Capacity
Building Report
II.
OVERVIEW OF INTERVIEW THEMES
The following section
summarizes the responses from the interviews with respect to three
basic aspects of capacity building:
- Which
stakeholders most need capacity building efforts?
- What
do communities need to build their capacity to participate?
- What
mechanisms would be effective to deliver capacity-building tools?
A. Who Needs Capacity
Building?
A key consideration that
emerged from the needs assessment interviews was whether capacity
building efforts should be directed to average citizens or to community
leaders and activist groups. The following points were highlighted
in the interviews:
-
Environmental activists
are often overextended and cannot cover all the issues that
merit their attention;
-
If the public is
educated about the issues, leaders will emerge;
-
Given limited resources,
capacity building should focus on community leaders because
they are most likely to participate;
-
Leaders can develop
special interests and gaps can develop between leaders and members
of the general public;
-
Capacity building
efforts should be broadened to reach non-environmental groups
including civic associations, anti-poverty groups, community
development groups, and chambers of commerce. If given the tools,
these groups may participate in EPA’s activities, thereby broadening
the base of interest in those activities.
Thus, there were strong
voices supporting capacity building targeted at both community leaders
and the general public.
B.
What Capacity Building is Needed?
The interviews pointed
to several fundamental building blocks that interviewees thought
should be part of capacity building efforts. These include:
-
Information:
The need for timely information early in the public participation
process was viewed as essential to enhancing the capacity of
communities to participate. Understandable and focused information
was also viewed as critical, as well as information that explains
the relevance of particular initiatives to specific communities.
The importance of proactive dissemination of information was
raised by many interviewees.
-
Technical assistance:
Some interviewees strongly emphasized the need for more technical
assistance, because of the technical nature of EPA decisions.
They thought that EPA should not shift the burden to perform
technical analyses to citizens and communities – the Agency
should translate citizen concerns into technical terms rather
than require citizens to assume that responsibility. By contrast,
other interviewees were adamant that technical assistance is
necessary to level the playing field so communities can effectively
counter industry’s positions.
-
Process education:
Several interviewees emphasized the need to educate communities
about how to participate in EPA processes, including notice
and comment rulemakings, federal advisory committees, permitting
activities, reinvention initiatives, and other Agency initiatives.
According to interviewees, federal Agency processes can be intimidating
and difficult to understand, and most importantly can incorporate
informal practices that are not explained anywhere. Consequently,
citizens and community activists are not on equal footing with
full-time industry representatives whose careers are based on
understanding federal Agency procedures and practices.
-
Access to documents:
Easy and inexpensive access to documents, such as facility reports,
that EPA uses to make permit and other decisions and access
to copies of laws, regulations and policies was viewed by some
interviewees as an important part of building capacity to participate.
-
Education on laws:
Some interviewees explained that communities need to learn about
legal requirements and legally required procedures that govern
environmental decisions, because it is difficult to participate
in a permitting process or comment on an enforcement settlement
or proposed rule without some basic understanding of the legal
framework that applies.
C.
How Should Capacity Building Tools Be Delivered?
In addition, the interviews
highlighted several mechanisms that were perceived as effective
in delivering capacity building tools. These approaches include:
Meetings: Face-to-face
meetings were discussed most often by interviewees as the best
mechanism for delivering capacity building. Several specific points
were made about the use of meetings to deliver information to
communities:
- meetings should
be held at convenient times and in convenient locations for
the communities affected by the pending action or initiative
- meetings should
be held at places where people already gather such as civic
associations, malls and fairs
- more than one meeting
on an issue or initiative is critical – people need to hear
about an issue more than one time in order to understand it
and contribute to the decision-making process
- periodic meetings
should be held in communities to determine what is important
to particular communities, as opposed to meetings that are focused
on a particular issue or initiative
-
interpreters should
be provided as appropriate
- informal meetings
with small groups are needed because people are more likely
to be engaged and creative in small groups
- most meetings should
be open to the public rather than by invitation only
- meetings should
be advertised proactively
Mailing Lists:
Mailing lists – both regular and e-mail – were cited as a strong
mechanism for disseminating information, because they are a direct
and efficient approach for providing information to stakeholders
about EPA activities and pending initiatives.
Advisory Groups:
Participation in advisory groups was also viewed as a means of
obtaining information and learning about issues. However, interviewees
disagreed about the usefulness of federal advisory groups and
other formal groups as a means of delivering capacity building
tools, such as information. Some thought advisory groups were
a "waste of time," while others thought advisory groups
were effective and should be used earlier in the policy development
process before proposals are established, to allow communities
to learn about issues early and in detail.
Internet: Views
on the effectiveness of using the Internet for capacity building
purposes varied considerably. Some interviewees thought that list-serves
in particular were an effective means of reaching communities
with information and that meetings held over the Internet could
be effective as well. Several interviewees cautioned, however,
that too much reliance on the Internet was problematic because
only a relatively small percentage of the population, particularly
in low-income and minority communities, currently has easy access
to the Internet or to e-mail.
Direct Outreach:
Several interviewees favored direct outreach through telephone
calls and door-to-door information dissemination as a means of
reaching and informing communities about pending environmental
initiatives and related issues that may be of concern or interest
to them.
Mass Media:
Local newspapers were generally viewed as a good mechanism for
reaching communities, but notices announcing meetings and other
matters need to be large enough to attract attention. Some interviewees
expressed frustration that newspapers only cover environmental
initiatives once they have been completed and the opportunity
for public input has passed. Other interviewees noted that smaller
papers may be willing to print stories that they receive about
pending environmental initiatives and issues. One interviewee
mentioned radio as the best means of disseminating information.
Newsletters:
Local newsletters, including but not limited to environmental
group newsletters, were mentioned by several interviewees as an
effective mechanism for reaching communities.
Non-EPA Organizations:
Some interviewees noted that regulated entities are a good means
of disseminating information to communities. Examples ranged from
including information in water bills to requiring businesses regulated
under certain programs to disseminate information about pending
initiatives and related issues.
Facility Notices:
Several interviewees emphasized the importance of affirmatively
notifying communities about the permitting and siting of facilities
in their communities. Proposed mechanisms for notifying communities
included posting signs and mailing notices to residents within
a few mile radius of a facility that is subject to a pending siting
or permitting action.
Fact Sheets:
Fact sheets and "one pagers" on pending national rules
that explain in lay-person’s language the effect of the regulation
on communities were cited as a good mechanism for disseminating
information. Interviewees also mentioned using templates on a
variety of issues written in general, lay-person’s language that
could be modified or tailored by localities or EPA Regional offices
to include community-specific information about an initiative.
For example, a one-page document on total daily maximum loads
under the Clean Water Act could be developed that would explain
the concept, the legal requirements, and the status of efforts
to implement the program. The template could designate places
to add information about water bodies in a particular geographic
area.
Grants: Several
interviewees mentioned grants to community groups, particularly
technical assistance grants, as the best way to provide capacity
building tools.
Welcome
| About this Event | Briefing
Book | Join the Dialogue
| Search the Site
|
