This week’s readings were all about the criticisms and decisions to participate in a conflict resolution or collaboration process. It's likely that there are plenty of examples where collaboration did not work, but also many where it has worked splendidly and I'm sure we will discuss some of both in class this week. However, you can't help but wonder if for each of the "bad" conflict resolution examples maybe it wasn't an appropriate method. If ECR is appropriate, those involved have decided to participate appropriately, are willing participants, have something to offer, and have something to gain by participating. There should be little that can derail the forward progress a group can make towards solving an environmental challenge if the appropriate protocols are in place.
The article by Michael McCloskey “The Skeptic: Collaboration has its limits” produces some legitimate concerns that are meant to spur discussion and create a dialog among environmental groups. Additionally several key points were made in Judith Innes article “Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics” and the Guide. Chief among them were that each group at the “table” must believe that they can get something from the collaboration process that they couldn’t get otherwise or can get easier via this process. Also, each group must have something to give the others. This dichotomy of having and wanting produces a give and take that is necessary for collaboration and negotiating to occur.
Secondly, the geographic reach of the collaboration and specific environmental concern has a significant impact on the outcome. For example, the process and potential outcomes of a 100 square mile watershed conflict in Virginia is entirely different that a collaborative approach trying to find solutions to climate change, which is a worldwide issue. If we, in our class tired to collaboratively solve the climate change issue we may have a great process and reach consensus on many of the items we discuss, but we are not the appropriate people to have at the table, because we don’t represent all the appropriate groups. Our findings would likely not be implemented by the appropriate groups to affect the problem.
I’m interested to hear/read what others picked up on in this. Overall there are some definite criticisms to collaboration, but I get the feeling it’s because the process was selected inappropriately, or the people/groups at the table were not the appropriate ones.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment