“The standard environmental decision making process is ‘broken’!” …Is there another way?

Research Topics in Sustainable Development Seminar Center for International Development Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 6 April 2004 “The standard environmental decision making process is ‘broken’!”…Is there another way? Herman Karl U.S. Geological Survey Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A Better Approach to Science-Intensive Environmental Disputes: Collaborative Decision-Making that includes Joint Fact Finding

How did I get from here… Internal Wave Currents as a Mechanism to Account for Large Sand Waves in Navarinsky Canyon Head, Bering Sea (Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 1986) …over to here? Managing the Science-Policy Interface in a Complex and Contentious World (Handbook of Globalization and the Environment, in review)

Ocean disposal of radioactive waste DDT-Laden Sediment; Montrose Case INCLUDE BLM Community Based Stewardship Course A Tale of Two Watersheds

Department of the Interior History of Strategic Planning Efforts to Involve Citizens in Decision-making A reflection of the exponentially growing trend in society toward community-based, collaborative decision-making grounded in sound science

Encourage community-based decision-making grounded in sound science Move decision-making away from conflict toward cooperation Development of citizen stewards is critical to our success as an agency

Collaborative decision-making as a framework for a model of shared governance

Overarching Goal Enable a fundamental paradigm shift in the role of science, scientific information and scientists in societal decisions, For the purpose of helping to sustain Earth’s interdependent ecosystems, natural resources and human social systems.

Blockers to Sustainability Drivers for Collaboration Tensions between environmental preservation and economic development create land-use and environmental policy conflicts Natural and social systems are complex and interdependent; growing population both increases the stress on the environment and the probability of more frequent and greater magnitude disasters. Policy issues involve scientific, economic, political, social, ethical, and esthetic interests Competing interests and diverse cultural/community values exacerbate conflicting land-use and environmental policy choices

The Role of Science • Decisions are based on values • Science provides the context, placing constraints on choices

Science Is Not A Panacea Science and scientists can help understand the consequences of different choices and inform decisions Science and scientists can help explain uncertainty, prediction, and risk and how these relate to the ‘precautionary principle’ Science and scientists can raise new questions and help identify gaps in knowledge Scientists should communicate scientific information clearly, effectively and in a timely manner to citizens and decisionmakers Scientists can develop new and better methods and tools, which aid the conversation

Process is Important

Conducting Science Within an Adversarial Process Often Results In: Detachment Dueling Scientists Science/Culture Collision Mistrust Litigation

USGS Science Impact Program A focused effort to improve and expand the use of USGS science information to support decision-making at the Department of the Interior, other Federal, State, and local government organizations, and by the public

Science Synthesis involves identifying, developing, and evaluating needs and opportunities for science to support decision-making. Societal issues, disputes, and problems are linked with current and future science capabilities to determine the context in which science can most effectively support decision-making. Collaborative processes including joint fact-finding are used to define the research questions that need to be answered. Tool and Product Development includes developing integrated multidisciplinary tools, products, models, and processes that describe the biological and physical as well as the socio-economic and institutional implications of alternative decisions. Science Impact Education and Training will incorporate the lessons learned from Science Synthesis and Tool and Product Development to help scientists in the USGS and other research institutions improve the interface among scientists, decision-makers, and citizens.

MIT-USGS Science Impact Collaborative Engage in field-based efforts to test the effectiveness of joint fact finding as an approach to improving the linkages between the use of science and management and policy decisions Determine which situations are appropriate for joint fact finding Document these pilot tests through interaction with stakeholders and policy makers at the local and national levels Encourage education of a range of interested publics regarding the role of experts and stakeholders in science-intensive environmental policy-making Train a new generation of scientists and applied social scientists in the integrated tools and techniques of using joint fact finding in science-intensive policy making

Key Hypotheses The more you involve people affected by a policy decision in the design of the supporting scientific inquiry using a joint fact finding approach, the greater the chance that they will use (and value) the results in the decisions that get made. It ought to be possible, as research proceeds, to review preliminary findings and leave open the possibility of refining the study design with input from the public; in short, it should be possible to take an adaptive management approach. It ought to be possible to design as part of the project plan a monitoring and assessment component from which to learn lessons applicable to future projects and thus provide for societal learning.

Process + Substance = Outcome

Driving Hypothesis Linking Process and Substance Public involvement in science-intensive policy disputes can only be meaningful or effective when and if the proper tools are used to allow stakeholders with varying degrees of scientific and technical knowledge to engage in “high quality” joint fact finding.

“Collaboration is a deceptively simple concept” The NEPA Task Force, 2003 Whereas there is a range of collaborative approaches, there are three conditions that must be met for a collaborative process approach that includes Joint Fact Finding Representation: All key stakeholders need to be involved in framing the inquiry. They need to choose who will do the research. Scientists do not choose the stakeholders. Engagement: A trained professional neutral must manage the conversations and all the stakeholders must be engaged in the conversations. Ongoing Conversation: Scientists and technical experts need to stay engaged in ongoing conversations. They cannot leave the table when they finish the scientific report. They do not advocate a policy.

Mutual-Gains Approach • Acknowledge the concerns of the other side • Encourage joint fact finding • Offer contingent commitments to minimize impacts if they do occur, and promise to compensate knowable but unintended impacts • Accept responsibility, admit mistakes, and share power • Act in a trustworthy fashion at all times • Focus on building long-term relationships • Susskind and Field, 1996

Joint Fact Finding Multi-step process managed by a neutral facilitator that: Enhances the capacity of the lay public to express concerns in terms that scientists can readily incorporate Ensures non-experts an opportunity to express the values that must be honored when assessing impacts of decisions related to ecosystem and natural resource management, environmental policy and land use Incorporates local knowledge of stakeholders who know about certain aspects of ecosystems and natural resources management while giving appropriate weight to the scientific knowledge of experts

Joint Fact Finding (cont’d) Avoids the delays and unnecessary costs that accrue when conflicts erupt over science-intensive policy decisions Preserves the independence of the scientists, as well as their commitment to the best practices of scientific inquiry Engages citizens helping to ensure that decisions are made at the most local level

Basic Principles for Managing Knowledge from “Here” and Knowledge from “Away” The best stakeholder processes do not privilege one way of knowing above others. They welcome all modes of inquiry and analysis to the table and integrate information that makes sense culturally, scientifically, economically, and politically. The best stakeholder processes ensure that both kinds of information—technical and local, scientific and cultural, lay and expert—are accessible to everyone involved The best stakeholder processes are built on mutually framed questions by the stakeholders. The stakeholder group, rather than scientists or “culture experts”, drive the gathering of information, its analysis and meaning-making, and its application to decision-making, Adler and Birkhoff, 2002, Building Trust, When Knowledge from “Here” meets Knowledge from “Away”

Basic Principles for Managing Knowledge from “Here” and Knowledge from “Away” Cont’d In the best stakeholder processes, all information (regardless of whether it is scientific, technical, traditional, cultural, local or remembered) is subject to respectful questioning about validity, accuracy, authenticity, and reliability. Every type of knowledge has standards of quality that can be examined, debated or shaped. The best stakeholder processes improve the capacity of all participants to learn from different kinds of knowledge. Adler and Birkhoff, 2002, Building Trust, When Knowledge from “Here” meets Knowledge from “Away”

Our FocusImprovement in On-the-ground Outcomesby Integrating: • Long-term strategic planning (proactive process) that fully includes direct citizen participation; Problem avoidance rather than problem solving; Joint Fact Finding • Actual implementation of decisions and and flexibility to accommodate new information form ongoing studies; Adaptive Management • Monitoring and assessment; Societal Learning

Need to Build Capacity Scientists, Policy-Makers, and Citizens Need to be Receptive to and Learn New Concepts and Approaches Institutions need to change

“The standard environmental decision making process is ‘broken’!” …Is there another way?