive, not imposing presence in charge of everything but youd never know looked like community lead Framework of influence; autonomy, trust, Alannah McTiernan in WA, Angela Blanchard stages Need to do it right or risk distancing and disenfranchising the community further Deliberative principles in the first week or two -what would they be? Good community engagement = community development Finding common ground Government strategic investment drives depth Community engagement is ongoing Government can pay lip-service in normal business but needs to build trust links to community capability New dialogue between government, council, and community how can this be built on? How can we do DD methods and facilitate community services and involvement? Natural, wellconnected facilitative resident leaders; residents; loud, incensed, articulate residents Future perspective vs. short term needs (i.e. for livelihoods) A DD process helps the holistic view or full range of factors around an issue to emerge (social, physical, environmental). This is in fact easier to pull together or see in a post disaster scenario because the traditional silos are down. Concept of wicked problems is useful here. Where we have really complex issues policies to resolve, we need a commensurate approach. P.S! The policy that needs fixing to really enable DD processes post disaster is tax law (use of donated funds and charity work) Post disaster temporary housing policy in Victoria is an example of DD-ish policy development Want: DD to underpin policy making; Need: trust 2 way between communities and policy makers therefore NEED greater skill and capability on all
sides to engage, listen and converse (reverse the helplessness, overcome assumptions) Government is community empowered to make decisions, Government to be held to account Influence/Inclusion/Deliberation IAP2: inform/consult/involve/collaborate/empower does this need revisiting for DD? Community has more responsibility with more resources. Community has less responsibility with fewer resources. DD can grow/encourage shared responsibility pragmatic politicians require announcables/risk reduced/resources managed. Separate policy from power. Good policy can fail in execution Assume policy is about politics driven from the highest level. DD enables government to devolve responsibility and resources to local communities. All policy developed though DD processes. Lag times are beyond acceptable. Nothing I hate policy its late and political. Break the cycle of learned helplessness driven by government response to meet community expectations. Being involved is a burden policy documents are so dense, acronyms and language exclude. DD inform policy Need dynamism Labels are a double-edged sword. Community governance structure where policy could sit local Memorandums of Understanding for action. DD shared responsibility. Responsive and adaptive DD methods enable long-term thinking and future planning time; facilitation; dialogue. Solutions are personal; social (needs access to resources); technical (needs resources); political ($).
What are the gems or insights from all of your discussions?

Limited resources allocate, apportion to: Longer-term resilience investment More responsive needs based, flexible, local post disaster. Recognition by government that community resilience is of value (process, not just outcome). One day we might be able to legitimise/justify funding for social capacity building. That DD needs to be practised and be a normal part of life. Disaster creates opportunities for cross-sectoral policy making. The time to identify vision, directions, what will sustain our community is before the disaster. Betterment: considerations are not necessarily best immediately; time for reflection; what are the immediate: needs? DD can encourage shared responsibility. 10 of 16
Govt can get their deliverables but more importantly it can create a buffer to political interference. Keep policy pure develop at the local level through DD and scaffold through local governance. Good processes and engagement before and after disasters means better DD post disaster. Happy healthy connected and engaged communities in their process Pre disaster scenario planning to generate post disaster visions and strategic priorities for recovery building. When in recovery can we start using DD methods? We need to test DD in disaster recovery. Can DD processes be used to help resolve conflicts both externally and internally? Showing how it can work.
Using resources both pre and post disaster to create awareness for betterment and sustainability having robust examples to point to. Tangible outcomes DD process should be part of how we live in helping us make decisions as a community not a talk fest but action. Making decisions at appropriate levels pushed down decision making to allow engagement/deliberation at the different levels. Go slow to go far time to deliberate on better solutions, STRENGTH in VULNERABILUTY to articulate I/we dont know but together through a commitment to DD well find our way. Policy making can we slow processes down in order to go far (not fast) Tension between an optimised solution for the future versus the needs of now. Where $ go: empower community to prioritise and execute key work still accountable. Government/agencies need to learn to let go. Communities need to learn to step up (with support). Empower deliberative models in high hazard areas between events (cut dependence mentality). Need to learn agency again bring forward intensive deliberation up front. Some people dont want to engage so be it.
11 of 16
HOW DO WE BRING
DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY TO LIFE IN DISASTER RECOVERY?
An Open Space session was run for the action end of the day. The participants were asked to raise ideas that answer the key questions (as above).
8. 9.
How to engage large communities in DD? Progressing a national communityled disaster organisation.
10. How do we get democracy from many splinter groups? 11. Changing the culture of local government and jurisdictions. The following are the ideas raised on the agenda for discussion (the reports from each session including recommendations are included in Appendix B http://www.scribd.com/doc/76183305). 1. 2. Who are the right people? Is there efficacy in holding this group? If yes, how might we do that? Reality TV show frame the community story. How does/can DD interface with/enable EMERGENCE from self-organising systems? (complex adaptive living systems) Network of self-interest Community of practice Sphere of influence How to move government from the reactive to a proactive state? How to develop to devolve broad community responsibility AND resource ownership for the full range of community development? Designing deliberative processes at a community level for before a disaster to prepare for impact and recovery. 13. Ways in which people can get the opportunity to practise DD style processes prior to disaster event as normal community activity learning circles; existing community groups and film 14. How can we empower communities to: prioritise; fund; deliver significant recovery initiatives? 15. There will always be a need for accountability ensuring wise use of taxpayer dollars: how does DD enable this? And enable government to support this? 12. How do we plan/co-create using DD and other processes early enough (pre) to cocreate resilient, sustainable creative, happy, strong communities that can survive/thrive in disaster?
3. 4.
5.
6.
7.
12 of 16
16. How are we collecting and assessing the DD in DR practices recently or currently under way? Where does best practice live? 17. How will we know? Evidence
18. Could a small group with a place-based experience review: how DD might have been used? Actual example
13 of 16
PRIORITISED ACTIONS
After the finish of the Open Space discussions the participants were asked to think about those recommendations that were most easily achievable and would have the biggest impact. They were asked to choose the five best recommendations that would most effectively embed deliberative processes within disaster recovery.
The following table outlines the list of highlighted recommendations and their number of votes.
R ECOMMENDATION
Community Plan Policy. So invest in community assessment consultation and funding for community resilience food, energy, disaster preparation and resilience etc. and then fund the plans form Community Plans. 1. Enshrine Community Plans in legislation NOT local government plans. 2. Extend planning windows on Community Plans to decades at least 3. Adequately fund community plans not on a photo opportunity basis. Enable and resource (get out of the way) 1. Deliberative Action (shoulder to shoulder) doing together and reflecting together rapid prototyping. 2. Deliberative Dialogue (face to face) listening together and learning together deep trust and understanding 3. Deliberative Structures (arm in arm) deciding together and enacting agency and authority and influence. Build on what weve already got, but more deliberately quality, sustainability examples. Futuring, localised planning. Telling the story of a community recovery, rebuilding with betterment and sustainability front of mind communicating vision to the nation and to the world. An agile framework/strategy which creates an understanding and commitment to genuine community engagement: Grassroots; mid level; upper management Model DD processes Longer term strategy (at least 10 years to change culture) Importance of case studies problems with there not being good or useful or reflective (nonbiased/self-interested) reviews of the work. Leaders need to embrace that there are practices of engagement that allow for designing genuine consultation outside media gaze and includes decision makers and implementers (2 different roles) Draw in information from kitchen tables from marginalised groups.
V OTES #
11
10
8 8 7
6 4 14 of 16
So much harder to achieve DD post disaster if DD culture not already in place pre-disaster. So what DD practice can we initiate as a preparedness activity? Every day matters e.g. management of local shared parks and facilities. Community involvement and plans need to be enshrined in a formal document (plan) that is ultimately empowered by legislation. DD pre-conditions: Access to information Widespread opportunity to contribute ideas and opinions. Iterative solution design going back to the constituency. Transparent decision-making. Evaluation frameworks are being worked on in community engagement and can be extended to DD. Explore the possibility of levering funding through NDRRA for disaster recovery/resilience/preparedness. Localised coffee cells Proposal for a documentary/reality TV show for ABC TV linking all the related activities radio hosts informing community people on the ground, people in government, all levels of the process being documented.
1 1 1 1
15 of 16
END-OF-DAY DEBRIEF
Participants were asked for a brief reflection (one word) at the end of the day. These reflections included the following: Exhausted, grateful, energized, heartened, confused, inspired, hopeful, enriched, enlightened, thoughtful, overwhelmed, connected, respect, curious, reassured, discombobulated, determined, connected, hopeful, reflective, fuller, thoughtful, cautiously optimistic.
EVALUATION
Participants were asked to fill out evaluation forms at the end of the workshop. These forms were analysed through survey monkey to understand the overall reflections of the day. This 10-item survey is included as Appendix E http://www.scribd.com/doc/76183305. The survey had a 70% response rate. Evaluations reflected an overall positive experience. Comments below reflect the upper and lower views on the spectrum. Many observations commented on the value of Deliberative Democracy as providing valuable tools and processes for participation in decision-making, also as a preparatory tool in building community resilience, prior to a disaster event. Others pointed to a need for case studies and storytelling to give specific examples from the past and to inform ideas for the future. Full survey results can be found in Appendix F http://www.scribd.com/doc/76183305.
16 of 16

Deliberative Democracy in Disaster Recovery: Workshop Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deliberative Democracy in Disaster Recovery: Workshop Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY IN DISASTER RECOVERY