Adrs Crisis Planning and the General Public In

ORIGINAL ARTICLES ADRS Ann. Disaster Risk Sci. 2018, 1, 57-65 CRISIS PLANNING AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Merica Pletikosić1, Majda Tafra-Vlahović2 1Cemex Hrvatska, Kaštel Sućurac, Croatia 2Majda Tafra-Vlahović, University of Applied Sciences Baltazar, Zaprešić, Croatia Abstract Public informing and participation in decision-making related to environmental protection as an important element of enga- ging stakeholders often excludes crisis planning. In environmental impact assessment procedures, there is often an organizational crisis involving three or four participants, normally the investor/applicant, the county offi ce or ministry managing impact the assessment, the police overseeing the protests, and the judiciary as a result of rights given to the general and concerned public by the Aarhus Convention. Indications of a crisis appear some time before the situation threatens the organization or its partners, and consist of minor incidents that the organization has ignored or deemed insignifi cant for the fi nal objectives. Unexpected crises bring uncertainty and risks – organizations cannot identify causes or consequences, all eff orts are ineff ective, while the threats to the entire project and the fi nal objectives are increased. Th is paper analyses the diff erences in informing/ participation of the general and concerned public in debates on decision-making in urban planning, and public debates on decision-making in environmental impact studies in the case of Lećevica Waste Management Center in Split-Dalmatia County. Methods for the collection of empirical data included problem-focused, in-depth interviews and participating observation. Grounded theory was used in analyzing the empirical material with initial, axial and selective coding. Th e frequency and absolute and relative cumulative value of coded responses were calculated using descriptive statistics. Results repeatedly showed shortcomings in adopting urban planning documents. Direct/indirect pressures from the politicians and the quiet administrative support or obstruction of administrative bodies are noticeable, including the changes in politics depending on the position of the ruling party/opposition at the state/local level. Keywords: informing the public, public participation, crisis planning, waste management. Adress for correspondence: Merica Pletikosić, Cemex Hrvatska, F. Tuđmana 45, 21212 Kaštel Sućurac, Croatia, e-mail: [email protected]. 1. INTRODUCTION re relationships based on equality with relevant organizations and groups; the organization that An approach to crisis management based on complexity has an eff ect on the entire practice of manages the crisis must accept all participants as the organization, since it emphasizes the unpre- equal, including the media [2]. During the proce- dictable and unknown events that the organizati- dures of environmental impact assessments, an on would have to accept and respond to, as in the organizational crisis oft en occurs and that inclu- example of Weick’s sense-making organization, des three or four organizations in the process: an which is an active participant in an unpredictable investor or applicant, the competent county offi ce world instead of just passively responding to it [1]. or a ministry carrying out impact assessment of Th erefore, skills like improvisation, information the planned activity on the environment, police gathering, and continuous refl ective practice, awa- departments that control the protests and the ju- reness of the situation, risk assessment and pro- diciary as a result of the rights of the general public blem solving are the key for the practice of eff ective and interested public by the Aarhus Convention. crisis management. Th e rules for eff ective commu- Th e fi rst signs of a possible crisis appear a year or nication during a crisis are: begin with setting the two before the crisis becomes a threat to the orga- goals of the crisis communication; develop since- nization or its partners, and they consist of a single 57 M. Pletikosić1, M. Tafra-Vlahović incident or minor incidents that are ignored by ronment, Physical Planning and Constructi- the organizations and are estimated as not being on. able to exert a signifi cant impact on achieving the 4. Due to the complexity of resolving property fi nal goal. Th e result generated by such unexpec- and legal issues at the Lećevica site and the ted crises is great uncertainty and increasing risks alignment with the new regulations of the Wa- in which the organization cannot identify all the ste Management Plan for the period of 2007- causes and possible fi nal consequences, the eff orts 2015, the project activities were signifi cantly invested do not achieve the desired eff ects and slowed down so the documentation for the the threat endangering the entire project and the preliminary design was completed in 2012. achievement of the target objectives is increased. 5. Rapid and complex activities on the project Possible diff erences in the information and parti- continued during 2015. Th e Ministry of Envi- cipation of the general public are analyzed in this ronment and Nature issued a Decision for the paper. Additionally, the authors address public Planned Intervention in Lećevica on the 18th debates among the general public regarding the of December 2015, for a total of six reloading decisions about spatial planning and public deba- stations (PS) in the Split-Dalmatia County: tes related to decision-making on environmental PS Kukuzovac, PS Zagvozd, PS Karepovac, impact studies based on the case study of the Re- PS Vis, PS Stari Grad on Hvar, PS Brač in the gional Waste Management Center Lećevica in the Municipality of Pučišća. Th e Decision states Split-Dalmatia County. that, upon the completion of the procedure 1.1. Chronology of the case: related to the evaluation of the need for an environmental impact assessment procedu- 1. Defi ning the potential location for a waste re, neither is the environmental impact asse- management center is a very demanding and ssment required, nor is it necessary to carry sensitive procedure. A study done by several out the main evaluation in order to determine authors in 2001 in order to provide further whether the project is appropriate for an eco- study of potential locations for a waste ma- logical network. nagement center in Split-Dalmatia County has proposed three potential sites: Lećevica, Opor 6. Location permits for all transfer stations were and Otišić. Th e location in the municipality of issued from January to March 2016 by the Lećevica was chosen as the best suited, since it competent administrative department of the meets all the natural, physical, economic and Split-Dalmatia County. other criteria that can be established without 7. Th e assessment of whether an environmen- conducting additional research. tal impact assessment procedure was needed 2. By announcing the public inspection in April for the changes to the plan, requested by the 2005 the implementation process of envi- Waste Management Center in Split-Dalmatia ronmental impact assessment for the project County for the site at Lećevica, was launched “Regional Waste Management Center in the in March 2016. municipality of Lećevica” began, while the 8. Contracts and documents on the establishment county established a company to manage the of the right to construct 6 transfer stations were Center, called the Regional Center for a Clean signed April to October 2016. Environment Ltd. 9. All activities within the scope of the project 3. Th e procedure was completed in November carried out by Split-Dalmatia County / Re- 2006, with the Decision on Environmental gional Clean Environment Center Ltd. were Acceptability adopted by the Ministry of Envi- conducted in cooperation with the Fund for 58 CRISIS PLANNING AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Environmental Protection, the Ministry res- tion of the center in Lećevica. Th e research for this ponsible for environmental protection and paper was carried out during 2014 and in the early JASPERS (Joint Assistance to Support Projects 2015, when in the available documents there was in the EU Regions: the European Commissi- no sign that the communication plan for the cen- on, the European Investment Bank and the ter in Lećevica was made, along with everything European Bank for Reconstruction and Deve- that it implied. In this case, the communication lopment); the approval of JASPERS was obtai- with the general public was the reason the whole ned in October 2016. process of environmental impact assessment was delayed, including the adoption of amendments 10. On the 16th of November 2016, aft er the eva- to the spatial plan by the county of Split-Dalma- luation of the need for environmental impact tia, who had to predict the location of the center. assessment, the Ministry of Environment Ecological organizations and the interested public and Energy adopted a Decision by which the used protests to interfere with the public debates, planned intervention does not require a new so the meetings of the expert committee had to environmental impact assessment, but the take place in Zagreb instead of at the location of environmental protection measures must be the site. In all these documents the compliance applied. with spatial planning documents was highlighted, 11. On the 21st of November 2016, the Ministry but the participation of the public has not been of Environment and Energy issued a Decision made clear and neither has the participation of which terminated the Decision issued on the the interested public in its creation. In the example 16th of November 2016. of Lećevica the same shortcomings were evident Current Status: In November of 2016, the Mi- in creating valid documents (regulations, plans, nistry of Environmental Protection canceled the strategies, etc.) as well as in their implementation, with clear defi ciencies in the information and par- previously issued positive opinion for the continu- ticipation of the public and the interested public, ation of the project and the Split-Dalmatia County education and preparation of all the stakeholders.

Load more