Northern Spotted Owl Conflict

The Northern Spotted Owl of the Northwest has been on the rapid decline over the last 10 years with over 50% of the population being wiped out. The 200 year old forest that is home to the owl has become a multibillion dollar logging industry that has created jobs for thousands of workers. As a result of logging however, roughly 10% of the original forest remains intact leaving limited space for the already dwindling number of owls in the region.

In response to this decline, environmentalist petitioned the US Fish and Wildlife Service to place the owl on the endangered species list arguing that as an indicator species the Northern Spotted Owl is a gauge of the health of the ecosystem that provides its habitat. After being labeled as threatened on the Endangered Species list, millions of acres in the Pacific Northwest were protected to help slow or even reverse the decline in numbers.

As a result, logging communities that were dependent on the resources generated from the timber sales are shutting down forcing families and businesses to leave the area. Many people that are suffering from the effects are fighting back pointing out that the revenue generated from the old growth forest outweighs the impact on the environment. The numbers indicate a very valid point, 65% of the wood in the west is derived from the timber harvested in the area and without timber harvesting in the old growth forests 28,000 jobs are at risk and the price of timber sales with increase dramatically.

This then leads us to the basis for our research. We want to look at the possible outcomes to this conflict and potentially find the best result for either side by imposing game theory strategies.

In a debate which pits man against nature it is hard to see just how much each side feels they would be affected by a loss in the conflict. Each side in this case believed that there was a crisis for their respective parties. The logging industry and its employee’s feared profit and job loss if their ability to log old growth timberland was restricted to the point that environmentalist groups wanted in order to protect endangered species like the spotted owl. In logging towns across the Pacific Northwest logger’s way of making a living and in some cases familial values going back generations were deeply rooted in logging and a restriction in logging would be a threat to their livelihood.
On the other side there are environmental groups standing up for the rights of species, such as the spotted owl, that are endangered who rely on the old growth forests for habitat. Spotted owls are indicator species which are a good indication of the health of the forest and with the dwindling numbers it shows detrimental impact to the old growth ecosystem. Knowing the speed at which old growth forests were being cut environmentalists believed that there was a serious threat to the norms of a system that has existed in the areas for thousands of years.

Sense Making
The environmentalists want the loggers to stop harvesting old growth forests because they say that continued logging is destroying the habitat for wildlife to such an extent that many species are threatened by extinction. The logging companies say that if they stop logging the forests they will be out of the job with no source of income and their communities will collapse. A compromise needed to be reached both to keep the timber workers employed and to save face in the eyes of the environmentalists.

Meaning Making
The environmentalists want to stop the logging to attempt to allow the spotted owl population to make a recovery and remove it from the endangered species list that it had been placed on in 1990. The old growth forests are the habitat that the owls live in.
The timber workers were worried about lost jobs. Some logging towns had been reporting increased numbers of homeless, alcoholism, and suicide due to the logging cutbacks. The timber companies are planting six new trees for everyone that they cut down and are hoping that the second growth forests will be good habitat for the spotted owls.
Sources:
Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez “Ethics and the Spotted Owl Controversy”
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/homepage.html
Elizabeth Arnold “Saving the Spotted Owl: Benefits of Recovery Effort
Remain Complex, Controversial”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3815722

Logging Crisis in Washington State

In this logging controversy the protagonists are the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and a national coalition of evenvironmental groups known as the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (NEA).


Sense Making

Landslide risks and land use management are key issues in the Blanchard Mountain Logging Crisis. Blanchard Mountain is located on the edge of Whatcom and Skagit Counties in the northwestern corner of Washington State. Of the 4500 acres that constitute Blanchard Mountain the upper 3000 acres have not been logged for over 70 years (and never been clear cut).

NWEA seeks to preserve the upper 3000 acres. Removing these trees may significantly and increase the risk of landslides in populated areas. A landslide in this region could destroy homes, wildlife habitat, and and a vital transportation link between Whatcom County and Skagit County (Chuckanut Drive). The forest has large stands of trees that range in age from 50 to 200 years, and provide habitat for many species. It also provides an important wildlife cooridor connecting the North Cascade mountain range with the Salish Sea.

The Washington State DNR has a state mandate to log Blanchard Mountain (and other state school lands) with timber sale proceeds going to state and local (Skagit County) school districts. The NWEA contends that Blanchard Mountain represents a unique environment and that clear cutting on its steep slopes would create a landslide hazard that would threaten homes, lives, an active salmon spawning stream (Oyster Creek).

Decision Making

The DNR and the NWEA convened to negotiate a consensus agreement for the fate of Blanchard Mountain. Eventually, a compromise agreement was reached in 2007. We will model the crisis as of Spring of 2006.

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (NEA) and the Washington State DNR have the options of negotiating or not negotiating. By not negotiating the parties run the risk of not meeting any of their objectives. Bargaining and negotiation models will be used to model the strategic interactions of the stakeholders.

References
Boin , A., t'Hart, P., Stern, E. and Sundelius, B. The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership under Pressure. First edition. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve

ANWR is an area rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Shortages of gasoline and natural gas and resulting increased prices have renewed the ANWR debate for the first time in 5 years; however, its development has been debated for over 40 years. Current law forbids energy leasing in the refuge, but the recent spike in oil and gasoline prices has led to renewed interest in various responses to high oil prices, including additional U.S. drilling. President Bush has included drilling in the refuge as a major feature of his proposed energy plan. Few locations stir as much industry interest as the northern portion of ANWR.

Sense Making

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established to preserve unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values; to conserve caribou herds, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons, other migratory birds, dolly varden, and grayling. The mission was to fulfill international treaty obligations, to provide opportunities for continues subsistence uses, and to ensure necessary water quality and quantity. However, a 1998 United States Geological Survey study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrel.

Decision Making

The Bush administration is just weeks away from a decision that most likely will designate polar bears as a threatened species but said today that it won't budge on issuing oil and gas leases in their shrinking Alaska habitat. A House committee on global warming called on the U.S. Interior Department to hold off auctioning oil and gas leases in northwest Alaska's Chukchi Sea until it makes a decision about whether to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service postponed the decision last week for at least another 30 days, and it is not expected to be issued before the Feb. 6 oil and gas lease sale by the Minerals Management Service. The agency estimates that the Chukchi Sea holds 15 billion barrels of oil and as much as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.


Discussion/Response

In discussing ANWR, also consider the long term credibility of eocologists and the Ecological Society. To maintain and enhance that credibility, the discussion should be based on hard science and empirical data. It should include both positive and negative impacts on as many species as possible. The Society's statement on ANWR is so full of 'possibly' and 'potential' in one form or another and so devoid of hard science that it risks falling into the category of smoke and mirrors.

Whaling Hostage Crisis Averted

apan has temporarily halted its whaling activities in the waters near Antarctica while officials seek to return two environmental activists to their anti-whaling vessel.

The standoff over the activists has raised the stakes between the Japanese fleet that hunts whales in southern waters for "scientific research" and environmental groups that are trying to end Japan's controversial whale hunt.

The five critical tasks of crisis leadership (sense making, decision making, meaning making, terminating, and learning) can be used to improve leadership in this crisis (Boin et al., 2005).

Sense making

"Sensemaking" helps to understand the root causes of this whaling standoff and to appraise the unfolding threat. On Tuesday Jan. 15, 2008, two members of the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling group -- Benjamin Potts, 28, of Australia and Giles Lane, 35, of Britain -- jumped from a rubber boat onto the deck of the Japanese harpoon ship Yushin Maru 2.

The founder of the Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, claims that the two protesters were being held as "hostages" on the Japanese whaling vessel. Japan condemned the incident, accusing the activists of "piracy" and seeking to increase publicity for their cause.

In November, 2007 Japan dispatched its whaling fleet to Antarctica to kill about a thousand whales under a "scientific" whaling program that anti-whaling nations and environmental groups claim is a front for commercial whaling. In response, protest vessels have sought to disrupt Japan's whale hunt.

Australian and Japanese leaders appeared capable of creating accurate representations of the conflict. Finally, sensemaking was used by all parties to consider how the situation might unfold.

Decision making

On the evening of January 17, 2008, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith resolved the three-day standoff which threatened to turn into an "international diplomatic crisis" by sending an Australian fisheries icebreaker (Oceanic Viking) to rescue the activists to their anti-whaling vessel.

The Sea Shepherd protesters Benjamin Potts and Giles Lane were returned to the environmental vessel named Steve Irwin, where they were greeted as heroes.

Meaning making

The Japanese government promised to release the two activities although it continues to reject Australian sovereignty in Antarctica and vows to continue whale harvesting. The Japanese authorities quickly provided details of how the two protesters were restrained with rope to the GPS mast of the Japanese whaling vessel.

This conflict occurred in the broader context of the Jan 15, 2008 Australian Federal Court ruling which ordered the Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, to restrain from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica. The Japanese Government rejected the ruling, as it does not recognise Australian sovereignty in the Southern Ocean. Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson promised that the harrasment of the Japanese whalers would continue: We didn't acquiesce to any of the Japanese demands. We have got them back without any conditions and now we are going to continue harassing and chasing the Japanese fleet.

Terminating

Australia's interest in defusing the conflict was reinforced by Foreign Affairs Minister Smith who condemned any unlawful activities by the protesters. This was echoed by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's earlier calls for all sides to exercise maximum "calm and restraint". and seek more long term solutions to whale harvesting. As noted by Prime Minister Smith:
Prime Minister Rudd noted that Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was in constant talks with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to expedite the safe return of the environmental activists . Rudd emphasized the importance of proving that Japanese harvesting activities constitute commercial rather than scientific whaling.

The key challenge is how do we bring about the end of commercial whaling, period, into the future - that's what I'm concerned about.

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said an examination of the confrontation is currently underway:

We need to go over the facts and have relevant authorities review what happened

However, recent reports note that the environmental groups and the Japanese whalers remain at loggerheads. Anti-whaling campaigners are vowing more confrontations while the Japanese whalers are trying to force the protesters to leave the area by exhausting their fuel supplies. Neither the environemental groups nor Japanese and Australian leaders can completely control the evolution of this conflict which remains highly dangerous due to the frigid waters and remote location.

Learning

While it is too early to determine the final political and organizational lessons drawn from this whaling standoff, it appears that the conflict provides opportunities for resolving the whaling dispute in the long term. Greenpeace is currently capturing the killing of whales on film with the hope of influencing public opinion in Japan. While Japan insists that the hunt for nearly 1,000 minke and fin whales will continue in the Antarctic, Japan has previously curtailed whale harvesting due to international condemnation. For example, they abandoned the cull of 50 humpback whales after global pressure and a formal diplomatic protest by 31 nations.
The Australian Federal Police promised a full investigation although no charges have been laid.

Course Text

The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership under Pressure is the course text for "The Politics of Crisis and Disaster Management" (ESTU 400) and "Decision Analysis for Disaster Reduction and Emergency Preparedness" (ESTU 497C)

Additional text information:

Authors: A. Boin, P. Hart, E., Stern, and B. Sundelius

Publisher: Cambridge

Year: 2005