Environmental Conflict Resolution: Perspectives from Research and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Environmental Conflict Resolution: Perspectives from Research and Practice William E. Hall, Ph.D. Conflict Resolution Program, Georgetown University Water, Conflict, and Cooperation: Practical Concerns for Water Development Projects Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars January 6, 2010

Questions about ECR � When is a situation ripe for ECR? � What is the goal of an ECR process? � What gets ECR started? � What makes ECR work? � What are the results of ECR?

When is a situation ripe for ECR?

Curle’ s Progression of Conflict Model

What is the goal of ECR?

Public Involvement and ECR Process Options Less Interaction More Interaction action Less Interaction More Inter OUTREACH INFORMATION RECOMMENDATIONS AGREEMENTS STAKEHOLDER EXCHANGE ACTION Purpose: To provide & exchange Purpose: To provide information Purpose: To obtain useful & Purpose: To reach workable Purpose: To empower data, opinions and options influential advice or comments agreement or settlement Stakeholders to take action PROMISE: We will keep you PROMISE: We will listen, PROMISE: We will take your PROMISE: We will work in PROMISE: We will support informed acknowledge your advise or comments into good faith to reach an your decision& assist in concerns & aspirations, & provide account when making a understanding that we all your implementation of it feedback on how your input decision can support & we will Influenced our decision implement it as agreed Stakeholder Decision Maker Decision Decision Consensus Processes Adapted from the International Association for Public Participation (2007)

What gets ECR started?

Turning Points Framework* Roles:Party, Direction: Advocate, Toward or Neutral Third Party, Away From Enforcer, More or Less Researcher, Agreement Abrupt and/ or Other Type: Procedural Type: Procedural and/ or S ubstantive and/ or S ubstantive PRECIPITANT TURNING POINT CONS EQUENCE S ource: Hall (2008) *adapted from Druckman (2001, 2004) and Laue (1987)

First and Last Turning Points First Turning Point: Consideration/ Beginning of Negotiation Procedural More Procedural/ Toward ( � ) / Agreement Abrupt External Precipitant Turning Point Consequence Last Turning Point: Final Agreement/ End of Negotiation S ubstantive/ More S ubstantive/ Toward Internal Abrupt Agreement Consequence Precipitant Turning Point S ource: Hall (2008)

What makes ECR work?

ECR Evaluation Framework ECR deemed appropriate Appropriate � Agreement is parties engaged reached Willingness to collaborate � � � Case Number of Parties have time, skills Participants Agreement is of Context participants and resources to engage effectively engaged high quality Degree of case difficulty Appropriate mediator / Working � Skills and practices add relationships value improve Relevant high quality trusted information integrated S ource: Emerson, Orr, Keyes, and McKnight (2009)

What are the results of ECR?

Economic and Environmental Effects of ECR

Fish and Water Effects Using 14 Oregon ECR Cases � Fish and water effects include several elements: � Habitat � Passage � Water quality and flow S ource: Hall, Goodwin, and Rowe (2008)

Value of Additional Fish From Using ECR Processes Per Fish Umatilla Pelton Value Using Species Benefit 1993 – 2014 2011 – 2021 Transfer ($2004 M) ($2004 M) Method Steelhead $72 $3.96 $1.37 Trout Spring $104 $8.32 $1.98 Chinook Fall Chinook $104 $12.48 $4.47 Coho $104 $6.24 $62.9 Total $31.00 $70.72 S ource: Rowe and Hall (2006) 15

ECR Process Achieved Better Environmental Results (EPA Water Cases) Site 60 Year Site 10 Year Management 10 Year Habitat 60 Year Habitat 10 Year Contaminants 60 Year Contaminants 10 Year Bacteria 10 Year -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Difference between effects from collaborative and alternative decisions (0=no effect, 1.0=significant effect) S ource: Hall, Goodwin, and Rowe (2008) 16

Less Time To Reach And Implement A Decision (EPA ECR Cases) Superfund Permitting Enforcement Washington Washington Philadelphia GE Pittsfield Navy Yard Aqueduct Prisons Change in hours per week -27 -56 -41 5 Number of weeks over which 78 13 13 13 savings occur Estimated hours saved per -2106 -728 -533 65 week Estimated value of time saved ($133,731) ($46,228) ($33,846) $4,128 S ource: Hall, Goodwin, and Rowe (2008) 17

Closing Remarks

References � Curle, A. (1971). Making Peace. London: Tavistock Press � Druckman, D. (2004). Departures in negotiation: Extensions and new directions. Negot iat ion Journal , 20(2), 185-204. � Druckman, D. (2001). Turning points in int ernational negotiation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolut ion, 45(4), 519-544. � Emerson, K., Orr, P., Keyes, D., and McKnight, K. (2009). Environmental conflict resolut ion: Evaluating performance outcomes and contributing factors. Conf lict Resolut ion Quart erly, 27(1), 27-64. � Hall, W.E. (2008). Turning points in environmental negotiation: Dynamics, roles and case-related factors. Dissert at ion Abst ract Int ernat ional, 68(11), 7708. (UMI No. AAT3289704) Retrieved January 5, 2010, from Dissertations and Theses database. � Hall, W, Goodwin, S ., Rowe, A. (2008, May). S yst emat ic Evaluat ion of Environment al and Economic Result s –A new way t o evaluat e t he result s of ECR decisions . Presentation at the 2008 Environmental Conflict Resolution Conference, Tucson, AZ. � International Association for Public Participation (2007). IAP2 S pect rum of Public Part icipat ion, available at: http:/ / www.iap2.org/ associations/ 4748/ files/ IAP2% 20S pectrum_vertical.pdf. � Laue, J. (1987). The emergence and instit ut ionalizat ion of third party roles in conflict. In D. J. D. S andole& I. S andole- S taroste (Eds.), Conflict management and problem solving: Int erpersonal t o int ernat ional applicat ions (pp. 17-29). New York, NY: New York University Press. � Lederach, J.P. (1998). Building Peace: S ust ainable Reconciliat ion in Divided S ociet ies. Washington, D.C.: U.S . Instit ut e for Peace. � Rowe, A., and Hall, W. (2006, November). Evaluat ing t he result s of environment al and resource decisions. Presentation at the 2006 American Evaluation Associat ion Annual Conference, Portland, OR.

Contact Information William E. Hall, Ph.D. Adj unct Assistant Professor Conflict Resolution Program Department of Government Georgetown University weh27@ georgetown.edu