390 likes | 545 Vues
REM 356: Resource Management Institutions. School of Resource & Environmental Management. Chad Day, Randy Morris, Thomas Peter. COURSE ORGANIZATION 1. LECTURE 1-Theory and Concepts 1) Institutions Planning-geography model 2) Sustainability: Protecting the Future
E N D
REM 356: Resource Management Institutions School of Resource & Environmental Management Chad Day, Randy Morris, Thomas Peter
COURSE ORGANIZATION 1 LECTURE 1-Theory and Concepts 1) Institutions • Planning-geography model 2) Sustainability: Protecting the Future 3) Civil Society and Civic Process 4) Planning Processes • Collaborative planning 5) Policy 6) Evaluation Research 7) Program Theory 8) Implementation
COURSE ORGANIZATION 2 LECTURE 1-Theory and Concepts • R&E Management Instruments(Jacobs1993) • Environmental & Social Impact Assessment • Cost-benefit analysis • Multiple accounts • Triple bottom line 10) Political Science Evaluation Models
Institutions • What is involved in creating an institution for resource and environmental mgmt? • A significant organization, relationship, or practice in a society or culture • What components should we be considering to move toward more sustainable social, economic, and environmental futures?
SUSTAINABILITY • Using resources today at a rate that will allow future generations to live at the same standard in perpetuity that we currently enjoy • What resources are being managed sustainably today on a regional or global scale? • What countries or regions of the world are being managed sustainably today?
#2 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS COLUMN-1 • Legislation • Collaborative planning • Stakeholder representation • Adequate finances • Transparency • Champion • Role of politicians in monitoring institutions
#2 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS COLUMN-2 • Decision aids: • Geographic information system • Benefit: cost • Environmental & social impact assessment • Economic impact assessment • Multiobjective analysis • Multiple accounts assessment • Mediation • Education process
CIVIL SOCIETY-CIVIC PROCESS 1 • Traditional disciplinary or sectoral approaches to complex challenges (e.g.. urbanism) not working well • Economic, social, environmental, structural, political aspects intertwined and interrelated • Specialists have role but have difficulty linking their efforts within a coherent overall approach to complex systems such as cities • Experimentation is underway with a civic approach to close the gap between economics, geography, planning, sociology, ecology, engineering and other disciplines with the commercial, industrial, labor, social , environmental and political interests • Civic: of or related to a citizen, a city, citizenship, or civil affairs • Civil: related to citizens or the state; based on civil law as opposed to military or religious affairs
CIVIL SOCIETY-CIVIC PROCESS 2 • Civil society: third sector (government & business) • Beginning to experiment with the democratic ideal in which citizens play a role in decision making (Dempster, Nelson 2001) • Creates a new set of problems and opportunities • Limited by a self-sorting process to those interested and capable of contributing • Not a panacea but worthy of experimentation • Testing the limits of civic processes to identify and assess relevant issues and concerns, relevant knowledge, expertise, and approaches to resolution • Looking for a new approach, not an answer • Centers around 7 processes: understanding, communicating, assessing, planning/visioning, implementing, monitoring, adapting Nelson-Serafin 93 • Collaborative planning is an example
PLANNING • Several kinds of planning (Mitchell 2001:ch. 2) 1) Rational Comprehensive (synoptic-expert knows best) • Problem, need, opportunity • Goals, objectives, targets • Policy alternatives • Finalize ends, means, choice • Implement • Evaluate and correct (adaptive management) • Problems: takes too long, costs too much, problem has disappeared or can’t be solved by the time a solution is available, experts seldom agree 2) Incremental (muddling through) • Satisficers v. maximizers
PLANNING • Good enough, not optimum • More realistic perspective on how planners operate • May not produce needed change in emergency 3) Mixed scanning • Continuous incremental decisions while scanning a limited range of other options • Considers options that differ considerably from status quo 4) Transactive • Considers those to be affected more than synoptic planning • Thus, face-to-face negotiations = ADVOCACY • Dialogue and mutual learning • Planner is facilitator & participant, but not omniscient 5) Strategic Planning • Mission statement, vision, goals, objectives for governments & corporations
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 1 • An Assessment of CP = [shared decision making]SDM • “Theory & Practice . . .,” Gunton & Day 2003 • Civic- based approach that delegates responsibility to affected stakeholders • Formally adopted as preferred method in forestry, land use planning, urban planning in US & Australia • Challenges technocratic model; instead experts identify means and provide technical analysis to achieve political objectives • Planning a value-laden process above science; use public participation to identify goals & objectives • Combines advocacy & mediation paradigms whereby planners support specific stakeholder groups & mediate differences • Superior to litigation: seeks win-win solutions v. winner takes all • Lower cost
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 2 • Combines advocacy + mediation [alternative dispute resolution (ADR)] to seek win-win solutions • Advocacy empowers stakeholders; ADR creates forum to settle disputes • CP engenders a higher level of collaboration by delegating planning control to stakeholders • +stakeholders run process rather than remaining outside as critics • +more alternatives considered through interaction of all stakeholders • +consensus decision rule means that mutual interests of all parties at least partially met • Implementation likely as all stakeholders support plan • Social capital: skills, knowledge, relationships
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 3 • Weaknesses 1) Stakeholders must negotiate: delays, politics 2) Asymmetrical negotiating skills & resources 3) Must represent all sectors of society 4) Consensus rules may cause second best solutions: ecological constraints ignored • too vague to implement 5) Difficult to implement: 1)antagonistic stakeholders; 2) officials reluctant to engage 6) May be inappropriate where large value differences ? Are weaknesses greater than those in other planning methods? ? Can they be overcome by design & management?
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 4 • Evaluating CP Experiences: Criteria • Reached agreement • Efficient vis-à-vis other processes • Stakeholders’ process & outcome satisfaction • Other social capital benefits: relationships, skills, knowledge Six case studies pp. 9-12
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 5 Designing & Managing Collaborative Processes • Is CP appropriate • Is there an issue requiring urgent resolution? • Decision-making agencies committed? • Are all stakeholder interests are committed? • Absence of fundamental value differences? • Feasible solutions possible? • Is it appropriate to begin the process now? [Beginning CP can transform the decision environment] 2) Inclusive representation must create formal groups if some are missing • Decision makers, government experts, implementers • Scientific information must be used appropriately • Need flexibility to add members throughout process
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 6 3) Begin with clear, comprehensive ground rules • Process for adding/removing stakeholders • Process for amending ground rules • Roles/obligations of stakeholders: attendance; process objectives; timelines; role of subcommittees, facilitators, agency officials; media policy; record keeping; decision rules; confidentiality requirements; role of the public and consultants; data-gathering procedures, code of conduct 4) Reduce inequities among stakeholders training in negotiating, technical analysis, equal access to relevant information, finances to cover out-of-pocket expenses for volunteers
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 7 5) Ensure Process Accountability • Stakeholders to their organizations to ensure final support • All groups must ratify all major decisions during the process • To general public using comprehensive public participation programs • Elected officials have final approval of agreements and plans 6) Remain Flexible and Adaptive • Process must be able to adapt to changing circumstances 7) Sound Process Management • Skilled staff must be perceived to be neutral of any interest • Appoint neutral professional mediator/facilitator as chair • Professional staff fully accountable to table for logistics, information gathering, adequate financing 8) Realistic Timelines for all Milestones • Clear alternative process to make decision if no table consensus • Clearly defining stakeholders’ best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA) if no consensus • 4-year minimum
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 8 9) Success of planning contingent on a clear implementation plan • Key milestones • Responsibilities • Monitoring process with public reporting system • Process to mitigate implementation failures (use former planning table members) 10) Multiple-Objective Evaluation to Judge Success • Must monitor for reaching superior agreements more efficiently than other processes • Secondary social capital benefits • Compare against alternative processes • Requires adequate time to determine outcomes Need more meta-analyses of a large set of cases + objective criteria
POLICY • A definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions. • A high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures, esp. of a governmental body. • Iterative process • Statement of goals and a method of attaining them chosen from possible alternatives • Integrates opinions and preferences of stakeholders, professionals, politicians [often highly biased to elected officials and professionals] • Often sets an acceptable range of actions to implement • Includes a process to monitor • Midcourse correction
POLICY Bardach 1996 Eight-Step Path of Policy Analysis, 1-11. • Define problem • Assemble Evidence • Construct Alternatives • Select Criteria • Project Outcomes • Confront Trade-offs • Decide • Tell your story
POLICY v. PLANNING • Increasingly in planning field, policy and planning used interchangeably • Policies tend to be more general than plans • Reflects the profession of the author • Not true in political science & policy analysis • Many excellent policy texts
MONITORING POLICES Sustainability Goals A. Environmental/Ecological 1. Protect life support systems 2. Protect and enhance biotic diversity 3. Maintain/enhance ecosystem integrity rehabilitate degraded ecosystems 4. Develop preventive/adaptive strategies to global ecological change
MONITORING POLICES B. Sociopolitical B l. Environmental/ecological l. Keep scale of human activity below carrying capacity of planetary biosphere 2. Recognize environmental costs of human activities • minimize energy/material use, noxious emissions • decontaminate-rehabilitate degraded ecosystems 3. Ensure sociopolitical/economic equity in transition to a more sustainable society 4. Incorporate environmental concerns directly into political decision making
MONITORING POLICES B l. Environmental/ecological 5. Public involvement in development, interpretation, implementation of sustainable development concepts 6. Link political activity more directly to environmental experience by reallocating political power to environmentally meaningful jurisdictions B 2. Sociopolitical criteria: Ensure • Open, accessible political process with decision-making power at government closest to situation and people affected by decisions 2. People free from extreme want & vulnerability to economic coercion
MONITORING POLICES B 2. Sociopolitical criteria: Ensure 3. People can participate creatively/ self-directed in political-economic system 4. Minimum equality/social justice equality to realize one's full potential recourse to open/just legal system freedom from political repression access to quality education/information freedom of religion, speech, assembly
MONITORING POLICES B 2. Sociopolitical criteria: Ensure 3. People can participate creatively/ self-directed in political-economic system 4. Minimum equality/social justice equality to realize one's full potential recourse to open/just legal system freedom from political repression access to quality education/information freedom of religion, speech, assembly
MONITORING PLANS Kamloops Monitoring Table Members by Sector (49) Resource 22% First nations 2 Gov. environment 14 Gov. resource 34 Tourism, recreation, 16 conservation Other 12