Specific Operational Mechanisms and Practices for Public ...

Specific Operational Mechanisms and Practices for Public Participation in Environmental Planning and Assessments Dr. Patrick SCHROEDER China Association for NGO Cooperation October 2013

EU-China Environmental Governance Programme Policy Studies-Study 6 (EU Volume)

This is one of the “Comparative Policy and Practice” Study Series undertaken by EU-China Environmental Governance Programme(EGP). The contents of every EGP “Comparative Policy and Practice” Study on EU (“EU Volume”) or China (“China Volume”) environmental governance approaches and mechanisms covering one of EGP’s four core thematic subjects is principally the output of a research author and cannot be taken to reflect either a European Union or any other official view. This Study #6 covers the EGP core theme “Public Participation”. The EU-China Environmental Governance Programme (EGP) is a €15 million EU-funded programme implemented with China’s Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Environmental Protection. It comprise four themes: 1. Public access to environmental information 2. Public participation in environmental planning and decision making 3. Access to justice in environmental matters 4. Corporate environmental responsibility For more information: www.ecegp.com

EGP Study (EU)”Specific Operational Mechanisms and Practices for Public Participation in Environmental Planning and Assessments” Table of Contents

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..............................................................................................................................................V 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.

INTRODUCTION: ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................... 7

3.

OVERVIEW OF TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION APPLIED IN

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................ 13 4.

INTRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS..................................................................... 16 4.1

MECHANISM 1: CITIZENS’ JURY .......................................................................................................................... 16

4.2

MECHANISM 2: FUTURE W ORKSHOP AND FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCE ............................................................ 17

4.3

MECHANISM 3: SCENARIO ANALYSIS (OR SCENARIO TESTING) ............................................................................. 20

4.4

MECHANISM 4: CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ......................................................................................................... 22

4.5

MECHANISM 5: DELIBERATIVE OPINION POLLS (DOPS) ....................................................................................... 23

5.

PEACEFUL NON-VIOLENT PUBLIC PROTESTS AS MECHANISM FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .............. 26

6.

REPRESENTATIVE CASE STUDIES ON APPLICATION OF PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS ..................... 27

7.

6.1.

CASE STUDY 1: STUTTGART 21, GERMANY ......................................................................................................... 27

6.2.

CASE STUDY 2: EXAMPLES OF CITIZEN AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN KOPŘIVNICE (CZECH REPUBLIC)...... 29

6.3.

CASE STUDY 3 CONSENSUS CONFERENCE-RADIOACTIVE W ASTE MANAGEMENT, UK CEED (21–24 MAY, 1999) . 32

LESSONS-LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADAPTATION OF PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS

IN CHINA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 34 7.1.

SUMMARY AND LESSONS-LEARNED ..................................................................................................................... 34

7.2.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHINA’S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BASED ON INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES ...................... 35

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 37 ANNEX ............................................................................................................................................................................ 39

EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page iv

EGP Study (EU):”Specific Operational Mechanisms and Practices for Public Participation in Environmental Planning and Assessments”

Abbreviations

List of Abbreviations CEED CoRWM DBT DOP DSE FSN IAP2

UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development Committee on Radioactive Waste Management Danish Board of Technology Deliberative Opinion Poll Department of Sustainability and Environment, State Government of Victoria, Australia Future Search Network International Association for Public Participation


Page v


1.

Summary

Executive Summary

This report is a compilation of the most up-to-date international resources on methods and practices for successful public participation in environmental planning and assessments. It includes as Introduction a literature review of “classic” concepts on public participation as discussed in most recent academic publications on the topic. The literature review discusses a number of theoretical principles and practical issues that have emerged in the last few decades in which public participation mechanisms have evolved. Following this more general and theoretical background, in Section 2 the study presents an overview of techniques and methodologies for public participation applied in environmental planning and assessments. The techniques described have evolved over the last two decades and have been successfully applied in a number of different countries. The overview also provides a comparison of participation techniques and their basic key features. In addition, issues like participant selection, facilitation techniques and participant satisfaction are briefly discussed. In the following Section 3, five relevant methods for high level of public participation are discussed in more detail. The focus here is on methods which enable the public to gain some degree of ownership in environmental planning processes. The techniques presented include Citizens’ Jury, Future Workshop and Future Search Conference, Scenario Analysis (or Scenario Testing), Consensus Conference and Deliberative Opinion Polls (DOPs). These mechanisms are considered to be the most relevant and applicable for the Chinese situation. One short Section 4 introduces the role and methods of peaceful public protests as necessary mechanisms of public participation for effective environmental governance. Then, the next Section 5 presents and analyses several recent case studies of both successful and failed public participation from European countries. The first case study is “Stuttgart 21”, a recent case from Germany where public participation was avoided and even suppressed in the early planning stages of a central railway station reconstruction project. After public protests a range of participatory mediation techniques and a people’s memorandum was held to solve the conflict that had emerged. A case from Kopřivnice in the Czech Republic shows that public participation in the best case is an ongoing process which creates a relationship between local authorities and the public built on mutual trust. The third example from the UK, where a Consensus Conference on the issue of radioactive waste management was held, demonstrates that participatory approaches can be extremely useful for identifying insights and possible solutions to guide policy decisions for long-term and very complex environmental challenges. Finally, the study concludes with a summary of the lessons learned and possible relevance for the Chinese context. Five recommendations for enhancement of China’s public participation processes through the application of the methods introduced by this report are provided: First, initiating transfer and adaptation of the methods to the Chinese context. Second, carrying out capacity building for local Chinese planning and environmental authorities. Third, building up a pool of skilled facilitators familiar with the participatory methods. Fourth, implementing out local pilot projects involving communities in environmental planning through the use of the methods. Fifth, carrying out high-level stakeholder processes on national and provincial level on future environmental issues and emerging technologies.


Page 6


Main Report

2. Introduction: On public participation “The message is very simple: participation works, empowering stakeholders, particularly the poor, beyond information sharing and consultation to decision-making gives project ownership. This sense of ownership is vital to the goal of sustainable development” ----James D. Wolfensohn, World Bank President, 26th February, 1996 Projects like mining and resource extraction, power stations, wind parks, electricity transmission lines, highway and infrastructure construction, airports, landfills, hydro dams, industrial facilities, waste incinerators and industrial animal farming are in most cases the causes for significant environmental impacts and social changes for communities. These major interventions into the natural environment often cause resistance of individual citizens, communities as well as citizen committees and environmental groups (Loske, 2013). Public participation in environmental matters, including planning and assessment, is a political issue embedded more than two decades ago in Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), stating: ‘One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision making. Furthermore, in the more specific context of environment and development, the need for new forms of participation has emerged.’ Today, more than 20 years later, the big question about public participation in environmental and development matters is not “If”, but “How”. Participatory approaches to environmental policy making, assessment and planning are therefore enjoying increasing popularity as means of supporting sustainable development on the one hand, and preventing social conflict on the other. In the European context, public participation has been a buzzword for several decades and the advantages are multiple. However, one of the challenges for successful participation is that it means different things to different people. There is no clarity about the definition of public participation and there even exist conflicting opinions about it, which constitutes a certain risk. Table 1 summarises the main advantages and risks of participation.

Table 1: Advantages and risks of participation (based on Luyet et al., 2012)

Advantages of participation

Risks of participation

      

   

More trust in decisions Improving project design using local knowledge Better understanding projects and issues Integration of various interests and opinions Optimizing implementation of plans and projects Public acceptance of the decisions Fostering and developing social learning



Expensive and time consuming processes Potential stakeholder frustration Identification of new conflicts Involvement of stakeholders who are not representative Further empowerment of an already important stakeholder

Although there is no clear definition of public participation, a number of commonly accepted principles and approaches for successful participation have been identified. Principles for successful public participation include (after Luyet et al., 2012, Li et al., 2013):



A fair, equal, and transparent process that promotes equity, learning, trust and respect among


Page 7


      

Main Report

stakeholders and the administration The integration of both local and scientific expert knowledge The establishment of rules of participation in advance An early involvement of stakeholders The integration of all stakeholders Monitoring of process and stakeholder satisfaction The presence of experienced moderators Adequate resources, including time

Reed (2008), based on an extensive literature review of the subject, also identifies eight key features of best practice public participation. 1. Stakeholder participation needs to be underpinned by a philosophy that emphasises empowerment, equity, trust and two-way learning. 2. Where relevant, stakeholder participation should be considered as early as possible and throughout the process. 3. Relevant stakeholders need to be analysed and represented systematically. 4. Clear objectives for the participatory process need to be agreed among stakeholders at the outset. 5. Methods should be selected and tailored to the decision-making context, considering the objectives, type of participants and appropriate level of engagement. 6. Highly skilled facilitation is essential. 7. Local and scientific knowledge should be integrated. 8. Participation needs to be institutionalised. When it comes to different levels or degrees of participation, one of the first major contributions on the topic was developed by Arnstein (1969), who set out a ladder for citizen participation based on 8 steps. For decades, Arnsteins ladder of participation has been a touchstone for policy makers and practitioners promoting public involvement. He structured the degrees of participation into three main groups: Nonparticipation (manipulation and therapy), Tokenism (informing, consultation, placation) and Citizen Power (partnership, delegated power and citizen control).


Page 8


Main Report

Figure 1: Ladder of participation (after Arnstein, 1969)

The ladder of participation is sometimes also presented as ‘the wheel of participation’ (Davidson, 1998) consisting of four main aspects: Inform, consult, participate and empower (see Figure 2). The wheel of participation concept was developed for and with the South Larnarkshire Council to define and encourage levels of citizen participation for community planning and development.

Figure 2: Wheel of participation (after Davidson, 1998)

“We are offering an innovative approach to conceptualising the various dimensions of communication and engagement processes. We argue that a correct approach to public engagement could revitalise the EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 9


Main Report

planning system. To engage local communities effectively in the planning system, new and innovative approaches are required. The Wheel of Participation helps to minimise ambiguity associated with consultation, including reliance on inappropriate techniques and unclear objectives.” (Davidson, 1998) Based on the concepts of ladder or wheel of participation, Luyet et al. (2012) defined five levels or degrees of involvement which are depicted in Figure 3. The lowest level is ‘Information’, followed by ‘Consultation’, ‘Collaboration’, ‘Co-decision’ and ‘Empowerment’, the highest degree of participation in this model. The different degrees show a development from the public being passive recipients of information towards becoming active, empowered stakeholders in the planning processes.

highest

5. EMPOWERMENT Delegation of decision-making over project development and implementation to the stakeholders. 4. CO-DECISION Cooperation with stakeholders towards an agreement for solution and implementation.

Degree of participation

3. COLLABORATION: Presentation of the project to stakeholders, collection of their suggestions, and then decision making, taking into account stakeholders input.

2. CONSULTATION: Presentation of the project to stakeholders, collection of their suggestions, and then decision making with or without taking into account stakeholders input.

lowest

1. INFORMATION: Explanation of the project to the stakeholders.

Figure 3: Five degrees of public participation (after Luyet et al., 2012)

Looking at public engagement through an information flow analysis, Rowe and Freyer (2005) differentiate between three types of public engagement mechanisms: public communication, public consultation, and public participation. In public communication, information is conveyed from the sponsors commissioning the public engagement initiative to the public. The information flow is one-way only and there is no involvement of the public per se in the sense that public feedback is not required or specifically sought. In public consultation, information is conveyed from representatives of the public to the sponsors of the initiative, following a process initiated, designed and coordinated by the sponsor, not by the public itself. In public participation, information is exchanged between members of the public and the sponsors. That is, there is some degree of dialogue in the process that takes place, usually in a group setting (see Figure 4)..


Page 10


Main Report

Figure 4: Three types of public engagement (Rowe and Fryer, 2005)

A large variety of mechanisms for public participation implies some degree of uncertainty as to how one should best enact public involvement in complex environmental planning decisions. According to Rowe and Freyer (2005) “if involvement were a simple, bounded, and well-understood process, then one particular mechanism might suffice to enable it to be effectively achieved (and research would be best directed toward finding this); but involvement as widely understood (and imprecisely defined) can take many forms, in many different situations (contexts), with many different types of participants, requirements, and aims (and so on), for which different mechanisms may be required to maximize effectiveness (howsoever this is defined)”. Research on public participation in the specific context of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) (Glucker et al., 2013) indicates that members of the public might have different expectations on participation in EIA. For Glucker et al. (2013) it is therefore crucial that EIA practitioners, competent authorities and stakeholders decide upon the specific goal(s), forms and mechanisms of public participation early on in the EIA processes. Table 2 provides a comparison of efficacy of early and later stage hearings in EIA/SEA processes (Drohova, 2011). The danger of later stage hearings, when many methodologies and documents are already finalised, is dissatisfaction of the public about the lack of involvement opportunities. It is important to start the participation process prior to the assessment process, thereby disappointment and public dissent can in most cases be avoided.

Table 2: Comparison of efficacy of early and later stage hearings in EIA/SEA processes (Drohova, 2011) Early Stage Hearing Public hearing takes place at an early stage before work begins on the EIA/SEA document (scoping). The methodology of the assessment process can be discussed and changed as necessary. It is not necessary to study EIA/SEA documents (generally debate is sufficient), and only concrete concerns about the possible impact of the plans are relevant. It is possible to continue discussion and change goals EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Later Stage Hearing Public hearing takes place at a later stage when the EIA/SEA document has been finalised and it is presented to the public. The methodology cannot be changed, it can be only criticised. It is necessary to study the SEA documents as the debate may be more technical.

The documents are final, nothing can be changed. Page 11


and priorities. The public participation plan, its timing and the tools to be utilised during the SEA process, can be presented and clarified, changed if necessary, in cooperation with the public.


Main Report

The SEA process is over.

Page 12


3.

Main Report

Overview of techniques and methodologies for public participation applied in environmental planning and assessments

After an introduction to general principles, key features and categories of participation in the previous chapter, this chapter moves towards introduction and description of specific participatory mechanisms and techniques. A number of participation techniques have emerged over the last decades. They have been summarized in publications such as “Participation Works! 21 techniques of community participation for the 21st century” by the New Economics Foundation (1998) with the aim is to promote good practice in the techniques listed and for public participation generally.

Table 3: Some major participatory techniques with their degree of involvement (after Luyet et al., 2012) (the X indicates degree of involvement achieved by specific participation mechanisms)

Participation mechanisms

Information

Consultation

Collaboration

Newsletter Reports Presentations, public hearings Internet webpage Interviews, questionnaires and surveys Field visit and interactions Workshop Participatory mapping Focus group Citizen jury Geospatial/ decision support system Cognitive map Role playing Multicriteria analysis Scenario analysis Future workshop Consensus conference

X X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X X X

Co-decision

Empowerment

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

The different participatory techniques listed above should be regarded as complementing each other and not necessarily replacing each other. Furthermore, this list of participatory techniques or mechanisms should not be viewed simply as a tool-kit from which different tools can be selected for certain purposes. In a similar way, the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) has developed a Public Participation Spectrum to demonstrate the possible types of engagement with stakeholders and communities. The spectrum also shows the increasing level of public impact as participation processes progress from ‘inform’ through to ‘empower’. The spectrum is depicted in Table 4.


Page 13


Main Report

Table 4: Public Participation Spectrum (IAP2 http://www.iap2.org/)

Based on the literature and practical experiences on public participation in environmental planning, it is emphasised that any type of tool-kit should be used “in the context of a long-term relationship where the parties develop mutual trust and respect as they learn from each other to negotiate potential solutions. To be successful, this process needs to be underpinned by an appropriate philosophy, and consider how to engage the relevant stakeholders at the most appropriate time and in a manner that will enable them to fairly and effectively shape environmental decisions” (Reed, 2008). Most of these participatory methodologies are usually open to anyone of the public to take part. Exceptions include approaches which only allow limited number of participants such as Citizens’ Juries, Future Search and Round Tables. In the case of Citizens’ Juries the aim of selection is to ensure representativeness and so legitimacy. In the case of Future Search and Round Tables invitations go to a carefully selected crosssection of the community to maximise the diversity of those attending and to ensure that all the community’s issues are aired (New Economics Foundation, 1998). EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 14


Main Report

According to Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), State Government of Victoria, Australia, when choosing the suitable tool for a specific project or situation, the following questions should be considered: 

Does the tool match your overall program objectives, purpose of engagement and anticipated outcomes? (In particular, refer to the objectives, outcomes and uses for each tool.)



Are you being inclusive of all stakeholders? If not, what do you need to consider in order to be more inclusive?



Can you adapt this tool to better suit your work and community context?



Have you developed an evaluation method for this tool in your plan? Will it capture the tool’s success and effectiveness in engaging the community as well as capturing new ideas and learning for incorporation next time? http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-engagement/developing-an-engagement-plan/a-model-for-engagement

Regardless of which participatory method being applied, Chess and Purcell (1999), based on a comparison of various methods and their outcomes, identified five Rules of Thumb of public participation in environmental matters: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Clarify goals Begin participation early and invest in advance planning Modify traditional participatory forums to meet process or outcome goals. Implement a public participation programme with various forms of public participation. Collect feedback on public participation efforts

Particularly the points about goals of participation deserve attention. Process goals are helpful in measuring the effectiveness oft he process, instead of defining public participation success by the outcomes. ’According to this perspective, the characteristics of the means, rather than the results, used in public participation programs define success. Such studies explore issues such as fairness, information exchange, group process, and procedures’ (Chess and Purcell, 1999). The categorization and identification of stakeholders is also important and various methodologies are available. In addition to determining who should participate, stakeholders need to know how and when their participation is possible and required. Measuring stakeholder satisfaction during the participation process by collecting feedback before, during and after the processes is advised. Finally, a general requirement for successful participation processes is facilitation. Facilitators need to be skilled and familiar with the participatory techniques applied. Furthermore, they need to provide neutral and competent facilitation, and they need to be accepted as impartial by all stakeholders to the outcome of the processes.


Page 15


Main Report

4. Introduction of specific participatory mechanisms In the following section five mechanisms or methods for public participation are described in some detail: Citizens’ Jury, Future Workshop/Future Search, Scenario Analysis, Consensus Conference and Deliberative Public Polling.

4.1

Mechanism 1: Citizens’ Jury

Citizen juries involve the wider community in the decision-making process. The objective is to draw members of the community into participative processes where the community is distanced from the decision-making process or a process is not seen as being democratic. Participants are engaged as citizens with no formal alignments or allegiances rather than experts. Citizens’ juries were first conceived in the US in the 1970s and further developed during the 1980s in Germany. Subsequently, they have been used in many countries including Brazil, UK, Spain, India, New Zealand, Canada and Australia. Citizens’ juries generally use a representative sample of citizens (usually selected in a random or stratified manner). As it is applied in the UK since 1996, a Citizens’ Jury is typically made up of 16 people, selected as far as possible to be representative of the community, with a balance of men and women and an appropriate mix of ethnicity, employed / unemployed, etc. As important principle, there is no self-selection possible among participants (New Economics Foundation, 1998). The selected citizens who are briefed in detail on the background and current thinking relating to a particular issue, and asked to discuss possible approaches, sometimes in a televised group. Citizens’ juries are intended to complement other forms of consultation rather than replace them. Citizens are asked to become jurors and make a judgement in the form of a report, as they would in legal juries. The issue they are asked to consider will be one that has an effect across the community and where a representative and democratic decision-making process is required. Citizens’ juries can be used to broker a conflict, or to provide a transparent and non-aligned viewpoint. Citizen jurors bring with them an intrinsic worth in the good sense and wisdom born of their own knowledge and personal experience. Citizen juries provide the opportunity to add to that knowledge and to exchange ideas with their fellow citizens. The result is a collective one, in which each juror has a valuable contribution to make. Based on the UK experience (New Economics Foundation, 1998), Citizens’ juries work well when: 1.

The need is for consensus building and for problem solving;

2.

There are clearly defined options;

3.

The jury is independent and has time for scrutiny and deliberation;

4.

The sponsoring body has an open mind and is committed both to publishing the jury’s report within a set time and to either following the recommendations or explaining publicly why they are not doing so.


Page 16


Main Report

Table 5: Uses/strengths and considerations/weaknesses of the Citizens’ Jury method (DSE, 20131) Uses/strengths 

Can be used to draw members of the community

Special considerations/potential weaknesses 

into participative processes where the community is distanced from the decision-making process or 

community in consideration. 

planning the timing, as it takes up to four days to run

Strives to improve representation in participative

the jury. 

community in the jury.



Setting up involves selecting jurors and experts and

a process is not seen as being democratic.

processes by engaging a cross section of the 

Jury members need to be representative of the

Can be used to moderate divergence and provide

Moderators may be required, and would need to be hired.



Everyone involved needs to be clear about the results

a transparent process for decision making.

and how they will be used. Ahead of the event, time

Provides a transparent participatory process

needs to be allowed to engage jury, hire facilitator,

which can be seen to be independent and

put together briefing or background papers and

credible.

contact ‘experts’.



Provides a public democracy mechanism.



Provides citizens with an opportunity to develop a deep understanding of the issue.



Involves ordinary citizens.



Pinpoints fatal flaws or gauges public reaction



Allow up to four days for the jury to consider its ‘verdict’.



The commissioning body must follow recommendations or explain why not.

and opinion

4.2

Mechanism 2: Future Workshop and Future Search Conference

The Future Workshop was originally developed in the 1970s for citizen groups with limited resources who wanted a say in the decision making process. It is a technique meant to shed light on a common problematic situation, to generate visions about the future, and to discuss how these visions can be realised. The founder Robert Jungk (Jungk and Müllert, 1989) wanted to enable the development of social involvement and participation that should lead to conflict resolutions. After more than three decades, the sociopolitical basic understanding on which the principles of the future workshop are based has changed. The emancipatory approach to make use of the knowledge of experts and the public in creative working forms and by using moderation techniques is by no means out-of-date. Furthermore, future workshops are also a working method of self-controlled learning. Visualisation and a change of methods – which are the core elements of a future workshop – are the instruments of modern seminars. The creative techniques are still ‘booming‘ in moderation and education processes (Apel, 2004). The methodological steps (phases) of the method are explained below, together with a discussion of the strengths and weakness of the approach. 1

More detailed information about citizen jury: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-engagement/toolkit/tool-citizen-juries EU-China Environmental Governance Programme Page 17


Main Report

The four phases of Future Workshops are: 1. Preparation Phase: the method, its rules and the scheduled course of the workshop (in accordance with the participants) is introduced. 2. Critique phase: The problem is investigated critically and thoroughly. First of all, a visualised brainstorming is performed and a general and critical question concerning the problem is framed. 3. Fantasy Phase: All participants try to work out an utopia, to draw an exaggerated picture of future possibilities. 4. Implementation phase the ideas found are checked and evaluated in regard to their practicability The Future Search method is similar to the Future Workshop. It is a planning meeting that helps people from different social and economic backgrounds transform their capability for action very quickly. “The meeting is task-focused. It brings together 60 to 80 people in one room or hundreds in parallel rooms. They meet for 16 hours spread across three days. People tell stories about their past, present and desired future. Through dialogue they discover their common ground. Only then do they make concrete action plans. The meeting design comes from theories and principles tested in many cultures for the past 50 years. It relies on mutual learning among stakeholders as a catalyst for voluntary action and follow-up. People devise new forms of cooperation that continue for months or years (FSN, www.futuresearch.net)”. Eight principles underlie a successful Future Search (FSN, www.futuresearch.net): 1. Get the "whole system" in the room. Invite a significant cross-section of all parties with a stake in the outcome. 2. Explore the "whole elephant" before seeking to fix any part. Get everyone talking about the same world. Think globally, act locally. 3. Put common ground and future focus front and center while treating problems and conflicts as information, not action items. 4. Encourage self-management and responsibility for action by participants before, during, and after the future search. 5. Urge full attendance - Keep part-time participants to a minimum. 6. Meet under healthy conditions - This means airy rooms with windows, healthy snacks and meals, adequate breaks. 7. Work across three days (sleep twice) - People need "soak time" to take in everything that happens. 8. Ask for voluntary public commitments to specific next steps before people leave. A Future Search is worth considering when certain conditions can be fulfilled: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

There are influential people within the sponsoring body (e.g. a local authority) who are prepared to strongly support the idea of conduction a Future Search; There is (or there can be) a steering group of local people representing all parts of the community; There is plenty of time to prepare for the event - especially to recruit people; There are people with time to do the recruiting; There is a venue available with natural light, plenty of wall space and good acoustics

A Future Search conference is a way for a community or organisation to create a shared vision for its future. EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 18


Main Report

It enrols a large group of stakeholders, selected because they have power or information on the topic at hand or are affected by the outcomes. Ideally there are 64 people, who form eight tables of eight stakeholder groups. They take part in a highly structured process covering five stages, recommended duration is two and a half-days, depicted in Table 6:

Table 6: Stages and activities of the Future Search method (New Economics Foundation, 1998)

Stage 1. Review the past 2. Explore the present

3. Create ideal future scenarios

4. Identify shared vision

5. Make action plans

Activities Each participant writes key events in the history of themselves, the community and the world onto three parallel time lines. An enormous mind map is made of trends affecting the local community; · Stakeholder groups identify important trends and what they are and would like to be doing about them; · Groups share what they are proud of and sorry about in their community. Mixed small groups develop visions; · Barriers to the visions are identified; · Each group acts out its vision to everyone else. First the small groups, then the whole group, work out: what the shared vision is; what potential projects would achieve it; and any unresolved differences. · Self-selected action groups plan projects and publicly commit to their action.

Resources needed for a Future Search include the following (New Economics Foundation, 1998): People: At least one facilitator is needed at the event, and a committed partnership group to plan and invite people beforehand. Venue: A room large enough to hold 64 people in tables of eight, with room for presentations and plenty of wall space for displays. Budget: The budgets for future searches held in British communities ranged from £2,500 to £40,000. Most were in the £5-10,000 range. Examples of where Future Search in environmental issues was applied include: Khabarovsk Region, Eastern Siberia A future search titled "Development of Eco-Tourism in Khabarovsk Region" was sponsored by Green House, an NGO working on "Project Socialpartnership - A Step to the XXI Century" and funded by the Eurasia Foundation. Stakeholders included environmental NGOs, education, region administration, tourist business, mass media, youth and national parks. They achieved common ground and a shift from very depressive mood to optimistic and resourceful approach. Catalonia, Spain: A future search for the future of Waste Management in Catalonia, Spain in 2010. Organised by ACITRE (Catalan Association of Special Waste Treatment Plants) and with the support of the Waste Management Division of the Environmental Department of the Catalan Regional Government. Stakeholders included local administrations, associations of councils, ecological groups, the media, business confederations, unions, universities, industry, citizens, and students. EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 19


4.3

Main Report

Mechanism 3: Scenario Analysis (or Scenario Testing)

Scenario analysis (also called scenario testing) is a procedure based on the development of scenarios, a comparison of scenario results, and an evaluation of their consequences. Scenarios are a way of developing alternative futures based on different combinations of assumptions, facts and trends, and area where more understanding is needed for a particular scenario project. The goal of scenario analysis is to anticipate future developments of society, and to evaluate strategies for responding to these developments. A key idea is to explore alternative future developments. Scenario analysis and testing is useful to: 1. Identify general, broad, driving forces, which are applicable to all scenarios; 2. Identify a variety of PLAUSIBLE trends within each issue or trend (trends that vary depending on your assumptions so you get positive and negative perspectives); 3. Combine the trends so you get a series of scenarios (for example, mostly positive trends identified in relation to an issue would give a positive scenario). Scenario analysis is best used for long-term uncertain situations, with scarcity of data and large number of non-quantifiable factors. It can also be used for localized environmental planning that goes beyond looking just at one single industrial installations to consider mid to long-term community development and sustainable business models.

Table 7: Uses/strengths and special considerations/weaknesses of Scenario Testing (DSE, 2013)

Uses/strengths:

Special considerations/weaknesses:



Avoids having to model complex situations.





Allows to alter combinations and play ‘what if’ games

scenario to include (if the questions are

(e.g. change the assumption and see what happens).

controversial).



Provides understanding of events and possible combinations.



Agreement may not be reached on what is the ‘right’

Scenarios must be recognised as possibilities only, not firm predictions.

A specific form of scenario testing is the method of backcasting which originates from the 1970s and was originally developed as an alternative for traditional forecasting and planning. The original focus was on policy analysis for energy planning and later on exploring sustainable futures and solutions. Stakeholder participation and achieving implementation became an important element in the last decade, particularly for environmental planning and assessment issues. Stakeholder participation in backcasting provides one preferred option by the public from a number of future possibilities, and a series of ways that the desired endpoint can be achieved. According to Quist and Vergragt (2008), “backcasting is a promising, strategic and innovative participatory foresighting approach for sustainability based on stakeholder involvement, construction of normative sustainable futures, stakeholder learning and combining participatory, design and analytical activities. The essence consists of generating desirable sustainable future visions and turning these, through backcasting analysis, design activities and analysis, into follow-up agendas, planning for actions and realising follow-up EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 20


Main Report

activities”. The following four steps show the general method applied in backcasting scenarios (DSE Toolkit2): 1. Define future goals and objectives, projecting 25-50 years into the future. 2. Specify the scenario by analysing the technological and physical characteristics of a path that would lead towards the specified goals. 3. Evaluate the scenario in terms of physical, technological and socio-economic feasibility and policy implications. 4. Brainstorm ways this desired end-point can be achieved, working backwards to the present.

Figure 5: Steps of scenario method using a backcasting approach (Quist and Vergragt, 2008)

Generally, as outcomes scenario analysis processes would deliver three scenarios: a positive (or optimistic), negative (or pessimistic), and neutral (or middle of the road) scenario. These allow a realistic assessment of future possibilities which does not assume either the best or worst outcomes. The scenarios could also include an unlikely event but one that would have a large impact on environment and society were it to occur. This could be an accident in the industrial facility to be constructed which would result in the release of harmful emissions into the environment. Uses/strengths:






Backcasts are not intended to reveal what the future

No estimate of likelihood is possible.

2

DSE Toolkit backcasting: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-engagement/toolkit/tool-backcasting EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 21


will likely be, but to indicate the relative feasibility and 



Main Report

Does not seek to discover the underlying structural

implications of different policy goals.

features of the world that would cause the future to

Suggests the implications of likely futures, chosen not

come about.

on the basis of their likelihood but on the basis of other criteria defined externally to the analysis (e.g. criteria of social or environmental desirability). 

Determines the freedom of action, in a policy sense, with respect to possible futures.

4.4

Mechanism 4: Consensus Conference

The mechanism of consensus conference has been developed in Denmark by the Danish Board of Technology in the late 1980s. A consensus conference is a public meeting which allows ordinary citizens to be involved in assessing an issue or proposal. Traditionally, this has been used in the assessment of emerging technologies and their impacts; therefore, it is very relevant for the area of environmental planning and assessment. The conference is conducted in form of a dialogue between experts and citizens. It is open to the public and the media. Developed in Denmark, there it is usually attended by members of the Danish Parliament. The Danish Board of Technology (DBT)3 has applied the consensus conference method for a range of topics relating to the environment and health including genetically modified food, valuing the environment, the future of fishing and consumption and future environment. A basic principle for the work of the DBT is that the technology assessment should include the wisdom and experience of ordinary individuals/lay people, integrate the knowledge and tools of experts and respect political processes (Zurita, 2006). In the US, the consensus conference method was first used in 1997 in Boston to stimulate broad and intelligent social debate on technology issues, in this case the Internet (Sclove, 2000). According to the description of the DSE (2013) 4, “The citizen panel plays the leading role, formulating questions to be taken up at the conference, and participating in the selection of experts to answer them. The panel has two weekends for this preparation. The expert panel is selected in a way that ensures that essential opposing views and professional conflicts can emerge and be discussed at the conference. An advisory/planning committee has the overall responsibility of making sure that all rules of a democratic, fair and transparent process have been followed. Consensus conferences have mostly been used where the topic being investigated concerns management, science or technology. They require a strict adherence to the rules of implementation to be successful. Where members of the community feel their views go unheard, the consensus conference offers an exciting participatory technique for democratic participation.” The following procedures are generally considered to be essential elements in a consensus conference5: 1. The panelists are everyday folks (between 10 to 30 members of the public) who do not have a direct stake in the issue being reviewed. 3

http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=468&toppic=kategori12&language=uk

4

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-engagement/toolkit/tool-consensus-conference

5

http://www.loka.org/TrackingConsensus.html EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 22


Main Report

2. The process for studying the issue at hand is informed, deliberative, and participatory (in stark contrast to most policy discussions for public audiences). It includes a preparatory meeting to inform about the topic and a three-day conference of experts and laymen and women. 3. After deliberating together, the panelists write a report on the points of consensus among them. 4. The report is made publicly available and announced in a press conference, preferably held in a public legislative building to emphasize that elected officials should take special interest in the considered views of their citizen-peers.6 Costs for conducting consensus conferences can be in the range of $30,000 to $60,000 for local events, and from $100,000 to $200,000 for national level events (Sclove, 2000). While the cost seems high, compared to the investment for technology research and development or large infrastructure projects, these costs are rather small. In Denmark, consensus conferences have been held now for more than 20 years, and have received due political and social recognition. “The conferences are closely followed by the media, there is always a great attendance of public, and a lively public discussion about the issue and the recommendations of the panel afterwards. On several occasions the consensus conferences have caused political debate and have brought about new regulations. For example, the recommendations from the lay panel about radiated food were translated in a law that prohibited the radiation of food in Denmark” (Zurita, 2006). The Consensus conferences tool can contribute to policy processes in several ways, including environmental policy. Depending on the phase of the policy process in which the consensus conference is deployed, the tool can be helpful in recognizing problems in design of planned policy measures, identifying conflicting assumptions, exploring possible solutions, analyzing different policy proposals that are available, selecting and evaluating policy options and bringing poorly performing policy options to light, drawing on both citizens and experts inputs. Examples of how the method of consensus conference has been applied include the UK Consensus conference on Radioactive Waste Management, organized by the UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (CEED) from 21–24 May, 1999. The conference was sponsored partly with public money, partly by NIREX, a private company handling radioactive waste. The advisory committee was composed of scientists and politicians. A detailed description is provided in section 5.2. During the fall of 2001 from October 22–25, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) and the Agricultural University of Norway arranged a consensus conference on the protection of the environment against ionising radiation. The motive for the conference was the need to study the ethical and philosophical basis for protection of nature in its own right. The conference was funded by Nordic Nuclear Safety Research (NKS), in cooperation with the International Union of Radioecology (IUR). The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT) was hired as facilitators for the consensus process (see Kaiser and Forsberg, 2002)

4.5

Mechanism 5: Deliberative Opinion Polls (DOPs)

6

A detailed description of the typical process in Denmark is provided in Annex 3 of this report. EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 23


Main Report

The method of deliberate opinion polls (DOPs) has been used worldwide, especially in the USA. It was first proposed by James S. Fishkin in 1991 (Fishkin, 1991). The results of over 20 years experience in deliberative public polling show that ordinary people can deliberate and that the community benefits from doing so. The processes of deliberative public polling do neither bias nor polarize their opinions (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005). The characteristics of a DOP include a baseline poll on targeted issues where members of the sample are invited to gather for a few days to discuss the issues (including the public and experts). After the deliberations, the sample is again asked with the original questions. The number of participants ranges from 200 to 600 to be representative sample of society. The overall duration normally is several weeks. DOP is especially suitable for issues where the public may have little knowledge or information, or where the public may have failed to confront the trade-offs applying to public policy. It is a social science experiment and a form of public education in the broadest sense. To carry out a DOP the following main steps and principles have to be followed (DSE, 2013): 1. Determine a random sample of the population, so that participants are representative of the wider 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

groups in the community. Conduct baseline survey of opinion. Contact experts and politicians who may be required to inform the participants on specific aspects of the issue. Brief participants and dispatch written information. Give participants two-four days to compose questions and engage policymakers and experts in plenary discussions. Record views on a particular issue before the poll begins and again at the completion of the poll. Changes in opinion are measured and incorporated into a report. DOPs are often conducted in conjunction with television/media companies.

Uses/strengths:






The DOP uses a random sample of the population so that the results can be extrapolated to the community as a whole. The DOP advises decision makers and the

250 and 600), therefore set-up costs are high.



media what the public would think if they had enough time to consider the issue properly.

DOPs involve a large number of participants (between

Informing the participants normally requires access to experts in a number of fields of knowledge.



Speakers need to be organised.



With so many participants’ opinions, managing data is a significant undertaking.



Organising and running the event can be time consuming.



Organisers need to allow time to select participants, undertake an initial opinion poll, allow two to four days for the deliberation process, and then allow time for


Page 24


Main Report

another poll, and formulating the report.

Some DOP experiments have been carried out in China since the mid-2000s. The DOPs carried out in China seem to have created an environment in which inequalities in the broader society do not distort the deliberative process. The concern that the more privileged members of society would dominate the processes did not prove as opinions moved away from their views during the processes. In 2008, The Deliberative Polling® project in Zeguo township, Wenling City, allowed a scientific sample of ordinary citizens of China to deliberate about which infrastructure projects would be funded in the coming year.7

7

For more information see The Center for Deliberative Democracy: http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/china/ EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 25


Main Report

5. Peaceful non-violent public protests as mechanism for public participation As has already been remarked above, lack of authentic and empowering public participation opportunities in the decision-making processes often alienates the public and leads to public disengagement from available municipal processes and frustration by the public that can result in public protests. Most public protests are not violent. In a healthy society, there must be a balance between bona fide security and the space for non-violent public protest. Different stakeholders have roles and responsibilities in finding the balance between security and non-violent dissent. Non-violent protest is any protest action that does not involve violence to any person or property. It is conducted openly and in a disciplined way. It includes any form of public assembly and street march. Nonviolent environmental protests can support environmental governance by drawing public and media attention to a particular issue, thus putting political pressure on government or companies to deal with the issue. Non-violent protests in environmental matters have been important element in environmental governance in many countries. For instance, the environmental protest movements in Germany over the last three decades has been driving force for many changes in environmental policy and forced many companies to adhere to environmental regulations. Furthermore, for environmental groups peaceful public protest can be an effective campaigning tool (Friends of the Earth, 2006). Peaceful protests, demonstrations, rallies and marches held in public places can be ways to raise publicity, public awareness or show support for an environmental issue. There are different types of demonstrations, including a variety of elements. The main approaches used by environmental organisations include:    

Marches, in which a parade demonstrates while moving along a set route. Rallies, in which people gather to listen to speakers or musicians. Picketing, in which people surround an area (normally an employer or company buildings). Sit-ins, in which demonstrators occupy an area, sometimes for a stated period but sometimes indefinitely, until they feel their issue has been addressed, or they are otherwise convinced or forced to leave.

From the experience of environmental governance in Europe, it has proven necessary for environmental groups to be able to use these forms of public protest. Only then they can act as watchdogs to support implementation of environmental policies and compliance to environmental regulations by the private sector. Without these forms of peaceful public protest, European environmental policy would not have advanced as fast as it did since the 1970s. Furthermore, the right to peaceful protest is essential to democratic governance.


Page 26


Main Report

6. Representative case studies on application of participatory mechanisms

6.1. Case study 1: Stuttgart 21, Germany The case of “Stuttgart 21” is of strong significance for future environmental and energy planning in Germany. It is not a successful case of public participation, but rather a lesson learned of what should be done differently in large-scale infrastructure planning. The case of Stuttgart 21 is a recent case from Germany of where public participation was not properly managed and led to prolonged process. It resulted in severe delays of the implementation of the planned project and increasing dissatisfaction of the population with their local government. The main events of “Stuttgart 21” occurred in the time from 2006 until end of 2011. Plans were approved in October 2007 to convert the existing above-ground main train station to an underground throughfare station a spart oft he Trans-European Networks plan. Construction works began officially on 2 February 2010, but were disrupted by large-scale public protests and violent clashes between protesters and police. After the violent clashes between police and demonstrators, on 30 September 2010 Dr. Heiner Geißler, former German Minster for Youth, Family and Health, took up his role mediator in the Stuttgart 21 process. From 22 October until 30 November 2010 a participatory democratic experiment was conducted. The process resulted in a compromise proposal which was evaluated through a “Stress test” by an independent Swiss consulting firm. The presentation of the report on 29 July 2011, which approved the project proposal, was still not accepted by many of the opponents of the project. Finally, a direct democratic decision was held on 27 November 2011 concerning the financial contribution of the provincial government for the project. A majority of 58,9 percent of valid votes confirmed that the provincial government should provide funding for implementation of the project, a decision that confirmed that the project would finally be implemented. Despite the people’s referendum, at the time of writing, some opponent groups of the project are still not convinced, continue to voice their opposition and call for cancellation of the project. However, the majority of the public has accepted the referendum and construction is going ahead, albeit with significantly higher costs than originally estimated. A positive outcome of Stuttgart 21 is that civil participation and civil engagement have experienced a renaissance in recent years. According to the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies Potsdam, “Citizens want to be increasingly involved in political decision-making processes. Protests – such as the protest concerning the railway project “Stuttgart 21” – are also an expression of a fundamental change in the understanding of democracy. When it comes to greater participation of citizens, the role of knowledge is of crucial importance: beyond the traditional expertise, important factual knowledge, experience and insights from different perspectives can be incorporated into the political decision-making” (IASS, 2013). The case of Stuttgart 21 shows ‘fact checking’ as an important element for future environmental planning processes. Current practices in Germany do not provide sufficient legitimacy for large-scale projects, therefore, the planning processes in future needs to be more dialog-based and open ended. The protests were mainly directed against the high costs of the project, unequal distribution of the project’s benefits and democratic deficits with regard to the planning process and the way the opponents of the project were treated by the politicians. Violent clashes between protesters and police in which the EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 27


Main Report

controversial use of water cannons occurred in September 2010. The protests also attracted many people who do not usually join demonstrations (Baumgarten, 2012). Surveys among protesters showed that the main concern of most people was not so much the environmental impact of the project, but the way the process was (mis)managed (see Figure 6). The public and media were also concerned about real estate speculations and rights for the purchase of new properties, which were to be developed on the original railway tracks.

Protest survey: "Which event was the cause for your opposition to the Stuttgart 21 project?" (numbers indicate percentage of replies)

31

16 14

5 3

3

13

4 0

Figure 6: Stuttgart 21 protest survey (after Brunold, 2012)

According to Friesecke (2011), “the protest movements against the rail station-project Stuttgart 21 as well as other federal, state and local planning propositions (e.g. airport development, road building projects, EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 28


Main Report

biogas plants) have shown, that citizens often feel inadequately embedded into political decision making. Furthermore, in the setting of the financial and economic crisis, citizens have developed a deep distrust for large-scale projects, but also against companies and politics in general. They are more and more disencouraged to rely on the so-called expert knowledge of external experts. They want to understand what is supposed to change and demand more transparency and co-determination with planning measures.” In Stuttgart, most of the wrong planning decisions were finally avoided – through the delayed public participation processes and skillful mediation. Moreover, as a result of Stuttgart 21 most commentators deem it necessary to modernise public participation mechanisms in Germany’s environmental planning, which currently are considered to be relatively top-down and backwards compared to other EU countries. This adjustment can be achieved through optimising formal participation processes, strengthening informal participation processes and improving direct democratic decision making processes. Furthermore, the application of participatory methods like Future Searches or Scenario Testing are considered necessary to avoid repetition of similar events in the future (Brunold, 2012).

6.2. Case study 2: Examples of Citizen and Stakeholder Participation in Kopřivnice (Czech Republic)8 Kopřivnice city in the Czech Republic is listed as good practice example for “Active Engagement of the Public in the Planning and Decision-making Area” in the implementation of Agenda 21 by the Healthy Cities of the Czech Republic website9. According to the website, the results of the public participation processes are as follows: The final output of the process of public engagement in the area of planning are realised in accordance with ‘wishes’ of inhabitants. Projects and events that Kopřivnice's inhabitants had been at least familiarised with (in case they cannot take part directly in planning processes), in the best case they are familarised with a version containing input from both professionals and the public, have been discussed and then realised jointly with the public. The output of planning processes in a broader sense of the word is the level of satisfaction of the inhabitants.” More specifically, Kopřivnice is implementing sustainability initiatives in cooperation with stakeholders and/or the public in several areas. The following three examples are particularly relevant: 1. 2.

3.

8

Updating Kopřivnice’s municipal waste management plan. Realisation of the project Živá Kopřivnice [Live Kopřivnice], financed by a revolving fund of the Ministry of the Environment. This project had 11 sub-activities, for example: (i) establishment of waste separation using a barcode system, (ii) provision of new waste containers for separated waste, (iii) support of activities in the framework of the international campaign Den Země [Earth Day], and (iv) a one-year academy course about the environment and sustainable development for seniors. Joining a number of international as well as Czech cities, which judge their sustainability with special indicators, called ecological footprints.

This case study is based on a written Interview of TINA BÄR with IVANA RAŠKOVÁ, Town of Kopřivnicetaken, published

in: Heinrich Boell Stiftung (2011) Participation in Urban Climate Protection Answers of European Municipalities. Heinrich Boell Stiftung Brandenburg, Potsdam. http://www.boell-brandenburg.de/pics/images/puc_english.pdf 9

http://www.dobrapraxe.cz/en/koprivnice-aktivni-zapojovani-verejnosti-do-oblasti-planovani-a-rozhodovani-kriterium-c-2 EU-China Environmental Governance Programme Page 29


Main Report

Methods used for participation: The public authorities of Kopřivnice combine several methods of public involvement according to the respective topic, target group, and other aspects. Frequently used practices include the organization of public discussions, round tables, and involving partners in working groups or committees. Frequently used are also awareness campaigns and interactive exhibitions in the town centre. Valuable sources of information are public opinion surveys and questionnaires. An example of wide public involvement is the public hearings, whose output affects all residents of Kopřivnice (for example in the case of updates of concepts or plans). If it is possible and desirable, the representatives of three stakeholder groups – the general public, the non-profit sector and local businesses are involved. Informing and involving the public: The process of integrating the public in the decision process of the town is initiated by the municipal government itself, the town employees who prepare the projects, and in some cases the citizens themselves. In collaboration with PZM [Project Healthy Town] and MA21 [Local Agenda 21], the best methods for involving the public are chosen. After prior promotion of the event, a planned meeting is held at a publicly announced time and date. This meeting is usually organised by the coordinator so that the impartiality of the mediator, between the public and the municipal experts who present the plans and intentions of the town, is guaranteed. Participation of the public includes representatives of non-profit organisations, clubs, or associations, as well as business representatives or ‘ordinary’ citizens, and age is not limited either. When addressing the general public, local government commonly uses the following options: hanging posters (in town, at organisations, and in the local villages), broadcasting on Kopřivnice Cable TV, publishing articles or invitations in Kopřivnice’s newspaper and on the web pages of the town and of Project Healthy Town, radio broadcasting, exhibitions before events, and press releases. If a specific target group needs to be addressed, the following options are used: Leaflets A6 (in the post-boxes of the residents of a specific area, in the children’s lockers in kindergartens to reach families with children, handed out to passers-by in the town centre), broadcasting TV discussions about the specific subject a couple of days before, with an invitation to the event (usually between a representative of the town government and a specialist from the municipality), written invitations to specific organisations as well as telephone and mail invitations, and more. All the measures are always adjusted to the character of the topic under discussion. Avoiding misunderstanding and deepening relationships: In the process of including the public, the local government tries to actively prevent the possibility of misunderstandings between the residents of the town and the town management. The municipal government prefers to discuss their intentions with the people rather than having to deal with petitions and complaints later. The people obtain a stronger relationship with the town they live in, because they themselves can co-decide what happens in their town. Through these participatory meetings relations with residents deepen and greater trust between the management of the town and the residents is established. Simply speaking, the atmosphere in Kopřivnice has been improved this way. Evidence of how successful these processes are is provided by the results of sociological research on the satisfaction of residents with their local community (carried out in 2005, 2008, and 2010 by an external company). The results of these studies can be seen on Kopřivnice’s web page. Logistical issues for participation: There are two aspects, finance and time/personnel, which have to be considered beforehand to guarantee that the involvement of the public and stakeholders in the decision process is done systematically and well organised, and not just as a formality. Both issues can be solved without the need of additional costs. EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 30


Main Report

1. Finances – for renting venues for the meetings with the residents (sometimes rooms for as much as 100 participants are needed), organising refreshments and materials, and paying the involved staff. 2. Time/personnel – depending on the type of the event, a couple of people are needed for preparation, realisation, and then evaluation of the event; tasks that are not included in their regular job description. Also needed is at least one external facilitator, the venue (sound and technological equipment) has to be prepared, and comments and entries have to be passed on. Personnel issues to facilitate participation: To meet the national criteria of MA 21 [Local Agenda 21], a coordinator position for PZM [Project Healthy Town] was established in 2004, whose main task is to initiate and support the local, regional, and national cooperation and to integrate the public in the decision process. Since the beginning of 2009, the coordinator position is placed under the Department of City Development, in the Division of Strategic Planning. Another similar contact place for the public is the Department of Education and External Relations, which is responsible for the town’s external communications. The coordinator of PZM and MA 21 thus closely cooperates with the spokesperson of the town, who is also responsible for Kopřivnice’s public relations. In relation to providing feedback from the public, the spokesperson is for example in charge of issuing press articles, participating in TV discussions and discussion forums, and providing information on the web pages of the town. Managing expectations: One risk can be to ask too much of the public. With the possibility of accessing external resources from the EU, new opportunities opened up for cities to obtain the necessary finances. Many cities, and Kopřivnice was no exception, expanded their activities of requesting grants and, at the same time, the need to include the public in the planning of events increased. Over the next two years it was then necessary to carefully consider how often, with what intentions, and in what form to communicate with the public, so that they would not become overwhelmed. There was a risk that the residents would lose interest if it ceased to be attractive. Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction: At each meeting, among other documents, evaluation questionnaires are distributed, which are designed to collect ideas on how to improve the public meetings. Filling out these questionnaires is entirely voluntary, which is also reflected in the response rate of approximately 22 per cent. The questions in the questionnaire are focused on time, date and place of the meeting. The public is also asked whether the presented information has been clear enough, etc. At the end of the questionnaire there is a space where the respondents can state what they were satisfied and not satisfied with at the meeting. Finally, the respondents are asked to evaluate the event on a scale from one to five (one being the worst, five the best). The questionnaire evaluations are always included in the record of the event, which is then posted on the web pages of PZM and MA 21. Impact of participation: Citizens and stakeholders have had opportunities to contribute to the outcome of the various processes relating to waste management, health and sustainable urban development. In the case of preparing plans and concepts, the public has been a partner during the whole process – in the meetings citizens help to suggest specific measures, activities, and tasks, which are then, if relevant, included in the plans. In the case of investment projects, they are consulted at least for the final form of the projects. Sometimes the residents themselves have even co-decide what the final solution will be.


Page 31


6.3.

Main Report

Case study 3 Consensus Conference-Radioactive Waste Management, UK CEED (21–24 May, 1999)

The UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (CEED) organized a consensus conference on Radioactive Waste Management in 1999. The conference was sponsored partly with public money, partly by NIREX, a private company handling radioactive waste. The advisory committee was composed of scientists and politicians. The Consensus Conference was to focus on the effective and publicly acceptable long-term management of nuclear waste in the UK, considering both civil and military and concentrating particularly on intermediate and high level waste. The Citizens' Panel in their capacity as members of the public, taking into account what they see as the relevant issues. Twenty-two experts selected by the citizens' panel gave 5-minute presentations before debating the issues with the panel. The conference was open to the public and the audience was invited to submit questions for consideration. In the spring of 2002, the panel was reconvened, and asked to focus on the topics in the Government's consultation paper on radioactive waste management. The overall conclusions of the consensus conference of 1999 and the reconvening of the panel in 2002 are presented in Annex 4 of this report. Impact of the conference: The citizens' panel report was well received by politicians, environmentalists and industrialists, who were invited to respond – a welcome development which enhanced the authority of the report. All of them appreciated that the recommendations were sensible and clear. Rt Hon Michael Meacher, MP, then Minister for the Environment, directly stated: “I would like to assure the Panel that there is no question of this report disappearing into oblivion. I think it's going to be listened to extremely carefully. I want to pay a credit to UK CEED for putting on this Consensus Conference which I think is an excellent idea. This is an issue which has bugged this country for decades and I think opening it out, getting citizen involvement, is exactly the right way to try and resolve it.” The consensus conference report was fed into a wider process of public and stakeholder consultation which culminated in a consultation paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, in 2001, incorporating several recommendations arising from the consensus conference. On 29 July 2002, for example, the government announced the setting up of a new independent body, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), which was a key recommendation of the citizens' panel report. Part of that Committee's remit was to gain insight into the public's priorities and concerns about the long-term management of radioactive waste in the UK. With the publication of a ‘discussion guide’, written for nonspecialists, CoRWM sought to set up throughout the UK a number of discussion groups, which would help inform the recommendations that the Committee would make to the UK Government. Participating groups are largely already established (for example Women's Institute groups) and their discussion will be selfmanaged. CoRWM's discussion guide includes both background information on nuclear waste and guidance on how organisers might set up group discussions. The outcomes from discussion are fed back to CoRWM using a largely open-text questionnaire, which focuses on the ethical (as opposed to economic) issues associated with radioactive waste disposal. Such inputs feed into the construction of the website, which is intended to capture public views in a readily accessible and transparent form. These views then feed into future policy as CoRWM's recommendations take shape


Page 32


Main Report

The consensus conference on radioactive waste promised to have a demonstrable impact on policy making, largely owing to the stated willingness of policy makers to take citizens' panel advice on board. There were no direct consequences of this conference, and the method was not used again in this kind of conflict. There are good reasons to keep working in including public participation in the real life political agenda. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/achieving-public-dialogue/content-section-3.5


Page 33


Main Report

7. Lessons-learned and recommendations for adaptation of participatory mechanisms in China

7.1. Summary and lessons-learned The study provided and overview over some of the most widely applied mechanisms for public participation in environmental planning and assessment. The overall lessons-learned from a European context shows that public participation has proven to be an important element for successful environmental planning processes. Nevertheless, frequently decision makers in many countries, including Europe and China, still hold the outdated opinion that public participation either is an obstacle to implementation of large projects or simply is a matter of effective communication and information. This attitude is based on the belief that one already knows what the best solution is and the public only needs to be convinced. In this case, it is not a matter of participation, but one of persuasion. This report introduces different approaches to public participation that go far beyond just simple communication and provision of information. International experience shows that the most successful and effective examples of public participation involve the public as partner in the decision-making process and lead to further empowerment of the public in the long-term. Regardless of the participation method applied, a number of generally accepted principles for effective participation were identified by the report, including an early involvement of stakeholders, integration of all stakeholders, setting process goals and monitoring of expectations, process and stakeholder satisfaction. Particularly important is that participation needs to start early on in the process, when decisions have not yet been made. Only then delays in the implementation can be avoided and blind spots of projects that were overlooked by experts can be identified and addressed in time. Five participation techniques with high degree of participation – Citizens’ Jury, Future Workshop/Future Search, Scenario Analysis, Consensus Conference and Deliberative Opinion Polling – are introduced in this report. Citizens’ juries can be used to broker a conflict or to provide a transparent and non-aligned viewpoint on various issues, including environmental planning. Future Search is a technique meant to shed light on a common problematic situation, to generate visions about possible futures and to jointly discuss how these visions can be realised. Similarly, but taking a long-term approach, Scenario Analysis anticipates future developments of society and evaluates strategies for responding to these developments. The Consensus Conference, developed in Denmark, traditionally has been used in assessment of emerging technologies and their impacts; therefore it is very relevant for the area of environmental planning and assessment. Finally, Deliberative Opinion Polling is especially suitable for issues where the public may have little knowledge or information as it includes education elements. The case study examples from Europe, particularly the case of Stuttgart 21, show that although many participation methods have been around for two decades, these are not always used by public authorities which often still prefer to reduce the option for participation. In the case of Stuttgart 21 this miscalculation on behalf of the authorities led to severe delays, social protests and huge additional costs. To deescalate EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 34


Main Report

the heated situation, participatory mediation processes proved to be the only possible solutions. In contrast, the case of Kopřivnice in the Czech Republic shows that public participation, in the best case scenario, is an ongoing process rather than a once in while occasion, when environmental planning decisions need to be made. The processes enabled municipal government and citizens to build a relationship based on mutual trust and to jointly develop solutions to environmental issues facing the city. Finally, the example from the UK, where the UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development organized a consensus conference on the issue of radioactive waste management, demonstrates that participatory approaches can be extremely useful for identifying insights and possible solutions to guide policy decisions for long-term and very complex environmental challenges. Overall, the lessons learned from international experiences can be summarised in one sentence: Participatory processes pay off, if they are carried out properly and in transparent manner.

7.2. Recommendations for China’s public participation based on international experiences China’s society and institutions are becoming increasingly complex and citizens are paying increasing attention to environmental planning. Environmental concerns of citizens and the wish to participate are now an issue that cannot be neglected by public authorities. For environmental planning processes this means that no decisions will stick unless the processes have involved everybody with a stake in it. 1.

The principles and mechanisms to facilitate effective and beneficial public participation in environmental planning and assessments have proven successful in various countries and different cultural contexts. It is therefore recommended to adopt at least some of these practices in China. If necessary, the methods can be adjusted to a Chinese context, as a direct transfer of ideas and methodologies might not be possible.

2.

It is recommended to initiate capacity building for local planning authorities, environmental agencies and agencies carrying out environmental impact assessments in order to familiarize local officials with public engagement techniques introduced in this report. Furthermore, capacity building is required to achieve a change in mind-set amongst local officials, so that they become more open to dialogue and exchange with the public and accept the public as constructive stakeholder that can contribute to optimise outcomes of environmental planning and assessment decisions.

3.

It is recommended to establish a pool of qualified moderators, facilitators and mediators who can steer participation mechanisms in national and local settings. The pool of qualified moderators for participatory processes should be made familiar with the various participatory techniques described in this report. The pool of moderators can be complemented by private sector service providers which offer participatory moderation services.

4.

It is further recommended introducing a number of local pilot activities/projects where these mechanisms are tested and implemented in actual situations of environmental planning and impact assessments. Examples of such pilots could be: planning processes for urban infrastructure development, waste incinerator construction, chemical plants construction and other cases. Particularly the methods of Deliberate Opinion Polling, Future Search and Citizens’ Juries are recommended in this


Page 35


Main Report

context. 5.

Finally, it is recommended to carry out high-level workshops at national and provincial levels using Scenario Testing and Consensus Conference for a wide range of stakeholder issues such as emerging technologies and long-term environmental challenges.


Page 36


Annex

References Apel, H. (2004) The Future Workshop. Deutsche Institut fuer Erwachsenenbildung, Bonn. URL: http://www.diebonn.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-2004/apel04_02.pdf Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224. Available at: http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html Baumgarten, B. (2012) Stuttgart 21: How a large-scale project caused large-scale protests. An interview with Dr. Britta Baumgarten of the Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB). http://www.german-africanpartnership.org/news/stuttgart-21-how-a-large-scale-project-caused-large-scale-protests/ Brunold, A. (2012) Stuttgart 21 als "Lehrstück" für politische Partizipation. Workshop presentation, University of Augsburg. http://www.bundeskongresspartizipation.de/wiki/images/6/67/Stuttgart_21_als_Lehrst%C3%BCck..._Brunold.pdf Chess, C., Purcell, K. (1999) Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? Environmental Science and Technology, VOL. 33, NO. 16, 1999 Davidson, S. (1998) Spinning the wheel of empowerment. In: Planning. Vol. 1262 Drhova, Z. (2011) How Successful Is the Aarhus Convention Implemented on the City Level? Analysing EIA, SEA and Land-use Planning Processes in the Czech Republic. In: Heinrich Boell Stiftung (2011) Participation in Urban Climate Protection - Answers of European Municipalities. Heinrich Boell Stiftung Brandenburg, Potsdam. http://www.boell-brandenburg.de/pics/images/puc_english.pdf Fishkin, J. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform, Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fishkin, J. and Luskin, R. (2005) Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling ad Public Opinion. Acta Politica 40, 284-298. Friends of the Earth (2006) How to: protest on the right side of the law. Friends of the Earth UK. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/how_tos/cyw_59_protest_law.pdf Friesecke, F. (2011) Public Participation in Urban Development Projects – A German Perspective. FIG Working Week 2011 – Bridging the Gap between Cultures Marrakech, Morocco, 18-22 May 2011. http://www.fig.net/pub/fig2011/papers/ts03d/ts03d_friesecke_4868.pdf Glucker, A., Driessen, P., Kolhoff, A., Runhaar, H. (2013) Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 104–111. Heinrich Boell Stiftung (2011) Participation in Urban Climate Protection Answers of European Municipalities. Heinrich Boell Stiftung Brandenburg, Potsdam. http://www.boell-brandenburg.de/pics/images/puc_english.pdf Jungk, R., Müllert, N. (1987) Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. Institute for Social Inventions, London. Matthias Kaiser, M. and Forsberg, E.-M. (2002) Consensus conference on environmental values in radiation protection: a report on building consensus among experts. Science and Engineering Ethics 2002, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 593-602 Li, T.H.Y., Ng, S., Skitmore, M. (2013) Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public participation in major EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 37


Annex

infrastructure and construction projects: A fuzzy approach, Automation in Construction 29 (2013) 123–135 Loske, R. (2013) Ökologische Verantwortung in der Bürgergesellschaft jenseits von »Obrigkeitsstaat« und »Participation Overkill«. In: Klaus Töpfer, Dolores Volkert, Ulrich Mans (Eds.) Verändern durch Wissen Chancen und Herausforderungen demokratischer Beteiligung: von Stuttgart 21 bis zur Energiewende. oekom verlag, Munich. Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M.B., Buttler, A. (2012) A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects, Journal of Environmental Management 111 (2012) 213e219 New Economics Foundation (1998) Participation Works! 21 techniques of community participation for the 21st century. New Economics Foundation & UK Community Participation Network. Reed, M.S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417e2431. Rowe, G., Frewer, L. (2005) A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 30 No. 2, Spring 2005 251-290. Sclove, R. (2000) Town Meetings on Technology, Consensus Conferences as Democratic Participation. From: Kleinman, D. (ed.) (2000) Science, Technology, and Democracy. State University of New York Press, pp. 3348. Zurita, L. (2006) Consensus conference method in environmental issues: relevance and strengths. Land Use Policy, Volume 23, Issue 1.


Page 38


Annex

ANNEX Annex 1: Toolkit for Effective Engagement by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) by Victoria State Government, Australia. This online toolkit is a valuable list of tools for assisting in the planning, implementation and evaluation of community engagement activities. This toolkit has been developed with the assistance and permission of the Coastal Co-operative Research Centre. The DSE team of facilitators and practitioners has also contributed tools that they have found useful in their own engagement practices. The toolkit contains detailed descriptions of more than 50 tools, but is not intended to provide an exhaustive list, but rather it offers a broad selection of tools covering all types of engagement, from ‘inform’ through to ‘empower’. Each tool listing includes a detailed description of the objectives, resources required, a discussion of their strengths and weakness, as well as references for further exploration. The website also includes a “Choosing the Right Tool” page to assist in selecting the most appropriate tool(s) for community engagement. Toolkit for Effective Engagement: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-engagement/toolkit Annex 2 Public Participation in Making Local Environmental Decisions: The Aarhus Convention Newcastle Workshop Good Practice Handbook, published July 2000 This handbook has been produced following discussions at a workshop on public participation in making local environmental decisions, held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom, in December 1999. The workshop was part of the work programme agreed at the first meeting of Signatories to the Aarhus Convention earlier that year. The audience for this handbook is principally authorities who make decisions but it will also be valuable to the public, NGOs and businesses. The handbook also includes more than 50 case studies from Europe on public participation in EIA which are available online at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/newcastle.handbook.htm#Article%206 Annex 3: Detailed steps of the Danish Consensus Conference model: 1. A steering committee of known partisan authorities is chosen, who represent different and opposing perspectives, who are familiar with the full scope of the topic and who are willing to support an unbiased effort. The steering committee will oversee the organization of the consensus conference and the fairness and correctness of its informational materials. 2. Participants are recruited. This can be done by placing advertisements, or by sending letters randomly. Volunteers should send a one−page letter describing the their background and their reasons for wanting to participate. 3. From the replies 10 to 30 (mostly about 15; 30 with multilingual panels) are chosen, who roughly represent the demographic breadth of the country’s population and who lack prior knowledge of or partisan interest in the topic. 4. A background paper (information brochure) is commissioned that maps the political terrain surrounding the issue; this is screened and approved by the steering committee. 5. During a preparatory weekend, the citizen panel discusses the background paper, and formulates questions for experts. The panel should also get the opportunity during this weekend to get to know one another and to develop their ability to reason together. EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 39


Annex

6. The citizen panel chooses the types of experts that are required. A group of experts is assembled; the citizen panel chooses itself which experts from this group are invited to answer their questions (which are based on information provided by the steering committee). The group of experts covers the broad dimensions of the problem (ethical, societal, technical etc.) 7. During a second preparatory weekend, the citizen panel discusses the background reading provided by the steering committee, refines their questions and revises the expert panel list to suit their needs. (Choosing the experts can also take place solely during the second weekend.) 8. The experts prepare oral and written responses to the panel's questions, using language understandable by ordinary people. 9. An open public forum (a consensus conference) is announced, in which the citizen and expert panel will meet together, attracting media, legislators and interested citizens. 10. On day one of the actual consensus conference, each expert speaks for about 15−30 minutes in response to the questions posed by the citizen panel, follow−up questions from the citizen panel are answered and, as time allows, from the audience. 11. After the public session, the citizen panel discusses what it has heard. 12. On day two the citizen panel cross−examines the expert panel. 13. After this public session on day two and on day three, the citizen panel deliberates, and prepares a report that summarizes their points of consensus and disagreement. The citizen panel fully controls the report’s content, but may be assisted by secretaries and editors. 14. On day four the expert panel gets the chance to correct outright factual misstatements in the report, but not otherwise comments on it. 15. The citizen panel presents its report at a national press conference; reports are 15−30 pages long, clearly reasoned and nuanced in judgment. Source: http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/PT3_tcm53-161508.pdf Annex 4: The UK CEED Consensus Conference on Radioactive Waste Management Overall Conclusions: 1. Radioactive waste must be removed from the surface and stored underground, but must be monitorable and retrievable. Cost cannot be an issue. We must leave options open for future solutions. 2. We recommend the appointment of a neutral body by the Government to deal with waste management, including the selection of a national storage site. The criteria for site selection should be open and publicised. 3. All institutions handling radioactive waste should conform to the same high standards which should include random scrutiny. 4. Research and development must be continued on a much larger scale and international co-operation should be encouraged. 5. We see no problem with privatisation within the nuclear industry if done properly with adequate safeguards. EU-China Environmental Governance Programme

Page 40


Annex

6. At present there is a lack of trust and understanding and public awareness must be raised. The public needs to be fully informed of the problems and solutions available. Decisionmaking must be open and transparent. Radioactive waste issues should be made part of the Government’s education strategy. 7. We are not fundamentally opposed to nuclear power, but it should not be expanded until a way is found to deal adequately with the waste problem. 8. A new and internationally accepted method of waste classification is needed that clearly and openly communicates information about nuclear waste to the public as well as industry. 9. Existing international reprocessing contracts should be honoured but no new ones should be taken up. 10. Finally, while the industry has in the past had a well-deserved reputation for secrecy, we have in the course of the conference noted a welcome shift in culture and a new feeling of openness in dealing with these difficult issues. Source: Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for developing a policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department of the Environment, National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Executive. September 2001. In the spring of 2002, the panel was reconvened, and asked to focus on the topics in the Government's consultation paper. The main conclusions were that:  As far as public consultation is concerned, the consultation process will only work if the information given to the public is accepted as accurate, objective and complete by all interested parties;  this relies critically on a general increase in the basic levels of public awareness of radioactive waste management and the issues involved;  in all of this, the most important comment is about the need for openness, honesty and transparency - and the need for policy-makers to be seen to be listening. The Panel also made detailed comments on the structure of the nuclear sector, regulation and the consultation programme.


Page 41

Specific Operational Mechanisms and Practices for Public ...

Specific Operational Mechanisms and Practices for Public ...

Suggest Documents

Mechanisms and Practices for Public Participation

Enablers and Mechanisms: Practices for Achieving ... - ScholarSpace

Relationships between operational practices and ...

Operational Practices and Performance: An Empirical ... - GVpesquisa

Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Operational ...

Operational Practices and Financial Performance: an ... - SciELO

Best operational and Maintenance Practices for City Bus Fleets to ...

Stochastic, stage-specific mechanisms account for ... - BioMedSearch

Worst Practices for Domain-Specific Modeling - MetaCase

Worst Practices for Domain-Specific Modeling - CiteSeerX

Specific and contextual treatment mechanisms - SAGE Journals

an examination of general and specific motivational mechanisms for ...

Public Bathing Place Operational Regulations

financing mechanisms for public private partnerships

2 A best practices framework for operational infrastructure - NYU Stern

2 A best practices framework for operational infrastructure - NYU Stern

Operational Semantics of a Domain Specific ...

Good Practices Information Systems for public ... - DGAEP

Restorative Practices - Schott Foundation for Public Education

Business Schools: Context-Specific Social Science for an Operational ...

Operational RNA code for amino acids: Species-specific - Europe PMC

Operational Practices and Performance: An Empirical Analysis of

The effect of operational innovation and QM practices ... - Springer Link

Lean Operational Principles and Practices Effecting in a ... - ijirset