THE SACRED GROUND The Sacred Ground is the ground outside the Box of Blame. It is where environmental management is taken by parties who contribute proactively to the resolution of environmental issues. It is the ground that defines the differences over environmental issues; that neither side feels they can enter into. The Sacred Ground is refreshing, challenging, pro-active, less complex and surprisingly forceful. See the Application pages of this website for examples. Those who have entered the Sacred Ground, will agree that such takes courage. Preconceptions carried along from the Box of Blame may no longer be relied upon. The Sacred Ground is explicitly not about blame or guilt, although they are addressed there. Opponents, whether industry or environmental organization can be compelled to join you in the Sacred Ground after you entered it first, but they cannot be forced to remain there. Entering the Sacred Ground may, at first, feel like the foolish thing to do. Entering the Sacred Ground as a company means admitting to not knowing whether your pollution is acceptable. You may fear that this could be used against you in court. Entering the Sacred Ground as an environmental organization means admitting to not knowing whether the polluter’s impact is unacceptable. You may fear that this could allow the polluter to get away with anything. Perhaps the above paragraph provides enough reason for staying on the Rocky Road. Perhaps you now can see that there is more to win in the Sacred Ground than there is to lose. As a company you may have already minimized your environmental impacts significantly but are still challenged with external expectations to do even more. As an environmental organization you may get companies to give you more information but may fail to reduce their environmental impact. We have a choice. The Sacred Ground is about mutual respect and about solving environmental issues together; not from a place of knowing how it should be, but from the need to progress the resolution of the environmental issues. All of this applies equally to differences between organizations as well as to organization internal differences. Gaps in understanding Gaps in understanding provide keys for entering the Sacred Ground. Admitting to not knowing is strength, not weakness. Gaps in understanding focus the communication process and challenge those involved. Gaps in understanding show compassion and invite participation. Gaps in understanding lead to understanding, and this works in two directions. Gaps in understanding mobilize the human desire to reduce environmental impacts; a desire that gets demobilized by guilt and blame. For this to fully work, we need to concentrate on what we don’t understand ourselves, not on what our opponents don’t. Gaps in understanding are learning opportunities, not teaching opportunities. Understanding concerns As I point out in my page about protecting the environment, there are important emotional considerations that underlie environmental issues. I explain that some of these emotions are in the subconscious mind. In my page about the Box of Blame I explain that there is a need to approach environmental management objectively, and point to the current lack of objective mainstream assessment criteria. I also believe that it is a mistake to disregard any emotional considerations in the process. Disregarded emotions will regenerate, increase and back fire. We need to invest more in understanding each others concerns and we can use this as a starting point for environmental management. Context The key is to approach environmental issues from the wider perspective that our relationship with nature is a combination of fear and adoration and of reliance and survival. You could also say a combination of development and conservation, but that carries the risk of forgetting about the fear element and falling back into guilt and blame. The words conservation and development can be maintained in the meaning that conservation deals with the consequences of ‘man impacting nature’ whereas development is about ‘man protecting himself from nature’; as shown in the following Figure. The key is to realize that it is problematic to approach conservation and development in isolation. Environmental management is a building of which conservation and development are load bearing walls. In this context it should be questioned whether development is sustainable, but also whether a romantic view of nature is a sustainable force for environmental improvement. Environmental management is about the balancing of interests, i.e. the balancing of conservation and development interests. The following Figure shows a four quadrant approach to environmental impact assessment (EIA). It shows that there is pollution from the manufacturing of a product (primary pollution) and from the consumption/use of that product (secondary pollution). It also shows that the manufacturing of the product has its economic benefits (profit and employment, primary economic benefits) and that there are economic benefits associated with the consumption or use of the product (secondary economic benefits). Normally, the scope of an EIA for a factory is limited to the assessment of the Primary pollution; since that is what the manufacturing company and the pertinent legislation have control over. Normally, pollution abatement technology is then economical when it pays its way in terms of increased production. However, there is Primary as well as Secondary pollution, and the total pollution takes place within the context of both primary and secondary economic benefits. In this wider context, pollution abatement technology would be economical when its overall impact reduction potential can be achieved at a competitive cost to society as a whole. I have the feeling that a four quadrant approach would be more economical, and it would certainly reduce polarization, which is perhaps as important. --- In summary, the alternative approach suggested here is about responding to the emotional nature of environmental issues and investing in understanding of the concerns. It is also about challenging unrealistic expectations using the gaps in our understanding to create dialogue. Finally it is about making environmental management more meaningful by placing the environmental impacts into their wider context. Environmental management is as much about addressing underlying emotions as it is about reducing environmental impacts. This strips out the unproductive aspects of guilt and makes for a simpler, yet more effective approach to the management of environmental issues. Theory 1 2 3 4

Copyright TINA Consultants Ltd 2005