Steven L.Yaffee, Beyond Polarization: Public Process and the Unlikely Story of California's Marine Protected Areas (Washington: Island Press, 2020). 1–485 pp. ISBN: 9781642830828
本文评述Yaffee关于加州海洋保护区网络创建的著作，指出其过度聚焦利益相关者促进过程，而低估了正式权威和执行角色的关键作用，对公共政策实施和协作治理研究者有参考价值。
Professor Yaffee writes about the creation of a network of 124 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within the three miles of state waters off the coast of the State of California, the fruit of a well-structured public policy process, funded largely by philanthropies, over the 2004–2012 period. Two prior attempts to implement the Marine Life Protection Act (1999) failed. O'Leary, coeditor of a symposium on collaborative public management (2006), writes approvingly in a back cover blurb on Yaffee's book “This is the best analytical case study of collaborative problem solving ever published” (2020). This review finds value in the volume but also judges it gives too much attention to the facilitation of stakeholder processes. Those stakeholder processes were “collaborative,” but they occurred within structures of authority acknowledged but inadequately analyzed by Yaffee. Important to analysts of collaboration, this case illustrates important relationships between authority, the roles of executives, and collaboration, developed below. Yaffee (2020) declares his book “… a narrative. Public decision making is anything but dry, and the best way to explain that is to tell a story.” (xiii) The focus of the story is the “Marine Life Protection Act Initiative,” created by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Resources Agency, State of California, and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF), to recommend MPAs to the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC), which could legally modify existing or create new MPAs. In addition to statutorily required science (the “Science Advisory Team,” SAT) and stakeholder (“Regional Stakeholder Groups,” RSG) elements, the distinctive features of the Initiative included a “Blue Ribbon Task Force” (BRTF) composed of experienced public policy professionals charged with recommending new MPAs to the FGC, and an effective staff. A key feature of the Initiative was substantial funding from philanthropies organized through the RLFF. Nearly $8.5 million was provided for the first phase of the Initiative (late 2004 through early 2007) (72–85) and private philanthropic funds by 2012 totaled $35 million (3). The BRTF hired the author of this review as Executive Director of the MPLPA Initiative, serving in that role from late 2004 until early 2007 when asked to serve as Executive Director of Delta Vision, addressing even more deeply divided and powerful interests regarding water supply and ecosystem functions in the State of California. As reported by Yaffee, “John Kirlin, executive director of the Initiative, was accountable to (for) the outcomes of the MOU…” (89). The first six chapters (106 pages) provide a useful history of the Marine Life Protection Act, two failed efforts led by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to implement the Act, the forces resulting in the signing of the MOU, and the early history of the Initiative. These chapters should be read by all who engage in this volume. The work of the Initiative was divided into four regions addressed sequentially (Central Coast, 2005–2007; North Central Coast, 2007–2009; South Coast, 2008–2010; and North Coast, 2009–2012), where the first date is the start of Initiative work in a region and the last approval of revised MPAs by the FGC. Yaffee sensibly addresses each region separately in a total of 300 pages, mostly focused on the work of the RSG. Those interested in the mechanics of facilitation should read all chapters. Those interested in the protection of marine (or all natural) resources, public policy processes, public management, or collaborative governance, should sample these chapters. Yaffee provides a timeline of actions at the beginning, and a map of proposed MPAs at the conclusion of consideration of each region, useful aids in reading intentionally. The FGC created new or modified MPAs in all four regions building on recommendations from the BRTF (Kirlin et al., 2013, 8). Two regions are particularly informative. The Central Coast (first region) required establishing general legitimacy and especially the authority of the BRTF, developing usable science guidance and assessments, creating processes and norms of the RSG, assembling usable data on marine areas and resources, and more. The South Central Coast (third region) encountered the most intense political conflict, reflecting the intensity of uses in that region and the mobilization of opposition (and supporting) forces. While Yaffee writes extensively about RSG processes, readers should seek to fully understand the actions of the BRTF and the FGC. These are the structures of authority referenced at the start of this review. As an example, the short discussion of actions by Governor Schwarzenegger (advised by Natural Resources Agency Secretary Chrisman) to ensure pro-MPA votes on the FGC on pages 342–43 is critical. Chapter 25 “Critical Mass,” could better be titled “Institutionalization.” These dozen pages should be read by all interested in successful public policy implementation as well as those interested specifically in MPAs. Five strategies were pursued: building a broad set of partnerships and collaborations, deepening the sense of ownership of MPAs by state and federal officials, change in structures and policies, changing cultures of lead agencies, and approaching management adaptively (414). Chapter 26 “Process Matters,” is a flawed final chapter. After briefly acknowledging that the “overall structure…was extremely effective,” noting the unique element of the BRTF, the engagement of high-level scientists, and effective staff (427–28), the chapter focuses virtually exclusively on the facilitation strategies of regional stakeholder groups. This is inadequate and does not provide sufficient information for anyone seeking to replicate the Initiative in practice or to understand how it illuminates any theory of public policy processes. The full, nuanced discussion of the elements of the Initiative of Chapters 1 through 7 is replaced with a paean to group facilitation, a single tool. Primacy in an accurate report on the Initiative should be given to political actors who exercised formal authority. Yaffee mentions many of these actions, but without adequately analyzing their effects. Resources Agency Secretary Chrisman entered into the first MOU which moved the lead role in developing new MPAs from the DFG to the Initiative and further circumscribed the DFG role in the second MOU. Without his actions, there would have been no Initiative. Governor Schwarzenegger replaced members of the FGC in 2009 (322) and again in 2012 (342–43) to ensure votes for the creation of MPAs. Without those removals and appointments, progress would have halted in 2009, resulting in new MPAs only in the Central Coast region. The contribution of external funds generated by Michael Mantell through the RLFF is also at this level of importance as without those funds there would have been no MOU and no Initiative. Despite chronicling the role of the BRTF in shaping proposed MPAs submitted to the FGC, Yaffee's discussion of the BRTF in this final chapter is limp. From its first meetings, the BRTF self-consciously worked to establish (1) the legitimacy of the Initiative to implement the Marine Live Protection Act, rigorously focusing on “how” not “whether” to propose MPAs to the FGC, and (2) its authority over all elements and processes of the Initiative. As a specific example of inadequate analysis, Yaffee talks approvingly of the importance of deadlines in the Initiative (430) without recognizing that schedule deadlines were established by the Executive Director and enforced by the BRTF, specifically through agendas of their monthly meetings. The BRTF capacity to develop a proposal to send to the FGC was the “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” (BATNA) (433) if an RSG did not develop acceptable proposals. BRTF exhortations to every RSG to meet science guidelines had positive effects. The BRTF was critical also to the effective use of science. Formal BRTF adoption of the size and spacing guidance, and then of levels of protection for different types of MPAs, transformed SAT recommendations into effective, authoritative policy tools for the development and assessment of proposed MPAs (93–99). Those determinations carried forward to the FGC. This is the second “constructed” authority, based on a framework written in words in the MOU but which had to be made effective by the behaviors of the BRTF and the Executive Director. Yaffee characterizes the level of staff involved as unique. “Having staff drawn from multiple agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) was a smart move. (428)” While agency staff from DFG were assigned to the Initiative, all others were hired by the Executive Director, often as individuals and sometimes under contract with the university or nonprofit at which they were employed. Striking to those who analyze or have experience in public policy implementation or public, in Yaffee's book, a multi-million dollar, complex enterprise in a context of high conflict that occurred without direction. That is false. It is also in sharp contrast to Yaffee's accurate statement that Executive Director Kirlin was accountable to (for) prescribed MOU outcomes (89). In Table 1–1, Yaffee reports the I-Team of 20–45 staff, which “Included an Executive Director…(17).” The book is effectively silent on the work of the two Executive Directors (Kirlin and Wiseman). They selected and managed multiple elements of the Initiative, including facilitation teams, regional project teams, regional data teams, and others. The Executive Directors executed and managed contracts with various contractors, including EcoTrust, the team centered at UC Santa Barbara that developed what became Marine Map, and others. The Executive Directors developed all agendas for the monthly meetings of the BRTF. Executive Director Wiseman removed the lead facilitator for the North Coast (359–360). The level of non-agency staffing available to the Initiative because of philanthropic funding is rare. So too was the flexibility in engaging and managing this staff at the discretion of the Executive Director. A clarification: Yaffee accurately states that Kirlin left the Initiative to take on the role of Executive Director of Delta Vision, where Phil Isenberg was again Chair of a BRTF (178), but also inaccurately states he was “moved aside (87).” Definitions of collaborative governance vary, with the common element being “collaboration” beyond government officials and staff, most frequently with stakeholders, and sometimes with an expectation of consensus in actions selected. For example, O'Leary, Gerard, and Bingham (2006) offer: “Collaborative…means to co-labor, to cooperate to achieve common goals…cooperation is based on the value of reciprocity. (7)” Ansell and Gash (2008) define collaborative governance as: “A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets. (544)” While analyses of collaboration often feature “cross-sectoral” attributes, this definition includes the possibility of “one or more agencies.” Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2015) review and integrate theoretical frameworks and findings from empirical studies, developing a framework of seven elements arranged in a graphic (651)”. Yaffee does not use any explicit framework in his book but is a fan of facilitated group processes. He does not examine the limits on facilitated stakeholder “collaboration” in this case. As the MLPA imposed a wholly new set of spatially-defined limits on consumptive uses, interests were deeply conflicted, recognized in the design of the Initiative and in the charge to facilitators. The design of the MLPA Initiative assigns the BRTF responsibility for recommending proposed MPAs to the FGC, a responsibility that resulted in BRTF changes to the work products of stakeholders in three of the four regions in which there was any disagreement regarding proposed MPAs. The initial choice of facilitators was based on a commitment to make as much progress with stakeholders as was possible in the scheduled time. Expectations of consensus were explicitly rejected. Instead, recognizing underlying conflicts, the facilitators frequently used voting techniques to “move past” conflicts. While the collaborative governance literature commonly examines policy processes from the “bottom” up, focusing on actions to build networks or collaborations, this case invites analysis from the “top” down, with attention to formal authority and roles of executives. Governor Schwarzenegger's administration, specifically Mike Chrisman, Secretary of Natural Resources, wanted to implement the Marine Life Protection Act. Two attempts had failed. With financial support from committed advocates of this policy, an MOU was signed to create and fund the Initiative. The Secretary appointed the BRTF, which hired an Executive Director. Consultants and staff were hired and managed by the Executive Director. Those staff included a firm to facilitate meetings of “regional stakeholder groups.” The SAT was created by the DFG pursuant to their statutory authority. The deliverables specified in the MOU were satisfied, including recommendations from the BRTF to the FGC for MPAs. To succeed, the BRTF established its authority to incorporate recommendations from the SAT into formal guidance and to consider and modify proposals from the stakeholders in making recommendations to the FGC. The schedule of BRTF monthly meetings established and managed by the Executive Directors propelled the process forward. When necessary to ensure positive consideration of proposed MPAs, members of the FGC were replaced by the Governor. From the top, this is a successful exercise of authority in a chain to bring proposed MPAs before the FGC: Governor, Secretary, BRTF, and Executive Director. Collaboration is a second-level tool, a sensible way to achieve valuable stakeholder contributions to the identification of possible MPAs. The FGC is not a party to the MOU but as the authoritative decision-making body, considers and acts upon the recommendations of the BRTF, considering also comments and possible modifications from the DFG. As Kirlin et al. (2013) report, the FGC did not simply approve the BRTF recommendations but made many “marginal” changes of significance to varied interests that were consequential in total (11). Bryson et al. (2015) hint at the role of formal authority, including reference to “institutional environment” as a possible “general antecedent condition” (651) but this article, like much on collaboration, expects collaboration across sectors. The creation of a network of MPAs in California occurred within one government, the State of California, and within one agency, Natural Resources, and the related FGC. That context (a simple word for “general antecedent condition”) makes it an outlier in the literature on collaborative governance. This case illustrates that consideration of authority and executive roles will enrich discussions of governance. Yaffee starts well but becomes captured by specifics of stakeholder processes, elevating facilitation to an unjustified primacy. A careful reader will find many benefits in the volume but must actively return to the overall design of the Initiative and intentionally construct an understanding of the arc of the Initiative. John Kirlin is a Distinguished Professor and Founding Director, Public Policy Program, at McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. He has written on governance, natural resources, fiscal limits, and public administration in journals. Beyond faculty appointments at three universities, he served as Executive Director of the Marine Life Protection Initiative (2004–2007), and as Executive Director of Delta Vision (2007–2008), two successful efforts addressing important natural resource issues in California. Kirlin is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. Email: [email protected]