Enahancing public participation in decision making (2)

Workshop on Tourism, policies and EncroachmentTiruvananthapuram

2nd July 2007

Enhancing Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making In India

Although Public participation is a fundamental and important aspect of many administrative and legislative decision making of environmental governance in democratic countries, yet the very terms ‘Public’ and ‘Participation’ are continuously being redefined in increasingly constricting ways.


The potential benefits of Public participation are multifold as it can bring important information, innovative approaches and solutions and enhance public perception of plans and helps make projects viable.But Public needs and grievances are not of concern to the state or project proponents. Accepting genuine public participation in design and implementation of projects is normally perceived as a nuisance by decision-makers and investors.Adverse project impacts such as displacement, environmental destruction and consequent depression in quality of life amongst the affected fail to cause any distress to the expert decision makers


Public Participation at Statutory Public Hearings - A Nightmare

Merely a public relations exercise with no commitment to comprehending concerns of affected communities.

PR Skills and strategies applied with different degrees of sophistication to mystify issues and distract attention from real concerns.

Panel generally biased - in future no involvement of local government representatives or eminent citizenry

Hearing are procedural and tend to justify decisions already made

Not all voices are heard Level of Public engagement varies based on

degree of comfort allowed with the presence of police and goons hired serving role of intimidation.

Limited possibility of conflict resolution No feedback provided to Public with rationale for

decisions – results in polarising debate


Information for participation – A closely guarded secret

Public inadequately informed (EIA’s mostly fraudulent, plagiarized, not comprehensive and of poor quality)

Not available in time Not available widely Available mainly on websites Often times deliberate choice of Hearing

location to make participation inconvenient to affected communities

Announcement restricted to newspaper ads and no innovative approaches of community communication adopted.

Information presented in highly sophisticated and expert driven language, with little appreciation of communicating to a diverse and often illiterate population.


Other challenges Regulatory Agencies

unfriendly to public Help lines, FAQs, lacking No assistance after office

hours Public outreach, citizen

training initiatives absent Public representations often

not acknowledged, and issues ignored in consideration of final decisions

Audio/video aids, training programs, completely lacking


No accountability- PCBs, State or Ministry

Laws not suitably amended to appreciate public needs

No Evaluation Process either at the State or central levels


Quality of Information …Dandeli Mini Hydel Dam EIA –

EIA Ernst & Young plagiarized EIA of another dam (Tattihalla dam) . Got caught but no criminal action taken. Susequently TERI prepared another EIA which was found to be fraudulent. Yet no action initiated.

Consultants generally get away with supplying rubbish: In the BMIC EIA Socio-Economic impact survey data included only the name of Head of affected family and his address. Today this has resulted in widespread conflict and mass litigation.


Stories from experience…….Bangalore’s Master plan 2015 finalized despite protests against poorly presented information

Public participation limited to commenting on colorful maps, displayed only in one location, and with minimal participation of Panchayats, Town Councils and communities across a large metropolis.

Maps difficult to comprehend without any effort to process information for ease of understanding by the public.

French consortium which prepared the plans unaware of local considerations.


Bangalore Namma Metro (our metro) but for who?The residents and traders have been demanding Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (BMRCL) should hold public hearings to know the socio economic and environmental impacts of the project.

Alignment fixed by Judicial Commission following conflict – but without widespread empirical evidence for appropriate alignments.


Administrative attitudes to limit public understanding of project impacts increasing conflict and misunderstanding. The widespread resistance to projects in Kalinganagar and Nandigram are only the most profiled of a whole range of conflicts.

Projects thrive while people are driven out of their homes, their livelihoods snatched, arrested, jailed and even killed for raising their concerns


While International treaties move progressively to enable Public Participation our domestic laws are being diluted to limit and restrict public participation

The European Aarhus Declaration mandates involvement of the public from the initial stage of projects and extended involvement beyond the completion of projects.


The Boston Metro story – An interesting lesson from a bold decision in 1972 not to follow the American model of continued expansion of metropolitan expressways.

Instead a major investment in rail transit was made. Boston’s Southwest Corridor Project illustrates how a process of community participation in the design of a new below-grade railroad and rapid transit line, along with a linear park and new public facilities, has strengthened neighborhoods and is part of a renewed focus on cycling, walking, public transportation and healthy communities.


New Zealand – The Resource Management Act 2001 is based on the Maori Philosophy It states two key principles 1.Decisions on environmental matters are most appropriately made by the communities most affected by those decisions 2. community participation is vital to effective resource management


Sri Lanka- Scoping process has recently included formal and informal meetings with people who may be affected by the project directly or indirectly or who may have special knowledge of the project area and its environmentSouth Africa- ten years after the abolishment of Apartheid and more than five years after the adoption of a new Environment policy, lessons learnt from public involvement were incorporated in the Environmental law reform Process and today SA has a very progressive law building capacity for Public Participation


Non Statutory Public participation

Relatively openPublic intervention and

lobbying effective Mechanisms and

Procedures controlled by public .

Public creativity through actions, protests and rallies draw widespread attention, widens interest and debate, attracts media attention that decision makers cannot ignore


Widespread public protests , rallies, street plays, human chains, watchdogs perched on trees, marked citizens efforts to protect trees in Bangalore. Resulted in High Court orders that mandates public involvement in decisions to cut trees in Bangalore .


The Handi Gondi Rocks of Ramnagar: Sanghamitra Buddha Foundation proposed

plans to carve a Buddha statue to compensate the loss of Bamian Buddha detroyed in Afghanistan. This on an impressive rock face formed during the lower proterozoic era threby destroying the 2600-2000 million years of natural history. The project also aimed at a film city, resorts and amusement park.

Public protests, repeated meetings with PCCF, Karnataka Forest Department, widespread campaign resulted in the Forest Department withdrawing the clearance s and declaring the area as a Santcuary for sloth bears.


Reengineering of the Environmental Clearance process: 2004-2005- Draft National Environmental Policy and Amendment to the EIA notification 2004-2006-Civil Society Groups Lobby with Members of Parliament, chief Ministers of State, Leaders of opposition, Law Ministry, Prime Minister's Office2005- 200 groups from across the country came together and held a two day campaign MOEF SUNO & MOEF CHALO. A jury listened to people’s voices


MOEF CHALO: People stormed into the Ministry despite all security and declared the MOEF Dead

2006:Policy issued despite protests.Notification finalised only in consultation with industries and disregarding protests from Parliamentarians and environmental groups


The way forward………….With a Legal framework that has Failed to guarantee the right of public participation in Environmental decision making

Initiate an Environmental law reform process to enhance public participation in decision making

Involve District Planning Committees (per Article 243ZD), and thereby Panchayats and Municipalities in accordance with Constitutional 73rd and 74th amendments


Increased Access to Information

AdvertisementsPress releasesNews Paper InsertsPublic Displays on hoardings,

etcField VisitsVideos made with Local

community involvementPublic debates and discussionsMedia support in building

public opinion


Providing support to public on Legislation and its implementation

Bringing necessary changes in practice with public opinion

Increased resources for skill training in public and staff

Redistribution of power in decision makingDirectives and lessons from Aarhus,

Indigenous practices and the spirit of Principle 10 of Rio Declaration should be integrated

Greater public awareness of their rights ,greater willingness of ministries, bureaucrats, regulators, Industry to reach out proactively and work together with their communities, and local governments

Environment Support Group105,East end B Main

Jayanagar 9th Block Bangalore -560069

Tel: 22441977/26531339Email:[email protected]

Website:www.esgindia.org

Technology

Enahancing public participation in decision making (2)