Collaborative governance is based on the premise that people participating in collaborative processes learn from each other and thus build capacity for joint problem solving. While participants of collaborative processes learn to know one another they also learn to trust each other. They learn to see the issue at hand as a complex problem that can be grasped from different angles. They learn to understand the challenges or issues that matter to the other participating organizations in the complex problem. These insights make it possible for the participants to start looking for solutions which bring mutual benefits.

The learning process which participants of collaborative processes go through is hard to share with those who have not been part of the process. A learning process is always emergent and not decided or foreseeable. Its steps as well as outcomes are difficult to articulate, and they may become as a surprise. Therefore, they may be difficult to mobilize within the interest group that has been part of the process through its representative. In addition, learning to understand other stakeholders’ perspectives might not be included in the “assignment or contract” made between the interest group and its representative. On the contrary, the representative’s mission might be solely to deliver the demands of the interest group at the table and bargain to gain a best result serving the interest.

Maintaining the trust from their own organization or group may thus become an issue for the representatives at the negotiation table. When the legitimacy of representatives is reducing and trust in them fades this also disrupts or at least complicates the collaborative process among interest groups. Trust can quickly erode when those at the table are unable to communicate what has been learned and how these learnings benefit the interest group. Particularly, when trust in the other organizations at the table is low, members in the interest organizations may not see the value of negotiated compromises or the need to find a shared solution. As a consequence, nascent agreement and amity may shift the conflict from between the organizations to inside the organizations.

There are two possible outcomes of the misalignment between representatives and the organization they represent:

• The organization rejects the possible solutions and walks away from the table, leaving the conflict to simmer on, possibly with more fire than before. Walking away from the table can hurt the trust that was created during the process and make future attempts to resolve the conflict even more difficult.
• The organization does sign up for the deal, but the organization gets into an internal legitimacy crisis as some members of the organization do not feel heard or even betrayed, believing the organization has not taken care of the issues they were fighting for. Inside an organization, the conflict may be difficult to address and manage, particularly, because the debate does not anymore take place in open but closed fora. If the internal power battle leads to more extreme views taking over within an organization, it becomes ever more difficult to resolve the conflict between organizations.

There are steps that can help to avoid the highly dysfunctional eroding of trust between interest groups and their representatives.

• To prevent internal tensions to distract the whole process, make sure enough resources and tools are available to organizations’ internal communication. Internal communication ensures that everybody understands why there is a collaborative process and what it aims at. In addition, internal communication is essential for the members to reflect collectively on what they want to achieve, and why their goals may need to be renewed and updated during the process as learning takes place. It may also be important to clarify what kind of process the collaborative process is, what this process demands from the organization (e.g., rules and expectations), and the types of outcomes for all parties (including the principle that all will benefit and the idea that a benefit gained by one organization is not necessarily a loss for the others). Furthermore, when there is a lot of distrust and old hurt within the organization towards the other organizations, it is of vital importance to build internal processes that ensure people get heard, get to express their concerns and get the possibility to understand what is done with their concerns. Finally, the representatives of organizations should be actively encouraged to share and communicate the insights gained during the process with the organization members at different steps along the process. Giving a blank check or a very restrictive mission are both dysfunctional. Having clear feedback loops during the process and new agreements on what is aimed at may help the members of the organization stay on track and raise concerns when they arise.
• While each of the organizations need to deal with the existing old hurt and distrust internally, this work also needs support from the other organizations at the table. If all organizations are going through internal struggles which potentially lead to more extreme views taking over, the parties drift further away from each other, with severe effects on their collaboration. Representatives of the organizations need to be encouraged to discuss the internal tensions they face. Having a clear shared approach and agreements that aim to ensure the trust in one another is growing instead diminishing can be helpful. This may include an agreed communication strategy and a process for agreeing on the exact messages to be send out. It may also include designing a broader set of interactions among the organizations to encourage also the members to engage in the collaborative process.

Sanne Bor, Taru Peltola & Outi Ratamäki

Sanne Bor works as Researcher at Hanken School of Economics, for the CORE project, and at LUT University, for the PackageHeroes project. She studies collaboration among organizations.

Taru Peltola is an Associate Professor of social sustainability at the University of Eastern Finland and Finnish Environment Institute. She leads the CORE-project’s case study work package.

Outi Ratamäki works as a senior lecturer at the Law School, University of Eastern Finland. She studies natural resources governance at the crossroads of law. 

The post Shifting lines of battle: How to work out solutions to conflicts that travel between and inside organizations? appeared first on CORE.

To share knowledge and encourage discussion on these questions, Academy of Finland Strategic Research Council projects CORE, ALL-YOUTH, BIBU and PALO invite all interested to this open event. A keynote lecture on serious games by Assistant Professor Todd Schenk will be followed by three talks including comments on his points and presentation of topical approaches to gamification in Finland. 

Date:  2nd of December, 2019, 16:00-18:00

Place: Think Corner, Think Lounge, Yliopistonkatu 4, Helsinki

Programme

16:00 Welcome!

16:05 Todd Schenk: Serious games for collaborative governance in times of change and uncertainty

Dr. Todd Schenk is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public and International Affairs and affiliate with the Global Change Center at Virginia Tech, U.S. He has extensive research and consulting experience working on environmental policy and planning, and collaborative governance issues in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Todd has developed and facilitated a variety of role-play simulation exercises, and other serious games, to facilitate social learning, foster reflection, and support collaborative experimentation with stakeholders at all levels, from students in the classroom to senior government officials. See examples of Todd Schenk’s publications below. 

16:45 Discussion 

17:00 Jari Varsaluoma: Gamifying societal discussion service – Youth perspective (slides here)

PhD Jari Varsaluoma, researcher at Tampere University. Jari has over ten years of experience in user experience related research and evaluation studies in academia and with industrial partners. Currently Jari is working in ALL-YOUTH research project which explores the capacities of young people (aged between 16 and 25) and the obstacles that hamper their engagement with society. Jari’s research focus is on digital services and how they can support youth engagement in societal discussions, and what is the role of gamification in this context.

17:15 Mikko Meriläinen: Jam it! – Learning through co-creation of games (slides here)

Mr. Mikko Meriläinen (M.A.), researcher at Tampere University Game Research Lab. As part of the Growing Mind project’s research into innovative pedagogies, he is currently studying the use of game jams as an avenue of learning and collaboration.

17:30 Nina V. Nygren & Ville Kankainen: Science communication and engagement with the biodiversity offsetting game (slides here)

Dr. Sc.(Admin.) Nina V. Nygren, post doc researcher in environmental policy at the Faculty of Management and business, Tampere University. She has done research on biodiversity offsetting, and conservation conflicts and solutions. Currently she is leading the biodiversity offsetting game project and teaching.  Nygren is specialized in collaborative and multidisciplinary research and teaching.

Mr. Ville Kankainen (M.Sc.) is a researcher and a PhD student in the Tampere University Game Research Lab with a background in game design. In his dissertation Kankainen studies how the use of digital media affects the tabletop-gaming culture. His research interests are focused on hybrid play, post-digitality, tabletop game culture, game jams and game design research. Currently he works as a researcher in the Offsetting Game project.

17:45 Discussion

18:00 End of the event

No registration needed. Welcome!

Facebook event here.

Publications by Todd Schenk

Rumore, D., Schenk, T. & Susskind, L. 2016. Role-play simulations for climate change adaptation education and engagement. Nature Climate Change 6, 745–750.

Schenk, T. 2013. Boats and Bridges in the Sandbox: Using Role Play Simulation Exercises to Help Infrastructure Planners Prepare for the Risks and Uncertainties Associated with Climate Change. In: A. V. Gheorghe et al. (eds.), Infranomics, Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality 24.

Schenk, T. 2018. Adapting Infrastructure to Climate Change Advancing Decision-Making Under Conditions of Uncertainty. Routledge.

Schenk, T. & Susskind, L. 2015. Using role-play simulations to encourage adaptation – Serious games as tools for action research. In van Buuren, A., Eshuis, J., van Vliet, M. Action Research for Climate Change Adaptation: Developing and Applying Knowledge for Governance. Routledge.

The post COREvents #5 & BIBU Talks: Serious games for collaborative governance appeared first on CORE.

The third COREvent will explore civic action and collaborative governance in the context of environmental and other social movements. The keynote lecture will be given by Donatella Della Porta, professor and social movement expert from the Institute for Humanities and the Social Sciences and the Center on Social Movement Studies at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Florence. Welcome!  

Date: 24 May, 2019, 10:00-12:00

Place: University of Jyväskylä, Mattilanniemi 2, Jyväskylä, Agora building, hall Agora Alfa

Programme

10:00 Welcome! Tapio Litmanen, University of Jyväskylä

10:05 Donatella della Porta: Deconstructing generations in movements: evidences from anti-austerity protests in Europe (see introduction below)

Discussion

11:30 Maija Faehnle, Finnish Environment Institute SYKE and Tampere University: Civic action in the digital era – opportunities and challenges for collaborative governance

11:40 Discussion

12:00 End of the event

The event can also be followed online at: https://m3.jyu.fi/jyumv/ohjelmat/hum/yfi/prof-donatella-della-porta/live

No registration is needed. If you are on Facebook, you can pick the event to your Facebook calendar.

During the event you can post comments and questions for the lecturers in Twitter with hashtag #corestn.

Donatella della Porta’s lecture “Deconstructing generations in movements: evidences from anti-austerity protests in Europe” addresses the self-understanding of young activists in anti-austerity protests in European countries. Building on a theoretical framework that aims at bridging youth studies and social movement studies, it first introduces some main research questions such as: What leads a significant number of young people in times of more or less severe crisis to engage in collective initiatives, rather than to remain passive? What are the forms of social commitment that critical young people choose to use, in particular during periods of crisis? Which meanings are attached to these forms of social engagement? What kinds of resources are available to young people for social mobilization? And to what extent do they vary across different degrees of socioeconomic crisis, governmental constellation, and type of conflict, thereby shaping individual-level forms and levels of social participation? To what extent do differences in the impact of the crisis on national contexts, and related political transformations, result in differences in young people’s social engagement in terms of motivations and forms?

After presenting the theoretical model and the research design, the lecture summarizes some results across three main aspects: the meaning of generations in social movements, the self-definition of Millennials, as well as some characteristics of their mobilizations in terms of organizational structures, repertories of action, and collective framing. Using the concept of generations in a critical way, the lecture will deconstruct it by looking at the meaning given to generations by movement activists, to their self-perception in terms of generational identification, as well as their taste in terms of contentious frames and practices. Read more here.

Donatella Della Porta  is professor of political science, dean of the Department of Political and Social Sciences and director of the PhD program in Political Science and Sociology at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Florence, where she also leads the Center on Social Movement Studies (Cosmos).

Among the main topics of her research are social movements, political violence, terrorism, corruption, the police and protest policing. She has directed a major ERC project, Mobilizing for Democracy, on civil society participation in democratization processes in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. In 2011, she was the recipient of the Mattei Dogan Prize for distinguished achievements in the field of political sociology. She is Honorary Doctor of the universities of Lausanne, Bucharest and Goteborg.

She is the author or editor of 90 books, 135 journal articles and 135 contributions in edited volumes. Among her recent publications are: Legacies and Memories in Movements (Oxford University Press, 2018); Sessantotto. Passato e presente dell’anno ribelle (Fertrinelli, 2018); Contentious moves (Palgrave 2017), Global Diffusion of Protest (Amsterdam University Press, 2017), Late Neoliberalism and its Discontents (Palgrave, 2017); Movement Parties in Times of Austerity (Polity 2017), Where did the Revolution go? (Cambridge University Press, 2016); Social Movements in Times of Austerity (Polity 2015).

Donatella della Porta will be conferred as the University of Jyväskylä’s Honorary Doctor in the conferment of degrees ceremony on 25th of May 2019.

Maija Faehnle is a senior researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. She is the communication manager of the CORE project and studies aspects of civil society, activism and collaboration especially in urban contexts.

Tapio Litmanen is professor on sociology at the University of Jyväskylä. He leads the work on civil society in the CORE project.

See COREvents #1 and #2 on video here.

The post COREvents #3: Civic action and collaborative governance appeared first on CORE.

The city involved an external facilitator to guide the process, which took a total of 1,5 years from start to finish. The aim of the process was to get different actors together to discuss the issue of use of forest in Jyväskylä and finally based on these discussions arrive to a collective decision about how to use the forest. The collaborative project ended May 2018.

Our task as researchers of the value co-creation team of the CORE project was to see what value this process created for the participants in their collaboration and if the final co-created outcome was valuable for them. Value co-creation, as a concept from marketing, has its origins in the understanding that customers are co-creating the value of a product or a service provided to them by the way the product or service is utilised.

In this particular case, value is not co-created by the customer or the provider, in the traditional sense, but by different stakeholders of a particular issue, the use of forest.

While previous literature has looked at value in the connection of a product or a service, our case looks at value co-creation around the issue of use of forest around Jyväskylä city. 

The values of forest sought by different stakeholders vary. As Pearce and Moran (1994)point out, there is a variety of ways to understand the value of a forest. There can be use-value (both direct and indirect), future value (future direct or non-direct value), and non-use-value (bequest or existence value). While forest use-value for e.g. bird-watchers and mushroom or berry pickers increases when the flora and fauna in a forest are flourishing, the use-value for the forest-harvesters grows with the possibility to efficiently harvest trees that are of the right size and quality.

Those that use the forest for upkeeping their condition, or doing sports, may have even have contradicting requests from a more cleared forest and well taken care of pathways, to more wild nature like and less intervention. Also the aesthetic value of the forest plays a role, for those using it for their walks. While these different values are pursued by different stakeholders, sometimes stakeholders themselves need to deal with conflicting demands from their different roles.

The process of value co-creation, including interaction and integration (Gummesson & Mele, 2010; Pera, Occhiocupo, & Clarke, 2016), is successful when stakeholders are able to find ways to increase the value and minimise the loss of value for the different stakeholders and the whole group. The collaborative project of Jyväskylä Forest Program produced a wealth of results.

Most of the participants of the collaborative effort thought that the process itself was heavy and time consuming. However, they also thought the result and outcome of the co-creation process was very good.

That is to say; the process of value co-creation was not as appreciated as the final outcome of the process. The outcome of the process was taken into the consideration when the city officially decided what to do with the forest.

From this case we can learn that from the point of view of value co-creation even if the process is not as satisfactory it is worth of its pains to get a solution that pleases all the parties involved. Despite the seemingly conflicting value premises of use of forest, the solution can be found in a collaborative and facilitated process and even if the process itself is not as much valued the final outcome is.

Sanne Bor and Pia Polsa

References

Gummesson, E., & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as Value Co-creation Through Network Interaction and Resource Integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4, 181–198.

Pearce, D. W., & Moran, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan.

Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016). Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69, 4033–4041.

Sanne Bor works as Researcher at Hanken School of Economics, on the CORE project, and at LUT University, on the PackageHeroes project. She studies collaboration among organizations, among others from the view of value co-creation, partial organization and accountability.

Pia Polsa works as Associate Professor in Marketing at Hanken School of Economics and leads the CORE project’s value co-creation work package. Her current research interests are value creation in environmental conflicts, poverty alleviation, and marketing in non-profit settings like health care in developing countries.

The post VALUE CO-CREATION FOR THE JYVÄSKYLÄ FOREST PROGRAMME 2030 appeared first on CORE.

When activism is understood as described above – open acts – the relationship between science and activism is rather straightforward: Some scientists are activists. This may be true even if they are not called such or if they do not identify themselves as an activist. The arenas of activism may or may not be intertwined with the research they do.

The demand of having societal impacts by research is getting ever stronger. Ways to have an impact are various, however. Researchers are sometimes involved in creating practical solutions to societal or environmental problems but more often they seek discursive ways of introducing change or having an impact in societal transitions. This includes information and knowledge production, creating arenas for discussion or revealing inequalities.

Expert knowledge is not a “neutral” way to see the world, and research has never been detached from social and political life. There are many choices that affect researchers’ potential for having societal impact, e.g. the choices made in formulating research questions, choosing research methods and arenas for publishing the results.

Researcher-activist faces pros and cons

Being called an activist is not always something the researcher may like or strive for. It may be a negative label which can also be used in attempts to downgrade the expertise of a researcher in conflicting situations. Activism is situated, socially constructed, and not about the message a researcher delivers. It is about the relation between the messenger and the audience.

As an invited speaker in a parliamentary committee a researcher is usually regarded as an expert, but if she enters the arena uninvited she may be labelled as an activist.

Being heavily involved in activism on the field one is doing research, for example, as a community member, has pros and cons. Involvement guarantees, or at least eases, the access to internal information. A researcher as activist can also be a great resource for individuals and communities and essential for empowerment. Moreover, in particular cases, some groups are interested to attract and engage with science and work with allied researchers.

However, for an activist researcher it might be more challenging to maintain objectivity compared to researches with more distant engagement (i.e participatory observations). It might also be that the presence and involvement of an activist researcher might work against the communities. Communities might be heavily criticized for involving an activist or the published research results of an activist researcher might be used against the interests of the community by external parties. Security risks for the community members can be greater, if an activist researcher is involved.

Do no harm!

One important principle in combining science and activism especially when working with vulnerable groups and small communities is a Do no harm -principle. The risks and potentials should be discussed transparently with parties involved and people involved should have a real possibility to use veto rights, if something that the researcher is planning to do, is likely to risk the life, health, ownership or social relations in the community.

In particular with the vulnerable groups it should be ensured that there are no harmful stereotypes or stigmas that the researcher creates or maintains.

Science and activism have to do with power. Activists often fight existing power relations — or are deemed to do so. Activism differs from those attempts to change the society that leave asymmetrical social relations intact, for example, research promoting transitions that strengthen the interest of powerful elites or businesses. Power can be reshaped or renegotiated, with unpredictable and often contradictory outcomes. Power is not legitimated only by hegemonic expert knowledge represented by for example state institutions, corporate interests, or law, because its legitimacy is co-created by communities confronting institutions representing power.

Science is also a powerful tool – how do we use it? To maintain power relations and status quo or to empower transformation? Is passivism a form of activism if it has societal impact? Inaction can maintain status quo and dominant power relations and thus support some views about society and how its problems should be resolved and by whom. Inaction can also actively prevent transformation.

Activism against and for science

The role of science or scientists can take many, also more subtle forms in its relations to activism. While the word activist carries a risk of being questioned as an expert or labelled otherwise negatively, other, more subtle types of active engagement in the society are not identified as activism. If activism is understood more broadly, for example as ‘attendance in or contribution to societal transitions’, the relationship between science and activism becomes more difficult to detect. Although not called as activism, same kind of questions about objectivity or the impact of academic work on communities apply to these forms of academic activism.

Activism against science has posed these questions openly. Examples include the long-tradition of protesting against risky technologies that science helps to develop or advocating against the use of animal experimentations in scientific research. These disputes can take place inside or outside the academia, and they question the hegemony of particular kinds of sciences and scientists determining societal development and practices.

The goals promoted by academic activists, such as climate change policies or ban on neonicotinoids, can also be opposed by powerful lobby groups. They too target the power of science and expertise to formulate societal goals, albeit from a different angle, resisting attempts to change the hegemony of economic interests. On the other hand, there is science activism aiming to improve science itself. Open science activism, for example, aims at giving access to knowledge and expertise to wider groups in the society.

Academics need to reflect on the impacts of their work

The relationship between science and activism can also take the form of scientists helping activists. Scientists can collaborate with activists in various ways: organizing seminars, workshops, help with writing statements, complaints or other reporting, offering microsupport, e.g. tweeting and using other social media. Researchers can also help to reach international visibility, for example to help activists build networks or get support. Researchers can help make activism research-based and activists can utilize scientific practices in their activism. For example, many community science projects aim at evidence-based activism and social transformations to fight environmental impacts.

These questions challenge the understanding of activism and raise discussion about its role in the society. While societies are facing need to respond to global challenges it may not be enough to contribute scientifically to technocratic, top-down driven transition processes where changes take place within existing societal structures and frames. Also more diverse and emergent transformation processes challenging incumbent structures are needed. Academics might have a role in promoting such bottom-up transformation. However, it is also ok to refuse to be an activist. Regardless of the type of societal engagement, academics need to be more open about and ready to reflect on their societal role and the impact of their work on the society.

Outi Ratamäki, Maija Faehnle, Heta Heiskanen, Taru Peltola & Germán A. Quimbayo Ruiz

Photo: Ville Tahvanainen

This blog is based on the discussions during Science and Activism seminar held at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) in January 2019. The seminar was organized by UEF’s LYY Institute and two Strategical Research Council funded research projects CORE and ALL-YOUTH.

Outi Ratamäki works as a senior lecturer at the Law School, University of Eastern Finland. She studies natural resources governance at the crossroads of law and policy.

Maija Faehnle is a senior researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. She is the communication manager of the CORE project and studies aspects of activism, civil society and collaboration especially in urban contexts.  

Heta Heiskanen is a Post-Doc in ALL-YOUTH -project funded by the Strategic Research Council. She has specialized in human rights law and the environment. She has been actively cooperating with NGOs. Currently she is a board member of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation.

Taru Peltola works as a Senior Research Scientist at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE and leads the CORE-project’s case study work package.

Germán A. Quimbayo Ruiz is an Ecologist and Geography MSc. Researcher and Ph.D. student in Environmental Policy, Department of Geographical and Historical Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu. External researcher, Natural Resources Institute Finland, LUKE (Turku). I have worked with environmental state-agencies and social organizations in Colombia.

The post Science, activism and societal impact – diversity of relationships appeared first on CORE.

In October 2018, the start session of the training at the Sofia Cultural Centre in Helsinki brought together 25 officials, chosen among the applicants. They represented different administrative levels and sectors, planning on land use and traffic, environmental issues, forest management and work on civic engagement, among others. The instructors, collaborative governance experts Stephen Greenwood and Turner Odell, came from the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University. The training is free for the participants. It is funded by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland, as part of the CORE project.

The aim of the training is to give the participants capacities to collaborate with multiple actors and plan and lead processes that aim reconciling different goals. The basis is in the model of collaborative governance that has been successfully applied in Oregon since 1990’s. The training also starts the building of a growing community of collaborative governance experts in Finland.

In the beginning of the training, the participants told about cases they were familiar with in which there is or would have been a need for more collaborative practices. The instructors presented two cases of solving a complex problem collaboratively. At the mouth of Columbia River in the U.S., a solution was found for the local erosion problem. In the case of conserving the greater sage-grouse in Western U.S., the conflicting economic and ecological interests were reconciled into a widely accepted action plan.

Referring to the success factors in the two cases, the instructors then introduced principles of collaborative governance and phases of a collaborative process. A third theme to be studied was personal collaboration skills. The learning on the training was supported by worksheets with which the participants applied the presented points and ideas to their own cases and actions.

”This responds exactly to the need that I recognize at least in our work. Our work should be to solve problems together with the others, and here these kinds of collaboration skills are necessary”, states Matti Hovi from Metsähallitus. “We have among others a planning process on management and use of conservation areas, which is participatory in a traditional way, including consultation of stakeholders. But the methods discussed here in this training go far further than that”.

The competence to assess when to use collaborative methods is one of the very basic questions in collaborative governing. “When new things come up, you should take a moment to ponder whether this is an issue requiring collaboration and thereby starting of a collaborative process, or can we just make a quick decision by ourselves”, Matti Hovi continues. “We come across situations in which there are different parties with differing interests and they should be reconciled in a way or another”. The training has given me tools for recognizing such situations”, says Jenni Kuja-Aro from the Environmental Services of the City of Helsinki.

Tytti Viinikainen from the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency found that the training gives useful tools for the officials in her own department. “It was good that the toolbox discussed today was not technical, such as ‘organise groups of 5-6 persons at 18.00”, but about the grounds of interaction: accept the conflicts, and listen more – this is just what our officials need in their diverse processes”. 

Stephen Greenwood was impressed by the diversity of the participants. “I didn’t think that they would come from so many different organisations and across the country.  The potential for influencing a lot of different aspects of Finnish public life is actually quite high.”

”It has been intriguing to note how the issues people are concerned about are just so the same that we are dealing with in the United States”, Greenwood states. How do you get people to collaborate when they don’t want to. How do you proceed, if you’re the one who really wants to convene a process, and you’re not perceived as neutral. How do you do a process when there’s no trust between the parties. All the things that people listed up in the starting discussion.” The contexts are, however, different. “It is interesting to see how these same issues interact in the relatively different Finnish context. They may just have a little bit different flavor”, contemplates Odell.

At best, the training creates the ground for the Finnish culture of collaborative governing, which also includes a common language. “For example when a colleague tells about his or her process, you can ask what were the interests as opposed to the positions”, Greenwood describes. He hopes that after the training the participants can keep in touch with and use each other as peers support when applying the new practices. “Hopefully they really get support”.

The training will last until May 2019. The development of the Finnish community of practice on collaborative governance will continue among others with the establishment of a contact platform and with events sharing insights from the training. In Autumn 2019, the CORE project will organise an open COREvent workshop, as an opportunity for all interested to get familiar with the key messages and ideas from the training. Welcome onboard!  

Photos: Opri-Ilmatar Orenius

The post Collaborative Public Manager training gives officials new tools for collaboration appeared first on CORE.

UPDATE: the presentations of the seminar are collected here. 

Aim of the event is to share ideas and discuss the role of activism, in its various forms, in transformation towards sustainability. Our perspective to activism is broad. Within the context of sustainability transition, we invite papers which approach the challenges and benefits of combining activism and science, the role of environmental movements, citizen engagement in policy processes and scientific research, co-production of knowledge, analyses of the driving forces behind resistance and conflicts (e.g. environmental justice issues) etc.   

Organizers: LYY Institute & CORE project & ALL-YOUTH project

Venue: University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Natura Building, Room N113

On the first seminar day we will hear participant presentations after a thematic plenary:  

A key note by Maija Faehnle (CORE -project): Solving complex problems togehter – activism as challenge and opportunity for collaborative governance.  

On the second day we will continue with the participant presentations but also enjoy plenaries given by our invited guest speakers from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona:

A keynote by Mariana Walter: A perspective on radical transformations to sustainability: resistances, movements and alternatives 

A keynote by Marta Conde: Counter-expertise and co-production of knowledge: interface between science and activism

We will finalize the seminar by round table discussions with World Café methodology organized by the ALL-YOUTH project. World Café methodology will be used to facilitate the discussion on youth participation in activism related to environmental conflicts.

We welcome presentations from various disciplines and multiple scales, from global analyses to local case studies. We invite you to one or both days by just taking part or by presenting your research related to the themes described above.   

You are also welcome to join the open lectures given by our guests from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and a trip to Koli national park on Thursday (see the programme and titles of the lectures below).  

About practicalities:  

If interested in presenting, please submit your abstract (max. 250 words. Include a title, name and affiliation of the presenter) to LYY coordinator Outi Ratamäki (at outi.ratamaki(at)uef.fi) by 15 December 2018 the latest. Call for papers is open for all researchers and PhD students.    

Deadline for registering to the event is 15 January 2019. You should register here: https://elomake.uef.fi/lomakkeet/21213/lomake.html. 

Seminar is free of charge and open for all. 

On Tuesday evening we will have dinner at a local restaurant; everyone is welcome to join but should cover their own expenses. Travel costs of the shared ride to Koli will be covered. Preliminary programme for the Koli trip can be found in the registration form. About Koli: http://www.koli.fi/en 

Further information from: outi.ratamaki(at)uef.fi 

PROGRAMME 

Tue 29 January: 1^st day of the seminar 

12.15-12.30 Welcoming words: prof. Rauno Sairinen, scientific leader of the LYY Institute 

12.30-13.30 A keynote: Solving complex problems together – activism as challenge and opportunity for collaborative governance: Maija Faehnle 

13.30-14.30 Seminar presentations (approximately 30 minutes each) 

14.30-14.45 Coffee break 

14.45-16.15 Seminar presentations  

16.15-16.30 General discussion 

Dinner  

Wed 30 January: 2^nd seminar day  

10.15-10.30 Welcoming words: LYY co-ordinator Outi Ratamäki  

10.30-11.30 A key note: A perspective on radical transformations to sustainability: resistances, movements and alternatives: Mariana Walter  

11.30-12.30 A key note: Counter-expertise and co-production of knowledge: interface between science and activism: Marta Conde  

12.30-13.30 Lunch  

13.30-14.30 Presentations 

14.30-14.45 A coffee break 

14.45-16.45  World Café by ALL-YOUTH

16.45-17.00  Closing of the seminar

Additional programme:  

Thu 31 January: Open lectures on the Mining, environment and society -course: 

9.15-10.15 Mariana Walter: The Environmental Justice Atlas. A tool for activism and research. 

10.15-11.00 Marta Conde: Resistance to mining 

11.15-12.00 Lunch  

12.15- 18.30 A trip to Koli  

Invited guests’ biographies: 

PhD Maija Faehnle is senior researcher in the Programme for Sustainable Urbanisation at Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. She has worked at the interface between science and practice in the context of the changing civil society and collaboration for sustainability. Currently she coordinates communication and societal interaction of two research consortiums, one of which is the CORE project (SRC, Academy of Finland) that studies new collaborative governance practices for solving contested societal challenges such as energy transition. Her research has addressed urban civic activism as resource for cities in the digital age, integration of ecological and experimental knowledge in planning, and multicultural aspects of collaborative practices. In her PhD on Regional Science, she developed methods for design and evaluation of collaborative urban planning. Her research interests include collaborative governance, collaborative economy, action research, self-organisation and citizen energy. 

PhD Mariana Walter is a postdoctoral researcher at ICTA-UAB.  Walter’s research addresses extractive conflicts (mainly in Latin America), social metabolism, expert-lay knowledge interplay, social transformations and scales. She holds a Masters diploma in Environmental Studies (focusing on Ecological Economics) and has participated in research projects in Argentina (UNGS) and Europe (ALARM, CEECEC, ENGOV). Currently she is the scientific coordinator of the ACKnowl-EJ Project (Academic-Activist Co-Produced Knowledge for Environmental Justice. www.acknowlej.org) a 3 year international project funded by the ISSC. She has published her work in books and journals such as Global Environmental Change, Ecological Economics, Geoforum, Land Use Policy and Local Environment. 

ICTA-UAB: The Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) is a multidisciplinary centre that promotes academic research and postgraduate education in the environmental sciences. It aims to improve our understanding of global environmental change, and the nature and causes of environmental problems. In addition, it studies policies, strategies and technologies to foster a transition to a sustainable economy.  

ICTA hosts the Environmental Justice Atlas (EJ Atlas). The main leaders involved are Leah Temper, Joan Martinez Alier and Daniela Del Bene. The EJ Atlas documents and catalogues social conflict around environmental issues. The EJ Atlas collects these stories of communities struggling for environmental justice from around the world. It is supported by the ENVJUST project (ERC Advanced Grant 2016-2021), and the ACKnowl-EJ (Academic-Activist Co-Production of Knowledge for Environmental Justice, 2015-2018) funded by the Transformations to Sustainability Programme. 

A post-graduate Research Associate Marta Conde at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Associate Researcher in UAB. Conde holds a degree in Agricultural Engineering (UPC), masters in Environmental Science (Birkbeck College, London) and Ecological Economics (UAB). Her research looks at social reactions to the expansion of extractive industries at the commodity frontiers. The ‘extractive conflicts’ endured by developing countries are caused by the ‘cost shifting successes’ of material and energy consumption in developed economies. Using political ecology, ecological economics and political economy she analyses the drivers, strategies and discourses of resistance movements to mining. She is particularly interested in uranium mining conflicts and the socio-economic and health implications of nuclear and uranium expansion. 

Her latest research explores one of the strategies used by resistance movements in socio-environmental conflicts; the alliance between science and activism.  Drawing from political ecology and STS, Conde proposes that scientific and local knowledge co-production can empower and give visibility to local groups and activists.  Conde links her research with the fields of degrowth and environmental justice, showing how these groups are contesting successfully the imperative of endless economic growth. 

UAB: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, https://www.uab.cat/web/about-the-uab-1345666325480.html    

Organizers:  

The Institute for Natural Resources, Environment and Society (LYY) is a network organization based at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF).  Our network combines social and cultural research expertise for application in the analysis of the environment and natural resource uses. 

The project Collaborative remedies for fragmented societies – facilitating the collaborative turn in environmental decision-making (CORE) is funded by Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland. CORE studies and develops collaborative action in environmental planning and decision-making.  

The post Science & activism – The role of environmental movements in transformations to sustainability appeared first on CORE.

The course was organized in collaboration with the University of Eastern Finland, the University of Copenhagen, the University of Agder, the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and ALL-YOUTH and CORE research projects. Funding was provided by the Nordic Forestry, Veterinary and Agricultural University Network (NOVA) and the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (SRC).

There are social issues behind every environmental conflict

On the first day, we began the course by discussing the various reasons for conflicts related to natural resources. Utilizing the participants’ long list of real life cases, Irmeli Mustalahti illustrated well how hard it is to classify them under one-dimensional categories. We noted quickly that most of the conflicts had more to do with humans than natural resources. Indeed, behind many environmental problems there are social challenges that need to be addressed.

While it is not easy, one way to categorize conflicts is according to their causes. On the one hand, they can be caused by conflicting interests, information or relationships, which are generally issues that can be negotiated and solved. On the other hand, there can be issues related to values, power and social structures, which may be difficult or almost impossible to solve. Environmental conflicts can also include factors from all the above categories which make them incredibly complex. Moreover, conflicts are not always a bad thing. They can even be seen as necessary and inevitable, bringing light to injustice or other problems, which may eventually lead to a better situation. They can provide an opportunity for reform and triggering coalition building for positive change. Conflicts have a role to play, but the prevention of violence should always be the priority.

During the week, we were asked to think about our own conflict cases through the concepts of dividers and connectors. Dividers are factors that divide the communities or the stakeholders in the case. On the contrary, connectors are factors that can bind the stakeholders together. Both of these can be systems and institutions, attitudes and behaviors, values and interests, and so on. To understand the real dividers and connectors, which may be hiding behind the positions, a stakeholder analysis has a vital role in the beginning of any kind of conflict resolution process. The historical context of the society or the local community usually reveals the different and sometimes numerous causes that have triggered the current conflict.

Building blocks for a successful negotiation

On the second day, we did an exercise which simulated a negotiation between an imaginary energy company and a First Nations band. In our group the negotiation went excellently, and we achieved a mutually beneficial agreement in the end. After listening to other groups’ experiences (negative and positive), I think there were several factors that allowed us to accomplish this.

In the first meeting just among the company (or the band), we had established clear common goals that we would try to achieve. We also discussed issues that could and could not be negotiated and what would be the ultimate limits for us. This made the actual negotiations easier for us – we were clearly on the same page all the time. Second, the parties understood what their priorities were and what the issues were where they had leeway to give in. Neither party was expecting to get everything listed in the papers – we had a certain level of flexibility. Third, we had well matching personalities within the group. I personally think the role of individuals and personalities is underemphasized in the literature, while in real life it plays a critical role. Asking any experienced mediator, they will tell it can make or break the process. Fourth, everyone in the group did great job at listening to the others. Listening to the other groups’ experiences afterwards, this did not seem to be the case for all.

How to deal with emotionally fuming person: 1) Let him talk. 2) Listen what he is really saying. 3) Once he feels he’s being heard, he can process new information again. (Pic: Juha Kotilainen)

Mara Hernández elaborated well how people are unable to listen when they are emotionally fuming. The feeling of not being heard is extremely frustrating and it blocks your ability to process any new information. One way around this is utilizing facilitation methods that ensure people feel heard, which makes them more willing to cooperate again in a more relaxed state. In fact, these methods were used in the Jyväskylä Consensus Building Process which Emma Luoma from Akordi presented in the afternoon (learn more from Luoma, 2018). Akordi is a consult company which specializes in consensus building and collaborative approaches in cases that usually involve reconciliation of multiple interests.

In the discussion after the presentation, there were comments that touched on the practical aspect of this process. As Emma also noted, it included several sessions and was quite time consuming for some of the parties. However, as there is almost no experience of these processes in Finland, it could be argued that with increased capacity, the process could move faster. Nevertheless, it is a valid question: how often is it viable to use this kind of comprehensive approach? Perhaps it must be thought how important the case in question is. If a solution is crucial, there are no shortcuts for consensus. Building relationships, trust and common understanding takes time.

The challenges of fieldwork in a conflict: case study of a fact-finding mission

The intense week was split by an excursion to the nearby lake Koitere in Ilomantsi. The class was divided into four groups who were on a “fact-finding mission” with topics related to conflict of interests in land use. The cases had also some kind of local context and part of the exercise was to gather information from the local representatives in addition to the experts.

Our group’s topic was “multi-purpose forest and overlapping interest”. Our information package called us to question the role of Everyman’s Right in the current situation, where some think it has been abused for commercial activities. It can be argued that this was never the intended purpose of this common law and the topic has sparked discussions about restrictions and land-owners’ right for benefits.

Our group was led to the forest where the assigned expert Hilkka Heinonen (University of Eastern Finland) began telling us about Everyman’s Right and how it has been used in Finland by the entrepreneurs who bring large groups of foreign berry pickers for the season. The dynamic on the spot was that Hilkka, the expert, was telling us about the issue in English while everyone gathered around her. Raija, our local informant, stood on the side and telling from her body language (slightly withdrawn posture, hands behind the back, partly behind tree trunk) was a bit timid about the situation.

Dr. Tero Mustonen explaining how the Koitere area has gone through a significant change, both environmentally and socially. (Photo: Antti Erkkilä)

Few moments later, more experts arrived to the scene and part of the group split to discuss with them. This looked like too much of a classical book example where the locals are forgotten to the side while the “experts” take the center stage (later we learned this had been planned by the organizers). To make the most out of it, we formed another smaller group around Raija, where I felt like we could ask questions in a more intimate atmosphere. It was also noticeable that the language barrier had been somewhat hindering the discussion earlier. She was now elaborating her answers more without the need of translation. The language and the discussion setting matter.

The next observation I wrote down was the impact of the pre-reading material on the discussion and especially on our expectations about the situation. As the topic had been framed as a conflict, we though that there must have been also a local conflict related to the Everyman’s Right. However, as we continued asking questions about any possible issues, it became apparent that Raija did not feel like there were any in the area (from her point of view at least). At one point, I felt like we were almost trying to invent a conflict to satisfy our expectations. The mentioned commercial berry picking was not happening in the area, the big predators were not a problem to her and she did not even have a problem with the forestry activities. On the contrary, judging from her answers, it felt like Everyman’s Right had a more of a binding force to the local community here.

At the end of the day, we reflected the exercise within our group. It was interesting to see how we all focused on different issues. Since much of the English discussion revolved around the berry picking issue, this framed the whole issue for the group. To mention few perspectives: one person was thinking about the possible conflict between different entrepreneurs; second thought that the law is being abused and third thought there is absolutely no issue with commercial berry picking and it should be increased. While the big group size had caused some issues at the initial interviewing situation, it resulted in many different perspectives about the topic.

Learning from our failure

On Thursday, we had another exercise: six-party, multi-stakeholder simulation with a facilitator. This turned out to be much more difficult setting to achieve an agreement compared to the previous situations. Indeed, our group failed to get a proper result, even though in the end, we made some progress. Reflecting on the exercise afterwards, I believe the biggest reason hindering our group was the lack of understanding of the details about the issue we were negotiating about. Most of the time was consumed by questions and clarifications as it was uncertain if the parties were even discussing about the same details. This illustrates well how lack of preparation is one of the major reasons why negotiations end up in a failure.

The second reason was the facilitator’s attempt to move on the negotiated conditions in order, one by one, instead of thinking them as packages. Package approach increases the chances of win-win outcomes and may help to avoid situations where that one item that cannot be resolved blocks the whole process. Indeed, almost no one was willing to give up on any of their demands, causing the negotiations to get stuck in a deadlock. Furthermore, people failed to highlight their priorities and the conditions that were not on top of their agenda.

Collaborative “winning” approach requires: 1) willingess to cooperate, 2) mutual trust, 3) shared understanding about the solution being beneficial for all parties. (Pic: Juha Kotilainen)

Third, the difference between winning and being a winner was well illustrated in the exercise. The “winner” mentality emphasizes the approach where the goal is to gain as much as possible while others gain very little. This approach often ends in a situation where the total pot of benefits remains very small. With the “winning” approach, you are looking for mutual benefits that can be accomplished together. For this to be possible, recognizing which interests are distributive and which ones are integrative is essential.

Finally, in all the exercises it was fascinating to see how the emotions of people can really take over even in this kind of imaginary situations. In some way, people can play their roles even too strongly and achieving a good result may be more difficult than in real life, as Mara Hernández noted. Negotiating without real stakes can be like playing poker with match sticks: people behave differently.

Finding your role in a conflict

In the final day we discussed research ethics and the role of a researcher in a conflict. In the CORE project, we are often conducting action research as a neutral expert in sensitive case contexts. Our work has real consequences and failing to consider the ethical aspects can cause real harm. Questions such as, who benefits from our work and how do we define success, are present in all our cases. I would like to also highlight the idea from Mara’s and Irmeli’s final lectures that in very difficult conflicts, the aim of the mediation process does not have to be a perfect agreement. It may be more realistic and enough to make progress in just one of the following three aspects: substance, procedure or relations. In certain situations that can be a big win already.

In every conflict situation, the skills of the professionals play a key role in choosing the right model of strategy for the case. In the context of strategy, the role of a neutral outsider as the facilitator is an issue that is not well acknowledged in Finland. The state or the local governments often try to facilitate their conflict situations themselves, even though it is clear they are not seen as a neutral party by everyone. For example, the municipality may have an interest in attracting the big investments or businesses for the tax money, but at the same time, other sectors affected by these plans may completely oppose them. Even if the governmental staff working on the case is sincerely neutral, the perceptions of bias or corruption may remain.

To make it more complicated, sometimes it may be difficult to sell the idea of utilizing a third-party to solve a conflict situation, as the authorities may feel like they are admitting their failure in doing so. However, you can look at the issue with a much more positive and realistic lens. Whoever the actor in question, the state, municipality, city, is being very progressive and innovative by utilizing new collaborative approaches to find a sustainable solution. Framing the case in a right manner goes a long way.

In the final reflections about the course, the participants mentioned many of the issues I have highlighted in this blog. However, to be able to take on multifaceted environmental conflicts, you need more than just a list of lessons. In this relatively narrow field, networks and contacts should be cherished as we are constantly building on the experiences of others. Finally, it is clear that the attractiveness of collaborative methods is only going to be growing in the future. Increasingly complex, more challenging and global environmental problems combined with the changing role of the state and civil society will only increase the pressure for more holistic and collaborative approaches.

Juha Kotilainen

Juha Kotilainen is a researcher at the University of Eastern Finland Department of Geographical and Historical Studies. He works in the CORE project team focusing on mechanisms and capacities of collaborative governance.

Read more:

UEF news story about the course, August 2018.

How to win together. Blog by course participant Emma Luoma September 3, 2018.

Luoma, E. (2018). Intressien yhteensovittaminen monenvälisenä neuvotteluprosessina: tarkastelussa Jyväskylän strateginen metsäohjelma. Master’s thesis. University of Tampere.

The post Learning from our Failures and Successes: 30 Lessons about Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution appeared first on CORE.

One of the international teachers of the course, Professor Mara Hernández from the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE, Mexico), finds that peer leaning is an important way of exchanging knowledge and practical experiences of environmental conflict mediation within the diverse group of students. Moreover, it is essential to learn to integrate theory and methodological tools into real conflict situations.

According to Professor Hernández, major environmental conflicts all over the world are often related to the use of regional and local natural resources, such as oil resources in Nigeria, mining in Latin America or access to clean water worldwide.  Although challenges may be regional and conflicts local, similar tools to analyse the context and dynamics of conflict may apply, as well as certain attitudes and behaviours that favour understanding and integrating the diversity of needs and perspectives at play.

The course, entitled Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution: The Crossroads of Forestry, Ecosystem Services and Wildlife, was organised by the School of Forest Sciences of the University of Eastern Finland in collaboration with the Department of Geographical and Historical Studies as well as the ALL-YOUTH and CORE research projects.

Read the whole article at the University of Eastern Finland website.

The post New tools for environmental conflict resolution appeared first on CORE.

The second COREvent explores the potential of inclusive knowledge practices to bridge the gap between science and environmental policy making and create a shared knowledge base that different actors consider relevant and reliable.

Three leading scholars, Prof. Susan Owens (Cambridge University, UK), Prof. Esther Turnhout (Wageningen University, the Netherlands) and Prof. Masahiro Matsuura (Meiji University, Japan) will share their insights on the ways to improve science-policy interface and broaden knowledge communities in environmental planning and policy-making context. You are warmly welcome to join the event!

Date: 4 September, 2018, 15:00-18:00

Place: Auditorium Laulujoutsen, 1^st floor, The Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Mechelininkatu 34a, Helsinki

Programme

Prof. Susan Owens: Trust in Expertise for Environmental Policy

Prof. Esther Turnhout: Democratising environmental expertise: challenges and opportunities at the science-policy-society interface

Prof Masahiro Matsuura: Linking contested expert knowledge to collaborative governance: joint fact-finding

Discussion

Susan Owens is Emeritus Professor of Environment and Policy and Fellow Emerita of Newnham College, University of Cambridge. She has researched and published widely in the field of environmental governance. Her current projects are concerned with relations between science and politics, and with the role of argument, evidence, ideas and advice in policy formation and change. She has also worked extensively on interpretations of sustainable development in theory and practice, and has theorised connections between environmental planning conflicts (especially those concerned with contentious technologies and infrastructures) and developments in wider domains of public policy.

Esther Turnhout is Full Professor at the Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group of Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Her research program The Politics of Environmental Knowledge includes research into the different roles experts play at the science policy interface, the political implications of policy relevant knowledge, and the participation of citizens in environmental knowledge making, also known as citizen science. Current research focuses on the UN Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), wildlife management and invasive species, auditing practices in forest management and the production of transparency and traceability in global value chains.

Masahiro Matsuura is Professor at the Graduate School of Governance Studies, Meiji University, Japan. He is also the head of Democracy Design Lab, a non-profit organization for promoting democratic engagements in Japan, and one of the co-founders of Consensus Building in Asia, a network of practitioners and scholars interested in collaborative processes in Asia. His research interests include the theory and practice of consensus building, negotiation and deliberative democracy in the urban and environmental planning sectors.

No registration is needed. If you are on Facebook, you can pick the event to your Facebook calendar.

You can see the video of the event online here.

During the event you can post comments and questions for the lecturers in Twitter with hashtag #corestn. 

COREvents is a series of open discussions, lectures and workshops organised by CORE project, funded by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland. CORE explores the potential of collaborative approaches to environmental planning and decision-making, with the mission to facilitate a collaborative turn in Finland. Welcome to discuss with us in Twitter with hashtags #corestn, #yhteishallinta and #strateginentutkimus!

COREvents #1 provided international insights in why collaboration and conflict resolution is needed and what makes it work. See the video here!

The post COREvents #2: Using collaborative knowledge practices in environmental planning and decision-making appeared first on CORE.