Topics Available

1. Public Involvement & Collaboration at USEPA…Always evolving C2D2 Conference Toronto, Canada, October 23, 2009 Patricia Bonner [bonner.patricia@epa.gov]

2. Topics Available Overview/Introduction 4-9 Open Government 11-16 Collaboration – defined 18-23 Situation Assessment and other Tools for Successful Collaborations 25-45 Collaboration Training @ EPA 47-51 EPA’s Internet Tools 52

3. Overview/Introduction

4. TOP TEN Reasons for Public Involvement and Collaborative Processes • 10: Increases compliance • 9: Perceived as a fairer process [Transparency] • 8: Reduces litigation and adversarial behavior • 7: Allows parties to “vent” and address misunderstandings • 6: Fosters better relationships (Trust) • 5: More quality information and greater mutual learning • 4: Practicality check for EPA and others • 3: Greater public commitment to decisions/actions • 2: Technically superior options/more creative solutions • 1: Better environmental outcomes!

5. Short History • EPA established in 1970 • Federal laws set minimum review & comment requirements for public participation [APA – 1946; various media acts 1970s -80s]] • Public Participation Policy [PPP] 1981 [expanded from minimum] • Environmental Justice Executive Order 1994 • Emergency Planning & Right to Know Act [Superfund Amendments 1996 • Began review of PPP - 1998 • Public Involvement Policy [PIP] draft review 2002 [includes 2 – week Internet based dialogue] • PIP issued May 2003 • PI and Collaboration tools released 2003 – 2009 • Collaboration White Paper and Listening sessions – 2004 • Collaboration Training development, train-the-trainer and workshops 2006 – 2009 • Program-specific engagement activities 1972 - 2009

6. Policy’s Seven Basic Steps for Effective Public Involvement • Plan and budget for public involvement activities • Identify the interested and affected public • Consider providing technical/ financial assistance to facilitate involvement • Provide information and outreach • Conduct public consultation and involvement activities • Review and use input and provide feedback to the public • Evaluate public involvement activities

7. EPA’s Model of Public Involvement and Collaboration Options Formal Collaboration Less Interaction More Interaction OUTREACH Purpose:To provide information Types: Website Fact Sheet Phone Hot Line Federal Register Notice Press Release INFORMATION EXCHANGE Purpose: To provide & exchange data, opinions and options Types: Meetings with individuals Public Meeting Workshop Listening Session Availability Session RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose: To obtain useful & influential advice or comments Types: Advisory Committee Scoping Session Policy Dialogue Task Force Joint Fact-Finding AGREEMENTS Purpose: To reach workable agreement or settlement Types: Statement of Principles Negotiated Rulemaking Consensus Permit Settlement Agreement (consent decree/order) STAKEHOLDER ACTION Purpose: To empower Stakeholders to take action Types: Industry Sector Initiative Voluntary Program Community Action for a Renewed Environment Sustainability Forum PROMISE:We will keep you informed PROMISE:We will listen, acknowledge your concerns & aspirations, & provide feedback on how your input Influenced our decision PROMISE:We will take your advise or comments into account when making a decision PROMISE:We will work in good faith to reach an understanding that we all can support & we will implement it as agreed PROMISE:We will support your decision& assist in your implementation of it Stakeholder Decision Government Decision Opportunity for a Collaborative Approach

8. Public Involvement Spectrum:A Range of Possible Processes INFORMATION EXCHANGE Purpose: Provide and exchange data, opinions and options STAKEHOLDER ACTION Purpose: Empower stakeholders to take action RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose: Provide non-binding, but influential advice or comments AGREEMENTS Purpose: Reach workable agreement or settlement OUTREACH Purpose: Provide information Creative options Participant satisfaction Increase in… Commitment to action Available information Collaborative behavior Interaction among stakeholders

10. Open Government Information

11. President’s Open Government Memorandum “Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information to citizens about what their government is doing.” “Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions.” “Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages citizens in the work of their government.” President Barack Obama January 21, 2009

12. Fishbowl Memo • “In all its programs, EPA will provide for the fullest possible public participation in decision-making. This requires not only that EPA remain open and accessible to those representing all points of view, but also that EPA offices responsible for decisions take affirmative steps to solicit the views of those who will be affected by these decisions.” • “I am committed to fulfilling President Obama’s direction to agency heads to make use of tools and technology to increase outreach and interaction with the public.” • “I encourage our staff to be creative and innovative in the tools we use to engage the public in our decision-making.”

13. What may the Open Government Directive [OGD] call for? • take specific actions implementing the principles of transparency, public participation and collaboration • establish a system to enable the public to assess performance against the principles • ensure that the public has the opportunity to identify information needs • increase interagency collaboration

14. What may the OGD call for? [cont’d] • increase the public’s opportunities to participate in government policy making and decisions • develop agency-specific plans • seek ideas from the public on increasing collaboration • enhance collaboration across all levels of government, NGOs, the private sector • work together through an infrastructure established to direct, track, measure and report action

15. Status • A three-phased process of blogging, discussion and drafting/voting produced a very rough draft heavily emphasizing technology • Comments will be considered and a directive or series of directives issued. Latest release target date publicized THIS week!

16. What new actions might EPA take to prepare for and implement the OGD?

17. Collaboration

18. “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.” Charles Darwin

19. Collaboration is working together with one or more people to define and frame a shared problem, develop options, identify preferred solutions, and plan implementation of a sustainable solution. Good collaborations require both attitude and approach

20. ATTITUDE • Spirit of proactive cooperation • Work to understand others • Flexible and creative • Problem-solvers • Partners • Facilitators • Leaders

21. APPROACH • A formal collaboration uses a deliberate process for shared action throughout the full decision life-cycle: • design • convene – bringing parties together • implement • evaluate

22. The Collaborative Premise If you bring the right people together in constructive ways with good information, they will create authentic visions and strategies for addressing shared concerns. From David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, Collaborative Leadership, 1994, p 14

23. Collaboration’s Goal Powerful, Sustainable Decisions Procedural Inter-personal Technical Technical - substance of the actual decision Process - how the decision is made Inter-personal - how people are treated The more people are respectfully engaged, the more they understand, the greater the opportunities for agreement, the more sustainable the decision.

24. Situation Assessment

25. To Succeed in Collaboration BEGIN bydoing a Situation Assessment Then decide whether to launch a formal collaboration

26. Conduct a Situation Assessment What is it? • An information gathering tool that: • Identifies all affected internal and external stakeholders • Identifies their issues • Assesses the opportunities for public involvement

27. Conduct a Situation Assessment(cont’d) Why do it? • Helps determine the most appropriate method for public involvement and/or collaboration for particular rule • Help define goals for public involvement effort • Identify stakeholders and their concerns up front • Pinpoint data gaps or misunderstandings early enough to address • Identify constraints on public involvement • Surface issues that need to be considered in rule

28. Internal Assessment • Barriers • Assumptions • Strengths • Incentives • Commitment

29. External Assessment • Identify affected stakeholders • What are their perceptions of the issues? • What discussion or collaborative process options are possible?

30. Decide on aPublic Involvement Process

31. OUTREACH Purpose: Provide information Methods: Website Fact Sheet Press Release Federal Register Notice Outreach • One-way transfer of information from EPA to the public as a whole • Provides transparency about data, options, schedules and decisions • Increases stakeholder knowledge of EPA programs and issues • Reduces misinformation and misunderstanding • Complies with legal notice requirements • Major component of all other public involvement processes • Can be implemented quickly

32. INFORMATION EXCHANGE Purpose: Provide and exchange data, opinions and options Methods: Meetings with individuals Public meetings Workshops Listening sessions Availability sessions Information Exchange • Two-way transfer of information • Open invitation to all or focused on particular stakeholders • Obtain input from a wide range of interested parties • Stakeholders can educate each other in addition to EPA • Compile a knowledge base of the public’s interests, ideas and needs • Better understand and consider issues related to a particular decision • Not intended to build consensus or agreement

33. RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose: Provide non-binding but influential advice or comments Methods: Advisory committees Scoping sessions Policy dialogues Task force Joint fact finding Recommendations • EPA interaction with stakeholder groups rather than general public • Develop individual or group advice for EPA to consider when taking action • Integrate technical or scientific information for improved decisions • Reach understanding on data needs and/or policy options prior to EPA decision making • Stimulate joint thinking to solve persistent problems • Work through stakeholder concerns while reserving decision making authority

34. AGREEMENTS Purpose: Reach workable agreement or settlement Methods: Negotiated rulemaking Consensus permit Settlement agreement Consent Order Statement of principles Agreements • EPA and each stakeholder group commit to a decision on EPA action • Involve stakeholders in developing creative solutions that they can “live with” • Coordinate multiple agencies/levels of government in decision making to improve implementation • Bring closure to decisions on proposals or issues where buy-in is needed from other parties • Work out a mutually acceptable approach with parties who have the power to block or further implementation • Achieve high degree of compliance by affected parties

35. STAKEHOLDER ACTION Purpose: Empower stakeholders to take action Methods: Industry Sector Initiatives Voluntary Programs Watershed Collaboratives Stakeholder Action • Regulation might not be the only or most appropriate solution • Involve stakeholders in developing creative solutions that they will implement • EPA provides leadership, resources and energy in solving a problem that it alone cannot solve. • Harness the energies of multiple parties to deal with different parts of the problem • Achieve voluntary compliance by affected parties

36. COLLABORATION

37. Understand the Context for Collaboration • Identify the nature of the problem • Understand what makes leadership difficult • Identify the relevant interests/stakeholders • Assess the state of stakeholder agreement • Evaluate the community’s capacity for change • Identify where problems/issues can be most effectively addressed From David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, Collaborative Leadership, 1994, p 59

38. Identifying Stakeholders • What are the necessary perspectives to credibly define the problems and create solutions and who can speak for those perspectives? • What interests must be represented to reach implementable agreements and who can speak for them? • Who are the people, groups or organizations with resources necessary to implement solutions or clout to block implementation? • Who causes or is affected by the problem and who will the solution affect? • Who could generate the political and institutional will to implement the solutions if they could agree to them? From David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, Collaborative Leadership, 1994, p 65

39. Group Capacity for Change Questions to Ponder… • What is the level of trust, mistrust, conflict, polarization among stakeholders? • Are there citizen leaders with sufficient capacity to start and sustain a process? • Are there people in the community who can design and facilitate a collaborative process? • Are there leaders with enough credibility/respect to convene stakeholders? • Are there community information sources to help the collaborative make good decisions? • If not, what others sources are available to support building a shared knowledge base? Based on David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, Collaborative Leadership, 1994, p. 6 and 69

40. Characteristics of Successful Collaborations • Many levels of communication • Commitment of organizations and leaders • Commonly held, agreed-upon goals • Clearly defined roles • Authority determined to balance ownership by the organizations

41. Characteristics of Successful Collaborations (cont’d) • Leadership dispersed; control shared and mutual • Equal risk • Resources pooled and managed by collaborative structure • Organizations share learning and products • More is accomplished jointly than could have been individually Paul Mattessich, et al ”Collaboration: What makes it work,” 2nd Edition, p. 81

42. Keys to Successful Collaborations • Good timing and clear need • Strong stakeholder groups • Broad-based, inclusive involvement • Credible, open process to help build trust • Commitment an/or involvement of high-level, visible leaders • Support of “established” authorities or power From David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, Collaborative Leadership, 1994, pp 52-4

43. Keys to Successful Collaborations • Overcome mistrust and skepticism early • Strong leadership of process, not strong advocacy of a viewpoint • Good shared base of information/data • Shared responsibility, authority and accountability for results • Interim successes • A shift from personal interests to broader community concerns over time From David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, Collaborative Leadership, 1994, pp 52-4

44. Personal Traits for Building Successful Collaborations and Partnerships Ability to Listen Excellent Communication Skills Build and Maintain Relationships Strong Technical Knowledge Win/Win Attitude Celebrate Success •  Understand customer and partner needs •  Analyze what is heard •  Listen “for” not “against” •  Respect honest differences •  Communicate effectively in speech and writing •  Use honesty, tact, and diplomacy •  Communicate regularly - don’t wait until decisions are final •  Build partnership step by step •  Recognize that partnerships are about “we,” not “I” •  Be proactive •  Be creative and think outside the box •  Follow through on commitments •  Rely on actions to achieve trust and respect •  Update skill sets often • Encourage new skill sets and development opportunities for partners •  Share power, vision, and responsibility •  Remember that partnerships are not a one-way street •  Achieve mutual benefits to all partners •  Spell out expectations and accountability •  Recognize and congratulate each successful step towards goal

45. Listening “Conversation in the United States is a competitive exercise in which the first person to draw breath is declared the listener.” - Nathan Miller

46. Moving from Debate to Dialogue

47. Collaboration Training Information

48. Now is a Great Time for Collaboration Training It can help EPA: • Achieve the Obama Administration’s goals of openness/transparency and collaborative governance • Meet collaboration competency requirements • Develop successful supervisors • Enhance staff members’ collaboration skills

49. Now is a Great Time for Collaboration Training It can help EPA: • Understand and appropriately use collaboration • Improve internal and interagency cooperation • Respond to greater public demand for inclusion • Build and sustain stakeholder relationships • Build internal collaboration and reduce interoffice conflicts, misunderstandings and competition • Build/leverage time and staff when funding is scarce

50. How Does This Training Work? “Working Together” provides: • Keys to recognize how and where collaborative processes are the best choice, when to use them with other options and when they are not appropriate • Understanding of the levels/effectiveness of collaboration • Ways to manage and steer collaborative efforts • Understanding of internal and external applications • Snapshot of personal collaboration skills, knowledge and behaviors, both strengths and vulnerabilities • Collaborative behaviors to model