Contribution in English (PDF

Comments

Transcription

Contribution in English (PDF
H
E
A
A
IN
An event of the
R
T
IA
G
-
IO
-
-
N
S
Y
-
S
-
N
-
E
A
R
R
E
E
G
R
R
IN
C
N
-
Y
O
S
H
C
5-7 OCTOBER 2016
G
A
IE
T
G
IE
S
-
-
-
N
E
-
-
R
W
C
S
O
A
H
R
M
A
K
C
U
L
A
R
-
C
IO
IN
G
O
S
-
G
-
C
R
IR
C
-
C
-
-
E
C
IR
A
U
C
-
L
-
A
T
C
R
O
R
E
N
E
-
-
T
IR
IO
IN
L
A
U
A
C
-
-
A
M
M
S
U
H
T
A
U
R
A
IN
L
A
-
IS
G
S
T
T
IO
IN
IE
N
E
-
R
R
S
C
C
C
M
IN
A
IR
B
U
A
IO
L
S
R
-
-
C
C
O
O
IN
-
-
E
W
C
R
O
R
G
R
E
K
A
IA
T
-
IO
N
-
-
C
-
S
R
W
C
O
O
R
-
K
C
G
A
IO
E
IN
R
B
-
T
S
C
IO
-
N
C
-
O
-
S
A
O
H
W
R
G
G
IN
IN
K
E
-
R
-
G
IN
C
IA
T
IR
-
C
U
S
L
Y
A
N
R
IR
E
E
G
-
IE
G
M
S
IN
U
-
T
U
C
A
C
L
IR
IR
U
C
L
U
A
L
R
A
R
-
IR
E
-
IE
O
G
G
W
R
-
IN
E
O
N
A
Y
H
S
C
C R O
S S
O V E R
S
T
C
T
IR
IN
B
R
IN
15TH WORLD CONFERENCE
CITIES AND PORTS
“ CROSSOVERS ”
IN
-
S
IO
ROTTERDAM
S
G
With the collaboration of
-
R
R
In partnership with
IA
C
E
R
C
S
K
O
-
-
IN
-
IN
C
T
-
E
R
A
T
L
M
U
A
C
C
IR
R
E
C
G
B
A
-
C
-
IO
R
www.citiesandports2016.com
Organised by
M
S
-
I
INTERNET CONTRIBUTION
Civil Engineer graduated from the Federal University of Espírito Santo,
Mr. Magalhães is a career employee in the port since 2010. He worked in the
engineering sector and Environment Manager. Mr. Magalhães was appointed
Director of infrastructure and Operations of the Vitoria Port and took up his
duties on 29th February 2016. He participated in major projects of Victoria Port,
as the expansion of the commercial berth, dredging of access channel to the
port, as well as designing the hiring of the first Vessel Traffic Management
Information System (VTMIS) of Brazilian public ports and automation of land
access systems to Vitoria Port. He also worked in environmental compliance of
Vitoria Port, implementing environmental emergency response plan and
increasing of social communication programs and popular participation. He also
has started the environmental monitoring program oh Santa Maria River and
has focused efforts in completion of works of Berth 207 and improvement of Port
operational efficiency. He also have worked actively in expansion of Barra do
Riacho Port to receive 400 meters long and 16 meters draft ships, the port
project with better payback to investors in Brazil
15th World Conference Cities and Ports
Eng. Guilherme FERNANDES
MAGALHÃES
Director of Infrastructure and
Operations
PORTO DE VITORIA
BRAZIL
ISSN 2313-2124
Social participation in Porto de Vitória: An innovative experience to improve port image
Eng. Guilherme Fernandes Magalhães
Director of Infrastructure and Operations
S. C Zucoloto
M. Tietz
F.L. de A. Ribeiro
PORTO DE VITORIA (Brazil)
Abstract
This study presents the positive experience of social participation insertion from the implementation of
a direct communication channel between community and Companhia Docas do Espírito Santo CODESA in decisions concerning the expansion works of Dolfins do Atalaia – Berço 207 (Dolfins
Watchtower - Berth 207), in Vila Velha City, state of Espírito Santo. This article reinforces the evolution
of Brazilian environmental legislation as a relevant issue in the social participation in the reality of
enterprises. From the application of a quantitative and qualitative questionnaire to Works Monitoring
Commission, hereinafter referred to as WMC, it has been proved the importance of dialogue and the
contribution of improvements and progress in general.
1. INTRODUCTION
The process of social participation in Brazil occurred in the democratization of the country time, having
turned his proposition to the democratic control of public policies. Social Participation is granted since
the enactment of the 1988 Federal Constitution. In the 90s, with the process of decentralization of public
policy from federal level to state and municipal level decentralizing services and financial resources
social participation was effective indeed. It became necessary, therefore, the strengthening of control
and participation of civil society in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of public policies, i.e.
the participation of civil society in political decisions (BRAVO, 2009).
The advancement of environmental laws in Brazil also stimulates and strengthens social participation.
The broad concept of environment reinforces the importance of the people involved and takes into
consideration the impact of activities on the environment in which these are clearly evidenced in
environmental studies relating to activities to promote economic growth (SILVA, 2013).
The Brazilian Port System is one of the more traditional sectors of Brazilian economy and originates in
the country's colonization of the early days. The Companhia Docas do Espírito Santo (CODESA),
underwent major modifications and expansions over the years.
In this context environmental legislation has great importance especially in the adaptation of the reality
of Porto de Vitória issues that involve communities and the city in general.
From the moment that environmental legislation begins to become a substantial reality and moreover
establishes barriers to economic advancement of port, is more evident the inclusion of social issues as
a discussion forum in port management.
In 2012, the Lei de Acesso à Informação (Access to Information Act) entered into force, Law No. 9871
of July 9, which provides for the rules to be observed by public administration in order to ensure access
to information.
2
In 2013 the Ombudsmanship was established in CODESA. This has become an open channel for the
community to have direct access to company assisting in the identification and correction of any
malfunction in company management.
Although this communication channel already exists, there is a distance between the Company and the
city, which ends up creating difficulties in the implementation and execution of some projects necessary
to the growth of Victoria Port. Port actions are broad and complex, directly affect the dynamics and the
life of the city, for this reason it is necessary the involvement and social participation so that they become
part and not supporters of the process.
In 2014, CODESA managed to get the Licença de Instalação (Installation License - LI) for the Work of
Extension of Dolfins Watchtower - Berth 207, LI No 232/2014 by the Instituto Estadual do Meio
Ambiente - IEMA, (State Institute for the Environment and Water Resources) after presenting a series
of environmental studies that took into account a wide Area of Direct Influence (ADI) and Area of Indirect
Influence (AII) of the enterprise.
Based on these environmental studies, the environmental agency has established 57 conditions to be
accomplished during the enterprise installation period. Among them, the condition No. 42 is the Social
Communication Program (SCP), which involves participation of the IIA community in the work issues.
The SCP has as a guideline communication as a process inherent to any institution, and the proposed
actions in this area will consider and integrate a set of actions to inform and prepare the actors and
social groups directly affected on interventions in the area, the stages of implementation, its positive and
negative impacts and preventive and corrective measures taken (EnviroLink, 2014).
One of the tools used as a strategy of social participation in this program are called Works Monitoring
Meetings, which have monthly frequency and occur at the construction site. Each of the IIA communities
has a seat for the legal representative of the association of neighborhood residents, thus forming the
set Works Monitoring Committee (WMC).
This forum, with the participation of the Environment coordinator of CODESA, is used to inform and
update committee members on the progress of work, making it also a unique opportunity for
understanding and knowledge of how the community demands are impacted by the activities of the
CODESA. The WMC meetings began in April 2015 and are expected by the end of the work.
The stakeholder engagement triggers an empowerment process that occurs when in fact the
contributions proposed by stakeholders, their perceptions and analyzes are considered. Thus it is
possible to establish an environment of trust and co -responsibility that are healthy to the business
development process (EnviroLink, 2014).
This study allowed through a questionnaire to quantify the results arising from the port and city
interaction.
2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The methodological design reveals itself to be a quantitative and qualitative research. The sample used
was intentional that is when the researcher wants to obtain information from certain people, not
representative of the whole universe, but part of it (Marsiglia, 2000).
It is important to note that one of the main problems of interviews and questionnaires is to detect the
degree of truthfulness of the statements, since we deal with what the individual wants to reveal, what
he wants to hide, and the image from himself and the others he wants to project (Goldenberg, 1999).
3
The questionnaire was administered at the 10th meeting of works to members of Works Monitoring
Committee (WMC). In total, 08 (eight) community leaders attending the meeting responded to the
questionnaire contained 01 (one) open question and 07 (seven) closed questions divided into two parts:
before and after the implementation of the works of follow-up meetings.
The questions were divided into different themes in order to identify some relationship characteristics
between the community and the port, and were classified according to the following categories: trust
and solidarity; information and communication; authority and empowerment.
• Trust and Solidarity: looking up information on the community's trust and how these perceptions
have changed over time in relation to CODESA.
• Information and Communication: aims to identify community perceptions of communication between
the parties and how these have changed over time.
• Authority and Empowerment: aims to identify the level of authority or empowerment of the
individuals involved and the ability to take part , negotiate, influence, control and responsibility as
well as trying to understand how that perception changed over time.
For each closed question, there were five (05) response options. The open question provided every
member present suggestions and improvements for the expansion of the communication channel, as
well as his vision of the CODESA. Table 1 shows the closed questions of the questionnaire according
to each category considered as background and objectives set out in their development.
Table 1 - Classification of the questions applied to WMC
Category
Question
1. How was / is the CODESA approximation relationship with the
community before / after the deployment of the meetings with the Works
Monitoring Committee (WMC)?
2. What is the degree of confidence of the Community with the CODESA
Trust and
(actions and projects) before / after WMC meetings?
Solidarity
3. What is the degree of involvement of CODESA in actions / projects
demanded by the community / social organizations before / after WMC
meetings?
7. What level of importance that CODESA has to the Communities /
Social Organizations before / after WMC meetings?
4. What is the level of communication between CODESA and
Information and
communities / social organizations before / after WMC meetings?
Communication
5. What is the degree of transparency of CODESA dissemination / access
to information before / after WMC meetings?
Authority and
6. What is the communities degree of influence in CODESA’s decisionEmpowerment
making before / after WMC meetings?
Source: Own authorship (2016).
3. RESULTS
Trust and Solidarity
This category seeks to collect data on the community's trust and how these perceptions have changed
after the implementation of the WMC by CODESA.
Before the WMC formal establishment, community leaders evaluated the closer relationship between
the port and the city as little or nonexistent, with 62.5 % rated as there is no rapprochement between
the port and the communities and 37.5 % evaluated it as low. After the implementation of the WMC,
4
75% of community leaders began to consider the approach as excellent and 12.5 % as very good,
keeping a small percentage of 12.5 % who held that nothing has changed between the approach of the
port with city. Although 12.5 % of the leaders understood that nothing has changed in the approach of
the relationship between the port and the city, assessment has been notably improved on this issue with
the creation of the WMC, jumping from 100% rating the approach between the port and the city as little
or no to 87.5 % evaluating the approach of the harbor with the city as very close or very close.
Figure 1 - Approach between the port and the city before and after the creation of the WMC
100,00%
0,00%
90,00%
80,00%
37,50%
70,00%
75,00%
60,00%
High/improved/medium/good
50,00%
Close / improved / medium
40,00%
30,00%
Sufficient/excellent/high
62,50%
20,00%
Little/low
12,50%
0,00%
12,50%
10,00%
None/Nothing changed
0,00%
1A. Approximation before the
WMC work
1D. Approximation after the WMC
work
Source: Own authorship (2016)
Before WMC establishment, community leaders rated the trust of the city in the projects of the port as
bad, regular or average, with 75 % rating as bad or regular and 25 % as medium. After the
implementation of the WMC, the evaluation of the trust of the city in the actions of port was rated 50 %
as good and 50 % rated between good and excellent. Considering the assessment before the WMC
deployment that was 75 % bad - regular and 25 % as good, there was a significant improvement in this
perception of the relationship of trust between the community and the port. The fact that half of the
respondents have assessed the relationship of trust just as good reflects the existence of expectations
to be overcome.
Figure 2- Public trust in port before and after the creation of WMC
100,00%
0,00%
90,00%
25,00%
0,00%
12,50%
80,00%
70,00%
60,00%
37,50%
25,00%
High/improved/medium/good
50,00%
Close / improved / medium
40,00%
Little/low
30,00%
20,00%
Sufficient/excellent/high
50,00%
50,00%
None/Nothing changed
10,00%
0,00%
2A. Public trust in Port before
WMC
0,00%
2D. Public trust in Port after WMC
Source: Own authorship (2016)
5
In item involvement of port with communities, again it demonstrated a negative analysis of the population
before the opening of dialogue with communities through the WMC creation, getting 87.5 % between
bad - regular and 12.5 % in good - great. After the creation of the WMC, there was a small improvement
in evaluation of item involvement of port with communities with 62.5 % of the evaluations between
bad - regular and 37.5 % between good and great. This shows that community involvement feeling goes
beyond a communication environment and discussion of problems, but also the capacity of the port to
participate in the achievements of port Cities as a catalyst element of demanded solutions.
Figure 3- Involvement of port with the city before and after the creation of the WMC
100,00%
90,00%
0,00%
12,50%
12,50%
25,00%
25,00%
80,00%
70,00%
60,00%
Sufficient/excellent/high
12,50%
12,50%
50,00%
Close / improved / medium
40,00%
Little/low
30,00%
20,00%
High/improved/medium/good
50,00%
50,00%
3A. Involvement before WMC
0,00%
3D. Involvement after WMC
None/Nothing changed
10,00%
0,00%
Source: Own authorship (2016)
When asked about the perception of the importance of communities to CODESA, this issue was rated
bad or regular for 62.5 % of survey respondents. 37.5 % considered great and 12.5 % considered
excellent. After the implementation of the WMC, it is noticed a significant increase of awareness of the
importance of communities to CODESA, where 25 % considered medium and 75 % considered good
and excellent.
Figure 4 – Importance of city to the port before and after the creation of the WMC
100,00%
90,00%
12,50%
80,00%
70,00%
60,00%
25,00%
50,00%
0,00%
12,50%
Sufficient/excellent/high
50,00%
High/improved/medium/good
40,00%
25,00%
30,00%
20,00%
0,00%
Little/low
50,00%
25,00%
10,00%
Close / improved / medium
None/Nothing changed
0,00%
7A. Importance of Communities for 7D. Importance of Communities for
CODESA before the creation of CODESA after the creation of WMC
WMC
Source: Own authorship (2016)
6
Analyzing together all the questions that make up the category trust and solidarity it is clear that before
the WMC, 75% of leaders had a negative perception of port. After the WMC, the port has been evaluated
positively, with 75 % of respondents indicating the confidence and solidarity of port as medium to high.
Figure 5- Category Trust and Solidarity result
Trust and Solidarity: After WMC
Sufficient/excellent/high
Trust and Solidarity: Before WMC
38%
3%
High/improved/medium/good
25%
9%
Close / improved / medium
13%
Little/low
13%
22%
22%
3%
None/Nothing changed
0%
53%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Information and Communication
This category aims to identify community perceptions of communication between the parties and how
they have changed over time. Prior to the implementation of WMC, communication was assessed at
between bad - regular with 62.5% of respondents, while 37.5% considered communication between
CODESA and communities good. Communication in the respondents view have improved and assessed
as good for 25% and good to excellent for 75 % of the members of the communities participating in the
meeting.
Figure 6 - Communication between the city and the port before and after the creation of the WMC
100,00%
0,00%
90,00%
80,00%
37,50%
37,50%
70,00%
Sufficient/excellent/high
60,00%
50,00%
High/improved/medium/good
25,00%
37,50%
40,00%
Little/low
30,00%
20,00%
Close / improved / medium
None/Nothing changed
37,50%
25,00%
10,00%
0,00%
4A. Communication before WMC
0,00%
4D. Communication after WMC
Source: Own authorship (2016)
7
The issue transparency was rated bad or regular by 62.5 % of respondents. Before the implementation
of meetings with communities, 37.5 % of respondents rated transparency of Victoria Port as good. After
the implementation of the WMC, 37.5 % of respondents rated that transparency still bad or regular, but
this negative assessment was greatly reduced about 50 %. The positive assessment was expanded
from great to excellent for 62.5 % of respondents, an increase of 50 %.
Figure 7 - Transparency between the port and the city before and after the creation of the WMC.
100,00%
0,00%
12,50%
90,00%
80,00%
37,50%
70,00%
60,00%
Sufficient/excellent/high
0,00%
12,50%
50,00%
High/improved/medium/good
50,00%
Close / improved / medium
40,00%
0,00%
Little/low
25,00%
None/Nothing changed
30,00%
20,00%
50,00%
10,00%
12,50%
0,00%
5A. Transparency before WMC
5D. Transparency after WMC
Source: Own authorship (2016)
Analyzing together all the questions that compose the Information and Communication it is clear that
before the WMC, 63% of leaders were with a negative perception of port. After the WMC, the port has
been evaluated positively, with 82 % of respondents indicating the confidence and solidarity of port as
medium to high.
Figure 8 - Results of the Category Information and Communication
Information and Communication: After WMC
Sufficient/excellent/high
Information and Communication: Before WMC
25%
0%
High/improved/medium/good
44%
19%
Close / improved / medium
13%
Little/low
13%
19%
19%
6%
None/Nothing changed
0%
5%
10%
44%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Source: Own authorship (2016).
Authority and Empowerment
The aim of this category is to identify perceptions of the community on authority or empowerment level
of the involved people and the capacity to take part, negotiate, influence, control and make responsible
for, also trying to understand how this perception has changed over time.
8
In item influence in institutional decisions, before implementation of the WMC, 50% of respondents
considered their power of influence as little or none, 37.5% assessed the capacity to influence as
medium to high and 12.5% considered the capacity to influence institutional decisions at port as high.
After WMC establishment, it turns out that the perception of influence on institutional decisions increased
and 75% has considered it medium to high, remaining a little percentage of 25% that still consider
themselves with small capacity to influence on institutional decisions.
Figure 9 Influence of city in decisions at the port before and after the establishment of the WMC
100,00%
90,00%
12,50%
12,50%
80,00%
25,00%
70,00%
60,00%
50,00%
Sufficient/excellent/high
12,50%
High/improved/medium/good
50,00%
40,00%
Close / improved / medium
12,50%
20,00%
Little/low
12,50%
30,00%
None/Nothing changed
37,50%
25,00%
10,00%
0,00%
0,00%
6D. Influence on institutional
decisions after WMC
6A. Influence on institutional
decisions before WMC
Source: Own authorship (2016)
Analyzing together all the questions that make up the category authority or empowerment is perceived
that before the WMC, 38% of respondents considered as none their ability to influence the decisions of
port. This rate was reduced to zero after the implementation of the work monitoring meetings. Regarding
the percentage of 38 % already considered good with a high capacity to influence government decisions
before the WMC, this rate jumped to 63%, representing an increase of approximately 65 %.
Figure 10 - Results of the category Authority and Empowerment
Authority and Empowerment: After WMC
Authority and Empowerment: Before WMC
13%
13%
Sufficient/excellent/high
High/improved/medium/good
50%
25%
Close / improved / medium
13%
13%
Little/low
13%
25%
0%
None/Nothing changed
0%
38%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Source: Own authorship (2016)
9
4. CONCLUSIONS
From the results of the present study, we conclude that despite of the fact that participation and social
interaction are part of a context of a democratic society, this one still is a practice conducted only when
required in some environmental plan, which leads us to reflect on the challenge of overcoming specific
needs, i.e. only include communities when there is interest in developing or performing a work or
extension services. The challenge is guided to make the relationship with the communities a continuous
policy of the port, since the port - city relationship brings benefits that have been demonstrated through
research applied to the target audience of this article.
The follow-up meetings held by CODESA, despite its recent establishment, positively changed the
perception of the community as the relationship established between the city and the port. This is a clear
indicator for the necessity to extend this work within the framework of the installation license the works
of the new Berth 207 for the operating license of the port, or to make meetings with community leaders
a routine operation of the port, allowing development of new skills in the communities for participation
of port in the social development of the city.
This is because the experience of the Port of Vitória - ES, through applied research, found that investing
in the port - city relationship improves the visibility of the actions taken by the company and its image.
What meets the community development theory, disciplinary area of Social Science, when it states that
participation is a phenomenon which can stimulate and arouse the attention and action of the popular
classes in achieving economic development policies and proposals.
Thus, the reflection of this study for the port community is the challenge of making social participation
an institutional practice in the Company's daily, broadening and strengthening the relationship between
the port and the city seeking to consider the interference and the interrelationship between them.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BRASIL. Constituição (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Senado
Federal.1988.
BRAVO; M. I. (2009). Serviço Social: direitos e competências profissionais. Brasilia:
CFESS/ABEPSS.
ENVIROLINK (2014). Plano Básico Ambiental - Programa de Comunicação Social (PCS). Vitória.
EnvironLink.
FURTADO, J. S. Gestão com Responsabilidade Socioambiental. Desenvolvimento Sustentável e
Comunidade. São Paulo. 2003.
GOLDENBERG; M. (1999). A arte de pesquisar: como fazer pesquisa qualitativa em Ciências
Sociais. Rio de Janeiro: Record.
MARSIGLIA; R. M. (2000). O Projeto de Pesquisa em Serviço Social. BRASILIA: CEAD/UNB.
SECRETARIA
DE
PORTOS
(SEP).
Licenciamento
Ambiental.
Available
at:
<http://www.antaq.gov.br/portal/pdf/MeioAmbiente/manual_de_licenciamento_ambiental_nos_portos_
(2).pdf>. Site visited on 15 february 2016.
SECRETARIA DE PORTOS (SEP). Relação Porto – Cidade. Available at: <
http://www.portosdobrasil.gov.br/assuntos-1/meio-ambiente/relacao-porto-cidade>. Site visited on 07
february 2016.
SILVA, D. F.; LIMA, G. F.da C. Empresas e Meio Ambiente: Contribuições da Legislação
Ambiental. Universidade Federal da Paraíba. João Pessoa.V.10, p. 334-359.2013.
SOUZA; M. L. Desenvolvimento de Comunidade e Participação. São Paulo: Cortez.2014.
10

Similar documents