DR. LOVECRAFT: We’re talking about multiple stakeholders, multiple sets of values, multiple objectives and so forth; for instance, environmental sustainability versus economic growth. Could you tell me in terms of the example from Norway, how were they dealing with the issue of transferring information, transferring knowledge, having open communication that's effective between these groups so that you build a common base, a common reference point as low as reasonably practical? How do you communicate to somebody who is in a different field, maybe in environmental science or maybe a community stakeholder, how do they understand what you mean by reasonably practical? Because you may know exactly what's practical and they may feel like the wool is being pulled over their eyes. So how do you come to a common ground for communication so that people understand what they're negotiating?

DR. ZOLOTUKHIN: This is a skill in communication. So this is very important. If you are not informed, that's fine. You're happy because you're not informed. Now it's not that time, so we have to intercommunicate within different groups of interest. It's important to share your knowledge. By what means? It could be institutional and inter-institutional communication, or close links. It could be guest lectures from different areas in simple and understandable terms to tell you the developments in technology and the status of the petroleum industry today.

For example, what are the future trends and challenges we see? People who are not aware of what the petroleum industry is doing may become interested. I'm a fisherman, for example, and I know that will bring some points of discussion. Whenever you disagree, that's a point of discussion already. You raise it. If there is a consensus between different groups, too, that's no point of development. So you developed already everything. So then you agree on everything. That's it.

But if you disagree .... in Norway, for example, when there is a license in the areas for exploration, some of the areas in Norwegian north and the Barents Sea are not developed because there are fish breeding there and, as Norwegians say, fish doesn't like seismic.

Nobody talked to the fish yet, but the people know, local people know. If you use that seismic, the fish go somewhere else and fisheries have no income. I don’t think that anyone would be happy with such an outcome. And if you say, well, but we are petroleum people who are also interested in this area because it's potentially highly prolific, how do you include our interests here? That’s how it happens. Another example regarding consensus. I was told that in Uzbekistan they can sell several tickets for the same place in an airplane. Several tickets for the same seat. How to resolve this issue if several people bought tickets and only one can travel? They use “the best practice” approach: the first comer has a right to occupy the seat. Sort of consensus although not everybody is happy about it.

So if the petroleum industry comes after the fishery and the fishery was there for thousands of years, then we are guests and we should ask for the license. Not the other way around. Hey, who are you here? Okay. Just move a bit because it's a big industry coming here.

DR. TIDWELL: But to what extent do these communities believe anything that's being told to them by industry? In my mind, a piece of that is how do you develop trust between the groups – that the information that the Iñupiat are going to bring to the table is their best effort and the information that the petroleum industries bring to the table is also their best effort so that the actual communication can occur.

One of the models that you often see with stakeholder groups is that you have portions of the stakeholders, so all of industry and a village community. You have people within those communities who become representatives and enter into that interfacing so that they go back to their respective, broader stakeholder groups and say they are correct. At the very local levels it's usually the volunteers who spend the time to learn the science, to communicate back to their stakeholder groups. But there's no reason why you can’t have more formalized roles for stakeholder interfacing.

There's probably lots of different models to look at there. But I'm probably more likely to trust a colleague who comes to me and gives me information than a stranger. So how do you get the stakeholders to communicate with each other in a way that everyone trusts so they can build on that information?

DR. LOVECRAFT: As a scientist, if somebody comes to me and presents a model that says, oh, look this is in your interest, the model says that these are the potential benefits and your potential costs, the first thing I'm going to ask is, what's in your model? What's it based on? Have you included all of the important processes? What's the quality of your data? If I'm just a community member and I don't even know what the data is, where it came from, I have no access to it, I don't understand how the models go together, how can I make a decision about whether I should believe that or how much stock I should put in that model?

DR. ZOLOTUKHIN: Very good. As a scientist, you're exactly right. So what kind of data was imposed or how good is the model. But as a citizen, I would ask the first question, what's your interest, if you come to me in the first place?

DR. LOVECRAFT: People are going to act in their own interests, so you want to know their interests. But you can actually start to look and evaluate the models.

DR. TIDWELL: If someone came to my home and told me they were going to drill two streets down, I wouldn't ask for their model. I'd be frightened that my house would be damaged or I couldn't put my dogs in the back yard, or if I had children, my first thought would be I don't want that there; I don't care what model you show me. This is where I live.

And I think that's been documented quite a bit; that one of the mistakes scientists make coming into these stakeholder groups, is to assume that the best way to interface with the community is to give them more science. If you just educate them more about the risks, they will come onboard. And that, though, is where the fundamental values bang up against each other. Because for some people, it's not even an issue of risk; it's a fundamental difference in the value of a location and that has to be broached in that trust, too.

Next

Back to contents