We have long recognized that good environmental governance, good decision making, is impossible without good information, and a clear set of values and aspirations. What has changed over time is our understanding of how to ensure decision makers have a good basis of information, values and aspirations to shape their decisions. Traditional decision making processes were designed on the assumption that decision-makers would turn to scientific experts for information, and that governments were in a good position to either shape or reflect the values and aspirations of the population they governed. This resulted in decision-making processes that were top down, and involved limited or no public engagement and transparency.

Of course, much has changed in our societies since these traditional approaches to decision-making were first applied to environmental challenges in the 1970s. We have a much better understanding of the complexities involved in environmental governance. The stakes are much higher, in the sense that we are exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet, human populations are continuing to rise, and many governments struggle to meet the basic needs of their citizens. In short, things have become more complex, and we are, at the same time, gradually becoming more aware of the complexity of the world we live in.

Of course, we have made some adjustments to our governance approaches in the environmental field in areas where the mismatch between the underlying assumptions and reality have become most obvious. This has happened informally through public engagements in some major policy decisions. It has happened more formally with respect to environmental assessment (EA) processes, largely focused on individual projects.

When EA processes were first developed in Canada starting in the 1970s, they were largely seen as technical exercises to scientifically identify the environmental consequences of proposed activities. Over time, the importance, diversity and complexity of values and aspirations of affected communities has become more and more apparent, leading to more emphasis on public engagement and broader scope of EAs to consider socio-economic and cultural implications of proposed activities. At the same time, there has been a gradual recognition that “good information” means more than western science. It includes, in particular, local and traditional knowledge and stakeholder perspectives and values. This recognition has resulted in efforts to engage affected communities in EA processes.

The gradual transition from top down toward more transparent, polycentric, and integrated decision making, of course, has been far from linear even in the context of EA. In fact, federally, we are currently in a period of retreat, a return to less public engagement and a more narrow focus on biophysical implications of proposed activities to the exclusion of social and economic benefits, impacts, risks and uncertainties. However, the general trend is nevertheless discernable. What is disconcerting, however, is that this trend in EA has so far not become the norm in other environmental decision-making processes, such as policy making and regulatory processes. Public engagement, transparency, and integrated decision making in environmental decision making outside EA is rare, and where some progress has been made, such as with respect to some utility review boards, it still lags behind most EA processes.

My point is that the same drivers that have resulted in this gradual transition toward public engagement in EA, warrant a fresh look at the role of the public in other areas of decision-making. Key areas of decision-making to consider include planning, policy-making, and regulatory decision-making. Sound regulatory decisions, I would suggest, demand the same blend of western science with local and traditional knowledge we have started to recognize in EA. Similarly, good decision-making in a regulatory context requires a clear set of values, perspectives and aspirations, and provides opportunities for affected communities to work toward a common set of values and aspirations.

What we have learned through the past few decades of experience with regulatory decision making is that conflicts over regulatory decisions often arise when regulators either fail to understand or ignore the values and aspirations of communities affected by regulatory decisions. This has at times resulted in growing and sometimes unnecessary conflict over activities that seem to offer clear and important benefits at a societal level. At other times, it has resulted in approval of activities that are inconsistent with the values and priorities of those affected, sometimes to the point of approving activities that do not offer net benefits at any scale. Examples in Nova Scotia include regulatory approval followed by opposition in a range of sectors, including offshore oil and gas exploration, wind developments, aquaculture and fracking.

What would a regulatory process look like if it were to respect the need for a blend of western science with local and traditional knowledge? What would it look like if it were to respect the need to make regulatory decisions in the context of shared values and aspirations of affected communities, or at least in recognition and understanding of divergent values and aspirations with a commitment to look for common ground in a manner that is fair to individual communities and the larger society?

Among the principles that would guide such a regulatory approach would be proactive public engagement, transparency, and accountability. Proactive public engagement would serve at least three critical needs of good decisions making. It would ensure a more complete set of relevant information is available to the decision maker. It would offer an opportunity for decision makers to understand the values, perspectives and aspirations of those potentially affected by the decision. Thirdly, it would offer an opportunity to facilitate a better understanding of differences in values and perspectives and to look for common ground.

Transparency and accountability would work together to provide feedback to decision makers and those potentially affected, to hold decision-makers accountable for the decisions made, and to improve future decision-making. Accountability would mean decisions are assessed against clearly articulated goals and principles. Whether the goal of governance is better environmental performance, better economic performance, better social performance, or all three, if we are serious about moving forward in a complex world, it is high time that we take a fresh look at our key decision-making processes, including regulatory decision-making.

 

To download some of my publications on regulation, EA and public engagement, see http://ssrn.com/author=715387.  

 

Meinhard Doelle,

Director, Marine & Environmental Law Institute