Environment Public Policy Section

Critical Issues Papers

Click here to download complete document.

Preface

In October 2001, Terry Amsler of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation first approached us about involving the Environment Public Policy Section of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) in the Foundation’s rethinking of its Conflict Resolution Program. Specifically, would this Section and its nearly 400 members consider the meaning of environment and public policy practice and the impact of the field within the context of public participation, deliberative democracy, and transparency between citizens and their governments?

We saw this inquiry as a wonderful opportunity to invite some of our Section’s best thinkers to reflect on key issues facing our field as well as democratic society. We developed the following plan. The Section would commission seven "critical issues papers" on key issues within the field of environmental/public policy conflict resolution and consensus-building. Authors of these papers would be asked to consider the latest research and theory and to consult with members of the Section and others as appropriate. Experienced reflective practitioners as well as analysts from outside of the field would be recruited as authors by nominations from Section members.

These seven critical issues papers fall into two themes:

Generally looking inward toward the development of the field:

Quality and implementation of agreements

Are products of environmental/public policy conflict resolution and consensus-building efforts being implemented? How do they compare to products of traditional forums?

Quality and oversight of practice

How will best practices continue to be determined, with what oversight, under whose authority, and with what (if any) sanctions? How do institutional controls (e.g., rosters, certification, laws and regulations) affect practitioners and practice? How do we describe and distinguish different deliveries of services, such as teaching vs. consulting, in what clients want, need and value? What are models of de-centralized operations that have high performance, accountability, and choice? Quality implies a standard and consistency; how can that occur with creativity, flexibility and discovery that are a central part of conflict resolution and consensus-building theory and practice?

Responding to critics

How does such criticism affect practitioners? How can we understand, learn from, and respond to criticisms of consensus-building and collaboration in the environment and public policy arena?

Evaluation and research

How are practitioners learning from their work? What is the status of program and case evaluation? What is the status of more fundamental research?

Generally looking outward at the field’s impact on society:

Democracy and civic engagement

To what extent do consensus-building processes increase democratic participation and decision making? What are the long term impacts, if any, of consensus-building processes on communities and participants? How do these processes compare with either adversarial or traditional (institutional) forms of decision making and conflict resolution?

Governance and institutionalization

How may the institutions of government make appropriate, sustained use of consensus-building processes at the local level? the state level? the federal level?

Beyond environment

The environmental conflict resolution field has developed theory, practice, and institutions that facilitate use of such processes that arguably have shaped environmental policy and practice in significant ways. While there is use of mediation and consensus-building in other policy areas, the development has not proceeded at the same pace. What barriers and opportunities are there for a robust system in areas such as health/medical care, education, and family/community development?

Each author was asked to address their individual themes while including consideration of two overarching themes: 1) implications for the future of practice, research and theory building; and 2) implications for the Foundation’s goals of public participation, deliberative democracy, and transparency between citizens and their governments.

Authors and, in most cases, co-authors were recruited by February 2002 and asked to complete a discussion draft at least two weeks before the Section mid-year meeting in Tucson, May 17-18, 2002. These discussion drafts were posted on the Section’s web site for review by all Section members. Moderated discussions of each paper were then held at the Section mid-year meeting, with opportunity for open discussion with the entire Section.

The result is an extraordinary collection of informed thinking about the future of environment and public policy practice and its implications for democracy. These papers will undoubtedly provide the basis for the Section’s long-term strategic direction for many years to come.

We are grateful to Terry Amsler and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for their grant to ACR that supported this project; to the authors and editor Sue Senecah of the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry for their heroic efforts in a limited time frame; and to the many Section members who took the time to read, review and comment upon the drafts.

Frank Dukes and Rosemary Romero

Environment/Public Policy Section Co-chairs (2001-2002)

Tom Taylor

Section Critical Issues Chair