Harmonizing EIA Practices: Elephants in the Room

1
Harmonizing EIA PracticesElephants in the Room

• Hobson Bryan, Ph.D.
• The University of Alabama
• chbryan_at_gmail.com
• Environmental Assessment in Federations
  Conference
• Ottawa, Canada, September 14, 2009

2
INTRODUCTION

• Good news! NEPA is still around after 40 years,
  and various versions of environmental impact
  assessment are being practiced around the world.
  
• Bad news! Critics of EIA abound. Quality of the
  process and its results are questioned.
• Harmonizing EIA across governmental entities
  will continue to be daunting, unless we can come
  to terms with major issues concerning both
  concept and method.

3

• This confusion not only makes coordination at
  different levels difficult , but ultimately
  diminishes the legitimacy and power of the
  process.
• Why is this the case, and what are its
  implications for the harmonization challenge.

4
US NATIONAL ENVVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT of 1969

• To declare a national policy which will
• Encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
  between man and his environment,
• To promote efforts which will prevent or
  eliminate damage to the environmentand stimulate
  heath and welfare of man,
• To enrich the mans understanding of the
  ecological systems and natural resources
  important to the Nation,
• And to establish a Council on Environmental
  Quality

5
LYNTON CALDWELLS STRATEGY

• EIA will be an interdisciplinary, science-based
  process in the service of ??
• The bottom line Avoid the damaging and
  inadvertent (usually) consequences of efforts
  to adapt the environment to human purposes.
• Science and the National Environmental Policy
  Act Redirecting Policy through Procedural Reform
  (1982)

6
Those every 10 year or so CEQ reviews

• Lack of uniformity of the process
• Technical language the public cannot understand
• Documents that seem to be ends in themselves,
  rather than for better decision making
• Encyclopedic coverage, instead of focus on key
  issues
• Corresponding excesses in paper work, delays, and
  duplication of effort

7
ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM

• Elephant in the rooman important and obvious
  topic of which everyone is aware, but isnt
  discussed for fear that such discussion be
  considered uncomfortable or even embarrassing.

8
ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
9

• At least two elephants are in the EIA room,
  issues that not just hinder EIA effectiveness and
  harmonization, but stand in the way of NEPAs
  original intent.

10
THE NON-SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ELEPHANT

• Social Impact Assessment a process for analyzing
  and managing the intended and unintended
  social? consequences of change arising from
  policies and projects.

11
PREVAILING IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL

• ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERATION
• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• Inter-organizational Committee on Guidelines
  and Principles for Social Impact Assessment,
  1998.

12
MODEL CONSEQUENCES

• Inadequate translation into consequences people
  care about
• Division of attention between the biophysical and
  the social
• Uneven quality of, or even missing, social
  analyses

13
SUGGESTED MODEL

• ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERATION
• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• HUMAN IMPACTS

14
WHY CHANGE THE PREVAILING MODEL?

• Most people care more about their everyday lives
  than the environment.
• Most do not see a connection between such
  ecological concepts as biodiversity and ecosystem
  health and human well-being.
• There is little support from the general public
  and the politicians who represent them for an
  environmental assessment that is not translated
  into human consequences.

15
IMPLICATIONS

• Drive all biophysical impacts to their human
  implications.
• Focus especially on translating into terms of
  human well-being such impacts as species
  extinction and biodiversity.
• Adopt the mantra ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE
  SOCIAL IMPACTS.
• Use interdisciplinary physical and social
  scientist teams to analyze, discuss, and make the
  linkages.

16
THE TECHNOCRACY ELEPHANT

• Technocrat
• An expert who is a member of a highly skilled
  elite group.
• A new type of bureaucrat who is intensely
  trained in engineering or economics and devoted
  to the power of national planning.
• Someone who believes that engineers should manage
  society.

17

• Technocracy
• A form of government in which engineers,
  scientists, and other technical experts are in
  control of decision making in their respective
  fields.
• Prevailing Decision Model Top-Down
• I am the decider!
• Engineers, economists, and other experts do the
  analyses.

18
WHO HAS STANDING IN THIS PROCESS?
19
CONSEQUENCES

• Public participation is more of an inform, rather
  than involve process (We are dealing with a lot
  of ignorance out there!).
• Little political buy-in and support for EIA
  specifically and NEPA generally.
• Hostility and suspicion toward both the plan and
  the process
• Loss of valuable local knowledge.

20

• Loss of transparency and good faith.
• Polarization over issues.
• Lack of clarity over who gains and who loses,
  absent stakeholder analyses

21
SUGGESTED DECISION PROCESS
22
GETTING THE ELEPHANTS OUT OF THE ROOM

• Push all biophysical impacts to their social
  (i.e., human) consequences.
• Restore a balance between top-down and bottom-up
  decision makingrecognize that those effected
  have full standing in the planning and the
  process.
• Navigate to the future.

23
(No Transcript)