1. Development of the Public Participation Manual for Border Communities and Project Sponsors RESULTS OF THE DIAGNOSTIC Rozelle Group February 8, 2002

2. 1. Materials/Information We Reviewed Guide to citizen participation in Mexico/US/Canada BECC Certification Criteria BECC Public Participation Guidance BECC Mandate Expansion Resolution Project Management Procedures Manual Sustainable Development Procedures

3. 1. Materials/Information We Reviewed Meetings with current and former chairs of Advisory Committee (US and Mexico) Meetings with members of Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez and SLRC steering committees Meetings with BECC Staff The BECC´s Public Participation Process. A draft of Gonzalo Bravo Vera Questionnaire for the Advisory Council Public Participation Manuals from other agencies

4. 1. Materials/Information We Reviewed Projects we reviewed Laredo, Texas Summerton, Arizona Heber, California Raymondville, Texas La Union, New Mexico Tijuana,B.C. Cd. Juárez, Chih. San Luis Rio Colorado, Son Sásabe, Son China and General Bravo

5. 2. What We Learned Excellent efforts and progress by BECC to date There is a wide disparity in the application of public participation among projects Public is not always involved in appropriate issues Sponsors often view public participation as a chore, want only to do minimum required Insufficient resources are being given to public participation by sponsors The existing framework appears to provide flexibility needed by different communities

6. Timing of public participation is generally too late; there is inconsistency in the amount of time available for public participation across different communities Some lack of clarity exists regarding the consistency of public participation requirements for private sponsors vs. public sponsors The nature of decision on these projects limits the potential for public impact, the basic decisions are already made, thus results in only lower levels of public participation (IAP2 Spectrum) 2. What We Learned

8. There are currently insufficient measurement tools and approaches available to measure public support The level of satisfaction with the public participation process is closely tied to individual experience with other public participation processes There is a lack of sufficient public participation tools in many border communities Sustainable development criteria has yet to be implemented, but will likely improve the application of public participation and provide for earlier public participation

9. 2. What We Learned In some cases, U.S. Steering committees have not adequately reflected community demographics. Steering committee leadership is critical to success The steering committee process is susceptible to politicization (it is difficult to monitor the convening and ultimate membership of committees) Need to develop ways to deal with redundant requirements (e.g. if a bond issue passes in the U,S, that signifies public support, therefore may be possible to waive public meeting requirements) Creates expectation that some level of participation continues through project implementation

10. 3. Results of our Evaluation U.S./Mexico differences in public participation practice and experience in border communities are not as significant as expected, one manual can basically serve needs of both countries, myth that US has more experience in public participation does not hold true for these border communities Challenges for effective public participation are virtually identical in the two countries, and therefore information, tools and guidance needs are also similar

11. Regionalización de las áreas de operación de la COCEF/BECC.

12. 3. Results of our Evaluation Roles of the public in the decision process needs to be more effectively defined Steering Committees are looking for more complete tools and techniques than provided in current guidance. Sponsors need to better understand the potential benefits of public participation to their projects There is a need for training for BECC project management staff, sponsors, and steering committee BECC staff need guidance on how to best bring BECC resources to bear on public participation

13. 4. Recommendations for the Manual Guidance needed for tailoring the public participation program to meet needs of specific project and type of community Same manual for use in US and Mexico User friendly (Users are Sponsors, Steering Committee, BECC staff) Try to limit size to increase usefulness Focus on pre-certification Build in flexibility to respond to specific community and project needs High use of graphics, avoid use of too dense text There are additional resources needed for effective implementation of manual information (e.g., video and training)

14. Basic Approach Will work as an integrated team to write the manual in English Specific individuals will be assigned first draft writing responsibilities All team members will review all other team members work Rozelle Group will be responsible for integration into document with CPG participation

15. Basic Approach All work will be done in English until final approval of text Rozelle Group will work to ensure all English is correct Rozelle Group will do basic layout and graphics and provide template in English CPG will do final Spanish translation CPG will work in the adaptation of template for spanish version

16. Proposed Schedule 2/8Finalize and deliver diagnostic 2/22Formal draft outline to BECC for review 3/8Revised annotated outline to BECC 3/19Full Team meeting with BECC 3/19Agreement on final outline 3/19Distribute writing assignments among team members 4/22Draft assignments complete 4/29First draft of integrated report 5/3Team review of integrated draft

17. Proposed Schedule 5/3Team review of integrated draft 5/8Incorporate team changes 5/10Draft report to BECC 5/24Receive BECC comments 5/31Produce final English draft 5/31Begin Spanish translation 6/7Basic layout and graphics in English 6/14Finish Spanish translation and basic layout (need resources for layout) 6/19Present final version to BECC 6/28Deliver camera-ready manuals to BECC