I’ve been reflecting on Rob Carolane’s fear that the Local Voices Climate Jury’s recommendations wouldn’t match the Council’s standards. This is a common anxiety about these processes, and it’s difficult to allay by insisting that randomly selected participants do have the ability to make sound decisions when they are well informed and have a chance to weigh up information and test values with others.
A couple of years ago I designed and facilitated a jury with a state and regional agency working collaboratively on a chronic problem – the management of the degraded riparian zones on Victoria’s Loddon River. The Loddon’s been in the news recently with flooding in the region, and I couldn’t but think of how extremes in climate change bear down on communities, from a river with cracked surfaces and no water in it, to one peaking at 7 meters.
On reviewing that jury’s recommendations the first thing that strikes me is that they tackle definitions at the outset to provide clarity.
“Riparian”: we base our recommendations on North Central CMA presenter’s definition of ‘riparian zone’ and visual slide. We are aware other agencies definitions vary.
Secondly, consider the tone of the Preamble to their recommendations:
‘Poor or negligent management, whether by inactivity, ignorance, deliberate disrespect or mismanagement is unacceptable to the members of this Panel. However we recognise that degradation is a matter of perception and knowledge. It may be affected by economic considerations, especially in drought. This makes our task complex.’
It is the way that ordinary citizens find themselves stepping into big shoes, those of real-life decision-makers that is so humbling for people who under-estimate this capacity and aspiration to serve well as a collective in a Citizens’ Jury.
Find more detail about this jury on my website.
