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

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.

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.

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 environment…and stimulate heath and welfare of man,  To enrich the [ man’s ] understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation,  And to establish a Council on Environmental Quality

 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)

 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

“Elephant in the room”—an important and obvious topic of which everyone is aware, but isn’t discussed for fear that such discussion be considered uncomfortable or even embarrassing.

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HUMAN IMPACTS

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

ACTION ORIENTATION RESEARCH ORIENTATION TECHNOCRATIC APPROACHES Action based on centralized social planning and management (government agencies and consultants Academic research (universities, private and public “think tanks”) PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES Action based on community level social development (local community organizations, groups and community workers, organizers) Advocacy research (foundation supported and independent research on behalf of special minority interests)

 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.

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

ACTION ORIENTATION RESEARCH ORIENTATION TECHNOCRATIC APPROACHES Action based on centralized social planning and management (government agencies and consultants Academic research (universities, private and public “think tanks”) PARTICIPATORY APPROACHESAction based on community level social development (local community organizations, groups and community workers, organizers) Advocacy research (foundation supported and independent research on behalf of special minority interests)

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