JeanMarc Dziedzicki Expert Public Dialogue

1
Raising the bar of sustainability performance
through stakeholder dialogue and public
participation RFFs experience

• Jean-Marc DziedzickiExpert- Public Dialogue
• Claire PardoExpert- European Affairs
• EIM conference 13 02 2008

2
How is RFF dealing with sustainability issues?

• Organization the sustainability unit is linked
  to the strategy direction
• Many environmental projects, that go beyond our
  legal obligations, but no policy yet
• Main lines of reflexion
• Priority given to the environmental pillar
• Assessing and improving the environmental impact
  of new projects
• Management of our environmental impacts (noise
  and waste, mainly)

3
What is public dialogue?

•  Public dialogue  or  public participation 
  refers to a dialogue involving people or entities
  being directly or indirectly impacted by our
  activities, including citizens
•  Stakeholder dialogue  is a more limited form
  of dialogue involving the entities representing
  direct interests
• A  public debate  is a specific type of public
  participation required by French legislation and
  organized by an independant Commission (CNDP) and
  involving a broad range of participants including
  citizens
• In the rail sector, our experience is mainly
  related to the development of projects
• RFFs experience from the legal requirement to
  the performance tool.

4
Sustainability and public dialogue go hand in hand

• Dealing with sustainability involves the
  aknowledgement that our activities contribute to
  global challenges/ impact a broad range of people
• sustainability objectives can not be set in
  isolation. Examples from other industries
• SH/Public dialogue is a minima- a tool to set
  and achieve sustainability objectives

5
The new context leads to increased cooperation
Three main reasons for playing the  cooperation
game 

• 1. The increasing significance of public
  participation in legislation and RFFs
  practices
• ? RFF had to include more public participation
  in its decision making processes ? interesting
  outcomes for RFF and its projects ? leading to a
   continuous  public participation process.

2. RFF a new actor with limited resources ?
complex situations, multilevel decision making
processes and high costs ? RFF needs to deal
and negociate with other stakeholders
3.Most of the new railway infrastructure projects
are conflictual ? conflicts cannot be
 ignored  any longer ? they need to be
managed through dialogue
6
An exemple of public debate and its positive
outcomes the PACA HSL project (1/2)

• Project given up in 1992 because of hard local
  conflicts
• new project in 2000 200 km long
• Great environmental challenges
• Public debate from February to July 2005
• Independant commission (CDPD) prepares (since
  06/2004), mediates and concludes debate in the
  early stages

• Main related to this public debate
• 39 public hearings ? 8 300 participants
• 40 000 Internet connexions
• 1 200 questions ? all answered by RFF
• 5 editions of CPDP monthly Journal dedicated to
  this debate (1 million ex)
• 55 stakeholder proposals communicated to public
  (10 000 ex.)
• 1 counter-expertise
• Cost 1.6 M (CPDP) 0.9 M (RFF)

7
An exemple of public debate and its positive
outcomes the PACA HSL project (2/3)

• A better understanding of geographical and local
  specificities
• environmental ressources and environmental
  challenges are pointed out
• land uses, land users, stakeholders, their aims
  and interests, their expertise
• Moving on from a  project approach  to a
   mobility approach 
• building on more  complexity , opening up our
  vision (more diversified studies),  problem
  setting approach  versus  problem solving
  approach 
• Improving the social acceptance of a project
• ultimately 2  prefered  options a new one ?
  collective choice and time saving
• strong and new support for rail transport, not
  only for HSL ? improving the image of the
  railways versus other modes

8
An exemple of public debate and its positive
outcomes the PACA HSL project (3/3)

• A  collective appropriating  of a project, of
  its problems and sharing responsibilities
• local authorities preference for 1 option ?
  costs and benefits are known, we and they should
  avoid the  we didnt know 
•  Enlightening  decision makers and feeding
  decision-making processes
• new technical studies and new framework for
  stakeholder dialogue (150 representatives) ?
  better decisions shared governance

9
The added value of public dialogue (1)

• Public dialogue less and less seen as a
  constraint because of positive impacts
• Producing social acceptance (time saving,
  improving the image of RFF the whole sector,
  improved quality of the project)
• Risk managemement
• Creating new alliances

• Public dialogue is about making progress
• Developping environmental awareness
• Moving from a  project approach  to a
   mobility approach , a pre requisite to build
  on sustainable developement

10
The added value of public dialogue (2)

• Moving from a political vision of the network to
  a sustainable one
• Ideally the  dialogue approach  should spill
  over all units within the company.
• but this is easier said than done

11
Environmental conflicts are nothing new their
outcomes, however, are less predictable than they
used to be.
? dialogue for win-win game rather than fight
risky win-lose game
Source Charlier
12
The public participation decision-making process
A continuous public participation process made of
legal requirements and voluntary initiatives
DetailedPilot study
Public hearing
Draft pilot study
Preliminary study
Works
Placing in service
Pre-functional study
Public debate
Declaration of public interest
Land purchasing Proportionning structures
Terms of referenceapproved by the Administration
Selection of a corridor by the Administration