About Yonge Nawe

Programmes

Resources

Press Information

Membership

Links

Search

Contact Us
 

Communities will be safer, cleaner, stronger and happier as residents increase their participation in making decisions in matters that concerns their lives. Public participation is a process through which the public can influence, share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources, which affect them. Public participation in environmental decision-making is one very important area, which has an impact on our life. 

How would you feel when you discover that in your community which already has its share of unfriendly projects, a new one is coming and decisions have already been made? Obviously there would be resistance and resentment of the project. 

If community residents are involved from the beginning, this helps to build trust and shared responsibility between the project proponent and the affected communities. Community contributions will help to mitigate adverse effects of a proposal throughout the planning, construction and operation phase. Community involvement should not be limited to just preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) report. 

Local observations
In Swaziland observations indicates that public participation or community involvement in environmental decision making is more often limited to the preparation of Environmental Assessment (EA) reports especially at the scoping meeting level and not throughout the EA process. Project proponents undertake EAs to fulfil a legal requirement of the Environmental Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations (EAARR) (2000). 

Environmental Assessment scoping meeting 
An EA scoping meeting is an initial phase of the EA process where interested and affected parties are called upon to air their concerns about a proposed development project. Little and or no attendance at EA scoping meetings is a worrying observation. Yes yet, adverts are put in the local paper and other media is seemingly used to call on affected and interested parties to attend a scoping meeting on proposed development project so that they could air their concerns. But how come we have little and sometimes no participation at all? Does it mean that this is a resounding approval of the proposed project, though by default? Or something is very wrong somewhere? 

For example, public notices were issued in the local papers for the proposed Vertical Integrated Project for Tex Ray in Matsapha in June 2003. The project was going to house a weaving and spinning factory, a dye house, a garment and boiler house and a treatment plant that would treat water abstracted from the Lusushwana River and discharge treated effluent into the river. At the scoping meeting of this proposed project held on the 21st of June 2003, there was no participation by affected parties. Out of the thirteen participants seven were representing the project proponent.  This scenario presents a challenge to all of us especially in view of the socio and environmental disasters prevalent where this project is going to be housed. It leaves us with the question, whose responsibility is it to ensure that affected parties have participated and are indeed participating in the proposed project?

Public review and comments
Public review and comments of EA reports is another level where there are some worrying observations. Public review and comments is a requirement stated in the EAARR (2000), which project proponents, should comply with.

The public supposedly should make their input by reviewing the reports, commenting and or making objections to the proposed project. The reports are distributed at “strategic places.”  In some cases, the seemingly “strategic places,” showed no knowledge of the existence of the reports while others did not know what the report was about and or what they were supposed to do with it? At Sigwe Inkhundla, for example, the recipient of the EA reports of the then proposed Ferro-vanadium Plant at Maloma did not know what to do with the report let alone understand the contains of the report. 

This brings us to another interesting observation. Some EA reports use technical language, which even a competent English reader would not understand.  However, this is may not be done deliberately because the nature of business warrants one to use such language. But the challenge is how do we reach joint agreement and acceptance of the proposed project when we are not on the same understanding level about the production processes involved let alone how these will impact on my health and the environment?  In last week’s column we made reference to reports about "poison scares" at the plant mentioned above. Do you think this situation would have obtained if affected parties fully understood the production environment they are working under? Further, one would be keen to know whether affected parties honestly participate in decisions that will impact their lives. 

We have read cases in the local newspapers of challenges, for example, the Mlawula case where EA process was not subjected to public participation. This situation did not promote participatory environmental decision-making between the project proponent and affected parties neither did it cultivate support for and trust in the proposed development project.

It is essential to build trust between all parties that would be affected by a development project. This can only be done by making information available, following environment laws and above all creating windows for public participation. Strategies to promote public participation from both proponent and affected party perspectives will be discussed in this column.