Collaboration in the Environmental Field
Is Collaboration the Enlightened Path?
by Kevin Bryan
Recently, I spoke to a group of law students at Roger Williams University, at the invitation of ELP Fellow Kristen Fletcher (Class of 2003), who is director of the University's Marine Affairs Institute. I discussed the use of consensus in resolving science-related policy disputes. While the audience seemed genuinely impressed by the means mediators and facilitators use to reach agreement on some of the most contentious policy issues, including water quality, energy policy, and public health concerns, they also had questions without easy answers. "How do you involve community interests in collaborative processes?" "Are all those interests truly represented at the table?" "How can neighborhood groups really participate in multi-stakeholder processes with well-financed interests?" "Isn't the consensus process long and laborious?" With each inquiry, I found myself tucked evermore snuggly between that proverbial rock and hard place.
I, too, have questioned the sometimes lengthy collaboration processes that can seriously tax the resources of less-flush organizations; the mission creep that results from processes that last too long and seem to perpetuate themselves; and the adherence to a false standard of neutrality that seems impossible for thinking human beings.
However, a more thoughtful and complete understanding of what collaboration can offer requires a real sense of what collaboration is not. Collaboration is not an answer for all levels of policy disputes and conflicts. Nor is collaboration a power equalizer for all interests in a debate. Truth be told, not every stakeholder can participate in a collaborative process, especially if that interest is presented strictly to highlight the existence of a problem. Collaboration can be hindered if a participant tries to impose a specific solution on the process, instead of seeking a joint solution, particularly if that participant is unwilling to acknowledge the merit of other arguments.
What collaboration does provide is a useful vehicle for developing solutions to vexing policy dilemmas that have broad support, particularly in the environmental arena. A well-designed mediation process provides the opportunity to hold difficult policy conversations - for example, to consider the advantages of various water management policies, or to develop options and standards for using emissions trading schemes for air quality management - that make one party's interests clear while allowing participants to understand other, seemingly opposing, interests. By understanding one perspective in the context of others, participants can more easily consider comprehensive solutions.
Ultimately, well-designed multi-stakeholder processes are demonstrations of democracy. That is, democracy is a process: it is the ability of a society to manage changing conditions and needs. To effectively manage these constant dynamics, we need to consider the multiple factors that impact changing issues. Our current decision-making processes, while enabling the development of our society thus far, tend to produce discrete solutions that address interests from power positions, rather than consider more fluid, broad-based policy solutions. Using water management policy as an example, existing decision-making processes may develop legislation introduced by the most powerful interests that will allow for either complete privatization or public ownership of water resources - whichever side achieves victory in the political debate. With the collaborative model, however, a solution can emerge that considers the development of balanced water management policy that can accommodate the needs of a broad constituent base.
While collaboration has its challenges, the results it produces can be much more equitable than if only one interest is being served. It is this reassurance that helps me address the difficult questions, like those posed by the Roger Williams students, that go along with collaborative work.
Kevin Bryan, ELP Fellow 2003-2004,is senior coordinator for the National Wind Coordinating Committee at RESOLVE, a consensus-building and dispute resolution organization, where he identifies opportunities to work with individuals and stakeholder groups on wind energy issues
|
