Multiple actors, competing interests, incomplete information, complexity, and uncertainty plague resource management; a major challenge is the identification of governance approaches appropriate for navigating the management process. Collaborative governance, specifically public-private partnerships, is one such approach increasingly used around the globe. However, many challenges arise when attempting to utilize collaborative approaches to manage resources, particularly at larger scales. The question then becomes, what are the necessary conditions to facilitate the success of collaborative governance approaches. To answer this question, this research utilizes a qualitative case study approach to compare and contrast two basin-wide collaborative governance processes in Oregon. Oregon has a well-established history of institutionalizing the use of collaborative approaches to manage resources. For more than a decade, local, voluntary, non-regulatory watershed councils have worked on restoration and outreach around the state, with the support of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s grant programs (OWEB), which administer a portion of state lottery funds to be used for the protection and restoration of native salmon, wildlife habitat, and watersheds. In 2007, OWEB expanded their program to include a new strategy; the Special Investment Partnerships (SIP) were developed, aimed at scaling up collaborative management efforts to the basin level, targeting long-term, large-scale restoration initiatives. In early 2008, SIPs in the Deschutes and the Willamette basin were allocated grants of $4 million and $6 million respectively. Utilizing participant observation and secondary data analysis, this qualitative research will report on the progress made by these basin-wide partnerships.
Results/Conclusions
Results demonstrate that although both SIPs were initiated virtually simultaneously, to date the outcomes have been significantly different. The Deschutes Collaborative galvanized around the relicensing of the Pelton Round Butte facility, which served as a catalyst, motivating diverse interests to work together to reintroduce anadromous fish populations to the upper river. Improved ecological conditions, such as increased streamflow and channel complexity, improved habitat, and restored floodplain, have resulted from this collaborative governance process. In contrast, the Willamette Partnership, though able to garner significant financial resources in support of the effort, had no such catalyst; and while the collaborative is moving in a forward direction, progress has been slower, and little has been accomplished on the ground thus far. The distinctions between these groups offer a unique opportunity to examine both the successes and challenges to implementing a collaborative approach to watershed management.