Public forest policy development in New Brunswick, Canada: multiple streams approach, advocacy coalition framework, and the role of science

Abstract

ABSTRACT. In a 15-year case study, we used the multiple streams approach (MSA) and the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to examine a controversial industry-led proposal for increased harvest of Crown forests in New Brunswick, Canada, in an adversarial policy subsystem. Study participants were queried on their perceptions of policy problems and reasons for community attention, the relationship between science and policy, and whether policy decisions were consistent with scientific understanding. Thematic analysis was used to examine interview data for evidence of Kingdon's MSA and Sabatier's ACF. During public hearings of a Legislative Select Committee on Wood Supply, two competing policy alternatives emerged. The first, put forward by the forest industry coalition, advocated an intensive forest management approach in support of a competitive industry. The second, supported by the conservation coalition, largely made up of scientists and environmental groups, focused on adaptive management, an ecosystem approach, and greater public input. This counterproposal forestalled the industry from placing its proposal on the government 2005 decision agenda. However, in 2014, the government unexpectedly adopted essentially the same industry proposal. Although the MSA provided a better explanation of the factors critical to the 2014 policy change, i.e., a declining provincial economy and a change of key government personnel, the ACF offered a nuanced perspective on the need for a professional forum to facilitate policy-oriented learning across competing coalitions. In 2014, the lack of such a forum and a closed process limited policy alternatives considered by elected officials. Results also emphasize the importance of how legislators choose to interact with experts and scientists, particularly within an adversarial subsystem, especially when a powerful coalition develops ways to limit the access to decision makers by competing coalitions.

The Roles of Experts and Expert‐Based Information in the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations Based on the Acid Mine Drainage Case Study in Gauteng, South Africa

“…The ACF has also been used in parallel to other theoretical frameworks in cases relevant to the topic of experts and expert‐based information in policy subsystems. These frameworks include epistemic communities and discourse coalitions (Caveen, Gray, Stead, & Polunin, 2013); the Multiple Streams Framework (Anderson & MacLean, 2015; Blatter, Bombach, & Wiprächtiger, 2015); the Rational Policy Cycle (Blatter et al, 2015); Rational Choice Theory and the Theory of Communicative Action (Lovrić, Lovrić, Schraml, & Winkel, 2018) and the Actor‐Centered Institutionalized Framework (Nagel, 2006).…”

The Challenges of the Forestry Sector Communication Based on an Analysis of Research Studies in the Czech Republic

“…Consistency in the sense that to effectively influence the public opinion is easier if the communication of the whole forestry sector is unified, not diversified according to individual stakeholders. Consistent communication within the sector is also essential for the joint promotion of interests within the Advocacy Coalition Framework [40][41][42]. The quality of communication is also highly influenced by the distribution of power and conflicts of interest [30].…”

Aprendizado e mudança em políticas públicas: explorando possibilidades no Modelo de Coalizões de Defesa

“…Studies are far from conclusive about the influence of the openness of political system in facilitating learning. A lack of arenas for learning is evidenced both in authoritarian (Khayatzadeh-Mahani, Breton, Ruckert, & Labonte, 2017) and in democratic systems (Anderson & MacLean, 2015;Ulmanen, Swartling, & Wallgren, 2015). On the other hand, the experience of Guangzhou, China, is considered a landmark achievement in urban management and governance, because of the creation of consultative committees, which allowed to solve social disputes and enhance communications between citizens and local government (Wong, 2016).…”