Introduction

[S. Bruce Kohrn <bruce@sbkenvironmental.com>]

I work as an independent environmental consultant.  I have found that a successful project outcome depends on the degree to which there is meaningful public involvement in the process.  Bear in mind that most of my experience is at the local level, and I do not know how well my comments can be generalized to a regional or national policy level.

My reaction to the Purposes, Goals and Objectives of the draft PIP is positive.  If order is an indication of priority, then I am pleased to see that the first goal is to "foster a spirit of mutual trust, confidence and openness." This takes hard work, and without trust the process will fail.  Unfortunately, many technical experts, be they from government, private sector consulting firms or academia make the mistake of believing they deserve the automatic trust of the public simply because the experts are, well, experts.  I believe this is a matter of their technical education, but this is an issue to be addressed elsewhere.

Here are some comments on how to foster relations of trust between the Agency and the public: 

1. The public needs to know that its participation will influence decision-making.  To this end, communication must be a two way street - not just the one way dissemination of information that all too commonly characterizes public meetings.  Better yet, shared decision-making gives participants a stake in the outcome.  The last goal ("To ensure that the Agency communicates to the public how its input affected the Agency's decision.") may fall short of the mark, because it does not create the impression that the public will be part of the decision making process, only that the public might influence that process.  

2. Again, if order is an indication of priority, then selecting early involvement as the first objective is a good choice.   Asking for public input after the process has started will not engender trust or confidence in the process.  In fact, it may be too late to involve the public in "developing options and alternatives" (objective 3), because many important decisions have already been made.  I suggest that the public should be involved in the decision making process at the get go - as the problems and issues to be addressed are defined.  The practical benefit is that if there is broad consensus on the questions to be asked during the technical process of fact gathering, then there is likely to be broader agreement on the outcome of the research process - on the facts themselves.     

3. Finally, the public will not have trust or confidence in the public involvement process if the outcome is predetermined, as might be suggested by the last objective ("?the overall desired outcome?").