1. I wouldn’t start from here: Some lessons from the real world of wildlife conservation Felicity EdwardsThe CSE Group Michael Gibeau Parks Canada

2. Reasons to Participate Depends on who you are: Parks Canada – grizzlies were being debated in the press ENGOs – too many grizzlies were dying Business/user groups – scientists were hijacking the agenda

3. Preparing the Ground for the integrative conversations - Q sort as a prompt - Role of the champion – finding a decision maker who was willing to move forward - Role of MG - How Grizzly Bears were being managed - The need for learning new skills and skills upgrading (more on the second at the end)

4. Learning new skills: Mind Mapping Participants’ values l Power l Knowledge l Respect l Skill l Wealth l Well-being l Affection l Rectitude l Display of people’s values by mind mapping l People use them when they interact with each other l Used as a continual reference point (Lasswell 1971)

5. One mind map from the Banff case

6. Learning new skills: collaboration as a means to reach common ground CONSULTATIONCONSENSUS Statement of Purpose To build consensus as a basis for decision.To build consensus as a basis for decision To inform and become informed.To inform and become informed To achieve stakeholder input, and buy-in.To achieve stakeholder input and buy- in To meaningfully involve interested partiesTo meaningfully involve interested parties. YOU WILL NOTICE THESE ARE THE SAME

7. CONSULTATION v. CONSENSUS Participants: “Advocates” Participants: Decision-makers Objectives: Hear the voices of many Objectives: Search for a single voice Activity: Make representations Activity: Find trade-offs and common ground Process: Predetermined by Process: Participant designed decision-maker Negotiation: Implicit Negotiation: Explicit Outcomes: “Many inputs” to Outcomes: “One input” a decision makerOne recommendation by many YOU WILL NOTICE HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT

8. Theory v. Real World with thanks to Rich Wallace Define ProblemsDefine Problems Identify SolutionsIdentify Solutions Identify Goals Describe Trends Analyze Conditions Make Projections Propose Alternatives Wonder why we are here? Look for information and research Look for more information Take a leap and discuss Reach a conclusion look for more information look for more information

9. Presenting problem versus the “real” problem Participants Social Process Influences on Problem Orientation Perspectives Outcomes Effects Situations Strategies ValuesandMyths Bears are the problem The railway is the problem We don’t know enough is the problem Parks Canada won’t deliver This IPS group isn’t working

10. The “problems” of public policy problems Navid Ghaffarzadegan, John Lyneis, George P. Richardson 2008 The technical perspective: l Policy resistance from the environment: l Need to experiment and the cost of experimenting: l Need to persuade different stakeholders: l Overconfident policymakers: l Need to have an endogenous perspective:

11. What is the problem? With thanks to Dr. Susan Clarke The grizzly bears Trust and relationships Constitutive power of PC as land manager

12. Why difficult to make decision? Trust : To do what was agreed to Change with changing staff

13. Where are we now? - clarifying and sustaining the common interest. It takes people to see themselves and others in value terms rather than simply interests Some conclusions are: a. Common interests are not enough of a bedrock upon which to form a problem solving group b. Explicit reminding of the underlying values is needed c. Need a super-ordinate goal to which everyone buys in d. Clarity of what is really the problem may of may not help – depending on whether the group thinks it can do anything about it

14. The mythology of the “common ground” In the Banff case the land is managed by the Crown (or public lands in the US) An overriding issue is of power and how it is manifest a. known but not wielded and/or b. known and wielded as a large stick The working assumptions of the group in the Banff tried to address this issue of power by: a. The ways in which information was used b. By the ways in which decisions were made c. By inclusion of the “landlord” as one of the parties in the room

15. Organizational Change l Starting out: experience shows that working in a collaborative group brings into sharp relief those participating organizations who are able to manage this and those who are not. l Organizational limiting factors: - Internal silos - Inability to recognize the differences of internal decision making structures - Getting too far ahead of your “constituents”

16. What is needed inside the participating organizations to enable this integrative approach to be successful? l Internal commitment l Clarity of the role of the representative as broker l Enough time to bring on board the folks back home l Understanding and clarity about how each organization works and what it needs

17. What can leadership look like in these situations? l Book Ends A. Pre-conditions: intelligence, tolerance for change, communication skills and a desire to lead B. Impact: presence, resilience and belonging

18. Elements of Leadership in the Banff case before IPS Group with IPS group 1. Meaningsparring in the mediasparring in the group (purpose and strengths) 2. Managing energygetting “up” for the fightgetting “up” for the debate (minimizing depletion, flow and restoration) 3. Engagingless engagementmore (voice, ownership, risk taking and adaptability) 4. Positive framing skills not neededskills specifically learned (self awareness, learned optimism and moving on) 5. Connecting not worrying about itmaking it happen (network design sponsorship, inclusiveness)

19. Where are we now? How does a group remain engaged with changing circumstances? Short answer – it does not.

20. Ideas and thoughts appreciated Thank you