Mediation and EIA: Potential and Limitations for Process Reform
Loading...
Authors
Popescu, Simon Mavor
Date
2024
Type
other
Language
en
Keyword
Environmental Impact Assessment , Public Participation , Conflict Resolution , Communicative Planning , Planning Policy
Alternative Title
Abstract
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a formalized process that seeks to evaluate and mitigate the environmental impacts of proposed developments. While rooted in the rational planning model, EIA has undergone a shift toward communicative planning in response to the critiques of rationalism. As a result, calls for consensus-based processes, including mediation, have been raised in the literature to address issues of procedural justice and substantive outcomes in EIAs. While there has been some exploration on mediation in EIA, there are significant gaps in this literature, including a lack of meta-ethical analysis of mediation and communicative planning theory and its implications for achieving EIA processes that are more efficient (in terms of cost and time savings) and effective (in terms of improved procedural justice and substantive outcomes). Additionally, there is a lack of consideration to underlying causes of mediation’s lack of uptake in EIA. To explore these topics, this paper interviewed 10 EIA stakeholders and conducted document analysis on EIA legislation and guidance documents. Interviewees identified that the effect of mediation on EIA efficiency and effectiveness is contextual with several factors influencing its ability to provide benefits. However, mediation taking a supplementary role to an EIA or as a form of advanced public participation, was seen as having the most potential for generating benefits such as time and cost savings as well as developing more mutually beneficial solutions compared to conventional processes. Additionally, the reservation of mediation to these supporting roles was seen to generate fewer ethical concerns compared to taking a greater decision-making role in EIAs due to confidentiality and public interest concerns. Other conditions related to case intake and process design were also identified to maximize potential benefits and limit additional conflicts. Despite this potential, 4 main barriers were identified to mediation uptake, including a nominal distinction between mediation and other communicative approaches, perceptions of increased time and cost to participate in mediation, uncertainty related to the lack of use of mediation, and a lack of qualified mediators. Additionally a complex regulatory landscape related to the use of mediation in EIA was seen to further limit mediation uptake.