The Conference Process
On the first day of the conference, social scientists from each of the three regions
(Jim Lima, Pacific Region; Michael Baffrey and Tim Holder, Alaska Region; Harry Luton and
Claudia Rogers, Gulf of Mexico Region) gave presentations to a plenary session in which
they described the studies programs in their regions and previewed some of the issues they
hoped to address in smaller working sessions the following day. In addition, social
scientists from outside the agency made presentations on both theoretical and applied work
on topics of interest to the MMS socioeconomic studies program. Harvey Molotch (University
of California, Santa Barbara) spoke on “Oil and the
California Mix”, describing the findings of a comparative study of the influence
of oil development in three coastal California counties. His research illustrated how,
while the volume and pace of oil extraction were similar, differences in local
institutions in the three counties led to strikingly different consequences that, in turn,
accentuated local social, political and economic differences. He emphasized the role local
community organizations had played in this process. Steve Picou (University of South
Alabama) delivered a presentation entitled “Theoretical
Trends in Environmental Sociology: Implications for Resource Management in the Modern
World.” Recent theoretical understanding, Picou argued, supports resource
management strategies that are more flexible, participatory and democratic. Such
strategies should: (1) take account of “culturally-based knowledge systems” in
risk assessment studies; (2) cultivate “new combinations of government, corporate and
voluntary organizations in the policy sector;” (3) “recognize the uncertainty of
science in the public construction of risk;” and, (4) “reconstruct” trust
in relationships between resource managers and the public.
Mark Shrimpton (Community Resource Services, Ltd.) and Keith Story (University of
Newfoundland) spoke on “Community Impacts:
Adding Value to Analysis and Management”, questioning the emphasis social impact
research and management often place on comparative studies and impact prediction. Planning
regarding impacts, they held, often fails to appreciate the many differences among
communities and the impact of differences in the kind or phase of oil and gas development
in question. They also emphasized what they regarded as the unavoidable inaccuracy of
importance predictions. While it is necessary to specify impact management objectives,
they argued, the inherent uncertainty involved makes it imperative to build great
flexibility into management plans. Glenn Sheehan (Ukpeagvaik Inupiat Corporation) called
his presentation "‘Hearing’ the People of
a Subsistence Culture: Traditional Knowledge and Environmental Impacts on the North Slope.”
Western science, he observed, often has discounted Native Alaskan’s knowledge of
their environment, even though its efficacy has been apparent in the ability to survive in
a harsh environment. Sheehan emphasized that Native Alaskan traditional knowledge was not
static. Rather, it was a living body of knowledge, constantly tested and refined. The
scientific utility of such knowledge and its centrality in change brought on by oil and
gas development, as well as simple justice, he argued, dictate that we listen more
closely. For the benefit of both agency personnel and non-agency researchers, the MMS
liaison with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), JoAnn Lauterbach, addressed the
plenary session on the process of obtaining OMB approval
for proposed research using survey methods. (Written versions of these presentations
appear in Appendix A.)
The second day of the conference was devoted to concurrent small-group discussions.
While a systematic review of the accomplishments of the studies program was not possible,
session participants drew on their varied and extensive experience with OCS-related
socioeconomic issues and MMS-sponsored research to consider the challenges the program
faces, discuss issues posed by the session leaders and identify topics for the
program’s attention. The small-group session leaders summarized the results of these
discussions for the plenary session on the third and final day of the conference and
members of the program’s Scientific Committee in attendance presented their own
recommendations on the course of the studies program in light of the preceding days’
deliberations.
For more information, contact Rodney Cluck.
