Lawrence Susskind

A Dialogue, Not a Diatribe: Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding

A Dialogue, Not a Diatribe: Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding Herman A. Karl , Lawrence E. Susskind & Katherine H. Wallace To cite this article: Herman A. Karl , Lawrence E. Susskind & Katherine H. Wallace (2007) A Dialogue, Not a Diatribe: Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49:1, 20-34, DOI: 10.3200/ ENVT.49.1.20-34 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.49.1.20-34

Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: The Planner as Mediator

Resource allocation decisions in the public sector are typically made by legislative and administrative bodies. All too often, these methods of decision making fail to produce wise and efficient responses to conflicting needs and interests and courts are asked to review or to overturn these decisions Recent experiments with medi ated negotiation — face-to-face negotiation involving teams representing key stake- holding interests and an impartial mediator — indicate that it might be possi ble to supplement traditional resource allo cation processes in a manner likely to yield an informed consensus Three cases have been selected to illustrate the procedures and opportunities involved

Managing urban sustainability: An introduction to the special issue

The impact of cities on the environment increasingly dominates the debate on sustainability. Most global and regional environmental problems originate in cities. Cities concentrate increasing numbers of people and human activities; thus, they import increasing amounts of natural resources and export vast quantities of emissions and waste. Urbanization also entails major changes in the way people use natural resources. While it accelerates the transition from traditional to modern fuels, it also intensifies the use of energy and its environmental impacts. Indeed, a nations levels of energy use and greenhouse emissions are both positively correlated with its urbanization level (Jones 1991; Hosier et al. 1993; Parikh and Shukla 1995). On the other hand, cities provide major opportunities to achieve economies of scale and use natural resources more efficiently. Compact urban settlements, for example, are generally more energy efficient than dispersed ones (Owens 1986; Newman and Kenworthy 1989, 1990; Lowe 1991; Gilbert 1992). Thus, the way cities are designed and managed can be crucial to sustainability. This special issue addresses two questions: What makes a city sustainable? And what strategies can urban managers adopt to achieve greater sustainability? What makes urban settings especially interesting is that cities are organized systems of many interacting biophysical and socioeconomic components and that the way they are organized and managed affects the level of environmental pressure that individuals exert. Whether a citys inhabitants choose a private or public transportation system to commute between home and work depends among other considerations on the avail-

Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector Mediator Accountability and the Public Interest Problem

Three case studies of mediated negotiation in the public sector are summarized. Special attention is given to the roles played by the mediators in these cases, the difficulties of ensuring adequate representation of all stakeholders, and the problems of protecting the “public interest.” Criteria for evaluating mediated negotiation as a supplement to traditional legislative, administrative, and judicial means of resolving resource allocation disputes are offered. The techniques of labor mediation and mediation in international disputes are compared to see which are more appropriate for use in public sector resource allocation disputes.

Water and democracy: new roles for civil society in water governance

In most democratic countries, government officials make water-allocation decisions. Citizens depend on these officials and their technical advisors to take account of both technical and political considerations in determining which water uses get priority, what infrastructure investments to make and what water quality standards to apply. In many parts of the world, water users and stakeholders have additional opportunities to comment on such decisions before they are implemented. Under some circumstances, citizens can challenge water management decisions in court. This is not enough. More direct democracy, involving stakeholders before such decisions are made, can produce fairer and increasingly sustainable results. The steps in collaborative adaptive management – a form of stakeholder engagement particularly appropriate to managing complex water networks – are described in this article along with the reasons that traditional forms of representative democracy are inadequate when it comes to water policy.

Techniques for Resolving Coastal Resource Management Disputes Through Negotiation

Abstract Traditional approaches to resolving coastal resource management disputes in the United States often produce less-than-optimal outcomes. Nonadjudicatory approaches such as policy dialogues and mediation can be more effective. This article presents four case studies of such approaches that have proven successful in resolving coastal resource management disputes in Massachusetts, California, and Oregon. These approaches emphasize consensus-building, are based on face-to-face discussions between contending stakeholders, and include important roles for planners as negotiators and mediators. The article describes four barriers to more widespread use of less adversarial forms of dispute resolution and suggests ways of overcoming those barriers.

Multistakeholder Dialogue at the Global Scale

Multistakeholder Dialogues (MSDs) are being used as part of many international policy-making efforts. Official and unofficial representatives are being brought together to build relationships, set agendas for future official and unofficial dialogues, and even to generate packages of proposals or recommendations. The authors describe the key challenges that face prospective MSD designers, including: finding the right participants, managing with extremely limited financial resources, providing effective meeting facilitation, and integrating the work of MSDs into existing institutional activities and structures. While there are examples of successful MSDs that contribute to official policymaking, too many multistakeholder dialogues founder because the participants are inadequately prepared, the processes are managed ineffectively, and expectations are unrealistic.

The siting puzzle: Balancing economic and environmental gains and losses☆

Abstract Traditional approaches to the siting of potentially hazardous but regionally necessary facilities are often ineffective and lead to drawn-out legal disputes ultimately satisfactory to none of the parties. Research at MIT over the last decade has indicated five factors that may solve the siting puzzle. Application of these principles do not guarantee that a decision will not be disputed but may enhance the possibility of a wise and durable agreement.

Risk and Justice: Rethinking the Concept of Compensation

In recent years, environmental justice advocates have made a convincing claim that risky facilities have been disproportionately clustered in poor communities and communities of color. NIMBYism (not in my backyard) has spread from predominantly white, affluent suburbs to poorer communities of color. In this article, we propose a means of addressing environmental inequities and breaking the siting impasse. We think that poor communities of color might use the proposed siting of risky facilities as a basis for negotiating substantial improvements in the well-being of their communities. We propose to embed siting negotiations in the preparation of broader development packages, jointly created with citizens of poor neighborhoods and communities of color, so that health risks are reduced, the environment is improved, and all residents are better off. As far as justice is concerned, the perceived fairness of the process by which risks are communicated and selected, and risk management strategies are devised, is as important as the actual allocation of risk.

Overcoming the Obstacles to Effective Mediation of International Disputes

Mediation has been used to settle international conflicts ranging from sovereignty disputes between centuries-old enemies, to battles over the independence of colonies, to struggles over the use of natural resources. In a majority of the wars fought since 1945 involving at least 100 fatalities, the disputing parties accepted the intervention of a mediator.1 During this same period, mediation was attempted in about two-thirds of the conflicts among the nations of Africa and Latin America and 80 per cent of the conflicts in the Middle East.2 During the last forty years, mediation has been central to American foreign policy. Nearly every American administration has dispatched mediators to help resolve conflicts abroad.