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 Inter Less Interaction More Interaction action

OUTREACH

Purpose:To provide information

INFORMATION EXCHANGE

Purpose: To provide & exchange data, opinions and options

RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose: To obtain useful & influential advice or comments

AGREEMENTS

Purpose: To reach workable agreement or settlement

STAKEHOLDER ACTION

Purpose: To empower Stakeholders to take action

Consensus Processes

Decision Maker Decision Stakeholder Decision

PROMISE: We will keep you informed PROMISE: We will listen, acknowledge your concerns & aspirations, & provide feedback on how your input Influenced our decision PROMISE: We will take your advise or comments into account when making a decision PROMISE: We will work in good faith to reach an understanding that we all can support & we will implement it as agreed PROMISE: We will support your decision& assist in your implementation of it

Adapted from the International Association for Public Participation (2007)

What gets ECR started?

Turning Points Framework*

Type: Procedural and/ or S ubstantive

More or Less Abrupt

Direction: Toward or Away From Agreement

PRECIPITANT TURNING POINT CONS EQUENCE

Roles:Party, Advocate, Neutral Third Party, Enforcer, Researcher, and/ or Other Type: Procedural and/ or S ubstantive *adapted from Druckman (2001, 2004) and Laue (1987)

S

• urce: Hall (2008)

First and Last Turning Points

First Turning Point: Consideration/ Beginning of Negotiation

Procedural ()/ External More Abrupt

Procedural/ Toward Agreement

Precipitant Turning Point Consequence

Last Turning Point: Final Agreement/ End of Negotiation

S ubstantive/ Internal More Abrupt

S ubstantive/ Toward Agreement

Precipitant Turning Point Consequence

S

• urce: Hall (2008)

What makes ECR work?

• ECR deemed appropriate

Appropriate parties engaged Agreement is reached Willingness to collaborate Case Context Parties have time, skills and resources to engage Participants effectively engaged Agreement is of high quality Number of participants Degree of case difficulty Appropriate mediator / Skills and practices add value Working relationships improve Relevant high quality trusted information integrated

S

• urce: Emerson, Orr, Keyes, and McKnight (2009)

ECR Evaluation Framework

What are the results of ECR?

Economic and Environmental Effects of ECR

Fish and Water Effects Using Oregon ECR Cases

14

Fish and water

effects include several elements:

Habitat Passage Water quality

and flow

S

• urce: Hall, Goodwin, and Rowe (2008)

15

Value of Additional Fish From Using ECR Processes

Species Per Fish Value Using Benefit Transfer Method Umatilla Pelton 1993 – 2014 ($2004 M) 2011 – 2021 ($2004 M) Steelhead Trout $72 $3.96 $1.37 Spring Chinook $104 $8.32 $1.98 Fall Chinook $104 $12.48 $4.47 Coho $104 $6.24 $62.9 Total $31.00 $70.72

S

• urce: Rowe and Hall (2006)

16

ECR Process Achieved Better Environmental Results (EPA Water Cases)

• 0.25

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Bacteria 10 Year Contaminants 10 Year Contaminants 60 Year Habitat 10 Year Habitat 60 Year Management 10 Year Site 10 Year Site 60 Year Difference between effects from collaborative and alternative decisions (0=no effect, 1.0=significant effect)

S

• urce: Hall, Goodwin, and Rowe (2008)

17

Less Time To Reach And Implement A Decision (EPA ECR Cases)

Superfund Enforcement GE Pittsfield Washington Navy Yard Washington Aqueduct Philadelphia Prisons Change in hours per week

• 27
• 56
• 41

5 Number of weeks over which savings occur 78 13 13 13 Estimated hours saved per week

• 2106
• 728
• 533

65 Estimated value of time saved ($133,731) ($46,228) ($33,846) $4,128 Permitting

S

• urce: Hall, Goodwin, and Rowe (2008)

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
• utcomes 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

• ciet 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