Why silence is not always golden
In 2010 the Environment Agency in collaboration with maritime local authorities published a handbook for practitioners working on the coast in England and Wales[1]. It covers a range of activities and considerations, including the process of Shoreline Management Planning, adaptation, and communication and engagement with communities. The handbook explains the importance of engagement as practitioners “work with communities to find sustainable solutions”, and “the need for society to make some difficult decisions” given “an evolving coast and the effects of climate change” (p.171) and the need for consideration of “social and environmental outcomes” (p.172).
Intriguingly,
a fictional case study is included which, in part, appears designed to show how
the engagement of a coastal community in pursuit of new arrangements with
regard to flood risk might play out. The first scenario outlines how activity
inspired by a presumption to invest in new defence might work, whereas the
second assumes a presumption towards ‘management’ of flood risk – in this case,
resulting in “tidal inundation of the site” (p.175) in the longer term. It is no secret the setting of Shoreline
Management Plans has proven contentious in areas where decisions are made not
to defend.[2] I find it surprising, then, that the handbook –
and the case study in particular - gives so little attention to conflict and
its meaning in such encounters. It is
possible, of course, that I’m missing the point here, but if the tidal
inundation mentioned in the case study results in the loss of homes, then might
not the claims that “Although some people disagree, most of the community can
see that managed realignment is the most suitable long-term agreement”…and that
the relevant team has “successfully engaged the community” be rather
undercooked?
Civic
participation
It
should be observed, of course, that the scenarios are at least partly designed
to demonstrate distinctive approaches to communication with communities – the first
‘Decide Announce Defend’, the second the favoured ‘Engage Deliberate Decide’. Such
‘empowerment’
of people and communities through involvement in decision making has been prominent
in the policy narratives of both the Coalition Government and New Labour before
them, but I would suggest
that government is perhaps optimistic in its assessment of people’s levels of
comfort with this kind of activity. A government report on the findings of the
most recent Citizenship Survey[3] warns that participation in
civic engagement – and in particular ‘civic participation’ which includes “engagement
in democratic processes, such as contacting an elected representative or
attending a public demonstration” fell “significantly” over the previous year
from 38% to 34% (p.7). It is also worth bearing in mind that the most common
form of such participation is the relatively ‘hands-off’ activity of signing a
petition, with less than a third of respondents reporting contacting a council
official (33%) or a local councillor (29%) [p.8].
Why
does this matter? I would suggest that the outcomes of the setting of coastal
policy in this way are likely to influenced by both the appetites and abilities
of those affected to make their case forcibly to decision-makers. By way of
example, in 2007 the draft SMP for where I live proposed that ‘our’ policy
unit’ – some 75 homes flanking a road, with beach on one side and marsh on the
other – might cease to be defended and lost to the sea in 20-50 years. Residents formed an action group to oppose
the plan, with the (possibly indirect) result that this policy unit – one of 26
such - was identified as the subject of approximately 50% of all consultation
responses in a subsequent official account of the consultation[4]. The policy was later
modified. Meanwhile, a policy unit on
the same patch that was similar in terms of number of homes and predicament
elicited no response at all according
to the same account – despite being covered by the same consultation process.
Exercising
influence – conflicting views
I’m
interested in why – on the face of it at least – people in one area concerned
about the potentially negative effects of proposed coastal policy kicked up a
stink and pushed for change, and people similarly challenged in another
location did not. It is possible, of
course, that (to paraphrase the fictional case study from the Environment
Agency handbook) when it was explained to them, most of people were persuaded
by utilitarian arguments and came to see that managed realignment was the most
suitable long-term agreement.
However, I would
draw attention instead to recent studies testing the success of
attempts on the part of authorities to involve people in local decision-making. In 2009 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published
a round up of findings[5] drawn
largely from its Government and Public Services research programme, which
explored “the experiences and perceptions of communities, councillors and
public officials involved in a range of governance processes.” (p.2) Conclusions suggest “conflicting views about
how far communities and citizens can exercise substantial influence over
decisions about public services” (p.3).
Whilst community respondents expressed positive feelings about the
potential benefits of engaging, there was also frustration about the barriers
that limited their involvement. It appears that only
a small proportion of citizens get involved in such encounters, with uneven
take up of opportunities to influence decision-making. Despite government efforts, it would seem
that disadvantaged groups don’t necessarily gain increased access to – and
influence over – those with power.
Rather, suggests Foot, when people from deprived neighbourhoods get
involved to tackle deep-rooted social problems, they need to persuade people
from the more affluent and socially influential neighbourhoods to ally with
them. By contrast, Foot suggests that others
exclude themselves or are not invited to join because they find it difficult to
deal with bureaucracy, they ‘don’t fit’ or they feel they can have more effect
as an outsider. This is
just one study of course, but its findings are supported in other literature
and, for what it is worth, chime with my experience of community activism in
this context. It should not be assumed that the absence of noisy opposition
indicates a contentment with what is being proposed. And as for those who
disagree, if it is they whose future well-being is to be traded away for the greater
good, do they not warrant more than a mention in dispatches when the process is
written up?
[1] Environment Agency. 2010. The coastal
handbook: a guide for all those working on the coast
[2] See my previous post ‘Loss of coastal
homes – time we knew the big picture.
[3] CLG. 2011. Community
Action in England: A report on the 2009–10 Citizenship Survey. Office for
National Statistics.
[4] http://www.se-coastalgroup.org.uk/assets/SMP%20Isle%20of%20Grain%20to%20South%20Foreland/docs/html/frameset.htm
[5] Foot, J.,
2009. Citizen involvement in local
governance: Reviewing the evidence. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
