E N V I R O N M E N T D E P A R T M E N T DISSEMINATION N OTES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Number 53 April 1997 Public Consultation in Environmental Assessment: Lessons from East and South Asia Consultations with'affected populations and non-governmenfal organizations (NGOs) are becoming standard practice in environmental assessments (EAs). The Bank recognized thisfact by incorporating public consultation in its 1989 Operational Directive (revised in 1991 as OD 4.01 and to be released as OP 4.01) on EA. This directivqrequires public consultations shortly after'the EA categoryfor a project has been assigned; and; once a draft EA report has been prepared. For "meaningful consulta- tion" to take place, the Borrower should share relevant information about the project and its potential impacts with affected populations and local NGOs. Thefollowing Dissemination Note describes the results of a 1995 review byASTEN and ASTHIZ of experience in the East and South Asia regions in implementing these public consultation and information dissemination aspects of the EA process. The review looked atfourteen (14) projects requiring EAs in order to capture lessonsfor improving Bank and Borrower performance in this area. Why Public Consultation in EAs? tions such as indigenous peoples. Consultation is a two-way communication process These projects require a full EA, including consulta- by which the knowledge and views of affected peoples, tion with affected groups and NGOs. Consultations are NGOs, the private sector and other interested parties required during the scoping of issues to be addressed are taken into account in development decision-mak- by the EA, as well as once the draft EA report has been ing. In the case of EAs, the assumption is often made prepared. The Bank recognizes that good practice may that such involvement is not necessary because of the demand that further consultations take place at other often complex and highly technical nature of environ- appropriate points during EA preparation, after final- mental impacts. ization of the EA report and throughout project imple- mentation. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly clear that the knowledge of affected communities and NGOs can Information dissemination is fundamental to "mean- contribute to the quality of EAs, as well as provide a ingful consultation." According to the OD, such infor- better understanding of the social impacts which ac- mation should initially contain a summary of the project, company development interventions. The Bank and its objectives and potential impacts; and, following the other development agencies have learned that if public preparation of the EA report, a summary of its conclu- consultation does not take place early in the project sions in a form and language meaningful to the groups preparation process, it often leads to public misunder- being consulted. standings, and unnecessary delays in project process- ing and implementation. ASTEN-ASTHR Review Bank Policies on Consultation In 1995, ASTEN and ASTHR conducted a desk re- view and selected interviews with Task Managers and The Bank's Operational Directive on EA (OD 4.01) environmental staff of 14 projects which contained pub- distinguishes between various types of projects based lic consultations during EA preparation (see Box 1); Five upon the potential significance of their environmental (5) of these projects are in South Asian countries, while impacts. Category A projects are usually large (e.g., hy- nine (9) are in East Asia. Energy/power and agricul- dro-dams, roads, urban infrastructural projects, indus- ture/water are represented by three (3) projects each; trial facilities, etc.) and have widespread environmen- infrastructure, transportation and environment/urban tal and social impacts, including in some cases invol- are represented by two (2) projects each; and, there is untary resettlement andSeffects on vulnerable popula- one (1) natural resources and one (1) multisectoral project. This dissemination note was written bfShelton H. Davis (ENVSP) and Tosca van Vijfeijken (ASTHR) based upon a 1995 paper by Mary Lisbeth Gonzalez. Box 1: X Of the ten (10) countries included in the review, Projects Covered in the EAReview - seven (7) haave formal consultation procedures; while Project - three (3) countries (Vietnam, Bangladesh and Pakistan) Cuty Poetae-Caeo have none. Even in those countries where consultation Country Project Name EA Cateikor procedures do exist, they are often only vaguely men- Bangladesh Jamuna Bridge A tioned in the environmental legislation or aie linked to China Hebei/ Henan Natl. Highway A other subjects (e.g., resettlement and land acquisition) Inland Waters A rather than to EAs. The review revealed that orny three Liaoning Environment A (3) of the projects reviewed followed both national and India Madras Water Supply A Bank consultation procedures. The others followed ei- Tadoneiia Kabupateu WRCPd A - B ther national or Bank procedures only; or, carried out Indonesia Kabupaten Roads V B eihr h Bn'so Outer Island Sumatra and 0 -~ consultations without follow-g either the Bank's or Kalimantan Power A national government procedures. These findings dem- Korea Ports Development & onstrate that thereis no consistent pattern in using ei- Environ-ment A ther national laws or the Bank's OD as guidelines for Pakistan Balochistan Natural Resources the structuring of the EA consultation process. -Management - B Philippines Leyte Geothermal Power' A Public Consultation in the EA Process Sri Lanka Colombo Env. Improvement A Thailand Lam Taknong Pumps A Viet Nam Irrigation Rehabilitation A Stakeholder Identification ._____________________________________________ \While only one (1) of the fourteen projects had an explicitly designed consultation strategy, almost all of The review's purpose was to identify best practice them consulted a broad range of stakeholders. These cases, as well as areas of relative weaknesses. The re- included reprtesentatives of gover,nment agencies, view posed a series of questions relating to informa- academia, NGOs, religious groups,;and village and tion disclosure, consultation practices, and monitor- community leaders. Few of the projects, however, de- ing and evaluation of the consultative process (see Box fined who the "key stakeholders" were; nor did the 2). It also looked at the impact of the consultation on'- project documentation describe the means for identify- issues addressed by the EA aad incorporated into the ing and weighing the relative participation in these project design. Like any desk review, more consulta- consultations of >affected communities," "beneficiaries tion may have taken place than is revealed in the project and-"other stakeholders." Only in three (3) projects were documentation. genderand ethnicity addressed in stakeholderidenti- fication and consultation. Legal and Policy Frameworks - ~Information Dissemination There is significant variabilit-y in the -formal con- The projtcts used a range of means for information sultation procedures among Borrower countries, as dissemination: newspaper articles, TV and radio re-' well as in their traditional practices. There are, also wide ports, videos and films, exhibitions, posters, and pub- differences between these national procedures, where lic meetings and- hearings. Two (2) of the projects un- existent, and those of the Bank. dertook systematic public information and dissemina- Box 2: Basic Questions to Review- Consultation Processes Information Disclosure Consultation Practices Monitoring & Evaluation Were affected people and * Does the country have a formal consultation proce- . Was a system designed tb NGOs informed about the dure as part of the EA? assess whether affected proposed activities? ' people and NGOs absorbed * Were the country procedures foHo3wed? r information from the Was the project surmmary and objectives available to affected * Was .4 consultation strategy designed for the project? consultative processes? and intexested groups? * What.criteria wer,e used to identify stakeholders? * Was a monitoring and * Were TORs for the EA available * How were the consulted groups selected? evaluation system designed to the public? to measure the effectiveness * Who was consulted and when? (affected groups-and of information disclosure * What mechanisms were used to other stakeholders) and consultation strategies? disseininate project scope-and objectives (press, bulletins, * What were the consultation mechanisms used? radio)? (seminars, workshops, public meetings) Was the draft EA report made * What substantive issues arose from the consultation available in a tirnely fashion? and how did they influence the project? A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~g- tion campaigns; another five (5) projects had newspa- Box 3: per reports and public meetings; and, seven (7) projects Farmer Group Consultations in India had no information dissemination strategy. It is lifn- Madras Water Supply Project clear from the desk review-whether there was any tar-. geting of audiences in the information campaigns, The Second Madras Water Supply Project-pro- whether materials were translated into local languages, 'vides treatment and transportation of water to or whether any assessments were made of public un- the city by a transmission pipeline which carries derstanding of the information-disseminated. water from a command area inliabited by 11,500 farmers. An EA was carried out which induded Consultation Mechanisms a strategy to consult the farmers. Consultations The types of consultation mechanisms used in these covered farmers associations, local government projects included town and public meetings and work- and affected com-niunities and were organrazed shops and seminars. There is, however, relatively hIttle by a reputable NGO. The farmers showed an or no information in the project ctocuments on-the r ep- awareness of the need to incorporate new ope- resentativeness of the persons who attended these meet- rating rules for rehIasing of water from another ings. Only one of the projects used a systematic survey reservoir. to elicit opinions ol persons affected directly by the project. As a result of the consultations, the Government drafted new formal rules which were accepted There is a wide variety of effective techniques wvich by the farmers and villages. It also included a could be used for consultationbut apparently were not suggestion made by the villagers that the capac- tested in7the EAs analyzed in the review. These indude ity of the local water tank be expanded to satisfy Cpublic hearings, citizen advisory groups, focus groups, 'the irrigation needs of local farmers, as well as community opinion surveys, expert panels, etc. permit coptinuing offtake from the reservoir for the water needs of Madras. Issues Identified for Project Design During scoping sessions, stakeholders mainly reised view and often to a more limited range of stakeholders, issues concerning involuntary resettlement andL the such as locai governments or affected communities. environment. In relation-to, resettlement, the key con- From the documentation, it is unclear to what extent cern had to do with compensation; while environmen- the comments made are actually incorporated into the tal issues included the impacts of power plants on sur- EA report submitted to the Bank. rounding communities, the effects of noise and air pol-' lution, and protectirighistorical and culturalproperty. Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution- The project documentation did rfbt indicate whether 'Projects with environmental implications often gen- there was any setting of priorities among issues; nor, erate conflicts between the project proponents and af- how they were incorporated into the TORs for the EA. fected communities and other interested groups, espe- cially concerning the siting of facilities (e.g., ehe so- Some of the issues raised during consultations re- called "Not-in-My-Backyard" or "NIMBY" syndrome). sulted in changes in the project design; e.g., specific A public consultation strategy may therefore need con- details of resettlement plans, modifications in engineer- Thct management and dispute resolution techniques, ing designs (see Box 3), and plans for protecting and including the use of professional facilitators. The re- monitoring threatened flora and fauna (see Box4). There view found that EA reports seldom contain descrip- were no instances where consultations led the project tions of such conficts; nor is there muchuse being made, proponent to seek alternative project designs or not pro- at present, of alternative dispute resolution techniques. ceed with the original project.. Process Documentation and Recording Review of Draft EA - - - . The review showed there is a paucity of information According to OD 4.01, a summiary of the dratft EA in the project files or EA reports on the types of consul- conclusions, including the environmental managE2ment tation activities and mechanisms used, the individuals plan, are to be presented to affected communities and and groups invited and participating in them, the is- interested NGOs in a "form and language meaningful sues raised, the responses givenbyproject proponents to the groups being consulted." There is great variabil- and the impact of such discussions upon subsequent ity in the extent and ways in which draft EA summa- decisions. However, there is increasing awareness of ries are being presented to the " general public," affected the need to improve documentation and recording and communities, and NGOs. Some projeiRs provide the an attempt on the part of a number of divisions to rem- entire draft EA report to a wide range of stakeholders edy the situation. This should contribute to greater in- for public inspection and comment; others providle only stitutional memory and learning on the part of the Bank. summaries of the draft EA conclusions for public re- - X Box 4: t , for improving-Borrower and Bank performance in pub- Public Consultation in Korea Ports Development lic consultation. Among other things, the Bank and Bor- and Environmental Improvement Project rower countries need to: In the Korea Ports Development Project, the project pro- * Generate dialogue with project proponents on the ponent asked local people to revtew the draft EA report . . ~~~~~~~~~~~ways i-n which pubhie-consultation can further their and asked for their views on t4e noise and air pollution w-aysri which pbcconsuitation cn furteth that port construction might cause. Issues raised included the protection of historic and cultural properties, provi- is to show project proponents both "best" and sion of adequate com'pensation for damages to inhabit- "worst" practi in public involvement, including ants of the port area, and preparation of mitigation plans what may happen in its absence. to deal with noise and air pollution. Affected people pro- ., , . . - , . 1 . * ~~~~~Focus mo:re attention on stakeholder identification, i vided comments to the Ministry of Environment and it, in turn, prepared a management and monitoring plan to especially of affected people and communities, local mitigate environmental issues idefntified. authorities and decision makers, the media, the scientific community, NGOs and other interested groups or parties. Constraints to Conducting * Disseminate information early and in a culturally Effective Consultations meaningful fashion, including using local languages, visual methods and, where appropriate, In general, the review found that there were con- communicationexpertise. straints both within Borrower countries and the Bank Recognize that disputes and conflicts are some- Lo conducting effective consultations within the franme- times inevitable and therefore plan for conflict work of the EA process. Many Borrower governments management and dispute resolution. and their sectoral ministries view the EA as a purely m a d technical exercise which will not benefit from public Document the process of consultation including and community involvement. Despite the growing im- participants, the issues raised, the responses given portance of NGOs and civil society, there is still a ten- by project proponents and the impact upon 'dency in many countries to implement development subsequent decisions. projects in a non-participatory manner. * Evaluate whether or not public consultation improved the quality of EA and the public To respond to these constraints, there needs tobe a - - v , . ~~~~~~~~~~acceptablity of the project. This could includge the dialogue with Borrowers, based upon concrete experi- use of indicators to measure absorption of ence, abo'ut how public consultation can lower the information-dissemated, public satisfaction with transaction costs of projects. Borrowers need to be con- the consultation process and its effectiveness from vinced that by consulting with people they can avoid the viewpoint of the project proponent. delays due to public protest and be more responsive to the demands of interested parties and constituencies. Recognize that sensitization and training on the Borrowers also need to be convincd that by drawing objectives and methods of public involvement may upon local knowledge and concerns, they can improve be needed for project proponents, central and local -the Bquaty of EA studies, mitigation plans and project government authorities, ,affected communities, quaityogtuisnitgtospasad?rjc NGOs and Bank Task Managers. 0) designs? NO nS Within the Bank, Task Managers need guidance for Resources: advising Borrowers about how to design and conduct information dissemination and consultation processes. Public Involvement in Environniental Assessment: Re- TORs need to be more precise in definAg what needs to quirements, Opportunities and Issues (EA Sourcebook be done in terms of identifying key stakeholders, pro- Update, No. 5, October 1993) viding them with adequate informatiorn, and structur- ing a cons.,tave process which is effective andmean-Peo.ple's Participation in Environment Assessment in iTigacons ltativep ocessw,i -hiseffectiveandmea - Latin' America: Best Practices by William Partridge ingful to project proponents, affected populations and (LATEN Dissemination Note, No.11, November 1994) interested parties. Manual on Public Participation by Environmental ke- Recommendations for Improving sources Minagement (Prepared for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, December 1995; PRrformance Available Through ENVSP) The review, as well as gerneral experience in other The Impact of Environmental Assessment. Second EA regions and outside the Bagnk, provides several insights Review (World Bank, November 1996). Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper