Community Engagement - Report Example

Engagement covers a diversity of government-community connections, which range from sharing of information to community consultation. Also, in some instances, there is active participation in implementing government development policies as well as in the process of decision making. Engagement recognizes the right of citizens to contribute to the business of government. Effectual community engagement enables the government to venture into diverse perspectives as well as potential solutions to perk up the quality of decisions (Queensland Government, 2008).

It is not decision and development activities that can be undertaken through public consultation.  But the ones bearing significant socio-economic and environmental implications are compulsory to follow community engagement the process and is according practice armorer all large development larger alerted as ‘significant projects’ within Queensland.  However, the degree of requirement and practice for engaging potentially affected communities, particularly indigenous communities within a proposed development project area is often not satisfactory.

This in many instances leads to suspension and delay in project delivery as well as less productive outcomes than generally expected. This paper will therefore look into these problem areas of indigenous community engagement for significant projects from a government’s perspective as a facilitator and propose possible strategies to improve the engagement mechanism.     PROJECT BACKGROUND & PROBLEM STATEMENT  Any important or complex projects requiring a centralized ordination through the Queensland Government are generally declared to be ‘significant project’ under Part 4 of the Queensland State Development and Public Works Organisation (SDPWO) Act 1971.

  Such projects are usually managed by the independent Coordinator Gene Coordinator-Generalised necessary, the CG can declare a proposed project - having environmental sonosensitiser issue - to undergo environmental impact study (EIS).  Projects requiring EIS are administered, on behalf of the CG by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP), Queensland Government pounders 4 of the SDPWO Act.  This is to fulfill of government coordination of the environmental assessment process and to ensure that it meets the statutory requirements designated under the said act.  

Proponents of such significant and environmentally sensitive projects therefore demand conducting and preparing of EIS for final approval and commencement of development work. This process also includes a social impact assessment (SIA) and economic impact assessment to be undertaken. During the SIA, the consultants, on behalf of the proponents, have to engage and negotiate with all relevant stakeholders (state and local government organisations, non government organisations and the local communities) that may be affected by project, identify the potential impacts and determine what mitigation measures and management strategies will be implemented to address them.

Details of the community engagement process used to conduct open and transparent dialogue with all stakeholders is required to be included within the SIA submission. This dialogue should include the project’s planning and design stages and future operations including affected local and state authorities. The engagement process will involve consideration of social and cultural factors, customs and values, and relevant consideration of linkages between environmental, economic, and social impact issues.

The proponents often accomplish and submit the EIS to DIP with an SIA including its community engagement plan. Such plans usually encompass addressing the different ethnic groups/stakeholders including the relevant individuals, community leaders, public organizations and private agencies through communication tools – flyers or published media releases, seminars, and outdoor awareness programs or surveys etc. But time and again, the proponents neglect or over pass the indigenous population especially their engagement in consultation & project impact explanation as a part of SIA, despite them being advised in government endorsed EIS guidelines.

And such incompliance often leads to projects being stalled and/or delayed. This paper will therefore investigate the issue of indigenous community engagement in significant projects, particularly the means of enhancing the engagement mechanisms between the proponents of development projects and the indigenous communities, a key component of most affected stakeholders in Queensland. It also supports the mandates of DIP and the government, which are i) to ensure service equity and living standard improvement for all affected by a development project, and ii) addressing the existing conflicts/problems that jeopardize such targets.

Both these will be ensured through addressing the problem area of ‘indigenous community engagement’ as briefed above. It also aims to ensure that the community engagement processes undertaken by proponents are consistent with national and international good practice where proponents engage with all likely affected parties at the earliest practical stage to discuss and explain the project, and to identify and respond to issues and concerns regarding social impacts. 2. LITERATURE RESEARCH & PROJECT RELEVANCE Existing literature highlights that broad consultation and participation reduces conflict and improves the quality of decision-making on natural resource planning and management.

It highlights that public involvement is seen as something that should occur early in the life of a proposal in relation to large resource development projects, in order to ensure that: impact assessment processes incorporate local knowledge about social conditions, processes and likely impacts; attitudes and perceptions towards proposed change can be identified; subjective and cultural impacts may be identified; appropriate mechanisms to involve different groups in the decision-making process may be identified; the views of the public may be incorporated at the stage of project design and used to maximise benefits rather than simply to compensate the losers following implementation; a range of alternative mitigation and development options may be identified and adequately assessed; and, conflict over projects may be minimised by ensuring that as many interests as possible are considered in decisions and appropriate mitigation strategies are put in place (Lockie, et al.