Public Participation
description
Transcript of Public Participation
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Public Participation
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Public Participation - benefits
• Improving decision making by participation• Decisions last longer• Decision making integrates economic, social and
environmental factors• Reduces cases of lengthy post-decision arguments
(complaints and litigation)• Opens peoples eyes to the different compromises
that inevitably must be made
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Strategies for Public Participation
• What is the purpose of Public Participation?• Who should participate?• When should they participate?• How do you involve the public?• What information is necessary?• How long should time should be allocated to
participation?• What resources are available?• How are comments handled?• What needs to be done when decision is
taken?
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Who should participate?
• local authorities
• community groups• local residents• business and industry• NGO's
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
When should the public participate?
*Public involvement typically occurs at these points. It may also occur at any other stage of the EIA Process
Information from this process contributes to effective EIA in the future
No EIA
Initial environmental examination
EIA required
Approved
Not approved
Redesign
Resubmit
Proposal identification
*Public involvement
Screening
Scoping
Impact analysis
Mitigation and impact
management
EIA report
Review
Decision-making
Implementation and post-EIA monitoring
EIA
Public involvementtypically at these points
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
When should the public participate?
IPPCApplication
Permit
Monitoring
Public participationin all 3 phases
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Danish IPPC case• Vejle County issues a revised IPPC permit for a scrap-treating enterprise, Uniscrap, 23.5.2000;• Uniscrap complaints the conditions (ELV and monitoring of the air emissions) to the Danish EPA claiming, that they imply 5 million DKK in investment and 250,000 DKK in annual costs;• The EPA decides 7.2.2003 to remove conditions to TOC, benzene and dioxin and to suspend conditions to PCB until a new guidance is issued;• Vejle County and the ngo NOAH appeal this decision to the Environmental Complaints Commission (ECC);• 10.8.2004 the ECC essentially confirms the permit of 23.5.2000
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
How to involve the public: Levels of participation
Informing
Consulting
Participating
Negotiating
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
How to involve the public: Media
• printed materials (brochures, displays and exhibits, direct mail);
• use of the media (newspapers, news conferences, newspapers, radio and TV);
• public information sessions (open houses, site visits, field offices);
• use of the Internet (web site).
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
What information is necessary?
Generally EIA is more political
Screening: To determine the need for and level of EIA
Scoping: To identify key issues and alternatives
Impact analysis: To identify significant impacts and mitigating measures
Review: Commenting/responding to the EIA report
Implementationand monitoring: Checking EIA follow-up
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
What information is necessary?
Generally IPPC is more technical.In most cases the IPPC communication can be one-way communication ofThe applicationThe decision (permit)Monitoring results
However in controversial cases e.g. involving considerable extension of operations in densely populated areas a more involving communication strategy is advisable.
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
How long time should be allocated?
• May differ relevant to the nature of project/development;• Consider involving the public on a continuous basis;• At least: Settle for a minimum time to involve public
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Comments/decision
• Summary of public comments;• Be explicit about handling comments ;• Announce any delays or other relevant info on the status of the decision making process.
• Inform the public of the final decision ASAP;• Explain how plan/project is implemented;• Consider communicating a formal review of implementation.
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Example: Danish IPPC case
• A newly established electroplating enterprise in Farum, DK applies for an IPPC permit;• The application is announced in a local advertising newspaper;• A neighbouring enterprise asks to see the proposed permit and it is sent to the enterprise;• The neighbouring enterprise comments the proposed permit;• The permitting authority rejects the comments in a letter to the neighbouring enterprise, but does not communicate the final permit or possibilities of complaint;
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
Danish IPPC case, continued• The permit is issued and the decision is published 8.4.2003 in a local advertising newspaper. Complaints to be submitted within 4 weeks;• 7.7.2003 the neighbouring enterprise complaints the decision to the Danish EPA;• The EPA rejects the complaint because the time limit for complaints is exceeded;• This decision is appealed to the Environmental Complaints Commission (ECC);• The ECC decides that the EPA must handle the complaint because the permitting authority did not send the promised information
Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture
General observations• Participation well known • Public authorities skilled in managing participation• Participation considered a key element in securing an efficient and legitimate decision making procedure • Formal appeal system handling complaints institutionalised for many years• Courts may review the public authority decision-making
Experiences from DK, UK, NL