INFLUENCE OF THE

LOCAL COMMUNITY ON
DECISION-MAKING
A CASE STUDY OF POLAND

ASSESSMENT 3
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

OCTOBER 18, 2022

ARCHI PRAJAPATI
21180710
Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................2
Case study review in Poland..................................................................................................................2
The local communities' expertise..........................................................................................................3
Lack of confidence among the local community...................................................................................6
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................6
References.............................................................................................................................................7

1
Introduction
The process of assessing the environmental impacts of a proposed plan, project, or activity is known
as an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Public involvement has traditionally been a vital
feature of EIA proceedings. The US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was passed in
the 1970s, was the first piece of legislation to mention public involvement in the context of EIA
processes. A broad consensus has developed in the last four decades about the crucial role that EIA
public engagement plays. It boosts the efficiency of decision-making and preserves the public
interest. However, both in principle and in action, developing and implementing public participation
is a very difficult task. In fact, there is a disagreement among academics and professionals over the
definition of meaning, goal, and scope of participation of the public. Despite different
interpretations, the majority of literature concurs that the idea of influence is crucial to
comprehending public participation. According to the US EPA, public participation is a process that
allows the public to affect decisions that have an impact on their lives by participating in the
decision-making process underneath the normative, substantive, and instrumental justification. The
normative justification is based on values that are echoed in deliberative democratic situations, such
as strengthening and liberating underprivileged people and groups, social learning, making informed
choices, and developing democratic capacity. By utilizing local information and knowledge, adding
experimental and value-based knowledge, and assessing the reliability of data derived from other
sources, public participation is seen in the substantive justification as a way to increase the integrity
of the final outcome. The objective of successful and legal project implementation as well as
resolving stakeholder issues informs the instrumental rationale. These many justifications shouldn’t
be seen as compartmentalized groups. They can be seen as an incremental process that progresses
from the simplest attempts to gain legitimacy to actions that give the public more authority and
opportunity to participate actively in decision-making (Brombal, Moriggi, & Marcomini, 2017).

Case study review in Poland

Large manufacturing animal husbandry is becoming more widespread, notably in Western and Asian
nations. One of Europe’s top producers of meat and other animal products is Poland. A total of 933
licenses for large-scale industrial farms were granted between 2008 and 2017, and the amount of
meat produced rose by 50 percent. The establishment of industrial farms is favoured by the
processing industry’s requirement for the delivery of potentially homogeneous product batches. In
light of multiple ways that planned intensive livestock operations will negatively impact the quality
of life, local communities are protesting against them. It is difficult to find an agricultural location in
Poland that is remote from residential projects and where investments wouldn’t cause social unrest,
which encourages the excessive fragmentation of rural settlements and dwelling buildings scattered
among agricultural land. Another issue is that Poland’s current and legitimate local spatial
development plans, which govern the goals and guiding principles of land development, do not
cover a sufficient portion of the country (Bednarek-Szczepańska, 2022). The two mentioned issues
faced by local communities led to protests in Poland for the proceeding of ILOs to maintain the
standard of living and hygiene of the locals. Intensive livestock operations (ILOs), facilities have a
detrimental or offensive effect on the neighbourhood, with few beneficial outcomes. Ammonia is

2
one of the important contributors to ILOs, which pollutes air and water, is hazardous to humans, and
irritates the throat, eyes, and nose in lesser amounts. As a result of the emission of ammonia and
other chemicals, the residents of the areas around ILOs are vulnerable to health risks including the
cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Children breathe about 20-50% more air than adults do,
making them more vulnerable to lung illness and other health issues. Additional odorants produced
by livestock production include methane, phenol, and etcetera (Grzelka, Sówka, & Miller, 2018).
Thus, the living conditions in the communities surrounding ILOs are often worse, and the value of
real estate there generally drops.

The local communities' expertise

Activities were carried out by local communities with the intention of swaying investors and
decision-makers. These actions included media interviews, sending protest messages to the
government, and taking part in dialogues and meetings with investors and government officials. This
decision-making process receives information through these pathways. The inhabitants’ statements
offer both experiential and value-based knowledge (Glicken, 2000). A peaceful and tranquil
atmosphere, a traditional, “utopian” rurality, and opposition to the proposed farms are all shared
ideals of the community. By emphasizing their empowerment, acting as the village’s hosts, and
claiming the right to determine the village’s future course, protesters establish a sense of place and
community. Their children and grandkids will live in the community, so they treat it as their own.
Additionally, according to the protestors, their community is a good location for the growth of eco-
friendly, tourism, and family-run farms. They criticize big business and are advocates of localism. The
protesters highlight the historical and environmental assets of their home, especially those that are
supra-locally significant, in order to defend their community. The table below demonstrates the
value categories represented by regional societies and stated examples.

3
 Table 1: Values in the outlying areas are in danger due to the proposed facilities.

Residents' statements are included in Table 2 and offer knowledge based on experience. While
potentially extremely helpful from the perspective of SIA, these statements have minimal bearing on
the procedure as it is prescribed by law.

4
 Table 2: Based on experimental knowledge, societal social repercussions.

The aforementioned instances highlight the biggest concerns that the locals believe exist. Local
communities always consider odors to be the most annoying. The main health danger is
groundwater, air pollution, and surface water. Additionally, residents were anxious about the spread

5
of animal disease, water resource disturbance, road damage, bug and rodent infestations, and noise.
They frequently draw attention to the declining land value and the village’s decreased appeal for
economic growth, settlement, and tourism. Less frequently noted are other possible outcomes
including disruption of animal migration pathways, social marginalization of citizens, detrimental
effects on mental health, and depopulation of communities.

Lack of confidence among the local community.

The process used to make the environmental decision is not trusted by the local community.
According to the investor, the proposed investment won’t cause any problems because it will
operate in line with the relevant laws and has the approval of the authorities in charge of
environmental protection. Investors make claims based on their understanding of administrative
expertise, referencing the law and conventions, and specifically, the compliance of their own acts
with the law. The EIS makes numerous references to the fact that the new investment project’s
influence won’t go beyond the scope of the investor’s plot. Although the public view this formula as
ludicrous and unrelatable, it is necessary to obtain the consent of the regional institutions, the
Regional Director of Environmental Protection (RDEP), and the sanitary Inspector. No additional
initiatives or solutions are anticipated by residents as alternatives to lessen nuisance (Bednarek-
Szczepańska, 2022). Their radical outlook is a result of their lack of faith in investors and the
perception that the state is powerless to safeguard the quality of life in the vicinity of their
destructive investment. Therefore, the residents make an effort to stop the investment.

Conclusion
Only 12 out of the 54 cases that were examined and analyzed resulted in a conclusion that was
favorable, and those 12 cases ultimately led to the establishment of environmental requirements. Of
these 12 situations, the implementation of the local spatial development plan meant that, despite
the ultimate favorable decision, the investment process could not move further in two instances.
Thus, investment processes were ultimately halted in 80% of cases where they had been started. In
order to halt the investment process at this early stage at the request of protesting locals, decision-
makers (mayors) employ a variety of strategies that impede the progress of the environmental
processes. Industrial livestock farming and the neighborhood’s tensions go beyond simple land-use
issues. The village’s identity, character, and scenery are at odds with one another. Residents who are
demonstrating are defending rurality in the strictest sense. The importance of the social
repercussions is minimized by the EIA process, which is in use in Poland. Local knowledge, which is
based on values and experience, can only serve as a consultation tool and, in accordance with formal
protocol, cannot directly affect choices. However, it appears that the local society’s active opposition
to contentious undertakings is what actually leads to the extension of the social components of the
planned project’s effect assessment to the environmental impact analysis conducted by the local
authorities. The locals offer their understanding of social effects and insist that they be taken into
account. Thus, the SIA begins to operate in practice and takes into consideration local expertise.
Despite the legally- binding principle that social demonstrations cannot be an excuse for declining to
set environmental conditions, it turns out that in actuality, these protests frequently have a
significant, albeit indirect, influence on the case’s ultimate conclusion. Residents, therefore, play a
significant role in spatial planning.

6
References
Brombal, D., Moriggi, A., & Marcomini, A. (2017). Evaluating public participation in Chinese EIA. An
integrated Public Participation Index and its application to the case of the New Beijing Airport.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.001

Bednarek-Szczepańska, M. (2022). The power of protest in the EIA proceedings. Influence of local
community on environmental decisions regarding intensive livestock operations - Example of Poland.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 97, 106868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106868

Glicken, J. (2000). Getting stakeholder participation “right”: a discussion of participatory processes

and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(6), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1462-
9011(00)00105-2

Grzelka, A., Sówka, I., & Miller, U. (2018). Methods for assessing the odor emissions from livestock
farming facilities. Inżynieria Ekologiczna, 19(2), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.12912/23920629/86054