1 / 39

REM 356: Resource Management Institutions

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

nitza
Download Presentation

REM 356: Resource Management Institutions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REM 356: Resource Management Institutions School of Resource & Environmental Management Chad Day, Randy Morris, Thomas Peter

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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?

  5. Institutions

  6. 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?

  7. #2 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS COLUMN-1 • Legislation • Collaborative planning • Stakeholder representation • Adequate finances • Transparency • Champion • Role of politicians in monitoring institutions

  8. #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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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?

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Parties at the Table

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

More Related