|
The benefits of public participation are many and it is not easy to categorise
them. It is important to note that public participation suggests direct
involvement of the public and takes place, preferably, in an open discussion
with decision makers.
In general, a number of benefits can be listed like below.
Sustainable
Development
Sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement
of all stakeholders
Environmental
Protection
Environmental issues can be addressed when valued by the public. It
is important that a party represents the interest of the environment
in the public debate. Without such a party the environment will not
be put on the agenda
Conflict
Management
Although conflicts cannot be avoided, they are made explicit in the
public participation debate. This makes conflict handling more efficient.
Project
Understanding and Reduction of Public Opposition
The public, being the user of a system, is the only party that can
assess and valuate the impacts of (possible) measures on the functions
of a coastal environment.
Economical
Benefits
If the public is involved in the full decision making process, their
concerns may be met early on in the planning process when changes may
be easier to make, rather than late in the process when even small changes
may cost both time and money.
Effective
use of the available data in ICZM process
According to Budd (1999),
public participation and consultation is an opportunity to solicit the
"hidden" knowledge of the wider community and their key concerns.
Other
Benefits
Acceptance of the public as a valued partner in the CZM process can
inspire the co-operation between citizens, their government, and industries
that is crucial to the success of a regulatory system.
|
Example: Construction of port in Gelendjik bay, Black sea coast, Russia
WHEN
The decision
on construction of cargo port in Gelendjik bay was taken in 1993 and
in 1995 this decision was confirmed with "Conception of development
of ports of Krasnodar territory". Public contraction started after the
beginning of the reconstruction of cargo-passenger berth with expansion
of territory at the expense of acres, which are part of the protected
area of Solncedar mineral water field.
MAIN ISSUES
Main problems
concerned with the project are:
- Breach
of general city planning and its transportation system scheme.
- Violation
of Federal laws "About natural medicinal resources, medicinal areas
and resorts", "About specially protected territories".
- Negative
influence on Solncedar mineral water field.
- Disturbance
of bay ecosystem due to dredging (suggested by the project), construction
of deep-sea terminal, movement of ships and their anchorage.
- Loss
of importance of the bay as main landscape, medicinal and recreational
resource of Gelendjik.
- Territorial
loss for the city
The Main
problem concerning public participation in the project was that the
previous city administration (1993 -1997) was on the investors' side.
WHO
Co-ordinating
body or lead partner of ICZM process or project Initiators of the process
were:
- Gelendjik
primary organisation of environmental party of Russia "Kedr" (1996
- 1998)
- Non-governmental
organisation "Public environmental expertise" (from 1998)
- Social-environmental
centre of Black Sea (from 1999)
- Deputy
of State Duma N.A. Zacepina, group of deputies of council of public
deputies of Gelendjik
- Major
of city-resort S.P. Ozerov (from 1998)
HOW
The process
of involving the public had no special financing. People performed up
to their own initiative.
PROGRESS &
CONTINUETY
Currently
reconstruction of the port in Gelendjik bay is not being realized. The
issue of Conception of development of ports in Krasnodar Territory "Port
in Gelendjik" was excluded.
LESSONS LEARNT
The next
issues contributed to achieving results:
1. Competent
information gathering
2. Timely
appeal to deputies of State Duma of RF and realisation of parliament
hearings (1998)
3. Repeated
public hearings and discussions
4. Participation
of public representatives of Gelendjik in the work of state environmental
impact assessment
5. Public
environmental impact assessment (1998)
6. Repeated
statements in mass-media
7. City
and local meetings, Cossack picket
8. Carrying
out of two referendums: 1998 - was declared frustrated, 2000 - was combined
with elections of president of RF, and the question was asked "do you
think, that construction of cargo port in Gelendjik bay will cause irreparable
damage to environment of the bay and development of city-resort Gelendjik?".
80% of constituency gave a positive answer
FURTHER INFORMATION
For further information contact: International KYPZ-centre
Krasnodar, ul. Krasnaja, 19,
Tel/fax 7-8612-685-645
e-mail: iczm@krasnodar.ru
|
