Profs. Porter and Watts’ article, Visual Rulemaking, explores the potential of visual images to “strengthen and further democratize” the rulemaking process by promoting transparency, accountability, and increased public participation.
This Article uncovers an emerging and significant phenomenon that has gathered momentum only within the last few years: the use of visual media to develop, critique, and engender support for (or opposition to) high-stakes, and sometimes virulently controversial, federal rulemakings. Visuals have played little historical role in rulemaking. Instead, the rarified realm of rulemaking has remained technocratic in its form—defined by linear analysis, blackand- white text, and expert reports.
The concept of formalizing an initiative’s agreements in writing certainly improves its chances of success, but it also introduces challenges which Crowder does a credible job articulating. The comments that emerged from my review of the article involve the other attributes of an initiative and its corresponding written agreement that would serve to improve the chances of a CII’s success. These attributes include the team and its leadership, key drivers of the initiative, the form of and process of carrying out the agreement, and the unaccounted-for costs of the initiative.
Patience Crowder has developed an important Article, which in its present form will significantly benefit the legal community and those organizations that have already embraced the concept of collective impact, perhaps experimented with the approach, or are prepared to act as consultants to communities interested in exploring it. However, there are many within the foundation community who do not yet see themselves participating in this approach at all.
Patience Crowder's article on collective impact agreements summarizes some important considerations that need to take place as the impact transaction approach is further explored. In this piece, the author frames some of the points raised in her article through a practitioner's lens, and adds a few others for future consideration.
Collective impact initiatives (CIIs) bring together actors with diverse experiences and perspectives to focus on an issue, with the potential to create new skill sets and solutions to long-standing problems. Professor Crowder posits that the absence of an existing contractual framework is one of the emerging barriers to the effectiveness of CIIs, many of which are currently based on informal relationships and not enforceable agreements. In particular, the author believes we need to develop practical contract drafting strategies to memorialize collective impact strategies.
“Collective impact” is a relatively new terminology emerging out of the philanthropic community for describing structured collaboration among parties who are focused on alleviating a particular social ill. Branded as “a way to better utilize resources and identify effective practices,” a collective impact initiative (CII) intentionally recruits actors from diverse industries and with diverse perspectives to focus on a specific social ill. In many respects, collective impact participants “agree to agree” over the course of an ongoing relationship.
The challenge of inducing risk reduction and adaptation practice is not a purely environmental one, but the vast impacts of acute and chronic environmental events and changes associated with climate change extend across socioeconomic landscapes. Elevated environmental hazards to communities are increasingly present with severe storms, both inland and coastal. Should a set of conditions evolve to accommodate this challenge, Financial Assurance Mandates could prove to be a valuable option to reduce risks.
Just as our coasts have been defined and shaped by their surrounding lands and waters, the future scale and scope of climate change impacts in any one location will—in part—be defined by geography and surrounding landscape. Zachary Arnold presents a case for how Financial Assurance Mandates (FAMs) such as insurance or surety bonding could be utilized effectively to reduce the risk communities face from climate-driven impacts that result in coastal industrial disasters.
Zachary Arnold’s proposal of a policy framework to prevent coastal industrial disasters is quite timely, coming as it does after the 2017 hurricane season on the East Coast, followed by the equally devastating wildfire season in the West. Arnold suggests that imposing financial assurance mandates (FAMs), such as minimum insurance coverage, would induce coastal industries to proactively manage climate adaptation, and thus, proactively manage risk. Arnold points out that government at all levels—local, state, and federal—could do more.