In the Environmental Management program at USF (MSEM), we put our knowledge into action – for climate and water, for ecosystems and human health, and for environmental justice (EJ). Active engagement in policy is needed to nudge decision-makers in a good direction and hold them accountable. This engagement can feel daunting – especially amidst weak international climate pledges at COP29 and an incoming U.S. federal administration that has vowed to roll back EJ and environmental protection. But there are so many ways to work together for our planet and people, for immediate improvements and long-term systemic change. On November 21st, MSEM held a workshop for the USF community to encourage this collective action. The workshop was led by USF Prof. Stephanie Siehr and had two goals:
- understand leverage points in the policy process
- learn action skills for the environment and EJ.
The workshop highlighted the perspective of frontline communities – those most impacted by pollution and extraction and systemic injustice. Workshop participants looked at the policy process from the view of frontline communities, as well as the government view. A common government view of the process has the steps of goal setting, strategy development, decision, implementation, and monitoring. These steps include public participation, facilitated by the government agency. Frontline communities recognize the importance of additional steps in the process. A community process for policy intervention begins with the story/narrative around an issue (the “seeds” of action) and community organizing (watering the seeds), then policy development (plant growing), leading to legitimation and implementation (‘fruits of our labor”). All of this process is encircled by direct action – by the community bringing their vision to life, even as they push government to act.
One example of frontline community action is the Ponca Nation, led by Casey Camp-Horinek, a Councilwoman, activist, and actress from the Ponca Nation. She has shaped the story of community action by emphasizing the indigenous view that we are Nature, protecting ourselves. With her leadership, the Ponca Nation has stood up for indigenous and human rights, and also encoded Rights of Nature and a fracking ban into tribal law. The water protectors of the Standing Rock Sioux Nation and allies have literally put their bodies on the line in direct action, enduring tear gas, water cannons in freezing conditions, and attack dogs, to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Yet another example of community-led action is Stop The Money Pipeline, a coalition of frontline groups with substantial leadership by women who are black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). They work to stop fossil fuels through policy change and direct action targeting financial institutions and insurance companies.
With this understanding of the policy process, workshop participants delved into systems thinking and leverage points, discussing how to intervene in the process for environmental protection and justice. When we are developing policy strategies, how do we choose strategies that will make deep change for widespread benefit? This part of the workshop coincided with the MSEM course Systems Thinking for Environmental Management, taught by Prof. Rachel Beth Egenhoefer. Systems thinking helps us to distinguish symptoms of problems (events, patterns of behavior) from the underlying causes of problems, such as system structure and mind-set. Prof. Siehr offered environmental policy examples of 12 leverage points developed by Dr. Donella Meadows. California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), an important policy to address water quantity as well as quality, illustrates leverage point #11: Buffers. Through stormwater capture and groundwater recharge, SGMA buffers the supply of groundwater (stock) relative to water demand (flow). Going to deeper and more powerful leverage points, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is an example of leverage point #6: Information Flow. TRI requires facilities to report the amount of toxic substances they handle, and it makes that data public. This disclosure has enabled communities to successfully push for reductions in toxic materials and improvements in their health, even before those reductions were required by law, illustrating the adage Knowledge is Power.
Turning this understanding of policy process and leverage points into action, Prof. Siehr shared an extensive list of actions and skills for environmental protection. These include 3-minute testimonies at local City Council meetings, written public comments on Federal agency decisions; community meetings that raise awareness and support, and policy demands while marching in the streets. The workshop focused on two types of actions – Analyze and Speak – and led participants through discussions and exercises.
Siehr provided a basic analysis framework (“Qs framework”), which is used in the MSEM Environmental Policy course, to help participants analyze policy for their environmental issue. This framework connects people, the policy process, leverage points, and pertinent science and legal aspects. With this analysis, workshop participants began drafting key messages they could use to speak or write public comments. Individuals and community groups can make a significant impact by actively participating in the policy process and cultural shifts, by concisely conveying messages that gather community support and sway decision makers. Siehr shared the example of MSEM students participating in a public comment meeting with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as they considered revisions to Regulation 9 Rule 1: SO2 from Refineries. The students analyzed the issue with the Qs framework, asked questions during the public meeting, and then submitted written public comments. By making well-researched and persuasive comments that connected to BAAQMD’s legal obligations, technical aspects, and frontline communities’ health and justice priorities, the students helped inform the agency’s decision. BAAQMD chose a stricter emission standard that is more protective of human and ecological health.
The workshop was designed for attendees in person and via Zoom, making it a more accessible learning experience. Prof. Siehr allocated time for check-ins and breakout sessions, so participants could connect on environmental topics of interest, brainstorm leverage points, develop statements on their topic for public meetings, and share their environmental action experiences. Some participants had already written letters to their city councils, and others had joined in demonstrations. A MSEM alumna now working at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), highlighted (on zoom) that through public comment, community members have an equal voice in influencing agency decisions.
Prof. Siehr concluded the workshop by echoing powerful messages from frontline communities: knowledge is power, and strength is found in community. How will you utilize the frameworks, leverage points, and skills discussed during the workshop, for environmental protection and justice?
