首页> 外文OA文献 >Effective Consultation and Participation in Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: Advancing Sustainable Development in a Remote First Nations Community in Northern Ontario, Canada
【2h】

Effective Consultation and Participation in Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: Advancing Sustainable Development in a Remote First Nations Community in Northern Ontario, Canada

机译:有效的磋商和参与环境评估和土地利用规划:在加拿大安大略省北部的一个偏远的原住民社区中促进可持续发展

摘要

INTRODUCTION. Environmental decision-making related to policy, often includes an overall objective that advances opportunities for sustainable development. Advancing the concept of sustainable development draws on, and influences forms of governance. The use of the term governance represents an ideological shift from the authoritative control associated with the term “government”. With governance, power is distributed among actors. In practice, this implies a broader collaboration between organizations, associations, individuals and various levels of government, both formally and informally. Overall, governance structures have shifted to embody greater public engagement. The incorporation of participation and engagement in governance is attributed to outcomes that include: acceptance and support of the policy, reduced conflict, broader information resources, and social learning. The dissertation focused on the critical component of sustainable development governance, public participation, in the context of environmental assessment and related decision-making. Specifically, how participation in policy development and environmental decision-making is informed, and limited, based on existing information management capacity. Through case studies, this dissertation examined the development of land use planning policy and application of Environmental Assessments (EA), to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, the public participation process. Three research questions provided a guide to exploring this subject: 1. What does participation look like in land use planning legislation and EA processes, with respect to case specific limitation and challenges? 2. How can information be gathered, managed and shared to build needed capacity and meet community goals? 3. What is an approach to information management that can serve to improve the range of available information, and overcome the existing barriers to accessing technical and academic resources, to support streaming of relevant information into the participatory process?METHODS. Fort Albany First Nation, a remote Cree community of the western James Bay region of subarctic Ontario, Canada, was the focal community of the present study. People of this community have significant connections to the land, and the land is rich with natural resources. Thus, the Cree identify meaningful participation in decision-making related to land-and-resource planning and development, as being imperative. Participatory action research was an overarching method employed throughout the present study. Data sources for this project included field notes, interview data, project reports and EA documents, meeting minutes, hearing and legislative transcripts, archival information, and policy documents. The approach to analyzing the data generally incorporated the development of an evaluative framework and deductive review.RESULTS and DISCUSSION. Chapter 2. The Far North Act (2010) Consultative Process: A New Beginning or the Reinforcement of an Unacceptable Relationship in Northern Ontario, Canada? The consultative process with respect to consultation in the “Far North” region of Ontario was examined, from the treaty-making period (early 1900s), through to the land use planning period represented in the Far North Act (2010). The focus of the evaluation was the approach to consultation used in Ontario, to advance policy. The inadequate consultative process used in the advancement of the Far North Act (2010) was characterized by a minimum standard for consultation being used. Terms were fixed prior to the process, limiting outcomes and frustrating those attempting to engage in the process. Further, timelines were too condensed to allow for meaningful participation, and unequal power distribution was evident, resulting in a threat of future litigation. Nonetheless, meetings and workshops, as well as testimony given by community members and leadership demonstrated meaningful consideration of the proposed legislation and social learning. However, the actual participatory method used in this case, public hearings, limited the potential to realize learning outcomes. The testimonies at public hearings were largely ignored. Chapter 3. The Streamlining of the Kabinakagami River Hydroelectric Project Environmental Assessment: What is the “duty to consult” with other impacted Aboriginal communities when the co-proponent of the project is an Aboriginal community? The case involved an upstream First Nation acting as a co-proponent for a project that would potentially affect downstream First Nations communities. Evaluation of the Kabinakagami Hydro Project Class EA process revealed severe limitations to effective participation by affected communities, even though the co-proponent was a First Nation. Moreover, guiding policies based on better practices for improved participation and consultation in environmental decision-making existed, among all actors. Noteworthy was that no specific guideline to guide the participatory process when a co-proponent of a development project was a First Nation – and from what was learnt from the case study – it cannot be assumed that First Nations will deal with other First Nations respectfully and fairly. The participatory methods used (information sessions, a meeting, and public comment) provided little opportunity for meaningful participation. Significant information was offered in the comment period, describing concerns about the consultation process and the scope of the studies underway. The response, however, demonstrated limited flexibility to adjust the process or consider changes to project design or implementation. This meant that participants in downstream First Nation communities were not streamed into the process. Chapter 4. Drawing a line in the muskeg: A systematic review of Environmental Assessment information, curated and evaluated, to advance evidence-based environmental decision-making to benefit communities, policy makers and proponents in a remote area of Northern Ontario, Canada. The collaborative-geomatics informatics tool provided a useful decision-support tool to gather relevant information, and evaluate previous EA processes carried out in the region. In this way, the decision-support tool builds capacity, all the while providing protection of intellectual property, as the tool is under First Nations control being password-protected. Typically, there are challenges to establishing a unified and consistent approach to mapping, but the informatics tool has the ability to house a range of information that is accessible, and can be flexible and usable in a variety of ways. The tool has been populated with available written and online information that are relevant to environmental decision-making needs for the Cree. The tool has been equipped and formatted with database querying “apps” developed specifically for the needs of the Cree through their input, and existing information has been synthesized and summarized to give an understanding of the state of information and information gaps present in the region. This is the beginning of an information-management system that will help the lands-and-resource group from the community to be prepared to participate in ongoing EA processes, with the added capacity to challenge the thoroughness and accuracy of information that is advanced by proponents and their consultants. CONCLUSIONS. While sustainable development is an important objective driving both EA and land use planning activities in the region, considered broadly, the activities that have surrounded the policy and EA activities examined in this dissertation have demonstrated limited meaningful change in underlying elements needed to achieve transformative change. A shift from “Government” to “governance”, with a change in power distribution, has not occurred. Opportunities for public participation were present in each of the cases examined, but were limited to public hearings, information sessions, meetings, and public comment. Although beyond passive sharing of information, the process has not fostered ongoing dialogue or built relationships; it has been a one-way exchange rather than dialogue. Access to the process was provided, but with limited ability to ensure that contributions made by participants were reflected in the outcomes. Nonetheless, participants in the process demonstrated growing capacity to engage in decision-making despite scarce resources, limited time, administrative capacity, and information. Unfortunately, my work has revealed that while there is an awareness of, and an existing administrative policy to, support meaningful participation and consultation for environmental decision-making in the Far North region, it is not being adopted in a meaningful way to realize the benefits of participation in the process. The result is an increasingly litigious environment. Governments have shown little interest in stepping into a leadership role to invest in early relationship development, as a way to more effectively approach and ensure community support, and the long-term success of development projects. This leaves impacted communities and private companies with the task of navigating this process to advance their respective goals with little regulatory oversight or intervention.
机译:介绍。与政策有关的环境决策通常包括促进可持续发展机会的总体目标。提倡可持续发展的概念依赖并影响着治理形式。治理一词的使用代表了与“政府”一词相关的权威控制的意识形态转变。通过治理,权力在参与者之间分配。在实践中,这意味着组织,协会,个人与各级政府之间正式和非正式的广泛合作。总体而言,治理结构已经转变为体现更大的公众参与度。参与治理中的参与和参与归因于以下结果:接受和支持政策,减少冲突,扩大信息资源和社会学习。论文的重点是在环境评估和相关决策的背景下,可持续发展治理,公众参与的关键组成部分。具体而言,基于现有信息管理能力,如何告知和限制参与政策制定和环境决策。通过案例研究,本论文研究了土地利用规划政策的制定和环境评估的应用,以找出阻碍公众参与过程的障碍并为公众参与过程提供便利。以下三个研究问题为探索该主题提供了指南:1.关于案例的局限性和挑战,参与土地用途规划立法和环境评估过程看起来如何? 2.如何收集,管理和共享信息以建立所需的能力并实现社区目标? 3.什么是信息管理方法,可以用来改善可用信息的范围,并克服现有的获取技术和学术资源的障碍,以支持将相关信息流传输到参与性过程中?奥尔巴尼堡第一民族是加拿大亚北极安大略省西部詹姆斯湾地区一个偏远的Cree社区,是本研究的重点社区。该社区的人们与土地有着重要的联系,土地上拥有丰富的自然资源。因此,克里认为必须有意义地参与与国土资源计划和开​​发有关的决策。参与式行动研究是贯穿本研究的总体方法。该项目的数据来源包括现场记录,访谈数据,项目报告和EA文件,会议记录,听证和立法笔录,档案信息以及政策文件。分析数据的方法通常包括评估框架的发展和演绎性审查。结果与讨论。第2章。《远北法案(2010)》的协商程序:加拿大安大略省北部地区新的起点还是不可接受的关系的巩固?从条约制定时期(1900年代初)到《远北法案》(2010年)代表的土地使用规划时期,对安大略“远北”地区的咨询协商过程进行了审查。评估的重点是安大略省采用的协商方法,以推进政策。推进《远北法》(2010年)时使用的协商程序不足,其特征是使用了最低协商标准。条款在流程之前是固定的,限制了结果,并挫败了那些尝试参与流程的人。此外,时间安排过于紧凑,无法进行有意义的参与,而且明显的权力分配不平衡,也有可能引起未来诉讼的威胁。尽管如此,会议和讲习班以及社区成员和领导层的证词显示出对拟议立法和社会学习的有意义的考虑。但是,在这种情况下,公开听证会使用的实际参与方法限制了实现学习成果的潜力。公开听证会上的证词在很大程度上被忽略了。第3章。Kabinakagami河水电项目的环境评估精简:当项目的共同支持者是土著社区时,与其他受影响的土著社区进行“协商的责任”是什么?该案涉及上游原住民,该原住民作为一个项目的共同发起人,这可能会影响下游原住民社区。对Kabinakagami水电项目EA程序的评估表明,受影响的社区的有效参与受到了严重限制,即使该支持者是一个原住民。此外,还存在以更好的做法为基础的指导政策,以促进环境决策的参与和协商。,在所有演员中。值得注意的是,当一个开发项目的共同支持者是原住民时,没有具体的指导方针来指导参与过程。从案例研究中学到的知识,不能假设原住民会尊重其他原住民并与其他原住民打交道。相当。所使用的参与方法(信息会议,会议和公众意见)为有意义的参与提供了很少的机会。在意见征询期内提供了大量信息,描述了对咨询过程和正在进行的研究范围的关注。然而,回应表明,调整流程或考虑更改项目设计或实施的灵活性有限。这意味着下游原住民社区的参与者没有被纳入流程。第4章。在路线图上划定界线:精心策划和评估环境评估信息,以推进基于证据的环境决策,使加拿大北安大略偏远地区的社区,政策制定者和支持者受益。协作地质信息学工具提供了有用的决策支持工具,可以收集相关信息,并评估该地区以前执行的EA流程。这样,决策支持工具可以在提供知识产权保护的同时不断增强能力,因为该工具在原住民控制下受到密码保护。通常,建立统一一致的地图绘制方法面临挑战,但是信息学工具能够容纳一系列可访问的信息,并且可以通过多种方式灵活使用。该工具已填充有与Cree的环境决策需求相关的可用书面和在线信息。该工具已配备并通过专门为Cree的需求通过其输入开发的数据库查询“应用程序”进行了格式化,并对现有信息进行了汇总和汇总,以了解该地区存在的信息状态和信息空白。这是信息管理系统的开始,该系统将帮助社区中的土地和资源小组准备参与正在进行的EA流程,并具有更多能力来挑战支持者提出的信息的完整性和准确性。和他们的顾问。结论。虽然可持续发展是推动该地区的EA和土地使用规划活动的重要目标,但从广泛的角度来看,本文围绕政策和EA活动进行的活动表明,实现变革所需的基础要素的有意义的变化有限。伴随着配电的变化,从未发生过从“政府”到“治理”的转变。在每个审查的案件中都有公众参与的机会,但仅限于公开听证会,情况介绍会,会议和公众意见。尽管除了被动地共享信息之外,该过程并未促进持续的对话或建立关系。这是单向交流,而不是对话。提供了访问过程的权限,但是确保参与者的贡献反映在结果中的能力有限。尽管如此,尽管资源稀缺,时间有限,行政能力和信息不足,但该过程的参与者仍表现出参与决策的能力不断增强。不幸的是,我的工作表明,尽管人们了解并支持现有的行政政策来支持有意义的参与和磋商,以促进远北地区的环境决策,但是并没有以有意义的方式采用它来实现收益。参与过程。结果是越来越多的诉讼环境。各国政府对担任领导角色以投资于早期关系发展,以更有效地寻求和确保社区支持以及发展项目的长期成功的方式表现出很少的兴趣。这使受影响的社区和私人公司的任务是导航该过程,以在几乎没有监管监督或干预的情况下推进各自的目标。

著录项

  • 作者

    Gardner Holly;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2016
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号