How Environmental Policy is Made--Part 4, Process

Protecting the environment may seem like an important and somewhat straightforward thing. But nothing in politics is straightforward, and nothing is garunteed to be held important. The process of making environmental policy is a long and difficult path that often yeilds frustrating results. This, however, is the nature of democracy--even when issues are important, the process of politics always takes precedent. However, with the right knowledge and force at certain points of the process, we can and have made significant and important political inroads to help conserve our planet.

Most likely if you are reading this article you already regard environmental policy as a significant issue. However, to be considered for governmental action, you must first have a clearly defined problem. It is not enough to simply say "we need to help endangered species!" Instead, the problem must be defined in terms of potential actions that can be taken. That is, the process of defining a problem includes identifying the specific area that needs to be addressed and potential solutions for that problem. To be considered later for agenda, these things have to be defined in terms of their expanse (national, local) and influence (business, neighborhoods, cities, etc). The early discussion on the topic will serve to set up the rest of the policy making, establishing the basic rhetoric used to promote the cause and identifying the key issues and points of emphasis.

For instance, the expanding development in Florida's wetlands is destroying the habitats of the local wildlife, endangering a variety of species. In the 1990s, a lot of discussion went into why this was occuring and what could be done about it before any action could take place. After a while, the issue became adaquately identified and framed into a form that could make an argument for potential action. Things like establishing and expanding National Forests, restricting development, and placing bans on hunting were all discussed and defined so that they could be presented to players in the government.

Note that this part of policy formation is the one you have most control over; it is the one that takes place in the general culture, media, and everyday conversations. Grassroots efforts and environmental organizations are key to this defining process as are researchers, professionals, and various public activist leaders who specialize in environmental regulation.

Once the problem has been defined it must be picked up by a governmental body. There are two general agendas occuring at any given time: the public agenda and the institutional agenda. The public agenda is the topics that are in public discussion, that may merit a governmental response. This is informal--it is the things people like you and me find important.

The institutional agenda is what is important for policy. This includes the problems that are up for active discussion within policymaking bodies. This could be things that local or national congresses are considering, that the president is recognizing (particularly with larger actions, such as cap-and-trade systems), or might even be a case taken to a court.

Naturally, a lot of the public agenda doesn't make it into the institutional agenda. This is another key point that both grassroots and organized efforts make a huge difference: gathering together and making it clear that the issues you hold important need to be addressed will go a long way in getting your concerns from the public agenda to the institutional agenda. It is through such efforts that most environmental regulation comes to the attention of lawmakers, who might be too focused elsewhere (such on improving the economy) to address these issues without such pressure.