Johnson, Leigh Taylor

English

Research Papers in Economics

PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION  FOR WETLANDS
ISSUES
Leigh Taylor Johnson
University of California  Cooperative Extension
As the Cooperative Extension Marine Advisor for San Diego County,
California,  I  have  used  techniques  of  public  policy  education,  the
National  Issues  Forum  and mediation  in  educating  about  wetlands
issues.
Public Policy Education
The steps of the model, "Ladder  for Policy"  (Wallace, et al.),  lead
from perceiving and defining a problem through developing goals and
implementation strategies to arrive at a policy for solving it. The public
policy educator or team convenes a group representing different per-
spectives on the problem. They work through a process that includes:
selecting a topic; defining the situation, concerns and issues; generat-
ing and  choosing  among  possible  goals;  generating  alternatives  for
achieving  the selected goal by  examining the consequences  of each
alternative  using objective criteria;  selecting an alternative;  develop-
ing strategies for implementing it;  and evaluating  the effectiveness  of
the process, the resulting policy and future actions.
The  ladder  requires  participants  to reject  some  possibilities  and
focus on  a choice at each  decision point.  Parts of the ladder can  be
repeated for complex problems requiring multiple  goals,  alternatives
and  strategies.  As the process  develops,  participants  will be  able to
decide how many elements should be incorporated in the final policy.
A key element in the success of the  process is that generating and
evaluating  alternatives  based  on  their  consequences  and  objective
criteria  allow  participants  to  determine  the  values  attached  to  the
problem. They are then able to make choices based on a clear under-
standing of those values.
National Issues  Forum
The  goal of the  National  Issues  Forum  (NIF)  is  to  stimulate  and
sustain public discussion on  issues of national importance.  Its popu-
larity has resulted in projects that apply NIF methods to regional and
local concerns, such as western water issues (Ford) and airport siting
(San Diego Dialogue).
110The NIF recognizes that citizens may not be well informed on the
complexities  of issues  and develops books,  summaries  and video-
tapes to establish a common foundation of knowledge  on each  issue.
These  materials incorporate  information  from mass  media,  inter-
views with knowledgeable  parties,  relevant  statistics, and citizen
focus groups.
The information is used to develop a series of choices, supported by
data and public concerns.  For example,  their issue book,  The Health
Care Crisis (Melville),  presents three choices  for resolving the prob-
lem: minor changes, radical overhaul and mandated coverage. Partici-
pants review the background materials and deliberate collectively  on
the choices with the aid of a trained moderator.
The NIF believes that "citizens need to grasp the underlying prob-
lem or dilemma,  and they should understand certain basic facts and
trends  . . . .The  most important  thing  to ponder  and  discuss  is the
kernel  of  convictions  on  which  each  alternative  is  based.  The  . . .
National Issues Forums help people sort out conflicting principles and
preferences,  to  find  out where  they  agree  and  disagree  and  work
toward common understandings"  (Melville, p. 24).
Emphasis is placed on sorting out values and examining choices in a
deliberative atmosphere. The NIF states, "the 'choice work' that takes
place in Forum discussions involves weighing alternatives and consid-
ering the consequences of various courses of action.  . .. Forum partici-
pants  learn  how  to  work through  issues  together  . . . using talk  to
discover, not just to persuade or advocate"  (Melville, p. 24).
The NIF believes,  "citizens who have deliberated  together are the
best  predictors-the  best source  of information-about  what  the
public  as  a whole  would  accept  as  sound  policy,  and that  the judg-
ment reached  by such citizens  is,  therefore,  worth heeding for both
political  and policy reasoning  . ..  that citizens want a partnership
with policy  makers in deliberation  concerning the choices open to
the public"  (Kinghorn, p.  49).  NIF suggests methods for participants
to communicate  their concerns  and conclusions to policymakers  and
others in the community.
Mediation
Mediation principles  developed  by the Harvard  Negotiation  Proj-
ect include  four basic points:
"People:  Separate the people from the problem.
Interests:  Focus on interests,  not positions.
Options:  Generate  a  variety of possibilities  before
deciding what to do.
Criteria:  Insist that the result be  based on some ob-
jective criteria" (Fisher and Ury,  p. 11).
111Separating the people  from the problem involves  identifying  sub-
stantive (what one needs) interests or issues and relationship (how one
wants to be treated)  interests  or issues.  Dealing  up front  with rela-
tionship issues clears the deck for dealing with substantive issues. Both
are influenced by perceptions and emotions that determine how peo-
ple interpret what they see and hear. Negotiation can be stopped in its
tracks  if parties  do not understand  each other's  points  of view  and
feelings about the dispute. To facilitate the exchange of perspectives,
parties  are asked to employ techniques  such as active listening,  role
reversal  and summarizing  to the other what he or she has said.  The
San Diego Mediation  Center has developed  a  well-defined  process
using these techniques. They also emphasize obtaining agreement to a
set of ground rules for maintaining a constructive  atmosphere  (Com-
munity Mediation Program, Fisher and Ury).
This method is often called "interest-based" negotiation, as opposed
to "positional"  negotiation. In positional negotiation parties start with a
position,  or suggested  action,  in the belief that it will promote  their
interests or needs. Problems arise when one party's position threatens
the  other's  interests  (Fisher and  Ury).  For example,  an  employee's
request for a raise may pose a fiscal problem for the employer.
Interest-based negotiation begins by identifying and discussing each
party's interests, needs and concerns. Parties then propose actions to
satisfy their interests and objective criteria are developed to evaluate
them. Negotiation proceeds to evaluate, modify and select a mutually-
agreeable set of actions to resolve the dispute. Ideally, the agreement
will be fair, balanced and SMART: Specific,  Measurable, Achievable,
Realistic,  and  include  a  Timetable  to  produce  an enduring  solution
(Fisher and Ury, Community Mediation Program). In the above exam-
ple, discovering why the raise is needed may help the employer meet
the employee's need with a benefit or perquisite.
Comparison of the Methods
All three methods help participants to make choices by expressing,
exchanging and clarifying the values they bring to making decisions on
difficult issues. Public policy educators call this examining the conse-
quences of alternatives, NIF calls it "choice work" and mediators call it
focusing  on interests.  They all  use  group  discussion  with  a  neutral
facilitator as the arena for deliberation.  All employ factual information
as a background  for discussing values and making choices.
Public  policy  education  is  a  comprehensive  process  for  working
through  public issues and developing  specific policy strategies to re-
solve them. It is a flexible process that has been used  extensively for
local,  regional and national  issues.  NIF develops well-researched
background materials, uses the materials to educate large numbers of
people on public issues, and involves them in well-managed delibera-
tion to develop an enlightened  electorate.  Communicating  choices to
112policymakers is recommended,  but less developed than in public pol-
icy education. NIF processes can be used to strengthen earlier steps of
a public policy education ladder.  Mediation  is a well-defined  process
for voluntary conflict resolution,  drawing extensively  on human rela-
tions skills. It has a strong track record in international negotiation, as
well as  smaller  scale  issues.  Employing  mediation's techniques  and
criteria for an enduring agreement can strengthen public policy educa-
tion discussions,  decisions  and final policies.
Educating about Wetlands  Issues
Public policy issues are complex and my role as an educator evolves
over the course of involvement in a given wetlands  issue.  The three
processes  have  been  useful  at  various  stages  of involvement  in  an
issue. Two projects,  one regarding San Diego Bay water quality and
the other regarding agriculture and nonpoint source pollution in coast-
al waters of San Diego County, have provided opportunities to employ
these  techniques.
The San Diego Bay project began with a request from the San Diego
Interagency  Water  Quality Panel to help  organize  a seminar.  Tech-
nical information on Bay water quality was scattered over many organ-
izations and policy makers were having difficulty obtaining a compre-
hensive  picture for decision  making.  The information was extensive
and  complex,  a large  number  of individuals  were interested  in the
issue  of managing bay water quality,  and there  was a need for pol-
icymakers to receive summaries and to interact with technical experts
and the public.
The panel decided to hold a symposium,  which I chaired. Written,
technical summaries were prepared, technical sessions were planned
with invited speakers, knowledgeable participants and facilitators. On
the first day of the symposium, participants in these sessions analyzed
and revised the technical materials; deliberated on the issues of pollu-
tion sources and monitoring, human health risks, and cleanup of con-
taminated  sediments;  and  produced  a  set of technically-based
recommendations to policymakers.
On the second day of the symposium,  technical recommendations
were presented to policymakers who then responded with their opin-
ions on priorities and how their government sector could help resolve
some  of the  Bay's  pollution  problems.  The  audience  of  about  150
concerned citizens and scientists interacted with the policymakers and
all completed  an opinion survey on critical Bay pollution issues. Sym-
posium findings were summarized in an extensive report (Johnson, et
al.)  that the panel sent to policymakers  at  all  levels of government,
concerned citizens and scientists.
The intensive  research  and  discussion  methods  used  in the  sym-
posium and report phases  are much like those of the National Issues
Forum. I have continued  to participate as  a panel member and have
113used  mediation  techniques  to  help  panel  members  deliberate  and
decide on the best means for implementing their recommendations.
Overall, public policy education methods have provided a framework
for guiding the group and I have received advice from members of the
University  of California Cooperative  Extension Public Policy  Educa-
tion Workgroup.
Various organizations  and agencies  are developing ways to imple-
ment the recommendations of the symposium.  For example, the Port
and  the  Regional  Water  Quality  Control  Board  considered  a joint
pollution  monitoring  effort  and  the Port  of San Diego  has targeted
urban runoff for attention  as a  pollution source.  A panel  member is
modeling  some  of  my  methods  to  help  the  county's  committee  on
stormwater pollution management chart a course. A local environmen-
tal group submitted a nomination to the governor for San Diego Bay to
be included in the National Estuary Program, which mandates devel-
opment of a comprehensive conservation and management plan. The
state  is preparing the nomination for submission  to the federal  Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency.
In 1992 the panel asked me to facilitate a workshop in response to a
request  from  a  state  senator,  who  wished  to  submit  reauthorizing
legislation for the panel. The group agreed that the goal of reauthoriz-
ing  the  panel  should  be  pursued.  I  used the  "Ladder  for  Policy,"
leading  the  participants  through  alternatives  for  reauthorizing  the
panel, generating  a list of consequences  for the top five alternatives,
and  prioritizing  the alternatives.  The  discussion  generated  by  this
process brought out underlying values, concerns and interests that had
remained unspoken  in previous  meetings.  Thus,  panel members
achieved  a better understanding  of each  other's interests  and could
negotiate  appropriate  courses  of action.  The  senator's  staff partici-
pated in this workshop.  I wrote up the results, including lists of alter-
natives  and  consequences  and  summarized  highlights  of the
discussion. A bill is now before the legislature that incorporates many
elements from the workshop. Unlike in the symposium, participants in
the panel reauthorization  workshop were well informed on the issues
and had worked together for years. Therefore, the emphasis on back-
ground information was unnecessary  and the public policy education
and mediation  methods were most valuable.
The agriculture and coastal nonpoint source pollution project began
with a request from the U.S. Department  of Agriculture  to develop a
pilot project to empower agricultural producers to reduce impacts on
coastal estuaries  (Johnson and Mellano).  The nonpoint source pollu-
tion focus was chosen, because it was a developing issue and policies
had  not yet  been  fixed.  My  colleague,  Dr.  Valerie  Mellano,  [Agri-
cultural] Environmental  Issues Advisor,  and I  identified  agricultural
producers,  government  agencies  and  environmental  groups  as  the
primary concerned  parties.  We  hired  a  graduate  student  in public
health to interview  members of the three groups to determine their
114knowledge, concerns and likely action plans regarding the issue. We
also hired an attorney to summarize the regulatory framework for the
issue. Their work was developed into a set of extensive background
materials for the issue. This reflects a National Issues Forum approach
to educating  citizens before convening them for deliberation.
We developed participation by decision makers for all three groups
and  held two  forums  in which we  used the  "Ladder for  Policy"  to
generate and decide on goals and alternatives. Mediation techniques
were used in development phases and in the forums to help people feel
that their interests would be represented and during the forums to help
establish a constructive  atmosphere.  Unlike the San Diego Interagen-
cy Water Quality Panel, this group was unused to working together, so
progress  was much slower.  One  alternative  recommendation  of the
forums was for a steering committee,  that is carrying on the decision
process.  Another alternative  forum recommendation  was to provide
educational  assistance  to  agricultural  producers  in  developing  best
management practices for reducing nonpoint source pollution. Feder-
al EPA staff participated in the project and encouraged us to apply for
funding to implement an educational  project.  We have been advised
this funding will be approved.  We also received  comments from the
Regional Water  Quality Control Board that this approach  was much
needed.
Conclusions
Public policy education, National Issues Forum and mediation meth-
ods  can  be  employed  effectively  in  educating  about  and  resolving
wetlands issues. The key factors are developing and presenting sound
background  information, examining values, building trust, and acting
as a neutral facilitator for balanced and fair discussion leading to wise
decisions. Familiarity with the techniques allows the educator to com-
bine and adapt them for each situation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author  wishes to thank Diane Wallace,  Dr. Tim Wallace  and Dr. Valerie Mellano, the University of California
Cooperative Extension Public Policy Education Workgroup,  the San Diego Interagency Water Quality Panel, the San
Diego Mediation Center, the National Issues Forum, the California Sea Grant Extension and  College Programs, and
the United States Department  of Agriculture  (USDA) for their support, advice,  training and encouragement.
This  paper  is  funded  in  part  by a  grant from  the National  Sea Grant  College  Program,  National Oceanic  and
Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA),  U.S.  Department  of Commerce,  under  grant number  NA89AA-D-SG138,
project number  A/EA-1  through  the California  Sea Grant College,  in  part by the USDA under  grant number 91-
EWQI-9032,  and in part by the California State Resources  Agency. The views expressed herein are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA, USDA or any of their subagencies.  The United States Government
is  authorized to reproduce and distribute for governmental  purposes.
REFERENCES
Community Mediation Program. Introductory  Mediation Skills Training  Manual. San Diego CA: San Diego Mediation
Center,  1991.
Fisher, Roger, and  William Ury. Getting to Yes.  New York NY: Penguin  Books, 1981.
Ford,  Jean, ed.  Water: Shaping the Future  of the West.  Reno NV: University  of Nevada,  1992.
Johnson, Leigh, and Valerie Mellano. Agriculture and Estuarine  Water Quality Public  Policy Education Program  for
San Diego County, California.  Preliminary report of a USDA funded project. San Diego CA: University of California
Cooperative  Extension,  1992.
115Johnson, Leigh, Jon Van Rhyn, and Jennifer Tierney,  eds. San Diego Bay 1989/1990 Report. Including the Report of
the  1990 San  Diego Bay Symposium.  San Diego CA:  San Diego Interagency  Water Quality Panel, County of San
Diego,  1990.
Kinghorn,  John. National Issues Forum Leadership Handbook. Dayton OH:  National Issues Forum  Institute,  1991.
Melville, Keith, ed. The Health Care  Crisis. Prepared by the Public Agenda Foundation for the National Issues Forum
Institute.  Dubuque  IA: Kendall/Hunt  Publishing Company,  1992.
San Diego  Dialogue. San Diego's Airport Options. San  Diego CA,  1992.
Wallace,  Tim, James Reedy, et al. Ladder for Policy. A report of the University of California Cooperative  Extension
Public  Policy Education Workgroup.  Berkeley  CA: University  of California  Cooperative  Extension, revised  Fall,
1991.
116The Rural Social Infrastructure

Agriculture and Estuarine Water Quality Public Policy Education Program for San Diego County, California. Preliminary report of a USDA funded project. San Diego CA:

Community Mediation Program. Introductory Mediation Skills Training Manual. San Diego CA: San Diego Mediation Center,

Dialogue. San Diego's Airport Options.

Getting to Yes.

Ladder for Policy. A report of the University of California Cooperative Extension Public Policy Education Workgroup. Berkeley CA: University of California Cooperative Extension, revised Fall,

National Issues Forum Leadership Handbook. Dayton OH: National Issues Forum Institute,

The Health Care Crisis. Prepared by the Public Agenda Foundation for the National Issues Forum Institute. Dubuque IA:

Water: Shaping the Future of the West. Reno NV:

PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION FOR WETLANDS ISSUES

PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION FOR WETLANDS ISSUES

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics