UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Collaborating in the marine realm : principles and practices for better outcomes in marine reserve decision-making… Bicego, Sandra Nichela 2003

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2003-0552.pdf [ 22.47MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0091185.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091185-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091185-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091185-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091185-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091185-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091185-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

C O L L A B O R A T I N G IN THE M A R I N E R E A L M PRINCIPLES A N D PRACTICES FOR BETTER OUTCOMES IN M A R I N E R E S E R V E DECISION-MAKING: A N E V A L U A T I O N OF THE FLORIDA K E Y S TORTUGAS 2000 PROCESS by SANDRA MICHELA BICEGO B . A , The University of British Columbia, 1992 L L . B , The University of Western Australia, 1997 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  M A S T E R OF ARTS (PLANNING)  in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) W e accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A September 2003 © Sandra Michela Bicego, 2003  U B C Rare Books and Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation Form  Page 1 of 1  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada  http://www.library.ubc.ca/spcoll/thesauth.html  r  9/27/2003  ABSTRACT The need for more focused approaches to both restoring and protecting marine biodiversity, habitats and fisheries has led to an upsurge of interest in the use of no-take zones, or "reserves" as marine planning tools. Despite careful scientific planning, marine reserves tend to generate a high level of public conflict and often fail to achieve their objectives because planners do not effectively include the people and the societal dynamics surrounding a marine proposal. Marine reserve experts emphasize that 'the human element, including stakeholder involvement in the planning stages for marine reserves, is critical in determining whether a marine reserve will successfully meet its objectives or whether it will result in resentment and non-compliance by individuals and communities that face restrictions on current and future uses (NRC 2001, 12).' It is the meaningful involvement of interested parties early in decisionmaking processes that dictate whether or not, and to what extent, marine reserves will proceed to designation and be supported into the future. The goal of this thesis is to identify the principles and practices of collaboration that lead to meaningful stakeholder involvement in marine reserve planning processes, which in turn facilitate greater support for processes and their outcomes. A review of wellknown literature on multistakeholder decision-making in the fields of natural resources planning identifies key principles which could be applied to marine reserve establishment. A framework of eight overarching principles is assembled from the literature to meet the thesis goal. The framework is applied to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to evaluate the collaborative efforts of the Tortugas 2000 W G process. The findings show that the Tortugas 2000 process provides an example of successful collaborative marine reserve planning and decision-making. The case study provides strong confirmation of the kind of principles and practices that are effective in ensuring a meaningful, fair and comprehensive process, which in turn facilitates greater stakeholder buy-in to the process and support for agreed outcomes. The strengths discussed in the final chapter support the utility of the framework as a guide for planners to both evaluate and design collaborative marine planning processes.  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iii  LIST O F T A B L E S  v  LIST O F F I G U R E S  vi  PREFACE  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  viii  CHAPTER 1  T h e s i s Overview  1  1.1  The Problem Context and a Possible Solution  1  1.2  Thesis Goal and Objectives  4  1.3  Scope of Thesis  6  1.4  Organization of Thesis  7  S o c i o - E c o n o m i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s in Marine R e s e r v e D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  9  2.1  Collaborative vs. Authoritative Approaches to Marine Reserve Planning  9  2.2  Biological Effectiveness and Social Acceptance  12  2.3  Perceptions and Values in the Establishment of Marine Reserves  14  2.4  Summary  17  Collaborative A p p r o a c h e s to Decision-making  19  3.1  Collaboration Defined  19  3.2  Background to Collaborative and Consensus-Based Decision-making  20  3.3  Extent of Stakeholder Involvement in Marine Reserve Collaboration Processes 21  3.4  Theory and Practice of Collaboration and Consensus Decision-making  23  3.5  Challenges to Collaborative and Consensus-based Decision-making  30  3.6  Evaluation Challenges  33  3.7  Summary  CHAPTER 2  CHAPTER 3  CHAPTER 4  :  34  T h e Analytical F r a m e w o r k  35  4.1  Building the Analytical Framework  35  4.2  Principles & Practices for Collaborative Decision-making  40  4.3  Evaluation Framework Table  63  4.4  Summary  65  R e s e a r c h M e t h o d s a n d Limitations  66  5.1  Evaluation Research  66  5.2  Methods Used in this Research  67  5.3  Limitations & Trustworthiness of the Research  74  5.4  Reflections on the Research Experience  79  T o r t u g a s 2000 C a s e Study  81  CHAPTER 5  CHAPTER 6  6.1  Brief History of the Tortugas Region  81  6.2  M P A Institutional Arrangements  82  6.3  The Key Players in Tortugas 2000  87  6.4  Biophysical and Socioeconomic Considerations of the Tortugas Region  93  6.5  Designation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve  101  6.6  Chronology of Events  112  CHAPTER 7  Research Findings  114  7.1  Evaluation of the Climate for Collaborative Decision-Making  114  7.2  P I : Common Purpose and Definition of Problem and Commitment to Collaborate  116  7.3  P2: Representation of Stakeholders  129  7.4  P3: Mutual Respect and Trust  153  7.5  P4: Equal Opportunity to Resources: Funding, Training, Information  160  7.6  P5: Effective Process Management  169  7.7  P6: Effective Process Design  174  7.8  P7: Structured and Integrative Decision-making Framework  185  7.9  P8: Reaching Agreement  200  CHAPTER 8  Conclusions and L e s s o n s Learned  204  8.1  Achievement of the Thesis Goal and Objectives  204  8.2  Conclusions and Lessons Learned from the Tortugas 2000 Case Study  204  8.3  General Conclusions - Were the Principles Responsible for the Outcome of the Process?  231  Suggestions for Further Research  232  8.4 Bibliography  233  A p p e n d i x A : List of A c r o n y m s  245  A p p e n d i x B: T h e s i s Definitions  245  A p p e n d i x C : S o m e Marine R e s e r v e Benefits  248  A p p e n d i x D: T h r e e D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g A p p r o a c h e s  249  A p p e n d i x E. S t a k e h o l d e r Involvement S p e c t r u m  251  A p p e n d i x F: R e s e a r c h P r o c e s s  252  A p p e n d i x G : T h e s i s Interview G u i d e  253  A p p e n d i x H: C o n s e n s u s T o o l in the T 2 P r o c e s s : L e v e l s of A g r e e m e n t  254  A p p e n d i x I: R e s e r v e O p t i o n s Selection Criteria  254  LIST O F T A B L E S Table 1: Seven government agencies involved in Tortugas 2000 (DOC 2000) Table 2: Stakeholder Involvement Spectrum (BCRTEE 1994)  88 251  V  LIST O F F I G U R E S Figure 1: National Marine Sanctuary System  86  Figure 2: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Basemap  89  Figure 4: Tortugas Ecological Reserve Study Area  94  Figure 5: Schematic of potential recruitment for various larvae spawned locally in the Tortugas and Florida Keys  96  Figure 6: Satellite Drifter Track demonstrating current complexity in the Florida Keys  97  Figure 7: Flowchart of the three phases of the Tortugas 2000 planning process  106  Figure 8: Tortugas Ecological Reserve Preferred Boundary Alternative with government jurisdictions. 109  vi  PREFACE Quite a few years ago now, I was wavesailing off the coast of Western Australia, worried about not becoming food for the sharks that swam beneath me. The water was so clear that I could see way down. Manta rays, dolphins and sea turtles often popped up, scaring me. Without any sense of exaggeration, the Western Australian coastline is vast and pristine, and with its perfect combination of wind, sun and waves, it is a windsurfers' proverbial paradise. I was driven to WA to study law and thefineart of windsurfing. Off I went with friends to constantly explore the incredibly beautiful coast that is Western Australia. Some years passed where I found myself at the State Ministry for Planning working with a team of planners committed to keep the massive spread of subdivision and development under control. Many of the big sheep stations were slowly but surely turning to hobby farms and residential developments. Around that time I heard of public conflicts up the coast regarding port development. It didn't matter much, until I realized that they were planning to develop the port at our most favourite windsurfing spot! How could anyone think of building a port on such beautiful, pristine ocean reef with amazing waves and marine life? Who told us about this anyway? Suddenly I started to take heed of new terms and concepts such as 'stakeholder involvement, consensus decision-making. I began to learn about 'marine protected areas' as possible tools for addressing marine user conflicts. The discovery that I too, was a stakeholder who could be so easily impacted by resource development decisions which served to exclude me, provided me with a good lesson in the meaning of public process. The port was never developed due to the diligence of the local community. In the meantime, a significant figure at the Ministry for Planning told me that lawyers were a dime a dozen, but good planners were harder to come by. Those words stuck. My path took me back home to Vancouver, BC, where I was destined to start my graduate degree in planning at SCARP. It is there that new meaning was given to my otherwise solely surf-searching ways. I was inspired by my time at SCARP and determined to write my thesis on the involvement of people who cared and how that caring could influence the establishment of marine reserves. My original intention was that they be used to protect some of the great waves and reef breaks in the world. I soon learned about the woes in fisheries management. Having since become acquainted with some wonderful fishermen, I feel a deep respect for the real ocean hunters and for thefishthat I love to eat. My views shifted and so did my thesis. Adding to life's experiences, I would soon become a fledgling Dovetailian, learning, and forever learning, the very art and craft of collaboration and process facilitation that was the source of my thesis framework. How lucky have I been to be able to apply these principles to my work under the guiding wings of my Dovetail colleagues, Julia Gardner, Julian Griggs and Bryan Evans? My search for surf and wind will continue, but also my respect for the learning and the people who have greatly influenced my life.  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS After allowing several years to pass by while my thesis chapters gathered electronic dust... I finally did it!... Right to the last moment, o f course. Completing my thesis would have been possible without the constant encouragement and support I have been given by a very wonderful group o f friends and family. Thank y o u Julie Gardner and Tony Dorcey, m y thesis advisors, who never lost too much faith in me all these years. Thank you's are really not enough for my either o f them. Both were always there to decomplexify m y confused thoughts, listen to m y thesis woes and provide direction. I also thank T i m M c D a n i e l s who was suddenly faced with m y tome as 'third reader' in my advisory team. Tony especially was able to help me turn a monster into a doable piece o f work. W e l l , Tony also knew just the right way to get me motivated.. .1 w i l l never forget the moment when, near the start line at a sailboat race in English Bay, Tony sailed past and in that moment o f silence yelled out: "What chapter are you on!" M y crew w i l l never let me live this down! I would like to thank Joanne Delaney, B i l l y Causey and B e n Haskell from the Florida K e y s National Marine Sanctuary and also all those that I interviewed from the Tortugas 2000 process. Thank you for taking the time out o f your busy lives to speak with me and answer my many questions. It was encouraging to interview people who showed that they care about the outcomes they helped to achieve, and who would take the time out o f their busy schedules to speak with a graduate student researcher. W h i l e it has been a long road to the end, it is not really the end.... working on this tome has led me through an incredible journey between life, work and play. I feel incredibly lucky to have a great team to work with at Dovetail. Julie, Julian, and Bryan have been nothing short o f supportive, encouraging and humorous towards m y thesis completion and m y professional work. Where would we be without family and friends? Silly question but important answers. M y sister and m y friends provided continual encouragement and reminders... and many beachwalks that saved m y brain from frying... and then they eventually all boycotted me during the final moments. M o m and D a d ... .who supported me all the way through m y school years and who very essentially kept me alive...what else can I say? Daoud.. .the w i n d and waves beckon.  viii  For my Mother and Father  CHAPTER 1  THESIS OVERVIEW  "The extent of the ocean is in fact so great that it suffices for any possible use on the part of all peoples for drawing water, for fishing, for sailing." - Hugo Grotius, 1625  1.1  The Problem Context and a Possible Solution  For centuries the ocean's vastness has drawn humans to its shores and depths. Its stormy fury, serenity and the life that it sustains have inspired writers, recreationists, romantics and artisans alike. Despite its values, humans are imposing unprecedented pressures on the ocean realm as few of the world's coastal regions remain undisturbed by human activities (Murray et al. 1999; Vitousek, Mooney, Lubchenco and Melillo 1997). Over-exploitation of biological resources, continued destruction and loss of habitat, invasion of exotic species, development of coastal areas, modification of watersheds, chemical and biological pollution, as well as the uncertainties of climate change are just some of the human pressures facing the world's oceans today (Murray et al. 1999; Boersma and Parrish 1999). Marine ecosystems are exhibiting the consequences of these impacts, from the collapse of major fishing industries to reduced levels of biodiversity and declines in both the numbers and size of many exploited marine species (Lubchenco et al. 1995; N R C 1995; Suchanek 1994). Since Grotius' days, the ocean has shown itself to 1  be much more subservient to the laws of nature than anyone had imagined. As human population grows, demands for marine resources continue to increase. So then do the potential for conflicts among marine resource users and the potential destruction to the functional integrity of the marine ecosystem (Dorcey 1986).  1.1.1 Marine Reserves - A Tool for Ocean Management Recognition of the profound effect these threats are having on the oceans, coupled with a growing awareness of the inadequacy of fisheries management techniques and increasing human dependence upon functioning ecosystems has led to a multitude of efforts aimed at stemming the tide of ocean degradation (Peterson and Lubchenco 1997; Norse 1993). One such effort has been the use of marine reserves, or "no take zones." Marine reserves are typically small, focused areas which are completely closed to fishing, resource extraction, seabed mining, exploration, trawling and all other types of potentially harmful uses (Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Dobrzynski and Nicholson 2000; Scholz and Fujita 2001). Marine reserves  Bidoversity is defined as "the variety of life forms, the ecological roles they play and the genetic diversity they contain" (Wilcox 1984). 1  1  are often proposed to conserve and protect fishery resources and their habitats, endangered or rare species, unique habitats, and sites of cultural interest. Many authors suggest that improved planning and management approaches, such as the use of marine reserves, are needed to sustain and restore fisheries and effectively protect marine ecosystems and the goods and services they provide. After analyzing marine reserves around the world formally established 2  more than two decades ago, 161 of the world's leading marine ecology and fisheries scientists released the most rigorous and conclusive evidence to date regarding the effectiveness and benefits of marine reserves (NCEAS 2001). Their "scientific consensus statement" explicitly concludes that designating 3  marine reserves, especially networks of marine reserves, in the context of broader marine protected areas (MPAs) or integrated fisheries management, are a highly effective, albeit "under-appreciated and underutilized tool," which can help to conserve marine biodiversity, habitats, ecosystems and improve fisheries (NCEAS 2001). The statement also emphasizes that stronger protection is necessary to achieve the full 4  range of benefits and that designating multiple use M P A s does not provide the same benefits as establishing fully protected marine reserves (NCEAS 2001 ).  1.1.2  5  So What Is The Problem ?  Marine reserves are 'under-utilized and under-appreciated' not only because they face ecological unknowns, but because they face many socio-economic challenges (Ogden 1997). While science suggests that the rationale for marine reserves is no longer lacking (NCEAS 2001), the next challenge is where and how to get them established (NRC 2001, 97). During the establishment stages of marine reserves, there are ecological considerations and uncertainties, such as, for example, how many and what kinds offish, marine mammal, or plant species are there in an area? Marine reserve design often takes these kinds of considerations into account to make decisions about location, size, duration, and allowable uses in a reserve (Agardy 2000; Suman, Shivlani and Milon 1999). Yet, the foremost considerations - often 6  overlooked, or which are often inadequately addressed during marine reserve establishment - are those regarding the purpose, the intended goals and the specific objectives of the reserve (Agardy 2000, 883). A respected marine reserve expert, Tundi Agardy notes that, "goal-setting and objective elaboration is critical to the determination of expectations, effective design of the reserve, and establishment of targets and benchmarks against Some authors include NRC 2001; Agardy 2000; Murray et al. 1999; Brunckhorst and Bridgewater 1995. The following websites provide further information on the consensus statement: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/Consensus. or http://www.CompassOnline.org/. See Appendix A for acronyms used throughout this thesis and Appendix B for definitions of the terms used in this thesis. See Appendix C for a summary of some of the benefits of marine reserves. The establishment stage of a marine reserve includes the various steps from initial proposal to formal designation under law. After establishment, marine reserves undergo the implementation stage, which usually commences with a management planning stage and proceeds to monitoring and evaluation. 2 3  4  5  6  2  which progress towards objectives can be measured" - and these considerations are inherently societal, not scientific (Agardy 2000, 883) (emphasis added). The problem arises that despite careful scientific planning, marine reserves fail to achieve their conservation and fisheries management objectives, or they often fail to be designated due to high conflict, because planners and managers do not effectively involve or communicate with interested parties (also called "stakeholders"), nor accurately comprehend the societal dynamics surrounding a reserve proposal at its initial establishment stages (Ticco 1995; Fiske 1992; Tisdell and Broadus 1989). Recognizing that 7  marine reserves cannot be maintained by authoritarian force, and that without the support of the public and other key interest groups marine reserves have little future, establishment processes are evolving to become more socially responsive (Beaumont 1997). Marine reserve planners and mangers are learning that, "[hjumans and their needs - including the needs of future generations - are the driving force for marine reserves to work; humans stand the most to benefit from their effective implementation; designation of marine reserves can provide local communities, decisionmakers, and other stakeholders with a defined area in which to promote effective management - a sense of place as it were (Agardy 2000)."  1.1.3 A Possible Solution: Collaborative Decision-making While science helps to rationalize the need for and placement of a particular reserve, it is the effective involvement in marine reserve decision-making by interested parties that dictates whether or not, and to what extent, marine reserves will proceed to designation and be supported into the future. Fiske (1992) 8  emphasizes the kinds of societal considerations to be taken into account within carefully designed collaborative processes in order to increases the chances of a process leading to better outcomes that will be supported into the future: people's attitudes, the institutional, political and ecological dynamics, stakeholder dialogue about local needs, the economy, their values, and concerns surrounding the marine reserve proposal. Roberts (2001) states that with support of local communities and other stakeholders, "marine reserves offer a highly effective management tool, almost regardless of the circumstances." In addition, the meaningful involvement of stakeholders in a fair and comprehensive collaborative process has a significant role to play in educating the public and in raising user awareness and support for the need for and benefits of protecting sites for marine conservation and resource management (Kenchington and Bleakley 1994; Agardy 2000; Roberts and Hawkins 2000). While social acceptance of reserve planning is critical to successful implementation, "nevertheless, a balance between social concerns and biological function must be achieved" (NRC 2001, 98).  See definition of "stakeholders" in Appendix B. Stakeholder "support" is manifested through buy-in to the marine reserve proposal and its outcome, and compliance with governing regulations after the reserve has been designated, the importance of which cannot be underestimated especially in terms of management costs (MPA News 2000). There are other forms of support, such 7  8  3  With growing government interest in the use of collaborative decision-making as a means of marine reserve establishment, and with growing stakeholder concerns about the legitimate use and impacts of marine reserves in ocean planning and management, it is timely to ask, "What are the best practices which can help lead to better decisions about marine reserves, ones which meet not just ecological goals but societal ones as well?" A review of the recent literature on the theory and practice of collaborative and consensus-based decisionmaking in the fields of natural resource use and environmental planning and management identifies various frameworks of principles and practices (criteria) which could be applied to marine reserve planning (e.g. Duffy, Hallgren, Parker, Penrose, and Roseland 1998; Cormick et al. 1996; Gray 1989). No single approach to collaborative process design may be the best fit for all marine reserve establishment initiatives. However, research to date has not applied these models in order to examine whether they are indeed useful for both designing and evaluating collaborative marine reserve processes. A set of principles could be developed from the established frameworks and implemented in an evaluation of a recent multistakeholder marine reserve decision-making process.  1.2  Thesis Goal and Objectives  This thesis seeks to assist resource and fisheries planners and managers, as well as marine users, environmental advocates, and decision-makers seeking to utilize marine reserves for promoting the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans. This thesis also seeks to inform the current practice regarding collaborative planning and decision-making for the establishment of marine reserves. Towards these ends, the primary goal of this thesis is to identify both from theory and from practice what are the key features of collaborative decision-making that increase the likelihood for "success," or "better outcomes," in marine reserve decision-making. In this thesis, process success or better outcomes are judged as collaborative processes that obtain a high level buy-in, common ground, and support among the stakeholders to a process, and the constituents they represent, regarding both the process itself, and the agreement reached in the process. To achieve the goal of this thesis, the following objectives are posed for discussion and analysis: I. To describe the background and rationale for a collaborative approach to stakeholder involvement in marine reserve establishment II. To describe the theoretical underpinnings of collaboration theory as an approach to multistakeholder decision-making. III. To develop an analytical framework for collaborative marine reserve decision-making. as helping to monitor and evaluate the site, joining watch dog groups (e.g., Leigh Marine Reserve New Zealand, Cocklin etal. 1998).  IV.  To provide a descriptive analysis of a recent case study involving a marine reserve decisionmaking process.  V.  To apply the analytical framework to the case study and evaluate the achievement of the collaboration principles in the framework and evaluate the success of the initiative (whether the principles leads to better outcomes).  VI.  To outline the strengths and challenges of the case study process and provide the lessons learned on the best approaches for collaborative stakeholder involvement in the establishment of marine reserves, as well as an overall conclusion regarding the thesis and the collaboration model.  1.2.1 Thesis Assumptions The underlying assumption of this thesis is the greater the buy in to the process and its outcome, the greater the likelihood for marine reserves to be supported and designated, and ultimately to achieve the objectives for which they were designated. Based on the literature, this thesis proposes that one way to ensure a greater level of buy in, support and agreement is through the achievement of accepted collaboration principles which enhance meaningful, comprehensive and fair stakeholder involvement.  9  Marine reserve advocates argue that including stakeholders and societal considerations through meaningful ways in marine planning and decision-making reduces the likelihood of potential conflict and delay at later stages of development. Advocates also note that involvement can also lead to a sense of ownership and future compliance with governing regulations, which in turn can reduce enforcement needs and costs, and increase the likelihood of a reserve meeting its goals and objectives. Conversely, i f 10  stakeholders do not accept reserve designations, less successful implementation or compliance may result, leading to higher enforcement expenditures and diminished benefits (Cocklin et al. 1998; Fiske 1992). For these reasons, marine reserve experts suggest that the importance of including stakeholders in marine reserve decision-making cannot be overemphasized (NRC 2001, 122; Agardy 2000). If the thesis collaboration framework shows a strong confirmation of the thesis assumption, this finding increases the likelihood that the framework is a useful model for designing and evaluating collaborative marine reserve planning processes.  1.2.2 A Caveat Meeting the thesis assumptions should in theory lead to better outcomes, but Duffy et al. (1998) emphasize that processes and conditions can nevertheless deteriorate even though a meaningful process has occurred in which consensus is achieved. The reason is due to the political will required to turn plans into action following a collaborative process.  9  See Appendix B for the definition of "stakeholder" and "stakeholder involvement" used in this thesis.  5  1.3  Scope of Thesis  This thesis is focused on the process of marine reserve decision-making involving stakeholders working together in a government sponsored collaborative process with an advisory role. The purpose of these advisory groups is to work together collaboratively using consensus approaches to reach common ground and provide recommendations about marine reserve issues to government decision-makers. The issues relate to the design of marine reserves which include location, size and boundary lines. This section outlines further aspects of the scope of this research: Stakeholder involvement process: There are many factors and planning tools which affect the establishment of marine reserves such as, scientific information and justification (i.e., biological, physical), legal information (laws, regulations), institutional arrangements (e.g., agency coordination, integrated management planning), political feasibility, and the involvement of people who are affected by or have an interest in marine reserves ("stakeholders"). This thesis focuses on stakeholder involvement in marine reserve decision-making processes as one of the many factors affecting marine reserve designation. The term "stakeholders" is further defined in Appendix B . Marine reserves as tools for the conservation of living marine resources. This thesis focuses on marine reserves as just one tool for planners and managers to use in the conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources. The focus extends to using marine reserves as a means of aiding the conservation and restoration of biological diversity and habitats, including their potential to enhance conventional fisheries management. While not examined in this thesis, marine reserves also provide a means of promoting communities to increase their stewardship of the ocean, protecting cultural artifacts or traditional methods of harvesting resources, as well as increasing educational and marine eco-tourism opportunities (NRC 2001, 12-13, Gilman 1997, 61). Marine planning: Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for ocean conservation and sustainable use and should therefore be used with other complementary planning and management efforts (NRC 2001, 179; Allison, Lubchenco and Carr 1998). Marine reserves should be designated in conjunction with improved fishery management practices (e.g., regulations regarding the use of gear and seasonal restrictions, rights-based systems), as well as conservation measures aimed at managing human factors beyond reserve boundaries (Ardron, Lash and Haggarty 2001; N R C 2001; Agardy 2000; Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Murray et al. 1999; Allison et al. 1998; Agardy 1995; Brunckhorst and Bridgewater 1995; Kenchington and Bleakley 1994).  NCEAS 2001; Agardy 2000; Dobrzynski and Nicholson 2000; Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 77, 82; Suman et al. 1999; Cocklin et al.; 1998, Gilman 1997; Kenchington and Kelleher 1995; Kenchington and Bleakley 1994; Wolfenden, Cram and Kirkwook 1994; Fiske 1992; and Smith 1982. 10  6  Focus on establishment: This thesis focuses its analysis of stakeholder involvement in marine reserve decision-making up to the point of legal designation of the marine reserve. The research will not analyze the effects of stakeholder involvement beyond designation, that is, during the implementation and management stages of the marine reserve. While many of the best practices or lessons learned in regards to stakeholders involvement may apply to the management phase of marine reserve development, the findings are limited to the planning features involved in establishing a marine reserve. Focus on process rather than substance: Decision-making about any issue incorporates both the substantive discussions and the process in which the discussions take place. Substantive aspects may include the scientific rationale, the design of the reserve (e.g., boundary lines, size, number, location), and use restrictions. This thesis focuses its analysis on the process side of marine reserve decision-making, such as who is involved in the discussions (representation), and how (the design and implementation of the decision-making structure). However, the substantive issues are important to the thesis evaluation because it is the extent of agreement on the substance of the discussions that affect the outcome of a decision-making process.  National level government initiative developed by advisory groups at the local community level: This thesis has chosen to study a marine reserve initiative which was sponsored by a national government program (the US National Marine Sanctuaries Program) with a mandate to manage a system of M P A s and marine reserves. The planning process was coordinated by national government employees and final decisions were made by senior federal and state staff and politicians. However, representatives of the community, interest groups, and regional agency staff assisted and advised the decision makers. This research emphasizes the importance of marine reserve initiatives that are initiated, coordinated, and developed at the local community level. The scope of research is on groups of stakeholder representatives formed to provide advice to other advisory bodies or decision-makers about marine reserve establishment.  1.4  Organization of Thesis  This thesis is divided into eight chapters. This introductory chapter provides the problem context, the goal, objectives and the scope of the thesis. In the second chapter, an overview is provided of the socioeconomic and the stakeholder involvement considerations and challenges posed for marine reserve processes. The third chapter builds on the second chapter by outlining features of collaborative approaches to decision-making. The fourth chapter utilizes the first three chapters as the context and foundation for the development of the analytical framework used in the evaluation of the Florida Keys Tortugas 2000 case study. The fifth chapter discusses the research methods, their limitations and how this 7  thesis addresses those limitations. The sixth chapter presents the case study, which includes the institutional arrangements, the key players, the biophysical and socio-economic considerations in the Tortugas 2000 process, as well as the description of the designation process of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve. The case study process is evaluated in the seventh chapter which applies the analytical framework to the Tortugas 2000 case study. The eight chapter outlines the conclusions of the thesis, by providing the conclusions to the thesis goal and objectives, the case study research, and a general conclusion regarding the evaluation framework. Suggestions for further research are also provided. A bibliography of cited references is included, along with a set of nine appendices detailing further information, such as the acronyms and definitions used in the thesis, and the thesis interview guide.  8  CHAPTER 2  S O C I O - E C O N O M I C CONSIDERATIONS IN M A R I N E  R E S E R V E DECISION-MAKING ... in the relations of man with animals, with the flowers, with the objects of creation, there is a great ethic, scarcely perceived as yet, which will at length break forth into light. Victor Hugo" The purpose of this chapter is to describe the background and rationale for a collaborative approach to stakeholder involvement in marine reserve planning and the importance of ensuring a balance with the biophysical and ecological aspects of reserve planning. The chapter examines some of the socio-economic considerations for marine reserve planning processes, the challenges posed by public perceptions and values, and some of the drawbacks to stakeholder involvement.  2.1  12  Collaborative vs. Authoritative Approaches to Marine Reserve Planning  As noted in Chapter One, marine reserve experts from both the social and natural science fields discuss and provide examples of the importance of meaningful stakeholder involvement in achieving better outcomes for marine reserve planning in a community. The possibility of establishing marine reserves 13  can be hampered with unclear communications and misunderstandings of the goals, costs and benefits of marine reserves (Murray et al. 1999). Fiske (1992) notes that the potential for reserves to succeed as conservation and resource management tools will be equally hampered if people's values and resource uses are not taken into account. This is because reserves challenge the traditional norms of marine resource use, such as to fish, to recreate, or to conduct tourism operations. Not considering traditional uses or norms can engender strong public opposition (Cocklin, Craw and McAuley 1998). Thus, when marine reserves are proposed for establishment, planners need to know what a community's values and uses are, and further, to understand that people's values and resource use rights are being affected (Cocklin, Craw and McAuley 1998). Different planning approaches can be taken to reserve establishment which can influence the public's or community's support or opposition.  " Source of quote: Douglas H. Chadwick. 1995. Dead or Alive, the Endangered Species Act. National Geographic. 187 (3): 2. While the literature discusses these issues in relation to both marine protected areas and marine reserves, this chapter will refer to marine reserves, on the assumption that the comments in the literature apply to either of these marine zones. An example of the literature: NRC 2001, 68; Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 75; Agardy 2000, 878; Cocklin, Craw and McAuley 1998; Kelleher and Recchia 1998; Beaumont 1997; Kelly and Alper 1996; Wolfenden, Cram and Kirkwook 1994; Fiske 1992; Kelleher and Kenchington 1992. 12  13  9  2.1.1 Authoritative and Consultative Approaches to Reserve Establishment Development of marine reserves in terms of size and location often tend to emphasize biophysical criteria over socio-economic considerations, avoiding, or delaying socio-economic concerns until later stages of establishment processes (e.g., seeking public input in review and comment periods). This "sequential" approach to marine reserve decision-making often results in conflict and unsuccessful outcomes or ineffective marine reserve designations; for example, due to lack of support and non-compliance which leads to greater enforcement costs and reduced benefits for the reserve (NRC 2001, 68) Dorcey and Rieik (1987) describe this approach as "authoritative" and "consultative." (See the Appendix D for a discussion of the three approach posed by Dorcey and Reik 1987.)  2.1.2 Collaborative Approaches to Reserve Establishment If biophysical criteria were the main consideration for establishing a marine reserve, then marine reserves would be numerous, large and dispersed (Cocklin et al. 1998). Yet, this view undervalues the trade-offs that must be made to accommodate human uses of the marine environment, not to mention the realities of compliance (Tisdell and Broadus 1989). While recognizing the importance of biophysical factors, both natural and social scientists now emphasize that these factors are not the only reason for the establishment of marine reserves. Agardy (2000) and Kelleher (1996) state that the most critical information about 14  marine reserve design and designation is inherently societal, not scientific. Stages of marine reserve establishment range from the conception of the proposal, exploration and research of information, to assessment and identification of areas of interest, and the consideration o f design issues (such as site selection, location, size, boundaries, placement in a network) (NRC 2001, 68). As an alternative to the "sequential approach," the "collaborative" approach to reserve decision-making considers socio-economic factors at each of these stages of reserve development (NRC 2001, 68; Dorcey and Riek 1987). The assumption taken in this thesis is that management decisions made in collaboration 15  with stakeholders and which include comprehensive and fair consideration of socio-economic issues are more likely to lead to greater support and common ground among interested parties and thus to better outcomes that last (Chess and Purcell 1999; Kofinas and Griggs 1996). Murray et al. (1999) suggest that the development of reserves will require social acceptance, adequate enforcement, and effective scientific evaluation in order to be successful. Societal factors to consider in marine reserve establishment processes include the social structure of marine resource use, who is involved in their use, community, culture, political acceptability, struggles, For an example of just some of the literature reviewed: Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Agardy 2000; Murray et al. 1999 Cocklin et al. 1998; Farrow 1996; Kriwoken 1996; Bohnsack 1993; Dixon, Scura and van't Hof 1993; Dixon 1993; Fiske 1992; Tisdell and Broadus 1989.  14  10  institutional realities, economic concerns, such as the groups who stand to benefit and lose from their establishment, and the perceptions, values and behaviour that those groups possess about the marine reserve proposal (Suman, Shivlani and Milon 1999; Fiske 1992). Such factors are critical in determining whether a marine reserve will be designated and i f so, to what extent the protected area will be sustainable in the long term (e.g., through compliance) as management regimes are later planned and implemented beyond the designation stage (Fiske 1992, 43).  2.1.3  Strategic Principles  for Reserve  Establishment  While there may be no cookie cutter approach for how to involve social interests, Kelleher and Kenchington (1992) suggest that, 'what works for one nation or group of nations can rarely be transported unmodified to another ecological or socio-economic environment. Nevertheless, there are strategic principles which are virtually universally applicable.' Some of the strategic principles suggested by the marine reserve experts include: •  Marine protected areas are likely to be successful only if the local people are directly involved in its selection, establishment and management (Kelleher and Kenchington 1992).  •  Socio-economic considerations usually determine the success or failure of reserves. In addition to biophysical factors, these considerations should be addressed from the outset in identifying sites for selecting and managing marine reserves (Kelleher and Recchia 1998).  •  Stakeholders must be involved from the earliest possible stage in any reserve for it to have a chance of being established. This involvement should include their receiving clear identifiable socio-economic benefits from the reserve (Kelleher and Recchia 1998).  •  Design and management of marine reserves requires a balance between top down and bottom-up approaches (Kelleher and Recchia 1998).  Kelleher and Recchia (1998) conducted a world-wide examination of M P A s from differing geographic, social and economic regions and emphasize that "it is better to have a marine reserve that is not ideal in an ecological sense, but meets the primary objectives, than to strive vainly to create the "ideal" perfect reserve." Other reserve experts argue that where there is a choice for ecologically suitable areas, planners should understand the local societal and cultural norms and, together with the stakeholders, include humanitarian, economic and practical considerations (Cocklin et al. 1998). However, marine reserve advocates also state that in time, as credibility of the reserve is achieved, combined with an effective feed back monitoring program, more scientifically rationalized reserves can be achieved and perhaps even more ambitious plans for the development of networks can occur (e.g., Wolfenden et al. 1994).  Stakeholder involvement can continue after establishment stages, which typically require regulation development, implementation (e.g., management, enforcement), monitoring and evaluation. 15  11  2.2  Biological Effectiveness and Social Acceptance  The above discussion raises the question of how to achieve a balance between social concerns and biological function when it comes to marine reserve planning and decision-making. Planning stages entail detailed and often heated discussions about location, size and uses within reserves. One issue, as argued by Roberts et al. (In review a, b), is that i f social and economic criteria override objective biological values, then places of little biological value could end up being protected (cited in N R C 2001, 102 and Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 52).  2.2.1 Ecological Factors Outweighing Social Concerns Roberts and Hawkins (2000, 53) and Roberts et al. (In review a, b) argue that if reserves are to have lasting economic and social value they must be first effective biologically and then acceptable socially. This view conflicts with the point raised by Kelleher and Recchia (1998) above. The authors critique the subjectiveness of marine reserve selection frameworks, such as those developed by Kelleher and Kenchington (1992) Salm and Price (1995), Ballantine (1997) and Hockey and Branch (1997) , which 16  outline a series of criteria for locating marine reserves based on biological as well as social and economic considerations. Concerns raised by Roberts and Hawkins (2000) are that these frameworks lead to ad 17  hoc site selection, do not offer guidance on how to weight the criteria objectively, and the socio-economic criteria have tended to dominate processes of reserve selection (p. 52). The authors argue against selection processes which offer equal or greater weight to socio-economic concerns at the outset of marine reserve design, because they may end up developing "sub-standard reserves". Sub-standard reserves will not achieve the purpose for which they were created and will ultimately lose any community and decisionmaking support (p. 52). This same issue arises with respect to reserves chosen ad hoc or opportunistically (p. 52). As a means of addressing the subjective differences in perspective, Roberts et al. (In review a, b) feel that there is a minimum level of function necessary, "a biological bottom line" and that approaches should go beyond representation of species and habitats, and focus on safeguarding the ecological processes underpinning biodiversity and productivity (p. 53). They, along with other M P A experts, argue that stakeholders as well as marine resource planners and managers would prefer a more objective methodology for designing and implementing reserves (NRC 2001, 99; Gilman 1997, 77). A standard set of criteria should be decided upon which form the purpose for creating a protected area (Gilman 1997, 77). When criteria are clearly defined and agreed upon by all participants prior to the start of a decisionmaking process, selecting candidate sites can be more easily justified (NRC 2001, 99).  Hockey and Branch's (1997) framework is called COMPARE, Criteria and Objectives for Marine Protected Area Evaluation. For examples see summary in Roberts and Hawkins 2000, Table 3, page 53. 16  17  12  2.2.2 Socio-economic and Ecological Concerns Factored within the Design Process Recognizing the importance of objectivity with socio-economic concerns in establishing marine reserves, Roberts et al. (In review a, b) suggest an approach seeking to protect the "biological bottom line" while offering stakeholders a range of options to choose from. The approach provides a series of criteria for selection based on biology. The criteria are divided into four categories for creating the reserve which can help select individual reserves or develop reserve zoning plans in a multiple use M P A (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 53) : 18  •  Representation criteria: biogeographical, habitat representation;  •  Excluding criteria: level of human threat, level of threat from natural catastrophes;  •  Screening criteria: size of site, connectivity, and  •  Modifying criteria: presence of: vulnerable habitats and critical life stages, species or populations; ecosystem functioning and linkages; provision of ecological services for people.  The choice and application of the above criteria depends on the goals of the marine reserve or zones designated as reserves in a larger M P A (e.g., design of a broader M P A to improve fishery management or to as a no take zone conserve biodiversity) (NRC 2001, 105). However, a cautionary note is provided by experts who state that marine reserve planners should not cling to the idea that a single model will fit all circumstances; instead the final design should be driven by clearly defined and site-specific objectives (Agardy 2002). Inflexible and rigid approaches will threaten marine conservation efforts and progress. To assist in applying the criteria, Roberts et al. (In review a, b) and (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 54) discuss a "decision process" which can be used in a collaborative marine reserve establishment process and builds into the analytical framework used in this thesis (Chapter Four). The decision process works with stakeholders to define the area of interest and the goals for the reserve(s); evaluate reserve options according to the criteria (selecting among and weighting the modifying criteria when necessary to ensure they are appropriate with the goals); decide how to quantify the information needed for scoring reserve options according to the criteria; score reserve options according to each criterion; select among candidate options; map out the various options; and feed the results of the analysis into the decision-making process to choose among the alternative network designs. The authors do not feel they are separating the science from stakeholder input because they argue that the competing needs for ecological value and social acceptance can be resolved by involving stakeholders and community members from the outset of the process in identifying goals for the reserve and reviewing the criteria and data for marine reserve design (Roberts et al. In review a, b; cited in N R C 2001, 102). This approach promotes the use of socio-economic analyses of candidate reserve sites to identify and rule Discussion of the criteria used to select marine reserves and design marine reserve networks developed by Roberts et al. (In review a, b) is useful to provide some background to the substantive discussions in a collaborative process. 18  13  out areas which will be unacceptable to communities and stakeholders, and which would thus be impossible to implement or enforce (Roberts et al, In review a, b, cited in N R C 2001, 102). The most subjective issue is the weighting of selection criteria. For this reason it is suggested that 'involving stakeholders meaningfully in every step of the process, from providing their knowledge of the environment and its resources, to making decisions about how to score reserve options relative to each criterion, is the most effective way to develop a cooperative, informed marine reserve establishment process (NRC 2001, 102).' A n example of the implementation of this decision process is found in the Florida Keys where Leslie et al. (In review, cited in N R C 2001, 102) used this approach for designing reserve networks options in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Their work showed that there are thousands of biologically adequate network design options. Within a collaborative process, stakeholders can help to select from these options, choosing those with the lowest negative impacts on surrounding communities and thereby increasing the likelihood of stakeholder support for the reserves. "As well as being a scientific tool, the process is a sociological tool, enabling stakeholders to understand how biological attributes of candidate sites are critical to achieving their objectives for a reserve or network. Experience in terrestrial reserve selection shows that working through criteria that are clearly matched to objectives for reserves can help resolve conflicts among different stakeholder groups (Roberts et al. In review b, cited in Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 54)." Some of the key reasons to use this approach in designing reserves are that working through the process will assist stakeholders to understand the trade offs that must be made; generate multiple options for biologically-relevant marine reserves that can be fed into socio-economic evaluations; provide a transparent and rigorous procedure to produce scientifically-based candidate reserve options; and, make decisions that are more easily defendable which will increase the likelihood of proposals passing through to establishment and final implementation (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 55).  2.3  Perceptions and Values in the Establishment of Marine Reserves  Perceptions and values are a driving force for marine reserve support. Marine reserves change the human use characteristics of the marine environment, such as the kinds of benefits or ecosystem services provided by the marine environment, as well as the distribution of these benefits among different groups of people (NRC 2001, 42). Thus, for example, marine reserves tend to alter the mixture of services, the set of beneficiaries of those services and the level of benefits from the services (NRC 2001, 47). In the United States and in Canada, the government has legislated public trust responsibilities to manage marine  While the authors' work is in review at the time of writing, discussions of their approach can be found in NRC (2001, 104) and Roberts and Hawkins (2000, 54).  14  resources for the interests of all its citizens. The proposition of marine reserves requires that a public 19  investment has to be made (Scholz and Fujita 2001, 39). The desirability of investing public funds in marine reserve initiatives depends on weighing the potential benefits and costs which in turn requires the evaluation of public opinion from both direct users and citizens concerned about marine conservation (NRC 2001, 42). Yet the support of marine reserves from the general public and direct users will rest on whether they perceive the benefits to be greater with or without marine reserves. The greatest constraints on people's perceptions and attitudes towards marine reserves are traditional values, the perception of exclusion from reserve establishment processes, and shifting public environmental priorities.  2.3.1 Traditional Values It is human nature to be suspicious of any program or initiative which has the potential to significantly alter one's traditional uses of resources, especially if this affects well-being and livelihood (NRC 2001, 70). A study by Suman et al. (1999) show that user groups, such as commercial fishermen, divers and recreationists have different values regarding the purposes of reserves, designation processes and whether reserves should exist or not. By setting aside ocean areas from extractive uses, marine reserves invoke a planned change because they affect people's activities and values (Fiske 1992). The restrictions which marine reserves impose on the right to pursue certain activities are therefore, understandably, not easily welcomed (Guenette et al. 2000; Suman et al 1999; Cocklin et al 1998). The marine environment has been traditionally perceived as an open-access resource under which the benefits of use are available to everyone, similar to the "tragedy of the commons" on land (Cocklin et al. 1998; Hardin 1968). Most users of the marine environment feel they have the right to use the marine ecosystem to which they have become personally or culturally attached, in any way they want (NRC 2001, 67). This tradition is based in the public trust doctrine which finds its roots in Roman Law and English Common Law, the foundation of both the U S and Canadian legal systems. The result is an open 20  access fishery where fishermen perceive that "fish not caught today is someone else's fish tomorrow" (Scholz and Fujita 2001, 36). Consequently, local residents and resource user groups, particularly the recreational and commercial fishing sectors, are the first to express opposition to marine reserve initiatives. From fishermen's perspectives, marine reserves mean giving up harvesting rights (Sanchirico  The public trust doctrine provides that natural resources are held in trust by the government. For more information see Slade, D. 1990. For information on how the doctrine may apply in Canada, see Smallwood 1993 (http://www.librarv.ubc.ca/law/abstracts/smallwood.html. Accessed February 24, 2003). See earlier note. The principle, known as "the public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries", suggests that the rivers, ports, sea, shores of the sea, and rights to fish in and use those areas belong to the public and cannot be sold to private interests (Michael Wilmar, The Public Trust Doctrine, http://www.spur.org/pubtrust.html. Accessed 13 July 2001). However, the doctrine also states these resources are subject to demands which require that the Crown act as trustee to prevent their abuse. There is much debate among legal scholars as to the authority and ultimate scope of the public trust doctrine (Caspersen, Anna R.C. 1996). 19  2 0  15  and Wilen 1998, 20). In addition, fishermen have a particular outlook on life, which includes their past experiences with regulations and regulators as well as a 'hunter mentality': "Fishing is a tough, often dangerous occupation and fishermen are fiercely independent. They see themselves as hunters living by wit and skill, and are reluctant to have that freedom curtailed by restrictions on where they can go, what they can catch and how much they can take (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 72)." The primary means of allocating marine resources has traditionally been through regulations and there is a growing amount of regulations to which fishermen are subjected (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). Not only has this increase of regulation stemmed from the success of fishermen as hunters, it also stems from the failures of government agencies to manage effectively. Ineffective management is one of the reasons affecting fisheries collapse and fishermen's confidence that a marine reserve proposal will work to achieve the goals for which it is established (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). Marine reserves are not necessarily the answer to fishery management woes. Some scientists argue that economic incentives outside of marine reserve boundaries need to be altered if marine reserves are to work, so that fishermen will make decisions that reflect the long-term stewardship mandates of resource planners and the public at large (Hilborne et al. in press; cited in N R C 2001, 58; Hannesson 2000). The authors argue that without changing the incentives which entice the industry to obtain the largest possible share of the catch, there is no way in which marine reserve planners can prevent the excessive use of capital and manpower in the industry (Hannesson 2000). Improving conventional approaches and combining them with the use of marine reserves can help to make access more predictable and marine reserves more palatable as a result.  2.3.2 Perceptions of Exclusion from Marine Reserve Decision-making Where stakeholders perceive they have not genuinely influenced a marine reserve process, or feel they have been excluded, they will not accept the process nor the outcome (NRC 2001, 70). There is a higher chance that reserve implementation and compliance will be more difficult to obtain (Cocklin et al. 1998; Hanna 1998). It is impossible to achieve long-term sustainability for an initiative which affects the welfare of local communities where the community is outright opposed to it (NRC 2001, 70; Salm and Clark 2000; Kelleher 1996; Kelleher and Recchia 1998). If the marine reserve is nevertheless designated, the consequence will be greater enforcement needs, and possibly diminished marine reserve benefits resulting from the reserve not meeting the objectives for which it was established (NRC 2001, 12). The strength of one's support for an initiative will be proportional to the extent of ownership one feels for it (NRC 2001). That feeling of ownership becomes threatened by any exclusion from or suspicion of a planning process, "but is fostered when people can see that the plan considers their welfare in its design (NRC 2001, 70)."  16  2.3.3 Shifting Public Environmental Priorities A further constraint for marine reserve establishment lies in the general public's understanding and awareness of marine reserves and of the status of ocean conservation. A public opinion poll commissioned by SeaWeb (a non-governmental organization), in California during 2001, showed high support for designating fully protected areas in the ocean (76% in favour) and yet little knowledge of the system of national marine sanctuaries. Similarly in British Columbia, a poll commissioned by the 21  Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (BC Chapter) undertaken in 2001 showed 75% of the general public respondents supported the concept of setting aside some territorial waters as "off-limits" to activities that would "seriously deplete fish or marine life" or damage important underwater habitat, with 60% showing strong support. Part of the reason for the higher public values placed on marine reserves in recent years has been due to successful campaigns by environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs). ENGOs are becoming more vocal in advocacy, playing an increasing role in developing public awareness and shifting values concerning ocean resources (NRC 2001, 44). In addition, ENGOs are becoming more successful in exerting political influence, which also indicates a shift in public environmental priorities (NRC 2001, 48). Gardner's (1991) analysis of E N G O involvement in public processes identifies three key roles in relation to governance: advocacy, supplemental and transformative. Applying these roles to the marine realm, advocacy encompasses the broad range of activities undertaken by ENGOs to strengthen and expand government and industry accountability without restructuring the governance system. ENGOs also seek to supplement government functions for ensuring ocean conservation. Yet ENGOs also strive to transform government and society (pp. 326, 329, 331). Gardner concludes that to make a difference, ENGOs are increasingly obliged to enter the political forum (p. 335). However, the challenges for ENGOs are to obtain and maintain public interest on marine reserve issues, to raise awareness and understanding of the status of the marine environment and marine reserves, and to continue making a political impact. The involvement of ENGOs in collaborative processes may therefore be important to reserve outcomes.  2.4  Summary  This chapter outlined the rationale for a collaborative approach to stakeholder involvement in marine reserve establishment by discussing some of the socio-economic considerations for marine reserve establishment, along with a suggested process for balancing those considerations with ecological concerns. The greatest challenges for marine reserve establishment involve public perceptions and values which include traditional values, perceptions of exclusion, and shifting public environmental priorities. While increased time and expense are two main drawbacks to stakeholder involvement in reserve  2 1  Source: http://www.seaweb.org/CAPollWeb.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2002. 17  processes, the costs are outweighed by the potential for the achievement of better decision-making outcomes that down the road can equate to positive benefits for the marine environment and for marine users. For marine reserves to have a chance at successful designation and compliance, a collaborative approach to marine reserve establishment should be taken, where socio-economic considerations and stakeholders have an opportunity to become integrated from the outset of a marine reserve process and throughout the various stages of a process. Taking a collaborative approach to decision-making provides the opportunity to reduce the likelihood of potential conflict and delay at later stages of development and to increase both user and non user support (Cocklin et al. 1998; Kenchington and Kelleher 1995; and Smith 1982). These opportunities reflect the goal in this thesis for the development of a sustainable marine reserve, one which will be successful ecologically, as well as socially and economically. However, while the literature provides some considerations and possible challenges to take into account for marine reserve establishment, there is little insight into how to implement the suggestions in a collaborative process. What is required is a comprehensive framework in which to organize the suggestions made regarding marine reserves that can be used as a model or checklist for the design, implementation and evaluation of a marine reserve process which can help lead to better outcomes for reserve decision-making. This is the focus of the next two chapter in this thesis.  18  CHAPTER 3  C O L L A B O R A T I V E A P P R O A C H E S TO DECISION-MAKING "There is more power in joined minds than in one mind." - Anonymous  22  This chapter examines the theoretical underpinnings of collaborative decision-making as a means of addressing the thesis goal and assumption: what are the key features of collaborative decision-making that increase the likelihood for better outcomes and thus greater meaningful involvement, support and agreement for marine reserve decision-making? The theory and practice of collaborative decision-making is examined through a lens comprising four decision-making models. The models have been developed by some of the well-known scholars in the field of public and multistakeholder decision-making, and applied to environmental and natural resources planning and management initiatives. A fourth model is added from the marine reserve literature to illustrate an example of features considered important to marine reserve experts. The models provide a means of organizing the considerations highlighted as important in Chapter Two for achieving better marine reserve decision-making outcomes. The models provide a means of structuring those and other considerations into an analytical framework of principles and practices (developed in Chapter Four), which can be used as a means of designing and implementing marine reserve planning processes, and evaluating progress. This chapter also outlines the challenges of collaborative and consensus-based decision-making.  3.1  Collaboration Defined  Barbara Gray (1989) defines "collaboration" as the process through which stakeholders who see different aspects of a problem commit to constructively explore their concerns or differences together and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible. The way the problem is conceptualized by stakeholders is called the "problem domain" (Trist 1983 and Gray 1989). Collaboration seeks to develop a greater appreciation among stakeholders of the rich and comprehensive nature of the problem than they could envision on their own (Gray 1989). Collaborative processes include stakeholders representing an array of interests and views which may conflict, and who come together to negotiate and build consensus, in order to meet the goals of all the group members and their constituents (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 5). In this thesis, the focus of the analysis is on collaborative processes whose members have come together with the goal of seeking an agreement on marine reserve establishment. The problem domain in this thesis research involves the questions: "Where should the marine reserve be established, how big should it be, and who should be involved in making these decisions?" Collaboration as an  Boston Law Quotes on Collaboration: http://www.bostonlawcollaborative.com/resources/quotes dispute resolution/collaboration settlementresolution/ (Accessed March 2003).  2  19  approach to planning and decision-making is a function of a complex array of factors, which are discussed in the context of the analytical framework in the Chapter Four. The methods of applying a collaborative process include technical advisory panels, specially-formed working groups, and public advisory committees and decision-makers at many levels of government. For continuity of approaches, the terms "collaboration" and "collaborative decision-making" will be used in this thesis to encompass the various other terms used in the literature, such as "community-based decision-making," "multistakeholder decision-making," "consensus-based decision-making," and "shared- decision-making."  3.2  Background to Collaborative and Consensus-Based Decisionmaking  As Dukes and Firehocks (2001, vi) state, "like it or not, collaboration is a fact of life." Government agencies, policy makers, public officials, local grassroots activists, regional and national coalitions are all increasing their use of collaborative and consensus-based decision-making, and private foundations are also increasing their funding of such processes. Collaboration is used as a means to resolve public policy conflicts and to ensure meaningful and sustainable public policy decision-making. Collaborative approaches using neutral third parties, such as facilitators and mediators, arise from an American origin of alternative dispute resolution used in the labour, peace and international relations fields in the 1960s and 1970s (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001). With a rise in the environmental movement in the 1970s, alternative dispute resolution as a pre-litigation tool began to be applied more broadly to decision-making and conflict resolution in the areas of environmental and natural resources, community, family and business realms (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 16). (See Appendix B for an explanation and definition of the terms 'facilitator' and 'mediator.') The traditional forms of decision-making range from use of the legislature (e.g., enacting legislation and regulations), the courts (e.g., litigation), administrative approaches (e.g., referrals, permitting), mediation and arbitration (e.g., quasi-legal adjudication), informal problem solving discussions and extralegal approaches (i.e., use of non violent, violent or physically coercive methods) (Moorel996). As an alternative means to these other forms of decision-making, collaborative processes are promoted as being quicker and less expensive, increasing the likelihood of resolving disputes and leading to more broadly accepted public policy decisions (Dukes and Firehock 2001). Collaboration processes are similar to the 'town hall meeting' that is based on democratic principles of community involvement and community ownership of decisions (Gray 1989). However, collaborative decision-making does not replace all traditional forms of public policy decision-making. Particularly in regards to marine reserve establishment, while a reserve may commence as an initiative proposed by an agency or grass-roots organization and develop into a multistakeholder process, the initiative is usually completed with legal designation through governmental administrative and legislative processes. Cormick et al. (1996) 20  emphasize that collaborative decision-making does not replace legitimate government mandates. The authors emphasize further that as an approach to public decision-making, collaboration attempts to broaden the governmental process in a way that reinforces the participatory foundation of a democracy (Cormick et al. 1996, 28; Arnstein 1969, 216). Based on the increasing findings of scientists on the fisheries benefits of marine reserves, there has been an upsurge of interest in using collaborative decision-making as a means of establishing marine reserves both for fisheries management and conservation-based planning (e.g., see Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Roberts et al. 2001b). This thesis focuses its analysis on collaborative processes of any size and scope which make use of techniques such as facilitation and consensus as a means of reaching marine reserve decision-making goals.  3.3  Extent of Stakeholder Involvement in Marine Reserve Collaboration Processes  As noted earlier, it is the extent of stakeholder involvement that distinguishes collaborative decisionmaking as an alternative form of dispute resolution from the traditional approaches (Kelly and Alper 1996). The extent of stakeholder involvement also distinguishes collaborative decision-making from other methods used to involve stakeholders. The diagram of the 'Stakeholder Involvement Spectrum' in Appendix E shows how stakeholder participation can be viewed as lying on a spectrum defined by the purpose in seeking involvement in a planning process - from informing and being made aware of information, to consulted and involved in on-going collaborative interactions. Moving left to right increases the extent of meaningful and comprehensive involvement. It represents increasing interaction, intensity, expectations and influence of stakeholders on decisions, as well as increasing levels of costs and time required from stakeholders. The assumption made in this thesis is that moving from left to right in the diagram improves the chances of reaching greater buy-in and common ground among stakeholders for marine reserve decisions. The use of collaborative decision-making as a means of involving stakeholders responds to the call in the marine reserve literature discussed earlier, recommending the meaningful involvement of stakeholders, their values and other concerns, if there is any hope of reaching enduring agreements. This view is consistent with the public involvement literature which provides similar rationales for public policy processes. One of the fundamental purposes of increasing the extent of stakeholder involvement is to develop better public policies by incorporating the ideas from various interests which leads to more informed decisions (British Columbia Roundtable on Environment and Economy, B C R T E E , 1994). The B C R T E E (1994) notes that stakeholders will be more supportive of decisions if they perceive their concerns are heard and have some impact, and as they begin to understand the range of factors and other viewpoints influencing decisions. "In the longer term, greater stakeholder  21  support and commitment can lead to better and more efficient implementation of policies laws and regulations" (BCRTEE, 1994, 2). Examples of methods used for involving stakeholders in marine reserve development vary from open houses, public meetings, surveys, responses to circulated proposals, public workshops, being part of technical advisory committees or an on-going multistakeholder work groups. The fewer people involved in a process, the greater emphasis will need to be placed on inclusive representation. Roberts and Hawkins (2000), interviewing the superintendent of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), found representation to be one of the most important and difficult aspects of involving stakeholders in a collaborative process for the creation of marine reserves (p. 76). During the process to establish the F K N M S Marine Zoning Plan in 1996, open meetings, surveys, and responses to circulated proposals were used. These methods were seen to be too cumbersome to participants, did not motivate some of the key stakeholder groups, and some of the well-organized and vocal minority groups "hijacked" the public meetings (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 76). As a result, not all the proposed marine reserves were designated at that time. Using a combination of methods such as surveys, public meetings, along with multistakeholder involvement in collaborative working groups may be the key to leading to greater stakeholder support (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). The diagram (Appendix E) is consistent with Arnstein's (1969) "ladder of citizen participation" which serves to illustrate that there are varying levels of stakeholder involvement. The ladder starts with citizen manipulation and moves up to therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power until it reaches its highest point on the ladder, citizen control. The further up Arnstein's ladder, the greater the level of citizen power with greater degrees of "decision-making clout" (p. 217). Collaborative decision-making, using Arnstein's typology, provides opportunities for "information," "consultation," "partnership", "delegated power" and "citizen control." These features distinguish collaboration from forms of non-participation, such as "manipulation," and form of tokenism, such as "placation" or merely "consultation." The process of planning for and establishing marine reserves does not use all of the methods shown in the diagram. However, planning processes that have tended to focus solely on the left side of the stakeholder involvement spectrum (e.g., position papers, open houses, attitude surveys, public meetings) display what Arnstein's (1969) ladder terms "informing" or "consultation." Informing leads to one-way flow of information with no means of providing feedback. Consultation allows for concerns and ideas to be heard, but no assurance that these will be taken into account (p. 219).  22  Theory and Practice of Collaboration and C o n s e n s u s Decision-  3.4  making This section discusses the theoretical and practical background of collaboration and consensus decisionmaking, which the provides context for the analytical framework in Chapter Four.  3.4.1 Theoretical and Practical Foundation of Collaboration Collaborative processes may be pursued reactively or proactively. Responding reactively to conflicts that have arisen is one reason for pursuing a collaborative process. Dorcey (1986) emphasizes that it is increasing public demands, complexity and uncertainty (social, institutional, ecological) which generate conflict in the use and governance of marine resources. This dynamic in turn provides an opportunity for collaboration as an approach to resolve those conflicts. The opportunity for collaborating can also arise proactively, where stakeholders have a shared interest in solving a problem that none of them alone can address and they recognize the advantages of working together (Gray 1989). Collaborative decisionmaking motivated by such "shared visions" is intended to advance the collective interests of the stakeholders involved.  Assessing the Climate for Collaborative Decision-making  Whether motivated by conflict or by a shared vision, opportunities arise at various institutional levels, from the local community level to the regional and international levels. Gray (1989) outlines several "contextual incentives" for collaborating successfully, which can be related to incentives needed for better decision-making in the marine realm. •  dissatisfaction with existing processes for solving problems;  •  rapid economic and technological change;  •  declining productivity;  •  increasing competitive pressures;  •  global interdependence;  •  blurring of boundaries between business, government and labour; and,  •  shrinking government revenue for social and economic programs (p. 29).  Irrespective of whether the concerns are socio-economic or ecological, there are also "problem characteristics" that can be associated with marine reserve establishment that create a further impetus for employing collaboration. Extrapolating from Gray (1989, 10), the problem characteristics of marine reserve decision-making can be characterized by the following: •  problems in the marine realm are ill defined and there is disagreement about how they should be defined;  •  several stakeholders have vested interest in the proposed area and are interdependent; 23  •  stakeholders are not identified or organized in a systematic way;  •  there is a disparity of power and resources for dealing with marine reserve issues;  •  stakeholder expertise is varied with varied access to information;  •  technically complex problems and scientific uncertainty abounds;  •  differing paradigms exist leading to adversarial relationships among stakeholders;  •  sequential approaches (e.g., stakeholders are involved too late in the process) and unilateral efforts to deal with the marine reserve issues produce less than satisfactory solutions; and,  •  existing processes for addressing marine reserve development are inadequate, exacerbating the problems.  For circumstances to be favourable to using a collaboration approach, stakeholders must believe that it is in their interest to participate, that collaboration will produce positive, effective and fair outcomes, and that benefits of participating exceed the costs (Cormick et al. 1996, Gray 1989; Kofinas and Griggs 1996; Duffy et al. 1998). Stakeholders must be dissatisfied with the status quo and must feel that their interests will not be served if a resolution is achieved by other means - for example, proceeding to court with an environmental controversy (Cormick et al. 1996). Stakeholders must want to have greater and more direct control over the outcome of a process, desire to avoid any continuing high profile and politically divisive disputes if they exist, and desire finality (Cormick et al. 1996). Dukes and Firehock (2001, 15) and Moore (1996, 13) provide some further characteristics which favour collaborative efforts and which they suggest will increase the likelihood of successful collaboration. These characteristics are grouped under some principles that are further developed in the collaborative framework in Chapter Four.  Common purpose and definition of the problem and commitment to collaborate: •  there is an ability to identify and agree on the issues in dispute (e.g., problem statement);  •  stalemate is unacceptable to several parties; that is, there is incentive to solve the problem, meet a deadline or engage adversaries;  •  parties are aware that alternatives to a negotiated settlement do not appear as viable or desirable as the outcome they could reach together;  •  parties are interdependent and understand that they need to rely on the cooperation of one another to meet their goals and satisfy their interests;  •  relevant decision-making agencies support the effort and the outcomes; and,  •  interests in the situation are not entirely incompatible; (e.g., common vision, common ground).  Representation aspects: •  the issues will not require compromise of basic values and principles;  •  diverse representation is available and critical parties or representatives are willing to participate;  Equal opportunity to funding, resources and information  24  •  there is access to independent expertise to understand or consult on technical issues;  Effective Process Design •  sufficient time is available (and allocated) to address the key issues with just enough pressure on parties to understand there are deadlines and time constraints, and parties share a motivation for early settlement;  Reaching Agreement •  implementation of any agreement is likely; and success, as defined by participants, appears a reasonable possibility; and,  •  the situation is influenced by external constraints, such as the unpredictability of a government process or judicial decision, that encourages the group to reach a negotiated settlement.  Collaboration Dynamics  The dynamics of collaboration involve a process of joint decision-making among key stakeholders of the problem domain regarding the future of that domain. In this thesis, the dynamics of collaboration involve stakeholders making marine resource planning decisions regarding where to establish no take marine reserves. Gray (1989) outlines several features of stakeholder dynamics which she urges are critical to the success of a collaboration process: •  stakeholders are interdependent and assume collective responsibility for the future direction of the domain;  •  solutions emerge by dealing constructively with stakeholder differences;  •  joint ownership of decisions is involved; and  •  collaboration is an emergent process that transforms and is enhanced over time.  Purpose & Premise of Collaborative Decision-making  In choosing to conduct a collaborative process for marine reserve establishment, if the issues don't meet the "contextual incentives," are not characterized by the "problems" and dynamics above, or the conditions do not look promising, a collaborative approach for marine reserve establishment may be the wrong option (Gray 1989, Dukes and Firehock 2001). It is such "incentives" and "problems" in the marine realm which collaboration attempts to organize and resolve. The extent to which such galvanizing events shift what would otherwise be adversarial relationships towards a shared vision and lead to greater support and agreement in a collaborative process, marks a level of success of the approach (Kofinas and Griggs 1996). Where shifts in a collaborative process move parties from their focus on "individual sovereignty" to "shared stewardship," or a shared vision, it increases the likelihood of enhancing the development of trust (Kofinas and Griggs 1996, 19). Kofinas and Griggs (1996) support Gray (1989) in emphasizing that the development of trust amongst stakeholders in a collaborative process is an essential ingredient for leading to the success of the process. The visual representation of these views may be illustrated as follows: 25  Contextual Incentives Problem Characteristics  a  ^  Shared Stewardship  ??  ^  Trust I  w  \  Process Success Better Outcomes  From their research on over fifty cases of collaboration across the United States, Chrislip and Larson (1994) have devised a "collaborative premise:" "If you bring the appropriate people together in constructive ways with good information, they will create authentic visions and strategies for addressing the shared concerns of the organization and community." The important aspects in this premise will be further elaborated upon in the analytical framework in this thesis but are briefly described here as important components of a successful collaborative process. The first criterion, "appropriate people," is 23  about inclusive representation, and includes the definition of "stakeholders" in this thesis (see Appendix B which discusses 'stakeholder involvement' and the term 'stakeholder.'). According to the literature, a stakeholder is anyone who is affected by an issue or decision, who has power to take action or block action related to that decision, and anyone who cares about the decision. The second criterion is bringing people together "in constructive ways," where processes are effectively designed and structured for dealing with the various stakeholders' different values, interests, and understandings of the issue, different levels of trust, and skills in working together. The third criterion is "information" - in order to make decisions a group will need equal access to training, funding and information, which can derive from experts involved in the process (e.g., technical panels who inform not drive the process) and joint research among the participants themselves (Chrislip and Larson 1994; see also Gray 1989).  Theoretical Benefits of Collaboration  In addition to the stated assumption of the benefits of collaboration which forms the underlying rationale for this thesis, there are various other benefits of successful collaborative decision-making which have been highlighted by Gray (1989) and others which are important to consider for marine reserve establishment (e.g., Kofinas and Griggs 1996, Chrislip and Larson 1994). In particular, Gray points out the following benefits of collaboration which relate to the process itself: •  Broad comprehensive analysis of the problem domain among parties improves the quality of solutions;  •  Response capability is more diversified;  •  Useful for reopening deadlocked negotiations;  •  Risk of impasse is minimized;  •  Process ensures that each stakeholder's interests are considered in any agreement;  •  Parties retain ownership of the solution;  23  Based on Fowler, Joe. 1995. A conversation with David Chrislip - collaboration: the new leadership. Healthcare  Forum Journal. November/December: 21-26. 26  •  Potential to discover novel innovative solutions is enhanced;  •  Relations between the stakeholders improve;  B  Costs associated with other methods are avoided;  •  Mechanisms for coordinating future actions among the stakeholders can be established (Gray 1989, 21).  Collaboration using consensus-based decision-making in relation to marine reserve establishment has the potential to lead to "win-win" outcomes through creativity and negotiation (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 21). Kofinas and Griggs confirm Dorcey's (1986) perspective that when faced with complex ecological problems, the cooperative feature of collaboration is what makes it the most engaging and valuable means of resolving public policy issues. Within the process itself, collaboration helps to bring the views of disparate parties closer together and often reveals to participants that they actually share many more common values and objectives than they realize (Gray 1989; Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 77). Designing the reserve brings communities together as stakeholders develop and pursue a common agenda (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 77). Kofinas and Griggs (1996, 20) see this sharing of experiences among stakeholders as a process of mutual learning, which generates "self awareness" and "awareness of other's perspectives." Solutions which are rejected at the outset of negotiations, may become more acceptable when people start to better understand each others' values and perspectives (Roberts and Hawkins 200, 77). Kofinas and Griggs (1996, 20) emphasize that successful collaboration is supported by "shared experience which kindles a spirit of trust and optimism." The authors suggest that these elements help build the group's "process literacy," which "serves as a feedback mechanism, offering building blocks on which to develop on-going relationships and foster a shared commitment to a negotiated outcome" (p. 20). The flow diagram above can be modified as follows:  Shared experience and mutual learning  Trust a n d optimism  Shared c o m m i t m e n t to a negotiated outcome  P r o c e s s Literacy  Dorcey and McDaniels (2001) note that such beneficial outcomes of collaborating can result even i f consensus is not reached. However, with mutual learning comes an increased likelihood of reducing 24  conflict, resolving differences and reaching like-minded solutions, for example, to protect or restore the  Typically, the purpose of a decision-making process is "to reach consensus" on a particular topic. 27  natural resources in the marine realm through the use of marine reserves (Dukes and Firehocks 2001, 1; Roberts and Hawkins 2000). Beyond the process itself, collaborating can lead to new and more effective partnerships, the promotion of an ocean stewardship ethic among participants and their constituencies, and an increase in the community's knowledge of marine reserves and marine resource issues (Dukes and Firehocks 2001, 1). For example, the responsibility for managing the marine reserve can be given to the collaborative body which helped with planning and establishment, which in turn can involve regular community meetings providing opportunities for discussion, in addition to on-going education and even possibly monitoring assistance (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 77). Chrislip and Larson (1994) also point out other benefits arising from collaborating, which focus on "empowerment" of citizens and "civic community." Their research found that people discovered they could make a difference by becoming involved in collaborative processes. People learned about strategies for addressing public issues and found out how to get. results (Fowler 1995, 22). Successful collaboration, "tends to build the "civic community" - it enhances the capacity of a community to deal with issues. It creates networks of trust and respect. It builds the skills of collaboration. It builds the strategies and experience you need to identify the appropriate people who must be involved. It creates norms of reciprocity, the feeling that "we are all in this together," that by collaborating we can achieve things that are simply not possible by traditional methods (Fowler 1995)." Empowerment and its effects on process outcomes is an important aspect of collaborative decisionmaking in relation to marine reserve establishment. However, this concept is not studied in this thesis.  3.4.2 Theoretical and Practical Foundation of Consensus-Based Decision-making As a decision tool for seeking agreement in marine reserve collaboration processes, consensus aims to find the common ground and build support among the competing interests to arrive at mutually acceptable outcomes or decisions, "without imposing the views or authority of one group over another" (Dukes an Firehock 2001; Cormick et al. 1996; National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy 1993, 6). Consensus requires that the needs of each member of a group are met, a requirement that Dukes and Firehock (2001) suggest entices groups to seek creative solutions that might not occur otherwise. "Consensus processes not only change how a group makes decisions; they change how groups approach problems" (p. 34). The National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy (1993) states that even if participants do not agree with all aspects of an agreement, "consensus is reached if all participants are willing to live with the total package" (p. 6). According to Cormick et al. (1996, 5), consensus is not the search for the middle ground but the "common ground that elevates the quality of decisions by bringing to bear the best information and knowledge in a problem-solving atmosphere." Consistent with the theoretical benefits of collaborative processes and the assumptions made in this thesis, Cormick et al. 28  (1996) note that experience shows that the results of consensus-based decision-making will enjoy greater stakeholder support, and will also lead to innovative and thoughtful solutions that could not be reached within the confines of traditional legal or administrative processes.  Reasons for Using Consensus-Based Decision-making  Underlying reasons for using consensus in marine reserve decision-making can make or break the process. Dukes and Firehock (2001) state that if the reason to use consensus is because another group was successful and, "why don't we do the same" or, "that is what the manual says" - then this is a recipe for disaster. The authors emphasize that these reasons do not show enough appreciation for the benefits and drawbacks of consensus to ensure its effective use in the process. Some reasons are offered in Dukes and Firehock's (2001) research: •  Using consensus is a means of getting parties to the table who may be skeptical of working with opponents or strangers because it reassures they will maintain veto power over decisions;  •  Participants know they must try to satisfy the needs of all participants;  •  Minority views will need to be given real consideration;  •  A norm of responsibility for the group may be enhanced; and,  •  As a practical matter, decisions with a broad base of support are more likely to be implemented (p. 34). 25  Consensus Decision Rules  A typical approach in consensus decision-making is to aim for "unanimity," where "everyone must agree" (Kaner et al. 1996, 210). As the decision rule, this allows every participant to have veto power throughout the process and over the decisions of the group (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 25). However, as a result of this rule, if participants perceive that their interests are not being taken into account, they can object and keep objecting thereby slowing or blocking the process until the group finds a solution with which everyone agrees (Kaner et al. 1996). As a means of avoiding this veto power and increasing the likelihood of the group being able to reach an agreement, "gradients of agreement" can be employed as a means of reaching consensus (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001; Kaner et al. 1996). With this decision rule, participants can choose from a range of options, from fully endorsing a decision or proposal in the process, to agreeing to it with reservations, abstaining, standing aside, formally disagreeing, and fully blocking the proposal or decision (Kaner et al. 1996). The rationale is to allow participants to provide their honest opinions about the issues being discussed without vetoing the process. A further aspect is to add a ground rule that if participants do block the proposal, they cannot just object, but must also provide a suitable alternative (Jostes and Eng 2001). Appendix H provides an example of the decision rule used in the Tortugas 2000 case study.  Cormick et al. (1996) provide features of consensus and comparisons with other decision processes (pp 5, 9, 10). 29  3.5  Challenges to Collaborative and Consensus-based Decisionmaking  Many proponents of collaboration are the first to add the caveat that a collaborative process is not a panacea (e.g., Gray 1989, Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, Kofinas and Griggs 1996). There are critical analyses on the efficacy of using collaboration and consensus as a means of decision-making (e.g. Coglianese 1999, Dorcey and McDaniels 2001; McCloskey 1996, Coggins 1998). However, the conclusions are far from conclusive (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 11). It is relevant to examine some of the arguments against pursuing consensus-based decision-making as a means of meaningful stakeholder involvement. While the analytical framework discussed in the following chapter attempts to mitigate these kinds of criticisms, some concise points are stated below to illustrate how processes can be led astray.  3.5.1 Arguments Against and Responses to the Use of Collaboration and Consensus Decision-making The following are some of the arguments against using consensus and the responses for using it.  Cognitive Abilities  Dorcey and McDaniels (2001, 22) note how collaborative decision-making assumes that the cognitive abilities of individuals allows them to make wise trade-offs amongst options which are usually technically and emotionally complex. Yet, behavioural research shows that, "... humans are quite bad at making complex, unaided decisions (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001)." Whether in groups or as individuals, humans get confused with too many alternatives, cannot clarify objectives, and prefer the easy way out of the problem with which they are faced (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001). The response to this is simply that these research findings relate to unaided efforts at human judgment tasks (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001). Through collaborative processes, process sponsors and facilitators should help to clarify the purpose of the process, its objectives, and help make participants understood by rephrasing comments. Facilitators help to enable the development of alternatives through creative problem solving techniques, and structure the process in a way to assist participants in working on small doable pieces of the problem so that the issues are not overwhelming.  Using Stakeholder Consensus as a Form of Governance  Consensus based decision-making is typically sponsored by government institutions such as regulatory agencies (e.g., the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, N O A A ) who invite stakeholders to form a working group to resolve complex problems and reach a negotiated settlement (Dorcey and McDaniels (2001, 22). In this process, concerns have been raised that the legal and regulatory rules reflecting national and state policies may become bargaining tools rather than the 30  baseline. The concern is also that the accountability of elected officials or appointed boards is weakened when ad hoc working, or advisory, groups become increasingly responsible for influencing policy (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 11; Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 23). The formation of ad hoc advisory groups is perceived as being accountable only to themselves, replacing the established constitutional (e.g., representative democracy), institutional and procedural norms of public policy making (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 10; Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 23). Yet, where such working groups have an advisory capacity, this barrier can be alleviated by ensuring that process sponsors and facilitators take the time to clarify the established mechanisms of accountability, responsibility and any relevant rules of procedure (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 23).  Status Quo Favouritism  Another barrier to effective collaboration arises when stakeholders become involved in the process to ensure alternatives are chosen which are similar to the prevailing conditions (i.e., the status quo) (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 23). One result of status quo favouritism can be the resolution of local socioeconomic concerns at the expense of natural resource protection, as opposed to basing decisions on sound science (i.e., negotiating the environment down and out) (McCloskey 1996). The argument posed by Cormick and Knaster (1986) is that collaborative processes allow socio-economic interests and issues to become a priority when science should be playing a more important role. A risk is that "ill-informed compromises" could lead to irreversible harm to resources. This potential barrier creates a special irony in collaborative decision-making, which this thesis attempts to resolve. The interplay between science and socio-economics is a constant dilemma in collaborative decision-making and the basis of discussions in Chapters Two. Given a working group's mandate, this interplay is a balancing act which a process facilitator must allow the participants to explore. There are no hard and fast rules, yet collaborative processes will only be effective if the participants know and trust that their recommendations will be taken seriously and there is no pre-determined agenda. Thus, the risk of natural resources being negotiated 'down and out' is always there. While after the fact, a feed-back system involving monitoring of decision outcomes is one way of evaluating environmental impacts and linking implementation back to decision-making and the possible need for revisions to decisions (Wolfenden et al. 1994). Dorcey and McDaniels (2001, 23) suggest that the important role of science in stakeholder decision-making means working with process managers and facilitators who have substantive knowledge of the issues, and who will be able to design processes integrating both science and socio-economic issues and interests in an appropriate way.  Lack of Commitment to Final Decisions  Some argue that the very definition of consensus itself suggests no one is truly happy with the outcomes, and that this leads to lack of commitment to the final decisions made (Roberts and Hawkins 2000; 31  Coggins 1998). However, not everyone will be content with an outcome whether it is from a collaboration process or a decision of the court or minister. Roberts and Hawkins (2000, 77) suggest that it is important for collaborative working groups agree on a set of principles, goals and objectives for marine reserves and then discuss how to achieve them, as this makes it easier to agree on possible solutions.  Difficulties in Obtaining General Public Input  Another argument is that only a small group of people will make the effort to participate because they are either gaining or losing something (Cocklin et al. 1998). The broader public, feeling less impact of the decisions, may have less incentive to become involved and, along with future generations, are not typically represented at the table (Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Cocklin et al. 1998). Without an attentive process manager or facilitator, these important interests can be left out of collaborative processes (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 23). In addition, public surveys can be used to seek general public opinions, such as that commissioned by SeaWeb in 2001 regarding "fully-protected ocean areas" in California (Edge Research 2002).  Power Imbalance and Forces of Cooptation  Kofinas and Griggs (1996) and Gray (1989) point out that forces of cooptation and process manipulation are just as much a part of collaborations based on shared visions as they are in collaborations motivated by conflict. Unless these power imbalance issues are clearly dispelled up front, attempts at collaboration will not succeed (Kofinas and Griggs 1996). The authors emphasize that the initial vision may be sufficient to bring parties together, "but the real essence is moving beyond discussions of the apparent common ground to grappling with differences and fostering the commitment to collective action in the future." Gray (1989) states that for collaboration to occur effectively, someone must introduce a mind set, a vision, a belief in the creative potential of managing differences, and must couple this mind set with a constructive process for designing creative solutions to the complex multiparty problems (p. 25).  Potential Barriers to Using Consensus  In addition to suffering from similar challenges in collaboration process, the potential disadvantages to using consensus are outlined in Dukes and Firehock (2001, 34). For example, consensus processes may require considerable time, stamina and sufficient resources to provide high quality information. Lack of skills in communication, active listening, conflict resolution, and negotiation creates a disadvantage, especially without a skilled facilitator. Peer pressure can also develop that results in less than optimal decisions that otherwise would not have occurred and a minority may block decisions that otherwise have significant support. One means of overcoming these potential barriers is to design the process as to address these issues directly (e.g., dealing with time, resources, negotiation training for participants, hiring a facilitator or empowering a Chair, and setting ground rules for consensus). 32  3.5.2  When Not to Collaborate  When the appropriate circumstances, problem characteristics and dynamics for collaborative and consensus decision-making are found to exist, collaborative approaches can lead to many of the benefits discussed above, and in particular, to the greater likelihood of achieving the thesis assumptions. Conversely, if the particular characteristics and dynamics are not evident, collaboration and consensus may not be the best approach to marine reserve decision-making. Similarly, the potential barriers and arguments above highlight the importance of process sponsors needing to first ask the question, "When is  a collaborative approach appropriate and useful and when is it inappropriate and harmful? " before being concerned about, "How should we design the process"? (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 1). Collaborative initiatives 'may be initiated under entirely inappropriate circumstances due to misconceptions about its purposes and requirements, as a way to avoid difficult decisions, or because of wishful thinking about restoring harmony and reconciliation (Dukes and Firehock 2001, l ) . '  3.6  26  Evaluation Challenges  Undertaking empirical evaluation of the extent to which a collaborative process achieves its goals and objectives can be a difficult affair. While experts have developed their own evaluation models which can aid assessment of stakeholder involvement processes, there remain challenges for methodology, implementation and application to different governance systems (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 9). Dorcey and McDaniels (2001) refer to Beierle's (1998) confirmation that concepts about stakeholder involvement are, "...complex and value laden" and that "...there is no widely held criteria forjudging success and failure; no agreed-upon evaluation methods; and there are few reliable measurement tools" (citing Rosener 1982, 45). This thesis heeds the caution regarding "the infant state of the assessment art and its relatively infrequent and uneven application," exposing the limitations on the ability of a researcher to assess comments and conclusions (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 9). However, this thesis supports the 27  view of Dorcey and McDaniels (2001,31) that, since its inception in the 1960s, there is much that is now known about what constitutes best practices in the design, use and evaluation of collaboration tools and "their appropriateness to particular environmental issues."  28  Note Dukes and Firehock's (2001, 14) "continuum of caution" table which highlights when greater need for caution is needed, and when consultation with other colleagues along with increased need for process structuring and discipline is required. The caution also touches on the Limitations in this thesis which are discussed in Chapter Five. Susskind, McKearnan and Thomas Larmer 1999) have produced a 1150-page Consensus Building Handbook providing a comprehensive overview of the state-of the art, with illustrations of agreed-upon best practices noting where differing views exist.  2 6  2 7  2 8  33  3.7  Summary  This chapter examines the context, theory and practice of collaboration, outlining its characteristics and challenges. Collaboration may not be so much a theory as a practical means for planners to structure stakeholder involvement in planning and decision-making processes. The barriers and arguments posed illustrate that collaboration is not a panacea, and therefore its limitations need to be addressed by process managers with participants to a process. The next chapter learns from the literature, building on the insights, and mitigates the potential weaknesses in order to improve the design, use and evaluation of collaborative processes as a means of marine reserve decision-making.  34  CHAPTER 4  T H E ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK Like it or not, you are a negotiator -Fisher and Ury, 1991  This chapter describes the analytical framework used in this thesis. The framework is a culmination of the principles from four decision-making models which use collaboration and consensus as a means of negotiating and reaching decisions about natural resources. The framework encompasses the stakeholder involvement considerations and challenges from the M P A and marine reserve literature in Chapters One and Two, and the features of collaboration theory discussed in Chapter Three. The principles have been chosen based on their potential application to the goal and assumptions in this thesis. The following sections provide a discussion of the main features of the models and their applicability to marine reserve decision-making, followed by the analytical framework of the key principles and practices. A table outlining the framework is provided at the end of this chapter along with a brief chapter summary.  4.1  Building the Analytical Framework  In a review of the literature on the theory and practice of multistakeholder decision-making , four 29  particular models stood out in their applicability to community-based decision-making for marine reserve establishment: •  Duffy, Hallgren, Parker, Penrose, and Roseland 1998 devised a framework to design and evaluate "shared decision-making" within a government program of land and resource planning and management in British Columbia; 30  •  Barbara Gray (1989) has conceptualized an inter-organizational theory of collaboration that is applicable to both social and environmental concerns;  •  The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy developed the principles of "consensus" to guide natural resources decision-making towards sustainable development (NRTEE 1993; Cormick et al. 1996); and,  •  Roberts and Hawkins' framework of 'good and bad practices' illustrate means of improving meaningful involvement of stakeholders in marine reserve processes (Robert and Hawkins 2000).  31  The principles in each model can apply in situations where discussions among stakeholders occur in a highly charged atmosphere, interests are diverse, demands are increasing, trust is lacking, opinions are strongly held, pressures on industry (e.g., logging, fisheries) are increasing, information is incomplete,  For example, Dukes and Firehock 2001; Dorcey and McDaniels (2001 ); Chess and Purcell 1999; Duffy et al. 1998; Cormick et al. 1996; Kofinas and Griggs 1996; Wilson, Roseland and Day 1996. While Duffy et al. (1998) use the term "shared decision-making process," it is essentially similar to the term "collaborative decision-making" that is used in this thesis. See further, Gray, B. and D.J. Wood (eds.) 1991. Collaborative Alliances: moving from practice to theory - part 1 and part 2. Special Issue, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 27(1).  2 9  3 0  3 1  35  uncertainty and misunderstanding prevails; and consensus seems elusive (Gray 1989; Dorcey 1986). The principles which each of the models espouse help to address the thesis goal of identifying what aspects of stakeholder involvement help lead to better outcomes in marine reserve decision-making.  4.1.1 Duffy et al. 's Evaluation of LRMP Multistakeholder Planning Tables After an extensive review of the literature on stakeholder involvement approaches , Duffy et al. (1998) 32  developed a framework of the principles and procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of collaborative decision-making in multistakeholder planning tables for land and resource management planning (LRMP) processes in British Columbia. "Effectiveness" for Duffy et al. is based on the goal of "meaningful" 33  stakeholder involvement and defined by the ten principles in their framework. The principles are organized into four broad categories: support for process, representation, resources, and process design. Within each of these main categories are criteria, or 'practices,' further describing the principles which need to be satisfied in order for a process to be considered effective or meaningful. While the applicability of the authors' findings is limited to L R M P programs, the model combines comprehensive criteria to evaluate collaborative group processes, which is equally applicable to evaluating other kinds of public policy initiatives such as marine reserve decision-making initiatives studied in this research. Both L R M P s and the marine reserve initiatives comprise government sponsored advisory groups involving government and non-government participants mandated to make group-based decisions (usually consensus-based) regarding natural resources that require ecological and socioeconomic information gathering and trade offs. In both situations, participants are involved voluntarily and theoretically motivated by a shared vision to reach an outcome, which in turn forms the basis for recommendations to government decision-makers. The planning tables in these kinds of initiatives are typically multi-jurisdictional and assisted with both process and technical support. As a result of the similar features between the L R M P negotiation processes examined by Duffy et al. (1998) and the marine reserve initiatives reviewed in this thesis, the framework appealed as a model to apply in evaluating marine reserve planning and decision-making. The overarching structure of the framework used in the thesis is derived mainly from Duffy et al.'s model.  Literature was reviewed in the fields of alternative dispute resolution, conflict management, interest-based negotiation, collaborative decision-making, consensus techniques and land use planning literature (Duffy et al. 1998). 3 2  33  LRMP planning is a former process of strategic land use planning in BC that determines how land will be used and protected. LRMPs are sub-regional integrated resource plans that state a vision for use and management of public provincial lands and resources. Their development requires the involvement of stakeholders representing a wide range of interests and values. Planning generally follows the following six basic steps: Preliminary Organization, Plan Initiation and Information Assembly, Building Agreements, Government Approval Process, Plan Implementation, and Plan Monitoring and Amendment. See Strategic Land Use Plans website: http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca/lrmp/whatis.htm. 36  4.1.2  Barbara Gray's Collaboration Framework  A second model used to guide the building of the framework in this thesis is Barbara Gray's (1989) theory of collaboration which is based on the works of earlier scholars describing three phases of collaboration: problem setting, direction setting and implementation. The framework used by Duffy et 34  al. (1998) was informed by Gray's model. Gray's framework is broadly applicable to multiparty/organizational dilemmas and processes focused on resolving social, economic or environmental issues, and which may be motivated by the kind of characteristics and incentives discussed in Chapter Three, whether it be a conflict crisis or a shared vision. Similar to Duffy's model, in each phase are "fundamental issues," or key principles, that must be addressed in order for the collaboration to be successful according to Gray 1989: •  During problem setting: common definition of problem, commitment to collaborate, identification of stakeholders, legitimacy of stakeholders, convenor characteristics, identification of resources.  •  During direction setting: establishing ground rules, agenda setting, organizing subgroups, joint information search, exploring options, reaching agreement and closing the deal.  •  During implementation: dealing with constituencies, building external support, structuring, monitoring the agreement and ensuring compliance.  A n example of Grays' theory and methodology used in practice is found in Kofinas and Griggs' (1996) evaluation of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and Economy (BCRTEE), an initiative of the Government of Canada National Task Force on the Environment and Economy during the early 1990s. The B C R T E E was mandated to advise the Cabinet on the development of a sustainable development strategy. In this context, the authors explore the utility of collaboration theory as an evaluative tool in stakeholder decision-making, and caution that, while the B C R T E E experience serves as a useful model for demonstrating the benefits of collaboration, the potential of collaboration processes is more limited when it comes to shaping "broad public policy." They also emphasize that, "the ability of a collaborative alliance at the provincial level to maintain relevance and continue to exert influence in a rapidly evolving problem domain is uncertain" (p. 119). In terms of its application to this thesis, features of Gray's collaboration model may be more suitable where the problem domain is bounded at the local, community level and to smaller-scale initiatives, such as are exemplified by community-based marine reserve initiatives.  4.1.3 A Model for Building Consensus by Cormick et al. Cormick et al. (1996) provide a third decision-making model. The authors were charged with putting the "Guiding Principles" for achieving sustainability, developed by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE 1993), into practice in a model of collaboration, which Cormick  37  et al. call, "Building Consensus." The approach of the N R T E E (1993) and Cormick et al. (1996) is similar to Duffy's and Gray's approach in its design of a comprehensive set of principles and step by step approach to implementing the principles in a collaborative process that is driven by decision-making in a multi-party context. Based as it is on working towards sustainability, the Cormick model is equally applicable to marine reserve establishment initiatives given that part of basis for developing marine reserves is the sustainable use of the oceans (NRTEE 1998). The model is based on a set of ten principles that help to inform and guide the development and implementation of a consensus-building process: purpose-driven, inclusive, voluntary participation, self-design, flexibility, equal opportunity, respect for diverse interests, accountability, time limits, and implementation. Cormick et al. (1996) suggest four stages through which the principles may proceed: Stage 1 is the 'assessment' stage, where the process is discussed with 'potential participants' and the primary objective is to enable participants to decide whether to participate or not. In Stage 2, the 'structuring of the process' begins, in which a set of process ground rules are developed and agreed upon by the participants. Stage 3 deals with 'finding the common ground', including such principles as the commitment to understand, respect and address one another's concerns and interests. Stage 4 describes the steps for 'implementation and monitoring of the agreements' reached which is not covered in this thesis. Aspects of the relevant stages are brought into the framework below (in Section 4.2).  4.1.4 Good and Bad Practices for Collaborative Marine Reserve Decision-making Roberts and Hawkins (2000) published a guide specifically related to the establishment of "fullyprotected marine reserves" which provides detailed suggestions on "how best to gain support for reserves" and "how to reach agreement to establish reserves". Below, a table reproduced from Roberts and Hawkins (2000) provides some "good and bad practices" for collaborative decision-making. The 'good practices' are consistent with the public involvement literature, as well as the principles used in the thesis analytical framework.  35  For example, Dunlop 1987; Saunders 1985; Gray 1985; Susskind and Madigan 1984; Cummings 1984; McCann 1983 (Gray 1989). Source: Bob Earll. 1999. Fisheries and the Environment, Working on a Common Agenda. Marine Forum. Candle Cottage, Kempley, Gloucester, UK. (Roberts and Hawkins 2000).  3 4  3 5  38  G o o d practice  B a d Practice  Issue Process  Not transparent  Transparent  Timing  Rushed and late  A realistic time scale  Participation  Not welcomed or late  W e l c o m e d and active throughout  Information  Non-existent, limited or over-whelming  Sufficient to respond  Decisions  C l o s e d - already made  Still open  Outcomes  Unclear or predetermined. Probably win-lose  Not predetermined, with options. Probably win-win  A p p e a l process  No appeal or only via legal means  Clear appeal procedure  Perception of influence  Input will not make a difference  Input will be worthwhile (i.e., will make a difference)  This framework provides some of the principles for planners to consider when initiating collaborative processes. The framework does not include considerations of whether to check if the climate is right to proceed with collaboration or not. The authors focus on identifying key stakeholders, meaningful stakeholder involvement, and emphasize the difficulties planners have in ensuring stakeholder views are both inclusively and effectively represented in collaborative negotiations (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). The appeal to the authors is the establishment of a structure for involving stakeholders and bringing key stakeholders together to openly discuss their concerns and suggestions about marine reserves.  4.1.5 Applicability of the Models The ordering, length, significance and the difficulty of a particular stage in any one of the models may vary considerably, depending on the kind of initiative being proposed for collaboration (Gray 1989). The history, circumstances, the issues arising, and the kinds of stakeholders involved will also differ between processes (Cormick et al. 1996), as well as the particulars of the political and governmental contexts within which the initiative takes place (Dorcey and McDaniels 2001, 31). Regardless of the circumstances, the principles espoused in the models have broad application. Each model can apply to processes involving stakeholders who care about the marine environment and care about what they do in that environment. The models provide those people with the opportunity to work together to design a process that enhances their ability to talk about issues, resolve any differences, and to work as equals to develop acceptable outcomes, without imposing the views or authority of any one individual or stakeholder group over another (Cormick et al. 1996, 5). Each of the models highlight common features that provide a means for stakeholders to participate in face to face negotiations with the goal of working through options, making tradeoffs, and arriving at mutually acceptable decisions. Where common ground is achieved, it can then be recommended for implementation or implemented, depending on the purpose of the group coming together (Cormick et al. 1996, 5). Each of the models also makes similar suggestions that correspond with the assumptions taken in this thesis regarding the relationship between stakeholder support for a process and the achievement of a marine reserve designation that is sustainable into the future. Their authors suggest that obtaining fair, 39  meaningful and comprehensive stakeholder involvement in a process will lead to greater chances of buyin and support for a proposal which, in the case of this thesis is a marine reserve proposal. The achievement of this support is critical as it helps to increase likelihood of later compliance and possibly assistance in management and policing during reserve implementation, and thus, greater likelihood of achieving the reserve's ecological and socio-economic goals.  4.2  Principles & Practices for Collaborative Decision-making  A combination of the models above provides the building blocks for the analytical framework which is used to guide the evaluation of the case study. The framework is also intended for designing and implementing collaborative marine reserve processes. While the elements in the framework can be fulfilled at different times in a collaborative process, they are noted here in a linear fashion.  4.2.1 Need for Common Purpose, Commitment to Collaborate and Common Definition of the Problem Before a collaborative process can begin, Duffy et al. (1998) suggest that there should be efforts made to assess both participant and governmental support for a marine reserve process.  Participant Support for the Collaboration Process  Obtaining a commitment to collaborate and a common definition of the problem among participants are two key aspects of Gray's initial "problem-setting phase" and Cormick et al.'s "assessment" stage; both models are concerned with getting people to the negotiation table and assessing their support to collaborate. A t this early stage of a process, potential participants should be able to make an informed decision about whether to participate or not, which relates to whether they have a "sufficient and informed sense of purpose" and an "acknowledged need for and commitment to collaborate" (Cormick et al. 1996, 21, Duffy et al. 1998). Some features for moving forward involve stakeholders agreeing on a 36  common definition of the issues at stake; one which emphasizes their mutual interdependence and creates "a common strength of purpose" (Gray 1989, Cormick et al. 1996). "If a problem is defined only to the satisfaction of some participants and not others, the latter will have little incentive to collaborate (Gray 1989, 58)." Under those circumstances it may be in the latter's best interest to block the negotiations (Gray 1989,58). One way of ensuring a group has a clear shared purpose is to develop specific outcomes, or objectives, by which the group can determine success along the way, and at the end of the process (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 23). In addition, right upfront of a process, there should be clarity of what constitutes agreement so See Cormick et al. (1996,21) and Dukes and Firehock (2000, 15) who discuss further the notion of what parties should ask before making the decision to participate.  3 6  40  that participants know what they are working towards as a possible final outcome. With clarity and agreement on the purpose and objectives for a process, the ability of stakeholders to move into dealing with value differences and technical complexity together will greatly improve (Cormick et al. 1996, 16, Dukes and Firehock 2001, 22). In addition, stakeholders should acknowledge the legitimacy of other participants as a means of enhancing mutual interdependence, (Gray 1989; Duffy et al. 1998). A fundamental basis for collaborating is for stakeholders to feel uncertain about the strength of their own positions and thus recognize that the ability to achieve their desired goals is inextricably linked to the actions of other stakeholders (Gray 1989, Cormick et al. 1996). The models also discuss the importance for a process planner ensuring that circumstances favour collaboration (such as those discussed in Chapter Three) so that the collaborative process is "purpose-driven" (e.g., Cormick et al. 1996, 16). For this reason, this early stage may require the need for a neutral convener or professional facilitator to make an informed choice about whether, when and how to proceed (Cormick et al. 1996, 21) (see 'Effective Process Management' below, section 4.2.5, for best practices relating to process managers and facilitators). Recognizing these aspects of a problem domain will help to increase participant support for being involved in a collaborative process and aid in both problem definition and commitment to collaborate (Kofinas and Griggs 1996; Cormick et al. 1996; Gray 1989).  Government Support for the Collaboration Process  Government support of a marine reserve process is also necessary. Duffy et al. (1998, 9) and Dukes and Firehock (2001, 60) provide some principles for government agency members in using consensus-seeking processes, which are applicable in this research to marine reserve initiatives. Duffy et al. (1998, 9) emphasize that where the organizers of a collaborative process include government, the agency should demonstrate clear leadership, commitment and integrity by establishing clear objectives, provide timely information on policies and related initiatives. For example, the importance of government fostering better communication of reserve objectives to stakeholders has been emphasized (Dobrzynski and Nicholson 2000). Government should also support the participation by its agencies and their representatives (Duffy et al. 1998). The models also suggest that government agencies should support the involvement of its staff, allocate financial and human resources in their own departments, and legislate stakeholder involvement through collaborative efforts (Duffy et al. 1998). Duffy et al. (1998) stress that government should be ready to act on the recommendations produced from the advisory body. The agency and its staff should plan to implement the agreement from the beginning of the process (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 60). Process planners should also ensure the involvement of other agencies with marine reserve mandates and overlapping jurisdictions through institutional coordination at federal, regional and local levels (NRC 41  2001 183; Murray et al. 1999). Institutional coordination at each of these levels ensures that staff and stakeholders are not working at cross purposes, and assists local efforts in establishing a coordinated approach to marine reserve development (NRC 2001, 183; Murray et al. 1999; Fiske 1992). As well, institutional coordination will assist in addressing conservation issues outside of reserve boundaries (Murray et al. 1992). The various agencies can then be involved not only in establishing reserves but also in their subsequent management, such as serving as vehicles for monitoring and evaluation of marine reserve impacts on fisheries, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (NRC 2001, 184). Ensuring participants recognize that this kind of governmental support exists may help to increase the likelihood of participant support for the process and its outcomes. Another aspect of government support is to be up-front with stakeholders regarding dedication to enforcement of subsequent regulations. Government is often criticized for not demonstrating support for protected areas due to weak management and enforcement practices (Murray et al. 1999, 20). Reserves may actually motivate people to break the rules where social and legal institutions are weak (Murray et al. 1999, 20). Several authors suggest that the economic and ecological success of marine reserves depend on public acceptance of and compliance with regulations. While compliance can be voluntary, the authors 37  suggest that in many cases it can occur only with realistic levels of enforcement by responsible agencies and the threat of meaningful penalties for breaking rules (e.g., Murray et al. 1999; Gibson 1999). A means of achieving and securing stakeholder support and cooperation for marine reserve establishment within the context of a meaningful collaborative process may be to ensure government commits to providing sufficient funds and regulatory authority for enforcement, research and monitoring (NRC 2001, 184).  Assessing Conditions for Negotiation Before, During, and After a Process  The need for socio-economic impact assessments (SEIA) to be conducted earlier in marine reserve decision-making processes arises often in the marine reserve literature (e.g., Dukes and Firehock 2001, 60; Duffy et al. 1998; Cocklin et al. 1998; Fiske 1992). Fiske (1992) argues that a great deal of time and money is spent on biological assessments, "but little effort is made to gather social-science data on resource use and beliefs prior to the initiation of a process" (p. 42). In practice, planners use assessments as a retroactive technique to gage impacts after public decision-making regarding marine reserves has already occurred (e.g., Dobrzynksi and Nicholosn 2000; Cocklin et al. 1998; Wolfenden et al. 1994). Cocklin et al. (1998) and Suman et al. (1999) conclude in their research that community responses to marine reserve proposals establish a clear mandate to survey public attitudes early, before any implied changes to the resource is proposed. They promote the concept of impact assessments as a proactive method of encouraging meaningful stakeholder involvement, where "emphasis is placed on the decision-  See for example, NRC (2001), Murray et al. (1999), Causey (1995), Ticco (1995), and Proulx (1998). 42  making process rather than the product" (p. 218). Consistent with these recommendations, Wolfenden et al. (1994) conclude that: "[t]he success of marine reserve programmes will ultimately depend on the responsiveness of the public as well as government incentives and controls. Failure to anticipate and interpret these public responses accurately may lead to delays in marine reserve decision-making and poor public relations" (p. 49). For these reasons impact assessments should be considered important and should be conducted prior to, during and after a decision-making process (Suman et al. 1999; Cocklin et al. 1998; Wolfenden et al. 1994). Various benefits are possible from employing SE1A: Assess feasibility of a marine reserve and of a collaboration process: Results from public surveys (e.g., perception and attitude studies) and socio-economic impact analyses (SEIA) conducted prior to initiating a process can help planners and managers to gauge the range of public concerns and values and to identify and understand community issues and needs regarding marine reserves (Cocklin et al. 1998; N R C 2001). The results can provide information on the extent of stakeholder and government support and opposition for locating individual marine reserve sites (Murray et al. 1999; Cocklin et al. 1998; Wolfenden et al. 1994). Clarifying the common and different viewpoints through impact analyses can reveal whether marine reserves are going to be feasible, and also whether taking the consensus-based approach is the right way to proceed (NRC 2001, 181; Cocklin et al. 1998; Cormick et al. 1996, 14; Wolfenden et al. 1994). Awareness-building can lead to increased support: SEIA provides a means for stakeholders to gain an understanding of potential reserve benefits and impacts on a community (Dobrzynski and Nicholson 2000). This understanding allows for the possibility of enhancing support for reserves (Murray et al. 1999; Wolfenden et al. 1994) and reducing potential conflict and delay at later, decision-making stages (Kenchington and Kelleher 1995, in Cocklin et al. 1998). For example, Dobrzynski and Nicholson (2000) conducted an evaluation of short-term social and economic impacts of marine reserves on user groups in Key West. The authors found that the main reason impeding the establishment of marine reserves in the U.S. was the lack of understanding by both planners and stakeholders of the socio-economic impacts. In its study of marine reserve potential in the US, the US National Academy of Sciences (NRC 2001) has recommended that systematic SEIA studies be conducted in order to evaluate the impacts of a proposed reserve on a community's long term stability (p. 182). The researchers emphasize that as impacts of 38  reserves on different communities will change over time, assessments of "multi-generational attitudes" should also be required over years rather than "snapshot" surveys, "to determine the cultural  43  commitments to marine areas" (p. 182). Wolfenden et al. (1994) suggest that surveys of all relevant parties should be carried out in the vicinity of a proposed reserve so that planners can learn from locals how they perceive the proposal and the process, even suggesting a referendum format.  4.2.2  Representation  It may be an easy matter to identify the stakeholder groups, but it is a greater challenge to effectively represent their views in a negotiation team (Roberts and Hawkins 2000). Stakeholder representation can be 'one of the most important and difficult aspects of community involvement in marine reserve creation (pp. 75-6).' Duffy et al. (1998) distinguish between inclusivity and effectiveness as two criteria for ensuring representation is addressed comprehensively:  Inclusive Representation  Inclusive representation seeks to identify a sufficient number, diversity and range of stakeholder interests. Duffy et al. (1998) suggest that all interested and affected parties or group representatives should be invited to participate, including local and government interests. Cormick et al. (1996) emphasize that, "care needs to be taken to identify and involve all parties with a significant interest in the outcome. This includes those parties affected by any agreement that may be reached, parties needed to successfully implement it, or who could undermine it if not included in the process" (p. 23). To help address the difficulties with ensuring inclusiveness, Duffy et al. (1998) note that 'inclusion is a process of continual adaptation with differing levels and roles for representatives Despite this useful principle, inclusive representation is a tricky issue (Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Dukes and Firehock 2001).' Cocklin et al. (1998) point out that the basis for identifying stakeholders in collaborative processes is not straightforward: •  Opposition is a stronger motivator for involvement than support for an initiative.  •  Support for a proposal implies to some people that they do not need to try to influence a decision and therefore those people do not engage.  •  Stakeholder groups who are active in collaborative processes are not necessarily representative of the full range of societal values (p. 217).  An example of the second point was seen in Suman et al.'s (1999, 1034) research where the participation rate of environmental group members at several public forums was lower than that of fishermen, because they perceived that the natural resource-based agencies worked for them. In that case, the vocal  The NRC's Ocean Studies Board appointed an interdisciplinary committee to investigate the potential use of marine reserves in terms of design, implementation and ability to achieve fisheries management and conservation goals. A report was written (NRC 2001) emphasizing the positive socio-economic as well as biophysical impacts. 3 8  44  participation of the fishing community resulted in the reduction of the size and number of some early "no take" areas of the Florida Keys NMS. Canvassing stakeholders: Roberts and Hawkins (2000) emphasize the importance of selecting people who will fairly represent the interests of their stakeholder group (p. 76). Cocklin et al. suggests conducting a community assessment to obtain an appreciation of peoples' values and interests which exist in the resources and of the power relationships in the interested communities before seeking petitions from stakeholders in any advisory group. Widely canvassing community members will ensure supporters have the opportunity to become involved, and not just the more vocal opposers (1998). Identifying and adding stakeholders: Lack of agreement about group membership, including whether and how to replace people who leave, is a significant problem found in collaborative processes (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 22). The flexibility to add new parties should be designed into the process (Duffy et al. 1998; Cormick et al. 1996, 54; Gray 1989) (part of terms of reference below). Non-traditional interests: When identifying stakeholders, it is important for process planners to recognize that there are many more people in addition to traditional user groups (e.g., fishermen, recreational users) who have an interest in the health of the marine environment (NRC 2001, 181). For example, there are people who do not use the resources directly (Roberts and Hawkins 2000), beach-goers who enjoy walking near the ocean, or city dwellers who may not use or see the ocean but care about preserving the marine environment, or want to continue eating fish. These kinds of on-site and off-site constituents value marine biodiversity, conservation and aesthetics just as much as traditional users do, and thus, the perspectives and values of these constituents should be included regarding prospective marine reserves (NRC 2001, 181). Cormick et al. (1996, 30) and Roberts and Hawkins (2000) bring to light the great difficulty in both involving and representing the interests of future generations, who are going to be greatly affected by the continual degradation of the ocean realm, and non-human interests, such as the marine ecosystem and its species, in whose name marine conservation and management battles are often fought. As Cormick et al. note, defining and representing future generations and non-human interests remain the greatest challenge in collaborative decision-making, but by explicitly asking "who should be represented here?" collaborative processes offer a better opportunity than other more formal decision-making processes to address this challenge (Cormick et al. 1996, 30). Identifying the range within the diversity: Dukes and Firehock (2001) stress the need for a sufficient range within the diversity of interests. The authors highlight the problems that arise when participants finds themselves in the position where they are viewed as representing the entire "environmental community," or "fishing industry," when in fact, they may only be knowledgeable of, and representing, one organization or one sector within those communities. For example, the environmental and fishing 45  communities are both broad and diverse constituencies. In the fishing industry, fisheries are split into different sectors which are not necessarily organized (e.g., hook and line, seine netters, and trawl). Dukes and Firehock (2001, 22, 24) suggest that in the case of advisory groups, the number and diversity of representatives affiliated with one primary interest group will make a difference to both the process and outcome. With marine reserve advisory groups, representation may be affected by the number of fishing gear-type representatives in the fisheries interest groups versus the number of environmental sectors sitting at the negotiation table. The difference may be illustrated by the amount of time spent on considering various issues, the weight given to particular options, group dynamics, who speaks for the public good or the community, and the end result (Dukes and Firehock, 2001, 24). Dukes and Firehock (2001) suggest that participants be clear that they are not speaking on behalf of other sectors, organizations or a broader community, unless they have been mandated to do so and that further, the process should not continue without that additional representation. Process planners would need to keep these above points in mind to avoid disproportionately favouring the views of vocal groups resulting in an advisory process with distorted representation of community interests (Cocklin et al. (1998) citing Smith 1984).  Trade-offs in choosing stakeholder representatives - Number ofparticipants: As it is administratively difficult in having every stakeholder participate, trade-offs are therefore necessary (Gray 1989). As Cormick et al. point out however, "inclusive representation does not mean every party must be at the table, but that all significant interests should be represented there" (p. 31). Duffy et al. (1998) suggest that the number of participants should be "manageable". One governmental official interviewee noted that twelve to twenty persons in an advisory group is optimal (personal communications, Government Official 1, 2001). Collaboration researchers emphasize the dilemma for process planners is not so much numbers as much as having to choose amongst the diversity of interests; that is, having to chose among the diversity of the competing benefits and assessing the balance among the interests of local, permanent and temporary residents, visitors, users in the area, as well as the general public and future generations.  39  On this issue, Gray (1989, 68) suggests that both the numbers and diversity of stakeholders should simply reflect the complexity of the problem. That is, process sponsors should include a broad enough array of participants to mirror the critical components of the issues to be dealt with. In a collaborative process, multiple information sources will be necessary to lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the problem (Gray 1989). This is common sense, as too many like-minded people can cause group dynamics problems such as an "us versus them" mentality and insular thinking (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 25). Innes's (1999) research finds that collaborative groups are successful where they include representatives 40  See Cocklin et al. (1998), Gray (1989) and Dorcey (1986). Successful as defined by: overall participant satisfaction, perceived legitimacy of any agreement, and implementation (Innes 1999).  3 9  4 0  46  of all the relevant and significantly different interests, and provide specific opportunities for participation of all interested parties (e.g., urban and rural people who work during the day or night, people with children/parents requiring care, people who don't drive cars) (cited in Dukes and Firehock 2001, 24). The set and number of stakeholders should therefore be determined by the diversity of interests and ideas which will assist in constructing the comprehensive picture (Gray 1989; Dukes and Firehock 2001). Identifying complex interests: One reason for constituent complexity is having too many people and organizations with an interest in the problem (Cormick et al. 1996, 31). Another reason is due to unorganized interests where there is no apparent legitimate leader within that constituency (Gray 1989). Dobbs's (2000) fisheries research in the Gulf of Maine highlights that some interest groups tend not to frequent multistakeholder negotiations, such as indigenous peoples, or commercial and sport fishing groups chiefly because of this reason. Other reasons interest groups may not participate are lack of information, the time and costs involved, inability to organize and mobilize people, and general apathy and resignation (Cocklin et al. 1998, 217). Dobbs (2000) points out that the unequal representation of stakeholders in the fishing industry is often an issue of power; some fishery sectors are wealthy, have more members, are more organized and more represented at planning tables, versus more diffused fishery sectors whose fishermen are not organized and thus not well represented. This unequal representation consequently biases the planning process and the outcomes right from the start. In such complex situations, where stakeholder groups are overly abundant, missing, not obvious, or there are some who are skeptical about the initiative's ability to succeed, the authors suggest that process managers attempt to convene the various constituency groups individually into caucuses or coalitions and encourage them to represent their interests at the table: seek "groupings of groups whose interests are similar enough that they can work together" (Cormick et al. 1996, 31; Gray 1989). The process manager can then help the group members to organize into a more formal constituency, possibly mediate any internal disputes, work with them to clarify their interests, and design a process by which they can identify a representative they can trust and respect to represent their interests at the table (Gray 1989). Stakeholder legitimacy: Stakeholders may sometimes disagree about the legitimacy of other stakeholders. Resolving any disputes of who should be at the table should be clarified by the process sponsor or facilitator before negotiations about the substance of the problem begins (Gray 1989). Moore (1996) highlights the role of the facilitator at this point as "the legitimizer" - the one who "helps all the parties recognize the right of others to be involved in the negotiations" (p 19). One method for ensuring stakeholder legitimacy is to use Gray's (1998) approach where stakeholders should be asked to have a "legitimate stake" in the issue; the perceived right (i.e., those impacted by the actions of decisions and others) and the capacity to participate (i.e., possessing resources and skills sufficient to justify involvement).  47  Outreach: The process managers should ensure a strategic communication plan is developed and implemented in order to inform the general public and those who do not participate (Duffy et al. 1998b). A public information system should be developed and the government should be sure to publicize the events widely. Use of various communication tools is advisable in order to reach a wider group of people (Duffy etal. 1998b). Local government and First Nations: Inclusive representation includes local government and First Nations interests where appropriate.  Effective Representation  Effective Representation in a collaborative effort entails that all participants (government and public) attend regularly, participate in good faith and be knowledgeable in, and practice, interest-based negotiation techniques - e.g., getting to yes by Fishery and Ury (Duffy et al. 1998). Participants should be knowledgeable about the issues, communicate openly and share ideas with the group and with their constituencies (Duffy et al. 1998). Levels of participation: While not all participants can attend regularly, the process planner or facilitator can clarify early on with the participants whether or not there will be differing levels, or roles, of participation (e.g., rotating representatives from interested groups, alternates when a primary cannot attend) (Gray 1989; Dukes and Firehock 2001). Representative - Constituency Relationships: Are stakeholder representatives conducting community outreach and education with the broader constituency? Do they have the trust and respect of their constituencies? Under the principle of "building external support," Gray (1989) notes that representatives are continually faced with devising a compelling case to present to their stakeholder constituencies about how the negotiations are progressing. The marine literature stresses that building strong constituency relationships is a key opportunity for building allies and mustering support for marine reserve proposals (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 72). Where stakeholder representatives do not support the final agreement or do not take the time to ensure their constituencies understand the rationale for any trade-offs made, the risk is that the wider group may later reject any agreements made (Gray 1989, 87). It should therefore be a condition of participation that stakeholders be empowered to represent and make decisions on behalf of their constituencies and should maintain communications with their constituents (Duffy et al. 1998). Representatives need to inform those they represent about the collaborative group's 41  progress (or lack thereof) and also bring the views of their organization or broader community to the table (Dukes and Firehock 2001). However, representatives can only be empowered if they have the trust and  The BCRTEE call this "accountability" - Participants should be accountable both to the process they have agreed to establish and to their constituencies they've chosen to represent (BCRTEE 1991). 4 1  48  respect of the constituents they represent (pers. comm. G O l , 2001). Ensuring that constituent trust and respect is especially important if the outcome of negotiations is to be accepted beyond the decisionmaking group (Roberts and Hawkins 2000, 76). The problem of participants maintaining the credibility with constituents is a very delicate issue that needs to be deliberately managed early and during the collaboration process by the process sponsor and/or facilitator (Gray 1989, 70). Government representatives roles and responsibilities: There are several duties which the government agency representatives have at the negotiation table, whether they are sponsors of the process or representatives from other government sectors sitting at the table. Government agency representatives should listen to participants, be available for consultation, neutral, knowledgeable about public processes (e.g., collaborative decision-making and consensus), skilled in interest-based negotiations, and understand group dynamics as well as share power with others (Duffy et al. 1998).  4.2.3  Fostering Mutual Respect and Trust  The literature provides a useful principle which emphasizes the importance of fostering mutual respect and trust for increasing chances of achieving the objectives of a collaborative process. Cormick et al. (1996, 68-9) stress that ensuring mutual respect and trust is invaluable for assisting participants to move beyond bargaining over positions, to exploring their underlying interests and needs, enhancing the capacity to cope with unforeseen difficulties, making critical trade-offs, and providing a basis for "crafting creative solutions that are more likely to last". Outcomes reached on the basis of such efforts will more likely survive the next steps such as ratification and implementation (Cormick et al. 1996, 77). In the marine reserve literature, Wolfenden et al. (1994) state that with the achievement of trust, more ambitious plans for development of networks or larger sites can occur. Respect and trust is not based on adopting another parties' values and interests, but focuses on supporting participants in understanding and acknowledging those differences and accepting other parties' right to be different (Cormick et al. 1996, 73).Trust is built by working to achieve the principles in this framework, by ensuring interest-based negotiations, by using means such as holding specific workshops to address barriers between groups, develop skills; and by exploring options and making trade-offs together. Mutual respect and trust can be achieved by the process sponsor or facilitator ensuring that participants commit at the outset of a process to behave civilly, showing a willingness to understand and accept differences; share knowledge and information about their unique values and circumstances; and invest time to continuously understand differences through learning and relearning (Cormick et a. 1996, 73). For example, Cormick et al. suggest that sponsors or facilitators could assist participants in writing a statement recognizing respect for the differences in views and interests. Third parties acting as facilitators or "keepers of the process" cab be valuable in assisting with the development and maintenance of trust  49  and respect. Facilitators can play a vital "bridging role" if initial differences risk blocking effective communication or stalling progress on substantive issues (Cormick et al. 1996, 73-76). Specific time should also be made in a collaborative process for people to understand and accept the diverse interests and values of other participants (Duffy et al. 1998; Cormick et al. 1996; Gray 1989). Cormick et al. offer several strategies, such as promoting informal interactions through retreats, field trips, lunches or dinners on key topics and organizing specific cross-cultural, skills-building, or negotiation training workshops between groups from same or different cultures so as to build understanding, dissolve cultural or other intergroup barriers, and offer a common learning experience in interest-based negotiations (see pp 73-76). Other strategies which process sponsors can use to implement these commitments include: using techniques promoting participants to look at issues from the other party's side, such as role playing, organizing sub-committees or working groups to conduct research or develop options for specific parts of an agreement which allows parties to work more constructively (Cormick et al. 1996, 73-76).  4.2.4 Equal Opportunity to Resources: Information, Training, Funding and Power The need for participants, as well as government agency staff to have sufficient resources to participate equally and meaningfully in a collaboration process is a key principle in the literature reviewed for this thesis. One rationale for this principle is that stakeholders do not all have the same experience, 42  knowledge and support. In addition, if a stakeholder's opportunity to participate is hindered due to lack of resources, then the potential benefits of collaboration will be lost with the likely consequence that agreement on marine reserve establishment will either not be reached, or if so, may not last (Cormick et al. 1996, 59).  43  To promote equal opportunity for potential participants, process sponsors need to consider providing adequate and fair access to all relevant information and expertise, training on consensus-based collaboration processes and financial resources/support for all participants to participate meaningfully (Cormick et al. 1996, 59, citing N R T E E 1993). Equal opportunity also means that process sponsors themselves are skilled in communication, consensus-building, and planning (Duffy et al. 1998b, 34). Preprocess preparation and organization by process managers and other participants, is a key method of using limited time and resources effectively (Ibid. p. 34) Information: Duffy et al. (1998) state that information provided to participants should be relevant, accurate, understandable and should be provided before, during and after a process in order to ensure equal opportunities among all participants. Two examples illustrate the importance of these criteria. In  4 2  4 3  Duffy et al. (1998, 9), Cormick et al.(1996, 59) and Gray (1989, 73) each discuss this principle. See example of benefits outlined in Chapter Three  50  their research of marine user perceptions and attitudes towards the establishment of marine reserves in the Florida Keys, Suman et al. (1999) found that planning documents were not "user friendly" for marine user groups. For instance, there were volumes of documents to read and the only language provided for was English, yet there were many Spanish users of the marine environment. The authors suggested that summaries should be provided for, and relevant translated versions should be available. They concluded that "planning documents should be accessible, short and presented in a non-technical, easily understandable language"). A second example is found with the process for establishing the Areas To Be Avoided in the Olympic Coast N M S . Planners discovered the importance of educating stakeholders and keeping them informed on the issues affected the decision-making process before, during and after the process ( N O A A 1999). The challenge with marine reserve conflicts is that they tend to turn on issues that require substantial technical information and specialized expertise based on science, law, institutional arrangements, as well as local and traditional knowledge. During negotiations, parties may have to learn about and reflect on highly complex matters, such as ecosystem dynamics, species biodiversity, and species aggregations. While some participants may be backed by their own "experts" (e.g., in marine ecology and resource management), others will have limited information and no specialized training regarding the issues being negotiated (Cormick et al. 1996, 61). Without "knowledge equality," stakeholders who have little or no access to specialized knowledge may end up becoming overwhelmed and effectively excluded from the process (Cormick et al. 1996, 61). Cormick et al. (1996) state that collaborative processes are themselves a unique way of dealing with unequal knowledge and expertise and state that, "[cooperative approaches to handling information needs can eliminate the expensive process of pitting experts against each other. Abandoning "adversarial science" allows all parties to develop a more sophisticated and shared appreciation of technical issues" (p. 63). Process managers can provide technical information and bring in neutral experts (whether it is scientific, traditional, or local) to explain and interpret information, or briefing sessions for the stakeholder group as a means of building "knowledge equality" (Duffy et al. 1998, Cormick et al. 1996, 64). Another approach is to devise a shared agreement [e.g., in the ground rules] regarding full and open access to information. "Full disclosure and openness should be the basic operating principle in attempting to build consensus" (Cormick et al. 1996, 64). The technique may be to ask parties to proactively identify the relevant information which exists (e.g., a bibliography) and then provide any further material during negotiations as needed creating a "common information base" (p. 64). Cormick et al. suggest other techniques for dealing with unequal access to information and expertise which include: providing intervenor funding for hiring expertise, for groups to conduct their own 51  research; developing protocols for full information sharing; creating technical working groups; hiring experts in the service of the whole collaboration group; and, developing a common information base (p. 62). In the case of legal information, Dukes and Firehock (2001, 27) suggest that government representatives have a duty to brief participants on emerging regulatory requirements; to clarify the baselines of any legal requirements; and, ensure that any laws and policies regarding environmental and stakeholder involvement are followed. Training: Cormick et al. (1996) found that parties can vary greatly in their ability to negotiate, strategize and organize themselves for collaborative decision-making (p. 65). Pre-process training provided for participants in interest-based negotiation and organizational development provides a better balance between those stakeholders who have years of experience in public decision-making and others who lack the confidence and knowledge for managing process details such as public relations, personnel management, and constituency relations (Cormick et al 1996, 61). Several methods can be used to deal with such inequalities. Process managers can provide "how to" books for home study and/or employ a facilitator to provide skills-building workshops in negotiation and collaboration for participants before the process begins (Cormick et al. 1996, 62). However, taking part in several collaboration processes may be required before stakeholders develop a good understanding of interest-based strategizing; that is, understanding how to advance one's own interests while also meeting the needs of other parties (p. 65). One approach to deal with this situation is to have a mediator work with each party, as needed, regarding: distinguishing and addressing short and long term interests, confirming what is and is not negotiable, coordinating internal matters and assessing the consequences for each party's interests if agreement is not achieved (p. 65). In addition, as parties can differ widely in their organizational abilities, mediators can be used to organize individuals with similar interests into new groups and also cluster small resource-poor groups into coalitions (p. 66). A coalition can represent many independent interest groups with similar concerns. This coalition approach can create opportunities for parties or small organizations to work together strategically, pool resources, and share information and other tasks (Cormick et al. 1996, 66). Financial resources: Lack of money should not be an obstacle to being an effective stakeholder in a collaborative process. The time and efforts it takes to be involved in a collaborative process can be onerous for individuals or groups with limited funding support. Meanwhile, other parties representing large organizations are often funded to prepare for, and attend, collaborative processes. Ideally, participants should be able to dedicate sufficient time to the process, take time from their usual work lives and manage their time to avoid burn out (Duffy et al. 1998).Funding for participants to mitigate undue financial burden may require reimbursements for transportation or lost work time (p. 63).  52  Collaboration as a power sharing resource: A l l three of the collaboration models reviewed in this research are devoted to the issue of mitigating power imbalances. It is central to the notion of collaboration that power is shared amongst the stakeholders. "Stakeholders in a collaboration essentially share the power to define a problem and initiate action to solve it" (Gray 1989, 112). As Gray emphasizes, even where stakeholders come together to advance a shared vision, they are there to advance their own interests (p. 112) Yet, she also notes that i f any stakeholder has unilateral control, then collaboration will not make sense. "It is precisely because stakeholders hold counterveiling sources of power and their fates are interwoven that collaboration is made possible" (p. 112). The three resources discussed above regarding information, training and funding support are key aspects of "power" elaborated upon by both Gray (pp. 121-128) and Cormick et al. (pp. 59-67). Other aspects affecting power include: access to politicians and the press, even the legitimizing power that arises from being a weaker party against whom stronger groups are less likely to attack (Cormick et al. 66). During negotiations, a participant's "veto" power can be both a problem and an opportunity. The participant's right to say no or threaten to withdraw from further discussions can sometimes help level the playing field (Cormick et al. 1996, 67). Balancing these factors is all part of what can make or break a collaboration process. For this reason, Cormick et al. strongly suggest the use of third party facilitation to assist all parties to be effective participants (p. 67). In relation to marine reserves, facilitators have an important role to play in enhancing the likelihood of the process achieving its purpose, which is in the interests of everyone involved.  4.2.5  Effective Process Management  The players: The collaborative process is typically managed by several key players, called process sponsors, managers or organizers. Process sponsors include the hosts or the conveynors of the process, the coordinators and administrators, who can be part of government, agencies or special interest groups (Duffy et al. 1998). Process sponsors may also include facilitators, as neutral third-parties, to guide participants through the various stages of a collaborative process (Duffy et al. 1998). In this thesis, the focus is on government-based process sponsors who also make use of third party, facilitation services. There may be a role for a facilitator to guide the participants through each stage of a marine reserve establishment process. Is a facilitator needed? Effective process management requires that the stakeholders accept that the process managers have legitimate authority to convene the process, such as, identifying and bringing all the stakeholders to the table, and managing and/or facilitating the process (Gray 1989). The question 44  becomes who will convene, manage and facilitate the meetings? Will it be the sponsoring organization or a professional neutral party? Who is chosen to convene and facilitate a collaborative process will depend  53  on the extent of conflict and the level of interdependence between the stakeholders (Dukes and Firehock 2001; Kofinas and Griggs 1996; Gray 1989). Dukes and Firehock (2001) suggest that the more that the following are at stake, the greater the need for facilitation assistance in designing, convening, structuring and managing a process: level of conflict between stakeholders, scope of the group's purpose/mandate, diversity in the group, constituency represented, the potential impact, the complexity of issues, precedentsetting, authority, power disparities, fundamental values, agreement-seeking. On the other hand, if the group is highly interdependent, or is comfortable working with one another, or where the issues are not overly complex, then it may be sufficient to use a powerful process sponsor or group chair to help prepare and run the meeting(s) (Kofinas and Griggs 1996). Skills: In addition to ensuring their legitimacy, process managers need the required skills to collaborate. Duffy et al. (1998) suggest process managers should be committed, neutral, skilled in consensus-based process management and interest-based communications, knowledgeable of the substantive issues and available for consultation. Leadership and constructive management of the process throughout is critical to the success of a process (Kofinas and Griggs, 21) Mediator/Facilitator roles/responsibilities: If a third party is seen to be required, the literature is rife with mediators' and facilitators' roles and responsibilities, ranging from those who focus specifically on reaching agreement to those who focus on ensuring a high quality process, with a mix in between . The 45  process managers and stakeholders together should first decide what skills, styles and level of involvement they seek from the facilitator, and confirm these in the Terms of Reference, so as to ensure all participants to the process have a shared understanding about what is expected of each other (clearly defined role) (Dukes and Firehock 2001, 30). Some of the reasons for using a facilitator include neutrality: someone who is not seen to be part of the system, or leading the system; skills to design and manage a structured, creative process; ability to keep meetings focused on the subject of discussion; techniques to ensure a level playing field and to help the group accomplish goals in a more timely manner; and to help the group achieve a sense of accomplishment. Facilitators and mediators are neutral on substance, but are not neutral on process; they are chosen specifically to help manage the dynamics of the group that is doing the work (Cormick et al. 1996). Where a facilitator is involved in the negotiations, Moore (1996) highlights several key roles for facilitators. For instance, at the early stages of a process, a process convenor or facilitator may be seen as the ''''opener of communication channels"— the one "who initiates communication or facilitates better communication if the parties are already talking," and as "the legitimizer" - the one "who helps all the  4 4  4 5  However, different people can have the role of convening, managing and facilitating the process. For example, Cormick et al. (1996, pages 85,128), Moore (1996), Dukes and Firehock (2001).  54  parties recognize the right of others to be involved in the negotiations" (Moore 1996, 18-19). At the process structuring stage, facilitators are the "problem explorers" - the ones who enable the group "to 1  examine a problem from a variety of viewpoints, assist in defining basic issues and interests and look for mutually satisfactory options" (Moore 1996 19). At the joint information stage, the facilitator may be seen as what Moore (1996) describes as the "the resource expander''' - the one who "provides procedural assistance to the parties and links them to outside experts and resources (for example, lawyers, technical experts, people knowledgeable in traditional and local matters, decision makers, or additional goods for exchanging) that may enable them to enlarge acceptable settlement options (p 19).  4.2.6 Effective Process Design The five principles discussed above deal with the "process protocols," criteria which Gray (1989) defines as the "outcomes of the problem setting phase" and "critical preconditions" for the next phase - the "direction-setting" phase, a phase which Duffy et al. describe as "the process design". While collaborative decision-making principles can be used in different times throughout the process, the literature suggests these first five principles should be accomplished early on - deciding what issues are to be addressed, with which participants and using what form of decision-making (Dukes and Firehock 2001). These five principles help set the basis for the "direction setting" or "process design" phase. The design of a collaborative process is the essential basis for guiding all dialogue, conduct and problem solving between stakeholder participants. Duffy et al. (1989) provide four principles for effective process design: ensuring clear terms of reference, participatory design (self design), comprehensive and effective set of ground rules (procedural framework), and a structured and integrative decision-making framework.  Clear Terms of Reference  Duffy et al. (1998, 9) and Cormick et al. (1996, 41) describe that the terms of reference should be clear and agreed to by all participants. The terms should clarify: the scope and scale of the project, the mandate, tasks, roles, responsibilities and authority of all participants (e.g., stakeholders, government representatives, host/sponsors of the process); the organizational structure, role and decision-making authority of participants, the advisory group and any sub groups (e.g., do they have authority to take binding action on behalf of constituency! Gray 1989, 78); a realistic timeframe with milestones and deadlines; agreed upon ground rules (participant code of conduct, described as its own sub-principle below); a fall-back dispute mechanism if consensus cannot b