Eight year negotiated rule-making process to result in safer
drinking water
 On December 15, 2005, an unprecedented
process of joint inquiry, data-gathering and analysis, and
negotiations involving the water supply community, public
health officials, public interest groups, chemical and
equipment suppliers, and local, state and federal regulators
culminated in new regulations that will improve public
health and shape investments in public water systems in the
United States for the next 20 years.
Disinfection of drinking water to
reduce wide-spread microbial risk is one of the most
important public health accomplishments in the past 100
years. Over 250 million people in the United States drink
disinfected water. Yet the disinfectants used to kill
pathogens in source water can produce unintended by-products
– some of which are suggested human carcinogens or may have
harmful non-cancer health impacts. In 1992, the US
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water began a unique multi-year,
multi-step process to address the risks from both microbial
pathogens and disinfection byproducts. Working with EPA,
RESOLVE mediators convened and facilitated three separate
federal advisory committees as stakeholders worked
collaboratively over many years to gather and analyze new
information needed to determine appropriate regulatory
policy. EPA published the final Stage II regulations,
including both a long-term treatment rule for microbial
pathogens and disinfection by-products rules, in the Federal
Register in early January.
United States tap water is arguably
safer because of the structured negotiated rulemaking
process used by the EPA. “These rules are important public
health measures that balance the need to disinfect drinking
water and protect citizens from potentially harmful
contaminants,” said Cynthia Dougherty, Director of EPA’s
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. “Through the
collaborative process, EPA, the drinking water community and
other stakeholders were able to fully and openly consider
the complexities of these risk balancing issues, resulting
in better rules to protect public health.”
Contact:
Gail Bingham and
Abby Arnold
Oil and gas industry looks to
researchers, regulators, and NGOs for input into development
of major marine research program
 Increased attention to potential
impacts to marine life from sounds associated with offshore
exploration and production activities led the International
Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) to fund the
design of a joint industry-sponsored research program to
better understand the effects that seismic, production,
decommissioning and support operations may have. Late last
summer, the OGP planning group invited non-industry experts
to discuss research options and priorities, helping to shape
the agenda for what is likely to become a multi-million
dollar research program.
“We all live in our own worlds these
days,” says Bill Streever, Marine Mammal Issues Manager for
BP. “None of us has the complete view that multiple
stakeholders can bring to a planning process.” At the
three-day
Sound in the Marine Environment Workshop, oil and gas
industry expertise was rounded out by the views of over 50
experts from national governments, academic and research
institutions, and non-governmental organizations. “The
workshop did two things for us,” says Streever. “One, it
affirmed that the themes we thought were worth looking at
were in fact important. Two, it added some key themes that
we had missed – notably, the importance of looking at
cumulative effects.” Participants also underscored the
importance of gathering baseline and long-term information
and of gathering data that can be applied to assessments of
biological significance.
Industry representatives (many of whom
have been working on this issue for years) did not initially
agree on the feasibility of getting non-industry
stakeholders’ input. Experience with impartial convening and
facilitation assistance on other issues helped convince them
that it would be possible to get past the polarizing
rhetoric that can sink a stakeholder input process. Streever
applauds RESOLVE’s willingness to “check in” regularly with
OGP representatives, to listen and to communicate with all
participants. “The success of this workshop,” Streever says,
“resulted in large part from RESOLVE’s efforts to make sure
that people were comfortable with and well-informed about
what was going to happen.”
Contact:
Gail Bingham
When consensus is not the goal:
multi-stakeholder dialogue informs implementation of Oregon
Forest Management Plan
 Reaching consensus is often the goal of
a facilitated discussion. But when Oregon State Forest
Advisory Committee (SFAC) members convened for a dialogue
about the adaptive management element of Oregon’s Forest
Management Plan (FMP) last July, consensus was not the goal.
“Agreeing to disagree” was also the precondition for SFAC’s
September dialogue about how aggressively the Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF) should treat infestations of
the Swiss Needle Cast disease. SFAC, a volunteer advisory
group with a diverse, often polarized membership appointed
to advise ODF on implementation of the state’s FMP, engaged
in a “multi-stakeholder dialogue”. While there are many
forms for these dialogues, SFAC used a United Nations model
designed not to bring parties to agreement but to clarify
various positions and perspectives on a controversial issue,
for the benefit of a decision-making body – in this case the
Oregon Board of Forestry (BOF).
SFAC Chair Barrett Brown proposed the multi-stakeholder
dialogue approach at a time when the Board of Forestry had
asked SFAC for feedback on certain topics. Yet some SFAC
members had begun to question the value of the SFAC's input.
Brown hoped to “elevate the level of discourse,” to “capture
and reflect [to BOF policy-makers] the conflict that can
exist among radically diverse stakeholders in a positive,
constructive way,” says Brown.
ODF State Forests Program Director Lisa
DeBruyckere says that “using multi stakeholder dialogue
helped to create a higher level of expectation, that if
you’re going to take a stance on an issue you have to be
prepared to back up that position with information, to
respond to other stakeholders’ questions.” Knowing that
their dialogue would be well documented (by Rob Williams and
Turner Odell of RESOLVE), SFAC members were able to
articulate their positions using fact-based language, and to
refrain from the kind of “polarizing rhetoric” that had come
to characterize some of the Committee’s non-facilitated
debates.
DeBruyckere feels that the MSD approach
resulted in “a richer discussion” – and a more useful
report, in which the range of stakeholder positions was
articulated briefly and concisely by topic. By all accounts,
it appears that MSD will continue to be “one of many tools”
that Oregon is using to engage stakeholders in meaningful
discussion about how to achieve the goal of managing the
state’s forests for the “greatest permanent economic,
environmental, and social value.”
Contact: Rob Williams
Back to top
Keep
an Eye On
- Federal Agencies Directed to Engage in Environmental
Conflict Resolution and Collaborative Problem Solving
The Office of Management and Budget and the
President’s Council on Environmental Quality recently
issued a joint Memorandum on Environmental Conflict
Resolution (ECR). Citing the high costs of conflict –
including “lower quality outcomes and lost opportunities
when environmental plans and decisions are not informed
by all available information and perspectives” – and the
challenge of balancing competing public interests and
federal environmental protection and management
responsibilities, the memo directs agencies to increase
their effective use of ECR and to build institutional
capacity for collaborative problem solving. It details a
range of strategies and mechanisms for pursuing these
aims, and encourages agencies to make use of the US
Institute for Conflict Resolution and other ECR/ADR
organizations (as appropriate), and to employ such
“basic principles” as informed commitment; balanced,
voluntary representation; group autonomy; informed
process; accountability; openness; and timeliness when
engaging in ECR and collaborative problem-solving.
- Symposium on Environmental Conflict Resolution
The Research Triangle universities are sponsoring a
day-long symposium on environmental conflict resolution,
to be held at the NCSU McKimmon Center on February 10,
2006.
Collaborating on Environmental Decisions: For Good? For
Ill? For Whom? Will include sessions on Public
Involvement Reforms in Public Land Management, and a
look at the role of collaboration in regard to the
environmental impacts of new technologies. Lynn Scarlett,
Deputy Secretary of the US Department of the Interior,
RESOLVE President Gail Bingham, Author Hanna Cortner,
and James Souby, President of the Oquirrh Institute will
be featured speakers. For registration and more
information:
www.ces.ncsu.edu/nrli.
- “ADR On My Mind” in Georgia
The American Bar Association (ABA)’s Section of Dispute
Resolution will hold its 8th Annual Spring
Section Conference in at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta,
Georgia, April 5-8, 2006. For detailed information visit
the Section’s website at
www.abanet.org/dispute, or call (202) 662-1680.
- Correction
In our October
2005 issue, we reported that the American Bar
Association's Section on Dispute Resolution had updated
its Model Conduct for Mediators from 1994. The Model
Standards of Conduct for Mediators was developed not by
the ABA alone, but by a coalition of the American
Arbitration Association, the ABA's Section of Dispute
Resolution, and the Association for Conflict Resolution.
In September 2002, two designated representatives from
each of the three original participating organizations
convened a Joint Committee to revise the 1994 Version.
The new Model Standards (December 2004 Version) can be
viewed at:
http://www.abanet.org/dispute/webpolicy.html#8.
Back to top
New and Notable
RESOLVE staff are currently assisting stakeholder dialogue
through the following new projects:
- Strategic Planning for Public Health
Preparedness.
The Association of State & Territorial Health Officials
(ASTHO) has requested the services of RESOLVE to design
and facilitate strategic planning by a new group of
public officials who direct preparedness efforts for the
50 US states and four major cities. Directors of Public
Health Preparedness (DPHP)’s purpose is to provide
senior health officials with strategic direction and
policy resources quickly and efficiently. A strategic
plan outline was developed at DPHP’s first workshop with
further assistance anticipated for implementation
efforts.
Contact:
bstedman@resolv.org
- Charter Service Convening.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has asked
RESOLVE to assess the feasibility of convening a
negotiated rulemaking committee where private- and
public-sector charter service providers could discuss
and develop consensus-based revisions to the nation’s
current bus charter service regulations. At issue is the
extent to which the charter service market should be
accessible to all charter service providers. RESOLVE’s
assessment is due to FTA in January; FTA will decide
whether to convene a committee at a subsequent date.
Contact: rroberts@resolv.org
- Oregon Consensus Program (OCP)
Located within the National Policy Consensus Center at
Portland State University, OCP has been asked to conduct
a convening assessment for a land use-related dispute
involving a neighborhood known as Bull Mountain. At the
center of the dispute is a controversy over whether the
neighborhood should be annexed by the town of Tigard
(near Portland) or remain under the jurisdiction of
Washington County.
Contact:
todell@resolv.org or
rwilliams@resolv.org
Back to top
|
|
We
welcome your feedback. Email us:
resolvereporter@resolv.org
If you prefer not to receive this bulletin, please
click here.
We’re on the Web!
www.resolv.org
RESOLVE
Washington DC Office
1255 23rd Street , NW
Suite 275
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 944-2300
Portland Office
720 SW Washington Street
Suite
710
Portland, OR 97205
(503) 228-8350
|
Association for Conflict Resolution
(ACR)
2006
Annual conference in Philly January 15 deadline --proposals
for ACR Annual Conference, October 2006, Philadelphia.
More proposals translate into more choices for EPP-related
sessions to fulfill needs of current section members and to
reach other ACR members to draw them in to EPP work. Click
here to submit your proposal.
Save the date: The EPP ’06 Section mid-year
conference will be in Boston June 28 to 30. If you’re
interested in helping organize the conference, please
contact Harry Manasewich at
Hfactordr@aol.com.
International Association for Public Participation
(IAP2)
2006 IAP2 International
Conference
November 10 - 15, 2006 Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Call for
Volunteers - 2006 IAP2 Conference - Plans are well underway
for an exciting, innovative, and participative conference.
We need your help to make these plans a reality.
Read the
Call for Volunteers
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
2006 EPA
Community Involvement Conference & Training. To
submit a proposal to make a presentation, offer a training workshop, or lead a
field trip,
click here.
Back to top |
Greetings
and Happy New Year. Like most years, 2005 brought its share
of trials and rewards. At RESOLVE, we will learn from our
experiences, build on our successes, and take advantage of
significant new opportunities to assist people in their
efforts to find common ground on challenging and complex
issues. This issue of the
RESOLVE Reporter offers glimpses
of how well-structured dialogue among competing interests
can improve the value of an end-product – whether that
“product” is a rule to protect drinking water, a
multi-million dollar research plan, or stakeholder input on
implementing public policy in the controversial arena of
forest management. The recent