Journal of Science and Technology Studies (과학기술학연구)

Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies (한국과학기술학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of the World Wide Views on Climate and Energy in Seoul: Global framing and Local setting

유엔기후변화협상에 관한 세계시민회의 숙의과정 평가: 글로벌 프레이밍, 로컬 셋팅

  • 박주형 (가톨릭대학교 사회학과) ;
  • 이윤정 (가톨릭대학교 인문사회연구소)
  • Received : 2015.10.03
  • Accepted : 2015.12.10
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

World Wide Views (WWViews) on Climate and Energy was an experiment of public deliberation which was held in 77 countries with over 10,000 global citizens on June 6, 2015. The coordinator of this project (the Danish Board of Technology with Missions Publiques and the French National Commission for Public Debate) developed the overal procedure, and local partners implemented the actual events in each country on the same day. The coordinator gathered the results of the events from all local sites in order to submit them as global citizens' voice to the COP21 negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris. This study examines the extent to which such new method of WWViews, standardized at global level to be implemented in different local contexts, achieves its quality of public deliberation (representativeness, transparency, impartial inclusion, deliberativeness, influence) by evaluating the Korean WWViews held in Seoul.

지난 6월 6일 77개국 1만여 명의 세계시민이 참여한 유엔기후변화협상에 관한 세계시민회의(World Wide Views)는 전 지구적 이슈인 기후변화 거버넌스를 위해 세계 일반시민들이 참가한 숙의형 의사결정과정의 실험이다. 기본 구조는 덴마크기술위원회(DBT)를 중심으로 한 코디네이터(이하 운영본부)가 전체 과정을 기획하고 세계 각국의 현지파트너가 각자의 지역에서 시민회의를 개최하는 것이다. 이후 운영본부에서 각국의 결과를 취합하여 보고서의 형태로 정책협상의장인 유엔기후변화협약(UNFCCC) 당사국 총회(COP21)에 전달하는 것을 목표로 하고 있다. 본 연구는 다양한 과학기술영역에서 실험 되어온 시민 숙의라는 정책결정 기제가 추구하는 가치들(대표성, 투명성, 공평성, 숙의성, 영향력)이 글로벌 환경에서 프레이밍 되어져 한국에서 적용된 세계시민회의 사례에서 어떻게 드러나는지 평가하고 한계와 가능성을 점검한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 이영희 (2008), 과학기술 민주화 기획으로서의 합의회의 : 한국의 경험, 동향과 전망, 통권 73호, 한국사회과학연구소, pp. 294-324.
  2. 이영희 (2013), 서울시의 참여적 시정개혁 평가: 서울플랜 수립과정을 중심으로, 경제와 사회, 통권 제98호. 비판사회학회, pp.106-133.
  3. 제임스 피시킨, 김원용 번역 (2003), 민주주의와 공론조사, 이화여자대학교 출판부. [James Fishkin. (1993), Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform, Yale University Press.]
  4. Abelson, J. et al. (2003), "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes", Social Science & Medicine, 57, pp. 239-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X
  5. Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C. & Munton, R. (2001) "Deliberation andInclusion: Vehicles for Increasing Trust in UK Public Governance?", Environment and Planning C : Governmentand Policy, 19(4), pp.501-513. https://doi.org/10.1068/c6s
  6. Blue, G. & Medlock, J. (2014), "Public Engagement with Climate Change as Scientific Citizenship: A Case Study of World Wide Views on Global Warming", Science as Culture, Vol.23, No.4, pp. 560-579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.917620
  7. Burgess, J. & Chilvers, J. (2006), "Upping the ante:a conceptual framework for designing and eveluating participatory technology assessments", Science and Public Policy, Vol.33, No.10, pp.713-728. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778551
  8. Carson, L. & Hartz-Karp, J. (2005), "Adapting and Combining Deliberative Design: Juries, Polls, and Forums", in J. Gastil & P. Levine. Jossey-Bass Ed., The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century, pp.120-138, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  9. DBTF. (2015), Manual for World Wide Views on Climate and Energy, Copenhagen: The Danish Board of Technology Fund.
  10. Dryzek, J. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Elster, J. (1998), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Hendriks, C. (2004), Public Deliberation and Interest Organizations: A Study of Responses to Lay Citizens Engagement in Public Policy, A Doctoral thesis submitted to the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
  13. Medlock, J. (2014), Fostering environmental citizenship through public deliberation: Investigating Canadian participation perspectives from the World Wide Views on Global Warming initiative, A Doctoral thesis submitted to University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  14. Petts, J. & Leach, B. (2000), Evaluating methods for public participation: Literature review, R&D Technical Report: E135, Environment Agency.
  15. Rask, M. & Laihonen, M. (2011), "WWViews and Lobbying in Finnish Climate Politics", in Rask, M., Worthington, R. & Lammi, M. Ed., Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance, pp.203-220, Earthscan Publications.
  16. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. (2000), "Public Participation Metods: A Framework for Evaluation", Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol.25, No.1, pp.3-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101
  17. Schneider, J. & Delborne, J. (2011), "Seeking the Spotlight: WWViews and the US Media Context", in Rask, M., Worthington, R. & Lammi, M. Ed., Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance, pp.241-260, Earthscan Publications.
  18. Webler, T. (1995), "Right" Discourse in Citizen Participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler,& P. Wiedelmann Ed., Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, pp. 35-86, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.