Public Comments -- Resources for the Future

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

Below is an electronic copy of my letter to EPA dated 12/13/99. In my original submission, I enclosed three papers. Electronic versions of these papers can be found at our webite www.rff.org

*** December 13, 1999

Deborah Dalton
Environmental Protection Agency (MC 2136)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Dalton:

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to EPA's request for comments on the agency's 1981 Policy on Public Participation. The views provided here are mine and not the views of Resources for the Future (RFF). RFF is a research organization that does not take positions on public policy issues.

In general, the actions recommended in the 1981 Policy on Public Participation, if followed, should encourage effective public participation. They seem quite consistent with "best practice." To the extent that public participation at EPA is considered in need of improvement, I would suggest that the problems are in implementing the policy rather than with the policy itself.

At RFF, we are engaged in various projects to evaluate the implementation of actual public participation efforts. The objectives outlined in Section C of the 1981 Policy on Public Participation share many similarities with the criteria (we call them "social goals") that we are using to evaluate public participation. In this letter, I will highlight some of the major conclusions of our research and then offer some comments on the 1981 policy itself. Included with this letter are two discussion papers and an article to which I refer below.

Over the past two and a half years, the Center for Risk Management at RFF has been conducting a variety of projects focused on the evaluation of public involvement programs. The first product was a discussion paper, "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," which outlines an evaluation framework based on six "social goals" for public participation:

educating and informing the public,
incorporating public values into decisionmaking,
increasing the substantive quality of decisions,
reducing conflict,
increasing trust in agencies, and
making decisions cost-effectively

The focus on social goals was motivated by a perceived need to get beyond procedural prescriptions for public involvement and to understand what value participation adds to environmental policymaking--essentially asking the question, "what are we getting from public involvement"? The framework recognizes that there are many mechanisms available for public involvement and some will be better than others for achieving particular social goals.

Our most recent discussion paper, "Public Participation in Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes Region," applied this framework to a number of cases of public involvement (mainly through advisory committees) in environmental decision-making in the Great Lakes region. We sought to understand whether the social goals outlined above were being achieved, and what contextual and procedural factors were related to their achievement. We came to a number of preliminary conclusions from the study:

When done well, public participation can achieve the social goals listed above. Indeed, we saw a number of extremely successful cases.
Aspects of the participatory process are key ingredients to success. These include an emphasis on deliberation, good two-way communication with agencies, and a commitment of sufficient government resources to support the project.
Agency commitment to legitimate public involvement plays a large role in ensuring that these procedural recommendations are met.
Turning over substantial amounts of power to stakeholders may not be required for processes to be successful.
Participatory processes can be successful in a wide range of decision-making contexts as long as the process is sufficiently strong.
There are a number of "outside the group" problems that raise important questions about the legitimacy and significance of public involvement (through advisory committees, in particular). Participants were generally not socio-economically representative and important interests sometimes did not participate. More generally, the benefits of participation appeared to accrue mainly to a small group of the most active participants.
To resolve some of these problems, using a combination of participatory mechanisms rather than just a single mechanism is desirable.

We continue to examine these conclusions with a larger study of around 250 case studies in public participation in environmental decisionmaking. The project is funded by the National Science Foundation and will be completed in Fall 2000.

I have also included with this letter an article from the Environmental Law Reporter on the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and public participation: "Chilling Collaboration: The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Stakeholder Involvement in Environmental Decisionmaking." This article highlights a number of ways that FACA can hamper stakeholder collaboration on environmental policy issues, particularly at the local level. This is significant because many recent initiatives in environmental management-such as community-based environmental protection, ecosystem management, and environmental justice-call for greater collaboration with interest groups and local communities. The paper suggests some steps for reforming FACA.

In addition to the work already discussed, we are currently examining the opportunities that the Internet creates for improving public involvement. This research is being funded by EPA. Copies of the papers cited above and short descriptions of our projects can be found at RFF's web site, www.rff.org.

Based on the insights from our research, I have some comments about EPA's 1981 Policy on Public Participation and its upcoming revision. As I said, the current policy seems quite consistent with best practice and with the conclusions from our research. My comments, therefore are few.

The new policy should:

Reflect the increasing use of collaborative participation approaches. In these approaches, stakeholders are often not just informing agencies of public viewpoints, but making influential policy recommendations, committing themselves or their organizations to particular actions, and playing a role in policy implementation. To different degrees, these approaches are reflected in the Common Sense Initiative, Project XL, watershed management groups, Community Advisory Groups at Superfund sites, and the many grass roots collaborative efforts on resource issues in the American West. EPA's "Better Decisions Through Consultation and Collaboration" is a good resource on collaborative processes.
The policy should clarify-for the use of front line personnel-what kind of participation does and does not fall under the Federal Advisory Committee Act [Section 3.b.(1)]. In general, EPA should support reform of FACA and its regulations to allow the agency more extensive use of advisory committees and collaborative decisionmaking.
The policy should refer to (or incorporate) work undertaken by EPA and others that helps personnel select the most appropriate intensity of, and mechanisms for, public involvement. Various groups, including us, have developed typologies for thinking about what kinds of participation is most appropriate for what situations and purposes. This discussion should mention that public hearings are often not a good forum for dialogue as is suggested in the 1981 policy.
Encourage personnel utilizing small group participation approaches (e.g. advisory committees) to also put effort into communicating with the wider public so as to increase the transparency and accountability of small group processes.
Incorporate use of the Internet in the "General Procedures for All Programs" (Section D), particularly those subsections dealing with identification and outreach.
Outline the potential qualitative benefits and costs of participation and the need for ongoing evaluation to understand both better.
Encourage experimentation with different kinds of public participation. Non-governmental groups have developed a number of interesting approaches for participation-such as citizen juries, round tables, and consensus conferences-that could see wider use by government agencies.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 1981 Policy on Public Participation. Please contact me at (202) 328-5015 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Thomas C. Beierle
Fellow

_____
Tom Beierle Center for Risk Management Resources for the Future 1616 P Street Washington, DC 20036 (202) 328-5015

Public Comments -- Resources for the Future

Local Navigation