THE BOX OF BLAME Whereas the previous page discusses man’s relationship with nature, this page describes how this can affect our approach to the management of environmental issues. Whenever environmental management is approached from the perspective that the environment is beautiful and good, two things happen: a) it becomes difficult to justify any environmental impacts, except those caused by nature itself; and b) environmental issues become emotionally charged. Impact Assessment and the Rocky Road The assessment of environmental impacts is about determining whether an impact is acceptable, but what kind of acceptability can be demonstrated when something good and beautiful is being impacted? This problem is widely recognized in mainstream environmental management and has resulted in three impact assessment methodologies; all aimed at providing some level of objectivity. The first method considers the likelihood that a certain impact occurs and the magnitude of that impact. Mild consequence / low probability risks are generally acceptable, whereas severe consequence / high probability risks are not. The first limitation of this methodology is that it still depends on subjective judgment to draw the line between acceptable and not acceptable. Its second limitation is that it can not be used for the assessment of regional of global environmental impacts. The second methodology assesses the safety margin between anticipated pollution levels and the sensitivity of the receiving environment. It mainly considers the toxicity of pollutants and the sensitivity of species. Its limitation of the second methodology is that it is only suitable for the assessment of toxic impacts on a local scale. It is suitable for determining environmental quality standards, but like the first method, not for environmental performance standards. The third and most promising methodology considers the various impact alternatives and aims at selecting the best one on the basis of impact, cost and feasibility. The first limitation of this methodology is that it assumes that the best option is acceptable. Its second limitation is that it sometimes depends on comparing the sensitivity of different environmental habitats, whereas this cannot (yet) be done objectively. Despite the substantial shortcomings, these are the mainstream tools of the trade and are thus used extensively. To compensate for any inability to objectively assess the significance of an environmental impact, subjective assessments are still necessary. In the absence of better assessment methodologies there is, however, a tendency to shift the subject of assessment from the environment to the quantity and quality of the underlying information. It is obvious that no assessment can be made without proper and adequate information, but it is regretful if time and resources were to be invested in providing information which sole purpose is to compensate for the lack of objective assessment criteria. Unfortunately, there is a lot of this going on, and I always find this tough going. I compare this state with being on the Rocky Road, not knowing where the next request for information will be coming from, but at the ready to compile any additional information. Polarization Another consequence of approaching environmental management from the perspective that the environment is good and beautiful is that people get emotional about environmental impacts and about those that cause them. This causes polarization in society; those who pollute the environment are bad, and those who point this out are good. It also places environmental impacts in the spotlight. Everything else remains in the shade, such as the economic costs and social benefits. Environmental impacts get to be assessed in isolation; with few options for justifying them. Subconsciously we all know that we can’t have the cake and eat it, i.e.: have a pre- industrial environment together with a modern life. Feeling guilty helps us to manage the difference between what is desirable and what we also desire. Guilt not only represents a layer of complexity that we could do without, I also doubt the effectiveness of guilt as a long term motivator. Guilt is often followed by blame. Chemical companies get blamed for pesticides and the hole in the ozone layer, regional councils for building roads, oil companies for global warming, and the tourist industry for ruining mountain slopes and evading fuel tax. Companies usually have the money to devise public relations strategies for staying in business. One widely used strategy and which still has its merits today is to provide as little information as possible in order to minimize any potential criticism. A more contemporary strategy involves extensive stakeholder consultation, combined with openness and negotiation, but some environmental organizations have pulled out of those, because the environment is not something they can make concessions about. Whereas industries concentrate on lobbying and stakeholder consultation, environmental organizations concentrate on winning membership by advertising a pristine and romantic environment, creating nature parks and fighting industrial pollution. Some of the larger environmental organizations are successful in staging the debate in the mass media, a stage which allows exaggerating environmental impacts if this serves the greater good of benefiting the environment. The polarization also translates into the measurement and reporting of environmental impacts. Environmental pollution is almost always reported by emission source, such as transportation, households and industry, but almost never by societal benefit. We can find out how polluting cars and factories are, but it is much more difficult to find out what the environmental impact is of a more effective public health program, better education or a coastal defense program. Imagine assessing the environmental impact of combatting swine flu! Bringing together interest groups whose views are polarized, may provide for an interesting spectacle, but is not likely to be productive. Seemingly intractable divisions separate the parties as if each were at opposing sides of a dividing canyon. If only they would realize that they both are players in the same game; the rules of which are determined by a common societal inheritance. While bound by these rules, which I call the Box of Blame, their efforts are likely to only serve the goal of maintaining a status quo. Theory 1 2 3 4

Copyright TINA Consultants Ltd 2005