An evaluation of public involvement in reclamation decision making at three metal mines in British Columbia

Public involvement in decisions about mine reclamation presents challenges to government, industry and the public. Among them are inclusion of relevant interests, representation, dealing with ignorance and misconceptions, uncertain science and technology, conflicting values, and very long spans of time. Planning theory suggests there is no preferred method, "no ideal solution to the conflict among the legitimate demand for public participation, the need for technical and economic rationality, and the necessity of assuring accountability and responsibility of decision making bodies" (Renn et al., 1993). In the 1990s, public involvement was introduced into reclamation planning and decision making processes at three metal mines in British Columbia: Brenda, Sullivan and Island Copper. A review of them shows that different techniques have been used. At Brenda a public surveillance committee was formed to review and comment on reclamation options produced by the mine in co-operation with a technical committee comprised of regulatory officials. At Sullivan a single committee consisting of public representatives, mine staff and regulatory officials met to review a draft reclamation plan and recommend amendments. At Island Copper a round table was convened to examine the use of the site as a regional landfill. Based on unpublished primary documents (mainly minutes), supplemented by published material and informal interviews, the public involvement processes were first classified and then evaluated. Criteria for the classification and evaluation were drawn from planning literature. The classification focused on purpose and methods. Public involvement mainly functioned at a consultative or advisory level. Of the three processes reviewed, the single committee method developed at Sullivan comes closest to shared decision making (CORE, 1995). All three processes used consensus negotiations as the primary means for reaching decisions. Only at Island Copper was this formally defined and intentionally used. At the others, consensus was undefined and operated informally. The processes were also qualitatively evaluated in terms of whether they fulfilled their own goals, were equitable, efficient, effective, and representative, and whether they promoted good public participation and contributed to good decision making. The processes mostly, fulfilled their own goals (as defined by their terms of reference). The processes are rated about the same with respect to procedural and distributional equity, effectiveness of outcome, representation, and promoting good public involvement. The Sullivan and Island Copper processes are rated relatively better than the Brenda process with respect to administrative equity, efficiency and process effectiveness. The Sullivan process, with half the number of meetings and exchanging written answers to questions in advance of meetings, minimized demands on participants. All three processes were well structured with respect to promoting good public involvement. However, judged by the norms of decision literature, the processes were relatively weak with respect to decision making. Problems were not defined, nor were interests or objectives. Empirical measures for goals or objectives were not identified. Few alternatives were proposed; nor were they evaluated in a way that could lead to a clear understanding of the trade-offs involved. Although few decisions were actually reached in the processes, their quality may be inferior because of these shortcomings. Notwithstanding these theoretical and empirical shortcomings, public involvement in each case found general support among government, industry, and public participants. Consequently the processes received a high degree of approval. It remains uncertain, however, whether more public involvement processes will be undertaken. Although, the province's mines ministry is formally committed to greater public involvement in reclamation decision making (MEMPR, 1991b), the ministry seems stretched to support even the two processes now underway (Brenda and Sullivan). Additional processes would require more resources than are currently allotted. As well, staff training, participant funding, professional facilitation, and clerical services could be improved. Further research is suggested, in particular applying techniques of decision analysis to public involvement processes to facilitate the making of informed and insightful reclamation decisions.Applied Science, Faculty ofCommunity and Regional Planning (SCARP), School ofGraduat