Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 415–428 | Cite as

A Retrospective Assessment of a Failed Collaborative Process in Conservation

  • Heidi E. KretserEmail author
  • Jon P. Beckmann
  • Joel Berger
Article

Abstract

Collaboration provides one tool for managing the complicated and often the contentious natural resource issues. Successful collaborative arrangements involve a mix of actors bringing key attributes to the table: power, capacity, motivation, mandate, and synergy. These attributes, if missing or if one overshadows the rest, can derail the collaborative process and/or the conservation outcomes. We offer a case study of natural gas field development impacts on America’s only endemic ungulate—pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)—winter range in the Upper Green River Basin (UGRB), Wyoming, USA. We illustrate how a collaborative process can go awry, given asymmetries between the relative strengths and the associated attributes of actors, and the subsequent extent to which this imbalance created an unfavorable situation for continued collaboration. The case study reveals disagreements on technical data and potential insight on agency capture operating at a local scale. Despite these process challenges, some conservation outcomes resulted from work generated by the collaboration. Our experience underscores the importance of defining a clear purpose for collaborative processes at the outset, articulating specific roles, ensuring transparency among actors, and flexibility for long-term management as possible ways, in which the groups involved in collaborations to manage natural resources can complement each other’s strengths and strive for better conservation outcomes.

Keywords

Collaboration Energy extraction Industry Pronghorn Agency capture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for extensive comments and recommendations as well as JR, CM, DW, JH, RS and TBL for suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript. Funding for this work was provided by the Wildlife Conservation Society.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 43 USC §1702 (2008). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1702. Accessed 4 Apr 2018Google Scholar
  2. Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Publ Adm Res Theor 18:543–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ascher W, Steelman T, Healy R (2010) Knowledge and environmental policy re-imagining the boundaries of science and politics.. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckmann JP, Seidler RS, Berger J (2011) Wildlife and energy development: pronghorn of the Upper Green River Basin—Final Report. Wildlife Conservation Society, BronxGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckmann JP, Murray K, Seidler RG, Berger J (2012) Human-mediated shifts in animal habitat use: sequential changes in pronghorn use of a natural gas field in Greater Yellowstone. Biol Conserv 147:222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckmann JP, Olsen SH, Seidler RG, Berger J (2016) Sub-lethal effects of energy development on a migratory mammal - the enigma of North American pronghorn. Glob Ecol Conserv 6:36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beier P (1995) Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J Wildl Manag 59:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benson MH (2009) Integrating adaptive management and oil and gas development: existing obstacles and opportunities for reform. Environ Law Rep 39:10962–10978Google Scholar
  9. Berger J (2004) The longest mile: How to sustain long distance migration in mammals. Conserv Biol 18:320–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berger J, Beckmann J (2010) Sexual predators, energy development, and conservation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conserv Biol 24:891–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berger KM, Beckmann JP, Berger J (2007) Wildlife and energy development: pronghorn of the Upper Green River Basin—year 2 summary. Wildlife Conservation Society, BronxGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger J, Cain SL (2014) Moving beyond science to protect a mammalian migration corridor. Conserv Biol 28(5):1142–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bergmann SA, Bliss JC (2004) Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: Resource management at the public-private interface. Soc Natur Resour 17:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bureau of Land Management (2006) Record of decision for Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Wyoming State Office, CheyenneGoogle Scholar
  15. Bureau of Land Management (2008) Record of decision final supplemental environmental impact statement for the Pinedale Anticline oil and gas exploration and development project. Pinedale Field Office, PinedaleGoogle Scholar
  16. Bureau of Land Management (2010) What are best management practices (BMPs)? http://wwwblmgov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practiceshtml 2010 Accessed 14 April 2014Google Scholar
  17. Burke IC, Reiners WA, Olson RK (1989) Topographic control of vegetation in a mountain big sagebrush steppe. Vegetatio 84(2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castillo O, Clark C, Coppolillo P, Kretser H, McNab R, Noss A, Quieroz H et al. (2006) Casting for conservation actors: people, partnerships and wildlife. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, WCS Working Paper No 28Google Scholar
  19. Chaieau CH, Mine J, Suripno (2010) The integration of biodiversity conservation with oil and gas exploration in sensitive tropical environments Biodivers Conserv 19:587–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carpenter D, Moss DA (eds) (2014) Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Conley A, Moote MA (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Soc Natur Resour 16(5):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cook JJ (2015) Who’s pulling the fracking strings? Power, collaboration and Colorado fracking policyEnviron Policy Gov 25:373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cross R, Parker A, Prusack L, Borgatti SP (2001) Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organ Dyn 30(2):100–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dutterer AD, Margerum RD (2015) The limitations of policy-level collaboration: A meta-analysis of CALFED. Soc Natur Resour 28(1):21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Emerson K, Nabatchi T (2015) Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A performance matrix. Perform Manag Rev 38:717–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2011) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Pub Adm Res Theor 22:1–29Google Scholar
  27. Gray B (1985) Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Hum Relat 38:911–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hebblewhite M, Percy M, Serrouya R (2003) Black bear (Ursus americanus) survival and demography in the Bow Valley of Banff National Park, Alberta. Biol Conserv 112:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Innes JE, Booher DE (2016) Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. Landsc Urban Plan 154:8–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenney DS (2000) Arguing about consensus: examining the case against western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  31. Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Resources for the Future Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Knuth BA (2008) Social networks and community-based natural resources management. Environ Manag 42:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lauber TB, Stedman RC, Decker DJ, Knuth BA, Simon CN (2011) Social network dynamics in collaborative conservation. Hum Dim Wildl 16(4):259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liebezeit JR, Kendall SJ, Brown S, Johnson CB, Martin P, McDonald TL, Payer DC et al. (2009) Influence of human development and predators on nest survival of tundra birds, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. Ecol Appl 19(6):1628–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Margerum RD (2008) A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environ Manag 41:487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR (2003) Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 17(2):358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poulsen JR (2009) Building private-sector partnerships for conservation: Lessons learned from the collaboration between WCS, CIB, and the Republic of Congo in forestry concessions. Wildlife Conservation Society, BronxGoogle Scholar
  39. Pritzker DM (1990) Working together for better regulations. Natur Resour Env 5(2):51–53Google Scholar
  40. Raik DB, Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Brown TL (2005) Managing community controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopting practices that address value differences. Human Dim Wildl 10:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rainey HJ, Pollard EHB, Dutson G, Ekstrom JMM, Livingstone SR, Temple HJ, Pilgrim JD (2015) A review of corporate goals of no new loos and net positive impact on biodiversity. Oryx 49(2):232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robinson JG (2012) Common and conflicting interests in the engagements between conservation organizations and corporations. Conserv Biol 26(6):967–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robinson JG (2010) Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biol Conserv 144:958–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robinson JG, Queiroz H (2010) Márcio Ayres: new approaches to the conservation and management of protected areas in Amazônia. In: Pinedo-Vasquez M, Ruffino ML, Sears RR, Brondizio ES, Padoch C (eds) The Amazonian Várzea: The decade past and the decade ahead. Springer Verlag and New York Botanical Garden Press, New York, p 311–316Google Scholar
  45. Sawyer H, Nielson RM (2010) Mule deer monitoring in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area: 2010 annual report. Western Ecosystems Technology (WEST), Inc, LaramieGoogle Scholar
  46. Sawyer H, Nielson RM, Lindzey F, McDonald LL (2006) Winter habitat selection of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. J Wildl Manag 70:396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schuett MA, Selin S (2002) Profiling collaborative natural resource initiatives and active participants. JAppl For 19(4):155–160Google Scholar
  48. Seidler RG, Long RA, Berger J, Bergen S, Beckmann JP (2015) Identifying impediments to long-distance mammal migration. Conserv Biol 29(1):99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Selin S, Chavez D (1995) Developing a collaborative model of environmental planning and management. Environ Manag 19(2):189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapiro SA (2012) The complexity of regulatory capture: diagnosis, causality and remediation. Roger Williams Univ Law Rev 17(1):221–257Google Scholar
  51. Singleton S (2000) Co-operation or capture? The paradox of co-management and community participation in natural resource management and environmental policy making. Environ Polit 9(2):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. (2017) United Nations Global Compact. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/. Accessed 3 Aug 2017Google Scholar
  53. US Secretary of the Interior (2007a) Secretariat order 3270. http://elipsdoigov/app_so/act_getfilescfm?order_number=3270. Accessed 1 Dec 2010Google Scholar
  54. US Secretary of the Interior (2007b) Order 3270. elipsdoigov/ELIPS/0?doc/415/Page1aspx. Accessed 5 Feb 2014Google Scholar
  55. Waddock SA, Bannister D (1991) Correlates of effectiveness and partner satisfactions in social partnerships. J Organ Change Manag 4(2):64–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weber EP, Lovrich NP, Gaffney MJ (2007) Assessing collaborative capacity in a multidimensional world. Admin Soc 39(2):194–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams EM, Ellefson PV (1997) Going into partnership to manage a landscape. J For 95(5):29–33Google Scholar
  58. Williams BK, Szaro RC, Shapiro CD (2009) Adaptive Management: The US Department of the Interior Technical Guide Adaptive Management Working Group. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. Wondolleck SL, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management.. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Zanetell BA, Knuth BA (2002) Knowledge partnerships: rapid rural appraisal’s role in catalyzing community-based management in Venezuela. Soc Natur Resour 15:805–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heidi E. Kretser
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jon P. Beckmann
    • 3
  • Joel Berger
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Wildlife Conservation Society, The Americas ProgramBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Wildlife Conservation Society, Rocky Mountain West ProgramBozemanUSA
  4. 4.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations