Early in the term, we split each class session in half. In the first hour, we discussed some general aspect of decision-making. Then, we applied what we discussed to our own exercise in determining how we might contribute to the PAC's efforts. For example, if what we read stressed the need to consider the interests of the various "actors" involved, we spent time talking about the governmental agencies, organizations and stakeholder groups with an interest in Torch Lake. If something we read suggested that we make a list of unresolved issues, we did that. And in the first class after each PAC meeting, we compared our decision-making process to what was happening in the PAC meetings.

Early on, several things became clear to my students, each of whom is pursuing a masters degree in fields such as microbiology, environmental engineering or environmental policy. First, few of the things associated with a good decision-making process were happening in the PAC meetings. Little discussion occurred on anything but procedural and administrative matters. The format and physical set-up of the meetings simply did not encourage dialogue.

Second, the most vocal PAC members clearly did not think that the site deserved being designated as either an AOC or a listing under the U.S. Superfund law. Most PAC members were very knowledgeable, had followed the saga of Torch Lake on and off for the last twenty years and were frustrated with the Superfund designation and the Superfund process. They were less familiar with the RAP process. In general, they came to the meetings with more of a Superfund risk-based, liability mindset than an AOC ecological management mindset.

Third, my students generally agreed with the PAC's unspoken position. Although the site is on the EPA Superfund list, it does not appear to pose a risk to human health. Basically, millions of tons of crushed rock had been dumped in and around the waterway between 1860 and 1960, destroying much of the original habitat along the coastline and significantly impairing the lake's benthos. Other factors complicate the story chemical-based reprocessing operations, some dumping of various wastes in metal drums, an incident of fish lesions that triggered public concern, and some leaching of heavy metals from the rock but the physical presence of the crushed rock overwhelms these other factors. Indeed, the main Superfund-related action involves placing a vegetative cap on the exposed tailings.

When I finally asked my students to assess how they could best contribute to the PAC's efforts, they focused on ways to facilitate the RAP process. They pointed out that reviewing the list of 14 potntial beneficial use impairments provided a built-in structure for decision making. Specifically, they proposed reviewing the beneficial use impairments associated with Torch Lake, presenting summaries of one or two beneficial uses at each meeting and writing a series of newspaper articles announcing and summarizing the public meetings. They presented their plan to the PAC, and despite some concern that the students might hype issues that had already been resolved, the PAC agreed to put the class on the agenda each month.

The students who have continued on in the class sequence have already covered five of the fourteen use impairments. In some way, they are serving as a lightning rod for unresolved issues. By laying their assessment of the basic issues on the table, they provide an opportunity for anybody to agree or disagree with them. For example, when one student indicated that plants did not grow in the crushed rock due to the presence of heavy metals, she triggered a brief discussion about plants not growing in the crushed rock simply due to the lack of water or nutrients.

For my purpose, I could not have hoped for a more effective environmental decision-making course. Talking about the interests of various stakeholders in the abstract is one thing. Participating in an actual decision-making process with a group of people with real voices, real financial interests and real concerns is another. As to whether PACs are effective, the answer probably depends on whether or not those involved understand and trust the RAP process. In the end, it is almost impossible to judge whether specific decisions reflect the interests of the community. However, one can evaluate the decision-making process, and the quality of consensus decisions depends on the quality of the process.

Hugh Gorman is an assistant professor of environmental policy and history in the Department of Social Sciences at Michigan Technological University.

sommaire

Les conseils consultatifs publics (CCP) fonctionnent-ils bien? Arrivent-ils efficacement à faire participer les collectivités aux décisions concernant l'utilisation d'un milieu partagé, en particulier les décisions de nature locale? Peut-on être certain qu'ils prennent des décisions qui reflètent les intérêts -- ou du moins tiennent compte des intérêts -- de toute la collectivité? Ou bien, est-ce qu'un groupe d'intervenants en particulier arrive à dominer le processus de prise de décisions?

Un des objectifs des finissants du cours de Hugh Gorman sur la prise de décisions en matière d'environnement, à la Michigan Technological University, consistait à répondre à ce genre de questions. Les étudiants devaient en apprendre le plus possible sur le secteur préoccupant (SP) du lac Torch, assister à toutes les réunions du CCP et faire une recommandation sur la façon de participer au processus de prise de décisions.

Au cours de la première moitié de chaque cours, les étudiants discutaient d'un aspect général du processus de prise de décisions. Puis, durant la seconde moitié, ils tentaient de voir comment ils pourraient apporter leur contribution aux efforts du CCP. Parler dans l'abstrait des intérêts de divers intervenants était une chose. Mais c'en était une autre que de participer dans les faits au processus de prise de décisions avec un groupe de personnes ayant des opinions, des préoccupations et des intérêts financiers divergents.

Quant à savoir siles CCP sont efficaces, la réponse dépend probablement de la compréhension --  ou de l'absence de compréhension -- qu'ont les participants du processus et de la confiance -- ou de l'absence de confiance -- qu'ils ont dans ce processus. Ultimement, il est presque impossible de dire si des décisions particulières reflètent les intérêts de la collectivité. Cependant, il est possible d'évaluer le processus de prise de décisions, et la qualité des décisions prises par consensus dépend de la qualité du processus.

Revised: 7 April 1998
Maintained by Kevin McGunagle, mcgunaglek@ijc.wincom.net