Download pdf - NATURAL RESOURCES CONFLICT RESOLUTIONnaturalresourcespolicy.org/docs/nrcr-fall-2020-syllabus.pdf · “science” of collaboration and conflict resolution, particularly as it applies

NRCR Fall 2020 Page 1

NATURALRESOURCESCONFLICTRESOLUTION

LAW613/ENST513/NRSM513TheUniversityofMontana

ViaRemoteInstructionFall2020Monday1:00to3:50

OfficeHours

ByAppointment

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ShawnJohnsonManagingDirector,CenterforNaturalResources&EnvironmentalPolicy

Co-Chair,NaturalResourcesConflictResolutionProgramAdjunctFaculty,AlexanderBlewettIIISchoolofLaw

[email protected]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________CourseDescriptionConflictsovernaturalresourcesandtheenvironmentareubiquitous.Thepurposeofthiscourseistoexaminethecauses,dynamics,andconsequencesofnaturalresourceconflicts,aswellastherangeofpossibleapproachestopreventandresolvesuchconflicts.Thecoursewillconsiderthemeritsofconventionalapproachestomanagenaturalresourcesconflictsandemphasizethetheoryandmethodsofcollaboration.Itwillconcludebyconsideringinnovationsinthetheoryandpracticeofnaturalresourcesconflictresolution.Drawingonthehistoryofnaturalresourcepolicyandconflictresolution,thecoursearguesthatconventionalapproachestopreventandresolvenaturalresourceandenvironmentalconflicts–legislative,administrative,andjudicial–oftenleavecitizens,advocates,anddecision-makersdissatisfiedwiththeoutcome.Thisdissatisfactioninturnleadstoarecurrenceofdisputes,whichstrainsrelationships,andincreasestransactioncosts.Duringthepast45years,scholars,policy-makers,andadvocatesrepresentingvariousperspectiveshaveincreasinglyrealizedthatoneofthemosteffectivewaystopreventandresolvenaturalresourceconflictsistocreateopportunitiesfortherightpeopletocometogetherwiththebestavailableinformationtoaddressissuesofcommonconcern.Thecorepropositionofthis“collaborative”approachtopreventingandresolvingconflictsisthatitprovidesmoremeaningfulopportunitiesforcitizenparticipation,fostersmoreinformeddecisions,producesmoredurableandwidelysupportedoutcomes,improvesworkingrelationships,andminimizesthecostsofdisputing.Althoughitemergedlargelyinthecontextofnaturalresourcesandenvironmentalpolicy,thisapproachtocitizenparticipationandpublicdisputeresolutionisapplicabletoawide-rangeofpublicissues.


Thiscourseisdesignedforgraduatestudentsinlaw,forestry,conservation,environmentalstudies,communication,geography,planning,politicalscience,publicadministration,internationalconservationanddevelopment,andotherdisciplines.Throughreadings,casestudies,exercises,simulations,andguestspeakers,studentsareintroducedtothe“art”and“science”ofcollaborationandconflictresolution,particularlyasitappliestoland-use,naturalresource,andenvironmentalissues.Thecoursecriticallyexaminesestablishedtheoryandmethods,aswellascutting-edgeideas,methods,andpractices.Bytheendofthecourse,studentswillbeableto:

Ø Understandthecauses,dynamics,andconsequencesofnaturalresourceand

environmentalconflicts;Ø Understandtherangeofpossibleapproachestopreventandmanagesuchconflicts;Ø Gatherappropriateinformationandassesstheneedforpublicengagement,

dialogue,andconflictresolution;Ø Designpublicprocessesthatareinclusive,informed,anddeliberative;Ø Adapttheseprinciplestopublicparticipation,community-basedcollaboration,

administrativerulemaking,environmentalimpactassessment,land-useandresourceplanning,andlegislativepolicymaking;

Ø Participateeffectivelyinmulti-partypublicprocesses;Ø Understandtheroleandvalueofprocessmanagers(facilitatorsandmediators);Ø Adapttheprinciplesandstrategiestoscience-intensivepublicissues;intractable

publicdisputes;regional,trans-boundaryissues;anddisputesystemsdesign.Ø Understandtheimplicationsofcurrenttrendsincitizenparticipation,deliberative

democracy,andthegovernanceofnaturalresources.

Whilethereisnoprerequisiteforthiscourse,participantsshouldhaveaworkingknowledgeofnaturalresourcepolicy,includingthepoliticsofformulatingandimplementingsuchpolicy.Agraduatecourseinnaturalresourcepolicyandadministrationisstronglyrecommended.Throughoutthesemester,theprofessorwilltakeadvantageofopportunitiestosharetheongoingworkoftheCenterforNaturalResources&EnvironmentalPolicy.RealizingthatthiscoursefocusesonnaturalresourceconflictresolutionintheUnitedStates--particularlytheAmericanWest--wewillalsoattempttointegratebestpracticesfromaroundtheworldandtoexplorehowtheAmericanexperiencemightbeusefulinotherregionsoftheworld.Readingsforthecourseareavailableontheuniversity’sMoodlesite.Theprofessormayoccasionallyprovidesupplementaryreading.Thisisthefoundationalcourseoftheuniversity’sinterdisciplinaryNaturalResourcesConflictResolutionProgram.Formoreinformationontheprogram,pleasegotohttp://naturalresourcespolicy.org/education/conflict-resolution-program.php.


COURSEOVERVIEWPart1:TheConventionalApproachSession1 TheNatureofNaturalResourcesConflict Aug.24 Session2 PublicParticipation:TheoryandPractice Aug.31 Session3 ThePlaceofLitigationandtheCourts Sept.14Part2:NewRolesforCitizens,Experts,andDecision-makersSession4 TheEmergenceofNegotiationandMediation Sept.21

Session5 Community-basedCollaboration Sept.28

Session6 ReflectingonCollaboration:CritiquesandIndicatorsofSuccess Oct.5

Part3:TheoryandMethodsofCollaborationSession7 AnalyzingtheConflictorSituation Oct.12

Session8 DesigninganEffectiveCollaborativeProcess Oct.19

Session9 BuildingAgreementonScientificandTechnicalInformation Oct.26

Session10 DeliberatingandDeciding Nov.2

Session11 EngagingUnaffiliatedCitizens Nov.9

Session12a ImplementingAgreementsandAdaptiveManagement Nov.16Part4:InnovationsinTheoryandPracticeSession12b TowardMoreEffectiveGovernance Nov.16FinalExam/StudentPresentations:1:10–3:10PM Nov.19


COURSEREQUIREMENTSANDEXPECTATIONS1Inadditiontolearningaboutthehistory,theory,andmethodsofresolvingnaturalresourceconflicts,thiscourseemphasizestwoessentialskills–criticalthinkingandcommunication.Thefollowingcourserequirementsandexpectationsaredesignedtohelpeveryonedevelopandrefinethesetwoessentialskillsets.AttendandParticipateinClassandSmallGroupDiscussions=24pointsTheessenceofcollaborationis“informedengagement.”Topracticethiscoreskill-set,youwillreceiveamaximumof1pointforeveryclassand1pointforeverysmallgroupdiscussionsessionyouattend,foratotalof24points.Giventhatclasssessionsrelyondialogueandconversation,eachstudentshouldreadtherequiredreadingpriortoclass,bereadytodiscussthereadings,andfullyengageindiscussionandsimulations.Thegoalistoengagetheentireclass,notjustafewcommittedstudents.Ifclassparticipationanddiscussionispoor,unannouncedpop-quizzesmaybegiven.Ifyoucannotattendclassandlettheprofessorknowinadvance,youmayearn1pointbycompletingallofthereadingassignmentsforthatclassandpreparingacriticalessayonthereadingsinthecontextoftheunfoldingnarrativeoftheclass.Unexcusedabsenceswillearnyouzeropoints.LeadaSeminar=15pointsStudentswillworkinsmalltoorganizeandleadone75-minuteseminarbasedonselectedsessions.Whileyoushouldfeelfreetoframethediscussioninwhateverwaymakesthemostsensetoyou,makesuretoaddressthefollowingquestions:(1)Whataretheprimaryissuesandmajorquestionsaddressedinthereading?(2)Whatargument(ifany),theoreticalorapplied,isbeingpresentedandhowisitbeingdefendedbytheauthor?(3)Whattheory,methods,concepts,andevidenceareintroduced?(4)Howisthereadingrelatedtootherreadingsthissemester?(5)Whocares?Sowhat?Whatinsightsandcontributionsdoesthereadingoffer?Theprofessorwillworkwithstudentstohelpthempreparetoleadaseminaraftertheyhavereadthematerialsanddevelopedapreliminaryframeworkforpresentationanddiscussion.Thepresentationanddiscussionwillbegradedusingthefollowingcriteria:

• Preparing:Wasthegroupwellprepared?Didtheyseemknowledgeableandcomfortablewiththereadingsbeingdiscussedandreviewed?

• SummarizingandPresentingtheMaterial:Wasthepresentationeffectiveandorganized?Didthegrouptie-inandintegrateclassmaterialsanddiscussions

1Allstudentsmustpracticeacademichonesty.Academicmisconductissubjecttoanacademicpenaltybythecourseinstructorand/oradisciplinarysanctionbytheUniversity.


(especiallyimportantasthesemesterprogresses),e.g.,coursereadings,discussions,etc.?Didthegrouprecognizetheprimaryissuesaddressedinthereadings?

• FacilitatingClassDiscussion:Didthegrouphelptheclassworkthroughdifficultquestions?Weretheyabletorespondtootherstudents’questionsandcomments?

WriteaProfessionalMemo=25points(10pointsfordraft/15pointsforfinal)Oneofthemostimportantskillstolearnasagraduatestudent–regardlessofyourcareerpath–ishowtothinkcriticallyandwriteconcisely.Thegoalhereisnottowriteanother30-pageresearchpaper.Moretimesthannot,whenyouentertheworkforceyouwillbeaskedtodojustasmuchresearchasyouwouldfora30-pagepaper,buttothensynthesizetheinformationintoashortmemorandum.Thepurposeofthisassignmentistoprovideyouanopportunitytoexploremorethoroughlyandthoughtfullyaparticularissuerelatedtonaturalresourcesconflictandcollaboration.Itisalsoanopportunitytoapplysomeofthetheoryandmethodsreviewedduringclasssessions.Eachstudentwillprepareaprofessionalmemoonatopicrelatedtonaturalresourcespolicyandconflictresolutionthatisofparticularinteresttoherorhim.Thestructureandcontentofthememowillvarydependingonthetopicandaudience,buteachmemoshouldfollowtheguidelinespresentedin“HowtoWriteanEffectiveProfessionalMemo,”whichispostedonthecourse’sMoodlesite.Potentialtopicareasincludebutarenotlimitedtothefollowing:1. Waterpolicy,conflictresolution,andgovernance2. Publiclandslaw,policy,andconflictresolution3. Largelandscapeconservation4. Transboundaryconservation5. Environmentalpeacemaking6. Internationaltrendsandcasestudiesinnaturalresourcepolicy,conflictresolution,

andgovernanceBySession#7(October12),eachstudentshouldsubmitafulldraftofherorhisprofessionalmemofortheprofessor’sreview.Theprofessorwillthenschedule30-minutesessionswitheachstudenttoprovidefeedbackonthesedraftsandansweranyquestionsastudenthas.FinalmemosareduebymidnightonSunday,November15.Professionalmemoswillbegradedonthebasisof(1)writingandcommunication--includingclarity,levelofarticulation,andgrammar;(2)researchandanalysis--levelofcriticalanalysis,research,andspecificity;(3)coursematerials--amountofsynthesisandintegrationofcoursereadingsanddiscussions;(4)formalcitation(whateverstyleyouprefer,e.g.,parentheticalreference,footnote,endnote,legal,etc.);and(5)presentation.Eachelementisequallyimportantandwillbegradedaccordingly.


ProduceaShortFilm=20pointsTellinganengagingstoryaboutanissue,idea,success,orchallengeisoneofthemostcriticalskillstolearnasaconservationleader.Increasingly,shortvideosarebeingusedtoengageaudiencesofallagesinthemostcriticalissuesfacingourcommunitiesandlandscapes.Workinginthesamesmallgroupsasyoudidtoprepareaclassseminar,youwilldesignandproducea3-5minuteshortfilmonanissueofsharedinterest/concern.Thefilmwillbegradedbasedonthefollowingcriteria:

• Abilitytotellacompellingstory=10pointsDidthefilmhaveaclearmessage?Didtheelementsofthefilmcometogetherinacohesiveway?Wasthereacleartakeawaymessageorcalltoaction?

• Groupself-evaluation=5pointsEachsmallgroupwillevaluatetheothermembersofthegroupfortheirengagementandcontributionstotheproject(1point=minimaleffort/engagement;5points=fullyengagedandcontributing)

• Audience(restofclass)review=5pointsEachfilmwillbescoredbytherestoftheclassbaseduponeachperson’soverallimpressionofthefilm(1point=didn’tunderstandthepoint;5points=eagertosharewithmyfriendsandfamily).

FinalExam=16pointsUsingtheshortessaybyLawrenceSusskind“FifteenThingsWeKnowaboutEnvironmentalDisputeResolution,”pleasearticulatethetoptenthingsyouknowaboutnaturalresourcesconflictresolution.UsetheformatoftheSusskindessaybywritingconcise,compellingstatementsthatclearlystatethe“what”and“why.”Pleaseincludeappropriatecitations.Youressayisdueby5:00pmonFriday,November20.GradingScale93-100 A90-92 A-88-89 B+83-87 B

80-82 B-78-79 C+73-77 C70-72 C-

68-69 D+63-67 D

StudentConductCodeAllstudentsmustpracticeacademichonesty.Academicmisconductissubjecttoanacademicpenaltybythecourseinstructorand/oradisciplinarysanctionbytheUniversity.AllstudentsneedtobefamiliarwiththeStudentConductCode.


ImportantDatesforDroppingaCourse,FallSemester2020:Deadline Description DateThe15thinstructionalday

StudentscandropclassesonCyberBearwitharefundandno“W”onherorhistranscript.

Sept.9=lastday

16thto45thinstructionalday

Droppingaclassrequirescompletingaformwiththeinstructor’sandadvisor’ssignatureaswellasa$10feefromregistrar’soffice.Thestudentwillreceivea‘W’ontranscript;norefundwillbeissued.

Sept.10throughOct.21

Beginningthe46thinstructionalday

Studentsareonlyallowedtodropaclassunderverylimitedandunusualcircumstances.Notdoingwellintheclass,decidingyouareconcernedabouthowtheclassgrademightaffectyourGPA,decidingyoudidnotwanttotaketheclassafterall,andsimilarreasonsarenotamongthoselimitedandunusualcircumstances.Ifyouwanttodroptheclassforthesesortsofreasons,makesureyoudosobytheendofthe45thinstructionaldayofthesemester.Requeststodropmustbesignedbytheinstructor,advisor,andAssociateDean(inthatorder),soifyoupursuethisrequest,leavesufficienttimetoschedulemeetingswitheachoftheseindividuals(generallythiswilltakeatleast3-5workingdays).A$10feeappliesifapproved.Instructormustindicatewhethertheindividualispassingorfailingtheclassatthetimeoftherequest.

Oct.22–Nov.18

StudentswithDisabilitiesTheUniversityofMontanaassuresequalaccesstoinstructionthroughcollaborationbetweenstudentswithdisabilities,instructors,andDisabilityServicesforStudents.Ifyouhaveadisabilitythatadverselyaffectsyouracademicperformance,andyouhavenotalreadyregisteredwithDisabilityServices,pleasecontactDisabilityServicesinLommassonCenter154or406-243-2243.IwillworkwithyouandDisabilityServicestoprovideanappropriatemodification.


1.THENATUREOFNATURALRESOURCESCONFLICTThissessionprovidesanintroductionandoverviewtothecourse.Wewillreviewthenatureofnaturalresourcesandenvironmentalconflicts,explorethedynamicsofcompetitiveandcooperativeapproachestopreventingandresolvingsuchconflicts,andreviewtherequirementsandscheduleforthecourse.

Readings

1. StephenDanielsandGreggWalker,WorkingthroughEnvironmentalConflict(2001):26-33.

2. SusanL.CarpenterandW.J.D.Kennedy,ManagingPublicDisputes(1988):11-17.3. MatthewMcKinneyandWillHarmon,TheWesternConfluence(2004):18-30.4. JuliaWondolleck,TheImportanceofProcessinResolvingEnvironmentalDisputes

(1985):341-342.5. Thomas-KilmannConflictManagementAssessment6. GlossaryofTerms:NaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalConflictResolution

QuestionsandDiscussion

1. Whatis“good”naturalresourcespolicy?Ifeveryoneagrees,thenwhyistheresomuchconflict?

2. Whatisconflict,andwhatareyourperceptionsorfeelingsaboutconflict?Whataresomecommonconnotationsaboutconflict?Isconflictgood,bad,orboth?

3. Whatarethecentralelementsofanyconflict?Reviewthetypicalsequenceofanaturalresourceorpublicpolicyconflicttoclarifyhowtheseelementsinteractandinfluenceoneanother.

4. Whatcausesnaturalresourcesandenvironmentalconflicts?Discusswhyitisimportanttounderstandthecauseand/ornatureofnaturalresourceconflictsinordertoeffectivelymanageandresolvethem.Whyisprocesssoimportanttoprevent,managing,andresolvingnaturalresourceconflicts?

5. AssessyourpersonalstyleorapproachtoconflictbycompletingtheThomas-KilmannConflictManagementAssessment.Discussthemeritsofalternativepersonalapproachestoconflictmanagement.


2.PUBLICPARTICIPATION:THEORYANDPRACTICEOneofthebestwaystopreventormitigateconflictovernaturalresourcesandenvironmentalissuesistoprovidemeaningfulopportunitiesforcitizensandstakeholderstobeinvolvedfromtheverybeginning.WhilethetheoryandlegalframeworkforpublicparticipationintheUnitedStatesiscompelling,itoftenleavesparticipantsanddecision-makersfrustratedanddissatisfiedwiththeoutcome.

Readings

1. DanielKemmis,CommunityandthePoliticsofPlace(1990):9-16.2. DanielKemmis,ThisSovereignLand:ANewVisionforGoverningtheWest(2001):

124-126.[SeeSession5ForThisReading]3. ThomasC.BeierleandJerryCayford,DemocracyinPractice:PublicParticipationin

EnvironmentalDecisions(2002):2-4.4. ThomasDietzandPaulC.Stern,eds.,PublicParticipationinEnvironmental

AssessmentandDecisionMaking(2008):36-52.5. CenterforNaturalResources&EnvironmentalPolicy,PublicParticipation:Lessons

LearnedImplementingthe2012USForestServicePlanningRule(2015):20Pages.6. SherryArnstein,ALadderofCitizenParticipation(1969):216-18.7. DanielYankelovich,TheMagicofDialogue:TransformingConflictintoCooperation

(1999):169-176.8. InternationalAssociationforPublicParticipation,CoreValues,CodeofEthics,

Spectrum,andToolsofPublicParticipation(2010):18Pages.


1. ThebasicquestionJeffersonandMadisonattemptedtoanswerincreatingtheU.S.Constitutionwas...“shouldtheburdenofsolvingpublicproblemsrestmostdirectlyoncitizensorongovernment?”ExplainthephilosophicalargumentsofJeffersonandMadisonandexploretheimplicationstonaturalresourcespolicyandconflictresolution.Whichphilosophicalframeworkdoyoumostagreewithandwhy?

2. Whyshouldcitizensbeinvolvedinnaturalresourcedecisions?Whataretheargumentssupportingcitizenparticipation?Whataretheargumentsagainst?

3. Reviewthelegalframeworkforpublicparticipation.Howwelldoesthislegalframeworksupportoneormoreofthereasonstoinvolvecitizensinnaturalresourcedecisions?

4. Whatarethemostsurprisinglessonsthatemergefromthestudyonpublicparticipationunderthe2012nationalforestplanningrule?UsingtheclassicframeworkprovidedArnstein,whereonthe“ladderofcitizenparticipation”doespublicparticipationonnationalforestplanningseemtofallandwhy?

5. “Whatismissing”inconventionalpublicparticipationprocesses?Andwhatarethepitfallsorproblemsrelatedtopublicparticipationinnaturalresourcedecision-making?Identifywhatcitizenswantinapublicprocess,andwhytheydon’t


participate.Usingexamples,explainthedifferencebetweenthe“Decide-Announce-Defend”modelofpublicparticipationincontrasttothe“AlwaysConsultbeforeDeciding”modelofpublicparticipation.

6. Howdothevalues,principles,andmethodspromotedbytheInternationalAssociationforPublicParticipation(1)reflecttheidealizedobjectivesofpublicparticipation?and(2)addresssomeoralloftheproblemsassociatedwithpublicparticipation?


3.THEPLACEOFLITIGATIONANDTHECOURTSWhenconventionalapproachestopublicparticipationfailtosatisfytheinterestsofcitizensandstakeholders,peoplehavetheopportunitytochallengeboththedecision-makingprocessanditsoutcomesthroughadministrativeappealsandlitigation.Whilelitigationandthecourtsareoftentheforumoflastresort,theyplayanimportantroleinframingissues,highlightingpointsofagreementanddisagreement,andprovidingtheincentivetoresolveoutstandingconflictthroughmorecooperativemethods.Readings

1. MatthewMcKinney,WolfManagementintheNorthernRockyMountains:ACaseStudyontheRoleofLitigationinNaturalResourcesPolicy(2015):30Pages.

2. MartinNie,TheUnderappreciatedRoleofRegulatoryEnforcementinNaturalResourceConservation(2008):147-151.

3. JosephL.Sax,DefendingtheEnvironment:AStrategyforCitizenAction(1971):108-124.

4. LawrenceS.BacowandMichaelWheeler,EnvironmentalDisputeResolution(1984):12-18.

5. ChristopherM.KlyzaandDavidJ.Sousa,From“WhoHasStanding?”to“WhoIsLeftStanding?”:TheCourtsandEnvironmentalPolicymakingintheEraofGridlock(2013):SelectedPages.

6. MatthewMcKinney,ShouldNaturalObjectsHaveStanding?FromEnvironmentalEthicstoEnvironmentalLaw(2015):3Pages


1. Toappreciatetheplaceoflitigationandthecourtsinnaturalresourcespolicy,readthewolfmanagementcasestudy.Startbyreviewingthefactsofthecase.a. Whatistheoriginandcauseofthisconflict(thinkintermsvalues,interests,

data,institutionalarrangements,relationships)?b. Howhaslitigationinfluencedwolfmanagementpolicyaswellastheuseof

alternativeconflictresolutionstrategies?WhatisMartinNie’sbasicargumentalongtheselines?

2. AccordingtoSax,aswellasBacowandWheeler,whataretheargumentsforandagainstlitigationandthecourtsasawayofmakingdecisionsandresolvingnaturalresourceconflicts?

3. Whatisthemostappropriateuseoflitigationandthecourts?Whenisitmostappropriate?Leastappropriate?Whydosomegroupspreferlitigationoverotherapproachestoinfluencepolicyandmanagement?Considerthefourcriteriafordetermining“whichapproachisbest.”

4. Giventhecostandbenefitsoflitigationtoresolvenaturalresourceconflict,shouldthecoreissueof“standing”bereconsidered?Whoshouldparticipateingoverningormakingdecisionsabouttheuseofnaturalresources?Shouldnaturalobjectshavestanding?


4.THEEMERGENCEOFNEGOTIATIONANDMEDIATIONNegotiationandmediation(increasinglycapturedbytheall-encompassingterm“collaboration”)emergedinthelate1970sinresponsetothelimitationsoftheconventionalapproachestonaturalresourcesandenvironmentalconflict–publicparticipationandlitigation.Whileincreasinglypopular,collaborationisonlyoneapproachamongmany.Thissessionwillreviewtheincentivestonegotiateorcollaborate;clarifywhatenablesandconstrainssuchprocesses;reviewtheprinciples,processes,andcommonmethodsforcollaboration;andexaminethelegalframeworkforcollaboration.

Readings

1. MatthewMcKinney,BuildingAgreementonWaterPolicy:FromConflicttoCommunity(1997):17Pages.

2. MatthewMcKinneyandWillHarmon,TheWesternConfluence(2004):201-215.3. MatthewMcKinney,CollaborativeApproachestoNaturalResourcePolicy:Key

Elements(2011):2Pages.4. GailBingham,ResolvingEnvironmentalDisputes:ADecadeofExperience(1985):

14Pages.5. SarahBates,TheLegalFrameworkforCooperativeConservation(2006):24Pages.


1. Usingthecasestudyoninstreamflowpolicy,discussthefollowingquestions:a.Whatcompelsindividualsandorganizationstonegotiateorcollaborate?b.Whatconstrainsenvironmentalnegotiation?c.Whatenablesparticipantstobesuccessful?Inotherwords,whatarethekeyelementstosuccess(e.g.,theroleofmediators)?

2. Howdoesthiscasestudyrevealnewrolesforcitizens,experts,anddecision-makersinresolvingnaturalresourceconflictsandshapingnaturalresourcespolicy?Reflectonthedifferencebetweenpublicparticipationandshareddecision-making.Doesthiscaseamounttoofficialdecision-makers(e.g.,legislators,agencies,andsoon)abdicatingtheirdecision-makingauthority?

3. Whatdoesthiscasestudysuggestintermsofaprescriptiveframeworkorphasestoenvironmentalnegotiationandcollaboration?Doesthisframeworksuggestthatmultipartynegotiationisalinearprocess,orisitmoredynamic?

4. WhatlessonsdoestheBinghamarticlesuggestintermsofthehistoryandtrajectoryofnaturalresourcesconflictresolution?Thinkintermsofplace-basedandpolicy-orientedapplications,aswellasadhocvs.moresystematic,institutionalizedapplications.

5. Refertothereadingsonthelegalframeworkforenvironmentalnegotiation,mediation,andcollaboration.How,ifatall,doesthisframeworkcatalyze,enable,andconstrainsuchprocessesinpractice?


5.COMMUNITY-BASEDCOLLABORATIONInthe1980’sand90’s,collaborationslowlygainedtractionasapracticalwaytosolvelocal,place-basedissues.ThroughouttheAmericanWest,thismovementisdefinedbytwokeyelements.First,citizensand/orcommunitiescatalyzed,convened,andcoordinatedtheseefforts–incontrasttowaitingforlocal,state,orfederalgovernmentofficialstoprovidesuchopportunities.Second,theseeffortstendtorevolvearoundwatersheds,ecosystems,andotherplacesdefinedbynaturalboundaries–notartificialpoliticalboundaries.

Readings

1. CharlesF.Wilkinson,LawandtheAmericanWest:TheSearchforanEthicofPlace(1988):404-410.

2. DanielKemmis,ThisSovereignLand:ANewVisionforGoverningtheWest(2001):117-149.

3. MartinNieandMichaelFiebig,ManagingNationalForeststhroughPlace-BasedLegislation,EcologyLawQuarterly(2010):22SelectedPages.


1. AccordingtoWilkinson,whatisthe“ethicofplace?”Whatarethekeycomponentsofthis“ethicofplace?”WhatisWilkinson’scoreargumentinsupportofsuchatheoryandpractice?

2. ReferringtothenarrativebyKemmis,examinethehistoryandtheoryofthecitizen-driven,place-basedcollaboration.Whatcatalyzedthis“movement?”Whatenabledindividualcasestobesuccessful,ornot,asthecasemaybe?Whichcasesaremostinterestingandcompelling,andwhy?Whatotherexamplesofcommunity-basedcollaborationareyoufamiliarwith?Aretheysuccessfulornot,andwhy?

3. Howisthecitizen-driven,place-basedcollaborationmovementsimilartoand/ordifferentfromthemoreconventionaltheoryandpracticeofenvironmentalconflictresolutiondiscussedinSession4?

4. Assumingthathomegrown,community-basedcollaborationworks,canagenciescatalyze,convene,andsuccessfullycoordinatesuchinitiatives?Whyorwhynot(seeKemmis)?

5. Whatistheissueorconcernaboutdelegatingdecision-makingauthoritytocommunity-basedcollaborativegroups?WhatoptionsorstrategiesdoKemmisandotherssuggestinresponsetothischallenge?

6. Whyhavesomecommunity-basedcollaborativegroupstakenituponthemselvestodraftlegislationtoimplementtheirnegotiatedagreements?Whatarethemerits–proandcon–ofthistrend(seeNieandFeibig)?


6.REFLECTINGONCOLLABORATION:CRITIQUESANDINDICATORSOFSUCCESSThepremiseofcollaborationisthat,ifyoubringtogethertherightpeopleinaconstructiveforumwiththebestavailableinformation,theycanshapesustainablesolutionsthatintegratemost(ifnotall)interests.Thismodulewillcriticallyexaminetheargumentsagainstcollaboration,alongwithalternativeindicatorsofsuccess.

Readings

CritiquesofCollaboration 1. RobertJ.Golton,Mediation:A'Sellout'forConservationAdvocatesorABargain?

TheEnvironmentalProfessional(1980):62-66.2. MichaelMcCloskey,“TheSkeptic:CollaborationHasItsLimits,”HighCountryNews

(May13,1996):4pages.3. GeorgeCameronCoggins,“OfCalifornicators,QuislingsandCrazies:SomePerilsof

DevolvedCollaboration,”AcrosstheGreatDivide:ExplorationsofCollaborativeConservationandtheAmericanWest(2001):163-171.

4. KarenCoulter,etal.,CollectiveStatementonCollaborativeGroupTrends(undatedmanuscript):5pages.

5. DouglasS.Kenney,ArguingaboutConsensus:ExaminingtheCaseagainstWesternWatershedInitiativesandOtherCollaborativeGroupsActiveinNaturalResourcesManagement(2000):1-7.

IndicatorsofSuccess1. DouglasS.Kenney,AreCommunity-BasedWatershedGroupsReallyEffective?

ConfrontingtheThornyIssueofMeasuringSuccess,AcrosstheGreatDivide:ExplorationsofCollaborativeConservationandtheAmericanWest(2001):188-193.

2. JudithE.Innes,EvaluatingConsensusBuilding,TheConsensusBuildingHandbook(2004):647-659.

3. MatthewMcKinney,ParticipantSatisfactionScorecard(2004):2pages.QuestionsandDiscussion

1. Reviewtheargumentsagainstcollaboration.Whichoftheseargumentsdoyoufindmostcompellingandwhy?Whichargumentsareleastpersuasiveandwhy?

2. Whatisasuccessfulcollaborativeprocess?Discussthevariousindicatorsforsuccesspresentedintheliterature,andagreeoncriteriaforevaluatingthesuccessorprogressofacollaborativeprocess.Discusswhethertheindicatorsofsuccessyouhaveselectedshouldbeappliedtootherapproachestonaturalresourcesdecision-making(e.g.,publicparticipation,litigation,etc.).Explorethefollowingquestions–whatisgoodnaturalresourcespolicy,andwhatconditions/criteriahelpdefinesuchoutcomes?


7.ANALYZINGTHECONFLICTORSITUATIONThefirststeptopromotemeaningfulcitizenparticipationand/ortoeffectivelyresolveamulti-partydisputeistocompleteasituationassessment(sometimesreferredtoasaconflictassessmentorconflictanalysis).Thistoolallowsyouto(1)identifypeopleandorganizationsthatarepotentiallyinterestedinand/oraffectedbyagivenissueorsituation;(2)assesstheirinterestsandtheprocessoptionstheyhavetoachievetheirinterests,includingtheir“best”and“worst”alternativestoanegotiatedagreement;(3)determinewhenandwhennottoengageinacollaborativeprocess;(4)encouragestakeholderstoreframepositionstointerests;(5)clarifythe“decisionspace”forsometypeofcollaboration,includingthelegal,institutional,scientific,cultural,economic,andothersideboards;and(6)generatetheinformationneededtodesigntherightpublicprocessforanygivensituation.

Readings

1. LawrenceSusskindandJenniferThomas-Larmer,“ConductingaConflictAssessment,”TheConsensusBuildingHandbook(2004):99-136.

2. SusanCarpenterandW.J.D.Kennedy,ManagingPublicDisputes:APracticalGuidetoHandlingConflictandReachingAgreements(1991):197-223.

3. MatthewMcKinney,AnalyzingtheConflictorSituation(2015):28pages.4. MatthewMcKinney,LandUse,Growth,andtheFutureoftheBitterrootValley

(2012).


1. Whatisasituation(orconflictorstakeholder)assessment?Whydoit?Whatmayhappenifyoudon'tcompletethistypeofassessment?

2. Whatchallengesorobstaclesmayemergeincompletingasituationassessment,andwhatstrategiescanbeemployedtoavoidand/ormitigatesuchproblems?

3. UsingthecasestudyLandUse,Growth,andtheFutureoftheBitterrootValley,breakintosmallgroups.Assume“civicleaders”fromthevalleyareinterestedinexploringhowtomovethisconversationforwardinlightofthisrecenthistory,andhaveaskedyourteamforsomeadvice.Duringyoursmallgroupdiscussions:

• Identifywhatcategoriesofpeopleshouldbeinterviewedandwhybycreatinga“stakeholdermap.”

• Articulate3-5questionsthatyouthinkwouldbemostinterestingandcompellingintermsofassessingwhetherstakeholdersmightbereadytoengageinsometypeofpublicprocess.

• Usetheanalyticalframeworks(i.e.,thestakeholdermapandthechecklist)todetermineifsometypeofcollaborationisappropriateinthiscaseand/orifsomeothertypeofpublicprocessmightbemoreappropriate.

• Usingthetheoryandmethodspresentedinthereadings(includingtheIAP2Framework),whatwouldyourecommendintermsofthiscase?


8.DESIGNINGANEFFECTIVECOLLABORATIVEPROCESSOneoftheprimaryvaluesofcompletingasituationassessmentisthatitallowsyoutotailorthecitizenparticipation,collaborativeproblemsolving,ordisputeresolutionprocesstomeettheneedsandinterestsofcitizens,stakeholders,andthedecision-makers.Usingtheinformationgatheredthroughthesituationassessment,theparticipantsarenowreadytodesignaneffectiveprocessthatincludes(1)aninterest-basedworkplan;and(2)asetofgroundrules(includingthesideboardsorconstraintsinfluencingtheprocess;howtoincorporatenon-localinterestsinlocaldecision-makingprocesses;andsoon). Readings

1. ThomasDietzandPaulC.Stern,eds.,PublicParticipationinEnvironmentalAssessmentandDecisionMaking(2008):111-135.

2. SusanCarpenterandW.J.D.Kennedy,ManagingPublicDisputes:APracticalGuidetoHandlingConflictandReachingAgreements(Jossey-Bass,1991):92-136.

3. MatthewMcKinney,DesigninganEffectiveCollaborativeProcess(CenterforNaturalResources&EnvironmentalPolicy,2015):28pages.

4. MatthewMcKinney,ManagingEffectiveMeetings(CenterforNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalPolicy,2015):13pages.

5. RockyMountainSpottedTrout:AResourceManagementDisputeonFederalLands–GeneralInstructionsforPart1:NegotiatingtheProcess


1. Usethediscussionpaper“WhatDoWeMeanbyConsensus?”toreviewthekeyissuesindesigninganeffectivemulti-partyprocess:(a)representation–whoshouldbeinvolved?(b)decision-making–howwillthegroupmakedecisions?(c)groundrules–togoverntheprocess;(d)scientificandtechnicalinformation–whatinformationisneededandhowwillthegroupgatherandanalyzeit?(e)resourceconstraints--timeandmoney.Emphasizetheneedtotailortheprocesstomeettheneedsandinterestsofstakeholdersandtodosoinawaythatrespectslegal,institutional,political,cultural,economic,andscientificconstraintsorsideboards.

2. Practicedesigningacollaborativeprocess.Priortoclass,readtheGeneralInstructionsforthemulti-partynegotiation“RockyMountainSpottedTrout:AResourceManagementDisputeonFederalLands–Part1:NegotiatingtheProcess.”Theinstructorwillleadyouthroughthis90-minuterole-playexercise.


9.BUILDINGAGREEMENTONSCIENTIFICANDTECHNICALINFORMATIONManylanduse,naturalresource,andenvironmentaldisputesrevolvearounddisagreementsoverscientificandtechnicalinformation.Thissessionwillconsiderdifferentwaysofknowingandpresentaframeworkfor“jointfactfinding”or“collaborativelearning.”Itwillalsoexaminetherolesofscientificinformationandtechnicalexpertsinpublicdecision-making.

Readings

1. RonaldD.BrunnerandToddA.Steelman,BeyondScientificManagement(2005):1-14.2. GailBingham,WhentheSparksFly:BuildingConsensusWhentheScienceIs

Contested(2003):20pages.3. HermanA.Karl,etal.,ADialogue,NotaDiatribe:EffectiveIntegrationofScience

andPolicythroughJointFactFinding,Environment49(2007):20-34.4. JuliaM.WondolleckandClareM.Ryan,WhatHatDoIWearNow?AnExamination

ofAgencyRolesinCollaborativeProcesses,NegotiationJournal(1999):selectedpages.

5. MatthewMcKinney,Co-ManagingtheFisheryResourceinFlatheadLake(2013):38pages.


1. AccordingtoBrunnerandSteelman,whatisthehistoricalroleofscienceandtechnicalexpertsinshapingnaturalresourceandenvironmentalpolicy?Whataretheimplicationsofthislegacytoday?

2. Whatcausesconflictoverscientificandtechnicalinformation?SeetheessaysbyBinghamandKarl.

3. Whatisthepurposeandgoalofjointfactfinding?Howdoesitdifferfromtheconventionalapproachtoaddressingscientificandtechnicalissues(i.e.,scientificmanagement)?Whatarethekeystepsinjointfactfinding?

4. AccordingtoWondolleckandRyan,whatarethevariousrolesthatscientificandtechnicalexpertsplayinmakingdecisionsandresolvingconflict?WhatbarriersmayemergeinmovingfromthehistoricalroleofscientificandtechnicalexpertstotheframeworksuggestedbyWondolleckandRyan?

5. Applythetheoryandmethodsofjointfact-findingtotheGrizzlyDelistingCaseStudy.


10.DELIBERATINGANDDECIDING

Oncetheparticipantshavenegotiatedanagreementontheprocess,itistimetonegotiateoverthesubstanceoftheissues.Duringthissession,wewillreviewthetheoryandmethodofmutualgainsnegotiationinamulti-party,multi-issuecontext.Theessenceofmulti-partynegotiationistolearnfromeachotheraboutwhatisjointlydesirableandpossible.Thisrequirescooperationtoshareyourinterests,learnaboutotherpeople’sinterests,andcreateoptionsandpackagesthatmeetasmanyinterestsaspossible.Italsoinvolvessomedegreeofcompetition(toadvanceyourindividualinterest)andtheimperativeofimplementation–thatis,makingcommitmentsandfollowing-through.Intheterminologyofdeliberativedemocracy,thisstepfocusesondeliberatinganddecision-making.

Readings

1. LawrenceSusskind,PaulLevy,andJenniferThomas-Larmer,TheMutualGainsApproach(1999):1-40.

2. SusanCarpenterandW.J.D.Kennedy,ManagingPublicDisputes:APracticalGuidetoHandlingConflictandReachingAgreements(1991):137-154.

3. MatthewMcKinney,BestPractices:DeliberatingandDeciding(2015).4. MatthewMcKinney,TheRoleofFacilitatorsandMediators(2012):29pages.5. LawrenceSusskind,etal.,TheFiveLivesofaNeutral:TheRolesandResourcesof

NeutralsinMultipartyNegotiation(2003):138-142.6. RockyMountainSpottedTrout:AResourceManagementDisputeonFederalLands

–GeneralInstructionsforPart2:NegotiatingtheIssues.


1. Whatarethekeyelementsofmutualgainsnegotiation,and“why”iseachoneoftheseelementscriticalforsuccess?

2. Inlightofthesekeyelementsandgiventhenaturalstagesofgroupdevelopment,howwouldyousequenceissuesinawaytobuildtrust,respect,communication,understanding,andultimatelyagreement?Whatstrategiesmightbeeffectiveinmanaginggroupdynamics(e.g.,usingcaucusesawayfromthetabletoclarifyinterests,options,andpackages;buildingcoalitionsamongdiverseintereststopackageoptions;etc.)?

3. Howimportantisittoengageanimpartial,nonpartisanfacilitatorand/ormediatortohelpcatalyze,convene,andcoordinateamultipartynegotiationorcollaborationprocess?Whatvaluedoesa“processmanager”add?Whatrolesandresourcescantheyplayasaneutralprocessmanager(see“FiveLives”essay)?

4. Practiceparticipatinginacollaborativeprocess,eitherasanegotiatororamediator.Priortoclass,readtheGeneralInstructionsforthemulti-partynegotiation“RockyMountainSpottedTrout:AResourceManagementDisputeonFederalLands–Part2:NegotiatingtheIssues.”Theinstructorwillleadyouthroughthisrole-playexercise.


11.ENGAGINGUNAFFILIATEDCITIZENSOneofthegrowingchallengesinpreventingandresolvingnaturalresourceconflictsishowtoengageunaffiliated,rank-and-filecitizens.Theprevioussessionshavefocusedlargelyonhowtocatalyze,convene,andcoordinatemultipartycollaborativeprocesses,whichtypicallyattractindividualsandgroupsthatareorganizedandhaveanidentifiablestakeinanissueordecision.Thissessionwillfocusonemergingtheoriesandmethodstoengagethe“silentmajority,”includingtheuseofdeliberativedialoguemethodsandcollaborativetechnologies.Readings

1. MattLeighneigner,TheNextFormofDemocracy:HowExpertRuleIsGivingWaytoSharedGovernance...AndWhyPoliticsWillNeverBetheSame(2006):1-9.

2. ThomasDietzandPaulC.Stern,eds.,PublicParticipationinEnvironmentalAssessmentandDecisionMaking(2008):192-221.

3. KenSnyder,PuttingDemocracyFrontandCenter(2006):8pages.4. JasonGershowitzandColinRule,ApplyingInformationandCommunication

TechnologytoMultipartyConflictResolutionProcesses(2012):5pages.5. AmyLee,OnlineDeliberativeDecision-Making(KetteringFoundation2013):3

pages.


1. Whatistheproblemofmobilizingandengagingunaffiliatedcitizens?Whocaresifpeoplechoosetonotparticipateinnaturalresourcesdecision-making?

2. Whatisthedifferencebetweenaboundedversusanunboundedpublicprocess?How,ifatall,dothetheoriesandmethodsofcollaborativeproblem-solvinghelpinformthedesignandimplementationofanunboundedprocess?

3. Whataresomekeyprinciplesandmethodstoidentify,mobilize,andrecruitindependent,unaffiliatedcitizens–togettheirattentionandgettheminvolved?

4. Whataresomeofthemostinnovativeandcompellingmethodsto“engage”peopleeitherface-to-face,virtually,orsomecombination–onceyouhavetheirattentionandtheyshow-up?

5. Iftimeallows,studentswillworkinsmallgroupstodevelopastrategicplantomobilizeandengageunaffiliatedcitizensinnationalforestplanning.Amongotherthings,explain:

a. Whataresomeinnovative,effectivetoolstoidentify,mobilize,andrecruitcitizens?

b. Howmightcollaborativetechnologiesimprovepublicparticipationinnationalforestplanning?

c. Whatmightconstraintheuseofdeliberativedialogue,collaborativetechnologies,andsimilarapproachestopublicparticipationinnationalforestplanning?Thinkintermsofthedecision-makeraswellascitizens.


12A.IMPLEMENTINGAGREEMENTSANDADAPTIVEMANAGEMENTWhilethetheoryofcollaborationisrelativelystraightforward,thereareanumberofproblemsthatariseinpractice.Duringthissession,wewillexamineproblemsandstrategiesrelatedtoimplementationandadaptivemanagement,reviewtheroleofprocessmanagers(facilitatorsandmediators)andcollaborativeleaders,considertheevidenceontherelativeeffectivenessofcollaboration,andevaluatealternativemetricstomeasuretheperformanceand“success”ofcollaboration.

Readings

1. MatthewMcKinney,Land-UsePlanninginSweetwaterCounty:BestPracticesforCommonImplementationProblems.

2. LawrenceS.BacowandMichaelWheeler,EnvironmentalDisputeResolution(1984):145-154.

3. WilliamR.PotapchuckandJarleCrocker,ImplementingConsensus-BasedAgreements(2004):527-555.

4. JuliaM.WondolleckandStevenL.Yaffee,MakingCollaborationWork:LessonsfromInnovationinNaturalResourcesManagement(2000):47-68.

5. WilliamClark,AdaptiveManagement:HealThyself(Environment2002):1page.


1. Usingthecasestudy“Land-UsePlanninginSweetwaterCounty:BestPracticesforCommonImplementationProblems,”examinesomeofthecommonproblemsrelatedtoimplementingnegotiatedagreements.Reviewtheproblemsandstrategiesidentifiedinreadings2-4listedabove.

2. Onechallengecommontomost,ifnotall,naturalresourcepolicyandconflictresolutionishowtomakedecisionsinthefaceofuncertainty–scientific,political,institutional,andsoon.Therealityisthatwemakedecisionseverydaybasedonincompleteknowledgeandinformation.

a. Explainthedimensionsofthisproblemassuggestedbythereadings.b. Whiletheideaofadaptivemanagementmakesalotofsense,whyisitso

difficulttoimplementinpractice?c. Whatarethekeyingredientstoeffectiveadaptivemanagementinpractice?


12B.TOWARDMOREEFFECTIVEGOVERNANCEWhiletheuseofcollaborationisoftenchallenging,thirtyyearsoftheoryandpracticesuggestthatitmaybepossibletoimprovegovernancebymovingbeyondtheuseofcollaborationtoaddresssingleissuesonanadhocbasis,todesigningsystemsthatcanrespondtothe“streamofdisputes”thatcharacterizenaturalresource,environmental,andotherpublicpolicyconflict.Thissessionwillreviewprogressinreformingsystemsofgovernanceandexplorewhethercollaborationsuggestsanewformofdemocracy.Wewillalsoexaminehowtheemergingideasofcollectiveimpactandnetworkgovernancemayimprovegovernance.WewillinviteDanielKemmis,anationallyrecognizedauthorandspeaker,tojoinusforthissession.

Readings

1. DanielKemmis,ThisSovereignLand:ANewVisionforGoverningtheWest(2001):128-142(seereadinginSession5).

2. JuliaM.Wondolleck,ACrackintheFoundation?RevisitingECR’sVoluntaryTenet,ConflictResolutionQuarterly(2010):5selectedpages.

3. DanielKemmisandMatthewMcKinney,CollaborationandtheEcologyofDemocracy,KetteringFoundation(2011).

4. JohnKaniaandMarkKramer,CollectiveImpact,StanfordSocialInnovationReview(2011):36-41.

5. LynnScarlettandMatthewMcKinney,ConnectingPeopleandPlaces:TheEmergingRoleofNetworkGovernanceinLargeLandscapeConservation(2016).


1. Howhasnegotiationandcollaborationbeenintegratedintonaturalresourcedecision-makingoverthepast20-25years?Howdoesthetheoryofdisputesystemsdesignsupportthistrend?Whataresomeoftheconcernsordrawbackstothistrend(seeWondelleckandKemmis)?

2. How,ifatall,doesthetheoryandpracticeofcollaboration,particularlytheorganicemergenceofcommunity-basedcollaboration,suggestanewpoliticaltheory?Whatarethepracticalimplicationsofthistheorytonaturalresourcepolicyandconflictresolution?

3. Inadditiontocollaboration,severalothermodelsofproblem-solving,socialchange,andgovernancehaveemergedduringthepastdecadethatmayimprovetheeffectivenessofnaturalresourcespolicy,conflictresolution,andgovernance.

a. Howarethetheoriesandpracticesofcollectiveimpactandnetworkgovernancesimilartoanddifferentfromcollaboration?

b. Whataretheimplicationsofallthesemodelstoleadership?Inotherwords,whattypeofleadersdoweneedtoshapewise,durablesolutionstonaturalresourceproblems?