1 / 16

Public Participation

Public Participation. 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)

chakra
Download Presentation

Public Participation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Participation

  2. 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

  3. 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?

  4. Who should participate? • local authorities • community groups • local residents • business and industry • NGO's

  5. When should the public participate? EIA Public involvementtypically at these points

  6. When should the public participate? IPPC Application Public participationin all 3 phases Permit Monitoring

  7. 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

  8. How to involve the public: Levels of participation Negotiating Participating Consulting Informing

  9. 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).

  10. 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

  11. What information is necessary? • Generally IPPC is more technical. • In most cases the IPPC communication can be one-way communication of • The application • The 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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;

  15. 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

  16. Experiences from DK, UK, NL • 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

More Related