Collaborating NGOs:
The NGOs with adequate infrastructure support for the purpose are mostly located in urban centres, and that too in the primary cities. As a result, more hearings were held at these places. Those in secondary and tertiary urban centres appear to be handicapped on two counts. Firstly, the lack of financial resources, and secondly, the non availability of adequate expert back-up. The few hearings that were held in secondary cities were because of the enthusiasm and determination of a handful of activists. The disadvantage attendant upon the hearings in primary centres is primarily the inability of those from remote hinterland to participate because of several constraints.

Key Issues:
The collaborating NGO was given considerable autonomy in determining the key issues for discussion. It was so because of the feeling that being closer to ground realities it would be in a better position to identify issues of relevance and concerns to the people of the area. A glance through the reports will show that the issues selected were mostly macro in nature. There appears to be two reasons for it. The modality and the circumstances of the hearing perhaps precluded discussion on micro and grassroots level issues. The other reason could be that the resource persons were mostly from the academic world and perhaps felt more conformable with an over-view of the problem than with specific, narrowly focused issues. Global issues, like ozone layer depletion, climate change, green house gas emission, etc., did not appear to be a part of the agenda of the people. Biological diversity was an issue in one of the hearings.

Participants:
The partner-NGO was given all the freedom to decide upon the list of invites. But the guidelines provided for fair representation of all sectors with a stress on grassroots organisations, women and youth groups. Despite this stress, the representation of women and youth groups were far from satisfactory. The absence of a comprehensive directory of NGOs may have contributed to such a situation. WWF-India and one or two State authorities have such directories but they are not comprehensive. There is the need for such a compilation. This point was stressed the need for better, more cohesive and meaningful networking between NGOs to husband scarce resources for optimal utilisation. However, one also got the feel of subterranean currents and cross - currents within the NGO world.

Discussions:
Every hearing was characterised by intensive discussion on every issue on the agenda. However, the interventions were most often narrowly focused and tied to specific situations. This is natural as the perceptions of the participants would be coloured by their location-specific knowledge and experience. The other aspect that became evident is that, while the extent of awareness of problems was high, there appeared to lack of follow through insofar as formulation of suggestions contain them was concerned. The suggestions/recommendations were too general in nature to form a meaningful base for a concrete plan of action. Frequently, the response to a problem was to leave it to government to do something about it. This could be because of lack of adequate information base as well as the dependency syndrome ("Sarkar Mai Baap") that had been sedulously fostered by our erstwhile masters and that still afflicts us. Another feature was very limited participation in the discussions by women even when they were present. This may be due to social and cultural diffidence that still persists in most of the areas. However, the feedback after each hearing revealed that most of the participants were satisfied with the opportunity to voice their concerns and views and were hopeful of positive outcome of the exercise. The latter aspect may tend to jeopardise the usefulness of the process because such forums are not empowered to act and are dependent on the concerned agencies for action.

These public hearings were exceptional in more respects than one. They brought together in one place and time representatives from various sectors. Those from Government had the opportunity of first hand feedback from a segment, though a limited one, of the citizenry about their concerns, their perspectives and their suggestions for improvement and change. In a democratic polity, these are significant and necessary inputs into policy formulation and implementation. If taken in right spirit, the non-violent but prosaic vehicle of public hearing should help to sensitise the policy makers to the popular sentiments. It also provide excellent opportunity to the representatives of independent sector organisations to interact with each other on matters of common interest and concern. Such interactions not only bring in fresh insight and perceptions into problem areas and open up new vistas of thought but also help to foster future partnerships to bring about change.

These hearings constitute only one element in the wide ranging process of communication and dialogue necessary for paradigm shift in the roles of both, Governmental and the people, in designing sustainable development strategies. Dr Ashok Khosla has succinctly put it when he observed, in his keynote address at the Public Hearing in Goa, that "people should be more involved in designing their own future". PCED has charted the path and has set in motion the process which, it is hoped, will bring together people who are concerned about future, who think about " the direction our society should take and about the type of world they want for their children". There are deficiencies in the process. There is no denying that it can do with further refinement and fine-tuning. But it is the part of a larger dialogue that is necessary for our survival. However, one organisation’s efforts are not sufficient. This process needs to be transformed, through the involvement ranging from megacities to remote rural areas. The feedback from the entire gamut of such hearings is the meaningful infrastructure for policy making and implementation in the sensitive area of development and its impact on the environment.