|
[ Previous Chapter
] [ Next Chapter ]
Group
2: Natural Resources Extraction at Local / Sub-national Levels
(Energy Resources)
Speaker 1: Sean Southey,
ICLEI, Canada
Speaker 2: Gary Lawrence, Sustainable Strategies
and Solutions, US
Chair: Paul Whiffen,
Tearfund, UK
Rapporteur: Toby
Middleton, UNED Forum
Sean
Southey drew from experiences with ICLEI's “Cities for
Climate Campaign” (Local Agenda 21 MSPs). Steps taken in this process
include:
 |
Local
Authority decides it wants to reduce emissions; |
|
undertakes a
review of energy usage to establish benchmarks; |
|
sets
appropriate reduction targets; |
|
sets
emissions reduction plans; |
|
implements
plans; |
|
monitors
outcomes. |
Five
tensions frequently arise in this process:
|
Participation
Vs Representation; |
|
Campaign
against Vs Working for; |
|
Conflict Vs
Consensus; |
|
Environmental
Management Vs Consensus; |
|
Process Vs
Real change. |
Gary
Lawrence drew from
experience with the “Seattle Environmental Priorities Project” (comparative
risk analysis). The project recognised planning as a political exercise with
technical attributes, which grew from public and scientific anxiety; and the
city that needed a comprehensive plan upon which to make decisions.
The steering committee of the process, consisting
of government, business (all sizes), key organisations, neighbourhoods and
scientists, needs to run its own MSP before outreaching for a public MSP.
Participants have to accept obligations linked to the process, e.g. to
communicate with their own constituents, organise press conferences, etc.
In the discussion
the following points were made:
|
Many
politicians will resist the notion of MSPs at the international level as
they can be viewed as increasing political pressure, whereas at the local
level there is an acceptance that you can’t avoid public participation. |
|
Addressing
the issue of natural resource extraction: the process comes down to whose
environment it is and who needs the resource and for what? Has there been
full disclosure by and to all parties? |
|
Process vs.
scientific legitimacy. The legal interface ends up shaping the debate around
which stakeholders can operate. |
|
Power of
voice is determined by power held. Therefore, there can be a problem with
'false stakeholders' (bought interests). Who legitimises those involved? |
|
Legitimacy:
stakeholders need to set standards for participation, and have to be
prepared to walk away (if the process is undemocratic / lip-service). |
1.
Which aspects of the issues under discussion have been or should be addressed
with an MSP?
|
UNED’s
report doesn’t address Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). These are
critical tools to inform the process. EIAs are a legislative requirement in
the EU which could be very valuable if legitimate. |
|
All parties
need to operate on equal footing. |
|
Effects of
conflict on the value of the process: Trust is essential to the process.
Participating groups need to be able to compromise. MSPs are models to
address new issues for the 21st Century. |
|
MSPs can
eliminate mis-comprehension and perceptions unfounded. This is a value
beyond decision-making, and is more related to relationship building. MSPs
are perhaps a process of conflict prevention. |
|
MSPs are a
tool to mitigate conflicts. Thus there is a need to ensure that whoever is
convening the MSP is un-biased. |
2.
What are the key principal components and conditions of a successful MSP?
|
We have been
looking at MSPs in isolation. We need to take a more integrative
perspective. |
|
Fatigue of
processes vs. benchmarking / standard setting for future processes. |
|
A checklist
might be necessary to know the right time to walk away. |
3.
What should be principles and practical components of linkages between MSPs and
official decision-making processes?
|
At the CSD,
stakeholders have no input on the issues being dialogued. Preparations need
to be transparent and participatory and timelines / structures should be
progressive in incremental steps. |
|
Start the
process off with a clean sheet of paper. There needs to be a level playing
field for all participants. |
|
The way you
conceptualise MSPs determines the outcomes. There is no fact that can
counter a really good myth. Sound political commitments are important. |
[ Previous Chapter
] [ Next Chapter ]
| 
