|
| |
Observations of the Scientific Committee
Social scientists constitute one subcommittee of the agency’s Scientific
Committee. Physical oceanographers and biologists comprise the others. In the closing
session of the conference, two members of the social science subcommittee (Lee Huskey of
the University of Alaska and Joanna Endter-Wada of Utah State University) offered their
observations on the MMS socioeconomic studies effort and the conference proceedings.
Having served on the committee since the early nineties, they noted that higher-level
agency support for socioeconomic research had increased considerably during the decade.
They also commended the socioeconomic studies effort for its responsiveness to fluid
circumstances and external counsel, including changes in the oil and gas industry,
shifting political scenes in the regions, the 1992 recommendations of the National
Research Council and the Scientific Committee’s own recommendations. Their
observations are as follows. (Some points raised by other participants in response to
their observations are also included.)
- It is important that the regions take stock of the results of research already completed
and the information expected from research currently underway.
Given the number of studies conducted and the time that often elapses between contracting
and completing many studies, careful stock taking would help the regions see how studies
are linked in an overall research agenda and help ensure that new studies contribute to
that agenda and do not duplicate previous work. Conducting such an exercise would also
create a formal institutional memory extremely valuable to new agency personnel. (Some
participants suggested that there was also a need to disseminate the results of current
studies more effectively within the agency. Larry Roberts noted, in that regard, that the
agency’s spread sheet for tracking studies was accessible on line and that
difficulties with the system of on-line access to reports were being addressed. Rodney
Cluck stated his intention of using the web site created for the conference to publicize
the results of new studies and Jim Lima advised agency staff to remember to check the web
sites of the regional programs.)
- The distinction between baseline and impact studies may be a false one.
The long history and extensive cumulative effects of oil development in the regions make
it difficult to distinguish between baseline conditions and the effects of single projects
or to disentangle the effects of single projects from the effects of the larger trajectory
of oil development. NEPA requires analysis of projects in terms of baselines and impacts.
It may be more important however, to understand how oil development as a whole has infused
the regions and how this changes over time.
- Efforts to increase efficiency in socioeconomic studies by coordinating research should
be tempered by recognition of differences among the regions.
The regions do deal with some common methodological questions and common issues. Their
distinctiveness, however, must be taken into account. Differences among the regions lie
not only in differences among local contexts, but in the phases and levels of oil industry
development. There is already a great deal of informal inter-regional cooperation in
research planning and design, which is commendable. But efforts to expand collaboration
and coordination should not lose sight of the diversity that results from the articulation
of oil development in its various phases with widely varying social contexts.
- The changing nature of the oil industry is a very important issue.
Such industry changes as corporate mergers are among the causes of movement into
deep-water operations and decommissioning of older installations. Changes in the industry
are affecting its operations in all the regions as well as internationally.
- The agency should give more attention to mitigation strategies.
Resource owners and resource agencies have created a vast array of inventive, new ways to
deal with problems stirred by resource development. There was little discussion of
mitigation at the conference, but it is an issue that deserves attention. Infrastructure
improvements, revenue sharing and local community impact assistance are among the
dimensions of mitigation requiring consideration. (One participant cautioned that in
discussing mitigation it was too easy to neglect the beneficial effects of oil
development. It might be better, it was suggested, to think in terms of optimizing the
effects of oil development, that is, enhancing the benefits and minimizing the negative
effects. It was also pointed out that mitigation issues may vary considerably from place
to place because of differences in what is required by state law and differences in state
or local institutional and political cultures.)
- The agency needs to think about research that will help it prepare to deal with the
opening of areas currently under moratoria.
In all three regions, some areas have been closed to lease sales. While the agency cannot
predict when or if Congress and the President may end particular moratoria, it should make
some preparation. Both the Policy Committee and the full Scientific Committee have
expressed concern with this question.
- The studies program should give more attention to research on the question of
monitoring.
(Huskey and Endter-Wada did not elaborate on this point. The discussion of “Monitoring Key Indicators” in the Alaska Region that took
place on the second day of the conference, however, gives an indication of the range and
complexity of the research issues involved.)
- There should be more methodological and conceptual sharing, not only between the regions
but also with other Federal agencies and in larger professional arenas.
People outside the agency and outside the Federal government are grappling with many of
the same issues with which the MMS contends. It may be useful, for example, for MMS
personnel to attend the meetings of such organizations as the International Association
for Impact Assessment. Similarly, in a discussion on tourism in the Pacific Region, it
came to light that Nevada has sponsored extensive research on the effects on tourism of a
high-level nuclear waste repository. The Pacific Region staff intend to pursue this lead,
but it would be useful to seek such connections and resources more systematically.
Participants noted the importance of learning from professional colleagues outside the
U.S. and suggested the need to cultivate international networks more systematically.
Industry restructuring, for example, is an issue of international interest. Greater
participation in both international professional meetings and oil industry conferences was
recommended.
- The agency should be careful not to become captive to its research tools.
Both old, familiar tools, such as input-output analysis or the IMPLAN model, and new tools
and approaches, such as GIS and the study and use of traditional knowledge, are attractive
and useful. But they should not lead the research agenda. The issues themselves and basic
questions of good research design should be the primary considerations.
- A means of continuing dialog between and among the socioeconomic studies staff and the
Scientific Committee would be useful.
The conference itself has been very useful, and it will stir much additional thinking that
should be shared. The exchange of ideas, references and information about conferences on a
regular basis would help enhance the value of events like this conference.
For more information, contact Rodney Cluck.
|
|
