Impact Assessments with Gary Baker
Watch the episode
Summary
In this episode of The No Nonsense Sustainability Podcast, host Ildiko Almasi Simsic welcomes Gary Baker, CEO of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). They discuss the evolving role of impact assessments in sustainable development and decision-making. Gary Baker explains the mission of IAIA and the importance of impact assessments in improving decision-making processes across various levels.
The conversation delves into the misconceptions surrounding impact assessments, such as the focus on lengthy reports rather than decision-making. They explore the need for early involvement of impact assessment professionals in project planning and the challenges of integrating community feedback into decision-making. Gary emphasizes the importance of transparency and trust in the process, especially when developers fund assessments.
Key insights include the role of impact assessments in risk management and sustainability, the potential of AI in the field, and the necessity of continuous learning and adaptation. Gary highlights the importance of engaging with communities and the broader implications of impact assessments beyond mere compliance.
Highlights
Gary Baker discusses the global reach of IAIA with 1,400 members across 110 countries.
Impact assessments aim to improve decision-making, not just produce reports.
Early involvement in project planning can enhance the effectiveness of impact assessments.
Transparency and community engagement are crucial for building trust in impact assessments.
Impact assessments play a vital role in risk management and sustainability.
AI can complement but not replace the human elements of impact assessments.
Continuous learning and adaptation are essential for impact assessment professionals.
Key takeaways
1. Impact assessments should focus on improving decision-making rather than just producing reports.
2. Early involvement of impact assessment professionals can lead to better project outcomes.
3. Transparency and genuine community engagement are crucial for building trust in the process.
4. AI can enhance impact assessments but cannot replace the human judgment required.
Timestamped breakdown
0:09 — Introduction to the Podcast: Host Ildiko Almasi Simsic introduces the podcast and its focus on real sustainability projects.
0:53 — Introducing Gary Baker: Gary Baker, CEO of IAIA, joins the podcast to discuss impact assessments.
2:18 — Defining Impact Assessment: Gary explains impact assessment as a structured way of thinking about future consequences.
4:03 — Beyond the Report: The focus of impact assessments should be on decision-making, not just report creation.
7:16 — Early Involvement in Planning: Gary emphasizes the importance of involving impact assessment professionals early in projects.
9:04 — Strategic vs. Project-Level Decisions: Discussion on the need for strategic decision-making in impact assessments.
10:47 — Monitoring and Feedback Loops: Impact assessments should be ongoing processes with monitoring and feedback.
12:13 — Trust and Impartiality: Challenges of maintaining trust when developers fund impact assessments.
17:56 — Integration with Sustainability: Impact assessments are crucial for understanding risk profiles in sustainability.
20:00 — AI in Impact Assessment: AI can assist but not replace human judgment in impact assessments.
28:29 — Emerging Areas of Impact Assessment: Discussion on new areas like sea mining and space impact assessments.
33:30 — Upcoming IAIA Conference: Details about the next IAIA annual conference in New Zealand.
Edited transcript
Hi there. Welcome back to the nononsense sustainability podcast. I'm Ilico Amashi Simsik. This show isn't about saving the planet with corporate slogans and glossy brochures. We leave the PR spin at the door. We're here to talk about real projects, real communities, and the future we're building together with the critics testing it and the people shaping it. No jargon, just real talk.
When we think about sustainability as the bigger concept, we often get lost in these high-level aspirations of net zero, the sustainability agendas. When you look behind each one of those aspirations, you see a set of projects, a set of tangible deliverables. But how do those projects get delivered? And what it actually takes to deliver a project sustainably. We'll find out today. Joining me in the studio today is Gary Baker, CEO of the International Association for Impact Assessment. Welcome to the show, Gary.
Thanks, Ela. Let's start with what IAIA is for those of our listeners who are less familiar. IAIA is the foremost global network for impact assessment professionals. Whether you're academics, practitioners, government officials, if you're practicing impact assessment, we're involved with that. So try to promote best practice knowledge but with the aim of improving decision-making, which is at the heart of impact assessment.
How many members do you currently have? Yeah, we've got about 1,400 members. It's across 110 countries. So, it is genuinely global. We have corporate members but predominantly individual memberships.
Yeah, I am also a member. We will link the organization in the description below so you can find out more if you're not a member about how to join and what initiatives and materials are there. As you know, I have popped a buzzer. You managed to avoid him in Quebec earlier this year at the IAIA annual conference. But now there is no escape. You have 60 seconds to explain to us what impact assessment is without using technical terms or jargon. Are you ready?
I am ready. Okay, let's go. The impact assessment is a structured way of thinking before decisions are made about what are the consequences of those decisions in the future on people, on the environment, on biodiversity. It's there to analyze it before consequences are locked in. So it can operate at a national level, regional level, or at the individual project level. It's not about the report itself. It's not about a permit. It's about improving decision making.
Yeah, that's a very neat explanation and it touched upon some of the key aspects we discussed before about how do we understand impact assessment because very often when you think about impact assessment you think about a single project like an environmental impact assessment but there are strategic level impact assessment and on this show we had Peter Nelson talk about strategic environmental assessment and our SEA 2050 initiative we're doing together when we're trying to plan for a whole country. So, how does these different layers and elements of impact assessment fit together? How can one tool be used for so many different things?
Yeah, it's a good question and you know, think of it as a process as a discipline. You know, I think a lot of people get very hung up on the idea that impact assessment is the report that's created at the end of it and that's not that is not the product. The product is a better decision. So if you put it in that context then you can see how it can operate at various levels and scales whether that's at the national level a regional plan or at the individual project level. So I think as soon as soon as you get away from the idea that it's just a physical thing that you produce then you start to understand what it actually is. It's all about decision-making.
Now, if I'm talking to financiers or people outside of specialist impact assessment, my language would probably drift more towards risk assessment rather than impact assessment. And that's what it is. It is, you know, and I think if you start to put it in that context and the links into sustainability become that much more obvious, I think, in terms of we're analyzing risks, that's what impact is. We're trying to judge the future and that is all about risk assessment.
Yeah. Academically speaking, when we're doing the impact assessment, we're also trying to map out how we can create more positive impact. But that often gets left behind in this discussion of compliance. I know we talk about, you know, how long should this document be? What it should assess? It is known by now hopefully evident to everybody that the product or the output the report itself is not the main added value and we had Josh Father grill on season one talking about proportionate EIA and how we should be stepping away from producing these long document.
How do you see this change in the actual practice in this community of practitioners? Yeah, it you know a large part of the responsibility falls on the practitioner is to you know I'm not here to sort of kill the 1,000-page report because the work that goes into it the assessment that goes into it is still extremely valid but the output from that should be much more focused and that's where the materiality proportionality really comes in. So you know what is proportionality? It's not avoiding doing the analysis. It's understanding where to focus on the most material consequences. And if you understand that, then you know we can start to get away from bang here's a thousand-page report and we can start to think about integrated solutions and combined outlooks whether it's on human rights, whether it's on cultural heritage, environment, social. We have to integrate that but only through the lens of what is material and what has the highest consequences whether for the project or whether for the plan or the national policy. So it's for some people they struggle with that consequence but I think again think of it as a disciplined process for arriving at better decisions.
Yeah. But sometimes the professionals can only do so much. Impact assessment is often looked at something that comes in for permitting purposes. Once you've already decided what you're building, where you're building it, and with what technology, how do you think this notion of impact assessment professionals stepping in early at the planning stages get implemented over time? Do you see a lot of good examples of practitioners being involved early on or are we just coming into firefight?
Yeah, unfortunately I think there's a lot of that latter that it's bought in into the process too late to really have a material consequence and that would be one one of my strong appeals to developers or governments that involve impact assessment as early as possible when decisions are still being made. You know, and that goes all the way down the chain because if you start sort of consulting with communities. And they, you know, that they they spot very quickly between whether you're doing a genuine consultation as to how we arrive at a decision or whether they're just being told a decision's being made. Now, we're going to look at the consequences of it. And there is such a gulf in those two things. So if we just regard impact assessment as some kind of permitting exercise, we're losing the point. We're missing the point of what it is. It is there to make better decisions that give better outcomes and that can save money, give longevity to that project, improve sustainability. I mean all of the positives that flow from it. Um but the other key thing I would say as well is at times the best decision might be not to do the project and that is a really difficult thing but that has to be an option when you're going in to assess something particularly when you're starting to talk more about strategic and cumulative effects. It gets way beyond the individual project level. The individual project may make all the sense in the world, but when there are five others that are also being proposed, you've got to start to think about what the consequences on a watershed or a society or a landscape are. Then that that becomes a different thing. And I think one of the problems on individual projects and why sometimes those reports get enormously blown out of all proportion is they're they're being asked to make analysis and decisions on things that should have been decided at the strategic level. So it's all being bought into a project focus where it should have been decided or guided at the regional or at the national level.
Yeah. So it really seems to me that impact assessment is the process, but what most people understand about it is the report. That's the report and the permit is what they're constantly thinking. Exactly. But when they don't see there's life after the report and the permit, that is the hardest part, right? It is. To see what you predicted whether it's actually happening to see whether your mitigation measures are actually appropriate and whether they actually make a difference in your in your practice or discussions with practitioners. Do you ever come across examples where they have the possibility to look back and say that okay we predicted these impacts but half of them never occurred.
Yeah, it's a very good question. I think it's only going to become even more apparent as we move into a technology-enabled world where that ability to monitor and learn from previous sort of forecasts and maybe mistakes becomes that much more systematized within the process. So yes, I think there are good examples of that where you know an impact assessment should be a live process. It's not a one-and-one and you produce the report and that's the end of it. You know, under our own guiding principles, you know, an impact assessment is all about then monitoring, mitigation, feedback loops, making corrections, course corrections. Um, you know, and ultimately if you're if you're talking about a plant or a mine, it should be about how that is decommissioned as well. It's full life cycle analysis is what a true impact assessment is. Now the problem is that who's going to pay for that? You know, are they going to is there money left at the end of it that you can continue that monitoring? And that is a very real discussion and a big problem within that process.
But the other real discussion is it's usually the developer that hires the consultants to do that impact assessment. How can communities believe the impartiality of those assessments and those consultants when their invoice goes to the developer?
Yeah, you can't shy away from that. I mean in most systems of the world then it is the developer or the project proponent that pays for the impact assessment and you know and that that is valid. You know they are proposing something that is going to have an impact on a landscape or a society. They should be paying for that analysis. But I think we've got to be very honest. You know, when we get out into the communities and engagement, you can't just say, "Trust me, I'm an independent consultant." It doesn't mean anything, you know, and trust is at the heart of all of this. How do you establish trust when there is an apparent conflict of interest in the original premise? And I think the only way or the key way in which trust is established is in you know the architecture of what the process is. How is that transparent? Are alternatives genuinely being considered? Are voices genuinely being heard? Are all sides being invited to participate? Um and that has to be demonstrated. It can't just be said. It needs to be demonstrated. And if we do that as practitioners then I think you have a very real chance of in you know engendering trust within the process. So that makes the process more legitimate and I think defendable. But I'd say the other thing is that doesn't mean that everyone can be made happy and glad about the process. You know a legitimate process isn't there to make everyone happy with the end result. You know that that is just simply not possible given the conflicts often within these situations. So but you can certainly structure the process and the project that can withstand scrutiny and is a genuinely consultative exercise and that is a key part I think of what impact assessment really is.
Yeah. But it's not done by one person. It's done by the group of group of people and what you're talking about when you're talking about trust building and consultation is something that usually the social specialist does in the way of stakeholder engagement, consultations, community feedback mechanisms. What often happens is that aspect of the of the impact assessment is designed very well. You can come in. We talked about it I think with Paul Lawrence, how you assess the fairness, the you know the the effectiveness of this stakeholder engagement and how the feedback from communities can influence decisions. But then there's the other side of how that feedback is communicated to the rest of the impact assessment team and the developer and how things are taken on board. Because very often what you see and what we see in this community of practitioners, you have your terms of reference, your scope of works, you deliver the impact assessment reports and then the client brings on another set of consultants to implement that.
Yeah. So when we think about trust building and building in community feedback into the decision making, what do you see as the biggest like risks that can derail the process?
Well, it's I think the biggest risk is exactly as you describe it that if people enter a process, you know, in good faith, thinking that their voice is there to be heard and registered, but they see absolutely no evidence that that is actually the case, then trust disappears very quickly. So, it's look, I think the complexity particularly when you're talking about major infrastructure projects. I mean clearly there is a large part of technical inputs in whether that's soil stream dynamics etc and there is partly is a translation exercise and an explanation exercise to make that understandable or relatable to the communities that are affected by it. Um but then corporates you know I think the companies themselves ultimately hold an awful lot of responsibility for this but they need to understand what the assessments are doing as well and that's always one of my questions for sustainability is we collect all these data and we're asking people to collect this high level data where does that go does it influence decision-making capital allocation you know I've sat on both sides of the fence a large part of my career was spent looking at these companies and how they allocate capital. So, you know, and that's the other end of the telescope and I'm sort of now sitting there in impact assessment thinking the same things. You know, where is that data going? What is its ability to influence? And I think that's it's a very open question for impact assessment but also for finance as well. You know, a large part of what we're talking about again on major projects is is that trip party between develop of financia and impacted communities or stakeholders and how that triangulation actually works in practice. I think that's that's an endless discussion and process and we're you know you've got good examples of it and you've got really poor examples of it and and that accountability I think is still pretty patchy at times.
Yeah. And I think that leads us to another discussion point on how impact assessment fits in with the broader sustainability agenda because there's no shortage of ESG aspirations, companies thinking, talking about sustainability, but it's more on the reporting side or on the performance side if things go wrong.
Yeah. How do you see impact assessment feeding into the greater sustainability discussions?
Yeah, I mean to me I think the you know that that bridge is really in risk assessment. You know what what what are we actually doing as we said earlier in impact assessment you're you're trying to understand your risk profile on a capital decision or on an investment. Um and I think once once that is accepted then the findings from impact assessment can be baked in very well within that decision making process if you allow it to be. But I think companies have to ask themselves how they utilizing that data. Are they learning from the look back exercise? Are they genuinely making a better decision next time because they've accepted that maybe a mistake or an oversight was made on a previous decision? And I think look that that is a general corporate challenge as to how your decision making is improving with cycles and iterations. Um now impact assessment can't solve all of that if there is poor corporate culture that is not taking that on board. So there's a responsibility on both sides. But I think you know what what I think everyone should be very allergic to is just that that gathering of data just to sit on a shelf somewhere and it doesn't do anything with it. Um and as you know and as I said I referenced earlier I think that will become more acute as we develop tools of monitoring and and accountability that are going to put greater spotlight and in some ways greater risk on corporates that they've got to get that right. They've got to have transparency as to how you arrived at that decision and I think impact assessment discipline is a key element that they're going to have to develop on that.
Yeah, as we said the report is not the main deliverable but with the enhancements in technology there is this myth going around that with AI we will lose our jobs because ultimately the developers paid for the report and not for most of our expertise. How do you see this myth play out in your community of practitioners and what's your take on AI taking our jobs?
Look, it is a challenge. I mean, we should be very open that there are aspects of what impact assessors do that AI can do extremely well and very competently and very quickly and very cheaply. But I think the question we should be asking ourselves and you know and we talked about this in Quebec a lot as well was what is the professional for? You know, what is the role of the professional? You know, if we define ourselves that we're there to write reports, we're there to produce data, we're not going to defend that. AI is going to eat our lunch on that. But if we're there to understand complexity, make judgment calls, connect, engage with communities, I absolutely believe that AI is not in a position to do that at this point. And that that is a very real role that we have that is only going to be enhanced with correct use of AI or enlightened use of AI. So I think as long as we feel and understand that our role is one of assessment, genuine assessment, not writing the product, it's ensuring that the quality of that and the visibility, transparency, relatability of it. If we're concentrating on those human elements of it, then I think we have a very bright future because I genuinely believe that impact assessment as a discipline is only going to grow in importance given the consequences and how complex the decisions that we face are.
No, I believe that you know I also develop AI tools but not to replace myself but so it allows me to do more of Yeah, you're in a you're in a perfect position to answer this. Yeah. But, you know, I appreciate that a lot of people don't see it this way. And whenever I started an AI, you know, I had to ask myself the same thing. If I'm being paid to write reports, what is my added value if that's taken away? And I really enjoyed having those conversations around people because we do have a lot of expertise. We can make meaningful contributions at every level, whether that's to a site manager or a board. We do have that insight as to what it takes to develop a product project, what it takes to build relationships with communities. So, I never for a second was scared that AI could take away my job. But it also shifted with how I looked at the profession as such. Moving away from the report writer to someone who can actually be involved in these high-level discussions and also the other thing is about the quality of the outputs. Because my first tool was building on what other people have done before and the number one criticism my god okay but there's so many poor EIAS and ESAs like are we building on that? Are we just not learning? And my response to that was this points out the gaps. This points out where we were slacking where there was no time to review and there was a push to disclose the push to deliver and we collectively everyone involved accepted a poor quality output. So like that that is my little take.
No, I and I always I always sort of caveat, you know, a lot of my comments when I talk to to members of you always always think of this catchphrase of when done well, impact assessment can, you know, it's got to be when done well because yeah, there are there are poor reports and there are poor practices and and there are conflicts of interest. So, we've always got to remember that, you know, this isn't it doesn't deliver itself. We've got to put effort, conscious effort into how we're actually doing this process.
Yeah. And through IAIA, you have principles, you have fast tips, you have research papers, articles by members, you have training programs. What which which documents or which products are most sought after by the members?
Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, it's interesting. Fast tips is always something that people like. You know, it's a very very quick aid memoir of a whole range of topics. I think we've got 20 more than 20 fast tips now. Um, but I do think the best practice principles are probably one area where you know the and these are the the real experts in this field who are putting distilling knowledge down into key areas and key key points. So, you know, going back two years now, you know, we developed a best practice principles on using AI within a member of the world. Exactly. And that and that really was at the time I think a lot of industries were talking about it and saying we need this, we need this. Um, and I think producing that was was a really important step because I think suddenly members could see, oh, actually there is that, you know, I can anchor some of my behavior within this. I'm not going to meet all of these criteria necessarily. And I think that is the same for all sorts of different disciplines. And I think that's the the other challenge or another challenge of impact assessment is that it it it covers such a broad waterfront. Um, and I think increasingly if you're a social practitioner, a social specialist, um, I think the best practice principles, the fast tips can can be very helpful at times to introduce you into different areas that maybe you don't engage in on a day-to-day basis. But I think more and more we're going to be asked to be cross-disciplinary and thinking about the impacts on other areas outside of core disciplines and all of that can be helpful. Um so you know I I still see that the demand for our training programs whether those online training in person you know we we're constantly pushing into new areas and so much of that is in emerging markets. It's in areas where you know people don't necessarily have you know we have these two foundations programs one on general if you will the core of impact assessment one on social impact assessment and and they're they're pitched as foundations program but I look at the experience of people taking those and they could be mid-career they could be 10 years experience so they're more than foundations they are career building they are knowledge building and I I I think that's really essential for a professional association to have.
Yeah. And what I really like is that there are trainings that are not specifically targeting like topical expertise but about how to work in in crisis. Or conflict affected states. How to write better reports because at the end of the day we are paid for the report. Yeah. But it's how you put that the findings of your assessments into that narrative that then influences the decision making. So I really really enjoy looking at those things and and getting inspired and learning from that.
Yeah, there specific skills, you know, and areas of expertise is one thing and then skills training in in a broader context. So for example, you know, we're just about to launch a system thinking training program which I think will be, you know, a there is already a lot of demand for it and it's going to be very interesting to see how we also take that out out of just a narrow impact assessment remitt because I think there are industries that we touch on that could benefit an awful lot from that as well.
Yeah. And I know that impact assessment now is branching outside of what we can find on the surface of the earth. Yes, we have sea mining, we have space impact assessment. How how does an organization keep up with with all of this?
Um by trying to attract the the best possible membership base that we can because that's where the knowledge resides. I mean you know I you know my role in this is is minimal that all the the expertise and the practitioners that's where the knowledge so trying to collect that and present that and offer that to other people who might have a passing interest a casual interest or a really deep interest they want to develop. Um you know we try to satisfy all of those things. Um but the extraterrestrial activities best practices was a fascinating one. I mean you again that was done two years ago and just at that point where you know and and that's talking about obviously satellites are one thing but what happens if we start to actually try and inhabit the moon Mars what are the factors that we should be thinking about at that point and you know and and and people initially thinking yeah I'm sure there were people thinking well it's a bit of a joke exercise sci-fi yeah and here we are you know we We I don't think people necessarily think we're that far away from there being manufacturing activities certainly outside of the Earth's orbit. So, uh yeah, we've got a grounding in this and um you know, and I think that's that that's just a great thing to have. It just change again changes perception perhaps as to what impact assessment can be. Thinking more broadly about Wow, okay, I didn't realize that and that that's a good thing. No, I I certainly think that and I see how IAIA is keeping up with the technology with the changes the new new aspects of impact assessment, sustainability and uh new areas of of business. How do you see the role of the organization changing going forward? What is the the strategy to keep it in line with the times uh create value for members and create these very valuable knowledge products that will influence the way we do business.
Yeah, it's I mean look that that ultimately is something that I spend most of my time thinking about and talking about and you know and that is I I guess it it's several things. It's it's developing and promoting and advertising, if you will, the the the practice of impact assessment as a discipline and getting that into as many into the the hands of the decision makers. That's what we're trying to do. Okay? Whether that's governments, whether it's financiers, corporations. So, instill the practice of it. Um but then what what does IAIA as a as an institution as a membership organization you know I I am trying to sort of what are the things that our members value the networking effect is always the most important. How do I mix with, learn from, talk with, consult with the best minds within that space and challenge me and in inform me to develop that. That's one thing. That's deepening knowledge. But then I also think we have a real responsibility to develop capacity and capability in areas and countries and regions that don't have that deep bench. Um you know if I think if I look at things like the deep sea treaties I think it's a really good example you know I mean there's 30 40% of that treaty just speaks about impact assessment and the need to do seas or or environmental assessments but then it sort of outsources that well it'll get done by small island states or in regions how there is no capacity there so you know And and I think we take that seriously as to all right so how do we help to develop that and that's asking our membership to think about that and things we write but then working with perhaps the world bank UN other bodies to develop training programs and capacity building in those areas and that is a key element of what we do so it's always about deepening knowledge perfecting improving practice sharing that knowledge but then also developing the bench of talent around the world to be able to put that knowledge into play.
Okay. And what's the next annual event? The next annual event is in New Zealand is the annual conference that that is coming up in in April. Um you we try and take the annual conference around the world so that people have an opportunity to go there. Um that is not too far away from perhaps where their their base of operation is. So yes, we're in Christ Church, New Zealand next year, uh which I'm very excited about. I think there's a lot a lot happening within that sphere, but um it will also draw a lot of people in from from other countries as well. You know, I think New Zealand, Australians, Asians, they they're used to having to get on a plane and travel to a lot of these destinations. Maybe, you know, in in North America or in Europe. Well, you know, I think we owe it to them that we should be we should be going there. Yes. So, we've got a really good local organizing committee there that we're working with and uh No, I'm looking forward to that.
And what's the theme of the event? It's it's an interesting one because it it's uh the the actual theme is looking looking back to look forward. It's it's you know very much along some of the lines we've talked about as to what can we learn and are we making sure that we understand what we have learned to take us forward into where impact assessment is going and there's there's a very neat you know tie into indigenous knowledge and marry knowledge um so that that I think adds a different dimension to it as well you know we come out of from Quebec where where our conference was this year with a very strong indigenous people's theme as well. Um and I think keeping that tracing that route through is really important. You know those are in I if you look at whether it's rare earth metals mining so many extractive industries uh we talk about you the most affected communities often are indigenous people. So understanding that knowledge base that how impact is viewed from those levels I think is absolutely vitally important.
Well, I'm looking forward to the event. Thank you for being here with me today and for sharing your views the strategy for IAIA and impact assessment in general. Thank you for having me and thank you for joining us. Do me a favor and share this episode with someone who works in impact assessment or someone who would benefit from the process of impact assessment. I will be with you in the next episode.
Comments