Problem-Solving Mechanisms

Collaborative problem-solving does not mean that participants must develop a completely new solution.

‘Constructing improvements rather than solutions requires parties to understand situations in terms of their complexity. This understanding can be fostered by activities that require systems thinking, rather than linear, single-issue perspectives. [Collaborative learning] achieves systemic learning by encouraging participants to focus on their concerns and interests related to the situation, thus freeing them from the more rigid task of taking positions or making demands. Suggestions for improvements grounded in these concerns are ultimately debated to determine if they represent both "technically desirable and culturally feasible" change’.¹⁴³

Within the context of EIA, the EAP plays an essential role. It is his or her responsibility to moderate the public participation process to ensure that an appropriate solution is achieved.

Various techniques can be used when solving problems, depending on the nature of the relationship between the parties, the nature of the disagreement and the ultimate goals that the parties wish to achieve. These techniques require that the EAP understands the human element in any form of 'negotiation'. That is, he or she needs to understand how the participants view the proposed activity (i.e. their pre-conceived ideas about the developer, the activity, the impact, the administrator) as well as the emotional impact that the proposed

141C Charles and S DeMaio ‘Lay Participation in Health Care Decision Making: A Conceptual Framework’

(1993) Journal of Health, Politics, Policy and Law at 897 - 8.

142Muso et al op cit note 23 at 107.

143Daniels and Walker op cit note 137 at 83.

project will have. In all instances the key to collaborative problem-solving is to communicate continuously with IAP's.¹⁴⁴

By understanding the participants in the process, the EAP can better understand each participant's interests in the negotiation and assist parties to avoid deadlocks over positions.¹⁴⁵ For example, parties may be at loggerheads regarding the position of a proposed substation.

The developer may argue that the site is the only feasible site in the area for the construction of the substation while the community argue that they have concerns regarding their children’s safety as the proposed substation will border the park where their children play and so do not want the substation built. It is the EAP’s responsibility to assist the parties in recognizing that both options are possible - the substation can be built with appropriate security.

This example perhaps over-simplifies the complexity associated with the resolution of issues during the EIA process but it highlights that (on occasion) participants can get locked into the positions for and against a project or activity on principle without understanding the interests that the other party is trying to protect. In certain circumstances resolving interests cannot be easily achieved. For example, two parties may have competing and mutually exclusive interests in the use of a property. In this situation, neither party will be willing to compromise and undertake their activity on an alternate property. A traditional method of resolving competing interests is to 'split the difference', that is, to divide the property in half or refuse both applications. This suggestion is not acceptable in all instances. The EAP needs to assist the parties in realizing that splitting the difference is not the only option.

In these circumstances it may be necessary to create new options to break the stalemate. To ensure a fair process and outcome, the parties can agree on the rules or principles governing this interactive process. In addition, exercises such as role-playing may be a successful tool in assisting participants in considering different views, exploring alternatives and seeking creative solutions.¹⁴⁶ The independence of the mediator or EAP is critical in this process as only when all the parties believe that their views are being dealt with fairly and equitably will they accept the problem-solving techniques suggested by the EAP and allow themselves to be persuaded by the views expressed by other participants.

144Fisher and Ury op cit note 24 a 91.

145Ibid.

146Lim et al op cit note 24 at 159.

Collaborative problem-solving has been effectively implemented in the participatory budgeting process. Participatory budgeting originated in Port Alegre in Brazil and has since been rolled out in various other municipalities in Brazil, South America and the world. In this process, municipalities divest a portion of their decision-making powers in respect of the allocation and spending of municipal funds to the community.¹⁴⁷ As will be explored below, this divestiture of decision-making power is also a requirement for purposes of democratic participatory theory (Principle 2: The Principle of Control). Within the context of collaborative learning, however, public involvement in participatory budgeting is an example of where the educative effect is achieved:

‘Through taking part in public discourse, individual participants learned to transform their personal needs into public interests…Discussions in the public sphere also served to broaden appreciation of the needs of others, thus building solidarity, as Roselaine, one of the participants, describes:

Even I only thought of my own street when I first took part in participatory budgeting. But then I met other people and communities and learned of much greater problems. What I thought was a huge problem was nothing compared with the situations of some of the others. The question of having no place to live, sleeping under a piece of cloth, or open sewage close to where the children run and play. I forgot about my street, so that even today it still hasn’t been paved’.¹⁴⁸

This is not the sole example of where collaborative learning has shifted the focus of the participants. Cabannes’ findings on participatory budgeting in 25 countries throughout Latin America and Europe indicates that involving citizens in participatory budgeting has led to a change in the tax-paying habits of those citizens.¹⁴⁹ Through this process, the population is aware of the extent and limits of municipal budgets. In Puerto Asis, the participatory budgeting advisors indicated that the public’s knowledge of the 'common good' was not only developed but also

‘[t]he community, on learning what the municipality’s budgetary and financial situation is, becomes aware of its budgetary restrictions. Then, when there are not enough resources for the implementation of its projects, the community decides to collaborate with personnel, financial resources or materials, aiming not only at increasing the resources available to them, but enlarging the infrastructure initially approved’¹⁵⁰

in the budget.

147Terrence Wood and Warwick E Murray ‘Participatory Democracy in Brazil and Local Geographies: Port Algere and Belo Horizonte Compared’ (2007) 83 European Review of Latin America and Caribbean Studies at 19.148 Andres Novy and Bernhard Leubolt ‘Participatory Budgeting in Port Alegre: Social Innovation and Dialectical Relationship of State and Civil Society’ (2005) Vol 42 No 11 Urban Studies at 2030.

149Y Cabannes ‘Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy’ (2004) Vol 16 No 1 Environment and Urbanization at 36.

150Ibid at 36. It is worth noting that the Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 contains provisions regrind the publication and consultation on the annual budget. In particular, the relevant information should be included on the municipality’s website (which must include the annual report) and must invite comments or the public and the Auditor General.

In summary, the educative effect enunciated by Rousseau can be refined as follows:

does the public participation process result in collaborative learning? That is, does it facilitate interaction between participants, experts and authorities in the expression of differing views leading to debate and discussion and culminating in a change of behaviour, position or amicable solution? If this question can be answered affirmatively, then the process meets Principle 1: The Educative Effect.¹⁵¹ Research¹⁵² has shown that these objectives can be achieved equally in online collaborative learning and face-to-face interactions.¹⁵³

Closely related to the requirement to learn is that the participants must have sufficient control over the administrative process and the ultimate decision to ensure that an amicable solution is developed. This will be explored in the second democratic participatory principle:

Principle 2: The Principle of Control.