Transcript Title of Presentation

Dr. Winnie Law <[email protected]>
4th February 2013
Participation & Sustainable Development
Some important terminologies
Public participation for sustainability
Public Participation in Practice
Some recent cases of Hong Kong
Overseas cases
Implications
Benefits and limitations
Political, institutional and policy implications
Questions for thoughts/debates
All of these are public involvement…
What are the difference? Can they help achieve sustainability?
Participation…
• Citizen participation
•
“…is a categorical term for citizen
power. It is the redistribution of power
that enables the have-not citizens,
presently excluded from the political
and economic process, to be
deliberately included in the
future…which enables them to share in
the benefits of the affluent society”
•
Sherry R. Arnstein (1969: 217)
Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen
participation (Arnstein, 1969)
Engagement…
• Public engagement/participation
•
“…it is the arts which engages the human experience” and “promote dialogue,
communication, and social interaction”; “the arts create the fertile ground for growth in
new ways of thinking…” (Lucy, 1997)
•
“…can be broadly described as the process of working collaboratively with groups of
people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest and/or similar situations to
address issues affecting the well-being of those groups of people. It often involves
partnerships and coalitions that help to mobilise resources and strengthen the
associations and linkages that constitute these different forms of community life”
(Mulligan & Nadarajah, 2008: 87)
•
“Participation is a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over
development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them” (World Bank,
1996: 3)
•
“…a process through which the views of all interested parties (stakeholders) are
integrated into project decision-making” (United Nations, 1997: 4).
A trend that advocates making-decision
with the public!
Empowerment…
• …is the aim of public participation
•
“…any process by which people’s control (collective or individual) over their lives is
increased” (Somerville, 1998)
•
“…as transfer of control over decisions and resources to communities or
organisations” (World Bank, 1999)
•
“…can take place at distinct organisational levels, ranging from individuals, through
households to communities…an increase in influence and control through an
acquisition of knowledge and skills” (Lyons, Smuts & Stephens, 2001)
Some common frameworks/forms of PE
• United Nations (1997): 4 levels
Information
Gathering
Information
Dissemination
Involving a systematic analysis of existing social,
cultural and economic conditions about directly
affected groups of stakeholders.
People participate by being told what has already
been decided or has already happened.
Stakeholders cannot genuinely be consulted or
participate.
Consultation
Where decision-makers listen to public views.
External agencies define problems and
information-gathering process, and so control
analysis.
Participation
People participate in partnership at early
strategic stages of project design and throughout
its implementation.
Important: each level is a prerequisite for the next
Some common frameworks/forms of PE
• International Associations of Public Engagement (2000)
Increasing level of participation
INFORM
CONSULT
INVOLVE
COLLABORATE
EMPOWER
Objective
To provide the public with
balanced and objective
information to assist
them in understanding
the problems, alternatives,
and/or solutions.
To obtain public
feedback on analysis,
alternatives and /or
decisions.
To work directly with the
public throughout the
process to ensure that
public issues and
concerns are consistently
understood and
considered.
To partner with the public
in each aspect of the
decision including the
development of
alternative and the
identification of the
preferred solution.
To place final decision
making in the hands of
the public.
“We will look to you for
direct advice and
innovation in formulating
solutions and incorporate
your advice to the
maximum extent possible”
“We will implement
what you decide”
Promise to the Public
“We will keep you
informed”
“We will keep you
informed, listen to and
acknowledge your
concerns and provide
feedback”
“We will work with you to
ensure that your concerns
and issues are directly
reflected in the
alternatives development”
Example Tools
•Fact Sheets
Web Sites
•Open Houses
•Public Comments
•Focus Groups
•Surveys
•Public Meetings
•Workshops
•Deliberative Polling
•Citizen Advisory
Committee
•Consensus-building
•Participatory Decision
Making
•Citizens’ Juries
•Ballots
•Delegated
Decisions
Who and when to engage?
• All interested parties
- including the directly and indirectly affected people, relevant government
departments, district councils, NGOs, interested groups, and the business sector
• Vulnerable and minority groups
• Start early at the planning and impact assessment stage
• On-going throughout the lifetime of the project
• Continue at the implementation stage so that the public can monitor and
evaluate project implementation
Need for Public Participation in SD…
•
WCED (1987) – “Meeting essential needs requires not only a new era of economic
growth for nations in which the majority are poor, but an assurance that those poor get
their fair share of the resources required to sustain that growth. Such equity would be
aided by political systems that secure effective citizen participation in decision making
and by greater democracy in international decision making”
•
Agenda 21 (1992) – “broad public participation” as the “fundamental prerequisites” of
a sustainable society: especially to include indigenous people, women, and the youth.
•
Soliciting local inputs – making plans/decisions locally-sensitive and unique
•
Building community ownership – so that people cares
•
Making the invisible visible – qualitative and intangible values and capitals
•
Enhancing social capital– social trust and networks
•
Consensus building & catalyst for action– leading to better integration and longterm partnerships
•
Community education & sharing of knowledge – wider and comprehensive
understanding of issues and impacts
What is good public participation?
In theory (Webler, Tuler and Krueger, 2001):
•
Acquire and maintain popular legitimacy
(popular VS legitimacy?)
•
Facilitate an ideological discussion
(vision-building VS feasibility)
•
Focus on the fairness of the process
(process NOT the outcomes?)
•
Conceptualize participatory process as a power
struggle
(who is involved and why are they involved?)
•
Highlight the need for leadership and compromise
(a negotiation process OR consensus building?)
What is good public participation?
In action (Wates, 2008):
•
Open community involvement
- scope for all members of the community
- new sense of cohesion and consensus
•
Creative & flexible working methods
- break down conventional professional boundaries
- allow participants to exchange ideas among
themselves
•
Dynamism
- carefully structured timetable; deadlines for results
help to create momentum for change
•
Local expertise
- embedded in the local context
•
•
Fresh thinking
Visual approach
- provide adequate and easily understood
information
•
Realism
- Not abstract concepts; real concerns should be
placed on the agenda
Trends in Hong Kong
• Rising awareness in political, environmental and social issues
-
Lung Mei beach, harbour protection, climate change, heritage conservation, nature conservation,
West Kowloon Cultural District, rail development, walled buildings, etc
Public has greater willingness to get engaged in non-local or even cross-border issues
Public challenges the fundamental necessity of the project
More web-based actions
• Civil society more active and diverse
-
Local Action, 30s Group, Professional Commons, Green Sense, Concern Groups, etc
A greater variety of interested individuals and groups
More people takes actions outside the “official” engagement process
Higher expectation – demands strategic planning context, holistic framework
• More responsive government?
-
Weak government – mistrust
Introduce PE in a wider spectrum of social, political and project-based contexts
Move active involvement of independent organisations as facilitators
More opportunities for public participation!
Blur division between general public and the civil society –
everyone can become an environmental activist!
C1: Central Wanchai Bypass
Some Background Facts:
• CEDD project - the need to complete the long-planned strategic road
link
• Public Engagement was initiated before the EIA Study Brief got issued
• Initiated by Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC) and
funded and implemented by CEDD
Source: HEC (2009)
Existing Harbour-front : Weaknesses
Existing Harbour-front : Strengths
HEC’s PE Process
• Conflicting issues
• Harbour protection VS Reclamation for Bypass
• Resolving traffic congestion VS Provision for other social,
environmental & economic well-being
• The need for structured, rational and informative public
engagement process
• Sustainability approach
• Public Engagement AND Community-based Sustainability
Assessment (in addition to EIA)
HEC’s PE Process
consensus
building
3 Stages
• Envisioning - for public to give visions, wishes and concepts
• Realisation - for public to evaluate concept plans
• Consolidation - to ensure draft Outline Zoning Plan reflects public
consensus
Institutional Arrangements
• HEC members
- Initiate the need for the engagement, monitoring
• Government department (CEDD)
- Secretariat to the engagement activities, execution
• Consultants
- Engineering details, design and facilitation of engagement process
(separate specialist consultants)
• Expert Panel
- Provide expert opinions on sustainable transportation measures
• Collaborators
- 26 invited organisations: social organisations, green groups, district
councils, professional bodies, etc to give first round of comments
Engagement
Methods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 public forums
4 community workshops
Questionnaire surveys
Written submissions
Expert panel inputs
Roving street exhibitions
Guided harbour walk
Town hall meeting
Website
Public input: shallow tunnel
Public input: semi-at-grade road
Draft Concept Plan
5 Precincts:
(1) Arts & Culture; (2) Water Park; (3) Water Recreation; (4) Heritage;(5) Leisure &
Recreation
C2: Central Kowloon Route
Some Background Facts:
• Highways Department (HyD) project – the need to build a east-west
trunk road connecting West Kowloon with the proposed Kai Tak
Development
• First discussion initiated in 1990s
• Public Engagement was initiated after the EIA Study Brief and before
the EIA report is prepared
• PE initiated by Highways Department - stated in the Brief for
Feasibility Study
Source: Highways Dept (2008)
HyD’s PE Process
• In Feasibility Study Brief:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public Engagement Strategy
Heritage Impact Assessment
Report on Preservation of Yung Shu Tau Culture
Report on Social Impact Assessment on Yau Ma Tei for Initial
Alignment Options
Report on Impact of CKR on Yau Ma Tei Local Culture
Economic Assessment
Sustainability Assessment (SA CASET)
EIA
HyD’s PE Process
Conflicting issues:
• Local culture VS New infrastructure (LULUs)
• Temporary and permanent re-provisioning for local stalls (Temple Street,
Jade Market) and community facilities (clinic, post office, library, etc)
• The need for a locally-based and sensitive community engagement
process
HyD’s PE Process
3 Stages
• Let’s Talk
- to find out strengths and
weaknesses of the project area
• Let’s Aspire
- to discuss how different
alignment options can provide
area enhancement opportunity
• Let’s Make a Plan
- to discuss detailed arrangement
for the preferred option
Institutional Arrangements
• Highways Department (HyD)
- Initiate the need for the engagement
- Provide secretariat support to engagement logistics
• Consultants
- Engineering details, design and facilitation of engagement process
(separate specialist consultants)
• Other Experts
- Heritage assessment, urban design, etc
Engagement
Methods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public forums
Community workshops
Questionnaire surveys
Written submissions/wish cards
School competitions
Roving street exhibitions
Guided tours (YMT Police Station, tunnel portals)
Oral history interviews
Reporting meetings
Website
Newsletters
Progress
• Public engagement along the CKR (YMT, Ma Tau Kok, Kowloon Bay)
were also conducted
• Initiated an adaptive reuse plan for YMT Police Station
• Initiated an urban design study for newly created open space
• A layman version of the report on local culture – in the format of
postcards
• A layman version of the public engagement progress report – in the
format of booklet
• PE in the construction stage for monitoring the construction impacts
has been launched!
C3: Tai Long Sai Wan
Some Background Facts:
-
A private developer initiated a
construction project on a site
(private land ) located right
next to the Sai Kung East
County Park
-
The site area is approx 10,000
square meters and was zoned
as agricultural land use
-
Public reacted strongly towards
the construction work as it
damaged one of Hong Kong’s
top scenic spots
-
The construction work was on
hold
Source: SCMP (2010)
Process
Public/Civil Society:
• The use of internet and online forum (Facebook)
– tens of thousands of facebook users joined the group
• Protests and petitions by organised individuals; joint-statement by
green groups
• Two private fund/foundations explored some way forward –
controlled development and nature conservation
Government:
• DPA gazetted for Tai Long Sai Wan
• Designated Tai Long Sai Wan as
part of the Sai Kung Country Park
after the site was damaged…
C4: Lung Mei Artificial Bathing Beach Proposal
Some Background Facts:
• May 1998 – the ex-Provisional
Regional Council proposed to
develop a bathing beach at Lung
Mei, Tai Po – only one swimming
complex in Tai Po is insufficient First
discussion initiated in 1990s
• April 2004 – LegCo requested the
government to accord priority to
this project
• July 2004 – Tai Po District Council
urged for early implementation
• Oct 2005 – Listed as one of the 25
priority projects in the CE Policy
Address
• May 2006 – CEDD initiated the EIA
process as the project proponet
The Process
Conflicting issues:
• EIA report findings published in Nov 2007
• Water quality for swimming
Taxa
EcoIA
hkwildife.net
Crabs
2
27
Fishes
0
15
Shrimps
0
5
Sea anemones
0
4
Sea Stars
0
4
Sea cucumbers
0
3
Sea urchins
0
2
Others
19
46
Total No. of intertidal species
21
106
The Process
• Actions/engagement methods of the civil society:
• Alternative EcoIA report done by HK Wildlife.net (a web-based
network of nature lovers)
• Set up the “Save Lung Mei” blog to campaign against the
development http://www.hkwildlife.net/lungmei/
• hkwildlife.net and other environmental NGOs organised a
seminar on the ecological values of Lung Mei
• Counter-proposal – an Eco-pool concept
• Demonstrations
The Result
• Not positive…
Engagement can take many forms:
Planned VS unplanned
Organised VS ad hoc events
Same engagement method = same result?
What actually makes a good engagement process?
New York: Listening to the City (2002) – Rebuilding WTC
Source: Civic Alliance (2002)
Germany: Lubeck Community Planning Weekend
Background:
Luebeck is a historical town and urban
architecture from the Middle Ages. A
UNESCO World Heritage Site
The Change:
Demand for public space and extension of
the pedestrian zone
Source: Community Planning Net Website (2008)
Benefits
•
Making the controversial issues visible at an early stage
•
Facilitate community education and information sharing
•
Facilitate consensus building :
•
•
Improve governance:
•
•
•
understand diverse needs and opinions (between project proponents and the
citizens and among citizens/stakeholders)
allow public opinions and suggestions to be incorporated into the planning and
development of options
Increase quality of the functions performed and services provided by public
agencies
“Maintaining the stability of society”:
•
if people are involved in the decision-making process and are aware of the
possible difficulties, they are usually more willing to live with the consequences.
Achieving Sustainability!
Limitations
•
Time and resources consuming (?)
- Better spend it earlier than later!
•
Difficulties in disseminating information to public
- Technical and complex issues, unquantifiable impacts/benefits
•
Quality, quantity and representativeness of participants?
- Hidden agenda? Silent majority? Fair involvement?
•
False hopes? Over-engagement?
•
Room for compromises?
- the case of NIMBY?
•
Quality of the participation process
•
Uncertainties:
-
one cannot predict the outcomes of public participation
Ever changing socio-economic and political situations
Sources: Geczi (2007); Lyons, Smuts & Stephens (2001)
Implications…
• 2 key questions:
- Public demands follow-up actions (cross-departmental collaboration)
- How to handle views expressed outside the “official” PE process?
• Political and Governance – the broader context of public
participation – the political and economic structures and the influential
neoliberal view of the role of market – importance of just and democracy
(Geczi, 2007)
• Governance competencies - 5 key issues (Healey, 1997):
•
•
•
•
•
Division of governance tasks
Distribution between levels of governance
Boundary between formal government and the wider society
The use of administrative and technical expertise
Machinery for dispute resolution
Implications…
• Policy & Institutional Arrangements – public
participation as statutory requirements? Administrative procedures?
• Instruments (Bishop & Davis, 2002):
Information
Consultation
Partnership
• surveys
• key contacts • advisory
• focus groups • interest
committees
• public
group
• policy
information
meetings
communities
campaign
• town hall
meetings
• circulation of
proposals
• public
hearings
Delegation
Control
• public
enquiries
• impact
assessment
studies
• referenda
Is public participation merely a “make-up”/ “rhetoric”?
Can public participation contribute to SD in the
political reality?
What is good public participation in Hong Kong?
Will you play a part?
Arnstein, S. (1969), “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35(4), pp. 216-224.
Bishop, P. & Davis, G. (2002), “Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices,” Australian Journal of Public Administration,
Vol. 61(1), pp. 14-29.
Civic Alliance (2002), Listening to the City: Report of Proceedings, www.listentothecity.org, accessed on 11 November
2009.
Geczi, E. (2007), “Sustainability and Public Participation: Toward an Inclusive Model of Democracy,” Administrative
Theory & Praxis, Vol. 29(3), pp. 375-393.
Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (2009), Harbour-front Enhancement Review – Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and
Adjoining Areas, http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/her.html?s=1, accessed on 26 October 2010.
Healey, P. (1997), “Systemic Institutional Design for Collaborative Planning,” pp. 284-314, in Healey, P. Collaborative
Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Canada: UBC Press.
Highways Department (2008), Central Kowloon Route and Widening of Gascoigne Road Flyover: Project Website,
http://www.central-kowloon-route.com.hk/eng/home.htm , accessed on 09 November 2010.
Highways Department (2010), Pedestrian Improvement Scheme in Yuen Long Town: Project Website, http://www.yuenlong-peis.hk/eng/background.html , accessed on 09 November 2010.
International Association of Public Participation (2000), Spectrum of Public Participation, downloaded from
http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf , accessed on 09 November 2010.
Lucy, P. (1997), In the Public Interest, Making Art that Makes a Difference in the United States, Comedia.
Lyons, M., Smuts, C. & Stephens, A. (2001), “Participation, Empowerment and Sustainability: (How) Do the Links Work?”
Urban Studies, Vol. 38(8), pp. 1233-1251.
Mulligan, M. & Nadarajah, Y. (2008), “Working on the sustainability of local communities with a ‘community-engaged’
research methodology,” Local Environment, Vol. 13(2), pp. 81-94.
Rogers, M. (2005), “Social Sustainability and the Art of Engagement – the Small Towns: Big Picture Experience,” Local
Environment, Vol. 10(2), pp. 109-124.
Somerville, P. (1998), “Empowerment through residence,” Housing Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 233-257.
United Nations (1997), Public Involvement: Guidelines for Natural Resource Development Projects, downloaded from
http://www.unescap.org/esd/energy/publications/pi/contents.htm , accessed on 09 November 2010.
UNCED (1992), Agenda 21 and the UNCED Proceedings, New York: Oceana.
Wates, N. (2008), The Community Planning Event Manual, London: Earthscan.
World Bank Group (1999), The World Book Participation Sourcebook, www.worldbank.org/afr/particip/keycon.htm,
accessed on 11 November 2009.
WCED (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.