DIALOGUE AMONG DIVERGENT STAKEHOLDERS IS CENTRAL TO SUSTAINABILITY

[CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org>]

The following was presented at the Sustainable Range Management
Conference in Las Vegas, NV.
__________________________________________________________
DIALOGUE AMONG DIVERGENT STAKEHOLDERS IS CENTRAL TO SUSTAINABILITY
By Lenny Siegel
January 5, 2003

ABSTRACT: There is a three-way tension among military training and
operations; community and infrastructure development ; and the
protection of natural and cultural resources. Each activity has a strong
constituency. If asked which is more important, or who should be in
charge, each will put forward its own objectives. However, if the same
groups are brought together in a problem-solving context, they may be
able to resolve the vast majority of their differences. Siegel will use
the National Dialogue on Military Munitions as a model of how divergent
groups can work together at the policy level. The Dialogue defined
sustainable range management with a focus on munitions use, but its
principles can be extrapolated to other environmental issues. The
purposes of sustainable range management, it wrote, are:
"a) to enable continued use of ranges for military training and testing
missions;
b) to assure that military munitions ranges are used in a way that
protects human health and the environment;
c) to facilitate the return of ranges to other uses when the military no
longer requires their use; and
d) to promote [Department of Defense] actions to protect human health
and the environment at former military ranges where there are known or
suspected explosive safety and/or environmental hazards." Significantly,
the Defense Department wrote two directives based upon the Dialogue's
"Principles for Sustainable Range Use/Development" before the group had
completed its work. The same cooperative approach can work at the local
level. Environmental and community activists can unite with the military
against a common adversary, urban sprawl. Military readiness concerns
can be incorporated into local land use planning. Sustainable Land
Partnerships can be established at bases experiencing encroachment.
However, some of the Defense Department's legislative proposals--in the
Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative--address issues other than
readiness. They fail to target key areas of tension. And they have
created an adversarial atmosphere that all stakeholders must work hard
to overcome.

It is possible to protect the United States while protecting the United
States, but it's hard work. Our skies are no longer so spacious. Our
plains are overrun by people. Our rivers no longer run free. There is a
three-way tension among military training and operations; community and
infrastructure development ; and the protection of natural and cultural
resources. These objectives all compete for our air, land, and sea.

Each activity has a strong constituency. If asked which is more
important, or who should be in charge, each will put forward its own
objectives. This happens time and time again around military training,
operations, and test areas, from Makua, Hawai'i to Washington County,
North Carolina. It is the basis of the hottest legislative battle on
military environmental issues in more than a decade. However, if the
same groups are brought together in a problem-solving context, they may
be able to resolve the vast majority of their differences.

A NATIONAL MODEL: THE MUNITIONS DIALOGUE

I was a member of the National Dialogue on Military Munitions,
established by the Army--along with the other armed services and U.S.
EPA--in 1997. This body serves as a model of how divergent groups can
work together at the policy level. By the time we finished, we produced
a set of common principles that today guide the functioning of munitions
ranges. The Defense Department wrote two directives based upon the
Dialogue's "Principles for Sustainable Range Use/Development" before the
group had completed its work. To my knowledge none of the participants
felt that they had to abandon their own principles and objectives.

The key, I believe, was that we asked ourselves: What do the other
people in this process want? Is it possible for them to achieve their
goals without giving up on our own? The Dialogue's definition of
"sustainable range management"--our topic this week--is based on that
notion. Though we focused on munitions use, our principles can be
extrapolated or expanded to address other environmental and development
issues that potentially conflict with military readiness activities.

The Defense Department, along with the Energy Department--the other major
federal polluting agency--had taken part in the Federal Facilities
Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC) in the early 1990s.
Through this earlier Committee, facilitated by the Colorado-based Keystone
Center, it agreed to a partnership approach with federal, state, and tribal
environmental regulatory agencies. Based on the Dialogue recommendations, it
established three hundred community-based Restoration Advisory Boards and
initiated its own Technical Assistance for Public Participation program in
support of those boards. The FFERDC Dialogue didn't solve all the problems
associated with federal facilities cleanup, but it unquestionably moved the
process forward.

Toward the end of the first Clinton Administration, the Navy and Air Force
prevailed upon the Army--the armed service with the biggest ordnance
problem--to consider co-sponsoring a similar dialogue on military munitions.
Immediately after the second Clinton inauguration, the armed services and U.S.
EPA convened a scoping meeting in Alexandria, Virginia. They brought in many of
the stakeholder groups from the previous dialogue, and they hired the Keystone
Center once again to facilitate.

It took several months to convene the National Dialogue on Military Munitions,
and it took three meetings over about a year to establish enough trust to move
forward. The military not only brought in its environmental officials, but it
made range "operators" regular participants. This slowed down Dialogue startup,
since many of these people were particularly suspicious of outsiders. Some had
never met environmentalists in a collegial environment, but convenors correctly
concluded that operator support was essential if the dialogue were to succeed.

The Dialogue consisted of 30 full members, including 7 from the military, 5
from other federal agencies, 5 from the states, 2 from tribes, and 11 from
environmental, community, and environmental justice constituencies. Military
organizations in particular sent numerous support staff as well as their
official members to both plenary and working group meetings, so they were the
constituency with the greatest consistent representation. Typically at these
meetings, members would sit at tables linked in a rectangle, with the
constituencies interspersed. Support personnel and observers usually sat in
chairs behind the lead participants. Facilitators from the Keystone Center
organized and ran each meeting. The Dialogue held a total of seven plenary
sessions before it disbanded in 2000.

In 1998 the one of the Dialogue's working groups undertook to draft a
list of Principles for Sustainable Range Use and Management.
Environmentalist members of the group offered a purpose statement for
the Principles:
"1) to assure that military munitions ranges are used in a way that
protects human health and the environment
2) to enable continuing use of the same ranges for military training and
testing missions, and
3) when the military no longer requires their use, makes it possible to
return ranges to other uses."
That offering, in itself, was a compromise, recognizing the Defense
Department's primary concern, the ability to continue training on its
ranges. In fact, the military replied by proposing--successfully--to move
the second purpose to the first spot, even though there was no formal
ranking implied. Those three goals survived a long drafting process,
with only minor wording changes, and a fourth one, focusing on responses
on former ranges, was added. The agreement on the concept of
sustainability made possible the eventual listing, by consensus, of nine
principles on Explosives Safety and nine principles on Toxic/Radioactive
Releases.
In drafting the principles, the environmentalist members again took the
lead. We proposed, for example, that munitions releases be recorded
permanently and the firing or dropping of ordnance be "timed and
targeted to protect sensitive wildlife and habitat." We suggested, for
example, "Depleted uranium weapons should not be fired into the same
areas as explosive ordnance." In general, the initial list recognized
best practices and innovative policies within the military.
Gradually, as equals at the table, the working group as a whole absorbed
"ownership" over the list. Some ideas were added. Some were dropped.
Some were moved. The language was modified. For example, the habitat
statement quoted above was changed to "timed and targeted to protect
sensitive natural and cultural resources." Participants and their staffs
wrote explanatory text for each principle. By the spring of 1999, the
Principles were pretty much in final form, but the Munitions Dialogue
did not publish them until it issued its final report until September,
2000. The easiest way to obtain this influential but under-publicized
report is to download it from CPEO's website,
http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/Munitions%20Dialogue.pdf.

The Dialogue also helped build working relationships between military
officials and their critics. As they continue to tackle related issues,
such as the funding of range cleanup, people who took part in the
Munitions dialogue work closely together--though some are in the employ
of different organizations.

Defense Department leadership must have been pleased with the
constructive criticism embedded in the principles. On August 17, 1999,
while the Dialogue was in limbo over Federal Advisory Committee Act
issues, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre signed two new internal
Directives. Directive 4715.11, "Environmental and Explosives Safety
Management on Department of Defense Active and Inactive Ranges Within
the United States" closely followed the recommendations developed by the
Dialogue. Directive 4715.12, addressing U.S. bases overseas, was
somewhat weaker, but foreign bases were not ever the focus of Dialogue.
In promulgating those directives, Defense leadership set a new standard
for the operation of military ranges, even where the military does not
acknowledge external legal obligations. Like other military directives,
4715.11 has been implemented unevenly. Some installations were already
in compliance. Others moved quickly to comply. And still others have
received critical reviews from Defense Department audit agencies over
their failure to comply.

The key result, however, is that by sitting down with environmentalists,
regulatory agencies, and others, military environmental officials and
range operators learned that they could manage their ranges better,
protecting the environment and reducing the obstacles to continued
training. On behalf of the Defense Department, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army Ray Fatz expressed his thanks to members of the
Munitions Dialogue: "We believe the Dialogue has established a solid
foundation of mutual respect and understanding that will result in a
meaningful and lasting contribution to sustain both the military of our
Nation and our environment over the years to come."

LOCAL SOLUTIONS

Similar approaches are viable at the state and local level. For example,
at the urging of regional Defense Department representatives, California
has passed the Knight Bill, which may serve as a national model for
incorporating readiness concerns into local planning. Known as Senate
Bill 1468, this law requires the land use element of city and county
general plans "to consider the impact of new growth on military
readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and
operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or
designating land uses covered by the general plan for land or other
territory adjacent to those military facilities, or underlying
designated military aviation routes and airspace. The bill would, with
respect to the open-space element, define open-space land to include
areas adjacent to military installations, military training routes, and
restricted airspace. The bill would also require the circulation element
to consist of the general location and extent of existing and proposed
military airports and ports." However, the cities or counties are not
required to comply with these provisions until the Defense Department
provides funding. Though the Navy has funded the preparation of an
encroachment handbook required under this legislation, the Defense
Department has not yet provided the few hundred thousand dollars
required to institute the local planning requirements.

Even in the absence of such legislation, environmental and community
activists can unite with the military against a common adversary, urban
sprawl. In the early 1990s, environmental groups went to court to
protect the red-cockaded woodpecker at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. A
decade later, the contending parties declared collective victory after
establishing buffer zones that both protect threatened species and
reduce development near the Army training range. In Florida, the state,
conservation groups, and the military are establishing the Florida
Greenway to preserve natural habitat and low-level flight routes serving
Eglin Air Force Base. Even at Camp Pendleton, California, which has been
the poster child for the impact of both development and habitat
protection on military readiness, conservation groups are negotiating to
create similar buffer zones.

To spread and institutionalize such an approach, my organization
proposes the establishment of Sustainable Land Partnerships at
facilities faced with significant encroachment or habitat protection
issues. Like the national Dialogues, each partnership would consist of
representatives of federal and state agencies, local and tribal
governments, and both environmental and development interests. At each
installation, the partnership would create a Sustainable Land Vision, as
well as strategies and mechanisms, to increase the compatibility of
training and other military readiness activities, community and
infrastructure development, the interests of native ethnic groups (where
applicable), and the protection of natural and cultural resources.
Although these interests are historically divergent, there are
significant opportunities for win-win solutions that further their
objectives simultaneously.

Also like the national Dialogues, the local partnerships would begin
with information-sharing. The objectives of the initial meetings would
be to establish a climate of trust, enable each constituency to educate
other participants about their concerns, and establish goals and a
timetable for future work. We view these partnerships as advisory,
similar to the Restoration Advisory Boards that successfully oversee
cleanup, but they could evolve into decision-making bodies like the Ft.
Bragg partnership.

RRPI

Despite the promise of the cooperative approach, the Defense
Department's principal coordinated assault upon domestic impediments to
military readiness activities has been its legislative proposal, the
Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI). This language,
proposed in both the Defense Authorization Bill and the Transformation
legislation, would weaken five key environmental laws: the Endangered
Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Superfund law. In
2002, Congress passed another element of the package, amendments to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act making it possible for the Navy to continue
bombing a small island training range in the Marianas.

Though the challenges addressed by RRPI are real, I believe that some of
the proposals would address issues other than readiness. They fail to
target key areas of tension. And they have created an adversarial
atmosphere that all stakeholders must work hard to overcome. I'll just
give a few examples of what I mean.

As I said, the legislation deals with more than readiness: A key
provision of the language to amend RCRA and the Superfund Law would
exempt munitions constituents from regulation under these laws, at least
at operational ranges. (State officials argue that the legislation would
cover many more facilities.) Under EPA's Military Munitions Rule,
ordnance is already exempt from oversight on operational ranges. Under
the RRPI proposal, contaminants such as perchlorate and RDX would be
subject to regulation only after they migrate off range. This is an
important, complex issue. I believe perchlorate contamination is a
significant threat to public health. And I agree that cleaning it up may
cost billions of dollar. But this has little to do with readiness.

Even if passed, the legislation doesn't target key problems: The Defense
Department points to restrictions on beach access at Camp Pendleton as a
justification for proposed limitations on the designation of Critical
Habitat under the Endangered Species Act. But even if passed as
proposed, those changes would do little to affect training at Pendleton.
Other aspects of the Endangered Species Act, not Critical Habitat, pose
the greatest current obstacles to training. Furthermore, as at many
other bases, agricultural outleasing--done at the discretion of the
installation--poses an equally significant obstacle to training, and that
conflict could easily be resolved by the installation commander.

Furthermore, the adversarial atmosphere in Washington is as tangible as
the haze over Los Angeles. Large, influential environmental advocacy
groups that normally ignore the military went on the warpath as the
Pentagon challenged the laws that are central to their work. Senior
Senators and Representatives, not just junior staff, weighed in.
Defensively, they jumped to the conclusion that the U.S. military is
waging a conscious war on our environment, despite evidence of progress
at installation after installation. I know, because I preach the same
message, about the need for a dialogue, to them.

On the positive side, however, RRPI got everyone's attention. Since most
of the proposed legislative amendments have been rejected, there is
still a chance for the parties to work together.  Most of the people in
the military that I know aren't out to destroy the environment, and
despite misgivings over specific military ventures, most of the
environmentalists I know--particularly the community groups that raise
issues around military installations--aren't out to keep the military
from doing its job. Still, we need to create national dialogues and
local partnerships to make that cooperation possible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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