Final Report (all chapters)

In many cases, these efforts are perfectly adequate. At the local level, participation by
various interest groups may be considered an adequate substitute for broad public participation;
participation in decision-making at the local level is less likely to suffer from political failures.
The empirical evidence suggests that agencies such the DOE and the EPA have become quite
adept at designing and running participatory processes. 32 Unfortunately, a pragmatic stance in
identifying stakeholder groups and in involving the public makes these otherwise remarkable
initiatives largely irrelevant.
Stakeholders are often defined as those groups that are substantially and negatively affected
by an agency policy. This definition is of considerable practical import, but it is far from
unproblematic. Consider the following hypothetical example: Let us assume that the Yosemite
Valley has not yet been made into a national park. Political pressure is mounting to get the
National Park Service to take action. The Park Service recognizes the urgency of moving
forward on this matter, but is concerned about opposition expressed by select interest groups. To
gauge public support for this measure, it initiates a broad process of public consultation. Central
to this process are negotiations with key stakeholders. What stakeholders is the National Park
Service likely to consult with? Surely, the agency would seek comments from tourist and travel
operators, logging companies, hunters’ societies, local communities, and Native American tribes,
among other groups. The Park Service would also want to consult with environmental and
conservationist groups, both at the local and national levels. Finally, the agency would also want
to solicit public comments from the general public.
Are these stakeholders all equally entitled to be heard? Do they all have “stakes,” and what
are these stakes? The first group of individuals and organizations identified by the agency clearly
meet the standard definition of stakeholder. These are societal groups who are likely to be
substantially and negatively affected by the proposal to protect the great outdoors. Their stakes
are obvious and undisputable; most of these groups would suffer economic losses; others would
be dramatically restricted in activities they once took for granted. In other words, these groups
would be harmed in the strong sense of this term.
Environmental and conservationist groups, for their part, certainly consider themselves
stakeholders on par with logging companies and the tourist industry. The Park Service, for its
part, would share this view. These groups can be expected to provide strong support for the
agency proposal to turn Yosemite Valley into a national park. As a practical matter, few would
dispute the view that conservationist groups should be considered stakeholders. By the standard
definition of this concept, however, this inference is not necessarily warranted. In which sense
would environmentalists and the public be negatively affected should the Park Service decide not
to move forward with its proposal? What kind of damage would these groups suffer? Clearly,
environmental groups would not suffer any economic losses, nor is the source of their livelihood
32
Thomas C. Beierle, "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record,"
(Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2000); Judith A. Bradbury and Kristi M. Branch, "An Evaluation
of the Effectiveness of Local Site-Specific Advisory Boards for U.S. Department of Energy Environmental
Restoration Program," (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 1999).
260