Document Sample
www.virginia.eduiendocsuvaconfslides.ppt Powered By Docstoc
					Institute for Environmental Negotiation
             Institute for Environmental Negotiation

Who is the Institute for Environmental Negotiation
        Institute for Environmental Negotiation

          What we do
IEN helps citizens, localities, public
agencies, and businesses resolve
conflicts and build consensus about
the natural and built environment.
                   Institute for Environmental Negotiation
IEN faculty
include the
disciplines of
               E. Franklin Dukes,   Richard Collins,   Bruce Dotson,
urban and      Director             Founder            Founder, Snr. Associate
planing and
                                    Tanya Denckla,     Karen Firehock,
                                    Senior Associate   Senior Associate
  Institute for Environmental Negotiation

Sharing our expertise
            IEN faculty share our knowledge
            by teaching at the School of
            Architecture and writing
            scholarly articles, handbooks
            and reports on topics ranging
            from collaboration to
            environmental management as
            well as designing training
            workshops and seminars.
             Institute for Environmental Negotiation

          A living laboratory
IEN provides a
hands-on laboratory
for students,
Faculty and visiting
scholars from across
the world to put
theory into practice
in creating a more
sustainable society.
            Institute for Environmental Negotiation

             How we do it
IEN brings together diverse and often conflicting
stakeholder groups to:
è Identify issues challenges and opportunities
è Gather and analyze data, information and
è Develop consensus that sustains environment,
    economy and social well being
        Institute for Environmental Negotiation

  Three Primary Focus Areas
è Education (teaching and training)
è Consensus Building and Conflict
è Knowledge building (research and
              Institute for Environmental Negotiation
   Education (teaching and training)
Virginia Natural
Resources Leadership
Institute (NRLI):
Nine-month course for
natural resources
professionals, agencies
and civic groups in
partnership with
Virginia Tech and the
Virginia Department of            VNRLI Graduates
              Institute for Environmental Negotiation
Consensus Building & Conflict Resolution
IEN Faculty served as mediators and facilitators
for well over 200 projects involving natural
resource, health and land planning issues such as:
Local: A Heritage Tourism Plan for The Thomas Jefferson
Planning District and the Rivanna River Symposium
State: A bi-state Management Strategy for the Chesapeake
Bay Blue Crab and the Tobacco Communities Project
National: The Roundtable on Sustainable Forests and the
Re-use of Superfund Sites (both projects ongoing)
             Institute for Environmental Negotiation
Knowledge building (research & writing)
  IEN seeks to advance understanding in the field of
  planning mediation, consensus building and policy
  development and shares findings through
  publications such as these recent books:

  A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local
  Governments (2002)
  Community Watershed Forums: A Planners Guide (2002)
  Collaboration A Guide for Environmental Advocates (2001)
  Our national quarterly newsletter ‘The Mediator’
               Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 Knowledge building (research & writing)
Community Based Collaboratives Research
Consortium (CBCRC), led by IEN since 1999
•CBCRC develops & funds research into community
participation in environmental management via 7 funded
research projects.
•CBCRC leveraged $480,000 to fund collaboration among
university researchers, community groups, environmental
organizations and government agencies nationwide.
•Results are shared via the searchable project web site &
databases ( and conferences.
               Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 Knowledge building (research & writing)
Collaboration: A Guide for Environmental
Advocates, Summer 2001
•A handbook published with the Wilderness Society and
the National Audubon Society
•Involved a year-long process of asking the environmental
community what they needed to know and interviewing
critics and supporters of collaborative processes
•A steering committee made up of environmental and
community groups (critics to cheerleaders) reviewed the
                    Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 What we heard from the environmental community
Greatest controversy re influence of public lands & resources

è Who should have decision power or influence over management
  of publicly owned resources? (communities, agencies, public(s)

è Government agencies exercise wide latitude in the process,
   timing and weight of 'public participation' in management
   decisions. ‘Collaboration used to to avoid decision responsibility.

è Local collaborative processes subvert the normal, transparent
  democratic process vs. local collaboratives are democracy in action.
                    Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 What we heard from the environmental community
Controversy cont’d
•Decisions of national impact are made or influenced by local groups,
   yet national and regional groups often unable to participate locally.

Overarching Issues of Concern
•Why collaborate in the first place, the 'hammer has worked well' --
 agencies and industries want environmental groups to give up power.

•Concern that the issue is not appropriate for negotiation/collaboration
-- Non-negotiable -- e.g. there should be no tree harvest in forest X
-- Too much scientific complexity to address with collaborative approach
-- Scale is too large -- e.g. multi state, multi-jurisdictional
                    Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 What we heard from the environmental community
Overarching Issues of Concern cont’d
•Lack of scientific rigor in process, need 'independently' run and
       funded science
•Lack of monitoring ability or strategy to enforce the agreement
•Disincentives to collaborate:
Loss of power, playing field is narrower than a court situation
Undefined rules vs. courts where inflexible rules provide 'fairness'
Uneven resources -- volunteers/small nonprofits vs. agencies, industries
Loss of ability to enforce the deal (as opposed to a court settlement)
Coercion -- If you don't collaborate you won't engage in the debate
Loss of peer group credibility -- collaboration is a deal with the devil
                   Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 What we heard from the environmental community
Incentives to collaborate (noted mainly by local environmental groups):

è Better environmental outcomes -- negotiate more for environment
       than courts

è Improved relationships within community, with regulators and

è Ability to integrate local land/water knowledge into the process
                    Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 What we heard from the environmental community
Concerns with representation:

è What interests are represented and are those interests are fairly

è When do you have adequate representation? Environmentalists,
  like industry or government, may be lumped into one group. They
  might not represent the diversity of views or geography of concern.

è Scale of representation: Should or can all issues surrounding
  federally managed or owned resources have representation
  from regional or national groups?
                    Institute for Environmental Negotiation
 What we heard from the environmental community
Environmentalists' criteria for collaboration participation (short list):
è Demonstrate successful, fair processes & better environmental
  outcomes for the environment e.g forest or fishery better off?

è Clearly defined goals -- what is the purpose? No hidden agendas etc.

è Participation in drafting the groundrules for the processes to avoid
       flawed processes and issue framing (dams vs. water supply)

è Resources to participate -- volunteers and NGOs lack time & $

è Training in process participation and evaluation.
                  Institute for Environmental Negotiation
What makes for a successful community process?

è Involvement at the early stages via workshops, media, articles etc.

è Clear participation pathway (a person to contact, comment period,
   response procedure, follow up and evidence of comment use.

è Options for community learning and informed participation.

è Diverse stakeholders are involved, not just ‘usual suspects.’

è Clear decision making authority and responsibility.

è Monitoring agreements and outcomes, and ‘adaptation’ if needed
                Institute for Environmental Negotiation
Case Examples in Collaboration

 è CSX Railroad brownfield in Charlottesville, A community-led
    effort to turn 4.5 acres contaminated acres into housing

 è Rockfish River Action Plan, Aplan to protect and restore the

 è Coming Soon to Fairfax County -
          Community Based Stormwater Plans
Institute for Environmental Negotiation

The End

Shared By: