The study aims to explore the impact of the Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) with the local people of study areas. It was conducted in 8 village development committees of Sindhupalchowk district which were more affected by the Project. A total of 404 respondents were selected randomly and details interviews/surveys done. The study had developed three major research hypotheses.
The study concluded that MWSP had contributed in the field of agriculture, improving the economic status of the community, education, infrastructure development and off-seasonal vegetable farming for income-generating activities. There was a significant difference between the respondents of different VDCs regarding their experiences of the contribution of MWSP in environmental management and community development. The Social Upliftment Program of MWSP should be continued and needed to be extended in other hard-to-reach areas of the district. The project should focus to involve of public in all four levels of participation: inform, involve, consult, and collaborate. MWSP should focus more to increase the number of participation in direct or indirect involvement of the public in planning, implementation, and supervision of project activities. The community should feel that MWSP was for them; was working for the betterment of the community with the support of the community.
There is a need for capacity mapping so that MWSP should share the findings and could encourage the public, to contribute in community development by using their local resources and capacities.
Keywords: Collaborate, Consult, Environment, Impact, Inform, Involve, Management, Participation
Table of Contents
CHAPTER-ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of EIA/EM and Public Participation
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Significance of the Study
1.4 Objectives of the Study
1.5 Hypothesis of the Study
1.6 Philosophy of the Study
1.7 Theoretical Framework
1.7.1 Theory of Citizen Participation
1.7.2 Theory of Public participation
1.8 Limitation of the Study
1.9 Delimitation of the Study
1.10 Conceptual Framework of the Study
1.11 Operational Definition of Key Variables
1.12 Thesis Chapters
CHAPTER-TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment
2.2 Understanding Consultation and Participation
2.2.1 Levels of Participation
2.3 Participation Techniques
2.4 The Developed Countries Context of Public Participation
2.4.1 American Environmental Impact Regime: Legislatives and Guidelines
2.5 The Developing Countries Context of Public Participation
2.5.1 The Experience in India
2.5.2 The Experience in Nepal
2.6 Level of Public Participation in Environmental Management
I. Inform
II. Consult
III. Involve
IV. Collaborate
2.7 Public Participation in Empowering the Local Community
2.7.1 IAP2’s Spectrum of Participation
2.8 Public Participation in Environmental Planning
2.9 Public Participation in a Historical Perspective
2.10 Categories of Stakeholders or the Public
2.11 Framework for Evaluation of Public Participation in EIA
2.12 Legal Documents and Guidelines
2.13 Lessons from Literature
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Approach
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Sampling Design
3.3.1 Population and Sample
3.3.2 Study Population
3.3.3 Sample Size
Step 2:
3.3.4 Sampling Frame
3.3.5 Selection of Sample Wards
3.3.6 Sample Interval
3.4 Rationale for Selection of the Study Areas
A. Types and Location of Projects
B. Projects Status Regarding Public Participation
C. Availability of Data
D. Willingness of the Stakeholders
A. Types and Location of Projects
Projects Status Regarding Public Participation
C. Availability of Data
D. Willingness of the Stakeholders
3.5 Data Collection Strategy
3.5.1 Nature of Data
Quantitative Study
Qualitative Study
3.5.2 Types of Data
Secondary Data
3.5.3 Research Instruments
A. Questionnaire Survey
B. Observation
C. Key Informants Interview
3.6 Reliability and Validity Test of Instruments
3.6.1 Reliability Test
Test and Retest Methods
3.6.2 Validity Test
Panel of Experts Discussion
Translation and Back Translation
3.7 Scale of Research Instruments
3.8 Data Collection Procedures
3.9 Data Analysis, Interpretation and Significance
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Demographic Information of Study
4.1.1 VDC Wise Participation of Respondents
4.1.2 Gender Distribution of Respondents
4.1.3 Level of Education of Respondents
4.1.4 Caste of Respondents
4.1.5 Occupation of Respondents
4.2 Environmental Impacts of MWSP: Physical Components
4.2.1 Contribution of Melamchi Water Supply Project in Agriculture
4.2.2 Contribution of MWSP to increase Economic Status
4.2.3 Contribution of the Project in Educational Development
4.2.4 Contribution of MWSP in Road Construction
4.2.5 Contribution of the Project in off-Seasonal Vegetable Farming
4.2.6 Contribution of MWSP in Forest Management
4.2.7 Protection of Endangered Plants
4.2.8 Cleanliness of River Areas
4.2.9 Dealing with Household Waste
4.2.10 Changes in Quality of the Environment
4.2.11 Recycling of Garbage
4.2.12 Awareness on Misusing Fertilizers, Pesticides & Herbicides
4.2.13 Awareness on Environment and Free of Harmful Insects
4.2.14 Capacity for Managing Waste
4.2.15 VDC-Wise Status of Environment in General
4.2.16 Physical Impact on the Rivulets
4.2.17 Baseline data of Water Quality
4.2.18 Biological Impacts
4.2.19 Impact on Management of Fish
4.2.20 Vegetation
4.2.21 Air Pollution
4.2.22 Socio-Economic Compliance
4.3 Public Participation in Environmental Management
4.3.1 Knowledge of Melamchi Water Supplier Project
4.3.2 Visit of local People to the Project Office
4.3.3 Direct Involvement of Local People in the Project
4.3.4 Invitation for Participation in Project Programs
4.3.5 Ways of Informing the Local People
4.3.6 Frequency of Participation in Information Dissemination
4.3.7 Public Participation helps in different Functions
4.3.8 Strategies used in an Environmental Impact Assessment Processes
4.3.9 Strategies to Improve Public Participation
4.3.10 Practice of Review Meeting on Environmental Management Issue
4.3.11 Involvement in the Environmental Management Problems
4.3.12 Involvement in the Evaluation of Environmental Management
4.3.13 Suggestions to the Environmental Management
4.3.14 Joint Meeting with Concerned Stakeholders on Environmental Management
4.4 Contribution of Public Participation in Empowering
4.4.1 Ambulance Service Provided by the Project
4.4.2 Support Provided to Health Services by the Project
4.4.3 Provision of Training
4.4.4 Business before an Implementation of the Project
4.4.5 Business after Implementation of the Project
4.4.6 Involvement n Business before and after MWSP
4.4.7 Public Involvement and Contribution in Development
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Summary of the Study
5.2 Key Findings of the Study
5.3 Conclusion of the Study
5.4 Recommendation of the Study
References
Appendices
CHAPTER-ONE
INTRODUCTION
This research is focused on public participation in environmental management with a case study of Melamchi Water Supply Project which is a mega resource project and a national pride of Nepal. This chapter presents introduction and rationale of the study in the backdrop of public participation. Recently, there has been increased awareness in ordinary citizens in the policy formation stage. Dialogue, deliberation and citizens’ involvement are becoming increasingly familiar landmarks in the current public participation landscape as efforts to design more collegial and collaborative public involvement processes to compete with more traditional top-down approaches (Abelson & Gauvin, March 2006).
Whether or not public participation has become an institutional feature of government and public policy along a decision making leadership, the degree of attention being given to expanding ordinary citizenry roles in a structural designing of plan underscores the need to consider what effects these processes might and will have on public prospect prone decisions and on those who participate in that motif. Abelson says that democratic theory tells us that public participation is undertaken for different purposes and with different underlying goals. Tensions exist between views of participation as an essential element of successful democracy (and inherently desirable in its own right) and participation. The means for elses, be it a specific decision outcome, a desire for more informed, accountable or legitimate decision making , or perhaps to delay or share the blame for a difficult decision making. Lying somewhere in between is there the desire for public participation to contribute to a more educated and engaged citizenry (Abelson & Eyles, 2004).
The Government of Nepal (GON) has launched different advocacy and awareness about empowerment programs through the effective coordination and joint efforts of the stakeholders. As a result, people’s access to development and participation is remarkable in different aspects. The environment is one of the critical issues in developing nations like Maldives, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. This issue directly impacts to health and hygiene, according to the source (NPC, 1998 and NPC, 2002).
By relevance to the idea, the Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP), because itself has been a source, is considered to be the most viable long-term alternative to ease the chronic shortage of water Bwithin the Kathmandu Valley. The project is designed to divert about 170 MLD of fresh water to Kathmandu Valley from the Melamchi River in Sindupalchwok district through a tunnel from Rebarma to Sundarijal. Augmenting this supply, adding a further quantity of water (170 MLD) each from Yangri and Larke Rivers, which lie in the upstream proximity of Melamchi are also being investigated as future supply sources. Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MPPW) has now been reformed as the Ministry of Water Supply and Sanitation (MOWSS) is the executing agency for the project. An autonomous Melamchi Water Supply Development Board formulated for project implementation, is the implementing agency Melamchi (Water Supply Project, 2015).
The Board, as an independent project implementing body, has come a long way to collect the necessary funds to implement the project since 1998. The major donor of the project, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a Loan 1820- NEP (SF) on 21 December, 2000 and was effective from 28 November, 2001. After six years of project implementation, the Government of Nepal and the project’s funding partners felt the necessity to change the scope of project implementation arrangement by splitting the MWSP into the following sub-projects in 2007:
(i) Melamchi River Water Diversion Subproject (Sub-Project-1) covering the activities of Land Acquisition & Infrastructure Development Program, Social Uplift Program, Environmental Management Program, Water Treatment Plant and Melamchi Water Diversion Scheme.
(ii) Kathmandu Valley Water Supply and Sanitation Subproject (Subproject-2) comprising water distribution activities in Kathmandu Valley. EMP implementation requirements as per EIA and EMP of MWSP, 2000 and 2001 have covered both of these sub-projects, as per the source (Melamchi Water Supply Project, 2015). A brief introduction of MWSP has presented for more understanding of the project.
1. Melamchi Water Supply Project in Brief
In 1998, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MPPW) set up Melamchi Water Supply Development Board under the act Bikash Samiti Civil Code to look after Melamchi Water Supply Project. The core essence of the project was to transfer 170 million litres per day (MLD) water from Melamchi River in Phase I. In Phase II, additional 170 MLD additional fresh water was proposed to augment this supply, Government of Nepal (GoN) anticipated health promotion, business promotion and tourism of Kathmandu Valley according to a relevant source . Phase wise works of the project were as follows:
Phase I of the project has infrastructures: (i) nearly 27 Km long diversion tunnel from Melamchi River to Sundarijal with a surface area of 8 square meters, (ii) a conventional water treatment plant at the end of tunnel at Sundarijal (Kathmandu),
(iii) a bulk water distribution system to carry treated water to reservoirs, and the rehabilitation and modernization of existing distribution system. Phase II of the project will augment by adding 170 MLD water from Larke and Yangri Rivers from Melamchi Valley to Kathmandu Valley. Financing pattern of Melamchi Water Supply Project (2000-2008) was 464 million USD and the fund was approved in December 2000 and was effective from November 2001. The fund was: (i) Asian Development Bank (ADB) -120 million USD, (ii) Government of Nepal (GoN)- 118 million USD, World Bank- 80 million USD, Japanese Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC)- 52 million USD, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)- 28 million USD, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)- 25 million USD, Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA)- 18 million USD, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)- 14 million USD, and Nordic Development Fund (NDF)- 9 million USD. However, the fund was become embroiled with various controversies. In 2008, Asian Development Bank approved major restructuring of Melamchi Water Supply Project, allowing the project more forward and the loan agreement was revised between the ADB and GoN in April 6, 2008.
After additional amendments to the initial agreement in 2008, the ADB agreed to provide a sum of 137 million USD loan through the Asian Development Fund. The modified consortium after the project revision, the total investment of fund was: (i) Asian Development Bank (ADB) -137 million USD, (ii) Government of Nepal (GoN)- 90.6 million USD, Japanese Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC)- 47.5 million USD, Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA)- 18 million USD, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)- 13.7 million USD, and Nordic Development Fund (NDF)- 10.5 million USD for Sub-project 1. The revised project has three parts- Part A: Sub-project -I, Part B: Sub-project –II, and Part C Sub-project III. These parts were:
Part A: Sub-project -I comprises: (i) Construction of Melamchi Diversion Scheme to carry out 170 MLD raw water from Melamchi River to Kathmandu Valley through a tunnel, (ii) Construction of about 43 Km access road and upgrading of 29 Km road to assist the construction of the project facilities and their maintenance, (iii) Construction of water treatment plant with an initial capacity of 170 MLD and expandable to about 510 MLD, and (iv) Development and implementation of social upliftment program.
Part B: Sub-project –II comprises: (i) Rehabilitation and improvement of distribution networks at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, (ii) Construction of bulk distribution system, (iii) Undertaking the improvements of wastewater systems in a phase wise manner, and Development of a shallow ground water well field at Manohara within Kathmandu Valley, and Part C Sub-project III comprises: (i) Development and implementation of (a) resettlement action plan, and (b) an environmental management plan to mitigate direct and indirect impacts of the project, and (ii) Support to carry out various project administrative activities.
The objective of the Melamchi Diversion Scheme is to transfer raw water from the Melamchi River to the water treatment facility at Sundarijal in Kathmandu Valley through about 27 km long tunnel. The overall objective of the project is to provide an efficient and safe potable water supply, improve the health conditions and economic development in the Kathmandu Valley. The Social Uplift Programme (SUP) aims to ensure that the project affected people of the Melanchi Valley, Sindupalchwok district also benefit from the project and that sustainable development in resource management, health, education, income generation and community development and rural electrification can create significant improvements in the quality of life in the Melamchi Valley (Pokharel, 26-30 June, 2006, p. 1). According to the Melamchi Water Supply Project report of 2013, MWSP has conducted social support activities in 14 VDCs (Melamchi, Duwachaur, Talamarang, Helambu, Ichowk, Mahankal, Kiual, Palchok, Bashwari, Phatakashila, Bhotechaur, Thakani, Sindhukot and Haibung). MWSP has conducted education, health, rural electrification, income generating and social development activities. The project has also developed the Environment Management Plan (EMP) to reduce the adverse impacts on the environment, the source describes (Melamchi Drinking Water Development Committee, April 2014). The map of the MWSP showing the scheme layout and VDCs has presented herewith in Appendix-4 for pictorial understanding.
1.1 Background of EIA/EM and Public Participation
Environmental management is a process that industries, companies, and individuals undertake to regulate and protect the health of the natural world. In most cases, it does not actually involve managing the environment itself, but rather is the process of taking steps and promoting behaviors that will have a positive impact on how environmental resources are used and protected. The source says that most management systems roughly follow an action plan, do, and check some standard model (Wise GEEK, 2015). The objective of environmental management is to improve the quality of human life. It involves the mobilization of resources and the use of the government to administer the use of both natural and economic goods and services. It is based on the principles of ecology. It uses system analysis and conflict resolution to distribute the costs and benefits of development activities throughout the affected population and seeks to protect the activities of development from natural hazards. Conflict identification is one of the more important tasks in environmental management planning and the resolution of conflict is a fundamental part of what makes up environmentally sound developments (Saunier, 1987). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can be defined as a systematic identification and evaluation of the potential impacts (effects) of the proposed project (Canter, 1996). Formally, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was the term used to describe the analysis of environmental costs and benefits that is required in many legislatures prior to granting a license for some new development or extension of a pre-existing development that is perceived to have at least some negative environmental consequences. EIA assesses the likelihood of impacts and their significance and provides recommendations for mitigating the impacts. The EIA system was first formally established in the United States of America in 1969 and has since spread worldwide, as per Wilson et al (Wilson, Magill, & Black, 2009, pp. 462-464). EIA is a systematic process that assesses the impact of a planned (or existing) development on the environment. It is an aid to decision-making, the formulation of developmental actions and an instrument for sustainable development (Glasson, Therivel, & Chadwick, 1999). Environmental governance not only refers to state regulation and enforcement of conservation laws but also includes the political, organizational, and cultural frameworks through which highly diverse social actors and interests in natural and cultural resources are coordinated and controlled (Peter, Peter, Deborah, Stone-Jovicich, & Marianne, 2008). Bebbington and his co-authors repeatedly highlight the growing importance of social movements in shaping the possibility of more environmentally and socially sustainable resource governance (Taylor, 2011).Bebbington’s volume argues that in any given society, the dominant definition of ‘development’ and also the desired relationship between development and the environment, is nothing more than an artifact of power (Mitlin & Bebbington, 2007).
In general, there was a desire for more equitable partnerships among state, private, and civil society actors, so that their varied expertise might devise solutions to developmental and environmental problems that benefit common interests and negotiate among those interests when they conflict (Taylor, 2011). Public participation is one of the best strategies to cover the opinion of the general people which support to sustain the program and will make the effective decision. ‘Public participation’ means to involve those who are affected by a decision in the decision- making process. It promotes sustainable decisions by providing participants with the information they need to be involved in a meaningful way, and it communicates to participants how their input affects the decision (The International Association for Public Participation, 2014). Similarly, public participation can be defined as continuous two way communication process which involves promoting full public understanding of the processes and mechanisms through which the environmental problems and needs are investigated and solved by responsible agency; keeping the public fully informed about the status progress of the studies and implications of the project, plan, program, or policy formulation and evaluation activities (Canter, 1996). According to Sumudu A. Atapattu, public participation in simple terms means to involve those who are affected by a decision in the decision making process. It is founded on the fundamental understanding that public participation can help make better decisions that reflect the interests and concerns of affected or interested people and entities. The concept of public participation is constructed of three pillar principles: the right to information, the right to participate in decision-making process and the right to justice (Atapattu, 2006).
Public participation can provide benefit not only in the decision making process but also help to do the participatory final decision. Substantively, public participation can help improve the quality and durability of a decision in any field of human life.
So knowing the importance of public participation, the researcher became interested to identify the effect and relationship between public participation and environmental management system in the case of Melamchi Water Supply Project.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Public participation found particular resonance in environmental law matters due to the complex and dynamic nature of environmental issues. Such issues are intrinsically political yet involve both public and private interests. Hence they require flexible and transparent decision making that accounts for the array of knowledge and values that exist within the relevant audience. Public participation developed as a fundamental procedural principle for achieving sustainable decision making, receiving recognition both nationally and internationally. Public participation found further support based on the normative argument that purely technocratic decision making is incompatible with the democratic ideal. Public participation should be inherent in democratic governance. Hence public participation enjoys both a sound legal and theoretical backing.
Public participation in decision making is an essential part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, which has become a widely applicable tool for environmental decision making in the world, ensuring consideration of environmental concerns within the planning. Different countries practice different levels of public involvement. While more successful democracies have got much forward, some of the newly emerged democracies have introduced EIA systems just recently.
According to the Aarhus convention (UNECE 1998) there are several domains for public participation in decision making:
- Participation in decisions on specific activities
- Participation concerning plans, programs and policies relating to the environment
- Participation during the preparation of executive regulations and/or generally applicable legally binding normative instruments (The UNECE.Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. The Fourth Ministerial Conference in the ‘Environment for Europe’ process. June 25, 1998. Aarhus, Denmark.)
Only the first and second components from this list are measured in this study in relation to the activities of the Melamchi Water Supply Project. Information about the environment and the impact of activities on it has sometimes been kept secret. That is changing. In a democratic society, people should have a right of access to information about the environment. The Aarhus Convention gives people this right. It sets out a general right of access to information on the environment where information can only be withheld in certain circumstances. It emphasises the need to make access easy and prohibits discrimination between requests for information on the grounds of citizenship, nationality or place of residence.
There are different levels of public participation in decision making in the world, according to the size of participation and degree of actual influence of the public on decision making. The lowest level of participation implies informing the public about the decision. Higher levels envisage involving public in decision making. For instance, consultation implies the possibility for sending comments and participation in public hearings. The administrative agency, responsible for decision making, is obliged to take into consideration public comments and opinions and give feedback. Higher levels of participation imply more active involvement, for instance, during workshops when the public can make active contribution to the process of forming a decision. The highest levels of participation envisage tight collaboration with the public at all levels of decision making. Finally, empowerment means putting decision making in the hands of the public (NCEIA 2004). The study has raised the question as to what the level is of public participation in reference to four levels i.e., inform, consult, involve/collaborate and empowering programs and activities in MWSP. (NCEIA. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment. 2004. Views and Practices Series – Experiences from the Netherlands Commission for EIA)
The primary objective of the Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) is to alleviate the chronic shortage of water in the Kathnmandu Valley. The project is for the Kathmandu Valley on a sustainable long-term basis, and thereby to improve the health and well-being of its inhabitants, particularly the poor. The cross boundary river water basin project was designed as a combination of major infrastructure augmentation and institutional reforms to achieve reliable, affordable, consumer oriented and sustainable potable water supply and sanitation services in the Kathmandu Valley.
Pacific Island countries to institutionalize these methods of environmental management in ways that suggest environmental management, is a rationally based technical endeavour with a moral imperative, largely divorced from politics or social matters (Turnbull, 2004).
To understand the complexities of implementing modern environmental management in specific localities, one must consider how political, social, cultural and economic factors shape environmental management practice there. Else one ends up treating the symptoms but not the cause. The way socio-political and economic factors influence and shape the Fiji Islands state's environmental decision making is complex and needs to be explored further (Turnbull, 2004).
Public participation and consultation can be more effective when stakeholder involvement is promoted at the early stages of the plan preparation and assessment, although from the previous study of Nepalese planning practices, a low level of participation is recorded. It was found that without effective public participation, mega projects cannot be effective in relation to the environment management. So considering the problem of public participation in the environment, the study has come with the following research questions of this study:
1. What are the environmental impacts of the Melamchi Water Supply Project with specific reference to its physical components?
2. How is public participation effective on environmental management in reference to four levels i.e., inform, consult, involve and collaborate?
3. How does public participation contribute in empowering the local community?
The study has focused to identify the logical answers to the above research questions. On the basis of these questions, the study has developed research objectives and hypothesis.
1.3 Significance of the Study
Max Weber, the German Sociologist, made a classical attempt to show how social factors, and particularly, religious beliefs and practical ethics influence the economic activities of people. Public involvement in environmental management plan saves the society and the environment itself so that relates to resources and raises the economic status of a belonged society. Public participation is very effective from the development perspective because it directly involves the local public who are very familiar with their environment and local need of society. Public participation encourages the use of indigenous knowledge and dexterity of people in social development.
Public participation in environmental management and decision-making applies particularly to decisions whose outcomes are likely to affect in community development and changes. Public participation involves the community's right to be informed, to have inputs to the decision-making process, for that inputs to be seriously considered, and to be advised of the responses to the input and the reasons for the responses. It was very important to study the public participation modality of the mega project as Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) of Nepal which has given support in environmental management and social development of that particular society. MWSP is a public property also and so public responsibilities also to make the program effective and empower the society.
It was expected that the findings of the study would be beneficial to MWSP. They could apply the findings of this study to improve their public participation strategies. The study found that the public were informed about the activities of MWSP but their direct involvement was comparatively low. So MWSP could increase the involvement of the public. Similarly, the general public could be aware about the benefit of their participation for the development activities of society. It could also help the policy makers of environment management and further researchers could make the comparative studies of similar types of mega projects.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this study is to evaluate the current practice of public participation in environmental management. The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To assess the level of environmental impacts of the Melamchi Water Supply Project with specific reference to its physical components
2. To assess the level of public participation in environmental management in reference to four levels i.e., do inform, consult, involve and collaborate.
3. To identify the contribution of public participation in empowering the local community.
1.5 Hypothesis of the Study
Investigations place signports to carry the reader through a plan for a study. The first signport is the purpose statement, which establishes the central direction for the study. From the broad general purpose statement, the researcher narrows the focus to specific questions to be answered or predictions based on the hypotheses to be tested (Creswell, 2009). The hypotheses of the study were as follows:
1. There is no significant association among the people on level of environmental impacts of the Melamchi Water Supply Project with specific reference to its physical components.
1.1 There is no significant association among the people regarding the contribution of MWSP in agriculture,
1.2 There is no significant association among the people regarding the contribution of MWSP in educational development,
1.3 There is no significant association among the people regarding the contribution of MWSP in road construction,
1.4 There is no significant association among the people regarding the contribution of MWSP in off-seasonal vegetable farming,
1.5 There is no significant association among the people regarding the contribution of MWSP in forest management,
2. Public participation in environmental management is high in level of informing & consulting than the level of involving and collaborating.
3. There is no association between the people on contribution of public participation in empowering the local community.
3.1 There is no significant association among the people regarding the contribution of public participation in providing ambulance services,
3.2 There is no significant association among the people regarding the contribution of public participation in health,
3.3 There is no significant association among the people regarding contribution of public participation in providing the training to community people,
3.4 There is no significant difference between the beforehand and aftermath of an involvement in business in relation to implementation of MWSP.
1.6 Philosophy of the Study
Philosophy is the idea of research which guides the whole methodological terms and scientific processes of a carried study. There are various types of research philosophies practiced in an academic sector.
The study is based on the post-positivist philosophy. A post-positive might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. This is in contrast with a subjectivist individual who would hold that there is no external reality, so scholars are each making the very phenomenon all up. Positivists are also realists from a mundane point of view. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical or our ability to know reality with certainty, where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth. The post-positivist critical realist believes that the good of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve the goal! Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple erroneous sources to try to get a better bead on what’s happening in reality (Social Research Method, 2006).
1.7 Theoretical Framework
Public involvement is meant to ensure that citizens have a direct voice into a public decision making. The terms citizen, public, involvement and participation are often interchangeable in themselves.
1.7.1 Theory of Citizen Participation
Citizen participation is a process which provides individuals an opportunity to influence public decisions and has long been a component of the democratic decision-making process. The roots of citizen participation can be traced to ancient Greece and Colonial New England. Before the 1960s, governmental processes and procedures were designed to facilitate external participation. Citizen participation was institutionalized in the mid-1960s with President Lyndon Jonson’s Great Society programs (Cogan & Sharpe, 1986 p. 283). Mize reveals that the term citizen participation and it is relationship to public decision-making has evolved without a general consensus regarding either it is meaning nor it is consequences (Mize, 1972).
Cogan and Sharpe (1986, p. 284) identify five benefits of citizen participation in the planning process:
1. Information and ideas on public issues;
2. Public support for planning decisions;
3. Avoidance of protracted conflicts and costly delays;
4. Reservoir of goodwill which can carried over for future decisions; and
5. Spirit of cooperation and trust between the agency and the public.
Figure 1: Ladder of Citizen Participation
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Sources: (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217)
From the above ladder of citizen participation was framed at eight steps by Amstein in 1969. The initial two steps were manipulation and therapy. Among these steps other three- informing, consultation and placation were considered as tokenism only. The last three steps were the participation-partnership, delegated power and citizen control acts.
The benefit of public participation was reported in other previous study also. In 2004, Delli Carpini, Cook and Jacobs published a review article in the Annual Review of Political Science which reviewed the empirical research bearing on the theoretical expectations of public deliberation and its contribution to citizen engagement. The focus of this review was on the role of a particular public participation process (i.e., public deliberation) and general public outcome primarily and on political decision making outcomes secondarily. The review takes a theory- based approach to evaluation in its assessment of the following theorized benefits of public deliberation:
- Citizens become more engaged and active in civic affairs.
- Citizens’ tolerance for opposing viewpoints increases.
- Citizens’ understanding and ability to justify their preferences improves.
- Faith in the democratic process is enhanced.
- Political decisions will be more informative.
- Community social capital will increase through deliberative experiences.
- Legitimacy of government will increase as people have a say in and better understand its workings.
- More sound individual and collective decisions will result.
- Support for responsive public officials will grow (Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004).
The following conceptual map of public participation evaluation developed by Abelson & Eyles, 2004 shows the context, process and outcome of public evaluation.
Figure 2: Conceptual Map of Public Participation Evaluation
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: (Abelson & Eyles, 2004, p. 281)
1.7.2 Theory of Public participation
Public participation in simple terms means to involve those who are affected by a decision in the decision making process. It is founded on the fundamental understanding that public participation can help make better decisions that reflect the interests and concerns of affected or interested people and entities. The concept of public participation is constructed of the three pillar principles such as the right to information, right to participate, and the right to justice. Effective participation is only possible if these three pillars are firmly in the place:
(i) The right to information: the public must have easy access to all the relevant information they require so that they may participate in a meaningful way. This responsibility falls with the decision making authority.
(ii) The right to participate: in decision making processes: public participation is only possible if the appropriate mechanisms are in place to achieve this. The mere provision of information is insufficient in itself: the public must be informed at an early stage of their rights to participate and the processes including the time frame in which this is to occur.
(iii) The right to justice: this principle provides that the public shall have a right or recourse to administrative or judicial procedures to dispute or discuss matters affecting them. This includes access to the appropriate courts of law or tribunals. Such a guarantee is important so those who are affected by a decision have a means of enforcing their rights.
The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) is the pre-eminent international organization advancing the practice of public participation. (The International Association for Public Participation, 2014). According to IAP2, underpinning this concept of public participation has numbers of core values.
These are that public participation:
- is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to involve in the decision making process.
- includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
- promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.
- seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
- seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.
- provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
- communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.
1.8 Limitation of the Study
The scope of the research has been limited to the affected geographical area of the Melamchi Water Supply Project (Project-I) for the study. The social structures and social environments were considered since the matter was a vague area of study to include all the aspects. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were applied in the research. Semi-structured interviews, closed and open ended questions were applied to narrate the views as primary data for the research. Literature review like geographical practice, periodic practice in developed and underdeveloped countries, survey of the area for primary data collection, data analysis, and drawing conclusion were the scope of the research.
This study also is limited to key stakeholders such as the Chief of the Social Safeguard Section, past Executive Directors of the project, and other experts as key informants. The study has focused in the affected areas where the major construction works were executed.
1.9 Delimitation of the Study
The scope has been delimited to the area of the Melamchi Valley ( Helambu, Ichok, Kiul, Mahankal, Palchowk, Talamarang, Melamchi, and Duwachaur). The project has also remarkable impacts on the Kathmandu Valley especially in the production of wastewater. The Kathmandu Valley was not included in the scope of the study.
1.10 Conceptual Framework of the Study
The conceptual framework of the study is the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that support and inform research which is a key part of study the design (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Robson, 2011). Miles and Huberman defined a conceptual framework as a visual or written product, one that explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied-the key factors, concepts, or variables-and the presumed relationships among them (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 18).
The most important thing to understand about the conceptual framework is that it is primarily a concept or plan of the study -and a tentative theory of the phenomena that are under investigation. The functionary role of this theory is to inform the rest of the study design to help to assess and refine the study goals, develop realistic and relevant research questions, select appropriate methods, and identify potential validity posed threats to the conclusion drawing method.
The following conceptual framework study (Figure 3) explains about the relationship between public participation and environmental management in the Melamchi Water area.
Supplier Project of Sindhupalchowk district. Here, public participation was studied on the basis of four major indicators: To Inform, Consult, Involve and Collaborate. All the four indicators stand as independent variables whereas the study also was held on the environmental practices and empowering the community through public participation which stands as a dependent variable in the flow chart below.
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework of the study
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Author’s own work
The study was backed up by the theory of public participation. Public participation advocates on the issue of community problem and gives pressures to concerned authorities to address the proposed problem or issues of the community. Public participation is important to implement the program effectively and address the micro level problem of the community. The study also focused to explore public participation practices of MWSP on environmental management and empowering the community people.
1.11 Operational Definition of Key Variables
Inform: to provide the public with balanced and objective information that assists them in understanding the proposed project and the EA process, or aspects of these all.
Consult: to obtain and consider public project feedback on aspects in the EA analysis (e.g. scope, alternatives, mitigation) or the EA report.
Involve: to work directly with the public by providing opportunity for dialogue and interaction during the EA process to ensure consistent understanding and incorporation of their interests.
Collaborate: to partner with the representatives of the public to resolve issues jointly or make recommendations about an aspect of the EA. For example, to identify, evaluate and recommend preferred alternatives in a collaborative manner.
Participation: to take part in any action. For example, to participate in general body meetings or to participate in community water supply project.
EIA: is a process of environmental impact assessment to assess whether the project has impacted the environment or not.
IEE: is an initial environmental examination of the project.
Environment: The total of all surroundings including natural forces and living things of physical, chemical, biological, social and cultural systems.
1.12 Thesis Chapters
The thesis is organized in to fives chapters. Whilst each chapter aims at contributing to achieve various objectives of the research, some chapters are interlinked. The first chapter is introductory in nature. A brief outline of the rest of the chapters is presented in the following paragraphs. The overall structure of the thesis, indicating nature and purpose of each chapter is summarized in tabular format below in Table 1.
Table 1: Nature and Purpose of the Thesis Chapters
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Chapter One: Introduction to research
This chapter deals with the background of the study in detail as well as explains the statement of the research problem. Introduction describes research question and objective on the basis of problem statement and develops the research hypothesis. This chapter also covers the research hypothesis, theoretical framework, conceptual framework, scope of study, and operational definition of the key words.
Chapter Two: Theoretical Context and International Experience of Participation in EIA
This chapter attempts to provide the theoretical context of public participation in environmental decision making and how it is being practiced in the developed and developing countries. It first presents the historical perspectives, definitions, levels and rationale of public participation. Various techniques and methods of public participation in EIA are then discussed. A review of literature on legal provisions, guidelines and practices related to public participation in some of the pioneering and renowned developed as well as developing countries with respect to EIA practice is also presented in this chapter. The developed countries include USA, Canada, UK and the Netherlands. The developing countries include India, Pakistan, China, Thailand and the Philippines. The focus of this review is to identify key issues and evidences of best practices to learn lessons and have a comparative view of the international scenario.
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
This chapter describes the research methodology in detail. An overall research strategy is first elaborated. It then indicates the kind of literature reviewed and how the valuation framework was developed. Justification for the case study approach and rationale for the selection of cases are presented in the following sections. Subsequently, the types of data collected and nature of interviews conducted along with the sampling strategy are explained. Techniques used for data analysis and interpretation of results are elucidated in the last section.
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussions
This chapter gives the result of the data analysis. The chapter is divided into different sub-chapters to deal with the specific objectives of this study. It has presented the data of demographic information, environmental impacts of MWSP, level of public participation in environmental management and contribution of public participation in empowering the community.
Chapter Five: Summary, Key Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
This last chapter presents the summary, key findings, and conclusions of the study in relation to the research objectives. Above all, the conclusions not only present the nature and extent of public participation but its influence on the decision making process in EIA. The recommendations have thus been made about what should be done to improve public participation which can also help in strengthening the EIA process. Based on the findings of this research, a new model for proactive public participation has been proposed to enhance its effectiveness.
CHAPTER-TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the literature review chapter is to acquire knowledge and develop an understanding of the previous works related to the research topic (Adams & Schvaneveldt, 1985). Therefore, a thorough review of relevant literature was done using numerous sources like, books, journal articles, legal documents, internet websites, reports etc. Keeping in view the thematic topic of research, literature was described from the following four perspectives:
i. the literature regarding the historical perspective and theoretical concepts of consultation and participation, its levels, methods, techniques, and impact were thoroughly reviewed. It helped in understanding the concept and significance of public participation in EIA.
ii. the literature on public participation practice in EIA of many developed and developing countries were reviewed to identify evidences of best practice and draw useful lessons.
iii. the literature on public participation in EIA, its objectives, effectiveness, and its role in decision making were reviewed to find research gaps in the literature and the practical context.
iv. the literature on the components and attributes of best practice as well as evaluation criteria were reviewed so as to seek help in formulating a country specific framework for evaluation of public participation practice in EIA in the Melamchi Water Supply Project in Nepal.
Historically, some of the advocacy/ participatory (or emancipatory) writers have drawn works of Marks, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, and Freire (Neuman, 2000). Fay, 1987 Heron Reason (1997), and Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998), are more recent writers. Primarily, these inquire felt that the constructivist stance did not go far enough in advocating for an action agenda to help marginalized peoples. An advocacy / participatory world view holds that research enquiry needs to be intertwined in politics and the political agenda. Thus, the research contains an action agenda for reform that may change of lives of the participants, the institutions in which individuals work or live, and the researcher’s life. Moreover, specific issues need to be addressed that speak to important social issues of the day, issues such as empowerment, inequality, oppression, domination, suppression, and alternation. The researcher often begins with one of these issues as the focal point of study, according to the concerning source (Creswell, 2009).
This chapter provides the literature review on the theoretical background and international experience in public participation in the trend of environmental management. The discussion on international principles of best public participation practices and various criteria of its evaluation can also be found in the chapter.
Starting with the historical perspective and significance of public participation in environmental decision making; the section moves on to the design of EIA and participation including the levels of participation techniques. The chapter further elaborates on public participation in the context of developed countries and developing countries. It also describes the framework for evaluation of public participation in EIA in Nepal with legal.
The meaning of public is, according to Pearsall, concerning, or open to the people as a whole; done, perceived, or existing in openly or provided by the state rather than an independent, commercial company; ordinary people in general; the community. Public means the lower part of the domain (Hornby & Cowie, 1982). Similarly, participation means the act of participating (Hornby & Cowie, 1982). The meaning of participation is sharing (Pearsall, 1999).
Participation of the local population also reduces costs and mobilizes the most valuable of all underused resources: human energy and creativity (John, 1982). It also helps reduce the culture of paternalism and dependence, minimizes social and ecological disruptions, and enables them to become a subject of change, Bongartz et al cite (Bongartz & Dahal, 1996).
Exposure to quality participation explained a significant portion of the participants' trust in the government and tolerance of different viewpoints. Respect for and tolerance of those with different opinions is the cornerstone of a vital democracy grounded in interaction between citizens with differing goals. Trust in government performance underlies citizens' beliefs about its legitimacy. Trust in its responsiveness is a prerequisite for democratic participation. These results suggest that quality participation can play a positive role in shaping all of these beliefs, according to Kathleen (Kathleen, 2003).
Public participation and public relation are not synonymous. Public participation is a planned effort to involve citizens in the decision-making process and to prevent or resolve citizen conflict through a mutual two-way communication, the source says (Canter, 1996).
In the public participation domain, unfortunately, the key concepts are not generally well defined, even after several decades (or, some might argue, centuries or even longer) of sporadic research interests. Even the concept of public participation is not well formulated, such that some researchers might disagree with the scope of activities implicitly or explicitly included within the concept by others, and synonyms of uncertain equivalence (e.g., public involvement and public engagement) may be used in place of that term (Rowe & Frewer, 2005).
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), which may involve representatives of both parties in different proportions (depending on the mechanism concerned) or, indeed, only representatives of the public who receive additional information from the sponsors prior to responding. Rather than simple, raw opinions being conveyed to the sponsors, the act of dialogue and negotiation serves to transform opinions among the members of both parties (sponsors and public participants) (Rowe & Frewer, 2005). The field of public participation has provided a plethora of methods for engaging the public in the decision making process (Hampton, 1999). This initial phase may lengthen the consultation process and increase costs, but is essential for ensuring that the methodology used is appropriate for all stakeholders. This issue is particularly important for the promotion of equity when working with diverse cultural group (Hampton, 1999). Inclusion at the initial stage of planning can enhance the validity of the participation methodology and ensure that resources are not wasted on a consultation process which prevents proper involvement of diverse cultural group (Hampton, 1999).
Seven key issues were mentioned for the future effectiveness of decentralized environmental management in the Czech Republic, and probably in analogous situations elsewhere in Central Europe as well: ownership, autonomy, finance, utility pricing, regional institutions, implementation and enforcement of national policies, and the need for a further transition from immediate problems to long-term strategies for achieving environmentally sustainable development patterns (Andrews, Paroha, & Sauer, 1994).
In the 1960s there was a gradual turn from nature conservation towards environmental protection, and the environment was no longer viewed in the narrow context of a specific natural environment or a landscape. Primary attention was given to the pollution of the environment and the depletion of natural resources, which were mainly thought to be caused by industry (Pertti, 1996).
There are a wide variety of criteria which can be used to evaluate environmental performance. These criteria are a mix of environmental programs, concepts and tools, management structures, liabilities, relationships with internal and external groups, and ecosystem-specific relationships. They are developed based on a search of all the corporate environmental management literature as well as from interviews with companies as to what constitutes leading environmental practice (Lober, 1996).
The first step-waking up to the dimensions of the world’s environmental problems has in a sense been under way for more than two decades. At the global level, a key milestone was the United. Nation. conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. Since that meeting it has seen the birth of a worldwide environmental movement, the emergence of thousands of grassroots environmental organizations, and the proliferation of environmental laws and regulations in nations around the world (Lester, Flavin, & Postel, 1991). Many organizations were developed and in every country departments and ministries have been formed including laws being formulated. However, the coordination between laws and ministries has not been effective. Laws and ministries are one thing. Real environmental progress is another (Lester, Flavin, & Postel, 1991).
The battle to save the planet could replace the battle over ideology as the organizing theme of international affairs. If we begin to fashion a promising future for the next generation, efforts to reserve the degradation of the planet will become increasingly prominent (Lester, Flavin, & Postel, 1991).
Regarding a sustainable development mainly of water supplier project including environmental management one of the concepts designed is given as follows.
Sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem (Bruntdland, Mansour, Susanna, & Saleh, 1987).
Asian Development Bank (ADB) in its policy paper describes the environmental safeguard requirements pertaining to biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources, pollution prevention and abatement, occupational and health safety, and conservation of physical and cultural resources. The applicability of particular requirements is achieved through implementation of environmental management plans (ADB, June 2009).
EIA is intended as an informational document that allows the public and decision makers to understand the potential impacts of a proposal. Although specific requirements and terminology vary somewhat depending on the governing statute, most EIA statutes share the same basic requirements for a comprehensive assessment of potential environmental effects and for public participation (Bhatia & Wernham, 2008).
In Nepal, there have been different ways to involve people at different stages from project formulation to implementation. The National Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines 1993 has proposed using the following approaches during the identification of priority issues for Environmental Impact Assessment study, i.e., during the preparation of the scoping document (HMG, 1993). However, these approaches can be used for the whole EA process (Upreti, 2003).
People involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment process are called stakeholders. Hence, the stakeholders would include the following: local people- individual and /or community-likely to be affected or benefited by the project activities; NGOs/CBOs preferably working in the proposed project area, and other NGOs for national priority projects; interested public for nationally significant projects; competent authorities and /or decision-making bodies; and funding agencies (Upreti, 2003).
2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental impact assessment is an essential part of the environmental permitting process. It applies to public and private projects that are expected to have significant effect on natural and social environment. The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to investigate and present all possible effects of development proposals on the environment and an elaborate environmental management plan including mitigation measures in order to lessen adverse consequences to the environment. Thus, the primary and immediate aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to identify the environmental consequences of development in advance and consider possible impacts prior to a decision being taken on whether or not a proposal should be given approval to proceed. On the other hand, it focuses on the mitigation measures to avoid or lessen harmful environmental setting as far as possible (Jay et al. 2007).
First, introduced in the world in 70-75’s, the Environmental Impact Assessment system has undergone significant changes and improvements. However, while some nations e.g. Canada, Germany and the Netherlands have more developed EIA systems, in others the Environmental Impact Assessment process has been implemented only recently (Ramos et al. 2008). In this regard, setting up a well-established, strong Environmental Impact Assessment system is still a challenge for developing and transitional economic countries.
Environmental Impact Assessment designs differ for different countries. In general, the Environmental Impact Assessment process starts with project identification. There are different ways for identifying activities potentially subject to Environmental Impact Assessment in international practice. One of those is establishing list of activities requiring mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment. These are activities having significant impacts on natural and social environment. Annex I of the Aarhus Convention (UNECE 1998) provides such a list of activities being subject to mandatory EIA. However, there are activities that might not be included in the list, but could also be having significant impacts on the environment. These activities are identified through the further process of screening on a case-by-case basis. The following steps are: scoping, establishing aims and scopes of the EIA study; EIA research, which includes impact assessment and mitigation and impact management; EIA report; reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment report; and decision making. In case development is approved, EIA implementation and follow up starts which should reveal whether actual impacts on the environment are within the levels predicted by the project and if mitigation measures are properly implemented. Public participation usually is envisaged during the stages of scoping and EIA review (NCEIA 2005).
2.2 Understanding Consultation and Participation
Consultation and participation are often used interchangeably as both indicate involvement of people in decision making. But theoretically there is a difference between both the concepts with respect to varying levels of involvement and degree of power attributed to the public. Normally, consultation is a two-way process of information sharing among the proponent, responsible agency and various stakeholders on the potential benefits and adverse effects of a development proposal. The stakeholders are also provided with the opportunity to give oral or written comments on the proposal. Consultation may be held at any stage of the EIA process. However, the proponent or responsible agency may consider stakeholders’ views/concerns in decision making, if it considers appropriate (Bisset, 2000). Participation refers to a process through which the public/stakeholders can influence decisions and share control over development proposals which may affect them (World Bank, 1996). In a participation exercise, the shared analysis, agenda setting and decision making are normally reached through consensus on the main issues between the public and the proponent (Pakistan, 1997a; Bisset, 2000). Participation may also be held at any stage of the EIA process, rather it includes consultation and offers more opportunities for a comparatively high degree of public influence over the EIA related decisions (Petts, 1999 b; Arnstein, 1969). However, in this thesis both consultation and participation have been used interchangeably.
2.2.1 Levels of Participation
The level of participation depends upon the extent to which the public is provided with the information and opportunities to share the control over decision making processes. In this regards, Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation stands out as a widely recognized explanation of bottom-up approach involving an increasing power to the public in the decision making process which lies in citizen control, delegated power, participation, consultation, information provision, and manipulation. The bottom rung of the ladder, manipulation, indicates the lowest level of public involvement with the objectives of educating and persuading them. This is not recognized as a true form of participation (Petts, 1999 b).
The second rung from the bottom, information provision, characterizes tokenism, in which people are just informed about a development proposal and possibly about the decision. They may have a voice but no assurance that it will have any influence (Canter, 1996). Consultation represents a comparatively higher level of tokenism, or a formality of participation which allows two way exchange of views but the right to decide remains with those who are in power. Thus, public concerns may not be incorporated into the decisions.
The top three rungs of the ladder, from participation to citizen control, portray an increasing level of power and shared role of the public in decision making. At the higher levels, “Citizens can enter into a partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional power holders” (Canter, 1996). However, these attributes of a bottom up approach, advocating to sharing power with the ‘have-nots’, are desired but rarely practiced in the EIA systems across the globe. Instead, a top-down approach, in which the powerful elites control the decision making, prevails (Smith, 1984; Canter, 1996; Petts, 1999a).
2.3 Participation Techniques
Canter in 1996, identified seven main stages in the EIA process at which public participation may potentially be happening. These are: (1) Scoping (identification of issues and impacts), (2) Study of baseline conditions, (3) Prediction and evaluation of impacts, (4) Identification of mitigation measures, (5) Comparison of alternatives, (6) Decision making related to proposed action, and (7) Study documentation through the preparation of an EIA or an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) and monitoring. Whilst it has been suggested that public participation may be associated with most of the stages of the EIA process for a major development initiative, in most systems it only takes place at one or two stages according to sources (Canter, 1996; Glasson, Therivel, & Chadwick, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 1999). Every stage of EIA process has certain implications for public participation. Therefore, it is important to choose the techniques and level of public participation which correspond to the nature of the EIA stage. The relevant literature suggests a wide range of techniques of public participation being used in EIA.
From these issues, it appears that each method and technique of public involvement in EIA may serve different purposes. For instance, use of brochures or leaflets for informing and educating people can reach a wide or a targeted audience. But there may also be intrinsic disadvantages in using such techniques. The information in leaflets and brochures, for example, may not be understood or be misinterpreted. Similarly, public meetings and public hearings which can be conducted for exchange of views and information can have the potential to provide the proponents and concerned officials with the opportunity to interact with the affected and interested public. But public meetings and hearings can prove to be complex, unpredictable and intimidating. It may also be hijacked by some interest groups or the affected community could not participate adequately (Naim, 2004). Although, using print and electronic media like newspapers, radio and the internet are cheaper as compared to television; the latter has the potential to attract a wider audience.
Overall, it may be stated that engaging stakeholders of a project during various stages of the EIA process is useful. But the timing and techniques for public participation should be carefully selected, keeping in mind the local political situation, socio-economic characteristics of potential affectees and vested interests of various active groups, so as to enhance effectiveness of participation.
2.4 The Developed Countries Context of Public Participation
Public involvement before granting environmental approval of development projects in most developed countries is increasingly considered an important notion which can possibly enhance the quality of EIA and acceptability of related decisions. However, public involvement at earlier stages of EIA like scoping and detailed investigation/study of baseline environmental conditions in most of the regimes is discretionary. Its effectiveness in terms of influence on the final outcome also varies from country to country. Although a lot of research has been done on its effectiveness, but such number of studies is much less as compared to the literature on the overall effectiveness of EIA (Cashmore, 2004; Rowe G. &., 2004). The legal requirements, guidelines and practice of involving the public in some of the pioneering and advanced EIA systems, like in USA has been described here USA is selected here as because EIA originated from USA’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969 as a result of growing public demand to do something about the environment (Jay, Jones, & Slinn, 2007). Similarly, the UK is taken as a representative of the European Union countries. Also many British laws have been enforced in Pakistan even after independence from the British regime in the Indo-Pak Sub-continent. The Netherlands is considered to have developed the most ‘sophisticated’ and effective EIA system in Europe. Its openness and independent EIA commission are acknowledged by many authors (Wood, 2003; Glasson J. T., 2005). Thus, there are many aspects of EIA and public participation in these countries which can be learned for improving public participation in EIA. The following sections not only provide an insight into the actual practice of public participation in EIA in these countries but also highlight the key issues and evidences of effectiveness.
2.4.1 American Environmental Impact Regime: Legislatives and Guidelines
Public participation is an essential part of the EIA practice in the USA (Sadler, 1996). Consultation with the concerned federal agencies and the public during the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) is a mandatory requirement under NEPA. Under section 1506.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, it is binding on the government agencies to make conscientious efforts to involve the public while preparing and implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) related procedures and invite all the stakeholders, by issuing a general notice about public meetings, hearings and the availability of EIS. For comments on the draft EIS, 45 days are given purposefully thereabout.
Furthermore, the CEQ Regulations require agency consultation and participation during scoping, preparation of draft and final EISs, on the decision as well as on the monitoring results. To ensure the involvement of low income and tribal communities, the lead agency must consult other agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise (CEQ, 1997). Despite such provisions, litigation cases against the decision of the environmental protection agency and impacts of ongoing projects are very common. Non-governmental organizations and other interest groups, taking the advantage of strong provisions of NEPA for appeal against EPA’s actions at any stage of the EIA process, are generally active in filing lawsuits (Wood, 2003).
Consultation process and techniques are followed as the public society is informed as well as invited for networking job through notification on the internet, newspapers, direct communication with the affected ones and organizations, and newsletters (Zavestoski & Shulman, 2006). The notices are published in the Federal Register, which can also be accessed through the website of EPA. EIA documents are also notified in the Federal Register and made available to the public without any charges given for photocopy at their own cost (Wood, 2003). Draft EIS is also circulated among the statutory consulted and concerned federal agencies along with its publication on the internet. However, EISs are often so complex and technical that it becomes difficult for a common citizen to understand, from the relevant sources (Sullivan, Kuo, & Prabhu, 1996).
Although, the participation process during scoping is said to be open to the interested and affected public and federal agencies, the public is not involved during all the stages of the EIA process in many cases (Balug, 1993). Some examples can also be found in which the scoping meetings could not attract a single participant (Wood, 2003). According to a recent study on the public health impact assessment as part of EIA in USA (Cole, 2004), stakeholders felt that meaningful public participation was limited due mainly to lengthy EIA reports and late involvement of the stakeholders in the assessment process.
Public hearings are held at large fancy places or in the city centre away from the project site. Consequently, low income communities are not represented (Williams, 1996). Inappropriate and remotely located hearing venues sometime become reasons of no participation by the low income and tribal communities. Besides, there is no provision of funding for participants of the EIA process (Wood, 2003).
The composition and awareness of the participants of public hearing depends upon the nature and severity of the proposed project and partially on the method of consultation. Generally, NGOs and other interest groups possessing knowledge of environmental issues participate. Probably that is why public consultation process, except in a few cases, is significantly contributing to educating and informing the public (Beierle & Cayford, 2002). Consultation techniques used during scoping generally include telephonic conversation, community meetings and/or written comments from various stakeholder groups both online and on paper. To overcome linguistic, institutional, cultural, economic, and historic barriers to effective participation, direct coordination with the affectees, personal interviews and newsletters are also practiced occasionally (Bass, 1998). Public hearings and community advisory groups (CAGs) are the most commonly used methods of consultation during EIS review in USA (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Zavestoski & Shulman, 2006) Formal presentation of EIS takes place using a raised platform and slide projection techniques (Williams, 1996).
Normally, public hearings help to reduce conflicts among the participants and some genuine effort is also made in this regard by the competent authorities. Some evidences suggest that the public meetings highlighted controversy between the proponent and direct affectees and resulted in protest and many lawsuits even shooting, for instance, in case of a power line project in Minnesota (McConnen, 1986, quoted in Beierle and Cayford, 2002).
Substantive Quality of Decisions and Influence of Public Concerns are important whilst inclusion of consultees responses and public comments in the final EIS are compulsory requirements, consideration of relevant federal and other agencies’ comments is said to have been more effective than the public concerns (Wood, 2003). There are many cases for which agencies often proposed mitigation measures after identifying significant impacts during the initial environmental assessment which otherwise required a detailed EIA. And if an agency found that such mitigation measures will prevent a project from having significant impacts on the environment, the agency then concluded the NEPA process by issuing a FONSI (finding of no significant impacts), rather than preparing EIS. Due to this reason, the public did not take much interest to participate (CEQ, 1997).
Evidences suggest that many concerns raised by the public and their values are considered in the final decisions in more than half of the EIA cases in the USA (Beierle & Cayford, 2002). On the other hand, FONSI (finding of no significant impacts) tactic is used by many proponent agencies to avoid the need of full scale EIS and public comments. Where the local community groups took an active part in the decision making process (for instance, Superfund Hazardous Waste Cleaning Sites), their concerns were adequately incorporated into the final decision and environmental outcome (Daley, 2007).
The decision making process does not appear to be transparent despite the availability of comments of EPA and other reviewing agencies on the draft EIS to the public in the final EIS (Wood, 2003). The EPA is bound to provide the final EIS to the persons who submitted written comments on the draft EIS. But, they are not provided with sufficient explanations for why some of their suggestions were not incorporated into the final decision (CEQ, 1997). Such practices are creating distrust on the agencies and adding costs and time as projects are delayed by ensuing controversy and legal challenges (Bowler, 1997).
Corporations in North America, Europe, Japan, and in most newly industrializing nations are embracing environmental protection as part of their international competitive strategies. For many firms, the shift to proactive environmental management is driven by pressures from governments, customers, employees, and competitors. Both consumers and investors are beginning to see more clearly the relationship between business performance and environmental quality. The trend toward proactive environmental management is being accelerated by public pressures on governments almost everywhere to assure a cleaner environment. Government regulations have become more stringent, legal liabilities for environmental damage have become more burdensome, and customers have become more demanding. But more importantly, there is growing evidence that firms that adopt proactive environmental management strategies become more efficient and competitive. In many countries, the public has become more vocal in demanding responsible environmental performance as incomes rise and education spreads (Michael & Dennis, 1998).
2.5 The Developing Countries Context of Public Participation
EIA is widely used in developing countries on the basis of its potential as a tool to support planning and environmental decision making. It is being practiced for the last twenty five years in Asian countries. But despite this long experience, it has been relatively ineffective in promoting sustainable development (Briffet, 2003). Still, there are some countries in which public consultation or making the EIA report publicly available are not mandatory, for instance, Bangladesh. However in case of projects funded by international donor agencies, some kind of public consultations do take place during the EIA process (Ahmad, 2002). Regarding the influence of public opinion on final decisions in south East Asian Countries, (Boyle, 1998) argues that the public is effectively excluded from project planning and decision making. In order to promote the public participation culture, Briffet et al. (2003) noted that there was still much to be done for capacity building, training of EIA consultants and decision makers. Despite increasingly held notion of public participation in EIA in the developed world for delivering more environmental benefits and avoiding conflicts (Wood, 2003) (Donnellly, 1998), it has not yet gained ground in the developing world (Bisset, 2000).
One of the most important factors differentiating public participation in the developing world from the developed is that in the poorer countries, development project implies job, money and basic facilities which the people may be devoid of. Thus the priority of the people and the governments is different (Thakur, 2006).
A similar lack of interest also prevails in the research and literature on EIA and public participation in developing countries. However, an attempt to present the ‘accessible’ picture of public participation provisions and practices in some of the developing countries namely, India has been made as representative of the country of the developing nation.
2.5.1 The Experience in India
Legal Provisions and Guidelines for Public Consultation have a public consultation through hearing is mandatory requirement before granting EIA approval in India (Rajvanshi, 2003; Paliwal, 2006). But it is held after submitting the executive summary of the EIA report (in both English and the local language (Sinclair & Diduck, 2000). The notice of public hearing indicating its date, time and venue is required to be published thirty days before the date of hearing in at least two newspapers, one of which must be in the local language of the project affected areas. It is worth mentioning that public hearing is executed by a panel, the members of which normally belong to representatives of the State Pollution Control Board, District Collector, concerned departments including the environment, local government institutions such as Municipalities or Panchayats, and senior citizens of the affected areas (not more than three in both cases) nominated by the District Collector (Rajvanshi, 2003). The executive summary of the project is available to the public at the offices of the panel members. More importantly, copies of the final decision including conditions of approval are required to be provided to the stakeholders upon request (Sinclair & Diduck, 2000). The public also has a right to appeal against the final decision.
Quality of Information, Composition and Awareness of the Public involved along the quality of information provided in the EIA report is generally poor and lacking in clear description of project and interpretation and analysis of collected data but full of jargons (Paliwal, 2006). Access to the executive summary of projects by the directly affected public living in rural areas is said to be poor and public consultations/hearings are somewhat independent of EIA (Rajvanshi, 2003). These are held after conducting field surveys and making all important decisions, thus leaving no opportunities to influence any of the project characteristics including its location (Rajaram & Das, 2006). Frequent changes in the hearing venue and their location in big cities away from the project affected areas have also been observed by some researchers (Sinclair & Diduck, 2000; Rajaram & Das, 2006).
Further, there is no practice of providing financial support or transport facility to the indigenous communities to enable them to participate in the hearings. As a result, the composition of the public involved remain limited to concerned officials, representatives of NGOs and a few senior citizens from the project affected areas due to remote locations of hearing venues (Rajvanshi, 2003; Rajaram & Das, 2006). However, there are cases in which the public hearings were attended by 80 to 100 people, for instance, Parbati Hydroelectric Project Stage II and Malana Hydroelectric Projects located in Kullu District of Himachal Pradesh, India (Sinclair & Diduck, 2000).
Generally, there is a lack of capacity and awareness among the people about environmental and socio-economic issues which is needed to participate effectively (Rajvanshi, 2003). Some evidences, nonetheless, suggest that villagers may be well aware of site specific environmental issues and possible solutions. But many people are reluctant to participate due to the local culture and feeling of powerlessness (Sinclair & Diduck, 2000).
Overall, public hearings have become loaded with fraught with several contextual problems and procedural deficiencies in India (Rajvanshi, 2003). Project impacts on sensitive ecosystems are presented briefly and attention of participants is attempted to be diverted towards safeguards for maintaining the environmental balance (Sinclair & Diduck, 2000). Although hearing is conducted by a hearing panel comprising government officials and public representatives, there is no established mechanism of resolving conflicts (Rajvanshi, 2003).
Substantive Quality of Decisions: The role of public input in the improvement of EIA in India, so far, has proved to be poor (Rajvanshi, 2003). This is explained by the late involvement of stakeholders in the EIA process and low weight given to public wisdom and traditional knowledge. There is also a general lack of consideration of biophysical impacts in the context of socioeconomic wellbeing of people (Rajvanshi, 2003). There are several case studies in which public concerns were not incorporated in the EIA reports. Some of such cases include: the Banglore-Mangalore pipeline, Pipalpankha, Malana, Parbati and Allain Duhangan hydroelectric power projects, Sethusamudram ship channel and Gopalpur steel and port projects etc. (Sinclair & Diduck, 2000; Rajvanshi, 2003; Rajaram & Das, 2006; Martin, 2007).
Transparency of Decisions and Influence of Public Concerns: Transparency of decisions is indicated by informing the stakeholders about consideration of their concerns which in turn helps building trust on the competent authorities and proponents. The literature on public consultation and the EIA process in developing countries suggest that such attributes are generally missing in the decision making processes. About the Indian EIA decision making process, it has been said that “one can make their concerns felt/known at the public hearings but it is a black box after that” (quoted in Sinclair and Diduck, 2000). Rajvanshi (2003) argues that the lack of opportunities to review proceedings of EIA cases and public hearings eliminate the role of the public from the decision making process. She further states that neglecting the role of the public in the final decisions was leading to opposition of projects, social and environmental movements and media campaigns. For example, the atmosphere of public distrust in competent authorities was prevalent during the EIA process of the Sethusamudram Project (Rajaram &Das, 2006). Similarly, access to information was restricted during the EIA and decision making process of the Allain Duhangan hydroelectric project (Martin, 2007).
Studies suggest that there is no practice of negotiation and applying trade-offs between the economic benefits and environmental risks of development projects (Rajaram & Das, 2006). Public consultations have minimal influence on the final decisions. More often, this develops feelings of betrayal among the people (Paliwal, 2006). Surprisingly, the conditions of environmental clearance/final decision are more or less similar (copy and paste) for every project of a development sector, for example, Open Cast Coal Mines (Thakur, 2006).
2.5.2 The Experience in Nepal
Legal Provisions and Guidelines for Public Consultation dealing with the connectivity of Nepalese national change aspects 1990 says as the state shall give priority to the protection of the environment and also to the prevention of its further damage due to physical development activities by increasing the awareness of the general public about environmental cleanness, and the state shall also make arrangements for the protection of rare wildlife, forest and the vegetation (Khatri, 1990).
The Interim constitution of Nepal-2063 includes: Every person shall have the right to live in a healthy environment (GON, 2007). The Constitution of Nepal, 2072 clause 51. G 5, 6, & 7 states the strategic plans and policies to save the public environment.
The Environmental Protection Act states that it is expedient to make legal provisions in order to maintain clean and healthy environment by minimizing, as far as possible, adverse impacts likely to be caused from environmental degradation on human beings, wildlife, plants, nature and physical objects; and to protect the environment with proper use and management of natural resources, taking into consideration that sustainable development could be achieved from the inseparable inter-relationship between economic development and environment protection (GON, 1997).
On the basis of opinions and suggestions, if any, rendered by the general public and also opinions and suggestions rendered by the Committee, if any, formed pursuant to sub-section (4), on the Environmental Impact Assessment report received pursuant to sub-section (1) or (2), it does not appear that such a proposal may have significant adverse impacts on the environment, the Ministry shall grant approval to the proponent to implement such a proposal (GON, 1997).
In the context of Nepal public participation is expected. The Environmental Protection Rules, 1997 describes: Whilst preparing the report, the proponent shall, in the cases of initial environmental examination affix a notice in the concerned Village Development Committee or Municipality, Office of the District Development Committee, schools, hospitals, and health posts requesting the Village Development Committee or Municipality and District Development Committee or concerned individuals or institutions to offer their written opinion and suggestions within fifteen days with regard to the possible impact of the implementation of the proposal on the environment where the proposal is to be implemented and prepare a deed . A fifteen days’ notice shall also be published in a national level daily newspaper. After the publication of such a notice, the opinions and suggestions so received in relation to the same shall also be included in the report. Provided that, while preparing the report of environmental impact assessment, the proponent shall organize a public hearing about the proposal at the area of the Village Development Committee or Municipality where the proposal is to be implemented and collect opinions and suggestions, the source explains (GoN, 1997).
Nepal is particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of development projects because of its fragile landscape, which is characterized by steep and unstable slopes; a high potential for natural disasters such as landslides, glacier lake outbursts, floods, and earthquakes; depleting forests; rapid population growth; extensive poverty; and poor institutional capabilities to handle environmental problems. Thus, economic development that proceeds without proper attention to the management of Nepal’s resources base cannot be sustained (Khadka & Tuladhar, 1996).
Risk Management: It divulges as when considering risk management in its political context, it is essential to relate it to "styles" of policymaking. In general terms there are two styles, the adversary approach most commonly found in the US but also prevalent in Japan and West Germany and some other European countries and the consensus approach followed in the UK, other Commonwealth countries and some European nations such as the Netherlands. (The countries cited do not necessarily use one or the other approaches exclusively but in practice tend to lean towards one or the other.) These two styles of policymaking embrace quite different presumptions about the roles of expertise and open discussions and the relationship between political and legal procedures. In the consensus approach, the presumption is that both the regulators and the regulated are competent, trustworthy people who share a common interest. Most of their discussions are confidential, though selected interested parties will be invited to participate. Public interest environmental groups are normally excluded from these discussions except where they can show reasonable scientific literacy. In the adversary process, however, there is a presumption of suspicion, so most discussions are held openly (in terms at least of what is written down; many important conversations may take place off the record), and many negotiations take place through lawyers (Timothy, 1979).
2.6 Level of Public Participation in Environmental Management
The International Association of Public Participation has developed common levels of public participation in the context of an environmental assessment shown by wordings in verb form here below:
- Inform
- Consult
- Involve
- Collaborate
Figure 4: Level of Public Participation
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Sources: (International Association for Public Participation, 2006)
Each level of public participation has a corresponding increase in the opportunity for the public to influence or have input into the EA process. The spectrum of opportunity for public input into the EA process has been categorized as follows which familiarizes being none, low, medium, and sometimes high.
1. The first level of public participation phenomena is to inform the public, e.g., of the status of the proposed project or the EA process. At this level, the opportunity for public input has been categorized like none.
2. The second level is to consult. At this level, the public is invited to provide input or comment on the information provided. The opportunity for public input has been categorized as low.
3. The third level is to involve. At this level, the public is provided with the opportunity for dialogue and interaction. The opportunity for public input has been categorized as medium.
4. The fourth level is to collaborate. At this level, the public is provided with the opportunity to partner or work jointly with decision makers. The opportunity for public input has been categorized as high (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2013).
[...]
-
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X. -
¡Carge sus propios textos! Gane dinero y un iPhone X.