Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACCORD3.0 Network
1
Joint Fact Finding (JFF) is a rigorous, facilitated process that engages stakeholders, rights-‐holders, and scientific and technical experts in an analytical dialogue to resolve or narrow factual disputes. Normally, JFF carves out the key technical and scientific questions that may be at the heart of a controversy and maps areas of factual agreement that all parties can respect.
Applied and done well, JFF accomplishes three objectives. First, it focuses on the best scientific and technical information available and sorts out key “signals” in the “white noise.” Second, it is a cooperative process that reduces some of the unnecessary conflict that goes on. Third, it builds sounder public policy by creating an agreed-‐upon base of facts. JFF doesn’t replace legislative, judicial, or regulatory decision-‐making processes. It informs them.
JOINT FACT FINDING A Briefing Paper For Government, Business And Community Leaders
Strengthening our economy • Ensuring sufficient water and energy Growing genetically engineered plants and animals • Adapting to climate change
2
With a focus on achieving scientific and technical clarification, Joint Fact Finding stands in contrast to most other public participation processes, such as community information meetings, general issue dialogues, or visioning exercises. It is not usually used to try and harmonize all policy choices, though it may be embedded in a larger facilitated dialogue that does. Alternatively, JFF can be a “stand alone” process or used in tandem with other efforts aimed at achieving the public consent needed for leaders to act.
JFF as Constructive Engagement
Amidst often-‐opposing social and economic forces, leaders must listen to the public and then make decisions. For policy makers and standard setters, getting agreement on key facts can be a game-‐changer. In some situations, leaders may want to consider Joint Fact Finding – a fresh and more precise negotiation strategy that helps all parties get beyond the usual contending fact patterns and dueling experts.
Definition
The Key Ingredients for Success Positive outcomes rely on strong political sponsorship, a commitment from decision makers to consider the results, and a link back to the decision-‐making process. Key to JFF is the voluntary participation of those who will be affected by the policy decisions that ensue.
MORE USEFUL FOR Sorting out fact-‐centered problems such as:
How many animals and plants are endangered? How will this new road affect drive times? At what levels do emissions become toxic?
LESS USEFUL FOR Sorting out value-‐centered problems such as:
Which animals and plants should we prioritize for recovery? Which road should be built first? How much abatement should be publically funded?
ACCORD3.0 Network
Adler, P., Bryan, T. Mulica, M. and Shapiro, J. “Humble Inquiry: The Practice of Joint Fact Finding as a Strategy for Bringing Science, Policy and the Public Together.” Working Paper, Department of Public Policy, University of Tokyo, February 15, 2011. Available at http://www.mediate.com//articles/AdlerJoint.cfm
Brooks, H. "Resolution of Technically Intensive Public Policy Disputes." Science, Technology, and Human Values, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1984. 9(1): 39-‐50.
Ehrmann, J. and Stinson, B. "Joint Fact-‐Finding and the Use of Technical Experts." In The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. The Consensus Building Institute, 1999. pp. 375-‐399.
Herman, K., Susskind, L. and Wallace, K. “A Dialogue not a Diatribe; Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding.” January/February 2007. Volume 49, number 1. pp. 20-‐34.
McCreary, S., Gamman, J. and Brooks B. "Refining and Testing Joint Fact-‐Finding for Environmental Dispute Resolution: Ten Years of Success." Mediation Quarterly 18:4, 2001.
While no two JFF processes are exactly the same, a JFF group’s findings are usually synthesized into a single document that delineates:
• A narrowed range of factual disagreements
• A review of pertinent information
• Agreement by all parties on specific research that will advance policy discussions
• A report on the range of interpretations
• Specialized work products useful for the policy debate, i.e., estimates; trends and forecasts; cause and effect relationships; peer-‐reviewed literature, etc.
• Findings and conclusions regarding key questions
Typical Outcomes
Further Reading
Prepared By Peter S. Adler, Ph. D.
The ACCORD3.0 Network [email protected]
Costs Funds can come from a number of sources, as long as they don’t jeopardize the independence and neutrality of the effort.
A Few Examples
From Hawaii Geothermal Public Health Assessment Study Group
From Malaysia Preliminary Assessment of the Lynas Advanced Materials Project
From Japan High-‐level Radioactive Waste Disposal Bi-‐directional Symposium
From Washington DC Endocrine Disruptors Methods Validation Advisory Committee
From Korea Shihwa Sustainable Development Committee
From Massachusetts Prostate and Lung Cancer Screening Panels
From Colorado Assembled Chemical Weapons Dialogue
From Australia Rehabilitation of the Tullamarine Prescribed Waste Landfill
From California CALFED Independent Panel on Agricultural Water Measurement; Guadalupe Flood Control Project Collaborative Headwaters Watersheds Project
From Washington State Alaskan Way Viaduct Highway Replacement, Seattle
