Creating Stable Agreements in Marine Policy: Learning from the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

In this article, we examine the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative stakeholder process, evaluate its shortcomings, and consider what could have been done differently. Our objective is to make recommendations to improve future multi‐stakeholder marine policy processes. In our view, while the South Coast stakeholder process had many positive outcomes, it failed to reach what we call here a “stable agreement.” Our analysis is based on two of the authors’ involvement (one as a facilitator and the other as a stakeholder representative) in the process and a post‐hoc survey of participants. We find that several ill‐advised process design and management choices significantly destabilized the negotiations, leading to an ultimately unstable agreement. We highlight four major problematic process design and management decisions, including the following: representation on the multi‐stakeholder group was imbalanced, the pre‐meeting caucuses were not paired with training in interest‐based negotiation, adequate incentives to negotiate toward a consensus agreement were not provided, and the use of straw voting at one point in the process was unclear and inconsistent. As a result of these and other process design and management flaws, many stakeholders believed that the process was biased and that their ends would be better achieved by anchoring negotiations and engaging in positional bargaining. Ultimately, this meant that near‐consensus on a single cross‐interest marine protected area proposal was not reached, the scientific guidelines put forth were not fully met, the process was not and is not viewed as fair by the stakeholders directly or indirectly involved, and the marine protected area regulations lack broad‐scale support. These pitfalls of the South Coast stakeholder process could have been avoided had the management and facilitation team consistently followed best practices in dispute resolution. We recommend that future marine planning processes learn from this example, particularly those occurring in highly complex, urban ocean environments.     

Non-Contingent Success Reduces People’s Desire for Processes that Adhere to Principles of Fairness

A central tenet of justice theory and research is that people prefer decisions to be made with processes that adhere to principles of fairness. The present research identified a boundary condition for this general tendency. Across three studies, we found that people who experienced non-contingent success had less of a desire for fair processes relative to their counterparts who experienced contingent success. Furthermore, results attributable to other independent variables, namely regulatory focus in Study 2 and self-affirmation in Study 3, shed light on the underlying mechanism: people experience non-contingent success as self-threatening and lower their desire for processes that adhere to fairness in the service of protecting themselves against the threat. Theoretical implications are discussed as are limitations of the studies and suggestions for future research.     

S—s—U— phenotype in the coloured population of Cape Town: Problems encountered in paternity tests

Two Cape Coloured persons of mixed White, Khoikhoi, Malay, Black parentage in Cape Town whose red cells were found to be S—s—U— establish that the rare S^u allele is present in this population group. The most likely source of the S^u allele in them is the non-indigenous Black slaves who were brought to the Cape in the early years of White settlement there. In two paternity suits involving Cape Coloured persons, maternal and paternal exclusions were present unless the inheritance of an MS^u or an NS^u chromosome was postulated, and MS, NS and Ns chromosomes were seen to accompany He+ alleles in them.     

Comparative Policy Analysis: Déjà vu All Over Again?

During the 1970s and early 1980s, many policy analysts were engaged in comparative policy analysis. For a variety of reasons, the most important of which being a general neglect of the particular policy contexts, the use of comparative policy analysis fell largely into disuse. There are now a number of emerging reasons why a renaissance in comparative policy analysis seems much more propitious: a growing number of transnational policy issues; advances in communication technologies, such that physical distances have been virtually eliminated; and new conceptual bases. All of these combine to produce a new demand for comparative policy studies.