Presentation to the "Balancing Multiple Uses of Natural Resources in the Arctic" session of the National Conference on Science, Policy and the Environment, Washington D.C

Haley, Sharman

English

ScholarWorks@UA

The Role of Stakeholders in Managing Arctic Ocean ResourcesSharman HaleyInstitute of Social and Economic ResearchUniversity of Alaska AnchorageJanuary 22, 2011Overview• My background in social science• Brief introduction to four bodies of literature:1. Wicked problems2. Participatory democracy3. Social psychology of risk and decision making4. Institutional design for common property resource management• Synthesis: Who sits at the Table?Arctic Ocean Management is a “Wicked Problem”The problem of balancing multiple uses is: • Ill-defined: plurality of perspectives; no set alternatives• Novel: emerging technologies, changing environment, dynamic social, legal and political demands; path dependent• Complex: common property; social and ecological interdependencies, technical complexities and scientific uncertainties; interdependencies of stakeholders with differing views and values, and multiple organizations at different levels• No final solution: interactive and adaptive• No right or wrong: only better or worseEngaging Collective Intelligence• Wicked problems are too complex to be resolved by modern, technocratic decision-making • Better solutions engage collective intelligence across all knowledge holders• Better solutions are reached through extended, face to face, facilitated dialogParticipatory Democracy• Participatory and deliberative methods of decision-making promote equitable solutions to resource conflicts• Effective participation includes:– Substantive input about processes as well as outcomes– Consideration of preferences of all stakeholders– Mechanisms for reaching compromises and resolving conflict– Capacity to recognize and correct errorChallenges for Design– Representation: open-ended stakeholder self-identification and inclusion– Institutional design: unique to environment ; adaptive; – Problem articulation: recognize multiplicity of perspectivesSome Design Elements• Local actors who depend on the ecosystem have the most at stake - internalize externalities• Local knowledge, perspective and resources are fundamental to problem solving • Indigenous peoples with cultural, legal, historic, and geographic ties to the ecosystem warrant special statusThe Social Psychology of Risk• Risk is subjective– Risk = ƒ(frequency, severity, values, perception)• Perception is (in part) a social construct– Framing: loss or gain?– Salience: emotionally charged recent experience?– Process of engagement: cues from context• Systematic cognitive biases and limitations– e.g. Myopia, impatience, excessive discounting, loss aversionManaging Risks Across Stakeholders and Cultures (Weber 2010)• Provide institutions that allow people to overcome cognitive and emotional shortcomings• Use context to prime appropriate decision goals and values – Know your audience (and its segments)– Multiplicity of goals: Goals that are active at the time determine decisions– Activation levels partly chronic (culture), partly situational– Goals can be primed by choice context: locale, symbols, sequencing• Group context primes cooperation and longer time horizonsDesign Principles for Effective Common Property Institutions (Ostrom 1990)1. Clear boundaries and membership - who has rights to share the benefits must be clearly defined2. Congruent rules - the rules for providing and appropriating benefits must fit the conditions3. Collective choice arenas - most individuals affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rulesDesign Principles cont.4. Conflict resolution mechanisms– all parties have ready access to arenas to resolve conflicts5. Nested units– appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested institutions, such that…– The scope of the unit matches the scope of the problem6. Monitoring7. Graduated sanctions8. Recognized rights to organizeWho sits at the table?• Key stakeholders– Stake: potential costs and benefits– Power: authority and influence– Public interest• Scale– Span the scope of the problem– Diverse expertise• Legitimacy– Representation, accountability, transparency and capacityConclusions and Recommendations• One size does NOT fit all→ be flexible and adapt to local conditions and institutions• Each LME in Alaska is unique ecologically, sociologically and institutionally→ Create regional CMSP boards• State of Alaska does not effectively represent the spectrum of local interests, knowledge, resources and capacities for planning and actionConclusions and Recommendations cont.• Federally recognized tribes in Alaska are small, village-based entities with no land title or resource management authority or capacity.• Marine mammal co-management commissions represent the best indigenous knowledge about Arctic ecosystems and subsistence practices→Develop partnerships that include boroughs and co-management organizations on an equal footing with state and federal agenciesReferences• Conklin, Jeff (2005). “Wicked Problems and Social Complexity,”http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf• Haley, S. L. Chartier, G. Gray, C. Meek, J. Powell, A. Rosenberg, and J. Rosenberg (2011). “Strengthening Institutions for Stakeholder Involvement and Ecosystem-based Management in the U.S. Arctic Offshore,” Chapter 4.8 in North by 2020: Perspectives on a Changing North, eds. Amy Lovecraft and Hajo Eicken; with; forthcoming 2011. • Haley, Sharman (2004). “Institutional Assets for Negotiating the Terms of Development: Indigenous Collective Action and Oil in Ecuador and Alaska,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 53 no. 1, October 2004, pp. 191-213. • Ostrom, Eleanor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action .• Rittle, Horst and Melvin Webber (1973). “Dilemmas in a         

The Role of Stakeholders in Managing Arctic Ocean Resources

https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/11122/4163/1/Haley.1-20-11.pdf

The Role of Stakeholders in Managing Arctic Ocean Resources

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UA