| CONFLICT, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF THE COEGA IDZ PROJECT Abstract |
| Gavin Cawthra |
| Despite the many and
quite comprehensive public participation processes conducted in connection
with the proposed Coega IDZ project in the Eastern Cape, the history of
the project seems riddled with conflict and public dispute. It is the aim
of this paper to try to explain why this may be the case. Public participation,
which today is generally accepted as a vital ingredient of any development
project or plan, has as one of its main objectives the pro-active engagement
of all interested and affected parties in a manner that strives to address
issues and disputes before they arise. However, in some instances it seems
as if the public participation process polarizes the views and stances of
stakeholders rather than to serve as a mechanism whereby different views
can be accommodated and possible disputes can be addressed. It is argued
here that this happens when public participation is conducted without a
common and integrating goal as guideline and it is suggested that the concept
of "sustainability" represents such a goal. Sustainability in
this regard has economic growth, social equity and ecological integrity
as its parts and these three dimensions must be integrated and balanced
for any development to be sustainable. It is then the task of public participation
to help find the appropriate point where a specific project will be sustainable
and consequently also be accepted by all stakeholders (be it with varying
degrees of enthusiasm). Public participation conducted without such intentions
often causes more problems and conflict than it was supposed to solve or
address.
Within this context the paper aims to explore the public participation processes conducted with regards to the Coega IDZ project. From a purely process perspective there is enough evidence to suggest that quite a comprehensive and beneficial process was followed, but the process is also critiqued inter alia for the limited timeframes allowed for response by participants, as well doubts expressed as regards the independence of the public participation consultants. The history of Coega shows, however, that, although a comprehensive process was probably conducted, public dispute and questioning of the public participation process very much remained part of Coega's story. This prompts one to consequently ask if the goals or objectives of public participation have been accomplished. Comment (via the media and independent observers) from a wide cross section of stakeholders shows that the public participation processes for Coega is regarded as inter alia a "farce", nothing more than communicating to the public what is already decided elsewhere and a public relations exercise for the promoters of the project. Such perceptions suggest
a public participation process that falls short of realizing the goals
and objectives that are normally part of the above-mentioned sustainable
development framework for public participation. Considering that the actual
public participation processes followed were probably osund and comprehensive,
the paper thus finally aims to find some other factors, outside of the
actual process, that could have been responsible for the above-mentioned
perceptions. These factors include: the perceived subjectivity of the
different participation consultants; the "consensus management"
strategy followed by the proponents of the project and by government;
government's perceived role as player and referee in the whole process
and, consequently, the questions surrounding the legality and bona fides
of the Coega Development Corporation and its directors; Coega's link to
the arms deal and the role it played in reviving the project; and, the
commencement of the project before the final legal permissions were given.
The paper will thus ultimately aim to try to give an insight into why
the public participation processes conducted for the Coega IDZ project
up to this point are perceived to be flawed. |