Examples of Consensus Processes in State Government
Department
of Behavioral & Developmental Services
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Transportation
Department of Marine Resources
Following an enabling statute passed by the Maine Legislature
in 1995, The Department of Marine Resources (DMR) established
seven lobster management councils along the coast to provide
advice on lobster management issues and to initiate management
solutions. The goal was co-management: a sharing of power
between the government, which holds the public trust responsibilities
for marine resources, and the stakeholders who are using the
marine resources.
Stakeholder Groups:
The lobster zone management councils consisted of Each policy
council member represents a district within the lobster zone.
Elections are held on an annual basis, and members serve three-year
terms. This system was mandated through legislation: the DMR
did not have the power to choose stakeholders in this case.
Processes:
An ad-hoc advisory group helped to establish the process within
which the lobster zone councils operate. The group included
members of the lobster industry, members from academia, a
non-profit member, and DMR staff. However, each of the seven
zone councils determined the decision-making process they
would like to use. Under the Department’s rule-making
authority, the Department suggested that council business
be conducted by consensus. Decisions to hold a referendum
within the zone, however, were to be made by majority vote.
Though ground rules were not established in each council,
the council chairs are responsible for running the meetings,
and many of them have drawn upon their own experiences instead
of developing formal ground rules within the group. Council
chairs are elected annually by the members of that zone council.
Lobster Zone Councils initially made decisions on four issues:
the number of traps allowed per license, the number of traps
permitted on a trawl, the time of day when fishing may occur,
and the time period allowed for compliance with such rule
changes. 1
In 1999, the Maine Legislature passed a law to allow limited
entry by zone, giving another authority to zone councils.
[Limited entry is achieved by regulations permitting a ratio
of licenses to be issues for those not renewed in the zone.
For example, a two-to-one ratio means that only one new license
would be issued for every two not renewed.] The establishment
of limited entry rules begins with a zone council request
to the DMR that its zone be surveyed. The DMR conducts the
survey, and the zone council reviews the results. The zone
council then recommends an entry/exit ratio to the commissioner.
The commissioner reciprocates with a ratio proposal. A public
hearing is held as part of the rulemaking process, and the
advisory council approves the final rule.
Timing:
- 1995: Lobster Zone Management System statute passed by
the Maine Legislature
- Summer 1998: All seven zones have passed limits of 600-800
traps
- 1999: The Maine Legislature gives the zones the additional
authority to address limited/controlled entry
- July 2000: five of the seven zones have started the process
to implement limited entry rules for their zones
- Today: the process continues to evolve
Results:
When given the option, the groups of fishermen have tended
toward a parliamentarian approach to decision-making. Although
the legal guidelines allow them to use a consensus-based process
for many of their decisions, they favor a process with which
they are more familiar and comfortable. At least one, but
often more, DMR staff attends each zone council meeting. The
Marine Resources Coordinator, a Marine Patrol Officer, or
other DMR staff such as lobster scientists may attend, depending
on the agenda. Occasionally, the zone council will request
that a staff person attend the meeting to give a presentation
(on aquaculture, for example).
DMR has not provided formal training to the councils or the
council chairs to assist in decision-making. In 2000, a survey
was sent to all former, returning, and new zone council representatives.
From this, the DMR concluded that the best approach would
be to continue work each council individually on their specific
needs, instead of trying to hold statewide “training”
sessions. Each zone needed somewhat different content, as
each had different strengths and weaknesses.
Lessons:
The amount of time that needs to be devoted to these councils
is significant. A staff person was assigned to work with each
of the councils when they meet to discuss issues. The pace
of change in lobster management is very rapid, so the implementation
of the councils was fast-paced. This left little time for
planning.
The lobster zone council system represents a new form of
fishery management that is based on active stakeholder participation
in the management process. Designing and implementing this
system of councils required hard work from all participants.
There are a few lessons that have been learned that may be
beneficial to others who are considering using stakeholder
groups in management decisions. First, it is important to
be clear from the onset what responsibility and authority
the councils (or group) have in the decision-making process.
It was critical for the Department to clarify the different
roles that the councils, the state, the interstate, and the
federal management systems have in regulating the lobster
resource. Participants in the process will feel very disenfranchised
if they work hard to come up with management measures, only
to see “top down” management again by the state
or federal government. This is true of any process in which
people have been asked to participate. Although the Department
does not have control over actions that happen outside the
agency, it was still important for everyone in the process
to know at the beginning how and what types of management
they influence.
Second, the cost of government in terms of time and financial
resources was extremely high, especially at the initial stage
of development and implementation. Not only the Department,
but also the participants (in this case, the fishing industry)
must be prepared to devote considerable time and effort to
take part in the process. It is most often the case that people
perceive a problem with current management and therefore are
prepared to advocate for a change in which they play a considerable
rule and devote time.
Third, group decision-making techniques were skills that
needed to be developed by members through training or by using
a professional facilitator. Some groups may have more experienced
members, but an assessment of the skills and needs of the
group should be completed in the early stages of the process.
Overall, the use of this process in the lobster industry
has generally been regarded as very successful. The zone councils
effectively dealt with two management issues (trap limits
and limited entry) which had previously been very difficult
to achieve action on. In addition, it is believed that the
councils has resulted in improved stewardship, improved decision-making
and responsiveness, and improved communication, both within
the zones and between the lobster industry and the DMR. The
zone councils continue to gain credibility as a valuable source
of input in the development of lobster management policy.
Sources:
Deirdre Gilbert, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Marine Resources
Laura Taylor, former Special Assistant to the Commissioner,
Department of Marine Resources
“Maine Finding Success with Fisheries Self-Management.”
NOAA Coastal Services Magazine, January/February 1999. <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/newsletter/back_issues/janfeb99/maine.html>.
1 Maine Finding Success
with Fisheries Self-Management.” NOAA Coastal Services
Magazine, January/February 1999. <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/newsletter/back_issues/janfeb99/maine.html>.
|
