- Current Status:
Public participation in the environmental planning sector usually occurs later in the decision making process through the public display of documents and public hearings. Recently, more cities and communities are introducing a broader scale of participation, especially in "Local Agenda 21" processes, often to catalogue objectives and increase sustainable community development. Institutionalised Citizen Advisory Panels, e.g. for National Parks, are part of the legal framework; they usually include representatives of local stakeholder groups. The "Planning Cell"has been used for neighbourhood development projects, usually in an informal setting.
- Sectoral Differences:
Because of the well-developed planning system in Germany, many projects occur at the municipal level.There is less participation at the broader public sector level.
- Differences by Field:
Waste management and transportation provide the most conflicting issues and thus most case studies in public participation. Other programs have occurred on energy scenarios in the `80s; in health, citizen panels were organized about genetic engineering and possible health effects.
- Trends:
The current economic situation leads to a general unwillingness to finance larger participation programs; individuals are concerned about possible unemployment, which discourages their participation. The health sector could be more important. e.g. participation to set priorities for financial resources.
- Techniques:
Public meetings are the most common and widespread technique; open houses are rare. Advisory committees exist in different forms; workshops are becoming more popular. e.g.scenario workshops, future search conferences. Citizen panels are frequent for Agenda 21 procedures. Consensus conferences have been tested but Round Tables are more common.
- Pressures for Economy & Efficiency:
Yes, there is a call for efficient and inexpensive methods. e.g. public officials will more easily approve a single workshop than extensive and long term methods.
- Stakeholders vs. Public:
Depending on the context, stakeholders may form alliances with the general public and mobilize it to exert pressure on a proponent. In other cases, there are clearly defined stakeholders; proponents seek to reach agreement with them through discussions, excluding the general public. In a few cases, e.g. nuclear energy/waste, there is public energy without the need to mobilize it. In general, proponents view stakeholders as easier to work with since they are organized, have leaders and have distinct concerns.
- Public Participation vs. ADR, Mediation, etc.:
More or less two solitudes - different fields and methodologies. Public participation via hearings is common; ADR and other sophisticated methodologies have only been employed in prototype cases.
- Employment:
Government agencies and firms may have public relations departments, but not public participation experts. There are a few independent firms. An organization has been established to foster environmental mediation in Germany, but the field is not very visible now. Government agencies and communities don't see the need for early public involvement programs, especially when they are structured and cost money. This opinion is changing slowly.
- Policy vs. Project Focus:
There is little increase in participation in policy and program development at the state and federal level.
- Comments, Suggestions, etc.:
There is a growing community of public participation practitioners and scientists who recently founded an organization. Other organizations are trying to broaden their knowledge about techniques and methods, and quality standards for ADR and public participation procedures.
