COLLABORATION AND THE ECOLOGY OFDEMOCRACY Daniel Kemmis and Matthew McKinney A study for the Kettering Foundation Kettering Foundation The Kettering Foundation, established in 1927 by inventor Charles F. Kettering, is a nonprofit operating foundation that does not make grants but engages in joint research with others. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation. More information may be found on www.kettering.org. The interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication, unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Kettering Foundation, its directors, or its officers. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the Kettering Foundation for collaborating in both the writing and publication of this monograph. Robert Kingston’s editorial suggestions were particularly helpful. We have also received very substantial encouragement, advice, and assistance from Wendy Willis and Greg Wolf of the Policy Consensus Initiative and the National Policy Consensus Center. Drafts of this paper were presented to members of the University Network for Collaborative Governance and the Buechner Institute for Governance at the University of Colorado-Denver. In both cases, we received very valuable suggestions for further research or for improvements in our analysis and presentation. Editor: Ilse Tebbetts Copy Editor: Lisa Boone-Berry Design and production: Long’s Graphic Design, Inc. Copyright © 2011 by the Kettering Foundation ISBN 978-0-923993-39-9 COLLABORATION AND THE ECOLOGY OF DEMOCRACY n the Summer 2009 issue of the Kettering Review, the Charles F. Kettering IFoundation began to explore the value of applying complex-systems analysis to the study of democracy. In the closing essay in that issue, David Mathews wrote of the “need to know more about where there are spaces or opportunities for deliberative decision making and civic learning to occur.” As Mathews noted, “We suspect that this is in what we have been calling the political wetlands.” Explaining that “the structures and practices of the political wetlands are more organic than institutional,” Mathews concluded that “the best strategy for stimulating democratic practices is probably to build on what is already ‘growing.’”1 This paper is offered as a contribution to that strategy. Specifically, we will explore various democratic features and implications of citizen-driven, multiparty collaboration, viewed as one emerging species within the “ecology” of democracy. To anticipate the core of the argument: we believe that the kind of problem-solving collaboration we will be examining is democratic in the most fundamental sense of that word, because it is nothing more nor less than the effort of people to shape the conditions under which they live, rather than leaving that shaping to someone else. The primary inspiration for this paper is the authors’ practical experience in collaboration, politics, and public policy. We also draw on democratic theory, multiparty negotiation theory, and a growing literature on collaborative conservation. We want to be clear at the outset that we are not attempting here to provide a primer on collaborative governance, nor a comprehensive analysis of collaborative practices in public land and natural resource settings. For a concise and very helpful introduction to the principles of 1 David Mathews, “Afterthoughts,” Kettering Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer 2009): 69-70. 1 collaborative governance, we suggest Chapter 2 of Carmen Sirianni’s Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance.2 For an overview of the use of collaboration in natural resource and public land settings, two good sources are Finding Common Ground: Governance and Natural Resources in the American West3 and The Western Confluence: A Guide to Governing Natural Resources.4 Before turning to our analysis of collaboration as an emergent form of democracy, it may be helpful to provide an example of what we mean by multiparty collaboration. From the hun- dreds of readily available instances of citizen collaboration, we offer one from our own part of the world. Our intention at this point is not to present this case or its background in detail, but simply to provide a brief, concrete example of what we mean when we refer to multiparty collaboration. The National Forest Management Act requires the United States Forest Service to review forest plans for each national forest at least every 15 years.5 In keeping with that require- ment, the Forest Service published a draft of a new forest plan for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in southwestern Montana in 2006. Reactions to the draft plan were mixed, at best. The owners of the locally owned lumber mills still operating in the area, already hard-pressed by global competition, were concerned that the proposed plan would drive them out of business because it would not allow them to harvest enough timber from the national forest to keep their mills running. Conserva- tionists, on the other hand, were convinced that the proposed plan was short on wilderness designation and that the proposed fish and wildlife programs were not protective enough of threatened species. These conservationists and timber interests had a shared history of deep antagonism, in which they had typically taken diametrically opposed positions at public hearings on 2 Carmen Sirianni, Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance (Brookings Institution Press, 2009). 3 Ronald D. Brunner, et al., Finding Common Ground: Governance and Natural Resources in the American West (Yale University Press, 2002). 4 Matthew McKinney and William Harmon, The Western Confluence: A Guide to Governing Natural Resources (Island Press, 2004). 5 National Forest Management Act, U.S. Code 16 (1976) § 1600 et seq. 2 anything proposed by the Forest Service. One of those old warriors was Sherm Anderson, the founder and owner of Sun Mountain Lumber, Inc. in Deer Lodge, Montana. Anderson had spent his life in the timber industry, beginning to drive log trucks when he was 15, and eventually, through sheer determination and hard work, creating a business that in good times employed over 300 people, including several members of his own family. As the owner of the largest business in the county, Anderson was a natural choice to represent his neighbors in the state legislature, where his politics were dependably conservative. Serving as president of the Montana Logging Association in the 1990s, Anderson spent his fair share of time at public hearings, battling the environmentalists who contested nearly every timber sale proposed by the Forest Service. In the space of a decade, environmental activism and Forest Service policy had reduced the amount of public timber coming into Anderson’s sawmill from 90 percent of his feedstock to 5 percent. Those supply problems, coupled with fierce competition from -Ca nadian mills, had driven a steady stream of small sawmills out of business in the last few years. Anderson, operating at a loss even before the bottom dropped out of the housing market in the recession of 2008, had every reason to fear that he would be next. That was why the draft forest plan, with its further tightening of timber supplies, worried him so much. One of the people who had battled Anderson in many of those public hearings was Tom France, long-time leader and chief litigator for the Northern Rockies office of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). Protecting the habitat of threatened and endangered species like grizzly bears and wolves was what NWF members paid France to do, and he had done it well. Over the years, he and other environmental advocates had persuaded the Forest Service (often by first persuading federal judges) that the amount of log- ging occurring on national forests like the Beaverhead-Deerlodge was contributing to the decline in the population of grizzlies and other species. Meanwhile Trout Unlimited argued that soil ero- sion from logging operations 3 degraded trout habitat, while the Montana Wilderness Association pushed for official wilderness designation for thousands of acres of national forest land, which would ban timber harvesting on those landscapes altogether. To Sherm Anderson, these organizations and the people (like Tom France) who ran them had always been the enemy. But if Anderson had built his business by being tough and persistent, he had also built it by being able to adapt to changed circumstances when nothing else would do. Pressed now from all sides, he began paying more attention to one change that some other sawmill owners were slower to recognize. He saw that some of the most successful environmental advocates, not least Tom France, had begun to spend almost as much time talking to their old enemies as fighting them. France had been a key player in negotiating an It is this kind of citizen-driven agreement with some Idaho saw- problem solving across deep mills for an innovative approach ideological and interest group to grizzly bear management along divides that we believe has become the Idaho-Montana border. If an important, but still emerging working with people like Tom form of democracy. France was what it would take to keep his mill open, Anderson was willing to give it a shot. When he signaled that willingness at a con- gressional hearing in Missoula, both Tim Baker from the Montana Wilderness Association and Bruce Farling from Trout Unlimited responded. Eventually, representatives from five Montana lumber mills began meeting with local rep- resentatives from the National Wildlife Federation, the Montana Wilderness Association, and Montana Trout Unlimited to explore whether they might collectively find more mutually beneficial outcomes for forest management than those being proposed by the Forest Service. This collaborative effort became known as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership.