Natural Resource Public Policy Collaborative Processes: An Overview and Resource Guide for Oregon

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="043fd5a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Dispute Solutions LLC</B></FONT><B>    </B><B> |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dispute Solutions LLC"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div>                                                   </div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I>Natural Resource Public Policy Collaborative Processes: An Overview and Resource Guide for Oregon</I></div> <div> Habitats seldom stop conveniently at the precise borders of public lands. Species migrate from private to public property and back again; invasive plants cross readily from private gardens to publicly-owned habitats; coyote and cougar often return the favor, much to the dismay of livestock- and pet-owners; and the users of public lands normally live elsewhere. Environmental policymaking and action therefore cannot stop at the boundaries of public lands; they must consider, and interact with, property and people located elsewhere. And no matter how desirable or beneficial to the public good, legal and political realities dictate that behavior consistent with land management goals often cannot be mandated or coerced when it occurs on land that's not publicly-owned.  </div> <bR> <div> Increasingly, policymakers are realizing that effective public land management requires them to consider the interests and aspirations of, and grant "stakeholder" status to, a broad range of interests that traditionally were not considered "parties" to the policymaking process. For example, Cascade Mountain timber sales can affect not only land managers and loggers, but also local mills, participants in mill-based economies, sportsmen, environmentalists, and even commercial salmon fishermen who may be located a hundred miles away but who rely on the existence and health of upstream spawning grounds for their economic survival. </div> <bR> <div> The legal and political systems have developed mechanisms for giving some voice to broader constituencies. The Administrative Procedures Act requires that notice be given public comment taken before new rules governing land use can be made, and subsequent to William O. Douglas' impassioned and eloquent dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton in 1972,* the courts have liberalized the law of "standing" to allow interest groups to intervene legally on behalf of wild places. However, while such mechanisms have their benefits and often are the only practicable way to set and implement policy, they have their downsides: they cannot create consensus, always contain an element of coercion, can be costly in terms of both fisc and time (especially if a legal challenge is mounted), and are subect to unexpected reversal if the political climate or legal precedents change.  </div> <bR> <div> To allow inclusion of a broad range of constituencies without the delay, cost, unpredictability, and disaffection inherent in political and legal processes, policymakers increasingly are using collaborative processes to resolve natural resource and environmental issues, including those relating to the relationship between public and adjacent private lands and interests. President Clinton's Forest Summit in Portland in 1993 was a high-profile example of this sort of collaboration, with an especially high-profile facilitator. Similar facilitated collaborations, done on a smaller scale, can help resolve many land management dilemmas. </div> <bR> <div> For example, in a plan to perform controlled burns on public land immediately adjacent to private homes, the stakeholders may include the public agency administering the public land, the adjacent homeowners, any homeowner association, the homeowners' fire insurance carriers, local fire and emergency services agencies, the regional air pollution control agency, the local farm bureau (that itself may be trying to schedule field burning), and any "downwinders" at risk of asthma or other ailments from the smoke. Under the legal system, controlled burns can be performed without the consent of many of those stakeholders so long as the prescribed administrative processes are followed, but administrative approval is not guaranteed, a burn that is imposed on them without their consent is likely to alienate many in the stakeholder community, and a lawsuit to enjoin the burn is always a possibility no matter how carefully the agency crosses its "Ts." It often is better, from both legal and public policy perspectives, for agencies to seek consensus where possible. </div> <bR> <div> Obtaining such a consensus is not easy, and a poorly-designed and poorly-run collaborative process may create more problems than it solves. For example, it may fall short of reaching agreement but wake "sleeping dogs" who create obstacles to achieving desirable goals. Professional facilitators can be invaluable helping negotiate such complicated negotiations. Land managers should consider consulting a professional facilitator or mediator with expertise in public policy or environmental collaborative processes to assess whether collaboration is desirable in a given circumstance and to design a system that stands the best chance of success. </div> <bR> <div> In Oregon, the state-funded Oregon Consensus Program (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>www.odrc.state.or.us</U></FONT>) can provide materials on the collaborative process in the public policy and natural resources arenas, as well as help designing a collaborative methodology for particular disputes and rosters of qualified mediators and facilitators. Two other programs with expertise in this area work closely with the OCP: Oregon Solutions (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>www.orsolutions.org</U></FONT>) and the National Policy Consensus Center (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>www.policyconsensus.org</U></FONT>). Finally, the International Association for Public Participation (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>www.iap2.org</U></FONT>), while having more of an international focus, has strong ties to Portland and may be a resource in some cases. </div> <bR> <div> *Footnote:  In Sierra Club v. Morton, a Supreme Court majority ruled that the Sierra Club lacked legal standing to sue to prevent Walt Disney Enterprises, with the Forest Service's blessing, from developing the Mineral King Wilderness into a destination ski resort. Justice Douglas, dissenting, said this: "The sole question is, who has standing to be heard? Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe and portage the Quetico Superior in Minnesota, certainly should have standing to defend those natural wonders before courts or agencies, though they live 3,000 miles away." </div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>