Public Participation in EIA Process Nearly all EIA systems make provision for some type of public involvement.

This includes public consultation (or dialogue) and public participation, which is a more interactive and intensive process of stakeholder engagement. Most EIA processes are undertaken through consultation rather than participation. At a minimum, public involvement must provide an opportunity for those directly affected by a proposal to express their views regarding the proposal and its environmental and social impacts. The purpose of public involvement is to: inform the stakeholders about the proposal and its likely effects; canvass their inputs, views and concerns; and take account of the information and views of the public in the EIA and decision making. The key objectives of public involvement are to: obtain local and traditional knowledge that may be useful for decision-making; facilitate consideration of alternatives, mitigation measures and tradeoffs; ensure that important impacts are not overlooked and benefits are maximised; reduce conflict through the early identification of contentious issues; provide an opportunity for the public to influence project design in a positive manner (thereby creating a sense of ownership of the proposal); improve transparency and accountability of decision-making; and increase public confidence in the EIA process. Experience indicates that public involvement in the EIA process can and does meet these aims and objectives. Many benefits are concrete, such as improvements to project design (see the table below). Other benefits are intangible and incidental and flow from taking part in the process. For example, as participants see their ideas are helping to improve proposals, they gain confidence and self-esteem by exchanging ideas and information with others who have different values and views. Examples of the contribution of public involvement to project design Project Example Ghana This project seeks to improve natural resource management. Public consultations drove the Environmental entire project design process from the very beginning. Investments under the village-level Resource land and water resource management component were entirely designed by the local Management Project communities, which diagnosed problems, developed action plans and are now responsible for implementation. A coastal wetlands component was also largely designed through local consultation. Affected communities and user groups participated in the demarcation of ecologically sensitive areas and in determining the levels of resource use and conservation in coastal wetlands. Brasil Espirito Santo The original design would have had a negative impact on two communities. By including Water Project these communities in the EIA process through information disclosure and consultation, satisfactory mitigation measures were achieved that counterbalanced the impacts and improved local living conditions. Key terms and definitions of public involvement are described in the next table. The basic types of public involvement are organised as a ladder of steps of increasing intensity and interaction. When reviewing them, note their different requirements with regard to planning and designing a public involvement programme. Information and notification, strictly speaking, are preconditions of meaningful public involvement. On its own, information disclosure is not a sufficient provision in public involvement for an EIA of a major proposal. Consultation denotes an exchange of information designed to canvass the views of stakeholders on a proposal and its impacts. Participation is a more interactive process of engaging the public in addressing the issues, establishing areas of agreement and disagreement and trying to reach common positions. Negotiation among stakeholders is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism, which is based on joint fact-finding, consensus building and mutual accommodation of different interests. In practice, public involvement in EIA largely corresponds to consultation. However, participation will be appropriate in many circumstances, for example, where a local population is displaced or relocated as a result of a project. A few

countries also make provision for mediation or negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party. In principle, these approaches to public involvement in EIA are distinctive and relatively separate. However, they may be used in combination; for example, consultation and participation can be appropriate at different stages of the same EIA process. Levels and forms of public involvement Level Form of involvement Informing One way flow of information from the proponent to the public Consulting Two way flow of information between the proponent and the public with opportunities for the public to express views on the proposal Participating Interactive exchange between the proponent and the public encompassing shared analysis and agenda setting and the development of understood and agreed positions on the proposal and its impacts Negotiating Face to face discussion between the proponent and key stakeholders to build consensus and reach a mutually acceptable resolution of issues, for example on a package of impact mitigation and compensation measures. Stakeholders involved The range of stakeholders involved in an EIA typically includes: the people individuals, groups and communities who are affected by the proposal; the proponent and other project beneficiaries; government agencies; NGOs and interest groups; and others, such as donors, the private sector, academics etc. Local people Individuals or groups in the affected community will want to know what is proposed; what the likely impacts are; and how their concerns will be understood and taken into account. They will want assurances that their views will be carefully listened to and considered on their merits. They will want proponents to address their concerns. They will also have knowledge of the local environment and community that can be tapped and incorporated into baseline data. Proponents Understandably, proponents will wish to shape the proposal to give it the best chance of success. Often, this involves trying to create public understanding and acceptance of the proposal through the provision of basic information. More creatively, project design can be improved through using public inputs on alternatives and mitigation and understanding local knowledge and values. Government agencies The government agencies involved in the EIA process will want to have their policy and regulatory responsibilities addressed in impact analysis and mitigation consideration. For the competent authority, an effective public involvement programme can mean the proposal may be less likely to become controversial in the later stages of the process. For the responsible EIA agency, the concern will be whether or not the public involvement process conforms to requirements and procedures. NGOs/Interest groups Comments from NGOs can provide a useful policy perspective on a proposal; for example, the relationship of the proposal to sustainability objectives and strategy. Their views may also be helpful when there are difficulties with involving local people. However, this surrogate approach should be considered as exceptional; it cannot substitute for or replace views which should be solicited directly. Other interested groups Other interested groups include those who are experts in particular fields and can make a significant contribution to the EIA study. The advice and knowledge of government agencies and the industry sector most directly concerned with the proposal should always be sought. However, in many cases, substantive information about the environmental setting and effects will come from outside sources. The different benefits provided for key groups by effective public participation are described in the table below. However, these benefits may not be always realised or acknowledged by participants. Each of the above groups may perceive the benefits gained from public involvement in the EIA process through the lens of their own experience and interests. The benefits of effective participation for different groups The proponent The decision-maker Affected communities Raises the proponents awareness of Achieves more informed and Provides an opportunity to raise

the potential impacts of a proposal on the environment and the affected community Legitimises proposals and ensures greater acceptance and support Improves public trust and confidence

accountable decision making Provides increased assurance that all issues of legitimate concern have been addressed Demonstrates fairness and transparency, avoiding accusations of decisions being made behind closed doors Promotes good relations with the proponent and third parties

concerns and influence the decisionmaking process Provides an opportunity to gain a better understanding and knowledge about the environmental impacts and risks that may arise Increases awareness of how decisionmaking processes work, who makes decisions and on what basis Empowers people, providing the knowledge that they can influence decision making and creating a greater sense of social responsibility Ensures all relevant issues and concerns are dealt with prior to the decision

Assists by obtaining local information/data

Avoids potentially costly delays later Avoids potentially costly delays later in the process by resolving conflict in the process by resolving conflict early early Principles of public involvement People who may be directly or indirectly affected by a proposal will be a focus for public involvement. First and foremost are the individuals and groups who are likely to be directly and adversely affected. Usually, their identification is relatively straightforward. The intended beneficiaries of the proposal are often more difficult to identify because the benefits of the proposal may be generalised across a large population (which may be regional or national). In some cases, the interest of beneficiaries may be represented by government agencies, private sector groups and NGOs, which support the proposal on economic and social grounds. A variety of other individuals and groups may be indirectly affected by a proposal or have some interest in its outcome. Often, the representation of the interests of indirectly affected parties will coincide with those of other stakeholders, such as local community, private sector and environmental organisations. However, this relationship cannot be assumed automatically. For example, certain major projects may affect such an extensive area that identifying a representative and manageable range of participants is difficult. In such cases, it may be helpful to systematically map the stakeholders and differentiate among their interests. Every effort should be made to seek a fair and balanced representation of views. Often, an inclusive approach to public involvement is taken. A common rule of thumb is to include any person or group who expresses an interest in the proposal. However, particular attention should be given to those at risk from the impact of a proposal. World Bank guidance indicates this group should have the most active involvement. Most EIA systems make some type of provision for public involvement. The legal and procedural requirements for this purpose vary. In developing countries, the EIA procedure established by the development banks will take precedence for projects carried out with their assistance. All of the major development banks consult the public during the EIA process carried out on their operations. Their specific requirements differ regarding timing and scope of consultation and the type and amount of information disclosed. For example, World Bank Operational Policy (4.01) specifies that consultation with affected communities is a key to the identification of impacts and the design of mitigation measures. It strongly recommends consultation with affected groups and NGOs during at least the scoping and EIA review stage. In projects with major social components, such as those requiring voluntary resettlement or affecting indigenous peoples, the process should involve active public participation in the EIA and project development process. The provision made for public involvement should be consistent with principles established by international law and policy. Key principles for public involvement, which are widely agreed, are outlined as: inclusive - covers all stakeholders; open and transparent - steps and activities are understood; relevant - focused on the issues that matter; fair - conducted impartially and without bias toward any stakeholder; responsive - to stakeholder requirements and inputs; and credible - builds confidence and trust Scope of involvement The scope of public involvement and its relationship to the EIA process should be commensurate with the significance of the environmental and social impacts for local people. Ideally, public involvement should commence during the

preparatory stage of project development and continue throughout the EIA process. This is particularly important for major projects that affect peoples livelihood and culture. Five main steps at which public involvement can occur in the EIA process are discussed below. Screening For certain categories of proposal, the responsible authority may consult with people likely to be affected in order to gain a better understanding of the nature and significance of the likely impacts. This information can assist in determining if an EIA is required and at what level. In addition, the early identification of affected parties and their concerns provides information that can be incorporated into the scoping stage of EIA and assists future planning for public involvement. Scoping Public involvement is commonly undertaken at the scoping stage. This is critical to ensure that all the significant issues are identified, local information about the project area is gathered, and alternative ways of achieving the project objectives are considered. Terms of Reference for an EIA provide a means of responding to and checking against these inputs. They should also outline any specific requirements for public involvement in EIA preparation, review, and follow up. Impact analysis and mitigation The further involvement of the public in these phases of EIA preparation can help to: avoid biases and inaccuracies in analysis; identify local values and preferences; assist in the consideration of mitigation measures; and select a best practicable alternative. Review of EIA quality A major opportunity for public involvement occurs when EIA reports are exhibited for comment. However, making written comments is daunting to all but the educated and literate. Other means of achieving responses should be provided where proposals are controversial. Public hearings or meetings may be held as part of EIA review. They can be formal or informal but should be structured in a way which best allows those affected to have their say. Many people are not comfortable in speaking in public and other or additional mechanisms may be needed. Implementation and follow up The environmental impacts of major projects will be monitored during construction and operational start up, with corrective action taken where necessary. Local representatives should scrutinise and participate in the follow up process. This arrangement can assist proponents and approval agencies to respond to problems as they arise. It can also help to promote good relations with local communities that are affected by a development. Public involvement in practice In many EIA systems, public involvement centres on the scoping and review stages. This can be a response to procedural requirements or reflect accepted practice. More extended forms of public involvement occur when: proposals are formally referred to public review, hearings or inquiries; proposals seek to apply a best practice process to their proposal; proposals depend upon gaining the consent or support of local stakeholders; and proposals have major social impacts and consequences, such as the relocation of displaced people Planning a public involvement programme Planning by the proponent for a public involvement programme needs to begin early before other EIA work. Following scoping, the terms of reference for an EIA study should include specifications for the proposed programme, including its scope, timing, techniques and resources. If there are none, a separate document should be prepared by the EIA project team with advice and input from an expert (e.g. a social scientist) who is knowledgeable about the local community and participation techniques. The plan should describe the means of notifying and informing the public about the proposals and the EIA process, beginning at an early stage and continuing with updates on the progress of the EIA study and feedback on community concerns. Specific reference should be made to the ways in which the public will be engaged, how their inputs (knowledge, values and concerns) will be taken into account and what resources (people and money) are available to assist their involvement. Wherever possible, meetings and inquiries should be held within the local community, especially if there are basic constraints on its involvement (see below). A systematic approach to planning a public involvement programme typically involves addressing the following key issues: Who should be involved? identify the interested and affected public (stakeholders), noting any major constraints on their involvement.

What type and scope of public involvement is appropriate? ensure this is commensurate with the issues and objectives of EIA. How should the public be involved? identify the techniques which are appropriate for this purpose. When and where should opportunities for public involvement be provided establish a plan and schedule in relation to the EIA process and the number, type and distribution of stakeholders. How will the results of public involvement be used in the EIA and decision making processes? describe the mechanisms for analysing and taking account of public inputs and providing feeding back to stakeholders. What resources are necessary or available to implement the public involvement programme? relate the above considerations to budgetary, time and staff requirements. In certain cases, some basic constraints on public involvement may need to be overcome. Particular attention should be given to disadvantaged groups, ethnic minorities and others who may be inhibited from taking part or may have difficulty in voicing their concerns. Often, special provision may need to be made to inform and involve these groups. Except in unusual or extenuating circumstances, others should not speak for them, although knowledgeable NGOs may help in ensuring they represent their views directly and in a way that is meaningful to them. Some of the underlying factors that may constrain meaningful public involvement include: Poverty involvement means time spent away from income-producing tasks, and favours the wealthy. Remote and rural settings increased or dispersed settlement distances make communication more difficult and expensive. Illiteracy involvement will not occur if print media is used. Local values/culture behavioural norms or cultural traditions can act as a barrier to public involvement or exclude those who do not want to disagree publicly with dominant groups. Languages in some countries a number of different languages or dialects may be spoken, making communication difficult. Legal systems may be in conflict with traditional systems and cause confusion about rights and responsibilities over resource use and access. Interest groups bring conflicting and divergent views and vested interests. Confidentiality may be important for the proponent, and may weigh against early involvement and consideration of alternatives. Public involvement techniques The methods of public involvement should be tailored to suit the social environment and, wherever possible, targeted specifically at particular groups. Limitations and constraints (identified previously) should be taken into account. For instance, although people want to be consulted, they may not have the time, resources or ability to locate EIA information and report their views to the relevant authorities. Traditional local decision-making institutions and the use of the mass media (such as television, radio and papers) may be far more appropriate than placing reports in local libraries (which is the normal approach in a number of EIA systems). When selecting public involvement techniques, the following points should be considered: the degree of interaction required between participants; the extent to which participants are able to influence decisions; the stage(s) of the EIA at which public involvement will occur; the time available for involvement; the likely number of participants and their interests; the complexity and controversy of the issues under consideration; and the consideration of cultural norms which may influence the content of discussions, for example relating to gender, religion, etc. When using public involvement techniques, the following principles can help to achieve a successful outcome: provide sufficient, relevant information in a form that is easily understood by non-experts (without being simplistic or insulting); allow enough time for stakeholders to review, consider and respond to the information and its implications; provide appropriate means and opportunities for them to express their views; select venues and time events to encourage maximum attendance and a free exchange of views by all stakeholders (including those that may feel less confident about expressing their views); and respond to all questions, issues raised or comments made by stakeholders. This fosters public confidence and trust in the EIA process.

Conflict management and dispute resolution approaches are beginning to be applied in a number of EIA processes. As recognised by the World Bank and other international agencies, the use of these approaches in developing countries must be consistent with local practices: The objective is to define traditional mechanisms for making agreements, for negotiations, and for managing conflict in affected communities. Understanding and working within cultural expectations and practices may enhance consultation and participation processes, especially in projects where there are multiple and competing stakeholders or where disputes or conflict are evident. Negotiation, mediation and other alternative means of dispute resolution have different rules compared to more traditional open door forms of public consultation and participation. These processes are carried out by a small number of representatives who are nominated by the major stakeholders (some of them may form coalitions for this purpose). Stakeholder dialogue is a more informal version of this process and focuses on sharing views and information to find win-win solutions to issues. As shown in the table below, the approach differs in kind rather than degree from more traditional forms of public involvement. However, there may be opportunities to reduce or resolve conflict in more traditional forms of public participation, providing all stakeholders are involved at the earliest stage of the proposal and sufficient time and appropriate opportunities are provided. A skilled facilitator may be able to assist stakeholders in finding common ground. In most cases, however, the range of interests and the different values of the participants will mean that consensus is unlikely. The focus of attention then should be on minimising the areas of dispute, and narrowing it to those key issues that cannot be resolved and leaving it to the decision-making process to arbitrate among the different positions (i.e. determining the winners and losers). Principles which will help minimise conflict, particularly if applied consistently from the earliest stages of the planning of the proposal, include: involving all those likely to be affected, or with a stake in the matter; communicating the need for and objectives of the proposal, and how it is planned to achieve them; actively listening to the concerns of affected people, and the interests which lie behind them; treating people honestly and fairly, establishing trust through a consistency of behaviour; being empathetic, putting yourself in the shoes of the other party, and looking at the area of dispute from their perspective; being flexible in the way alternatives are considered, and amending the proposal wherever possible to better suit the interests of other parties; when others interests cannot be accommodated, mitigating impacts to the greatest extent possible and looking for ways to compensate for loss and damage; establishing and maintaining open two-way channels of communication throughout the planning and implementation phase; and acknowledging the concerns and suggestions of others, and providing feed-back on the way these matters have been addressed. When conflict arises, try to defuse it at the earliest possible time. The use of an independent, mutually acceptable third party as the convenor of discussions between disputants can improve the chances of a satisfactory outcome. It is desirable for that third party to be trained in the principles of negotiation or mediation, and to be able to assist the parties in dealing with the feelings, facts and process issues associated with the dispute. Comparing the characteristics of traditional consultation and stakeholder dialogue Traditional consultation tends to: Stakeholder dialogue tends to: Assume win/lose outcomes Search actively for win/win results and ways to add value for all parties Focus on differences and polarise rival positions Focus on issues and results Produce results that are perceived as inequitable, reflecting the traditional distribution of power and resources Stick to the facts and positions Ignore the importance of building relationships and bridging differences Offer no learning Explore shared and different interests, values, needs and fears, and build on common ground while trying to resolve specific disputes Focus on processes as well as issues and results in order to build longterm ownership of and commitment to mutually agreed solutions Produce results which can be judged on their merits and which seem fair and reasonable to a broad spectrum of stakeholders Take into account, as well, feelings, values, perceptions, vulnerabilities Strengthen existing relationships and build new ones where they are most needed Invest in mutual learning as a starting point for future processes and projects