Capacity Building Report

Building Capacity to Participate in Environmental Protection Agency Activities:
A NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background on Public Involvement and EPA’s Approach to Public Participation
B. Study Methodology

The purpose of this study was to examine and identify approaches to building the capacity of communities to participate in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision-making processes. Although communities are made up of many types of stakeholders, including regulated businesses, for purposes of this study, the focus was on individual citizens and local non-profit groups within communities that may be interested in or affected by EPA activities. Capacity was defined as the ability of a community to participate effectively in EPA activities and decision-making. The study focused on general approaches that could be used in a variety of contexts to build capacity, and did not differentiate among the various EPA decision-making processes, such as rulemakings or permitting. The study examines how the capacity of communities and citizens to participate in current EPA processes can be enhanced.

Public involvement in the United States government can be traced to the beginning of the nation when the country’s founders and first president sought advice from citizens.[1] Since the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, the number of requirements and programs for government public participation efforts has grown dramatically.[2] The 1960s and 1970s were marked by a "participation movement" that left a legacy of legislatively required forms of public involvement that still apply today.[3] Most notably, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 which provided citizen access to Agency information and data[4], the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 which required public review of environmental impact statements, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972 which established a structure for overseeing committees that provide advice, ideas, and opinions to the federal government[5].

Today, the list of laws, regulations, and policies that call for public participation in Agency administration is diverse and lengthy – the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), to name only a few. The majority of these statutes and policies rely on standard approaches to Agency public involvement, primarily public meetings and notice and comment on proposed activities[7].

But over the last few decades, a paradigm shift has occurred in how government agencies attempt to involve the public. Citizens are increasingly reluctant to defer to "expert" Agency opinions and are unwilling to act merely as sounding boards for agencies that have already made a decision – particularly when these decisions affect their local communities[8]. Consequently, governments are moving away from the more traditional representative form of decision-making, where the Agency administrator makes a decision after consulting with select individuals who are leaders or representatives of key interests[9]. Instead, Agency officials are employing a more participatory democratic process that attempts to involve citizens directly affected by Agency decision-making. This evolution toward directly involving citizens in an Agency issue can be seen at all levels of government, ranging from large federal agencies such as the United States Department of Defense to local governments such as city health boards. In short, there has been an increase in the number of federal and state agencies implementing public involvement efforts that reach beyond the time-honored tools of hearings or Federal Register notices.

A variety of cultural and technological factors may have contributed to this increase in direct public involvement in the government Agency context. For example, increased media coverage[10] and advancements such as the Internet have resulted in a heightened degree of citizen awareness. Other factors include a potential decline in citizen trust in government, coupled with the growing perception that agencies may have neglected citizen concerns, knowledge, and values[11]. Furthermore, this decline in trust has corresponded with an apparent growth in grassroots activism and the emergence of public interest and other social movement organizations[12]. Whatever the motivating factors, EPA and other federal agencies are deciding that public acceptance can be critical to solving controversial issues and ensuring successful Agency implementation of a decision; that many environmental problems no longer require a regulatory approach but instead call for educating citizens and changing behavior and values; and that involving citizens can lead to better, more informed Agency decisions and actions that incorporate a broader range of values[13].

As the stakeholder or lay citizen approach to decision-making has gained popularity, agencies such as EPA have struggled to identify and implement participatory mechanisms that successfully engage individuals and result in more meaningful input. Agency efforts to involve the public directly have been studied by a number of academic researchers and practitioners who offer both praise and criticism[14]. Researchers and practitioners have also developed numerous criteria with which to implement and evaluate various forms of public participation such as regulatory negotiations, public hearings, and citizen advisory panels[15].

EPA’s approach to public participation has reflected these general trends. While public participation has always been a part of the fabric of EPA’s activities, the emphasis on how and to what degree to involve the public has varied over the last thirty years. EPA has introduced numerous initiatives both at the regional and headquarters level over the last three decades, some of which have been successfully integrated into the way the Agency conducts its activities and others that have been shorter lived. Federal advisory committees and technical assistance grants have been used regularly by EPA since their introduction. In contrast, the Agency never fully implemented a requirement set forth in a 1981 policy that called for the establishment of a Special Assistant for Public Participation to work with program and regional managers on public participation work plans[16].

In recent years, EPA has emphasized the importance of public participation, as evidenced by its Stakeholder Involvement Action Plan[17], the Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) program[18], increased efforts to make data available to the public (including the creation of a new Information Office within EPA), and numerous reports, handbooks and guidances on public participation-related issues[19]. In addition, EPA Regional offices are working on several initiatives. The Urban Environmental Initiative in Region I, for example, addresses community needs at the local level by providing information and resources for specific urban environmental protection projects. Region V has established the Great Lakes Environmental Education Center as an information resource for surrounding communities, and Region VIII has an Environmental Information Service Center to answer citizens’ questions and concerns relating to a range of environmental issues. Similarly, Region X has created an Environmental Education Clearinghouse in an effort to provide a range of information. These are only some examples of the public involvement initiatives underway at the regional level. The opportunity to find additional information on these programs and all others discussed in this report is provided in Appendix A.

These recent EPA initiatives reflect a high degree of effort and interest on the part of the Agency in trying to improve current public participation processes and develop new approaches to involving the public in its activities. In the course of these efforts, however, both EPA and stakeholders in a variety of contexts have expressed frustration that citizens and communities do not necessarily have the time, resources and expertise to participate effectively in EPA activities. The limited capacity of citizens and communities to participate effectively has raised numerous issues, including whether and how EPA, as well as non-governmental organizations, could build local capacity to participate in EPA decision-making processes[20]. This project was initiated to examine how the capacity of local communities can be increased and to discuss and analyze several potential approaches to capacity building. This research also suggests possible considerations and next steps for moving forward on building local capacity.

During the first phase of the project, ELI conducted in-depth interviews with experts on citizen participation in environmental issues to help identify:

• The areas most in need of an investment in capacity building;

• Capacity building tools and techniques that are perceived as effective by communities and citizens;

• Effective mechanisms for delivering capacity building tools; and

• Approaches that could be taken to implement capacity building efforts.

The interview phase targeted approximately 34 citizen experts in the field of public participation and community capacity building across the country, primarily those working with communities at the grassroots and local level on a day-to-day basis. Interviewees were asked a series of varying and open-ended questions and were given a promise of confidentiality in order to encourage full and candid discussions.

During the second phase, ELI analyzed each need and approach identified by interviewees for building local capacity. In doing so, ELI sought to identify the constraints and barriers to implementation, design issues, and the potential efficacy of each approach in addressing the perceived capacity building needs.

During the third phase of the study, concurrent with phases one and two, ELI reviewed the literature on public participation that was particularly relevant to capacity building. The literature review informed ELI’s construction and analyses of the various approaches to capacity building that are examined in detail in this report.

ELI’s analyses were also informed by what the report characterizes as models or programs, from a variety of disciplines and contexts, that include substantial public involvement in achieving their goals. The state, local, and federal government and non-governmental organization (NGO) models selected for this study were illustrative of various approaches suggested by the interviewees. The models included information exchange and dissemination, training, education, or community capacity building, as an integral part of their programs. EPA programs already underway that are geared specifically to involving the public in Agency activities were also considered.

The models are included in order to highlight programs that have tested some of the mechanisms and approaches discussed in this study and that could be examined more thoroughly if EPA or other organizations decide to pursue further capacity building efforts. As discussed below, some of the programs could also serve as potential partners for new capacity building initiatives. This initial study did not undertake to evaluate the effectiveness of the models. Any assessment of the programs as potential models or partners would require extensive public input on their effectiveness.

Welcome | About this Event | Briefing Book | Join the Dialogue | Search the Site