|
Effectiveness of Public Participation in India
The purpose of EIA should not be just to assess impacts and complete an
environmental impact statement (EIS); it is to improve the quality of
decisions. Through informing the public the project proponent can make
environmentally sensitive decision by being aware of a project's potential
adverse impacts on the environment. Another purpose of EIA is to inform the
public of the proposed project and its impacts. In this context public
participation provides crucial information. Through their participation the
project proponent will be able to take advantage of the information that
citizens contribute concerning values, impacts, innovative solutions and
alternatives. There are other reasons why public should be involved in EIA.
The literature puts forth four basic positions (Shepherd and Bowler, 1997).
First, public participation is regarded as proper, fair conduct of
democratic government in public decision-making activities (Gelhorn, 1971;
Fox, 1979). Second, public participation is widely accepted as a way to
ensure that projects meet citizens' needs and are suitable to the affected
public (Pearce et al., 1979; Forester 1989; Tauxe, 1995). Third, the project
carries more legitimacy, and less hostility, if potentially affected parties
can influence the decision-making process (Chapin & Deneau, 1978;
Susskind & Cruikshank 1987). Finally, the final decision is `better'
when local knowledge and values are included and when expert knowledge is
publicly examined (Parenteau, 1988; Webler et al., 1995).
Some argue that it is better not to include the public in EIA as it will
be quicker and most cost-effective to exclude the public in EIA. Project
proponents eager to implement their project may fear that citizen
involvement will delay their schedule or force them to revise the project (Portney,
1991). Public participation may be regarded as unnecessary because citizens
lack project-specific expertise and it is just necessary to educate citizens
about the merits of the project (Fischoff et al., 1981; Krimsky &
Plough, 1988). To the project proponent, it may look more prudent to push
the project through quietly rather than run the risk of a public process.
However, excluding the public does not ensure expediency either. Alienated
citizens tend to delay the implementation of the project though time
consuming legal action if they feel that their rights are curbed through
project implementation (example see the case studies on Silent Valley, Tehri
Dam, Dahanu in this section). Therefore, the project proponent needs to
consider not only the risks of including versus avoiding citizen input, but
also the potential benefits of establishing a long term co-operative
relationship with citizens.
Top
Scope
for public participation in India
Table
3 gives the role of different actors in different stages of EIA. It can be
seen from Table 3 that public participation in India occurs too late in
the decision-making process and at this stage it is not possible to
influence any of the characteristics of the project (like type, size or
location). Though the public is involved at the hearing stage, here it is
merely a formality as by this time the project proponent more or less has
decided to go ahead with the project. The objective of public involvement
at this stage may be just to defend a decision that has already been made.
So far, citizen involvement in India has been limited to public hearing
stage, legal action to halt the project or to force the inclusion of
mitigation measures (see the case studies). Grima (1985) notes that the
later that public participation occurs in the EIA process, the higher the
risk that public comments will only minimally influence the final
decision. Secondly, public participation is extremely limited and takes
place before project implementation. But the project planning and
implementation requires continuous involvement of the public during
various stages. Several studies have revealed serious deficiencies in the
hearing process too (Sinclair and Diduck, 1999). To add to this problem,
information available on the EIA process could assist people in
understanding the purpose and objectives of EIA is scant and not user
friendly because the summary documents are written in technical language
without providing a glossary of key terms.
Even for projects that have already received their no objection
certificates the public does not have access to EIA project reports and
environmental management plans (Sinclair and Diduck, 1999). In regard to
the hearings themselves, there is no indication prior to the hearings of
what procedure was going to be followed or how the hearing panel was
chosen. Assistance for members of the public on how to participate, e.g.,
how to prepare a brief report or how to make a presentation is also not
made available. There is no background information too provided on what an
environmental impact study should contain or how to critique such a
document. Obtaining expert assistance was not promoted in any way and
funding is also not available to public participants. Members of the
public have to cover their own "traveling and incidental costs"
(Sinclair and Diduck, 1999). Finally, there is no indication of how public
input provided at the hearings is going to be used in the decision making
process.
Top
|
