|
Synthesis of Public Comment >
Public engagement
Participants were asked whether people are aware of or involved in the Agreement, and three questions were used to probe for responses:
- Is the public sufficiently informed about programs and progress to achieve the goals of the Agreement? What approaches worked well and what other techniques could be used?
- Has the public been involved in developing the Agreement's goals and actions? Are there ways to improve the situation?
- Are there examples of how the public has been involved that could serve as a model in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin?
Engagement during the review of the Agreement
Barriers to public engagement
Education, accountability and funding
Using the review process
Engagement during the Agreement Review
A large number of participants expressed the hope that the public's engagement carried out by the Commission in the Spring and Fall of 2005 would continue after the Governments' review of the Agreement commences in the Spring of 2006. "The review process should ensure that there are ample opportunities for full and meaningful engagement of the public," said the leader of an environmental organization. Many presumed that any public engagement process during the review would be led by the Commission. Some suggested that citizens be given a place at the table:
|
We'd like also to encourage you to ensure that the public has a strong role in the development and assessment of the Agreement's review and the change therein. Perhaps citizen observers, as have been used in the 1980s, should be appointed to the review process.
The public has to have an important role to play in the development of the Agreement and the evaluation of its effectiveness. We would like citizens to be designated as observers during the review. Precedents for this were established in the 1980s and led to the 1987 Protocol.
|
At the same time, there was a widespread sense that more people should have taken part in the Commission's process. One expert in Great Lakes public participation wrote during the Web dialogue:
As the IJC solicited comments via email, telephone, postal mail and in-person meetings, did we participate (or rally others to participate) in a meaningful and passionate manner? Spotty participation in generally well advertised meetings, limited participation in these very Web dialogues, and other evidence from this fall's public hearing process suggests that we the 'public' have not demonstrated the level of engagement that it would take to move our governments toward greater accountability on binational environmental protection.
|
Barriers to public engagement
Several barriers to public engagement were said to exist in the Agreement review process, and more generally in Great Lakes policy. Among those identified by participants were a lack of information - the general public may not know enough about the problems facing the lakes or the solutions to those problems to get them to engage - and lack of confidence that governments will be responsive to their concerns and that funding for meaningful local public involvement will be sufficient.
With respect to the perceived lack of information, many participants cited fish consumption advisories as an example:
There's a lot of misinformation or lack of information. Fish consumption advisories are still not well publicized because governments seem too concerned about discouraging tourists and not concerned enough about protecting people and protecting public health.
|
Insufficient funding was widely seen as a key barrier to more extensive public engagement. "People are very interested in getting involved to help restore these sites [Areas of Concern]," stated a program manager for one regional environmental group. "On the other hand," he added, "there is always a financial impediment to help make this happen." Generally, governments were looked to for financial support, but other sources were identified as well:
From a practical standpoint, unfortunately, there was a true lack of funds from the foundation community to support NGO [non-governmental organization] involvement. Long-term commitment to participating in such a large effort ... takes a huge amount of resources, persistence and time. But without the NGOs, there will be less overall involvement of the broader public.
|
In some cases, the calls for greater access to public participation were directed at the Commission as well as the Governments: "We would very much appreciate a greater involvement of the public in your working groups and scientific committees," said one participant.
Education, Accountability and Funding
Educational programs, including some in the school system, were seen by many as a key to improving the public's understanding. At the same time, many believed that the IJC has a role to play. As one person put it:
The IJC could do more to help 'market' the Great Lakes and the need for investments in Great Lakes protection and restoration to the general public. In doing so, the IJC should work with communications groups to take advantage of current research and message development to ensure that its messages and the mechanisms for outreach are targeted to key audiences within the Great Lakes public. I believe that this type of more general 'marketing' should be the IJC's primary responsibility on this issue, as opposed to having the IJC fund public involvement in particular AOCs, etc.
|
As for addressing the perceived lack of government responsiveness, accountability provisions in the Agreement were often proposed as a solution:
The IJC should do everything possible to ensure that any future version of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement includes enforcement measures that allow outside entities to hold governments accountable, in court, if they fail to meet the specific goals, action and timelines that should be part of the new Agreement. This increase in meaningful accountability might help rebuild public trust in the institutions charged with protection of the Great Lakes - if people understand the problems and think that they can make a difference by engaging, they will engage.
|
Many people called on the Commission to help ensure that adequate funding is available to support public involvement:
The IJC can help ensure that meaningful investments in public involvement are a yardstick in the new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. By this, I mean that the two Governments ought to hold primary responsibility for funding public involvement in decisions about the future of the Great Lakes, whether at the local/RAP level or more broadly. They should invest in meaningful public involvement early on in these processes and should take care to engage the right set of people. The IJC's role should be to make sure that public involvement is part of all aspects of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and that the Agreement includes measurable objectives to that end.
|
Using the Review Process
Among the experts in public participation, there was a common view that the review process itself could be a way to reinvigorate public involvement in the Agreement.
| [The] first order of business is to change the traditional public involvement mindset and ask, 'If we want to reach ordinary citizens and engage them, how do we do that?' We consider this an educational opportunity to present the Agreement and review process in layperson's terms. It is essential to define a clear process, points at which the public has a responsibility and opportunity to participate, and an evaluation piece. During and after these, ordinary citizens need to be connected to local programs in their own areas that have distinct relationships to the Agreement. Local involvement with specific, concrete programs is the best way to interest and maintain the engagement of citizens.
Part of the way to do this is for the public discussion not to be about the Agreement. Instead, the public discussion is about eating fish. Drinking the water. Being able to swim at the beaches without worrying about pathogenic pollution. Having habitat places to view birds and wildlife. Stopping sewage. Then, the Agreement is a tool - a means to an end - to get us to those things. The ends are what will really bring 'ordinary' people to the table. Not the Agreement.
|
Another suggestion was to establish an advisory panel to assist governments and other agencies in the basin in engaging the public. However, rather than being ad hoc, project-specific and disbanded after the review of the Agreement, this one should be ongoing, with membership refreshed on a scheduled basis. As participant in the Web dialogue wrote:
| If we were to select from the thousands of passionate (easily nudged) citizens around the Great Lakes basin who have engaged in these processes over time (and many have become political leaders or joined nongovernmental organizations) and assemble a citizens panel who could work alongside the boards and other implementing agencies, advise on public engagement mechanisms, create local linkages, we may get somewhere.
|
The ultimate goal, said many people, is to realize sustainable behaviour change over time, and public education and participation were seen as tools to achieve that goal.
| Public engagement, when designed to be inclusive, is ultimately about public education. If the goal of our engagement is merely to capture public attention for our policy decisions, then we miss an opportunity to build public support for lakes conservation, something that would help all lakes policies - from the Annex agreement to restoration, invasive species and more. And, most importantly, we can help the lakes themselves.
|
Last update:
|
