Educating the Decision-Makers

ERF's Mission, Environmental Policy and Your Membership

Robert R. Christian
ERF President 2005-2007
Christianr@ecu.edu

The Federation's mission seems simple. It is to "(1) promote research in estuarine and coastal ecosystems; (2) support education of scientists, decision-makers and the public; and (3) facilitate communication among these groups." Executing most of the mission is also simple, or at least straightforward, with such products as biennial conferences, our journal Estuaries and Coasts and web-based resources for students and scientists.

But, it becomes tricky when we "support education of decision-makers" and communicate with them. With our non-profit status, we cannot and do not lobby -- sort of! We are allowed a small percentage of our resources to be directed to lobbying, but we do it judiciously. Furthermore our membership is a diversely thinking group. They belong to ERF as a professional society and not necessarily as an environmental advocacy organization. As I was reminded by one member, it is difficult to find an issue that would receive 100%, un-nuanced support by the membership. The ERF Governing Board is very sensitive to both the legal and organizational issues.

So how do we educate and communicate with decision-makers in ways that are not considered lobbying? And how can we accommodate the diversity of thought in meeting the mission?

There are several venues for communicating with and educating decision-makers, scientists and the public. All are based on one central doctrine -- we provide the best available science or information in as an objective way as possible. This does not mean that we do not provide advice based on our understanding of the science, but we do so with great care. In fact we have Guidelines for the Federation's involvement in public policy: criteria for identifying opportunities and reacting to issues adopted in 2003 to ensure that we act in support of our mission and within the context of our Code of Ethics, the diversity of our membership and the law. These Guidelines are available to you through ERF Headquarters.

I write this the day after the Supreme Court ruled on the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers. ERF was approached by the Southern Environmental Law Center to participate in an amicus (i.e., friend of the court) brief in support of the US Army Corps of Engineers and their interpretation of the Clean Water Act regarding wetlands: (http://www.southernenvironment.org/lawlibrary/coast/2006-01-13_amicus_Rapanos_Carabell.pdf).

We joined the Ecological Society of America (ESA), Society of Wetland Scientists, and American Society of Limnology and Oceanography in the brief. Bob Howarth helped author it as a member of an ESA "rapid response team" and as ERF President-elect. Both he and I reviewed and edited drafts. The reasoning expressed by some justices, notably Justice Kennedy, indicated an appreciation for the science described in the brief. The resulting 5-4 decision sent the case back to the lower courts but asserted the right of the federal government under the Clean Water Act to regulate a wide variety of wetlands. This is an example of how we have participated in the education of decision-makers.

Other related activities over the recent year include the following:

  • Co-sponsoring separate congressional briefings to both the House and Senate titled Natural Resource Recovery from Hurricanes and Fires. Robert Twilley represented ERF by describing the effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and discussing plans for restoration and future mitigation of impacts.
  • Providing recommendations from the Governing Board on research related to coastal resource management in support of the Ocean Action Plan. A report on the Federation's input is in the December 2005 ERF newsletter.
  • Notifying members of issues of interest or concern, such that they may contact decision-makers, should they wish.
  • Responding to a request by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for comment on the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act.
  • Participating (Christian and Schaffner, not acting on behalf of ERF directly) within the Council of Scientific Society Presidents in developing statements on such issues as the teaching of evolution, visa applications by scientists and scientific codes of ethics.
  • Contributing to an American Fisheries Society initiative to define best available science and its use.

In another version of supporting the mission, Linda Schaffner, in her presidential message in the July 2004 ERF newsletter, exhorted you to participate in educating our decision-makers and advocate for what you feel is appropriate. She called this The 10% Solution: if each scientific society would actively involve 10% of their members as vigorous advocates for science, science-informed public policy and science funding, there would be a dramatic input of ideas to the people who can act on those ideas.

Linda's approach takes the mission to a personal level where you have complete control over what you say and do. At the organizational level, we still address the mission, but obviously you have lost some control on what is said at this point. That is why we are so cautious in our approach. We hope you agree and appreciate that this is another way that your support of the Federation is seeing dividends.

Thank you for that support.

[ back to top ]