November/December 1996
|
|
November/December 1996 |
by Thomas Baldini
On October 8, 1996, Commissioners met with represenatives from environmental nongovernmental organizations, industry, labor, First Nations and government to discuss its public consultation process under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Many constructive comments were presented at this meeting and incorporated into planned activities. The following was excerpted from remarks made by U.S. Section Chair Thomas Baldini at the meeting. For more details on planned activities, please see the table accompanying this article, or request a copy of the public consultation strategy from the Commission's Washington, Ottawa or Windsor offices.
Public consultation is a hallmark of the International Joint Commission. Since the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was first signed almost 25 years ago, our consultation process has evolved from annual meetings with our boards into broader strategies such as public meetings, workshops, roundtables and the biennial meetings, the most recent having been held in Duluth, Minnesota. The Commission consults in these and other ways to obtain information on the status of Agreement progress, lack of progress, new concerns, and suggested changes to solve old or new problems from the different players across the basin.
Many of you have attended biennial meetings, so you are aware of the breadth of consultation with sectors, as well as the opportunities and constraints to explore certain issues in more depth.
Given the nature of Great Lakes issues, just how well was the Commission being served by the biennial meeting format? For that matter, how well were you being served, in terms of opportunities to incorporate your views and insight into our advice about Agreement progress? Some friends have observed that the biennial meeting -- which was a means to an end, or the Commission obtaining information -- has become an end in itself. That may not be bad, but does it provide the type of consultation that we need to formulate recommendations?
We felt it was time for a change for several reasons. We did not approach this change lightly. We wanted to retain previous elements of our meetings that had been successful, and replace those that had become static with elements that would achieve greater interaction with people from various groups.
As a starting point, we reviewed the responses on the comment cards people completed and returned to us after our biennial meeting in Duluth. Those responses told us what people did or did not like -- what we should retain or change. Recognizing the need to consider more than just the biennial meeting, we struck a public consultation committee in October 1995 to review our entire public consultation process under the Agreement.
The committee conducted a survey, asking 149 people what goals they felt the biennial meeting should accomplish, and their opinion as to whether the goals were indeed accomplished. The recipients represented a broad range of Great Lakes interests; more than half responded. We also surveyed -- by phone or fax -- 25 members of various interest groups.
What did people have to say about the way we were doing business? It is a challenge to succinctly summarize what people said. First, people said that the biennial meetings were productive and valuable in obtaining input from various constituencies and in sharing information via workshops. People also said that the biennial meetings should serve as a strong incentive for governments to act and to develop a strong sense of community for the Great Lakes and the Agreement. However, the survey results indicated that these goals were not achieved.
Some people suggested that our biennial meetings have served, perhaps, as a pressure point for Governments to report Agreement progress. But how thorough are the Governments reports? We feel our new, expanded strategy will not only be more effective to ensure reporting by Governments, but will also help us, the Commission, secure the advice and insight necessary to evaluate progress, as reported to both you and us. By evaluating progress, we can more effectively encourage Governments and other sectors to move ahead with environmental restoration and protection.
Another criticism was that biennial meetings were too broad. There were too many events, and too many concurrent activities which, while quite good, tended to dilute attention. We were also told that we need more time for dialogue -- questions, answers, discussion and interchange. People do not want to be talked at. They want to work together as a Great Lakes community, not only to voice concerns, but to identify and implement solutions.
We were told that biennial meetings help build community, but some community sectors were not fully engaged or were not there, period. Who was not fully engaged? Industry and Governments to name two. Representatives came, fulfilled their obligations and left. With such minimal involvement, how can we as a Commission secure the insight and advice necessary to confront and resolve Great Lakes issues? Indeed, how can we, as a Great Lakes community, achieve the goals of the Agreement when some of those who hold the keys to solutions are not at the table?
People also told us that we are an active player in Great Lakes issues, and we received visibility through the biennial meeting. However, the biennial meeting crammed too much into too little time. The media we surveyed, in fact, told us just that -- that their editors would not accept all the stories they wanted to write during the three to five days of a biennial meeting. It has also been suggested that we get a one-time hit every two years.
Our visibility and, much more importantly, the visibility of Great Lakes issues could be considerably enhanced, and more progress made, if we spread things out over a broader period of time, and if we held events that were much more focused. This would allow news media to do justice to a complex subject matter and maintain the profile of Great Lakes issues and the commitment to action.
People told us they preferred public meetings, as opposed to formal public hearings, and they liked roundtable discussions and workshops. People also favored opportunities for positive media exposure, to get the important messages out to more people.
The responses also indicated that events should be less staged and designed to achieve greater interaction with people. Overall, the majority of people from all sectors of the Great Lakes community indicated they were open to changing things in various ways. Given the lack of participation from all sector groups at recent meetings, the expansive cost and time it takes for us to put on biennial meetings and the lack of time to adequately consult with the people who attended the meetings, we agreed with the people.
After considerable thought, informal dialogue with sector representatives and discussions with consultation experts, we developed and adopted the consultation package that is summarized in the following table. We adopted the package at our June executive meeting, and we are now implementing it. Your participation in all events is especially critical for the Commissioners, because without your input we cannot receive the insight we need to formulate our advice to Governments.
We hope we have retained what has worked in the past, and are also providing more outreach -- additional opportunities for dialogue with those who are knowledgeable about, and have insight into Great Lakes issues. Can we please everyone? I doubt it. However, we have taken into account what you have said and, hopefully, developed a balanced package that will continue to serve you and us more effectively and efficiently than in the past. Moreover, we think our consultation strategy is not so much in our best interest, but in the best interest of our primary client, the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
Revised: 14 January 1997
Maintained by Kevin McGunagle,
mcgunaglek@ijc.wincom.net