1
|
- James L. Creighton, Ph.D.
- Creighton & Creighton, Inc.
- Los Gatos, CA
|
2
|
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
5
|
|
6
|
|
7
|
|
8
|
- Accountability to elected officials
- Legal constraints & contractual obligations
- Mandates & authorities
- The “public” that chooses to participate may achieve
consensus because it isn’t paying the costs
- People who choose to participate are self-selecting
- Sometimes fundamental disagreement in public
|
9
|
- Public participation
- Environmental mediation, which becomes alternative dispute resolutio=
n,
then consensus building
- Technology assessment
- Social impact assessment
|
10
|
- 1970s - Requirements in National Environmental Policy Act and other
environmental cleanup laws
- Agency remains the ultimate decision maker
- Minimum procedural requirements defined
- Adequate information to public
- Alternatives considered
- Impacts disclosed
- Pre-decision participation
|
11
|
- “Agreements” oriented
- Requires some mechanism for representation of interests
- Agencies are parties to the agreement, not the sole decision maker=
li>
|
12
|
- Embedded in most governmental decision making
- Most effective agencies go beyond simply fulfilling requirements to
“mandate-seeking”
- Agencies go through cycles, highly supportive, then less interested,
then highly supportive
|
13
|
- Some agencies just fulfill procedural requirements – little im=
pact
on decision making
- Some people believe that agency retaining power is not
“real” participation
|
14
|
- People who are “represented” don’t always believe =
they
are adequately represented
- Some interests, e.g., “environmental community,” not well
defined
- Some parties unable to make binding commitments
- Inequalities both in power and what people bring to the negotiating
table
- Often requires an external authority to “bind” the agree=
ment
|
15
|
- Overlapping of public participation and dispute resolution –
points on the same continuum
- Consultants move back and forth between the two fields
- Both currently in decline in the Federal sector under Bush
Administration (also happened under Reagan Administration)
|
16
|
- Old view: Make a “sound” decision base on good science a=
nd a
full assessment of costs and impacts
- New view: Must also get a “mandate” that permits
implementation
- “Legitimacy” implies both good science and public accept=
ance
|
17
|
- Briefings
- Exhibits/Displays
- Feature stories
- Hotlines
- Information repositories
- Internet/web pages
- Mailings - technical reports/ environmental reports
- News conferences
- Newsletters
- Newspaper inserts
- News releases
- Paid advertisements
- Press kits
- Public service announcements
- Speaker’s bureau
- Web pages
|
18
|
- Advisory groups/task forces
- Citizen Jury/Consensus conference
- Focus groups
- Interviews
- Open houses
- Polls, surveys, questionnaires
- Participatory television
- Plebiscite
- Polls, surveys, questionnaires
- Public hearings
- Public meetings
- Retreats
- Web-based conferencing
- Workshops
- Nominal group process
- Samoan Circle
|
19
|
- Mediation
- Arbitration – Non-Binding
- Arbitration – Binding
- Disputes Review Panel
- Negotiated Rulemaking
- Mini-Trial
- Partnering
|
20
|
|
21
|
|
22
|
|
23
|
|
24
|
|
25
|
|
26
|
- Columbia River System Operations Review – very large scale, mi=
x of
public comment and consensus seeking
- Sanibel Island Wetlands Permit – smaller scale, consensus-seek=
ing
|
27
|
|
28
|
|
29
|
- The Challenge:
- Rethink the operations of the entire Columbia River System and get
agreement between government agencies on a future operating regime=
li>
- Anadramous fisheries showing significant decline
|
30
|
- Agencies: Bureau of Reclamation (irrigation water), Army Corps of
Engineers (flood control), Bonneville Power Administration (hydropow=
er)
- Later: U.S. Fish & Wildlife (endangered species, Marine Fisheries
Service (commercial fisheries)
- Four states: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana (Major cities – Portl=
and
& Seattle)
- Regional Power Council
- Tribal nations
- Numerous environmental groups – “Ecotopia”
|
31
|
- Techniques used:
- Newsletters: Direct mail to 10,000 people – bi-monthly
- Three rounds of workshops/meetings (about 10 meetings each round)
– during scoping/identification of alternatives, alternatives
review, selection of operating plan
- Five working groups: Made up of representatives of agencies, tribes,=
and
NGOs. Reviewed methodology and advised within their subject area.
- Peer Review Panels: Made independent review of study methodology
- Decision maker: Interagency Policy Committee
|
32
|
- Significant events:
- Need to consider new institutional arrangements (stakeholder worksho=
ps)
- Declaration of fisheries as “endangered species” –
Fish agencies assume a dominant role in operations planning
- “Designer” species
- Agreement reached on operating plan and mechanisms for update
|
33
|
|
34
|
- Army Corps of Engineers must grant a permit for any development in a
wetlands area.
- Sanibel Island is a famous resort area in the State of Florida - but also full of wetlands=
li>
- 500 individual permits a year – very costly
- Corps has the authority to grant a “general permit”
|
35
|
- District Engineer established a panel representing all key stakehold=
ers
on island
- Gave them a choice: (1) Corps could write the terms of the permit; or
(2) Panel could write the terms and he would sign them – if th=
ere
was consensus in the group
- Panel reached consensus on terms
- District Engineer issued the permit using their terms
- Permit in force for five years; no protests during the entire period=
|
36
|
- Follow-Up:
- District Engineer tried the same approach in a large urban area (Mia=
mi)
- Panel representing all interests
- Panel about ready to reach agreement, environmental groups showed up=
and
demanded changes
- Consensus reached, including regional office of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
- National HQ of Environmental Protection Agency overruled the permit<=
/li>
|
37
|
- Provide genuine opportunities to influence the decision
- Are well integrated into the decision-making process
- Have a clearly defined expectation for what they hope to accomplish =
with
the public
- Are targeted at those stakeholders most likely to see themselves as
impacted by the decision
|
38
|
- Involve interested stakeholders in every step of decision making, not
just the final stage
- Provide alternative levels of participation based upon people’s
level of interest, and reflecting the diversity of the people
participating
- Take into account the participation of internal stakeholders as well=
as
external stakeholders
|
39
|
|