Understanding mul/-­‐jurisdic/onal and collabora/ve governance as legal pluralism MtnCLIM 10th Anniversary Conference Midway, Utah, September 17, 2014 Dr. Sandra Lee Pinel, AICP, MtnSEON Fulbright NEXUS and Prometeo Scholar, UTPL, Ecuador Hyde Chair, Regional Planning, U Nebraska Lincoln 2014 http://www.ecosystemservicesproject.org/html/
publications/docs/Natural_Assets_LR.pdf, SES of Complex Mountain Systems How can we reduce the vulnerability, improve resilience, and support sustainability of natural and human systems in complex mountain landscapes? Adap&ve and Collabora&ve Governance – Paradigms (Ostrom 2009) Participation Learning together on science & alternatives Manage conQlict, many authorities implement The on-­‐going and adaptive implementation of collectively developed plans and policies by participating institutions and jurisdictions using authority and social inQluence (Healey 2006; Innes and Booher 2010; Wondelleck & Yaffee 2000, etc). Problem: Complex Governance Landscapes Changing Landscapes How can social anthropology help us understand collabora&ve governance outcomes for complex mountain watersheds? NSF Proposal 2012 and AESOP-­‐ACSP Dublin, Ireland, July 16, 2013. Actors and ins&tu&ons Key Points •  Mountain land use governed by many political legal systems legitimized by social and cultural systems. Resilience as capacity to manage conQlict and change •  Collaborative and adaptive governance not panaceas •  Understand institutions and agents and scale. Social anthropology and legal pluralism for strategie •  Clearwater Basin Collaborative and USFS Planning example •  Recommend comparative research on dynamics of actors and institutions and scales: Constructs in recent literature •  Practice: Participation by interests insufQicient: Work across boundaries for land use plans. Recognize different goals, actor strategies, and sources of legitimacy. Clearwater Basin Collabora/ve “Ideal” Monthly Meetings 2010-­‐2014, Retreat 2011 Clearwater Basin
Clearwater Basin Jurisdic&ons ¯
SHOSHONE
Clearwater National Forest
Deary
Elk River
LATAH
Troy
Headquarters
CLEARWATER
Dworshak Reservoir
r
ter Rive
Clearwa
Lewiston Lapwai
Clearwater National Forest
Grangemont
Nez Perce Indian Reservation
Orofino
Greer
Pierce
R
hsa
Loc
Weippe
r
ea
Cl
sa
ch
Lo
r
ive
Nez Perce Indian Reservation
Kamiah
Kooskia
Legend
County_Boundary
Rivers
IDAHO
Grangeville
Nez Perce National Forest
Elk City
Bitterroot National Forest
r
ive
Highways
Lowell
yR
l wa
Se
Cities_Towns
r
R
ter
CraigmontLEWIS
r
ive
wa
NEZ PERCE
ve
Ri
Meadow C
reek
Kendrick
Juliaetta
Reservoir
Nez_Perce_Tribe
National_Forest
Nez Perce Clearwater NF Clearwater Basin Values Ac&on Research Observe ReQlect, $ Network Apply -­‐ USFS Interviews and maps Text and Policy Interview questions 2011 Stalemate and Agreement
Counties and Timber Wilderness and Rivers Pinel (2013). Giving and Reciprocity in Natural Resource Governance: Human Organization, SFAA Conference Denver 2012. Social Norms of Agreement The GiF vs. Exchange (Sahlins & Mauss) •  GiOs build social cohesion – to lay down the spear •  Generalized reciprocity – delayed and unequal to maintain rela&ons •  Exchange also requires trust through rela&onships •  This is the social founda&on of the State 1 From Mauss and Sahlins Reciprocity expressions Exchange expressions Frame, Jus&fy, & Explain? Wilderness Supporter •  Wilderness has a symbolic value and we have supported motorized recreation and timber •  “I really bristle when someone treats the CBC as a bargaining chip or a card game. •  Collaboration is actually that you help me and I’ll help you ….” Timber and County •  “I know that wilderness advocates have advocated for growth elsewhere in the portfolio, but we need the whole package [of wilderness, logging board-­‐feet, etc.]. It needs to be up for ‘horse trading’.” •  “I can only support it if I get a trade or we do something else I think is right.” •  The interests have not developed in parity” Discourse & Findings •  Trading versus gifting in discourse •  Worth of agreement •  Strategies •  Sources of power and legitimacy •  Local – national Legal Pluralism Strategies and Powers Federal, State, Tribal etc. Institutions Cultural norms & Social rules Laws Local Governments Civic groups Legal pluralism includes socially and culturally defined and enforced norms and state ins&tu&ons (Moore 2001, Tamanaha 2008; Vanderlinden 1989.) Actors are part of multiple civic, social, and political networks at various scales (Vanderlinden, 1989; von Benda-­‐Beckmann, 2006). Ed Krumpe, 10/12 Clearwater Nez Perce 2012-­‐2014 Forest Plan Institutionalize “collaboration?” 2 Design Issues Instead of sending comments to me, you will listen to one another (Rick Brazell, Nez Perce Clearwater Forest Supervisor 2012) Collaborative Governance Adaptive Management •  Develop communication and networked governance across scales (Innes and Booher; Cash et al. 2006)? •  Mutual learning, community institutions (Armitage 2003; Berkes 2009). •  Social relations and power structures affect process and implementation (Forester; Hillier; Moulart; Margerum). Landscape Suitability Monitoring outcomes, amending plans, adapting Desired Conditions for Multiple Interests Management Guidelines 17 Strategically Deploy Many Ins&tu&ons Counties and Jobs Backcountry non-­‐
motorized Nez Perce Interests CBC OutQitters, hunting, Qishing Timber Motorized Recreation •  FACA and NEPA – (Nie 2010; Benson and Stone 2013) •  Friends of the Clearwater challenges •  County and
tribal
governments
and interests
Legal Pluralism Contribu&on •  Institutions embody cultural assumptions and social systems; and operate at multiple scales with overlapping territorial boundaries. •  Actors are part of multiple civic, social, and political networks at various scales (Vanderlinden, 1989; von Benda-­‐Beckmann, 2006). •  Ethnography and anthropology can inform collaborative and adaptive governance design Compara&ve Research Gruber 2010 applied DeQine cultural and legal dynamics that affect decisions and feasible governance systems across scales (Iningues Gallardo, Helsley, Pinel, Ammon, Lopez, Wendland 2013: MRED 33-­‐03-­‐19-­‐3)) Collaborate ConQlict Resource rights c
ompetition National and regio
nal mandates Different interest
s and g
Natural and socia
political boundar l and ies aligned oals Contradictory sta
te rules and boundaries Common cultural an
norms legitimize d social state and property Different cultural norms and social systems Variables in Literature Adapted from Gruber 2009. Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2006. Integrate social science and human ecology Ribot 2006, Agrawal, Berkes, Armitage, Margerum, Gruber 2010) Overlapping Rights and Ins/tu/ons at Larger Scales How Institutional and Cultural Context Affects ConQlict Management and Resilience (Nolan 2006; Gruber 2010)? Conclusions – Feasible Governance Design •  Participant goals and decision criteria differ •  Strategic agency using multiple institutions •  Social legitimacy and rights matters •  Work across institutions Knowledge Action Public Domain •  Spatial Scale Thank you Acknowledgments •  Partnership research to improve resilience of natural and human systems in complex mountain landscapes •  PhD candidate Jessica Daniel •  Clearwater Basin Collaborative •  Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest supervisor and staff •  MtnSEON Governance Working Group 
•  NSF RCN-­‐SEES 2012-­‐2017, UI and UMT and MRI •  McIntire Stennis 2010-­‐2013, UI-­‐
CNR •  Fulbright NEXUS Fellowship Climate Adaptation in the Americas 2014-­‐2016 •  NSF – WSC Category 1 2010-­‐2012, UI & WSU spinel@unl.edu; spinel@utpl.edu Long-­‐term Research Ques&ons 1.  Whose cultural landscape values and knowledge are represented in decisions? 2.  Under what circumstances can collaborative planning overcome conQlicts? 3.  Why and how are such plans implemented across fragmented political jurisdictions? Role of agency, social, and governmental structures? •  Assumed parties want common plan! (IUCN, Kothari, Renard, Feyerbend, Escobar, Nadasdy 1999 & 2001, Gibson; Flyvbjerg, Huxley, Yiftachel, Susskind, Forester, Caton Cambpell, Agrawal & Ribot, Ostrom, Abers, Leach, Margerum, multiple social and political theories of collective action) DeQine, Co Pinel EXTRA SLIDES Adap&ve and Collabora&ve Governance Spectrum McKinney 2009 Dynamics of culture, agency, rights and rules in decisions and institution building – social institutions Planning Theory •  Development theory •  Hubris (Scott & Escobar) •  Knowledge to action in the public domain (Friedmann 1987) •  Attention to micro-­‐
politics and the “Qine grain of governance practices” (Healey 2006. p. 116) Knowledge Action Public Domain DeQine Governance CBC Protocols and customs ideal* Collaborative Planning •  Convene different values and interests in the landscape •  Use deliberative dialogue to explore values, reframe issues and build trust •  Accurate, sincere, comprehensible, legitimate (Habermas 1986) protocols ConFlict Management •  Intractable disputes when there are different cultural and identity values, unequal power relations and rights involved •  Try for “win-­‐win” solutions, reframing, or trade-­‐offs between values Innes and Booher; Forester; Healey; Wondolleck & Yaffee; Gray & Lewicki; Susskind; Godshalk; Property Rights, Sovereignties & Scale Social and cultural history, legitimate knowledge Legal and policy authorities and legitimacy Plummer 2009; Feitelson, 2009; Sood, 2011. (Cheng, Kruger, and Daniels, 2003) Lemay and Sa Bodin, Crona, Robbins, 2013 Beatrice, Bates and Ernston, and Pattison 2010 Henrik, 2006. Koontz 2006 West 2009 Ribot 2006 Brown and Bos 2013 Wyborn & Bixler, 2013 (scale & sociology)) Mullen 2009 Hardy 2010 Clarke 2006 (federal agencies) Benson and Stone 2013 Daley 2007, federal Gerlak & Sick 2008 Heikkila, 2007 (water) Structure of members & and powers and networks Agency employee roles, brokers, decisions Zollman 2012 Siranni 2009; Weber 2008) Context & Conditions Structure Process Outcome Measures Rights Authority Knowledge sharing Feeling good History w/
change Accountability Deep values Social capital System boundaries Legitimacy Decision-­‐
making Sustained decisions Social Structures relation to resources Scaled up complexity Transaction costs ConQlict Management Property Rights Protocols Legal pluralism Claims Adapted from Gruber 2009. Plummer and Fitzgibbon 2006. Integrate social science and human ecology Ribot 2006, Agrawal, Berkes, Armitage, Margerum, Gruber 2010) Next steps •  DeQine cultural and legal variables that affect decisions and institutions across scales (NSF RCN-­‐SEES) •  Partnership research to improve resilience of natural and human systems in complex mountain landscapes 
Transboundary review* Centrally Mandated Structured •  Theories of state •  Regulation Mixed and Leveraged •  Regime theory •  Network theory Collaborative Processes • New institutionalism • Social learning • Adaptive mgt.