Public participation in environmental policy and planning

1. Public participation in environmental policy and planning

2. Lecture outline • Supertutorial reminders - please read today’s handout • Public participation part of a worldwide trend • Defining “community” and “participation” • Categories of participation • Consultation • partnership • Standing • Social capital and public participation • Criticisms of public participation

3. Citizen participation is being called for at many levels • For example, Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development agreed at UNCED 1992 stated that“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level”

4. IUCN basic policy statement Caring for the Earth • Acknowledges that local people are most likely to care for natural resources when they maintain control over both their natural resources and the development process and in so doing are able to satisfy their needs.

5. The 1985 Vietnamese National Conservation Strategy (NCS) stresses that: • protected areas fail in their objectives unless the needs of local people are given serious attention at the design and planning stage and unless various direct or indirect benefits are made available to the local people through the establishment and management of such reserves (page 38).

6. Trends with donor agencies • There has over the last two decades been a growing recognition by donor agencies (eg. World Bank, UNDP and other major donors) that community participation in resource management projects is a desirable objective. • There has also been a great growth in participatory methods and practices (eg. PRA, social forestry, farmer first etc.) and in the understanding of the need for integrated conservation and development (ICAD) projects that link resource conservation and development.

7. A range of terms with subtle different meanings • public participation • public involvement • public consultation • public negotiation • community participation

8. Community • In using the term “community” it is important to remember that it does not imply a single cohesive unit but must be used in the full knowledge of the diversity of stakeholders and interests within a “community”.

9. Community • can refer to an interest group, lobby group, pressure group or industry association, • those who may have a stakeholder interest in a decision – communities of common concern • Individuals can be involved in more than one community simultaneously depending on the issue or decision at hand

10. Communities can: • Vary in scale from the local to global • Be based on a range of things eg geographical location, race, culture, gender, profession, industry or interest in Van Morrison’s music

11. “Participation” can means different things in different settings • As White (1994: 16) notesthe word "participation" is kaleidoscopic; it changes colour and shape at the will of the hands in which it is held. And, just like the momentary image in the kaleidoscope, it can be very fragile and elusive, changing from one moment to another. The kaleidoscope analogy fits because participation is a complex and dynamic phenomenon, seen from the "eye of the beholder", and shaped by the "hand of the powerholder".

12. Public Participation is a bit like teaching “I believe teaching is one of the most delightful and exciting of all human activities when it is done well and that it is one of the most humiliating and tedious when it is done poorly.” Ramsden, Paul Learning to teach in Higher Education 2003: 3

13. Public participation can be empowering • ideally public participation results in community empowerment and devolution of decision making to local and regional communities • inherent in this devolution is an acknowledgment of the value of local knowledge and ways of doing things – “Wisdom lies in places” • of particular interest to geographers is the degree to which this local knowledge takes the form of reading the landscape skills that I will elaborate on when we come to talk about Landcare

14. But public participation can be tokenistic • governments can if they wish keep “a lid on” communities by setting up impotent processes that diffuse rather than harness community energies

15. My experience with the MDBE • Extraordinary local knowledge - eg Doug Nash • Passionate commitment to have their story told - every local Museum! • Wisdom does really sit in places • Some Canberra bureaucrats only interested in finding out what they want to find out

16. Participation needs to be seen as a process that requires: • power, resources, information and control to be fairly distributed; • cooperation and empowerment -- stakeholders must be given the ability to have an impact on decision-making processes; • understanding and knowledge sharing -- stakeholders should be receptive to the needs of others; • flexibility -- the process needs to evolve to meet the needs of different stakeholders; • methods used need to be appropriate to the different stakeholders

17. Two views of public participation • those who view participation as a concept, such as political scientists, and • those who view participation as a tool, such as many environmental activists and development theorists.

18. Implications of these differences • those who consider participation as a concept view it as an approach, ideology or a specific ethos for community development, • whereas those who consider participation as a tool view it as a method, set of guidelines or practice for involving the community in the decision making process (see Buchy et al 2000, p. 6).

19. There are two common positions on the nature of democracy • participatory - based on equality and individual autonomy • representative - allows for elected representatives to act on behalf of citizens

20. Neither extreme possible or desirable • pure participatory practices, are unworkable – can’t have a referendum on every issue • purely representative approaches are undesirable as the community has knowledge that good EPP needs to incorporate and concerns and interests that no system of representative government can fully represent

21. Public participation and democracy • Public participation is presented by many as the mechanism required to bridge this participatory-representative gap, a process for involving the public in decision making through either consultation or participation. • The difference between consultation and participation revolves around the degree to which those involved in the process are able to influence, share or control the decision making

22. Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation • Arnstein suggested that power was central to the concept of participation. • as she notes participation is viewed as the cornerstone of democracy • yet the reality is that those who hold power are reluctant to let it go when those who do not have the power advocate power sharing through participatory practices (Arnstein 1969, p. 216).

23. Arnstein argued that: • citizen power is increased or diminished through a range of decision making mechanisms. • suggested that there are 3 broad levels • a level where there are ‘degrees of citizen power’, • one where there are ‘degrees of tokenism’ • and one where there is ‘non participation’.

24. Criticism of Arnstein’s Ladder • Her approach was value laden, it implies that only some forms of participation are real. • As Dovers suggests participation is more complex than the ladder implies. Some people may not wish to participate directly, only observe. Others may wish to participate in different ways at different stages in the policy process • Participation may not be what is required or may not be the best mechanism through which to arrive at decisions.

25. Participatory mechanisms can be broadly classified in three categories • consultation • partnership • standing

26. ‘Consultation’ • mechanisms developed and adopted to encourage comment on policy proposals where the community has the capacity to influence • this process includes education, information sharing and negotiation with the aim being better decision making by an organisation • mechanisms might include public meetings, information and advertising campaigns, surveys.

27. ‘Partnership’ • involving citizens in decision making through advisory boards and bodies that have a significant say in a decision making process, though not the final decision.

28. ‘Standing’ • involves the existence or creation of legislation that allows for third party appeals, tribunal or other forms of administrative review that allow for the overturning of Ministerial or bureaucratic decisions by reference to some higher principle.

29. The role of Social Capital in making public participation work • ‘Social Capital Theory’ developed by Putnam (1995), suggest that democracy cannot endure a lack of participation • Putnam describes social capital as a mechanism that enables participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives, a bridge that enhances co-operation to serve broader interests (Putnam 1995, p 664-665).

30. Eva Cox • discussing the concept of social capital in an Australian context, describes it as the processes between people which establish networks, norms and social trust, facilitating cooperation and coordination for mutual benefit, what she also calls social glue or social fabric (Cox 1995, p. 15).

31. What happens when social capital is lost • Cox argue that as people become less involved in the community and withdraw from social networks they lose the capacity to engage in public life • She argues that this leads to a situation in which extreme opinions and an inability to compromise are fostered, where tolerance and inclusiveness are lost, where unrealistic assessments about what community and governments can achieve are developed and a sense that everything is out of control and other people are to blame is reached

32. Distrust in government • Distrust between governments and the governed is another factor underlying the call for greater public participation, • a view that there is a growing scepticism about traditional political practices, suspicion about the motives of government (Conacher & Conacher 2000, p.255). Participation could be seen as an insurance policy taken out by the public in order to hold the government in check

33. Criticisms of public Participation include its: • capacity to be dominated by interest groups; favour middle class, articulate people; • allow economic interests to predominate; • diminish the decision making role of government; and, • encourage the mobilisation of antagonistic forces (see Ronnie Harding “Environmental Decision Making” Federation Press pp. 1998 121-123).

34. A case study from Australia:How would you go about consulting various communities about the implementing of a new national approach to NRM

35. The Natural Heritage Trust • There is a need to enhance monitoring and evaluation arrangements to ensure the effectiveness of programme delivery, and measure changes to resource conditions; and that • An effective approach to NRM entails the application of a wide range of policy and programme responses, including capacity-building initiatives, grants, on-ground works and regulation, and is likely to entail an increased emphasis on the use of market-based instruments in the future. • See http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/future/index.html

36. Break into your supertut groups • Public Participation - come out front to see me • What can governments do to encourage more sustainable business activities? • Landcare Policy • Policy lessons from the Murray Darling Basin • Cultural heritage • Role of indigenous people in EPP • Regional Planning

37. Your task - develop a strategy on how to consult your “community” • How are you going to define your community? • How would you contact them? • What type of resources do you feel you need to do it well (ie how much money and time)? • Where and how? • What existing networks would you use? • Would you need to create new networks?

38. You need to consult with: • Govt’s role in sustainable business - with business with a stake in Australian resource management • Landcare Policy - with those involved in Landcare in Australia • Policy lessons from the Murray Darling Basin - with stakeholders with an interest in the MDB • Cultural heritage - with people interested in cultural heritage issues • Role of indigenous people in EPP - Indigenous Australians • Regional Planning - with regional planning and development organisations/groups