 Model Approaches for Public ParticipationDesmond M. Connor
This paper was prepared for predistribution to the participants at a European Commission Workshop in Brussels, April 20-21, which reviewed the EIA and a public involvement program to site geological repositories for radioactive waste in Eastern Europe. Note - The terms public participation, public involvement and public consultation are used interchangeably. In addition to alternative models of public participation, there are also alternative models of EIA and the waste management planning and decision-making process. For example, the traditional linear sequence: Problem definition -> Goals and objectives -> Solutions -> Evaluation of impacts can become an iterative and interactive approach, working back and forth with these four elements. (1) These alternative EIA models are not discussed here. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse by Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler and Peter Weidemann is a useful resource for this subject, especially because it reflects European and North American experience. The writers outline and evaluate eight models: citizen advisory committees, planning cells, citizen juries, citizen initiatives, regulatory negotiations, mediation, compensation and benefit sharing and Dutch study groups (2). Some other resources might also be useful. (3). "Models" have been defined as "formats for participation that can be implemented in a variety of imaginable problem contexts from those that are unique experiences." (2, p.2) For me, a model also implies that it has a substantial capacity to resolve a public issue as the principal or sole vehicle for public discourse. In some cases, techniques which might not qualify as a model could still be useful as a technique within a comprehensive public involvement program. "Public participation" has been defined as "forums for exchange that are organized for the purpose of facilitating communication between government, citizens, stakeholders, and interest groups, and businesses, regarding a specific decision or problem." (2, p.2) This definition, however, does not include the notion of reaching a conclusion. In 1972, I defined "constructive citizen participation" as "a systematic process which provides an opportunity for citizens, planners, managers and elected representatives to share their experience, knowledge and goals and combine their energy to create a plan which is technically sound, economically attractive, generally understood and accepted by most of those affected by it, and is thus politically viable." (4, p.3) As we consider ways to design a public involvement program, the first question is: Who is the public?
2. Types of Publics There are many types of publics for a radioactive waste management proposal - some are positive, some negative; they vary in their strength. For example: proponents can be thought of as 220 volt positive; potential suppliers of goods and services can be regarded as 110 volt positive; some environmental groups can be seen as 220 volt negative etc. These strong publics are easy to mobilize. However, the latent and secondary beneficiaries of a sound proposal, the citizen-taxpayers, are like 5 volt positives; to inform and activate them will require a systematic, sustained and costly public information and consultation program. However, if a large number of five volt positives can be mobilized, they can counter a relatively small number of 220 volt negatives and thus result in the general acceptance of a technically sound, economically attractive and socially acceptable site. Each of these publics require the use of different strategies and techniques to inform and involve them effectively; each must be identified and understood before suitable programs can be designed. Given these types of publics, how will they discover and come to grips with the issues involved?
3. The Diffusion Process In this case of radioactive waste management, I believe it is important that some 80+% of the population affected become generally aware and informed about the situation and recognize the need for the sound storage and disposal of radioactive waste. This has to occur before any particular geographic area is proposed for a facility. The growing quantity of radioactive materials that are accumulating in temporary storage facilities simply can hardly continue. Adult education - adults tend to resist learning about subjects which, if learned, may require them to change their behaviour. In this case, the fear of contact with radioactive materials leads many people to flee from the topic or resist both learning about it and dealing with issues of storage and disposal. Managing these fears will require thoughtful, consistent and continuing public education.
4. Program Objective More specifically:
5. Some Models for Public Participation
This institutional and professional process attracts the strongly positive and negative publics, especially the latter. When hearings occur at different locations, an interest group can make the same presentation many times to achieve its own goals. The media play up the opposition. The results are volumes of negative testimony and hostile news coverage; any latent support is invisible. There is no outreach to the general public. The politicians are usually unwilling to accept scientific recommendations to proceed with a proposal because of very visible public opposition. This model was excluded from consideration in an international evaluation (2), but it is so entrenched in the institutional and political decision-making process, it will probably be required in any comprehensive public involvement program. This process of meetings with interest group leaders assumes that: (a) all publics will have a representative at the table, (b) the representatives reflect their constituencies, (c) the representatives will carry out continuing two-way communications with their constituencies, and (d) the general public will have confidence in the recommendations arising from this process. Inevitably, at least one of these assumptions is invalid - often all four. Often the table accepts a consensus decision-making standard which gives each participant a veto and can easily result in deadlock or the need to compromise essential elements of the proposal. The skills and fairness of the facilitator are very important to its effectiveness. See 2, pp. 87-115. (Planning Cells and Citizen Juries have some similar features to CACs (2, pp. 117-187).) Again, the CAC could be an element in a comprehensive public involvement program. The Citizen Initiative model (2, pp.189-221) involved a hazardous waste site in a mid-sized German city starting in 1990; an independent mediator, public meetings and a round-table forum were major features of this process. The mediator has a very influential role in the success of this model. Given the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome and the failure of DAD (Decide-Announce-Defend) by authorities, this model has been used to seek waste management sites, often with little success (2, p.283-304). A broad participatory process and a substantial benefits package are important elements in a two-stage program to identify potential sites and develop procedures to encourage a host community to volunteer. Mediation is a voluntary process to explore and reconcile differences with the assistance of a neutral mediator who has no authority (2, pp.253-282). Mediation works best when the conflict is mature, when power is balanced between usually two parties, when they see negotiation as inevitable and when the agreement can be revised later if necessary. The Dutch BMD national program on energy policy, 1981-83, had an initial information phase followed by hearings and debates; some 42,000 people took part in more than 2,000 meetings and completed over 25,000 questionnaires. While its recommendations were rejected by the government of the day, they appear to have become government policy now (2, pp.305-337). There was a national debate on nuclear power in Sweden in the 1970s leading to a national referendum. (2, pp.356-357) This model proposes bringing together a representative sample of the population, perhaps a hundred or more, educating them on a topic and then working with them so they develop a generally acceptable solution. When the solution is presented to the population, it is expected to accept the recommend-ation developed by its representatives. Good theory, but unlikely to work in this situation. (6) This model relies on the informed individual citizen who is provided with information through display newspaper advertisements or mailed brochures plus news coverage by the media and open houses or displays; citizens respond through reply coupons, reply-paid postcards, exit checklists at open houses and responses to information-based telephone surveys. (Respondents are read a brief balanced statement about an issue, indicate their position on it and the reasons why.) Planning workshops enable input by interest group leaders. This model has breadth but little depth of public involvement; the competence and fairness of the program manager is very important to its success. (4 and the Library of my website www.connor.bc.ca/connor) This process matches the strengths of one component to the weaknesses of the other and is thus potentially successful. The table participants have to listen to the views of the informed general public; the general public benefits from the intensive commitment and creative work of the table participants. See my Winnipeg Bridges case study in the Library of my website, address above. This process seeks to predict, evaluate and manage the social impacts of a proposal before it is implemented. It is another version of #8 above but oriented to the EIA process. Two examples in the Library of my website illustrate its application in Costa Rica to a mine proposal and near Vancouver to a pulp mill expansion project. This process may be appropriate in the site specific phase of the program.
Types of Public Participation
How should these models be selected and woven into a systematic and comprehensive public involvement program?
6. Public Involvement Program Public involvement is a systematic way to identify and understand your different publics, provide them with relevant and understandable information, and work with them to resolve their concerns about your proposed project, program or policy. The objective of a public involvement program, in my view, is to develop informed, visible, majority public understanding, acceptance and support for a valid proposal. Without a good information base, citizens cannot arrive at sound and lasting views on an issue. Their views need to be expressed, or others will claim the support of the silent majority. After an effective program, most people should understand the issues and the alternative solutions; while some may disagree with a proposal, others will accept it (perhaps reluctantly), and others will actively support it. A standard planning program has three phases: Introduction, Alternative Generation, Evaluation and Recommendation. In my practice, our first step to prepare a Social Profile describing the community or region involved; this is followed in the Introductory Phase by a Responsive Publication which provides some essential information about the proposal, one or more Open Houses or exhibits where residents can talk to staff about it and a Planning Workshop where leaders of interest groups can review the proposal and the public response so far. In the Alternative Generation Phase, different ways to achieve the proposal are outlined in another Responsive Publication and citizens are invited to make their suggestions. At the Open Houses and Planning Workshop which follow, further suggestions can be made about the proposal. The technically sound alternatives are presented in the final phase using the same three techniques - Responsive Publication, Open Houses and Planning Workshop - so residents can rank them for their acceptability. There are four case studies in the Library of my website (address below) illustrating the application of this methodology. In each program, some supplementary techniques may be added to suit the situation, but the above is the core program. In this situation about the storage and disposal of radioactive waste, I suggest the following for discussion: A. Use a national telephone survey in any country which wishes to address this issue to identify the percentage of citizens who are (1) aware that there is a problem, and (2) accept that some safe, fair and long-term solution is needed for it. Where the response is less than say 80%, undertake a public information and education program across the country. (There may already be some survey data on this subject in some countries.) B. Invite countries interested in hosting a facility, which may have some financial incentives attached to it, to volunteer to participate in the development of an acceptable waste management concept and a site selection plan. This process would include both technical planning and a national public involvement program. C. Develop and implement a regional and local site selection process with an integrated consideration of technical, geological and social factors through a combined technical planning and public involvement program resulting in the identification of a preferred site. D. Develop and implement a participative social impact assessment and management program concerning the preferred site, including its transportation routes. Residents who believe they are affected by the site would have the opportunity to obtain information and provide their responses in a process to identify the probable social impacts, minimize the negative effects, maximize local benefits, compensate for the unavoidable and put in place an ongoing organization and process to monitor and revise operating procedures as needed. As this program is developed, what factors need to be considered?
7. Program Design Considerations
This paper has outlined some types of publics, the diffusion process, a program objective, ten models for public participation and some considerations for program development, our next task. I am glad that this paper is being distributed weeks before the workshop in Brussels; I trust that participants will have time to consider this information and explore some of the references before we meet. Following the workshop, a detailed five-phase public participation program was developed, linked to an EIA chart; this may be available once the workshop report is completed and accepted by the sponsoring EC group. 9. References
I am indebeted to project leaders Dr. Alan Bond of the EIA Unit of the University of Wales and Patrick O'Sullivan of UK Nirex Ltd. for an invitation to the workshop and several helpful suggestions.
|
