RE: Identifying the public

[Eileen Ringnalda <eileen.ringnalda@searbrown.com>]

Keith asks, "QUESTION: Should EPA integrate public participation into its management systems for the entire policy life cycle (environmental problem recognition - policy formulation - implementation - control?) Should it identify and make public the type of participation sought and the participants targeted for each stage of the cycle?"

My answer is an emphatic YES.  

Public Involvement will be most effective if implemented throughout the entire life of the project.  But this also requires a thorough understanding within the organization about what is needed from the community at each stage and making careful transitions, passing along a history of key contacts, issues and expectations already established.

In addition to internal continuity and mutual understanding of the role of public involvement, making the public/the community aware of the process is also necessary.  Helping the community understand the EPA process is as important as helping them understand the specific project features.  It is important to educate the community about the anticipated process and what type of information is needed from them and how/when they can/should participate.

I have seen this accomplished in smaller scale projects by creating a handout that outlines the entire project process, highlighting the points in the process where public input is most valuable to the project development.  If possible, the process chart/map includes a projected timeline -- even if it is by month of season of the year.

This becomes a useful tool for people to see the gradual progress (include a "we are here" on the process chart/map) as well as a way to direct comments in a productive manner. (If an individual has a concern that is premature to address, take him or her through the process chart/map and point out specifically at what stage their concerns will be addressed)

How does PI through the entire process relate to Identifying the Public?

I think you have to assume that each stage of development brings some new stakeholder interest due to word of mouth or a news story that reports a "finding" or "controversy."  As a project matures, the contact list and number of people involved will naturally grow.

The stages of development can be used as a brainstorming tool to identify potential stakeholder groups. However, although the EPA may view the group as interested in an implementation phase, for instance, they should be contacted from the beginning and invited to participate from the start.  Even if a particular stakeholder's comments are most valuable later in the process, keeping them informed of the entire process (and developing content information/research) will result in more valuable comments at that critical phase.

A concern of mine is that as stakeholder groups are identified, how is this history being passed along as a long-term project progresses?  Careful record keeping and internal communication is necessary so that every stage does not have to start from scratch identifying interested publics.

Still, each new phase is an opportunity to review identified stakeholder groups and consider who is missing and how to reach untapped resources.

I agree with Keith's conceptualization of public involvement throughout the process and clearly commuicating the opportunities for involvement. He wrote:

"By stating this [type of input needed at each stage] in advance, affected/interested communities will be aware of opportunities to participate at all stages of the policy life cycle, may actively seek opportunities to do so, and through participation become more educated about the issues when individual project or program requests for participation are made."