Capacity Building Report

IV. IMPEDIMENTS TO BUILDING LOCAL CAPACITY

A. Perceived Futility of Public Participation
B. Lack of Defined Purpose for Public Participation
C. Lack of Time, Resources and Interest
D. Need for New Participation Processes
E. Need for Increased Oversight of State Public Participation

During the course of the interviews, several impediments to building local capacity for participation in EPA activities were highlighted. These impediments often pointed to interviewees’ perceptions of basic problems with EPA’s approach to public participation. Although these impediments have broad implications for public participation in general and are not limited to capacity building efforts, the issues raised are fundamental concerns that must be understood and addressed in developing a capacity building strategy.

A key concern voiced by interviewees was that, regardless of whether the capacity of communities to participate in EPA decisions is increased, participation will be limited by the common perception that participation is futile because communities cannot really have an influence on EPA’s decisions[53]. This concern was expressed by interviewees in a variety of ways, including that communities feel their input does not matter because EPA has already made its decision before it hears from the public[54]. Participation was viewed by some interviewees as "busy work" that is often very time consuming. In the past, community groups have gone through a long process with EPA and industry, only to find that the Agency "does what it wants anyway" and that their efforts did not "amount to anything." Others described the current process as "disempowering" because EPA takes information and makes a decision without addressing the concerns raised by the communities[55]. Several interviewees explained their perception that EPA often has no intention of listening to a community and is just "doing what is required" for public participation. Interviewees also described a "lack of incentive" for local groups to participate that capacity building cannot address. Others said that EPA really only listens to the regulated community and does not really want the involvement of communities because the Agency does not know what to do when community views conflict with the views of the regulated community[56].

Several interviewees emphasized, however, that if communities think their input makes a difference, they will participate. Accordingly, new approaches to public participation that assure stakeholders that their views will be taken into account could increase public participation.

The interviewees’ perceptions are consistent with studies on public participation that find that many citizens view the communication flow in participatory processes as uni-directional, from the Agency to the citizen and believe the information is managed, controlled and manipulated, limiting their capacity to participate. For example, according to these studies, citizens feel that public hearings and meetings are inadequate and that their aim is primarily to convince, rather than to communicate[57]. These perceptions mentioned by numerous interviewees, whether or not grounded in fact, are powerful deterrents to public participation even if EPA attempts to build local capacity to participate.

Another impediment to building the capacity of communities to participate in EPA activities is the perception that the role of the public in particular initiatives is unclear and ill-defined[58]. Several interviewees indicated that EPA is beginning to embrace the concept of participation, but that the theoretical underpinnings for why public participation is important are lacking. As a result, EPA's efforts to involve local groups are undirected and often off the mark, contributing to communities' perception that their input does not matter[59].

Interviewees explained that EPA staff need to decide before involving community groups whether they are really willing to listen to the public[60]. According to these interviewees, EPA needs to be clear about what it wants in a particular case. For example, statutes or regulations may dictate certain decisions on particular issues and limit the flexibility EPA has to adopt public comments. In these situations, the appropriate approach may be to inform the public of its constraints rather than to seek comment. Some interviewees phrased the same point differently, explaining that EPA needs to ask case-by-case: "what is needed from the community and what is the community's role?[61]"

An additional theme that emerged in the needs assessment interviews as a potential impediment to capacity building is the lack of time, energy and funding required to participate in EPA-sponsored processes[62]. Most interviewees mentioned this issue as a problem that needs to be addressed even if capacity to participate is increased. Specifically, interviewees explained that activists and leaders are overextended in their commitments, particularly now that philanthropic funding of local groups is decreasing and local groups can only participate in a limited number of EPA activities. Similarly, the average member of a community is also busy with work, children, and other obligations and interests. This lack of time can be a particular problem in low-income communities where parents may be working more than one job[63]. As explained by some researchers, many citizens express a wish to participate more fully in their communities, but the demands of day-to-day activities hamper their involvement. In the past, civic participation was more common and visible, compared to the present, when citizens find it is almost impossible to fit participation into an already overcrowded schedule[64]. The limited time and energy available for participation in EPA initiatives, coupled with the perception that EPA processes are often overly time consuming and burdensome, could render future EPA capacity building efforts ineffectual. Several interviewees suggested the need for making participation more convenient and less time consuming by developing new approaches to participation.

Communities may also be deterred from participation due to a lack of interest in many of the issues under EPA’s jurisdiction. As one interviewee explained, communities get involved when an issue has an immediate effect on them personally, which has resulted in "crisis-driven participation.[65]" Accordingly, EPA should devote attention to developing ways to explain that information that is not about crisis can still be relevant to communities. For example, a pending regulation may have no immediate impact on a community but could dictate the emissions limits for facilities in the community for years to come. If the community waits, however, until the facility is causing odors or health problems, rather than participating in the seemingly uninteresting rulemaking or permit review, the opportunity to influence the emissions limitations on the facility may have been missed.

Several interviewees explained that EPA’s public participation processes should be the focus of attention rather than capacity building per se. These interviewees said the primary problem is the approach that EPA uses in public participation efforts. According to these interviewees, if the processes are improved from a qualitative perspective, more communities will want to participate, thereby eliminating a major impediment to capacity building. In discussing new models for participation, some of the interviewees explained that EPA is using the Administrative Procedures Act model for public participation in rulemaking in a wide range of situations where it is not required and that the approach is limited in scope, focusing on notice and comment and public hearings[66]. As discussed in section III above, several interviewees favored a new paradigm that involves community stakeholders in a more intrinsic way in the process of developing environmental policies, before specific rule proposals are issued or permit hearings are held[67].

The perception that state-run public participation processes are often inadequate, or minimal at best, was also raised by interviewees as an impediment to capacity building. Because the states are delegated responsibility for many of the core environmental programs, opportunities for meaningful participation by communities are often severely limited. Examples of inadequate participation included the development of a Section 303 list under the Clean Water Act’s total daily maximum load program that was based on little or no public participation. Some interviewees suggested that EPA should use its oversight authority to a greater extent to ensure that states provide for adequate public participation[68]. Even if EPA’s oversight of state activities for public involvement were minimal, such as commenting during a facility permitting process on the need for public participation, it could encourage states to allow for more public input, according to one interviewee. In addition, EPA could consider developing public participation models that could be adopted by or guide state public participation efforts.

Whether accurate or not, citizens’ perceptions that at least some states do not embrace public input may alone serve as an impediment to local capacity building by deterring communities from increased involvement in environmental decision-making. Thus, improving state implementation of public participation activities under delegated programs merits further consideration as a key element of creating a climate favorable to building the capacity of communities to participate in environmental initiatives.

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