[CPEO-BIF] Report on EJ/Community Group Caucus at BF2003

[Bob Hersh <bhersh@cpeo.org>]

Report on the Environmental Justice/Community Group Caucus 
Brownfields 2003
Portland, Oregon 

      On October 27th and 28th the Center for Public Environmental
Oversight (CPEO) facilitated two meetings of the Environmental Justice/
Community Caucus at the Brownfields 2003 conference in Portland, Oregon.
The meetings were attended by community and environmental justice
activists, job training providers, staff from EPA, state regulators,
consultants, and people working with environmental non-profits and
community development corporations.  The meetings this year attracted
more than 100 participants and were particularly lively and spirited, as
we discuss below.  

      Before reporting on the meeting, it might be useful, particularly
for readers unfamiliar with the EJ/ Community Caucus to briefly provide
some background. The EJ/Community Caucus has met at each national
Brownfields conference since 1997 in Kansas City, and has served as a
forum for community members from around the country to discuss their
experiences with brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.  It is one of
the few occasions where local knowledge of cleanup and redevelopment
practices at brownfields sites can be used to influence policies at a
national level.  For example, in 1999, the Caucus issued a document
entitled "Recommendations for Responsive Brownfields Revitalization",
which set out policies that have since been incorporated into recent
federal brownfields legislation, the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act.  Under this federal legislation
community-based non-profits can now apply for grants to clean up
brownfields in their neighborhoods, a point long advocated by Caucus
members.  The legislation also requires a state brownfield remediation
programs to provide "meaningful opportunities for public participation",
a policy which the Caucus, and many others, have pushed for over the
years. 
      
Day 1:  Community Involvement
  The question of how to achieve "meaningful" public participation at
brownfields sites was the focus of the first night's discussion.  It is
a question complicated by the increasingly decentralized regulatory
context of brownfields.  For much of the past two decades, the U.S.
Environmental Protection agency has been the pre-eminent environmental
regulator at sites contaminated with hazardous substances.  But in
brownfields the primary authority and principle responsibility for
addressing contaminated sites is now lodged at the state and local
level.  Since 1990, over forty states have developed voluntary cleanup
programs (VCP) to clean up and redevelop contaminated properties and
while the new federal brownfields law, as noted above, requires
"meaningful opportunities for public participation" there is
considerable variation among state voluntary cleanup programs as to how
local communities are involved in site cleanup and reuse decisions and
what resources are available, such as TAG grants, to enable communities
to participate more effectively.  Given that brownfield policies are
increasingly devised and implemented at the state and local level, how
can local community groups promote their interests in this decentralized
regulatory terrain?

      Three Portland environmental justice activists, Regena Warren,
Geri Washington, and Warren Fluker provided the Caucus with a concrete
example of what meaningful public participation has looked like in
Portland.  They discussed their experience as members of the
North/Northeast Portland Brownfields Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
The mission of the N/NE CAC was to identify a handful of properties in
the community that could be cleaned up and redeveloped as demonstration
sites in Portland's EPA-funded Showcase Community Project.  The CAC
worked closely with local residents to devise a set of criteria to help
them identify brownfield sites they want cleaned up and redeveloped in
their neighborhood. Once local residents discussed and accepted the
criteria, the CAC organized a series of community forums, bringing
together property owners and developers to discuss possible
redevelopment projects with local residents.  The CAC served a number of
functions in Portland.  Through extensive community outreach and
education over a number of years, the CAC acted as an organizer, a
liaison with EPA and local government, and as entrepreneur to encourage
cleanup and target appropriate development in the local community.  

      The panelists noted that this degree of community involvement
could not have been achieved without perseverance and timely activism.
One point of community leverage was when the city of Portland applied
for an EPA Showcase grant.  The panelists noted that while the CAC was
mentioned as a partner in the city of Portland's application to EPA's
Showcase grant competition, the N/NE community believed they had not
been adequately consulted on the proposal, and petitioned EPA for a
better environmental justice plan in the application before a showcase
grant could be awarded to the city.  More than 200 local residents wrote
EPA letters to support the CAC.  With this show of local activism and
commitment, the city administration rewrote the grant application to
provide the N/NE CAC with more resources and opportunities to help
determine cleanup and redevelop brownfields strategies in the
neighborhood.

      The first hand account of the N/NE CAC in Portland was well
received and set off a wide ranging discussion about the nature of power
community groups could wield in brownfields.  Under what conditions,
Caucus members asked, are community groups able to marshal the resources
necessary to challenge and restructure the dominant interests in
brownfields redevelopment and by so doing better represent community
interests?  Some participants wanted to know how community groups should
anticipate and address many of the unintended "successes" of brownfields
redevelopment---most notably the displacement of local residents and
local businesses.  As one participant noted if brownfields becomes a way
to reduce regulatory oversight and to pave the way for private sector
led development, brownfield policy risks becoming a new form of "urban
removal" in the guise of environmental cleanup.  Other participants,
recognizing the value of the long term planning, stressed the need for
communities to become more directly involved in redevelopment
negotiations, to use brownfields in order to "put communities in
business".  It was suggested that grant money could be used to help
local groups initiate development projects at brownfields sites, and
more generally, to improve the capacity of community development
corporations to become active in brownfields.  Some participants
cautioned that EPA brownfields grant money was not sufficient to meet
the needs of communities, and funding levels would eventually dry up as
other political priorities captured the attention of Congress.  In order
to achieve "economically sustainable communities", it was argued, local
groups needed to become less reliant on government brownfield grants and
become more capable redevelopers of brownfield properties.

      While there was consensus among Caucus members on the need to
promote more equitable and community led brownfield policies, there was
less agreement about a strategy to accomplish this.  One view was to
convene a small group from the Caucus to help draft an EJ/Community
Caucus action agenda for brownfields.  The focus of this effort would be
to secure more federal resources for a community-led approach to
brownfields, providing, for example, more funding for job training or
technical assistance to community groups; such an action agenda, it was
argued, would give EPA a platform to put forward the concerns of the
Caucus, both to other federal policy makers and ultimately to Congress.
Other attendees pointed out that this strategy was used by the Caucus in
1999 in developing its "Recommendations for Responsive Brownfields
Revitalization" (a copy of this document is included as an attachment in
this message).  Instead of reinventing the wheel and coming up with a
new set of principles to influence federal policies, it was suggested
the Caucus should consider how to target its efforts to inform state and
local brownfield policies.  

      With limited time available, the participants could only touch on
many key issues. What role exists in brownfields for neighborhood groups
between the largely ineffective notice and comment period of many
voluntary cleanup programs and the ability to stop projects from
happening.  What resources do community groups need to participate in
brownfields redevelopment and to better represent their own collective
interests?  How can brownfields redevelopment become part of a wider
strategy of regeneration? What accounts for whether, and how, local
communities benefit from brownfields redevelopment? And how can low
income minority neighborhoods bring their influence to bear on the
brownfields agenda of the various institutions of city government.  

Next Steps
      Most participants wanted to ensure that the energy and enthusiasm
of the meeting would not be lost after people left the conference and
that the Caucus would remain active throughout the year to promote
community based brownfields redevelopment.  As a first step to encourage
more discussion among Caucus participants, CPEO will provide all
participants with an electronic email list of contact information for
Caucus attendees.  CPEO has also volunteered to use is listserve to
facilitate ongoing discussion among Caucus members.  Laron Barber of the
Le'Azon Technology Institute, in Clearwater, Florida has offered to
create a web site for the Caucus.  It was also suggested that the Caucus
should seek funding to convene a mid-year meeting.   
      
Day 2:  Job training
      Since 1998 EPA has worked with the National Institute for
Environmental Health Services ((NIEHS) to promote job training
opportunities for minority residents of EPA brownfield pilots.  The
Brownfields Minority Worker Training Program is administered through
local job training and educational organizations and its aim is to
provide quality worker training to help local minority youth compete for
jobs as environmental field technicians, lead and asbestos abatement
specialists, as well as construction workers at contaminated sites.
According to EPA, since the program began some 550 participants have
graduated, of whom nearly 70% have been placed in jobs related to the
environmental field.  

      CPEO is partnering with NIEHS to bring the benefits of the
Minority Worker Training Program to more environmental justice
communities where brownfields activity is proposed or underway.  To help
build a bridge between such communities and experienced job training
providers, CPEO asked three job training providers to address the Caucus
and explore opportunities for cooperation.  Tipawan Reed of the National
Puerto Rican Forum /Office of Applied Innovations in Chicago; Jack
Gilchrist, from the Center to Protect Workers' Rights in Seattle;
Kiameesha Evans, from St. James/Blake House in Newark New Jersey
outlined their respective programs.  

      The speakers discussed the comprehensive nature of the training
they provide to minority youth.  Each speaker described how their
programs went beyond the environmental training provided for in EPA
grants. While the EPA brownfield job training grant funds can not be
used for life skills education activities or job readiness training,
each training provider had managed to leverage additional funding or
in-kind resources to offer life skills training, counseling, tuition for
day care, English as second language classes, and other social services
to persons enrolled in the program.  The panelists described how their
programs have been able to train and place minority youth in the
environmental cleanup and construction industries and attribute the
successes of the program to the close connections between the training
centers and local industry as well as a training program that integrates
basic skill with vocational training. 

      The speakers also alerted Caucus participants to the
characteristics they look for in deciding to partner with community
organizations.  They consider, for example, the extent to which a
community organization understands local needs, demonstrates a
commitment to worker training, and has the capacity to deliver necessary
services such as program management, fiscal accountability, etc. 

      While the accomplishments of from the Brownfields Minority Worker
Training Program were discussed, the panelists and Caucus participants
also described the limitations of the job training initiative and the
barriers to creating community/labor based partnerships.  These
limitations include:

* Ineffective local government mandates to require environmental
engineering firms to hire job training graduates from the local
community;
* A lack of transparency in awarding cleanup contracts to environmental
firms, an information deficit that limits community leverage to demand
cleanup and construction jobs at brownfields;
* Inadequate upfront negotiations between local job training providers
and environmental consultants before a regulatory agency awards a
cleanup contract for a contaminated site;
* The hiring practices of contractors that give jobs to workers from
outside the local community; 
* Cleanup subcontractors siphon off wages and keep job training
graduates on their active rosters even when there is no work available,
effectively freezing them out for consideration for other jobs
opportunities;  
* The lack of local government enforcement of contract provisions to
encourage local minority hiring.

   Caucus attendees discussed a number of steps that could be taken to
address these limitations.  At the level of policy development, it was
noted that under the new federal brownfields legislation, funding for
site assessment and cleanup doubled and funding for state voluntary
cleanup programs increased five fold, but funding for workers training
has remained flat.  It was suggested, caucus participants and other
interested parties should lobby EPA and Congress to direct more
brownfield monies to support job training.  Some attendees noted that
there needs to be more public scrutiny of contract provisions between
federal agencies and environmental cleanup companies.   Other
participants focused on more local strategies to improve opportunities
for minority hiring at brownfield sites.  One area where communities can
exert leverage, it was noted, is through Municipal Requests for
Proposals (RFP) for cleanup and construction contracts.  An RFP, for
example, can stipulate set asides for local hires and provide incentives
for companies to hire local workers.  
   
NEXT STEPS
      CPEO plans to profile the needs and opportunities for hazardous
waste remediation training in five to ten communities with environmental
justice organizations involved in brownfields and will share our
findings with the Caucus.  In addition, it is hoped that Caucus members
and job training providers who attended the session will use this
summary as a starting point to discuss new opportunities to improve the
EPA/NIEHS minority job training program.
      

Please direct any comments to:
Bob Hersh
CPEO
bhersh@cpeo.org
202 453 8043
or 
Lenny Siegel
CPEO
lsiegel@cpeo.org
650 961-8918

Bob Hersh
Brownfields Program Director
Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO)
1101 Connecticut Ave., NW  Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20036

Tel:     202.452.8043
Fax:    202.452.8095
email:  bhersh@cpeo.org
url:      www.cpeo.org
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our 
important work on military and environmental issues will continue.  
Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0