Award: OCE-1427012

The OysterFutures Workgroup Consensus Solutions Process Stakeholders worked together to develop recommendations using the Consensus Solutions process, pioneered by facilitators at Florida State University. Key elements of this process are: transparency, respect and building of trust, equitable representation, multiple facilitated meetings, and a super-majority decision making threshold for consensus decisions (≥75%) that required consensus among members and across the interests represented. The iterative consensus solutions processes allowed stakeholders and scientists to integrate their knowledge and build trust and consensus on assumptions, data and performance measures used for collaboratively developing a computer model that helped inform stakeholders as they evaluate, rated options and developed recommendations. The facilitated meetings were respectful, collaborative, and positive. During the first meeting Workgroup members reviewed the Workgroup pre-meeting survey responses, agreed on a consensus process[1] and procedures and developed a OysterFutures vision of success that included several themes including: management and regulations; harvesting and fishing practices; sustainable and economically viable oyster fishery; healthy and productive ecosystem; and thriving community and region. The Workgroup then discussed and identified an initial suite of options to address each of the key topical themes. The science and facilitation team reviewed and organized the issues and options identified by the Workgroup and sorted those options that could be modeled and those policy options that could not be modeled (e.g. stakeholder collaboration; public education; business practices and marketing, research etc.) but might form the basis of Workgroup recommendations. The Workgroup reached consensus on a list of 46 Performance Measures that would be used in the modeling including: Oyster Harvest; Oyster Population; Oyster Industry Economics; Habitat; and Ecosystem Services. During subsequent meetings Workgroup members were asked to review existing proposed options and identify and add any new options for modeling and Workgroup consideration. Each option identified was rated by the members either for acceptability or as a subject for future modeling. [1] The OysterFutures Workgroup consensus process used a 4-point acceptability scale (4=acceptable/I agree; 3= Acceptable, I agree with minor reservations; 2= Not acceptable unless major reservations addressed; 1= Not acceptable). The stakeholders agreed that 75% or more members rating an option or recommendation with either a 4 or 3 in support in contract to rating it a 2 or 1 would be considered as preliminary consensus recommendations for inclusion in a final package of draft recommendations. Throughout the meetings, members with major reservations (2s or 1s) were asked to describe their concerns or offer suggestions that might address their concerns. At any point during the process, any member or project scientist could request any option or draft recommendation to be evaluated or re-evaluated and rated again for its acceptability. The status of a rated option or recommendation will not be final until the final Workgroup meeting, when the Workgroup will vote on the entire package of consensus recommendations receiving 75% or higher support. Last Modified: 06/26/2020 Submitted by: Robert Jones