Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania Meeting Summary 1. Executive Summary On October 30, 1996, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) published a position statement on "Strategic Environmental Management (SEM) in Pennsylvania - New Tools for Moving Beyond Compliance." To open a dialogue with communities on SEM, DEP organized three workshops for the western, central and eastern portions of the state. The third stakeholder workshop was held in the Pittsburgh area at the Sheraton North on February 27, 1997. To accommodate peoples’ work schedules, DEP held two sessions, both of which are summarized together in this report. The workshop consisted of DEP presentations on SEM, a question and answer period, a stakeholder discussion in front of the full group, and small group discussions. The participants in the Pittsburgh workshop discussed the public involvement component of SEM in great detail. After acknowledging the distrust that exists among businesses, communities and government entities, they suggested specific incentives which will help each sector to overcome this and participate in SEM. Public involvement must be based on facilitated dialogue where companies and communities listen and educate each other about their needs and the potential for environmental improvement. Overall, the participants felt that SEM offers a holistic approach to environmental management. There was confusion, however, over its ultimate purpose. They insisted that the position paper clearly state that SEM is a purely voluntary program now and will continue to be voluntary in the future. They disapproved of its perceived emphasis on achieving zero emissions and favored a goal of continuous environmental improvement instead. 2. Purpose of the Meeting The workshop’s purpose was to explain the Department’s ideas for Strategic Environmental Management (SEM) and begin a dialogue with interested parties to learn their perspectives on SEM and the role of community involvement in the SEM process. 3. Presentations by DEP A brief outline of Strategic Environmental Management was presented by Marylou Barton, Counsel to the Office of Energy and Technology Development. The six elements of SEM - environmental management systems, pollution prevention, environmental accounting, performance measurements, community participation, and life-cycle assessments - were presented in the context of working beyond compliance towards a zero emissions/discharge goal. The reasons for the unique design of the workshops and the desire of the Department of Environmental Protection to learn from the stakeholder dialogue was presented by Chris Allen, DEP Public Participation Coordinator. The goal of the Department was to incorporate the dialogue results into a revised SEM position. After the presentations, the audience asked questions of DEP about anything that they found unclear in the presentations or in the SEM position statement. 4. Discussion Using "Speaking Chairs" Stakeholders shared their opinions about SEM by coming forward and participating in a three person discussion that took place in a "fishbowl" at the front of the room. The conversation focused on the potential benefits and possible pitfalls of SEM. 5. Small Group Discussion Summary Attendees participated in one of four small groups. The highlights of the discussions are summarized below. Group 1 Questions: What are the potential advantages of SEM for improving environmental quality? Who can do what to ensure that these advantages happen? (Company, local government, other community groups, DEP). What could be your role in fostering the use of SEM in your community? Comments: Exciting opportunities for broad-based community involvement are the primary attraction of SEM, according to many participants. It offers a chance for everyone in the community, from industries to school children, to become involved in learning about environmental improvement and working together to make it happen. For community involvement to be effective, the participants said that all sectors of the community need to become involved and remain dedicated throughout the long-term process. SEM also offers small companies, which may have limited resources, opportunities to improve their environmental performance by showing them ways to cut costs and improve profits. Once the larger companies have developed innovative pollution prevention technologies, smaller companies will be able to adapt the new technologies to their own needs. However, some participants were concerned that if the primary advantage of SEM is for companies to gain a competitive edge, they may not be willing to share innovations. This will diminish the benefit of technology transfer. Many of the participants said that SEM does a good job of promoting a holistic approach to pollution prevention and waste minimization. In addition to internal cost savings, companies with strong SEM programs will benefit from positive publicity. One environmental representative suggested that environmental groups across the state can promote SEM by forming a coalition to award companies for SEM programs. An unbiased award program will inform consumers who may prefer to buy from companies with strong environmental records. Some participants thought companies need immediate incentives to overcome the initial investment in SEM tools. Banking institutions can provide incentives for companies to invest in SEM improvements by offering lower interest rates on loans for pollution prevention technology. Insurers may discover that companies which pollute less are a safer risk. By offering reduced premiums to companies with SEM programs, insurors can provide the immediate incentives needed to kick-start pollution prevention investments. Group 2 Questions: What are the potential disadvantages of SEM? Who can do what to guard against such possibilities? (Company, local govt., other community groups, DEP). What could be your role in safeguarding the use of SEM in your community? Comments: The chief criticism from the participants was that SEM is redundant since many industries are already implementing similar programs, such as ISO 14000. SEM may require more than other programs in terms of public participation, and many participants did not see adequate incentives for companies to involve the public in environmental management. The discussions revealed that there is confusion over the ultimate purpose of SEM. Some participants did not understand that the program is purely voluntary. Others were concerned that while SEM is voluntary now, it may eventually become regulatory. At the other extreme, SEM is perceived as a means for DEP to ease its regulatory enforcement. Participants wanted the paper to clearly state that SEM is only a voluntary guideline. They also asked DEP for guidance on how SEM interfaces with current regulations and to ensure that it is consistently implemented across the regions. To create more incentives, DEP can form partnerships with EPA and local government to guarantee that SEM programs will not conflict with environmental laws and regulations. Group 3 Questions: What would the different community members need to get from an SEM public involvement component to make it successful in their eyes? (Company, local govt., civic and environmental groups, etc.) What could your role be in making sure that SEM community involvement is a success? Comments: Participants said that the most important challenges to an SEM public involvement component are getting broad-based community involvement, educating industry and community members, and maintaining the involvement over a long term. To be successful, the process must include a broader public than environmental activists. They acknowledged that, too often, people only become interested when they perceive a direct threat to their way of life, and by that point, are unwilling to negotiate. Despite the history of mistrust between industry, DEP and communities, the participants believed SEM presents some promising opportunities for dialogue. Representatives of grassroots environmental organizations commented that they can help companies avoid environmental problems if they are involved at an early stage. The participants saw two critical elements to overcoming the atmosphere of distrust. First, SEM success begins with education. Communities must learn about concepts like ISO 14000 and the importance of becoming involved in a public dialogue. This education process must start as early as possible and it must show how the public is affected, directly and indirectly, by environmental management decisions. Businesses, as well, need to be educated about SEM to learn how it works and where environmental improvements are possible. Internally, businesses must train their own employees to ensure that SEM policies are carried out. To show the public how they have put it into practice, businesses can educate communities about how they are improving their processes, products, wastes, monitoring systems, and health risks. Some participants felt that if DEP focuses on educating industry about the potential cost-savings of SEM, then industry will gradually become more comfortable with the concept of community involvement. Second, a neutral facilitator or a trustworthy liaison group needs to initiate the dialogue between companies and the public. The participants thought that DEP and other government/regulatory entities need to be supportive of this process and act as a catalyst, but questioned whether communities and companies will trust these entities to facilitate the dialogue. Participants emphasized that because community involvement is a long term process, it will require dedication and patience from everyone involved. Some questioned whether small companies have the resources to engage in years of dialogue with the public. Others noted that environmental organizations should not expect companies to dramatically reduce emissions overnight. They agreed that a continuing dialogue between businesses, communities and government entities will be difficult but necessary to rebuild their trust in each other and achieve further environmental improvements. Group 4 Questions: SEM emphasizes the voluntary goal of "striving for zero emissions over time." How should this statement be interpreted by all members of the community in order for it to "work" environmentally and economically? What are the ramifications of this statement, good and bad? Regardless of how you interpret SEM’s stated goal, what might be the community’s role in moving towards it? Comments: Participants said the zero emissions statement means companies will strive to reduce emissions to the extent that is economically feasible and also protective of the environment. The goal must clearly focus on the "journey" of continually improving environmental performance, rather than on a "destination" of zero emissions. In fact, many participants favored replacing the term "zero emissions" with "continuous improvement." They felt that the public is apt to misinterpret a goal of zero emissions by expecting companies to eliminate all emissions in a short period of time. Several participants commented that the frequency of the term "zero emissions" in the SEM position statement clouded the six positive elements and appeared to more of a mandate than a goal. Since businesses understand that zero emissions are not technically or economically feasible, they will be reluctant or may refuse to involve a misinformed public. To implement a goal of continuous improvement, community involvement must begin with extensive education and a willingness to listen to each other. Companies need to educate the community on what it means to "go beyond compliance" and communities must work with the companies to define what are acceptable environmental risks and achievable environmental performance measures. 6. Wrap-Up To conclude, DEP thanked the participants for their contributions and explained that the results will be used to strengthen and clarify its SEM position statement and to guide Pennsylvania in its implementation of SEM. |