Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
offer opportunities for clarification, for identifying points deserving further
analysis, and for encouraging mutual exploration of interests.
Use of advisory committees
In longer-term planning processes which may take two to three years such
as for water resource planning, a common mechanism for effective and delib-
erative engagement is through a water advisory or consultative committee
or working group comprised of key stakeholders. For example, in Baldwin
and Twyford's (2007) review of good practices for engagement about dams,
10 out of the 13 case studies examined used consultative committees. In the
Hamstead
et al.
(2008a) review of water resource planning processes around
Australia, all processes had such committees.
The composition of these groups is important. Major water users such
as irrigators or the mining sector are essential members as any change in
allocation will have potential to directly affect them, and they are often
a source of economic revenue and employment for the local region or the
nation. However including other key stakeholders is essential to ensure
balanced consideration of issues. They might include those concerned about
domestic water supply such as a representative from a water delivery provider
or from a town council and possibly a development aid group providing rural
water. Those representing the health of a river and ecosystem and recreation
or tourism interests should also be included. In many cases in Australia,
Indigenous groups are invited to participate through a representative but this
has not been found to be an effective way to gain insight into their interests
(Jackson
et al
2012).
The benefits of an advisory or consultative group is that they are: helping
build mutual trust, respect and a collaborative approach; promoting open
dialogue and the exchange of ideas; and generating shared understanding
often through joint gathering and analysis of data (Baldwin and Twyford
2007). A community advisory committee can be an effective and efficient
mechanism to allow for deliberation among diverse interests and to reassure
and address concerns of interest groups before an issue gets misinterpreted or
out of hand.
However it does not take the place of consultation with individual stake-
holder groups and the broader community using deliberative techniques.
Hamstead
et al.
(2008a) also documented cases from across Australia where
committee processes have resulted in disillusioned community participants.
The community, particularly advisory committees, may spend considerable
personal time and effort participating in a deliberative process over time (e.g.
a year or two). It therefore has a legitimate expectation that its views will
not just be 'heard' but will contribute to decision-making. Disillusionment
occurs when the final decisions are contrary to their recommendations,
particularly where the reasons for this are not transparent, or are obviously
the result of interest group lobbying outside of the process.
