EIA环境影响评估 翻译练习.doc

Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy makingIn recent years the need to enhance public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and the efficacy of alternative mechanisms in achieving this goal, have been central themes in the EIA literature. The benefits of public participation are often taken for granted, and partly for this reason the underlying rationale for greater public participation is sometimes poorly articulated, making it more difficult to determine how to pursue it effectively. The reasons for seeking public participation are also highly diverse and not always mutually consistent. There has been limited analysis of the implications of different forms and degrees of public participation for public decision making based on EIA, and little discussion of how experience with public participation in EIA relates to debates about participation in policy making generally. This paper distinguishes various purposes for public participation in EIA, and discusses their implications for decision making. It then draws on some general models of public participation in policy making to consider how approaches to participation in EIA can be interpreted and valued, and asks what EIA experience reveals about the utility of these models. It argues that the models pay insufficient attention to the interaction that can occur between different forms of public participation; and to the fact that public participation raises issues regarding control over decision making that are not subject to resolution, but must be managed through ongoing processes of negotiation.近年来，需要加强公众参与环境影响评估（环评），并在实现这一目标的替代机制的有效性，在环境影响评估文献中一直是主题。公众参与的好处往往是理所当然的，部分原因是因为这种原因，更大的公众参与的基本理由是不明确的，使它更难以确定如何有效地追求它。寻找到的公共参与的原因也是高度多样化，并且不是一直都相互一致。有限的分析不同形式的影响和公共参与程度基于环境影响评价公众参与公共决策和如何体验公众参与环评的小的讨论与参与政策制定的讨论。这份文件区别了公共参与环境影响评估不同的目的，讨论了作此决定的影响。然后利用一些公众参与政策制定的一般模式去考虑如何达到环境影响评估可以被诠释和重视，并要求环评经验揭示这些模型的效用。它被认为这种模式的相互作用不够注意可能发生不同形式的公众参与。公众参与提出了问题和事实控制决策,不受制于问题,但必须通过正在进行的谈判的过程管理。Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)：环估 taken for grante认为.理所当然 underlying rationale潜在原因 mutually consistent相互一致 draw on穿上；引起；吸收；利用；临近；凭借；动用；引用 interpreted and valued诠释和重视 1. IntroductionEven a cursory glance at recent writing on EIA and related decision making processes shows that the issue of public participation in EIA is a major focus for scholars and practitioners (Chavez and Bernal,2008; Cooper and Elliott, 2000; Del Furia and Wallace-Jones, 2000;Devlin and Yap, 2008; Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Doelle and Sinclair,2006; Hartley and Wood, 2005; Kapoor, 2001; Lockie, 2001; Lockieet al., 2008; Mayoux and Chambers, 2005; Morrison- Saunders andEarly, 2008; Stewart and Sinclair, 2007). While some scholars do indicate that public participation can in certain circumstances have negative consequences (Cooper and Elliott, 2000, p. 342; Lawrence,2003, p. 27071), the overwhelming view is that it is highly desirable and that the key issue for scholars and practitioners is to find ways of making it more effective. For instance Stewart and Sinclair (2007,p.161) state that The benefits of public participation have been clearly described in both theoretical and practical terms but the design and implementation of specific public participation programs remain contentious. Similarly, Hartley and Wood (2005, p. 333) state that while public participation is widely documented as being a valuable component of the EIA process, debate continues about how to undertake it (see also Chavez and Bernal, 2008, p.167; Cooper and Elliott, 2000, p. 342; Daneke et al., 1983; Doelle and Sinclair, 2006,p. 186; Lemon et al., 2004, p. 19192; Lockie et al., 2008, p. 17880; Vanclay, 2003).介绍 即使粗略的浏览一下最近写环评及相关决策过程表明，在环境影响评估的公共参与是学者和参与者一个主要的焦点。(查韦斯和伯纳尔,2008;库珀和艾略特,2000;德尔Furia Wallace-Jones,2000;Devlin和狂吠,2008;Diduck和米切尔,2003;多利和辛克莱,2006;哈特利和木材,2005;卡普尔,2001;Lockie,2001;Lockieet。2008;Mayoux钱伯斯,2005;莫里森-桑德斯早期,2008;斯图尔特和辛克莱,2007)。虽然一些学者表明,公众参与在某些情况下可以有负面影响(库珀和艾略特,2000年,p . 342;劳伦斯,2003年,p . 270 - 71)，多数的观点是非常可取的,学者和参与者的关键问题是找到使它更有效的方法。例如，根据斯图尔特和辛克莱(2007，p.161)的声明，公共参与的好处已经在理论和实践方面两者中很清楚的描述，但是公共参与项目的具体设计和实现仍然饱受争议。类似的，根据哈特利和伍德(2005,第333页)的声明虽然公共参与是一个非常有价值的组成部分环评过程，但是如何承担仍是很有争议。参见查韦斯和伯纳尔,2008年,p。167;库珀和艾略特,167年,p . 342;Daneke et al .,1983;多利和辛克莱,2006年,p .lemonet al .,186;2004年,p . 191 - 92;Lockie et al .,2008年,p . 178 - 80;Vanclay,2003)。Perhaps because its benefits are assumed to be obvious and substantial, the specific rationale for seeking greater public participation is not always clearly articulated. In many cases multiple purposes are listed without differentiation between them or without discussion of how they relate to each other, or of whether certain potential benefits are omitted because they are not considered significant. For instance Momtaz and Gladstone (2008, p. 223) include in the objectives of public participation sharing information, involving the community at an early stage of decision making, taking community aspirations into considerations and giving the community the ability to influence the outcome of decision making. Stewart and Sinclair(2007, p.162) envisage an even wider range of benefits, including access to local knowledge; broadening the range of solutions considered; avoiding costly litigation; strengthening the democratic fabric of society; acting as a vehicle for individual and community empowerment; and promoting broadly-based individual and social learning, so enabling the transition to sustainability (see also Andre et al., 2006; Chavez andBernal, 2008, p.16869; Del Furia and Wallace- Jones, 2000, p. 46061; Lockie et al., 2008, p. 17880; Peterlin et al., 2006, p. 18486; Sinclairet al., 2007, 40001;可能因为它的利益被假定的很明显很可观，寻找更大的公共参与的具体的基本原理不是很明确。在许多情况下，多重目的被列举出来，没有分化在他们或者没有讨论彼此的关联，或者是否省略某些潜在的利益， 因为他们不被认为是有意义的。例如，莫特兹和格拉德斯通(2008,第223页)的目标包括在公众参与的共享信息,包括社区决策处于初期阶段,考虑到社区的愿望,给社区影响决策的结果的能力。斯图尔特和辛克莱(2007年,第162页)面对一个甚至范围更广泛的利益，包括了解当地知识，扩宽考虑问题的范围，避免代价高的起诉，加强社会民族结构，作为个人和社区赋权工具，提升个人和社区多方面学习，使之过渡为可持续性。A number of problems are associated with the identification of multiple objectives and the assumption that the key issue involved is how to pursue effective participation. First, many of the objectives involve quite different concepts, activities and consequences. For instance sharing information with the public is a very different matter to allowing a community to influence government decisions or empowering individuals and communities. Given this fact, it is difficult to see how one can pursue the issue of effective participation without first differentiating clearly between different goals and considering what each involves and implies. Second, reflecting the fact that the term can encompass many different things, the consensus implied in the literature regarding the benefits of participation is in fact more apparent than real (Lawrence, 2003, p. 272). In the real world of public policy decisions, the issue of public participation is contested and highly political. To cite a specific case, Chinese authorities may well be keen to promote public participation if it improves the quality of information available to government decision makers, but may not respond at all well to Yangs call (2008, p. 97) for the public to be given power to contribute to and influence decision-making by participating in the formulation of a proposal, the whole EIA process, the implementation and the evaluation of a proposal (Tang et al., 2008).许多问题与多个目标和假设的识别所涉及的关键问题是如何追求有效的参与。首先,许多的目标涉及截然不同的概念,活动和后果。社区。鉴于这一事实,很难看到一个可以追求的有效参与的问题如果不首先区分不同目标之间的明显,考虑每个涉及和意味着什么。例如，参与公众分享信息是一个非常不同的事情来允许一个社区影响政府决策或个人和社区的授权。鉴于这一事实,如果不首先区分不同目标之间明显的分化,考虑每个涉及和意味着什么，很难看到一个可以追求的有效参与的问题。第二,反映的事实是,这个词可以涵盖很多不同的事情,共识隐含在文献，关于参与的好处是比真实更明显。在现实世界中公共政策的决策,公众参与是有争议的和高度的政治问题。引用一个特定的情况下,中国政府很可能是热衷于推动公众参与,如果提高政府决策者的质量信息,但可能没有回应杨呼吁公众的权力作出贡献和影响决策的参与制定建议,整个环境影响评价过程中,实现和评价一个建议。A third issue is that even some of the individual objectives identified in the literature are complex and require careful definition and analysis. For instance a frequently-cited goal is to allow community aspirations or priorities to be taken into account in decision making. Yet such a requirement could encompass many different approaches, from treating community views as one of numerous variables considered in decision making, to immediately excluding options that fail to win community support (Becker et al., 2004; Devlin and Yap, 2008; Lockie, 2001).第三个问题是,即使是一些个人的目标识别在文献中是复杂的,需要仔细定义和分析。例如一个频繁引用的目标是让社区的愿望或优先考虑决策。然而这样的要求可以包含许多不同的方法,从治疗社区的观点作为众多变量考虑决策之一,立即排除选项,是无法赢得社会的支持。Another difficulty is that the possibility that different facets of public participation would interact is rarely acknowledged. It seems to be assumed that use of public participation to enhance the quality of empirical information for decision makers, for instance, can occur independently of its use as a tool of community empowerment. In the rare cases where the potential interaction between different forms of participation is recognised, its treatment tends to be perfunctory and to assume that these aspects are likely to reinforce each other in a positive manner. For example Sinclair et al. (2008, p. 422) comment that more passive forms of participation may provide on-ramps to more deliberative mechanisms. Del Furia and Wallace-Jones (2000,p. 459), while acknowledging that there may be an interrelationship between the various goals they list for public participation, assume that the satisfaction of one goal can contribute to the achievement of another, and limit further discussion of the matter to a footnote. In fact there is no logical reason to exclude the possibility that pursuit of one objective might not undermine pursuit of another (OECD, 2001, p. 36). The relationship between them certainly warrants more careful investigation.另一个困难是,不同方面的公众参与互动的可能性很少被承认。似乎认为使用公众参与能提高决策者的经验信息的质量,例如,可能它的使用出现独立于社区赋权的一种工具。在罕见的情况下,潜在的参与是承认不同形式之间的相互作用,其治疗往往是敷衍了事,认为这些方面可能会以积极的方式相辅相成的。例如辛克莱的评论,更多的“被动”形式的参与可能会提供更多的协商机制”的入口点。Del Furia和Wallace-Jones在承认可能有不同的目标之间的相互关系作为公众参与名单,假设一个目标的满意度可以导致另一个人的成就,并限制进一步讨论的一个脚注。事实上没有逻辑上的原因排除这种可能性,追求一个目标可能不会破坏追求另一个，它们之间的关系一定会更仔细的调查。The failure to consider the interaction between different forms of public participation is in fact also a feature of general models of public participation in policy making. This raises a further issue. The broader implications of experience with public participation in EIA for public policy making are rarely considered. Given that EIA is, overwhelmingly, undertaken as a component of public policy decisions regarding (mainly) large-scale project development and (less commonly) public programs and policies, it seems important to consider how issues regarding public participation in EIA relate to wider debates about public participation in policy making. For example, one proposed purpose for enhancing public participation in EIA is to empower individual communities. What are the broader implications of such empowerment for public policymaking, and how are public policy actors likely to respond to demands for greater power at the community level?未能考虑公众参与的不同形式之间的相互作用实际上是在政策制定过程中公众参与的一般模式同样的一个特征。这引发了进一步的问题，更广泛的影响对公共政策的制定与公众参与环评很少会考虑。而压倒性的,考虑到环境影响评价是进行公共政策决策有关的组件(主要是)大型项目开发和(通常)公共计划和政策。公众参与环评与更广泛的辩论关于公众参与政策制定，似乎是重要的考虑。例如,一个提出加强公众参与环境影响评价的目的是“授权”个人社区。什么是“赋权”公共政策更广泛的影响，以及在公共政策的参与者可能会如何回应在社区一级要求更大的权力？This article seeks to contribute to the debate regarding public participation in EIA in three ways. The first involves the modest but important goal of clearly distinguishing between a range of distinct purposes for public participation. The second is to consider how such purposes can be interpreted and valued, drawing on the wider literature on public participation in policy making. The third is to consider how experience with public participation in EIA can assist in assessing the utility of various models of public participation in policy making generally. In pursuing the second and third goals the primary objective is not to offer definitive responses to the issues raised, but to highlight thei