Marketing and Communications in the Making of Natural Resource Policy

 

By Charlene Schildwachter

Vol. 23 Number 1, 2002
   

In 1997, when more than 80% of Idaho's citizens believed their forests were healthy, a bark beetle epidemic swept through forests of northern Idaho, killing trees across hillsides that quickly turned from green to red as the dead and dying trees dried up.  The U.S. Forest Service, the Idaho Department of Lands, and the private Intermountain Forest Association seized this “teachable moment” and began explaining to the public what was going on, the increased fire risk from the dead trees, and what could be done about it.  They posted billboards depicting the red trees that motorists could see on the hills behind the signs.  They produced radio and TV ads about the problem and advanced modern forestry—including timber harvest—as a remedy. 

A year later, headlines in the Spokane, Washington Spokesman-Review read, “In forests all over north Idaho and eastern Washington, Douglas-fir trees are turning red and dying.”  The article described the worst outbreak of Douglas-fir bark beetles in 50 years.  More than 20 articles in the local and regional newspapers echoed this description of the problem and endorsed professional foresters’ proposal for what to do about it. 

Propelled by this momentum, the U.S. Forest Service and Idaho Department of Lands launched a series of public meetings and group presentations to begin a public dialogue about specifics of the problem and possible specific management projects in response.  Congressional members, their staff, and the media were taken on fieldtrips as well. 

The results of these efforts have yet to fully play out, but this case illustrates how some basics of policy making can be accomplished with professional help from a marketing and communications specialist.  These basics include defining the need for a policy, and the requirements of gathering information and facts before making policy.  These basics apply to policies as grand as national legislation, as routine as annual appropriations, or as specific as the policies issued for the beetle outbreak: An experimental use permit for a beetle pheromone and an exemption from decision appeals from the Chief of the Forest Service so crews could quickly remove hazardous trees in areas on the perimeters of communities. 

 

WHAT IT TAKES

The Douglas-fir bark beetle story highlights the advantages of working with marketing and communication professionals.  Natural resource managers need help communicating with the public because people don't automatically seek out managers for information.  For years before the beetle outbreak, foresters and entomologists warned of the risk.  The typical response—“What do you mean my forests are unhealthy?   They look green to me!”—showed that many people didn’t want or need an ecological diagnosis of their forests to inform their opinion.  

Sometimes a crisis makes the need for a professional clear, but most of the time land managers struggle to communicate natural resource problems not readily visible.  Changes on the land often occur slowly over several years or even decades, and the often imperceptible changes  make it difficult for land managers to persuade interested parties on a particular course of action.  Scientists, foresters, and entomologists have been trying for years to alert the public to the fact that the forests they love and play in are in tough shape and that active management is needed to sustain them.  They were finally heard when the forests turned red.

Land managers are challenged in the making of most public policy (which is simply an agreed-upon course of action) that enables them to do their jobs.  Policy making is messy, cluttered with emotion, and stuck somewhere between opinion and science.  This is obvious for high-profile resource policy areas such as the Farm Bill, the Roadless Initiative, and the Endangered Species Act, but it is also true for annual appropriations, which, as former Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas often says, is the final word among policy statements directing resource management. 

Marketing and communication professionals help connect the people with the policy, using managers as the professionals in the middle who keep the discussion within the realm of ecological possibility.  The marketer/communicator provides managers with both qualitative and quantitative information about the perceptions, attitude, and knowledge of the public.  This consultant’s tool bag—survey research, media relations, press kits full of success stories, access to opinion leaders, and coherent messages—can help decision makers craft acceptable solutions and provide the much-needed feedback on how the implemented solutions are playing out. 

Informed by what the public wants and needs, and guided by what is ecologically possible, the manager-communicator team can speak to the public’s wants and needs with ecological insight and produce workable solutions.  From this position, the manager-communicator team can speak plainly and authoritatively to Congress, the White House, state legislature, or governor about how their programs are working and what could happen next.

Many authors describe policy making as a process.  While strategic communications is crucial throughout this entire process, for this article I will focus on the first two steps—identifying the problem and building a policy mandate.  Whether these neat boxes accurately describe reality or not, the concepts presented in the first two are especially important to natural resource managers and the communication professionals who consult with them.

 

IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM

Something always prompts the making of a policy.  People adopt a course of action to solve a problem or exploit an opportunity.  Dramatic external events can reveal the problem to the public.  An example is the extensive wildfires that occurred throughout the West in 2000.  For decades, natural resource professionals have been raising a cry about the declining health of our western forests, citing an  “epidemic of trees” and risks from insect and disease outbreaks.  Unfortunately, it took the fires of 2000 with 8.4 million acres burned and hundreds of homes and structures destroyed to get the attention of the public and key policy makers.  What followed was the National Fire Plan funded at $1.6 billion with a focus on five key areas—most notably thinning hazardous fuels in the Wildland Urban Interface.

However, more often there is no national crisis or event to alert people to a problem—the issue simply doesn’t have enough “heat” to rise on its own to the attention of the public for discussion.  Getting that problem recognized then becomes a critical step in the policy making process.  Describing the problem effectively involves understanding the costs to society.  This is influenced by a variety of factors, including the political climate, media appeal, public opinion, interest group focus, and ideological orientation of agency personnel.   

Building a constituency of grassroots advocates who understand and can articulate the problem will aid in this first step.  Find those organizations that are relevant to your programs and build a relationship with them, sharing your issues and concerns and hearing theirs.  Frame the problems together, combining technical expertise with wants and needs, and see who will support your viewpoint.  Email lists or other regular correspondence with these groups about the issues and problems will help.  Through this partnership, you will likely hear the full range of wants and needs and your partners will learn your technical viewpoint and legal requirements.  Assist them in gaining access to public forums where they can share the ideas you have developed together (e.g. regional or national conferences, panels, association meetings, etc.).  Their advocacy can be a powerful tool to "get the word out" and to garner support for your technical viewpoint.

Alert elected officials.  The staff of these officials will be your most frequent contacts and you should keep in touch with them.  Bring these staff members along with officials, opinion leaders, and influential constituents on informational fieldtrips.  The power of these relationships is having access so you can share with them how existing programs and policies are working on the ground and be able to answer questions about changes that are needed.  Federal agency personnel are prohibited from directly lobbying congress, but that does not mean that information cannot be shared. 

National surveys indicate that people get the majority of their information on natural resources from the television and newspapers.  So, get the media interested in your “problem.”  This has a number of benefits: it lends credibility to your problem, alerts a broad public, educates the media, and the news stories that result can be excellent materials for advocate groups, key opinion leaders, and Congress.  But most importantly, you are defining the problem, not solely according to your analyses and technical responsibilities, but in conjunction with what the public wants and needs.  If you don’t engage in this, it will happen without you and the issues will “spin” whichever way the players want to spin it.  By proactively leading with your thoughts in the media you can cause others to respond to your concerns and ideas, instead of allowing them simply to attack.   

You need no excuse or special reason to contact the media.  If you can write a headline that captures the essence of the story as well as peaks the interest of your audience, you will get the coverage.  It can help to connect it to an issue they have already reported, but cold press releases, opinion articles, or invitations to a newsworthy event work well, too.   

There are many problems in natural resources that do not attract the attention of policy makers because these issues lack the support from key constituencies such as environmental groups, industry, consumer groups, Congress, or the executive branch.  When key interest groups and policy experts agree on the importance and scope of the problem, it gets on the agendas of public policy makers.  The Douglas-fir bark beetle plan was an example of community interest groups, agencies, the media, industry, and top administration officials finding agreement on the scope of the problem and proposing a solution.  This is where increasing your advocate base, nurturing opinion leaders, and using third party endorsements become so critical.  Congressional members seldom have the time to build a constituency or agreement around a specific issue.  If, however, you have tackled the difficult task of bringing together constituencies with different opinions and interests, then it’s more likely that policy makers will pay attention to your idea. 

Building a relationship with opinion leaders who share your interests and views is a key strategy to ensuring accurate treatment of your interest or issue in the media.  Opinion leaders can include anyone of stature or note, such as a scientific expert, a high profile decision maker, or a congressional member. Often opinion leaders will welcome your assistance in helping them frame an issue either through an Op Ed piece, editorial, interview on radio or TV, or a well-written article placed in a professional journal.

When decision makers and communication professionals work together they can frame the discussion and key questions, and even set the tone of the panel or conference to highlight the issues they wish to address.  Often these types of events are newsworthy.  This is almost always true on a local level, and it is possible to attract more attention than you would think on a national level. 

 

BUILIDING A POLICY MANDATE

After there is some level of agreement that there is a reason to change a policy or craft a new one, players clamor to become the one with the best idea for what that policy should be.  In the bark beetle case, the professional foresters earned this mandate to propose a solution.  Often, environmentalists earn the mandate.  In many cases, no one distinguishes themselves and the media relies on its editorial staff to decide what solution or position should be highlighted.  Regardless of who owns the mandate, if it’s not you, the natural resource professional, the public debate will sound as if non-professionals are developing policy—because they are.

Just being involved is no guarantee of earning the mandate to develop a policy.  If there is a lack of interest in professional information or opinion, this can create a free-for-all situation among players, and none will dominate the discussion.  This seems to be common in natural resources because the problem is often hard to see, making it difficult to generate enthusiasm for any particular solution.  This probably explains why the competition for political support thrives on such basic values as: law (they are breaking it); money (they are making it); and health (the ecosystem needs it).  The public more easily understands these basic values than the ecological trade-offs in an issue such as forest health.

A good marketer and communicator will help their decision maker pull ahead of this fray by doing three main things—building on the largest set of people’s wants and needs, keeping current on attitudes and perceptions on a given issue, and helping craft the message that will connect with people and help them understand and buy in.  How well you have defined the problem will dictate how difficult this process will be.  But, if you have focused on a problem shared by many and included many in the shaping of the issues, the process will be easier.  

Support from key constituencies is often contingent on public opinion, which in turn is influenced by treatment of the issue in the media.  Abraham Lincoln said it well, “In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything.  With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.  Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.”  It is, after all, whoever gets cited and quoted—not the news media—who leads and shapes public opinion. 

Third party endorsements can also be very effective in helping to build a policy mandate.  You find the best third-party endorsements by asking yourself, "Who is credible, engaged, and knows the many angles of this issue?"  Sources could be from the scientific community, academia, noted experts, environmental organizations, think tanks, user groups, and political allies.  In 1996, for example, the Forest Service asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the nation’s nonfederal forests and the role of the federal government in contributing to the sustainable management of these important resources.  On November 5, 1997, the National Research Council released their report, Forested Landscapes in Perspective: Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America’s Nonfederal Forests.  Editorials were written, hearings were held, and opinion pieces written.  The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies asked the Chief of the Forest Service to provide a cost estimate of State and Private Forestry programs that accurately reflected the recommendation of the NRC Report.  Because of this request and the national attention the report received, the profile of State and Private Forestry programs in the U.S. Forest Service was raised and their budget was increased.

Research and planning at the mandate-building stage has the potential to influence the nature and direction of a policy initiative.  For example, long before the fires of 2000, there were several reports and findings on wildfire impacts and management: (1) "Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy," (Jan. 2001); (2) "Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review," (Dec. 18, 1995); and (3) "Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment," (Sept. 8, 2000; these last two were already drafted before Summer 2000, when most of the fires occurred).  These reports were written with an interagency perspective and state fire agency input and review.  In this case, the core constituents were on the same page.  Then the fires hit, and the Administration, along with Congress, decided to enact an interagency policy along with $1.6 billion in extra funding.     

The more people learn about what you’ve accomplished, the more likely they are to trust you with new business.  Successfully positioning your organization can make you part of the solution, and telling your successes is one of surest ways to position your agency as an organization who can solve problems and deliver benefits to constituents.  Now, more than ever, it’s critical to not only be relevant to today’s issues and society’s needs, but to demonstrate your accountability.  Federal agencies rely on budget appropriations to accomplish their mission and this climate is often competitive.

 

THE REST OF THE STORY

The other steps in policy making—exploring policy options, executing the policy, enforcing the policy, and evaluating the policy—also benefit from the skills and tools of marketing and communication professionals. 

Building support is often contingent on the ability to provide information that is perceived to be objective and unbiased.  So, how you “package” or “frame” your solution in context of the problems is crucial for public understanding and buy-in.  Survey research at this stage is essential to helping you choose a winning solution and implementing it in the most effective way.  Surveys are also essential in evaluating how well the policy served its intended purposes and constituents.  

Clearly and concisely describing the values and benefits of your solution will engender support and help enforce a policy.  So often, policy makers and decision makers will talk about the features of a solution and leave out the public benefits.  Remember, you are building a policy that ultimately must be communicated to people.  Speaking in terms that resonate with the public’s interests and needs not only says that you listened—it builds trust. 

  

CONCLUSION

Natural resource managers easily see themselves in the role of implementing public policy.  These same managers have trouble envisioning a role in shaping public policy, but as I've described in this article, natural resource professionals can and should play a critical role in this process.   The publics whose support and engagement the professionals need to do their job have few effective sources from which to get accurate and timely information.  Natural resource agencies must increase their voice in the natural resource debate.  If natural resource professionals remain silent, those with one-sided agendas will end up shaping the policy debate.  Natural resource agencies must take the time to effectively communicate the existing situation, help people explore options and tradeoffs, and clearly explain the decisions they are making.  Open and frequent communications builds trust—a critical ingredient to all successfully negotiated policy agreements.  

Clearly then, policy development should not be left to senior management or policy advisors—it is part of the job of your communication professionals.   Use them!

 

 

Charlene Schildwachter is Director of Marketing and Communications for the Western Forestry Leadership Coalition (WFLC).  The WFLC was formed to strengthen an existing state-federal partnership, raising the profile and awareness of State and Private Forestry programs.  Charlene previously worked for the U.S. Forest Service as a legislative coordinator for two regions (five states) promoting successes and developing an understanding of issues affecting multiple states with members of Congress in Washington, D.C.  She has a degree in Business Marketing from the University of Montana.