|
Standard Procedure
|
Revised Procedure
|
|
|
Project Establishment
|
Project Establishment
|
|
(1) Establish the process as an adaptive management
planning project, leaving lead agencies and other
stakeholders’ commitments to implementing
consensus decisions relatively vague.
|
(1) Establish the process as a negotiation leading
to a formal agreement that is to be conducted using
adaptive management procedures to provide analytical
rigor to the consideration of options.
|
|
(2) Identify facilitators who are capable of
facilitating dialogue amongst stakeholders, and
specifically facilitating multiparty,
multidisciplinary analysis of socioecological
systems.
|
(2) Identify facilitators capable of facilitating
negotiations amongst stakeholders in ways that will
help them explore their underlying interests, using
multiparty, multidisciplinary analysis of
socioecological systems as a vehicle for this.
|
|
(3) Rough out the general scope of the project. This
occurs in conversations between the lead agency and
the facilitators.
|
(3) Rough out the general scope of the project. This
occurs in conversations between the lead agency and
the facilitators.
|
|
(4) Identify and invite stakeholder representatives
and experts to participate in adaptive management
workshops.
|
(4) Identify and invite stakeholder representatives
and experts to participate in adaptive management
workshops, and in shuttle diplomacy, or informal
mediation if that proves helpful.
|
|
Scoping Workshop Sessions
|
Scoping Workshop Sessions
|
|
(5) Why are we here? An exploration of the
participant’s sense of the intent of the project.
|
(5) Why are we here? An exploration of the
participant’s sense of the intent of the project.
|
|
(6) What are the management problems that need to be
addressed?
|
(6) What are the management problems that need to be
addressed?
|
|
(7) What boundaries in space and time, and in the
range of issues considered, are appropriate?
|
(7) What boundaries in space and time, and in the
range of issues considered, are appropriate?
|
|
(8) What actions might effectively deal with
the problems?
|
(8) What actions might effectively deal with
the problems?
|
|
(9) What indicators would measure success or
failure in solving the problems?
|
(9) What indicators would measure success or
failure in solving the problems?
|
|
(10) What interests underlie the choice of
indicators?
|
|
(11) Review: Do we need to add to the lists of
problems, actions, and indicators, or review the
boundaries to explore possible impacts on
stakeholders’ interests?
|
|
Structure Workshop Sessions
|
Structure Workshop Sessions
|
|
(10) Identify major subsystems.
|
(12) Identify major subsystems.
|
|
(11) Describe interfaces between them, e.g., with a
high-level flow diagram or interaction matrix.
|
(13) Describe interfaces between them, e.g., with a
high-level flow diagram or interaction matrix.
|
|
(12) Describe the structure of each subsystem, e.g.,
with a flow diagram or a more detailed interaction
matrix.
|
(14) Describe the structure of each subsystem, e.g.,
with a flow diagram or a more detailed interaction
matrix.
|
|
(15) Review subsystem descriptions in light of
stakeholders’ interests, and ask: Are there other
creative ways in which we could look after
stakeholders’ interests, including the interests
of other kinds of organisms that should be included?
|
|
(13) If a quantitative model is being built,
describe processes quantitatively using equations
that describe how outputs are derived from inputs.
|
(16) If a quantitative model is being built,
describe processes quantitatively using equations
that describe how outputs are derived from inputs.
|
|
(14) Build a quantitative model, if this is
required, using these equations as the
specification.
|
(17) If a quantitative model is being built, build
it incrementally, dialoguing frequently with
stakeholders about what will add the most value to
their investigations and negotiations. The structure
and dynamics phases of the process can be
interleaved helpfully. (see Beck and Fowler 2001,
Highsmith 2002 for overviews of how this can be
done).
|
|
Dynamics Workshop Sessions
|
Dynamics Workshop Sessions
|
|
(15) Explore dynamics, and specifically the effects
of alternative assumptions and alternative
management choices, in a “scenario gaming”
environment.
|
(18) Explore dynamics, and specifically the effects
of alternative assumptions and alternative
management choices, in a “scenario gaming”
environment. Emphasize the conceptual model
alongside the quantitative model so that left field
suggestions can be explored more easily by varying
the conceptual model.
|
|
(16) Negotiate a path ahead, using “gaming” as a
catalyst for, and point of reference in,
negotiations.
|
(19) Negotiate a path ahead, using “gaming” as a
catalyst for, and point of reference in,
negotiations.
|
|
(20) If a consensus is reached or there is
widespread agreement, stakeholders formalize their
commitments to each other in a Memorandum of
Understanding, or a Statement of Joint Intent, or a
similar agreement.
|
|
Implementation
|
Implementation
|
|
(17) Lead agency and other stakeholders follow
through on their commitments.
|
(21) Lead agency and other stakeholders follow
through on their commitments.
|
|
(22) Formal review of implementation of the initial
agreement, and negotiation of a further agreement
that carries ecosystem management forward.
|