Federal Consistency and Dispute Resolution

The 1970s marked a new era of environmental protection efforts in the United States. One major piece of legislation passed by Congress was the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which established a program to provide for the wise use and protection of the nation's coastal resources. Issues such as the loss of coastal and marine resources and wildlife, decreased public space, multiple use conflicts, and shoreline erosion have been a focus of this legislation. This article discusses the authority granted to state coastal zone management (CZM) programs pursuant to Section 307 of the CZMA. In particular, it focuses on the use of the federal consistency process as a tool for resolving intergovernmental disputes. In order to illustrate some of the issues surrounding the use of the federal consistency process, this article examines the legal questions surrounding a recent dispute which resulted in an appeal to the United States Secretary of Commerce by the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO). The Secretary's decision in this matter has important implications for a state CZM program's role in the federal consistency process

Life-cycles and developmental processes in watershed partnerships: Sustaining the useful life of governance networks

Life-cycles and developmental processes in watershed partnerships: Sustaining the useful life of governance networks Governance networks ebb and flow, become dormant or extinct, only to resurface with new members, and names, forms, or boundaries. The paper uses a systematic qualitative analysis (e.g., coding, cross-case analysis) of data from 6 watershed governance efforts in the United States – Delaware Inland Bays, Lake Tahoe, Narragansett Bay, Salt Ponds, Tampa Bay, and Tillamook Bay – to examine these developmental processes. The study’s objective was to develop theory grounded in these data to explain the linkages between network structures and processes. The paper describes a four stage life-cycle model. Each stage represents a cluster of developmental challenges related to sustaining the health and useful life of a governance network. The activation stage is the turbulent period of network formation. The collectivity stage is exemplified by high member cohesion and reliable network processes. The institutionalization stage marks the solidification of network processes. The final stage is stability, decline, reorientation, or recreation, which recognizes the various paths mature networks follow. The model’s central feature is the convergence on a configuration of rules (formal and informal) that create the social architecture that structures network processes. These relatively long periods of convergence are punctuated by reorientations involving relatively rapid periods of discontinuous change that alter character of the network’s structure and processes. Recreations are also possible that involve the additional shift in core values. The analysis identifies three interrelated sets of rules that interact to form this social architecture by building on the work of Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues. Some rules are crafted deliberately. Others emerge as members confront developmental challenges or get imposed upon the network by funders, government agencies, or legislators. Two sets of boundary rules are particularly important – member rules and strategy rules. Decision rules create the processes members use to make decisions and include rules related to preference aggregation, distribution of power, distribution of roles or responsibilities, and the distribution of participation in decision making. As networks evolve, coordination rules emerge to specify resource exchanges, monitor behavior, enforce agreements, and resolve disputes. The analysis also found evidence of at least two reorientation (recreation) in each watershed, with examples of changes occurring both endogenously in response to self-organizing processes and exogenously as network actors responded to incentives provided by federal funding agencies. The social architecture is important because governance networks, like other organizational forms, are a functional enterprise with a useful life. The social architecture provides coordination, direction and shared purpose to network processes. However, once established, it can be costly and difficult to change. Similarly, once the network’s useful life has passed, it is time to disband, re-orient, or re-create the network to allow their resources to be redeployed in more productive public purposes. Accordingly, framework presented in the paper identifies important design choices that members should carefully consider during the development of governance networks

Understanding leadership in a world of shared problems: advancing network governance in large landscape conservation

Conservation of large landscapes requires three interconnected types of leadership: collaborative leadership, in which network members share leadership functions at different points in time; distributive leadership, in which network processes provide local opportunities for members to act proactively for the benefit of the network; and architectural leadership, in which the structure of the network is intentionally designed to allow network processes to occur. In network governance, each leadership approach is necessary to achieve sustained, successful outcomes. We discuss each of these approaches to leadership and offer specific practices for leaders of networks, including: shaping the network's identity and vision, attracting members, instilling leadership skills in members, and advancing common interests. These practices are then illustrated in case studies

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Drivers and Dynamics of Collaborative Governance in Environmental Management

This special issue brings together new case studies and comparative works highlighting the drivers and dynamics of collaborative environmental governance. Each case is part of the Collaborative Governance Case Database, which is an open-access resource allowing individuals to contribute and access cases to support research projects. This article highlights the special issue's contributions to collaborative governance theory. Common themes that cut across the studies include: the importance of using a broad definition of collaborative governance to capture the diversity in interorganizational relationships across contexts; improving our understanding of the drivers for initiating collaborative governance; an enhanced understanding collaboration's lifecycle dynamics and developmental trajectories; the importance of individuals and their roles in collaborative processes; the political dynamics of collaboration; the role of accountability; and the challenges associated with assessing the performance of collaborations. Collectively, the cases also demonstrate the value of using resources such as the Collaborative Governance Case Database to undertake small-n and medium-n comparative studies that further theory building

Making the transition to co-management governance arrangements in Hawai‘i: a framework for understanding transaction and transformation costs

Co-management has shown great promise in achieving social and ecological goals worldwide. Despite its potential, significant challenges are faced during governance transformations shifting from traditional approaches to fisheries management to co-management systems. Several factors make Hawai‘i an excellent opportunity to study the barriers associated with implementing co-management systems. Hawai‘i implements many of the same types of regulatory and fisheries programs found elsewhere in the U.S., yet it also possesses a unique legacy of customary management systems. In addition, a legal pathway has existed for nearly two decades that allows communities to partner with the State of Hawai‘i to co-manage nearshore coral reef fisheries. Despite the presence of this enabling legislation, extensive community interest in this approach across the archipelago, and significant NGO/Foundation support, co-management implementation remains limited. This study uses a mixed methods approach that relies on semi-structured interviews and archival data sources to conduct an institutional analysis of transaction and transformation costs. These costs serve as barriers to co-management implementation. The study identifies several social and organizational barriers preventing co-management implementation including: governmental structure and operations; planning and administrative processes; organized opposition from special interests; and consensus building processes. The institutional analysis further reveals a wide range of transaction and transformation costs associated with this governance transformation that prevent adoption of co-management. We conclude by identifying some actions that can help reduce these implementation barriers to co-management transitions and prevent conservation stalemates

How does collaborative governance evolve? Insights from a medium-n case comparison

Understanding the performance of collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) necessitates an understanding of how stakeholders and their interactions evolve over time. However, few studies assess the evolution of the structure or process dynamics of CGRs over time. This paper contributes to our understanding of the longitudinal dynamics of CGRs. We apply a modified grounded theory approach to a dataset of collaboration case studies to develop empirically-based theory about how often CGRs persist over time, how different components of CGRs evolve over time, what conditions support or hinder this evolution, and how different developmental trajectories lead to differences in the outputs and outcomes achieved by these groups. We find that CGRs follow a variety of trajectories, from failing to initiate, to achieving their work in a relatively quick time, to sustaining their operations for decades, to incurring slow or rapid declines in health. Additionally, many characteristics of CGRs, including leadership, collaborative process, accountability, and outputs/outcomes, peak at the midpoint of the observed time, suggesting that at some point, even stable and healthy collaborations incur some decline in their robustness. As an exploratory study, this work highlights the need for a better accounting of how CGRs develop, sustain, evolve, and decline over time.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

How does collaborative governance evolve? Insights from a medium-n case comparison

Understanding the performance of collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) necessitates an understanding of how stakeholders and their interactions evolve over time. However, few studies assess the evolution of the structure or process dynamics of CGRs over time. This paper contributes to our understanding of the longitudinal dynamics of CGRs. We apply a modified grounded theory approach to a dataset of collaboration case studies to develop empirically-based theory about how often CGRs persist over time, how different components of CGRs evolve over time, what conditions support or hinder this evolution, and how different developmental trajectories lead to differences in the outputs and outcomes achieved by these groups. We find that CGRs follow a variety of trajectories, from failing to initiate, to achieving their work in a relatively quick time, to sustaining their operations for decades, to incurring slow or rapid declines in health. Additionally, many characteristics of CGRs, including leadership, collaborative process, accountability, and outputs/outcomes, peak at the midpoint of the observed time, suggesting that at some point, even stable and healthy collaborations incur some decline in their robustness. As an exploratory study, this work highlights the need for a better accounting of how CGRs develop, sustain, evolve, and decline over time.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]