ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
airport developments (including a third London airport and new terminals
at Heathrow and Manchester airports) and numerous major road schemes.
Public inquiries into major wilderness developments have been common-
place in Australia, such as proposed uranium mining in the Kakadu National
Park, and in Canada, notably the Berger inquiry into an oil and gas pipeline
from the Arctic and an inquiry into proposed logging in Clayaquot Sound
(Torgerson 2003 ).
Apublic inquiry is chaired by an individual who will receive numerous
depositions and listen to many witnesses representing a wide range of inter-
ests before producing an assessment based on that evidence. The inquiry
report is then considered by the relevant government authority when decid-
ing on the proposal. In theory, this participatory process allows all informa-
tion to be gathered and every interest to have its say, before a ‘rational’
planning decision is made. However, although public inquiries may appear
to provide an open, pluralistic forum where all views can be expressed, much
depends on the terms of reference given to the inquiry, the independence of
thepresiding ‘judge’ and the resources available to the various interests giv-
ing evidence.^6 These variables are often biased in favour of the developers;
most obviously, a well-researched case will require a huge financial outlay
forresearch, expert witnesses and legal fees. Large corporations can usu-
ally mobilise far greater resources – the UK Central Electricity Generating
Board spent£20 million on the Sizewell B inquiry (O’Riordan et al. 1988 )–
than are available to environmental groups. The formal proceedings, dom-
inated by legalistic jargon and techniques of cross-examination, intimidate
community groups and individuals and so impede genuine public participa-
tion (Rydin 1998 : 258–9). One comparative study of public inquiry processes
concluded that everywhere the public holds an ambiguous attitude towards
them:while people strongly demand participation, there is a widespread per-
ception that inquiries are no more than a ‘mock consultation’ intended to
give legitimacy to decisions that have effectively already been made (Mason
1999 : 78).
Nevertheless, even when a government uses a public inquiry to legitimise
a decision it wants to make, or when developers lavish vast resources in pre-
senting their side of the argument, the openness of the forum can still pro-
vide a window of opportunity to be exploited by environmentalists (Kingdon
1995 ;Torgerson 2003 ). At the very least, opponents can gain publicity, and
even win modifications to the project. Sometimes proposals are abandoned,
as was a plan to sand-mine on Fraser Island on the Australian barrier reef.
The British campaigner, John Tyme, by astute political tactics and clever use
of the mass media, was able to cause such disruption to a series of inquiries
into individual road schemes during the 1970s that the government was
forced to reappraise its entire road-building programme (Tyme 1978 ; Dud-
ley and Richardson 1996 :74–5). Other democratic mechanisms can also act
as ‘focusing events’ (Kingdon 1995 )around which environmental groups can