Public participation is well established in large infrastructure projects for incorporating a wide range of interests, e.g. for the development of transport infrastructure such as roads, rivers, airports and railway stations, or for major events such as Olympic Games. However, public participation is also increasingly considered for decisions at the government level of municipalities and districts, or by the responsible authorities for the establishment of protected areas and the implementation of nature conservation projects.
Clearly, the expectations of the public regarding sovereign decisions have evolved significantly over the last decades. What was once left to policy-makers or academic experts is now to be explained in more detail and discussed with full transparency. In some situations, this entails more effort and an additional initial expenditure, but also the opportunity to bring citizens and interest groups in, and to allow them, their expertise and resources to be used for the implementation. In the end, a speedy realization of complex projects can be achieved.
Conversely, taking a high-risk ‘I do it all myself’ approach often means paying a high price for stalled processes and lost trust. It is the same lesson that can be learned from controversial infrastructure projects, to protected areas, which lost valuable energy in the fight with their customers and neighbours.
What are the benefits of public participation? Key benefits are the increased support for an undertaking, the positive reputation of decision-makers, the reduced risk of delays by lenghty court proceedings, and – last but not least – the reduced risk of failed investments. Affected interest groups will assess complex political decision, however, contrary to a common assumption- not necessarily only from a rather narrow perspective of their self-interest. Their interpretation is rather based on a few well-known factors.
Interestingly, a central piece of the assessment is about the transparency and fairness in the decision-making process, and only to a lesser extent about the final outcome. Therefore, it is important that a sufficient degree of dialogue be allowed, that the contributions made in the dialogue are listened to and taken into account, and that a rationale is offered why the particular final decision has been made.
While this is good news for political decision-makers, it also requires some rigour and attention to the conversation: To counter any and all concerns of stakeholders with a priority of ‘jobs’, the ‘economy’ or the ‘common good’ won’t be good enough. Indeed, the concerns must be answered based on heir merit. While citizens and stakeholders understand that it is not only about their perspective, they expect that their perspectives will equally to be taken into account during the decision-making process. In short, the common criteria for a sound and defendable decision (one which is perceived as fair and acceptable) are known; neglecting these criteria is a preventable mistake.
Who would be interested in making use of public participation? In principle, public participation is promising for political decision-makers and authorities on all levels of government, i.e. from local governments to provincial and federal authorities. Notably, public participation will not delegate sovereign functions from political decision-makers and specialist authorities to the public. On the contrary, a public participation will strengthen the position of statutory decision makers. The responsibility for the decision remains with the same authority. What changes is that the decision-maker has better information and thus ultimately the quality of the decision improves. And there is a second benefit: tactical interventions by stakeholders become less likely and easier to manage as the other interests help to balance and counter extreme positions.
We help clients with planning and implementing public participation, and advise decision-makers on methods, opportunities and risks. A clear framework is important for the success of public participation: What can be creatively discussed and what not? Where is flexibility for the decision? Which topics may be informative as context, but are not part of the decision? We help clients to coordinate and plan all these aspects. We also advise clients on evaluating and responding to the contributions included in the investment process – in particular, how concerns can be answered in a satisfactory manner.