Because each working group conducted its discussion process uniquely, the following reports
vary in format. The question that was before the group is stated in italics at the beginning
of the section, and re-stated as needed in the course of the report.
Please discuss and evaluate different delivery techniques. Identify three to five
delivery models and how they should be evaluated. How would you suggest we measure their
success?
Focus group #1 identified two primary avenues for delivery of EMS support, and considered
strengths and weaknesses of each. The two avenues are:
Delivery by Cooperative Extension as the lead organization; or
Delivery by a private sector group such as a commodity or trade association
or a non-profit or "public interest" organization.
The group felt that EMS delivery by Extension would be more effective.
Advantages of EMS delivery by Extension:
Involvement by Extension seemed almost essential to the group. They felt
that for an EMS to be successful and for there to be incentives for a producer
to develop it, support will be needed not only from commodity but also public
interest groups. Extension is likely to be more effective in pulling together
diverse stakeholders.
Extension involvement should lead to a more scientifically sound conclusion
with less bias build into the EMS design.
Advantages of EMS delivery by the private sector:
EMS delivery by private sector organizations could potentially be better
funded, though of course this depends on what the group is and how much support
it is willing to provide.
The group felt an overriding issue it couldn't resolve was that any delivery approach will
cost money. Who will cover that bill? Possible sources include grants, commodity groups, and
government programs. The group's work didn't yield a recommendation about how EMS delivery
should be funded.
The focus group identified five steps in EMS delivery:
Get buy-in from stakeholders (commodity groups, regulators, public interest
groups, farmers, consumers eventually includes almost everybody). The
interaction with stakeholders should yield a plan for what the EMS is going to
involve, including incentives for each group to participate. Questions to be
resolved include the tools' technical depth, the need and role for a 3rd party
assessment or audit, and whether the EMS should be regulation-based (required),
or voluntary. Stakeholder meetings should involve roughly equivalent numbers
of participants from each interest group (e.g. regulators, producers,
environmental organizations).
Develop the appropriate tools and processes to get EMS applied at the farm.
Implement the process established in steps 1 and 2. The implementation will
proceed one way if a 3rd party is involved, and another if the process is
entirely voluntary and self-directed.
Evaluate procedures, tools and outcomes for the overall delivery program.
Improve the tools and process based on the evaluation.
The focus group considered a number of possible criteria and measures for use in the
evaluation stage. One consideration in determining evaluation measures would be what would help
lead to further program funding. Evaluation measures might include:
Number of producers involved.
Changes in attitudes, intentions and interest in innovations on the part of producers (this can give indications where government grants or loans will be best utilized).
Number of verified changes made on the farms involved (evaluation should go beyond inquiring about a producer's intentions).
Amount of verified dollars invested in these changes (a danger in using this measure is the potential for confusion because sometimes more environmental impact value can come from the lower-cost innovation).
Number of tests conducted (e.g. soil tests).
Number and type of Best Management Practices installed.
Number of fines, or number of complaints reported to governmental agencies.
Provision of external funding for project continuation.
The amount of time, money or capital invested by producers and by service providers or auditors.
The number of organizations involved and "buying in."
Measures of water quality improvement.
Profitability.
There was general agreement in the group that the latter two criteria are very difficult to
measure and may not prove to be good indicators since they're influenced by so many different
factors. A water quality audit might best be done when a program is working with all the farms
in a watershed. If a program is not working with all the farmers in the watershed, it will be
difficult to distinguish the sources of any observed water quality changes.
2a. What is in it for producers? Those who are automatically regulated? Those not immediately subject to permitting? (You might want to consider neighbor relations, green marketing, etc.)
Product:
Identify the three most effective incentives that will increase large, medium and small producer willingness to use environmental management systems.
2b. What are the three most important reasons for regulators to support agricultural EMS's? How should we design EMS materials to relate to existing regulations?
2c. What are some incentives that could be relevant to local communities?
Focus Group #2 reported the following as the most important points emerging from their discussion:
Summary Points:
Economic incentives must be there to entice producers.
Incentives need to be there to make the EMS happen (not vice-versa).
Incentives for producers:
improve public education and perception, improve awareness
educate producers, encourage "think tank"
regulatory flexibility - i.e. a results-orientated system, credible to all stakeholders
"rewards" or economic incentives. Examples include:
cost share
tax credits
green payments (e.g. 2002 Farm Bill)
low interest loan programs
subsidies
surcharges (market structure does not allow passing the costs on to consumers)
venture capital supported through insurance programs
Educate regulators
Bring out and promote alternative technologies
Incentives for regulators:
Peer-to-peer encouragement of stewardship
Opportunity to integrate with watershed regulations
Source of results documentation
Assistance to compliance - more time available to regulate "bad actors"
Incentives for community:
Knowledge of good stewardship
** Trusted/credible EMS and audit system
Tool to demonstrate environmental results
The notes from the Group #2 discussion provide some additional perspectives and elaborate key
points. What follows is a simple listing of points made in the discussion of incentives,
organized by category of stakeholder.
Improve public education/perceptions (of the un-knowledgeable public)
How to maintain privacy in the process
Production of organic fertilizer
Safe harbor as long as you are in compliance
Competitive advantages (between producers - who stays in business)
Should not cross realm of confidential business information (ie Ag retailer information.)
Encourage neighbors to use it.
Regulatory "flexibility" (to attain standards)
Has to get to what regulators want.
Everything in one plan (one-source document)
Reduce administration
Improved time management to meet regulations
Sources of information/assistance (that won't turn you in for non-compliance)
Results oriented/credible by regulators (100%)
Keep it simple and user friendly
Rewards (subsidization, change international trade program)
Bring-out/promote alternative technologies
Make operations move more toward a 'profit' rather than 'cost' situation
Open up producers' "think-tank"
Economic incentive or disincentive needs to be there
Incentives need to be there to make the EMS happen (not visa-versa; this was one individuals opinion)
Producers may recognize social incentives and the value of education for other producers, regulators, and the community
Suggested Incentive Programs
Cost share - State and Federal
Linking environmental outcomes to commodity programs
Create a discussion for 2002 Farm Bill
Tax credits/Equipment tax credits
Revolving loan programs
Surcharges
Subsidies
Venture capital supported through an insurance program
Incentives for Regulators to support Livestock EMS
Make EMS more of a transparent (with trusted individual) process where all three groups work together.
Documentation of environmental plan (that goes beyond compliance - not to mean stricter standards, but include those that don't fall under the regulations)
Producer may encourage neighbor to use it.
Regulatory "flexibility" (assistance to compliance)
Creative ideas for a results-based system for a whole watershed plan (EMS = source of documentation)
Find a way to get a whole-farm rather than individual component(s)/facility of the operation
Demonstrated environmental results on a watershed level
Integrating watershed regulations
Bring-out/promote alternative technologies
Incentives for Broader Community to Support Livestock EMS
Knowledge of good stewardship (learning about what is going on)
What the community perceives as "waste" can be a usable/marketable product by the producer
Make audit information public
Producer may encourage neighbors to use it
Relate water quality results to requirements
Regulate results and allow producers flexibility along the way
States need to implement the CWA, which will lead to producer incentives (because there would be consequences)
How can we develop a program that is:
3a. Site specific but provides consistency for accountability?
3b. Basic and understandable but technically accurate?
3c. User friendly but credible?
3d. Producer controlled but engages community involvement or 3rd party verification?
3e. Public information yet provides for confidential data management?
Please provide your highest priority recommendation for each subpoint.
Focus Group #3 grappled with substantial challenges for the development and implementation
of livestock environmental management systems. The group was able to elaborate and clarify each
of these challenges, but did not have adequate time to reach recommendations for resolving them.
The following summary recommendations are for work the Livestock EMS team will need to do in
addressing these challenges. A review of the group's discussion on each question follows.
The project must FIRST define its scope (its relationship to other programs), scale
(the minimum environmental categories and standards) and relationship to existing
regulatory/voluntary frameworks - What will the EMS do or achieve in relation to other programs
(TMDL, watersheds, CNMPs, on-farm only, etc.)? (The group expressed concern that CNMP
requirements will not address storage, record keeping etc. The EMS will be inadequate if it is
reduced to CNMP requirements.)
The project should define accountability in the context of the EMS and its goals.
These questions should be answered:
What are the environmental targets?
Who designs the EMS?
Who interprets/verifies the audit or assessment findings?
How are the auditors/assessors trained?
What are the feedback mechanisms for producers and other parties to
know the EMS implementation is on track?
Does the EMS include provisions for mid-course changes?
How should the EMS incorporate off-farm components?
How can the EMS process enhance communication between producers and
the public?
The project should identify outcomes that are quantifiable, validated, and feasible,
and that relate to the environmental and other goals.
The project should identify the minimum level of disclosure that will satisfy
non-producers without sacrificing the goals of the EMS.
An EMS program should set the boundaries on access to monitoring activities & resulting
data. (The project should find ways to generate feedback data for evaluating success or
failure, without making that information accessible to uses that would disadvantage a livestock
producer making a good-faith voluntary effort to implement the system.)
3a. How can we develop a program that is site specific but provides consistency for accountability?
Discussion of this question focused on what accountability in the implementation of a livestock EMS might look like. The group concluded that:
Accountability with an EMS requires that targets be established. Targets are distinct
from standards, which might also be established. Targets are outcomes (where and what
you want to address, what change you want to achieve). Standards are such as Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that define the realms of how to address an environmental problem. Although
each farm's EMS will be individualized in its design, it should meet a minimum bar, possibly
defined as BMPs. The targets must be results focused, science based, and measurable. Wherever
relevant, the definition of management issues regarding a perceived risk or threat, and the
parameters that guide decisions about those issues, need to have a basis in defensible science.
(Management issues that may not require grounding in scientific information might be frequency
of staff training, or the need for hired help. But management issues such as the width of grass
buffer strips should have a basis in defensible science.) The EMS should identify outcomes that
are technically achievable. To obtain broad support, an EMS must require action that is not otherwise
required in the absence of the EMS.
Accountability requires that an EMS be validated. To whom, to what people, entity or institution, is a livestock grower accountable for faithfully adhering to the requirements? Will a 3rd party be accountable for validating the EMS? Validation in turn requires clarity on who is charged with interpreting and verifying recorded data on EMS implementation, and when this should be done. The group noted that interpretation may vary according to whether it is a team or an individual who conducts the "audit." A team's interpretation could quite possibly be different from an individual's because of multiple perspectives. Verification may not extend to reporting to a regulatory body, because then there is little difference from permitting. The sense of the group was that although regulations are not a required part of an EMS, as a practical matter, a producer who is subject to regulation will, by default, want to include regulatory items and issues among the environmental aspects the EMS addresses. If
the EMS raises the bar only to strict regulatory compliance, no special "credit" should accompany its implementation. If the EMS raises that bar to greatly exceed compliance, the producer should receive all due credit.
Accountability requires the existence of consequences and/or incentives to ensure procedures are followed. What will be the consequences of failing to meet targets? What actions would ensue if a farm involved in an EMS didn't follow through. This needs to be spelled out in advance. The producer needs to know the "rules" up front. Consequences need to be known and have boundaries.
Accountability requires facilitated communications with the community to get their and find out what they value most (or are most concerned with -- clean water, odor…?). This relates back to defining targets - if an operation knows what's important to the community, it knows what it needs to be accountable for. Third party verification should come from the community to increase community involvement and add credibility to the audit process. Involvement of the community in the audit process would increase a producer's sense of security vis-à-vis community support.
3b and 3c. How can we develop materials that are basic and understandable yet technically accurate, i.e. both user friendly and credible?
Discussion of this challenge focused on three points:
In light of this challenge, the group was unclear whether ISO 14001 makes sense in the agricultural producer context.
All parts of the EMS should be documentable.
EMS support materials should define the level of their technical accuracy.
3d. How can we develop a program that is producer controlled but engages community involvement or 3rd party verification?
The group's discussion distinguished between community involvement and 3rd party verification. Community involvement may be a means of trying to reap the "public relations" benefits of engaging in an EMS, as well as allowing the EMS to be designed on a site specific basis that meets the needs of the particular community involved. Involvement of the community will ensure the EMS attends to the unique community values pertaining to a particular area, a particular operator, or a specific community situation. An example of such a community value might be the esthetics of a walking trail that passes within a quarter mile of the production facility. There may be no zoning requirements addressing this, but it still could be an important environmental aspect for the EMS that a producer might not recognize without engaging the community. In general, the group identified the need for community involvement up front in developing the EMS, with verification following up on EMS implementation. In this way, verification becomes an agent of the community.
3e. How can we develop a program of public information that provides for confidential data management?
The group discussed the importance of setting boundaries on the access to and use of monitoring activities & resulting data. Monitoring is an essential part of closing the EMS feedback loop, including providing information back to the community or the public. But monitoring data that can be easily traced to a particular source (a single farm) must be protected against abuse by 3rd parties. If reports are provided to government agencies, these then are accessible via a Freedom of Information Act request. A way must be devised to obtain feedback data by which the public can eventually evaluate the success or failure of environmental management systems, without making those data accessible to uses that would put those livestock producers who voluntarily implement an EMS at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other producers.
Please list the (three) most important EMS program implementation strengths and roles of:
Commodity organizations
Producers
Private Sector Consultants
NRCS/SWCD
Land Grants/Extensions
Regulatory agencies
Environmental organizations
Local communities
What are processes for building cooperation in partnerships?
What priority action does each group need to take?
In summary, Focus Group #4 concluded that there is a need for EMS implementation, the government ought to support it with flexibility, commodity organizations should participate, and farmers should do it.
Producers:
In an EMS partnership, the Strength of producers is that they know their operations best (especially important when those operations vary widely). They must "buy in" if the EMS is to be successful, and need incentives or at least clear benefits to them. The Role of producers is implementation. Benefits for producer participation may include:
long-term sustainability
improved communications with neighbors
a more positive image with the public
financial gains
avoidance, reduction and improved management of risk
improved product marketability
Integrators/Processors:
In an EMS partnership, the integrators' or processors' Role may be delivery of the EMS tools and support for the EMS processes. Their Role may also be to provide marketing incentives for producers to participate, for the Benefit of projecting a positive environmental image for their products. The Strengths integrators and processors bring to the partnership include:
muscle (authority/influence) in the sense of buying power, and ability to require participation through contractual relationships
resources, for example to provide the additional marketing incentives; or in the tools/support delivery system, ability to hire people or provide the support to make an EMS happen on contracted farms.
Commodity Organizations:
The commodity organizations' Role is to provide industry knowledge to other partners. At the national level they offer a communications and policy-change vehicle. At the state level, they participate in partnerships for delivery of the EMS tools, information or technical assistance. They can provide producers with access to support. For both national and state commodity organizations, their Strengths are:
communications
access to members and decision (policy) makers
political influence
ability to create relationships, and to deliver locally-based programs
knowledge of the industry
ability to fight for their commodity's farmers' survival, supporting that commodity's production
What may be Needed of commodity organizations is to moderate rhetoric through partnerships, and set the tone of what's expected in the industry.
Regulators:
Regulators can play the Role of creating incentives and providing support for implementation of an EMS. They are in a credible position to endorse and build public confidence in the EMS approach (for both producers and consumers). The EMS Benefits for regulators are to:
move producers beyond compliance
assure clean water and environmental improvement (meet their public mandate)
Federal incentives may include regulatory flexibility and reduced paperwork load for producers.
The Strengths that State regulators can bring are the ability to reach all producers in the state, and to take watershed approaches. State regulators can play the same Roles as federal regulators, but with greater specificity in delivery support, providing information, and setting incentives, based on watershed needs. Local regulators can play a Role in EMS promotion and implementation through the management of land use issues such as zoning, defining compatible land uses, and regulating nuisances, and through local public health management.
Private Sector Consultants:
Consultants' Role is to provide their expertise on technical issues of EMS implementation. They can offer financial and technical assistance, help motivate producers, and assist coordination of the system itself, between producers and other partners. Several types of consultants include:
Certified Crop Advisors
Engineers
Sales/Company Suppliers (Allied industry)
Management Cos.
The Strengths of these private consultants include:
ability to manage financial assistance (e.g., to write up a proposal for outside money)
technical expertise
financial motivation to assist
time (public sector agents don't have enough time to devote to thousands of individual producers' issues)
3rd party evaluation perspective
In order to be successful, private consultant Needs include the opportunity for income, and clients that have a "big picture" worldview.
Local Communities:
Local communities can play the Roles of helping to prioritize social concerns, and of providing moral support (e.g. through good neighborhood and town relations) and financial support (e.g. by sponsoring trainings or cooperative extension support). Their support for the producer's EMS depends on producer credibility and perceived trustworthiness. The Strengths of local community involvement include:
adding credibility if there is community support for the EMS process
the opportunity to develop trust among community members
Benefits to the local community include:
improved environment
rural development and gains in social capital
improved knowledge about farming and how in reality it affects the environment
Environmental Groups:
The Roles of environmental organizations are to prioritize their concerns, and help secure financial support for EMS implementation (e.g. lobbying for farm causes if farmers will support environmental causes). Strengths they bring to the EMS partnership include:
participation and buy-in can lend public credibility
ability to reward effective EMS implementation through publicity, influence with the press and likewise to
holding producers accountable through their ability to criticize (unafraid to rock the boat) and apply pressure for continued improvement (role as truth-tellers; otherwise community may put up with something)
generate financial support (through markets or through public incentives)
Land Grants/Extension:
The Roles of the Land-Grant Universities and Extension Service is to provide research and outreach on agricultural EMS to meet the needs of farmers and interested public groups. They might deliver an EMS through direct technical support, and/or provide education and training to producers. They can also advocate for the EMS approach with producers, policy-makers and the public. The Strengths that researchers can offer include:
technical assistance (e.g. development of environmentally effective practices)
reputation lending scientific credibility
obtaining grants or other sources of financial assistance (e.g. for research and/or pilot testing implementation)
search for knowledge
The Strengths of outreach or Extension include the above plus:
educational strategies
local base, and ability to support and improve community
trust (trusted by farmers and environmentalists)
through participation in the EMS partnership they serve their mission of helping the public
pull people together in a collaborative effort
NRCS:
Roles for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service may be to set environmental standards or targets for an EMS (e.g. establishing BMPs, and defining low risk alternatives), and provide field staff and technical expertise for EMS implementation. NRCS Strengths include:
national field staff, support and presence (throughout the country, in every county)
resources (EQIP, CRP, WRP, forestry; as well as the people presence, knowledge resources, and cost-sharing assistance)
planning strengths (e.g., have a farm/soil conservation planning process)
credibility
engineers and available technical expertise (e.g., every state has agronomist, soil scientist, engineer, water quality, grasslands specialists)
strong water quality program
can provide certification for private sector practices)
EMS implementation helps the agency complete its mission
SWCD:
The Role of Soil and Water Conservation Districts is to provide producers with technical assistance. They share NRCS Strengths, though their primary Strength is being part of the local community.
6a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of linking our livestock EMS project to ISO 14001? (Please list the three most significant advantages and disadvantages.)
6b. Which of the 17 ISO elements are relevant?
6c. What can be done to reduce producer anxiety about coordinating EMS design with ISO 14001 criteria?
In summary, Focus Group #6 concluded that the project's EMS materials should align with the ISO model. That does not mean that the materials are written using ISO language and references, but that each step in the ISO process is incorporated into the materials in a way that will make sense to producers.
Group #6 discussed EMS elements under the ISO guidelines to identify the relative importance of each element to this project. The group reported the following priority points of linkage between our livestock EMS project and ISO 14001, and what the project should emphasize in supporting producers. The complete list of elements is included at the end of this section. In general, it was felt that all of these elements are relevant to the project's efforts, but following are the key factors to be emphasized:
It is essential that this be seen as part of a good business management model, not just another environmental project or program. There are sound business reasons for having an EMS.
This process will involve teaching people a new way of thinking- the focus should not be ISO or "EMS" per se, but on the value of the systematic and sequential process of establishing an approach (policy) for dealing with environmental concerns, identifying environmental concerns (aspects and impacts), organizing a voluntary action plan, implementing the plan and documenting management actions and changes, and evaluating results and future needs.
This project needs to help remove the intimidation factor; converting ISO standards into farm management language will assist with this.
The project must clearly identify benefits, including financial incentives. Incentives for EMS implementation can include improved relationship with regulators, and acknowledgment of good practices by a regulatory agency, but tangible financial incentives are essential to support widespread use by mid- and small-size producers. Regulatory agencies should identify and support and/or recognize EMS links to their policies and regulatory requirements. State and federal farm policies should include financial incentives that support producer development and use of EMS.
EPA has issued a policy statement in support of EMS. EPA and state environmental agencies and environmental organizations must recognize this as a valid approach to identifying environmental risks and documenting actions that address them. If the project does not help get this positive response it will not be credible in producers' eyes.
The project should clearly show linkages between EMS and improvements in product quality programs (ISO 9000 Quality Assurance).
This project can assess the EMS process in relation to agriculture and use case studies to show results.
Other points made in the group's discussion of the advantages in using ISO model of the EMS in this project include the following:
EMS is a practical organizational tool that is adaptable to site-specific needs of a producer.
EMS provides a clear signal for government regulators that there is a desire to change adversary relationships.
The producer is the final decision-maker.
An EMS is tailored to needs of particular industry or individual user.
EMS implementation entails behavior change and a process for documenting the change.
Performance indicators/verifiers are part of the shift to the EMS process. This is necessary to have this approach be seen as credible by the environmental community.
EMS is a mechanism for capturing and documenting environmental advances (dynamic system).
An element of pride comes from farm owners/managers leading the development, implementation and review process.
Acknowledgement from environmental groups is essential, or the process will not be viewed as credible by producers.
Defense against frivolous lawsuits.
A commitment to process is necessary.
Project will assess the EMS process:
mini case studies
establish key indicators / collect data
Third party certification and assessment (use assessment equivalents, e.g. ACWF).
Consumers/NGOs/retailers need to be involved.
Concerns raised by Focus Group #6:
Will voluntary behaviors/actions turn into regulations? EMS should retain its voluntary status.
Confidence of producer in the quality/effectiveness of EMS will require Farm Bill Legislation to provide incentives for EMS.
Cost to producers requires a benefit/cost analysis.
The basic elements of the EMS (universal to all industries) proposed for special attention in this project:
ID environmental aspects
Legal/other requirements
Environmental management plan to include means and time frame, targets, structure, responsibility.
Documentation and record control
Communication
Monitoring and measurement (Corrective Action Reports, Preventive Action Reports)
Emergency management
The complete list of EMS elements under the ISO guidelines:
Environmental policy
Environmental aspects identification
Legal and other requirements
Objectives and targets
Environmental management program (means and time frame)
Structure and responsibility (provide simple tools that satisfy these)
Training, awareness and competence
Communication
Environmental management system documentation
Document control (link to records)
Operational control
Emergency preparedness and response (link to communication)
Monitoring and measurement. (Evaluate what you are doing - internal evaluation of meeting your objectives)
Nonconformance and corrective and preventive action (this makes this a system)
What can we be doing that's unique and needed that's not already being done for livestock and other agricultural EMSs? What can we do that others cannot? What is/are the best role(s) for this project?
Please identify the three highest priority agricultural EMS research needs that should be addressed.
Please identify the three highest priority agricultural EMS education needs that should be addressed.
Please identify other high priority roles for this project.
Research Needs
Focus Group #7 identified several research issues specific to EMS tool application that could be addressed by this project. The three highest priority topics reported by the group were:
EMS benefits. Measurement of EMS benefits to the livestock, environmental, and regulatory community. There was a general belief that the lack of understanding of benefits is currently limiting acceptance of this approach for addressing environmental issues. Most current discussion of EMS is based upon perceptions (both positive and negative) with limited research based information available for supporting these perceptions. A measurement of benefits should address three issues: 1) economic impact on livestock industry, 2) environmental benefits, and 3) societal perception of environmental results from EMS.
Sector needs for successful EMS program. For an EMS to be accepted by the livestock, regulatory, and impacted community, what must an EMS accomplish? …What needs must be fulfilled? …What assurances must be provided to these communities?
Implementation methodologies to facilitate change. For a livestock industry based EMS to facilitate the desired changes, what methodologies for implementing an EMS are successful? …not successful? What organizations must be involved in local implementation to gain industry, environmental, and impacted communities' acceptance? What delivery models get tools put into practice?
Education Needs
What is an EMS? A lack of understanding of the purpose, implementation process, and intended outcomes was seen as a major impediment limiting utilization of an EMS. The concept requires a simple and focused "sales pitch" to the livestock community for gaining an understanding and eventual acceptance of EMS. The concept will have to be sold to the livestock community.
Documented case studies of producer application. Producers need physical examples of success stories for EMS implementation on "real" farms. Models for obtaining this buy-in are needed for integrators and independent producers. Models will be important to regulatory and impacted communities relative to their understanding of the process and identification of their own role.
Sustainable framework for disseminating EMS. After the pilot studies are completed, a sustainable framework must exist for implementing EMS tools using existing resources. This framework must utilize existing (not new) resources and resource people. The project needs to recommend sustainable frameworks and initiate examples of these frameworks.
