8. Public Participation Flashcards
Public participation
engaging citizens in decision-making processes before assessment + permitting outcomes are determined
emphasizes relationship building, sharing info, fostering dialogue
NOT all lead decision-making
NOT all engaging
people impacted by projects enhance…. through well informed, inclusive participatory engagement strategies which emphasizes…
decision quality
learning
What is the difference between participation, consultation, and involvement and negotiation?
Participation:
broad concept including both consultation and involvement.
Consultation:
weaker form of engagement where the public has limited influence (proponent informs public)
–>open-houses, public hearings
involvement:
stronger form engagement
allows the public to take a lead role in planning/decision-making.
–> workshops, co-mgmt..negotiations
negotiation among stakeholders:
alternative dispute resolution mechanism based on joint fact-finding, consensus building and mutual accommodation of different interests
3 consultation types
- persuasion: to change attitutes without raising expectations of actual influence
- tokenism: superficial consultation, pretense of listening
- education: raising awareness
3 types involvement
- joint planning: shared decision-making
- delegated authority; responsibility transfered to body with relevant expertise
- self-determination; public undertakes process independently
who is the public
a. people: local communities
b. businesses: facing potential operational changes, opportunity risks based on EIA outcomes
c. NGOs: advocating for community iterests, ensuring EIA reflects ecological/social considerations, formal or informal, representing people or larger industries
–> NOT INDG
stakeholders vs public
stakeholder;
individuals, groups, orgs having direct interest or stake in outcome (+/- influenced or having power to influence decision)
–>ongoing engagement, targeted discussions or even partnerships
public;
general population, borader community may indirect, less personal connections (reflecting wider societal perspective/impacts, more diverse)
–>less influence, their feedback could still shape decisions
–> engaged through wider consultation to gather broad-based input/feedback
why public participation?
a. strategic reasons;
gain support, save time, avoid conflict, obtain info/feedback to improve project
–> ways of dealing with some uncertainties
b. legal/regulatory requirements; public participation = mandated by regulations
c. trust-building;
participants trust, enhance social license, create long-term support
benefits of PP
- avoid litigation;
mitigate potential for legal disputes - improve project outcomes
identify concerns early on, build better knowledge area/context to enhance project design (deal some uncertainties)
–> facilitates consideration alternatives, mitigation, tradeoffs - support; identify/reduce conflict, smoother regulation reviews, long-term support anticipate/resolve issues across project lifestyle
Participation = deal with people
whose voice heard? representative? informed? who NOT hearing from?
local vs. outsider? defined by who?
how best reach people?
–> perpetual issue; how get people to participate
how communicate?
goal: clear, concise, accessible to all audiences
tailored, avoiding technical jargon/impersonal bureaucratic/academic/abstract language, simplify legal terms (not oversimplify), clear science explained
who public is? must define audience to plan and choose communication tools based on:
–> age
–> gender
–> location
–> capabilities (education, awareness, interest)
–> connection to project: involvement is direct/indirect/ideological/potential
active listening
-leave preconceptions behind
-ask right questions to truly understand public’s concerns
-engage fully with people, understanding intent/emotion/values underlying
-deeper motivations, values may not clear at first, uncover them + adjust communication accordingly
engagement tools
- digital engagement tools:
apps, real-time feedback to answer questions rapidly + enhance public engagement
2, crowdsourcing platforms; allows diverse participant contributions (collective knowledge)
- interactive mapping techniques;
spatial awareness, visualizing impacts - informational tools;
webinars, portals to enhance awareness/EIA understanding - collaborative platforms;
online forums, multifaceted discussions, diverse participants - case studies; website for feedback collection, demonstrate how effective PP real-scenarios (learn from them, how apply own context)
- face 2 face; forums, workshops, info sessions
(building trust)
public engagement plans
SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE PROCESS
goals/objective
–> informaing, persuading, engaging, gathering input?
–> what want people to get out of it?
strategies
–> clear conflict-resolution plan, anticipate
mechanisms/tools
identify stakeholders, participants, audiences
activity schedule
–> adjust commnication
–> plan short/long-term engagement
implement them
–> plan resources materials, workshops (budget, cost)
how results, report, data used
follow-up process (feedback loop)
–>not unidirectional process
how will this be integrated in EIA, how did it shape it?
PP challenges
- communication barriers (language, cultural practices, capacities, technological)
–> ensure communicators have necessary skills/knowledge too - conflict resolution
9 guiding point for PP
- Early planning
resource allocation, info, time for PP - identify participants
interests, reflect community, willing to participate/discuss/listen - transparency
clearly communicate public level of influence - appropraite tools
tailored for each stage - accessible info provided
participants understand material - flexible
adapt to new info/participants/changing situations - schedule inclusively
times and venues suiting different participants - allow sufficient time to process info, feedback loops, writing results
- integrate feedback/input into reports/decisions
social media?
used in IA and planning processes, data collection, update commnication, gather ideas, facilitate dialogue between stakeholders
means of informing and sharing info
provide stakeholders greater, faster access to project info/documents
potential in assessing and monitoring public opinion on projects
potential to facilitate dialogue, assist stakeholders in examining validity of discussions
citizen co-production, citizen having more active role
–> promoting their concerns in planning processes
engaging youth (generally not participating)
social media challenges
one-way communication rather than dialogue
–> currently used more as “informing” tool (limited to branding, info provision)
proponents/gov little control over how messages interpreted, who accesses it, how it is used
–> political implications (social media use embedded in political sphere)
–> polarization
internet access
lack IT skills
–> highly dependent on proponents organizational culture
social media info filtered through existing networks (complex/invisible to users)
= uncertain quality of info (disputes over validity)
mismatch lengthy consultation periods in EIA vs. quick social media
–> aligning social media use with governance principles of legitimacy, accountability, fairness
E-governance
internet= ability to connect geographically diverse people, those with limited time, interest in traditional participation
potential to create 2 way interactions among participants + between public and decision-makers
participants organizing, preparing hearings/EIA process
–> improved connections
collaborative space
democratizing participants (facilitating greater) access to project documentation
info instantly shared, available to comments/feedback
–> easier process for all parties (proponents to know local context/concerns, people know project)
–> time efficient
–> lower cost
–> more productive?
access to international databases, info, sources
unifying voices on development issues
Canada: all provinces/territories/federal maintain websites, registries for IA laws, policies, info, case registries
E-governance challenges
limited connectivity
elders
lack financial means for online tools
unfamiliarity with tools online
not two-way dialogue usually
–> needs to be scaled up to the public level
needs to be better integrated for participation in EIA
prerequisites so public involvement is effective
proponents serious + open minded about what it can contribute to proposal
2-way dialogue
willingness to listen to info, values, concerns of community
amend proposal to minimize community concerns
acknowledge value of community input
Even though the proponent may not have a
clear idea of project details (“its too early”)
communicating the objectives
of the proposals can start to …, allow useful public input on site constraints
and alternatives and can help the proponent devise a
robust scheme.
build trust with the
community
Public involvement can be expensive and time-consuming.
If integrated into the project planning process, …. can be avoided. The costs of not involving the
public are likely to be …
excessive
timelines
even greater in terms of costs arising
from delays.
Lack of technical education does not negate intelligence
and the understanding people have of their own
surroundings. Often people’s knowledge of their
environment and how it will be changed can be …
more accurate than that predicted by models.
