1. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Public Participation

2. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Public Participation - benefits Improving decision making by participation Decisions last longer Decision making integrates economic, social and environmental factors Reduces cases of lengthy post-decision arguments (complaints and litigation) Opens peoples eyes to the different compromises that inevitably must be made

3. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Strategies for Public Participation What is the purpose of Public Participation? Who should participate? When should they participate? How do you involve the public? What information is necessary? How long should time should be allocated to participation? What resources are available? How are comments handled? What needs to be done when decision is taken?

4. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Who should participate? local authorities community groups local residents business and industry NGO's

5. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture When should the public participate? EIA Public involvement typically at these points

6. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture When should the public participate? IPPC Application Permit Monitoring Public participation in all 3 phases

7. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Danish IPPC case Vejle County issues a revised IPPC permit for a scrap-treating enterprise, Uniscrap, 23.5.2000; Uniscrap complaints the conditions (ELV and monitoring of the air emissions) to the Danish EPA claiming, that they imply 5 million DKK in investment and 250,000 DKK in annual costs; The EPA decides 7.2.2003 to remove conditions to TOC, benzene and dioxin and to suspend conditions to PCB until a new guidance is issued; Vejle County and the ngo NOAH appeal this decision to the Environmental Complaints Commission (ECC); 10.8.2004 the ECC essentially confirms the permit of 23.5.2000

8. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture How to involve the public: Levels of participation Informing Consulting Participating Negotiating

9. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture How to involve the public: Media printed materials (brochures, displays and exhibits, direct mail); use of the media (newspapers, news conferences, newspapers, radio and TV); public information sessions (open houses, site visits, field offices); use of the Internet (web site).

10. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture What information is necessary? Generally EIA is more political Screening: To determine the need for and level of EIA Scoping:To identify key issues and alternatives Impact analysis:To identify significant impacts and mitigating measures Review:Commenting/responding to the EIA report Implementation and monitoring:Checking EIA follow-up

11. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture What information is necessary? Generally IPPC is more technical. In most cases the IPPC communication can be one-way communication of The application The decision (permit) Monitoring results However in controversial cases e.g. involving considerable extension of operations in densely populated areas a more involving communication strategy is advisable.

12. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture How long time should be allocated? May differ relevant to the nature of project/development; Consider involving the public on a continuous basis; At least: Settle for a minimum time to involve public

13. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Comments/decision Summary of public comments; Be explicit about handling comments ; Announce any delays or other relevant info on the status of the decision making process. Inform the public of the final decision ASAP; Explain how plan/project is implemented; Consider communicating a formal review of implementation.

14. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Example: Danish IPPC case A newly established electroplating enterprise in Farum, DK applies for an IPPC permit; The application is announced in a local advertising newspaper; A neighbouring enterprise asks to see the proposed permit and it is sent to the enterprise; The neighbouring enterprise comments the proposed permit; The permitting authority rejects the comments in a letter to the neighbouring enterprise, but does not communicate the final permit or possibilities of complaint;

15. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture Danish IPPC case, continued The permit is issued and the decision is published 8.4.2003 in a local advertising newspaper. Complaints to be submitted within 4 weeks; 7.7.2003 the neighbouring enterprise complaints the decision to the Danish EPA; The EPA rejects the complaint because the time limit for complaints is exceeded; This decision is appealed to the Environmental Complaints Commission (ECC); The ECC decides that the EPA must handle the complaint because the permitting authority did not send the promised information

16. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture General observations Participation well known Public authorities skilled in managing participation Participation considered a key element in securing an efficient and legitimate decision making procedure Formal appeal system handling complaints institutionalised for many years Courts may review the public authority decision-making Experiences from DK, UK, NL