Who is involved in environmental and social impact assessment public participation? Observations on urban and rural practices in Malawi

Figures & data

Table 1. Number of PP participants registered, approached and interviewed.

Urban/Rural	Urban	Registered	Approached/Interviewed	Rural	Registered	Approached/Interviewed
Mzimba	An abattoir in Sonda Industrial area (3.1 ha)	17	10/3	A timber factory in TA Kampingo Sibande (2.5 ha)	37	10/4
	A skills Development Centre in Dunduzu (3.3 ha)	24	10/6	Quarry mining in TA Mtwalo (50 ha)	36	10/8
Chikwawa	A training College in TA Katunga (29 ha)	31	10/7	A solar Energy project in TA Makhuwira (1.01 ha)	14	10/10
	Irrigation in TA Katunga (1,600 ha)	150	14/7	Irrigation in TA, Kasisi (98 ha)	202	11/11
Lilongwe	An abattoir (1.5 ha)	14	10/4	Quarry mining in TA Mazengera (6.8 ha)	40	10/9
	A hotel in City of Lilongwe (3.3 ha)	13	9/6	Quarry mining in TA Kabudula (10 ha)	13	10/10

Figure 1. Participants holding/not holding positions in 12 ESIAs (n=85).

Figure 2. Type of positions held (CBO = Community Based Organisation).

Table 2. Affected and unaffected having no position and one or more positions.

	Affected		Unaffected
	Urban	Rural	Rural	Urban
No Position	3	10	4	8
Position	8 (of which 3 with more than one position)	16 (of which 5 with more than one position)	18 (of which 5 with more than one position)	18 (of which 3 with more than one position)
Subtotal of cases	11	26	22	26
	37		48
Total cases	85

Table 3. Number of Participants holding positions.

Number of positions	No of participants (n)	Total number of positions (frequencies)
One position	44	44
Two Positions	12	24
Three positions	4	12
Total	60	80

Table 4. Types of positions held, showing both frequencies and percentages in urban and rural areas.

Name of the position	Urban (n)	Urban (%)	Rural (n)	Rural (%)
Village position	5	19	25	74
Workplace position	19	73	2	6
CBOs position	7	27	10	29
Church position	3	12	5	15
Club position	1	3	1	4
Politics position	0	0	1	3
Total (n/%)	35	135	45	132
Cases	26		34

Note: This was a multiple response question. Respondents provided all answers that were true for them, that is why the total is exceeding 100%.

Table 5. People’s ability to actively contribute in PP meetings.

Location	Yes	No
Urban	28 (84.9%)	5 (15.2%)
Rural	34 (65.4%)	18 (34.6%)
Total	62 (73.0%)	23 (27.1%)

Note: Pearson chi2(1) = 3.8750 P = 0.049.

Table 6. People holding positions and people saying they were able to contribute.

Do you hold any position?	Were you able to actively contribute?
	Yes	No
Yes	46 (77%)	14 (23%)
No	16 (64%)	9 (36%)

Figure 3. Reasons for why participants thought they were invited to PP meetings.