2.4 Stakeholder theory
2.4.2 Public participation in environmental assessment
39
Figure 2.7: The typology of seven modes of public participation in South Africa (Booysen, 2009:
9).
40
and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by the vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured.” (DEA, 1998 cited in Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1278)
Reasons put forward for the inclusion of public participation in IEM include the following (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277):
It is viewed as fair conduct in a democratic system for the public to be involved in issues that affect them;
It allows people to feel that their views and values are heard and are then incorporated into a programme or project;
It improves the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the project;
The public are less hostile and more actively involved in the project; and
The local community is better able to understand its environment and intervene in environmental problems by applying past experiences.
Given that public participation has become an institutionalised process, it is imperative that public input should constitute a critical part of the project process as it would be erroneous to see it only as a privilege (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277). However, there are various problems encountered with the public participation process in the EIA. These include that there is limited access to information in that public participation is limited if there is insufficient information provided to the people (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277). With regards to equity, a large proportion of participatory researchers show an imbalance in the representation of people in the public participation processes. It has been found that some groups are more represented in decision making than others, thereby rendering the process unjust (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277). Furthermore, participation may be limited if the process is not transparent. Openness in the participation process helps to improve project standards, reduce corruption and promotes trust and open governance (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277). Time and financial constraints can also pose problems in public participation, environmental assessments are often constrained by timeframes, financial resources, infrastructural resources and project cycle schedules (Williams, 2006: 16); these results in snapshot data collection that can be an inaccurate representation of the actual input received (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277). Aregbeshola et al. (2011: 1277) also discuss limited awareness as a problem, planning has remained intangible because of inadequate public awareness. Undermining of goals further present challenges in participation, the participants can be frustrated when targeted goals such as needs, beliefs, values and interests are not incorporated into the final decision-making process (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277). Late consultation or late public
41
participation often results in project delays and this sometimes leads to protest action or legal proceedings. Furthermore, internal and external constraints creates the possibility for participation to be reduced if the authorities are unwilling to share power with the public, due to institutional motives (internal) or their relationship with powerful external economic forces (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277).
Lastly, Aregbeshola et al. (2011: 1277) discuss education or a lack of literacy, or the technical nature of the project which can hinder public participation (Aregbeshola et al., 2011: 1277).
In contrast, and if executed properly, Gilfillan (2011: 39) identifies several advantages of public participation in the EIA process, such as, improved quality of decisions; increased democracy (Williams, 2006: 16); more ownership of decisions, leading to more effective implementation; the building in capacity of those who participate (Siphamandla, undated: 41; Williams, 2006:16); increased fairness and equity; early identification of potential pitfalls; and increased legitimacy. Siphamandla (undated: 4) states that encouraging participation increases legitimacy not only of a process, but of an organisation which stresses it. However, these advantages discussed her are not the concern from a legal perspective (Gilfillan, 2009: 39). He highlights the following aspects of public participation as being on the radar of legal scrutiny. Firstly, that public participation is required for a fair administrative process. Secondly, that there needs to be early identification of any possible legal challenge. Thirdly, it is imperative to note that “public participation” and “consultation” are distinguishable. Fourthly, public participation can create or remove the platform for review (of, for example, a proposed development). Fifth, in a mining context, Gilfillan (2009: 39) argues that there are far more onerous requirements. Sixth, public participation can create the opportunity to prepare for and to answer a legal challenge, if raised. Lastly, there should be an increasing focus on content and responses to Interested and Affected Party (I&AP) queries.
Gilfillan (2009: 41) goes on to reference Froneman (2011 cited in Gilfillan, 2009: 41) in that “the consultation process and its result are an integral part of the fairness process.” In regard to “fairness”
Gilfillan (2009: 42) refers to the promotion of the Public Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), of 2000.
The Act stipulates the notice and comment periods mandatory for the review of reports in the EIA process, and therefore, the EIA plays a role in a upholding of the PAJA (Gilfillan, 2009: 42). Gilfillan (2009: 42) states that “fairness is the ultimate standard by which administrative action is judged and should guide the public participation process.” In consideration of “fairness” in this context, the notion of “voice” holds impetus (Buccus and Hicks, 2008: 98) and is discussed in the next section.
42