Proposal Table of Contents

Out of the progressive field of environmental conflict management, a new genre of collaboration is currently breeding controversy in the environmental arena. Community-based Collaborative Resource Management Partnerships (collaborative partnerships) are initiatives in which diverse stakeholders use consensus building techniques for making decisions about the long- term management of natural resources. These groups, which include watershed councils, Rangeland Advisory Councils and sustainable community initiatives, have stimulated a lively, if not contentious debate about the role of direct citizen involvement in environmental planning and management. Praised by some for bringing stakeholders together to resolve contentious environmental issues, collaborative partnerships are also harshly criticized. Above all, opponents blame this process for producing "lowest common denominator" solutions (McCloskey, 1996) and co-opting the environmental advocacy movement (Mazza, 1997; Britell,1997).

Background

Stakeholder negotiation is increasingly used as a way to resolve environmental conflict. In the 1960s and 1970s, the modern day environmental movement was borne out of conflict between diverse interests, including environmentalists, industry, policy-makers and managers. In the 1980s, however, the field of alternative dispute resolution grew with the objective of fostering decisions that were better informed, better understood and more widely accepted, thereby avoiding costly court battles and achieving win-win solutions (Susskind 1980; Fisher and Ury, 1991). Several organizations like RESOLVE, the Keystone Center and the Center for Dispute Resolution provide professional mediation assistance in support of environmental dispute resolution. In 1990, with the passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (P.L. 101-552) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (P.L. 101-648) (Plater et al 1992), many government agencies also began to look to ADR as a means of handling internal and external conflicts (Susskind et al 1993).

Within the last decade, another phenomenon has appeared, informally linking the undercurrent philosophies of ADR, public participation and environmental problem-solving. Known by varying names---such as community-based collaborative partnerships, watershed councils, consensus groups, coordinated resource management, and sustainable community initiatives, among others---these community-based initiatives bring together traditional disputants from all sides of controversial environmental issues (McClellan 1996, Arrandale 1997). Using processes that promote problem-solving and focus on individual interests and shared concerns, collaborative partnerships are taking root across the U.S., addressing issues as varied as watershed management, riparian restoration, forest management, endangered species recovery, and grazing management (Jones 1996, McClellan 1996). Although the process uses principles of alternative dispute resolution, the focus on building relationships for on-going problem solving distinguishes collaborative partnerships from a one-time negotiated dispute resolution process (Wondolleck, 1997).

While these groups are similar in many respects to the process of ecosystem management (EM), there are substantial differences. Both emphasize long term planning and establishment of collaborative relationships among stakeholders; look at the larger picture of ecosystem relations in the management of natural resources; and emphasize the need to protect the environment while providing for the sustainability of local economies (Yaffee et al, 1996; Keystone Center, 1996). Indeed, some projects identified in EM research are also collaborative partnerships, such as the Malpai Borderlands in Arizona. However, not all ecosystem management projects are community based. Some, like the Columbia River Basin Project, are primarily large-scale agency managed projects (Burchfield 1998, Yaffee et. al., 1996). Collaboration in EM often means collaboration between agencies, not necessarily between all stakeholders, nor on a community level. A defining characteristic of collaborative partnerships is their position towards the top of S.R. Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation, where many groups occupy at least an advisory if not decision-making role (Arnstein, 1969; Wondolleck, 1996).

Support for collaborative partnerships ranges from the Clinton Administration to local landowners and environmental groups. Advocates of the process contend that ecosystem issues are local by definition and cannot be resolved with top-down solutions from federal agencies in Washington (Sadler, 1994). Many believe the process produces more creative and adaptive solutions to complex natural resource management problems, involving stakeholders so as to ensure a broad base of support for project implementation (Wondolleck, 1996). Collaborative processes also build trust between parties, a necessary condition for problem-solving to occur (Gieben, 1995). The benefits for communities and ecosystems are mutual, according to many participants. Not only does ecological restoration and sound management protect the "ecological capital" of rural communities, but according to one participant, "community success and pride will protect more habitat than any law we could write" (Michael Jackson quoted in Hamilton, 1993).

• Involve stakeholders in decision-making
• Foster understanding of issues and interests
• Promote creative solutions
• Result in better on-the-ground management
• Enhance local ownership of the process
• Encourage cooperation between stakeholders
• Avoid costly litigation procedures

On the other hand, collaborative partnerships are also harshly criticized. Many national environmental groups have refused to participate in several high profile partnerships, while others raise important questions that have gone unanswered (McCloskey, 1996). Concerns range from condemnation of alternative dispute resolution as a tactic to delegitimize conflict and co-opt environmental advocates (Britell 1997, Modavi 1996), to uncertainty over local control of national resources and the scientific soundness of negotiated agreements. Legislative support for the proposals of at least two groups (located in Quincy and Tuolumne County, California) have heightened fears that local efforts will pre-empt national interests, bypassing environmental safeguards and the opportunity for non-participant's review and comment along the way (Duane, 1997; Cockburn, 1993; Blumburg). At the heart of the matter is the precedent set by administrative and popular support for a process that has wide variation and no accepted standards for structure, functioning, or evaluation of outcomes (Huber, 1997). Simply put, these processes raise many questions for organizations that have been long active in normal governmental processes and who are uncertain about their role and capacity in this alternative forum. Concerns have been heightened by the recent passage of the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997 (July) in the House by a vote of 429-1 (U.S. House of Representatives, Herger 1997)---politically legitimizing a highly controversial process.

• Delegitimize conflict
• Produce lowest common denominator outcomes
• Often contain members with unequal resources such as time, money, information, and negotiation training
• Address issues such as forest management and grazing on public lands through local collaboration instead of through national dialogue
• Consist of stakeholders whose roles may not be well defined
• Exclude urban-based environmental groups
• Disempower both national and local majorities when using consensus-based approaches
• May circumvent the authorities of the agencies whose role it is to manage resources
• Co-opt environmental advocates

Controversy surrounding Quincy's collaborative process helped catapult it into the spotlight. The media quickly latched onto the story, presenting Quincy as an example of community-based collaboration that could change the process for addressing environmental problems. Ironically, there are hundreds of community-based problem solving groups in the U.S. that vary in structure, scope and outcome (BLM, 1998; River Network, 1997; Keystone Center, 1996, Wondelleck and Yaffee, 1994). Some are ad-hoc community groups while others are more structured (e.g. Coordinated Resource Management and Planning groups, watershed councils and BLM Resource Advisory Councils (BLM, 1998; Elder, 1997; Yaffee et al, 1996; Keystone Center, 1996; CA CRMP Technical Advisory Council). Myopically, media coverage has selected a few groups as representative of the whole, skewing the perception of the reach and legitimacy of the partnership process among policy-makers, interest groups and the public at large.

In the same vein, literature on collaborative partnerships falls into several categories: case studies and comparisons, popular press articles on specific groups (High Country News), editorial commentary advocating or condemning collaboration in environmental decision-making (e.g. www.qlg.org), and specific yet singular issues about collaboration. Workshops focusing on the subject emphasize the experiences and opinions of a select group of participants (e.g. American Forests, 1995,1998). There is of yet no research that offers a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the landscape of collaborative partnerships.

In order to determine the reach and consequence of this growing trend in environmental decision-making, we propose a systematic research effort to gain a concise understanding of the current experience in community-based collaborative resource partnership initiatives across the United States.

Through an objective survey and interviews of key stakeholders, we will identify key elements that define community-based collaborative resource partnerships, the range of roles in the decision-making process, and the experience and concerns of all primary interest groups. In addition, we will categorize the outcomes of different collaborative partnerships and explore alternatives to those processes. From this data, we will derive a set of criteria to serve as guidelines for judging partnership processes. Furthermore, we anticipate that all stakeholders will be able to use this tool to evaluate when a collaborative approach to problem solving is both credible and legitimate -- and under what circumstances and criteria might it be an appropriate process to formulate national policies.

• What are key elements that define a process as a collaborative partnership?
• What is the scope and variation of collaborative partnerships?
• Who is involved (or not) and why? What are their objectives?
• What are the range of outcomes and how are they currently assessed?
• What are the most pressing concerns surrounding collaborative partnerships?
• What characterizes an "acceptable" versus "unacceptable" collaborative partnership? Who defines acceptability? Do different groups have different measures?
• What are the criteria for initiating, assessing and improving collaborative partnerships -- both current vs. future?

Goals

From this project, we expect to gain a clear understanding of the range and variation in structure, objectives, and outcomes of collaborative partnerships in the U.S.; Positive and negative critiques of these partnerships reflect the opportunities and challenges facing collaborative initiatives. Through interviews and case analyses, we will discern how these partnerships capitalize on opportunities and overcome barriers to meeting the standards and criteria of concerned observers.

Objectives and Methods

A broad range of key participating and non-participating stakeholders in collaborative partnerships will be interviewed in order to:

1) Describe the range and variation of Collaborative Partnership initiatives

In order to visually represent the range, variation and scope of collaborative partnerships we will create a map to describe collaborative partnerships according to characteristics such as:

• Location
• Issues
• Participants
• Outcomes
• Decision authority
• Connection to existing procedures
• Elements of process structure (e.g. open/closed, facilitated, decision rules etc.)
• Scientific basis for planning, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring
• Level of support / opposition
• Level of experience / knowledge
• Funding
• Time frame (when initiated / meeting frequency)
• Scale of projects
• Land ownership

Methods - Characteristics to be examined will be derived from the literature on collaboration as well as critiques of the collaboration process.  Sources will include:

• Initial interviews to identify groups, key participants, concerned individuals and organizations.
• Review of relevant literature from:
• Popular press (e.g. High Country News magazine, local newspapers etc.)
• Scientific journals (e.g. Ecology Law Quarterly, Dispute Resolution Journal, Journal of Forestry, Society and Natural Resources, EIA Review, Negotiation Journal, Mediation Quarterly).
• Internet research (e.g. University web pages, Environmental interest groups, interest  group literature, watershed council web pages, Lexus-Nexus etc.).
• Dispute resolution organizations and workshops (e.g. Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, federal agencies, industry, Resolve, Consensus, Keystone Center).
• Formal interviews to verify information and provide details about collaborative partnerships and their participants.

2) Examine the issues raised in both positive and negative critiques of collaborative partnerships.

We will identify and describe the positive and negative critiques surrounding collaborative partnerships. This information will be used to generate hypotheses regarding the criteria used by stakeholders to determine acceptable versus unacceptable collaborative partnership processes.

• Identify key stakeholders involved in or affected by collaborative partnerships.
• Interview supporters and critics to identify the concerns underlying their positions.
• Analyze and evaluate results of phone interviews.
• Synthesize results into a framework with which stakeholders can assess the most common barriers and opportunities facing collaborative efforts.

3) Illustrate and analyze what role these varied perceptions of the collaborative partnership process play in select case studies.

Within the range of collaborative partnerships, we will select and develop 10 to 15 in-depth case studies that exemplify the findings of our research. These cases will be chosen according to collaborative partnership categories defined in our research continuums, and their capacity to illustrate criteria derived from stakeholder surveys and interviews.

ANTICIPATED PRODUCTS