1 / 18

REGIONAL REPORT. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

REGIONAL REPORT. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. TAI Regional Meeting in Budapest 26.10.2006 Helen Poltimäe, SEI-Tallinn. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CASES. Decision-making on policy level strategies, policies, plans, programs, laws 35 cases assessed in 9 countries Decision-making on project level

chione
Download Presentation

REGIONAL REPORT. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REGIONAL REPORT.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TAI Regional Meeting in Budapest 26.10.2006 Helen Poltimäe, SEI-Tallinn

  2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CASES • Decision-making on policy level • strategies, policies, plans, programs, laws • 35 cases assessed in 9 countries • Decision-making on project level • execution of construction works or of other installations, and other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape • 16 cases from 8 countries

  3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON POLICY LEVEL

  4. CASES

  5.  AVAILABILITY AT PUBLIC REGISTRIES No registry accessible (6%) NA (11%) Accessible in one public location (23%) Accessible in more than one public location(60%)

  6.  COMMUNICATION TOOLS USED Public was not notified (9%) Only one communication tool used (20%) NA (42%) Several communication tools used (29%)

  7.  DURATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS No public comment period (11%) NA (46%) Reasonable time (43%)

  8.  NO EFFORTS TO CONSULT MARGINALIZED GROUPS NA (43%) No consultations (57%)

  9.  INCORPORATION OF PUBLIC INPUT Documents do not discuss public input (34%) NA (34%) Documents discuss how public input was incorporated (6%) Documents mention public input (26%)

  10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON PROJECT LEVEL

  11. CASES Waste Planning Energy & mining Water Transport

  12.  PLANNED AND SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS TO CONSULT PARTIES NA (6%) No consultations (6%) At least one consultation (44%) Planned and systematic efforts (44%)

  13.  QUALITY OF INFORMATION SUPPORTING PARTICIPATION No relevant information (13%) Four or more “elements of quality”(44%) One to three “elements of quality” (43%)

  14.  COMMUNICATION OF INFO TO MARGINALIZED GROUPS NA (38%) No documents or meetings targeted at marginalized groups (62%)

  15.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RENEWAL OF THE PROJECT No process for PP established (31%) NA (50%) A process for PP has been established (13%) A process for PP has been established and info actively provided (6%)

  16. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  17. CONCLUSIONS • Constitutional rights for PP are vague • PP functions mainly as an opportunity for the public to comment on draft decisions • PP is regarded as expert consultations • The communication channel most often used is Internet • Lack of transparency

  18. RECOMMENDATIONS • PP should be made possible at the earliest stage where all opportunities are still open • A clear obligation to answer all comments • Documents should contain summery of public input • Capacity building

More Related