Concertation scenario workshop
By Sophie Hamel-Dufour
An activity was organized to foster discussion and reflection on the participatory process involved in concertation in connection with issues associated with the St. Lawrence. Sophie Hamel-Dufour, an advisor on participation and participative management with the Protected Areas Unit of the Ecological Heritage and Parks Branch with the Quebec Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP), set the tone for this activity.
The scenario was performed simultaneously by four teams of 24 persons, each being given a role to play that differed from their everyday duties; participants then had to take a position and interact with the other role-players.
Organizers provided participants with descriptions of the characters they were supposed to play and the key aspects of the scenario in which the characters were to be involved. Everyone had a few minutes to speak with the other participants to get a sense of the character and to decide how the character should be played and how the scenario should be performed. Each team chose a strategy and made at least one firm recommendation or requirement and another that could be negotiated. Each team also had a back-up strategy that could shake up the exercise, which it could use if its firm recommendation was under threat of rejection.
About the scenario:
The Forum organizing committee created a fictional development case that required the establishment of an ad hoc round table. The case in question was described as follows: "Development of a man-made island in the St. Lawrence as a holiday resort and residential development site, including port infrastructure (pier) and creation of a habitat designated as a natural conservation area for the reintroduction of a threatened or endangered species. The island is made from uncontaminated inert substrate derived from mine tailing from a nearby mine."
Roles:
1. Elected official (mayor) of a medium-sized municipality who places great importance on the sustainable development of his region. He will defend the development project insofar as the short- and long-term economic and social benefits are guaranteed and the environmental impacts are taken into consideration and compensated. He supports citizen engagement and is the keeper of participatory democracy.
2. Developer from the RCM who has a by-the-book approach. He is fairly young and has just moved to the region to settle. He has a clear understanding of the overall issues, but has yet to fully incorporate the regional values.
3. Industrialist and promoter of the development project. She is a representative of the regional chamber of commerce interested in short-term profit, but also has a long-term vision (sustainable development).
4. Adventure tourism business owner. An outdoor enthusiast, he is concerned about the project's impact on his newly launched company. Although he is a former environmental activist, he keeps some distance from approaches that are too dogmatic or conservation-oriented.
5. Citizen and resident of a certain age. She has "a place on the river" and is concerned about the impacts such a project could have on the environment (she is an amateur birdwatcher), particularly in the long term (she has several grandchildren). However, she has an internal struggle because some of her children could benefit directly from the region's development as a result of this project.
6. Citizen and retired professional fisher who still goes fishing and boating for pleasure. He is concerned about the impacts the project might have on fish habitat, his recreational activities and the fishing industry.
7. Expert researcher in marine biology. The arguments she contributes to the project tend to be based on rationality. She is concerned about some of the potential effects of the project, but does not oppose it and instead tries to find scientifically and biologically sound compromises.
8. Aboriginal representative, lawyer by profession and expert on land issues. He is sought after by the project in matters concerning Aboriginal rights and the sustained quality of the environment as well as the project's potential social and economic effects on the community he represents.
To present the activity, Sophie Hamel-Dufour gave participants some food for thought and context:
In everyday life, we all find ourselves in situations where we need to use compromise to make choices, for example, during meetings with colleagues, in setting a budget or in finding the right communication strategy. Whether the situation is minor or far-reaching, we often have to work in concert. What we bring into this concerted effort is a little common sense.
However, concertation as it is defined in the SLAP, in other words, the "mechanism by means of which the Parties reach an agreement in order to act in concert," refers to the idea of public participation. Public participation can be defined as opening up decision-making processes to players other than those who usually make the decisions, such as elected officials and public administration experts.
Participation means redefining the relationship between the state, the private sector, non-government organizations, Aboriginal people and citizen groups. In Quebec, for instance, public participation immediately calls to mind the office of public hearings on the environment called the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE). The idea is to collectively discuss the relevance of a project and the issues associated with its implementation and useful life as well as ways of disposing of it once its useful life has ended. In opening up the decision-making processes, public participation invites a change in the operating culture of both public and private organizations. Even though this transformation began in the early 1970s, it is still going strong today. Once again, it is a matter of moving from participatory discourse to participatory action. By proposing regional round tables, the SLAP is getting one step closer to participatory practices.
What sets concertation apart from other modes of public participation?
A metaphorical way to talk about participation is to refer to it as a ladder with a series of steps. For the purposes of the session, Ms. Hamel-Dufour essentially presented three "steps," namely information, consultation and concertation, inspired by the work of Jean-Eudes Beuret .
Ms. Hamel-Dufour proposed starting with an aspect that is positioned alongside the ladder and is not public participation, namely communication, which involves conveying a message to obtain public support. It may be partisan and akin to marketing. Because it can have a more direct target, it does not really fit in with the spirit of participation, which is an exchange, even a minimal one, based on trust and transparency. Communications remains nevertheless essential to make the steps of public participation known.
Information
Access to information through, for instance, open houses, site visits and information sessions is pivotal to any participatory approach in order to establish a minimal exchange, a basis of trust and transparency.
What: Allowing the public to react and form an opinion on a project. To do this, the public must have access to essential documents and information (description, map, agreements, municipal council resolutions) so that it has a clear understanding of the project. It is not just a matter of gathering reactions from participants, but also answering questions and providing information.
When: As early as possible; this is a one-time activity that occurs at a given moment, but may be repeated if need be.
Who: The widest possible audience affected by the project.
Consultation
The second step on the participation ladder is consultation. With consultation, the unidirectional flow of information is abandoned in favour of a process involving interaction.
This is where BAPE public hearings fit in. The same applies to the Montréal Office de consultation publique [public consultation office], or to consultations provided for under the Planning Act. This may also include a formula involving workshops or Web-based activities.
What: Consultation can be a way to gather proposals on upgrades, suggestions for improvements or opposition to the project. However, it provides no guarantee that the advice and opinions expressed in the decision will be considered. As a general rule, the purpose of consultation is determined by the party doing the consulting, not those who express the need to be consulted.
When: The earlier the better so that the proposals can be taken into account.
Who: Depending on the selected formula, the consultation will either involve the general public or be by invitation. Special attention should be paid to the opponents.
Concertation
The third step on the ladder is concertation. Whereas the basis for consultation is interaction, concertation focuses on "working together." To illustrate her point about the spirit of change in concertation methods, Ms. Hamel-Dufour made the following observation: we go faster alone, but we go further together.
What: It means jointly developing visions, plans and projects, identifying together the nature and scope of the issues as well as the solutions and the rules behind concertation, and then aligning the interests.
When: This approach is spread over time.
Who: Individuals who are most likely to be affected by or interested in the project. Special attention should be paid to the opponents.
Although information is present in consultation and concertation as the first step on the participation ladder, it alone is not sufficient for consultation and concertation to be carried out.
Ms. Hamel-Dufour concluded by saying that, in reality, public participation approaches are often a hybrid of concepts in order to address the contexts within which they fall and which are unique every time.