Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Information Access and NGO Participation: North America and Europe


Published on

What is public participation and what does it add? Pragmatic reasons for public participation.
Examples of public participation to achieve environmental goals.Summary thoughts about public participation.Future directions in the Danube

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Information Access and NGO Participation: North America and Europe

  1. 1. Information Access and NGO Participation: North America and Europe Ruth Greenspan Bell, Resources for the Future Jane Bloom Stewart, New York University
  2. 2. Overview of Presentation • What is public participation and what does it add? • Pragmatic reasons for public participation • Examples of public participation to achieve environmental goals • Summary thoughts about public participation • Future directions in the Danube
  3. 3. What is Public Participation? • Explicit processes to involve people, NGOs and the private sector in decisionmaking and achieving environmental results • Can include – Commenting on draft legislation/proposed regulations – Lobbying – Litigation & citizen enforcement – Commenting on proposed discharge permits – Implementation activities
  4. 4. Public Participation can: • Improve the quality of environmental decisionmaking • Help build a dynamic for improved implementation
  5. 5. Four Reasons To Involve the Public • Builds an Environmental Constituency • Informs Decisionmaking • Participatory Democracy - Obtains Consent of the Governed to Environmental Requirements • Builds Public Trust & Fair Process for Environmental Results
  6. 6. Involving More People in Finding Solutions • Numerous Pollution Sources • Geographically Dispersed Facilities
  7. 7. Increasing the Information Available to Decision-makers • Available Technologies • Experience Applying Technologies • Impacts of Pollution • Public Acceptability of Risk
  8. 8. Consent of the Governed: How is Public Opinion Expressed? • Voting/Influencing Other Voters • Lobbying Elected Bodies/Providing Information and Data • Opportunities to Comment on Proposed Government Policies (e.g. draft regulations) • Advisory Committees
  9. 9. Obtaining Consent of the Governed • Environmental Protection as an interactive process between government and the public • Keys to legitimacy and public acceptance – solicit/consider views of all affected parties – transparent decisionmaking process – articulate reasons for decisions
  10. 10. Increasing Public Trust • Do People Believe Government Decisions are Worth Obeying? • Importance of Fair Process in Establishing Legitimacy • Honest, Neutral, Unbiased Decision-makers • Transparent Decision Processes
  11. 11. Example #1: Environmental Impact Assessment • Congress Passed a Law • Public Pressure/Litigation Aided Implementation • As a result, EIA Provides Information to the Public • Information Feeds Back into the Decision Process
  12. 12. Lessons Learned? • Success of EIA in U.S. demonstrates two roles for the public – Holding government’s “feet to the fire” – Using EIA-generated information to express opinions, influence decisionmakers • Transparent Public Process Builds Trust in Government Decisionmaking
  13. 13. Example #2: Toxic Release Reporting • Law requires reporting of toxic releases by industrial dischargers to all environmental media • Public access to TRI (PRTR) enables public to identify polluters/enforce/exert pressure to reduce toxic releases • Media dissemination of TRI data encourages voluntary reductions/enforcement
  14. 14. Lessons for the Danube • Results require multiple actors -- government, private sector and NGOs • Information is powerful – foundation of participation • Participation builds – regulatory success – legitimacy • Informed participation can help reduce pollution
  15. 15. Future Directions: Building Institutions for Public Participation in the Danube • CEE-wide commitments to Aarhus Convention • Objective: Implementation • 18-month GEF-funded pilot project • Hungarian and Slovenian government officials, NGOs, other stakeholders • Builds constituencies for GEF’s transboundary Danube restoration programs • Model for progress throughout Danube basin