Assessing the quality of public participation processes

“The success of a public interaction program is determined more by the number of different

“publics” that participate than by the total number of individuals involved. Breadth of public representation and involvement is crucial, and “extremist” organisations, if any, must also be involved - which may even lead to moderation of their positions” (Walesh, 1993).

In other words, participatory processes are not automatically bound to success, but must be carefully designed and prepared for, so that the outcome of public participation really meets what the actual “social demand” is. Inadequate outcome of participatory processes would indeed not enable authorities to base their decisions on sound information, and decisions-made may thus be more or less immediately rejected by the public. In other words, it is essential to reach an agreement, between the public and water professionals, on what questions are to be addressed in the decision-making process, and it is also important that stakeholders taking part to participatory management of water issues develop a common understanding of, and a consensus on, flood-related local problems and available solutions.

Disasters often reveal the level of public consensus existing in a community, as well as the quality of the relationship existing between authorities, experts and the civil society.

Disasters also provide information on the actual confidence (or distrust) shared by citizens and authorities - in other words, the authorities’ sincerity is put to a test. For these reasons, public participation should be designed carefully, so that participatory processes do not appear to the public as a new instrument for authorities to gain more power over citizens. Concerted procedures should therefore carefully assess for the quality of participatory processes (please see next subsection).

2.3.1 Credibility and legitimacy of participatory processes

Relationships between risk managers (private or public industrialists, state employees, various experts, elected or appointed representatives), on the one hand, and the population concerned by hazards, on the other, have often been marked by considerable mutual distrust. Moreover, with no “relays” or spokesmen on the scale of the territories involved, risk managers generally resort to “communication” policies inspired by marketing, whose effectiveness is far from certain (Coanus et al., 1998).

According to Habermas (in Lalo, 1998), political and social legitimacy cannot be reduced to the practice of legality, as, beyond a legal basis, the State’s use of power requires

the citizen’s confidence. Public discussion thus contributes to the elaboration and the enforcement of laws on the basis of public consent (. . .) and guarantees equity and justice, essential to the democratic functioning of mutual exchange. In other words, the practice and the control of participatory processes should be democratic, and authorities implementing public participation should provide community members with a clear and ready access to the decision-making process, so that participatory processes appear to the public as legitimate.

According to Iskoyan (1999), “real” public participation should provide citizens with a right to 1) develop normative instruments at the local level, 2) to conduct independent public expert examination [of options for problem-solving]. Moreover, “the public concerned should be informed early in the decision-making procedure, [so that] the most unbiased decision may be made”. This implies that community members should be given sufficient time frames, draft rules for participatory processes, as well as an opportunity to comment the decision-making procedure. Access to justice might eventually enable citizens 1) to seek redress for infringed or contested rights or interests protected by law, if any, related to public involvement in public decision-making, and 2) to appeal actions of public officials. The [participatory] planning process should be highly visible to and accessible by the public, in order to allow frequent and open public participation (Walesh, 1993).

For example, Lalo (1992, 1998) conducted a post-disaster field study after the explosion of the French refinery plant of La Mede (South of France), in order to assess for the efficiency of disaster-related information campaigns that had been conducted in the vicinity of the refinery, three years before the accident. The findings of this study are partially reproduced in box 38. These results show the importance of public discussion for a cognitive understanding of the events, and in order to reduce the feeling of mistrust shown by the inhabitants concerning the authorities (Lalo, 1998).

Box 38: Public discussion and citizen/authorities feeling of mistrust

It seems that the fact of having started an informal public discussion [on disaster mitigation] (. . .) has consequences on the discussion partners’ credibility and legitimacy. It is quite interesting to note that the (...) inhabitants living close to the plant think that those with whom they actually could discuss on the plant site (e.g. fire forces), could inform them far more legitimately (. .).

Those were firemen, the municipality’s representatives and the company director, whereas the other municipalities’ population think that only the media could inform them the most legitimately. This may also explain the difference concerning the belief in the partners’ sincerity: here also, the firemen, the municipality’s representatives and the company director were thought to be credible persons likely to give a truthful account of the situation. People who had attended public information meetings and debates shared this view, whereas people who had stayed away of the information campaign did not.

2.3.2 Public participation : assessing the quality of information provided

Information done [provided to the public during the participatory decision-making process]

(. . .) is not sufficient. Information has an impact [on the protection of the environment] only when there are reliable legal, political and social opportunities for the use of such information, or [for] reacting to it (Iskoyan, 1999). In other words, political decision-makers at national level should set up legal dispositions enabling local authorities to design participatory processes.

According to the World health Organisation (WHO), five factors account for the relevance of disaster-related information at local level:

1) Knowledge of risk: information on disasters’ causes and dynamics;

2) Forecast and warning: information on disaster “signs” and on available warning systems;

3) Disaster mitigation: information on preparedness measures to be implemented before a disaster (retrofitting, water and food supply, protection of goods, etc.);

4) Disaster impact: safety instructions to alleviate injuries and save lives, instructions for rescue and relief and for emergency communication and information;

5) Post-disaster instructions: information on public health, distribution of aid, rehabilitation actions and plans, etc.

We propose that another point be added to the above list of factors - 6) “Added-value of the public”: this category should relate to all possible actions undertaken by the public at each step of the disaster mitigation cycle, showing that each individual or community group has the capability to enhance the disaster preparedness level of the whole community. This point stresses the necessary appropriation and increased responsibility of community members regarding disaster mitigation.

2.3.3 Assessing the quality of participatory processes

In order to encourage public participation, there should be provided free access to information, with the co-operation of those public officials that possess the necessary information (. . .) A partnership must be solved, even though the legal statuses of the partners may not only differ, but in fact be diametrically opposed (,, . .) Successful public participation needs a clear legislative regulation and proper legislative procedure(s)” (Iskoyan, 1999). The public involved in participatory processes should also be given the right to access the process itself, and check that options and modalities proposed in the decision-making process are transparent.

Yet, in order to be successful, participatory processes should certainly avoid to:

1) happen “too late” in the disaster-related or mitigation-related decision-making process (the goal is to avoid that too many decisions have already been made by authorities);

2) represent a real delegation of decision-making and action-taking powers from authorities to the public;

3) present the public with several “real” options to choose from (to avoid that solutions proposed are all self-cancelling, but one);

Another approach is proposed by Simonovic (1996, in Walesh 1993), who identified social criteria for the evaluation of flood control measures in Winnipeg (Canada). In order to properly account for all flood impacts, both quantitative and qualitative measures of social impacts are recommended (see box 39).

Box 39: Social criteria for the evaluation of flood control (adapted from Simonovic)

a) Minimisation of: b) Maximisation of :

- family financial burden and economic losses - sense of basic security - stress, anxiety and suicide level - media co-ordination

- days out of work - equitable relief help across the region

Having conducted a project (EPAC) on public participation in environmental decision- making in Armenia, Iskoyan (1999) proposes the following recommendations for “full public participation in environmental decision-making”. Issues related to natural hazards and disasters are only a small aspect among many in the field of “environmental concerns and matters”. Yet, these recommendations may be of use for authorities planning to provide for pubIic participation in decision-making processes related to flood control.

a) Adoption of legislation that would provide access to information to the general public, including adoption of a stand-alone law, “On environmental information”;

b) development and adoption of a program for the implementation of the Aarhus Convention;

c) legislation on public participation that would include a provision that government agencies take into consideration public comments when developing final drafts of laws;

d) government agencies should respond to public comments;

e) publicly concerned individuals and groups should be entitled to participate in the process of the final discussion of environmental legislation;

f) establishment of an Office of Ombudsman, with the responsibility of protecting the environmental rights of the citizens.