|
conformance with Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) and that the overall goal of agencies responsible for the oversight and implementation of cleanup at federal facilities should be to ensure that cleanup is conducted in a manner reflective of the broad and varied range of stakeholder input from all affected communities. Finally, the FFRRO explains that the FFERDC specifically intended that citizen advisory boards be established to augment stakeholder participation in cleanups by actively involving representatives of the local communities in the cleanup decision-making process. The FFRRO cites the following statement attributed to Ms. Sherri W. Goodman, former Deputy Under Secretary U.S. DoD:
“The Department of Defense has participated in the FFERDC since it was established. The Committee’s interim report had profound impacts on DoD and led to the establishment of Restoration Advisory Boards at over 300 installations. There is no question that RABs have improved our restoration program and will continue to do so.” Mr. Lenny Siegel, the Executive Director of the Center For Public Environmental Oversight, claims to have been an active participant in the deliberations of the FFERDC. In his Building Environmental Policy Bridges document; dated July of 2008; he offers both his personal insights into this particular multi-stakeholder dialogue and also his conclusions after many years of service in the environmental cleanup arena. Relevant excerpts are provided below: “… A multi-stakeholder dialogue is a committee, usually advisory in its mission, which brings together multiple perspectives and interest groups, in and out of government, to address specific problems. Over the |
|
last three administrations I have participated in several such groups. I discuss below three of my most successful dialogues as the basis for the problem-solving model I recommend .... Multi-stakeholder dialogues don’t always work. Some disputes are too entrenched to solve cooperatively. Other policies are so overarching that they belong, from the start, in the hands of elected officials. But when they work, the dialogues not only establish better policies, but they spread knowledge and build the interpersonal relationships necessary to implement their findings and address other environmental challenges as they arise. Three Examples In the early 1990s, under both the Bush, Sr. and Clinton administrations, I was a member of the …(FFERDC). An official federal advisory committee, FFERDC consisted of representatives of federal agencies; state, tribal, and local governments; and environmental/environmental justice organizations. Formed ... to ease the increasingly contentious process of cleaning up Defense and Energy Department facilities, ... FFERDC was responsible for the creation of more than 300 community advisory boards overseeing federal facility cleanup and the establishment of a process for moving cleanup programs forward even when Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds to meet legally established milestones. The FFERDC Dialogue didn’t solve all the problems associated with federal facilities cleanup, but it unquestionably moved the process forward. I was also a member of the National Dialogue on Military Munitions, established by the Army—along with the other armed services and U.S. EPA—in 1997. This body also included members from federal agencies; state, tribal, and local governments; and non-governmental organizations. By the time we finished, we produced a set of common principles that today guide the functioning of munitions ranges. The Defense Department wrote two directives based upon the Dialogue’s “Principles for Sustainable |
|
Range Use/Development” beforethe group had completed its work. To my knowledge none of the participants felt that they had to abandon their own principles and objectives. Finally, I was one of twenty-five members of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on All Appropriate Inquiries, which drafted the near-final federal regulation implementing the 2002 Brownfields Law’s mandate for an improved process for conducting Phase 1 environmental site assessments. The Committee was made up of representatives of (or lawyers for) U.S. EPA (representing all federal agencies), state regulatory agencies, developers, lenders, environmental consultants, and environmental/ environmental justice advocacy organizations. The Committee developed a performance-based approach that insisted for the first time that gaps in site knowledge be identified, but which also relaxed requirements for redundant data collection. Each of these three committees brought together people who had never worked together before. Their work repeatedly threatened to degenerate into irreconcilable disputes. But in the end, they made recommendations that went beyond compromise—defined as solutions that make all parties unhappy—to proposing win-win solutions. All three have had a lasting positive impact. Lessons for Today Numerous other multi-stakeholder dialogues have succeeded. Others have failed. Some succeeded for a while, but their issues need new attention. Based upon my experience, I suggest the following ground rules for establishing new multi-stakeholder committees to address both longstanding and emerging environmental problems. Not every ground rule applies in every situation. 1. Each committee should have a narrow, well-defined scope. It’s important to attract participants who have the knowledge and focus to resolve outstanding issues. |
Synergistic template for environmental cleanup
|
