Developing a
Comprehensive Community Engagement Plan is a fundamental component of any successfully
environmental program and can provide great insight into any social or
political barriers to implementation, as well as help identify key
stakeholders, and tease out potential points of controversy and potential trade-offs.
Typically the goal of any community
engagement plan is to gain public and agency buy-in for a project, as well as
identify potential problems that could derail the project or result in
litigation.
A successful
outreach campaign should include the following key components a) clearly
defined driving forces, goals, and objectives; b) holistic understanding of the
target audience including the demographics, attitudes and behaviors, barriers
to action, and a strategy to package and distribute your message (e.g. websites,
FAQ’s, talking points, etc.); and c) metrics to track the success of the
outreach campaign, as well as a plan to adaptively management the outreach
strategy for the duration of the outreach phase of the project.
The goal of
a successful outreach campaign should be transparency and public buy-in. For
these reasons, you must identify all of the relevant stakeholders and actively
conduct outreach to them. In the following Case Study we targeted groups that
were clearly opposed to the proposed project, in addition to those that were
supportive of the project and willing to write letters of support or more.
There are several reasons that I advocate for the direct engagement with
opposition groups: First, it is a gesture to the group acknowledging their
interest and potential influence over the outcome of the project. Second, it
allows you the opportunity to understand the group’s issues, reservations, and
potential areas of compromise during the planning process. And finally, direct
engagement and compromise are the best methods to reduce the likelihood of
litigation or injunction against the project.
As a case
study, I have provided an example of the Community Engagement Plan that was
cooperatively developed with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and partner NGO’s
for the proposed mouse eradication project on the Farallon Islands. I was a key
member of the core partnership and the lead author of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, as well as the project director for outreach and
communications for select NGO partners. In the outline below, I have identified
the key aspects of an effective strategic outreach plan with specific examples
based from the Farallon Islands project. Please feel free to ask questions or
provide feedback. Thank you,
Gabrielle
Case Study: Farallon Islands Proposed Mouse
Eradication Draft EIS Outreach Campaign
The Key
Components of an Outreach Campaign Include:
A. Defining driving forces, goals, and
objective
a.
The primary driving force behind the
proposed mouse eradication was to remove invasive house mice from the Farallon
Islands to restore the ecosystems on the islands and protect native species
including ashy storm-petrels, endemic arboreal salamanders, endemic cave
crickets, and other species.
i.
The specific needs for this outreach campaign
were to educate the public on the need for mouse removal, to clearly explain
the differences between the use of rodenticides on the mainland for rodent
control purposes and the use of rodenticides designed for conservation purposes
on islands, and to gain support for the project.
b.
The goals of the project include:
i.
Conduct outreach with interested parties and
gain support from permitting agencies, NGOs and individuals prior to the
release of the DEIS, as well as during the public comment period
ii.
Educate the public and interested parties about
the project and the Farallon Islands
iii.
Hold a public meeting that was well attended and
prevented grandstanding
iv.
Work with the media to ensure that the project
is projected in a good light
c.
The objects of the project include:
i.
Gather signatures for a letter of support for
the project prior to the release of the DEIS
ii.
Conduct an embargoed press release to ensure
positive press coverage of the project on the release of the DEIS and the
announcement in the Federal Register
iii.
Develop a website, FAQs, fact-sheets, talking
points, press releases, and more for the project
iv.
Give radio interviews that are well informed,
provided insight to the project, and ensured that it is viewed in a good light
B. Identify the target audience including the
demographics, attitudes and behaviors, and barriers to action
a.
The target audience for the outreach
associated with the Farallones project included:
i.
Animal Rights groups that oppose all of the
potential alternatives proposed
ii.
Anti-pesticide groups that oppose all of the
potential alternatives proposed
iii.
Environmental Interest Groups that understand
the need for action, approve of the proposed alternatives, and support the
project
iv.
General public that is uninformed about the
project and need for action, as well as a need to provide information that will
give them a better understanding of the project, understand the need to act,
and the rationale behind the proposed alternatives
v.
Agencies that will be providing and approving
permits, if the project is implemented
b.
The primary barriers to action include:
i.
Animal Rights groups and anti-pesticide groups
could seek an injunction claiming that the FWS did not sufficiently evaluate
all of the potential alternatives available to remove mice from the islands.
1.
To overcome this barrier we actively
communicated with detractor groups, invited them to participate in public
meetings, and comment on the DEIS. We
kept them in the loop with regard to outreach to interested parties. We also
controlled their ability to grandstand during the public meeting and in the
media through the design of the public meeting and outreach protocol.
ii.
Agency buy in to the project that will need to
issue and approve permits
1.
To overcome this barrier we met with every
agency that has a stake in the permitting of this project, gave presentations
to their staff, and allowed them to comment on the project and identify the
path forward to receiving a permit through their agency
iii.
Public trust is an issue because many citizens
do not trust the FWS to act in the best interest of the public with regard to
the management of public lands
1.
To overcome this barrier we worked with the
public to answer any questions they had and allowed the public to feel like
their input was going to be considered prior to choosing a preferred
alternative. For this reason, the FWS and its partners did not choose a
preferred alternative for the DEIS to allow the public to weigh in on the
decision.
iv.
Activist groups mistrust the motivation of some
of the partner NGOs and claiming that they advocate for pesticides for
pesticide companies
1.
To overcome this barrier the NGO in question took
a backseat during the public meeting to show that the FWS owns the project and
that the NGO’s interests lie in the restoration and conservation of the island
rather than the method used to remove the mice.
It was also made clear that this NGO’s role in this project was only in
the compliance and outreach processes and not the implementation. Additionally,
I crafted a policy statement on the NGO’s position on the use of conservation
rodenticides, as well as submitted comments to Cal DPR in support of its
proposal to restrict the use of second generation anticoagulants in California.
c.
Messaging - Creating, packaging, and
distributing a message
i.
The FWS and its partner NGOs worked together for
several years to determine the ideal messaging for this project. We created several factsheets, FAQs, blog
posts, and talking points that presented the project in the best light
possible. Additionally, all of the partners were relaying the same message to
the public, agencies, and interested parties.
ii.
The partners framed the message in a way that
would ensure that our message in support of the project was clear, transparent,
and owned up to the risks rather than attempting to bury them.
iii.
We used several different media and outreach
approaches to ensure that the project was branded properly and steered clear of
potential conflicts through social media.
C. Evaluating the campaign
a.
Metrics used to Track campaign success
i.
The campaign directly before and during the
public comment period was highly successful at achieving it’s intended goals:
1.
The partnership received support from over 20
NGO groups and individuals on the sign on letter
2.
We held over 5 different radio interview that
were highly successful Over 20 articles, blogs, and interviews were written and
the majority of them portrayed the project in a positive light.
3.
We received buy in and support from all
permitting agencies and approval of much of the DEIS and the planning
processes.
b.
Adaptive Management Plan used as a
framework adaptive decision making during the campaign
i.
We developed a framework for decision making
that included a command structure, risk scenarios, tipping points, contingency
plans, and adaptive protocols
1.
We developed potential risk scenarios based on
perceived or known concerns with stakeholder groups, agencies, or other
influential group
2.
Based on what we knew about the different
stakeholder, we held regular meeting to discuss outreach to those parties and
determine if our protocol had changed or if a tipping point in the campaign had
been reached that would negative affect our preferred outcome.
3.
Risk scenarios were developed and modified
throughout the implementation of the outreach campaign based on media, social
media, agency, or public responses to the DEIS and public meeting. A tipping
point, or threshold, was developed for each risk scenario, and a contingency
plan was developed for each risk scenario.
4.
A chain of command was developed for decision
making and adaptive management in order to ensure that decision were made in an
orderly and logical manor.
No comments:
Post a Comment