(2) Try to condense over seven years of work into next five minutes (as locals say, "sugar down").
(3) Fortunately, New Hampshire is small state--44th in area, 42nd in population. The good news is, because of small scale, most effective leaders try to work together (and it's "hard to hide"). So, New Hampshire is a good scale for an inclusive process.
(4) The process worked--55 stakeholders, from businesses, environmental organizations, public health, citizen groups, political leaders, and state and local government officials, gathered in an neutral, non-advocacy setting to identify, study, and rank risks. Technical staff summarized ecological, public health, and economic information in consistent format, with consistent criteria. Group worked by consensus, over eight day long sessions, to rank 55 risks to New Hampshire environmental quality of life ("healthy people, ecology, economy"). Documented influence of accessible science, personal judgment, and individual values in ranking.
(5) Bottom line we began to separate fear from environmental hazard, and now, to reduce hazard. While four of top ten risks were to public health, four of top five were related to threats to air and water quality. Traced risks back to 11 sources (i.e. transportation, energy use, land use and development, recreation, water and food, etc.). Identified four key actions to reduce hazard. Current focus on two: (a) sound land use and (b) efficient use of energy, materials, and resources.
(6) Identified transition to next generation of environmental management, with changes from:
"Us vs. them" to Owe" . cc problems,, to cc opportunities,
-- "illness" to "wellness"
-- "economy vs. environment" to "economy = environment"
-- "environmental threats to humans" to "Humans threaten environmental quality"
(6) Stepping back, fits into evolution in New Hampshire, and U.S., in 20th into 21st century:
-- 1920-1930's Conservation 1960-1990 Federal and State Regulation 1990's Land Protection 215 century
-- Personal, Corporate, Public Responsibility
(7) SUMMARY: Comparative risk process worked at New Hampshire scale. After 30 years of successful federal and state environmental regulation, focused on industrial and other point sources, we are now in a new generation of environmental management. To continue success, we need additional tools, including fresh analysis of environmental conditions and stressors, coupled with public/private and federal/state partnerships, dynamic collaborations, effective incentives, creative funding programs, and targeted education, along with regulation and enforcement, to reduce current hazards and improve overall quality of life.
NOTE: See attached outline and For Our Future: A Guide to Caring for New Hampshire's Environment for more detail. For more info, pls contact Katherine Hartnett, Exec Dir. katehart@tiac.net
MESSAGE: Comparative risk process worked at NH scale. After 30 years of successful federal and state environmental regulation, focused on industrial and other point sources, we are now in a new generation of environmental management (from "us vs. them" to "collaboration") To continue success, we need additional tools, including fresh analysis of environmental conditions and stressors, coupled with public/private and federaVstate partnerships, dynamic collaborations, effective incentives, creative funding programs, and targeted education, along with regulation and enforcement, to reduce current hazards and improve overall quality of life.
(1) Assumed points of agreement:
Goal is to maximize environmental protection, with minimal costs. By separating fear from hazard, it is possible to more effectively prioritize actions Solutions that benefit multiple problems are preferable. Design approaches that productively engage multiple constituencies, and show results. . Everyone has a role.
(2) New Hampshire experience: Designed credible, non-advocacy process. Chose diverse participants that could: (a) leave preconceptions at the door; (b) listen to others, and work collaboratively; and (c ) bring a sense of humor to difficult discussions. Put environmental quality of life at the center, comprised of"healthy people, healthy ecology, and healthy economy." Explicitly evaluated hazards using science, judgment, and values. Created continuum of hazards, used common vocabulary of criteria (severity, extent, reversibility, uncertainty). Recognized long-term (7-10+ years) nature of solutions.
-- How different...Unique features of New Hampshire's Project: The New Hampshire project had the advantage of following almost 20 other states through the comparative risk process. Innovations unique to New Hampshire include:
-- Initial support and cooperation of state, private, and non-profit participants.
-- Project housed at the neutral NH Charitable Foundation (NHCF), rather than environmental regulatory agency, public health agency, or state university.
-- Defined "quality of life" considerations to include ecological, public health, and economic components, along with individual values.
-- Focused on understanding and reducing hazard, with commitment to developing and implementing focused actions, using an integrated ranked list of risks to human health and ecological integrity as a guide.
-- Used separate economic analysis to inform ranking and priorities for action.
-- Public Advisory Group was very large (55 members), and took eight day-long meetings over five months to rank the 55 risks into an integrated list that "everyone could live with."
-- Benefited from volunteer efforts of over 100 technical experts in ecology, public health, and economics. Technical leaders writing ecology, health, and economic reports received a stipend up to $10,000 each, to ensure timely, accessible synthesis of information, for ease of use by 55 members of Public Advisory Group. Used geographic information system (GIS) for data analysis and presentation.
-- Created innovative "quality of life" model that allowed individuals to explicitly identify their values influencing their ranking.
-- Participated in concurrent "collaborative assessment" with independent technical experts experienced in supporting 30+ state projects.
-- Identified action initiatives involving businesses, state and local governments, environmental and public health groups, educational institutions, and individuals.
-- Wrote thinnest final report, containing all technical reports and ranking rationales.
-- Work continues on reducing hazard, in context of Comparative Risk results.
-- How successful?: good process, educated participants, contributed to decision-making such as:
NOx--recently announced Northeast Regional Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) SIP call for ozone NH Clean Air Strategy NH Climate Change Action Plan Lead in natural environment (in sinkers, shot) Mercury (state strategy) Arsenic (program developing) NHDES adding "Resource Protection" to strategic plan Environmental organizations using study as technical reference and in organizational strategy
Also, Guide identifies 4 key actions to reduce hazard--specific projects, such as Minimum Impact Development Partnership, Economy/ Environment Collaborative, and NH transportation strategy, implement those actions.
How failed?: Sludge--could use comp risk process to evaluate management options.
MTBE--huge focus, while arsenic management only slowly getting underway.
(3) What was learned? Change takes time (7-10+ year process to move to next generation of environmental management). Consistent, explicit process built credibility. Useful information, and helpful perspective for action by individual organizations. Knew from beginning that two phases needed: (a) Separate fear from hazard; (b) Reduce hazard. Need support for follow-up actions to reduce hazards.
(4) So what? NH actions to (a) Separate fear from hazard; and (b) Reduce hazard:
-- Studied and ranked 55 risks, using science "/consistent criteria, explicit judgment and values.
-- Traced 55 risks back to 11 sources, then 4 key actions.
-- New public/private partnership focusing on 2 key actions--a) sound land use and (b) efficient use of energy, resources, materials--by developing voluntary practices for good development (funded by USEPA Sustainable Dev. Challenge Grant). Also NHCF/McCabe funded Economy/Environment Collaborative, working on economic drivers to maintain NH Advantage of"healthy people, healthy ecology, healthy economy" with "virtuous" cycle.
-- Using information, incentives, partnerships, collaboration, good publicity, along with modifying existing regulation, to implement.
(5) Comments to Congress/USEPA: Not certain on advice.
Do have some Q's:
Is there a thought that there is a need to do things differently, or continue with current process? . Is the purpose here to understand how to help Federal agencies be more effective?
Some ideas:
-- Current set of environmental hazards not amenable to legislation only--there's no single or suite of regulations alone that will work in this generation of environmental management.
-- Why not take time to celebrate successes of first generation of environmental hazards reduced? (after 20-30 years of regulation, point sources clearly are much cleaner, and the economy very productive -Congress can show the effectiveness of its laws).
-- Challenge today is even more difficult, because there are no clear "villains," or easy solutions everyone is involved, at work, home, recreation; which is why information and clear understanding of the issues are essential.
-- Acknowledge that managing next generation of hazards will need new strategies rather than primarily a regulatory approach. Possible actions:
(1) Claim success in regulating point sources. (2) Now need to take the long view, and dedicate time to understand the problems. Let the public know what you are doing, and why. (3) Convene annual hearings for several years; ask for consistent information on regional and local conditions. (4) Develop an action plan to support work of locals--encourage community-based solutions informed with accessible data and supported by sufficient funding.
In short, Federal role can be to stimulate require consistent regional and local information about environmental conditions and trends to assemble a national picture, and then support federal, state, local actions based on environmental data. Convene annual deliberations that encourage results-oriented environmental quality--using environmental indictors as measures of progress and linking agency budgets to reducing impacts. Local citizens become involved, get results, and see effects of federal support on the ground, in their communities.