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.