Mediating Science-Science Intensive Sustainability Challenges: Lessons from the North Atlantic Right Whale Predictive Tools Workshop

In December 2024, a significant milestone was reached in the effort to balance renewable energy development with environmental conservation. A workshop co-led by the Blue World Research Institute (BWRI) and CONCUR assembled a scientific community of interest to address one of the thorniest challenges in ocean sustainability: protecting the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) while scaling up offshore wind energy.

As mediators, we often think of our work in human terms—land use disputes, family matters, organizational breakdowns. But this workshop offers a compelling example of how structured deliberation and joint fact-finding can serve a higher-stakes, science-intensive goal: avoiding irreparable ecological harm while enabling responsible progress.

The Context: Two Colliding Imperatives

Offshore wind energy has become a cornerstone of climate policy, offering a pathway to reduce carbon emissions and meet energy needs. At the same time, the North Atlantic Right Whale is critically endangered, with fewer than 350 individuals remaining. These whales face multiple stressors—entanglement in fishing gear, vessel strikes, habitat disruption, and rising ocean noise levels—all of which can be exacerbated by offshore wind development.

Recognizing the complexity of this collision between progress and protection, the conveners designed a workshop grounded in the principles of joint fact-finding—a method many mediators will recognize and appreciate. The goal was not just to gather information, but to align stakeholders around a credible, science-based understanding of how best to detect and avoid harm to NARWs.

Designing for Deliberation, Not Debate

This was no ordinary roundtable. It brought together over 60 participants across government agencies, academia, private industry, and non-profits—drawing from the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Australia. The sheer diversity of disciplines involved—from bioacoustics to machine learning—meant that effective deliberation required careful orchestration.

Here’s how they did it:

• Steering and Planning Committees: We benefitted from the expertise of a planning committee composed of experts in whale ecology that helped frame topics for presentation and discussion.   In addition, a Steering Committee identified and helped to recruit participants, with an explcit goal to broaden the conversation to include practitioners in disciplines who had been were not part prior discussions.  These two supporting Committees groups shaped the agenda, identified key questions, and recruited a well-balanced panel of presenters and discussants.
• Two-Day Virtual Format: To accommodate lingering COVID concerns and potential political disruptions (like a government shutdown), the workshop was held online, over two 4-hour sessions.
• Topic Sequencing: Presentations were organized around categories of predictive tools, followed by structured group discussion. Designated lead presenters kicked off each session, followed by observations and questions primary discussants, helping catalyze broader open and informed dialogue.
• Comparative Rubric: To help sort and synthesize findings, the team developed an evaluative framework assessing predictive tools across a dozen criteria—ranging from operational readiness to spatial scale, research needs, and policy relevance.

This approach helped avoid adversarial posturing about data or conclusions. Instead, it created space for reflective inquiry—a hallmark of successful mediation in any domain.

Tools, Technologies, and Tensions

The predictive tools under discussion spanned everything from machine learning algorithms to acoustic detection systems, vessel tracking data, and real-time modeling. While the tools themselves are technical, the underlying questions were fundamentally policy-driven: How do we know when and where whales are most at risk? Which systems can scale quickly? How do we balance uncertainty with the need for action?

This workshop wasn’t just about highlighting and elevating new approaches. It was about understanding which tools are ready to implement now, which need further development, and how they could be layered to form a more reliable early-warning system.

Participants were especially interested in how artificial intelligence and deep learning could improve forecasting—yet they also flagged gaps in data availability, funding, and coordination that need to be addressed before these solutions can be operationalized at scale.

Implications for Mediators and Joint Fact-Finding Practitioners

For those of us in the conflict resolution field, this workshop is a powerful case study in the evolving role of mediators in science-policy disputes. This was not litigation. It wasn’t even formal negotiation. Yet the process had all the trappings of a high-stakes mediation: divergent interests, technical complexity, political pressure, and profound moral implications.

Several features stand out:

• Role Clarity: The facilitators knew their job was to structure dialogue, not advocate outcomes.
• Neutral Framing: The workshop focused on shared interests—protection and progress—not entrenched positions.
• Expert Legitimacy: Participants were selected not just for their credentials, but for their ability to contribute constructively.
• Accountability Through Process: The evaluative rubric helped bring transparency to the discussion and built trust in the logic of the conclusions.

A Long Track Record of Science-Based Mediation

This event builds on decades of work applying joint fact-finding to environmental disputes—from the Ecuadorian Amazon to California’s floodplains. Whether the issue is river restoration, water supply technologies, or endangered species, the formula is consistent: define the terms of reference collaboratively, recruit a credible panel, and build shared understanding before seeking solutions.

In one earlier example, a unified Terms of Reference helped bridge gaps between competing agencies and NGOs in designing a flood management plan for San Jose’s Guadalupe River. The result? A unanimous consensus and long-term commitment to adaptive management. The NARW workshop followed that same playbook—updated for a digital age and a rapidly evolving policy landscape.

Conclusion: Science, Stakeholders, and Structured Deliberation

Mediators are increasingly being called into spaces where technical complexity and public values intersect. This workshop shows that when we apply our tools—skilled issue framing, stakeholder convening, and process design—to science-driven policy challenges, we can help build solutions that are not only smarter, but more legitimate and sustainable.

As the offshore wind industry grows and climate pressures mount, this kind of deliberative work will only become more essential. Mediators who can operate in this space—who can help bridge data, disciplines, and decisions—will be critical contributors to the future of both environmental protection and democratic governance.

Read the full article (with extended commentary and references) here.

Read the workshop summary here.

                       

Scott McCreary

Dr. Scott McCreary, President of CONCUR Inc, is a Senior Mediator and Environmental Policy Expert. He specializes in convening expert panels, coaching agencies in collaborative governance, and facilitating multiparty deliberations. The range of his project involvement spans land use and natural resource planning, marine resources, water supply and quality, biodiversity… MORE >