RESOLVE

1

• RESOLVE
• Gail Bingham

2
Overview

• Provide background on the basis for recommended
  strategies, including results of Stakeholder
  Roundtables
• Present recommendations for
• Approaches for involving the interested public
• Core stakeholder involvement strategies
• Supplemental stakeholder strategies
• Discuss and solicit comment (action at January
  meeting)

3

• Background

4
Goal

• data and other information from resource users
  and other stakeholders who possess first-hand
  knowledge about marine resources and
  socioeconomic factors
• Why..?
• Decisions that meet more needs and are more
  sustainable because they are responsive to
  interests and concerns, and
• A decision making process that is seen as fair,
  credible and legitimate.

5
Considerations

• Clear and congruent roles
• Emphasis on maximizing information about
  stakeholder interests rather than consensus
• Transparency and responsiveness
• Mutual understanding and roles in decisions about
  how stakeholders are involved
• Realism about time resource constraints

6
Key Elements

• Interested public involvement opportunities
• Core stakeholder involvement strategies
• Supplemental stakeholder strategies

7
Sources for Recommendations

• Past MLPA experience
• Constituent Involvement Roundtables see summary
• Staff and consultant expertise, in stakeholder
  consultation and involvement practices nationally

8

• Recommendations for
• Involving the Interested Public

9
Involvement in Meetings

• Consistent with proposed Operating Procedures and
  the Task Force Policy for an Open and Transparent
  Process
• Open meetings
• Proposed agendas circulated in advance
• Meeting summaries and other documents distributed
  to the public
• Public comment at meetings with points briefly
  identified in meeting summaries

10
Additional Good Practices

• Written comments welcomed
• Mechanism for public availability of comments
  received
• Creative, interactive use of Web technology, to
  the extent feasible

11
The Payoff

• Responsive decision making
• Apply the tips in the protocols seek to learn,
  ask questions
• Be explicit about ways comments received were
  reflected in decisions made, and
• If not, say why not

12

• Core Stakeholder Involvement
• Strategies

13
Core Stakeholder Strategies

• Stakeholder panels at each Task Force meeting
• A statewide Stakeholder Coordination Group
• A Central Coast Stakeholder Group
• Continued Stakeholder Roundtables
• A published plan and flow chart

14
Stakeholder Panels

• Selected for expertise on the question at hand
  (different people at different meetings)
• Cross-section of views (perhaps 5-7)
• Interactive, with Task Force and each other
• One or more, depending on meeting

15
Coordination Group

• Opportunity for two-way communication about MLPA
  Initiative activities as a whole
• Regular meetings with Chair and/or Executive
  Director by conference call
• Role(s) include serving as conduit of
  information, clarification of issues as they
  arise, consultation about speakers on panels,
  etc.
• Representative group of statewide interests

16
Coordination Group

• 10 to 15 members
• North and south
• Local government and community leaders
• Resource user groups
• Other economic interests
• Non-consumptive user groups
• State and local environmental groups
• Etc.

17
Central Coast Stakeholder Group

• 10-15 individuals
• Representative group, diverse perspectives
• Able to provide information and perspectives
  (expertise, networks)
• Question What is the relationship between the
  stakeholder group and the Central Coast Science
  Advisory Subteam?

18
Periodic Stakeholder Roundtables

• At Task Force level
• About twice a year
• Timing linked to specific work products or
  decisions of the Task Force
• Question Groups of similar constituent interest
  or diverse groups in different geographic
  locations?

19
Publish Plan and Timeline

• Clear link between opportunities for stakeholder
  input, Science Advisory Team, staff and Task
  Force milestones
• Concern about rapid timetable

20

• Supplemental Stakeholder
• Involvement Strategies

21
Supplemental Elements

• Interviews
• Study tours
• Constituency-hosted meetings
• Community profiles
• Joint-fact finding
• Group interest analysis
• Educational workshops
• Surveys in combination with focus groups

22
Assumptions

• Focus is on information
• Assumption is that these will be used mostly for
  the Central Coast project
• Adopt in various combinations based on specific
  objectives, circumstances and preferences of Task
  Force and stakeholders

23

• Responsiveness to
• Stakeholder Comments

24
Stakeholder Views Reflected

• Transparency
• Distinction between public and stakeholders
• Opportunity for comment at each meeting
• Desire for input early and on issues of statewide
  concern (e.g. Master Plan Framework)
• Looking deeper into stakeholder groups (e.g.
  through polls, visits)
• Respect for first-hand knowledge

25
Remaining Suggestions Concerns

• Aggressiveness of the timeline
• Role shaping options, as contrasted with reacting
  and extension of role into implementation
• Relationship between the Science Advisory Team
  and stakeholder input
• RLFF funding and phased funding
• Otherchoice of Central Coast, days/times of
  meetings, Communication Director, etc

26
Discussion

• Questions..
• Comments?