This is a topic of interest that will support my research into solving environmental conflicts. This article examines how reframing can enhance the quality of public participation in environmental assessment initiatives. 

Intractability and EA

Intractable environmental conflicts are by definition long-standing issues that elude resolution which arise because of frame mismatches between the participants, as elaborated on in Question 1. With a few exceptions, the literature on intractability does not focus improving public participation in the EA process. First, public participation often occurs at the beginning stages of a potential dispute, sometimes before it even is a dispute. Second, some EA processes may not last the duration of a dispute, depending on the jurisdiction or administrative framework in which it is implemented. 

Governance and EA

There is a theme in the literature that indicates the need for a broader role for EA; moving from being a mostly technical exercise to taking on broader, governance responsibilities. Craik, et al. (2012, p. 20) assert “that while EA, viewed narrowly as a regulatory instrument, captures a number of important ‘governance’ features, the actual ability of EA to fulfill its promise of open, participatory, and principled decision making depends fundamentally on the political and institutional characteristics within which it is embedded. The creation of a regulatory instrument is a necessary, but insufficient condition to bring about a shift towards governance.” Innes & Booher (2004) echo this theme. 

As EA practitioners grow to see themselves, and are seen by others, as more than technical consultants but rather as critical stewards of a governance role, and as the epistemology driving EA becomes increasingly post-positive (Lawrence, 1997; Morgan, 2012), this emerging trend sets the tone for how public participation is carried out. And more specifically, it sets the stage for a framework in which two previously un-connected undertakings - public participation and conflict resolution - can and arguably must intersect in order to fulfill part of this broader expectation placed on EA and its practitioners. In this light, it behooves EA practitioners to expand their understanding of other related disciplines, and begin applying a more integrative approach. 

SIA and Conflict Resolution 

From the perspective of an integrated conceptual framework, the intersection between EA and environmental conflict resolution (“ECR”) is not well established. However, I have identified some recent efforts to find a multidisciplinary approach, the most fruitful of which for this research is the overlap between environmental conflict resolution and Social Impact Assessment (“SIA”). For reference, Barrow (2010, p. 293) provides a working definition: “SIA could be described as a process that seeks to assess whether a proposed development will alter quality of life and sense of well-being, and how well individuals, groups and communities adapt to the changes.” 

A special edition of Environmental Impact Assessment Review (2010, 30(5)) deals with the integration of SIA and environmental conflict, noting a movement towards addressing environmental conflicts from a multidisciplinary perspective. Summarizing the case for an integration of the two approaches, Sairinen, et al., (2010, p. 291) note, “Since conflicts evolve around interests, social and cultural values and contested knowledge claims relating to environmental and social change, understanding these social processes is a key to effective conflict management.” They also draw connections between SIA and conflict resolution dynamics, urging a mutual understanding between both fields, concluding that “SIA appears to have potential as a tool for warning about possible conflicts early enough to allow effective management; it should also help clarify causation and can identify opportunities (Sairinen, et al.,2010, p. 289).” Barrow (2010) also lays out a case for SIA to be informed by, and to contribute to, ECR, nothing that SIA may hold promise because it is designed to be highly attuned to the social factors involved in environmental change. 

Earlier I suggested four components necessary for an effective application of my recommended approach. An integrated approach to SIA and ECR addresses these four criteria in the following ways. 

Focus on Individuals 

The objective of the reframing exercise is to have key individuals in the dispute evaluate their own positions in light of their counterparts, but with minimal noise from interpersonal interaction. This theme has been identified in the literature on the integration of SIA and ECR. Karjalainen & Järvikoski (2010) and Barrow (2010) point out that the more engaged and empowered the public participants are in the planning process, the more likely the outcome is to be sustainable, cause less damage to the environment, provide better employment, and involve less conflict. It is clear that the conceptual framework suggested by an interdisciplinary SIA/ECR approach contemplates a sufficient focus on the individuals involved to support the incorporation of a recursive communication reframing exercise. 

Leverage Research Expertise  

The forum must involve independent third parties qualified to analyze a preference analysis vote, or similar process, and inform the moderator role. Sairinen, et al., (2010) and Innes & Booher (2004) each point to the role of researchers in an interdisciplinary SIA/ECR approach, noting that because stakeholder perceptions will change over time during the course of the engagement, a longitudinal approach to capturing their perceptions is vital to the process. To undertake a public participation engagement without independently clarifying and monitoring the ongoing frame perceptions of key participants will make the process blind to it own measurable success (or failure). The conceptual framework suggested by an interdisciplinary SIA/ECR approach contemplates the involvement of a research component to support the incorporation of a recursive communication reframing exercise. 

Moderator Role 

The forum suggested for my research must involve the role of a moderator in order to implement the research findings and ensure a well-functioning public participation dynamic. While the role of independent researcher is critical, it cannot stand alone. As EA becomes increasingly post-positive in approach, the days of disinterested, third party research are numbered because the facts require integration and context. In their research on the integration of SIA and ECR in hydro projects in Finland, Karjalainen & Järvikoski (2010) make a case for a truly independent moderator to drive the public engagement process.  

Peltonen & Sairinen (2010) also examine SIA/ECR integration in the context of urban planning, and find instances integration points between SIA and mediated negotiation processes and resolution of impact assessment challenges. In a very powerful indictment of public hearing frameworks, Innes & Booher (2004) point out that improper moderation is extremely detrimental to the quality of public participation and the outcome of the exercise itself, noting that the strict rules and formats inhibit collaboration and reward adversarial behaviour. 

The role of moderator is critical to ensure actual and perceived fairness, and it is important to note that the role of mediator is not vital in this context, because that implies a stronger level of input and responsibility than my proposed research requires. From the foregoing, it is clear that an integrative approach to SIA/ECR contemplates the moderator role that will be required in my research approach. 

Recursive Communication 

The forum suggested for my research must reflect the learnings from the recursive preference communication analysis back to the parties involved, so that there is a sufficient level of recursive communication among the participants. An integrative SIA/ECR approach may hold particular promise for my analysis in its incorporation of recursive communication. Barrow (2010) calls for formats that encourage stakeholders and developers to be more reflective and mutually accountable.  Karjalainen & Järvikoski (2010) and Abelson, et al. (2003) find that conflict resolution needs to include social learning, reframing, and ongoing participation. 

Learning Networks and EA

Another way of looking at public participation in EA is to examine the learning network process for tackling wicked environmental problems as recommended by Balint, et al. (2011). In the learning network approach, analysis and deliberation happen iteratively over time, as a joint effort by scientists and public participants. The analysis component grounds the process in a base of scientific knowledge, and the deliberative component ensures the policy results are scientifically sound and socially supportable.

To apply this to a wicked problem, the following recommendation is put forward by Balint, et al., (2010). The first step is to examine who should be included as participants. Pellizzoni (2003) recommends distinguishing between public participants and stakeholder participants. The former would be expected to have normative competence, with opinions, values and perceptions relevant to the problem. That latter would also be expected to have cognitive competence, with a measure of relevant knowledge and expertise. Pellizzoni (2003) therefore expects stakeholders to not merely represent a perspective, but to also be part of the integrative solution on a longitudinal basis. 

Next, the analytic-deliberative process suggested by National Research Council (1996) involves experts and stakeholders in an iterative process that can be broken down into four components: discover, deliberation, aggregation and evaluation. (1) Discovery puts everything on the table, including stakeholder values, concerns, objectives and insight into the challenge at hand. The more broad-based and inclusive, the better the chances of identifying all the salient perspectives and issues at the outset. (2) Deliberation collects the raw input from the first phase and has the participants determine what is acceptable, and to rank the possible outcomes in order of preference. Balint, et al. (2010) contend that the best method for turning stakeholder preferences into profiles at the deliberation stage (profiles which will be winnowed at the aggregation stage) is found preference approval voting. This is a recursive communication process which asks participants to examine the possible scenarios identified in the deliberation stage and determine which are acceptable to them, and an order of preference between them. 

Once the stakeholders have voted, the aggregation process undertakes two rules to determine the outcome. First, if there is a tie between two or more alternatives in terms of approval votes, the preference ordering will be used to rank the alternatives. Second, if there is no tie, or if there is a clear winner, the alternatives are ranked on the number of votes. The result orders the choices based on the preferences and rankings from the previous process. The output of this process should be a small group of clearly defined alternatives that serve to satisfice possible solutions to the problem. These can then be input into the administrative process at hand. By ensuring that scientists and stakeholders are engaged simultaneously, decision makers can be ensured that the scientific options are embedded with public values and expectations, which will help ensure long-term viability. (3) Aggregation processes begin the winnowing process, and (4) Evaluation ensures the outcomes are matching expectations on an ongoing basis.  My proposed research will focus on the first two steps - discovery and deliberation - because that is where prospect theory will have the most impact in ensuring the best possible formulation of the options under decision.

The role my research plays in all this is simple. At the discovery and deliberation stages, prospect theory predicts that as people evaluate risky alternatives they will be influenced by how the alternatives are presented - not just by the pure rationality behind them. As such, it is in the interest of all who seek the highest quality outcome of the process to ensure each alternative generated receives the best possible hearing, independent of rhetorical bias. Regardless of the process or participatory template, the various alternatives and positions need to be cast the best possible light. I intend my research to examine if this is in fact the case, and the method of recursive preference communication is an appropriate mechanism - since it fits well within a wicked environmental problem framework. 

Alberta Context   

I will confine my comments regarding where this approach could enhance public participation to the context I intend to research, which will focus primarily on the precursor of the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”), Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (“AESRD”). As noted elsewhere in this paper, the AER’s public participation process is not fully developed, largely because of its primarily regulatory mandate and by its restrictive approach to granting standing to participate. In other words, the AER is not yet a governance-focused administrative body. This will provide an excellent opportunity to indicate where the recommended approach to reframing can be of valuable service. 

The sample case I will discuss is a recent ruling from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench referred to in Question 4, Pembina v. AESRD (2013 CarswellAlta 1859, 2013 ABQB 567). In this case the Applicants sought judicial review by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of the AESRD's decision to reject their Statement of Concern over an application by Southern Pacific Resource Corp. Their request was rejected by the AESRD because they were not held to be “directly affected,” despite precedent in their favour. The court ruled they should have been given status, and the AESRD was taken to task for an extremely narrow interpretation of “directly affected.” 

Justice Marceau then took effort to explain the gap between the AESRD’s approach to participation and the letter of the law. The relevant legislation is the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12) (the “EPEA”). To provide some background to the legislation, Justice Marceau refers to the then Minister of the Environment when referring to the intent of the legislation, noting that the intent of the legislation was to accomplish increased public participation in every aspect related to environmental protection (Alberta, Legislative Assembly, Hansard 22nd Leg., 4th Sess. (4 June 1992) at 1184). Section 2 of the EPEA gives life to that intent, stating the purpose of the Act is “to support and promote the protection, enhancement and wise use of the environment" while recognizing a set of principles set out in subparagraphs (a) to (j).” For our discussion, the principles in the following subsections are the most relevant: “(f) the shared responsibility of all Alberta citizens for ensuring the protection, enhancement and wise use of the environment through individual actions; (g) the opportunities made available through this Act for citizens to provide advice on decisions affecting the environment.” Clearly the EPEA contemplates EA frameworks that will leverage public participation as an integral component of the process. 

This case relates to the outline for how institutions like the AER can (and by law, should,) enhance public participation in the context of EA. The upshot of the ruling is that the AESRD was far too strict in interpreting who was “directly affect” by the application, and that contravened the letter and intent of the governing legislation. What this tells us is that, in Alberta, the provincial regulator is not equipped with the proper operational mandate to fulfill the governing legislation, and yet it is the primary forum where environmental assessments apply to projects related to the energy sector. 

Reframing in environmental conflicts requires effective, recursive engagement between conflicting parties, and that requires the kind of forum described in this section. When it comes to provincial energy regulatory matters, clearly that forum is underdeveloped.

References

 

2013 ABAER 011: Jackpine Mine Expansion Project, Joint Review Panel. (2013).