Participation, presentation and review - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 169

The way information is conveyed can influence public participation. Highly technical
information can be understood by only a small proportion of the public. Information in
different media (e.g. newspapers, radio) will reach different sectors of the public.
Ensuring the participation of groups that generally do not take part in decision-making—
notably minority and low-income groups—may be a special concern, especially in the
light of the Brundtland Commission's emphasis on intragenerational equity and
participation. Ross (2000) gives a compelling example of the difficulties of
communicating technical information across a language barrier in Canada:
At one of the hearings in an aboriginal community, there was a discussion
of chlorinated organic emissions involving one of the elders, who was
speaking in Cree through a translator. The translator needed to convey the
discussions to the Elder. The difficult question was how to translate the
phrase “chlorinated organic compounds” into Cree. Fellow panel member
Jim Boucher…who spoke Cree, listened to the translator, who had solved
the problem by using the translation “bad medicine”.
Williams & Hill (1996) identified a number of disparities between traditional ways of
communicating environmental information and the needs of minority and low-income
groups in the US; for instance:
• agencies focus on desk studies rather than working actively with these groups;
• agencies often do not understand existing power structures, so do not involve
community leaders such as preachers for low-income churches, or union leaders;
• agencies hold meetings where the target groups are not represented, for instance in city
centres away from where the project will be located;
• agencies hold meetings in large “fancy” places which disenfranchised groups feel are
“off-limits”, rather than in local churches, schools or community centres;
• agencies use newspaper notices, publication in official journals and mass mailings
instead of telephone trees or leaflets handed out in schools;
• agencies prepare thick reports which confuse and overwhelm;
• agencies use formal presentation techniques such as raised platforms and slide
projections.
These points suggest that a wide variety of methods for conveying information should be
used, with an emphasis on techniques that would be useful for traditionally less
participative groups: EIS summaries with pictures and perhaps comics as well as
technical reports, meetings in less formal venues, and contact through established
community networks as well as through leaflets and newspaper notices.
Public participation in EIA also aims to establish a dialogue between the public and
the decision-makers (both the project proponent and the authorizing body) and to ensure
that decision-makers assimilate the public's views into their decisions. Public
participation can help to identify issues that concern local residents. These issues are
often not the same as those of concern to the developer or outside experts. Public
participation exercises should thus achieve a two-way flow of information to allow
residents to voice their views. The exercises may well identify conflicts between the
needs of the developer and those of various sectors of the community; but this should